Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
4. She probably can't get away with zero debates but she'll try to minimize them.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:35 AM
Apr 2015

In her Senate re-election campaign in 2006, she had a progressive challenger in the primary. The polls showed her having a big lead, so she refused to debate him. Zero debates, nada, zilch.

Then in 2008, when she was trailing, she complained that Obama hadn't debated her enough.

For 2016, I'm sure she would prefer no debates at all. By now, however, the tradition of debates among Presidential contenders is so well established that for her to emulate her 2006 strategy would look bad. She would be harshly criticized by the media. I predict she will acquiesce to some debates but, like the leader in 2008, will be criticized by other candidates for not debating enough.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Populist Reform of the Democratic Party»The Big Question Now: Wil...»Reply #4