So--how many debates had we ALREADY HAD by this time in the 2007-2008 cycle?

[eridani]

Two MORE than we are going to have in total this time. Can someone explain what has changed?

5.1 April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
5.2 June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.3 June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University
5.4 July 12, 2007–Detroit, Michigan
5.5 July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college
5.6 August 4, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.7 August 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.8 August 9, 2007 – Los Angeles, California

[stonecutter357]

1. .

[TheBlackAdder]

54. There should be more Democratic debates. But, they should start after the 2nd Republican one.

.

Let the Republicans set the tone of the debate by fielding their positions. This way, a stark contrast can be built.

At this point, only a few topics were broached upon. Mixing the debates early on, detracts from the GOP message.


Let the message be built and memorialized before drawing contracts that might introduce GOP corrections.


===


That being said, once the Democratic debates commence, they should occur more frequently than the six scheduled.


Built and keep momentum. People forget easily, it's best to stretch it out and remind voters why they must vote.


.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. The number of debates proved to be unessessery.

I still remember the Hillary vs Obama debate in LA before the CA primary. They agreed on almost everything. It was rather boring.

Ultimately primary debates are pretty pointless IMO.

[eridani]

3. You mean that Sanders and O'Malley are just going to agree with her on everything this time?

Please substantiate that.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. I cannot see into the future, but my guess would be

that they would all agree on quite a bit.

The candidates may differ slightly on the details, but I think they are in agreement that we don't need anymore wars and we need to help the middle class. All support minimum wage increases and more infrastructure spending. I could go on.....

Republicans are the ones who want to help the wealthy and ban abortion.

We have a great group of candidates who believe in the same destination, but might disagree slightly on how to get there.

[eridani]

7. Bank regulation? TPP? Keystone XL? Welfare deform? All for $15.hr minimum wage? n/t

[Fearless]

12. Good luck arguing facts.

[PoliticAverse]

5. In 2008 the Democrats captured the Presidency, House and Senate,

so I guess it was decided that was an "unnecessary" thing?

[Live and Learn]

9. Really, debates are meaningless?

If you are the only well known candidate anyway.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. So now we are ignoring the power of social media? n/t

[Live and Learn]

36. I am not ignoring the power of social media at all

but debates are also important and can help to shed light on important difference on issues.

[Adrahil]

18. Yes. Everyone here arguing for more debates...

Is already firmly committed to a candidate. They are hopinh, of course, to pursuade undecideds and soft supporters. Only the kinds of voters are not terribly engaged, especially right now. They typically don't watch debates in very hig numbers, and not until shortly before the vote.

I'd rather see a series of in-depth interviews with a variety of high-quality journalists, or even subject matter experts where there can be a no-kidding in depth discussion of issues and positions. Not a reality show masquerading as a "debate," where we are treated to one minute versions of the stump speech, and candidates RARELY even directly address hard questions. How can they? It's impossible to provide detail and nuance in one minute mini-speeches.

[jwirr]

23. How do you feel about the exclusivity rule that we have NEVER used in our party before? Shouldn't

the people have something to say about this since we are the ones who contribute to the DNC? Since we are the ones they are supposedly talking to? We are the ones they are begging for money to run the organization. They drop the exclusivity rule and I will once more become a full fledge member of the DNC like I have been since 1960. If not I am not interested in their form of democracy.

I am not suggesting that we need as many debates run by the party as we had in 2008 but it worked back then. Stop trying to fix what is not broken. Who was it who decided we did not need all those debates?

So what if some people are bored. No one is forcing them to watch the debates. What a ban on debates does is keep those who do want to watch from being able to - it limits the process. I doesn't make it better just limited.

[winter is coming]

29. +1. Lift the exclusivity rule. If folks outside the DNC want to sponsor debates, they

can. If the candidates feel they're not up to additional debates, they don't have to show.

[Adrahil]

38. I oppose the exclusivity rule. It's silly. nt

[jwirr]

40. Thank you. That is how I feel also.

[daleanime]

31. Perhaps some of the people talking about the lack of Democratic debates....

just might like Democratic values and would like to see them put forth in the national spot light?

[Adrahil]

39. 6 isn't enough for that? nt

[daleanime]

44. We should be at least matching the republicans.....

debate for debate. Not giving them an over 2 month head start and nearly 2 debates for every one we have. It's like we're the ones ashamed of our candidates.

Allowing that 'clown car' to stand by it's self as people's image of politics in American is poisonous to our nation and sure to help drive voters from the polls.

[Adrahil]

75. I don't agree.

There were a huge number of viewers for the first GOP "debate." Many were not GOP V
voters. Do you think they were left with a positive view of the GOP? Cause i don't.

[winter is coming]

30. Debates are so meaningless, the DNC needs to control all of them.

[jwirr]

34. Great point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Besides, the academic research suggests the number of debates is (relatively) unimportant ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=500202

And as some have, unwittingly(?), pointed out ... debates are even less important in this day of social media, especially when one considers how the Democratic base, and large swaths of independents acquire/consume information.

While many argue we should have debates "right F@$%ing, Now!" ... I think it would be a mistake. I'd far rather give the American public get their belly full of the Trump Show ... Even, as nutty as Trump came off, none of the republican field came across as compelling (per gop polling).

No ... the far better strategy (if the goal is to win the White House - which IS the DNC's goal ... for whomever is the Democratic nominee) is to let this Trump Show play out ... before Democrats introduce some sanity into the national discussion.

[artislife]

25. I believe you thought that point to be true

Social Media makes, imo the public even more aware of issues they want answers for.

The younger crowd has a lot more information that is not mainstream than those during the 76-96 years as per the research study.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV3Nm3T-XAgVhKH9jT0ViRg
AJ+ tackles so many subjects from politics to water, to journalist assasinations...take a gander

AJ+ is a global news community for the connected generation. We highlight human struggles and achievements, empower impassioned voices, and challenge the status quo.

Twitter---look what happened after Netroots. Hell, look at Yahoo or messanger or Huffington Post,

There are videos that lead to other videos that lead to more.

There is so much out there, OWS off shoots, lots of activism that is across many subjects involving many different types of people. Things look so bleak for this generation that there are kids nostalgic for the 90s!

So I respectfully disagree that the voters today are satisfied with the answers candidates are giving on subjects they actually know more about than previous generations.

Respectfully, I truly mean that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Do you really think debates . .

SatisfY the people's need to get answers?

[artislife]

35. Yes, I believe they can.

They need to be looser and more spontanious than they are, but I believe they can do it better than listening to a canned speech or ad. And they get to stand next to their opponents and feed off their answers.

[Armstead]

70. Absolutely...An they shape prceptions of candidates for bettr or worse

[GitRDun]

37. The research makes sense.

Having watched the 1st Republican debate, I cannot imagine gaining a ton more out of 1, maybe 2 debates max.

To me, if you have six Democratic debates, everyone ought to be able to see a couple.

I don't see why people need more. Just my opinion...

[Armstead]

43. This is not about "strategy" against the GOP

What, we should not have a process that allows people to get to know all the candidates because Donald Trump is running?

That's ridiculous. The pupose of primaries is to give exposure to the candidates who are seeking their parties' nomination.

Whatever is happening in the GOP should be irrelevant to the Democrats process.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Be honest ....

What do you need more to decide,

[Armstead]

73. I don't matter but....

I've been a fan of Bernie Sanders since the 1990's, and agree with him and admire him. So I'm thrilled that he's running. I also don't like Hillary for a variety of reasons..

Debates are not made for folks like me (and maybe you) who have strong opinions and tend to make their pick early.

However, they are important in the process, to reach people who are either on the fence, or are not political junkies and haven't been paying attention. In the current case, especially if all they hear is how Hillary is the only real candidate, etc.or they just hear the the passing skewed mentions of Socialist Sanders, or have never heard of O'malley...etc.

And even in my case....I'm a realist and I know that at some point I may have to switch horses. I'd sure as hell like to be able to compare the horses, and the debates are one way to do that.

Candidates can;t go door to door. And campaign speeches are all well and good, but they don't show whether a candidate can think on there feet. So debates do have an important tole in allowing people to compare and contrast....And in this "horse race" world they also can shift elections.

[winter is coming]

22. "Unnecessary" isn't a valid argument for the exclusivity clause.

If the DNC doesn't think many debates are necessary, then they don't need to schedule them, but that's no reason to penalize candidates from participating in debates sponsored by others.

[delrem]

4. Hillary Clinton's campain is satisfied with the number of debates,

and with the extraordinary restrictions of debating "elsewhere" than the controlled circumstances provided.

So, as the more profane would say, "fuck off with that shit about doing anything differently, losers!".

[jwirr]

24. LOL. Excellent explanation of what the DNC is doing for Hillary. Screw the rest of us. We get it.

[Zorra]

8. Bernie has changed the game, and they don't want him to play,

because they know they can't compete with him in a public venue.

[Live and Learn]

10. +1 nt

[Scuba]

11. Bingo!

[Fearless]

13. +2

[daleanime]

17. That would be my thought.....

The anointed one didn't do debates that well last time, so let's go lightly on stage time.

[jwirr]

27. Exactly. He talks issue - she cannot talk issues without either losing our votes or losing her

donors. Caught in the proverbial trap. A rock and......

[olddots]

33. Zorra is right on the money

[daleanime]

16. Do you want people talking about Democratic values....

or something like that?

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. But that's the process that led to Hillary losing and a Democrat being elected president...

We would't want to repeat that now would we!

[whatchamacallit]

20. That's when we were fools wandering aimlessly in the desert

Before DWS heard a voice in the night whisper "six".

[AgingAmerican]

21. Bernie isn't with the corporate program

Thus he must be silenced.

[Blue_Adept]

26. How many candidates did we have in April 07 and April 15?

And I don't mean "exploratory" candidates. I mean officially running candidates.

That's a huge difference in why things are moving differently this time.

[jwirr]

28. IF the is the case what are we waiting for NOW? We have 5 declared candidates. And it is August.

[Blue_Adept]

48. That doesn't answer my question

[jwirr]

52. I do not know the answer and it does not matter. What matters is NOW.

[Blue_Adept]

56. If only now matters, why keep bringing up 2007?

[jwirr]

58. I don't.

[Armstead]

42. No then it should be EASIERR to have more debates

[Blue_Adept]

49. That doesn't answer my question

I was looking for context to be able to look at the situation in the present since we're comparing what happened then with now but without the right kind of data.

[Orangepeel]

46. There were eight candidates in the early debates

Biden , Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_democratic_debates#April_26.2C_2007_.E2.80.93_Orangeburg.2C_South_Carolina.2C_South_Carolina_State_University

[Blue_Adept]

50. Thanks! Some important context!

Most of those running now didn't get in formally until after April of this year, right?

Chaffee on June 3

Hilary on April 12

Martin on May 30

Bernie on April 30

Webb on July 2nd

So how in the hell could we have had any debates earlier?

The only announced candidate in April was Hillary and Bernie. And even if you wanted it to be at least three people, you'd have to wait until the May 30th announcement. And how many candidates announce and go right into a debate?

Folks are making some interesting comparisons to 2007, but the cycle is VERY different in terms of who has announced and when.

Then DNC can't make a debate schedule without candidates formally in the running!

[Armstead]

41. What's changed? Hillary lost after having more debates last time. Can't make that mistake again.

[Blue_Adept]

51. Reality changed

If you look at April 2007 and April 2015, there were eight candidates announced then and only two - barely - this time. How can you organize a debate without candidates?!

[jwirr]

53. The number of candidates has little to do with organizing an event unless of course you have 17

like the Rs. Fortunately our party has more sense than the Rs. Organizing requires a date, a place and a sponsor. Since the DNC is sponsoring them that leaves a place and a date. You build the mouse trap and the mice will come. The place and date should not be all that hard to do.

That is what the DNC gets paid to do. That is what we donate to the DNC for - we do not donate so they can maneuver the situation for one candidate.

This would not be a problem if they had not decided that after all these years we suddenly need a exclusivity rule to limit the discussions.

[Blue_Adept]

55. say what? How can you hold a debate in April when there are NO announced candidates?

[jwirr]

57. If you have not noticed it is August 2015 and we have 5 candidates. Who cares about then?

[Armstead]

60. There are four candidates at the momemt

You place them all in a room with a stage and TV cameras, and someone asks them to answer questions. Voila. A debate.

[Agschmid]

66. 5 Candidates...

At least the major ones...

[Armstead]

67. You're right...I forgot Chaffee. All the more reasonn to have debates sooner

Okay Chaffee has about as much chance of being nominated as I do. But he is a legitimate candidate who has held high elected positions.

Votrs should be allowed to see them all and form their own opinions.

[Agschmid]

68. Well then I say what's holding you back?

Get your name into the ring!

[Armstead]

69. The absolute best way to ensure a GOP victory....

would be to put me up for office as a Democrat. Even for city clerk in charge of fountain pens.

(I mean I'm a good guy n'all, but...

[brooklynite]

45. And how many people decided on a candidate based on debates this early?

[Armstead]

61. Campaigns are a long process of perceptions

I can't believe you are doing such mental gymnastics to defend these limitations.

Unless you were intellectually honest enough in 2008 or any previous primary to complain that there were too many debates

[restorefreedom]

47. this is the newest meme

notice how the hillary supporters are all saying the same stuff?

"we don't need as many debates"

"people don't watch them anyway"

"why should we take our schedule from the republicans?"

it all comes down to dws shielding her. if she was so awesome, her supporters would want to see her on a national stage, but they know the more the public sees, the more points she drops.

they can put off the freefall for so long, but they can't stop it

*oligarchy knows no party lines*

go bernie go

[Armstead]

62. Some people have the intellectual honesty of Joe isuzu

[restorefreedom]

72. i miss joe!

[Thinkingabout]

59. That was then and now we are in 2015.

[Armstead]

63. I suppose we have changed our political systyem since then?

[Thinkingabout]

65. If you have a better plan and on the planning committee then go for it.

[whatchamacallit]

64. Which is different how?

"Make way, thin king about!"

[George II]

74. How many candidates were there in 2007 and how many of those "debates" were truly debates?