Does a rigged primary debate schedule help or harm the Democratic Party's chances in 2016?

[AgingAmerican]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has rigged the primary debate process to 'benefit' her candidate, Hillary Clinton. She has only scheduled six debates, and on dates that would garner the least amount of viewers. Contrast this with the 26 Democratic primary debates back in 2008. This lack of confidence in Clinton by her own surrogates, and their willingness to damage the Democratic party for her benefit are puzzling. Where were they on this back in 08?

Back in 2008, after 18 debates, Clinton stated that having no more debates would be 'Unamerican'. She then listed the reasons why more were necessary:

* for party-building in the states
* for national media exposure
* for policy and platform refinement
* to energize base voters
* to bring in new voters into the process
* to prepare for gotchas and strengthen debating chops

For all these reasons, maximizing the number of Democratic primary debates is the best and most cost-efficient way to give voice to Democratic ideas, and to attempt to bring the media political discussion in balance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/29/1416509/-Hillary-Clinton-Calls-for-More-Debates-Is-the-DNC-Listening#

Now, those concerns no longer seem to apply?

Sanders stated:

“At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible,” Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. “I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."

“Further, I also think it is important for us to debate not only in the early states but also in many states which currently do not have much Democratic presidential campaign activity,” Sanders wrote in a letter to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in June. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/252227-sanders-dnc-using-debates-to-rig-primary

This serves only to damage the party and hand momentum in the election to the Republicans. It will also drive Democratic voters and Independents away. It is a 'Lose, lose' proposition, IMHO. It is selfish, narcissistic, damaging, underhanded and lacks integrity. As such, this charade has no place in the Democratic party.

[elleng]

1. In an email to supporters with the subject line “Time to protest,” the O’Malley campaign said

“it’s time to take it up a notch” and pressure the DNC to expand the number of debates by joining the protest of another group, #AllowDebate, that is planning a Sept. 16 rally outside the committee’s headquarters in Washington.

“It's important that we bring our call for more debates directly to the group that is restricting candidates' ability to debate,” the email says. “It's, frankly, undemocratic. Enough tweeting. Let's take action.” The email asks recipients to RSVP using a link that takes them to O'Malley's website.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252547-omalley-organizing-protest-at-dnc-hq-over-debate-schedule

[Andy823]

6. Yes, O'Malley has taken the lead on this

If others here want to see more debates also, they should send the message to their candidates and encourage them to support what O'Malley has been doing, and anyone who can make it to the Sept. 16th rally should go, and encourage their friends to go also.

[delrem]

12. +1. And yes, Sanders and O'Malley should unite on this.

Unite their bases of support on a shared objective.

Is there ANY way to take it out of the hands of big corporate money and the MSM, though?
And a DNC that's obviously in the tank for one candidate, and will orchestrate every aspect to promote that candidate - not only the timing of the debates, the prohibition on debates outside their controlling parameters, but no doubt also the questions asked, and the tone.

It's so nauseating...

[elleng]

13. Yes they should unite on this,

which WOULD take it out of the hands of corp $, but big question, imo, is how far Sanders will take it; it's not in his interest, or hrc's, to add O'Malley to the stage, either sooner or later. And no idea how DWS will take hrc's statement about being 'open' to more debates. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813132

[delrem]

14. I think you're right.

About self-interest. Yes, I see it too.
It's wrong for democracy, of course.

DWS will do what she's told. So the odds are 100% that she'll stonewall it and run out the clock, and like all of her kind she'll bet on the vast majority of the population having memories unfit for mayflies (or rather, having memories determined by the latest MSM click-bait story of the day, unable to hold two things in mind at the same time) - because that seems to be an awful truth.

[Juicy_Bellows]

2. By Hillary's own words, it harms.

Depends which Hillary you are talking to though.

[99Forever]

3. For me personally?

Very much harms the Democratic Party. As does people I have supported endorsing the status quo, establishment "candidate" without so much as a single vote being cast. They may find that they have pissed off the WRONG people, We the People who put them in office. There will be consequences for this.

[RobertEarl]

4. Same here

I am so tired of being pissed down on by the elites of the party that they have become like enemies to me. They made themselves into enemies and for that they shall pay.

What really irks me on DU is the blind support of DWS, et al, that support this limiting of democracy by limiting debates. My gawd, what the hell is wrong with these people?

[Motown_Johnny]

5. It clearly hurts.

The front runner has only won 2 elections in her life and they were in a high population Blue state where most any well funded (D) could have won.

It seems to be designed to protect the front runner and help her win the nomination with little to no real effort. Of course one challenger from outside the party establishment threw a monkey wrench the size of New Hampshire into the works of that plan. Time will tell how this all works out but having only 4 debates scheduled is a bad move. Then having one of those opposite Sunday Night Football and another very close to Christmas just limits how many people will see them.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I don't believe there is any question that it damages the Democratic Party and

the American People as well.

Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.

Carl Sagan

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan164545.html#X2WsJJlDdsiqtvvO.99

Thanks for the thread, AgingAmerican.

[restorefreedom]

8. it hurts the dems, helps the gop

I have always maintained that Hillary Wasserman Schultz is prepared to help lose the presidency to the Republicans as long as her candidate gets the democratic nomination. They don't care about the ultimate victory they care about their candidate and are gonna do everything they can to advance her. There's also the matter of corporate rule. All of these people benefit from the status quo and they do not want to see it changed. Bernie or O'Malley gets in it's gonna change big-time and they don't want that at any cost, even if it means a Republican president.

[NCjack]

9. There will be changes in the debate number and schedule if

Hillary feels the need for some Hail-Mary debates to catch-up.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Most likely, yes

She will suddenly have an epiphany that more debates are necessary after all once he catches up to her.

[cprise]

11. In terms of recognition, Hillary is like an incumbent

Restricting debates helps the incumbent by depriving the public of opportunities to become comfortable with the challengers (or certain of their opinions of the challengers).

People will side with the scoundrel they know instead of someone more agreeable who they don't recognize.

[Skwmom]

15. Hurt. If people feel their candidate does not get a fair shake because of a corrupt, undemocratic,

party leadership they will tune out after the primaries.

This isn't a year where people are going to just fall in line. The talking heads and party leaders are clueless.