2016 Postmortem

Evergreen Emerald

(13,096 posts)

12. We do not need more debates.

Reply to Dawgs (Original post)

Wed Nov 11, 2015, 11:51 AM

Nov 2015

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, that's four to one - GOP debates vs. Democratic debates [View all] Dawgs Nov 2015 OP

Quite sure they realized it and planned it accordingly. nt Live and Learn Nov 2015 #1

Our candidates are getting a lot of coverage. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #2

The coverage extends for days. Dawgs Nov 2015 #4

There is no hard proof of that but I do have eyes. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #6

Fine. Your opinion is different than mine. n/t Dawgs Nov 2015 #7

Here is a point we can fully agree on. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #8

In 2008 Hillary called having 'only' 18 Democratic debates, "Unamerican" AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #44

Your argument doesn't flow in any way. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #49

Thanks DWS you are doing a great job stonecutter357 Nov 2015 #3

Can't tell. Dawgs Nov 2015 #5

typical Bernie supporter. stonecutter357 Nov 2015 #15

Typical Hillary supporter response. Dawgs Nov 2015 #18

Do yourself a solid, and just put it on ignore. frylock Nov 2015 #19

Why? It would take away all the fun. Dawgs Nov 2015 #74

+1 jwirr Nov 2015 #63

It's gaming the system. You may not like it, but the establishment has no intention NorthCarolina Nov 2015 #9

Yep. It couldn't be more obvious. n/t Dawgs Nov 2015 #10

Yup. Way to get out our message Deb. NT. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #11

We do not need more debates. Evergreen Emerald Nov 2015 #12

We don't need primaries either.. frylock Nov 2015 #21

I see your problem Evergreen Emerald Nov 2015 #27

And I no longer see you. frylock Nov 2015 #36

finally Evergreen Emerald Nov 2015 #38

We should do away with elections AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #47

They made it pretty clear with that comment. I love when it becomes transparent. nt. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #50

We don't actually have to pay for them. jeff47 Nov 2015 #29

They have more than 4 times the number of candidates frazzled Nov 2015 #13

Let's not get the facts confused with the truth - edgineered Nov 2015 #35

Somebody posted yesterday that its by design because the Democratic candidates risk "overexposure" corkhead Nov 2015 #14

I believe that there's some merit to this way of thinking. Also � NurseJackie Nov 2015 #26

No politician is ever concerned about that when they are spending their donors money on tv ads corkhead Nov 2015 #37

Probably because the content of the ad is 100% in their control. Also, NurseJackie Nov 2015 #48

Hey, hey, ho, ho. DINO Debbie's got to go! Scuba Nov 2015 #16

And one Forum. It was excellent. oldandhappy Nov 2015 #17

Yes, it was not well publicized. jwirr Nov 2015 #64

The first Dem debate was substantive okasha Nov 2015 #20

Yes, we wouldn't want to remind people of the difference by doing it over and over again. jeff47 Nov 2015 #28

What would the correct number be? NurseJackie Nov 2015 #22

The number 'More'! It comes right after 'A lot'! randome Nov 2015 #23

I doubt that complaining about it will do much good. I think the decisions have already been made. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #25

However many the candidates want to attend. jeff47 Nov 2015 #30

They're creating a demand. Quality control. Too many debates dillutes their effectiveness. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #43

So you're claiming every primary before this one was a disaster. jeff47 Nov 2015 #55

I made no claims like that at all. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #57

When you claim scarcity causes demand, that means non-scarcity reduces demand. jeff47 Nov 2015 #59

Then it's probably time to hang it up and call it a day. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #67

Nope. Being shit on yet again by the party isn't particularly refreshing. jeff47 Nov 2015 #70

I understand this is very important to you. But, face it, you're powerless to do anything about it. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #72

I don't know, but it has to be better than 4 to 1. Dawgs Nov 2015 #39

Personally, I like having to wait for something. It builds excitement and interest. Imagine if � NurseJackie Nov 2015 #24

Yes, that's why I don't get to see the December debate. jeff47 Nov 2015 #31

People who are truly interested will find a way. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #33

Because it's the truly interested we need in order to increase turnout. jeff47 Nov 2015 #34

People who aren't interested will find something on a different channel. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #42

The more debates, the more chance they'll hear about something in the debates. jeff47 Nov 2015 #56

Perhaps there's exit polling data to help your argument, but it seems to me that NurseJackie Nov 2015 #58

So now you're arguing number of debates have no effect? jeff47 Nov 2015 #60

Oh dear, what a silly little game you're playing. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #65

Because DWS will listen to me when she ignores her own vice chairs and jeff47 Nov 2015 #68

She won't listen to you? But, somehow, endlessly griping about it here will CHANGE things? NurseJackie Nov 2015 #71

It turns out that fewer debates will end up helping Bernie. Cali_Democrat Nov 2015 #32

Maybe. Dawgs Nov 2015 #40

You know....I never got a chance to see the first debate between Romney and Obama Cali_Democrat Nov 2015 #41

Obama was shockingly bad. Dawgs Nov 2015 #51

What specifically did he say that was so shockingly bad? Cali_Democrat Nov 2015 #53

It wasn't what he said. Dawgs Nov 2015 #54

It wasn't what he said...he just looked bad? Cali_Democrat Nov 2015 #61

Read my post again. I said his performance was bad, not his appearance. Dawgs Nov 2015 #75

It's hilarious that Hillary supporters don't want our candidates heard pinebox Nov 2015 #45

They also have four times as many candidates (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #46

No offense but O'Malley needs the exposure. Dawgs Nov 2015 #52

Well that at least is to our benefit - four times the fools. jwirr Nov 2015 #66

In 2008 and 2012 there were 3 presidential debates and 1 VP debate mythology Nov 2015 #62

It's brilliant if you don't want them to have much effect. highprincipleswork Nov 2015 #69

Yeah, those debates are working great for the GOP. Orangepeel Nov 2015 #73

A few questions: (1) Do you think the extra debates are helping the Republicans? (2) Are you lacking Attorney in Texas Nov 2015 #76