Clinton rivals complain party system is rigged.

[Wildtree]

The only one who benefits from less debates is Hilary.

The only one least harmed is her.

No one benefits from this handling.

[lockedout]

The only one least harmed is her.

No one benefits from this handling.

Lest harmed=benefiting. Having to debate will harm her.

[Wildtree]

Lest harmed=benefiting. Having to debate will harm her.

No, that is not true.
Less debates harm her as well. And it can even harm her significantly.
She is an excellent speaker. The more platform she gets, nationally, the more she can benefit.

[lockedout]

No, that is not true.
Less debates harm her as well. And it can even harm her significantly.
She is an excellent speaker. The more platform she gets, nationally, the more she can benefit.

It doesn't harm her because she stays as the front runner and other less known candidates get no exposure. Her name alone is what carries her. I disagree on the excellent speaker part since she has basically no platform that she is running on. The rest of her rival party members agree with this sentiment.

[Wildtree]

It doesn't harm her because she stays as the front runner and other less known candidates get no exposure. Her name alone is what carries her. I disagree on the excellent speaker part since she has basically no platform that she is running on. The rest of her rival party members agree with this sentiment.

Her competitors don't complain about her being inferior. Stop twisting things now.
They complain about the party's dictatorship like handling of the debates. That's why it's called rigged. Not because she's a bad speaker.
She is in fact a very good speaker, else her numbers would have been down a lot more, given all the negative press surrounding her email scandal. She essentially pulls off to stall the numbers.
And her fiercest opponent Sanders said about the IA polls:
Clinton doesn't fall behind, he himself is catching up. This might sound like semantics, but actually really isn't.
There's actually - contrary to the GOP and their camp - some mutual respect on display too.

[lockedout]

Her competitors don't complain about her being inferior. Stop twisting things now.
They complain about the party's dictatorship like handling of the debates. That's why it's called rigged. Not because she's a bad speaker.
She is in fact a very good speaker, else her numbers would have been down a lot more, given all the negative press surrounding her email scandal. She essentially pulls off to stall the numbers.
And her fiercest opponent Sanders said about the IA polls:
Clinton doesn't fall behind, he himself is catching up. This might sound like semantics, but actually really isn't.
There's actually - contrary to the GOP and their camp - some mutual respect on display too.

I meant they agree there are less debates to keep her in the front running. I just personally disagree she is a great speaker. I mean "what difference at this point does it make?"

[Wildtree]

I meant they agree there are less debates to keep her in the front running. I just personally disagree she is a great speaker. I mean "what difference at this point does it make?"

The difference lies already with us, the people.
We should receive more information.
I'm not happy with the way the GOP handles her debates either.
Or worse, once the nominees are out, the way the Presidential debates are handled.
That's outright disgusting, since it won't allow all candidates.

It is a rigged system from start to finish, on both sides.
And I think it's good when a few candidates speak up about it, at least on one side.

[Naxere]

I'm more interested in watching what's happening in the Democrat primaries than I am the Republicans right now. The DNC seems like they're firmly in the Hillary camp and are acting more like what I'd expect from the Republican side, just expecting everyone to fall in line behind their chosen candidate.

[Lodreh]

I have an idea. Let's do away with the Electoral College... and put everyone's name who wants to run on the ballot. Then whoever gets the most votes is the President... whoever gets the second most is VP. Party lines don't mean shit at that point.

[Rukh]

Every single election there's debate on how many debates to have, various people who think it gives them a better chance accusing the other groups of wanting to stifle free speech and the ones who think it hurts them accusing the other of wasting time. Happens every election with all parties.

[ringpriest]

Of course the "two party" system is rigged - that's the point; the idea that members of one half of it are now complaining that it's rigged is hilarious and has a simple answer (if they were serious, which they ultimately aren't): stop playing the rigged game. But, of course, they're not going to do that because that would mean abandoning what money, power and influence they do have, and more importantly any chance of gaining more. So instead they'll keep playing the rigged game, while whining that it's rigged. This is effectively just a variation on the Republicans "Hillary top-secret email scandal" - both parties ignore the real, underlying wrongdoing (two-party system, no accountability for public officials) and instead focus on tiny subsets of the whole broken system that they think can be tuned against Clinton specifically as part of the game of "king of the hill" they're all playing. Various flavors of crooks and cheats, complaining that someone else at their (crooked game full of cheaters) is cheating - high hilarity!

[Kurioxan]

Seems like he has his head on the right place tbh.

[Karrotlord]

Sanders is one of, if not the, biggest advocates of campaign finance reform in the US.