# 13 October 2015 Democratic debate (for commentary during & after) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 14, 2015, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593 "2015-10-14T00:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/221 "2015-10-15T19:21:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It’s difficult to believe that “most” Americans would disagree or that those are the real issues that “most” people care about. Both GOP debates outdrew the DNC debate. “More” Americans seem to be “more” interested in what the GOP candidates had to say. And videos of people lighting farts get more hits than those of people solving quadratic equations. Since the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections and Republicans haven’t won a legitimate election since 1956, I’m not worried about the ratings for the debates. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/222 "2015-10-15T19:53:11Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > The clown car is also popular at the circus. And the DNC clown car is solidly in third (3rd) place. How many more clown cars, oops, I mean debates will the voters be subjected too before all of the political parties have chosen their official candidates? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/223 "2015-10-15T19:56:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You can _always_ sell tickets to a circus. And people go to strip clubs to study anatomy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/224 "2015-10-15T19:56:29Z")
Third place in the Nielsens behind both Republican clown cars, you mean? Interesting way to put it. [Here’s the full schedule](http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/), since you haven’t seen it. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/225 "2015-10-15T19:59:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > And the DNC clown car is solidly in third (3rd) place. I have no idea what this is a reference to. > [@](#): > > How many more clown cars, oops, I mean debates will the voters be subjected too before all of the political parties have chosen their official candidates? I believe there are six scheduled Democratic debates. And 11 on the Republican side. None of that is carved in stone of course. You can see the schedules here: [Democratic Debate Schedule (2016 Primary Debates) - Election Central](http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/). Note, though, that not one is being ‘subjected’ to them. People who are watching them are seeking them out. For mere spectacle on one side, for sure. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/226 "2015-10-15T20:26:05Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > I have no idea what this is a reference to. (post shortened) In post #167, **Kolak of Twilo** said “most Americans would disagree”, “real issues most people care about”, and “and most other people”. I responded to that post by stating that both of the GOP debates outdrew the DNC debate. It seems to be that the debate with the least number of viewers would not be the debate that covers the issues that most viewers care about. **running coach** introduced the “clown car” reference in post #220. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/227 "2015-10-15T20:26:05Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > I noted that none of them went near the notion of having colleges scale back on the millions of dollars spent on athletic programs. Coaches make far more than professors, stadiums cost a fortune to build and maintain, teams travel all over the country; if that money was used to offset tuition, the country would be in far better shape. But I know that football has become a national obsession, and that sports is a sacred cow that no politician wants to gore. I love football, but I do think it’s stupid to have it (or any sport) attached to educational institutions. However, you are wrong to think that this is where to go to get money to bring down tuition. Football brings in more revenue than it costs. If you want to get money out of college athletics, you need to cut the non-revenue-raising programs like lacrosse or rugby or field hockey. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m not surprised who won the online polls and who impressed the establishment old media. However it would be a mistake to think that somehow Time Warner bosses pulled strings to get Clinton the lead mention in their newspapers. This isn’t Fox News, there’s no direct line from the TW CEO’s office to the newsroom manager at CNN telling them to make one of their reporters write that Clinton won. I feel that the truth is probably that old establishment types populate the newsrooms of the big media corporations moreso than the demographic Sanders resonates with, and that because of that, Clinton’s message impressed them more than Sanders’ message. There’s no conspiracy to push Clinton, they just simply like her more It’s really not even this level of bias. If you were right, they would not have been describing her campaign in such disastrous terms for the past several months. What’s actually happening is that they are accurately observing that she was doing poorly, and then she did amazingly well in the debate. It’s no more complicated than that. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > [http://inthesetimes.com/article/18511/mainstream\_media\_declare\_hillary\_clinton\_winner\_of\_first\_debate](http://inthesetimes.com/article/18511/mainstream_media_declare_hillary_clinton_winner_of_first_debate) > > Obviously the polls are not scientific, which is mentioned later in the article, but his message clearly does resonate more than Hillary, so why was this blindsided? By this logic, Ron Paul always resonated more than his Republican opponents, yet never managed to win primaries for some reason. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Even if it is bullshit, you’d think that if Hillary was doing quite well, there’d be some evening out of the poll numbers. I only know of [one scientific poll](http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/) conducted on the debate, and it found Hillary winning by a huge margin. ETA: I would be happy for the GOP debates to get even more attention: 50 million, 100 million, 200 million viewers. As long as they continue to feature the same cast of characters, it can only help Democrats for them to get more publicity! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/228 "2015-10-15T20:33:20Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Football brings in more revenue than it costs. Wrong forum, but[the picture is not at all clear](http://www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable/) that it does. > [@](#): > > What’s actually happening is that they are accurately observing that she was doing poorly, and then she did amazingly well in the debate. It’s no more complicated than that. It’s not only the debate, and the assist she got from Sanders on the e-mail shit, it’s McCarthy’s gaffe-of-truth right before it. The causes of her poll slippage are now cleaned up, and her performance Tuesday just capped it. A lot can happen, sure, but it’s likely she just won the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/229 "2015-10-15T20:42:25Z")
Good points, and I would add that I think she started righting the ship with her recent MTP interview. That was when I first started settling out of panic mode. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/230 "2015-10-15T20:43:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > In post #167, **Kolak of Twilo** said “most Americans would disagree”, “real issues most people care about”, and “and most other people”. > > I responded to that post by stating that both of the GOP debates outdrew the DNC debate. It seems to be that the debate with the least number of viewers would not be the debate that covers the issues that most viewers care about. I actually somewhat agree with your overall point, which is that **Kolak of Twilo** may have overstated it in saying that “most people” care about gun control, climate change, etc. Perhaps “most Democrats” would have been more accurate. Most “people” according to [polls](http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm) seem primarily to care about the economy, health care, terrorism, etc., all of which were discussed in both parties’ debates, albeit IMO in greater depth by the Democrats. In fairness to the GOP, it’s hard to have a substantive debate between 10+ people. But man, the logic of your argument is just horrendous. So, if Kim Kardashian, Dr. Patch Adams, and, I don’t know, Angelo Mozilo were the Democratic frontrunners and on the Republican side you had Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and George Pataki duking it out, and the Democratic debates attracted a larger viewership, would you conclude that the Democrats must really have their finger on the pulse of what political issues really matter to the electorate? If a liberal tried to make that argument, would you view that person as a serious commentator on the subject at hand, or as a partisan hack of the first order? Or would you simply think they were engaging in drollery? ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/231 "2015-10-15T20:57:03Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > In post #167, **Kolak of Twilo** said “most Americans would disagree”, “real issues most people care about”, and “and most other people”. > > I responded to that post by stating that both of the GOP debates outdrew the DNC debate. It seems to be that the debate with the least number of viewers would not be the debate that covers the issues that most viewers care about. > > **running coach** introduced the “clown car” reference in post #220. It was the third place thing I was baffled by. If it was a reference to the its ratings out of the three debates that occurred so far as Elvis suggested, then, ok, I can kind of see the tortured metaphor you’re going for there. But this whole thing is bizarre - you really think that ratings are the way to measure Americans’ collective interest in the issues discussed? You really think that? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/232 "2015-10-15T21:14:41Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > you really think that ratings are the way to measure Americans’ collective interest in the issues discussed? You really think that? I don’t know, but it’s one measure he can point to and make that argument, however lame it is. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/233 "2015-10-15T21:35:45Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I feel that the truth is probably that old establishment types populate the newsrooms of the big media corporations moreso than the demographic Sanders resonates with, and that because of that, Clinton’s message impressed them more than Sanders’ message. Are we sure this is true? My impression was that Sanders does better than Clinton with men, better with older voters, better with college-educated-and-beyond voters, and better with white voters. (That’s all “per capita,” so to speak–that is, a bigger share of Sanders’s support comes from white voters than the share of Clinton’s that comes from white voters, and says nothing about who the choice of a majority of white voters might be.) Anyway, if true, that would seem to put the “old establishment types” (the white, older, college-educated men who dominate news media) much more firmly in Sanders’s camp than in Clinton’s, wouldn’t it? About your main point, that there is no conspiracy, I completely agree. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/234 "2015-10-15T21:46:56Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > [http://inthesetimes.com/article/18511/mainstream\_media\_declare\_hillary\_clinton\_winner\_of\_first\_debate](http://inthesetimes.com/article/18511/mainstream_media_declare_hillary_clinton_winner_of_first_debate) > > Obviously the polls are not scientific, which is mentioned later in the article, but **his message clearly does resonate more than Hillary** , so why was this blindsided? Bolding mine. Are you familiar with the Peggy Noonan fallacy? (Basically, that large crowds at rallies, lots of lawn signs and bumper stickers, and unexpected enthusiasm for a candidate on the part of some people you sort of know all go together to make for a sure electoral landslide for that candidate, albeit a landslide that probably “doesn’t show up in the polls.” Noonan was convinced that Romney would knock Obama’s socks off in 2012 because of what she perceived as an enormous enthusiasm gap.) No question that many of Sanders’s supporters are extremely enthusiastic about him. Perhaps if we required voters to jump through a fiery hoop before casting their ballots, he would win the election. But even if his support goes up to 11 for some people, and Clinton’s is stuck at more reasonable levels, it doesn’t make any difference if Clinton has a greater number of folks at “reasonable levels” than Sanders has 11s. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/235 "2015-10-15T22:07:05Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > It’s really not even this level of bias. If you were right, they would not have been describing her campaign in such disastrous terms for the past several months. What’s actually happening is that they are accurately observing that she was doing poorly, and then she did amazingly well in the debate. It’s no more complicated than that. I don’t think there is some coordinated effort to paint Clinton’s troubles as worse or better in the last few months by mainstream media types. I think most decent journalists are able to report on the troubles in her campaign while still being more receptive to her message, which may explain why her debate performance was lauded by the traditional media and other polls thought Sanders did better. > [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > Are we sure this is true? My impression was that Sanders does better than Clinton with men, better with older voters, better with college-educated-and-beyond voters, and better with white voters. > > (That’s all “per capita,” so to speak–that is, a bigger share of Sanders’s support comes from white voters than the share of Clinton’s that comes from white voters, and says nothing about who the choice of a majority of white voters might be.) > > Anyway, if true, that would seem to put the “old establishment types” (the white, older, college-educated men who dominate news media) much more firmly in Sanders’s camp than in Clinton’s, wouldn’t it? If we’re talking general population, that would be completely true, but we’re using the relative smaller sample size of media types, specifically print and online journalists in certain corporations writing about the debate results. Its not at all impossible that those handful of people writing those articles resonated more with Clinton’s message. I do want to point out that I was just putting for one hypothesis on why she did better according to those media. We can’t really know for sure ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/236 "2015-10-15T22:23:38Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > It was the third place thing I was baffled by. If it was a reference to the its ratings out of the three debates that occurred so far as Elvis suggested, then, ok, I can kind of see the tortured metaphor you’re going for there. But this whole thing is bizarre - you really think that ratings are the way to measure Americans’ collective interest in the issues discussed? You really think that? I’ve been talking about the number of viewers. So far, during the 2015 campaigning season, there have been three (3) presidential political debates. Both of the GOP debates drew more viewers than the DNC debate. The GOP debates are in first (1st) and second (2nd) place. The DNC debate is in third (3rd) place. Some people might consider that to be last place. If people are interested in hearing what the candidates actually have to say, it’s not unreasonable to believe that viewers would actually tune in to hear what the candidates actually have to say. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/237 "2015-10-15T22:26:50Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > …Are you familiar with the Peggy Noonan fallacy? I’ve never heard of the “Peggy Noonan fallacy”? Who made up that term? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/238 "2015-10-15T22:26:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I agree with that except for this: > > The other three showed why they’re _not_ “main candidates”. Giving the most attention to the ones with a real chance, the ones people most want and need to know more about, is \*exactly \*what good journalists should do. That is a fair point, but it is still early and I would have liked to hear more from the 3 minor candidates. O’Malley impressed me and I honestly could not remember his name before the debate. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/239 "2015-10-15T22:36:24Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > I actually somewhat agree with your overall point, which is that **Kolak of Twilo** may have overstated it in saying that “most people” care about gun control, climate change, etc. Perhaps “most Democrats” would have been more accurate… > > But man, the logic of your argument is just horrendous. So, if Kim Kardashian, Dr. Patch Adams, and, I don’t know, Angelo Mozilo were the Democratic frontrunners and on the Republican side you had Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and George Pataki duking it out, and the Democratic debates attracted a larger viewership, would you conclude that the Democrats must really have their finger on the pulse of what political issues really matter to the electorate? (post shortened) You’re strawman is suggesting that if things were different, things would be different. I can agree with that. If Kim Kardashian, Dr. Patch Adams, and Angelo Mozilo were the best that the DNC could come up with, well, that’s the best they could come up with. However, that’s not what actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593/240 "2015-10-15T22:36:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I’ve been talking about the number of viewers. So far, during the 2015 campaigning season, there have been three (3) presidential political debates. Both of the GOP debates drew more viewers than the DNC debate. The GOP debates are in first (1st) and second (2nd) place. The DNC debate is in third (3rd) place. Some people might consider that to be last place. > > If people are interested in hearing what the candidates actually have to say, it’s not unreasonable to believe that viewers would actually tune in to hear what the candidates actually have to say. How many republicans do you think tuned in to hear Hillary and Bernie discuss the issues? How many democrats do you think tuned in to see what Trump was gonna get up to? One of these numbers is a lot higher than the other. Viewers doesn’t equate to people agreeing with what they’re seeing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-october-2015-democratic-debate-for-commentary-during-after/734593.md?page=13)