SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Many Democrats, Six Primary Season Debates 'Is Just Not Enough'
Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, have both called for a more robust debate schedule
Sep 16, 2015
As 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls gather in California for their second nationally televised debate on Wednesday evening, a group of Democrats will rally outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington, D.C., calling for more debates during the primary race.
As it currently stands, the DNC has scheduled just six debates during the primary season, only four of which will take place before the Iowa caucuses in February. Furthermore, the Committee has promised to disinvite candidates who participate in "non-sanctioned" debates.
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights, with major issues not even addressed."
--RootsAction
While the DNC sanctioned six debates in both 2004 and 2008, candidates were allowed to participate in events hosted by media outlets or universities, without repercussion. According to FiveThirtyEight, candidates ultimately attended 15 debates in 2004 and 25 in 2008.
Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"--not to mention politically un-savvy.
"Tens of millions of people are only seeing the Republican message, while we wait for the Democrats to debate," Allow Debate founder Ben Doernberg told Boston.com on Wednesday.
"Six debates is maybe two questions on climate change, maybe three," Doernberg added to ABC News. "It is just not enough if you care deeply about an issue and want to understand where the candidates differ."
"I think every Democratic campaign and the DNC should have to explain why we are ceding the discussion and attention to the Republicans by refusing to the kind of robust debate schedule we've always had," Martin O'Malley's campaign manager Dave Hamrick said in a statement to Politico.
Former Maryland Gov. O'Malley has been vocal about the need for more debates, as has fellow candidate Bernie Sanders.
"At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it's imperative that we have as many debates as possible," Sanders said in a statement in August. "I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights--with major issues not even addressed," the online advocacy group RootsAction said in a call-to-action on Wednesday. "And with few debates, the process will be even more dominated in early voting states by a deluge of big-money ads promoting Republicans or corporate Democrats."
Some have accused DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of limiting the number of debates in an effort to help former Secretary of State and faltering frontrunner Hillary Clinton. "The question remains," Hamrick wrote in the statement to Politico, "if the DNC is still holding to their unprecedented exclusivity clause, are they doing it at the Clinton campaign's request?"
But as Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich wrote on Sunday, such a strategy is likely to backfire.
"I don't know what Wasserman Schultz's motives may be, but she's not doing Clinton any favors by refusing to consider more debates," Obradovich wrote. "Clinton's campaign has said she's open to more debates and she's a seasoned debater. Any perception the DNC is trying to grease the skids for Clinton runs counter to her own efforts to show she intends to earn the nomination, not stage a coronation."
Indeed, said RootsAction co-founder Jeff Cohen, "It really is a shame for a party called 'Democratic' to be sending a message that it wants to shield one candidate from too much democracy."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
As 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls gather in California for their second nationally televised debate on Wednesday evening, a group of Democrats will rally outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington, D.C., calling for more debates during the primary race.
As it currently stands, the DNC has scheduled just six debates during the primary season, only four of which will take place before the Iowa caucuses in February. Furthermore, the Committee has promised to disinvite candidates who participate in "non-sanctioned" debates.
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights, with major issues not even addressed."
--RootsAction
While the DNC sanctioned six debates in both 2004 and 2008, candidates were allowed to participate in events hosted by media outlets or universities, without repercussion. According to FiveThirtyEight, candidates ultimately attended 15 debates in 2004 and 25 in 2008.
Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"--not to mention politically un-savvy.
"Tens of millions of people are only seeing the Republican message, while we wait for the Democrats to debate," Allow Debate founder Ben Doernberg told Boston.com on Wednesday.
"Six debates is maybe two questions on climate change, maybe three," Doernberg added to ABC News. "It is just not enough if you care deeply about an issue and want to understand where the candidates differ."
"I think every Democratic campaign and the DNC should have to explain why we are ceding the discussion and attention to the Republicans by refusing to the kind of robust debate schedule we've always had," Martin O'Malley's campaign manager Dave Hamrick said in a statement to Politico.
Former Maryland Gov. O'Malley has been vocal about the need for more debates, as has fellow candidate Bernie Sanders.
"At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it's imperative that we have as many debates as possible," Sanders said in a statement in August. "I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights--with major issues not even addressed," the online advocacy group RootsAction said in a call-to-action on Wednesday. "And with few debates, the process will be even more dominated in early voting states by a deluge of big-money ads promoting Republicans or corporate Democrats."
Some have accused DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of limiting the number of debates in an effort to help former Secretary of State and faltering frontrunner Hillary Clinton. "The question remains," Hamrick wrote in the statement to Politico, "if the DNC is still holding to their unprecedented exclusivity clause, are they doing it at the Clinton campaign's request?"
But as Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich wrote on Sunday, such a strategy is likely to backfire.
"I don't know what Wasserman Schultz's motives may be, but she's not doing Clinton any favors by refusing to consider more debates," Obradovich wrote. "Clinton's campaign has said she's open to more debates and she's a seasoned debater. Any perception the DNC is trying to grease the skids for Clinton runs counter to her own efforts to show she intends to earn the nomination, not stage a coronation."
Indeed, said RootsAction co-founder Jeff Cohen, "It really is a shame for a party called 'Democratic' to be sending a message that it wants to shield one candidate from too much democracy."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
As 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls gather in California for their second nationally televised debate on Wednesday evening, a group of Democrats will rally outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington, D.C., calling for more debates during the primary race.
As it currently stands, the DNC has scheduled just six debates during the primary season, only four of which will take place before the Iowa caucuses in February. Furthermore, the Committee has promised to disinvite candidates who participate in "non-sanctioned" debates.
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights, with major issues not even addressed."
--RootsAction
While the DNC sanctioned six debates in both 2004 and 2008, candidates were allowed to participate in events hosted by media outlets or universities, without repercussion. According to FiveThirtyEight, candidates ultimately attended 15 debates in 2004 and 25 in 2008.
Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"--not to mention politically un-savvy.
"Tens of millions of people are only seeing the Republican message, while we wait for the Democrats to debate," Allow Debate founder Ben Doernberg told Boston.com on Wednesday.
"Six debates is maybe two questions on climate change, maybe three," Doernberg added to ABC News. "It is just not enough if you care deeply about an issue and want to understand where the candidates differ."
"I think every Democratic campaign and the DNC should have to explain why we are ceding the discussion and attention to the Republicans by refusing to the kind of robust debate schedule we've always had," Martin O'Malley's campaign manager Dave Hamrick said in a statement to Politico.
Former Maryland Gov. O'Malley has been vocal about the need for more debates, as has fellow candidate Bernie Sanders.
"At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it's imperative that we have as many debates as possible," Sanders said in a statement in August. "I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."
"Without more Democratic debates, the campaign will be dominated for months by Republican extremism, immigrant-bashing, and fear-mongering on topics from war and peace to women's reproductive rights--with major issues not even addressed," the online advocacy group RootsAction said in a call-to-action on Wednesday. "And with few debates, the process will be even more dominated in early voting states by a deluge of big-money ads promoting Republicans or corporate Democrats."
Some have accused DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of limiting the number of debates in an effort to help former Secretary of State and faltering frontrunner Hillary Clinton. "The question remains," Hamrick wrote in the statement to Politico, "if the DNC is still holding to their unprecedented exclusivity clause, are they doing it at the Clinton campaign's request?"
But as Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich wrote on Sunday, such a strategy is likely to backfire.
"I don't know what Wasserman Schultz's motives may be, but she's not doing Clinton any favors by refusing to consider more debates," Obradovich wrote. "Clinton's campaign has said she's open to more debates and she's a seasoned debater. Any perception the DNC is trying to grease the skids for Clinton runs counter to her own efforts to show she intends to earn the nomination, not stage a coronation."
Indeed, said RootsAction co-founder Jeff Cohen, "It really is a shame for a party called 'Democratic' to be sending a message that it wants to shield one candidate from too much democracy."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.