Flash back to August 2015 in Cleveland, when 17 — yes, 17 — Republican candidates were supposed to show for the first of many presidential debates. The group was so large that to have everyone on stage at once would have been "like herding cats," according to Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators. Fox News conducted two debates that night: the first featuring the seven lowest-ranked candidates in national polls, the second showcasing the top 10.

A month later, the main group expanded to 11, prompting Donald Trump to say: "Rand Paul shouldn't even be on this stage, he's number 11. He's got 1 percent in the polls. ... There's far too many people anyway."

Trump was right about the problem but wrong about its impact. He emerged from the GOP's swamp of candidates and became the nominee, despite the presence of smarter, more articulate opponents. The crowded debate stage forced brief, superficial answers that benefited Trump.

Unless Democrats find a way to narrow their field, they, too, run the risk of conducting a confusing campaign and possibly selecting a less than ideal nominee.

The trouble is that Barack Obama in 2007 and Trump in 2015 each started out as candidates about whom reasonable observers might have asked: What makes this guy think he could ever be elected president? That history gives hope to the likes of New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former San Antonio Mayor and Housing Secretary Julian Castro, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (!) and other Democrats facing similarly long early-stage odds.

To demonstrate their willingness to form coalitions, Democrats should reinvigorate the campaign process by pairing off sooner rather than later.

There is little precedent for such an approach — and plenty of conventional wisdom to suggest it’s a bad idea — but the mold for presidential politics is broken anyway. How refreshing it would be to see tickets of, say, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, California Sen. Kamala Harris and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gabbard, in place well before the first debate in June.

In April 2016, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz took the unusual step of picking Carly Fiorina as his running mate while primaries were still underway. But it was seen as desperation, since Fiorina had already halted her own campaign and Cruz had little chance of derailing Trump.

If leading Democrats were to pair up, they would have to do it now — from positions of strength. That would challenge the egos of some contenders, who would have to settle for the vice presidential slot. But isn’t that a stepping stone sought by many junior politicians?

Younger Democrats, such as Gabbard (37) and Castro (44), are going through the presidential process to build a following and establish credentials for a more serious run in 2024 or 2028. They could spend millions, clog the debate stage, and still wind up hoping to be selected as a running mate by the party’s eventual nominee.

As for the party’s heavyweights, such as Joe Biden and Warren, picking a running mate early would serve to counter weaknesses. Biden could team with a younger, more progressive Democrat, ideally a woman. Warren could select a younger male from the nation’s midsection who supports her views but is closer to the center of the liberal spectrum.

Care and soul-searching would have to take place among the candidates and their handlers. Picking the wrong running mate could ruin a campaign, as was famously proved by John McCain in his selection of Sarah Palin in 2008. Yet, such ruination during a hectic nominating convention might be avoided by vetting now, before the race heats up.

Many of the newer Democratic hopefuls speak of duty to country in explaining their decision to run. A powerful expression of that commitment would be to suspend presidential aspirations in favor of teaming with another candidate.

Carefully crafted Democratic pairings at this early stage would present voters with tickets that are truly greater than the sum of their parts.

(c) Peter Funt. This column originally appeared in USA Today.