Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
What would be the logical reason for that?
-
Features
Clinton campaign tries to get Sanders to NY debate during NCAA Syracuse match
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
repoman
Contributor
That is tonight at 8:30 pm Eastern.
Getting a debate ready that quick?
Hope she goes down in flames in New York.
Getting a debate ready that quick?
Hope she goes down in flames in New York.
nm
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, it didn't just happen today. It was some time ago I am not sure how many days that the campaign tried to schedule it that way. That would be odd since you'd expect much less people to watch the debate in NY.
repoman
Contributor
are you being sarcastic? Clinton is afraid of debating.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I don't see another reason than that but I've made it an open question so as to be open-minded. I mean, IMO, Clinton's probably got the default vote since she was the Senator, but if New Yorkers got to hear Sanders and the content of his message, she'd be in trouble...but again I'd like to hear what other reasons people come to.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,197
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Hide the debates. Debbie Wasserman Shultz should lose her job, IMO, for doing so during the fall. I think this behavior on the part of Clinton is bad as well. Democratic debates should be scheduled when they're most likely to be seen, while there is risk in doing so, it's also free airtime for one's ideas. Could also be used to draw comparison & contrast between Democrats & Republicans.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,989
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Hillary's got a big lead. She doesn't need to debate. More debates works against her. I sincerely doubt she's afraid of debating. It's simply good political tactics.
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton is making decisions based on cold, political calculations? I find that hard to believe.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I agree with this.
However, I wonder if we agree on all the ways in which they would work against her. We don't have to agree either.
It gives more opportunities for her to screw something up when she's in a forum where there's a lot of back and forth between her and her opponent and she can't exert as much control over what's asked and answered. That's why, in general, those in the lead want less debates and those who are trailing want more. If you need to make up ground, you want to get a chance at as many of those opportunities as possible and if you're leading, you want to limit them.
Would be nice if she was that honest. Why doesn't she just decline more debates by saying that they don't benefit her?
Hillary doesn't need debates to screw things up.
Hillary Clinton's absurd claim that she's the only candidate being attacked by Wall Street
I don't know. Why does Sanders say that he wants more debates in order to discuss serious issues and that Clinton is playing silly political games by dodging them? Why can't he just be honest and admit that he's playing silly political games himself when he makes those statements and he wants more debates because they give him more of an opportunity to upset her lead and that would benefit him?
Politicians always use a Statement Generator when they speak instead of just being honest with people.
- - - Updated - - -
Ya, but there's less coverage of that when it's not said in a debate and it becomes less of a thing. Except if Trump says it, of course, in which case it gets fit into the 52 minutes out of every news hour which are devoted to Trump coverage.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Candidates also want to be in the news so that voters can see they are a real choice. They can do that by debating, interviews, cameos, etc. The candidate can also screw up in interviews etc, ie. there are downsides and upsides to everything the candidate may do, including doing nothing, even if in the lead. Look at Jeb Bush for example. He did nothing about Trump and got trounced.
Now, the other thing is that when people make decisions they are doing cost-benefit analysis even if it is informal or intuitive. One of the other costs of Hillary debating is that it benefits Sanders. He would be able to show he is a real candidate, could trip up Hillary, or even show he is more in-line with the party values. There isn't any reason to not mention this downside.
Finally, there is the issue of offering to debate during the NCAA match specifically. Doing so, keeps her in the news but if it panned out would minimize upside to Bernie and downside to herself. Again, no reason not to mention all benefits to the Hillary campaign...
Right, so every factor about having more debates helps Sanders and hurts Clinton. Therefore, she would be stupid to not hamper the debates as much as possible. If you want a stupid President, vote Trump.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Not every factor. If she really is better for the Party and the country, then she can make her case in that forum.
Tom Sawyer said:
To me personally, it is in my best interest to determine which candidate is best. It helps to test which candidate is better by having them debate. Society is better when I am informed. An informed voter is after all better for the public.
Ya, so your goals and her goals are in conflict. If Sanders was winning, your goals and his goals would be in conflict and you'd be agreeing with Clinton that the voters need to be better informed about the differences between the candidates on all these important issues.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I am a little skeptical that Sanders would act like Clinton if he were winning--I can't really be sure.
Ya, and you can't be sure that the sun will rise tommorrow morning, but it's a pretty damn good bet. He may not engage in as many dirty tricks as Clinton, but I disagree with you that the man is an idiot who would squander his advantage by giving his opponents the chance to get more ammunition.