2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Calls for More Debates. Is the DNC Listening?
After 18 debates through early February, approaching an important Wisconsin primary, Hillary Clinton launches her toughest ad yet, attacking her closest rival for only wanting to engage in a mere twenty debates.
The ad begun Wednesday asks why Obama hasn't joined her in accepting an invitation to debate at Marquette University. 'Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions,' the narrator says...
The call is forceful enough that her rival is compelled to respond reactively, something his campaign has generally avoided doing:
“After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates?” the ad says. “It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.”
Nonetheless, more debates are held, not merely as a concession to Clinton's firm belief in their utility, but also because free airtime is precious in an increasingly fragmented media environment where candidates struggle to gain undivided attention from voters. The more debates, says Clinton's campaign, the better.
After 21 debates through early April, Hillary Clinton launches an official petition on her campaign website encouraging all her supporters to push her rival for another debate, emphasizing how critical regionalized debates are to hearing out concerns of rural Democrats:
Senator Clinton has shown she's committed to hearing from voters across the Tar Heel State. That's why she accepted a North Carolina debate.
On Monday, April 21, the debate was cancelled because Senator Obama refused to make time in his schedule. On April 23 he brushed off North Carolinians again saying, "It's not clear that another debate is going to be the best use of our time."
Tell Senator Obama that having a debate in North Carolina is important to you. Add your name. Make your voice heard.
In a letter to David Plouffe, the Clinton campaign stresses in explicit terms how important additional debating is, implying that less debating may even be un-American. Debating is "the American way":
The American people are choosing a direction for their children and families. They have a right to hear from those who want to be their leaders. Our Democratic primaries reflect the keen interest of the American citizenry in this election. Our primaries have brought millions of new people into the political process and invigorated a national conversation about the best solutions to meet our challenges.
Senator Clinton believes deeply that political debates are a vital part of our democratic process. It is the American way to place our would-be leaders side by side to hear them articulate and defend their ideas; to challenge each other on their visions for the future; to answer the tough questions about their plans, their records and their judgments; and to celebrate their achievements..........................................more
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/29/1416509/-Hillary-Clinton-Calls-for-More-Debates-Is-the-DNC-Listening
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Lets see the turnaround and see HRC supporters say she was always in favor for more debates
Armstead
(47,803 posts)interested to see the response to this.
Debates? We don' need no stinkin' debates.
Lancero
(3,276 posts)Either debates are crap, or calling for debates is crap.
I never bothered asking for clarification on that.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Lancero
(3,276 posts)ye ole, political flip flop. Wonder what else she's changed her mind on?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
Lancero
(3,276 posts)Considering the number of stances she's 'evolved' on, and how she seems to jump between support and no support depending on the year, I suppose she could, if you wanted to use this word, devolve on a issue.
Makes me wonder what she'll evolve - or devolve - on next.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I can not ever vote for her. Down ballot democratic, of course. Easy for me to do as my vote will not count for that office.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)People apparently forget how presidential politics work because of the 4 year wait between....
Sienna86
(2,153 posts)And strategy.
global1
(26,507 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)--we just can't afford to let Dem messaging fall by the wayside.
djean111
(14,255 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)is still a good one.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Lots of analysis around the media that HRC is losing ground to Bernie because he generates enthusiasm, while she, as per one of her biggest backers hereabouts, generates yawns.
Unfortunately for Hillary, her wizard advisers seem to have convinced her that SHOUTING her speeches (with a grimace/smile plastered on her face) and waving her arms about to their fullest possible extension, while wearing BRIGHT ORANGE, or ELECTRIC YELLOW will (in their bizarre universe) generate enthusiasm.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Unfortunately for Hillary, her wizard advisers seem to have convinced her that SHOUTING her speeches (with a grimace/smile plastered on her face) and waving her arms about to their fullest possible extension, while wearing BRIGHT ORANGE, or ELECTRIC YELLOW will (in their bizarre universe) generate enthusiasm.
No matter what she does, it all sounds like this to me:
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)From a certain perspective the original lines are still pretty descriptive if your parody...
Divernan
(15,480 posts)when calling a staff meeting, "There's a meeting. Grab your dicks and join the circle jerk." Crude, yes, but damned funny line. Veep is pretty much a political reality show - the more advisers, the more back-stabbing, power-grabbing, blame-dodging, personal career furthering, cynical infighting. That's what destroyed HRC's campaign in 2008.
Anyhoo, only a few cognoscenti will get your allusion to the original lines - I didn't include that quote because it would have induced much pearl-grabbing, repairing to the fainting couch.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)There will be no need for debates at all in the run up to her second term.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)think
(11,641 posts)And here on DU it's been said many times that SIX debates is plenty....
madville
(7,847 posts)They know that the more people that see and hear Hillary, the less people like her.
Her numbers are steadily eroding, I'm thinking by the first debate she could likely be even with Sanders or possibly Biden in many states.
So many people have jumped on the Hillary train so they can get their piece later if she's elected that it is going to be utter chaos if she falls behind. It will look like the Democratic Party is attacking the other candidates in Clinton's behalf, turning off even more voters.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)She learned her lesson well about how more debates work for her.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)even under the Big Tent.....is the conclusion I fear by Nov 2016 which could lead to Another Voter Revolt under DWS.
http://fukitolhelp.com/
Huddie94
(25 posts)playing the game to support her Inevitable Nominee role.
Look at what Hillary is offering: Four More Years of Obama Policies.
People don't like peace and prosperity? Gradual change? Blaming the Republicans suddenly ain't the truth of the situation?
If Hillary had a dozen debates for her platform, most likely she would end up absorbing two ro three of Bernie's positions and otherwise running as an Obama surrogate. That's a winner.
Without the debates that is much harder to carry out. There's no focus.
Same time if the email fiasco blows up, it's going to be her aides doing cut-and-paste with classified information. Taking Top Secret items and moving them to emails in Hillary's server. That's not Hillary doing anything illegal -- it's a total disaster anyway.
Car hits tree and 60 mph kind of disaster. And at that point a debate would let Hillary issue a mea culpa and say that her aides were not trained properly on handling this material vs. the vagaries of server management. It's not their game. They had no idea.
Without the debate format? Without that neutral forum? Crash.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)The continuation of Bush tax cuts for the rich, anti-labor, anti-environment trade bills, squishy on Social Security, Wall Street and corporate insiders in key positions in her administration, NSA spying, mass prosecution of whistle blowers..
That's a winner if you're a moderate Republican....
Huddie94
(25 posts)Not saying I favor these policies. No way. But as a practical matter Barack Obama showed how to win with social policies that Dwight Eisenhower would have rejected as too right wing.
Hillary Clinton is pro-Wall Street all the way. Never a word indicating that their frauds 2003-2009 needed investigation like the S&L crisis during GHW Bush's Administration. (1,000+ convictions.)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)He promised to renegotiate NAFTA and have the most transparent administration in modern history, so it wasn't just social issues. Obama won his election campaigning as a populist.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Schadenfreude is my favorite breakfast, bar none!
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Poll
Should Debbie Wasserman Schultz be replaced as DNC Chair, and the Democratic primary debate schedule expanded?
Yes
95% 711 votes
No
2% 17 votes
I don't care
2% 15 votes
| 743 votes | Results
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)^snip^
In many ways, it's unsurprising that the current head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has failed to learn this, and has chosen a strategy that minimizes Democratic chances of victory in 2016. This is the person who presided over the party's miserable drubbing in 2014, where many competitive candidates ran against Barack Obama's achievements, and shied away from promoting progressive ideals. It's been well-reported how much the Obama administration dislikes her stewardship of the party. And for good reason. Wasserman Schultz was the virtual architect of a base-suppression strategy in 2014 that worked like a charm, and her reputation was so much in tatters after the fact that she hid from the media for 75 days before making an appearance.
It's not the first time she's worked to elect Republicans. I remember with real bitterness how she refused to endorse or campaign for three excellent Democratic House candidates in 2008 in Florida because of her chummy relationships with their incumbent GOP rivals. And this was when Wasserman Schultz was "working" for the Red-to-Blue campaign!
All three Democrats would end up losing. Luckily Joe Garcia would eventually be elected in the presidential cycle of 2012, but Wasserman Schultz would also retain the DNC Chair for the mid-terms, and Garcia would lose again, and again very narrowly, despite being part of Wasserman Schultz's and Steve Israel's 2014 "Frontline" program to protect vulnerable Democratic incumbents. The Dems lost 13 House seats in an election where they were previously expected that summer to hold serve in November.
Wasserman Schultz's record of failure couldn't be clearer. If she's advocating for something, you can be fairly sure it comes at a dear cost to Democrats. From a strategic perspective, any Democrat who aligns themselves with Wasserman Schultz and the DNC's debate schedule at this point is actively working against Democratic victory. Hillary Clinton knew that in 2008. Will Democrats listen to her in 2015?
dsc
(53,397 posts)including, it should be noted, Sanders. Sanders refuses to join the other three for any unsanctioned debates unless Hillary does, and let's face it, that is because it isn't in his interest to do so. Now as to the particular you bring up in this thread, I wish the NC debate had come off since I live in NC and thus might have been able to go see it. I don't see a particular problem with our current debate schedule. For all the talk about the numbers, it isn't that far off from what we did in 08 (most of the 20 mentioned here happened after the first set of primaries). And I frankly think Sanders is better off with fewer debates as well since he is locked into the number two with pretty much a cliff for number 3. I don't see debates helping him more than it would help O'Malley who would likely gain immensely from the fact his campaign would be covered by the media which it mostly isn't being now. The only candidates getting any coverage are Trump, Bush, and Fiorina on the GOP side and Clinton and Sanders on the Dem side. Sanders is getting less coverage than Clinton but Clinton's is so overwhelming negative that one would prefer his coverage to hers. On the other side it is a bunch of trump with some Bush and Fiorina. A debate on our side would likely lead to coverage of one of the other three on our side (who ever did a good job at it) and that would most likely cut into one of his coverage or Clinton's. I don't see that helping him.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Your post is fairly even handed. I don't agree with it, but it's honest.
But frankly, the response against debates is baffling. Democrats are supposed to be the party of openness and inclusion, and voting rights and all that stuff.....And debates are a big part of that. It's just strange to be arguing for those principles.
However, a lot of the comments on the subject from supporters of, er, a certain candidate are saying in effect "No too many debates are bad. Six is enough. More debates would be counterproductive, Voters not tuned in. People wouldn't be interested....etc"
Personally, I'd think more debates are better, no matter what the current equation of candidates happened to be.
dsc
(53,397 posts)with them getting better as we get closer to the first contests, but that said, I think they are overrated especially when we are way out. I do think that the three low tier candidates would be the ones most likely to be helped by a debate but only one of them would be helped (whoever the press judged to have performed the best of those three). I also think that after a certain number of debates the law of diminishing returns would kick in. Where that line is, who knows. I concede that number is likely above 6 but I think it is likely in the low double digits.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)I was hoping, sure glad I read more than the headline. Sadly the tide has turned or the jig is up or inevitability is the name of the game.
This is funny. Really funny.
After watching her I can't imagine just speeches will do it either.
Those exclusivity rules are BS. People need and want information and to be able to contrast the candidates themselves, not to just have it spoon-fed to them by the media and pundits.
Come on DNC, this is a loser situation. We will all lose to those who get all the media attention and really, none of those are democrats.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Uncle Joe
(65,136 posts)Thanks for the thread, Ichingcarpenter.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)wink wink
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
6chars
(3,967 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)we look at someone's track record instead of blindly swallowing their rhetoric.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I mean really - if 8 years ago she "believed deeply that political debates are vital part of the democratic process...", and that "less debates are un-American" - what's the difference this time? Can we trust someone whose beliefs can change so drastically?
There are so many examples of Hillary talking out of both sides of her mouth for her own benefit; for political insurance. That's what makes me reluctant to support her. I can't believe anything she says.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)for suggesting Hillary should stand up to DWS before Debbie wrecks her campaign, looks like Hillary migth agree nmore with me than some of her more rabid fans.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)
for all kinds of things cause she spoke up in the past. we know nothing. dont know if she advocated for more, but not her role. or just knows it does know good cause she did in 2008 and attacked.
we know nothing. but look what the "rabid fans" of sanders has done here. totally put this on clitnon as an attack with no knowledge or even sense and is another created attack in dishonesty
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)None of them for a second questioned if the DNC rules and schedule were in good keeping with democratic values. Because it helps their candidate, they just immediately busied themselves with the task of justifying and excusing it. Yay democracy! 