Democrat Party Debates..not many people watching.

[heartsurgeon]

from USA Today: article about the Democrat presidential candidate debates and television viewership:

"The nation does not seem to be holding its breath...

The television viewing audience for the highest-rated debate this fall ? the Oct. 9 forum in Phoenix on CNN ? was smaller than the audience for the lowest-rated prime-time entertainment show on network television...

"They're not a complete waste of time," a top aide at one campaign says. "But ... they take up more time than they're worth."

Sunday's debate will be carried on Fox News Channel. But the drive for ratings may be even tougher than usual. Another televised event just may be starting at 8 p.m.: The New York Yankees and the Florida Marlins in a possible seventh game of the World Series"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If they'd put them on regular TV for us poor folks, they'd have more viewers.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Most people are not going to give up thier reality TV to watch a political debate over a year from the election.

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

 

[smashp]

I dont know how this looks for either group.


But it seems the Democrats have had more debates than Bush has had press conferances

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj


I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

 

[sbp]

Gee, you'd think folks would be eager to tune in and watch blowhard clowns. :evil:

 

[DealMonkey]

Do political debates ever draw big audiences? I kinda doubt it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

No, it's not that they're ignorant.....read sig

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

What facts are those? What evidence do you have that the reason that they are not tuning in in droves is that they are Democrats?

Thier are no Republican debates to compare them to so I don't see how you can state any conclusions from that?

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

What facts are those? What evidence do you have that the reason that they are not tuning in in droves is that they are Democrats?

Thier are no Republican debates to compare them to so I don't see how you can state any conclusions from that?

This was flamebait from the beginning... its Friday, some people are looking to entertain themselves.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's too early in the process and there are too many candidates to really focus people's attention. As Cad points out, they also haven't made it easy for everyone to watch.

On the bright side, they are getting a lot of practice. Too bad they won't get much chance to use it. Bush-lite will weasel out of more than two or three rigidly controlled debates.



Edit: typo

 

[DealMonkey]

Yes, I'd be willing to bet that Bush will use the Schwarzenegger tactic of attending only scripted debates.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'd be willing to bet that Bush will use the Schwarzenegger tactic of attending only scripted debates.

Do you blame him?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'd be willing to bet that Bush will use the Schwarzenegger tactic of attending only scripted debates.

Do you blame him?

Not really.

 

[heartsurgeon]

the only demcrat candidate that i find interesting is al sharpton.

i'd never vote for him, but i appreciate listening to him, and he clearly has a
vision about what he thinks needs to be done (none of which i agree with, but i still applaud him
for having some personal convictions about something, rather than trying to weasel word every
statement)

he's much more entertaining that carol mosley braun, and not as boring as Rev. Jackson.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the only demcrat candidate that i find interesting is al sharpton.

i'd never vote for him, but i appreciate listening to him, and he clearly has a
vision about what he thinks needs to be done (none of which i agree with, but i still applaud him
for having some personal convictions about something, rather than trying to weasel word every
statement)

he's much more entertaining that carol mosley braun, and not as boring as Rev. Jackson.

Gotta agree, it really is a pleasure to listen to him talk. That said, all the Dem candidates sound like Poets compared to Bush.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

So instead of providing some facts and figures, you post a summary of an article you read? And what basis for comparion is there? I noticed that you conviently left out the number of viewers who watched the debates in 99, or in 95, why is that? You don't like facts?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I don't think it has anything to do with it being Democrats.

you are free to ignore the facts..

isn't that what liberals do..

So instead of providing some facts and figures, you post a summary of an article you read? And what basis for comparion is there? I noticed that you conviently left out the number of viewers who watched the debates in 99, or in 95, why is that? You don't like facts?

Those figures certainly would be interesting.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Some Democratic Hopefuls Question Value of Debates

<snip>
"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in Iowa, "and not necessarily the person who might make the best candidate or the best president."

"They're very superficial," he added.
</snip>

more...

<snip>
"It's time for the rubber to hit the road," Ms. Brazile said. "It's time for some of the candidates to stay home."

Ms. Braun said she would do no such thing. "The Democratic Party, of all parties, should stand for the big tent for real, and not something determined by how much money you have and how many ads you can buy," she said. "I'm in it to win it."

Mr. Kucinich said he was in it for the long haul, too. Mr. Sharpton did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman, Rachel Noerdlinger, said he had "no intention of withdrawing under any circumstances."
</snip>

Just more news from the front. Thought I'd throw it in this thread since it talks about viewship too. If nothing comes from this - I may start a thread on it(you have now been warned)

CkG

 

[Gaard]

It's time for the rubber to hit the road.

That's a good one. Not too sure what it means, but I bet I'll look cool saying it.

 

[sMiLeYz]

You know I read article about the Bush interview on FoxNews getting bottom of the barrel ratings.

It could have something to with his dropping approval rating.

What does it really mean?

Nothing really

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's time for the rubber to hit the road.

That's a good one. Not too sure what it means, but I bet I'll look cool saying it.

You've never heard that?

*****

Well, it looks like "good" news for the Democrats...the Marlins are winning so their debate won't have to compete with the World Series tomorrow night.

CkG