Clinton’s Refusal To Debate Sanders Spells Disaster For The General Election

[GoLeft TV]

Hillary Clinton may think that she is being clever by refusing to debate Sanders one final time as she had previously agreed, but by skipping the Fox-sponsored event, she is missing out on a vital opportunity to head off some of the right-wing criticism before the general election.

This is just one of many ways that Clinton’s arrogance is handicapping her campaign. If Clinton doesn’t think that a general election race against Trump will be the fight of her life, she’s already lost. Ring of Fire’s Sydney Robinson discusses this.

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. this is a bad move by HRC and her people

[lewebley3]

17. No its a smart move: Its over Clinton has won

[stopbush]

21. Agreed. She may as well debate Jim Webb at this point. He has as much chance of winning as Sanders.

Losers don't get to dictate terms to the winners. That goes for Faux News as well as Sanders.

Besides, if I want to hear what Sanders would say in another debate I can look up his stump speech. He never deviates from his talking points, even if it means shoving a square peg in a round hole. Completely useless. Plus, Hillary has cleaned his clock in every debate. He's just looking for ways to keep the $ flowing in so he can stave off the massive campaign debt staring him in the face.

[rock]

48. If Jim Webb has any chance at all

It's better than Bernie's; he has lost.

[stopbush]

53. The only chance would be for Hillary to not be nominated on the first ballot

which then throws it open to anyone in the D Party.

I don't think Sanders would stand a chance as a REAL D would be put into nomination and the troops would rally behind them.

[Stuckinthebush]

29. Bingo

Nothing to gain. Anyway, we've heard it all. Millionaires and billionaires etc

[leftofcool]

42. + 1 and several million other voters.

[findrskeep]

2. K & R nt

[Lil Missy]

3. It was a wise decision on her part. She's winning, time for BSers to move on with life instead of

having more tantrums. The only people unhappy about this are the sore losers.

[turbinetree]

10. Debates------------------------

are used for informational purposes, and to basically think that there is no need for any more is just plain ludicrous.
If she can't stand the fire then she should remove herself from the contest, she keeps forgetting that there other states that are having voters go to the booth to speak with that one vote one rule, this is not a coronation, like they have on the republican side of hypocrisy.

There are some out there that think that this is just fine and dandy, just like a lot of DLC and Third Way types, and since 1971. 1992, when the corporate suits called the DLC started attacking the working class these same people with there corporate logic, that the suites are better and know whats best for the working class, I for one am not buying it, I don't like flip floppers when it comes to economics and trade deals, and I sure take offense to anyone from 1971 crossing a picket line, that says everything in my book.

And someone that crossed that line didn't give one thought about the working class or the people that died to have represenation at the table with the suites, to get income equality and moral human equality with respect

I find the above remarks offense and callous, about sore losers.



Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[lewebley3]

18. We have all the info on Hillary and Sanders: we don't need a fox debate

[drray23]

28. what exactly would we learn from Bernie

That we have not already heard ? If anything you cant blame him for not being consistent. He has not expanded on anything other than his usual talking points. Wallstreet and the establishment, etc..
Each time he is pressed for details on his policies, he gives a generic response as in "people had enough, the revolution will take care of it, etc..) and pivots back to his canned messages.

It is far more productive for Hillary to turn her attention to the GE instead of giving Trump a head start.

[Lil Missy]

32. Bernie gives the same speech over and over - he's got nothing new.

And Fox News?? That in itself is a good reason to decline.

[Gene Debs]

26. It's insane that so many people don't see how great she is.

[bjo59]

43. So when you're winning, you shouldn't debate and when you're losing, you should. Got it.

Why is it again that she wanted to debate Sanders so badly before New Hampshire voted that she promised him four more debates? When she was afraid of losing to Barak Obama, she scolded him for not wanting to debate and her own criticism against him could be used against her now. Whatever. Who really believed that she would have the guts to debate Bernie before California votes? No one. Not her supporters, not Sanders supporters. The fact that she went back on her assurance that she would debate Sanders in California is no surprise at all but it sure doesn't make her look good when it's reported in the mainstream press.

[Lil Missy]

51. Bernie just wants free media covereage because he's running out of money.

[Thespian2]

4. K & R

The Queen doth protest too much...

[Stuckinthebush]

30. She's not protesting

She's just saying no thanks. Smart move. Bernie seems to be the protester here

[Thespian2]

68. Thanks for your input...

[Stuckinthebush]

70. You are so welcome

Glad to be of assistance

[Skink]

5. I was looking foward to it

They haven't debated in awhile. I just feel kind of snubbed.

[JDPriestly]

57. Me too.

[redstateblues]

6. Quite the opposite

There's no point giving Bernie free media especially when he is almost broke. Bernie would just Give his stump speech for the umpteenth time. Everybody's heard it. Ring of Fire has been in the tank for Bernie since the beginning. They have lost any credibility they might have had.

[brush]

7. There's no need to debate further. The race is not in the balance anymore.

If they were running neck and neck, sure, hold the debate, but the race is over so there's no point.

[TwilightZone]

8. Clinton's refusal to be used as a tool by Fox News for ratings...

demonstrates at least one clear difference between Clinton and her opponent.

[liberal N proud]

9. That is comedy gold

Bernie Sanders being negative isn't hurting the Democratic Party while Hillary Clinton refusing to participate in a worthless debate is disaster.

[w4rma]

44. A front runner as record strongly disliked as Hillary is what is harming the Democratic Party.

She needs to go. Hillary has been causing long term damage to the Democratic Party ever since the Clintons caused the anti-NAFTA Republican wave of 1994.

[Enthusiast]

63. Right on!

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. How does refusing to film campaign ads for Donald Trump equal disaster?

It's FOX, for fucks sake. Fair and balanced they aren't.

[emulatorloo]

12. I know! Trump skipped a Fox Debate and it absolutely destroyed his campaign!

<sarcasm>

By the way, has ROF uncovered any more power-hungry Black Lesbian-led conspiracies lately?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251505656

[liberal N proud]

46. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[ProfessorPlum]

13. Cenk also spelled this out

The debate would be for Hillary

1. Millions of dollars worth of free air time, and especially on Fox, where she doesn't get much exposure to their audience

2. A chance to praise Sanders - since she has the nomination wrapped up, this would be a golden opportunity to create the party unity she will need and court his voters. Priaising him and his policies carries no risk and might even make CA voters less urgent about voting for him.

3. A chance to slam Trump - and a chance to present the reasons to the Fox audience why they should hate Trump too. With Sanders also slamming Trump, this could be a great debate, again showing Democratic unity versus the piggish boy-man.

4. A chance to keep her promises that she would debate, and try to work on her image as someone who keeps her word.

That she is passing on this shows real political myopia.

[TwilightZone]

15. Outside of #1, none of those make sense.

2) she should praise the guy that does nothing but bash her incessantly? Sure, why not. And she should "create party unity" with the guy who spends most of his time bashing the party? I have news for you - he doesn't *want* party unity.

3) she does that on the campaign trail every day. Perhaps Sanders should do the same.

4) she didn't agree to a debate on Fox that her opponent set up without her knowledge. That he did so was about as presumptuous and transparent an act as there has been this political season.

#1 is questionable. Fox News viewers aren't likely to be swayed by one debate. As for not getting much exposure to their audience, that's pretty clearly not true. If you meant positive exposure, I'd be more likely to agree.

[ciaobaby]

19. it all makes perfect sense !

“Honestly, I just believe this is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere,” Clinton said on May 23, 2008.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. they don't make sense if you don't understand politics

or the value of free media exposure.

and your point #4 is completely delusional.

[w4rma]

45. Yeah. Hillary is already known for breaking her "promises". What is one more broken promise? (nt)

[JDPriestly]

59. Have you personally seen Hillary "on the campaign trail"?

She came to California recently. Made one appearance to ordinary people and then had a party or two charging huuuuge amounts of money to attend.

She sees California as a place to raise money and that is about it. No wonder people demonstrate against her when she comes here.

She appears to have contempt for California voters.

[stupidicus]

39. well, telling the truth about Hillary is bashing her

in Hillaryworld, which is located just barely to the left of Bizarro World, so Bernie can forget about any praise even for the good of the party (that she apparently has a monopoly on even while showing clearly otherwise) that he like the rest of us lefties are tired of seeing controlled by monied interests of the Clinton/Bush kind.

It also justifies all the outright fabrications and defamations the Clinton camp has spewed. Does anyone have a comprehensive list, starting with the racist, sexist, etc stuff?

And we don't see any of them condemning BHO for the same complaints he lodged about the process and by association those who oversaw it in 2008. It's also starting to look like we need a list of all the things that become bad or "whining" ONLY when an old white guy does it, as has been recently charged here on DU. I hesitate to say that those leveling such charges are ageists or racists, but one never knows since they could just be hypocritical dumbasses...lol

[snagglepuss]

52. All excellent points. nt

[JDPriestly]

58. I agree very strongly.

[libodem]

14. Democrats should avoid Faux Snooze

It is not a news network, it's an entertainment enterprise, they knowingly lie, and then say, "fair and balanced", to mislead viewers. We, report and you, decide, is bullshit.

We shouldn't dignify them with our acknowledgement of their existence.

[LAS14]

16. Great name. Did you make that up?

I would question the campaign's judgement if she had agreed to spend 2 hours getting lobbed with old discounted smears.

[JEB]

22. She and Trump can refuse to debate,

thereby avoiding all discussion of policy. Turn the election into a lottery.

[Else You Are Mad]

55. Not a lottery...

A name regonition contest. They are the two least liked candidates of all time.

[pnwmom]

23. Hah! No Democrats have debated at Faux news for 12 years. She'd be stupid to go there.

This doesn't handicap her campaign in the slightest.

[ToxMarz]

24. Yes the General Election is dependent on a FOX NEWS democratic debate

that was never more than a proposed after thought. If that's the case, this election was a lost proposition before it even began and the Democratic Party should probably just fold up shop.

[stupidicus]

25. as a coward she's just running from more figurative sniper fire

she probably doesn't wanna explain why it is BLM should just sit down and shut up because their policy goals are untenable in the current environment like single-payer (neither goal she supports anyway given the pride she feels regarding her husbands dirtywork), and now that she's enjoyed the fruits of the corrupted dem primary system, she doesn't wanna feel compelled to tell BS and BHO to quit "whining" about it because she may need to take advantage of it in 2020 after her now enamored minions suffer a heavy dose of buyers remorse...

unless of course they're gonna celebrate her warmongering, lack of single-payer advocacy, etc, etc, etc...

many will and already do of course

[johnp3907]

27. Wrong again.

But keep trying. We need the laughs!

[maindawg]

31. It's difficult

For Hillary to remember what her position is on every issue in every state. In Kentucky she declared a co presidency with Bill and if she has a debate now they will ask her about that. Sticky. Or she will have to create some new flip flop to please the California's and she does not care about the California's because she doesn't need the California's.but in the GE she just handed California to the trump monster. Likewise with NJ.
I hope president trump doesn't get rid of SS I'm almost there

[gwheezie]

33. The primary is over

And let's be clear, the Bernie or bust faction is not going to be swayed by a fox debate.

[LiberalLovinLug]

34. I guess another blowout loss wouldn't look too good

I'd predict yet another huge loss for her in online polls after this promised debate.

Of course Hillary shills insist that those polls are "click-bait" won. Every one of them. And that its only because Hillary supporters are either too pure, or too stupid to use the same alleged strategy.

[Orrex]

41. Your hyperbole aside, what possible benefit could she derive from another debate?

How, exactly, might it help her, at this stage of the process?

[LiberalLovinLug]

47. That's just it. "how might it help HER"

Not How might it help the people of California be better informed of their choices. And in particular which of their presidential policies would benefit California in particular. The largest economic State in the Union is not worthy of getting a debate because Hillary is afraid she will lose some ground, screw the voters. Bottom line.

[Orrex]

54. You seem unfamiliar with how campaigns have worked for the past century or so.

In Sanders' entire brief career as a Democratic presidential candidate, tell me one thing he's done deliberately that helped "the people" while simultaneously harming his election chances. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The answer, of course, is that he hasn't done anything like that, because he'd be a fool to do so, and he's not a fool. No candidates do that, in fact, and it's frankly naive to imagine otherwise. During the campaign process, the candidate's motivation is to win, and everything they do is orchestrated toward this end.

Their actions might also help inform the electorate along the way, but that's a secondary goal entirely subordinate to the need to win the election.

The largest economic State in the Union is not worthy of getting a debate because Hillary is afraid she will lose some ground, screw the voters. Bottom line.

Were the candidates' standing reverse, Sanders would absolutely do the same thing.

Since the very moment that Sanders decided to be a Democrat, his supporters have been repeating the mantra that so-and-so is "afraid" of him. That theme is echoed here in this thread, and it's a simplistic reading of reality. Clinton is not "afraid" of him, but she sees the folly of participating in yet another debate when the primary campaign is, for all intents and purposes, over.

Sanders would draw the same conclusion and mount the same strategy, were the situation reversed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

67. Uh pretty much his entire platform

And he hasn't changed his positions hardly at all over the decades just to "win" like Hillary.

He was 60 points behind when he started. So what does he do? He says he's a democratic "socialist" who wants to hand out free college, and declare war on Wall Street. In the past, that would be suicide, and there was no indication that the electorate had changed much. And I'm sure at the time even you would have described this platform as foolish, one "deliberately that helped "the people" while simultaneously harming his election chances". To his, mine, and I'm sure your own surprise, his platform was not only popular with Democrats, but many independents.

No, sorry, I do not believe that Sanders, who has been gaining momentum, winning most of the last States, if he were ahead, would want to snuff that momemtum out by refusing to debate Hillary. Because to him, its about getting his message out...things like the richest nation on earth should be able to provide things like universal health care and maternity leave like every other democracy. These platforms would only surge him more ahead in places like California. No way would he NOT debate.

Hillary's problem is when they debate, the electorate sees and hears what could be possible other than the too-big-to-fail, universal-healthcare-will-never-happen, more-wars-of-aggression, corporate-trade-deal-happy, status quo.

And yeah I'm sure Bernie has struck fear into the Clinton machine. And he still does with so many Bernie or Bust folks (which I disagree with), and young people that may not vote now, independents for Bernie, and will be, or should be, desperate to make a deal with him to be a part of her policy decisions.

And call me naive if you want, but I believe that Bernie is in it for his country, and where they could be if they only set their priorities straight. I'm sorry if you Hillary voters are so jaded to think all candidates are as power hungry as yours who you admit is just in it to win, and will go back on her word and cancel debates if that's what it takes in order for her opponent not to get more devastating (to her) airtime.

[Orrex]

69. One can almost admire your rose-colored view of things

Here are four final facts worth noting IMO:

1. Clinton is not afraid of Sanders
2. I voted for Sanders in the PA primary
3. I would happily vote for Sanders in the general election
4. Sanders will not be the nominee

[Gore1FL]

35. I don't think it is arrogance.

She's digging in for defense when she should be on the offense.


Twice she has run the rose garden strategy without actually having a rose garden. It's too bad it seems to have eeked through this time.

[Orrex]

36. She stands to gain close to nothing from a debate

She's all but secured the nomination, so another redundant debate will benefit her not at all.

It's unlikely that someone watching at this point would suddenly switch from Sanders to Clinton, and I don't accept that there are many truly undecided voters who'd be swayed by yet another debate.


Why on earth should she debate Sanders at this point? If Sanders were so close to locking the nomination, would he submit to another superfluous debate?

[TeamPooka]

37. one last Democratic debate now only helps Trump, not Sanders or Clinton. nt

[cab67]

38. The concept of a Democratic debate on Fox "News" is laughable.

A Democrat would be foolish to agree to such a thing.

[Enthusiast]

65. The President has voluntarily appeared on Fox "News" several times.

You questioning the President's judgment?

[Cryptoad]

40. Debate What,,,,,?

The Race is over,,,, Bern Lost! we dont have time to stroke Bern' ego when we need to be getting the DNC dogs of War ready for Trump!

[SmittynMo]

49. The stupidity displayed in this thread

is amazing.

What ever happened to "We the people"?

Since we've heard it all before, it's OK to skip it? Are you friggin kidding me?

I can't take the stupidity any longer.

[JDPriestly]

56. If she really thought that she was qualified to be president, if she really thought that

she had solid stances on the issues, she would debate.

What does she have to win by debating in California?

Debates are moments when viewers, many of whom don't pay attention until right before the debate, join together around the television or their computers and watch the candidates.

If she debated Bernie now, she would have the opportunity to put her name and her face before undecided viewers once again. If she is so sure of the nomination, then she would want to do this, especially in California which has so many voters for the November election.

In addition, we aren't that far from the Democratic convention in July. If Hillary were serious about wanting to run, she would not miss an opportunity to present herself to California voters.

This is another big chance to meet voters. I understand not wanting to go on FOX, but this would be the chance to introduce herself and make a good impression on FOX, Republican voters who will later have doubts about voting for Trump.

What does she have to lose by debating in California?

If she isn't all that confident in her ability to debate and win, if she goofs, if she loses, if she makes a fool of herself, she could lose a lot of voters.

She is not willing to debate because she is not willing to face the scrutiny of California voters. She is afraid.

Why should she be afraid if she really believes she has the nomination sewn up?


Basically, if she chooses not to debate, she is telling voters that she is afraid to face them. She is saying that she does not care about Republicans who might vote for her rather than Trump in November.

And she is telling us in California that she does not have the courage to debate about our issues in front of the people of our state.

This does not look good for Hillary.

She looks scared.

[Orrex]

60. That's foolish.

If she really thought that she was qualified to be president, if she really thought that she had solid stances on the issues, she would debate.

Oh please. If Sanders really thought he was qualified to be President, he'd have campaigned as an Independent and won the hearts and minds of the electorate with his irresistible populist message, instead of playing Democrat. See? We can imagine any number of litmus tests to "prove" whether a candidate is serious. Even if your wishful thinking were true, what does it say about the millions who voted for the "unserious" candidate in preference to your "serious" candidate? Are all of those voters stupid, compared to you?

Basically, if she chooses not to debate, she is telling voters that she is afraid to face them

Absolute nonsense, but it's consistent with the desperate mantra that Sanders' supporters have chanted since he first decided to be a Democrat: "So and so is afraid of Sanders! That's why they're ridiculing/avoiding/ignoring him." Such an assessment is the product of a limited vision and a naive grasp of electoral reality.

[JDPriestly]

61. She is afraid of him, and with reason.

She had a 60-point lead over him when he started his campaign.

And now they are neck and neck. He has won the majority of the most recent primaries and caucuses.

Hillary is scared.

Her delegate number fails if she is viewed as losing momentum and losing the support of voters.

The momentum is definitely with Bernie. She knows that, and is afraid.

Do we need a person of so little courage in the White House? I don't think so.

Bernie is the one with courage who keeps on fighting even when the chips appear to others to be down.

Bernie is the next president of the United States.

[Orrex]

62. No, she really isn't.

It's interesting that you keep hammering this notion that she's afraid. Do you think her so simple that she can only be motivated by fear, rather than basic, common-sense electoral strategy? Again, you must think that the millions who've voted for her are stupid, to have been so readily fooled.
I know that it's important to some of Sanders' supporters--especially now in the waning days of the primary campaign--to imagine that she's running scared, but this, too, is part of the endlessly chanted mantra that you're parroting here.

Bernie is the next president of the United States.

That would be swell, but it sure as hell isn't likely to be true.

[JDPriestly]

64. I just figured out what she is really afraid of.

She is afraid that Fox News will hammer her about the reports on her e-mail scandal.

That's why she is refusing to debate in California.

It's so obvious it was hard to see.

[Orrex]

66. You have a delightful imagination

Good luck to you.

[Darb]

71. Pshaw.

What a pantload.