DeRatings
Ratings for the three debates:
Debate 1: 62.5 million people
Debate 2: 46.7 million people
Debate 3: 51.2 million people
To put it in context, an average of around 20 million people watched the conventions (22.6 for the Republican Zell-fest, 20.4 for the Democratic milquetoast-a-thon). Typically, 90 million people watch the Super Bowl. I don't really have much insight into this. I guess it's a good sign that the most people watched the first ass-whomping, but who knows?
Tangentially: How about changing the format of the debates to make it spicier? Here are two ideas: 1) I didn't like the moderator having too much power to ask all the questions. How about having at least one question for each side asked by whichever organization each candidate designates? I like the potential drama of a partisan publication like the Weekly Standard trying to design the most difficult, damning question for their blood rival. 2) Have a 10 minute intermission whereby a crack team of experts publicly refute any egregious mistatements by either of the candidates. Lots of problems with this idea, not the least of which being that both sides would never agree on who's impartial enough to be on the fact-checking team. But I think it would both make the debate more interesting and ensure both teams go to press with a more truthful presentation, lest they get caught red-handed in a lie.
Debate 1: 62.5 million people
Debate 2: 46.7 million people
Debate 3: 51.2 million people
To put it in context, an average of around 20 million people watched the conventions (22.6 for the Republican Zell-fest, 20.4 for the Democratic milquetoast-a-thon). Typically, 90 million people watch the Super Bowl. I don't really have much insight into this. I guess it's a good sign that the most people watched the first ass-whomping, but who knows?
Tangentially: How about changing the format of the debates to make it spicier? Here are two ideas: 1) I didn't like the moderator having too much power to ask all the questions. How about having at least one question for each side asked by whichever organization each candidate designates? I like the potential drama of a partisan publication like the Weekly Standard trying to design the most difficult, damning question for their blood rival. 2) Have a 10 minute intermission whereby a crack team of experts publicly refute any egregious mistatements by either of the candidates. Lots of problems with this idea, not the least of which being that both sides would never agree on who's impartial enough to be on the fact-checking team. But I think it would both make the debate more interesting and ensure both teams go to press with a more truthful presentation, lest they get caught red-handed in a lie.
posted by Neckface at 2:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home