Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democratic Party Head Fires Back at Martin O’Malley [View all]Samantha
(9,314 posts)They want to silence their microphones - not give them a broadcast to promote their messages. To do so would be against the Institutional Dems interests. So why do that?
Their positions being promoted to the citizens watching and listening are positions many in the audience would prefer over those of the Third Way. Therefore, if Wasserman-Schultz did not keep a lid on so to speak the positions of particularly those two candidates, she is looking at not only hurting Hillary's best interests, but all of the interests of the Third-Way membership, of which she is one.
So in short, there is nothing in it for her or Hillary, and everything in it for other candidates suffering from a lack of public exposure. Most notably it seems like O'Malley is getting scorched the most because Sanders while also being very adversely impacted has found ways to put his name, his face and his positions "out there." That is not the same as free advertising time the debates give politicians, but it is better than nothing.
Personally I would like to see the other four have the debates, risking being excluding from the officials ones. If all four agreed to do this (I don't think Biden would, but who knows?), that would leave Hillary standing on the stage all alone on official debate night. So they would either back down on limiting the number of debates or cancel.
Sam