Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democrats will hold 12 debates for the 2020 presidential contest [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You ask, "Who did the DNC attempt to prevent from debating and if so, what were the circumstances?"
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what additional information you're looking for, beyond what I provided. I'll try rephrasing. The DNC (or, more precisely, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, acting without a vote of the full DNC) approved a small number of debates, which were thereby guaranteed to be the best-watched. The new rule she imposed in the 2015-16 cycle was that any candidate participating in any other debate would be barred from those "officially" approved debates. Thus, the candidate who were prevented from debating were, nominally, all of them, and the circumstances were that they were all effectively prevented from joining in additional debates in any other forum.
Now, I admit, the prevention was only nominal as to any candidate(s) who would not have wanted more debates, earlier debates, or debates held at more propitious times. Any such candidate was happy with the reduced schedule. There were, however, candidates who were not as widely known and who hoped to use the debates to bring their ideas to the attention of the Democratic primary voters. The unusually constricted schedule worked to their disadvantage.
If you want me to spell it out any more explicitly for you, you'll have to start a thread on Discussionist or some such place and send me a link.
Anyway, my bottom line, as per my previous post, is that the procedures just announced by the DNC are, IMO, an improvement over what happened last cycle. You didn't expressly address that point. If you don't join in my praise of the DNC on this score, that's certainly your right. DU is and should be open to people who offer constructive criticism of the DNC.