Has there been an explanation why FOX NEWS is running the third debate?

[geek tragedy]

It seems beyond ridiculous that Clinton would have agreed to having 90 minutes of Roger Ailes's talking points lobbed at her like missiles in order to help Trump get back into the race.

[Glassunion]

1. You don't go straight to the bottom level of hell, you decend one level at a time.

[jberryhill]

2. Does it matter?

You think she's going to curl up in a ball and pout over hostile questions?

[geek tragedy]

7. no, but 90 minutes of emails, Clinton foundation, Benghazi, Wikileaks

seems like something that should have been prevented

[bravenak]

3. I think they hate Trump too

If she plays it cool she can 'egg him on' just as well as Billy Bush did. Trump cannot ignore an insult or a slight. All she has to do is call him unhinged and he will show us just how unhinged he can be.

[wishstar]

4. She has experience with Chris Wallace and relishes beating Trump in front of Fox's rightwing viewers

Her campaign agreed, apparently thinking if Megyn Kelly was tough on Trump, surely Chris Wallace will be just as tough on Donald as he is on Hillary

[geek tragedy]

10. Fox was tough on Trump during the primaries. They're hardcore Trump-humpers now.

They're a milder version of Breitbart.

[brooklynite]

5. Roger Ailes isn't driving Fox News any more.

Rupert Murdoch is conservative, but he's not an alt-right kook.

[geek tragedy]

8. Wallace hero worships Ailes.

Roger Ailes is the best boss I’ve had in almost a half a century in journalism. I admired him tremendously professionally, and loved him personally. He and Rupert came up with the idea of Fox in the beginning, and as sad as I am for Roger to go, I can’t think of a better person to keep the vision of Fox News going than Rupert. ... I intend to stay at Fox and work for Rupert as hard and as loyally as I did for Roger.

There are people in tears. I shed mine a couple of days ago when the stories started to come out, that made this day seem like it was likely. I never knew a boss who transmitted a sense of mission, a team of common purpose, more than Roger did. And the thing that’s different from any place I ever worked is, people feel a personal connection to Roger, and I think a lot of people feel a deep sense of personal loss.

An Ailes sycophant is not going to behave himself on that stage, especially on the question of a serial sexual predator--obviously Wallace doesn't think sexual abuse of women is objectionable.

[OKNancy]

6. Fox isn't running it.

All three are run by the same bunch, it's just that Chris Wallace is the moderator.
More info here: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates

[geek tragedy]

9. Yes, an employee of Fox News and loyal follower of Roger Ailes

will choose every question.

Seems legit.

[Eric J in MN]

11. The idea was probably: moderators associated with MSNBC, then CNN and ABC, then Fox News. NT

NT

[geek tragedy]

12. Sure, they chose the one Republican working at NBC.

And now they get a guy who worships Roger Ailes doing the last debate.

[DFW]

13. Wallace knows one thing

If he acts like an ass now, he gets zero access when she is president. If he is close to fair, she'll grant him an interview or two. He'll go soft on Trump, but I don't think he'll bend over backwards to give him a free pass.

[geek tragedy]

14. he doesn't need to be ostensibly antagonistic, he can just choose the questions

that he knows Clinton can't give a good answer to and that lead into Trump's most effective canned attack lines.

I would also be surprised if his questions weren't already funneled to Trump via Ailes.

[DFW]

15. I'm sure it will be painfully obvious if that is the case

I'll be on an airplane all tomorrow night, so I won't see it.

[Lucinda]

16. I've yet to see a question Hillary cannot answer... n/t

[geek tragedy]

17. she's had trouble answer the email questions, and realistically there's no anwer

she can give that's close to helpful at this point.

Pretty easy to pull stunt--ask her about all the usual crap, then say she was either defensive, or evasive, depending on her response.

Jake Tapper from CNN would have been a much better choice--someone who's tough but will be tough on both candidates.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. I'm glad it's the third one

Comebacks are for suckers. Give me the lead and margin for error. I was very pleased when I saw the moderator order a couple of months ago. The last thing we needed was Chris Wallace nausea during that first debate when polling had tightened.

General elections are much less susceptible to a late wave than primaries. The media doesn't like to emphasize that point because they want a horse race and higher ratings. When people share the same perspective there's great potential for a new variable, or a marked change in an old variable, to sway let's say 20% or more on short notice. Trump is facing the need for a significantly more rare Category 5 late shift in a general election. Lotsa luck. Priorities differ and therefore percentages are more rigidly locked in place from demographic to demographic.

I took plenty of heat for that angle on the old website MyDD, specifically during the 2006 Connecticut senate race between Lamont and Lieberman. Sure it was wonderful that Lamont overcame the 40 or 50 point deficit in the primary but that did very little for his chances to dent the 8-10 point deficit in the general election once Slimy Joe announced he couldn't allow the result to stand.

That was one of the greatest political wagering bargains of all time. Lieberman was only a -140 (5/7) favorite in the general election. It's still unbelievable. It should have been 10x that number. And it would have been, if Nate Silver and his numbers had already gotten involved.

I suspect Wallace will slant heavily against Hillary, the Trump supporters will salivate and rejoice, Hillary's lead will be cut slightly, but not nearly enough.

Donald will begin his new life as laughingstock in three weeks.

[LeftRant]

19. Calm it. She withstood 11 hours of GOP nonsense under oath. She will be fine.