Viewers of the debate will compare and contrast and rank the participants. It may start out as "which one do I dislike the least?".

Marketing experts & psychologists will tell you, and much research has shown, that once a person makes a decision that X is better than Y or Z, they will rationalize to convince themselves they made the right choice. This involves exaggerating the value of positive points, and minimizing any shortcomings. For example, someone in the market for a car faces a choice among both American and foreign made vehicles. Chrysler, GM or Ford; Toyota, Mitsubishi, Volvo (to name a few for purposes of illustration); and then within each brand, which of several different models?

Now throw in this factor - what if there are dealers for Chrysler, GM and Ford all nicely lined up in a row on a highway near their home, but none of the foreign car dealers are closer than 100 miles away. What if the American dealers are open on weeknights and Sundays, but the foreign car dealers are only open 9 to 5 on weekdays?

The buyer can look closely at and test drive models from the American car dealers, but is only exposed to occasional 60 second ads for the foreign car dealers.

They consider - maybe test drive. But once they have made a decision, the rationalization sets in, and whatever model they have chosen, becomes increasingly desirable. Plus, if they have taken a close look at a number of cars, they feel they have done their due diligence and made a responsible decision. Hell, this even applies to what color car they buy. At first they may be leaning toward a light colored model - it won't show the dust. But then the dealer has in stock a car with every feature they want, except it's bright red. They'll have to wait a month to get the color they want. So they get the red one - and then they begin coming up with reasons why red is really the very best possible color. The goal is to feel comfortable with their choice.

The analogy couldn't be clearer. People watched a series of Republican debates, scheduled at good times re audience availability. By the end of the 2nd GOP debate, audience members are choosing. This is further encouraged by the multiple news reports of ratings as to who won the debates.

Debbie is well aware of this, as is Hillary - the expectation that people will be influenced and make choices based on exposure to televised debates is precisely the reason the DNC delayed the initial debate, minimized the total number of same and then carefully, and with malice toward Bernie aforethought, selected dates and times to guarantee the smallest possible viewing audiences. The last thing they want is for Dems to "test-drive" Bernie, i.e., get a close look at his principles, his history, his policies. Because by comparison, HRC will come up lacking, just as she did in 2008 when compared to Obama.

It was stupid. It was lethally short-sighted. It was as stupid and short-sighted as indulging in manipulating regime change in 3rd world countries with fuck-all ability or concern to predict or control the outcomes. In other words, this is a pattern for Hillary Clinton.