A VC - Latest Comments in The Public Debate

Re: The Public Debate

Scott Sanders — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:14:01 -0000

Ahem. 1992 debate = Clinton + Bush + Perot, not just Clinton & Bush.

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:25:08 -0000

But what about the four people in my home who watched it on the web the next
day?

Re: The Public Debate

S.t — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:16:03 -0000

http://thecaucus.blogs.nyti...

Debate Ratings: 52.4 Million Watched Round One

"The first presidential debate of the fall garnered an average of 52.4 million viewers on Friday, Nielsen Media Research said on Monday.

The relatively low audience estimate puzzled some television executives who expected a wider audience for the commercial-free forum between John McCain and Barack Obama. The debate drew 8 million fewer viewers than the first debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004 — but attracted 6 million more viewers than the second debate that year, which was similarly held on a Friday."

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:21:19 -0000

Great point

Re: The Public Debate

S. Pandya — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:41:26 -0000

This is a wonderful post. Love the humor about Newark too.

Re: The Public Debate

Graham Siener — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:32:24 -0000

I wonder how the stats account for the rise of non-tv watchers. No one could download the debate in '92, and certainly no one would have the time to download if it were available. I ended up getting it from a torrent, and I suspect a lot were in the same boat. Maybe add 5% to that 40%?

Re: The Public Debate

leapy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:15:44 -0000

addendum:

"In 1941, one of the country's more acerbic editors, a priest named Edward Dowling, commented: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." "

http://www.progress.org/sol...

Re: The Public Debate

leapy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:00:33 -0000

OK. Let me get this right - an enforced two-party system (even George Washington hated political parties), "he said/she said" sound-bites and negative campaigning are examples of the most open transparent democracy, are they?

Having said that, I watched the debate here in the UK and was impressed, for the first time in many years, in the quality and rigour of thinking of these two candidates. It may well turn out a good thing that they both fscked their VP choices - they are going to have to carry their campaigns on their own shoulders.

Of course we all know that the best form of government is a benign dictatorship, like we have here in England (NOT Scotland or Wales)...

If it helps, I think the point you were trying to communicate was spot on (especially cf Russia and China) but is based on the premise that the views and principles espoused in the debate truly reflect what these guys would actually do when in power and were not just local electoral window-dressing.

Where oh where is Al Gore when you need him... *ducks*

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:00:38 -0000

I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers more and more as the forces of our country continue to evolve and move. The Electoral College ensures that no part of the country with its unique regional view of the world (e.g. oil producing states or coastal states) is able to dominate the politics of the nation. I think the FFs were very, very clever. For some guys who knew nothing about the Internet, Blackberrys, spreadsheets or cell phones --- they did a damn good job.

On that note, I wonder if there is a politician alive today who could come off the bench and have played in their league. Certanly no point guards!

Re: The Public Debate

Guest — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:54:35 -0000

we'll know better tomorrow. S.t.'s assertion was wrong: the initial estimates from Nielsen excluded MSNBC and Fox News, the two major political cable channels.
As for your anecdotal NY observation, I believe it is representative. Most first debates have been on a Thursday; Friday is not a good TV night, especially in the big cities.
What's important to keep in mind, though, is that NY, LA and other big coastal cities have zero electoral importance, and that's where you have a lot of entertainment options on a Friday night. Middle America is where the election will be decided, so the regional rankings are more important from electoral point of view.
The initial estimates showed the St.Louis market with the highest share.
Best wishes,

Re: The Public Debate

slowblogger — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:41:21 -0000

I have no problem with people being proud of their countries, as long as they do not become a hostile nationalist against others. As long as they respect other countries too, I actually like patriotic people.

Many people in countries with decent well being are probably a bit more proud than neutral about their countries. I don't think Americans need to be more critical of theirs just because it is the US.

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:49:53 -0000

i agree. you really have to travel outside the US to get a sense of what's going on in the rest of the world.

Re: The Public Debate

fnazeeri — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:25:35 -0000

What would be really cool is if we also showed some of the debates held in other countries to go along with it. I'd love to see what the Chinese are debating with respect to us. Fareed Zakaria has a weekly show on CNN that talks about global issues which is pretty good but it stands out most in how unique it is here in the US.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:02:01 -0000

You may be confusing our democracy with our public or international image.

When the world looks for leadership to solve the problems of the world it looks to the United States of America. This is not a tired cliche but rather the reality of the last century whether it was for the physical safety of the world, the advance of technology or the strength and innovation of capitalism. The United Nations is not in NYC by accident.

We have a great secret --- we are a nation of immigrants and we are everybody and nobody all at the same time. We have the poetry of Ireland, the work ethic of Germany, the English sense of empire and the romance of Italy in our veins. [I did not mean to leave out any nationality or ethnic group but I could have gone forever. Sorry!] If there is a nation with a unique characteristic, we have stolen it and incorporated it into the American psyche. Tex-Mex alone is proof positive of that!

All bound together by the American Dream.

The greatest characteristic of America is the complete inability to hold a grudge. No other country routinely rebuilds the cities and economies of those it vanquishes in battle. I have often thought that the Mayor of Newark, NJ should declare war on America, exchange a couple rounds of howitzer fire, surrender and demand to be rebuilt.

Our leaders change and they make mistakes along the way but the strength and defining quality of our democracy is our people. And, our people are the combined strengths of every country on the planet! We are the strongest mongrels every bred.

BTW, I think George W Bush is being judged a bit harshly just now. We will never really know what our government has done to protect us since 9-11 but the record is quite extraordinary. I cannot imagine how we have avoided a similar incident but I am absolutely certain this administration deserves the credit.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:35:00 -0000

That would be the "imperfect" part I noted above. Hats off to New Zealand --- the best damn trout fishing on this planet!

From time to time, I tell my wife, a lawyer, that I don't think women should be allowed to vote in the US even now. It is very, very important to have a comfortable couch in your home office. LOL

I admire and respect all democracies in any part of the world. I often think about new democracies trying to understand democratic countries in which democracy has flourished for hundreds of years. Ours is a highly evolved democracy and I fear has become so complex that we lose sight of the basic principles. We were, after all, founded in part because of a tax on tea and yet we are a nation of $4 lattes. It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing.

Re: The Public Debate

kenberger — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:27:22 -0000

Re the stats on how many Americans watched this debate: anecodotaly, I'm skeptical.

We scoured manhattan searching for a bar with TV coverage. All people seemed to want to watch was their beer or the ballgame.

Re: The Public Debate

kenberger — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:20:26 -0000

Maybe we are even a bit *too* transparent.

Conventions: do we really need them? Since this country is so media-driven and can only seem to consume things via TV (though at least shifting to the smarter internet more and more), it's no surprise they are so grandiose here.

Re: The Public Debate

mark slater — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:15:06 -0000

that is a totally incorrect statement. New Zealand, Australia, sweden, even the Uk with a parliamentary system is more transparent.

If you are wondering why there is a collectively dim view of the american approach to being a true part of the world community, you look no further than a comment like this.

Re: The Public Debate

Rijk — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:10:22 -0000

I watched from The Netherlands, were it was broadcast, in the middle of the night unfortunately. And I was glad to see two candidates that actually seemed to be interested in the rest of the world, had been around, were intelligent, etc. Neither of them would be a disaster.

It is a pity that the general campaign discussions we are seeing on the net are so ruthlessly partisan, with people not understanding why anybody could possibly support 'the other guy'. And that with both of these candidates initially appealing to 'change', getting away from the culture wars etc. It seems their supporters missed the memo.

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:03:06 -0000

That's what I meant to say

I botched this post

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:01:06 -0000

Like you JLM

Re: The Public Debate

S.t — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:47:01 -0000

McCain-Obama debate pulls average early rating

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008...

(& don't question his judgement
http://www.redstate.com/dia... )

Re: The Public Debate

slowblogger — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:43:44 -0000

In terms of international sensitivity and attention, the foreign policy of the US Fred mentioned is probably more comparable to that of China or Russia against the US. I don't know China or Russia broadcast this kind of discussions. Do they?

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:11:46 -0000

yes, you are right about that.

i am fond of parliamentary systems and at times wish we had one here in the US

Re: The Public Debate

fredwilson — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:10:24 -0000

you've got a point there

i didn't choose my words particularly well.

what i was trying to say is that as the largest economy and with the largest military, our choices impact the world in big ways and we allow our debates to be public.

china does not, russia does not

we may not be any more open than australia or the western european democracies, but our choices are more impactful, at least right now

so i am proud that we allow those choices to be debated out in the open in front of the rest of the world