Clinton, Sanders Agree to Four Additional Debates
Debates help Hillary, not Bernie, so why did he agree?
With her poll numbers cratering, Hillary Clinton and her team have evidently caved to the reality that the thin debate schedule designed to hide her from the public eye and let her coast to the Democrat nomination is actually, as Kemberlee noted earlier this month, hurting her and her campaign.
As a result, the Clinton team and the Sanders team have agreed to four more debates this campaign season, a decision the DNC still has to approve (and likely will).
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders’ campaigns have agreed in principle to attend four more debates, starting with a proposed New Hampshire event next week, a Clinton campaign aide confirmed Saturday.
The schedule is still subject to approval from the Democratic National Committee, which has not publicly weighed in on the campaigns’ requests to add four events — one in February, one in March, one in April, and one in May — since Sanders proposed it this week.
I don’t really understand why Sanders keeps doing these things to help Clinton (remember his dismissal of her email scandal during one debate?), but he does.
Politico continues:
The final negotiations have yet to be ironed out, but the move comes after days of wrangling in public and behind the scenes, as both candidates sought to pressure each other on the topic of adding debates.
BuzzFeed News first reported the development on Saturday.
Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Democratic activists had long made an issue of the previously scant debate schedule — just six events, and only four before Iowa and New Hampshire vote; trailing in New Hampshire, Clinton tried to push Sanders into agreeing to the event there after the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper and MSNBC earlier this week announced an unsanctioned event would be held there.
Sanders responded by proposing the additional debates, which now seem likely to occur if the DNC signs on. The committee would have to waive its exclusivity clause that precludes candidates from appearing in unsanctioned debates and bars them from joining the official events if they do.
It looks like we’ll have four additional Democrat debates to endure (or ignore).
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Let me sum up what each debate will be all about …
“I can take more money than you can, I can take more money than you can!”
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Each debate will be about “I can give away more money than you can.”
Great Taste! Less Filling!
Let’s face it. You’re both right.
HandyGandy | January 31, 2016 at 3:02 pm
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Each debate will be about “I can give away more (of other people’s) money than you can.”
Fixt it for ya.
have agreed to four more debates this campaign season, a decision the DNC still has to approve (and likely will)
And why would this be likely?
There’s little indication that the original reasons for the DNC’s tactic of limiting these debates have changed.
When debate becomes about more taxation, you have lost the American people, especially when the middle class is the most representative of the American people and are in nowise susceptible to ignorant talk.
Sooner or later, questioners either have to get tough with Hillary on the emails, or lose whatever small credibility they have left.
That would do the dirty work Bernie won’t do. Besides, it increases the chances Grandma shows up drunk or trips or loses her cool and shows her inner self on stage.
He agreed because they are free media.
Also he has been beating Hillary senseless in debates.
Bernie’s rhetoric and promises “more free stuff that republican will pay for,” are killing Hillary’s more sensible suggestions “We can get a lot more done if we don’t have another 2 year healthcare fight.”
Hillary is out of tough with Democrat voters, who don’t care about anything other than “more” at this point.
The more people see of Hillary, the less impressed they are.
I suppose you could ask why did Bernie agree to anything Hillary proposed, instead of reasoning a la Groucho Marx, who said that he wouldn’t want to belong to club that would have him as a member, that Hillary wouldn’t propose anything unless she thought it benefitted her, so he shouldn’t do it.
What this is, for Hillary, is insurance in case things go really bad for her. That’s why she asked for 4 debates – to incentivize Sanders to agree, in case things go bad for him. To ask for just one or two, and then ask for more if she is losing, woud limit the chances of Sanders agreeing, so she asked for 4 now. Of course, she figures she can always cancel them, or find some dispute to cause a cancellation, if she is well ahead later.
The advnatage for Sanders is that, in general, this helps him. He has limited exposure in many states and he needs more attention.
He gets something that might help him somewhat, especially right after New Hampshire, in exchange for giving Hillary a chance to salvage her campaign in case he gets really ahead.
This is a risk worth taking. She probably won’t be able to salvage things if things go really bad for her. What would suddenly start working right for her if she is collapsing?
Also, a slow loss would help her supporters get more accustomed to the idea of him getting the nomination, and, he would hope, the exposure in the debates would help him in a general election. No debates, no contest – he’s not in the news until the convention.
And besides he believes in debates, anyway.
Barney already proved he is not in it to win when he surrendered his most powerful weapon to defeat Hillary, the crimes and betrayal of our nation she committed with her email server.