Why Having More Debates Is Good for Clinton

Why Having More Debates Is Good for Clinton

Why Having More Debates Is Good for Clinton

The lack of debates is already inflicting needless damage on Clinton and the Democrats.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton signaled that she’s willing to participate in more Democratic primary debates. “I am open to whatever the DNC decides to set up,” she said. “That’s their decision…. I debated a lot in 2008, and I certainly would be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if they decide to add more debates, and I think that’s the message a lot of people are sending their way.”

Clinton was responding to mounting frustration with a debate process that rival candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders have described as “undemocratic” and “rigged.” Eight years ago, Clinton and Barack Obama, along with other Democratic candidates, faced off in nine debates before Labor Day. In the 2016 election cycle, however, the Democratic National Committee planned to limit the number of debates to just six overall and four before the early primaries in February. With the green light from Clinton, a DNC source now tells me that the party will move to put more debates on the calendar.

According to the conventional wisdom, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz designed the light debate schedule for Clinton’s protection. With fewer debates, the thinking went, other Democratic candidates would have a harder time gaining momentum in the polls, allowing Clinton to wrap up the nomination more quickly. And a shorter primary would mean fewer opportunities for Clinton to make unscripted blunders that Republicans could use against her in the general election.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x