Why do the Democrats hate democracy?

This summer, we got a hard lesson in how easy it is to fool the American people -- a sizable chunk of them, anyway -- as well as the media. Especially the media. A leader with almost no experience at the level at which he's competing promised that he would deliver a return to greatness, and people believed him. None of his bizarre moves or pronouncements were questioned by his adoring supporters or by the journalists who were supposed to be subjecting him to intense scrutiny. There were even headlines in the paper that by the time it really counted in February, he could go all the way. Now, people are kicking themselves. How could we all have been duped by such skillful marketing...and by a huckster and a fraud?

But enough about Chip Kelly and the Eagles. I'm here today to talk again about the sorry state of the 2016 presidential race. Although we're still in the first quarter of that game, things are looking about as bleak for the American voters as they did yesterday for the boys in green. The idea of real talk about policies that might help the beleaguered U.S. middle class is getting pushed back like DeMarco Murray on a 1st-down hand-off.

The Republican Party had its second presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California last week, and it was a disgraceful affair on several levels. One of the problems was only partially the fault of the candidates. There was shockingly little talk about the kind of things that regular people care about, the stuff they ask politicians when they get to pose the questions. Like how come we never get a pay raise? How will I ever afford to send my kids to college? Or get time off to care for a sick family member?

Some of the blame obviously belongs with CNN, which was asking the questions. "Anything can happen tonight!" the network's Jake Tapper declared breathlessly at the outset, which sounded more like the lead-in to -- stop me if you've heard this one before -- a reality show than to an enlightened discussion. And it wasn't particular enlightening -- unless you care more about the Planned Parenthood flap (mentioned 23 times) or the Middle East (10 mentions) than, as George W. Bush once famously said, "putting food on your family." (The middle class was only mentioned 4 times.)

Or course, there was also Trump spreading dangerous false information about vaccinations and Gov. Chris Christie, who once was actually concerned about man-made climate change, now calling global warming "a wild, left-wing idea."

Did I mention the debate was a disgrace?

Which provided a huge opening -- the kind that DeMarco Murray hasn't seen since 2014 -- for the Democrats to knock America's socks off by contrasting their ideas and explaining what they'd do for the forgotten middle class at their debate, which...what, what?!!!

True story -- the Democrats, with a healthy field of five candidates and possibly a sixth if Vice President Hamlet ever enters the race, haven't held a debate yet, even as the Republicans have held two which have been seen by record numbers of would-be voters. In fact, the first Democratic debate (which will be held in Las Vegas..don't even say it) isn't until nearly the middle of next month. And if everything holds to plan, the GOP field will ultimately debate about twice as much as Hillary, Bernie, and The Rest.

"What's more important, drawing a contrast with Republicans, or arguing about debates?" she asked. "Let's focus on our mission at hand. Let's focus on our task at hand."

She added: "You know better than anyone that this race can't be won from a stage or through a television screen. You want to see these candidates in your living rooms, in coffee shops, and at forums just like the one we're having here today."

First of all, what better place than debates seen by millions of people to draw a contrast with the Republicans? Second of all, the many of us who don't live in New Hampshire -- where you can't get a cup of Joe without getting harassed by some second-tier candidate -- but in late-primary states (or "loser states," in Trump parlance) like Pennsylvania would like to hear more from these guys.

More Democratic debates would answer a lot of things that voters aren't seeing addressed. Some of them are probably a little horse-racy: Is Sanders mainstream enough? Is Clinton a cyborg? Does Martin O'Malley even exist? But we'd also see what a different political party has to say about things like college tuition or climate change that Republicans are either ignoring or dismissing.

You don't need a tin-foil hat to sense a conspiracy theory here, that Wasserman-Schultz & Co. are running out the clock on behalf of Establishment choice and national front-runner Clinton, that too many debates would give Democrats the crazy idea that there are actual alternatives. But even if Clinton is the nominee -- and she's certainly still a heavy favorite -- the lack of debates is hurting her, especially among the small batch of undecided voters who heard about this e-mail thingee  and wonder if the former secretary of state has something to hide.

But mostly the paucity of debates is simply making the Democrats look weak, and really, really bad. Why does the Democratic Party hate democracy?