Hats off to the DNC. The debate schedule is utterly brilliant.

[Cali_Democrat]

Let the cons destroy themselves before the first Democratic debate even begins.

If your opponent is in the process of destroying himself, do not interfere.

Brilliant.

[jwirr]

1. If only that were the only thing it does. It also keeps us from debating each other.

[still_one]

54. Starting is October gives plenty of time for that, and will focus on the insanity that is the

republicans with their debates.

There is some truth to the axiom, that "those who laugh last, last best"

[brooklynite]

95. Additionally, how much time does someone need to make a decision?

Presidential election debates all occur within 30-40 days of Election day.

[pnwmom]

71. How many people are even going to watch 6 debates between a handful of candidates?

Much less many more debates?

Six televised debates will give each of the candidates plenty of time to present his or her case.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. And the last two debates ...

will be held with the back drop of Jeb and Walker's (the two most likely nominees) failed governorships!

Brilliant.

[Beartracks]

57. Failed? But that, to them, *is* success.

When you're a tool of the oligarchs, failing your state's residents is the goal.

====================

[Scuba]

93. ... and AFTER some of the primaries have already been held. NOT brilliant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Again ... Those voters have access to TVs to watch the 4 preceeding Debates. n/t

[Scuba]

99. So why have any more then?

The few, and late, primaries seem clearly designed to help Hillary to the detriment of the other candidates - and the people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. How so ...

the few, and late, primaries are teed up balls (JEB and Walker) for all the Democratic Candidates.

Why have more than the 4 preceding debates? ... I'd say, to place JEB and Walker (the gop front-runners, discounting Trump) on a tee for all the Democratic Candidates to take a whack at.

[Scuba]

101. These debates are for the Democratic voters to pick our candidates. You must be ...

... thinking of the debates after the two party's candidates are known.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. ??? n/t

[Scuba]

103. If you don't understand these basics, why are you posting in this thread?

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. I didn't understand what YOU were attempting to say ...

I understand "the basics" very well.

[Scuba]

106. I re-read the sub-thread, and what I wrote in response to you is very clear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. To you, maybe ... but then, you wrote it. Everything I write, I understand ...

while incomprehensible to others.

So what were you attempting to say.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Exactly. Let then vie for Media attention between each other. Let them spout all the idiocy the DEMs

could ever wish for to attack them on.
The GOP being out front & center is providing a virtual treasure trove of stupidity.

Timing is perfect.

[erronis]

55. Just tagging on to your comment: How does limiting the number of debates work into an optimal plan?

I don't understand all the dynamics between DWS and the DLS and the DNC. Surely there have been some conversations between all those commingled entities about the benefits of having more/fewer, earlier/later debates.

My guess is that this "ploy" is not totally aimed at the opposing party.

[George II]

63. Check out the reaction and ratings of the last few debates 8 years ago.

[brooklynite]

96. Answer: by allowing the candidates to campaign...

...live and in person with real voters, rather than taking time out to prep, travel, etc.

[Thinkingabout]

4. We do not have to follow what the clown car does,we can work our primary the intelligent way

[MADem]

5. The GOP bring up bullshit issues, the Dems can destroy them

right out of the gate.

Then they get to set the agenda!

[JDPriestly]

28. The voters will be completely sold on Republican ideas before we even begin our debates.

Debates bring drama and TV coverage to the primary cycle.

I cannot think of anything stupider in terms of the psychology of campaigning that scheduling so few debates so late.

People "buy into" a candidate and a political philosophy.

The lack of debates makes it hard for people to get the sense that they have chosen a candidate and are running with that candidate.

Did the DNC talk to any psychologists about how voters pick their candidates and remain loyal to them before settling on this disastrous debate schedule?

[MADem]

34. Everyone's at the beach--no one save the already committed will be seriously watching this train

wreck tonight.

And those that do will forget it in weeks'--never mind a years'--time.

In the military they say "Obey your last order first" for a reason--it's the one you remember!

The debate schedule is fine.

[George II]

44. Exactly, not many people are seriously thinking about presidential politics this time of year....

....they'll get serious sometime during the fall, which is right around when our debates begin.

Too bad people have forgotten the reactions to the debates back in 2007 - they were too early and there were too many. By the time the later debates rolled around (which was during the primaries themselves) people were sick of them.

[George II]

42. One or two hours every five or six weeks is going to "sell" republican ideas?

I seriously doubt it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

64. Only if you're open to Republican ideas.

Which I am not.

[JDPriestly]

77. We learn through repetition. They are getting in a lot more repetition of their ideologie and

ideas than we are. And they will have many people agreeing and repeating their crazy ideas. Repeat ideas often enough and people will believe them.

We are downright stupid and ignoring principles of psychology, especially educational psychology in our absurd attempt to make sure no one gets meaningful access to the voters.

This is not going to help Hillary. She may get the nomination, but the voters who care and want to know what is going on will already have clouded their minds with the Republican rubbish.

Let's take the issue of climate change. By the time our debates begin, the voters will have heard over and over, repeated with deadly earnestness, faith and devotion, that climate change is either nonexistent or not due to human activities.

And then, weeks later, in just a few debates, our candidates will have the uphill battle to fight trying to argue the truth about climate change.

The debates are not just about determining who is our best candidate. They are also about educating the public.

We need lots more debates and we need them soon.

We are missing the opportunity to get our message out there. We should be getting it out there clearly, often and with passion. The debate between Hillary and Bernie Sanders, for example, is dramatic. The American people should hear their points of view.

We are cheating ourselves badly with this lame debate schedule.

[George II]

78. You've got 17 clowns sniping at each other every chance they get, and tonight probably won't be....

...any different.

Each candidate tonight will get an aggregate of NINE minutes to speak, broken up into 60 and 30 second segments.

Are they really going to get their "ideology and their ideas" out there in an understandable manner?

[JDPriestly]

79. And all 17 of them will repeat the same basic conservative mantra with small differences.

It's the disagreements over the small differences that will absolutely impress the Republican ideas into the heads of the listeners like shoes into cement.

As I am writing, my husband enters the room telling me about how the Republicans are repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly attacking Social Security and how the press is repeating the Republicans' repeating and repeating.

That's how thought is changed.

Take a little trip back to pre-NAZI and NAZI Germany and then go to Soviet Russia. Repeating, repeating, repeating is how you spread ideas. It is one of the tools of propaganda.

We think we are so smart and that our ideas are so clearly correct that we do not need to get out there and talk about them.

We are the stupid ones.

The Republicans with their many, many candidates and their many, many debates are indoctrinating voters.

The top dogs know their ideas are idiotic, so to sell them, they repeat them over and over.

That's how Fox News does it. They issue certain phrases, certain catch phrases of the day and all of their newscasters are supposed to carry that catchphrase and sell it.

We need more debates, lots of debates.

We need to repeat our ideas to the voters, and we need lively and exciting debates to get people watching and listening.

Hillary is not going to lose out just because we have more debates. If she is that weak, she should not run.

[George II]

80. Mantra is one thing, substance is another - and it will be sorely lacking in substance.

[JDPriestly]

85. Yes. But the substanceless claptrap will be repeated over and over, and that is how it is

memorized, engraved in the minds of people who then repeat it over and over to themselves.

Because we are not having enough debates and because our debates are scheduled for too late in the season, many voters will be completely fooled by the Republican claptrap, completely sold on it before our candidates even open their mouths.

This is really, really bad management on the part of the DNC.

It's as if they want to lose, as if they aren't even trying to win.

[mazzarro]

108. +1000% on your thoughts in this discussion

I wonder why some DU'ers don't think through the fact that political attacks and insinuations left unanswered was one of the things that killed Al Gore's and John Kerry's runs for the presidency.

Also the RW nuts on the AM radio gained unprecedented following because there were no liberal answers to them before they took hold.

[jeff47]

6. Yes, it is brilliant to schedule 33% of the debates for after 16 states have already voted.

You know what would have been brilliant?

Schedule the first one for next week or thereabouts. Then keep scheduling them for around a week or so after each Republican debate.

Give the voters insanity -> sanity -> insanity -> sanity.... Provides an excellent contrast between the parties.

Instead, we get insanity -> well, I guess this is normal -> this reality show is getting boring -> Wait, there's another party? Ugh, what else is on?

And voters in IA, NH, SC, NV, AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, NC, OK, TN, TX, VT and VA would get to see all the debates before they vote.

[winter is coming]

8. ^^ This.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. jeff, you're makin WAY too much sense, but it's a non-starter, as DWS is running interference for Hillary. Anyone who thinks the system isn't rigged is just fooling themselves...

Coincidently, this is precisely what Bernie is talkin
about and why he will triumph over the status quo. Go Bernie!

[Vattel]

20. Well, I hope you are happy.

You pretty much destroyed the new talking points right out of the gate. Don't you know it takes time and effort to come up with that bullshit?

[arcane1]

30. That sounds an awful lot like fairness and sensibility!

We can't have THAT!

[Ed Suspicious]

39. jeff47 for Chairman. I'd help fund that campaign.

[jeff47]

53. Not gonna happen for a very long time. I'd piss off all the "insiders". (nt)

[Juicy_Bellows]

49. They need to put you in charge.

"Why don't you put jeff47 in charge!?"

[jeff47]

52. Thanks (nt)

[Doctor_J]

76. All of the people who like the schedule are also in favor of

Wars, for-profit health insurance, more drilling, TPP, and slave wages. A pattern emerges

[Juicy_Bellows]

83. So much what you said - I don't agree with my close friends this much.

It's like the Borg or something.

[misterhighwasted]

7. Smart move by the DNC. Give the Clowns plenty of rope

The DEMS will destroy what's left after they destroy themselves.

There's a method to the madness and this was well played.

[jeff47]

10. Rope does no good without a push. We are only providing wishful thinking that a push will appear.

[n8dogg83]

9. I can understand waiting awhile to let repubs make fools of themselves but.....

seriously? October? Why would we wait until October to let republican nonsense about the economy, gay marriage, climate change, the minimum wage, etc. go unanswered? Keep in mind that the republicans have a plan to focus all their hate on Hillary, so this is not going to do her any favors, because while they are spouting their bile on Hillary, she will only be able to respond via press release, not in a high profile debate stage. Not to mention the fact that DWS (stupidly) sent out emails advertising the repub debates. Its like saying "Hey Democrats, lets all watch the republicans bash Hillary!" I dunno, it just seems like it will cause more harm than good to me.

[George II]

47. The republicans are running against each other, 17 of them, not Democrats yet....

....all this stuff about getting out there right after each republican debate is pointless.

What's the purpose of the Democratic debates? To contrast the Democratic candidates' ideas and differentiate them, not counter any lunacy that happens during the republican debates. There will be plenty of time for that once the two candidates are chosen and the general election campaign begins.

[n8dogg83]

62. So you honestly don't think that the next few debates, which will be....

filled with right-wing lies and nonsense about Hillary and other dems, repeated over and over again on the Corporate media for 2 months without any high profile rebuttle isn't going to affect anyone on the dem side? Im telling you, if you think Hillary's negatives are high right now, just wait until after 2 months of unadulterated and unchallenged hate is spewed in her direction.

[oasis]

11. This strategy will work out well.

Lessens the complaining around these parts.

[kenfrequed]

13. It isn't Brilliant.

Giving the republicans a week or two for their idiocy to be savaged by the Daily and Nightly show and the internets would be smart.


Giving them two months is idiotic.

[99th_Monkey]

14. It's not 'brilliant' if you live in IA, NH, SC, NV, AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, NC, OK, TN, TX, VT or VA

Who will have already voted "blind" before the last 3rd of the debates.

so for them, they only get 3 debates, not even 6. That's not brilliant, unless you
are Hillary Clinton.

[Blue_Adept]

36. In twenty five years of voting

I can't say a debate has ever swayed me from one person to the other.

By the time these last debates hit those states, there'll have been a ton of advertising, interviews and other media exercises. Debates are still mostly useless. There's no real debating going on. it's just repetition of stances that play out on the TV ad circuit while the critics look for gaffes that end up removing policy from the discussion.

[murielm99]

40. If there are any debates that change

people's minds, they are the debates between the two nominees, after the primary is over.

If there are gaffes, they make a difference at that point. And, they are closer to the election. People have short memories. A week or two can be an eternity in a political season. Things can change overnight. Odd things can and do happen.

Look at all the people who pay no attention to the election until after Labor Day.

[Ed Suspicious]

41. You can't really measure that, the effect debates have on voter preference. I can't say I've

ever consciously liked a Taylor Swift song, but I still find myself tapping my foot to them simply by virtue of the repetition they get on the radio. It has a way of seeping in.

[99th_Monkey]

58. So you think 'debates are useless' ? You are a poll of ONE person

I don't think that view is very widely held, except as a smokescreen to use, while working to limit and/or
control them.

Goodwin describes 10 key presidential and vice presidential debates that made a difference:

1960 -- Kennedy vs. Nixon: First TV debate
Just having Kennedy on the same stage as an exerienced vice president made a difference for JFK because he could hold his own with Nixon. But then, of course, when it was listened to on the radio, it made it seem like it was pretty equal, and even some people giving an edge to Nixon. But he looked so terrible. His makeup was bad. He wasn't feeling well. He looked sallow, He looked scornful. And people just reacted to that image of a vigorous, young Kennedy, and an almost sick-looking Nixon. And from then on, somehow JFK became a figure.

1976 -- Carter vs. Ford: No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe?
Ford had done well in the first debate, but in the second debate he was asked a question about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. And he answered it incomprehensibly. There was already a perception, a vulnerability, that he wasn't intelligent. And then this thing just got parodied, just got talked about, and became a huge event. When ordinary people watched that debate, they didn't feel the Ford had screwed up. But when it was pointed out, that he didn't understand what was happening in the Cold War in Eastern Europe, then suddenly they had shifted their minds, and he seemed much worse than it had seemed at that moment.

1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'There you go again'
In 1980, Carter was primed to go after Reagan about his record, especially on Medicare. He was going on the offensive: 'You did this! You voted this way! You said that!' And Reagan, just with humor and subtlety, said, 'There you go again.' And it somehow relaxed Reagan and it took the offensive away from Carter. It was a brilliant answer to a really serious critique of Reagan's past that might have been troubling for him.

1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?'
There was no more brilliant closing than Reagan's 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' What it did was to make people think, 'Yes. That's what's happened to me. My economic life, my family life, my working life, has been hurt by the economy over these last four years.' And once they realized that, it almost gave a poster to the entire campaign. It wasn't just a great moment in the debate, it became a theme encapsulated in just a few sentences. And in the end saying, 'if you are better off, then you vote for Mr. Carter. If you're not, you do have another choice. Me,' And at the same time, Carter gave a very weak closing statement.

1984 -- Mondale vs. Reagan: 'I will not exploit ... my opponent's youth and inexperience'
In the first debate between Reagan and Mondale, Reagan had appeared old. He was the oldest candidate in history at that time. He seemed confused by some of the questions, his answers had wandered, and the issue of age really became a large question among the press. So when he comes back in the second debate, and they ask him, 'Do you think age is a problem?' He had that answer prepared, and boy did he nail it. It was subtle, it was humorous, and Mondale knew, he said right then, that he had not only lost the debate, but probably the election.

1988 -- Dukakis vs. George H.W. Bush: 'If your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?'
The question asked to Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a difficult one. I mean, 'What would you do, given your feelings about the death penalty, if your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?' And what you would've expected might have been a home run, where Dukakis would've said, 'I would've wanted to kill that person who murdered my wife. But we have a country of laws and that would be wrong.' But instead, he answered in a policy-wonkish way about the death penalty that underscored a vulnerability that he already seemed to be without emotion and without passion.

1988 -- Bentsen vs. Quayle: 'You're no Jack Kennedy'
During the campaign, Quayle had already been saying many times that he had as much experience as Jack Kennedy did, so Bentsen was primed for that and when he mentioned it again in the debate, I'm sure Bentsen was saying 'Yay! Here comes my line!' And again, Quayle handled it OK and said it probably wasn't called for but it was such a zinger of a line that people loved it and told one another about it and it became the line of that debate.

1992 -- George H.W. Bush looks at his watch
It looked like he was bored, that he didn't care about the debate and that underscored the feeling that he wasn't connected to the problems of the people and the country. He later said when he was looking he was looking at his watch he was thinking, 'I hate these debates, I'm so glad it's almost over.' In that debate Clinton showed his empathy -- he was wandering around the stage. He talked to the people, almost wrapped their arms around them. The debate format in that year was perfect for Clinton because they could wander away from the microphones. When Bush is seen stiffly to be looking at his watch and seemed not engaged, and not connected, it underscored Clinton's enormous capacity to emotionally connect.

1992 -- Stockdale vs. Gore vs. Quayle: 'Who am I? Why am I here?'
When [Ross] Perot had chosen [Adm. James] Stockdale as his [running mate], Stockdale appeared to in that debate to be stunned; he almost didn't seem to belong there. He looked like an observer of the other two candidates and that was underlined when he said, 'Who am I, what am I doing here?' What it underscored was a problem of judgment on Perot's part -- how could he have chosen somebody who himself was wondering, 'Why am I here?' It made no sense to the audience and it hurt Perot's credibility as a presidential candidate.


2000 -- Al Gore sighs
Focus groups right after Al Gore and George W. Bush debated seemed to give a slight edge to Gore because he was more articulate, he had better answers, but once the television cameras caught that sighing, that constant look on his face where he seemed annoyed by the whole idea of having to be there with Bush, it seemed to underscore, as somebody said, as a teacher's pet who knew all the answers but was annoying and irritating. And they kept playing it over and over again and it became parodies on the comedy shows and late night TV. Then people began to project onto Gore a personality trait of just annoyance and irritation of people in general and it became devastating for him to live that down.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/debate-moments-that-mattered/

[Lil Missy]

67. Debates are not going to change anyone's mind. It won't change my mind, nor your mind. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

70. That is such a transparently phony argument, primarily being made as a smokescreen

to provide cover for DWS's disgraceful handling of the Democratic debates,

If debates don't matter, then WHY is the DNC clamping down to only allow 6 of them?
and WHY are Sanders and O'Malley pissed about it?

oh and WHY does even the M$M admit that debates DO matter, a lot, in at least 10
instances. (And CNN doesn't even count Obama's "Please proceed Governor" moment)

1960 -- Kennedy vs. Nixon: First TV debate
Just having Kennedy on the same stage as an exerienced vice president made a difference for JFK because he could hold his own with Nixon. But then, of course, when it was listened to on the radio, it made it seem like it was pretty equal, and even some people giving an edge to Nixon. But he looked so terrible. His makeup was bad. He wasn't feeling well. He looked sallow, He looked scornful. And people just reacted to that image of a vigorous, young Kennedy, and an almost sick-looking Nixon. And from then on, somehow JFK became a figure.

1976 -- Carter vs. Ford: No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe?
Ford had done well in the first debate, but in the second debate he was asked a question about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. And he answered it incomprehensibly. There was already a perception, a vulnerability, that he wasn't intelligent. And then this thing just got parodied, just got talked about, and became a huge event. When ordinary people watched that debate, they didn't feel the Ford had screwed up. But when it was pointed out, that he didn't understand what was happening in the Cold War in Eastern Europe, then suddenly they had shifted their minds, and he seemed much worse than it had seemed at that moment.

1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'There you go again'
In 1980, Carter was primed to go after Reagan about his record, especially on Medicare. He was going on the offensive: 'You did this! You voted this way! You said that!' And Reagan, just with humor and subtlety, said, 'There you go again.' And it somehow relaxed Reagan and it took the offensive away from Carter. It was a brilliant answer to a really serious critique of Reagan's past that might have been troubling for him.

1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?'
There was no more brilliant closing than Reagan's 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' What it did was to make people think, 'Yes. That's what's happened to me. My economic life, my family life, my working life, has been hurt by the economy over these last four years.' And once they realized that, it almost gave a poster to the entire campaign. It wasn't just a great moment in the debate, it became a theme encapsulated in just a few sentences. And in the end saying, 'if you are better off, then you vote for Mr. Carter. If you're not, you do have another choice. Me,' And at the same time, Carter gave a very weak closing statement.

1984 -- Mondale vs. Reagan: 'I will not exploit ... my opponent's youth and inexperience'
In the first debate between Reagan and Mondale, Reagan had appeared old. He was the oldest candidate in history at that time. He seemed confused by some of the questions, his answers had wandered, and the issue of age really became a large question among the press. So when he comes back in the second debate, and they ask him, 'Do you think age is a problem?' He had that answer prepared, and boy did he nail it. It was subtle, it was humorous, and Mondale knew, he said right then, that he had not only lost the debate, but probably the election.

1988 -- Dukakis vs. George H.W. Bush: 'If your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?'
The question asked to Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a difficult one. I mean, 'What would you do, given your feelings about the death penalty, if your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?' And what you would've expected might have been a home run, where Dukakis would've said, 'I would've wanted to kill that person who murdered my wife. But we have a country of laws and that would be wrong.' But instead, he answered in a policy-wonkish way about the death penalty that underscored a vulnerability that he already seemed to be without emotion and without passion.

1988 -- Bentsen vs. Quayle: 'You're no Jack Kennedy'
During the campaign, Quayle had already been saying many times that he had as much experience as Jack Kennedy did, so Bentsen was primed for that and when he mentioned it again in the debate, I'm sure Bentsen was saying 'Yay! Here comes my line!' And again, Quayle handled it OK and said it probably wasn't called for but it was such a zinger of a line that people loved it and told one another about it and it became the line of that debate.

1992 -- George H.W. Bush looks at his watch
It looked like he was bored, that he didn't care about the debate and that underscored the feeling that he wasn't connected to the problems of the people and the country. He later said when he was looking he was looking at his watch he was thinking, 'I hate these debates, I'm so glad it's almost over.' In that debate Clinton showed his empathy -- he was wandering around the stage. He talked to the people, almost wrapped their arms around them. The debate format in that year was perfect for Clinton because they could wander away from the microphones. When Bush is seen stiffly to be looking at his watch and seemed not engaged, and not connected, it underscored Clinton's enormous capacity to emotionally connect.

1992 -- Stockdale vs. Gore vs. Quayle: 'Who am I? Why am I here?'
When Perot had chosen Stockdale as his , Stockdale appeared to in that debate to be stunned; he almost didn't seem to belong there. He looked like an observer of the other two candidates and that was underlined when he said, 'Who am I, what am I doing here?' What it underscored was a problem of judgment on Perot's part -- how could he have chosen somebody who himself was wondering, 'Why am I here?' It made no sense to the audience and it hurt Perot's credibility as a presidential candidate.


2000 -- Al Gore sighs
Focus groups right after Al Gore and George W. Bush debated seemed to give a slight edge to Gore because he was more articulate, he had better answers, but once the television cameras caught that sighing, that constant look on his face where he seemed annoyed by the whole idea of having to be there with Bush, it seemed to underscore, as somebody said, as a teacher's pet who knew all the answers but was annoying and irritating. And they kept playing it over and over again and it became parodies on the comedy shows and late night TV. Then people began to project onto Gore a personality trait of just annoyance and irritation of people in general and it became devastating for him to live that down.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/debate-moments-that-mattered/

[tk2kewl]

15. Hats off to the spin masters for finding a 'reason' for stifling democratic debate

[99th_Monkey]

16. +100 nt

[Snotcicles]

19. Amazing, just amazing. nt

[Juicy_Bellows]

86. They sure do have a bag of tricks that would make Felix the cat envious. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Absolute

fucking garbage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. You don't get to tell me where to stand.

I stand with Cali_Democrat and you don't get to decide who I stand for, who I stand with, who I stand beside, and who I stand behind.

You might boss people around in real life but I would literally bet my life against a Snickers bar you don't boss people like me around in real life and you damn sure don't get to boss people like me around on the internet..

[stonecutter357]

21. grate job DWS.

[bigtree]

22. we saw what delaying or failure to promote answers to republican charges did to the Kerry campaign

...failure to get those responses in a large enough forum with wide enough exposure.

This is stifling the power of our collective field in favor of a singular advantage for the front-runner in the polls. Eggs all in one insufficient basket. This is a DNC plan which reflects their seemingly unconcerned attitude about relinquishing control of Congress and the Senate to republicans. It's plodding, mystifying satisfaction with the present state of mediocrity from the party. It's not smart, it's not bold, it's not brilliant.

What about the states that will already have voted in the primaries before they see the last of the paltry number of debates? This is a Clinton promotion plan, neutering the chances of her Democratic opposition to make their case against her on the same stage and platform while there's the maximum amount of exposure. It's calculated and insidiously obstructive of the democratic process and the genius of our primary system which should challenge candidates to produce the very best choice.

I can see why Hillary supporters are satisfied. However, it lays bare the collusion of the DNC with her campaign, to the calculated exclusion of the others. They might get away with it this time around, but this will make for the chairwoman's last rodeo.

[aggiesal]

68. If Hillary stumbles early on, ...

I bet more debates are scheduled, to get her out there nationally.

If she wins the early primaries, don't expect additional debates.

My problem is that candidates will drop out immediately if Hillary wins
early, and only Hillary or Hillary & Bernie are left, and the debates
would be cancelled, for lack of opponent.

[DonCoquixote]

109. I would change a few words

This is a DNC plan which reflects their seemingly unconcerned attitude about relinquishing control of Congress and the Senate to republicans.

change to
This is a DNC plan which reflects their DESIRE TO CONTINUE relinquishing control of Congress and the Senate to republicans, because then they can collect paychecks and say "our hands are tied."

[LiberalAndProud]

24. Right. DWS is simply brilliant.

We have been making such tremendous electoral strides since she took the reins, it's breathtaking.



I think this tactic is suicide. Democrats don't win unless we GOTV. Whatever hard feelings might be engendered by a protracted primary campaign, emotions are ignited and people get invested in seeing their candidate win. That translates to GE votes. Keeping this ice cold, powder dry (elsewhere than DU) atmosphere is party suicide. Jesus, I can't tell you how scared I am of the idea of President Trump. And you're celebrating this.

[maddiemom]

65. Wish we had Howard Dean back!

[LiberalAndProud]

69. Or someone like him, yes.

Dispassionate politics are losing politics and DWS has been dispassionate about electing Democrats as she has repeatedly demonstrated. This isn't about Hillary or Bernie or Martin. This is about engaging the voters. And DWS doesn't and won't, and she doesn't appear to care.

[bobbobbins01]

25. Seems like a coincidence that only Clinton supporters are for this.

If her ideas are so fantastic, a large number of debates would only help her cause.

[whatchamacallit]

31. To the last one it seems

What are the odds that every HRC supporter honestly views this as fair and wise? If their candidate didn't stand to benefit greatly, they'd be howling like banshees.

[Juicy_Bellows]

50. 100 to 1?

And that 1 is probably not being honest. Cheers!

[frylock]

46. weird

[quickesst]

74. haha...

...and if Bernie's ideas were that great, he wouldn't need more than six debates to explain them in a precise, and coherent manner.

[bobbobbins01]

88. Maybe they should just have a twitter debate then.

That'll really allow for nuance and digging into difficult topics. If a candidates plan for tax reform can't be summed up in one tweet, its worthless.

[quickesst]

90. Sounds good to me

[JDPriestly]

27. The DNC debate schedule is stupid.

By the time our Democrats start debating, a lot of viewers will be bored and not willing to watch debates any more.

Plus, the Republican debate schedule means that they are getting their candidates and their ideas out there before the public in a controversial, argumentative way that appeals to people's love of sports, competition, rivalry, gossip, etc.

AND WE DEMOCRATS AREN'T.

The entire leadership of the Democratic Party should be fired and sent home for messing up this campaign so soon and in such a big way.

The debates bring drama into politics.

We will lose many voters because of our too seldom, too late debates.

I'm really disgusted about our debate schedule.

We in California mostly only get to see the candidates on TV and in debates. So the limitations on the numbers and scheduling of debates really hurts in California.

[Gothmog]

35. No one votes until February

[Ed Suspicious]

45. Just brilliant.

[JDPriestly]

92. They are only planning six debates.

People love to watch debates.

By holding so few of them, we are giving credence to the idea that after all Democrats and Republicans are the same, have the same ideas, will do the same in office, so voting is just a matter of a popularity contest.

Who do you like? That's who you vote for.

We need many more debates because it is through debates that we

1) get our ideas, proposals and VALUES before that portion of the public that is really interested in politics and will vote. Without lots of debates, we lose precious time to engage interested voters. We opt out of the political conversation.

2) the debate as a form, as a tradition is the best way to help voters, help all of us learn to think and talk effectively and interestingly about politics. The debates give us the opportunity to educate ourselves and the voters about the issues, what really matters, alternative views on problems and what solutions we can choose from.

3) the debates will improve the likelihood that we choose and will ultimately unite around a candidate who can beat a Republican when the general election debates come around. Hillary gave a great valedictory speech in college, I'm sure. Even recently, she has given a couple of good speeches this time around. One on the environment, another on voting rights, for example. But she very obviously reads her speeches -- and sometimes with seeming difficulty. That is embarrassing but not just embarrassing; it is troubling. A couple of our candidates are not the youngest. (I say this as a 72-year old from the perspective of one around their ages). We need to compare the ability of all of them to deal with stress, to maintain their energy and focus and to speak spontaneously and answer questions. The debates tell us something not only about a candidate's ability to deal with stress, but also to think quickly and to remember details. They also reveal a candidate's instincts and ability to work with others to solve problems. I have serious questions about Hillary on all of these issues. But maybe I would have them about my choice of candidate, Bernie, if I watched him in debates. Debates give us the opportunity to scrutinize not only candidates we think we don't like but also those we think we do like.

4) the airwaves and the TV are dominated by right-wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh and a bevy of extraordinarily colorful but vicious, poorly educated, mean Republican and Libertarian extremists. Liberals, Democrats, even rational people can hardly get airtime outside of the election season. By CHOOSING to have few debates, we are relinquishing, giving up, denying ourselves, denying our candidates, denying the American people -- THAT RARE AND VALUABLE COMMODITY -- MEDIA ATTENTION. Debates get good viewership and good coverage. Debates give you your money's worth. I for one do not want to give my hard-earned and hard-saved money to the DNC if they waste it by forgoing one of the best bargains of the campaign season -- holding debates on national TV. What kind of money-wasters are these people?

Our limiting the number of our debates to so few is the equivalent of the DODGERS saying they will only play a third of the games the other teams play and just play in the World Series. That's stupid. Any sports fan will tell you that's a stupid idea. You play the games. You keep out there. Even if you lose, you keep playing. Every time you play, you learn to handle the stress, improve your focus and ultimately your game. Staying home from the debates is not a choice. It is an acquiescence to the Republicans.

The limitations on the number of debates is a Doomsday decision for Democrats everywhere.

The DNC needs to rethink this. We should have the maximum number of debates. There is so much to talk about. More debates will be good for Hillary. They will be good for all the candidates. They will be good for America.

Let's debate. What is the DNC afraid of?

[Doctor_J]

91. The schedule is devised entirely to hide Hillary. even her supporters know that her

positions are moderate republican and that debate with Sanders and omalley would be embarrassing for her.

[TheProgressive]

32. Just proves how weak Hillary is as a presidential candidate...

I am sure the DNC debates will also give the most time and consideration to Hillary and slight Senator Sanders.

Hillary - a president for the 1%.

Sanders - a president for all people.

This new 'Democratic Party' certainly doesn't want a president for all the people...

[Gothmog]

33. This is a great debate schedule and allows the early states to have a voice

[whatchamacallit]

37. So great!

[jeff47]

43. Because early states never had a voice before.

And there weren't 4 debates just in Iowa before the 2008 primary.

And voting early gives no voice whatsoever.

[northoftheborder]

38. Does someone have a link to the schedule? I'm not watching TV today.

[jalan48]

48. Weren't these the same folks who said "avoid Obama" in the mid-term elections?

How'd that work out for us? If I didn't know any better I'd say Debbie W. is an Republican operative.

[aikoaiko]

51. That it protects Hillary from challengers is probably only a coincidence. Lol.

What a fucking joke.

[still_one]

61. So are you saying by letting the republicans make asses out of themselves for the next 8 weeks, that

the Democrats waiting until October, four months, is not enough time for the challengers to make their case?

I disagree. In fact it gives all the Democratic candidates not only opportunities to challenges each other on the issues, but also to critique the republican circus, which I have no doubt will be proudly displayed a few weeks before the first Democratic debate, and a few months before the first Democratic primary

[aikoaiko]

66. Too many Democratic primary votes happen before the first debate

Of course they can still get their message out with debates were value added information

[still_one]

73. They have almost 3 months before the first primaries, including debates in those first primary

states. Those are Iowa and New Hampshire. Therefore, Five of those debates will happen before Super Tuesday, and one after super Tuesday.

I think if Bernie and/or O'Malley not only call for more debates, but are able to find the sponsors for it, I cannot see the Hillary campaign turning it down, because a no show would be far more damaging.

There is no doubt it is an uphill battle for Bernie and O'Malley to get exposure, but setting up the debates outside of the DNC is about the only alternative they have, unless they can convince the DNC to hold more debates

[aikoaiko]

81. Sorry. I did have the schedule wrong although it does help the front runner

I don't think they can do more debates. Part of the deal, IIRC, was that they can't do outside or more debates.

Bernie and OM will just have to make do.

[still_one]

82. I am sorry, what is the IIRC? I assume it is the DNC rules of some sort. Are they binding, and why

would they agree to that, if their campaigns wanted more debates?

Also, there is nothing to stop them from pushing the DNC for more debates, and I am sure the other campaigns will.

Also, I messed up in my wording too, and edited accordingly, though it essentially was same point

[pnwmom]

72. Six debates among a handful of candidates gives them all plenty of time

to make their cases.

The 2008 election was ridiculous overkill, and the average voter paid no attention to the vast majority of debates.

[cynzke]

56. Bear With Me.....I am going somewhere here.

Has anyone seen the new reality tv show on the science channel call race to escape? It involves two teams of participants competing against each other for $25,000. Each team is locked in an identical theme room and in the first show the theme room was a study like room from a manor house. The teams start out by being locked together by cuffs. First challenge is to free each other then go to a designated box to find a clue. Based on the clue the teams have to solve a puzzle which leads to a numeric code. There is an electronic keyboard on the wall where the teams enter the code once they THINK they figured it out. If correct, the code unbolts one of five bolts and then the team is given the next clue. The first team to unlock all five bolts wins but they are also challenge against a clock, given one hour to escape the room or they lose the $25,000. I think this could be adapted to settle debates. Lock each candidate in their own identical room and they have to escape. They are given a series of political clues/issues/problems to solve that can only lead to a code if the candidate knows the factual answer/solution. The first five or so candidates that prove they are worthy of filling the office they are running for, get to move forward to a debate. The rest are sent packing....better yet leave them locked up! At least it would be entertaining, people would watch and we would be assured that those who made it through the process are not just mindless bots repeating memorized lines. Anyway, thought it had potential, LOL!

[whatchamacallit]

60. Haha

I dig it!

[Maedhros]

59. Voters deserve to have as much information as possible about the candidates.

Debates provide an opportunity to see the candidates together on stage, addressing issues. Curtailing the number of debates reduces the amount of information that voters can obtain on the candidates, and runs counter to good democratic practice.

It's not hard to see why Hillary supporters are in favor - the less voters know about Hillary, the better for her. Name recognition is her best feature.

[ibegurpard]

84. Wait you're serious?

[WillyT]

87. Yep... It's Rigged For Hillary... Why Woundn't One Be Entusiastic ???

Oh... I know why.

[stonecutter357]

89. It's Rigged For Hillary

[brooklynite]

97. To those who worry that the later start to Dem debates is letting the GOP "get their message out"

There were 20 debates in 2012 where the Republicans "got their message out". How'd that work for them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

Does having more debates more likely or less likely to help the people be "well informed"?

[restorefreedom]

110. hillary can't have people well informed about her

that is why her numbers keep dropping

gotta keep her hidden

[RKP5637]

104. When your opponents are self-destructing, why interfere. Prepare, observe, take notes, but

let them go at it ...