Obama, Clinton to skip Fox-backed debate

135

Comments

  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    dg1979us wrote:
    We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.

    If they are interested in debates they just need to change the channel. I assume if they have access to fox news they probably have the other 24 hour news networks also. The only thing they will be missing is the anti-democrat color commentary.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Jeanwah wrote:
    FOX's audience are conservative, christian viewers who like Bush and everything he stands for. They are hardly open-minded enough to even hear out a democrat. That's a fact.


    Fox's audience is definitely that, but it is more than that. It is mainstream American, like it or not.

    Fox has the highest cable news channel ratings by far in every time slot. A candidate would have to be a dipshit to forego that kind of exposure.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    WMA wrote:
    If they are interested in debates they just need to change the channel. I assume if they have access to fox news they probably have the other 24 hour news networks also. The only thing they will be missing is the anti-democrat color commentary.

    Well, FOx sucks, but I hardly consider CNN or MSNBC bastions of great news service either.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.
    Possibly. But then you would have to assume that these viewers won't watch the debates if they're on another station. And if that's the case, Democrats appearing on Fox for a debate won't change any of their minds anyway.

    But, yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I've no problem with that. We'll just have to wait and see if this boycott plays any real part in the election over the next year and a half.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    Fox's audience is definitely that, but it is more than that. It is mainstream American, like it or not.

    Fox has the highest cable news channel ratings by far in every time slot. A candidate would have to be a dipshit to forego that kind of exposure.
    Not necessarily. Fox's viewership has dropped by roughly a quarter over the last year. It's still "number one," but mainstream America, like it or not, is changing.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    RainDog wrote:
    Not necessarily. Fox's viewership has dropped by roughly a quarter over the last year. It's still "number one," but mainstream America, like it or not, is changing.

    Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jeffbr wrote:
    Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.

    but you're talking about a democratic primary that 90% of fox's viewership will not be participating in anyway. why bother? maybe you'd have a point if this was a general election, but it's not. it's campaigning for the democratic ticket which is decided solely by democrats. the only purpose it might serve is very long term... trying to look reasonable to the fox audience before being pitted against their conservative standard-bearer. but that's a dubious incentive at best.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    soulsinging wrote:
    but you're talking about a democratic primary that 90% of fox's viewership will not be participating in anyway. why bother? maybe you'd have a point if this was a general election, but it's not. it's campaigning for the democratic ticket which is decided solely by democrats. the only purpose it might serve is very long term... trying to look reasonable to the fox audience before being pitted against their conservative standard-bearer. but that's a dubious incentive at best.
    Exactly. Now Fox gets to host a Democratic debate without any of the top three Democrats ... I hope they have fun with that. Fox hasn't dealt fairly with the Democratic party in general, and certainly not with these three candidates in particular ... why would they want to help Fox make more money?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    hippiemom wrote:
    Exactly. Now Fox gets to host a Democratic debate without any of the top three Democrats ... I hope they have fun with that. Fox hasn't dealt fairly with the Democratic party in general, and certainly not with these three candidates in particular ... why would they want to help Fox make more money?

    Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
    But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    RainDog wrote:
    But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.

    I still think they are throwing away a chance to reach out to a lot of disgruntled moderates and conservatives. And there is no way this is giving them more exposure than they would get participating in a debate on Fox.
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    RainDog wrote:
    We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.

    very good point!!!

    if you want to reach the moderate audience that may be in limbo for this upcoming election, why wouldnt you do the Fox debate?? it just blows my mind

    it just shows that they lack leadership and if the platform for opposition arises they will run
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    pjalive21 wrote:
    very good point!!!

    if you want to reach the moderate audience that may be in limbo for this upcoming election, why wouldnt you do the Fox debate?? it just blows my mind
    Because Fox doesn't cater to moderates - and moderates who watch Fox are just as likely to tune into CNN and watch the debate there.
    pjalive21 wrote:
    it just shows that they lack leadership and if the platform for opposition arises they will run
    The "opposition" statement maybe, though I disagree - but how does this show a lack of leadership? In fact, it has nothing to do with leadership at all - lack of or otherwise.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    dg1979us wrote:
    Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself.

    then again, how does this help teh candidates? did you read the post she quoted? or do you just not have a logical response to it?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    I still think they are throwing away a chance to reach out to a lot of disgruntled moderates and conservatives. And there is no way this is giving them more exposure than they would get participating in a debate on Fox.
    Conservatives won't vote for them. Fox's 25% decline in viewership over the last year shows that "disgruntled moderates" are just as likely to watch the debate on CNN as on Fox.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    soulsinging wrote:
    then again, how does this help teh candidates? did you read the post she quoted? or do you just not have a logical response to it?

    Dont be an asshole. I gave a perfectly logical response, if you cant see that that, its your own shortcoming, not mine. Im sorry I dont agree with you, but my logic is sound.

    She said "why would they want to help Fox make more money?". And I responded with "Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself."


    Im not sure what is so illogical about that. If you dont agree fine, but you dont need to be an asshole to me because of your inability to see the logic behind my statement.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    dg1979us wrote:
    Dont be an asshole. I gave a perfectly logical response, if you cant see that that, its your own shortcoming, not mine. Im sorry I dont agree with you, but my logic is sound.

    She said "why would they want to help Fox make more money?". And I responded with "Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself."


    Im not sure what is so illogical about that. If you dont agree fine, but you dont need to be an asshole to me because of your inability to see the logic behind my statement.
    They can help themselves just as much by debating on another network. Debating on Fox only helps Fox.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    RainDog wrote:
    But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.

    I think that people are mistaking Fox's viewership for some small, far-right, insignificant portion of the voting public. In reality, the only way they got to be number one was appealing to a broader audience. I am not arguing their bias, they've made that abundantly clear. I'm also not a Fox apologist or defender. But I do believe that for any Dem or Rep to win, they need to take votes away from the middle. The network with the largest viewership is going to contain large numbers of these voters in the middle.

    I agree with your point that people who wouldn't switch to another network to watch the debate are not your target. But I didn't see that switch as an option presented. The debate is either on or off. When presented with that choice, I still think it makes sense to reach out.

    Exposure by politically engaged and aware people on a message board doesn't equal exposure to mostly lazy, apathetic voters who you're trying to light a flame under. We shouldn't mistake our debate/discussion for something more broadreaching and meaningful in terms of motivating voters.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    hippiemom wrote:
    They can help themselves just as much by debating on another network. Debating on Fox only helps Fox.

    I dont agree with that. Fox is by far the most watched of the cable news networks, for one. And two, just because you go on Fox's debate doesnt mean you cant then go on a CNN debate or whatever. This isnt an either/or situation, it can be both. They are going to ignore a growing group of disgruntled republicans and moderates by not doing this. In a campaign exposure means a lot, and they are turning down a lot of exposure. It makes them look weak. I hope Kucinich, Biden, etc do this debate, and I hope they kick ass in it, and I hope they expose the Fox news audience to differing views, since the big three candidates are obviously too scared to even try.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    hippiemom wrote:
    They can help themselves just as much by debating on another network. Debating on Fox only helps Fox.

    Probably so, but until those other debates exist, that isn't an option. Right now the option is to debate or not.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08

Categories