We need more, more, more, more DEBATES. Here are some reasons why!

[JDPriestly]

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

People love to watch debates.

By holding so few of them, we are giving credence to the idea that after all Democrats and Republicans are the same, have the same ideas, will do the same in office, so voting is just a matter of a popularity contest.

Who do you like? That's who you vote for.

We need many more debates because it is through debates that we

1) get our ideas, proposals and VALUES before that portion of the public that is really interested in politics and will vote. Without lots of debates, we lose precious time to engage interested voters. We opt out of the political conversation.

2) the debate as a form, as a tradition is the best way to help voters, help all of us learn to think and talk effectively and interestingly about politics. The debates give us the opportunity to educate ourselves and the voters about the issues, what really matters, alternative views on problems and what solutions we can choose from.

3) the debates will improve the likelihood that we choose and will ultimately unite around a candidate who can beat a Republican when the general election debates come around. Hillary gave a great valedictory speech in college, I'm sure. Even recently, she has given a couple of good speeches this time around. One on the environment, another on voting rights, for example. But she very obviously reads her speeches -- and sometimes with seeming difficulty. That is embarrassing but not just embarrassing; it is troubling. A couple of our candidates are not the youngest. (I say this as a 72-year old from the perspective of one around their ages). We need to compare the ability of all of them to deal with stress, to maintain their energy and focus and to speak spontaneously and answer questions. The debates tell us something not only about a candidate's ability to deal with stress, but also to think quickly and to remember details. They also reveal a candidate's instincts and ability to work with others to solve problems. I have serious questions about Hillary on all of these issues. But maybe I would have them about my choice of candidate, Bernie, if I watched him in debates. Debates give us the opportunity to scrutinize not only candidates we think we don't like but also those we think we do like.

4) the airwaves and the TV are dominated by right-wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh and a bevy of extraordinarily colorful but vicious, poorly educated, mean Republican and Libertarian extremists. Liberals, Democrats, even rational people can hardly get airtime outside of the election season. By CHOOSING to have few debates, we are relinquishing, giving up, denying ourselves, denying our candidates, denying the American people -- THAT RARE AND VALUABLE COMMODITY -- MEDIA ATTENTION. Debates get good viewership and good coverage. Debates give you your money's worth. I for one do not want to give my hard-earned and hard-saved money to the DNC if they waste it by forgoing one of the best bargains of the campaign season -- holding debates on national TV. What kind of money-wasters are these people?

Our limiting the number of our debates to so few is the equivalent of the DODGERS saying they will only play a third of the games the other teams play and just play in the World Series. That's stupid. Any sports fan will tell you that's a stupid idea. You play the games. You keep out there. Even if you lose, you keep playing. Every time you play, you learn to handle the stress, improve your focus and ultimately your game. Staying home from the debates is not a choice. It is an acquiescence to the Republicans.

The limitations on the number of debates is a Doomsday decision for Democrats everywhere.

The DNC needs to rethink this. We should have the maximum number of debates. There is so much to talk about. More debates will be good for Hillary. They will be good for all the candidates. They will be good for America.

Let's debate. What is the DNC afraid of?

On edit: Discussed my post with a fellow Democrat. He suggested that maybe the reluctance to hold more debates may be the DNC's fear that the ideas proposed in the debates will offend their big donors. If so, I have to ask whether the DNC is selling out Democrats in order to please their donors, capitulating to pressure to keep certain candidates off the TV screen in exchange for larger donations. This is not preposterous. There was a rumor that some big donors warned Democrats about refusing to donate if Elizabeth Warren continued to attack them.

Are we being sold out by the DNC?

We need the debates to keep the Democratic brand before voters.

Lots of voters say they don't like the debates, but the voters who disseminate information, who talk about the debates with others, the voters who influence the votes in their families and on Main Street NEED THE DEBATES IN ORDER TO GET THEIR OWN "TALKING POINTS."

We need more debates. No way around it. I have not heard one good argument for limiting the number of debates to less than 12. Not one.

[winter is coming]

1. +1. I don't want a debate every week, but damn, we need more.

And watching the GOP get wall-to-wall coverage on CNN... anyone who doesn't think we're giving the GOP an advantage is kidding themselves.

[mimi85]

69. If it wasn't for Trump

there wouldn't be so much coverage. He's sucking the air out of the airwaves - asshole.

[Blue_Adept]

2. Debate junkies want more

Rest of nation wants less.

Six, sixteen, a hundred. At what point is it all just noise? Hell, for the majority of folks, it's noise until election day itself.

[whatchamacallit]

4. May be the dumbest rationale I've ever seen

No point in giving people an opportunity to learn about the candidates as they're just gonna flip a coin on election day

[Blue_Adept]

5. Because the only way to learn is from a debate!

Yet we have plenty of discussion around these parts that outside of the 1960 debate, which was at the very beginning of how televised debates would operate, nobody has been influenced by a debate with who they'd vote for.

The screaming about the number of debates here is solely because people want more time for their candidate to be able to go on the attack. Plain and simple.

I saw one that said there should be 18 debates with six topics done three debates per topic.

That's not why people watch debates. Not that they're actually debates but just scripted glorified pony shows.

They watch for gaffes and gotchas in order to feel superior over their non-preferred candidate.

So much desire for so much kabuki around here it's hilarious.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Then in your opinion

there's no point in having any debates? Here's my response in an old thread -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455843

[JackInGreen]

32. It's what I keep hearing all over

6, 12, 24. 'No one watches, exposure doesn't make people aware, no one cares, it's a waste of party resources, let the clown car embarrass itself, debates will hurt us, Hill is going to win no matter what.'
Aquiescence and limitation is the name of the game, how does this thinking work? "I want less noise so let's not talk ourselves" wat.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Democrats against democracy is vogue

[senz]

42. It's horrible, isn't it? Hard to believe.

[jwirr]

58. An actual DNC that is limiting free speech by using an exclusivity rule. This is not the DNC that

we knew in the past.

[mythology]

76. No, that isn't a free speech issue

This is clearly not an example of free speech being violated. Anybody running is free to go to any other debate, but there are consequences. That doesn't mean free speech is being violated any more than the guy I know claims free speech was violated because Walmart stopped selling Confederate flags.

Any other candidate is perfectly free to go to any number of other debates and participate. A private entity is saying that if they do, here are the consequences. The candidate can make up their own mind if they are willing to pay those consequences.

It's expressly not Congress saying that if a candidate participates in an unsanctioned debate, there are legal repercussions.

[jwirr]

85. Private entity? They are supported by OUR money. But they listen to only themselves. You have

a very narrow view of free speech. Co-owners are asking for more debates and that is nothing like hanging a defeated flag on government buildings.

But that is fine - you keep it your way we are smart enough to get around this idiots political ploy. The Rs did.

[artislife]

71. You captured it!

Bravo!!

[Adrahil]

86. I don't think I've ever learned anything about a candidate in a "debate."

Candidate don't actually answer the questions asked,m particularly if it is a hard question. They pivot to prepacked talking points. Oh yeah, and try to get in "zingers" on their opponents. It's political theater, it's a political version of reality television. but I seriously question your conclusion that that his how people make their decisions.

I don't have an issue with there being "debates," but I think the people ripping their hair out over this are kidding themselves over their importance.

[whatchamacallit]

88. It's not the sole manner in which they decide

but it's good information, especially when reading between the lines. How do you decide? Campaign commercials, where candidates can portray themselves and their opponents any way they like, unchallenged? Stump speeches, filled with flowery imagery and empty promises? Sure, you can do exhaustive research of every candidate's record (few will), but what of promising political newcomers without a long record? Any and all information is useful, and debates do provide that, especially in regards to the elusive quality of being "presidential". So tell me, how do you decide?

[Adrahil]

89. "Debates" are stump speeches in 1 minute bits.

I decide by doing my own research. I look at what the candidate says about themselves. I read interviews. Good interviewers probe, and don't let the candidates get away with controlling the conversation. I read the analyses and opinions of experts I respect. And I use my own intuition and experience.

A promising newcomer can still catch my attention this way. I did not know much about O'Malley previously, other than broad brushstrokes. I think he is promising, but not quite ripe yet. Maybe a good Veep prospect. OTOH, Obama caught my eye in 2007, and I became convinced he was the guy for me. I think I watched ONE debate in 2007/8 during the primaries and it did not even come close to swaying my opinion. They said stuff I already knew.

Like I said, I do not object to these "debates," but personally I them the LEAST useful way to find out about a candidate. I certainly think 6 is MORE than enough to glean any info I might have missed (Frankly, I'm unlikely to watch more then 2, unless the format and moderator are better than they usually are.) As it is, we're going to hear the same sound bites over, and over, and over. Everyone I know who are rabid for more debates already have picked a candidate, and seem pretty firm in their choice. Actual "undecideds" and "soft supporters" aren't usually the more engaged type of voter and watch the debates in low numbers anyway. And they certainly don't watch early debates... they don't even get engaged until a few weeks before the vote.

[whatchamacallit]

90. People have an unfortunate habit of projecting their beliefs and habits onto others

So far, your evidence for the inefficacy, and optimal number, of debates is based on what Adrahil does. News Flash: Everybody's different. While you may not get much out of the debates, others do. For Sanders and O'Malley, who don't have the advantage of being household names or heir apparents, the debates offer essential exposure (which btw is why many believe the DNC limited them). Also, those claiming 6 is plenty, are making the bogus assumption that people have the option of watching all of them. I contend the fewer the debates, the fewer the aggregate viewers, as everyone's lives don't necessarily coincide with the debate schedule. My quick survey of the twitterverse on this issue puts your opinion in the minority.

[Adrahil]

91. Sure. It's my opinion.

Data on. Primary debates in thin. We know, however, that debates have only a slight effect on general election races.

And my opinion is probably a minorty among all the engaged voters right now, especially activits. Look at DU... It supports Sanders in WAY higher numbers than he gets in national polls. I have nmo doubt the "we need more debates now!" crowd is making a lot of noise. Bernie supports know, I think, that they need a real game changer in order for Bernie to really contend.

[JDPriestly]

10. The Republicans are hogging the airwaves and brain-washing voters.

We need more debates.

It is naive to think that the country is bored with debates. Donald Trump is winning hearts and minds. Our country is in an angry mood, and he is speaking to that.

We are missing out. This is not 2000 or 2004. We need to get our ideas and ideals out before the nation.

Wimps. That's what the anti-debate folks are. Wimps. Losers. And we will lose in 2016 if we don't get our voices heard. That means debates. Debates make headlines. Sure, everybody complains about them. We complain about dirty diapers too, but we sure love the babies that dirty them.

Debates are a dirty part of the campaign process, but they are utterly, utterly important to the Americans who get out there and bore their family members with talk about candidates and issues and help voters decide who will be in the White House and the Congress during the next four years.

We need many more debates.

[stuffmatters]

33. Every Repub debate the MSM validates Repub insanity:war,antiabortion, tax cuts, reg cuts,prejudice

There was not one Repub who disagreed with any of this far right idiocy. It was three hours of free,unchallenged rightwing propaganda. Everything was treated as fact not marginal economic illiteracy, social paranoia and political vitriol. It was "the bubble" itself & 24 million viewers tuned in to be immersed in it for over two hours.

Nothing was even challenged by the moderators or the after pundits. Even MSNBC had little factual challenges to this entire shit show. It was all about "performance", and who won. Not who was the biggest liar or what was the biggest lie. Or the fact that every Repub solution was antique and that no attempt was made to address the major challenges our country faces. Appallingly the Planned Parenthood tape was treated by all as a document of truth telling...probably pundit Kathleen Parker from WAPO was the most obnoxious in her unquestioning, sensationalizing support for this piece of filth.

Nope, every Republican debate will be the Repubs running their truck of lies over the American public unchallenged. Worse, they are framing the debate AND being given endless airtime to brainwash the American public. If the DNC thinks the Dem Party can wait until October to start challenging Repubs ideology of resentment and strategy of lies, then they really are incompetent.

The only real opposition I saw to this whole debacle was on twitter...the hilarious Megan Kelly trolling and the grounded in reality Bernie feed. We don't have ANY tv network on our side. Face the facts, Dems. Debates are the only free and widespread forum the MSM is going to offer. And as the O.P. says, the DNC is just willing to leave that free money and invalulable on the table.

Under what rock is the DNC cowering?

[senz]

45. Exactly.

I think that "rock" is fear that "their" candidate might not be showcased in just the right light according someone's schedule. Heck of a lot of OCD in a certain campaign.

And they're probably hoping that "the Bernie phenomenon" is a just temporary fad.

[bbgrunt]

43. Exactly. It's like listening to the Limpballs--the more you

listen, the more he sucks you in. The public needs to have the other side presented so they can start THINKING.

[JDPriestly]

12. Debate junkies are the folks that decide who wins in the general election.

Are we going to let Rush Limbaugh and Loudmouth Trump set the agenda for the general election debates.

If nothing else, it is from the debates that the media learns what triggers a rapid heartbeat in the politically conscious of America. It is from the debates that news stories are created.

Debates are utterly essential. It is really stupid not to take advantage of the notoriety, the controversy, the excitement that the debates engender in the media nad in the public consciousness.

[senz]

46. Don't even have to be a debate junkie. Millions of TV watchers don't read much

& don't follow politics online. TV speaks to the masses. So it's very important.

[frylock]

39. Was their a poll taken that shows that people want fewer debates?

[jwirr]

57. Then don't watch them. Seems to me that the ones who do not want to watch are not to interested

in politics period. I for one hate political ads but I will watch the Democratic debates. Not interested in the clown car circus.

Do you have a link to the number of people who do not want debates?

[whatchamacallit]

3. Let me explain why six is plenty

[JDPriestly]

6. In-depth explanation. Thanks. Very a propos.

[Maedhros]

7. ...and? [n/t]

[winter is coming]

8. And "debates don't matter", which is why we absolutely can't have more of them.

[Maedhros]

11. It's "Hillary Logic".

If Hillary (or her surrogates) say or do something, then it is the right thing to say or do because Hillary.

[JDPriestly]

14. We all know that Bill Clinton was a great debater and that Hillary is a lousy one.

But that is not going to win the 2016 election.

We need more debates. I have not seen one decent, common sense, good argument for limiting the number of debates.

It seriously makes me wonder whether the Republican unfounded rumors about Hillary's health may have some kernel of truth.

Why is the DNC trying to protect Hillary from a robust number of debates?

Is she that weak? Do they have that little confidence in her?

I hope the news media picks up on this story and runs with it.

The DNC needs to be challenged to hold more debates.

They also should allot more votes at the National Convention to grass-roots Democrats who get out and vote in the primaries and caucuses and FAR FEWER to the Party big-wigs who are, all too often, on payola and going to vote THEIR POCKETBOOKS and not ours.

[George II]

23. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for either party who has released her health records....

...and she's been given a clean bill of healt.

Why do you have to drag that dirt into the discussion?

[senz]

48. Ah. So y'all ARE paying attention.

Cool!

[jwirr]

60. Amen.......Especially the last paragraph. We want to make our own decisions.

[whatchamacallit]

13. 'twas satire

[Maedhros]

15. You were confusing me :) [n/t]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Wow...you convinced me!

[jwirr]

59. Great explanation. Thanks

[jalan48]

16. Last night wasn't a debate.

It was the Republican News Channel advertising its candidates.

[JDPriestly]

18. You are right, but my arrguments for more Democratic debates still stand.

[jalan48]

20. Yes it does. I am in agreement with you on that.

It's obvious Hillary doesn't want more debates, she's a horrible speaker. She reminds me of a female Muskie or Mondale. Unless she peps it up a bit she may fall asleep during one of the debates. Plus, Bernie's message is what threatens her, less Bernie on the national stage means less message.

[senz]

49. + 1

Especially the part about Bernie's message. Seems like the DNC would love to hide him under a rock somewhere.

[skepticscott]

38. Thank you!

It was nothing even resembling a debate. Absolutely nothing was being debated.

It was a beauty contest, plain and simple, where the contestants try to be the one the voters want to go to bed with.

You want a debate? Wait until there is one candidate from each party, and THEN you may get something vaguely like one, but even at that it will be pretty lame.

[artislife]

72. And we get only six

The rest of the time the RW media gets to massage the message and tell the views what to think.


Pretty nifty, if you like that kind of thing.

[kenfrequed]

17. Total Agreement

It is free media where the public gets exposed to a broad sense of Democratic policy and ideals.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. The plan was to have ONE debate between Hillary and a pinwheel hat.

[senz]

50. ...

[artislife]

73. Which she might still have needed

until October to prepare for.

[99th_Monkey]

22. K&R Great post JD. The Democratic Party isn't looking very democratic right now

it's both sad and maddening to anyone who loves actual authentic democratic
governance ... and it needs to be called out for what it is: rank favoritism for
one candidate, whose initials are HRC.

Democratic voters and the nation are being cheated out of two previously
'promised' debates in Aug & Sept as I understand it, and that just stinks to
high heaven.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government." T. Jefferson

The DNC doesn't get to decide how well informed or who "the people" are.

[azmom]

25. More debates would be a good thing for democracy.

[MyNameGoesHere]

26. More debates

would server nothing more that to stoke the already made up minds of supporters. Almost everyone has a horse in the race and debates ain't going to change that. Now the general election is a different story.

[winter is coming]

35. If more debates will change nothing, there's no reason, none, for the exclusivity clause.

If the DNC thinks their schedule is sufficient, fine, but don't penalize others who want to hear more.

[jwirr]

62. I think it is going to be the exact opposite this election. We are deciding the direction of our

party and our nation in the primaries and people need information. We have questions that need answers. In the general we got all the answered we will need last night at the circus. We have candidates who have not had much exposure at all. Debates are for those who are serious about learning about the candidates.

And yes, many of us will have chosen our candidate already but that does not mean we do not want to know what the others are saying.

Most of us have already made up our minds about the general election as well.

[Gothmog]

27. The RNC was correct in that too many debates hurt Romney

We should ignore that history and go forward with even more debates than the six scheduled. The OP does not come close to making a case to increase the number of debates.

[winter is coming]

36. Too many debates hurt Romney because he was trying to sell bad ideas.

Are you saying our candidates' ideas are so unpopular we can't let people look at them?

[jtuck004]

28. This. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

29. Not really.

Most people tune out debates the further they stretch. Just look at the presidential debates. Typically, you have three and the first one is always going to be the most-viewed. Then viewership declines thereafter.

There is a thing as over saturation and we saw it in 2008 when so many debates We're held that, by the end, the candidates were just repeating the same talking points over and over.

[senz]

30. Brilliant cartoon from Truthout sums it all up...

As they say, one picture is worth a thousand words! (And yes, it does relate, at least tangentially, to the topic.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. XLNT post. n/t

[EEO]

37. Hear, Hear.

And they must be accessible to everyone, unlike that Fox "News" "debate." Assholes.

I found a pirated feed. I love to torture myself.

[Deadshot]

40. Why don't we just turn it into a reality show and vote for our favorite candidate every week?

[artislife]

74. They won't go for it

Because as Simon Cowell said "You have to be likable for America to vote for you."

[senz]

41. Excellent, well-written, very convincing essay, JPriestly.

You do a beautiful job of explaining how we harm ourselves by keeping quiet while the Repubs set the agenda for public discourse among average Americans. Listening to them, you'd think climate change didn't exist, since they never mention it. And you'd think Hillary was the only opposition candidate. I noticed that they did mention several social issues -- which reinforces for me that social issues are not the "Big Game" of American politics; rather, anything that affects the power balance between corporate interests and the American people is what's really at stake. And power rests on money (especially oligarchic power!)

So of course they left out climate change and Bernie Sanders. They don't want anyone thinking about an issue that will cost the fossil fuel industries (hello Koch bros.) if it's ever taken seriously, and of course they want to bury this pro-democracy candidate who will not indulge corporate abuse of our people.

Your essay needs to be widely read, to go "higher," or wider, than DU. I'd suggest sending it to the DNC or Wasserman Schultz, but that runs the risk that she or one of her underlings might read and then discard it. I hope you will submit it for publication to one of the Dem-friendly liberal websites. Or you might know of an even better media outlet. It needs to become a topic of discussion and pressure on the DNC.

(And sorry for rushing in with the, I believe, pertinent cartoon. Finally found DU's HTML thread and was thrilled and amazed at how easy it is to put images into our posts.)

[Juicy_Bellows]

44. I learned a few things from last nights debate.

If some on the right or the fence watch the Democratic debates, they too might learn something.

The DNC is boning the American people out of informed choice.

[DonCoquixote]

47. Between now and October

The GOP can have several months to FRAME THE MESSAGE, which is one thing that we Democrats do not do as well at. Hillary, why are you going to give them three months to feed the starving 24-hr news cycle? If DWS thinks that the GOP attack machine will burn itself out, she has another thing coming (as usual) and then Hillary can come out under baked and ill-prepped (as usual) with the result being that she will be smashed against several hundred million dollars of attack ads.

Hillary, I do not trust you, but you at your worst is better than any GOP at their best. You are making the same damned mistake you did in 2008, letting proxies and flunkies form you message for you, out of ticky-tacky focus group friendly fluff that means nothing. That will not do here, because , as your husband put it "people would rather support someone who is strong and wrong than light but right." If you want to get people into the voting booths, especially ones that will have to deal with the outright suppression of votes, you will need to appeal to and feed the ANGER in the base. The fact that you have your hands bloody will not matter, look at how Trump BRAGGED about bribing people, right on the mike, and got a standing O, regardless of Fox News trying to contain the mess they summoned into being. As far as your loyal apparatchiks, DWS can run you into the ground and still keep her cushy job, as she works with Republicans better than with most of her own party (just ask Kendrick Meek and Alan Grayson.) Remember how Dick Morris was your goon, then he turned on you? These people you are letting "run" you campaign KNOW that their careers will survive, meanwhile, unless you actually COMMIT to some positions LEFT of your comfort zone, you will be joining Mitt Romney and Al Gore in the halls of people that came CLOSE, but not close enough.

[senz]

52. Probably the best advice she's heard all year. nt

[DonCoquixote]

55. thank you

and I work a hell of a lot cheaper than Mark Penn does

[Thinkingabout]

53. There are 16 GOP candidates declared, they have 11 debates scheduled.

The DNC has 5 candidates declared with 6 debates. Now in simple math the DNC candidates are going to be getting more air time than the GOP. Strategically it would make sense to be hear closer to the primary and be fresher on the minds of the targeted voters ergo waiting until later to have the debates. If the candidates has not spent time in the campaign trail delivering their plan to implement policies even before the debates then they are wasting valuable time and need to hit the streets without wasting one more day. If after the first couple of debates they are not getting their plan out then I would suggest professional advice to get the plan out. It does not take me 26 debates to see which candidate I would support.

[JDPriestly]

78. The Republican. Candidates will repeat and argue about their lies, their false. Assumptions

over and over during their many debates. Our candidates enter the discussion late and are given only one half the chances to get Democratic party ideas and arguments out there. already, voters are talking about the Trump-Megyn Kelly sizzle and not about the climate change crisis.

Like it or not, that is one for the battle of the apes and one lost moment of attention for the crisis over climate change and fossil fuels. We already lost our chance to start the conversation. Sad. Very sad for our children and grandchildren.

[Thinkingabout]

84. And you think the DNC candidates will not repeat the same argument over and over. BTW the false

talking points will not work in the debates, the falsehoods will be shot down the next day and proven wrong. How have the DNC candidates lost the opportunity to give attention to climate change, Hillary has been talking about solar power policy, she is taking the opportunity.

[tularetom]

54. The DNC has already decided who the nominee will be, now they want to keep her hidden

They don't want her to be put in any situation where she can "misspeak", lie, put her foot in her mouth or otherwise commit one of the verbal faux pas to which she is prone.

So their plan is to limit her exposure to the voting public to situations in which she can be kept under control or scripted appearances in which no extemporaneous speaking is allowed.

So get ready for tons of schmaltzy maudlin campaign ads featuring her sainted grandma, her beloved fourth grade teacher, and for all I know, her pet goldfish. Get ready for "listening tours" where she pretends to pay attention to voters concerns and then pontificates about bold solutions to them. You might even see a totally rehearsed Q&A session where planted stooges get up and ask "incisive" questions that were prepared for them by her staff. But what you'll never see is her in an unrehearsed, unstaged, genuine situation where somebody gets to hit her with a question she didn't already know the answer to.

It's all smoke and mirrors and if we never get to see her having to be real, we have to accept that the manufactured, stage managed, cardboard cutout is actually the real thing. Or at least she hopes we do,

[winter is coming]

56. +1. Wanna know why the debates are so limited this go 'round? Hillary's afraid.

Anyone who claims otherwise is peddling bullshit.

[restorefreedom]

61. yup.

bernie gonna open a can of whoop ass (on policy only, he doesn't get personal). and since Hillary doesn't have any worthwhile policy to stand on, or her policy benefits the corporate masters, or she doesn't want to take a position and actually tell everybody what she thinks, the debate is going to be very very bad for her.

[brooklynite]

75. You mean like her criminal justice reform proposal?

Her election reform proposal?

Her small business development proposal?

Her immigration reform proposal?

[JDPriestly]

80. It's because our Democratic candidates have so many great ideas and proposals that I am

advocating for more Democratic debates. Aside from winning and "losing" in the debates, let's use the debate format to show off ALL our great candidates and ideas.

We can't lose.

All of our candidates have ideas and character that we should be proud of. Let's give the public the opportunities to see what great people represent the Democratic Party, what a wide scope of excellent ideas they are presenting and see which ideas and personalities resonate.

[restorefreedom]

83. agreed.

if all the dem candidates are so awesome, we should be wanting to show them and their ideas to the world. not hiding them away while the crazies find ways to take this country back to the dark ages.

putting aside the argument of whether this debate schedule helps a particular dem candidate, it most assuredly helps the republicans.

[jwirr]

64. ^^^THIS^^^

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. It appears that the academic research has studied the effects of debates ...

“Sears and Chaffee (1979) provided a comprehensive review of the research on the 1976 debates and concluded that the debates were successful at communicating candidate issue positions. One additional finding from their review that is particularly relevant to this analysis is that voters appeared to have learned more from the first debate than from the subsequent debates. (Sears and Chaffee, 1979, as cited by Holbrook, Political Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1999., at p. 71 )

http://www.jstor.org/stable/586586?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

So, as is so often the case, our unschooled opinions, conflict with the research. In this case, the number of debates are less determinative of election outcomes, than a candidate's performance in the first debate ... unless, of course, each debate has significant numbers of unique viewers.

However, the research also presents great news for Bernie; but, more so, for O'Malley ... while the number of debates do not really matter ...

... debates are more likely to increase the amount of information voters have about the lesser-know candidates than the better-known candidates. (Holbrook, 1999., at p. 72)

But, again, as is so often is the case ... the academic research is unlikely to disabuse us of our opinions.

Here is more interesting such, such as:

_____ “On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates” Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication, 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233. Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.” - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup#sthash.U0cxfIpF.dpuf

In other words, debates just reinforce our partisan position; rather than, sway opinions or create converts. And,

“Will the ‘Real’ Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image” Warner, Benjamin R. American Behavioral Scientist, March 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 232-252. doi: 10.1177/0002764210392160. Abstract: “This study of the 2008 first presidential and vice presidential debate builds on past research on viewers’ perceptions of candidate images. Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, image research has been conducted in most presidential election cycles. Findings consistently show that viewers enter the debates with perceptions of candidates’ character and leadership qualities and that the debates tend to reinforce rather than change images unless the viewers are undecided or not well informed about a candidate. The results of the 2008 study confirmed trends from past research but also provided some surprises in that most changes in image perception were for senator Joe Biden, the longest-serving public official in the race. The study concludes that media often assume knowledge about candidates that might not exist and that in the 2008 match-ups, the debates did not provide the “game changer” that the McCain-Palin ticket needed to overcome a growing movement toward the Obama-Biden ticket that began shortly before the first debate.” - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup#sthash.U0cxfIpF.dpuf

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup

[arcane1]

66. These are about the general election debates, as far as I can tell.

Indeed, your main link, in the first paragraph, has the phrase "the general election debates" right in it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Okay. n/t

[JDPriestly]

79. 1979???

pre-computers, pre-twitter and Facebook. And even then a questionable conclusion considering the impact of the debates in 1960 when JFK's. looks and demeanor won the nation"s heart..

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Yes ... 1979 ...

pre-computers, pre-twitter and Facebook. Which all work to do exactly what people claim debates are intended to do, get the candidates' message out ... So there is nothing to suggest that debates will be more impactful than when there were fewer candidate/voting public communication outlets.

questionable conclusion considering the impact of the debates in 1960 when JFK's. looks and demeanor won the nation"s heart

Really? Questionable? ... And nothing more to explain the radio broadcast/televised disparity?

Well ... I suppose we can ignore all the other academic research indicating that humans are highly visual and form positive/negative opinions based on physical attractiveness, perceptions of demeanor, and our youth obsession.

[Zorra]

65. Thank you. It's a no brainer, and yes DNC, Inc. is selling us out. nt

[dreamnightwind]

68. Good post, well done

The DNC is obviously maneuvering for Hillary.

Given that (and we shouldn't accept that, it's not legitimate, this is a democracy, at least it's supposed to be), they don't want to "needlessly" expose her, fearing her words will be used against her in the general election.

They also don't want to offend their donors. By letting Republicans frame the debate with their own debates, it's very easy for Hillary to just take slightly more moderate positions that the Republicans take, which will still please the donors but will win her votes in the general election. If she has to actually address the issues Bernie wants to address, donors not happy.

Apart from how unfair this is to Bernie, who is the best candidate we've had in forever, the other huge problem with this is what is always the problem with our party, and why things are so messed up in this country.

They are quite happy to have the Republicans decide what is important, then take slightly more rational positions on the same issues.

This leaves the truly important issues we are facing COMPLETELY UNADDRESSED (apologies for shouting, important though), great for the donors but disastrous for everyone else on the planet. The DNC is just fine with that, I'm not. So it goes way beyond any Hillary vs. Bernie issue.

[winter is coming]

70. If the DNC doesn't feel up to sponsoring more than six debates, let someone else

host some. There have been outside debates before; why not now? What's the rationale for forbidding candidates from participating in outside debates? How does that serve the interests of Democratic voters?

[stuffmatters]

92. Great idea- we need to educate about scrapping the cap, planned parenthood, Iran deal, TPP

That was not a "Republican debate," it was a two hour free ad for Republican's looney alternate reality.

MoveOn, for example, could sponsor a Democratic debate. Even if Hillary won't show, plenty of curious, undecided people would tune in to see Bernie and O'M and even Chaffee. (I personally think Bernie's the bigger media draw than Hillary anyway.) If they hold it in a huge arena in a major city, it will be filled. And then the MSM cannot avoid reporting on it.

At this point most people do not even know that the simple, fair and reasonable improvement to Soc Sec is to eliminate the income cap. Imagine educating the vast American public that this would insure Soc Sec payments in perpetuity. Think how many
younger people (who have been brainwashed by Wall Street & Koch propaganda to think Soc Sec will be "gone" for them)
that would encourage to vote!

Think how much tearing down the current planned parenthood hoax -reminding people of the medical benefits to all from fetal tissue research, the necessity of planned parenthood centers in our national medical needs, and above all women's constitutional right to choose- needs to be stated over & over above the unilateral women hating propaganda of the Repubs.

Think how much America needs to be educated on TPP and collateral T "Agreements" (as they're called instead of "Treaties" to avoid a 2/3 approval in Congress. How few American voters actually understand how much they will increase the export of American jobs to compete with even slave labor, that environmental, health,safety and labor protections will be surrendered to
global corporate kangaroo courts etc. People don't understand that these T's essentially destroy the sovereignty of
American democracy. How many people realize that "Made in America" "Iowa Pork", "Napa Wine" --these labels will be
forbidden.

Of course, Iran. Counter the monolithic Repub chickenhawks with facts and celebrate this triumph of diplomacy over war. Remind voters of the trillions of dollars and incalculable death & suffering brought by these same chickenhawks under Geo Bush in Iraq. Ask why should anyone believe this same Party and many of the same Congressional war mongers again. Review the FACTs of the Iraq status of forces agreement Bush signed too...just to keep history honest. And, of course, remind & celebrate the Cuba deal.

Citizens United, real tax reform. real IRS reform, more climate & environmental protections,(maybe actually explain the loose-loose
reality of Keystone XL, as no MSM has ever done that)real reform of our police, drug laws & criminal justice system, ...Do people even realize that 500 rich people are running our election. That we, as tax payers, are subsidizing the tsunami of their self serving political ads. We're all paying for them through the tax code definition of "social welfare" eligibility, which could easily be changed in one word from "primarily" to exclusively" social welfare ...as it was until the Eisenhower IRS changed it (by themselves, no vote)



All America saw Thurs night was Republican lies, the "Fox News Bubble" treated as reality. And no MSM factual blowback or even mention of real issues in the useless after babble.

A Democratic debate would be great, in fact it's absolutely necessary. MoveOn let's go!

[BlueStateLib]

77. IMHO, 2 many debates which are really joint news conferences dilutes their impack

Obama Clinton

September 9, 2007 2.2 million
October 30, 2007 2.5 million
November 15, 2007 4.04 million
January 5, 2008 9.36 million
January 21, 2008 4.9 million
January 31, 2008 8.3 million

[MoveIt]

81. Republican framing is what Neo-liberals need

thus you let them go first to setup the framing for all of the arguments, and negotiate away anything vaguely liberal.

Go Team DLC!

[sabrina 1]

87. Yes we the people, need more debates, REAL debates, however the DNC apparently

is afraid of everything you said regarding what debates may result in, so they are trying to protect the candidate THEY want to win.

This is so undemocratic that I find it hard to find words to describe it.