SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the past two weeks, the Democratic presidential nominee has faced increased scrutiny from critics to take questions at a news conference — something she hasn't done in 273 days.
[...] New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg criticized Clinton for her aversion toward the press in a searing piece on Sunday, and CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter has not been shy when offering his opinion.
"She is acting in some ways as if she is already president," Stelter said in a recent CNN appearance. "By not acknowledging the importance of a press conference, the uniqueness of a press conference — it makes me wonder how accessible she'd be in the White House as president."
[...] The campaign, which did not return requests for comment for this story, frequently cites a figure that asserts Clinton has granted more than 350 interviews this year.
[...] Holly Shulman, a former spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, told Business Insider that technology has changed the way candidates run for office and suggested there was less of a need to lean on the press to disseminate a message.
"Campaigns have changed," she said, noting that candidates can now reach voters directly through social media. "[T]his type of direct engagement has a much bigger impact on voters' decisions."
[...] Trump has continued to spotlight Clinton's refusal to take questions from the media in an open setting.
In recent weeks, the New York businessman's campaign has sent out an email each morning reminding reporters exactly how many days it has been since "hiding Hillary" last held a press conference.
[...] Brian Fallon, the campaign's top spokesman, seemed to acknowledge the importance of one on Friday. He promised ABC News that if elected, "Hillary Clinton will hold press conferences."
Source: Business Insider
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday September 05 2016, @07:33AM
Whomever is in charge of this needs to let him in.
Why? If he can't get to 15% he is just a spoiler. Seriously, even at 15% he is still a no hope spoiler if you think about it. Do you really think that just getting into the debates would double his numbers? If so, a 30% take in a three way could at least toss the thing to the House and considering it is likely to still be Republican but filled with lots of #NeverTrump types he could squeak by.
yet Bernie almost won.
Not really. Bernie was done at the first debate when he said he was 'tired of hearing about the damned server.' The number one issue that could have taken her out, follow that to the rampant criminality at the Foundation and make it stick, Bernie would have won or been shot.... guess which one. Just a Judas Goat to lead the left wing of the Party along to the slaughter in the fall for Hillary. He never once thought he would be the nominee because while he might be a crazy socialist but he isn't THAT insane. He had lots of fun and pushed the platform way left and that was all he ever expected to accomplish so he is feeling pretty good about how it turned out. Had he tried to win he would have been destroyed. Apparently most of his supporters aren't quite so bright.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Monday September 05 2016, @11:00AM
geezus you are denser than a neutron star:
'they are 'spoilers' who can't win because we don't allow them equal opportunity, so don't vote for people who can't win...'
1. WHO SAYS i HAVE TO pick a candidate who has some 'chance' to win ? ? ? (AS DEFINED BY AN ASSHOLE LIKE YOU ?)
WHO SAYS, neutron-star-head ? ? ?
it is MY VOTE, i will do with it what i want, NOT what YOU TELL ME is the proper dispensation of MY VOTE...
uh duh, that is kinda sorta the whole point, ain't it ? ? ?
and yet it STILL doesn't stop authoritarian asshats like you from TELLING me (and EVERYONE) who they 'should' vote for based on YOUR definition of who is/isn't a viable candidate...
2. um, who we vote for is NOT a simple choice on a number of levels (starting with the basic one that i DO NOT TRUST our computer-based voting systems as presently constituted, thus, i have ZERO TRUST in the outcome); whether i choose to be 'practical' or vote my conscience is MY CHOICE, NOT YOURS, dingleberry on the butt of life... i CHOOSE to vote a symbolic vote to nudge the needle just that much more to a sane candidate, rather than ratify a thoroughly corrupt and contemptible mainstream player who is either a tool, a fool, or a willing psychopathic mercenary of Empire...
YOU choose a corrupt mercenary every time, doody doody dum dwops for you...(coward)
3. the thing that amazes me about jerkoffs who are going to tell me how i am wasting my vote, blah blah blah, is that YOU MAJORITY of 'practical' votes are the ones WASTING YOUR VOTES and fucking us ALL over: if YOU ALL would vote your actual conscience instead of cynical LOTE cowardly bullshit, THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE ADULTS IN CHARGE WE NEED, NOT the corrupted players YOU SAY are the ONLY ONES who can get elected...
NOT IF YOU VOTED for the adults instead of the corrupt puppets, douchey mcdouche-face ! ! !
they are *ONLY* 'UNELECTABLE' because YOU -and the unthinking millions as recondite as you- REFUSE TO VOTE FOR THEM since you sold your soul to the LOTE...
one is a true and brave vote, one is a cowardly and corrupt vote...
your choice, citizen...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday September 05 2016, @04:18PM
Here's the thing: The people that made up the 15% rule were a completely unelected group of people known as the Commission on Presidential Debates, that were intentionally split 50-50 Democrats and Republicans. You can be darn sure that if Johnson or Stein or some other third-party candidate got even close to 15%, suddenly the threshold for the candidate not being a "spoiler" would be raised to 20%.
In general, candidates with the lead try to avoid debating, candidates without the lead try to debate more. The trailing candidate pushes for more debates because, among other things, it gets them more TV time without them having to pay for ads.
As for Gary Johnson, while I probably won't end up voting for him, he's a serious candidate and should be treated as such.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday September 05 2016, @06:24PM
If they change the rules there will be an outcry of protest. And there should be one. I"ll join in it. But he won't reach 15% so it is a moot point; and we both know it. Argue where the line should be, but there needs to BE a rule to prevent the stage from degenerating into a circus of Vermin Supreme ranting instead of a semi-serious debate between the Trump vs Hillary and the Moderator about the direction we take as we approach a major fork in the road. After this election cycle we will not be the same country, the only question is HOW will things be entirely different.
Bottom line is Johnson is even a lousy Libertarian. Asshole threw the fundamentals of Libertarianism on the fire to try attracting some leftie #NeverHillary voters. Of course that just makes both camps unhappy, ask the Republican Establishment how selling out principle for 'bipartisan appeal' works out. If you don't believe the Right of Free Association means what it says you simply are not in any fashion a Libertarian.
Some will argue that being on the ballot in all fifty states should let Johnson onto the debate stage but that is bogus. The Libertarians are the only ones on the ballot because it doesn't matter. If we set the rules such that it gets you on the national debate stage a dozen fringe parties would suddenly find the motivation to get the petitions circulated for the 2020 cycle. If you thought the Republican Primary debates this cycle were a model of how to run a civilization, go right ahead and do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @09:37PM
My rule would b that the top 5 candidates are allowed to debate. If we're going to be arbitrary, we might as well design in diversity and instability. Stability is exactly the problem we have now. Unwanted stability.