Matthew Rozsa explains that fewer people are watching the Democratic presidential debates – by design.

—

The most recent Democratic presidential debate was the lowest rated of the six held by either party this election cycle, drawing in only 8.55 million viewers. This may seem like bad news for the Democrats, but the truth is actually more disturbing – in all likelihood, they planned it this way.

We can start our analysis with the day on which it was held. As Alvin Chang of Vox explained in a recent article, only seven of the 100 debates held since the 2000 presidential election cycle were held on a Saturday. All of those took place during the primaries, after the voters had already been introduced to and at least partially cast judgment on the wider field of candidates. “TV ratings are generally lower on Friday and Saturday, which probably explains why there has never been a general election debate on a Saturday night,” Chang points out. He adds that Thursday seems to be prime real estate when it comes to attracting TV audiences—a detail the Republican National Committee noticed when scheduling its series of debates.

This works to the disadvantage of candidates who lack name recognition; 38 percent of voters, for example, reported that they don’t know enough about Bernie Sanders to formulate a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him. Nevertheless, the Democrats actually have a second upcoming debate that was scheduled for a Saturday, falling exactly six days before Christmas.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

If you’re wondering who would benefit from such a plan, bear in mind that the Democratic establishment has also been criticized for acquiescing to the Clinton campaign’s private lobbying for there to be as few debates as possible leading up to the primaries. To be fair, the Clinton campaign wasn’t alone in doing this, as both the Democratic and Republican National Committees decided to reduce the number of debates as a way of minimizing interparty drama. “I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus argued at the time. “We’re proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we’re going to pick the moderators.” This view was echoed by DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has commented that “no matter what we decided, there would be individuals who would be unhappy.”

These dismissals haven’t stopped both rival Democrats and the media from asking questions. On the day of the previous Democratic debate last month, Schultz spent most of the build-up time deflecting queries about her scheduling decisions, while rival candidates like former governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland overtly accused the schedule of being “rigged” by Clinton supporters. Although there is no proof that the Clinton campaign used its influence in any unethical way to achieve this result, as the frontrunner she stands to benefit most from a debating schedule that limits voter exposure to possible alternatives.

Making matters worse, the primary schedule itself has been compressed to an unprecedented degree, with more than half of all primary voters casting their ballots in the first two weeks of March. Because only four debates will have occurred before the first primary is held (and only two more will take place after that), this significantly diminishes the impact that any of those debates can have on the outcome of the primaries.

There is little question that, between Clinton and Sanders, members of the Democratic Party establishment would overwhelmingly prefer Clinton. While many Democrats share Sanders’ ideals, he is regarded by party leaders as practically unelectable due to his outspoken association with the far left. Clinton also benefits from the aura of inevitability that caused her to be widely regarded the national Democratic frontrunner for 2016 almost as soon as Barack Obama had been reelected in 2012. This assumption has, perhaps, caused the party apparatus to become complacent in how it conducts its primaries this year.

Regardless of the conventional wisdom regarding next year’s presidential election, though, the party’s voters should always be given as much of an opportunity as possible to pick the candidate they believe will be strongest.

Although conventional wisdom dictates that a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” like Sanders is inherently unelectable, polls have actually found him outperforming Clinton against their potential Republican rivals. At the same time, despite being widely written off as an also ran, O’Malley has a solid case for his candidacy based on his substantive record of accomplishment as governor of Maryland (including abolishing the death penalty, passing gun control reforms, legalizing same-sex marriage, and raising the minimum wage).

This doesn’t mean that Sanders or O’Malley should automatically be preferred over Clinton, but it does suggest that there are practical reasons for all three candidates having a fair shot before the electorate. A candidate’s experience doesn’t inherently qualify him or her for the presidency, but the resume is an important variable in putting them up on that stage in the first place. If nothing else, it entitles them to the right to be taken as seriously as the other Democratic options until they say or do something to discredit themselves or, conversely, to recommend themselves. Unfortunately, all the Democrats besides Clinton have been systematically denied this opportunity by a debate schedule that serves to limit their media exposure.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

Regardless of the merits of the individual candidates in question, though, the big loser in the current debating schedule is small ‘d’ democracy itself. On the Republican side, we have seen democracy cheapened by the sickening spectacles of race-baiting, rhetorical extremism, and the rise of Donald Trump’s cult of personality. By contrast, the Democrats seem to have gone to the other extreme, working so hard to avoid potentially embarrassingly drama that they have squelched healthy competition entirely. As Clinton continues her march toward a seemingly inevitable nomination, it remains to be seen whether any candidate, issue, or controversy will ultimately emerge to shake up the Democratic race. One thing is clear, though: If Clinton wins the nomination primarily because Democrats weren’t adequately informed about their choices, the voters will have lost.

—