If they ever come out with a no contract option then I will consider it.

and repetitive. There was little to be gained from that many. And remember, there were 8 candidates then; plus the primary season dragged on until June between the final two.

Perhaps six is too few. But 26 was total overkill. I might surmise the problem is that when you allow "outside" debates, you can't then set an artificial limit on the number of them. This is hard on candidates. I bet if push came to shove, the candidates would end up hating to be compelled to participate in a dozen extra debates. Because you can't say no if one candidate says yes.

What's so hard about facing questions and saying your opinions when you're running for president?

And then being able to face challenges to your opinion and give a rebuttal so voters can make an informed choice?

That's what a debate is.

It's only hard when they can't handle having their statements challenged in a public forum, so they need to keep everything under control.

It involves travel, time away from the campaign trail, debate prep and coaching (they are not going to ask you just about your areas of expertise or interest; it may be some arcane, gotcha foreign policy issue, a stupid pop-cultural one, or a personal question--like the one that sunk Dukakis back in the day; or it may be coaching in how to present yourself during an argument so as to project a "presidential" demeanor), makeup (yes, remember Richard Nixon), and other costly and/or time-consuming issues for the serious candidate. And all our Democratic candidates thus far are serious.

A larger number of debates is good for candidates who need to sharpen their skills (not everyone is good in that format: Obama had serious problems with it), but who knows if people are even listening after the first few?

As I said, I'd be all for allowing a few more. But I understand why they don't want a repeat of 2008.

Yes debates give candidates a chance to say something stupid.

It's a political risk for a front runner, and a chance to gain for those who are not as well known.

Limiting to six debates is a travesty.

Doing that while also forbidding candidates from holding their own extra debates is an abuse of power.

The only purpose of it is to protect the political establishment from outside challenges.

It demonstrates everything that is wrong with the corporate political establishment and Democratic party.

Too bad it won't happen.

or that the DNC finance chair has been raising money for her, flagrantly breaking the DNC's own rules, or that many other DNC members have come out for her. It's just silly to pretend that the debate schedule and rules weren't devised for her benefit. Bullshit pretending is just.... bullshit.