Democratic Primary Debates - OK by me...

[MineralMan]

There's something to be said for starting the debates closer to the caucus and primary debates than earlier. They'll have a larger audience and be better remembered by caucus-goers and voters.

The number of debates seems fine to me, really. Some are before the first caucuses and the others come before the Super Tuesday caucuses and primaries. The debates should be good ones and watched by many Democratic voters.

It all makes sense to me. Others' opinions will, no doubt, vary.

[MADem]

1. It's FREE publicity--the media covers the debates, the news talks about it, the

papers write articles, the Sunday talk shows play clips. Free publicity is better the closer it is to the day people get out to vote.

Spell My Name Right! Or simply... SAY MY NAME! Over and over again!

Makes more sense than having 'em in August--when everyone is on vacation (which is why the GOP is doing just that--heaven forfend that anyone get too close a look at that crew of morons!).

[MineralMan]

3. Seems to me like debates close to the primaries make more sense.

I doubt that that many people are that interested right now. More will be later.

[MADem]

25. Yep. And mid-November gives people on the ground talking points to push

while they're trying to get organized, particularly in IA.

[MineralMan]

26. Makes sense to me

[BeyondGeography]

9. The lone Iowa debate is in mid-Nov. and the caucus is Feb. 1

In 2008, the caucus was in early Jan and there were two debates in Dec. Same thing in NH, where there was a debate the Saturday before the primary last time. They've pushed the schedule back and moved the debates further away from when people actually vote. They are royally flunking your free publicity test.

[MADem]

17. Between Thanksgiving and MLK day, attention spans are elsewhere.

Holidays, parties, spending, vacations from cold places to warm places for the rich, trying to shovel the damn driveway and keep the house warm for the poor.

They're holding the debates when people pay attention--it's a very small window.

Would you rather they had it this week?

[BeyondGeography]

24. I thought your original point was good

It was not an argument for this schedule though.

Earlier debates obviously aren't happening which is too bad, IMO. It would give the media something to talk about besides faux-mail and Foundation scandals. Clinton's actually a good debater, so I don't get the scarce rationing of the product bit here at all.

[MADem]

28. You love a product--and that includes Democratic candidates, all of them--when it is rare.

If they're 18 for a buck, who cares about 'em? A debate, when they are well-spaced, is an "EVENT"--not just a case where people say "Oh well, if we miss this one, we'll catch the next one..."

Let the GOP talk about how they hate women, hate minorities, and love war--I mean really--it's not like those are winning views.

The media is killing themselves softly with their own song! Hopefully the new Daily Show host will figure it out and be able to do some funnews--we've still got Nightly Show if he doesn't work out. And Colbert, minus the persona, takes Dave's seat on Sep 8 so there will be decent places to get "actual" news (albeit with a side dose of hilarity).

[NCTraveler]

2. They are really set up well for O'Malley or Sanders to build momentum at the exact right time.

Excuses are being made ahead of time.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Right

because the DNC is ALL about making Sanders and O'Malley shine.

[NCTraveler]

11. I didn't say that.

Might want to stop with the head smacking.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Ok

I'll give you this NCTraveler, you do surprise me sometimes with the fairness of some of your posts. Several times I've seen you go against the herd and was impressed.

[NCTraveler]

32. I think DWS must be gone after this campaign season.

With her clear ties to Clinton, there should be at a minimum another person in charge of the debate schedule, or we should have known the schedule, places and times, and general topic if possible. The stench of cronyism is strong if not an outright reality. I also take into consideration that Clinton is establishment, the DNC is the main representation of the establishment. No matter who heads it up they will have strong ties to Clinton. It is the establishment yet Hillary has more name recognition. I will make the argument that the Clintons themselves have amassed so much clout that they are the establishment. The DNC is their toy. Soy while I am not happy with some of what I've seen, I fully understand it.

In reality, each candidate is going to play by the rules set up, or four of the candidates are going to make an extremely bold move and go outside of the DNC. I don't see that happening so I'm looking for a path forward for O'Malley. I see this debate schedule as the perfect springboard. The timing going in can be perfect for him. He is currently sitting here with anemic support. Sanders, with respect to national polls, has now held steady after his very quick rise. I believe, after the first debate, Sanders will be done. I have watched him debate and it is not his strong suit except to a small group who truly thrive off of the opposition to the machine. I believe O'Malley will stand toe to toe with Clinton. Clinton loses simply by showing up, even if she has an excellent night. That gives O'Malley three months and five more debates to win a couple of early states.

Some of the things I listed about Clinton are things that make me have great respect for her. She has amassed enormous political power and is extremely influential around the world. She has an excellent record today on civil rights. Including policy changes at the highest levels of government. She is unapologetically pro-choice. She also has made some fatal decisions. The IWR for one. I know you vehematley disagree with me here, but I would be very happy to vote for her in the general.

The time to be shocked at the DNC isn't today. That ship has sailed. How do our candidates get it done? That's the question. Your preferred candidate is in a much better spot than mine right now.

All of this is dependent on nothing blowing up. Emails. Biden.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Fair assessment

I agree that Bernie's poise may be an issue, but I believe we're at a sea change and much of the country is ready for real change, not the type promised by inside the beltway, business as usual politicians.

[NCTraveler]

34. It is quite the battle to watch.

And it is real and I don't dismiss it. I have made the argument more than once that I love Sanders being a democrat and that he has an excellent record of being one of our most dependent votes. My thoughts on his campaign and how far it will go are much different than the respect I have for him.

[whatchamacallit]

4. It sure does help Bernie, eh "Bernie supporter"?

[MineralMan]

14. It certainly will if he does well.

More will see those debates than earlier ones.

[whatchamacallit]

16. He not going to do well without exposure

but you knew that.

[MineralMan]

18. He's already getting exposure.

People tend to make decisions close to elections. Debates help more close to elections.

Again, snark gets no serious response from me, and deserves none.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Really?

The other candidates don't have years of name recognition, and the media desire to focus on a Clinton/Bush horse race, working for them. Your folksy "wisdom" about what people do is a lame attempt to disregard the disadvantage Sanders and O'Malley are working against. As to the argument that six debates is suddenly fine, here's my take from an earlier discussion -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455843

[MineralMan]

35. Yes, really.

Debates are not going to provide nationwide name recognition for Sanders or O'Malley. That comes from years in the public eye and prominently so. Sanders is doing a pretty good job of expanding pubic awareness of himself. He's getting a good amount of press coverage, although the clown car is grabbing all the attention right know. Still becoming a household word takes time and some reason for people to notice him. Debates won't do that. Too few people watch them. The GOP debates wiill get a large audience, because there are so many candidates. Not so much for Democratc debates. Not enough drama there.

[Adrahil]

21. If Bernie is depending upon debates to make up ground....

That's likely a losing strategy. Debates typically don't reach a huge number of people. And the more debates there, the less people will care about individual debates. Six is plenty.

[neverforget]

20. And the jury spoke:

I voted to leave it.

On Thu Aug 6, 2015, 08:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It sure does help Bernie, eh "Bernie supporter"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=497260

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Putting "Bernie supporter" in the scare quotes implies the poster is lying about which candidate he currently supports. The original poster has posted numerous times about his support for Bernie Sanders and this post is implying that has been a lie.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 6, 2015, 09:00 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let us make it clear I support Sanders, however, these types of comments are inevitable whoever you favor. Leave it alone.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've never heard of "scare quotes."
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Adrahil]

22. yeah, the post was rude, but not hideable. nt

[MineralMan]

27. Not my alert.

I do not alert on replies to me. I respond in the thread.

[jeff47]

5. Why not both?

Why not have debates now and debates closer to the primary?

And why not have all of the debates occur before states start voting? The current schedule means 16 states will vote before the last two debates.

[Juicy_Bellows]

23. Great questions!

The current schedule means 16 states will vote before the last two debates.

That is unacceptable to me.

[restorefreedom]

36. i think the reason is loud and clear

dws * cough cough * having been hillary's co. chair.......

[guillaumeb]

6. What will be interesting about the GOP debates, and I realize that this is off topic,

will be to see if any of the GOP candidates present actual policy ideas, or will all the energy be devoted to attacking Obama and Trump? The country is STILL waiting for the GOP healthcare plan.

I agree with you that debates close to the election will probably have more likelihood of being remembered, but another consideration is that by summer 2016 the GOP attack ads will probably be accelerating. The simplistic hate speech of the GOP will create a lot of noise.

[MineralMan]

15. By summer 2016 the nominees will be known.

[Thinkingabout]

8. I know the story about teachers saying "You are going to keep doing this over and over until you

Get it right". Meanwhile while the rest of the class has already gotten it right they ate ready to move on. This is the way voters are, they get it after a few debates and become bored. By the time the first primaries are held there has been an overload of over and over again and the minds of voters do not want to hear anymore. The DNC is making smart moves.

[kenfrequed]

10. I am sorry...

My fellow Minnesotan and fellow caucus goer, but I am seriously begining to doubt the sincerity of your support.

I don't know what you are doing but I have never seen a post suggesting any solid support of Bernie Sanders. Everything I have ever seen from you has been seriously coached, overly qualified, and contingent on the fact that you believe he will automatically lose in the nomination process.

I honestly don't know why. Maybe I'm just too naieve for this kind of internet-politicking.

[MineralMan]

19. Why are you sorry?

I'll be caucusing for Sanders. I'm neither praising nor maligning any candidates on DU. I'm focused on other things right now. In primaries, I'm interested more in process. I'll be supporting the nominee.

[Gothmog]

13. I have no problems with the debate schedule

[ismnotwasm]

30. Yeah-_they sound about right

Not sure what the problem is.