Turn on any news network on your cable or cord-cutting service. Right now. It’s Sunday: You’ll find plenty of news programs on, I promise you. In the first few minutes, no matter when you read this diary, you’re going to hear a lot of this: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump tweet, Trump speeches, Trump at a rally, Trump Trump Trump.
Oh, wait: commercial break. And here we go again: more Trump. As we begin the lead-up to presidential primaries and the 2020 elections, Democratic candidates have a golden opportunity to talk about issues that matter to Americans, and the press would be interested in covering it. Media networks are champing at the bit to get hold of candidates and put them on the air. With multiple 24/7 news outlets, meeting the desire for actual news that matters is good for their business.
What Democratic candidates and advocacy groups know is this: Every time major networks air debates, clips of debates, and breakdowns and analysis of debates, they are talking about Democratic values and not talking about Trump.
For this reason alone, the Democratic National Committee’s debate proposals currently make no sense; it seems to be operating in another era, as though we are running against traditional candidates who operate in traditional ways.
It’s time to democratize our Democratic Party’s debate infrastructure.
In an announcement sent to DNC members about a scheduled second debate, Muthoni Wambu Kraal, the committee’s national political and organizing director, informed us:
I wanted to take a second to introduce myself and express my excitement on joining the team here at the DNC. As the new Political & Organizing Director, I’m thrilled at the prospect of helping to usher in a fair, transparent presidential primary process and organizing for Democrats everywhere! I am joining this team from EMILY’s List, where I most recently served as the Vice President of National Outreach and Training. I’m ready to roll up my sleeves and finish the job we began in the 2018 midterms: winning all over the country, up and down the ballot with incredible Democratic candidates. And most importantly defeating Republicans together next November.
At Daily Kos and the DNC, Emily’s List has been viewed as a well-run, strongly structured organization that gets it. During the 2018 congressional campaigns, Emily’s List advisers, on multiple campaigns, worked to put their candidates in numerous friendly local forums during primary seasons. Why? Because it helped raise their profile. Getting more friendly voters familiar with your candidate is a good way to get commitment from voters in the primary and in the general, and you can do so without spending valuable campaign resources.
The second 2019 Democratic debates have been announced for July 30 and 31 in Detroit, a month after the first debates in Miami. What isn’t said in the email sent to the committee’s members announcing the debates is that the lessons from Emily’s List and others seem to be entirely lost on the DNC, who, through contract negotiations with CNN and others, have informed them they will penalize networks who run any non-DNC-sanctioned debates, potentially cutting off access. Uncertain to members of the DNC is whether or not candidates would be penalized for participating in non-sanctioned debates.
Puzzled campaigns
The presidential campaigns we talk to through Daily Kos, and the ones I am in contact with personally as a DNC member, have been very vocal in their dislike of this approach. Why limit debate? The factor that we continue to hear back is that campaigns have very busy schedules, and with a large number of campaigns, negotiating common dates and logistics can be difficult. More importantly, we’re told, setting rules to make sure everyone participates is important.
Simply put: hogwash.
If She the People wanted to hold a debate of only women candidates, and Vote Vets wanted to hold a debate of only five people, why are we as a party concerned? The reason you hear frequently is: We want a neutral primary, the party should not be seen as showing favoritism to any candidate, and by allowing everyone onstage, we’re being democratic! The reality isn’t nearly as simple.
Having only a few debates means that breakout candidates have no chance to make an impression. Fewer debates also mean that one candidate has an unbelievable media advantage, with that candidate being Donald J. Trump, of course, who will be unhindered in when and how often he holds debates.
This strategy, designed to seem neutral, is very far from it. Campaigns are ready and willing to go, to get into two-person, three-person, four-person, or entire-field debates. Simply, we need to get the party out of the way of our activist organizations. Being neutral isn’t about controlling all the levers or throwing out contracts that stabilize the field and give Trump large speaking windows.
Being seen as neutral is allowing campaigns to campaign as they would desire. If voters don’t like that there is a one-on-one debate between Pete Buttigieg and Jay Inslee on a stage in Des Moines, Iowa, and networks broadcast it, then the public is free to blame the candidates who participated. Or, more likely, they can listen and say, Hmm, interesting, let’s see how other candidates respond. And then there follows a few days’ worth of FREE media coverage of candidate responses and free air time.
Issue advocacy debates are important—and the DNC should stay out
Climate change. Gun safety. Women’s rights. Tuition costs. Military affairs. All of these are critical issues to members of the Democratic base. Organizations that focus on these and other issues would love the idea of hosting a forum, getting some candidates onstage, and spending an hour on their issue. Why not? The public certainly would be interested.
The party may be concerned that, well, an organization may decide not to invite candidates they deem as not viable. This isn’t a problem for the party, though: We do not control, nor should we, any outside organization. Whatever standard they want to have, that is on them. So, if supporters of Andrew Yang, as an example, are furious that he doesn’t get an invite from a forum held by March for Our Lives, he can complain to them, and make his own news.
I’m sure Fox News would love to cover any controversy there; and even that media coverage? It’s time that gets taken away from talking about Donald Trump.
Debates can be our bulwark against Trump. As many as possible, with no penalties, in any configuration of candidates. The DNC’s decision to use contractual negotiations with networks to seemingly prevent other organizations from offering candidate opportunities simply isn’t very democratic. Republicans have shown they are willing to spend as much as they need, and that they will have spokespersons for 24/7 news barrages in support of their candidates. We have a field full of candidates, and no matter who you support, giving everyone more opportunities to talk about Democratic ideals helps all of us.
Why take what should be a blessing—a ton of candidates, lots of interest—and use contracts and arm-twisting to limit the means of debate?
I’ve sent a version of this in an email to DNC staff and leadership, but the time has come: democratize debates. Let candidates get onstage with whomever they want, at their campaigns’ pleasure. Let the networks choose what to broadcast. DNC Chair Tom Perez announced that the voter is our North Star. This is still true—and when we put party control on outlets, we forget that by giving the voter fewer opportunities to see our great field.