@wokkamile … before anyone has voted. But, heck, the DNC has already changed the rules in the middle of the game at least once this cycle; remember, when they said no more than 10 on the stage and one time, and then, when there were 12 who qualified for October, what did they do, divide it into two groups of 6? Heck no, they (probably influenced by the MSM, well, all except for Fox who they don't want moderating anything although using their polling data is just fine and dandy) kept it to a one-night extravaganza of 12. With 10 or 12, sure, each candidate gets maybe 3 or 4 questions and, depending on who is attacking who, a couple of follow-ups. Average talk time of around 10 minutes, and no chance of getting your point across if you can't speak in 60-second sound bites.

Agree, it's a terrible format, but I put a lot of blame on the moderators. Last debate, one stupid question after another, like asking Yang what he'd say to Putin if elected, etc. etc., asking about stuff they all agree on, softballs to people like Bootyjizz but then a set-up for Kamala to go after Tulsi. Ridiculous. Things would be much better off if they returned to the good ole days of letting the LWV run the debates, allowing equal time for all candidates.

I'd say, if there are 10 or more (maybe even 9 or more), then divide it two like they did for the first two debates. But it looks like that ain't gonna happen. Right now, we're looking at 6 to 9 in Dec. (with Tulsi, Yang and Steyer all on the cusp, assuming Bloomberg doesn't get "hot" in the upcoming polls in the next two weeks, which I seriously doubt).

Keep in mind, that the Boston Globe NH poll referenced in this thread doesn't count, according the DNC's "approved" list, even though the Boston Globe is the largest newspaper in the state of NH. On the other hand, in Iowa, polls by the Des Moines Register, that state's largest newspaper, do count. Why? Who knows, the DNC has been silent as to why some polls count, and others don't.

To go back to my original point, I just hate the idea that they are limiting the exposure of those candidates who aren't doing well in the polls before anyone has had a chance to cast a single vote. Who anointed these pollsters (and only certain ones) as gatekeepers? Number of donors alone would be better. Frankly, I'd rather see them rotate all of the candidates in and out randomly so each candidate gets the same amount of exposure. But, given lockstep between the DNC and the MSM (mainly CNN and MSNBC), that ain't gonna happen.

#3.1 at this point not b/c I think she has a path to the nomination but b/c I want her voice on FP in the debates -- so far the only candidate with FP and regime change wars as the center piece of her candidacy.

But otoh, I'm getting impatient with seeing the 10-candidate debates at this fairly late stage. Judging from the dismal tv viewer numbers from the last debate, so are a lot of other people. It's too many pols, many of whom offer the same triangulating trimming at the margins, including a billionaire who essentially paid his way onto the stage.

The DNC should have had a firm 7-candidate limit by the Dec debate. Give 25% weight to polls, 75% to unique donor totals. Having skin in the game with a monetary contribution should count for far more than whether you've been among the relative few selected to answer a poll and whether you've been privileged with a poll that counts.