WaPo: Hillary Should Call for More Debates (For Real)

[portlander23]

Hillary Clinton should push hard more Democratic debates

While no Democrat I’m aware of has said this publicly, some very significant Democratic players who are not aligned with Clinton’s rivals have called for more debates or otherwise criticized the DNC position, including Howard Dean (who backs Clinton) and two vice-chairs of the DNC. Clinton has said she is open to additional debates, but her campaign is reportedly not really in favor of actually seeing more:

For now, the Clinton campaign remains in favor of keeping the number of debates low, say people familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking, to avoid squandering her advantage as the best-known Democrat in the race — and to limit the opportunities for her rivals to rattle her on television.

Clinton, DNC face pressure to add debates

The increasingly public rift between Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others in her party’s leadership over the number of presidential debates is threatening to become more than just embarrassing to the DNC.

It’s spelling trouble for Hillary Clinton, the faltering front-runner who can’t afford to look like she’s being protected by party insiders, say Democrats aligned with both the DNC and 2016 campaigns.

[Vincardog]

1. She " can’t afford to LOOK like she’s being protected by party insiders" Appearance

is everything to these tone deaf people. Damn the facts it is appearance that matters.

[upaloopa]

2. I don't get why more debates will harm Hillary

We have heard everything Bernie is saying for years on "Brunch with Bernie" on Tom Hartman's show. He can only repeat the same things in what ever number of debates there are.
And if you think you can rattle Hillary after 20 some years of made up scandals you are living in a dream world.

[askew]

3. We aren't going to get more debates.

The only candidate pushing for them really is O'Malley and no one cares what he thinks unfortunately. Sanders can wait it out until October. It does no good for Sanders to give O'Malley more exposure.

O'Malley is going to have to find another way to get more exposure. I'd suggest running some positive ads in IA/NH but I guess money is too tight for that.

[oasis]

5. Hillary's got to raise an outrageous sum of money for the GE. Lobbying

For more debates would be a colossal waste of her time. Hillary's fundraisers and appearances are already scheduled around the existing 6 debates. She said she's open to more debates. Enough already.

[morningfog]

6. She doesn't have to lobby, she just has to join Sanders, O'Malley at a debate.

It is her call. They have indicated they would go forward without the DNC approval, if Hillary joined. The DNC would not exclude all the candidates.

As for her raising outrageous sums for the general, she should not be counting chickens at this point. She has to win the primary first.

[oasis]

7. Hillary going rogue, conspiring with an Independent against the DNC?

Can't see that happening. She's not about to create another distraction for her campaign by pissing off the DNC.

[morningfog]

9. Then she should drop the disingenuous "open to more debates" and "look foward to debates."

The ball is in her court. The rest is lip service.

[oasis]

10. I'll leave it to Hillary to handle her business, her way. <nt>

[morningfog]

11. Absolutely, she's doing a helluva a job sinking herself.

I hope she keeps it up.

[oasis]

13. Sinking? 48-2. Keep hope alive.

[morningfog]

15. I still haven't seen that link to all 50 states' recent polling.

By my count, it's Bernie leading in each of the first 2 contests in the primary. Which means, at best, Hillary wouldn't get good news until Feb. 20. There's a lot of politics between now and then and the trend is clearly against Hillary.

[oasis]

16. I'm satisfied with the reality of now, and anxiously

await the first debate.

Take care, have a nice evening.

[frylock]

17. Hillary needs to win the primary first.

[oasis]

18. Brilliant observation.

[frylock]

19. Glad I could help. Seems a lot of people here don't fully understand the process.

[oasis]

20. A lot of people here can't read the handwriting on the wall.

That's for certain.

[frylock]

21. And we're here to help you see that writing.

[oasis]

22. Thru Bernie's wonderful kaleidoscopic glasses

reality gets put on the backBerner.

[frylock]

23. See you on the next plateau.

[oasis]

26. I'm there.

Bernie in the sky with diamonds. I'll admit it's a catchy tune.

[frylock]

29. It's unfortunate that you are incapable of discussing the issues that effect us all..

and have to resort to base attacks on the candidate. This is what's going to make the schadenfreude so fuckin delicious.

[oasis]

31. You should've read my post #5 upthread

before you started getting all preachy about what's being discussed. You jumped in much later with your "contribution".

[frylock]

32. Yeah, the issue to you is how much money Clinton can amass..

you know, the burning issue that effects everyday Americans.

[oasis]

33. If the Republicans take over the White House

"Everyday Americans" will have a harder time making ends meet.

Hillary has to make the money to beat back the GOP.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. You're not supposed to use that phrase anymore.

It's not poll-testing very well.

Remember, Everyday Americans don't want a candidate who talks about issues, they want to buy a brand! One that has been subjected to rigorous and quantitative market testing.

That's why 9 out of 10 Beltway Experts agree, voters crave Hillary™!

[frylock]

40. HILLARY 2016: It's got electrolytes!

[Warren DeMontague]

44. elect-rolytes!

I'm here all week, folks.

[frylock]

46. Ohh-ho-ho!

You cheeky monkey!

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Touch Him. Love Him.

[oasis]

43. Check post #32. phrase origin on Bernie supporter.

[frylock]

47. :facepalm:

[frylock]

39. Which brings us around full circle..

Hillary needs to win the primary first.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. I guess we're done with "inevitable- becuz we said so", then?

Bout damn time.

I could have told you it wouldnt work any better this time around than it did 8 years ago.

[oasis]

30. Not really. I never attached a sarcasm tag to post #18

because I didn't think it necessary. My bad, I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. yep. Smells like a winning strategy you guys are playing, yes indeed.

Bob Shrum must be so proud.

[oasis]

52. I'm not sure Shrum is on the team this time around.

But thanks for the well wishes.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. I know

it only feels like he is.

[restorefreedom]

8. this horse has left the stable

the fix is in...hil wasserman schultz is not gonna nudge because her candidate does not want to debate. the only difference it will make now

1. her numbers will tank a little later, and she might make it through the first two or three states before she is out
2. om will be screwed for exposure unless he can bring in more $ for ads.

[AgingAmerican]

12. She is scared to utter his name

I would be floored if she actually asked for more debates.

[oasis]

14. "Scared to utter his name" . Savvy politicians don't

help the competition become better known.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Then why does she keep saying "Trump"?

[oasis]

28. Because "Trump" is an established, household name.

and her likely opponent in the GE.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. If Sanders is so unknown, why is he beating her in NH and Iowa?

[oasis]

38. Why should she help him with name recognition?

It's her campaign strategy. Nothing new in the political arena.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. because it would be shitty strategy on the part of her campaign.

And as such, in keeping with pretty much everything else her people have had her do for the past couple months?

[oasis]

45. Duly noted, but Hillary's going to stand pat. <nt>

[frylock]

42. Nothing new in the political arena.

That's Clinton's problem in a nutshell. The arena has changed, and Team Clinton is running yet another 1990's style campaign. But I certainly don't want to discourage them from staying that course. Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow!

[oasis]

49. I'll wait until Hillary says there's a problem. DU political

experts on the far left have a dismal record in these matters.

[morningfog]

50. Hillary's record for winning national campaigns is very bad.

[oasis]

53. Her evil corporate donors are willing to take a chance. <nt>

[morningfog]

55. We're talking about her history of losing.

Her history of losing big leads on the national stage.

[oasis]

58. 0-1. Time for Hill to fold up her tent.

[frylock]

60. She can fold up her tent when she's 0-2.

[morningfog]

61. Crash and burn in a nasty flame for one.

Making the same mistakes again, that is the point.

[oasis]

64. Same mistakes? Newsflash: Bernie is not Obama <nt>

[morningfog]

71. Newsflash: Hillary is still Hillary.

[frylock]

51. Look how DU political experts on the far left were wrong in 2008 for example.

[oasis]

57. Obama's only support came from the far left?

Well, you learn something new everyday.

[frylock]

59. Don't see where I stated that..

Is it your position that Hillary supporters were correct in 2008?

[oasis]

63. When a statement doesn't include relevant facts

the picture is clouded.

[frylock]

65. Then post some relevant facts to back up your assertion that DU political experts on the far left..

have a dismal record in these matters.

[oasis]

66. Howzabout you post the name of a far left presidential candidate

who was even close to winning the primaries.

Remember, the subject was how Hillary's campaign was being mismanaged.

[frylock]

67. The left supported Obama in the primaries, while the centrists supported Hillary..

do I have to explain to you what a primary is, because you're knowledge of the election process seems a bit limited.

[oasis]

68. Again an omission.There's left and there's far left?

Obama, as you well know, is NOT far left, nor did he run his campaign for president embracing fully the policies of the far left.

Bernie's far left and running a far left campaign. I'm not knocking it, I'm saying it will not end in a Democratic nomination for Bernie.

You can suspend your next condescending comment until much later. I'm going to tune in to the GOP debates right now.

[frylock]

69. Sanders is running on a traditional Democratic platform..

the fact that you interpret that as far left speaks volumes. Enjoy your debate.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. debbie wasserman schultz doesnt support those sorts of retail branding opportunities

Sorry

[Senator Tankerbell]

34. If she did

If Hillary calls for more debates, and more debates are scheduled, wouldn't that show that she was the one controlling the number of debates in the first place?

[HooptieWagon]

56. Good point.

But then, nobody doubts that DWS is Hillarys lapdog.

[olddots]

62. TV is TV

there won't be more debates because Democracy isn't a brand name product that can be bought and sold like tonigh's Carnival From Simi Valley .Debates about issues isn't infotainment full of chest pounding pep rally bull shit .

We need our media back in the hands and minds of intellegent inovative people with ( oh no ) liberal arts backgrounds .

[ORjohn]

70. Yes, here's why...

She could have Bill stand in with her and announce he will be the VP choice.
If there's more debates Bernie might get press.
Emails will be eclipsed by the debates.
The MSM gets to reinforce their false equivalencies of Clinton Trump and pipe dream of them as nominees, both both heavy feeders at the corporate trough that would be a big ticket circus for them.
Hillary could keep email the topic giving emotional poor me rebuttals instead of talking policy, convenient, as explanations will continue to need airing.