About the debates.

If O'Malley and Sanders decided to hold non-sanctioned debates, what's the DNC's move? Banning both of them from official debates would mean no more Democratic debates, and it's hard to imagine the DNC doing that. On the other hand, it's also hard to imagine the DNC caving.

It would be a bold move for Sanders and O'Malley to do this, and it would certainly be a slap in the face to the DNC, which is why it's a bit perplexing that the same Bernie fans who utterly despise the DNC are also applauding Bernie's decision to turn Martin down and respect the DNC's rules. I suspect that if Bernie had gone the other way, there would be wild celebrations here.

I applaud Bernie for turning Martin down, but for different reasons. Doing so would have hurt the party. Either the DNC would fold and look weak, or else they stand firm and there would be no more Democratic debates, which also hurts the party.

Politically it's risky, but it could have played will. Clinton has to decide, either join them and snub the DNC, or else hold out and be accused of dodging debates. Of course, she has the defense that she's playing by the rules, and I think her best move is to call on the DNC to let Martin and Bernie back into the official debates while not joining the unofficial ones. A debate between Sanders and O'Malley is pretty meaningless anyway.

Of course, it also could have played badly. It certainly comes across as a desperation move, and it makes sense for Martin, who has nothing to lose and needs a Hail Mary, but less so for Bernie. And then there's the fact that Hillary has generally done better in debates, which means that more of them is probably not what Bernie wants anyway.