How many debates is enough?

[liberal N proud]

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) scheduled six debates between October 2015 and March 2016, according to a press release.

The first will be held on October 13 in Nevada. It will be sponsored by CNN.

CBS News, its affiliate KCCI and the Des Moines Register will sponsor the second debate, which will be held November 14 at Drake University in Iowa.

The third debate will be held in Manchester, New Hampshire on December 19, and it will be hosted by ABC and WMUR.

The fourth debate will be held in Charleston South Carolina on January 17, and it will be hosted by NBC News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.

The fifth debate will be held in Miami, Florida in February or March, and it will be hosted by Univision and the Washington Post.

And the sixth debate will be held in Wisconsin in February or March, and it will be hosted by PBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-party-releases-primary-debate-schedule-for-2016-election/


I see threads every now and again calling the debate schedule rigged and they are not having enough debates. I see there are 6 debates scheduled, SIX, starting October 13.

So what is the real problem here? 6 debates are not enough? I know that for me, it's too damn many but I just wonder, how many do the people calling for more debates want?

[BeyondGeography]

1. You'll find out when voters in IA and NH start focusing on the question

One debate in those two states two months from voting will be a real WTF? moment for a lot of voters. This will be an issue, IMO. Iowa had four last time around, including two the month prior to voting. And NH always has its Saturday-before-the-primary televised debate, you know, the one that pretty much kept Hillary's candidacy from going on life support last time.

[brooklynite]

6. The debate is on a Sunday night; I'll be surprised if the viewership is more than THE GOOD WIFE

...and we won't even compare Sunday Night Football.

[leftofcool]

46. Football will draw a bigger crowd of viewers.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. The Iowa debate is on CBS, The Good Wife (caps unnecessary) is also on CBS. So that show will

not be in competition with the debate. TV ratings wise Superbowl takes all the top slots. Outside of sports however only MASH and Cheers final episodes outrank the viewership of the Carter/Reagan debate (over 80 million) and precious few outrank Obama/Romney debate (67 million).
The recent Republican debate drew 24 million viewers, the largest single cable audience of all time for a non sports event.
The Good Wife season finale did better than the rest of their season, 9.2 million viewers.
So I am not sure what you are basing your theory on.

[brooklynite]

49. We're not talking about a General Election debate...

...we're talking about a Primary campaign debate a year before the Election. And the first Debate (Oct 13) is on CNN, so my opinion stands. You will not be getting a Donald Trump size crowd to tune in.

[elleng]

2. 6 debates is not enough and, moreover, the schedule

doesn't provide enough time for the electorate to become informed. Martin O'Malley discussed it here: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/is-the-debate-calendar-rigged-for-hillary--516254275920

[Armstead]

3. I find it amazing that people here are calling or as few debates as possible

I await the post that suggests reducing the hours that the polls will be open.

[virtualobserver]

7. supporters of the candidate who is playing "prevent defense"

and avoiding the talk shows ......it is an odd candidacy indeed

[hifiguy]

36. I've seen that campaign strategy before.

Guy named Richard Nixon, in both 1968 and 1972.

Avoid the commoners and peasantry at all costs, no specifics, overwhelming sense of entitlement and arrogance.

[think]

4. After 21 debates in 2007-2008 Clinton's campaign started a petition for another debate

as Obama chose not to commit to another debate:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080501015714/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/ncdebates/


The current six debates with one on Dec 19th just 6 days before Christmas; another one on the MLK holiday weekend; and the last two occurring after the primaries and caucuses have started with no solid dates given; is very disturbing IMO.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

[artislife]

31. ^^^this.

Look, we can't expect the supporters of a candidate that evolves a lot not to do the same. Like attracts like.

[Hoyt]

5. With today's internet and almost instantaneous videos/speeches, 6 is enough, especially with 3 or 4

candidates.

By the time we get to the 5th and 6th debate, not much left to be said, and will likely turn into a garbage slinging fest that won't help Democrats at any level.

Sorry.

[99th_Monkey]

8. Like we didn't have the interwebs in 2008. Please. nt

[elleng]

12. You appear to assume that the entire electorate follows politics the way DUers do,

but this is a serious mistake; most don't, and therefore MORE debates are necessary, to enable MANY to learn about the candidates in a timely manner.

[Hoyt]

15. 6 debates are plenty with just 3 or 4 candidates. We had a lot more canidates in 2008.

[elleng]

16. Agreeing with my friend FSogol,

the debates start too late, some are after the first primaries. Also, candidates are prohibited from participating in other debates. That was never the case in the past. Let the NEA or a coalition of environmental groups sponsor a debate. Let's have a debate on science or tech or education. Let's have a criminal justice debate. Our party has better ideas and cares more than the fucks in the GOP. We need to be putting those ideas out there.

[frylock]

17. Why not lift the exclusivity clause, and let the candidates decide..

how many they should participate in?

[Motown_Johnny]

22. I was wondering what would happen if....

.. all the candidates that wanted more debates just went ahead and did them. This would pretty much leave Hillary as the only one left in the DNC debates. Not much of a debate with only one person on stage.

Wouldn't they need to cave and let the other candidates on stage?

[RichVRichV]

30. I still think that's what the Biden rumors are for.

It's the DNC telling the other candidates that if they go "rogue" then they'll get frozen out of the official debates and the narrative becomes a two horse race between Clinton and Biden.

I have a feeling if Bernie and O'Malley scheduled a debate today then Biden would be declared running within the week.

[yeoman6987]

27. A ton of people cut the cord so why waste time and money

On broadcasting something that most won't watch. Plus it will be possibly embarrassing if we lose to the GOP debate ratings.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. You assume that everyone has access to a computer

and to the internet.

Sorry.

[Hoyt]

26. Anyone who cares has access to what is going on. If they don't care, what makes you think they'll

watch debates. Those that don't care, will end up seeing little more than clips of candidates throwing digs at each other. I don't think that helps us get Democrats elected.

Sorry.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. You seriously think it's a matter of "not caring"

and not a matter of equipment/access/economics/ability to operate a computer? Wow!

[Hoyt]

32. If they don't have equipment/ability/etc, they won't see them no matter how many debates.

Something ought to done about those who don't have those things, but more debates won't help. So, I did not address that. I think you are reaching.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. You said: "Anyone who cares has access."

I challenged that. Lots of people who care don't have access. They may, however, have access to a TV as that is a more common item and is passively engaged (other than turning it on and tuning in to the correct channel.)

The issue is not only with the number of debates but with the timing. Only 2 come before the first caucus which is clearly advantageous to the better-known candidate. These are machinations from the DNC which is SUPPOSED to let the people decide before they put their money/muscle/influence behind the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and, by extension, the DNC is betraying that responsibility and trust by their manipulation of the number or debates and the scheduling of same.

[Hoyt]

41. Look if we were having 50 debates and they had been scheduled to start years ago, someone would

still be griping.

The candidates have been spending A LOT OF TIME in states with an early caucus. Debates won't make a difference. Heck, call up the states and have them delay their caucus. That seems a better approach than trying to harm Democrats everywhere with a bunch of dissatisfaction.

No one is betraying responsibility and trust.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Well, I don't think than anyone has suggested

either 50 debates or scheduling them years ago. I think 6 BEFORE the first caucus would certainly be better than two. And I think scheduling the first right around the time the Republicans had their first debate would get Democrats' message out and competing with the news cycles.

You say debates don't make a difference. I propose that they actually do make a difference. There are a lot of undecideds out there and a lot of people who have never heard of Sanders, O'Malley, Chaffee and Webb and debates are a good tool for voters to get a comparison of the candidates in a side-by-side format.

Further, the exclusivity rule is particularly odious. What harm does it do to the DNC if candidates are allowed to attend debates put on by, say, the League of Women Voters? That's MORE exposure for the Democrats. How is that a bad thing? The answer is, that it's not. The only reason to impose and exclusivity rule (the first one ever, btw) is to LIMIT exposure of all Democratic candidates which is exactly what it's designed to do.

[artislife]

35. What do you think helps Democrats get elected?

Honestly.

Ads, stump speeches, interviews?

All very controllable and easy to avoid real conversation. Sure, lets have those three, but we need to have the candidates engage and take questions and riff off what the other says.

Talking. Conversation.

Those are good things.

[FSogol]

9. You are simplifying the issue. In addition to the number, the debates start too late and

some are after the first primaries. Also, candidates are prohibited from participating in other debates. That was never the case in the past. Let the NEA or a coalition of environmental groups sponsor a debate. Let's have a debate on science or tech or education. Let's have a criminal justice debate. Our party has better ideas and cares more than the fucks in the GOP. We need to be putting those ideas out there.

[elleng]

14. YES!

[left-of-center2012]

10. Opinions don't matter

Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have decided.
Now, sit down and shut up.

[liberal N proud]

13. The question then is when was the schedule decided?

[left-of-center2012]

18. At the stroke of 12

On a moonless night

[liberal N proud]

20. And the black cat crossed their path

Or is that the other way around?

[left-of-center2012]

47. ...

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

[artislife]

37. *chortle nt

[Jamaal510]

11. I'm leaning O'Malley,

but I think 6 is enough. It's not too many to give the GOP much ammunition, and not too few to not give the lesser-known candidates a chance to become more of a household name. There are only about 5 declared candidates so far, so they should all get more time to speak in each debate compared to the Republicans' 17-pack. In addition to that, it's doubtful that the average person is going to need more than 6 debates to make up their minds (or is even interested in watching 6). People can easily research the stances of all 5 candidates online. I'm of the mindset that if 6 isn't enough for a candidate to gain support in the polling and to get his/her message out in the primaries, then it probably isn't their year to win the nomination anyway.

[Hoyt]

42. The "ammunition" point is huge, IMO.

[MohRokTah]

21. Six are plenty.

They may not even get to the sixth of some past primary seasons are any indication.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. Then why did Hillary petition for a 22nd one in 2008? n/t

[MohRokTah]

25. After about 6 debates, nobody was paying attention.

Requesting additional debates beyond that point is always sign of desperation by the candidate requesting it.

[Hoyt]

34. Exactly. And I don't think that many debates helps Democrats. Let the GOP look stupid on TV.

[TexasBushwhacker]

40. I agree. If someone is undecided

6 debates should be plenty to help them choose. For those of us who have our minds made up already, they're really just for cheering on our candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

23. The number is an issue but scheduling them so late is really objectionable.

The Dems need a solid discussion of the issues, not Trump and Clinton emails 24/7.

It is clear the DNC/Clinton nexus is hoping to clear or at least fatally cripple any contender before debates even start.

[FloridaBlues]

29. As Howard Dean recently said other sponsors can hold debates

And most likely will. This is just the ones by the DNC . Each state can have one if they want and willing to sponsor it.
There will be more coming up.
Debates aren't the end all be all candidates usually do trip up and that happens to the best of them.
You may think your candidate will wipe the floor with opponent, and what happens when they don't or get's their buts handed to them?
Be careful of wishing for too many it just may hurt your candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

33. The DNC's exclusivity clause prevents non-DNC sanctioned

... debates. Candidates that participate in any outside-sponsored debates will be disqualified from participation in the DNC debates.

[ALBliberal]

39. More debates would strengthen our Nominee's debating skills for the

Debates against the Republican nominee. This debate schedule is a complete disservice to our party and our candidates.

[whatchamacallit]

43. Whatever number best helps Hillary of course n/t

[ericson00]

44. we're having enough debates

lets get the primary over with and on to the election