Could Hillary refuse to debate in the primaries?

[SteveRogers]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

[Mister Mets]

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.

This isn't an issue where we need legal intervention.

A law could backfire, for example, by insisting that an incumbent President agree to primary debates with nobodies.

If a presidential contender face legitimate opposition, the refusal to engage in any debates will be a bad news story. So there will be plenty of incentives to agree to debates, without getting the FEC involved.

[IceSpear]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

[WVdemocrat]

To emailking and Mister Mets, that was just stupidity on my part. I should have known that the DNC was in charge of debates and such, so that's what I meant. The DNC, not the FEC, should require debates. And it would be hard to decide who is credible and who isn't. Obviously, guys like Jeff Boss aren't credible, but how would you phrase that in writing? You can't use the "polling above 5%" rule, because then Hillary would just be standing up on a debate stage alone for 90 minutes, unless Joe Biden runs (but again, that looks increasingly unlikely). I have no idea what the particulars of the rule would be, that'd be up to the DNC to decide, but it is unfair to voters to only allow them one choice, because unless you're a political junkie like us on this site, you've probably never heard of Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Without primary debates, they don't stand a chance.

And to IceSpear, I agree that the majority of Democrats support Hillary, but primary voters deserve alternatives, even if they end up voting for Hillary anyway. It would be detestable for Hillary to refuse to debate them, to refuse to give them a chance to gain any momentum. And it would still be detestable if she waited until November or December to debate them. She is not the incumbent president. I will enthusiastically back Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, but she can't just dismiss any opponents as clowns and cruise to the nomination.

[Beet]

McCain 2000 was no clown, so if Bush 2000 could wait until November or December to debate him, I don't see why Hillary can't, presuming she remains as favored by that point as Bush was in 2000.

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.

Well, if she wants the nomination, a competitive primary by definition would threaten to take that away, so it's obviously bad for her. How can it not be? The best for her would be a noncompetitive primary and a noncompetitive general (ha), and a Congress that just passes what she wants (ha). Unrealistic, yes, but that would be what's best for her, if that's what we're talking about.

[IceSpear]

To emailking and Mister Mets, that was just stupidity on my part. I should have known that the DNC was in charge of debates and such, so that's what I meant. The DNC, not the FEC, should require debates. And it would be hard to decide who is credible and who isn't. Obviously, guys like Jeff Boss aren't credible, but how would you phrase that in writing? You can't use the "polling above 5%" rule, because then Hillary would just be standing up on a debate stage alone for 90 minutes, unless Joe Biden runs (but again, that looks increasingly unlikely). I have no idea what the particulars of the rule would be, that'd be up to the DNC to decide, but it is unfair to voters to only allow them one choice, because unless you're a political junkie like us on this site, you've probably never heard of Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Without primary debates, they don't stand a chance.

And to IceSpear, I agree that the majority of Democrats support Hillary, but primary voters deserve alternatives, even if they end up voting for Hillary anyway. It would be detestable for Hillary to refuse to debate them, to refuse to give them a chance to gain any momentum. And it would still be detestable if she waited until November or December to debate them. She is not the incumbent president. I will enthusiastically back Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, but she can't just dismiss any opponents as clowns and cruise to the nomination.

Well, the standards for being included in the debates were always polling thresholds before, so if that were to change now it would be moving the goalposts.

But I don't think you'll need to worry about it. It's not like O'Malley and Webb are going to stay at 1% forever, particularly once the pollsters stop including candidates who aren't going to run.

[King]

No

[WVdemocrat]

To emailking and Mister Mets, that was just stupidity on my part. I should have known that the DNC was in charge of debates and such, so that's what I meant. The DNC, not the FEC, should require debates. And it would be hard to decide who is credible and who isn't. Obviously, guys like Jeff Boss aren't credible, but how would you phrase that in writing? You can't use the "polling above 5%" rule, because then Hillary would just be standing up on a debate stage alone for 90 minutes, unless Joe Biden runs (but again, that looks increasingly unlikely). I have no idea what the particulars of the rule would be, that'd be up to the DNC to decide, but it is unfair to voters to only allow them one choice, because unless you're a political junkie like us on this site, you've probably never heard of Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Without primary debates, they don't stand a chance.

And to IceSpear, I agree that the majority of Democrats support Hillary, but primary voters deserve alternatives, even if they end up voting for Hillary anyway. It would be detestable for Hillary to refuse to debate them, to refuse to give them a chance to gain any momentum. And it would still be detestable if she waited until November or December to debate them. She is not the incumbent president. I will enthusiastically back Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, but she can't just dismiss any opponents as clowns and cruise to the nomination.

Well, the standards for being included in the debates were always polling thresholds before, so if that were to change now it would be moving the goalposts.

But I don't think you'll need to worry about it. It's not like O'Malley and Webb are going to stay at 1% forever, particularly once the pollsters stop including candidates who aren't going to run.

Fair enough. I just really want a competitive primary. We'd have to wait until this time next year before things get really interesting. Seriously though, I think a competitive primary would make her more responsive to the base.

[Simfan34]

No

When will you go back to being King? I miss King.

[King]

No

When will you go back to being King? I miss King.

King was a patriarchal oppressor. Also, people calling me Monarch is a good indication of who is ignorant of board culture and therefore a HP.

[Mr. Morden]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

Dominating candidates for statewide races get by without debating, but who was the last non-incumbent presidential frontrunner who didn't participate in any primary debates?

[IceSpear]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

Dominating candidates for statewide races get by without debating, but who was the last non-incumbent presidential frontrunner who didn't participate in any primary debates?

I don't see why the principle should be any different for statewide vs. federal races.

[Mr. Morden]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

Dominating candidates for statewide races get by without debating, but who was the last non-incumbent presidential frontrunner who didn't participate in any primary debates?

I don't see why the principle should be any different for statewide vs. federal races.

The national media doesn't do wall-to-wall saturation coverage for statewide races.

To the extent that she'd get grief for refusing to debate in the primary race, I really don't think it would be about personal animus towards the Clintons.  If Bush had the same sort of commanding lead on the GOP side and refused to debate his opponents, he'd also get criticized by the media for it.

[solarstorm]

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?

Hey, Jeff Boss, Vermin Supreme and Robby Wells are all reputable candidates, wo deserve to take part in debates, k?