I don't mind having fewer debates than we had in 2008. What I don't like is the rigidity of the rules and the lack of wiggle room.
Having said that, I was not fond of the Sanders suggestion to debate the GOP as a nominee.
This article was posted in GDP, and I am really not fond that DWS took a play from the GOP.
So this cycle, determined to put a lid on the process, Democrats took an idea from the Republicans, who had announced there would be penalties on their candidates if they went outside the Republican National Committees sanctioned debates. If Sanders or OMalley tries to test the DNC, they would risk getting aced out of the other debates. Ditto for a media outlet that tried to mount something separate on the side, as they would risk losing Hillary Clinton as a contender.
One thing is sure, Clinton is going to follow the rules; she wont do more than the six debates. And the networks understand the DNC has control of the process because Hillary is on board with the plan and shes not going to show up for any debates that are not sanctioned.
Forums are allowed because theyre more of a cattle call. All five Democratic candidates will be speaking at the DNC summer meeting in Minneapolis on August 28th, but they wont be sharing a stage.
The DNC will also announce this week uniform criteria for inclusion in the debates. Democrats arent concerned about the number of candidates as they dont have that many. But they want to head off what happened in 07 and 08, when debate hosts changed the rules from debate to debate.
The result was former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, the first in the field to announce for president, being allowed into several debates. He quickly achieved notoriety for his anti-war position and curmudgeonly demeanor. Then, after failing to exceed 1 percent in the polls, he was barred from debating.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/03/dems-to-set-debate-schedule-this-week.html
The entire article is worth a read. I suspect that O'MAlley read it as well.