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
In reply to the discussion: Debbie's debate disaster: we're letting Trump win [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)64. We had 25 primary debates in 2008.
The majority were "unsanctioned." But what's interesting about just this year is that the DNC is also threatening to bar anyone who participates in unsanctioned debates from from the sanctioned ones.
As far as silliness and "hysteria" goes, I'd say being so scared of debates as to threaten people for even participating in them ranks a bit higher than objecting to this drastic, unexplained reversal of Democratic practices.
Left unchecked, the superior RNC schedule could easily reach 50 to 100 million more eyeballs than the current Democratic schedule meaning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of lost opportunities to persuade, engage and excite the audiences all Democrats will need to win in 2016, argues Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg.
(SNIP)
UPDATE: Its worth noting that while the six DNC-sanctioned debates this time is in keeping with precedent, in 2008 there were far more debates that were not sanctioned by the DNC. This time, the DNC has also instituted an exclusivity clause: If a candidate participates in a non-DNC-sanctioned debate, he or she is theoretically forbidden from participating in DNC-sanctioned ones, making it a lot less likely that non-sanctioned ones will take place.
(SNIP)
UPDATE: Its worth noting that while the six DNC-sanctioned debates this time is in keeping with precedent, in 2008 there were far more debates that were not sanctioned by the DNC. This time, the DNC has also instituted an exclusivity clause: If a candidate participates in a non-DNC-sanctioned debate, he or she is theoretically forbidden from participating in DNC-sanctioned ones, making it a lot less likely that non-sanctioned ones will take place.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/21/how-democrats-got-bogged-down-in-a-messy-dispute-over-debates/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
i think there's those in the establishment who'd rather not talk about wealth inequality
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#2
these people are probably going to get cabinet positions if she wins. They all make
roguevalley
Sep 2015
#17
I'm not all that concerned about Fiorina, especially as the "woman president" thing goes.
Vinca
Sep 2015
#52
Apparently, DWS has one of those Cush jobs where she is accountable to no one.
world wide wally
Sep 2015
#6
that actually doesn't apply here b/c it's the whole Dem brand vs the GOP
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#14
people don't have to be stupid -- they just have different frames they use
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#31
every time i hear him give an interview i think how hard it must have been
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#37
i can't blame the person "on the street" that much b/c the system is manipulated
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#57
this hits state parties particularly hard -- those 25 debates, they were spread out
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#68
Wasserman Schultz is a corrupt liar who plays with lives for political gain.
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2015
#51