The problem with the conspiracy theories regarding the DNC and the number of debates.

[arely staircase]

HRC wins the debates.

She has no motive to avoid them or wish there to ne fewer.

She wins them.

[leftofcool]

1. Exactly!

They can have all the debates they want. Hillary will still win them.

[NurseJackie]

2. +1

Bernie's fans should be thanking DWS!

[JaneyVee]

3. And the candidates help create the schedule.

[cali]

6. Hillary demanded and corrupt little Debbie delivered.

[randome]

7. She demanded that Debbie encourage Sanders supporters to steal data?

Strange chain-of-command, if you ask me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[JaneyVee]

9. Said with no proof.

[JonLeibowitz]

10. It is known that Hillary Clinton asked for fewer than six debates.

I bet she'd prefer 0.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

11. Known by who?

It is known

Known by who? Got a factual link that's not idle speculation?

[cali]

12. By everyone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/18/the-dnc-needs-to-restore-bernie-sanders-access-to-voter-data-fast/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. That's a WP opinion blog about Bernie's data access.

I asked for factual information, not idle speculation. That blog says it happens, then links to another opinion blog as fact. So, no. No real information on it. Just idle speculation. That's what I thought.

[Persondem]

16. From your link via the embedded link that apparently we were not supposed to follow.

"The Clinton camp, by claiming openness to more debates, has given the DNC a way out. But it’s unclear whether the committee will take it."

[JonLeibowitz]

15. Couldn't find the link for that on a quick search (it is out there, on my honor)

But, there is this from politico:

For now, the Clinton campaign remains in favor of keeping the number of debates low, say people familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking, to avoid squandering her advantage as the best-known Democrat in the race — and to limit the opportunities for her rivals to rattle her on television

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-dnc-debates-2016-wasserman-schultz-213667

Or how about 2008 when she advocated for fewer debates:

I think her position is somewhat clear. Others may differ.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. "Say people".

No direct quotes. Nothing. Just "people". Great journalism at right-wing Politico.

Any port in a storm, amiright?

[JonLeibowitz]

18. No, you are not right.

Anyway, I wouldn't call politico RW, though now I have seen DailyKos called RW so I am not surprised...

Bye.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. I does not take a conspiracy theory to think the strategy is poorly chosen.

A few more but also better timed would have been my choice. Debbie's choices so far have not done all that well in the midterm elections so I'm not all that prone to thinking her strategies are well chosen because I can count the seats we hold in Congress. I'd like to see our elections go better than they have been.

[cali]

5. The problem with your post is she requested low key and fewer debates.

[bobbobbins01]

8. How much SuperPAC money is it costing her to win them?

Unfortunately we'll never know.

[mahina]

14. Fewer debates = minimized chances for Americans to hear our ideas. This reduces our turnout

downballot as well. It's a disastrously bad idea and certainly appears designed to reduce the opporunity for people to hear an opponent's ideas. It's anti-democratic and beneath her.

Also, even if for argument's sake we say you're right and Hillary wins debates, DWS wouldn't know that ahead of time.

Putting your personal preferred candidate ahead of the entire country's open access to our ideas is one of the saddest and lowest actions I've seen. She should definitely lose her job. ''

[LWolf]

19. While debating

is a strength for her, I disagree, and so do so many who have watched, that she "wins" them.