CNN: "If you are looking for an alternative to Clinton and Trump...

[CajunBlazer]

...watch our Green Party Town Hall tonight".

Why in the world would a major news network give a media platform to a candidate that received just 36/100 of one percent when she ran as the Green Party for President in 2012. i guess they have to do something to compete with the Olympics.

Here is a question for you to discuss, will Jill Stein impress viewers and gain more votes, or will viewers decide she is totally unqualified to be President and shy away from her?

[Jarqui]

1. In fairness, it's hard for the viewers to answer your second question if

they have not seen nor heard her - which answers your first question.

I'll bet a bunch of voters don't know she exists. I know who she is but I haven't really checked her out and don't have the time tonight.

There was a time not long ago when media coverage was better journalism and intended to fairly inform the public.

She's getting her 15 minutes to make her case. I'd rather the Libertarian get the time to take away from Trump but I think he's had one of these as well.

[CajunBlazer]

5. Check out Jill Stein qualifications on Wikipedia

And you will find that she has no management experience and almost no political experience in public office and therefore virtually no qualifications to be President of the United States.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

And by the way, the Libertarians, already had their CNN Town Hall.

[Jarqui]

9. I do not see her as a Ralph Nader type threat to Hillary

Yes, the Townhall was the June event I was thinking of. He got about a 3 pt bump from it at best and Clinton's spread increased less than a point over Trump - too small to be sure it had a material effect.

I expect her impact will be less - she may fall on her face. But I'm glad someone did something like this for her. If not, it discourages anyone from doing anything like this in the future. A little bit of this is healthy - just as what Sanders contributed were good progressive things some of us will not forget - but probably delivering on a smaller scale by her.

[pnwmom]

13. She is very much a Ralph Nader threat. They are both Green party people and she is following

his example of putting most of her efforts in the swing states.

Nader tossed the election to Bush by only drawing 2.84% of the vote in Florida. She hopes to do something similar.

Written by a progressive who supported Bernie Sanders, here's an article to consider: "Friends don't let friends vote for Jill Stein."

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/210549/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-jill-stein

[Jarqui]

15. If Clinton owned CNN, that's one thing.

(and yes, I realize some of her top campaign contributors might control CNN)

But she doesn't. It's supposed to be a media outlet not beholden to anyone. So good for them for doing a public service - and their jobs.

I'm not in the camp that Nader is the only reason Gore lost. He's one of the possibilities. Some funny crap went on in Florida with the counting of votes. Pat Buchanan and the Libertarians took votes away from Bush - albeit less. There were other campaign arguments and issues:
- Bill Clinton's impeachment
- Bush pinning negative stuff on Gore for Clinton's years
- Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet
- Gore didn't contest for Nader's supporters

Florida came down to 500+ votes and a bunch of presidential candidates got 500 or more votes in Florida.

Johnson and the Libertarians have a much better chance of diluting the GOP votes than the Green party does Clinton this time around. But Clinton is so far ahead, I'm not too worried about that right now. Stuff on the Clinton Foundation or from hacking are far bigger threats to her campaign.

Right now, all she has to do is shut up and Trump will take care of his campaign for her.

[stevenleser]

17. That's not really true. There are dozens of people running for President. CNN hasnt had them on

why do you think that is? Because their qualifications are scant, they haven't been vetted and they have no chance of winning.

Hmmm, that's funny, Jill Stein is in that very same category.

[Jarqui]

19. The media is there for vetting

Clinton and Trump - how much coverage are they getting?

The Libertarian and Green party get one show each on CNN - that's probably less of a percentage of airtime than the % of votes they'll take in. They're locked out of the debates and media exposure or they'd get much more support this year with the poor favorabilty of the two main candidates - if the media was totally objective and gave equal time.

I'm not complaining and certainly do not want them to do well with Trump around. But if this Washington gridlock continues, a third party might make sense in the years to come.

[stevenleser]

20. If that's their job, they need to vet all 100+ people running. Of course they won't do that.

It's nonsense.

[Exilednight]

30. By that logic, if they don't vet all 100+ people, then no one should get air time.

You can't have it both ways and say it should only be the top two, or its everybody.

Why does it matter that they chose the top four? It's true that Stein is an idiot, but we are the party of Jefferson.

[Exilednight]

28. Actually, they held a town hall for the Libertarian Party, too.

And they usually receive less votes than the Greens.

[KMOD]

23. "Right now, all she has to do is shut up and Trump will take care of his campaign for her."

What a condescending statement.

[Jarqui]

25. To Trump, yes. To Hillary, no.

He is self destructing. Most see it that way and the media is saying so. Not presidential.

When your opponent does that, you largely shut up and let him self destruct. More or less, that is what she's been doing. She's been letting the media rip him apart with all his errors much of the last 28 days. Which is smart and what she should do. It's great free advertising for her campaign. Her campaign can float positive headlines here or there, pop in the odd retort but largely stay clear of controversy and let Donald keep center stage and try to squirm out of the mess he's spiraled into and stuck in.

As long as he's floundering, she isn't going to do too much to take away from that bad news cycle for Trump - because it's a great news cycle for her. She can save her best stuff for when it settles down and not waste it on a news cycle day that he'll dominate in a negative way for him.

When it settles down, and it probably will, her message will come off a bit fresher because we haven't heard too much from her. And the contrast will be made for voters. And it will be good quality stuff because she's been saving up a little so her news cycle when she's dominating it is a positive one.

It's a little like Obama and McCain. There was a crisis on Washington. McCain panics, suspends his campaign and does all the drama stuff. Obama keeps his cool, pops into Washington, does what he has to and back to the campaign trail - like a president should. It was a key moment in that campaign - the contrast between the two for all to see. Obama just let McCain be a goof and didn't have to say much about it.

Trump is in quicksand of his own making. Let the repugnant prick continue to squirm on national TV and maybe drown. The Clinton campaign couldn't write a better ad nor beat the price performance.

It has nothing to do with being condescending of Hillary. If she does it, like she has been, it's more evidence that she's the smarter of the two candidates, managing her campaign well, staying on message, not putting her foot in her mouth and thereby, being more presidential. Like Obama, she hardly has to do a thing because Trump, like McCain, is stupidly doing it all for her.

[KMOD]

26. "Like Obama, she hardly has to do a thing because Trump, like McCain, is doing it all for her."

and you just did it again.

So, in your world, Obama didn't fight hard and earn his election, and Hillary won't earn her expected election either. The GOP will do it all for them.

[Exilednight]

31. Let's be honest. If Trump hadn't won, this election would be a lot closer and

Hillary would probably be losing. The only thing that Hillary really has going for her is that Don's favorability is lower than Hillary's.

When your opponent has a shotgun for a mouth and a 1000000 round drum for ammo and the only thing he is hitting is himself in the ass, you best stay out of his way.

[KMOD]

36. She overwhelming won the Democratic Primary.

Not only did the Republicans choose tiny hands, they had no one even slightly comparable to Hillary Clinton in their primaries.

There was a time when I was concerned about who we would have run in this election. I was concerned that the pendulum would swing and we would have to face another Republican presidency. Once Hillary threw her hat in the ring I knew we would be ok. Not only that, I knew we had a chance to keep the White House blue.

Hillary Clinton is an exceptional candidate. There has never been a more qualified candidate to run in my lifetime. She is respected world wide. The only thing that goes against her is the inherent misogyny that still exists. If Hillary Clinton were a man, she would be more revered than even St. Reagan. If Hillary Clinton were a man, it would be an electoral landslide.

[Exilednight]

41. The most qualified in your lifetime?

In 2008 there was one person who ran who also happened to be a former governor, Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the UN, and elected to the house eight times.

Those are serious qualifications, and I've never seen anyone come close to matching them, not even Hillary.

[KMOD]

42. We disagree.

And fwiw, Bill Richardson endorsed Hillary early on in the primary.

[Exilednight]

56. What's on Hillary's resume that makes her vastly more qualified

Than Bill Richardson?

Legislative experience? Hillary's two elections to his 8?

Executive experience? Richardson being Governor vs Hillary never holding an executive position?

His two political appointments vs her one as Secretary of State?

I really want to see if there is actual evidence to back up your belief, or if it's just willful ignorance.

[ismnotwasm]

60. Clearly then, you don't know what Hillary's qualifications are.

[ismnotwasm]

59. "The only thing Hillary really has going for her is that Don's favorability ratings is lower

than Hillary's"??


Bullshit.

[Exilednight]

67. Okay, let's say Jeb had won the Republican Primary

Az wouldn't be in play, neither would Ga, NC or Tennessee.

She's not winning those states over, Donny is losing them. There is a difference.

We would be relegated to fighting it out in battleground states. Pa, Va, Oh, Nv,and FL ... two of which she would be losing.

I'm not blaming her for destroying a weak opponent, but the fact is she got lucky with Donny winning. Yoi always want to face the weakest opponent with the worse ideas, or in Sonny's case no ideas.

Obama helped Romney win because he wanted the weakest guy to run against. Obama and Axelrod take pride in the fact that they chose their opponent and ran a smooth campaign, and they should.

[Jarqui]

32. NO!! That your nonsense conclusion. Not mine.

I think Hillary has worked her butt off.

Obama did too. He ran amazing campaigns. I worked my butt off for his campaign in '08 and '12.

But working is not all about working hard. That's not the only thing. Most candidates under the scrutiny these people are under all HAVE to work hard. There's stuff going on for them nearly every day.

The difference is often which one worked smarter. Obama worked very hard but his smart move to quickly snag the caucuses and the way they went after primary delegates went a long way to beating Hillary in 2008. Smarts won over Hillary who campaigned her ass off right through to June. Hillary wasn't stupid. Obama just snatched the jump ball to start and she never regained the edge in a pretty close primary. Obama won against a lot of odds with his smarts and his team's smarts.

I see no evidence Hillary is doing any less work than Trump. But she's working a heck of a lot smarter than he is these days. Turn on any TV in the nation and you'd see that.

Show me a reasonable, non-ignorant American who would begrudge her winning the White House because she was smarter than Donald Trump? There's absolutely nothing condescending or wrong with a candidate winning by outsmarting the other. Trump is all about brawn and bravado. Hillary is about much more than that. That's why she's so much further in front.

[KMOD]

39. Here's the thing.

Maybe you don't realize it, but you statements come across as hostile.

For instance, "That your nonsense conclusion". Was it necessary to include "nonsense". Wouldn't "That's your conclusion" have been more appropriate?

It's the same as when you implied that Hillary "needs to shut her mouth and let Trump take care of it for her." and implying that President Obama didn't need to do anything because, in your opinion, McCain was doing it for him.

[Jarqui]

45. I was frustrated that more than one of your posts are trying to attribute

something to me that was very false and not what I was saying. And thereby, nonsensical. You are extrapolating meaning that is not there and alleging it - like an accusation - instead of asking nicely what I meant to probe or confirm. So with your lack of tact, misinterpretation and tone/allegation, you asked for it.

You alleged "What a condescending statement". As I thoroughly explained, it wasn't condescending of Hillary at all. You imagined it incorrectly and made an allegation of condescension. Not me.

Then after explaining my position, you misconstrue again, accuse me of being condescending again and say "So, in your world, Obama didn't fight hard and earn his election, and Hillary won't earn her expected election either. The GOP will do it all for them" - that I'm demeaning Obama and Hillary. Which again, is a blatant false allegation through your own fantasizing or wildly extrapolating what I'm saying - presuming the worst. Which is simply not true. And I'm defending myself from stuff I didn't say - which is becoming circular nonsense. It's devolving into gibberish here because you can only construe one possible and incorrect meaning and jump on it. Which is a waste of my time.

"shut her mouth" is not a definitively hostile phrase. You can say those words with a nice tone to someone explaining the concept of what you what them to do. Advising a person, for example, "if a cop stops you, you can give him your ID, state you do not consent to any searches and shut your mouth. Don't say anything else aside from 'am I free to go?'" That's not hostile. That's emphatic because saying something in that situation is a serious risk. "If no one talks, everyone walks" It can be emphatic for politicians because they're jabbering all the time and more often than not, what comes out of their mouth is what gets them in trouble and can consume a negative news cycle. Who can tell you better than Donald Trump in his verbal quicksand?

Enough.

[KMOD]

47. You certainly are something else.

Have at it.

[Jarqui]

69. This article of today reinforces much of what I've been saying

WaPo: To the Clinton campaign, the most powerful weapon against Trump is Trump

They're intentionally keeping a low profile, not making national headlines while he's damaging himself. Nothing new in her economic speech so it wouldn't make great news to take away from his floundering disaster. Doing stuff that gets only local headlines ... while the national media rips Trump apart, driving him lower in the polls.

Ironically, Trump's best friend in the primary, the media who loved those ratings, is being perceived by him as his worst enemy now. The reality is Trump is his worst enemy that Trump doesn't recognize and the Clinton campaign is quietly playing the media like a delicate symphony to let Trump damage himself and not distract from that. It's exquisite and smart - something to be admired.

They have a scalpel out here to carefully and discretely dissect and unravel his campaign - not a club, because they're smart enough to realize they don't need a club when the scalpel is being so effective. Mr. Khan put a pretty good slice into Trump's campaign. If the Clinton campaign keep that up and avoid scandal, she'll win in a landslide and be credited with a campaign that way over-matched Trump's and picked him apart by inciting his narcissistic, uncontrolled reactions.

Put a little bait out, he goes wild. Put a little more bait out, he goes wild again. Some of the bait comes from their campaign and some from the media who they might have fed and are on to him now. He can't change or help himself and therefore, is doomed. She's not saying much at all. She's just instigating him to tearing himself apart.

[pnwmom]

34. Nader drew almost 100,000 votes in a state that came down to 500. It doesn't matter

Last edited Wed Aug 17, 2016, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

what else happened. He was the single progressive who had the greatest influence on the final outcome.

[Jarqui]

40. Not in the real world. That's not accurate by a fair margin

I think it was less than 100k.

Pat Buchanan was close to 20k, Libertarian added 10k - something roughly like that. And there were others. If those two didn't run Bush wins easily, right? Probably. We'd have to assume the majority of Buchanan and Libertarian votes would go to Bush - which is a reasonable projection. I'm not so sure about Nader's support that way.

But there were also all those other factors I mentioned in the campaign and probably more. Cherry picking one won't convince me.

I really don't think the Green party is looking like much of a threat this year. A bunch of people wouldn't support them out of fear Trump would win. And a bunch of Trump's support - even more than Hillary, are people who support him because they don't want Hillary. (Though I expect the last few weeks has significantly reduced those numbers). The effect of folks not liking the two candidates is more polarizing right now and not resulting in as much Libertarian or Green party support.

If there is a Clinton scandal, then that could change.

[pnwmom]

44. You are right of course about the Nader #. But he was still the single progressive who did most

to affect that election. His 97,000 votes were tilted toward progressives and if just a fraction had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won.

Pat Buchanan wasn't running as a progressive. The Libertarian wasn't a progressive. Nader was the only person targeting progressive voters -- and he was lying about Gore. He said that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum -- no difference.

If Gore had been elected we would have had no Iraq war, and we would have a President who was a leader in climate change. Nader had a huge impact on the rest of this century.

[Jarqui]

48. I grant that Nader was a key difference in the progressive tally.

I'd say somewhat similarly Buchanan and the Libertarian were key differences in the conservative tally - with fewer votes but still a substantial tally that would have overwhelmed the difference.

I agree that it was a terrible result for the country. We'd be about $4 trillion richer. Further along with climate change. About 5,000 more soldiers alive and 50,000 less severely wounded. Economy wouldn't have tanked as badly. The gap between the middle class and the top 1% wouldn't have expanded like it did with the Bush tax cuts, etc. Might have got healthcare sooner and saved some lives, etc.

But when roughly only 500 votes are the difference - a whole bunch of things can come into it - including them not counting all the votes.

[Exilednight]

71. 8% of registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Why blame Nader when

Our own party voted against our nominee, and in far greater numbers?

[pnwmom]

73. Each one controlled only his own single vote -- unlike Nader, who attracted 97,000.

And most of those 8% were people who had originally registered as Dems but voted for Reagan and stayed with the GOP after that.

But the bottom line is, each one of them only affected their own vote.

Nader, however, drew 97,000 votes. If just a small fraction of his voters had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won.

[Exilednight]

74. Where's the proof of the following:

And most of those 8% were people who had originally registered as Dems but voted for Reagan and stayed with the GOP after that.

Unless you can provide factual proof, this is pure speculation that has no basis in reality. In fact, I know it doesn't, but you made the statement and I want to see the poll numbers that back it up.

[pnwmom]

75. This was discussed a great deal locally at the time. But regardless of what you believe about that,

the undeniable fact is that each of those voters controlled only their single vote, while Nader drew 97,000 -- making him the single progressive with the biggest influence on tossing the win to Bush.

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/population-influx-has-made-florida-a-permanent-presidential-swing-state/

Florida has nearly 4.6 million Democrats and more than 4.1 million Republicans. But the Democrats include a lot of north Florida “Dixiecrats” — Southerners who vote Republican but register as Democrats because generations before them did.

[Exilednight]

76. I see antidotal stories, but no facts to back it up. Where's the poll?

[stevenleser]

83. And had all those voters instead exercised what their second choice option was, including staying

home, Gore would have won Florida by over 10,000 votes.

[yeoman6987]

38. Senator gore lost his homestate that hurt most.

[stevenleser]

58. "That hurt most". Please quantify that for us and provide other facts and evidence.

Tennessee is an extremely red state. I don't hold it against a Democrat from there to not be able to pull that state, nor should anyone being fair about it.

[yeoman6987]

66. Clinton won there twice

[stevenleser]

81. I know that. And? nt

[yeoman6987]

84. And it was winnable for the Democratic Party and ashame it was lost.

[Kingofalldems]

77. Yeah the right wing always brings that up.

Of course Trump will lose HIS home state in a landslide this year.

[stevenleser]

82. It's a silly meme and never spoken by someone being fair.

I don't expect Democratic candidates from Red states to be able to pull those states in a General Election.

I hope they can make it close, and there is value in that such that it makes Republicans spend money on a state they would not ordinarily have to fight to win.

[pnwmom]

85. What opposing progressive candidate took enough votes in Tennessee to change the outcome? n/t

[onehandle]

2. 'News doesn't just happen. It must be generated.' - Walter Cronkite

Not really.

[KMOD]

3. I'm curious to see their ratings for this event.

They are giving her a primetime platform. I'm not sure very many will find it interesting enough though to tune in.

[Skidmore]

8. Both CNN & MSNBC are stoking the flames for

third parties. They are desparate to have a photo finish horse race, and they can't do it with Trump.

[KMOD]

11. and it couldn't be more obvious.

Maybe they'll get a clue when the see it bomb in the ratings.

[liberal N proud]

4. I am visiting Democratic Underground

Why would I be interested in the green party?

Unless I was _________________.

[AgadorSparticus]

52. Uh huh. Exactly.

[FarPoint]

6. I support Hillary Clinton...

DU also supports Hillary Clinton for President....I find it disappointing to see Green Party propaganda here on DU at this phase of our Presidential Campaign.

[CajunBlazer]

7. My post is anything but Green Party propaganda

I have been very critical of the Green Party, Jill Stein and anyone who supports this totally unqualified candidate. I am just hoping that someone asks her just what in the hell makes her think that she is qualified to be President.

Check out her bio on Wikipedia and decide for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

[FarPoint]

14. Oh for Chrissake!

Get that wikipedia link out of here! Screw that crazy bitch Jill Stein with a Taser....

I told you...we are Democrats here.....snap out of it!

Hillary Clinton is our Nominee! End of story.

[Squinch]

21. CajunBlazer is a vocal Hillary supporter. Come down off the ledge.

It's news that CNN is giving her time despite her idiocy. That's all he's saying.

[DeadLetterOffice]

53. Um...

"Screw that crazy bitch with a taser"????

I don't care who you're talking about, that kind of language and attitude is horrific.

[FarPoint]

55. I'm old school DU...

We get to the point....

[CajunBlazer]

63. Even when you point was misdirected at a solid Hillary supporter?

If you have read any of my posts you would know that I make fun of Stein all of the time. In my OP I tried to be non committal in my views of her because I wanted to understand what people really thought about CNN giving time to someone who is likely to get only a tiny fraction of the vote.

This board is supposed to be used to discuss all aspects of the election. Third party candidates, especially the Libertarians and the Greens, at least have the potential for affecting the final outcome and are thus valid tropics for discussion

[DeadLetterOffice]

86. So "old school DU" = misogynistic violence. Gotcha. eom

[FarPoint]

90. Get over it...

Stop taking this so serious. Or, just put me on your ignore list.

[VulgarPoet]

62. I dunno 'bout y'all, but I strongly remember a large contingent of DU being up in arms over

"fuck _______ with a brick".

So in what world is this okay?

[DeadLetterOffice]

87. THANK YOU!!!!! eom

[NWCorona]

22. I'm sorry to see you questioned like that. I could see it if it was my op

But you have be solidly Clinton.

[SaschaHM]

10. CNN is thirsty for ratings.

[grubbs]

12. Why does this post exist here?

I was under the impression that we were to support the democratic nominee. Go away.

[bigwillq]

16. I have no issue with them giving a platform to other candidates

I think there's some folks who are looking for an alternative, and it's good to see that the media is giving the other candidates a little bit of press for those that are interested. Nothing wrong with that.

To answer your question:

I think some may be impressed, some won't be and most will not watch.

[stevenleser]

18. Well, the pinebaggers are probably going to be happy.

She shouldn't have been given the air time.

[davidn3600]

51. Why not? Isn't this a democracy?

Only Hillary and Trump can talk about the issues? No one else is allowed?

[stevenleser]

57. There are over 100 people running for President, that's why.

And no, there is no way for the public to know all of them before the election.

It only makes sense to concentrate on the two who can win. Anything else is a distraction or potential spoiler.

[stevenleser]

65. See my #57 above. nt

[djsunyc]

24. cnn gets props

whether you believe stein is qualified or not i am very glad cnn is giving stein this time and she should be involved in the debates. the US needs more voices heard and that 15% number to be present is something i dont agree with.

[KMOD]

29. Do you realize that in some states, dozens of people will be

on the Presidential ballot?

If you can't get 3%, let alone 15%, you are wasting everyone else's time.

If the US is going to get a third party, folks need to work hard and organize one. Attempting to hijack either the two main parties is not the way to accomplish it.

[misterhighwasted]

37. Props to TrumpnStein?

She hates The Dem Party. She does however like Trump!!
So what tf is there to applaud her for?

And she's from the land of the lizard people too. Yup!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. I'm glad she got time too

"Doctor" Jill showed herself to be a total moonbat and her running mate is a bigoted asshole. Their numbers will drop unlike Johnson and Weld.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. CNN's viewership for prime time is around 4 million with a median age of 61

the voting age population numbers around 240 million people, and the median age of the general population is 37. Demographically, "is a CNN viewer" and "is likely to vote Green" don't align, and the viewer numbers are so relatively small and skewed that it won't have much effect one way or another.

[stevenleser]

80. CNN averages 700,000 people during primetime

http://www.thewrap.com/ratings-cnn-loses-to-msnbc-fox-news/

Fox News remained the highest-rated network in all of cable primetime during the week ending Aug. 14, with MSNBC passing CNN for the second straight week — and only the second time in all of 2016 — during the hours of 8-11 p.m.

MSNBC finished seventh overall in primetime, averaging over 1 million viewers, while CNN’s 723,000 average viewers placed it at No. 16 among all cable networks. MSNBC aired the Olympics, but not during primetime, returning to regular programing for “MTP Daily” at 5 p.m., well before the 8 p.m. official start of primetime.

Fox News actually beat MSNBC and CNN combined in primetime and has been the highest-rated cable network during the daypart in nine of the past 10 weeks. Fox News averaged 1.8 million primetime viewers, topping NBC Sports Network’s Olympics coverage by roughly 600,000 per night. USA, TBS, HGTV and NBC Sports join Fox News atop primetime cable.

[misterhighwasted]

33. Sure!

Or Not.

[brewens]

35. Alternative? Between the all Trump all the time coverage and a blackout of a certain other

notable candidate, WTF did they THINK was gonna happen? Now they suggest alternatives?

[KMOD]

43. Who was blacked out?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. Because this election has gotten boring

Hillary is so far ahead, the media has run out of shit to say. This gives them some life for a couple of days.

[davidn3600]

49. Because journalists are "supposed to be" neutral

They are covering an election.

[sarae]

50. I watched it, and I came away with a much worse opinion of her than I had before.

She answered a question about feminism by saying that true feminists are "caretakers and nurturers." WHAT

[CajunBlazer]

61. Thanks for the comment

I was watching the Olympics and totally forgot about it - easy to do. Did anyone ask about her qualifications?

[sarae]

72. I didn't get to see the whole thing, but I don't remember anyone asking such a question.

Here's a summary of the town hall:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/jill-stein-ajamu-baraka-green-party-town-hall/

[BainsBane]

70. Ratfucking

Makes me ill.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

78. People wont watch.....

....It's CNN.

[FarPoint]

79. Jill Stein is not fodder.

She is irrelevant.

[Basement Beat]

88. What's so wrong with having airtime to more than just TWO people...

for the biggest office in the land?

[CajunBlazer]

89. What's wrong? The fact that people on DU defend it.

[stevenleser]

91. See my #57 above. And...

personally, I don't want the House of Representatives selecting the President.

Under our system, that would be a frequent end result of more than two people getting electoral votes.