Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Koinos

(2,792 posts)
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 12:42 PM Sep 2015

Why more debates are good for Clinton [View all]

According to this opinion piece, Clinton and the Democratic party as a whole are being hurt by too few debates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-more-debates-are-good-for-clinton/2015/09/07/78d8e5c4-55

Excerpts:

At this stage, most Americans outside of Washington, and perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire, are not paying very close attention to the election. Based on the mainstream coverage, the typical voter’s perception of the presidential campaign is likely to reflect two things: Donald Trump’s insults and Clinton’s e-mails. And that means, in the absence of a more visible debate among Democrats, the competition between Trump and his Republican opponents — a bitter clash of the far right and further right — is defining the narrative.


As O’Malley said in an interview with liberal radio host Bill Press, “We have good candidates, and we offer the ideas that will serve our country and get wages to go up rather than down.” But without more opportunities for Democratic candidates to address a national audience, “the airwaves are being dominated entirely by talk of the Republican side.”


To put it bluntly, Democrats should want more debates not only because of fairness or democratic ideals but also because they will be good for the party — and Clinton should want more debates because they will be good for her campaign. The party should embrace the opportunity to change the conversation before the 2016 narrative is set in stone.
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I never bought the idea that fewer debates help upaloopa Sep 2015 #1
I agree. Koinos Sep 2015 #2
You may be correct in that but it is not about the issues. jwirr Sep 2015 #3
We don't agree upaloopa Sep 2015 #5
What part of it do you not agree with. The neutrality jwirr Sep 2015 #6
The DNC is not pulling strings for Hillary. upaloopa Sep 2015 #7
Why then did they want the exclusivity rule that we jwirr Sep 2015 #8
Who knows why the rule? upaloopa Sep 2015 #9
Complaining about our fighting the rule does not answer jwirr Sep 2015 #10
I don't know why we have the rule! upaloopa Sep 2015 #12
Get to work helping to fix the problems. Exactly what jwirr Sep 2015 #14
If there is no reason.... Sivart Sep 2015 #11
And Hillary is being trashed by the press upaloopa Sep 2015 #13
Pretty funny... Sivart Sep 2015 #15
She has agreed to more debates upaloopa Sep 2015 #16
Thanks for bringing it to my attention that this is the first year of the exclusivity rule. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #18
And we adopted it from the GOP. Not a good idea. jwirr Sep 2015 #19
Now that the "Deal" is in play Hillary should dominate the debates. oasis Sep 2015 #4
I originally thought fewer debates would help Hillary. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #17
Looking presidential..... Sivart Sep 2015 #20
Sure. Fair questions. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #21
Interesting.... Sivart Sep 2015 #22
One thing I do know about the first debate. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #23
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why more debates are good...»Reply #0