So, that's four to one - GOP debates vs. Democratic debates

[Dawgs]

Which means four times as much coverage for GOP candidates.

Thanks DWS. You're doing a hell of a job.

And BTW, does anyone realize that two of the debates are on a Saturday when people are out doing other shit. One of those is this weekend, and one one is the Saturday before Christmas. Just brilliant!

[Live and Learn]

1. Quite sure they realized it and planned it accordingly. nt

[NCTraveler]

2. Our candidates are getting a lot of coverage.

How many people tuned into FBN last night? It's not as impressive as one might think. It would be interesting to see the numbers. And if you haven't noticed, these debates are really hurting their party. It is epic what is going on with their side. Meanwhile, our side is acting like the adults in the room.


"Which means four times as much coverage for GOP candidates." It actually doesn't mean that.

The debates weren't scheduled well. I am in agreement with that. My bigger issue is that our debates should be on a major channel that is also covered by air. Limiting who can watch the debates is what bothers me. The debates won't win it for anyone. They can lose it for someone though. Fact is we are down to three people which means we are getting more time than their scattered asses. More quality time at least. All major networks would love to interview any one of our candidates. Any one can do an interview with them on a week night. I have no problem with six or eight debates. We also had the forum the other night. It was a great format. I would argue we get more from those than we do debates themselves.

[Dawgs]

4. The coverage extends for days.

And, I don't why you think the debates are hurting them. There's no proof of that.

[NCTraveler]

6. There is no hard proof of that but I do have eyes.

None of them can pull ahead because they are so scattered.

Yes, it does continue for days. Just this morning I heard two stories on the way into work fact checking their candidates. Seems last night was a debate of dishonesty. We will get that for a couple of days along with commentary from progressives. That is a wonderful thing. You are acting as if they are in a bubble and no one else is allowed in the discussion.

[Dawgs]

7. Fine. Your opinion is different than mine. n/t

[NCTraveler]

8. Here is a point we can fully agree on.

DWS is not the person for the job.

[AgingAmerican]

44. In 2008 Hillary called having 'only' 18 Democratic debates, "Unamerican"

By this time in 2008 there had been 15 Democratic debates. Hillary's supporters are willing to throw the election to the GOP in order to get her the nomination.

[NCTraveler]

49. Your argument doesn't flow in any way.

I'm willing to throw the election to the GOP in order to get her the nomination. Where the fuck did that come from. Looks to me like we have an amazingly strong debate going on. One of the best I have seen in decades. This primary has been great. I have no clue what you are trying to lump me in with when it comes to this bullshit. " Hillary's supporters are willing to throw the election to the GOP in order to get her the nomination." It Bernz.

[stonecutter357]

3. Thanks DWS you are doing a great job

[Dawgs]

5. Can't tell.

Are you being serious, sarcastic, or arrogant?

If serious, you realize the Democrats have done very poorly in elections since she's been running the DNC. Do you really want her to be the one in charge if Hillary gets the nom?

If sarcastic, then I agree.

If arrogant, then I'm not surprised.

[stonecutter357]

15. typical Bernie supporter.

[Dawgs]

18. Typical Hillary supporter response.

[frylock]

19. Do yourself a solid, and just put it on ignore.

[Dawgs]

74. Why? It would take away all the fun.

[jwirr]

63. +1

[NorthCarolina]

9. It's gaming the system. You may not like it, but the establishment has no intention

of allowing any candidate not under their direct control to run beyond the primaries. Have your fun now, but after that you will choose Establishment Candidate "D", or Establishment Candidate "R", or you will stay home.

[Dawgs]

10. Yep. It couldn't be more obvious. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Yup. Way to get out our message Deb. NT.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. We do not need more debates.

They take up too much preparation time and too much money to put on. The time/money is better spent elsewhere.

[frylock]

21. We don't need primaries either..

They take up too much preparation time and too much money to put on. The time/money is better spent elsewhere.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. I see your problem

[frylock]

36. And I no longer see you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. finally

Thank you

[AgingAmerican]

47. We should do away with elections

They take up too much preparation time and cost too much money.

Spend that money instead on 'optics' like marquee lights and focus group approved one liners.

[NCTraveler]

50. They made it pretty clear with that comment. I love when it becomes transparent. nt.

[jeff47]

29. We don't actually have to pay for them.

Remove the exclusivity clause. Other entities will put on debates, and pay for it. If the Des Moines Register puts on a debate, they pay for it.

Just like every single contested primary before this one.

[frazzled]

13. They have more than 4 times the number of candidates

We have 3, they have 14 (or 15, depending on your count). They've scheduled 11 debates (I think it was originally 10, with one added). We have six.

In their 2-hour debates, each of the participating candidates would get around 12 minutes time to speak (if evenly allotted). In each of our 2-hour debates, each candidate gets around 40 minutes of time to speak. So, if you do the math (which I'm bad at, so slap me if I'm wrong), each R candidate, if all remain, will get a total of 132 minutes of air time (11 x 12). Each of our candidates will get 240 minutes of air time (6 x 40).

These are primary debates, not general election debates, which will pit the 2 (or more, if an independent jumps in) candidates in the exact number of debates. Is there anyone here who can't make up their mind about who to vote for in the Democratic primary? Still undecided and need more debates?

In a few days there will be another Democratic debate. I don't even feel I need to watch it, since I already feel I know the candidates and their positions and styles and demeanors very well already. Most people here (because we're junkies) do too. The only reason one would watch is to hunt for gaffes of your chosen candidate's opponents, or to cherry pick quotes to use as cudgels against one of those candidates. It's stupid.

Six debates are enough for a field of three candidates. We are not debating Republicans. We are trying to choose a Democratic nominee.

[edgineered]

35. Let's not get the facts confused with the truth -

You said:

In a few days there will be another Democratic debate. I don't even feel I need to watch it, since I already feel I know the candidates and their positions and styles and demeanors very well already. Most people here (because we're junkies) do too. The only reason one would watch is to hunt for gaffes of your chosen candidate's opponents, or to cherry pick quotes to use as cudgels against one of those candidates. It's stupid.

Obviously, you have stated both the truth and the facts.

[corkhead]

14. Somebody posted yesterday that its by design because the Democratic candidates risk "overexposure"

if they are put in front of the electorate too much.

[NurseJackie]

26. I believe that there's some merit to this way of thinking. Also …

… as the Republicans scramble to have debate after debate after debate, they run the risk of appearing disorganized and a bit frantic-looking.

The fact that they have SO MANY candidates with their hats in the ring helps to emphasize and amplify that perception.

The more nutty candidates the party has, the more opportunity there is that one or more of them will spout out some whack-a-doodle nonsense ... which will make the ENTIRE party look like they're buffoons.

I'm enjoying the fact that the GOP is having so many debates, but not for the reasons that the GOP had hoped.

[corkhead]

37. No politician is ever concerned about that when they are spending their donors money on tv ads

so why would they not want the free exposure?

[NurseJackie]

48. Probably because the content of the ad is 100% in their control. Also,

busy people are more likely to digest the 30-60 ad compared to 2 hours of something that they weren't all that thrilled about to begin with.

It certainly makes sense that when a candidate has the opportunity to present a polished ad (complete with music, graphics and a professional announcer) it would be much preferable than risking an "oops" moment or having no "comeback" when an opponent belts out an amusing zinger.

This really isn't the big problem that so many are making it out to be.

[Scuba]

16. Hey, hey, ho, ho. DINO Debbie's got to go!

[oldandhappy]

17. And one Forum. It was excellent.

I will be curious re the viewer numbers for last night. Took me three tries to find the channel.

[jwirr]

64. Yes, it was not well publicized.

[okasha]

20. The first Dem debate was substantive

and showed the three serious candidates being serious candidates.

It was more valuable than any number of clown car vaudeville performances.

[jeff47]

28. Yes, we wouldn't want to remind people of the difference by doing it over and over again.

[NurseJackie]

22. What would the correct number be?

[randome]

23. The number 'More'! It comes right after 'A lot'!

The last thing we want is to emulate Republicans.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[NurseJackie]

25. I doubt that complaining about it will do much good. I think the decisions have already been made.

[jeff47]

30. However many the candidates want to attend.

Remove the exclusivity clause. Go ahead and have the DNC only do 4 (Debates 5 and 6 will not happen).

Other entities will put on debates. If the candidates feel it's worthwhile to go, they will go.

Or has every non-incumbent primary before this one been a disaster?

[NurseJackie]

43. They're creating a demand. Quality control. Too many debates dillutes their effectiveness.

And can't you just hear the HOWLS when some network or group chooses to not invite a particular democratic candidate because of "low" poll numbers. Image the OUTRAGE when another network or group schedules a debate on the east coast when one of the candidates has already scheduled a rally on the west coast on the same night.

Honestly, I think you guys are just looking for any old excuse to complain. It's not going to change, so what purpose does this serve?

[jeff47]

55. So you're claiming every primary before this one was a disaster.

Yeah...that didn't actually happen. In fact, the 26 debates in 2008 followed by record high turnout kinda demonstrate you've got this exactly backwards.

[NurseJackie]

57. I made no claims like that at all.

If you're so distraught about the debate schedule, then why don't you change it?

Do something. Change it right now!

PS: I think the record high turnout had more to do with the candidate/s and as a final FUVM to GWB. It wasn't only about the effectiveness of the debate schedule.

[jeff47]

59. When you claim scarcity causes demand, that means non-scarcity reduces demand.

Yet the exact opposite happened only 8 years ago.

If you're so distraught about the debate schedule, then why don't you change it?

You think DWS will listen to me when she will not listen to her vice chairs or two candidates. Right.

[NurseJackie]

67. Then it's probably time to hang it up and call it a day.

You think DWS will listen to me when she will not listen to her vice chairs or two candidates. Right.

You've done all you can do and worked this crisis for all it's worth.

Feel better?

[jeff47]

70. Nope. Being shit on yet again by the party isn't particularly refreshing.

But hey, if you can't manage to hold your argument together, I totally understand why you've suddenly turned to patronizing dismissal.

[NurseJackie]

72. I understand this is very important to you. But, face it, you're powerless to do anything about it.

Bickering with me (or anyone) won't change it. Complaining about being "shit on" won't change it. It just makes it sound like you're feeling victimized.

What's done is done. You know it and so do I. Gripe about something that you can actually influence.

[Dawgs]

39. I don't know, but it has to be better than 4 to 1.

And, can we have them during the work week when people are home watching television.

[NurseJackie]

24. Personally, I like having to wait for something. It builds excitement and interest. Imagine if …

… Thanksgiving was celebrated 20 times a year. It wouldn't be special, it would be just another day, nobody would care much because if you missed it, then so-what, another one will be along very soon.

[jeff47]

31. Yes, that's why I don't get to see the December debate.

See, there's this once-a-year thing going on 6 days later. And lots of my family are traveling to take part in it.

Kinda the point about the stupidity of the exclusivity clause and the schedule.

[NurseJackie]

33. People who are truly interested will find a way.

Even if it's YouTube or setting their dvr.

[jeff47]

34. Because it's the truly interested we need in order to increase turnout.

[NurseJackie]

42. People who aren't interested will find something on a different channel.

2u2

[jeff47]

56. The more debates, the more chance they'll hear about something in the debates.

The fewer debates, the less coverage and the less likely they'll hear anything.

2008 had 26 debates. 2008 also had record high turnout. If your claims were correct, that could not happen.

[NurseJackie]

58. Perhaps there's exit polling data to help your argument, but it seems to me that

the more likely reason for the high turnout could just as well be attributed to the candidate/s and to celebrate the departure of GWB.

[jeff47]

60. So now you're arguing number of debates have no effect?

Then why limit them?

[NurseJackie]

65. Oh dear, what a silly little game you're playing.

So now you're arguing number of debates have no effect?



You seem to be very bright. I think you should use your talents to change the debate schedule. Add some more. Match the GOP debate-for-debate. Do it now. Quit complaining here and do something about it. Anyone who cared about this as much as you do would certainly have done something about it by now.

Or am I to believe that you really don't care as much as you say you do?

[jeff47]

68. Because DWS will listen to me when she ignores her own vice chairs and

multiple candidates.

Again, you keep arguing that limiting debates has positive results. Yet every primary before this one did not have limited debates.

So how can limiting debates have such powerful results that we must do it now, yet the opposite of those results never appeared in every single primary before this one?

[NurseJackie]

71. She won't listen to you? But, somehow, endlessly griping about it here will CHANGE things?

I'm really not sure what you expect to accomplish here.

Will you bicker with someone who disagrees with you? --- Yes.
Did it change anything? -- No.

Will you get some digital bystander to also agree with you? -- Perhaps.
Did it change anything? -- No.

Were you entertained and distracted for a moment? -- I imagine so.
Did the debate schedule change. -- No.

We may as well be having a bickerfest that goes like this:

You: The moon is made of diamonds.
Me: I don't think it's made of diamonds.
You: So you're saying it's made of cheese?

[Cali_Democrat]

32. It turns out that fewer debates will end up helping Bernie.

Look what happened after the first debate.

Hillary came across as very Presidential and she expanded her lead.

[Dawgs]

40. Maybe.

Obama got crushed in first debate against Romney. Would you have been happy if we stopped after just one then?

[Cali_Democrat]

41. You know....I never got a chance to see the first debate between Romney and Obama

I saw some clips and I never understood why people thought Obama got crushed.

He seemed fine in the clips I saw.

I did see the last two debates.

My favorite part was when he told Romney to "please proceed."



BTW, there are more debates between Sanders and Hillary scheduled.

[Dawgs]

51. Obama was shockingly bad.

Ask anyone that remembers.

[Cali_Democrat]

53. What specifically did he say that was so shockingly bad?

Examples?

[Dawgs]

54. It wasn't what he said.

It was his performance. He just looked bad compared to Romney.

He did much better in the other debates, but almost everyone that saw that first one agreed that it was bad.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. It wasn't what he said...he just looked bad?

LOL.

OK.

I don't base my vote on looks. I base my vote on substance.

[Dawgs]

75. Read my post again. I said his performance was bad, not his appearance.

Geez, ask someone else. EVERYONE agrees that it was bad.

Shit, do a google search. It ain't that difficult.

Here. I'll do it for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+performance+in+first+debate

Here's a video of Obama himself saying he had a bad night.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/president-obama-debate-performance-bad-night-17446753

"Governor Romney had a good night, I had a bad night", Obama 2012

[pinebox]

45. It's hilarious that Hillary supporters don't want our candidates heard

Seriously, what's up with that & why is it only Hillary supporters that are saying this?
Our candidates deserve to be heard by the American people!

[Recursion]

46. They also have four times as many candidates (nt)

[Dawgs]

52. No offense but O'Malley needs the exposure.

No?

[jwirr]

66. Well that at least is to our benefit - four times the fools.

[mythology]

62. In 2008 and 2012 there were 3 presidential debates and 1 VP debate

We're those not enough? I don't get this desire desire to have a dozen or more debates. They are little more than campaign stump speeches because nobody wants to make a mistake and the candidates only vaguely answer the softball questions (or the Republicans cry about the questions being mean).

I don't care which of the three real candidates win, but pure political theater doesn't interest me.

[highprincipleswork]

69. It's brilliant if you don't want them to have much effect.

Shameful and shocking debate schedule. Absolutely unacceptable, unless you are trying to negate the effect of debates.

We need more debates and more exposure for all candidates, in order that everyone be properly informed and that we make the correct choice as to who would be the best candidate.

If you go on prior assumptions and common wisdom and who is known already, that is not the way to pick the best person. But is that really what DWS and the DNC are going for? Really doesn't seem like it.

I keep getting messages from them to watch the Republicans destroy themselves through debates. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. How do I know? It didn't work in prior election cycles!!!!

Let's do the smart thing and hold more debates, as many as are necessary to get the facts out, much as has been started already.

[Orangepeel]

73. Yeah, those debates are working great for the GOP.

[Attorney in Texas]

76. A few questions: (1) Do you think the extra debates are helping the Republicans? (2) Are you lacking

information from which to identify which candidate you prefer?

(3) How many debates do you feel needed to occur more than a year before the election and more than three months before the first caucuses and primaries?

(4) No other democracy on the globe has elections that are as expensive and drawn out over more than a year like elections in the US; what makes you think that drawing out the US election season even further by having earlier debates more than a year before the election and more than three months before the first primary or caucus is a step in the right direction?