Predictably, 90% of Republican and 81% of Democrats intend to watch at least some of their respective party conventions. But just 16% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties plan to watch most of the GOP convention, and 21% of these voters say the same about the Democratic convention.You don't have to watch the conventions to be influenced by them. Why not just read about them and watch some video clips?
२७ ऑगस्ट, २०१२
"Most voters won’t be watching much of the upcoming national political conventions..."
"... and over one-third of independent voters plan to tune them out completely."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
It ain't enough for the taxpayers to foot the bill for all this convention nonsense, now you want us all to watch it too?!
And when we get near the election those uninformed and undecided voters will gladly go TV to proudly show their ignorance for all to see. Its makes them feel so important and sadly for our country, they are important because our elections are decided by the most uninformed of us.
The taxpayers pay for it? I thought the national committees did. I know the delegates pay OTA for travel, rooms and registration. Otherwise I'd try to go to one myself.
By golly purplepenquin is right.
I do know candidates get money from the government too, as part of that tax form checkoff. Are people all right with that or should it go to "poor people" or something?
Again, they're preaching to the choir. Much like Althouse panders to her 90/10 con flock here.
Hopefully, in the near future, the major networks, along w/cable, will only telecast the nominee's speech live.
Better yet, just put the speech online and call it a day ...
If I watch any of either, it would be Paul Ryan, and maybe Mitt Romney speaking. Probably nothing more. Who would I want to watch on the Dem side? Sandra Flake? Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz? Slo Joe? My guess is that I will manage to cleverly miss even Ryan and Romney live.
I'm 67 years old and I watched my first conventions at age 11, the 1956 conventions of both political parties. They were real conventions back then and determined each party's presidential nominee.
The 1956 convention is when I first became aware of JFK along with other now well known politicians from our history.
"Are people all right with that or should it go to "poor people" or something?"
Oh sure, lets take all the money we can and give it to the poor people and lets not even require them to any work as in workfare.
I am looking forward to Chris Christie's Rep keynote--I expect a barn burner--after that, will watch video clips.
"It ain't enough for the taxpayers to foot the bill for all this convention nonsense, now you want us all to watch it too?!"
-- Any real plan to have responsible, relevant public financing of elections/political activity died when candidates realized there was more money in not lashing themselves to that particular mast. The national conventions, though, are party events, so I think most of the money is supplied via donations to the parties. That's why the D's had to reduce their convention to three days, not enough cash. If the government were paying for all of it, then they would not have. Though, I'm open to being proven wrong, since I'm shooting from the hip on this one and not bothering to do much research.
While I agree with Shiloh on this, I would suggest the networks are focused on ad money rather than content. If they could have covered the rather bizarre woman who had her anus tattoed, I am sure they would have. Follow the money, Shiloh.
I used to love watching conventions, though I like the commentary & dish more than the speeches. Speeches embarrass me for some reason.
The best convention coverage was on the Comedy Channel when it first started up. So you got boring speeches accompanied by Mystery Theatre 2000-style snark.
Does the GOP even want its convention televised? Case in point: Scott Walker spoke at Newt University today. LOL
Garage: Of course they want their convention covered. I think most networks are only covering three days, which is why Ann Romney's speaking slot had to be moved, so that she'd speak at a time the networks were covering. The whole hurricane thing doesn't help. You'd've thought they'd have learned, but they're not called the stupid party without cause.
imo neither conventions nor debates serve any kind of useful function in this day and age.
Back when it was only the 3 nets and they went wall-to-wall, you were stuck, but people were also better educated and more engaged.
You watched what was said and saw the to-and-fro and it helped make up a lot of minds. After '68 and '72, the networks began to have second thoughts about putting the Demo freak show on for all to see.
PS It's estimated only about 7% of the people who call themselves independents really are, so that 16% figure isn't too far off.
PPS Roger, are you suggesting the little animal like anus tattooing?
They're fairly conventional. That said, a star can appear. Obama did that. It was a terrible and ominous convention when that mediocrity hit the spotlight and briefly did his thing. It wasn't as bad as when Tiny Tim shuffled on the stage with his ukelele on the Ed Sullivan show in 1968, and pretended to be the Hendrix of the ukulele. It evoked a similar sense of the doom of a genre.
Does the GOP even want its convention televised?
Given the hyperventilating of the press (see Matthews, Chris), I wouldn't blame them if they just banned media figures but allowed cameras alone.
Sorry, but I'm going to be too busy catching up with Doctor Who, by watching series six on BBCA on-demand, before series seven starts on Saturday. I'm still trying to get beyond "meh" with respect to Matt Smith, but that is lot more enthusiastic than I am for Romney and the bland Republican Establishment Convention.
Sorry, but I'm going to be too busy catching up with Doctor Who, by watching series six on BBCA on-demand, before series seven starts on Saturday.
[/OT] Have you been watching Copper? I have the pilot episode but haven’t watched it yet.
If I watch any of either, it would be Paul Ryan, and maybe Mitt Romney speaking. Probably nothing more. Who would I want to watch on the Dem side? Sandra Flake? Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz? Slo Joe? My guess is that I will manage to cleverly miss even Ryan and Romney live.
Agreed, I have no interest in the conventions, debates or SOTU addresses and find them to be pretty much useless in terms of conveying useful information. I think they attract more of the American Idol crowd then they do more serious minded people.
Besides as Bender pointed out – Dr. Who Series 7 starts next Sunday (and the finale of Breaking Bad). Priorities. ;)
Episodes one and two of Copper have been good. Not best-TV-ever, but still well worth the time. A bit shocking for TV in at least one episode-two scene though.
We have pretty much stopped watching the "news" and talk shows on news channels.
First. There really isn't any actual news. Just a lot of opinions. People yelling, talking over each other. Repetitive and ever more contentious. All it does is reinforce the knowledge that we are so screwed as a nation. It depresses the hell out of us and increases our anxiety.
But more importantly, by the time we have surfed the net and looked up the various blogs, followed the links, look at some news company websites, viewed some clips, read articles from media sources, magazines and newspapers, we are basically fully informed and don't need to watch a bunch of bloviating talking heads argue with each other.
Much happier now. More in control of our lives.
I will probably view the speeches of a few, like Christy, Ryan etc. in on line clips.
"But more importantly, by the time we have surfed the net and looked up the various blogs, followed the links, look at some news company websites, viewed some clips, read articles from media sources, magazines and newspapers, we are basically fully informed and don't need to watch a bunch of bloviating talking heads argue with each other."
Plus, you can read so much faster than watching something on TV or even watching a video.
My mother, grandmother, and great aunt were news junkies and devoted New Dealers. I can remember watching conventions with them: speeches in favor of candidates A and B and C, for president and VP; speeches pro and con over planks in the platform. The conventions actually meant something then. By the time I got to voting age,the conventions had become coronations. I gave up on watching conventions after Mondale's "But Not Ronald Reagan" bloviation.
Agreed with Dust Bunny Queen and dreams – I think I’ve actually become a more much knowledgeable person after I quit watching the news and switched to almost all online content. Also, I’ve found that (other than a few bloggers and others who have a special expertise or knowledge in the subject matter that they write about), I don’t read as many opinion pieces as I used to. Also, I’ve pretty much quit listening to most talk radio except for NPR on the weekends or Hugh Hewitt when he has an interesting guest on. Or Dennis Praeger.
I hope some of the uninformed and undecided voters see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SIoqqd-GpPs
I'm ready for the Doctor to kick some Dalek ass. I odn't know what it is about the new improved Daleks but they just punch my buttons...much like Lefty Democrats do.
I want to see Ann speak. She's the only one I truly have an interest in. The rest are going to do their little tap dance, but Ann strikes me as very personable, and sincere. She's comfortable in her skin.
Might watch Christie for the bombast, but if something else is on like wrestling I'll watch thaty instead. Shiloh gets my vote on this...just show the clips and screw the rest.
@DBQ
I've quit watching all the talking head shows too. O'reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Madcow, it just started giving me headaches. Shep Smith's show is bareable for news,but the rest is strictly internet. Dinsosaurs fighting over the last dead carcass as much as I can tell.(even Beck, though my wife worships Beck) I still like his radio show though. Lot more comedy involved in hos radio show.
Our host asked, "Why not just read about them and watch some video clips?"
For the same reason I don't rely on Wikipedia to inform me comprehensively or accurately on any matter that's controversial.
Almost all of politics is controversial to me because I follow politics closely. If I didn't — if I didn't care much about politics one way or the other — then I might well be content to rely exclusively on secondary sources. Your mileage may vary.
we are basically fully informed and don't need to watch a bunch of bloviating talking heads argue with each other.
Personally, I recommend taking the next step and eliminating television altogether.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा