2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy not end run DWS?
The exclusivity rule is a bad precedent. Plus we should have more than six debates.
What if a reliable person, e.g. Bill Moyers, simply hand delivered an invitation to debate to HRC, Bernie, MOM, Chafee and Webb? The condition of anonymity in response would hold unless one or none responded positively. In other words, if two or more candidates declined, the results would not be revealed. But if one or none declined, then the results would be revealed and the debate would be held.
If, e.g., only Webb declined, the debate would be held. The DNC could not enforce exclusivity then. This thing reminds me of the way the NCAA abuses student athletes in order to maintain power.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)guiding format, questions, etc became a negotiated horse trade between the two parties, and essentially turned the debates into a choreographed stage managed show.
If the Hillary really does want more debates and is not controlling DWS then Hillary would attend some of 6 or so debates hosted by reputable third parties.
It would have to be at least 5 or 6 because if DWS pulled the plug on the others out of protest (considering that she would probably like to have zero) we would still want a robust debate schedule.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)(we're the anally-electrocuted mink in this case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Yowzah!
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)But we, as a nation, are just about totally different now.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Hillary can say whatever she wants publicly, if she wanted more debates...DWS would give her more debates. She doesn't want more debates so DWS is carrying the water for her and taking the hit...she doesn't care, if Clinton wins (and I still don't think she's even 1% electable. If she's the nominee, we're getting a GOP President. It's game over if she's the Democratic candidate.) she's getting a shiny new job as WH chief-of-staff.
Best case scenario, you'd get a debate without Hillary and Hillary's supporters would scream bloody murder that she was excluded, ignoring that she self-excluded herself.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The format of presidential debates "is" not -really- debate. They could perhaps do something that "is" not called debate
But in addition to a name, the candidates need the corporate media to cover its "is-ness" under whatever label sticks.
Who knows what sort of an agreement exists between the DNC and the corportate media? Maybe they've already entered into an exclusivity clauses with the DNC.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)For example, if an environmental group held a teach-in about prospects for the Paris summit on climate change, and the panelists, in addition to various academics, journalists, and activists, included any two of the Dem candidates, that would be deemed a violation of the exclusivity rule.
The exclusivity rule could be busted if all four trailing candidates agreed. They should all show up for an unsanctioned debate. If DWS stood her ground, then the sanctioned debates would be Hillary Clinton press conferences. The four others could go off to multiple debates, each with an empty podium with Clinton's name on it to emphasize that she's dodging them. The problem is that, if even one of the four breaks ranks, then the sanctioned debates would have at least some semblance of debate (even if it's only Clinton versus Webb) and wouldn't be so obviously farcical.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)back in early summer. That wasn't a debate
djean111
(14,255 posts)I think that all along, Bernie was just accepted by DWS because she figured he would fizzle, but he would instruct his supporters to support Hillary. For Bernie to mess with the debates would be giving Debbie DINO an excuse to overtly try to get rid of him.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)I don't think that there is any "good will" or "fair play" dynamic happening. Excuse or no excuse, she will throw everything she has at Bernie.
This scam she is running with the debate schedule is proof that she is shameless.
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)then they should be allowed to have their own Debate.
I hope this gets pushed forward in the coming days. Thanks for Posting this~
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Someone could invite Democratic candidates to one or more forums,
where the candidates could sit and discuss topics asked by audience members.
A conversation, not a debate.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)so the point is moot. She will do the six tightly controlled debates and no more...UNLESS or until such time as the media labels Bernie as the Democratic Party front runner at which time she will scream for more debates.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)the arrangement behind the scenes made with DWS was rock solid. It was just lip service for public consumption because she knew full well she was safe to do so.
'I would like to see more debates' followed by a wink and a nod to DWS. Pretty transparent really.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Thanks in advance.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)But this was pretty obvious.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)to common sense?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)accusation to put forward without an iota of proof behind it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If she had any integrity, she's join Sanders and O'Malley in non-DNC debates. They said they would, she won't. Because she is afraid and she doesn't speak honestly. The woman is a fraud.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)provide information as to when those debates have been scheduled?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)She's energetically and enthused to have more debates.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)do anything on her own to actually have more debates.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)to participate then every debate she skipped would cost her. Bernie's and Martin O'Malley's messages stand on their own. They don't need drama or conflict to be understood.
The exclusivity clause is a bully tactic. I think the others should have taken a tough stand against it.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)When Jimmy Carter refused to participate in a presidential debate with Reagan and Anderson.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Was that before or after George Will used Jimmy Carter's stolen briefing book to prep Reagan?
So much for debates being 'free-wheeling' expressions of anything.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I would strongly suggest Hillary not follow his lead in this.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)as set forth in the OP. The DNC would then either have to renege on exclusivity or cancel all the debates.
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)That the media would do that is debatable.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I have never seen the media boycott a presidential debate, have you?
MADem
(135,425 posts)http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-u-s-presidential-debates
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Even when some have declined as it would have meant losing money/breaking a contract, there were others to pick up the slack. So, no, Americans never had "the media" deny them the ability to view a presidential debate.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)The media would love it though.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)the world would be a better place if all speed measurements were made in furlongs-per-fortnight!
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I have no idea what Jim Webb is doing other than hanging around to be VP.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)What if one is in another studio? This isn't totally hypothetical, the media will want as close to real time as they can get from the candidates.
"Can you hold on, Senator Sanders, Governor O'Malley is posing a question for both you and Secretary Clinton in an address he's giving."
"Good speech Governor O'Malley, Senator Sanders had this to say ..."
"Well, Senator Sanders, your thoughts on that?"
Depending on the rules as seen by DWS, they instead might have to refuse to be on camera at the same time. And it's not like there won't be demand to hear from the candidates riffing off each other.
Dear DNC, expect to reap the harvest of your mishandling of the debate schedule. This is going to look bad for our party. "Why are the Democrats hiding their candidates away?"
On the other hand, maybe the Republicans won't sink so low as to suggest that. Or if they do, maybe the media will do a good job of refereeing, and point out all the nuance to the situation. lol