Discussion: Sanders Camp: Clinton Only Wants New Debate Now That 'Race Has Changed'

TPM Article Topics
144

Agreed on the DWS meme. I think the best play for her is to agree to the later debates and let this one go. That makes the DNC look like they are not playing favorites and shows HRC is more than reasonable.

As another commenter upthread stated, the more debates the better for HRC. I’m not a Clinton fan but she is masterful at debates and, most importantly, appears presidential in a way that no other candidate on either side does. Lawrence O’Donnell predicted Trump would refuse to debate her in the general because she would wipe the floor with him.

At the end of the day, I think Clinton wins Iowa and then none of this matters cuz everyone expects Sanders to win in NH and then Clinton runs the table to win the nomination.

1 Like
145

I don’t disagree with the importance of perceived momentum, and how state-by-state successes can drive the narrative and affect national numbers. Just pointing out that the national numbers have moved significantly in Bernie’s direction too. And voters in subsequent states may be influenced by both state results in earlier states, and national polling numbers (which, as you point out, can be affected by those earlier state results).

The basic dynamic is that movement in the direction of a still-trailing-but-apparently-gaining candidate often causes people to take a “second look” at that candidate. The “second look” does not at all guarantee that most of those voters will decide to back that up-and-coming candidate. But it provides an opportunity where that might happen.

1 Like
146

http://i3.cpcache.com/product/1634480236/feel_the_bern_classic_thong.jpg?color=White&height=460&width=460&qv=90

147

The slate article is an “opinion” piece,and it doesn’t back you up…it merely confirms what I said above, and that you share the same opinion as the writer. It wasn’t a guess…you were referring to precisely the same weak arguments that the author provided all along.

The article I provided from Cook is not merely citing “delegate math” from primary contests that haven’t happened. Its citing super delegate counts that have already committed. Its citing substantial and consistent leads in polling. Its citing the demographic groups that support Hillary over Bernie in every poll.

I do find it ironic that you are saying the logic I am deploying…which I cited the article from one of the leading political scientist’s website, is flawed to the hilt, while saying that your unreferenced political science books prove that.

I mean I know political science is often short on the science part, but c’mon…at least reference some sort of study. If you have studies or polling that contradicts mine, then put them up here so we can discuss.

148

I agree with that hypothesis in theory. I still think it depends on which States are being won. If Sanders wins the New England corridor, I don’t see how that necessarily helps him in the Deep South. Or even the Southwest.

1 Like
149

Should have been his first answer.

3 Likes
150

You really must not put words into my mouth; it´s not polite.

151

To tell the truth about my opinion…I think O’Malley is the one who actually is painting the bright future picture while underscoring the “Yes We Can” meme. Just nobody is paying attention to it.

Hillary, as you point out, is indeed going with a pragmatic, incremental approach to the future. Defend what we have and stay the course and each year it will get a little bit better. Trust in her, because she has the chops to get it done.

And Bernie is going with a revolution in the streets approach. Something is wrong and we have to rise up and fight it. But there is almost zero “brighter tomorrow” rhetoric involved.

3 Likes
152

I agree. That’s one reason why his apparent gains in South Carolina (just one poll, but it’s the only one available) make that an especially important race to watch. A win in both Iowa and New Hampshire might help him by a couple points in SC, but to actually win in SC – or even come close enough to get a good “beating expectations” narrative – he’ll need to continue to gain ground in SC well beyond that possible modest “post-NH bump,” and will need to gain that ground faster than he has been up to this point.

And as everyone knows, support from African-Americans will be crucial in SC. Yes, Bernie has “tripled” his support among AAs in South Carolina since September. But since the original number was a miniscule 7%, the tripling still only brings him to about 21%, about 1 in 5 African-American likely Democratic primary voters. Still a long, long way to go. And no, he doesn’t need to win an actual majority of AA votes to win SC, but according to the analyses I’ve seen, he probably needs his support from African-Americans to increase into the 40’s, That would be at least a doubling of his current support from that group. A pretty steep hill to climb in a short amount of time, for sure.

1 Like
153

I’m not devoted to Bernie at all, Steve (I support Hillary). But I am trying to look at this in an even-handed way.

She’s agreeing to a debate in NH (where she’s behind) but not in any later states (where she’s ahead). Sanders is agreeing to debate in NH so long as all the candidates agree to debate in later states. Doesn’t his position seem fairer and more in the spirit of the way debate schedules are supposed to be set up?

Isn’t it clear that Hillary’s cherrypicking to set up an ad hoc debate schedule that’s advantageous to her? It seems particularly disingenuous for her to claim that Bernie is chickening out of a debate in NH, when she refuses to debate him in any state where she’s ahead.

I see this as Sanders’ campaigning deciding not to unilaterally disarm by agreeing to an ad hoc schedule for Clinton’s convenience. In the end, he’ll have to join in the Manchester debate. But this is another overly tactical approach that puts a bitter taste in my mouth.

1 Like
155

SE I have a problem with the “Clinton’s convienance” narrative.

This debate was proposed by NH and MSNBC not Clinton’s campaign or any surrogate, O’Mally agreed to it first, THEN Clinton agreed as long as all three would participate (which she said would force the DNC to sanction) after that Bernie says he won’t do it UNLESS it’s sanctioned first, several hours LATER he says he’ll do it but only if he gets 3 more debates. And some how Clinton is on the defensive and “crying”… When to me it looks like Bernie is merely making excuse after excuse to not follow through on what said he wanted.

I mean what happens if Clinton says “sure” are we supposed to believe Bernie will stand by what he said when earlier he went on and on about being willing to debate in sanctioned or unsancitoned debates anytime anywhere… Until he was actually challenged to one?

1 Like
156

Gonna repeat this because it bears repeating:

He is not in the position to negotiate this. He’s made it clear that he thinks the debate schedule is wrong. That’s all he gets to do.

1 Like
157

The big difference is that Obama had a message of civility – not confrontation – which was very appealing. Not that the GOP leadership and far right elements obliged him in the least – but there was some real crossover appeal during the election and having an elderly McCain with crazy Palin waiting in the wings also helped him. If the GOP choses Trump or Cruz, I expect there will again be many disaffected republicans and independents that we want and need to vote for the democrat. Now, I don’t want to vote based on who I think might be acceptable to the other side – but it is nonetheless, a consideration. I just can’t imagine crossover voters who voted for Obama, now voting for a “socialist” calling for “revolution.” The GOP tried to label Obama a socialist – but the accusation didn’t stand up to scrutiny. With Sanders – they will exaggerate, but he actually embraces the label. I fear a wipeout similar to what happened to McGovern. They may dislike Hillary – but when push comes to shove, there is no question that she is capable and steady – not crazy and unpredictable like Trump – and not radical as Sanders. (I personally don’t think Sanders is radical, but that is how he will be smeared.) I might be wrong – but this is the way I see it at this time.

1 Like
158

Fortunately for Bernie, you don’t get to decide what his options are.

Hillary has some leverage here, and she is using it to try to get what she wants – an additional debate before New Hampshire while keeping her options open whether to agree to more in the future.

Bernie also has some leverage here, and is using it to try to get what he wants – additional debates after New Hampshire, agreed to now so that Hillary doesn’t get to pick and choose based on how she’s doing in the polls in upcoming states.

That is what is going on here. In that sense, it’s not complicated at all. One side or the other will have to back down, or both will have to reach a compromise. Otherwise the NH debate doesn’t happen, and they can each blame each other.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but I think Bernie may have a slight edge on the leverage on this one. Because if they don’t reach agreement, the New Hampshire debate doesn’t happen, which is O.K. with Bernie, but apparently less O.K. with Hillary. Meanwhile the DNC has already said they’ll revisit the debate schedule after New Hampshire, and obviously they’ll be under pressure to add some more debates whether this New Hampshire one happens or not, and if Hillary changes her position again and refuses to sign on to any additional debates, that’s going to look pretty bad for her.

So the risk for Hillary’s side is that failing to reach an agreement now risks Bernie getting all of what he wants – no last-minute debate in New Hampshire without future debates being agreed to, and a strong possibility that she’ll end up having to agree to at least some additional debates anyway. On the other hand, failing to reach an agreement now does not carry the same risks for Bernie, he’s O.K. with declining the proposed New Hampshire debate, and then participating in the DNC process to consider adding other debates later. So my sense is that he is in a slightly stronger bargaining position on this one.

Basically Hillary’s played her weak hand well, but if she doubles down and Bernie calls her bluff, she probably loses this hand. And he seems determined to call her bluff.

1 Like
159

I haven’t seen anyone claim the Manchester debate was her idea. That’s a straw man. The argument rather is that her campaign saw an opportunity for tactical advantage and took it. Nothing wrong with that, in itself.

It’s the false claim that Sanders is contradicting himself that I’m have trouble with. He’s agreed to a sanctioned NH debate so long as the DNC sanctions two more debate (i.e. debates that aren’t uniquely positioned to her advantage). And what more broadly bothers me is the extreme measure of the DNC allowing so few debates very obviously to protect Hillary, which I believe weakens her as a General Election candidate and reduces opportunities for Democrats to define the issues.

If Sanders did in fact say that he’d debate Hillary anywhere anytime, sanctioned or unsanctioned, then I’ll reverse myself entirely and agree with you that he’s being a hypocrite. But in all the criticism of Sanders over this, I haven’t seen any quotes of him saying what you wrote he said. Show me, and I’ll say I was wrong.

As for this idea that Sanders shouldn’t be trusted to come to the NH debate if the DNC sanctioned the NH debate and two others. First off, that wouldn’t make sense because the other debates that he wants would fall after NH. Secondly, really? Is there some actual reason that you wouldn’t trust Sanders as much as, say, Obama trusted Romney on debate agreements. Are you that offended that Sanders is running against Hillary that you’re going to go there?

1 Like
160

Things can and will change, but difference between the “Trump v. Clinton” and “Trump v. Sanders” regressions at Pollster today are a pretty damn serious problem, both as a matter of political perception and one of reality. It’s incredible to me, but Trump runs better against Sanders than any other Republican–and is ahead of him. Kasich, however, seems to be the only one who could be Hillary’s kryptonite. (Weirdly, the graph in the graphic below seems not to be from any match up on the page, by the way.)

161

Nice analysis, Poopy. The only place I’d differ: I think Hillary’s hand is a bit stronger in demanding that Bernie join the Manchester debate. He’d hurt himself by not showing up there.

1 Like
162

Clinton’s pretty much tied with Rubio, too.

163

Rubio doesn’t worry me. She’ll squash the cotton mouthed twerp like a bug, in the debates if not on the trail. But Kasich has a shot, both in the primary and in the general. In the primary, if he gets his ticket punched in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he could really turn into the “oh thank God we don’t have to choose between Trump or Cruz” candidate really fast, both in terms of money and in terms of voter support, especially if he’s showing strength against Hillary.

And in the general–well, we all need to face the real, terrifying possibility that we could easily be in a recession by November. If that happens, the totally not crazy, though rather cranky, Kasich could win it. A thing that makes it very easy for Republicans to support him and, after all, he’s not all that apostate doctrinally, right?

2 Likes
164

And by the way, it bears noting that in 2008, a comment thread here with 160+ comments would have looked like the aftermath of a chainsaw massacre in a small white room.

1 Like