Disappointing debate ratings spark Democratic campaign complaints

[seafan]

Politico today:

DES MOINES — It took less than an hour after Nielsen ratings revealed a disappointing 8.5 million person audience for last night’s CBS Democratic debate before campaigns resumed their griping about the Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule — a point of contention that’s threatening to flare up yet again.

“We can’t fool ourselves — the Republicans are eating our lunch in terms of attention and viewership because of the unprecedented, unilateral, and arbitrary way the DNC Chair determined this schedule,” said Lis Smith, deputy campaign manager for Martin O’Malley. “It’s clear we need to open up the process, have more debates, and engage more voters in this process."

The complaints are just the latest in a series of tense exchanges between the national party committee and the campaigns not belonging to Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats and Republicans have accused the party of shielding the front-runner by scheduling the debates at times — such as Saturday evenings — that are likely to draw fewer viewers than the GOP events, which the DNC routinely denies.

But Saturday night’s broadcast was seen by roughly seven million fewer people than the previous Democratic debate, and the next two are also scheduled for potentially low-viewership weekends: the Saturday night before Christmas, and the Sunday night of the Martin Luther King Day weekend, during the National Football League playoffs.

.....

“Look, there was a clear intent to bury these debates to the benefit of Clinton,” said another Democratic campaign official on Sunday afternoon. “And it is doing a disservice to the Democratic Party. The GOP is blowing out numbers — and we are protecting Hillary Clinton."

via Politico

[MisterP]

1. but if people realized there was a primary on, they might VOTE in it!

[seafan]

7. And they might even see that there is more than one candidate, wowee.

/snark

You got it, MisterP. Anything, but anything to drive down exposure of ALL the candidates.

It is unconscionable.

[billhicks76]

24. Hillary Wants People To See Less Not More

Hardly a good strategy. I can't stand these fakes liberals. Debbie belongs in the Republican Party or maybe she should start her own party of corporate democrats.

[Lorien]

65. Actually, if the average Hillary supporter thinks it's a done deal

they WON'T bother to vote, and it will be Bernie by a landslide!

[merrily]

2. Low ratings mean all went according to plan. Wait until you see the ratings for the Saturday before

Christmas. Wowza!

Among other things, it makes it seem as though no one is interested in what Democratic candidates have to say, only Republican candidates. Genius!

[Bubzer]

76. I'm not sure what expectations were for veiwership, but 8.6 million is pretty good.

Particularly considering college football being on at the same time. Still, it was an obvious dirty trick from DWS. She needs to be booted straight out of politics.

[merrily]

77. "Particularly considering college football" No coincidence, and I suspect Paris had something to do

with ratings being better than DWS may have planned.

[Bubzer]

83. I have no doubts. She cannot get the boot quick enough.

[PatSeg]

78. DWS is bad for the party

and she's not doing Hillary any favors either. Hillary is good in debates, so more exposure is to her advantage. I wonder how many congressional and state elections we'll lose because Wasserman Schultz doesn't know how to do her job.

Meanwhile, all the media talks about is republicans! Well done Debbie.

[Bubzer]

84. It's frustrating to know we could be doing so much beter, with a simple change from "leadership".

[PatSeg]

89. Very frustrating

We need a Howard Dean again!

[rhett o rick]

3. She is doing the bidding of Wall Street. She will be well rewarded. nm

[stillwaiting]

6. Yes. She. Will. nt

[merrily]

13. I thought Hillary asked for this?

[napi21]

4. Are they really that stupid that they know people do a lot better things on SAT. NIGHT!

I'd bet ANY week night M-F would have had many more eyeballs than Saturday Night! For god sake Debbie, ove the rest of the debates to mon, tues, wed, or thurs!Yea I know Fri is a week night, but it's also the most popular night for going out. Surely you don;t think anyone is going to pass on some fun things to do and stay home to watch a debate, do you?

It's bad enough that you've reduced the total number of debates, but to schedule them on a night when few people stay home is inexcusable!

[Fred Sanders]

5. The "day after" gripping by the distant second and third place contenders was long ago predicted.

[frylock]

12. Never mind the "months before" predictions of exactly what has played out here..

Hillary's shit performance was seen by a predictably low amount of people. The next debate will have even lower ratings. Mission Accomplished.

[daleanime]

60. Yes, I see some things are very predictable.....

so you have a lovely night.

[99Forever]

75. The irony is strong in this one.

[azmom]

8. We now have proof that her schedule sucks.

She needs to make some changes.

[UglyGreed]

9. Going according to plan

[restorefreedom]

10. trump must be very appreciative. nt

[Scuba]

11. DINO Deb is rubbing her hands with glee.

[seafan]

19. Clinton's silence is quite telling.

The low number of debates and weekend timing make it likely that the Republican candidates will get far more exposure than the Democrats, DNC critics say.

Clinton has remained largely silent, saying only that she will attend whichever debates the DNC sanctions.

This ain't gonna fly.

[TiberiusB]

85. "whichever debates the DNC sanctions"

Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

There's the kicker.

Play the DNC's game or no seat for you at the table. A DWS innovation that would seem to be a reaction to the 2008 campaign. Any candidate who is only open to new debates if they are scheduled by the DNC is clearly not open to new debates at all.

Terrible scheduling and a prohibition on debates outside the DNC's established six would only seem to be a case of pandering to the faithful and a small sliver of the undecided...who don't watch football.

It always boils down to one question, "cui bono?"

[nc4bo]

14. Debbie Downer strikes again and again. nt

[whereisjustice]

15. Picture of DWS shoving Hillary down our throats? Or waiting to catch her when we spit her back?

[Cassiopeia]

16. Exactly as planned by DWS for her very close friend. nt

[giftedgirl77]

17. lolololololol, yeah have more debates that will help.

Not everything needs to be a damn reality show.

[zentrum]

18. DSW doesn't want

…high ratings for the debates. She knows exposure helps HRC's challengers.

But by suppressing the Democratic turnout, DWS is acing herself out of the cabinet position she hopes to get under a Clinton Presidency. Very short sighted Debbie!

[razorman]

21. Agreed. DWS is in the tank for Clinton.

I also believe that Sanders and O'Malley are only in the race at this point in order to make it appear that Mrs. Clinton actually had a fight. The fix has been in for a long time.

[zentrum]

35. Call the DNC

202-863-8000

And demand that DWS be fired. Call every day.

[razorman]

79. I have been amazed for months that she still has her position.

[zentrum]

91. She's hurting all Democrats…..

…..not just the supporters of candidates who aren't HRC. The debates are a form of free advertising for our party's policies on many issues. The Republicans have been dominating the headlines for weeks because they've had that free advertising through the debate process.

We too need our various candidates to be quoted on the nightly news. But DWS is suppressing that natural coverage.

[razorman]

93. I believe that she is just feathering her own nest, in preparation

for the post-Obama years. She hopes to help HRC get into the White House; and thus, secure for herself a juicy appointment of some sort. But, in fear that Mrs. Clinton will not do well in debate, she is trying to severely limit them, which will only shortchange the party, regardless of whether or not it helps the Clinton campaign. Remember, we not only have to be concerned about the primaries, but the general election, as well. That is another ballgame, entirely.

[zentrum]

95. I agree

…..with you that she's feathering her own nest. Cabinet appointment probably. In making these decisions based on that motivation, I have to say, she's like the candidate she's in cahoots with.

[razorman]

97. I think you're right. I normally hesitate to guess another person's motives,

since you cannot ever truly know what is in someone else's heart. But, I think we have DWS and HRC's motives pretty well nailed. It is all about self-interest.

[zentrum]

20. PLEASE CALL 202-863-8000

That's the number of the DNC. Raise cain. Email them too.

http://www.democrats.org/

Make noise about this.

202-863-8000

Tell them that DWS has to go. She's hurting Dems and suppressing our vote. The Repugs have been getting their message out for months because of the free advertising that debates provide.

With friends like DWS who needs moles?

[KoKo]

22. DWS needs to GO!

[GoneFishin]

23. The goal of DWS is to guarantee that another 1% er gets into the WH. Sure, a Turd Wayer if

possible so she can get a plumb cabinet appointment, but if not, then a Republican. But definitely not Bernie or Martin O'Malley who might throttle back the corporate welfare gravy train deliveries.

[seafan]

30. Egg-zackley.

Establishment GOP and ThirdWayers have the same goal: Neutralize all threats to their ensconced corporate empire.

That is a major reason Trump is so valuable right now on the GOP side of this equation, and Sanders is, on the Dem side.

From both ends of this thing, they are freaking the Establishment out of their minds.

[GoneFishin]

38. The Trump thing is funny. He is a loose cannon, and not in good way for the right wing.

He has his own money. He listens to no one but the crazy voices in his own head. And he won't shut up, ever.

If they had a guy like him in the WH who won't follow their right wing script, all of their right wing base will go goose stepping randomly in all directions, poking each other in the forehead, and kicking each other in the balls.

[bullwinkle428]

25. Holy shit - I didn't realize the January one was taking place DURING

the NFL playoff games. Why didn't she just schedule one opposite the Super Bowl?

[SoapBox]

27. On a Sunday morning...

On Martin Luther King holiday weekend...January 17th.

[MissDeeds]

33. There are all kinds of ways to fix an election

Rove would be proud of DWS's efforts.

[jeff47]

69. Well, debate #5 isn't scheduled yet, so there's still time to put it against the Super Bowl. (nt)

[SoapBox]

26. The DWS plan continues to work.

Hide HRC and disenfranchise as many from seeing her as possible.

The next two are going to draw an even smaller viewship.

It's anything but Democratic.

[seafan]

57. Actually, I think it's to disenfranchise people from seeing Sanders and O'Malley.

Clinton wants to rely on her name recognition and Wall Street money backing her, to coast all the way into the nomination. The other candidates do not have that advantage. Not a fair fight, when her campaign/allies thwart the process in this manner.

She cannot risk having people hear Sanders' message, in particular, because it is resonating like wildfire when people DO hear him talk about his vision for America. She wants her allies to do everything possible to erect a firewall against that.

Sad to see that it has come to this.

[moobu2]

28. This isn't why Bernie Sanders is so far behind.

[oasis]

34. Head scratcher. Hillary clearly kicked ass, so a larger audience

would have helped their performance?

I'd be counting my blessings. Oh well.

[bowens43]

29. do you really think that at this point anyone's mind will be changed by debates?

The only valid criteria to judge a candidate is past performance. This of course would eliminate hillary from the running. The woman has been a failure at everything she has attempted.

[seafan]

40. The whole underhanded tactic is to throttle down Sanders/O'Malley's messages from the public's ears.

A healthy primary debate schedule in prime time should be required, not buried on the weekends, a few days prior to Christmas, or on the Sunday of NFL playoffs.

There is absolutely no justification for this except favoritism.

A few more eye-opening moments like this one last night would be very illuminating for the voters.

Yes, to your question. Quite a few minds might be changed by these debates, if the DNC is stopped from relegating them to the basement.

[ms liberty]

92. Really? A lot of America aren't paying attention yet.

People like us are neck deep in it, yea, but a huge chunk of presidential year primary voters are just now beginning to notice there's an election coming. Between now and January is the time when they will be looking at candidates and making decisions, and talking about it with their families during the holidays. I would also say that while past performance is a major factor in choosing a candidate, other factors are also important and can be tested in a debate setting. Debates can be an excellent showcase for democratic policies and ideas, when they're done right. That this is being so mismanaged is disgraceful.
I am squarely in Bernie's corner as my candidate, but I think you have gone a bit overboard in your description of Hillary. Let's keep it to the issues and be classy.

[Babel_17]

31. The process looks bad, and by extension it makes our leadership look bad

Let's not confuse the voters. Whatever perception they have of our debates, limited or otherwise, one thing should be obvious, and that's that our open and honest debates reflect the great values of our party.

[appalachiablue]

49. What leadership, seems to be nil of late.

[Babel_17]

55. Our derelict in their duties leadership then :)

P.S. Off Topic, did you ever see Luc Besson's version, starring the wonderful Milla Jovovich? It could have been better in some ways, but the parts that were good were very good.

[appalachiablue]

58. This looks super and I know of both of them. Thanks! Saint Joan's brief, hard life will

take my mind off the subject and reality of this searing thread. The DNC and state of our party, um, um.

[Babel_17]

63. Ah, if you like Besson, and perhaps the story of an Angel ...

A very earthy Angel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473753/combined

Great acting and the movie takes its time.

Fan edited clip, with added music afaik, but the video quality is better than the trailer.

Enjoy your evening!

[appalachiablue]

64. Appreciate it, looks interesting. I love most anything of France et Paris. Bonne nuit.

[spooky3]

32. It is ridiculous not to try to go for the best ratings possible. We believe in democracy

and an informed voting public. And we need to show as many people as possible the alternatives to the Republican platform.

[Thespian2]

36. In tRump's words...

DipWadStupid is a LOOOOOOSER...

Bernie must continue to depend on social media...

[Prism]

37. Who was "disappointed"?

I don't get that word. Disappointed.

If your plan works according to design, I can't say you're disappointed.

[passiveporcupine]

39. I am so disgusted with the DNC right now I just can't say what I want to say here.

If i never see that face again, I will be happy.

How the fuck do we fix this?

DWS has to go...the sooner the better.

[MaggieD]

43. The DLC dissolved 5 years ago

I'm guessing you're not aware of that.

[passiveporcupine]

44. Sorry, I meant DNC

...but I'm sure you knew that!

I apologize if I'm not all here right now. My Mom died on Tuesday and I'm having a rough day today.

[MaggieD]

46. No, I really thought you meant DLC

I see a lot of folks here who talk about the DLC as if it still existed.

[passiveporcupine]

47. Well, check out my edit. I did not mean DLC.

[seafan]

48. I am sorry for your loss, passiveporcupine.

Losing your mom is so hard on the soul.

Peace to you.

[passiveporcupine]

52. Thanks Seafan....it was expected, but it can still be a difficult process to accept.

[appalachiablue]

50. But not before more debates and forums are scheduled! Pronto.

[Unknown Beatle]

41. Is everybody convinced yet that Obama turned out

to be yet another Wall St. and corporate lackey and that he wants the status quo to continue unabated? I definitely know that to be the truth, and as such, why he picked DWS to head the DNC and then the members of the Democratic National Committee voted her in, but, as a favor to Obama.

And because Obama wants the status quo to continue unabated, why DWS was a perfect fit. Which accounts why so few debates.

[MaggieD]

42. Why more debates?

They sure don't seem to be helping Bernie. Isn't that why his supporters wanted more? Not working.

[AgingAmerican]

51. To expose the Democratic brand to the electorate

Back in 08 Hillary said having 'only' 18 debates was, "Unamerican".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080501015714/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/ncdebates/

Obama ad from 2008: “After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates?” the ad says. “It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.”

[MaggieD]

54. I don't think that's an issue

Not in this election. Cons are making themselves the center of attention by being clowns. And right now the Dems are going more left than moderates and indies are comfortable with. DWS strategy is on target, IMO.

[AgingAmerican]

59. They risk throwing the election to gain her the nomination

It's a calculated risk they are taking. They believe that Hillary can skate through the election on name recognition alone.

[AgingAmerican]

45. They are risking throwing the election

To gain her the nomination. It's that simple.

[GoneFishin]

67. That's plan B. The real race is between progressives and corporatists. It really puts the

lie to the demands for party loyalty pledges when the Democratic party limits televised debates thereby throwing the election to the Republicans who will have like 100 televised debates.

But for right wingers any other right winger will do, regardless of the party to which they belong.

[redstateblues]

53. Sorry folks-The Democratic debate was BORING

I don't care what night or time slot you put it in it's not interesting. Having more will not make them more interesting. Bernie's answer to everything is his stump speech-his "Political Revolution" meme is not catching on-he needs to come up with something more appealing. Hillary and MOM rattle off lots of policy details-yawn. In addition to that, there was nothing else on saturday night to compete with it. The only people watching have made up their minds. The Hillary haters just hate her more and Bernie's doubters have more to doubt after hearing his one-note message again.

[lovemydog]

66. I thought it was exciting.

But I'm nerdy like that. There was some big college football on last night. And later the Rousey-Holm fight. I love debates. I want to see more, more more.

[cascadiance]

68. We had our debate watch event at a sports bar...

The first time we had it there it was great in the middle of the week and brought them business they wouldn't have had.

But on Saturday night, it was in direct conflict with the late Oregon game against Stanford, and the loud tv sets carrying this game and people cheering around the bar for the game made it hard to hear the debate and we had to watch the CC text to know what people said (half of the time which wasn't correct wording, etc. too).

I had hoped to see the Iowa/Minnesota game that was also on then so that I could have one eye on a tv that I might periodically go to during a commercial, and hopefully watching the debate where I could hear it more in the other room. Apparently talk was after that the restaurant wasn't happy with the conflict of our crowd with the typical sports fans at the bar. I couldn't even find a set that was tuned to that game with all of the Oregon fans fighting for seats and televisions to watch there, to see them beat Stanford.

You have to believe that in a state like Iowa where the Univ. of Iowa football is for many people there THE football games they watch when the state doesn't have a pro football team closer than, Chicago, Minnesota, or Kansas City, that there were probably similar conflicts at many restaurants and bars around the state in Iowa, where the debate was actually happening. I heard that many people walked out of the debate watch party we had with the problems happening. Depending on when they were doing audience measurements, and how, it isn't hard to see how audience ratings might have been down. Not to mention earlier in the same stadium they had the football game in the evening, they set a record with over 40,000 people attending an outdoor wrestling meet featuring Iowa vs. Oklahoma State as two top three teams in the country. A lot of people weren't in to politics in Iowa on Saturday when all of these other big sporting events were happening then, that many hadn't seen such attention for in that state for decades on a weekend. Either VERY incompetently timed by DWS and the DNC, or VERY corruptly timed to intentionally lower audiences to the detriment of BOTH the Democratic Party in general and also to the candidates other than the one that DWS is promoting/supporting.

There's a REASON why networks put on repeats of television shows on Saturday nights, and not first time showings of television shows! And it isn't because they think they're going to get the best ratings for those shows either. The same dynamic is faced by political debates as is faced by other content that aren't things like football games (or even basketball games too, which also started this weekend).

[lovemydog]

80. Great observations, thanks for sharing them.

Yes, I too believe DWS and the Democratic National Committee limited the debates and put them at lousy times when fewer would be watching. I think that's really undemocratic and it infuriates me. I know that general strategy is 'if you're the frontrunner, limit the debates' but it's truly unfair to the other candidates and especially to the people who want to make informed decisions.

[tavernier]

56. If people are bored with debate number two,

then how would adding a bunch more debates make any sense?

They watch the clown car because it is an evening at the circus. Three adults of the same party debating real issues is a snooze fest.

The serious audience will tune in when the debates are between the main rivals in the big tent.

[slipslidingaway]

61. "Sanders, who is that" and "Are the Dems having debates, is anyone else besides Clinton running" ...

this is what I heard from two people in the past three days.

Maybe the Dem party should not even bother to hold a primary election?

Why bother to air another view of the issues, we just need to keep people uninformed, great strategy.

[seafan]

62. As it looks to me, this Primary "is" the election.

Wall Street would be equally pleased with Clinton or Bush.

Our only opportunity to change this equation will be in the primaries.

Time to suit up for battle.

[niyad]

70. holding the debate on a saturday night wasn't the smartest move to start with.

[seafan]

72. 'Saturday nights with Hillary, Bernie and Martin'

Politico:

ABC News has not released any details on their debate currently scheduled for Dec.19, but one thing is clear: George Stephanopoulos will not be the moderator. Stephanopoulos recused himself from 2016 debates when news broke earlier this year that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Lester Holt is considered the likely moderator of the NBC News debate scheduled for Jan. 17, though a spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Some Democratic sources have questioned whether there will even be six debates. Initial discussions centered on eight debates, which were eventually reduced to six. According to an AP survey, Clinton already holds an overwhelming lead in delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. The first non-weekend Democratic debate (after the first one hosted by CNN), will be on Feb. 11, the second to last debate. That one is hosted by PBS and will be in Milwaukee.

But the Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary are before the fifth debate, meaning there’s a possibility there won’t even be six debates if a nominee is clear by then, or if two candidates drop out. That risks losing out on a chance to reach an important voting bloc — Hispanics. Univision, the Spanish-language cable network, is set to host the final Democratic primary debate in March. (At the moment, all networks are operating under the assumption they will be holding debates.) Even if there is no nominee by February, in the period when nearly all the early states are voting there will only be two debates for Democrats, versus the Republicans’ five.

Another major problem:

Univision's president Jorge Ramos's daughter works for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

And other Democrats have openly wondered why the DNC has such a low limit for the number of debates, a long way down from the more than 20 Democratic primary debates hosted in 2008. With more candidates and more debates, Republicans are dominating the news cycles. The Republican message is being heard more than the Democratic message, warned Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, who has been pushing for debate reform.

“Republicans have 11 debates scheduled, nine are in prime time with major broadcast partners, reaching different audiences, in different states all around the country,” Rosenberg, a former television news producer and DNC official said.

Rosenberg warned that the gap between the number of voters tuning in to Republicans versus Democrats — possibly hundreds of millions of voters — could be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

“It’s a big enough gap that it could have an effect on the outcome of the election in 2016. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of free dollars Democrats are forgoing on purpose. In general, in our business, you don’t give up opportunities to talk to voters for free,” Rosenberg said.

The candidates, and even several current Democratic officials, have been openly critical of the debate schedule. The discord reached its peak last month when Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a DNC vice chair, said she was disinvited from the Las Vegas debate for favoring more debates.

Gabbard and former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, a fellow DNC vice chair, publicly backed the calls by candidates other than Clinton for more debates, despite Wasserman Schultz’s persistent claim that there would be just six — period. Wasserman Schultz is widely perceived as favoring Clinton.

.....

That perception is correct.


AP via Politico

Meet the newly-named 2007 National Campaign Co-Chair of the Hillary Clinton Campaign.


Elections can be rigged in many ways.

[PatSeg]

82. Well

it was "smart" if you didn't want anyone to watch it.

Worst DNC chair ever!

[niyad]

94. boggles the mind.

[emsimon33]

71. Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost us 2014 & will lose us 2016

She has to go. Another very BAD Obama decision to keep her after 2014.

[Doctor_J]

73. only eight million people got to see Mrs Clinton invoke 911to explain her campaign contributions

That has to be good for her.

[99Forever]

74. Good dawg, how can I unsee that picture?

Makes me need to

[ChiciB1]

81. What A Witch! I'm Absolutely DISGUSTED, But More So What

I want to know is WHY this is being allowed to proceed? Are there NO members of The Democratic Party who will stand up and say SOMETHING??

You can't only blame her, the BLAME is also with our SPINELESS Democratic Party! I CAN NOT say here what I really want to say, but I'm sure many here feel the same way!

GET RID OF THIS CRAP! My opinion of Hillary lessens more each day. Sorry, I CAN say that much can't I? Or maybe I will get banned, who knows?

[kimbutgar]

86. Today I got a call from the DSCC asking for money

I told them I would not donate money as long as DWS was the head of DNC. The lady said they were different organizations. I told her I knew that but we need coat tails and if we focus on getting just the 5 seats and not even trying in other states it was a terrible strategy. We need a 50 state plan with a full time type like Howard Dean. The lady got so upset with me she hung up on me!

My husband and I are political junkies and only watched a half hour of the debate. Saturday night is a family night and Monday thru Thursday would be better. I sometimes think DWS is working for the repugs. We lost more seats in the house under her leadership. Not even running candidates in Federal state races is crazy.

[blackspade]

87. The DNC debate schedule is laughable.

The exclusivity clause serves no purpose so why did DWS mandate it?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

88. Voter suppression, plain and simple. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. A 30 to 1 viewership coupled to a wide choice of Republicans and an attitude that "it's their turn".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. This shit should never be allowed to happen in a democracy...by Democrats no less!