JPR Nutjobs interpret CA moving up their primary as an attack on Sanders chances in 2020

[Jim Lane]

121. Is further stifling of debates your recipe for victory in 2020?

The three posts you cite are venting spleen against Bernie Sanders but don't come close to answering my question.

You do essay an answer here:

Do you actually believe they're going to let him participate in the 2020 primary debates again, complete with all media attention that comes to participants, should he once again temporarily anoint himself a "Democrat"?

As I've previously noted, he didn't "temporarily anoint himself a 'Democrat'" -- that's another falsehood by the Bernie-bashers. But let's let that pass and turn to the substance.

Suppose Bernie decides to run in the 2020 primary and the DNC goes full-out authoritarian in its exclusionary rule. Before 2016 there was no exclusionary rule at all. The innovation in the 2016 cycle was that the DNC-sanctioned debates would exclude any candidate who dared to participate in a debate that didn't meet with approval from On High. The result -- fewer debates, starting later in the cycle -- was criticized by many people. In particular, because Clinton started with a big advantage in support and name recognition, and because debates are generally recognized as being more likely to help the trailing candidate(s), the exclusionary rule, imposed by a former Clinton campaign chair, was criticized as showing favoritism to Clinton. (Yes, I know some people rejected that criticism and said that curbing debates was objectively good. What's undeniable is that not everyone shared that view and that the new rule played a role in alienating people who supported O'Malley or Sanders.)

Now let's consider a hypothetical Sanders 2020 candidacy with the DNC having adopted your suggestion and barred him from the debates entirely. What would be the effect on the primaries, on the party's image with independents, and on Bernie's supporters? Above all, what would be the effect on the prospects for the party's eventual nominee in the general election?

I think it self-evident that the effect would be disastrous.

Obama beat McCain by 10 million votes. Obama beat Romney by 6 million votes. Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes. Should the Democratic Party enter the next election by telling Bernie's 13 million voters that their candidate won't even be allowed to participate in the nomination process? Sorry, but I don't see spotting the Republicans 13 million votes (or a big chunk thereof) as a winning strategy.