What is the right number of Democratic debates?

[BainsBane]

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	4
	0 (0%)
	6
	1 (13%)
	8
	0 (0%)
	10
	1 (13%)
	12
	3 (38%)
	18
	0 (0%)
	24
	1 (13%)
	30
	0 (0%)
	The problem isn't the number but the quality. Turn debates back over to the League of Women's Voters.
	2 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Scuba]

1. Six may or may not be the right number, but having most/all of them BEFORE the Iowa primary ...

... seems essential. That's not true on DWS's schedule however.

[winter is coming]

5. +1. Also, there's no legitimate reason for the exclusivity rule. n/t

[restorefreedom]

8. of course there is

it helps to shield hillary

dws is nothing if not completely transparent

[virtualobserver]

2. However many Hillary wants.......as long as candidates are restricted to DNC debates only

[4139]

3. 9, 6 before Iowa and 3 after

[BainsBane]

4. I thought i covered just about every number

You can't compromise with 8 or 10?

[Wilms]

6. Can Debbie?

[4139]

7. Spacing about every 3 weeks but thanksgiving christmas

Means 4 before New Years

Roughly sept 20s, October teens, early November and early december

then 2 before iowa

[Jamaal510]

9. They're doing it just right with 6

and scheduling them later on as we approach voting time. It's not too few, and not too many to give the Republicans ammunition. It's not like we'll have 10 candidates on the stage at once, so everybody will get more time to speak and sell themselves during each debate. I also doubt it will take more than 6 debates for most people to make up their minds.

[LWolf]

10. #, format, timing, and manipulative rule-setting.

I don't know how many might be the correct number, but it seems like 23% of the number we had in '08 might be a bit limited.

Format: I want debates that ask the exact same question of each candidate, and give them all equal talking time.

Timing: They need to happen before Iowa and New Hampshire. They should have started already. They definitely need to start before October. At this point, it would be hard to fit more than 6 in before the voting and caucusing begin.

And, finally, the authoritarian manipulation of debates on the part of the DNC, threatening to drop candidates if they debate outside the DNC six, is fucking BULLSHIT. If Democratic candidates want to debate outside of the DNC cage, they should be able to. I'll bet the only one who wouldn't show up to do so would be the candidate these six debates have been arranged to benefit.

[winter is coming]

12. I'll add: I'd like to see the League of Women Voters involved again.

The quality of debates went way down after they bailed. (Yes, I know they bailed for a reason.)

[LWolf]

14. I agree. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. The insane thing is a Co-Chair for Clinton's failed presidential bid in 2008 making the rules.

No matter how hard I try I can't wrap my mind around that.

[LWolf]

15. It's pretty simple.

It's party corruption, but who's going to publicly acknowledge it?

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. Why no option for zero debate? Some people probably want that.

[BainsBane]

16. You can select other

and add your comment below.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. As many as the candidates are willing to participate in.

[wyldwolf]

18. As many as it takes to make Bernie the front-runner.

If, after 20 debates, he's still lagging in the polls, there shall be at least one more debate because the American people will not have had enough opportunities to get to know him.

[BainsBane]

19. We have a winner

ding, ding.

[frylock]

20. We're currently at three debates, plus one slapdash town hall into it..

and looky looky at who wants more debates now!