Since When Are Democrats Afraid of Debates?

[n2doc]

The Democratic National Committee needs to adapt to the new politics of 2016. Instead of constraining debate, as it has so far, the DNC should change course and encourage an open and freewheeling discourse. This is not just the right choice; it’s the politically practical thing to do.

Like it or not, the 2016 campaign is in full swing, and Americans are engaging with it. A record-breaking 24 million viewers tuned in to watch the August 6 GOP debate—more Americans than voted in all of the Republican primaries and caucuses of 2012 combined. It’s easy to dismiss these debates as “clown car” spectacles, considering the atrocious statements coming from Donald Trump and his apprentices. Yet since that first debate, Trump and other Republicans have seen their numbers spike in polls pairing them against anticipated Democratic opponents in 2016.

Democrats are making a serious mistake if they imagine that they’ll somehow benefit by letting the Republicans claim center stage as summer gives way to fall. And activists who want to hear serious discussions of issues too frequently neglected by Republicans—from mass incarceration to climate change to nuclear disarmament to expanding Social Security and saving the Postal Service—should be outraged by the prospect that Democrats will not have enough debates, or enough flexibility, to fully explore these vital issues.

It’s not enough that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb are campaigning (or that Joe Biden is pondering). The Republican candidates are debating—and far more Americans tune in to debates than attend events on the campaign trail.

As it stands now, the Democrats have scheduled just six debates, as opposed to the dozen proposed by the GOP. Even more absurd is the fact that the first Democratic debate is set for mid-October, more than two months after the Republicans 
got started.

more

http://www.thenation.com/article/since-when-are-democrats-afraid-of-debates/

[MNBrewer]

1. Since Hillary o'clock

[LiberalElite]

2. Since they're gonna rock that

carefully loaded boat that has no room for us.

[canoeist52]

3. It's almost as if they don't want Democrats to win.

It's the winning Martha Coakley style of campaigning.

[merrily]

6. Not exactly. IIRC, Coakley did not get a lick of help from the DNC.

No one even campaigned for her, until Vickie Kennedy, who did not even like Coakley, started. (Coakley had been the only hopeful to open a campaign office before Kennedy passed. That did not sit well. It was on the route of Kennedy's funeral cortege, too, so his family had to pass by it. Still, I guess Vickie could not bear the idea of Kennedy's seat going to a Republican.)

Not a single national Democratic officeholder or party luminary campaigned for her, though Bubba had made a trip to support her in the primary, supposedly as a payback for Coakley's support of Hillary in 2008. (Most Massachusetts politicians did support Hillary then and the state did go for her.)

As of news dump Friday before the election, the White House was saying Obama had no plans to come. On Saturday, the White House announced he'd be there Sunday night, and he was. That was it.

Meanwhile, the Kochs were backing Brown, he had the Romney campaign advisor team and every Republican who had run for President in the prior Presidential was here campaigning for him, Romney, McLame, Ghooliani, all of them.

The disparity was jaw dropping. No other Democratic contest going on anywhere in the nation at that time and the 60th seat in the Democratic caucus at stake.

[canoeist52]

10. Exactly my point.

The DNC did not want her to win. It might have upset the "delicate balance" of the Senate. Working people might have benefitted from some useful passed legislation.

DNC today, is still satisfied with the status quo. That's why the Sanders phenomenon scares them.

[merrily]

11. Okay. I'm used to being alone on that one.

The person with whom I most love to talk politics IRL--a centrist who thinks he's a "hard liberal" literally screamed at me when I started to say basically the same thing I said in my prior post.

[canoeist52]

12. Me too- getting a lot of flack from these self-proffessed "liberals".

Time for a definition of the word "liberal"- and it ain't the cowardly supporting of the status quo.

[merrily]

14. See Reply 13, too.

[think]

4. The dates chosen suck as well. December 19th. Really?

The next one is on MLK holiday weekend. And the last 2 debate dates haven't been determined.

It's all too obvious that the DNC is playing games on behalf of the front runner...

[merrily]

7. The first one is scheduled after the deadline for switching registration in NY, a state with

many delegates that just happens to be Hillary's home state (by adoption, anyway).

[jeff47]

15. I'm betting #5, if it happens, will be on Feb 7th.

Mostly I'm betting #5 and #6 won't happen.

But if #5 happens, I'm betting it will be on Feb 6th or 7th. The Super Bowl is on Feb 7th.

[Demeter]

5. Those who have power are afraid

They should be...they are abusing it for their personal gain.

[merrily]

8. I will remember in March and November.

The Oval Office is not the only one that will be up for grabs in the primary or the general.

Of course, being in Boston, my vote doesn't much matter anyway, so I can write in, leave blank, etc. until the cows who planned the City of Boston come home.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Since they saw Bernie's rallies and crowds

The more people hear and see him the more people love him! Putting Bernie on National TeeVee on a debate stage is pretty much a nail in the coffin of THEIR "Chosen One" and they know it.

[merrily]

13. The Party's right wing has been working for decades to make the Party more

rightist and less democratic. The Democratic Party tried to institute Super Delegates during the Nixon Era and failed. However, it succeeded long before the Republican Party followed suit. It has discouraged primaries, especially of incumbents. It has all but outright outlawed an attempt to primary a sitting Democratic President. Party bigwigs chose Obama in 2006 and so it manifested. And now, it all but declared Hillary the Party's nominee literally years before she even declared.

And it's still called the Democratic Party.

[ruffburr]

16. Since-

Third way Dems became the main force in the Democratic party, They want their anointed ones so that their Gravy Train of payola is not threatened by progressive thinking.

[PATRICK]

17. I have a question from ignorance or forgetfulness

(I forget which). When Gore was almost as strong a frontrunner, how many debates did the Democrats have then? I also can't remember any other contender other than Bradley. Also it seems the party faired better with a large number of debates scheduled just ahead of regional primaries, since the candidates were positive, substantive competitive and of a certain spread.