Democrats Just Can’t Muster That Much Enthusiasm for 2016

[Purveyor]

Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to hide their candidates’ debates behind weekend football?

By Jim Newell

You probably did not know that on Friday night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hosted a presidential candidates’ forum in South Carolina featuring Martin O’Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton. I only learned of this a few days beforehand, and it is my job to keep abreast of events such as this. Even if you did know, you probably didn’t watch, because it was on Friday night and you, the gregarious Slate reader-about-town, have all sorts of better things to do.

You also may not be aware that the same three candidates will be debating this Saturday night. Nope, not some dopey forum or cattle call or “day-dinner” type thing: an actual real life pres-ee-dential debate, one of the six sanctioned by the DNC. On Saturday night, just as the college football season is coming down the stretch, and people who aren’t watching college football are out doing things like enjoying themselves with friends and family.

The third Democratic debate will take place on the evening of Dec. 19, also a Saturday. The fourth debate will be on a Sunday during the NFL playoffs, and it will be the final debate before nominating contests begin.

It’s not new information that the Democratic primary debate schedule is both thin and designed to keep the number of human viewers to a minimum. Non-Hillary Clinton candidates like O’Malley and Sanders have been complaining about this, reasonably enough, for months. It’s sparked a public feud among leaders of the DNC—or, more likely, caused a long-existing rage with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s mysteriously lengthy tenure atop the DNC to burst into the open.

more...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_s_candidacy_doesn_t_have_democrats_excited_president_obama.html

[bigwillq]

1. I'm excited about Bernie and Martin

And getting progressives elected on the local, state and national level.

[Fearless]

2. Bernie is actually. Not that they'd support him or anything

Fuck the DNC.

[MisterP]

3. to the DNC this is only further proof that the people should have politics taken out of their hands

they won't turn out, so it must be their fault

[Hortensis]

21. Gee, maybe we should all write the DNC a letter explaining

Intro to Politics as Seen by Amateurs 101. You think?

Whether it's a good plan or not, the DNC obviously don't intend to invest heavily in debates over a year out from the election when only a fraction of voters are paying any attention at all.

And, yes, over the first year they are helping guide the electorate to gather behind one, strong candidate to send against the opponent. That's what political parties do, leadership and the rest of the members in their own ways -- choose their best candidate.

[Armstead]

23. They screwed the pooch, delibratly or not

Who the hell schedules major political debates on nights with the lowest potential viewership and during the early onset of the holidays?

That's either stupid amateur hour, or a deliberate attempt to keep the primary as low key as possible so a certain candidate could waltz in.

Or maybe, it was both corrupt AND stupid, since the first debate seemed to help the anointed candidate.

But whatever, there is no excuse for the way the debates were locked in this year.

[Hortensis]

24. Five debates are still coming -- as viewership is expected to rise.

You just don't want to admit it, but it is their JOB to promote a winning candidate. It is not their job to promote all candidates equally. You might read about the "silent primary." It started long before we finally got around to paying attention and its results strongly influence the party's decisions. Bernie'd be their man if he'd moved as far out ahead in the silent primary as Hillary actually did.

[Armstead]

25. I don't think it shoud be theor job to sandbag new candidates and ideas

I know what their job is, and I know how the inherent cronyism works. Doesn't men excessive cronyism should be encouraged or rationalized. That is one reason why politics has gotten so stale i terms of actual choices and new ideas, and developing new constituencies beyond the knee-jerk partisans the big entrenched backers.

Yes their job is to promote a winning candidate. And they should find and encourage potentially winning candidates. But that doesnlt mean they should be in a position to preordain one of their buddies and sandbag all competitors. And I don't think they should undermine the part of the process that allows voters to have a say.

And this stuff about "too early" for debates that people might actyally watch is wrong too. There is very little time between now and the time that the primaries start. While there is room for upsets, this is the time where perceptions are formed and positions in the race begin to congeal.

[Hortensis]

27. Most of us wish it were different, and it is. Thanks to money and technology, both the RNC and DNC

are far weaker and less in control than they used to be. Candidates and their backers choose themselves, and the set with th?e best organization and most money usually wins. What's not to like?



Of course, independents don't worry about the RNC or DNC taking away control they never had in the first place.

[olddots]

4. headline should be changed to

wishy washy third way status quo Dems can't be bothered for caring about anyone outside of their comfort zone .

[Nedsdag]

5. I know I'm not excited.

I won't be enthusiastic nor energetic.

It's like a visit to the dentist.

[Historic NY]

6. Yeah its not like the interest is pretty low...since were over a year out of the general election...

people won't focus on the bullshit until a month or two from the election or if the primary is in their state.

[fredamae]

7. Dems have to vote

En Masse'. It's the only way we're gonna get our seats back at the table. Voting is the solution-Not the problem.
We need new leadership. The DNC seems to have different goals than we the people. Current leadership seems hell-bent on Losing More Dem seats.

Dems have to vote if things are going to change.

[m-lekktor]

8. Lesser evilism electoral politics is highly overrated.nt

[ibegurpard]

9. I'd LOVE to know Hillary Inc's plan to combat this

Because the awful Republican boogeyman strategy is a proven electoral loser.

[treestar]

10. It's a year away

[jalan48]

11. Hillary reminds me of Humphrey in the 60's

The status quo candidate during a time that screams for innovation and change.

[Bonhomme Richard]

12. Other than Bernie maybe if they really cared about....

making some serious changes rather than republican lite they could gather some enthusiasm. Someone once said that the Democratic Party is where good ideas go to die. I forget the author.

[zentrum]

13. Yup. Worried it will

be a sickening duty.

[40RatRod]

14. I am excited too...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and I will damn sure vote for the democratic nominee, WHOEVER THAT MAY BE! If you are not willing to do that, then by all means, cast your vote for the GOP nominee because that is exactly what you will be doing and please don't claim you "were" a democrat after Trump, Carson or Rubio, or one of the other idiots become YOUR POTUS.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. DWS limited debates. What was her job in Kentucky?

Does the DNC have no 50 state strategy?

What strategy is she applying?

Any?

[Unknown Beatle]

16. Fucking Debbie!

She knows what she's doing and that's limiting debates and only on weekends and Sunday to benefit her BFF.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The "Not as Bad" ploy is past it's due date.

[one_voice]

18. What the fuck is with the debate...

schedule? DWS should get her ass handed to her. She should get calls every day all day...what the fuck?!?!?

[GoneFishin]

19. DWS doesn't give a shit about getting the Democratic party messages out. If people don't get out to

vote it's her god damned fault. Thing is, a corporatist right winger like her doesn't give a shit which conservatives get elected, as long as no progressives get elected.

[Aerows]

20. She will probably campaign for the Republican most likely to win

if Hillary loses the nomination.

She's done our party a great disservice.

[Aerows]

22. Come to think of it, I'd like for her to come here, or send a minion

to explain just what in the hell she is thinking.

That might alleviate some of the anger.

As Democrats, do we matter, or not? You want my vote, you are doing things that look shady, take the opportunity to explain why you are doing said shady things. "Where you gonna go?" is not a compelling argument.

[BlueStater]

26. I can't say I blame them.

I feel like Hillary was forced on me by the Democratic party and I resent it big time. I'm sure she'll win the nomination but c'mon. She barely had any opposition. Only FOUR people, none of them mainstream candidates, bothered to challenge her. This is a country of 300 million people and the best candidate we can find is Hillary? That's fucking ridiculous.