Will Hillary get another excellent debate bump?

[arely staircase]

I bet she will.

[Trajan]

1. She has enough money for one ...

[HerbChestnut]

2. No because nobody's going to watch it.

Saturday night before Christmas...

[MineralMan]

3. I'll be watching it.

So will a few million other people. That's hardly nobody.

[HerbChestnut]

7. The Republicans just had 18 million people watch their debate.

The first Dem debate had about the same. I think the last Dem debate had something like 6 million? Maybe? This one being on the Saturday night before Christmas, we'll be lucky to crack 5 million.

[MADem]

11. I watched the last one with five other Democrats--none of us are going to vote for a GOP candidate.

We watched it for one main reason--to watch TRUMP pitch a shitfit. I'll bet we weren't the only committed Dems who watched that hot mess, either.

And Trump? Well, he didn't disappoint. There were a few other screaming matches too, that were funny as hell.

Don't mistake SAVAGE AMUSEMENT for an actual INTEREST in the candidates.

Without Trump, and without the possibility of some shitflinging between nine monkeys on the stage, the GOP wouldn't get any numbers, either.

[HerbChestnut]

12. Okay, then let's compare Dem debates to Dem debates.

The first one had what, 15 or 16 million viewers? The last one had something around 6 million? The only difference between the two was that the first one was on a weeknight and the second was on Saturday night.

[MADem]

15. Look, there are THREE PEOPLE running--and one doesn't have a hope in hell, so there are TWO

people running. Realistically.

They've pretty much said everything they've needed to say to this point. And they've said it to two audiences--IA and NH voters. No one is going to focus on this race until after those contests are done and O'Malley drops out.

Not sure why you think Democrats are morons who don't know how to click a few times and pull up a video recording of a debate, though. We don't HAVE to watch shit live anymore, you know. You have so little faith in your fellow party members? I don't think they're stupid--in fact, I think Democrats are smarter and better problem solvers, as a group. Anyone who needs more information about who they want to vote for can find it--easily. Democrats know how to do this. Republicans need a Cage Match to persuade them to tune in.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Since I work the evening shift it isnt a problem for me to record many programs.

It is what you want to do, record and watch later or gripe about nothing.

[Tote Life]

42. I wonder if you really read what you write.

Try sounding it out.

[MADem]

46. Who are you?

And why should I care what you think?

You might take your own advice there!

[brooklynite]

18. There was another difference...

...people had a chance to see the candidates in the first Debate. Maybe they didn't feel the need to watch again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. So?

How many of us are undecided at this point?

[MADem]

8. Why is the Saturday night before Christmas a showstopper?

Most people I know don't get wrapped up in "Oh shit-Christmas!" until the day before Christmas eve. And that's only if they haven't bought any presents!

Office parties will be on FRIDAY, not Saturday. The people who go out on Saturday night are the young, the single, the "in crowd." They're technologically savvy--they can figure out how to go to the ABC website and watch the magical recording (oh, these modern times!!!) of the debate at a later time-- if they are truly interested.

Granted, we don't have a clown like Trump to liven things up, so we won't get the numbers that the GOP gets. But watching with the anticipation of a train wreck just doesn't provide the OOOMPH that watching to actually learn about the nuanced positions of the candidates does. So, yeah, we'll probably get fewer watchers--but so what? It's not like once they speak, the material is gone forever. You'll be able to watch this pretty much FOREVER, if you'd like. That's the 21st Century for ya!

What you can't do, though, is make a quiet and adult discussion into a cage match. And that's what a lot of viewers want.

GOP viewers aren't going to vote for any Democrat. They're certainly not going to Feel anything resembling a Bern--because they don't like "socialized medicine" and they aren't convinced by any arguments that ANY Democrat makes on that issue. A more rightward slant on guns isn't enough to overcome that. So count them out--they'll watch some other show and be proud of themselves.

We had some Nose In The Air types here who "refused" to watch the GOP debates because they didn't want to learn which candidate was the worst -- or the best -- of that bad lot, too. I think most Democrats take a more adult POV on that score and aren't afraid to hear what those dullards have to say--I watched the last GOP debate with five other "Hillarians." They were not moved or convinced by any of the arguments those dunces made--they were enormously amused at the scrabbling and fighting, though. It made the evening worthwhile, and we've all formed ideas about which of those idiots is the worst, and why.

[HerbChestnut]

10. The viewership...

of the last GOP debate compared to the last Dem debate tells the whole story.

[MADem]

13. No, it doesn't. It tells NO story whatsoever.

No more than the viewership of a World Wrestling Federation Special Starring the Top Wrestlers of The Moment has anything to do with the viewership of a National Geographic Special on Rivers of The World.

One is pure entertainment/theater, the other is educational and informative.

And if you don't catch the "nuance" there, I simply cannot help you.

When Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley start flinging wads of shit at each other, they'll get the same numbers. And that will happen, well, NEVER.

[HerbChestnut]

14. I think you're letting personal bias creep into this a little bit.

No democrat is going to watch those debates for the substance, but over half the country is either a Republican or an Independent, and many actually watch those debates to try and pick a candidate.

[MADem]

17. No, I'm not. Unless my "personal bias" is that Democrats who want more information are not stupid,

and know how to find a recording of a debate if they happened to want to go to a movie or a play on a given night when a debate was happening.

Anyone who is a "real" Republican isn't going to vote for a Democrat. Any of 'em. So put that card away. And since our team doesn't engage in hair pulling and shit flinging, our offerings are "boring."

As for independents, if they want information, and they're so stupid that they can't figure out how to go to ABC.com and pull up the video, well, they deserve to stew in their stupidity. For the record, I don't think THEY are stupid either--I'll bet they have the skills to find a recording of the debate, either by pressing ON DEMAND on their remote, or by picking up their laptop, tablet or smartphone and punching a few buttons.

This is the 21st Century. We don't have to "gather around the box at a set time" anymore.

smh.

[Armstead]

24. Oh, please stop advocating against democratic processes

Maybe the debate will benefit Clinton. Maybe bernie. Maybe O'Malley.

That doesn't matter as much as the principle of the thing. As shallow and stupid as debates can be, tghey are a chance for voters to see compare candidates for better or worse. That is a basic part of democracy. And that means making it easy to access.

The GOP is the party who is supposed to be ones against electoral democracy. But some Democrats are putting them to shame in the "let's stop bothering with the messy rituals of democracy" department.

[MADem]

29. Yes, because forcing people to watch something Right Effing NOW!!!!! is so "Democratic."

EAT YOUR PEAS!!! If ONLY the debates were held at HALF TIME during the football game, why, EVERYONE would watch (errrr, no, they wouldn't--they'd be out on the back deck smoking weed and drinking beer).

People are not as stupid or in need of spoon-feeding as you seem to believe. The material will BE THERE--for people to see when they WANT to see it. Not when YOU want them to sit down, like good little party members, and listen to what's 'good' for them.

There's nothing "un-democratic" about pushing the button on your remote and watching something ON DEMAND as opposed to LIVE. And that IS what you seem to be going on about.

I guess--since you apparently 'care' so much about "democratic processes"-- you're going to go To The Barricades on behalf of all those Iowa voters who are "un-democratically" excluded from their caucus opportunity, too--eh?

All those doctors, nurses, cab drivers, babysitters, convenience store workers, people who are working the late shift in retail, gas station attendants...all those people who aren't farmers after the harvest, who do shift work or have to work late--where are your tears and concerns for them?

You know, those people can't click on the computer, or push that button on the remote, and recall their "caucus" to do at their convenience. They only get one crack, and if they have to work, well, it really IS an Eff Them Moment, now, isn't it?

Pretending that Not Watching A TV Program LIVE is an abrogation of democracy? That's just pathetic--embarrassingly so, too.

If you really gave a crap, why aren't you out there beating the bushes, and trying to persuade people to watch the show, instead of coming here and pretending that video recording devices, ON DEMAND, and computers (go to abc.com and pull it up, and some folks will put it on YOUTUBE as well, no doubt) do not exist.

Or better still, if you really give a shit about "democracy"--why aren't you advocating for the abolishment of the Iowa caucuses? And universal registration? And mail in ballots? Anything, other than this 'faux issue' that isn't an issue at all?

Look--even advocates will tell you. The Democratic candidates are boring as shit. They don't hit below the belt, they don't pull hair, and they don't shit-fling. And the differences between them are minimal--what people are voting on are things like experience, networking strength, and personal likes.

The only thing that will "make" people tune in is a Cage Match--not people whining and crying about "unfair bad time to air debate WAAH."

We don't HAVE a Trump. And to my mind, that's a good thing.

smh.

[Armstead]

30. you're really l stretching

1 Nobody is forcing anyone to watch anything. GIVING THEM THE OPTION

2) zDespite all this wonderful technology, many perfectly smart people don't know how to utilize it....And not everyone has a cess to high speed internet, and all that.

3) Can you honestly sat the Saturday night before Christmas is an optimal time to attract a large viewership to get the message of the Democratic Party out? Cmon.

[MADem]

43. No--you're the one who is "stretching," and treating adults like children.

If nobody is "forcing" anyone to watch, why are you WHINING about VIEWERSHIP?

If "perfectly smart people" can't push "Democratic Debate" highlighted on the first page of their ON DEMAND screen, they probably can't feed their Kardashian fix, or catch up on "Survivor" or any other idiot show they might like...or find their way to the polls come the first Tuesday in November.

Can YOU honestly say ANY night is a "good night" for a calm, issue-focused debate amongst adults speaking in quiet, reasonable tones? Do you seriously think that "Three Adults Discussing Politics" is ever going to beat out "Nine Assholes on a Stage SCREAMING, with a Cotton-Candy Headed Red, Bloated Asshole Smack - Dab in the Middle?"

If you cannot see the difference in optics, I can't help you open your eyes.

You want to see the debate? You can see it. WhenEVER you'd like! It's nothing to cry about. The fact that you keep pretending that people are being "prevented" from watching is just weird. These same Perfectly Smart People you're crying about are the same Perfectly Smart People who know how to use Tor and other sites to watch premium cable and first run movies without paying.

Amazing how SMART people can get when they WANT something...?

And this isn't "the Saturday night before Christmas" (waaaaaaah) like we're talking Christmas Eve. No one is baking cookies, wrapping last minute gifts in a hurry, or rushing off to midnight mass.

It's SIX FULL DAYS before Christmas--one day shy of a WEEK, which is a long-ass time. Four lousy days after the REPUBLICAN debate.

That one, though, featured "Nine Assholes Screaming"--and THAT's why it was Must-See TV.

They could air that shit on Xmas DAY and it would get bang-up ratings--it would beat out "It's a Wonderful Life" or "Christmas Story" or even The Fire Log. Everyone is waiting for Trump, like a zit, to pop.

There's no "excitement" happening on the Democratic side--unless you want Sanders to start pulling Clinton's hair, while she knees him in the whatsises, while O'Malley yanks on both their ears, or something? Gee--then we'd be JUST LIKE THEM.

You'll wait forever for that to happen.

[OilemFirchen]

47. Apparently...

There's some magic moment in time when Ma and Pa Kettle are sitting in their Barcaloungers channel-surfing and Pa notes "Welp... there's this Democratic Debate thingy. Wonder what that's about... Let's watch and see!"

But it's certainly not "the Saturday before Christmas". That's UFC Fight Night!

[MADem]

49. Ha ha! That's assuming Pa (or Ma) can figure out how to use the remote!!

Gotta play the theme while he's figuring it out.....

[Armstead]

51. hope you don't strain your back

All that stretching

It's very simple. Either you want to have debates that are easily accessiblr,and at time when they are most likely to watch....or not.

Sure all that on demand stuff is good. but not a reason to bury and limit the live debate.

It's so basic it shouldn't have anything to do with which candidate one supports.

[MADem]

54. I'm not stretching so my back is fine. You're the one crying that no one will seeeeeee

the debates because they're too stupid to use a remote, a computer, or a smartphone!

And aren't you smug in your Nine to Five world.

I guess no one works nights or does shift work in YOUR happy little universe, either!



You're funny...!

[Armstead]

56. I think I just heard a spinal crack

Gee let's just have the debates at 3 am Sunday and not tell anyone.Yea, I like that idea...I think I' ll pass it along to Debbie

[MADem]

57. If you did, check yourself--or look under your foot and see if you stepped on the cat.

Because three AM Sunday is just the same as Prime Time Saturday!!! WAAH!

Yep. That's the ticket!


Do go on.....

[yeoman6987]

52. We've not hit 18 million yet.

It would be great but I don't think Saturday will but out of 320 million in our country, we should hit 10 easily.

[HerbChestnut]

53. We didn't during the last Saturday debate

I think the number was around 6 million, but I could be wrong.

[Lil Missy]

28. Sounds more like wishful thinking. n/t

[DCBob]

50. Millions will read about it in the news.

That will have an impact if either candidate does exceptionally well or exceptionally poor.

[HerbChestnut]

55. Oh I'm sure they will.

[Alfresco]

4. Without a doubt.

[quickesst]

5. Absolutely

Think I'll grab some popcorn, kick back, and wait for the pissin', moaning, groaning,and crying to start. Very entertaining, and at times, creative.
Go Hillary!!

[sonofspy777]

6. Maybe the

MOON will fall out of the sky.

Come to think of it, that's considerably more likely!

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Want to bet on that?

[upaloopa]

9. I think the race stage is pretty much set

Ten thousand debates wouldn't change things

[Fearless]

20. Thanks for letting us know the new meme!

[upaloopa]

25. I speak for myself only

[Fearless]

32. Ohh yes, just like magic

Six others say the exact same thing. One directly after you in this thread. Mmkay.

[upaloopa]

33. I don't know what 6 others posted

I didn't read the whole tread. I rarely do
I don't tell other people what to post. They wouldn't do it most likely if I did.

[Fearless]

34. Reread your post and you'll know what all have said.

[upaloopa]

37. I don't give a crap what they said

This is still a freedom of speach board as long as you stay within the TOS
and don't get alert stalked

[Fearless]

40. That's fine. I'd be wary of those copying you though.

It's very creepy. I wouldn't stand for it.

[riversedge]

58. Nibble away

[Fearless]

60. Who are you and what are you talking about?

[MADem]

44. Even if you say "I think," I've noticed, you will still be accused of "setting a meme" or

"telling us" (whoever the hell US is) "what to think."

The whole "victimhood meme" is tiresome.

[NCTraveler]

16. I think our field is pretty much set.

I don't think any of our candidates will gain from a positive performance at this point. That kind of sucks for Clinton and O'Malley. The only change I think we will see post debate is if there is an epic meltdown.

It's all about networking, ground game, and GOTV at this point. I believe all of that benefits Clinton.

[Fearless]

19. Another implies a first.

[arely staircase]

35. Yes. As much as 15 percent in one poll

And an average of 8 percent among the major polls.

[winter is coming]

48. You mean the one she got when Biden dropped out of the race?

Or, to be more accurate, finally stated that he wasn't running?

[NurseJackie]

21. Hillary will, and O'Malley will.

(That it all.)

[Hepburn]

22. I am not aware that she has gotten any bumps in the past. n/t

[arely staircase]

36. Big one after Oct. debate. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. Yup...

How soon they forget
..

[Hepburn]

61. You mean when Joe B dropped out?

She lost that debate...and the bump had nothing to do with her performance...which sucked.

[Armstead]

23. Friom all 50 people watching it? Maybe, maybe not

[MADem]

45. Good news for you, then! You should be happy instead of griping! nt

[Fawke Em]

27. No one will see it. eom

[JaneyVee]

31. I don't think these debates are making much of a difference...

She got a bump after first one the same week as Benghazi hearing and Biden backing out. Pretty stagnant since.

[madfloridian]

59. Of course she will. Bigger than the bump after the last debate...

That Bernie won in all forms online. She then was declared winner all day every day from then on....in all polls.