Quote:CNN may have been the biggest loser on Tuesday night as host of the lowest-rated Democratic primary debate so far this election cycle.

The network landed an average of 8.3 million views during the three-hour telecast. That marked quite a dip from its previous two-part debates in July, where viewership peaked at 10.7 million. CNN's debate also saw an almost 50-percent drop from the first debate hosted by NBC News back in June, which received 15.3 million viewers.

In addition, 449,000 viewers watched live streams on various platforms from CNN and The New York Times, who co-hosted the debate.

The fourth debate featured 12 candidates on one stage. They were: former Vice President Joe Biden,; Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Kamala Harris of California; tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang; Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey; former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas; Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii; and billionaire donor Tom Steyer.

CNN and The Times faced an avalanche of criticism during and after the debate. The hosting news outlets received backlash for not asking the 12 candidates about topics including China, which has made big headlines in recent weeks amid the ongoing trade war with the U.S.; the mounting tensions in Hong Kong; and the growing controversy with the NBA.

Even the candidates slammed the debate hosts. Castro blasted the debate for not asking any questions about climate change but making time for a question about Ellen DeGeneres' friendship with former President George W. Bush. Harris similarly called out the news organizations for overlooking climate change, immigration and LGBT issues.

Gabbard, however, may have had the fiercest attack, which she made on the debate stage.

"The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime-change war," she said, apparently gesturing toward the moderators. "Just two days ago, The New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears. This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia -- completely despicable."

Gabbard appeared to refer to CNN analyst Bakari Sellers' comments describing the congresswoman as a "puppet for the Russian government."

Link

It’s because debates are a farce in the first place. Hold too many of them and it just becomes a contest for who will be the biggest television personality after they drop out of the race.

(10-18-2019 09:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It’s because debates are a farce in the first place. Hold too many of them and it just becomes a contest for who will be the biggest television personality after they drop out of the race.

I've never thought much of the debates. For one thing, debating is not really a skill that matters much as a president. For another, they aren't really debates, but press conferences where the media types get to act like they know everything.

I'd prefer a debate where the debaters ask each other questions, the way Lincoln and Douglas did it. That's obviously difficult with 10-12 candidates, but it could be set up to work.

I still think the 2015-16 republican debates were run mostly by left leaning news presenters, and they felt that Donald Trump would be the easiest republican to beat, so they kind of pushed things toward the kind of reality show format where Trump was best. I still think Reince Priebus was an idiot to let that happen. Only problem with that approach is that he didn't turn out to be as easy to beat as they had planned.

If I were the campaign manager for one of the 3 front runners I would try to put together my own 1 on 1 debate with another of the front runners. It would first, establish the optic that you can forget about everyone else, we are the top 2, and it would allow you to focus on the primary weakness of your main competitor (as established by you).

When you have 10-12 people up there nothing really shakes out. Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses, but both kind of get lost among so many voices. It ends up being just who gets the best snarky comeback of the night.

(10-18-2019 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 09:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It’s because debates are a farce in the first place. Hold too many of them and it just becomes a contest for who will be the biggest television personality after they drop out of the race.

I've never thought much of the debates. For one thing, debating is not really a skill that matters much as a president. For another, they aren't really debates, but press conferences where the media types get to act like they know everything.

I'd prefer a debate where the debaters ask each other questions, the way Lincoln and Douglas did it. That's obviously difficult with 10-12 candidates, but it could be set up to work.

I still think the 2015-16 republican debates were run mostly by left leaning news presenters, and they felt that Donald Trump would be the easiest republican to beat, so they kind of pushed things toward the kind of reality show format where Trump was best. I still think Reince Priebus was an idiot to let that happen. Only problem with that approach is that he didn't turn out to be as easy to beat as they had planned.

They really aren’t even press conferences, they are fighter’s tours.

To be honest, I’d prefer if each of them would get a few hour segment on CSPAN or PBS to lay down their campaign. Just that one person in the room with a moderator, but unlimited time to answer every question.

Reasons given in here are good, combine that with the uninspiring candidates and there you go.