Democrats scheduled debates on days when no one will watch

[Babel_17]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule

The Democratic National Committee, which organizes the party's primary debates, has faced accusations of scheduling them on dates that will receive poor viewership in an attempt to protect frontrunner Hillary Clinton. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has denied these claims. There are other hints Clinton wanted less exposure, including reports that her campaign privately lobbied the DNC for fewer debates.

But when you just look at the debate schedule, it's hard to deny its absurdity — especially when you take a look back at political debates of years past.

Click the link for the rest.

P.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_%28website%29

Vox is an American news website run by Vox Media. It was founded by Ezra Klein and launched in April 2014. Key contributors include Matthew Yglesias, Dylan Matthews, and Melissa Bell. Its signature feature is the reusable, wiki-like "card stack", which provides context and key definitions related to an article topic.

https://www.vox.com/authors/alvin

I'll just say that this is indeed an obvious issue, and it reflects poorly on our party. We aren't so weak that we need to limit exposure to our candidates.

[Renew Deal]

1. Wasn't the first debate the most watched Democratic debate in history?

[Babel_17]

8. Yes it was

Though there is context to consider.

https://variety.com/2015/tv/news/gop-debate-fox-business-network-record-1201637951/

The highest-rated primary debate of 2015 remains the first, when Fox News Channel averaged 24 million viewers for the Aug. 6 debate from Cleveland. CNN followed with 23.06 million for its first GOP debate on Sept. 16 and then 15.79 million for the first Democratic debate on Oct. 13. Two weeks ago, CNBC set ratings records of its own by drawing 14 million viewers for a Republican debate (despite going up against the World Series on Fox).

More Democrats than Republicans in America so that's another metric when gauging viewership. Percentage of each party watching, in other words.

Then of course there's the crushing number of total, overall, viewership. Add up all the views, of all their debates, then compare their number to ours. Ouch.

We had to follow them on stage, so to speak, and we let them drum up the excitement. They continued on tour, we decided to bail. Without Sanders as part of the mix, and the thrill of wondering how Secretary Clinton would deal with the inevitable questions as to her being harassed by Republicans, I don't know what numbers we would have drawn.

Our party leadership seems to think designing a yawn fest is a feature, not a bug.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. AKA: seizing defeat from the jaws of victory! - nt

[Babel_17]

18. Regular voters know most of the occupants of the clown car

How many are aware of O'Malley?

This is the issue, we have a great brand, let's use this free publicity to lift our whole party up! Our Congresspeople and Senators will be running on our platform. Those challenging Republican incumbents are running on our platform.

We're giving Republicans opportunity after opportunity to bellow their propaganda and try to put the hooks into previously inattentive voters. Our message is what people need to hear, yearn to hear, and it's far more exciting. Give our people the opportunity to get it out there, to reach every ear willing to listen.

[Scuba]

2. Hey, Saturday night just before Christmas is when everyone is home thinking politics, no?

No.

[Blue_Adept]

9. Let's be honest

That weekend before Christmas and for two weeks after the bulk of attention media wise will be on the new Star Wars movie and its global run.

[brooklynite]

11. Guess what: most Democrats aren't thinking politics on any other day you'd choose to schedule it...

...the bulk of the audience will be political junkies who've already picked a candidate, and pundits looking for material for their next column.

[Scuba]

12. Maybe we should eliminate debates and switch to Greco-Roman Wrestling, two falls out of three.

[RoccoR5955]

25. Nah, dueling, like in the days of Alexander Hamilton.

A bit more modern than Greco-Roman Wrestling. And no two out of three. First one out is dead, so that's it.

[brooklynite]

26. Maybe Bernie could use the time you want allocated for more debates...

...and the preparation time required for them, to do some local, small group campaigning. It seems to be something he's less comfortable with, and something the IA and NH people expect.

[KPN]

22. Now that's a good EXCUSE!!!!!

[Armstead]

32. I love this defending lack of democratic procerss

Maybe there shouldn't be any debates at all...Great idea.

Let's get rid of all them damn speeches too.

[UglyGreed]

3. Don't want

young voters to see that there are other choices which would be beneficial to their lives.

[NorthCarolina]

4. The establishment can pull out all the stops for Clinton, but in the end

I don't think it will do them any good. Yes, they have an electronic advantage in areas where they can manipulate the vote by EVM's, but that is not everywhere and may be a risky move. The media will attempt to cover any election day shenanigans for them for sure, but if they actually resort to this avenue of advantage, I suspect it will ultimately be exposed to the public and be their undoing.

[brooklynite]

49. So you're saying the Democratic Party leadership will rig voting machines to let Clinton win...

...except for the Caucus States where there are no ballots...

...and except for the many States that don't use electronic voting machines (like New York).

The only thing worse than a conspiracy theory is a lazy one.

[Godhumor]

51. Don't forget the Reverse Vampires n/t

[think]

5. It is rather obvious what's going on...

[bkkyosemite]

29. very

[Fumesucker]

6. You say that like it's a bad thing

It's all a matter of perspective, for the members of the establishment who are backing the candidate with the overwhelming number of establishment endorsements then a lot of the public watching the debates is bad, they are playing not to lose.

What would you do it it was your very good livelihood on the line?

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. ooooh Conspiracy Theories first thing in the morning!!

[Babel_17]

10. From me, or from Vox?

You see Vox as posting a conspiracy theory, or that I spun the article as one?

I'll just say that this is indeed an obvious issue, and it reflects poorly on our party. We aren't so weak that we need to limit exposure to our candidates.

That was my contribution.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. read the two posts ahead of mine...

and this entire thing really....

Conspiracy theory...

[Babel_17]

16. You replied to me, though maybe it was intended to the thread

But what do you mean by "this entire thing really....

Conspiracy theory..."?

Sounds like you're yet again calling the article a conspiracy theory, and I'd like to be sure about that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Yes...the whole thing is a conspiracy theory...

the Democrats are out to get you!

[Babel_17]

27. Vox.com is quite good in regards our party

Here's one from today that's pro-Clinton.

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/12/9716034/hillary-clinton-nasdaq-speech

If you were using irony, I couldn't tell. Ditto that for sarcasm.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. ??? and that means it not a conspiracy theory?

[Babel_17]

34. Ok, now I get you

You're labeling the article as being a conspiracy theory. So I won't ask if you at least enjoyed its style.

The reason I labored the point is that it's notable when a reputable organization is accused of running an article that's basically a conspiracy theory.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421805/-The-Democratic-debate-schedule-has-a-huge-problem-but-it-s-not-the-number-of-debates

It doesn't stand alone however.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Is it a theory ABOUT a conspiracy?

do they have ANY proof?

[Babel_17]

42. You lost me again

I don't agree that the article is a conspiracy theory. That was your premise. If you're in effect asking me to accept your premise, then comment about "Proof", I have to disappoint you.

Is it a theory ABOUT a conspiracy?

No. Though the article references reports of what might be characterized as a bit of collaboration on the QT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/21/how-democrats-got-bogged-down-in-a-messy-dispute-over-debates/

The Democratic Party is embroiled in an increasingly loud argument over the schedule of presidential debates, one that flared up in New Hampshire over the weekend when DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz got heckled by audience members. Senior Dems such as Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have criticized the DNC. Hillary Clinton’s rivals have charged that the DNC has only scheduled six debates to deny them airtime and protect front-runner Clinton, who has subsequently said she’s open to more debates but won’t say whether she actively wants more of them.

Fwiw, Greg Sargent is not a conspiracy theorist.

[redstateblues]

13. It takes a lot of work to play the victim

You need straw men, red herrings. Above all, you must stoke the fires of paranoia on a daily basis

[Babel_17]

17. Are you commenting on the article?

I can't tell.

[KPN]

23. Conspiracy?

Vox voiced my thoughts exactly when I first saw the debate schedule. DWS has to go -- as should the 3rd Wayers frankly.

[Babel_17]

30. Yeah, there was an earlier commentary at at Daily Kos

It was referenced in the article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421805/-The-Democratic-debate-schedule-has-a-huge-problem-but-it-s-not-the-number-of-debates

A snip:

The controversy over the Democratic presidential debate schedule shows no signs of dying down—and it shouldn't. Currently, the Democratic National Committee has planned six debates with rules barring any candidate who participates in other debates not sanctioned by the DNC. Both of those aspects of the debate schedule—the number and the exclusivity rule—are being loudly challenged, particularly but not only by former Maryland governor and long-shot candidate Martin O'Malley.

Two other aspects of the DNC debate schedule are also drawing attention and protest: when they fall in the primary calendar, and when they fall in people's lives. On the former point, Simon Rosenberg notes a compressed primary schedule that may have the nominee decided by mid-March, given which it's relevant that:

As of today, the Republicans have ten debates scheduled before mid-March, while the Democrats have four. Of those debates, the GOP has six debates scheduled in the ten weeks closest to the actual voting, while the Democrats have just one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Please name ALL the Thirdwayers that you think should be gotten rid of!

[Babel_17]

44. The invasion of Iraq supporters especially

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left".[14] Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."[15]

[restorefreedom]

19. it is clear that dem leadership is subverting democracy to protect the weakest candidate

and they would rather see the wh go repub than to a progressive who will halt the freebies and the gravy train.

[Skidmore]

20. Guess where I'm going to be Saturday night?

At a debate watch party in a local school with a lot of other people.

[Babel_17]

21. I'm impressed

That's a great community you live in. We also need millions, and millions, of eyeballs eagerly planted in front of their TVs.

[Skidmore]

43. It is impressive given that there is a

Big Ten game and wresting tournament at UI this weekend. It is damned impressive. Proud to support HIllary.

[upaloopa]

31. I would say given Hillary's performance in the last

debate and Rachel's forum, Bernie folks would want less of an audience for the next one. Hillary shines in these debates.
I think it should be clear now that the majority want Hillary to win the nomination. Continuing to blame the DNC and DWS and the debate schedule for Bernie's smaller base of support is disingenuous

[Armstead]

33. Some of us actually have principles

We kinda like that democracy thing, even if it doesn't turn out exactly the way we prefer.

[Babel_17]

39. I'm a let the chips fall where they may kind of person

Debates are a crucible.

P.S. The article deals with the debate schedule being in and of itself bad.

Five clones could be running, and it would be bad. The process is bad, and it's bad for everybody with a "D" in front of their name who is running. The debates are free advertising for our brand. Free advertising!

Sure, that raises to mind an obvious, imo, question. Why give up free advertising? Anyone not thinking that?

[quickesst]

41. Stop the wah-wah...

...over the Saturday debate. So people would rather go out and eat dinner, or go to a movie rather than watch the debates. Guess what? There is nothing on television worth watching on Saturday night, unless you like football, which I do. The weekend is the reward for having worked all week to put food on their family. Now, let's take Sunday through Friday. Those are the nights when all the prime time shows are on. Does anyone really think the average person is going to give up their favorite shows to watch a political debate except for people like Democratic Underground members? I'm not, but I will DVR the debate to watch it at a later time, just as I will on Saturday night when I'm at my son's house with my grandson watching LSU and Arkansas battle it out. For those going out Saturday night, if they are at all interested in the debates, they will DVR it just as I will. It doesn't matter whether it's Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. If they have any real interest they will find a way to watch it, and that doesn't include those who will seek out post debate highlights rather than watch the entire thing. WOO PIG!!

[MineralMan]

35. There's something to be said for Saturday evening debates.

This one is scheduled for 8PM EST, I believe. That's 5PM for people in the Pacific Time Zone. During the week, that hour is a lousy time for TV viewing by most working people.

So, this debate may be watched by many people who could simply not watch if it were on a weekday.

It's a toss-up, really. Deciding on the time for a debate is always a toss-up. Any time selected on any day will make it difficult for some people to view it.

I have no problem with the time of this one. I'll be watching, but I watch them all. Many people watch none of them at all, and just watch the clips on news programs. Debates are overrated as deciding factors in primary races, anyhow.

[Blue_Adept]

40. The December debate is going to be kind of awkward though

Particularly in the range of people it's going to impact because of a global event that will be dominating that weekend for many.

Part of it also just reminds me there's a disconnect between the political junkies here and your average everyday person that's got a lot of things going on.

I'm all over politics (as little as I post here, because I find it so pointless these days), but that December weekend is going to be owned by something far, far different. No matter if it's at 5pm, 8pm, or noon.

[moondust]

38. Looks like it.

Debate #1 in the Friday night death slot, "a perceived graveyard slot in American television." Debate #2 during the Iowa-Minnesota football rivalry game (schedule known well in advance, historic game for #5-ranked Iowa) ensuring fewer debate viewers in Iowa and probably Minnesota and other states watching and/or partying after other college football games on Saturday night. And only six debates total.

Whom does that schedule serve? Somebody with a lot of political baggage who could be damaged by extended exposure of past gaffs and flip-flops, or whose debate skills may not match those of other candidates. Or somebody who deliberately wants to lose an election.

Which is it, Debbie?

[whatchamacallit]

46. This is why the Democratic Party can kiss my ass n/t

[moondust]

59. Yeah.

They lost me at Vietnam.

[Sunlei]

45. Debates should be on FREE TV, any timeslot is fine. Both parties have some debates on Pay TV.

Not everyone has pay TV, in America.

It's very republican to exclude a large group of Americans from live viewership of our debates.

[Babel_17]

47. Yes, it's like widespread lack of disposable income isn't a real thing in their eyes

It's about our news channels serving a corporate purpose, and being geared primarily to generate profits.

[Sunlei]

52. both sides have that attitude now, I wish we could force them to use FREE TV & cell phones daily.

[Babel_17]

54. "The poors"

If more people who are seen as being of being of "the poors"* voting bloc got out to vote, we could be sure there would be an effort to not exclude them/us in any way.

Totally off topic is the issue of splitting that voting bloc by using non-economic issues to divide them/us, and their/our power. But it's a real thing.

*I probably qualify as a member, in the eyes of the elite. I'm using it semi-ironically, to mock the elitists who want to rule us. "The whites, the blacks, the poors; we need them to vote for us!".

[Sunlei]

55. not even 'poors', many people do not have 'pay TV' and can't view live debates.

I can understand republicans wanting to hide anything "live", they hate public "live" anything and even their own FREE TV, fox is very controlled media.

I am very disappointed ALL our D candidates would even agree to appear on ANY debates on "pay TV".

[Babel_17]

56. That's where live streaming comes into play

And then the website of the broadcaster can offer it for later viewing. That too can produce ad revenue, it just makes things more open to all.

[HereSince1628]

61. but that would make them accessible to people who prefer populism

why would the party elite -want- to do that?

Aren't you ready for what's coming?

[99Forever]

48. Wouldn't want them on at a time that people actually....

...watch them

That mught interfere with the Coronation.

[brooklynite]

50. True or False...

Bernie2016TV will be here on Monday complaining that CBS wouldn't let them archive and stream the feed from the Debate.

[Babel_17]

53. Too off topic for me

Though fwiw, as a general principle I favor more coverage. As long as anyone can get some kind of free access to this important part of our political process, I think I'll be OK with it.

[WillyT]

57. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! - Related Link:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251792422

[Babel_17]

58. Reaching those voters is part of the bigger picture

Instead of trying to get people to herd themselves into groups that "have to" vote for our party, let's talk to them about how we are the ones who are going to improve the world they live in.

[WillyT]

60. Exactly !!!

[Babel_17]

62. I just answered a Union sponsored poll on the upcoming elections

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128073162

lol

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Either that or they are just stupid and incompetent.

[Babel_17]

65. Could be a mix and match

I think momentum is a factor. There's so much gravitas around the DNC and campaigning in general that those who try and raise sensible objections are just pushed out of the way as the will of the upper echelon unfolds.

[Dem2]

64. I'm a nobody