"Helping" Hillary Clinton with little-watched Saturday debates was a terrible plan

[pinebox]

So, this sums it up.
Yes we need more debates and it's a curious thing how it's mainly 100% Hillary supporters who are saying we don't. I'm sorry but I truly believe our candidates should be heard as much as possible by the American public. Right now, the GOP is getting a lot more camera time than any of our candidates and it's because they are up 4-1 in terms of the debates they're having. This is a serious issue and I firmly believe not having enough debates has probably completely doomed O'Malley's chances.

Originally Hillary only wanted 4 debates http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/21/1423552/-Hillary-Clinton-campaign-only-wanted-four-debates and who would that benefit with a candidate with 100% name recognition basically? I'm sorry but this is incredibly wrong and all candidates should have a chance to be heard and seen. 6 debates total, one on a Saturday night when nobody will be watching, another the day after Star Wars opens?

Why are we hurting our candidates chances?

"Helping" Hillary Clinton with little-watched Saturday debates was a terrible plan
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/13/9725206/dnc-weekend-debates

Democrats are holding a primary debate tomorrow, much to the annoyance of political journalists everywhere whose Saturday nights are being ruined. Most galling off all, this appears to be a deliberate tactic to minimize viewership taken by the Democratic National Committee as a favor to Hillary Clinton, who wanted to minimize the number of debates. If that's right, though, the party has done its frontrunner no favors. It makes sense for Clinton to want to have fewer debates rather than more, but as long as Democrats are going to debate, she should want said debates to be seen by as many people as possible.

......(snip) Consequently, by underestimating their own champion, the Democratic establishment has ended up doing Clinton a disservice.

Minimizing viewership makes no sense

But the idea — whether inferred by Clinton's campaign or by her allies at the DNC independently — that fewer viewers is better for Clinton is a mistake. The main problem is that all the downside risks of the debate are present no matter how few people are watching. One Democrat speculated to me that the goal was not just to minimize viewership but to make the event look "insignificant" in the eyes of the media. But the reality is that if Clinton commits a gaffe, all bets are off, and it will be replayed online and on cable endlessly no matter how little-watched and insignificant the original event was.

In policy terms, too, the risk for Clinton has nothing to do with how many people watch Saturday night's debate. Any unpopular commitments she makes will be recorded by the media and by her future opponents. The Republican nominee and his allies will bring it up during the general election, and the media will be on hand to verify that she really said it. Footage will be available. The size of the live audience will be irrelevant.

[Faux pas]

1. When the fix is in

it makes it hard to really care.

[Agschmid]

2. I'm very excited to be able to watch the whole thing!

We are having a debate party and its going to have more people than usual since folks don't have to work the next day.

Should be a lot of fun! Go democrats!

[cascadiance]

3. And also flawed was her scheduling the "Iowa debate" opposite a night Iowa rivalry football game...

Now, DWS probably didn't and couldn't have anticipated that University of Iowa might actually with a win in this game go 10-0 and be in the mix for the college playoffs later, just being rated #5 in the polls this week, as the best start to the season that the state's school has ever had in its history. But by scheduling it opposite this big rivalry game with Minnesota, she knew that she was potentially alienating a big segment of Iowans who she is basically implicitly telling them that this party doesn't care for football fans and doesn't want them to be able to watch both in realtime. This game was the only one that had an advanced scheduling at this time, and if they want to attract many Iowa voters not just in the Democratic Party to watch this debate as one that is located in this state, almost any other day would have been a better timing for it.

Now, my DVR will let me schedule recording both of these events, and I'll be attending a debate watch party here at a sports bar where I'm hoping they'll have a TV also tuned in to the Iowa game as well, and wearing this shirt to show that I won't be divided in my loyalty to being engaged in watching the debates or watching this game.



Us devotees will do both, but those on the fence that we want to draw in to supporting Democrats rather than Republicans or not vote in this election are more apt to be turned off by this sort of scheduling of the debate then, that thoughtfully COULD have been avoided!

[procon]

4. Looking at the demographics, is Saturday night really that big of an issue? nt

[jeff47]

5. Yes. The vast majority get their information about the debate

via news coverage of the debate, instead of the debate itself.

Saturday night means very little news coverage. And by Monday, it's "old news".

[procon]

14. With 24 hr news coverage, important events get extensive coverage over several days.

The day of the week is irrelevant when the public has so many different ways to watch the event how they want, when and where they want. While Saturday news coverage will be minimal because the event will still be in progress, but people of certain large age groups will be home watching, others will be recording it for later viewing, or streaming it off the web.

Sunday news programming will feature discussions of first impression panels focusing on the highlights, and the first wave of editorials and political commentariat will show up then as well, and videos will be uploaded. The pundits will pick winners and losers, and focus groups will opine, memorializing their irrelevant and superficial complaints and praise.

But the in depth coverage, the analyses, critiques, and the fact checking, the point by point assessments will pop up Monday. Then the rest of the week will be filled with comments and counter arguments, the post debate polls will get published, the candidates will make well crafted statements to the press. And like all the other debates, even the snoozers, the media will milk this one for as long as they can attract enough interested viewers.

[jeff47]

21. Not when they occur on the weekend.

The "first string" news teams have the weekend off. By the time they're back on Monday, events from Saturday are old news unless the pile of bodies is particularly large.

Sunday news programming will feature discussions of first impression panels focusing on the highlights

And the 6 people who still watch Sunday news programming will be well informed. Unfortunately, we need to reach the 63% of people who are discouraged voters.

[Aerows]

20. Unless she says something completely ridiculous

like dodging bullets or getting rejected by the Marines.

Then it will completely overshadow anything worthwhile said by her two opponents.

She is a horrible candidate for the GE. No wonder Republicans are chomping at the bit for her to win the primary. All they have to do is wait for her to tell some enormous lie.

She can't seem to help herself from doing it, either.

[pinebox]

7. Yes it's huge

Many people are out and about enjoying their weekend, Tuesday night would have been a lot better.

[Agschmid]

25. I'll be out volunteering for Hillary all weekend.

Knocking on doors all day Saturday.

But yes I'll be enjoying every minute of it.

[FlatBaroque]

6. Did I hear correctly

that there is an Iowa football game on at the same time. That is impressive!

[Sheepshank]

9. yes, work around football games, baseball games, RNC debates, weekends, holidays

peoples personal schedules and date night, and any other even the Sanders groups seems to think is more important than the debates. Then complain about the debate schedule. Makes my head spin.

With DVR's, incessant replays on MSNBC and a little prioritizing, those who really want to watch the debates can do so, and those who are more interested in the other events wouldn't have been watching anyway.

[zappaman]

8. Ok. n/t

[retrowire]

23. alright. n/t

[brooklynite]

10. You know, this whole "Clinton doesn't want to debate" argument falls apart...

...once you've seen Clinton debate.

[pinebox]

11. Not when she only wanted 4 debates originally

It's a little thing about Clinton but it's a huge thing for other candidates. Their voices deserve to be heard.

[snooper2]

13. We did 8 years ago, that is why she is where she is today

memories memories!

[JTFrog]

29. Today she is front runner for the Democratic nomination.

[Jim Lane]

18. When she faced a progressive in 2006, what she wanted was ZERO debates.

In 2006, when she was running for re-election to the Senate, she had a similar situation to this year: big advantages in name recognition and money, and a big lead in the polls over a progressive challenger in the primary who was to her left on the issues. Debates in downticket races aren't as thoroughly institutionalized as they are for the Presidency, so it was possible for Clinton to get away without debating at all. And that's exactly what she did.

The standard political wisdom is that debates are more likely to be helpful to candidates who are trailing in the polls. Having no or few debates benefits the poll leader, regardless of his or her alleged debating skills. Clinton in 2006 and her supporters who set this year's debate schedule demonstrated that they agree with that view.

[Aerows]

19. Right up until she tells bullshit stories

like "Bullets over Bosnia" and "I tried to join the Marines" right before Veterans Day.

[99Forever]

12. Toe deaf is tone deaf.

Different campaign same arrogance.

[MisterP]

15. every time they stack their deck they actually worsen the situation for themselves,

it'd be funny if it weren't so sad

[GoneFishin]

16. Limiting Bernie and Martins exposure is a cute trick. Anyone who thinks these cute tricks will stop

if Hillary somehow gets into the WH is delusional. This type of slick shit is her modus operandi. It's dishonest and it portends what we could expect from her if she were President.

It is exactly the why I will give to Bernie's campaign as much as I can.

[Aerows]

17. DWS is willing to risk it all

to make sure that Clinton gets the nomination, and she gets a plum Cabinet seat.

It's abundantly clear she has no regard for the Democratic party.

[retrowire]

24. this. so much this. n/t

[Babel_17]

22. Birthday meals are free at Denny's.

All you gotta show is a valid ID.

Free is good.
Even if I was, like, rich, free is always good.

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=breaking-bad&episode=s05e01
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/breaking-bad-live-free-or-die-82286

We can have free air time for the asking to get our message out, and counter Republican propaganda, but we cut that idea off at the knees. We can see what we're losing, let's think about that.

[NCTraveler]

26. Don't national polls currently showing "us"

Further ahead right now than over the last couple of months. Republicans are not getting much positive coverage and it's hurting them, not helping them. I understand the point of view with respect to Sanders, but this direction doesn't seem to pan out in what we are seeing.

[riversedge]

27. oh my. First complaining about the number and now a few weeks later about the timing.

[Babel_17]

28. Monday Sep 21, 2015

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post provided a great behind the scenes look of the current DNC debate debacle. And from the article it's clear the current number and schedule of debates was made to accommodate Team Hillary.

Bold added by me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/21/1423552/-Hillary-Clinton-campaign-only-wanted-four-debates

Link is in the OP.