Who won the "four more debates" negotiation? Hillary's big gamble.

[thesquanderer]

As I see it... Hillary's going for the hail mary, while Sanders is playing the long game.

Debates favor the underdog (which is why Hillary didn't want many to begin with). While Bernie generally wants as much exposure as possible, New Hampshire is, at this point, the one place where he is virtually a lock to win big. So of all the debates, based on where things stand now, this one provides him with the least to gain and the most to lose, it's perhaps the only debate that Bernie is in no great rush to have. Meanwhile, Hillary seems to have really wanted this debate, and with only days to go, this gave Bernie the upper hand in the negotiation... he didn't have to give her what she wanted without getting something in return.

Hillary would love to flip NH... if she can somehow turn it around, that may well stop Sanders in his tracks, turning him back into little more than token opposition. I think she sees this as her opportunity to practically wrap up her nomination. So, in order to get the one debate she really, really wanted, she conceded on giving Bernie the three additional debates he wanted.

If she's right and she can flip NH this week (and this debate is a big part of it), then this will have been a great move for her, getting the one debate she needed. Sure, she gave in on three more debates she'd rather not have, but if she wins NH, they're almost moot.

OTOH, if she still loses NH, those additional debates will give Bernie that many more opportuities to be a thorn in her side. It's a bold gamble. And we'll know who got the better of this deal once we see who wins NH.

What surprises me is that Hillary actually did this. Conventional widsom is that Bernie wins NH big, but Hillary still is the odds-on favorite for capturing the nomination. For some reason, she doesn't seem to have confidence in that scenario, and is willing to potentially weaken her later position (giving Bernie the debates he's asked for) in exchange for the long shot that she can flip NH. Of course, she also happens to do very well in debate formats, so maybe, having been through 4 debates already, she feels relatively unthreatened by the prospect of more debates. But debates are always a risk for the frontrunner. There's always a chance of a stumble, or that the opponent gets off that one shot that changes everything.

[Metric System]

1. One debate will not flip NH.

[thesquanderer]

3. Probably no one thing ever flips a state. But...

She's doing a town hall tonight, and campaigning hard, and running ads... I think she said "let's pull out all the stops and do absolutely everything we can" and this extra debate that she called for was part of that strategy.

So yeah, the debate alone wouldn't do it, but she may be hoping that the right debate performance, in conjunction with everything else, will put her over the top. I think she really, really doesn't want to lose NH.

[thucythucy]

30. Well, "I paid for this microphone"

certainly helped Reagan in 1980. It may well have been decisive, silly as that seems today.

[thesquanderer]

35. Yup. Every campaign hopes for such a moment.

Or hopes that the other side doesn't get one, which is why the frontrunner typicaly would rather avoid debates. Plenty to lose and little to gain.

[Punkingal]

2. I know the general view is she does well inn debates, but to me she sounds rehearsed and canned.

I think Bernie was the winner in this contest.

[thesquanderer]

6. I think she's better now than she was in 2008

And Bernie is still a bit too much of a shouter. I think he really shines in the more relaxed formats. When he's in front of a big crowd, he "goes big" which probably works great if you're in the room, but sometimes seems a bit much on TV.

Hillary also has tremendous command of facts on every issue, and tremendous abilities of pivot and spin... which, unfortunately, she needs. She's almost as good as Bill at telling you something you want to hear, and having it technically be true, but still be misleading. It's an art... and it works well in debates.

[JRLeft]

15. Command of facts?

LMFAO!

[monmouth4]

4. She said "No" to the New York debate...n/t

[thesquanderer]

5. It was a negotiation. Nobody got EVERYTHING they wanted. But Bernie got most of what he wanted.

He got the number of debates he wanted, most of the locations, and the non-weekend/holiday scheduleing.

I'm not sure why Hillary didn't wat to do one in Brooklyn. Maybe she wanted to take a stand and not look like she was caving on everything, and picked that. Or maybe Hillary feels New York is her New Hampshire, an easy win that she doesn't want unnecessarily threatened in any way. Though I wouldn't be so sure it will be an easy win for her. Sure, she was a popular senator, but New York oozes out of Sanders even though he hasn't lived there since the 60s.

[morningfog]

9. No so far. The last spot hasn't been chosen.

The candidates and the DNC have agreed to NH, CA and Flint, MI.

The fourth debate location has not been agreed to yet. Bernie is still pushing for NY.

[restorefreedom]

23. i read last night PA

lots of blue collar, ed schuktz liking steel workers. good bernie country

[thesquanderer]

24. The last spot, PA, was also chosen before I posted. (n/t)

[Ino]

7. Who wants to bet that she'll cry?

She did that right before New Hampshire 8 years ago.
Some credited her unexpected win to the waterworks.

[JudyM]

8. That's pretty insulting.

[kath]

14. Well, it DID happen. Look it up.

[morningfog]

11. I completely forgot about that. What did she cry about, again?

I remember thinking it was contrived.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Father Pfleger 'splains it all.

[kath]

16. Contrived? Hillary do something contrived? Nah, that *never* happens.

[Ino]

19. She didn't want to see us fall backwards by nominating Obama

It's about our country! So as tired as she is, as hard as it is to campaign... she has to eat pizza!... she believes so strongly in who we are as a nation, and continues to make her case.

[Live and Learn]

20. Nothing wrong with crying. Too bad she only does it for the wrong reasons. nt

[thereismore]

26. Let's not go there. Men cry too. It's OK. nt

[thucythucy]

31. Not disagreeing, but I have to throw in

that it was Muskie crying in New Hampshire in 1972 that probably cost him the nomination. I think times have changed, and hopefully something like that wouldn't be such a huge factor nowadays. Then again, there was the Dean "scream"...

Anyway, I see a lot of similarities between the McGovern campaign in 1972 (my first political experience), and the Sanders campaign today. NOT to say that Bernie is a guaranteed loser--I'm a Bernie supporter. What I mean is that the McGovern campaign had a brilliant ground game, full of enthusiasm, which took on the Party establishment and won the nomination. Where McGovern went wrong was accepting Eagleton as his VP, as a sop to the establishment. People forget that, coming out of the conventions, McGovern and Nixon were neck and neck in the polls. It wasn't until the Eagleton fiasco later that summer, and then the sudden "end" to the Vietnam War that pulled the rug out from under Senator McGovern.

If Bernie wins New Hampshire, potentially all the dynamics of the race change. It'll still be a tough fight, but the potential for a Sanders nomination will definitely be there, stronger than ever. If he gets the nomination, my personal hope is he picks Senator Warren as his running mate, and that she accepts. To my mind that would be a near perfect ticket, even if weighed toward New England.

If Bernie loses New Hampshire, well, I don't know. But this is why I think the OP has a point. This seems to me a calculated risk on the part of the Clinton campaign. But either way, I think four more debates is a big win for Democrats in general. To my mind, the more debates the better.

[Ino]

33. That's true. Here's Bill Clinton...

pretending to cry following a funeral.

[Matariki]

10. Why do debates favor the underdog?

[morningfog]

12. The leading candidate risks making a major gaffe,

it puts the underdog on the same stage, as equals. The underdog gets to directly challenge the leader.

The underdog has a lot to gain and little to risk. If they gaffe, it's pretty much status quo. The leader messes up or loses their cool, they lose support.

Debates are among the very few events in a presidential race that can actually significantly influence the race.

[Recursion]

17. Because the (overdog? top dog?) has everything to lose and the underdog nothing to lose.

Basically if you're ahead you want to freeze people's attention and opinion right then and there, and debates don't do that; they offer a chance for the underdog to reverse the situation.

It's like a football game: if you're ahead, you want to run the clock out as much as possible.

[Live and Learn]

18. It seems, Hillary fears she is the underdog now.

With good reason. However, more debates won't help her. It is her take on the issues that hurt her along with her lack of authenticity which certainly isn't helped by her almost daily shifts of stances.

[Kentonio]

21. I don't think she's trying to win New Hampshire

I think she knows that's not possible at this point. I believe her strategy there is to try and narrow the gap by any means necessary to ensure that Bernie doesn't pick up any more momentum.

If he wins NH by <10 points then yes its a nice victory to have, but its not seismic. If he wins by 20-30 points, then that's going to have a big effect on the press coverage. She desperately needs to dampen the enthusiasm around him heading into Nevada and SC, and "Sanders crushes Clinton in New Hampshire!" is not going to help her cause.

[thesquanderer]

22. Good point... maybe avoiding a crushing loss is enough motivation for her.

But the basic point remains, she's gambling a lot to try to do what she can (win or at least minimize loss) in this one state. So she seems to think that she and Bernie's fortunes can be substantially affected by what happens here... enough so that she's essentially bucking the conventional/establishment wisdom that, no matter what happens in NH ("Bernie's back yard" and a demographically friendly state to him), she's pretty unbeatable afterwards. For all the talk of her southern firewall, she really seems concerned about a NH blowout, and is willing to risk weakening her position in coming months to try to avoid it.

[mikehiggins]

27. Hey, a win is a win according to the HRC camp

even if its by .02%

<10% is still a win, even if the MSM and Chris Matthews don't agree.

[thucythucy]

32. I disagree.

I think a clear Sanders victory in New Hampshire--and by that I mean a win beyond dispute, say, more than 2%--would indeed be seismic. I think a lot of undecided or voters who are for Senator Clinton, but not passionate about it, will re-evaluate their stance, especially once Sanders begins getting more media attention. Whether the Sanders campaign--and the candidate himself--will be able to use this opportunity remains to be seen, but thus far Sanders has performed far far above the expectations of pundits and insiders.

I hesitate to say that New Hampshire is now all or nothing, but if Sanders loses--again by a clear margin--it's difficult for me to see a viable campaign strategy going into the next batch of primaries. So I think the OP is right--this is a calculated gambit on the part of the Clinton campaign. They hope to end it in New Hampshire, and this is the only possibility they have to do that.

Of course, you're right too, in that if Senator Sanders pulls off a blow-out, then the Clinton campaign faces a huge challenge, even in states that they thought were hitherto safe. That would be more than "seismic"--it would be downright tectonic.

Personally, I'm glad we're having this contest, and I'm thrilled that we're getting more debates.

[JaneyVee]

25. Bernie is 0-4 at the debates. So it favors Hillary.

[thereismore]

28. I think that count may not be accurate and I also think that Bernie is getting better at

communicating and she has nowhere to go. We'll see. Good luck to both.

[thesquanderer]

34. It's an interesting question...

I do think Hillary has done well in the debates, I think she is more technically adept at them than Bernie is. But I think there is still good reason that Hillary was not previously gung ho about having more debates.

It comes down to this: Do you think Bernie would have come from 30 points behind to end up within two tenths of a point without the debates?

He could have been a better debater, but he was good enough to do that. Personally, I don't think he would have done that without the debates. So despite his less than perfect debating skills, I still think, at least at this point, more debates is generally good for Bernie.

[INdemo]

29. The way the MSNBC warriors for Clinton

Are reporting could the fix be in
James Carville saying Hillary has a sting chance to win NH

[Eric J in MN]

36. Maybe she wanted added debates for more airtime to help in general election if she's nominated. NT

NT

[thesquanderer]

37. That could be a good strategy, except...

...it doesn't explain why she had no appetite for more debates until Sanders almost beat her in Iowa.