Could Hillary refuse to debate in the primaries?

[WVdemocrat]

She could. I don't think she should, but she could. If she were to avoid debating O'Malley or Webb, then that would be unfairly hurting their candidacies and unfairly helping hers. She has name recognition - if people see her name on the ballot, and she hasn't had to defend her positions onstage, then they'll vote for her (in the primary, I mean). If O'Malley and Webb and others don't get a fair chance to take on her policies head on, then they'll get 2% or 1% (so exactly what they're polling at right now). They wouldn't have a chance to boost their poll numbers and have their opinions known.

I think if a candidate who is unanimously considered to be the frontrunner refuses to debate other candidates, the FEC or the DNC should intervene. There needs to be some regulation in place for that, so that candidates can't cruise to the nomination on name recognition alone and never have to defend their positions. Some sort of regulation that states if credible challengers exist, the candidates must debate. In 2000, Al Gore even debated Bill Bradley, and George W. Bush even debated John McCain, despite the fact neither challengers ever gained nearly enough momentum to win the nomination. If Hillary refused to debate Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, and Biden (looking increasingly unlikely that he runs though), then I would lose a huge amount of respect for her.

[WVdemocrat]

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.

[WVdemocrat]

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.

Fair enough. I just really want a competitive primary. We'd have to wait until this time next year before things get really interesting. Seriously though, I think a competitive primary would make her more responsive to the base.