I hope this is not the case -- But is pride holding back the DNC from more debates?

[Armstead]

Nobody likes to be wrong in public. Nobody likes to be hassled after stating their case that they're wrong.

I hope that is not the reason DWS and the DNC leadership are not refusing to budge on debates at this point.

Schultz has been on the air defending vociferously the decision to limit debates and the awful schedule of them, and the restrictions placed on candidates about participating in "non-sanctioned" debates.

She says, in effect:

"We considered this carefully. We're happy to see the Republicans beat each otehr up and weaken their party with their awful messages in their debates. We're confident that once we hold out debates out candidates will give a strn positive message that will won over voters and assure us of victory."

Having deilled that message out there robotically and insistently, is there a matter of personal and institutional pride that prevents her and her colleagues from backing down and saying: "We made a mistake. We habe heard from the candidates and the public, and agree that we have to change our original policy and schedule more debates, and change the times to be more appropriate to the election cycle and the lifestyle of voters."

[ibegurpard]

1. She shouldn't be in that position anyway.

2014 was a disaster under her watch. She should be gone.

[dorkzilla]

2. Then the rest of the candidates should just go ahead and have non-sanctioned debates.

I’ve said this before...what are they afraid of? They should do their own series of debates, its what the voters WANT! Hillary can’t debate herself, although with her switching personas and positions it does seem as though she is!!!

[Fumesucker]

3. All they have is ambition and hubris, no pride involved

If there was pride they wouldn't be lying their asses off.

[RobertEarl]

4. She needs spell check?

But the point is the establishment is never wrong.

""So all you peons can just stick it. Or, if you prefer, eat cake.""

[AtomicKitten]

5. Hillary wanted 4 debates, only 4 have been scheduled.

The math on that is pretty clear.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. except that there are SIX

but DUers see something that sounds right to them , and repeat it

[AtomicKitten]

10. "SCHEDULED"

you're welcome

[Capn Sunshine]

11. There's SIX Scheduled as of this morning.

Thank You.

[AtomicKitten]

12. The last 2 are NOT scheduled but have vague timeframes.

February or March, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

Unless you have proof otherwise, you stand corrected.

[Capn Sunshine]

13. Still scheduled, times TBD

Unless you Really Really want to see that as four scheduled debates.

They have the sponsors lined up, they have the infrastructure dedicated.
Unless you maintain that Univision and PBS are scheming with the Hillary Campaign to only create an appearance of a scheduled debate.

Thanks again.

[AtomicKitten]

14. So, you concede the last two are not really scheduled. It's really the only sensible conclusion.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. I did NOT say that

I hate the circular logic of DU. I said they are scheduled. The exact time is not. They are however on the debate schedule, even of this right wing website that you found and seem fond of quoting. The infrastructure is in place. The resources are set aside. The sponsors are sponsoring. The times depend on TV networks. Maybe planned is a better word.
There are six debates planned.
Not four.
Six. Planned.
Six. Not four.

Scheduled in October, November, December, January, February or March. Six debates. One two three four five six. Scheduled in the future. Which may or may not take place. The future, that is.

[restorefreedom]

18. we have to keep pushing that

no doubt they are hoping hillary will wrap it in time to cancel the last two. no way they want this going to the convention. We have to push hard for those last two debate and even more than that. And if there isn't a clear front runner by then, she has to put two more on the schedule. Boy Debbie is good at taking orders.

[cali]

6. no.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. It is arrogance and turf protection.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Really, when this subject came up, that was the whole issue

There are not these cabal like meetings with DWS holding a scepter. It's conference calls and actually meetings to arrive at consensus, and I vividly remember stating to anyone who would listen "debates are a bad idea. It gives the media more opportunities to run us down."

I hated the debates in 2008. The answer to me, and thousands of us , was "limited debates". Yeah, DWS wanted 4, and I guess that was HRC's people. But we prevailed with six.

It's just wasn't the same landscape then, but I don't see these copious debates from the r's doing themselves any favors; I think people get sick of the candidates before things ever get started.

What could Bernie possibly accomplish that requires more than six debates to do?

Great fear of HRC Campaign is that she is overexposed. Burnout is a real thing; she's been in the spotlight , subject of attacks ( many gleefully repeated here ad infinitum) for 20 years.

Edit: Agree re 2014. She abandoned the 50 state strategy and adopted a disassociate from The President Strategy which was disastrous beyond words.

[Armstead]

20. Debates are a good thing...If the GOPubbies ae screwing them up....

..that's their own doing. IF they had their shot together the debates would help them.

Same with the Dems. If one or more candidates look bad or say stupid things, that's their doing. And might as well see that now.

On the flip side, if one or more turns on a good, or brilliant performance, then goo for them.

In any case, these are functions of the candidates, not the process.

As for peope getting tired of the candidates....Well those people who don't want to watch don't have to.

[Bucky]

15. Bureaucracies tend to take positions and dig in. This is about weak leadership, not pride.

Sure, 25 debates was too many. But 6 is way too few. I think 10-12 is the sweet spot. Voters need a dialog. The front runner's job is to keep anyone else from breaking out of the pack. O'Malley should scare Clinton more than Biden or Sanders. Not that I'm sold on any of them.

Why isn't Oprah running?

[restorefreedom]

17. its not pride, its fear. nt