# Sanders and Trump agree to a debate...how do you think it will turn out? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 26, 2016, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734 "2016-05-26T12:18:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/61 "2016-05-27T14:32:18Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Bernie’s already been on a debate stage with Hilary. She’s saving her energy for the debates that matter–with the other nominee. So its OK to reneg on debates you already agreed to? A debate today would have much higher viewership than debates that run opposite Trump debates. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/62 "2016-05-27T14:37:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What, again? Do you think there’s something new to say? DO you think that another debate between Hillary and Bernie would inform the voters more or have no real effect? > [@](#): > > Wrong. It would make her look like she isn’t sure she’s the nominee yet. To most people, anyway; we know what \*you \*think of her and why, and no cover story is needed. Really? What DO I think of her and why? I’d love to know. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/63 "2016-05-27T14:40:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So its OK to reneg on debates you already agreed to? A debate today would have much higher viewership than debates that run opposite Trump debates. Yes, when the contest is over. There is no reason for a debate other than the mere act of asking for one. We know what their positions are, they have discussed them before, the contest is over, and if you want to know more, please visit their websites. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/64 "2016-05-27T14:41:56Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Trump’s condition that there’s money in it gives me some degree of skepticism that this ever takes place. But if it takes place, it would probably be the end of Hillary Clinton’s chances, and effectively the end of the Democratic party’s chances at unifying progressives under one umbrella. And in effect, either handing a victory to Trump, or if Democrats disintegrate into two parties, maybe the election turns into a three-way free for all – or even a four-way tug of war if this somehow convinces Ted Cruz that he’s got a shot at winning this thing after all. He wouldn’t of course – falling short in a 3 or 4 way race would send the election to the House, where Paul Ryan would lead a movement to bring in President Mitt Romney. Either way, the debate (circus) would be the beginning of the end for progressives. So perhaps Hillary should stop stonewalling Bernie and give him as many fucking debates as he wants until she actually wins the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/65 "2016-05-27T14:42:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > DO you think that another debate between Hillary and Bernie would inform the voters more or have no real effect? No real effect. Why don’t we just promote the debates they’ve already had? Any voter wants to be informed, they can just go to Youtube or the campaign websites and inform themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/66 "2016-05-27T14:54:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So its OK to reneg on debates you already agreed to? A debate today would have much higher viewership than debates that run opposite Trump debates. The last thing Clinton wants is viewers. The democratic debate schedule, at the outset, was geared to have the least viewers possible for a mere six scheduled debates. There were two Saturday evening debates. One of them was in Iowa and competed with an Iowa Hawkeyes football game and one of them was the Saturday six days before Christmas. Another was the Sunday of the Martin Luther King holiday. Only one was on a Thursday which, rating-wise, is the best choice for a debate if you want the most viewers possible. This was not accidental. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/67 "2016-05-27T14:56:01Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Yes, when the contest is over. > > There is no reason for a debate other than the mere act of asking for one. There is a reason. She promised to do one and she should keep her promise. Also: > [@](#): > > Clinton: “Honestly, I just believe this is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere,” > > SOURCE: [Unprecedented Trump-Bernie Bout Would Be Tremendous For Every Candidate Left (But One)](http://www.mediaite.com/online/unprecedented-trump-bernie-bout-would-be-tremendous-for-every-candidate-left-but-one/) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/68 "2016-05-27T15:14:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The last thing Clinton wants is viewers. The democratic debate schedule, at the outset, was geared to have the least viewers possible for a mere six scheduled debates. What craziness that someone can say with a straight face a “mere” 6 debates. That’s plenty, was what happened in 2008, and got bumped up to 9. Oh, but 10 or 11 is the magic number! ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/69 "2016-05-27T15:15:19Z")
So she changed her mind. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/70 "2016-05-27T15:29:31Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What craziness that someone can say with a straight face a “mere” 6 debates. That’s plenty, was what happened in 2008, and got bumped up to 9. Oh, but 10 or 11 is the magic number! “Was what happened in 2008?” Huh? There were [twenty-six debates in 2008.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008) I’m not good at math but I think that is more than six. I am not saying we needed twenty-six again but we certainly could have used more than six as originally planned. Clinton apparently thought so too since she agreed to four more than the original six (but only did three more) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/71 "2016-05-27T15:31:40Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So she changed her mind. Big deal. I hope your friends, family and co-workers see that post and learn they can promise you whatever they want and not have to worry about keeping that promise because you won’t care. Clearly they are just changing their mind and it is no big deal. I submit it is not for you to say whether it is a big deal or not but rather it is for the person to whom the promise was broken to decide if it is a big deal to them. And of course it shows you cannot take Clinton at her word even for something as simple and doable as this is. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/72 "2016-05-27T15:44:11Z")
Oh for god’s sake, this Clinton/Sanders debate malarkey is all theater. You can’t seriously argue we don’t know enough about either candidate at this point. Every election year there’s a huge palaver about who agrees to how many debates, and 95% of it is posturing aimed at that evening’s news cycle. Everyone knows debates are gaffe machines; the whole purpose of negotiating debates is to appear as though you have nothing to fear while actually exposing yourself to as little risk as possible. I for one am happy to stipulate that Clinton is changing her mind on this debate because doing so is in her interest. The only reason Sanders hasn’t changed his is because he’s losing and can’t afford to. If anyone actually thinks Bernie is sticking to this plan out of an abstract regard for principles and fair play, I’d remind them of his [“evolving,” cravenly self-interested position on superdelegates](http://http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a45267/bernie-sanders-superdelegates/). (This Trump/Sanders debate, OTOH, is a whole 'nother order of malarkey.) ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/73 "2016-05-27T15:49:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > None do. The campaigns do not stand on a podium and announce these things. Rather they release the information through the media. This bit was widely reported: If changing her mind on debating Sanders keeps him from staging a debate with Trump, she had better crawl over broken glass to agree. 1, 2, 4, whatever he wants. Debates aren’t about changing minds or stating policies-look at Trump’s debating style-they are about looking good to your supporters and not looking bad to everyone else (at least traditionally, Trump showed that the second goal apparently isn’t necessary this year). She needs to stop a Trump/Sanders debate no matter what. Ideally she should try to apologize for the email server thing, explain that it seemed OK at the time and in retrospect clearly was not, encourage her supporters and run against a dysfunctional Washington. If she does those things she stands a chance. Oog, I hope she does. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/74 "2016-05-27T15:49:20Z")
In this world, if any can get 90% of what was casually promised somebody, I would consider that a gain. In addition, people are forgetting the 12 forums the two candidates have participated in, making their total number of combined public appearances together to discuss the issues to be: 21 Again, this is only a mountain if you want it to be. There is no more edification that can be had by an interested voter that cannot be found via youtube, the candidates websites, the sheer plethora of news and opinions out there, fact checkers, and the like. They have already met 21 times - what marginal benefit can be had by the voters for demanding a 22nd showing? For those states which have already voted, there is no benefit. Period. For the 11% of the country that is voting in a couple of weeks, there is some, but, again, with these two having met 21 times already, combined with the overwhelming amount of information and resources available to anybody with a smart phone, the benefit even to _the California voter_ of a 10th debate is almost nil. > **[2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016)** > > Debates occurred among candidates in the campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the president of the United States in the 2016 presidential election. > Several forums, in which candidates do not respond directly to each other, were later also announced, with the support of the DNC. > The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced on May 5, 2015, that there would be 6 debates, which they considered "a reasonable number and in line with what the national committee sanctioned in 2008.... ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/75 "2016-05-27T15:52:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > “Was what happened in 2008?” Huh? > > There were [twenty-six debates in 2008.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008) I’m not good at math but I think that is more than six. > > I am not saying we needed twenty-six again but we certainly could have used more than six as originally planned. Clinton apparently thought so too since she agreed to four more than the original six (but only did three more) My mistake, I was going by party sanctioned debates which I am pretty sure was still only 6 in 2008, there was just no barrier to all those extra debates. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/76 "2016-05-27T16:02:39Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > If anyone actually thinks Bernie is sticking to this plan out of an abstract regard for principles and fair play, I’d remind them of his [“evolving,” cravenly self-interested position on superdelegates](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a45267/bernie-sanders-superdelegates/). I am missing where Sanders is being craven here. Sanders’ supporters certainly gripe about superdelegates. I am one of them. And because of that I agree that the candidate with the most pledged delegates walking into the convention should get the nomination (which in this case is 99.99999% likely to be Clinton). My only caveat here is what happens if the FBI does come out and recommends the attorney general should convene a grand jury and seek an indictment? Should Clinton still get the nomination and run anyway? Should she back out? Should she get the nomination and then back out and hand it to someone else? Too many possibilities to contemplate and I am not sure what the rules are but I would maintain that if she had to back out then the delegates should give the nomination to the person who came in second in this case (Sanders) and not hand it to Bloomberg or Biden. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/77 "2016-05-27T16:33:23Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > … By the end of the debate Trump will have ⅓ of the Sanders supporters willing to vote for Trump if Sanders isn’t the democratic nominee… From whence do you derive this extraordinary prediction? Nostradamus? Magic 8-ball? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/78 "2016-05-27T16:35:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Too many possibilities to contemplate and I am not sure what the rules are but I would maintain that if she had to back out then the delegates should give the nomination to the person who came in second in this case (Sanders) and not hand it to Bloomberg or Biden. The super delegates make up 15% of the vote and are not a hive mind. They can’t “hand it” to anyone who doesn’t have substantial backing from the regular delegates. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/79 "2016-05-27T16:36:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So its OK to reneg on debates you already agreed to? A debate today would have much higher viewership than debates that run opposite Trump debates. You know what’s worse than renegging on a debate you agreed to (but which is now pointless)? Jumping over your party’s nominating process and agreeing to debate the GOP’s presumptive nominee before you yourself have secured your party’s nomination. Imagine the uproar from Bernie’s camp if Hillary agreed to debate Trump right now. I’m starting to wonder if Bernie would rather have a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734/80 "2016-05-27T16:55:33Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > You know what’s worse than renegging on a debate you agreed to (but which is now pointless)? Jumping over your party’s nominating process and agreeing to debate the GOP’s presumptive nominee before you yourself have secured your party’s nomination. Imagine the uproar from Bernie’s camp if Hillary agreed to debate Trump right now. > I’m starting to wonder if Bernie would rather have a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency. It’s political theater, that’s all. This will damage neither Clinton nor Sanders. The likely voters will line up behind one or the other (almost certainly, Clinton), when the dust settles. If the debate goes very well for Sanders, perhaps he gets the golden ticket to the VP office. If it goes only moderately well, Clinton can punt to Warren and still get most of the hard line Bernie believers. Either way, this will be good for the democratic party as a whole and it will be a good kick in the pants for Hillary who could stand a little humility adjustment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-trump-agree-to-a-debate-how-do-you-think-it-will-turn-out/755734.md?page=5)