Democratic Party Hopes No One Watches Democratic Debates

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/democratic-party-hopes-no_b_8560342.html


In a misguided attempt to protect Hillary Clinton's coronation as the Democratic nominee, the Democratic National Committee is doing its best to insure that as few people as possible watch the Democrat's own Presidential debates, even as tens of millions tune in to the Republican debates.

In doing so, the DNC and the Clinton campaign are demobilizing its own base, telegraphing that they don't think Hillary can stand up to sustained scrutiny, and increasing the likelihood that an energized Republican Party will take back the White House.

First the DNC limited debates to 6, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign that nominated Barack Obama, and 12 Republican debates this campaign season. Next, it passed a rule that any candidate who showed up for a debate that the DNC didn't sanction would be banned from appearing in any officially-sanctioned Democratic debate. (That's the why the candidates couldn't address each other on Rachel Maddow's candidate forum, which, lacking the drama of a direct confrontation, was viewed by only 2.3 million people and only 417,000 in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Compare that to the 13-24 million people who've watched the various Republican debates.) In all, over 60 million people have watched Republican debates and only 15 million have watched Democratic debates.

Now the DNC has scheduled the Iowa debate for this Saturday night, the night of the week the least people are home watching TV, especially among younger 18-35 year old voters who are a key constituency for Democrats to mobilize if they want to win. WTF?

(snip)

There's no rational explanation except that the DNC wants as few people as possible to tune in to the Democratic debates, despite the fact that Presidential debates are one the best ways to get a party's message out to large numbers of voters at once

(snip)

It's a loser's strategy. It goes along with the Democrats' abandonment of the 50-state strategy initiated by Howard Dean


Debbie-poo, YOU'RE FIRED!

[Fred Sanders]

1. If you do not like the Party and your gracious hosts rules, why did you come into the house at all?

How much TV coverage and how many national debates would Sanders be in if he did not purport to join the Democratic Party after 30 years of bashing it?

You know who does NOT complain about the TV debates and his Center stage appearances among only two others....Bernie Sanders!

You all should be grateful for the debates and Sanders getting the free exposure provided by the long range planning of the Party he just joined.

Don't be a Party Pooper!

[pengu]

17. It's not about Sanders, it's about us

Those of us who have been democrats for life and support his cause. This isn't about Sanders, this is about an open airing of ideas.

Or it should be.

[daleanime]

22. So you're totally good with underselling Democratic Values....

that's good to know. Have a great day.

[merrily]

32. Which DU rules did the OP violate and how?

You all should be grateful for the debates and Sanders getting the free exposure provided by the long range planning of the Party he just joined.

What a disgraceful statement!

First "all the debates" is a joke, right? SecondThe Party encouraged Webb to switch party affiliations to run for the Senate as a Democrat. Chafee just switched Party affiliations. The Party in general and DWS individually have backed Republicans over Democrats on occasion. Howard Dean, when DNC head, Schumer and others called Sanders an asset to the Party while he was an independent. Any candidate running for the Democratic nomination is entitled to participate in the debates.

Passing that, you are objecting to the posting of an article from Huffpo. The impetus toward silencing DUers grows daily. Maybe Hillary supporters should just make us a list of publications from which they will accept excerpts.

I almost never agree with you on substance, but this post of yours disgusted me.

[PosterChild]

35. +10 !! (NT)

[Buzz Clik]

2. We had to read to the bottom to find out that MAYBE this was a published editorial?????

Next time, try this:

===========

From Miles Mogulescu, HuffPo blogger:

In a misguided attempt to protect Hillary Clinton's coronation as the Democratic nominee, the Democratic National Committee is doing its best to insure that as few people as possible watch the Democrat's own Presidential debates, even as tens of millions tune in to the Republican debates.

In doing so, the DNC and the Clinton campaign are demobilizing its own base, telegraphing that they don't think Hillary can stand up to sustained scrutiny, and increasing the likelihood that an energized Republican Party will take back the White House.

First the DNC limited debates to 6, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign that nominated Barack Obama, and 12 Republican debates this campaign season. Next, it passed a rule that any candidate who showed up for a debate that the DNC didn't sanction would be banned from appearing in any officially-sanctioned Democratic debate. (That's the why the candidates couldn't address each other on Rachel Maddow's candidate forum, which, lacking the drama of a direct confrontation, was viewed by only 2.3 million people and only 417,000 in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Compare that to the 13-24 million people who've watched the various Republican debates.) In all, over 60 million people have watched Republican debates and only 15 million have watched Democratic debates.

Now the DNC has scheduled the Iowa debate for this Saturday night, the night of the week the least people are home watching TV, especially among younger 18-35 year old voters who are a key constituency for Democrats to mobilize if they want to win. WTF?

(snip)

There's no rational explanation except that the DNC wants as few people as possible to tune in to the Democratic debates, despite the fact that Presidential debates are one the best ways to get a party's message out to large numbers of voters at once

(snip)

It's a loser's strategy. It goes along with the Democrats' abandonment of the 50-state strategy initiated by Howard Dean

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/democratic-party-hopes-no_b_8560342.html

Debbie-poo, YOU'RE FIRED!

=========

[tecelote]

3. One must ask, why not try to get the most viewers possible?

Incompetence or conspiracy?

[merrily]

49. Which head of a National Committee that operates fairly doesn't want hours of free air time

for the candidates of his or her party to make their positions known to the public during primary season--which, after all, is a prelude to general season?

Which head of a National Committee that operates fairly lets the opposite party take up all the oxygen in the political media room for months before the public sees the first debate of that Committee's Party?

[L. Coyote]

4. I call bullshit. People have hopes, parties have members with diverse hopes.

Hang it on the agent of the action, not on everyone. I take offense to be slammed like this as a Democrat.

[Bubzer]

31. The only way this would be a slam against you...would be if you were part of the DNC.

The post is directed at them after all.

[L. Coyote]

57. Well, then say what you mean.

Sorry, divisiveness is not my cup of Tea. I'll leave that defeatism to Trump, Carson, and those other clowns. Dems unite!

[mmonk]

5. .

Love those gifs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Low viewership of the debates actually inures to the Vermont independent's benefit.

It guarantees as few people as possible witness him losing another debate.

[Bubzer]

39. Put down the crystal ball and back away slowly... This is bigger than hillary vs Bernie.

Regardless of who earns the nomination, we need both candidates to undergo the full rigors of the debate process, up to and including a full scrutiny by the American public. Low viewership would be a detriment to either candidate should they win.

[merrily]

50. Both irrelevant and bs. Two fails with one snark. Kudos!

[stillwaiting]

7. It's a LOSER'S strategy. Indeed.

Horrible, horrible choices being made time after time again.

Grade: F (for her handling of the Democratic Party and the results she's achieved).

Go away DWS!

[merrily]

42. It is not only DWS. Barney Frank, Jerry Brown and almost every Democrat in office

is part of the royal court.

[GoneFishin]

8. They know their best chance for a coronation is to keep the voters uninformed. Like a sleazy legal

tactic to try to trick people into signing a contract which they do not understand.

Anyone who does not understand that these sleazy tricks would also be turned against average Americans is naive.

[brooklynite]

10. IS that the new bumper sticker? "Vote for Bernie - unless you're too stupid?"

Somehow, YOU figures out who the "right" candidate is, but the average voter just isn't that smart?

[GoneFishin]

13. More like "Bernie wants you to hear his ideas. Hillary wants to keep you in the dark."

[valerief]

11. That's what Republicans do. nt

[oldandhappy]

9. I thot the Forum was excellent.

The candidates got to talk -- complete paragraphs -- complete ideas. Wonderful. I would like more forums.

[Bubzer]

40. +1

[Babel_17]

12. Free advertising for our party is like Linux

It's for the hoi polloi, and dangerous free thinkers.

Our party leaders didn't go to evil politics school just so things could be free.

Free

Advertising

Is

Bad

When in doubt, refer back to this.

[yallerdawg]

14. Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?

I bet football does get higher ratings than debate.

But they couldn't do Sunday night. "Walking Dead."

Iowa's Democratic debate will air right in the middle of a major Iowa football game — and some think that decision was on purpose

Source: The Week, by Jeva Lange

Here's a successful recipe for getting no one to watch a political debate: Schedule it for late on a Saturday night. Not convinced you've killed off your entire viewership? Then be sure to put it smack dab in the middle of a really important football game.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that's the exact position that the second Democratic debate is in. Saturday evening's debate at the University of Des Moines will be held at 8 p.m. local time, notably creating a big conflict for any Iowa Hawkeyes fans, who will be an hour into watching their team's showdown against their top regional rivals, the Minnesota Golden Gophers. The winner of that game — which pits the undefeated Hawkeyes against Gophers hungry for a chance at redemption — will take home the coveted "Floyd of Rosedale," which is a trophy shaped like a bronze pig. So basically, it's the sort of game that no self-respecting Hawkeyes fan is going to want to miss.

"It's just gonna be you, and me, and the pundits, and a few other people watching," one Democratic political strategist, Bob Shrum, noted wryly to National Review. In fact, some conspiratorial Democrats think this is all rather convenient, and that the debate was intentionally set for game night in Iowa because of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's alleged bias toward Hillary Clinton. By airing the debate during an inconvenient time, underdogs Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley will have less of a chance to gain supporters.

[George II]

15. It is being televised on a major broadcast network in prime time. What else do you want?

[Fuddnik]

18. So are some major college football games. At the same time.

[George II]

19. Anyone who wants to watch the debate will watch the debate.

[Fuddnik]

23. The only people who will watch in that slot are political junkies.

What a pathetic answer. You should know better.

[Bubzer]

41. He does know better. He just doesn't seem to care.

[cascadiance]

68. Preaching to the choir is a LOSER'S strategy!

That is what is wrong with the way our debates have been scheduled to only have those that want to watch them and do the many other things on these nights that these debates have been so unstrategically scheduled (if you want what's best for the party) or perhaps strategically (if you are trying to rig the campaign for Hillary Clinton to basically force voters to only vote on name recognition instead of the increased scrutiny traditionally provided by debates.

[pinebox]

16. I want to know WHY Hillary supporters all think this is ok

Honestly, why.

Our candidates all deserve to be heard, don't they? If Hillary is such a strong candidate, why are we protecting her? Originally Hillary only wanted 4 (FOUR!) debates http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/21/1423552/-Hillary-Clinton-campaign-only-wanted-four-debates
Sorry but all we're doing here is allowing the stage that is the national spotlight to be hogged by Republicans. The more Republicans get exposure, the more people will vote for them and you can rub that off as "well those are stupid people" and what not but that doesn't change the fact that our candidates are essentially being silenced and all that does is help Republicans win in a general election.

[Fuddnik]

20. Because just about ANY Democratic alternative is better than Clinton.

And Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz, who's been in the tank for Hillary forever, wants as few people as possible to see the better candidates.

[George II]

24. You see it as "protecting" her. Others don't.

In fact, after the last debate she soared in the polls and Sanders sunk.

As for the stage that is being hogged by the republicans, the more they debate the more idiotic they look. I wish the would "hog the stage" even more!

[SoapBox]

21. 6 debates versus 26 debates....

Tonight, a Saturday evening...

Next one is Saturday, before Christmas...

Next is a Sunday, of Martin Luther Holiday weekend...

So I'm just SURE that they were planned and plotted for maximum viewing audiences!



...it's a scam.

[pinebox]

25. Debate in December is weekend of Star Wars opening

[George II]

26. When was the opening date announced?

[dragonlady]

38. Also it's the last weekend before Christmas

Probably more people put off their shopping until then than will watch Star Wars. And Christmas shopping is quite predictable.

[NurseJackie]

28. What's done is done. Oh well. What can you do about it?

Seriously. What can you do about it? Is there anything at all that you can do to change it? If so, what is it?

[jeff47]

33. DWS can change it at any time.

The way the rest of us get her to consider that is to repeatedly inform her that we are not happy with her decision.

[NurseJackie]

45. Complaining here is effective?

Do you think that will work? Does she even read this website? Seems unlikely to me ... an extreme long shot at best. I wonder if there's a better approach, or if the effort being spent on what seems to be a lost cause could be put to better use elsewhere.

[jeff47]

46. Who says we're only complaining here? (nt)

[NurseJackie]

54. Nobody says that. You're avoiding the question.

... I wonder how complaining here helps. For all the good it does, you may as well be shouting down an empty well. I trust that you must see some value in it, I wonder what it is.

[jeff47]

59. Because people here talk about things. Often, we coordinate stuff off DU.

We should shut up because......?

[NurseJackie]

61. Oh, Heaven's no! Nobody said that either. Please, continue. ;-)

The overwrought and perpetually angry Bernie fans have got to have something to do! I suppose that ineffective and repetitive griping about the debate schedule, on a forum that's not read by the target of the complaints, is as good an activity as any of the other wastes of time.

My curiosity was regarding why it is that so many people feel that shouting down an empty well was a good idea. Offsite coordinating makes more sense.

Looking at the debate schedule, days and times, I can see that the offsite efforts haven't been very successful either. Color me shocked!

I know it's got to be a big surprise to everyone who thought that Wasserman-Schultz was prowling DU looking for affirmation that she'd made the right decision, and looking for validation and approval.

With all the obsessive focus on things that (obviously) will not change, I think I'm beginning to understand why it is that Bernie's ground-game hasn't produced the results he and his supporters seek. But, you guys are the experts. I'll defer to your judgement and continue to wonder by what criteria you measure success.

Good luck! I think you'll need it.

[Babel_17]

63. Ah, so no more fake concern?

Thanks for clearing things up. Great culmination of your disingenuous exchange with a polite Sanders supporter.

[NurseJackie]

64. Oh dear ...

... amusement and bewilderment is not synonymous with, and should not be confused with actual "concern". (And to be honest, the methods employed for such a futile task are a constant source of entertainment.)

polite Sanders supporter

Ha! I know! Right?

[Babel_17]

65. Ok, maybe lead with being elitist?

Nothing wrong with being elitist, of course, but if you lead with that then people who want to avoid the word games can save time. You concluded your exchange with something of a sucker punch. That's what I thought worth noting.

On the internet, subtlety is hard to pick up. The person you had the exchange with was trying to politely reply. You saw an opening and hit him with a zinger.

Noted.

Have a good evening. Cheers!

[NurseJackie]

66. Thank you!

[Babel_17]

62. Huh, maybe we are deluding ourselves

I live in NY, my vote for a Democrat never matters, why show up? Why should I listen to the State of the Union speech, nobody knows I'm watching.

Maybe this whole participating in the process of democracy is an illusion, and we just got a much needed wake up call?

P.S. Just kidding!

[brooklynite]

55. Maybe instead of more Debates, Sanders needs more time for retail campaigning?

No big rallies; face time with ordinary voters talking about their issues.

[Gmak]

27. And, in Iowa, the debate has to compete with the 5th ranked U of Iowa football game!

However, the savvy people who will vote for Bernie, will DVR, will watch youtubes of the debate, will check out social media for outtakes and friends' reactions.

[JTFrog]

29. Ok. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. This is completely void of reality.

Clinton kicked ass in the last debate. If they wanted Clinton to win, they would absolutely want everyone to watch it.

Your logic is void of reality.

[jeff47]

36. Then why haven't they added more debates?

Both O'Malley and Sanders want more. If they're so great for Clinton, she'd want more too.

Yet they aren't adding more debates for Clinton to "kick ass". Odd, if you description was accurate...

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. Money, time etc.

[jeff47]

51. It takes none of either to remove the exclusivity clause. (nt)

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. What exaclty would you like to see?

Who would sponsor them?
Who would be invited?
If not everyone was invited, how pissed would you be?

You are assuming they would help Sanders. However, history shows that they do not.

[jeff47]

60. Something like 2008

Who would sponsor them?

Like 2008, whoever wanted to.

Who would be invited?

Would be up to the organizer of the debate.

If not everyone was invited, how pissed would you be?

Not everyone is invited to the DNC-sponsored events. How pissed are you?

You are assuming they would help Sanders. However, history shows that they do not.

Believe it or not, I actually think the electorate should be well informed, whether or not it helps my chosen candidate. But good job demonstrating your partisanship.

[upaloopa]

34. "they don't think Hillary can stand up to sustained scrutiny" what a pant load!

She has been standing up to sustained scrutiny for over 40 years now. If anyone can stand up to scrutiny it is Hillary

[jeff47]

37. Then why isn't she joining Sanders and O'Malley asking for more debates?

If she'd do so well in them, you'd think she'd want more.

[restorefreedom]

43. i have said repeatedly that dws is a thinly closeted repub

and the dnc leadership would rather see rubio or trump in the wh than bernie. if it can't be hillary, they would rather lose, at least the gravy train will be safe under repubs.

[bvar22]

44. On the nose.

!

Hard for me to believe that members of any Political Site (much less a "Democratic" site) would be advocating for LESS exposure and LESS discussion of Democratic Policy and Ideas.


[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]

[restorefreedom]

48. amazing, isnt it?

if our ideas are so great, they should be shouting from the rooftops during prime time weekdays. protecting a candidate who is so weak that she can't handle being tested in her own party is a guaranteed defeat in 2016.

[merrily]

52. This is our imagination. That professional political writers have been saying the same thing we've

been saying doesn't change that. We've been imagining things. Now, we've made the professional political observers imagine things.

That's all there is to this. Nothing to see here. Move along--and vote Hillary.

(Because no matter how sarcastic my post is, someone who takes it seriously replies.)

[MADem]

53. About the Author of this Piece--everyone's got an opinion, I guess!!!

He's not an expert on the process by a long shot.

Miles Mogulescu ([e-mail]) is an entertainment attorney and former Senior V.P. at MGM. In his professional capacity, he recently represented the film "Drive" starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks and Albert Brooks which won a best director award at Cannes for Nicolas Winding Refn, and negotiated the terms of a new company with director Robert Rodriquez to produce and finance a slate of films. He has been a lifelong progressive since the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a guest in his home several times. He will never forget the impression which that extraordinary man made on him, which helped lead to a lifelong commitment to social justice. He co-produced and co-directed Union Maids, a film about 3 women union organizers in Chicago in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary. At the time of the Gulf War, he and Danny Goldberg produced a super-star music video with new lyrics to Give Peace a Chance written by Lenny Kravitz and John Lennon's son, Sean. He was one of the earliest contributors to The Huffington Post and has contributed over 200 pieces since 2006.

[AgingAmerican]

58. They are willing to throw the election to get her the nomination

Right Wingism is a sickness.

[PowerToThePeople]

67. Honestly, the Democratic party has become the party of losers.

Bernie needs to win and purge the right wing.