The simple reason why the DNC wants to limit the number of debates.

[Jim Lane]

140. I am just SO glad that the DNC has learned the lesson of 2008.

We all remember that year, the last time there was a Democratic race with no incumbent. There were more than two dozen debates among the candidates. Time after time, they said terribly stupid things that were bound to hurt them in the general election. Also, because they had debated and presented their positions on issues, the Republicans knew all about their strategies.

The result was predictable: The Democratic candidate in 2008, weakened by all those debates, lost in a landslide. So the DNC is determined to avert a repetition.

Well, I guess that's one theory.

Off in the corner we can faintly hear some crazy fringe leftists with a different theory. Admittedly they have a few niggling little facts on their side. (Most of the DNC members are pro-Clinton. More debates typically benefit the candidates who are trailing in the polls, because it gives them more opportunity to make up ground. Clinton, currently well ahead in the polls, would be helped by having as few debates as possible. In 2006, when the polls put her well ahead of her progressive Democratic challenger in the Senate primary race, she didn't debate him even once.)

But that's just tinfoil hat stuff. Obviously, the real reason is that the DNC doesn't want another debacle like 2008. This year, as then, we have such a mangy bunch of candidates that every time they're in front of a camera they're likely to embarrass themselves fatally, leading to another loss like the one in 2008. Thank you for pointing this out.