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
Since When Are Democrats Afraid of Debates?
Neither Hillary nor the other candidates can afford to keep ceding the limelight to the GOP.
Aug 27, 2015
The Democratic National Committee needs to adapt to the new politics of 2016. Instead of constraining debate, as it has so far, the DNC should change course and encourage an open and freewheeling discourse. This is not just the right choice; it's the politically practical thing to do.
Like it or not, the 2016 campaign is in full swing, and Americans are engaging with it. A record-breaking 24 million viewers tuned in to watch the August 6 GOP debate--more Americans than voted in all of the Republican primaries and caucuses of 2012 combined. It's easy to dismiss these debates as "clown car" spectacles, considering the atrocious statements coming from Donald Trump and his apprentices. Yet since that first debate, Trump and other Republicans have seen their numbers spike in polls, pairing them against anticipated Democratic opponents in 2016.
Democrats are making a serious mistake if they imagine that they'll somehow benefit by letting the Republicans claim center stage as summer gives way to fall. And activists who want to hear serious discussions of issues too frequently neglected by Republicans--from mass incarceration to climate change to nuclear disarmament to expanding Social Security and saving the Postal Service--should be outraged by the prospect that Democrats will not have enough debates, or enough flexibility, to explore these vital issues fully.
It's not enough that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb are campaigning (or that Joe Biden is pondering). The Republican candidates are debating--and far more Americans tune in to debates than attend events on the campaign trail.
The Democrats have scheduled just six debates, as opposed to the dozen proposed by the GOP. Even more absurd is the fact that the first Democratic debate is set for mid-October, more than two months after the Republicans got started.
Unsurprisingly, the loudest objections to the DNC's approach come from candidates seeking a debate boost. Sanders says it's "imperative that we have as many debates as possible--certainly more than six." O'Malley complains that the current schedule is "all about trying to preordain the outcome, circle the wagons, and close off debate." Sanders and O'Malley both object to a DNC rule that says candidates participating in unsanctioned debates can be barred from the DNC's official events.
Reckless partisans may assume that a limited schedule will benefit the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. But that's a bad gamble. Of course, the DNC's proposed schedule is rough for O'Malley, whose strategy depends on multiple debates to draw attention to a serious campaign that still polls in the single digits. It's also rough for Sanders, who needs strong debate performances to build on the momentum of his double-digit poll numbers and rallies that have attracted tens of thousands. But a restricted debate schedule is bad for Clinton as well: She can't keep ceding the limelight to Republicans, who devote so much of their time and energy to attacking her on everything from e-mails to economics.
Clinton can benefit from pressure from her fellow Democrats, both in countering criticisms—some petty, some serious—and in developing the populist message that voters want to hear.
The Democratic debates don't have to be as theatrical as the GOP's Trump-dominated affairs. However, the DNC needs to get started sooner and support more debates in more states. That's good for all the candidates. And it's good for democracy--especially in an increasingly unpredictable and volatile political season when a single party should not dominate the discourse.
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 |
© 2023 The Nation
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
bernie sandersclimate changedemocratic national committeedemocratic partydonald trumpelection 2016hillary clintonjoe bidenjohn nicholsmartin omalleymass incarcerationmedianuclear disarmamentsocial securitydnc
The Democratic National Committee needs to adapt to the new politics of 2016. Instead of constraining debate, as it has so far, the DNC should change course and encourage an open and freewheeling discourse. This is not just the right choice; it's the politically practical thing to do.
Like it or not, the 2016 campaign is in full swing, and Americans are engaging with it. A record-breaking 24 million viewers tuned in to watch the August 6 GOP debate--more Americans than voted in all of the Republican primaries and caucuses of 2012 combined. It's easy to dismiss these debates as "clown car" spectacles, considering the atrocious statements coming from Donald Trump and his apprentices. Yet since that first debate, Trump and other Republicans have seen their numbers spike in polls, pairing them against anticipated Democratic opponents in 2016.
Democrats are making a serious mistake if they imagine that they'll somehow benefit by letting the Republicans claim center stage as summer gives way to fall. And activists who want to hear serious discussions of issues too frequently neglected by Republicans--from mass incarceration to climate change to nuclear disarmament to expanding Social Security and saving the Postal Service--should be outraged by the prospect that Democrats will not have enough debates, or enough flexibility, to explore these vital issues fully.
It's not enough that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb are campaigning (or that Joe Biden is pondering). The Republican candidates are debating--and far more Americans tune in to debates than attend events on the campaign trail.
The Democrats have scheduled just six debates, as opposed to the dozen proposed by the GOP. Even more absurd is the fact that the first Democratic debate is set for mid-October, more than two months after the Republicans got started.
Unsurprisingly, the loudest objections to the DNC's approach come from candidates seeking a debate boost. Sanders says it's "imperative that we have as many debates as possible--certainly more than six." O'Malley complains that the current schedule is "all about trying to preordain the outcome, circle the wagons, and close off debate." Sanders and O'Malley both object to a DNC rule that says candidates participating in unsanctioned debates can be barred from the DNC's official events.
Reckless partisans may assume that a limited schedule will benefit the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. But that's a bad gamble. Of course, the DNC's proposed schedule is rough for O'Malley, whose strategy depends on multiple debates to draw attention to a serious campaign that still polls in the single digits. It's also rough for Sanders, who needs strong debate performances to build on the momentum of his double-digit poll numbers and rallies that have attracted tens of thousands. But a restricted debate schedule is bad for Clinton as well: She can't keep ceding the limelight to Republicans, who devote so much of their time and energy to attacking her on everything from e-mails to economics.
Clinton can benefit from pressure from her fellow Democrats, both in countering criticisms—some petty, some serious—and in developing the populist message that voters want to hear.
The Democratic debates don't have to be as theatrical as the GOP's Trump-dominated affairs. However, the DNC needs to get started sooner and support more debates in more states. That's good for all the candidates. And it's good for democracy--especially in an increasingly unpredictable and volatile political season when a single party should not dominate the discourse.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
The Democratic National Committee needs to adapt to the new politics of 2016. Instead of constraining debate, as it has so far, the DNC should change course and encourage an open and freewheeling discourse. This is not just the right choice; it's the politically practical thing to do.
Like it or not, the 2016 campaign is in full swing, and Americans are engaging with it. A record-breaking 24 million viewers tuned in to watch the August 6 GOP debate--more Americans than voted in all of the Republican primaries and caucuses of 2012 combined. It's easy to dismiss these debates as "clown car" spectacles, considering the atrocious statements coming from Donald Trump and his apprentices. Yet since that first debate, Trump and other Republicans have seen their numbers spike in polls, pairing them against anticipated Democratic opponents in 2016.
Democrats are making a serious mistake if they imagine that they'll somehow benefit by letting the Republicans claim center stage as summer gives way to fall. And activists who want to hear serious discussions of issues too frequently neglected by Republicans--from mass incarceration to climate change to nuclear disarmament to expanding Social Security and saving the Postal Service--should be outraged by the prospect that Democrats will not have enough debates, or enough flexibility, to explore these vital issues fully.
It's not enough that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb are campaigning (or that Joe Biden is pondering). The Republican candidates are debating--and far more Americans tune in to debates than attend events on the campaign trail.
The Democrats have scheduled just six debates, as opposed to the dozen proposed by the GOP. Even more absurd is the fact that the first Democratic debate is set for mid-October, more than two months after the Republicans got started.
Unsurprisingly, the loudest objections to the DNC's approach come from candidates seeking a debate boost. Sanders says it's "imperative that we have as many debates as possible--certainly more than six." O'Malley complains that the current schedule is "all about trying to preordain the outcome, circle the wagons, and close off debate." Sanders and O'Malley both object to a DNC rule that says candidates participating in unsanctioned debates can be barred from the DNC's official events.
Reckless partisans may assume that a limited schedule will benefit the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. But that's a bad gamble. Of course, the DNC's proposed schedule is rough for O'Malley, whose strategy depends on multiple debates to draw attention to a serious campaign that still polls in the single digits. It's also rough for Sanders, who needs strong debate performances to build on the momentum of his double-digit poll numbers and rallies that have attracted tens of thousands. But a restricted debate schedule is bad for Clinton as well: She can't keep ceding the limelight to Republicans, who devote so much of their time and energy to attacking her on everything from e-mails to economics.
Clinton can benefit from pressure from her fellow Democrats, both in countering criticisms—some petty, some serious—and in developing the populist message that voters want to hear.
The Democratic debates don't have to be as theatrical as the GOP's Trump-dominated affairs. However, the DNC needs to get started sooner and support more debates in more states. That's good for all the candidates. And it's good for democracy--especially in an increasingly unpredictable and volatile political season when a single party should not dominate the discourse.
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.