Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

Democrats Debate in the Shadows of a Saturday Night Before Christmas

The third Democratic debate was not a “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting” moment. But there was enough conflict and tension, energy and insight, to clarify that the Democrats really do have a race for the presidency going on—a race that includes a front-runner with significant experience and support, a serious insurgent challenger who gives voice to the frustrations of many base voters, and an upstart with relatively low poll numbers but high ideals.

Unfortunately, this consequential Saturday night debate was held on a Saturday night. And not just any Saturday night—the last one before the last great pause in the political calendar that comes during the period from Christmas to New Year’s Day.

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her aides beg to differ, as they prattle on about “robust” viewership.

That’s just silly. The latest debate attracted a mere 6.71 million viewers, the lowest number so far for any 2016 debate organized by the DNC or the RNC. Saturday night’s debate was such a flop that it barely attracted one quarter of the viewership of the most watched Republican debate.

Here’s the problem: As groups such as Media Matters and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have made clear, the Democratic race is getting less media attention than the Republican race. The attention paid Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley, in combination, has been dramatically less than the attention paid one Republican—billionaire Donald Trump. Even also-ran Republicans like former Florida governor Jeb Bush have enjoyed far more television time than Sanders and O’Malley and, of late, second- and third-term Republicans have grabbed more of the spotlight than Clinton.

Yes, Trump is a ratings machine. But even before Trump turned the 2016 race into a reality TV show, the Republican debates were attracting far more viewership and coverage than the Democratic debates. The very first Republican debate, held two months before the first Democratic debate, attracted 24 million viewers—making it the highest-rated primary debate in television history. And the Republican ratings have continued to overwhelm those of the Democrats.

More Americans watched the first Republican debate of the 2016 campaign than voted in all the Republican primaries and caucuses of 2012.

By any measure, the Democratic schedule is insufficient.

How insufficient? Not since 1980 has a major party with a competitive race for the nomination scheduled so few debates, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The problem is that most Americans are not seeing Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley do well in the debates. That’s ridiculous, and potentially damaging to all three contenders and to the party’s long-term prospects.

http://www.thenation.com/article/de...shadows-of-a-saturday-night-before-christmas/

Last spring, when negotiations between the DNC and the Dem campaigns over the debate schedule got underway in earnest, the Clinton camp’s preference was to have only four debates, one in each of the early contest states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, according to a senior Democrat with knowledge of those conversations.

“Left unchecked, the superior RNC schedule could easily reach 50 to 100 million more eyeballs than the current Democratic schedule — meaning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of lost opportunities to persuade, engage and excite the audiences all Democrats will need to win in 2016,” argues Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg.

It’s worth noting that while the six DNC-sanctioned debates this time is in keeping with precedent, in 2008 there were far more debates that were not sanctioned by the DNC. This time, the DNC has also instituted an “exclusivity” clause: If a candidate participates in a non-DNC-sanctioned debate, he or she is theoretically forbidden from participating in DNC-sanctioned ones, making it a lot less likely that non-sanctioned ones will take place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bogged-down-in-a-messy-dispute-over-debates/

Even funnier next DemDebate also happens to be the day of the N.F.L.’s Divisional Playoff round. DWS is going for some sort of record in terms of incompetence or competence depending on how you look at things.



Democrats Unseen Debate - Morning Joe

 

[mcfrank]

Which is bad news for anyone not named Hillary.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

DNC better hope the lack of exposure doesn't come back to bite them...

 

[Black Republican]

if Dems lose the white house i wonder if DWS still has a job

 

[Escape Goat]

if Dems lose the white house i wonder if DWS still has a job

She ought to have been booted already.

 

[Cheebo]

Which is bad news for anyone not named Hillary.

Which is the whole point of the debates. DNC is going to wrap this nomination up damn quickly. We are less than 8 weeks away from both Sanders and O'Malley conceding.

So it all worked out pretty well according to plan.

 

[danm999]

Democratic debates are a perfect storm of boring.

They're on a night many of us want to be anywhere but at home watching TV, there's a clear frontrunner who is unlikely to be usurped at this point, and there's a bunch of sensible policy discussion and a dearth of shouting and personal attacks.

It's no wonder that the Republican debates rate higher.

 

[Blader]

Which is the whole point of the debates. DNC is going to wrap this nomination up damn quickly. We are less than 8 weeks away from both Sanders and O'Malley conceding.

So it all worked out pretty well according to plan.

The problem is that most Americans are not seeing Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley do well in the debates. That’s ridiculous, and potentially damaging to all three contenders and to the party’s long-term prospects.

Great plan.

 

[ant_]

it was near unwatchable online. abc's streaming service was absolutely horrible

 

[mreddie]

Maybe because
1. It was on a Saturday.
2. No trainwreck factor.

 

[Downhome]

What do they expect by putting the debate on a Saturday night like this? Heck, the next one is going up against NFL playoff games isn't it? I didn't even know a Democratic debate was taking place until the night right before this past time.

I think part of it is also people not seeing any real reason for the Democratic debates, not thinking anyone has a real shot against Clinton. If there was an Al Gore or Joe Biden up there I'm sure the numbers would be higher, and I'm sure they would be finding better time slots for them in the first place. Everyone assumes Clinton has this in the bag already.

It certainly isn't fair to the other candidates, but there ya go.

What were the numbers for Clinton/Obama?

It would be interesting to see if the Trump factor is also helping the Democratic debates at all as well.

 

[Pineapple]

Ugh, this pisses me off. Sanders needs the exposure.

But Hillary controls the DNC and will they acquiesce to her demands, so if she wants fewer debates, they'll schedule fewer debates, which is exactly what we're seeing. Not only that, but they're scheduled at some of the worst possible times.

Hillary doesn't need the exposure - everyone in America knows who she is. The last thing she wants is to be challenged on national TV and risk losing voters to someone like Bernie.

 

[B-Dubs]

These debates were never going to do as well as the GOP debates and anyone who thinks they would is just being silly. The GOP debates have Trump and the ultimate train wreck, the Dems just have three people debating policy.

 

[Neoweee]

Which is bad news for anyone not named Hillary.

I don't agree. There's no evidence that Bernie or Martin are getting boosts from their debate performances, or even widespread consensus that they've done better than Hillary.




And DWS should have been punted long ago. The only way her losing record is justified if it is part of a "let them fight" strategy regarding the GOP, and even then that is iffy.

 

[mreddie]

What do they expect by putting the debate on a Saturday night like this? Heck, the next one is going up against NFL playoff games isn't it? I didn't even know a Democratic debate was taking place until the night right before this past time.

Nope, it was up against a UFC fight.

 

[The Albatross]

Seems pretty obvious that the Democrats don't want people watching these debates... Let the circus sideshow be owned by the Republicans so that the Democratic nominee can face as little scrutiny from his/her own party before general election.

The GOP, on the otherhand, is a circus slaughterhouse where every candidate looks weak because the debates are like a high profile "Watch What Happens Live!" on primetime. People are watching because its infotainment, and a solid percentage of people aren't planning to vote for Republicans, but just watch the circus burn to the ground.

Nope, it was up against a UFC fight.

I think person meant the next one, which yeah is going up against primetime NFL playoff football. They're intentionally scheduling so that nobody watches... But yeah, last oen on a Saturday, the worst viewing night of the week (right?), and opposite a big UFC fight..

 

[SimleuqiR]

Maybe because
1. It was on a Saturday.
2. No trainwreck factor.

Everyone is watching the GOP debates cause is a fucking circus.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

The Democratic Nomination is a one horse race. Everybody knows it, why watch the debates?

 

[FeenixRising]

It's going as expected.

They don't want people to tune in and potentially pry primary votes away from Hillary whom I think the DNC is betting all their marbles on. Lack of exposure for right now won't really hurt the democrats imo... I honesty think it's a lot better than the shit show that was Clinton vs. Obama back in 2008.

More than likely they are going to concentrate setting up Hillary from whoever emerges from the Republican cesspit.

 

[mreddie]

Everyone is watching the GOP debates cause is a fucking circus.

Exactly, if Malley was just a Dem Trump, then it would be something.

 

[JustenP88]

Regardless of whether or not you want to dismiss the primary as a done deal, I don't think the complete lack of visibility is going to serve Democrats well in the general. I guess we're really banking on this being a foregone conclusion.

 

[Future PhaZe]

i dont buy the do-well thing, the problem is that its just not a compelling contest

 

[HylianTom]

Democratic debates are a perfect storm of boring.

They're on a night many of us want to be anywhere but at home watching TV, there's a clear frontrunner who is unlikely to be usurped at this point, and there's a bunch of sensible policy discussion and a dearth of shouting and personal attacks.

It's no wonder that the Republican debates rate higher.

Yup. The Republican debates are a form of trainwreck + stupid. They're an updated version of the old SNL sketch:

They're "Ow My Balls!" - for your brain.

Who knows when someone's going to make a comment about Hillary getting "schlonged" or when Jeb would try a new, excitingly awkward angle of attack?

The Dem debates, in contrast, are like a warm mug of kava tea with Garrison Keillor telling another Lake Woebegone story on the radio.

 

[danm999]

Regardless of whether or not you want to dismiss the primary as a done deal, I don't think the complete lack of visibility is going to serve Democrats well in the general. I guess we're really banking on this being a foregone conclusion.

I think they know who will be the nominee and they want as much wriggle room in the general as possible. Come the general the Democratic nominee will get visibility because they'll have to debate the Republican nominee.

I mean look at all the shit that is being said in the Republican debates and imagine the sheer Herculean effort it will take to walk even some of that back.

 

[Eidan]

Why oh WHY would they decide to place the debate on a fucking Saturday night?

 

[BFIB]

Republican debates is like watching someone get hit in the groin over and over.

Democratic debates are like watching a group drink tea.

GOP knows how to market, they play right into the Jerry Springer crowd.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

These debates were never going to do as well as the GOP debates and anyone who thinks they would is just being silly. The GOP debates have Trump and the ultimate train wreck, the Dems just have three people debating policy.

.

"Exposure" makes no difference, there'll be one Dem nominee and one(?) Repub nominee and people won't even really pay attention to the general until September at the earliest.

 

[mreddie]

Why oh WHY would they decide to place the debate on a fucking Saturday night?

Less people will notice Sanders and O' Malley were a thing.

 

[Stinkles]

Um, the ratings are bad because it's not a fucking clownbus train wreck. Democrats have already made up their minds. Most Bernie supporters are going to hold their nose and vote for Hillary - and I'd bet that a fantastic percentage of the Republican Debate viewers are people like us, who just can't look away.


Thinking this "lack of exposure" is going to hurt the Dems is bonkers, IMO. It's this very exposure that's going to hurt the Republican party next year. Not a lack of it.

 

[phanphare]

Why oh WHY would they decide to place the debate on a fucking Saturday night?

you have to ask?

 

[KevinRo]

Seems pretty obvious that the Democrats don't want people watching these debates... Let the circus sideshow be owned by the Republicans so that the Democratic nominee can face as little scrutiny from his/her own party before general election.

The GOP, on the otherhand, is a circus slaughterhouse where every candidate looks weak because the debates are like a high profile "Watch What Happens Live!" on primetime. People are watching because its infotainment, and a solid percentage of people aren't planning to vote for Republicans, but just watch the circus burn to the ground.

That is NOT the reason why.

Watch interviews from the other candidates not named Clinton. They all express regret at the amount of debates and the placement of the debates.

 

[Lights and Waves]

Who watches political TV on a Saturday night?

 

[Eidan]

Less people will notice Sanders and O' Malley were a thing.

It's ridiculous. Clinton is a strong candidate. She doesn't need protection. Suffocating the primary in an effort to clear her path only allows Republicans to hog all of the oxygen. It's idiotic.

 

[HylianTom]

Um, the ratings are bad because it's not a fucking clownbus train wreck. Democrats have already made up their minds. Most Bernie supporters are going to hold their nose and vote for Hillary - and I'd bet that a fantastic percentage of the Republican Debate viewers are people like us, who just can't look away.


Thinking this "lack of exposure" is going to hurt the Dems is bonkers, IMO. It's this very exposure that's going to hurt the Republican party next year. Not a lack of it.

Agree, it's incredibly early. The main thing that will stick around from these debates is the treasure trove of goofy quotes that will end-up being downright toxic for their eventual nominee when he ends-up facing the general electorate.

Hillary, meanwhile, has played it mind-numbingly safe. Almost everything that comes out of her mouth is probably evaluated on a "how-will-it-play-in-the-I-4-corridor?" basis.

 

[vainglorious]

Yaaas Queen Hillary.

It doesn't matter. At the end of February when Nevada and South Carolina have their primaries Sanders and O'Malley will be shook. And then a couple days after South Carolina is Super Tuesday with 11 states voting and the Sanders and O'Malley campaigns do not have the campaign organization and spread to get out of the vote in those states.

The dem primary will be over after March 1st. Hillary needs to debate the Republican nominee, not people wasting her time in the primary.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Um, the ratings are bad because it's not a fucking clownbus train wreck. Democrats have already made up their minds. Most Bernie supporters are going to hold their nose and vote for Hillary - and I'd bet that a fantastic percentage of the Republican Debate viewers are people like us, who just can't look away.

Thinking this "lack of exposure" is going to hurt the Dems is bonkers, IMO. It's this very exposure that's going to hurt the Republican party next year. Not a lack of it.

the issue isn't that this is hurting democrats, it's that it's hurting democrats not named hillary. the dnc chairwoman is doing everything in her power to swiftly slide everything towards her friend. would clinton get the nomination regardless? almost definitely. but there's no excuse for how the last few months have been handled by the dnc

It's ridiculous. Clinton is a strong candidate. She doesn't need protection. Suffocating the primary in an effort to clear her path only allows Republicans to hog all of the oxygen. It's idiotic.

ding ding

 

[Amir0x]

Who watches political TV on a Saturday night?

Precisely. This week of all weeks on top of it.

They're trying to limit exposure so that there are very few usable sound clips the Republicans can utilize against the Democrats and so that the Democrats don't spend much time harming each other. Whether the strategy will work is up for debate, but I'm guessing it'll have some strategic benefit overall.

I hope it does work, because frankly Bernie was never getting elected anyway and there's no time for games here. This election puts the makeup of the Supreme Court in either the Republican or Democratic hands for generations. That's simply too monumental to not try to play every card you have to ensure victory.

 

[Mesousa]

Even the debates seem as a formality.

The debate started with Bernie apologizing to clinton, to the crowd's delight.
She was late getting back to the debate, and when she came out it stopped as the crowd cheered. When walking off she pats Sanders on the back the way a teacher would. It just seems like it is the Hilary show.

 

[Effect]

Maybe because
1. It was on a Saturday.
2. No trainwreck factor.

This right here. Regardless of the day it happen the fact that there is no train of stupid on the Dems side is why ratings are down and would be down in comparison to the republicans. The media love the stupid and wiill keep covering it because of their ratings. they can't exploit the dem side and why they try to find things to exploit the Dems don't play ball and take care of it.

They so wanted Sanders to go after Hillary Clinton about the emails but he made clear he wasn't and wasn't interested in doing so. Then Hillary did amazing at the hearing. Then the whole issue with the DNC and the database happen and that was over in what 24 hours and even then Sanders didn't attack Hillary. There just isn't anything there that to make it a show.

 

[noshten]

It's going as expected.

They don't want people to tune in and potentially pry primary votes away from Hillary whom I think the DNC is betting all their marbles on. Lack of exposure for right now won't really hurt the democrats imo... I honesty think it's a lot better than the shit show that was Clinton vs. Obama back in 2008.

More than likely they are going to concentrate setting up Hillary from whoever emerges from the Republican cesspit.

Part of the reason we even have President Obama was the aggressive amount of debates during 2008 - most of which were not sanctioned DNC debates but at that time there was no way for the DNC to ban Obama from their debates if he appeared in an non-sanctioned one.

 

[psynergylover]

Was watching TRMS last night and she pointed out though the democratic debates are much lower than the republican debates they still rank higher than any 2012 republican debate and and democratic debate of 2008. The number are good but just nowhere near the republican debates.

It just nothin can stump the trump

 

[phanphare]

Yaaas Queen Hillary.

It doesn't matter. At the end of February when Nevada and South Carolina have their primaries Sanders and O'Malley will be shook. And then a couple days after South Carolina is Super Tuesday with 11 states voting and the Sander's and O'Malley campaigns do not have the campaign organization and spread to get out of the vote in those states.

The dem primary will be over after March 1st. Hillary needs to debate the Republican nominee, not people wasting her time in the primary,

"I've been waiting for you, America. We meet again at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner. Now I am the master."

 

[Tom_Cody]

Hillary and DWS aren't complaining.

 

[teruterubozu]

Debates generally don't sway voters anyway. It's mostly for shits and giggles.

 

[Veritigo_X]

While I don't agree with the weekend debate schedule, the 2016 primary debates have gotten higher ratings than past primary debates.

 

[The Albatross]

That is NOT the reason why.

Watch interviews from the other candidates not named Clinton. They all express regret at the amount of debates and the placement of the debates.

Sorry, should have said the DNC instead of Democrats. The DNC has a vested interest in the most likely nominee -- Clinton -- sliding into the nomination without having to push to the left or be asked challenging questions. That weaker potential nominees like Sanders and O'Malley are going to be hurt by it is of less consequence than that the most likely nominee has an easy path to the general election.

It's entirely the reason. There is no other reason why the DNC would schedule debates on the least accessible days on the calendar, going up against the biggest non-political events. They're holding debates because there's some expectation that they should, and then putting them on nights and times where nobody watches political debates.

Take a look at the debate schedule in 2007. When Clinton was cruising against Obama, the debates were all held on Fridays or Saturdays, and then once Obama gained momentum and the polls tightened, it all shifted to prime time Tuesdays and Thursdays.

When Clinton was leading by 20 points in 2008, the debate was on a Saturday. The race tightened in the weeks that followed, to within 10 points by both Obama and Clinton for the remainder of the season, and every debate, 8 in all, were held on prime time TV watching days.

 

[Hilbert]

Which is bad news for anyone not named Hillary.

Hilary seems to come out of every debate stronger and the agreed upon winner both in polls and by pundits. Seems to me she would want more debates.

 

[Moofers]

Shocker. DNC's agenda to sweep these under the rug is working. I've been following this stuff very closely and I even forgot it was happening amidst all the holiday stuff going on right now.

Totally shameful.

 

[The Elite]

Democrats are boring.

Republicans bring the fire and brimstone.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Republican debates are just better TV