\nI watched the first three Democratic Presidential Primary debates of the\n2020 campaign as I have all debates in previous campaigns. There was one abundantly clear result from all\nthree debates \u2013 they were a complete waste of time. Even worse, they could hurt the eventual nominee\nas well as down ballot races. The contests\nwere fraught with conflict, lacking in meaningful discourse. Voters learned little if anything about the\ncandidates; seeing most of them squabble and pander, but little example of true\nleadership to take on Trump and the Republican smear machine one of them will\ninevitably face. The Democratic National\nCommittee really needs to carefully scrutinize the format, content, and utility\nof these events before it is too late. So\ndo the campaigns! Insist on proper rules\nand standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThere was a noticeable devolution in the 2016 Presidential Primary\ndebates in both parties. The selected \u201cmoderators,\u201d\na group that included many respected and respectable journalists, employed a\nstrategy more designed to provoke controversy and contentiousness between\ncandidates rather than elicit thoughtful answers and policy insights. The latter would be far more helpful and\nimportant to voters, but the former, they believed, was better for\nratings. This style certainly played to\nthe advantage of reality TV showman Donald Trump who lacked any of the substantive\nknowledge necessary to meaningfully engage the field of seventeen Republican\nprimary candidates. It hurt candidate\nHillary Clinton in the Democratic debates, each of which erupted into a long,\ncontinuous fight with Bernie Sanders. \nAlthough Sanders proved more adept in this style, neither candidate positively\nacquitted themselves in this style. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe Republican Party has canceled its primary vetting process to benefit\nTrump\u2019s reelection while the Democrats foolishly jumped back into the cauldron\nof contention, potentially damaging their own chances to win. From the outset, the high number of\ncandidates made it logistically impossible to conduct an orderly and meaningful\ndebate. Debates have been split into two\nnights with candidates randomly assigned to each night with no synchronicity between\nthe nights. They may as well be entirely\nseparate events, not two nights of one debate. Although there may be no choice in the matter,\nthe DNC should insist on formats that produce meaningful dialogue as opposed to\nshameless entertainment. Topic selection\nalso needs improvement. There are many\nimportant issues facing voters and they need to hear all candidates explain\ntheir position and evaluate the leadership of each candidate. They want to run against Trump, yet they\nrefrain from contrasting themselves from him. \n <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe DNC and the media hosts of the debates agree on the format. It is essential to address the largest moderator\ntransgression that ruins the debate as a useful tool to evaluate candidates. Do not begin each question by requiring the\ncandidate to disagree with another candidate or address comments by another\ncandidate that were not part of the debate. \nSuch questions are clearly intended simply to create controversy and\ndivision. They want to immediately provoke\nattack and counterattack in place of substantive discussion. They want anger and conflict rather than an\nhonest professional discussion of important issues. Most candidates can\u2019t resist taking the bait,\nand the moderators prod them to do so, portraying themselves to most voters in\na negative light. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nCandidates should absolutely highlight their differences on key\nissues. However, their answers should\nalways incorporate the theme that they have more in common and all would be\nbetter than Trump or the Republicans. Their\ndifferences pale in comparison. Yet they\nquickly forget in the moment and when pressed by the moderators for conflict. Candidates need to score points on thoughtful\nintellect, not emotional theatrics. If\nthey want to go for the \u201cbig moment\u201d they should do so on the merits of their\nown position, not a chance to shamefully degrade another candidate, significantly\nhurting someone who could be the eventual nominee. If another candidate was truly unqualified to\nserve as President, that would be a different matter and there are proper ways\nto address that. Instead of highlighting\nthe fact that candidates like Williamson, Yang, and Steyer lack even the\nremotest qualifications and experience, the so-called major candidates tend to\nform a circular firing squad over minor differences, hurting each other for the\ngeneral election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe media aims to exploit the mounting strife within the Democratic Party\nbetween those insisting on pure unabashed progressivism and those who believe\nin maintaining a more moderate, left of center national strategy. Ironically, the core values are much the same\n\u2013 healthcare, climate change, economic growth and fairness, fighting\ncorruption, etc. The clash is between a\nmore radical approach, such as Sanders\u2019 revolution, and a more deliberate\napproach that attempts to build national consensus and avoid alienating pockets\nof voters. The struggle has become so\nprofound that the camps often overlook that there is far more that unites them\nas Democrats than divides them into their respective ideological camps. No matter how strongly progressive believe in\nthe cause, they must ensure they do not devolve into the Democrats version of\nthe Tea Party. The Tea Party so divided the\nRepublican Party and tarnished their mainstream that they almost killed the\nparty. They still might. Progressives take heed of this critical\nlesson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nNo matter how strongly anyone believes in the immediacy and primacy of\ntheir ideology and candidate, it is imperative to first win. The party, or its individual officeholders,\ncannot accomplish anything without winning. \nDemocrats must win control of both the House and Senate, but also\nmaintain their majorities beyond one electoral cycle. If not, they can and will accomplish nothing. The argument is identical and obvious for the\nWhite House. The more either party\u2019s\npresidential candidate is labeled with the more extreme elements, the lower\ntheir chances of winning the White House because they will scare enough voters\naway from voting Democratic and perhaps further energize Republican voters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nAlthough House and Senate candidates must prioritize their own\nelectability among their respective constituents, it is also imperative that\ncandidates appreciate the ultimate importance of contributing to a national,\nfifty-state strategy to win and keep Congressional majorities and the White\nHouse. Presidential candidates directly\nimpact Congressional races as the putative standard-bearer of their party and\nreflecting the priorities of their party on the national stage. Similarly, Congressional candidates with national\nattention can likewise influence other Congressional elections by linking mainstream\ncandidates to their more extreme colleagues. Every candidate must be cognizant as to\nwhether they enhance or detract from winning the White House and Congressional majorities. If not, their victories will be hollow as\nthey will not be able to accomplish much, and they will find Congress lonely\nand unfulfilling. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nMost pundits have articulated how the Brett Kavanaugh hearings negated the\nDemocrats\u2019 ability to win control of the Senate in 2018. This is not an endorsement of Kavanaugh belonging\non the Supreme Court, which he does not based on his performance on Capitol\nHill. The hearings were an atrocity. While Republicans blatantly prevented any\nreal investigation or review to determine the truth behind serious allegations,\nDemocratic members\u2019 performance worked to their detriment and that had enough of\na negative impact on voters to swing several close Senate races. Republicans became energized to come out and\nvote while some voters, mostly independents, either stayed home or switched\ntheir vote to the Republican candidate. \nPerhaps even Democrats hesitated in some cases. If Democrats had a majority, there would have\nbeen a proper investigation, appropriate hearings, and perhaps Kavanaugh would\nnot even be on the Court. Elections have\nconsequences and every seat matters!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nReturning to the debates and the Presidential contenders, their performance\nand rhetoric in the debates not only influence the results of the primary but\nwill impact the general election for the primary winner and for Congressional races. The clich\u00e9 is true in both parties,\ncandidates play to their base to win the primary and pivot to the middle to win\nthe general election. The challenge is\nnot to move so far to either extreme that it becomes impossible to credibly\nmove back towards the middle. To some\nextent this happened to Hillary Clinton after Sanders pulled her off message\nduring the primary and she never recovered her voice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThis is not the place to evaluate Bernie Sanders\u2019 candidacy. There are many reasons I agree with those who\nbelieve he cannot win the Presidency, even against Donald Trump (unless Trump has\na catastrophic failure during the campaign). \nThere are significant fears that, win or lose the White House, a Sanders\ncandidacy makes it much harder for Democrats to gain control of the Senate\nbecause there are states where his message will not resonate and he will be a\ndrag on the down ballot races. There may be other candidates with similar\nimpact. This does not mean Democrats have\nto shed their core values or priorities, but they must remain cognizant of the\nultimate need to win to have any chance at getting anything done at all. The primary candidates act as if they are going\nto enact grandiose policy after they win the White House. The reality is that it will fall to Congress\nto pass any policy initiatives, not a new President. It is highly unlikely Congress will pass\nlegislation akin to the more extreme alternatives being floated. The rhetoric merely hurts the chances of\nwinning elections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nSeveral of the candidates immediately jumped on Sanders\u2019 mandatory\nMedicare for All plan that also forcibly eliminates private insurance. Universal coverage is laudatory and a\nDemocratic Party core value. Americans\nfavor plans that ensure coverage for all, prior existing conditions, etc. However, in 2020 a plan that eliminates private\ninsurance coverage for those that want to keep it goes too far. For example, labor unions negotiated hard and\nsacrificed wages to get the private health plans they have and it would be\nwrong to force them off those plans against their will, at least at this time\nwithout seeing that Medicare for All can successfully provide them with the\nsame level of coverage. Beto O\u2019Rourke\nblurted out a plan to confiscate firearms in the heat of the moment while\naddressing the recent gun violence crisis. \nMajorities of voters support efforts to improve background checks and\nban military assault weapons, crucial measures a Democratic Congress and\nPresident could enact. Confiscation\nobscures the issue and frightens many voters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Espousing extreme plans like\nthese could cost the Democrats states they need to win the White House and even\nif they win the White House, it may cause them to again lose the Senate. Nothing\nhappens if you don\u2019t win first. Would it\nnot be better to have the chance to make incremental improvements to healthcare\nand pass meaningful gun safety measures rather than allow Republicans to continue\nto defeat critical legislation and pack the courts with judges that will it strike\ndown? An all or nothing approach often\nleads to nothing. Primary candidates\nneed to use the opportunities in the debates and elsewhere to demonstrate to\nthe American people that they are responsible, trustworthy leaders, not radical\nlegislators they fear may push too far towards the extreme. The electorate has always feared the extreme\nand rewarded reason. Candidates take\nheed and do not squander your opportunity. \n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I watched the first three Democratic Presidential Primary debates of the 2020 campaign as I have all debates in previous campaigns. There was one abundantly clear result from all […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":186,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[11,12,78],"class_list":["post-404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-2020-democratic-primary","tag-2020-election","tag-debates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whoobazoo.com\/thebooth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}