Could Hillary refuse to debate in the primaries?

[Simfan34]

Could she?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, and she should. As I've said before she should not acknowledge O'Malley or Webb unless absolutely forced to in an interview.

[henster]

Yes, and she should. As I've said before she should not acknowledge O'Malley or Webb unless absolutely forced to in an interview.

Why should she do this at all? It means no preparation what so ever for the GE while the GOP candidate will have went through rigorous debates.

[BaconBacon96]

She could but it would be bad form as it would look contemptuous.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No. St. Leo University says that 1/2 of the party is willing to think about voting for someone else, and that number would grow quickly if Clinton acted like Cuomo did toward teachout.

[Beet]

The problem for Hillary is that in a debate, all the other candidates will just be going after her. On a stage with, say, four or five candidates, if each candidate gets equal speaking time, then the other three or four candidates (75% to 80% of total speaking time) can spend all their time attacking Hillary only. Whereas Hillary will only be able to defend herself during her own time. It's not to say she shouldn't debate, but it's bad dynamics for her. In a 1-on-1 debate it would be much better for her.

[WVdemocrat]

She could. I don't think she should, but she could. If she were to avoid debating O'Malley or Webb, then that would be unfairly hurting their candidacies and unfairly helping hers. She has name recognition - if people see her name on the ballot, and she hasn't had to defend her positions onstage, then they'll vote for her (in the primary, I mean). If O'Malley and Webb and others don't get a fair chance to take on her policies head on, then they'll get 2% or 1% (so exactly what they're polling at right now). They wouldn't have a chance to boost their poll numbers and have their opinions known.

I think if a candidate who is unanimously considered to be the frontrunner refuses to debate other candidates, the FEC or the DNC should intervene. There needs to be some regulation in place for that, so that candidates can't cruise to the nomination on name recognition alone and never have to defend their positions. Some sort of regulation that states if credible challengers exist, the candidates must debate. In 2000, Al Gore even debated Bill Bradley, and George W. Bush even debated John McCain, despite the fact neither challengers ever gained nearly enough momentum to win the nomination. If Hillary refused to debate Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, and Biden (looking increasingly unlikely that he runs though), then I would lose a huge amount of respect for her.

[Mr. Morden]

She should follow Bush's lead from 2000, and agree to do debates, but only a small number of them.  Refuse all debates until December, by which time most of her opponents will have dropped out anyway.

[IceSpear]

She should follow Bush's lead from 2000, and agree to do debates, but only a small number of them.  Refuse all debates until December, by which time most of her opponents will have dropped out anyway.

Basically this.

She can also play it by ear. The media has clearly picked their side and cannot be trusted to moderate a fair and impartial debate. This hypothesis can be tested in the first debate. If it's filled with questions like "Mrs. Clinton, we all know you're a far right warmonger and most of your party hates you. Also, Benghazi. How do you respond to these allegations?" she can just give them the middle finger and move on. It won't make much of an impact since she won't face major opposition, though she would need to do some debate prep on her own time. If the debates actually are fair and reasonable (not holding my breath), then she could participate in more.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course she won't. She doesn't want to talk about issues like Glass Steagall, fracking, TPP, her vote for the Iraq war, her support of Kyl-Lieberman and so on. The Republicans won't bring up those issues because they suck on them too.

[bobloblaw]

She should follow Bush's lead from 2000, and agree to do debates, but only a small number of them.  Refuse all debates until December, by which time most of her opponents will have dropped out anyway.

Her most dangerous opponent is herself

[Ebsy]

I doubt Democrats are going to allow a 20 debate all you can eat primary roadshow like Republicans in 2012, but I think Clinton owes primary voters several debates. Not doing debates would impact her image among Democrats and Independent especially.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, but there is no reason to refuse.

[henster]

She has not had a formal debate in 6 years and if she declines she will be going into the GE debates very rusty. Whoever is the GOP nominee will have gone through 20 or so debates in the primary.

[Mister Mets]

She should follow Bush's lead from 2000, and agree to do debates, but only a small number of them.  Refuse all debates until December, by which time most of her opponents will have dropped out anyway.

That'll probably work.

Refusing all debates would be a major news story.

Making an excuse to wait until late 2015 (when it's too late for opponents to build momentum) prevents them from claiming that she's refusing to participate in the process.

She'd pretty much have to agree to debate credible contenders (anyone elected Senator or Governor in the last ten years without resigning in disgrace.)

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, the Iowa caucuses will most likely be held in late January.  It's pretty easy to refuse to participate in debates that are scheduled for more than two months before anyone is voting.  E.g….

"Goodness gracious.  It's still so early, and the voters in the earliest primary states won't be casting their ballots for at least two months.  Voters in other states won't vote for another *six* months.  I think we should wait until more voters are tuned in to the process."

So she refuses to do any debates until after Thanksgiving.  The first debate she participates in is during the holiday season, when people are less tuned into politics, and more tuned into buying presents.  That way, if anything goes wrong in the debate, the damage is limited.

This is also late enough that even if she has a catastrophic Perry-like "oops" gaffe, it's too late for any new opponents to jump into the race at the last minute, because many of the primary filing deadlines will have already passed.

[Likely Voter]

Agree she can't refuse, but will limit them and wait.

What will be interesting to see is if the other candidates will end up debating without her. The first GOP debate in 2012 didn't have Romney (he had formed exploratory by that point but not full campaign).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Agree she can't refuse, but will limit them and wait.

What will be interesting to see is if the other candidates will end up debating without her. The first GOP debate in 2012 didn't have Romney (he had formed exploratory by that point but not full campaign).

I'd expect every serious candidate to debate without her.

[Mr. Morden]

What network is actually going to bother to broadcast a debate between Sanders and Webb, if Clinton isn't participating?  I realize that MSNBC's ratings are already low as it is, but how many people would actually watch such a thing?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What network is actually going to bother to broadcast an debate between Sanders and Webb, if Clinton isn't participating?  I realize that MSNBC's ratings are already low as it is, but how many people would actually watch such a thing?

Sadly, probably just CSPAN.

[Likely Voter]

I bet MSNBC would air a debate with just 2 but I suspect in the end Hillary will end up with 3 challengers, maybe 4. In addition to Sanders and Webb there is O'Malley and maybe Robert Reich (who has hinted he may run if Warren doesn't). There could be others.

In May 2011 Fox aired a debate with 5 candidates (Cain, Johnson, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum). 

So I'm just saying it is possible that the non-Hillarys may not sit around and wait for her, they may roll their own with friendly outlets. You can also probably count on local media to sponser (both TV and papers). THey may feel that if they build it, maybe Hillary will come.

[Mr. Morden]

I bet MSNBC would air a debate with just 2 but I suspect in the end Hillary will end up with 3 challengers, maybe 4. In addition to Sanders and Webb there is O'Malley and maybe Robert Reich (who has hinted he may run if Warren doesn't). There could be others.

In May 2011 Fox aired a debate with 5 candidates (Cain, Johnson, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum). 

So I'm just saying it is possible that the non-Hillarys may not sit around and wait for her, they may roll their own with friendly outlets. You can also probably count on local media to sponser (both TV and papers). THey may feel that if they build it, maybe Hillary will come.

Yes, they had a debate with 5 candidates, with frontrunner Romney not being present.  But Romney was not seen as being a terribly dominant frontrunner at that time.  The race was still pretty unsettled, and we didn't know which candidates were going to be important.

I'm just saying, even if O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb all run (and it's not clear that they all will), if Clinton remains ahead by 40 points in the polls, and has the entire party establishment backing her as of ~5 months from now when the GOP debates start, who is really going to bother putting on a debate for three guys who, even if you combine their support, still trail the frontrunner who isn't there?  It's not clear that there would be much interest for such an event.  [It's also not clear that all of these guys are still going to be running by then.  Who is going to donate money to Martin O'Malley to keep his campaign running?  As one of his aides said last year, "all of his donors are Clinton's donors".]

Now, if one of them actually threatens Clinton's standing in either Iowa or NH, for example, *then* there'd be some interest.  But otherwise, I'm not so sure.

[Progressive]

Yes, and she should. As I've said before she should not acknowledge O'Malley or Webb unless absolutely forced to in an interview.

I disagree. A competitive primary is to her benefit.

[emailking]

I think if a candidate who is unanimously considered to be the frontrunner refuses to debate other candidates, the FEC or the DNC should intervene. There needs to be some regulation in place for that, so that candidates can't cruise to the nomination on name recognition alone and never have to defend their positions. Some sort of regulation that states if credible challengers exist, the candidates must debate.

The DNC maybe, but not the FEC. If people want to vote for a popular candidate whose party doesn't require debates, why should the government stop that? And how would you define what a "credible challenger" is? The DNC can define it however they please, but any definition recognized by the FEC must be much more nuanced and unbiased. Moreover, it is effectively saying that all those minor candidates aren't really valid candidates even though they're legally allowed to run and are following all of the regulations.

[henster]

I just don't understand people who say a competitive primary would be bad for Hillary. We have no way of knowing if she has improved at all from disastrous '08 campaign.