Saturday Democrat Debate on CBS

[Domingo Halliburton]

I didn't see a second of this. Why was it on a Saturday? I'm trying to party.

 

[Serious]

omally benefits the most from this one, he actually was coming off well, definitely better than he's ever done, though full of shyt when it comes to how great everything is going in maryland, LOL

bernie gets the second most out of it, he did great on the economy as usual, and that is almost always the most important factor in elections. that gun issue, while problematic in the primaries, means nothing in the general election, and foreign policy isnt as important as polls suggest.

hillary lost it, but i guess it aint so bad for her since the party is protecting her, the situation in paris, and hype job ronda roussey took over the news cycle

a debate on a mofo saturday though....during primetime hours, fukk was they thinking.......

 

[CHL]

a debate on a mofo saturday though....during primetime hours, fukk was they thinking.......

DNC doesn't want Sanders going at Hillary to a wide audience

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

DNC doesn't want Sanders going at Hillary to a wide audience

You're probably right. This is inexplicable. People actually know about the Republican debates, maybe not now that they've had like 4 of them, but people seem to actually care about them
....i didn't hear a single thing about this til Friday.

 

[afterlife2009]

NPR tracked which issues got the most time during the debate. If the candidates veered off the question posed to them, we kept track of that too:

Banks/Wall Street: 11:18

Foreign Policy: 9:16

ISIS: 6:08

Obamacare/healthcare next steps: 5:27

Guns: 4:06

Who pays for candidates' plans: 3:49

What experience would you draw on in a crisis? 3:41

Higher Education: 3:23

Minimum Wage: 3:12

Black Lives Matter/race relations: 2:45

Immigration: 2:24

Bringing people together/leadership: 2:18

Refugees: 1:51

The term 'radical Islam': 1:50

University of Missouri/Protests: 1.50

Clinton's emails: 0:56

Empathizing with enemies (Clinton): 0:43

Republicans: 0:30

Veterans: 0:19

Climate Change: 0:18

The Democratic Debate Clock: Which Issues Got The Most Time

 

[superunknown23]

It's hilarious how out of step Sanders supporters are on these debates (their delusions remind me of Ron Paul fans in 2008). He was easily the worst last night.
His performance only reinforced the impression that he's got no realistic shot. When asked how he would get his policies passed in a GOP Congress, he answered that "a political revolution will sweep aside all in its path" and make it happen
Sorry, but he's McGovern Part II.

 

[Adam3000]

It's hilarious how out of step Sanders supporters are on these debates (their delusions remind me of Ron Paul fans in 2008). He was easily the worst last night.
His performance only reinforced the impression that he's got no realistic shot. When asked how he would get his policies passed in Congress, he answered that "a political revolution will sweep aside all in its path" and make it happen
Sorry, but he's McGovern Part II.

Yeah, Bernie's performances have been very overrated. I'm not saying Hillary won, because honestly O'Malley might have won last night, but Bernie certainly didn't

He did have a better showing than in the first debate though

 

[superunknown23]

Yeah, Bernie's performances have been very overrated. I'm not saying Hillary won, because honestly O'Malley might have won last night, but Bernie certainly didn't

He did have a better showing than in the first debate though

Dude is doubling down on climate change causing ISIS

 

[Serious]

Thot O'Malley won by a longshot. Sanders was in the ballpark, despite mentioning some loony / borderline things. Sanders was still able to garner my respect by putting the spotlight on Bilary though, her stances BLM, Wallstreet, and Jobs were transparent as fukk....


side note: @thirdeye I thot you were big on politics, get your ass in here...

Dude is doubling down on climate change causing ISIS

 

[MrSinnister]

One of the old school pawgs. Too bad she's a fascist now. I would've loved to covert her to progressive. She was a you Republican then so...

Wellesley, where they can fiend for the pink crack, but never Black sack

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

On the CBSN polls 51% felt Hilary won

 

[CHL]

It's hilarious how out of step Sanders supporters are on these debates (their delusions remind me of Ron Paul fans in 2008). He was easily the worst last night.
His performance only reinforced the impression that he's got no realistic shot. When asked how he would get his policies passed in a GOP Congress, he answered that "a political revolution will sweep aside all in its path" and make it happen
Sorry, but he's McGovern Part II.

Let me guess, Hillary won? Ms I'm so close to the banks because 9/11 and women? Going to tell Wall Street to cut it out?

Dude is doubling down on climate change causing ISIS

Climate change contributed to instability in Syria.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Dude is doubling down on climate change causing ISIS

It's not that climate change is causing ISIS. It's that climate change is changing migration patterns and economic windfall from local crops.

U.S. military officials refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” that takes issues like terrorism that would pose a threat to national security and exacerbates the damage they can cause. A 2014 Department of Defense report identifies climate change as the root of government instability that leads to widespread migration, damages infrastructure and leads to the spread of disease. “These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism,” the report says.

The parallels between the situation described in the government report and the situation on the ground in Syria are striking. The worst drought on record in the Middle Eastern country has created instability for farmers and threatened the food supply. At the same time, the government has struggled to hold on to power across the country in the face of militant groups and millions of Syrians have fled their homeland.

One place to see this dynamic at work is in Syria's ongoing civil war. Few experts would argue that climate change "caused" the horrific violence in Syria (much less the rise of ISIS). That's way too simplistic. But environmental factors arguably do figure into the story here.

The short version goes like this:

• The Fertile Crescent region (which includes Syria and Iraq) has experienced periodic droughts for many centuries.
• In recent decades, global warming appears to have increased the odds of more severe, persistent dry spells in the region. (See this recent study, led by Colin Kelley of the University of California, Santa Barbara.)
• From 2007 to 2010, Syria suffered an especially brutal drought that, when combined with other social and political factors, helped foster civil unrest — unrest that later became the war that's still raging today.

For the slightly longer version, I'll quote from this 2013 interview I did with Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell of the Center for Climate and Security. Here's how Femia described the chain of events:

We looked at the period between 2006 and 2011 that preceded the outbreak of the revolt that started in Daraa. During that time, up to 60 percent of Syria's land experienced one of the worst long-term droughts in modern history.

This drought — combined with the mismanagement of natural resources by [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, who subsidized water-intensive crops like wheat and cotton farming and promoted bad irrigation techniques — led to significant devastation. According to updated numbers, the drought displaced 1.5 million people within Syria.

Around 75 percent of farmers suffered total crop failure, so they moved into the cities. Farmers in the northeast lost 80 percent of their livestock, so they had to leave and find livelihoods elsewhere. They all moved into urban areas — urban areas that were already experiencing economic insecurity due to an influx of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees.

Notice how many moving parts there are here. Climate change likely raised the odds of a severe drought occurring in Syria. But even without global warming, a drought might still have occurred — if perhaps less severe. So climate change wasn't strictly necessaryfor disruptions to occur. At best we might say it made the situation worse.

It also wasn't sufficient for conflict. A severe drought, by itself, simply isn't enough to trigger a bloody civil war. (Note that California hasn't descended into armed frenzy.) You also have to mix in poverty, the Syrian government's squandering of water resources, the influx of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees, and a whole web of political and social factors. Syria is an autocratic regime with a long history of human rights abuses. Then you have the fact that Assad responded to the unrest in Daara and elsewhere with extreme violence. There was a lot of tinder in this tinderbox.

"We can't say that climate change caused the civil war," Femia emphasized to me. At best, it might be one factor among many that deserves careful study. "It would be hubris to say that we can precisely disentangle those factors right now, particularly in Syria, where there's an ongoing conflict."

That said, it'd be equally rash to dismiss climate change and environmental stressors entirely. Before the Syrian civil war broke out, Femia explained, a lot of security analysts wrongly believed that the country was stable and immune from Arab Spring unrest — precisely because they were overlooking the effects of the drought. "What [those analysts] had missed," he said, "was that a massive internal migration was happening, mainly on the periphery, from farmers and herders who had lost their livelihoods completely."

I'm not saying you're dumb for not knowing this. I'm just saying that this idea has been on the table for a solid year now - from our own chief of staff.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The Democratic National Committee, which organizes the party's primary debates, has faced accusations of scheduling them on dates that will receive poor viewership in an attempt to protect frontrunner Hillary Clinton. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has denied these claims. There are other hints Clinton wanted less exposure, including reports that her campaign privately lobbied the DNC for fewer debates.

But when you just look at the debate schedule, it's hard to deny its absurdity — especially when you take a look back at political debates of years past.

Saturday debates? Not common at all.
In lieu of the Democratic debate this Saturday, I analyzed every debate since the 2000 election cycle — that’s 100 debates. Only seven of them took place on Saturday. The most recent was on January 7, 2012, when seven Republican candidates took stage in New Hampshire. Every Saturday debate since 2000 was during primaries, and most of them took place in early January.



TV ratings are generally lower on Friday and Saturday nights, which probably explains why there has never been a general election debate on a Saturday night. There have been five debates on a Friday since the 2000 election cycle, the most recent being the September 26, 2008, debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. And despite it being Obama’s first debate in the general election, just 52.4 million people watched the debate, significantly less than the 63.2 million who watched the next debate on a Tuesday.



Thursday is prime time for debates. Democrats have just one debate on Thursday.
It’s much easier to find viewership data on general election debates, so I looked at viewership data for every election cycle since 1984, via the Commission on Presidential Debates who collected it from Nielsen.

The verdict: Friday debates do poorly. The average viewership is just 49.6 million — the lowest of any day.

On the flip side, Thursday is king when it comes to debates. Of the 100 debates since the 2000 election cycle, 27 of them have been on a Thursday. The three general election debates on Thursdays garnered an average of 66.5 million viewers per event — by far the biggest number.

Thursdays are also the most popular day for vice presidential debates, with four of the eight VP debates since 1984 being set on a Thursday. And on average, those debates do quite well, with an average of 51.55 million people tuning in for the Thursday debates, which is only slightly lower than the average viewership for presidential debates (54 million).

Republicans have scheduled most of their debates on days that historically fare quite well. Democrats have not, with just one Thursday debate. It’s not rocket science, since there’s plenty of data from Nielsen and other companies that help predict when people will be in front of their TV sets. But that also means it’s not rocket science to schedule debates on incredibly inconvenient dates.

The DNC planned debates for times when people don’t want to watch debates
As pointed out by other publications, the Democrats didn’t only plan a debate on Saturday. They also planned a debate six days before Christmas — which, by the way, is also a Saturday. And another one is planned for the Sunday night of Martin Luther King Day weekend, although Democrats are hoping to retain some of the audience from the NFL playoff double-header before the debates. So arguably half of the six debates are on days that are just bad if you want a wide viewership. Wasserman Schultz said early on that she has no plans to add debates, but other Democrats are publicly upset about the scheduling, including Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley and DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard.

Democrats scheduled debates on days when no one will watch

 

[Mr Rager]

Dude is doubling down on climate change causing ISIS

I'm #TeamBernie all day but that shyt had me like

I get it...he's going for the butterfly effect angle, poor climate=poor crops/no sustenance=discontent=insurgency...........but that's still kind of a reach