Do you want to see Stein and Johnson in the debates?

[cleveramerican]

I doubt either will reach 15% required to get in.
I'm curious if du thinks out or in is better for HRC

[whistler162]

1. I guess the question is

If Trump's numbers drop below 15% do we really want to hear him debate.

[blue neen]

2. No.

.

[stonecutter357]

3. libertarians make me sick.

[TexasTowelie]

4. No.

All they will do is be bomb throwers and we already know that Stein will be focusing on Clinton. I suspect that Johnson will also target Clinton since she is the frontrunner in the race although the constituency that he should be trying to persuade to vote for him would normally be Republicans. Considering that neither Johnson or Stein have a chance to win the election it would be a waste of time to have them on stage.

[beachbum bob]

5. no

hillary be attacked by 3...obviously

[EricMaundry]

6. No

[cali]

7. I've always been in all in in 1 debate

if the person has over 10% support. That's millions of people, I think.

Then raise the threshold of support to 20% or whatever.

But I am looking forward to a one on one debate that shines a blinding spotlight on Trump's appalling ignorance. HRC is an accomplished and formidable debater.

He is a blustering buffoon.

[Laurian]

8. No! They would serve as distractions allowing Trump to avoid

speaking to issues. (He will evade anyway, but with only the two of them on stage, his incompetence will be in sharp contrast to Clinton's intelligence and expertise.)

[brush]

20. That's it exactly.

During the repug debates Trump was able make fun of Jeb or Little Mario and not address issues.

We don't need Stein of Johnson up there for Trump to play off of.

Let him face off with Hillary so the nation can see how little he knows.

[geek tragedy]

9. no, neither of them has a chance to be president.

they don't have a right to be on that stage by merely existing

[Hortensis]

10. No. If Johnson makes 15%, it will mean the Kochs'

investment of many millions has paid off for them and could serve as a catalyst for them to have even more influence in the election. Stein, of course, will not be there.

[struggle4progress]

11. The Libertarians got one electoral vote in 1972 and one percent of the vote in 1980

The story with the Greens is similar

I don't know how either will do this year but neither will be moving into the White House

Let's not waste everybody's time

If they want to play in the big leagues, they should start winning state offices and seats in Congress

[Warren DeMontague]

12. if either hits the requisite level in the polls, they should be in. If not, no.

It should be based on that sort of metric, not any arbitrary value judgment as to how "worthy" their viewpoints are.

I doubt Johnson will hit 15%, Stein definitely won't, so the question is probably moot.

But I do think given that ours is clearly the party of the 1st Amendment, and our platform commits to our shared values on clear progressive leadership combined with a strong personal freedom agenda, on things like a pathway to marijuana legalization; while the GOP platform endorses things like censorship, rolling back equality for LGBT Americans, Theocracy and outlawing abortion and birth control-- really, the Libertarians pose a much greater danger to the Republicans in terms of siphoning off their voters, than they do to us.

Stein will get the Nader crowd, but I don't think those numbers have changed much, percentage-wise, since 2000. If anything, I think more erstwhile Green people have gotten wise since then.

[C_U_L8R]

13. Not interested

Just more wiggle room for Trump to be a clown.
A real one on one debate is what this country deserves.
A real debate with real questions,response and interchange,
not the froofy kind that both parties have foisted on us.

[DrDan]

14. nope - need to allow trump as much time as possible - so show how ill-prepared he is for the job

[Demonaut]

15. Gary, yes...Jill, no she can get to work on getting the Green Party a viable platform

during the year between elections

[OnDoutside]

16. No, absolutely not. It would only be a hiding place for Trump. Plus those two loons would

only target Hillary.

[MFM008]

17. NO

no and no.

[CBGLuthier]

18. Gee I don't know do we have a democracy or a rigged joke of a 2 party system?

[HereSince1628]

19. The establishment works very hard to maintain a two-party system

because it's just chaos for the elite to broker influence with any more than that.

For all the talk of horse-races, Americans are unable to grasp politics as anything other than a football or baseball game.

And really, it's that simple. Think about it...

There's never been a major league baseball or football game with 3 teams on the field. Don't expect 3 to show up for a debate.

Choice just confuses things. America doesn't need more voices in it's debates. It doesn't need longer lists of candidates on ballots. It needs to bring straight-party voting to all 50 states. We get to vote for 'our team', no intense investment of time learning about candidate and no headaches trying to reconcile those pesky differences between voter and candidate perspective.

Oh, and don't give me crap about how there's never been a major league with only 2 teams. It's not my fault that the oligarchs want to divide us up. Hollywood runs the same movie in multiple public and home theaters... Local teams just want their own territory to control... just like Al Capone.

Just accept that there are very simple yet very powerful political realities at work. Keep this simple, and everything will work out. Jest Fine.

It'll be beautiful. The best. It always is.

Believe me, all those noisy people will come around, or rendered meaningless.

[LWolf]

21. Well,

whether or not I want to see them in the debates really has nothing to do with what is better for HRC.

I'd like to see them in the debates because I think including all the voices is important, and I'd like the nation to hear them. I call that democracy.