But most of us would like to see a few more debates, as is the democratic tradition in years where there isn't a presumptive candidate. Oh, and most years without a presumptive candidate, they already started.

to the first caucus. The DNC insists that we're all idiots fresh off the cabbage truck but Activists are anything but. We KNOW that this stalling tactic gives an advantage to the better-known candidate. We KNOW that the longer they wait, the shorter the time the Sanders campaign has to introduce people to him and to the campaign. That's what this is all about and I resent like hell the DNC NOT WAITING UNTIL THE VOTERS DECIDE via the primary process before they pick sides. This is BULLSHIT!

of keeping him officially under wraps by DNC. And even DU doesn't recognize him!

this stalling tactic only helps the one who doesn't want to talk. It's like internal gerrymandering.

and serves no one (except '#1.')

but of course, you're right.

A lack of debates or stalling or limiting them is suppressing the Sanders campaign a bit, but he is doing fine with his events. The candidates truly being destroyed are O'Malley and some of the other candidates.

...that pre-primary debates held the summer before the Primary season on cable news stations have any impact on people who aren't political junkies who have already decided who they're supporting?

Also, slippery slope argument.

None. Zero. The later and the fewer debates the better in that case.

If you are every other candidate then yeah... it seems to be kind of unfair and makes the election less about a discussion of ideas and priorities and more about bankroll and name recognition.

Silver has a table on this article pointing out the typical number of debates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/is-six-democratic-debates-too-few/

This will total about 12 hours of debating, of which 90% will most likely be just Bernie and Hillary.

Chafee, Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb.

And let us not pretend that this is anything other than the front runner squelching the process and delaying it to minimize any hit their numbers might take from voters hearing other candidates speak their ideas.

Sanders will do fine, he is the presumptive challenger (and obviously my candidate of choice) I am more concerned about the other three candidates who have been languishing without the massive funding of Clinton or the ubber internet fueled populist surge os Sanders. We deserve to hear all of the candidates ideas and make up our minds based on the issues. I don't do coronations.

Seriously, who else benefits?


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/democrats_protect_hillary_plan_how_the_dncs_thin_debate_schedule_hands_clinton_the_advantage/

This was known to protect Hillary early on from any possible challenger. The DNC could have changed this and they choose not to.

And to back up that nonsense you link to a nonsense article filled with hyperbole. Okay. They link to an HRC tweet in which she is looking forward to debates while then assuming Hillary wants zero debates. There's a reason no one takes Salon serious anymore: http://thedailybanter.com/2015/01/exclusive-salon-com-real-website-operated-far-right-hate-group/

Yeah, don't read the article or anything.

Have DWS schedule them now, and more than 6.

And it's time to light a fire under Debbie Wasserman-Schutz. There is no reason for any further delays or limited debate, except only to benefit one person and that's Clinton.

DWS is scared - because once the first two debates are complete, Clinton will be in a major freefall, while Bernie's numbers continues to surge forward.

Everyone's question: Would you trust Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? At this time, I'm not sure I trust Clinton with anything at this point as a member of the 99%.

Bernie isn't a good debater unless its on his terms. Otherwise he likes to dodge and deflect back to his own talking points, which doesn't really fly on a national debate stage. Bernie speaks a lot of truth but doesn't offer much in terms of policy "how to's" other than attacking the rich and offering higher taxes, neither of which will happen with Repub majorities. I like Bernie and his truth telling is good, but we need a functional govt as well. Hillary has stood toe to toe debating arguably the best campaigner (Obama) in US history, she won the popular vote and almost the delegate count.

And that "My Turn" attitude is what is turning me away from Clinton.

Bernie will not only surprise you, he'll captivate you, and pull you away from Clinton.

Clinton is not a very good debater, thus the exclusivity rule designed for her.

Bernie isn't a mystery that will "captivate" me, everyone here has been following him for years, he's been sitting in govt for 25 years and has been one of the least effective in terms of passing legislation. And Hillary doesn't have a "my turn" attitude, she has welcomed all candidates into the race and stated her looking forward to debates.

It's all in your imagination.

I was talking about the others who aren't political junkies like us.

And in your imagination you have the idea that Hillary is 'The One' otherwise you would be more democratic and open and accepting of more debates as requested by Hillary's opposition.

Assigning strict gender roles to people betrays an antediluvian mindset.

Those PM's aren't going to write themselves.

Did it strike a nerve?

You are free to post my pm's to you, right here.

I thought I was very nice, but quite direct.

But telling someone publicly, they are talking out their arse, well, now, that's not nice. You seem to enjoy doing such, so I figured if you can dish it out, you could take it? Looks like I misread you?

...I get a chance for this.
FEEL THE BERN/2016

My contribution to some of Bernie's supporters in their quest for an appropriate primary slogan.

Life has become the increasingly smaller segments between commercials .The media is holding out to create a perceived value for the elections , there is no stopping this because power is in the hands of empire .
On a lighter note who wants coffee ?

It is the DNC that is limiting the number of sanctioned debates and threatening candidates that participate in "unsanctioned debates" with not being allowed to participate in these six sanctioned debates. This is a new rule and the effect it is having is limiting the ability of any of the candidates to get to meet the public.

Actually, I would be angrier if I were one of the candidates that are not surging in the polls right now. Bernie Sanders is doing better and better and is packing people into buildings and arenas. O'Malley, and those candidates below him are getting barely any attention paid to their respective platforms.

We are Democrats, money shouldn't buy legitimacy.

don't know what the 'official' view of this at the O'Malley campaign is, but he'll be a GREAT debater, has developed plans for our ills, he will impress EVERYONE, and I wish the 'surprise' didn't have to wait much longer.

he has some great ideas, is a strong progressive and a dynamic speaker. he will do great in debates. he mighht grab some undecideds and even pull some support from hillary once people know there are other options.

oh, yeah.. the whole point of this charade is to limit people to ONE option

Thanks for recognizing his strong attributes. Interesting that the 'ignore' approach seems to work at DU too, eh?

if i were not 1000% for bernie, i would very likely be supporting om. i hope he gets his message out.

to exclude people. "...allows for maximum inclusion of our major party candidates"? Is Hilary going to debate herself, cause that's the only one our DNC prez seems to recognize...

What an absolutely superb idea. I'm surprised the DNC hasn't already scheduled this.

Anyone skilled with a video editor could quite easily construct a 6 hour youtube debate of HRCflip vs HRCflop. It could be powerfully convincing to both the Primary and General electorates. Everybody could hear exactly what they want to hear. And Hillary wouldn't even have to risk making a public appearance!

Only problem is, both of these Democratic candidates would lose that debate, and the election. And surely the DNC doesn't want that to happen.

Soooo... on second thought, it might be better to just let the public hear what ALL the candidates have to say, live and spontaneously, asap and often.

"solutions" while the DNC is sitting on its thumb, letting them have the stage. Are our candidates so much weaker than the GOPs that we can't put them out there and let them debate?

The idea that the DNC has decided to delay AND significantly limit the number of debates means there will be fewer opportunities to get Democratic policy messaging out there. Having the Rupukes offer their garbage for a month before we do is a serious impediment. What the hell Is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC thinking?

He thinks Dems should debate when the Repugs are so the American people can hear the difference.

Bernie's idea that there should be mixed debates is something we should consider, as well.