Could Hillary refuse to debate in the primaries?

[IceSpear]

She should follow Bush's lead from 2000, and agree to do debates, but only a small number of them.  Refuse all debates until December, by which time most of her opponents will have dropped out anyway.

Basically this.

She can also play it by ear. The media has clearly picked their side and cannot be trusted to moderate a fair and impartial debate. This hypothesis can be tested in the first debate. If it's filled with questions like "Mrs. Clinton, we all know you're a far right warmonger and most of your party hates you. Also, Benghazi. How do you respond to these allegations?" she can just give them the middle finger and move on. It won't make much of an impact since she won't face major opposition, though she would need to do some debate prep on her own time. If the debates actually are fair and reasonable (not holding my breath), then she could participate in more.

[IceSpear]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

[IceSpear]

To emailking and Mister Mets, that was just stupidity on my part. I should have known that the DNC was in charge of debates and such, so that's what I meant. The DNC, not the FEC, should require debates. And it would be hard to decide who is credible and who isn't. Obviously, guys like Jeff Boss aren't credible, but how would you phrase that in writing? You can't use the "polling above 5%" rule, because then Hillary would just be standing up on a debate stage alone for 90 minutes, unless Joe Biden runs (but again, that looks increasingly unlikely). I have no idea what the particulars of the rule would be, that'd be up to the DNC to decide, but it is unfair to voters to only allow them one choice, because unless you're a political junkie like us on this site, you've probably never heard of Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Without primary debates, they don't stand a chance.

And to IceSpear, I agree that the majority of Democrats support Hillary, but primary voters deserve alternatives, even if they end up voting for Hillary anyway. It would be detestable for Hillary to refuse to debate them, to refuse to give them a chance to gain any momentum. And it would still be detestable if she waited until November or December to debate them. She is not the incumbent president. I will enthusiastically back Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, but she can't just dismiss any opponents as clowns and cruise to the nomination.

Well, the standards for being included in the debates were always polling thresholds before, so if that were to change now it would be moving the goalposts.

But I don't think you'll need to worry about it. It's not like O'Malley and Webb are going to stay at 1% forever, particularly once the pollsters stop including candidates who aren't going to run.

[IceSpear]

If Hillary refused to debate, the media would hound her endlessly for it, and they should. It has nothing to do with her odds of getting the nomination but rather just looking like a decent, relatable human being. Any possible bruising from a primary debate would, I think, be far outweighed by the harm from negative media if she doesn't debate.

You're probably correct, but that would be quite a huge double standard considering how the media lets so many other dominating candidates get away with not debating.

Dominating candidates for statewide races get by without debating, but who was the last non-incumbent presidential frontrunner who didn't participate in any primary debates?

I don't see why the principle should be any different for statewide vs. federal races.