Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rules

What are the rules to be invited to the debates?83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

October debate in Nevada

Why does the table say that the Oct. 13 debate will be held at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, but the prose section just say "somewhere in Nevada"? As far as I can tell, the site for the debate has not been announced yet, so the prose section is more accurate (at least as of this writing). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you may provide sourcing for this information, then you may make the appropriate edits.   Spartan7W §   18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around. I know the debate will be held in Nevada. (See http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/cnn-democratic-debate-host/, for example.) But somebody entered into the table that the debate will be held at UNLV, and I would like them to provide their source for that, because as far as I know the debate has not been sited yet. If there isn't a source, then the reference to UNLV should be removed from the table until the site is actually announced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Lessig missing from listed candidates

Lessig is vying for a spot in the debates, but is not listed yet.Richard☺Decal (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

He has not met the criteria as of now, and has not been formally invited. His fundraising is above Chafee's, but he hasn't registered in polls.   Spartan7W §   01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-invitee criteria

I removed the footnote from the table that referred to non-invitees and said, "Candidate's polling performance is below 1%. A change in polling before the deadline to segregate candidates between debate tiers may qualify them for inclusion." I haven't found any published criteria for inclusion in the Democratic debates yet -- the criteria might be set even lower than 1% now, and could plausibly be set higher than 1% later in the debate season. Also, the second sentence doesn't make sense in this context because it's the Republican debates this year that had to be divided into two tiers. There are only 5 Democrats who have entered the race and are considered major candidates so far, so it's unlikely that the Democrats will have to split their debates this year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Date

Is there more information about the dates?83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) - See http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/ 6 debates total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I smell a rat. Two of the six debates are in February or March.

Look at the following primary and caucus dates (from Wikipedia):

primary dates

February 1, 2016 Iowa 46 8 Semi-open caucus February 9, 2016 New Hampshire 24 8 Semi-closed primary February 20, 2016 Nevada 31 8 Closed caucus February 27, 2016 South Carolina 51 6 Open primary March 1, 2016 Alabama 52 6 Open primary March 1, 2016 Arkansas 32 5 Open primary March 1, 2016 Colorado 64 13 Closed caucus March 1–8, 2016 Democrats abroad 13 4 Closed primary March 1, 2016 Georgia 98 14 Open primary March 1, 2016 Massachusetts 95 26 Semi-closed primary March 1, 2016 Minnesota 78 16 Open caucus March 1, 2016 North Carolina 107 13 Open primary March 1, 2016 Oklahoma 38 4 Semi-closed primary March 1, 2016 Tennessee 68 9 Open primary March 1, 2016 Texas 208 29 Open primary March 1, 2016 Vermont 15 8 Open primary March 1, 2016 Virginia 95 17 Open primary March 5, 2016 Louisiana 54 7 Closed primary March 5, 2016 Nebraska 26 5 Closed caucus March 5, 2016 Kansas 33 4 Closed primary March 6, 2016 Maine 25 5 Closed caucus March 8, 2016 Mississippi 36 5 Open primary March 8, 2016 Michigan 133 19 Open primary March 15, 2016 Florida 207 31 Closed primary March 15, 2016 Illinois 160 30 Semi-closed primary March 15, 2016 Missouri 75 13 Open primary March 15, 2016 Ohio 148 17 Semi-open primary March 22, 2016 Arizona 63 12 Closed primary March 22, 2016 Idaho 20 4 Semi-closed caucus March 22, 2016 Utah 24 4 Semi-open caucus March 26, 2016 Alaska 14 4 Closed caucus March 26, 2016 Hawaii 22 9 Semi-closed caucus March 26, 2016 Washington 86 16 Open caucus

There have to be some kind of shenanigans going on here. ---Dagme (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Are you calling shenanigans on the information posted or shenanigans on the debate schedule? If you have found an error in the information on an article please update it (with an updated reference). --Stabila711 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Salem Radio Advertisement?

I don't see any indication that Salem radio has official partnership in hosting. They are just rebroadcasting, and I don't see an evidence that they are different from any other rebroadcasting networks... Did they add themselves everywhere for the 2016 debates as attempt for free advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.101 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about that, but CNN has stated that Westwood One is the "exclusive radio broadcaster" for the first debate, so I've removed Salem from the listing there. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

VR Relevant?

There is a decent amount of national press today on CNN's streaming of tonight's debate in fully immersive 3D virtual reality. http://fortune.com/2015/10/13/debate-virtual-reality/ is an example. Relatively new so wasn't sure if that was worth adding to what is otherwise a very brief entry. Is it relevant/notable enough to warrant inclusion? TotoroRules (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Joe Biden speaks in a union political meeting and says if he doesn't get in, he could be demoted to Secretary of state, and then to reemphasize his point, smiles and explains, "That's a joke". Anyway, the current sentence in the Article herein is good, showing he can enter the debate by declaring candidacy on Tuesday, October 13th: "The latter criterion would accommodate Vice President Joe Biden if he makes his decision to enter the presidential race as late as the day of the debate.[ref name="preston"/]" The sentence is good and well placed and tense can be changed next week. -- AstroU (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it will be a moment of truth, in that CNN sets up his podium for Tuesday's Debate. Joe Biden waits until the day of the debate (today) and still hasn't 'announced'. This is good for maximum impact, both for himself and his campaign, and CNN viewability drama. Rush Limbaugh says people will tune in for curiosity at 8:30pmET and be asleep by 9pmET. We'll see if he is right--I'll watch it all and be cheering for Jim Webb, valiant military man. -- AstroU (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) -- Joe Biden is holding back till the last moment on his 'announcement' to run.

UPDATE (JUST NOW): I was wrong in my belief! http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/joe_biden_super_pac_to_air_cnn_debate_ad.html

  Joe Biden Won’t Be at Tonight’s Debate. 
      But His Ad Will Be.   Joe Biden Ad:   “Never Quit” -- AstroU (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) -- Biden is watching at home and CNN removed his podium.

Inclusion criteria for second debate?

Have the criteria for which candidates are invited to the second debate been announced yet? -hugeTim ^(talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Hugetim: Nope. It is usually not announced until a few weeks beforehand. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

First debate winners and sourcing

Some analysts from CNN and BBC viewed Clinton as the winner,[8][9] while other publications such as The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and the Fox News Channel, claimed that Sanders was the winner.[10][11][12] Why aren't these claims sourced to the actual publications (except in the case of the BBC)? Instead we see BBC and The Hill for the first claim, and CNBC, IB Times and The Hill (on both sides, curiously) for the second. I'm also not seeing where any articles other than the IB Times one say anything about the opinion at WaPo, the Chicago Tribune or Fox News. The first Hill article mentions CNN, but doesn't seem to attribute an opinion to them, either. Why be so circumspect about this? 74.12.92.201 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Chafee at Nov. 6

The article lists Chafee as a "Non-invitee" but this source states that "...former Rhode Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb -- were invited, but their campaigns never responded..." --mikeu ^talk 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like it was already changed by Hugetim --Stabila711 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Chafee not attending November debate

The table shows Chafee as not attending the November debate (absent invitee). This is absurd because the debate hasn't yet happened, and also because I haven't heard anything whatsoever about him not attending / dropping out. Obviously he's struggling in the polls and if he's going to stay in he wants more exposure. If this is true please add a source; if not please change it. 98.247.93.88 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Changed to invited. We can change it back if he is not there when the event actually occurs. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add MoveOn Candidate Forum?

It seems comparable to the Nov. 6 event: http://front.moveon.org/moveon-to-host-democratic-presidential-candidate-forum-in-november/#.VieuC36rSUk -hugeTim ^(talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First Debate Summary Sourcing Error

In the summary for the first debate, the current concluding statement regarding Sanders; "In contrast, Sanders was pointed out as making economic claims based on outdated information, particularly in regards to how much of America's GDP actually goes to the wealthiest in the country, as well as his proposals for tuition-free college being largely unsustainable.[20]" is factually false. The USA Today source listed has no statement on tuition or college at all. -av 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Lester Lawrence "Larry" Lessig III

Lessig, is not listed in the table (even as uninvited), he was a candidate (though a low polling and single-issue one), he should still be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't make a single debate appearance.--Thejfh1999 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CNN Iowa Democratic Town Hall, Monday, January 25, 2016

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/#january25

Shouldn't this be added to the list of forums? RenniePet (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

More info: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016/01/cnn-to-hold-iowa-democratic-town-hall-on-monday-jan-25/

RenniePet (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Update new info about unsanctioned debate

The section discussing the unsanctioned debate may need updating . Clinton has voiced that she would like to participate in the debate, Sanders has declined , but said he would change his position if the debate is sanctioned. This is within the past day, so it is still developing.SecretName101 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC) SecretName101 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed weird content

I made a few changes — [2] — and the edit summary is too short to explain it:

• I removed really weird href tags as table parameters; they were added the same way as class parameters. I've never heard of href being a parameter to a table.
• I removed an inscrutable "- 3 D" as a debate time length.
• I removed poll numbers for a debate that hasn't even happened yet: They were both from RealClearPolitics — which I would have thought was WP:RS, but the HTML one made my browser generate a pop-under saying "Did Obama just declare war?" that, when I slid my mouse over it, opened another page about pills to "cure" Alzheimers. That's puts the source into question as WP:RS in the first place. And more to the point: It's only March 3 right now! How does one know the debate results 3 days before the debate?
• I tagged a claim that the Michigan Democratic Party said something, which clearly isn't verified by the source given later for a second part of the claim.

It seems that sections of this article have been getting copy-and-pasted to other sections, and then being used as up-to-the-hour update pages, with no attention to the quality of the information, as long as "new" stuff gets pasted in. These debates aren't happening every hour! --Closeapple (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Poll Numbers Switched

Some genius appears to have gotten the poll numbers backwards.

If you visit the link referenced:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

For example, the polls sidebar for March 9 indicates 51% for Sanders, and 39.6% for Clinton, but actually visiting that link shows the opposite to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.34.230 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)