RNC vs DNC: More People Watched Trump's Speech Than Hillary's, but more DNC views than RNC views - Polidicks

[QUOTE][URL="http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump"]Donald Trump[/URL] has defeated [URL="http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton"]Hillary Clinton[/URL] — at least when it comes to TV ratings for their acceptance speeches. Last Thursday at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, [B]34.9 million[/B] people watched the Republican nominee across broadcast and cable networks. This Thursday in Philadelphia, [B]33.3 million[/B] viewers saw Hillary Clinton give her historic speech as the first woman nominated for president by a major party, according to preliminary results. Trump had boasted last week that "no one would watch" the Democratic National Convention and hailed the ratings of the Republican convention on Twitter. But after the [B]Democrats beat the Republicans the first three nights in total viewers[/B], Trump appeared to back away from his claim on the production of the GOP gathering last week. [/QUOTE] [url=http://thehill.com/media/289823-trump-tops-clinton-on-speech-ratings]Source[/url]

Trump is the first candidate to get a boost from both conventions, the DNC really fucked up.

So people came for trump's cult of personality and had no interest in the actual party itself? Not surprising.

trump for prez, its pretty much guaranteed now unless he fucks up to the level of "having child porn on his pc" or some shit. the debates haven't even started and that's going to be his piece the resistance.

"More People Watched Trump's Speech Than Hillary's" Not surprising tbh, who wouldn't want to watch that nutty fuck talk some more lol. Doesn't mean they're all voting for him, tho

[QUOTE=postal;50797555]"More People Watched Trump's Speech Than Hillary's" Not surprising tbh, who wouldn't want to watch that nutty fuck talk some more lol. Doesn't mean they're all voting for him, tho[/QUOTE] Ignoring the content of each candidates speeches, I think Trump does a much better job of captivating his audience in his speeches. He's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B] even when he uses teleprompters. I don't think Clinton paces herself in an interesting way.

Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Cory Booker all delivered better speeches than any speaker at the entire RNC. I don't think this is a debatable assessment. Hillary Clinton's own speech may not have been quite as impressive, but she has never been more than a competent public speaker, but neither was Trump's bizarre rambling speech which she aptly described as 'Midnight in America'. Something I did note was the constant appeals to patriotism and to America. I think in Britain, far too many people miss this as a tool. All of the greatest progressive and left-wing orators are so effective because they aren't just a radical. They also appeal to some kind of tradition and conservatism within the public. Martin Luther King hit these chords extraordinarily well, by appealing to religion and quoting the Bible, and [URL="http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-dream-speech"]reminding[/URL] his audience 'That all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', appealing to Thomas Jefferson's words. Barack Obama, whether or not you agree with his politics or think he is an effective leader, is undoubtedly and undeniably one of the most gifted orators in American politics. But he too appeals to America. I have some criticisms in how this is done - I am skeptical of the 'proposition nation' (nation shared by ideology), but it still forms a major part of his speech linking seamlessly the founding fathers, the American Dream with progressive politics and issues of the present. Tony Benn, one of the greatest speakers in the left in Britain, who has still not been surpassed by his supposed proteges on the left, appealed to British radical tradition of the Chartists and the Levelers. Hilary Benn, arguing forcefully for British intervention in Syria in one of the finest parliamentary speeches for many years, appealed to the left-wing anti-fascist tradition. Yet Trump, and his fellow cultist on the other side of the Atlantic and the spectrum, Jeremy Corbyn, do none of this. The right in America loves to try to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/who-loves-america.html"]own[/URL] patriotism. Yet as Paul Krugman notes, this has all become a facade to hide something very dark in recent years among many Republicans. Because in reality, the reason why Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn don't appeal to patriotism and America or Britain in the way in which their opponents do is because they don't just want to change the politics of the country, they wish they could change the people within it. It is no accident that Trump is so friendly with Vladimir Putin, despite being one of the greatest enemies of America. It is no accident that Jeremy Corbyn and other left-wingers, frustrated at their own 'brainwashed' proletariat who refuse to revolt, jet off to Latin America to find their excitement. They claim to want to represent the 'working class', yet they're more scared of them than upper-class Tories, so horrified by their views on the EU, or on the death penalty, or on patriotism and the Queen, that they declare them to be brainwashed and wash their hands of them, preferring to faff about protesting Israel or the West in general. Read the twitter bio of any white nationalist, and you will notice that they are not so nationalist and internal after all. They frequently profess support to not only the nationalist of their own, but to Trump, Marie le Pen, Geert Wilders and Orban simultaneously. The reality is that these supposed 'patriots' don't love their country in the slightest. Trump thinks it is midnight in America, not because the military is 'weak' (it isn't) or the economy is a 'disaster' (it did well compared to other developed countries). It is midnight in America because of the people of America are not who they want to represent. They hate the fact that representing America is not just representing white people, or Christians, or straight people. They want to change the people of America, not change the politics, to be more white, more Christian. They don't [I]want[/I] their politics to represent Muslims, or black Americans, or Latinos. These people are almost dirty and unwanted to them regardless of their faith in the country. Jeremy Corbyn wants to replace his people with an excitable Latin American proletariat who may give him his revolution. This is why ultimately the appeals to patriotism of both these 'leaders' (if you can even call what they do this) ring so hollow, if they bother at all. To do this, you need to think there is something good, something great about the country, and the people within it, even if you think things are badly wrong. You can't just rant about how bad everything is, offer no serious solutions (both have formulated almost no serious policy of their own at all). Everyone knows there are problems in America. Because, however, blind anger rather than hard policy work and difficult decisions have been fetishised across the Atlantic by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, whilst Corbyn sits dead in the polls, this clown can stand a change at becoming the next President. Trump isn't a patriot. He undermines everything that America means. America means liberty and democracy, he is a wannabe dictator. America is a nation of immigrants and a chance for a better life, he wants to deport them and ban them from the country. America is a shining beacon and the leader of the free world, Trump wants to thuggishly squeeze money out of his allies, buddy up with its enemies, and engage in war crimes. Neither of them see this and that is why I think any claim that they are patriotic (especially Trump) is obviously false. I am usually fairly relaxed about political events, as I think most things do tend to be overblown and eventually work themselves out. I am genuinely fearful of a West led by Donald Trump. I don't know if we can recover, and I don't know if America could recover.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797585]Ignoring the content of each candidates speeches, I think Trump does a much better job of captivating his audience in his speeches. He's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B] even when he uses teleprompters. I don't think Clinton paces herself in an interesting way.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you repeating his rhetoric for? High energy? Come on man

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50797700]What the hell are you repeating his rhetoric for? High energy? Come on man[/QUOTE] Whats wrong with that? You understand what I mean when I use the term Trump is better at captivating his audience because he is more charismatic and energetic giving speeches than Clinton. And to Flash, the speakers you mentioned were very well spoken and charismatic as well. Even though I disagreed with a lot of what they said, they were excellent orators, and honestly the DNC should've picked Biden or Bernie to run, they are far more popular and well spoken. The issue is that none of those speakers are running for President; Hillary Clinton is, and I see her getting destroyed in the debates because of it. Trump vs Obama in a debate would be amazing to watch because Obama has some serious debate skills and murdered Romney in the 2012 debates. Trump vs. Clinton, not so much.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797728]Whats wrong with that? You understand what I mean when I use the term Trump is better at captivating his audience because he is more charismatic and energetic giving speeches than Clinton.[/QUOTE] you're using his rhetoric and are focusing in more on the entertainment value of the candidates rather than what they actually discuss. trump could be talking about actively encouraging violence against muslims and still be praised for his "high energy"

Both conferences pandered, though the Democratic one had more policy discussion. Clinton isn't as charismatic as Trump nor was her speech as fearmongering, but it was solid. I'm glad there weren't any riots at the DNC one.

The fact people still vote based on how entertaining a candidate is and try to argue in favor of it is pathetic.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797728]Whats wrong with that? You understand what I mean when I use the term Trump is better at captivating his audience because he is more charismatic and energetic giving speeches than Clinton. And to Flash, the speakers you mentioned were very well spoken and charismatic as well. Even though I disagreed with a lot of what they said, they were excellent orators, and honestly the DNC should've picked Biden or Bernie to run, they are far more popular and well spoken. The issue is that none of those speakers are running for President; Hillary Clinton is, and I see her getting destroyed in the debates because of it. Trump vs Obama in a debate would be amazing to watch because Obama has some serious debate skills and murdered Romney in the 2012 debates. Trump vs. Clinton, not so much.[/QUOTE] And you wonder why I think you're part of a cult You can't even drop the rhetoric if you tried at this point

"Which convention was a bigger shitshow" "Hillary is a Woman" Was this on purpose or some kind of joke that's going over my head? I'm not a Hillary fan but it has literally nothing to do with her having a vagina.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50797747]you're using his rhetoric and are focusing in more on the entertainment value of the candidates rather than what they actually discuss. trump could be talking about actively encouraging violence against muslims and still be praised for his "high energy"[/QUOTE] We're discussing the results from the debates listed in the article. People watch speeches for the delivery, not the content. Clinton's speech was made publicly available online before she gave it, and I believe Trump's was as well. People interested in the content wouldn't need to bother watching the speech in person. Trump is more entertaining to watch and listen when he gives a speech than Clinton, so I believe that's why more people tuned in to his speech.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50797769]She hinted there would be a nuclear holocaust if they didn't vote for her what the hell are you talking about[/QUOTE] Yeah, she said that because giving Trump the launch codes is a global disaster waiting to happen. You really think the guy that sues people over [B]literally the smallest possible infractions[/B] is going to handle launch codes and the world at large very well? of course you do but that doesn't mean it's actually reflected by reality

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50797769]She hinted there would be a nuclear holocaust if they didn't vote for her did you not watch her speech at all what the fuck[/QUOTE] She said it wasn't a good idea to give the nuclear codes to a man so thin-skinned and so poor of temperament that he would insult people on Twitter at the slightest provocation. Sounds about right. I agree.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50797747]you're using his rhetoric and are focusing in more on the entertainment value of the candidates rather than what they actually discuss. trump could be talking about actively encouraging violence against muslims and still be praised for his "high energy"[/QUOTE] "could be" hahah

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797777]We're discussing the results from the debates listed in the article. People watch speeches for the delivery, not the content. Clinton's speech was made publicly available online before she gave it, and I believe Trump's was as well. People interested in the content wouldn't need to bother watching the speech in person. Trump is more entertaining to watch and listen when he gives a speech than Clinton, so I believe that's why more people tuned in to his speech.[/QUOTE] He's also more insane and generates attention because he keeps talking about wanting to bring back torture and calls PoWs cowards. Clinton by contrast doesn't say anything as outrageous as he does. But his speeches are empty and shallow. He brings nothing to the table to fix the country.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;50797775]"Which convention was a bigger shitshow" "Hillary is a Woman" Was this on purpose or some kind of joke that's going over my head? I'm not a Hillary fan but it has literally nothing to do with her having a vagina.[/QUOTE] Did you not watch the DNC where almost every single speaker said "Lets elect the first woman president" or "Lets break a glass ceiling" like your gender is supposed to matter in a presidential election Its 2016, none of that is supposed to matter. An equal playing field means you stop looking at the petty bs like the gender and sexuality of the candidates and focus on the issues in the election instead

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50797798]I'm sure Trump would wipe humanity because people made fun of his hands[/QUOTE] He's tried to sue people into poverty for making fun of him before. [B]Do you really think he's above being the pettiest man on earth when he's openly claimed to be the humblest man alive? DO you understand the inherit impossibility in rationally trusting a man like that?[/B]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797585]Ignoring the content of each candidates speeches, I think Trump does a much better job of captivating his audience in his speeches. He's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B] even when he uses teleprompters. I don't think Clinton paces herself in an interesting way.[/QUOTE] know who else had high energy while speaking? [I]yeah.....[/I]

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50797825]I don't trust him as you think I do, however I absolutely despise Hillary specially after everything has been revealed and I didn't think she could do a proper job as POTUS with her record in office even if she was able to cover how corrupt she is[/QUOTE] Where as Trump just flaunts his corruption, his desire to be corrupt, his desire to harm other people, his desire for other people to suffer, his desire to be the richest and the the biggest bully on the playing field? He freely, wantonly expresses these things, and they're his honest to god opinions. This is who the man is. He's a fucking self aggrandizing demagogue who literally says anything he can to get attention. That's who he is, and you'd rather have that human fecal matter leading the country than someone who's just a shitty politician but doesn't have aspirations of dictatorship? Trump has aspired to be a dictator. Look at how he runs his companies, openly declaring himself the "Dictator", and he's said that's what he plans to bring to office, and you fucking trust this man even one iota? I can't understand that.

Watched a video with Trump. Said he wants to "really hit" people who criticized him at the DNC (Bloomberg in particular, I think). Trump is such a thin-skinned bastard, its not even funny. ALSO, Billymays, you sound like a fucking cultust, man. Talk like you can create own thoughts for once in a while.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50797757]The fact people still vote based on how entertaining a candidate is and try to argue in favor of it is pathetic.[/QUOTE]While I agree it's a bad idea to base a vote on that ultimately both candidates are complete assclowns. Without the third party option I'd vote based on who would be more entertaining because we are fucked either way. 100% fucked. Even as a proud Johnson supporter I recognize he probably won't win and we'll still be fucked. [QUOTE=hippowombat;50797775]"Which convention was a bigger shitshow" "Hillary is a Woman" Was this on purpose or some kind of joke that's going over my head? I'm not a Hillary fan but it has literally nothing to do with her having a vagina.[/QUOTE]Did you even watch the DNC? Fucking nonstop glass ceiling, "this is historic," woman/girl power, "I'm with her!" vagina nonsense, at least the "radical Islamic terrorism/extremism" catchphrase has at least a little bit importance. I thought it was stupid. Voting for Hillary to "make history" is like voting for Donald Trump because "he's funny" because both viewpoints are actually terrible reasons to vote for people. I mean sure if it's that goddamn important to you to have a vagina in office ~in 2016~ then sure, do whatever the hell you want, but in any other election I think it would bother the shit out of me. This time I just find it annoying and depressing that the average voter is basically a ferret and will chase after the first shiny thing they see.

Trump has openly encouraged his voters to attack other people, saying he'd cover their fucking legal fees. This is a man who has encourage group violence in the citizenry that he wants to elect him. Why the fuck do you want him to lead your nation? Do you want America to break apart? He'll cause divides like never before, physical riots will happen and he'll [B]encourage them[/B] like he already has. Fuck I can't even start to wrap my head around how much you Trumpets must HATE America.

[QUOTE=davethestoner;50797520]Trump is the first candidate to get a boost from both conventions, the DNC really fucked up.[/QUOTE] The entire convention was basically advertising for Trump. When they weren't talking about history or attempting to placate Sanders supporters, it was all just a huge Donald Trump moan-fest.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50797769]She hinted there would be a nuclear holocaust if they didn't vote for her did you not watch her speech at all what the fuck[/QUOTE] Which was nothing compared to Trumps "ISIS will butcher us in the streets" speech. I actually like how Republicans (not necessarily Trump) tend to push the importance of recognizing Islamist terrorism over those on the left who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and even I was rolling my eyes at parts because it was so absurdly dramatic and tried to paint Donald Trump of all people as the savior of America. Clinton's speech was more measured, not as exciting, but decent. She has the charisma of a dry sponge but good speech writers.

Man, I'll never get people who think Trump is better than Hilary- are they both bad? Yeah. Can I blame you for not wanting to vote this term? Not really. But for anyone to honestly say they like/trust Trump more than Hilary is beyond my level of understanding. Anyway, not surprised Trump was viewed more: people love to hear that man talk, even if it is to laugh at him. Can't wait to see when the debates hit, Hilary is gonna wipe the floor with him then.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50797847]Where as Trump just flaunts his corruption, his desire to be corrupt, his desire to harm other people, his desire for other people to suffer, his desire to be the richest and the the biggest bully on the playing field? He freely, wantonly expresses these things, and they're his honest to god opinions. This is who the man is. He's a fucking self aggrandizing demagogue who literally says anything he can to get attention. That's who he is, and you'd rather have that human fecal matter leading the country than someone who's just a shitty politician but doesn't have aspirations of dictatorship? Trump has aspired to be a dictator. Look at how he runs his companies, openly declaring himself the "Dictator", and he's said that's what he plans to bring to office, and you fucking trust this man even one iota? I can't understand that.[/QUOTE] A. When has he flaunted his corruption? B. When has he said he wants to bring dictatorship into office?