I see here that the Dem Chairwoman has limited debates to just the six that she scheduled, and that if any candidate participates in other debates, they will not be able to participate in the 6 sanctioned debates. My question is, given that I think all the candidates other than Hillary want more debates, what prevents all of them from simply holding a debate on their own? If they are all then prevented from participating in Dem-sanctioned debates, the only open present would be Hillary, and that would be a non-debate and make the Chairwoman look like a dolt and Clinton lackey.
It seems to me that she’s opened the door to let all the other candidates isolate Clinton outside of the whole conversation and selection process. She’d become irrelevant as the other candidates would simply hold their own debates. What would be the downside for the candidates that are not Clinton?
The could certainly do as you suggest. However, as everyone believes she has a good chance to be the next POTUS, I’m not sure anyone wants to completely thumb their nose at her or the party. Some of these candidates wouldn’t mind being considered for VP or a cabinet post.
If the other Democratic candidates want more than six debates (do they? cite for that?), then they can run as Independents, I suppose. If they want to play ball with the party, they play ball with the party.
Does it favor Clinton? Maybe. But “isolating” Clinton would be extraordinarily stupid on a number of levels. She’s already the frontrunner, she has a great deal of establishment support, and most importantly they want to debate her. Sanders, f’rinstance, is pretty far from dumb. He knows his odds of securing the nomination are slim at best. Only by debating Clinton will he have the opportunity to present his ideas and plans in direct contrast to hers.
I just cannot see any upside for the candidates in your idea.
It seems to me that six debates is plenty. Unlike the Republicans there aren’t 18 different candidates that each need to have their say and be weeded out to allow for a unified party at the convention. If the non-Clinton candidates can’t get their message out and differentiate themselves from Clinton in six debates I’m not sure how seven or eight debates will help them.
The rule is necessary to prevent individual candidates, or new organizations from setting up their own debates that other candidates are obligated to attend or risk being labled as a coward, resulting in a debate every other week none of which gain much media attention because they are so common, but which would take up pretty much all of the candidates time.
Even if the other Democrats did what you suggested, they would have to do it at least 7 times in order to fix the problem you are describing, and further they would likely be sponsored by less prominent journalistic organizations than those that are sponsoring the original six. Finally by making this move it makes them look petty and weakens the party hurting their chances in both the primary and general election. I can’t see any way in which your suggestion would help them achieve their goals.
Why would they have to do it 7 times? From what I read, just having one would disqualify them. After that, they’d likely choose to have some number more then 6. That’s their beef…that 6 is not enough.
The point I’m making is that they would have to seven or more different debates on their own. in order to get more debates in than the six that they scrapped.
I get that. But they’d be embarking on this strategy for the very reason they they want more than six debate. So, the price they’d have to pay, is the very thing they seek.
The last two DNC scheduled are both targeted for Feb/March 2016. By the time you get another debate in a good chunk of the delegates are selected and a number of candidates have likely dropped.
If I were one of the candidates I think I’d try to make this happen in two weeks, and invite Clinton.
First off, you’d be able to paint Clinton as afraid to debate and part of the old way of doing things. That’s two wins right there.
According to the DNC Chairwoman, anyone who participates would be barred from any and all DNC debates. So, these candidates could just continue to hold as many debates as they want—10, 12—and keep inviting Clinton. After the DNC scheduled debate in October is cancelled because the DNC has disqualified and barred all candidates (other than Clinton, who probably would not show up at the others), Clinton would be forced to accept future debates with the group of candidates. Or not debate anyone at all.
So, the candidates other than Clinton would get just what they want—and need—a lot of debates for them to get traction and unseat her.
I don’t think the Democratic candidates would do this because they value a decent relationship with the DNC and want to be seen as team players helping the Democrats win the next election. Doing this could be the end of any chance for the rest of their careers to be good with the national Democratic party.
In short, they value their ongoing relationship with the DNC enough that they wouldn’t jeopardize it for just a slight chance of increasing their standing. Especially when most of the candidates recognize they have almost no chance of winning the nomination.
O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee probably know that they have ~0 chance at the nomination, but might want to have a chance at VP and cabinet positions – screwing with DNC rules would eliminate this possibility.
First, I think they all think they can win. Second, if Clinton is second in the polls, which is a possibility in the near future, then isolating her has no price. If Sanders leads the effort for more debates, and he’s winning, they profit more by following his lead.