“The 2008 one includes all the debates and forums as one.”
All of the listed events on the 2008 page are debates, even when they bill themselves as “forums.” Since the article below the chart illustrates this, describing each event in some detail and frequently providing a wealth of links to online material from them, readers are left to conclude you either didn’t bother to read it before posting it here or were just trying to mislead people. And just so the point isn’t lost, you earlier asserted the DNC had sponsored only six debates in 2008 and 2004 knowing full well that was a complete misrepresentation of the actual Democratic debate schedule in those years.
“When you add all them up, there’s more than enough forums and debates for two people.”
Your opinion on that is entirely irrelevant to what the DNC was doing.
“And back in 2008, there were even more candidates who lasted longer than those in 2016.”
In the 2008 cycle, the first debate was held in April 2007. The DNC, conspiring with the Clinton campaign, didn’t start the 2016 cycle debates until October 2015. The 2016 contest was down to 2 candidates in the debates after 17 January; the 2008 contest was down to 2 after 21 January.
“Your argument of ‘But they scheduled it when no one would watch’ is stupid too.”
I didn’t make that argument; I noted the fact that they scheduled these events at times they knew would minimize their visibility.
“You’re arguing that a friggin’ COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME was more important than an ACTUAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.”
No, I’m correctly noting that the game in question would minimize the exposure of the debate, exactly as was intended. I’ll also note that you’ve now entirely switched gears; earlier, you were dismissing the fact that the debates were scheduled when the least number of people would be watching them; now, you’re just saying people who didn’t watch them at those scheduled times are stupid. And again, your opinion on this is entirely irrelevant to the matter on the table.
“You’re just floundering about, trying to look for evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring evidence that refutes or debunks you. You’re using circular logic, working back from a conclusion instead of looking at the real evidence.”
Given that, if any of that were remotely true, you would have pointed out where that’s the case but you have entirely failed to do so, I’m pretty confident in my own conclusions. I’ll further note that this entire stub of a discussion was spurred by your dismissal of DNC/Clinton campaign collusion on this matter. That collusion isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an analysis. It isn’t an “interpretation.” It’s an on-the-record, nowhere-to-run-or-hide fact documented by Wikileaks in the words of the participants, and after I covered this in my previous comment, you entirely failed to address it — not one word in this reply directed toward it.
“A simple look back at the schedules and times of debates in previous years confirms this. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/is-six-democratic-debates-too-few/”
That’s a 538 article that documents what I wrote in my previous post, that if the original DNC plan had gone forward, it would have produced the fewest Democratic debates in a contested primary season in the 27 years since those debates became standard. Aside from some false comments and misrepresentations by Harry Entent — a Clintonite who worked to elected Hillary— nothing about the article supports anything you’ve said. You throw in a link to it solely because you think no one will ever look.