Democrats Stifle Their Message - The Editorial Board/USAToday

[WillyT]

Democrats stifle their message: Our view
By limiting the number of debates, and holding them at odd hours, the party aids the GOP.
The Editorial Board - USAToday
8:06 p.m. EST December 22, 2015


Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on stage during a Democratic presidential primary debate Dec. 19, 2015, in Manchester, N.H.(Photo: Jim Cole, AP)

<snip>

To the leading lights of the Democratic Party, it must have seemed like a smart move. By limiting the number of debates among the party's presidential contenders and holding them at odd hours, they could nudge voters in the direction of Hillary Clinton, who is already widely known and seen as the party’s most formidable candidate.

But limiting debate almost never works, and it almost always triggers the law of unintended consequences.

In this case, it has allowed the Republicans to dominate the national conversation in the early stages of the presidential race. They have held five debates, to the Democrats’ three, and have not followed the Democrats’ peculiar practice of scheduling events on Saturday nights. As a result, the GOP debate audiences have been much larger — as many as 24 million viewers for the top-rated GOP debate, compared with fewer than 8 million for Saturday’s Democratic encounter.

The Republicans have used their massive platform to shape opinion, bash Clinton and leave what could be lasting (though not necessarily favorable) impressions. While they don’t yet have a common message about what a Republican presidency would entail, they do have one about the Democrats. You can’t get through 60 seconds of a Republican debate without hearing that President Obama and Clinton, as his former secretary of State, have made a mess of things around the world.

The huge Republican audiences may be mostly the result of the party’s unruly contest and its incendiary front-runner, Donald Trump. But Democrats shouldn’t take much comfort in this. While viewers may tune in for the mud wrestling, what they get is an effective political broadside.

The Democrats, for their part, have a decent counter-argument: that the GOP has been taken over by its far-right fringe, leaving Democrats as the only champions of the broad mainstream. But the party bosses are apparently so worried that Clinton could be derailed or commit a gaffe in the debates that they are willing to stifle this message.

Their most recent debate was held the Saturday before Christmas, when much of the public was out at holiday parties, doing last-minute shopping, taking in the new Star Wars movie or watching the New York Jets defeat the Dallas Cowboys. The scheduling was so odd that a spokesman for Bernie Sanders, Clinton's chief rival, could only quip: “I guess Christmas Eve was booked.”

Democracy is boisterous, unruly and competitive. The Democrats understood this in 2008...

<snip>

More: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/22/democratic-debates-presidential-primaries-editorials-debates/77764196/

[Scootaloo]

1. "It allowed the republicans to dominate the national conversation"

Well, that's DWS' goal, isn't it?

[WillyT]

2. Seems That Way...

[daleanime]

37. Must be....

or she would be out of a job.

[CorporatistNation]

83. DNC Objective: The Less We See Of Clinton, The More We Will Like Her... On The Other Hand

It seems clear that she does not have to be seen that much or by that many for everyone to understand her problems with Truth and Integrity.

The Democratic Primary may, if America is fortunate in the end, turn out to be a race between the Tortoise and The Hare. We all know how that turned out.

The MSM CORPORATE PROPAGANDA day and night consisting mostly of PUMPING Hillary and Trump while diminishing Bernie Sanders... IF... He is mentioned at all is beginning to strike a nerve.

Advertising 101 If you repeat it enough to enough people they will eventually believe it..

However, it seems from what I am hearing... just from average generally NON political folks that they GETTIT!

They are seeing through the colossal pile of BULLSHIT that subliminally encourages us to support safety in Hillary and fear the danger of Trump.

See #6 of 14 Characteristics that define a FASCIST State.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


I do not know about you, but No Fly Zones over Syria as advocated by Hillary that potentially involve shooting down RUSSIAN fighter jets ... SCARES THE SHIT OUTA ME!!!! Can you say FUCKING WW III

[Punkingal]

6. Yep....18 million see them, 6 million see ours. How can that be good?

[Nonhlanhla]

10. Well, given the quality of GOP debates...

...it might actually be good for us if more people see them!

[Punkingal]

20. It is never good to not get your message out.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

59. This is how to get the message out.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

[Hortensis]

74. Help the Republicans? Nonsense!

How could anyone imagine this is not a very careful strategy?

Besides all the other reasons that go into it, this fall, when most are hardly paying attention anyway, how could encouraging the press to focus on this year's psychopathic, extremist clown car not be to our advantage?

The press is advertising all the GOP candidates' most shocking and outrageous statements and dysfunctional behaviors for us. When one party is busy destroying itself in public, should we really be waving our arms and jumping up and down and insisting they give us fair time?

After all, the game is to pick up as many of the independents as possible, and the alternative on the ballot will be whoever we nominate -- whether some of the more clueless recognize the name or not. (!)

[Scootaloo]

25. We've been making that argument for how long?

Republicans keep winning.

Passively hoping for them to self-destruct just isn't going to work.

[daleanime]

39. And if they don't see ours....

That helps us how?

[Hortensis]

76. Yes. GOP + press coverage = Democratic victory 2016.

[Zorra]

21. +1 nt

[restorefreedom]

26. thread over.....nt

[rhett o rick]

49. She hoped all the attention would be on the Republicons and HRC could waltz into the general. nm

[Betty Karlson]

69. That woman is right on course to repeat 2014.

We need her to vacate the chair, and soon.

[99Forever]

3. K.R

[MineralMan]

4. The Republicans are exposing themselves as fools and morons

more often. The more people see of them, the better, as far as I'm concerned. All of the Democratic candidates are intelligent, reasonable, and straightforward. Any of them would be a fine nominee. So, let the Clown Car mock itself. All the better for us.

[cali]

8. To you and to me, but to most potential voters?

What evidence can you present for your claim?

[MineralMan]

11. I have no evidence, other than the buffoonery

presented at the Republican debates. Have you watched any of them? While they're entertaining in their own way, there is no way to view them without cringing at the prospect of any of them becoming President.

Should there be more Democratic debates? I don't know. I've seen all of them so far, and will watch the others, too. What I'm seeing in them is a solid presentation from all of the candidates, without any clown-like characteristics. I suspect that most Democratic primary voters have already decided for whom they will vote, so I'm not sure more frequent debates would make any difference.

In each primary election or caucus, the candidates will be putting forward their own campaign strategies. Those will be far more important than these debates, I'm sure. Now, for the general election, debates are very important in convincing undecided voters who to choose. I'm looking forward to those very much, regardless of who the nominees are.

[libdem4life]

38. For the foreseeable future, Trump is wooing a lot of wing nuts and the rest of the

candidates, get little time. They don't have the "red meat" that Trump is feeding malcontents and dropouts and tea partiers, etc. And this part of the electorate just want "whatever it takes" to get some action, some political adrenaline and something...that which none of them can articulate...but Trump. How many Independents feel that way may be the final say.

OTOH, the Democrats are beginning to morph into a real horse race...two well-qualified candidates and a clear difference. More debates and at a better time...should have been and it was undoubtedly a thumb on the scales for HRC. However, each day/week brings a new set of events.

[LiberalArkie]

62. I feel that if the U.S. had an educated population then the Republicans would have hurt themselves

tremendously. But the U.S. doesn't. Our population sees the 1950's & 60's westerns as real history. It sees Gordon Gekko as the business leader to aspire to emulate.

[Akamai]

53. Boy. I sure disagree with you about this--these "candidates" are convincing people.

I turn your attention to Sen. Kerry's refusal to combat the "Swift Boats for Truth" abominable attacks on him. He believed that no one would believe what these the testable people were saying, and that he did not have to object strongly. But indeed, the lies did shift some of the support away from him.

If the only voice one hears repeats a certain story--that Obama and Hilary are both terribly ineffective and very harmful for the country -- that a lot of people will believe that voice. For example, take a look at the focus groups of Republicans and what they think about President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

In terms of decision-making in groups, it helps to have at least one voice disagreeing with the general theme to make group members think more carefully. Otherwise, group decisions oftentimes tend to be "long, strong, and wrong." Consensual drift is all too common, especially in politics.

I want someone, pretty much anyone, saying that those Republican views are absolutely and totally wrong.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

60. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[daybranch]

81. There should not be any debates at all for you to make up your mind.

You say most democrats have made up their minds. Please stop your own clown car. We know you support Hillary. You can insult us with your great wisdom but us regular people would like to have real discussions of the issues. You are just helping the rigging and we see it. Your presumed intellectual knowledge is pretty insulting. This is my opinion and in a democracy juist as good as yours, no matter how much you and the oligarchy try to stifle debate to make us accept another elitist who always negotiates against the people and for the oligarchy.. Go Bernie. We are not against Hillary, we are against the oligarchy and for democracy.

[whereisjustice]

19. Dangerous nonsense. You think having someone unanswered bellowing like Mussolini 24/7

is good for a government that was originally designed to serve the best interests of everyone not just billionaries?

Hillary and Trump have the same economic constituents - Wall Street bankers who will arguably do better under Trump but won't feel any pain under Clinton either.

As long as Republicans push to the limits, Wall Street corporate Democrats will use it as an opportunity to push the limit as well by running candidates who just have to stay a bit to the left to appear like a real difference.

That's how the middle class and below stay fucked and surprisingly many here at DU are just fine with the status quo.

[SusanaMontana41]

33. +1,000 n/t

[PatrickforO]

35. Yes, +1,000 on your post.

[floriduck]

24. This OP is the exact argument

I made to you yesterday. Less isn't better unless you are trying to hide. If we fear our front runner is likely to make a blunder, then is that person really meant to be the front runner?

Numbers mean something. Hill people point to the polls. I point to the lost seats in nearly every branch in the government. The damage being done by the DNC is criminal. And it truly helps no one.

[Divernan]

29. Human instinct is to rank them & pick the best of the lot

Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Viewers of the debate will compare and contrast and rank the participants. It may start out as "which one do I dislike the least?".

Marketing experts & psychologists will tell you, and much research has shown, that once a person makes a decision that X is better than Y or Z, they will rationalize to convince themselves they made the right choice. This involves exaggerating the value of positive points, and minimizing any shortcomings. For example, someone in the market for a car faces a choice among both American and foreign made vehicles. Chrysler, GM or Ford; Toyota, Mitsubishi, Volvo (to name a few for purposes of illustration); and then within each brand, which of several different models?

Now throw in this factor - what if there are dealers for Chrysler, GM and Ford all nicely lined up in a row on a highway near their home, but none of the foreign car dealers are closer than 100 miles away. What if the American dealers are open on weeknights and Sundays, but the foreign car dealers are only open 9 to 5 on weekdays?

The buyer can look closely at and test drive models from the American car dealers, but is only exposed to occasional 60 second ads for the foreign car dealers.

They consider - maybe test drive. But once they have made a decision, the rationalization sets in, and whatever model they have chosen, becomes increasingly desirable. Plus, if they have taken a close look at a number of cars, they feel they have done their due diligence and made a responsible decision. Hell, this even applies to what color car they buy. At first they may be leaning toward a light colored model - it won't show the dust. But then the dealer has in stock a car with every feature they want, except it's bright red. They'll have to wait a month to get the color they want. So they get the red one - and then they begin coming up with reasons why red is really the very best possible color. The goal is to feel comfortable with their choice.

The analogy couldn't be clearer. People watched a series of Republican debates, scheduled at good times re audience availability. By the end of the 2nd GOP debate, audience members are choosing. This is further encouraged by the multiple news reports of ratings as to who won the debates.

Debbie is well aware of this, as is Hillary - the expectation that people will be influenced and make choices based on exposure to televised debates is precisely the reason the DNC delayed the initial debate, minimized the total number of same and then carefully, and with malice toward Bernie aforethought, selected dates and times to guarantee the smallest possible viewing audiences. The last thing they want is for Dems to "test-drive" Bernie, i.e., get a close look at his principles, his history, his policies. Because by comparison, HRC will come up lacking, just as she did in 2008 when compared to Obama.

It was stupid. It was lethally short-sighted. It was as stupid and short-sighted as indulging in manipulating regime change in 3rd world countries with fuck-all ability or concern to predict or control the outcomes. In other words, this is a pattern for Hillary Clinton.

[tblue37]

34. Excellent post.One of the best ever. nt

[PatrickforO]

36. I permalinked this post because it is so good.

The problem for me is that with Debbie and the DNC it's the same as it was with the Wall Street lizards. NONE of them have stood in the dock and been forced to accountability.

That's what I hate the most. Because there's some DNC bigwigs on this site and they SEE all these posts from rank and file people. But they don't give a shit. Basically, with their continued silence, they are giving the rest of us a nice big 'FUCK YOU.'

I mean, you can almost hear their titters and giggles.

And that is wrong on so many different levels.

[Scuba]

57. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Read This Reply !! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent! Thanks Divernan!!!

[WillyT]

64. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

[Dont call me Shirley]

67. K & R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[myrna minx]

70. Excellent post.

[GoneFishin]

71. Excellent post. Needs to be an OP.

[daleanime]

41. So they see the 'fools and morons'.....

if they see no alternative how does that help us?

Reducing the voter turn out is another way to help the republicans. I'll say it has many times has needed to get people to stop pretending this is in anyway good for the Democratic Party.

[fasttense]

45. Because there is so much RepubliCON clown car nonsense on the TV

Rational people start to tune out ALL of it. They assume all politics is stupid because that's what they get the most of. Too bad Democrats do very little right now to counter it. When more people show up to vote, Democrats are more likely to win. When fewer people show up, RepubliCONS are more likely to win.

[rhett o rick]

50. The Republicon Party is a massive distraction while the Oligarchy grabs power.

We need to elect someone that isn't a part of the Oligarchy, isn't part of the 1%, and that's Sen Sanders.

A vote for HRC is a vote for more of the same.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[nc4bo]

7. But of course! Classic SNAFU. nt

[Eleanors38]

32. This was the Intent of the DNC. It is afraid of the FR & Corp. Power.

[farleftlib]

9. Team HRC will never allow boisterous and competitive

indeed she did learn the lessons of '08, hence the stealth campaign of '16.

[msongs]

12. the DNC chair serves at the request of the president nt

[farleftlib]

13. This DNC chair serves one candidate at the expense of the rest of the party

There is a documented conflict of interest here, but we'll conveniently ignore that, right?

[CharlotteVale]

14. K&R

[Matariki]

15. I'm thinking the decision to let the GOP dominate the national conversation

is by intent.

The Democratic conversation between Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley is one I'm sure they'd like to keep as quiet as possible. The DNC is working to let Hillary win the primary, then shift back to the right 'center' - and get the conversation back to Republican and Republican Lite. Either way, Corporate American wins.

[CharlotteVale]

16. I think the exact same thing.

[A Simple Game]

18. Of course if Trump wasn't dominating the news, who do we think would? Probably Hillary? n/t

[daleanime]

43. Sure does look that way....

[whereisjustice]

17. The Democratic Party has moved hard right playing catch up with RNC, DNC/Hillary is calculating

that rise of Trump plays well with the New Wall Street Democrats overall goal of increasing corporate influence, outsourcing jobs to Asia, deregulating Wall Street.

There are many who post here who LOVE Hillary. But when asked to defend her unbridled attack against the middle class with the ideology she embraces, they have nothing to say except they support free markets.

What we have is the New Hillary Democrat is very similar to the Old Reagan Republican. It's just that the wing nuts have moved into la la land. I wonder how far right the DNC will move to keep up.

In the end both DNC and RNC aide the only real constituency this country has - billionaire Wall Street CEOs.

Neither Democratic or Republican leadership gives a rat's ass about the middle class or below except to pander to them with fears about terrorism at election time.

Like any business, DNC and RNC is concentrating on those with money. It's all about profit.

[whereisjustice]

22. DNC is trying to disolve Democracy and replace it with a for-profit corporation selling a virtual

image of a smiling Hillary who is tough on terrorism and shit for the middle class and below.

Like a steady diet of fluffy Hostess Twinkies, a vomit inducing campaign and candidate.

[Enthusiast]

23. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[longship]

27. Damn! That is a really great editorial. R&K nt

[ChiciB1]

28. Very Busy Today... Just Want To Give This A HUGE K&R n/t

[zentrum]

30. Call the DNC 202 863 8000!

Please!!

This isn't about a particular candidate. It's about the Democratic Party itself and how DWS is harming the whole ship. Our debates are great and as many as people possible need to see them to be reminded what serious, capable candidates look and talk like.

[Eleanors38]

31. Stifle: ANY position that sounds progressive, thereby upsetting corp. power.

Both DNC and MSM consider Sanders as fringe, the Party mumbles on and on. That is the Intent.

[Marty McGraw]

40. Thanks for this

WillyT!

[antigop]

42. k&r nt

[marmar]

44. K/R

DWS's letter explaining the decision is pretty blatantly biased. Obvious hack is obvious.

[bvar22]

46. Deliberate strategy.

The Clinton Campaign learned from 2008.
The MORE people see and hear Hillary,
the LESS they like her. Her insincerity is very visible.
SO....they decided to keep her hidden and run on name recognition.
BAD mistake.

This is reminiscent of the disappearance of Obama and the Democratic Party Leadership during Tea Bagger Summer and all those "Town Hall Meetings".
NO response from Obama or the leadership.
They abandoned the field and let the Tea Party run wild...unanswered.

[LiberalLovinLug]

47. Hillary is more afraid of Bernie than the GOP

And her stooge (s) in the DNC.

Debbie Downer may just screw it up for the party winning the general by her blatant pandering to one candidate.

[AgingAmerican]

48. Political suicide

In the name of Hillary.

[Jim Lane]

51. I wish Sanders and O'Malley had challenged this.

Yes, they both expressed displeasure, but they could have done (and could still do) more. Once Chafee and Webb dropped out, O'Malley and Sanders were Clinton's only remaining opponents. If the two of them were to accept a debate invitation from a college or a union or the like, would the DNC adhere to excluding them from the officially sanctioned debates? That would leave those debates as Hillary press conferences. Faced with that prospect, even DWS might back down -- and if she didn't, she might face a revolt within the DNC.

An added twist, for any O'Malley or Sanders staffers reading DU: How about accepting a debate with the usual suspects from the journalism community as panelists, but the nonprofit sponsoring organization charges $25 per ticket for audience members, and donates the proceeds to a community food bank, or maybe to the American Red Cross for disaster relief in the region where the debate is held. So, Debbie, you want to punish two of the candidates for helping people in need?

[Matariki]

54. The problem with challenging stuff

is it makes the challenger look like a whiner, ala Jim Webb. They're both saavy enough to know that.

Really it's up to us, their supporters, to challenge it and put the pressure on the DNC.

[valerief]

52. To the average Americans, the only people running are the GOP asshats they see non-stop on TV

and maybe Hillary. That's it. They have no mass media telling them otherwise.

[Thinkingabout]

55. In the GOP debates the conversation was stifled by the GOP candidates by the way the

candidates conducted themselves. In the DNC debates there have been issues and civil, there isn't a comparison and I am happy the DNC is much better at the debates. We could have 26 debates like the first GOP debates and we would look just like the GOP, we are better than that. It is not who we are, we don't have the Trumps, Cruzes, the Pauls, and the list goes on.

[magical thyme]

56. k&r

[Scuba]

58. Under DWS Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate

... seats, yet she still has her job. Some people here seem to think that's fine.

[Dont call me Shirley]

68. That deserves its own post, Scuba! Wow, dismal record for Debbie Downer.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. "But the party bosses are apparently so worried that Clinton could be derailed or commit a gaffe..."

My money is on "gaffe".

Something really out of touch 1% snob.

[jalan48]

63. I thought it was understood it is to be Hillary vs. The Buffoon.

Why would we want American's getting confused by another Democratic candidate? The corporate media has already picked the finalists for the pageant.

[GoneFishin]

73. Bernie will look funny wearing a tiara and a fur cape anyway.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. What's with the defeatism?

Did the 2016 election already happen yet-and we lost?

[nxylas]

75. No need for lifeboats

The RMS Hillary is unsinkable.

[Babel_17]

66. The ratings numbers tell the tale to journalists

They live and die by the numbers regarding who's consuming their product. The implication is clear, "DWS is running our paper/station into the ground!" (using their terminology).

[GoneFishin]

72. They would rather have a Republican in the WH than Bernie. Bernie will disrupt their racket.

Republicans will just take a bigger chunk of the loot for 4 years but eventually turn control back over to the Dems with the money maker still intact.

[orpupilofnature57]

77. An uneven playing field and saturday debates will do that .

[Chemisse]

78. The purpose seems to be to assist Clinton's primary win.

The more people who see the debates, the more will become acquainted with Hillary's opponents, and the more likely they will consider voting for them.

Hillary has no shortage of name recognition. Sanders and O'Malley benefit from the publicity that the debates provide. Hillary loses in that respect and she also risks ridicule from the right in response to her debate performances.

[d_legendary1]

79. And DWS has no problems allowing Republicans to take control

while her party burns to the ground. At this point I believe that the powers that rule the DNC are in on the take as well.

[closeupready]

82. Oh absolutely. A less cynical person might merely think

leaders from both parties sound so much alike because they are catering to the 1% (in the hopes that those leaders will later be granted access to that exclusive club, or else they've been compromised by the 1% money that has bought them over-representation).

[raouldukelives]

80. Wall St investors weild terrible power.

We live in the most reality they will allow, and thus, the most progress they will allow and there is no denying who they prefer, anyone but Bernie.

Thanks to their best efforts, we all get to live in what they pay for. Ask one if they care? Only about the market.