<p>
</p>
<p>that was ridiculously arrogant</p>
<p>and i bet joe sixpack would know cause it was some forum where the candidates fielded questions from a pastor at some mega-church. It also aired on MSNBC and is online in its entirety… not sure what your definition of following “closely” is here but it’s clearly quite loose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you seriously think something on MSNBC – by far the least watched of the cable news stations – that goes head-to-head against the Olympics could draw even a million viewers? Get real.</p>
<p>i failed to mention that it also aired on fox and cnn…since you know, it was a big deal and anyone following politics “closely” would’ve cared about what the candidates had to say in such a forum. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in total, ~ 5.5 million people watched the forum: [Fox</a> News Tabulates Viewers With Saddleback Forum - 8/19/2008 3:23:00 PM - Multichannel News](<a href=“http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6588894.html]Fox”>http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6588894.html)</p>
<p>anything else you want to add?</p>
<p>^c2002, can’t you choose a different thread to vent frustrations, a chance thread? a fu engineering vs rice engineering thread? ;). There isn’t a single person on campus who agrees with you. every single person i’ve spoken to, even those apathetic to politics are surprised. Most were shocked. The website to register for the event has been at capacity the whole day. Everyone’s been scrambling for a 1/50 - 1/100 chance at getting a seat. It’ll be on the news, it might even be on international news, like Ahmadinejad was. Once in a while you need to accept that what is popular sometimes can be right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems like a fair and true statement to me. However, saying that “[a]ny time the 2 major party candidates are on stage together, it’s going to be a closely watched event” is not. Note the different uses of closely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, you just said it was on MSNBC. The total number of people watching prime-time cable news networks (MSNBC + FNC + CNN) on any generic night of O’Reilly / King / Cooper / etc. is about 3.5 to 4.5 million. 5.5 million people watching this forum essentially suggests that the forum’s viewership didn’t extend too far beyond the usual cable-news viewing crowd.</p>
<p>Joe Sixpack didn’t watch this forum. He was likely one of the 40 million people watching the Olympics on the night when Michael Phelps won his 8th gold medal.</p>
<p>confidentialcoll, poor use of rhetorical devices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Poor ad homenim. But I’ll give you a pass.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence to support hyperbole and exaggeration.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not sure how “surprised” and “shocked” indicate disagreement with me. (I’m surprised that Columbia is hosting this, since these things are usually not at top schools.) Do you contend that not a single person on campus agrees with me that Columbia’s hosting of this forum is not “momentous”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember that everyone scrambled to get a seat when Al Gore came in 2000 to give a stump speech. Candidates give 2-3 or more stump speeches a day all over the country. Extreme demand by Columbia students to attend a political speech/forum doesn’t make it momentous or historic. It just reflects that a good number of Columbia students are very interested/active/excited about politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The forum get 30 seconds on the news, as I said. If something notable/shocking is said by either candidate, the quote will get more play – but the attention will be on the quote and not the forum itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s right and wrong have to do with anything? I’m not coming close to saying that Columbia shouldn’t be hosting this event. It should. Of course LeeBo would be crazy to tell the forum organizers to blow off and that his school isn’t interested in hosting it. My commentary is on the posters here who are making this event into more than it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say anything about “importance”, merely that the election is being more closely followed. I think voter registration is a fair judge of this and rates this year have been double what they have since 1990 with a majority being before the primaries. If you can think of a better measure of the general interest in the election, I’m willing to hear it but I’m fairly confident in my metric.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we already agreed it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say momentous. However, please get off your high horse. Just because you “follow politics pretty closely” does not give you any real judgment of the event. You, just like every other person on this forum, are allowed your opinion but please stop trying to argue a point no one really agrees with you on. Most of us want to be excited and proud of our alma mater.</p>
<p>You said your share; let it go. You’re not going to convert anyone to your point of view so stop being the lone sentry in trying to stop the use of hyperbole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s conclusory – and dubious – for you to say that the voter registration / turnout numbers demonstrate how closely people are following an election. Such numbers, on their face, indicate that more people want to exercise their right to vote. They don’t on their face indicate that mobs of first-time voters are hooked to the TV all night watching election coverage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say it does. I said that my following politics pretty closely is a benchmark from which I can assess whether the average American who doesn’t follow politics would have heard about a political event. Like, I don’t really understand String Theory too well, so there’s no way the average American has a clue about String Theory.</p>
<p>Denz, I want you to name your first born child after me.</p>
<p>I’m old enough to remember the Kennedy/Nixon election, and I recall the excitement generated across this country when Johnson announced he would not run. If, by “most watched,” the poster means generating the most interest, then I would certainly agree. It may even be the most historic, though that is not yet known, of course. And why would the fact that other colleges that are less prestigious in some people’s eyes host presidential debates mean that this event is any less important or that the students at CU are any less fortunate? I’m thrilled that my daughter might have a chance to attend.</p>
<p>K-money - let’s see if i win the lottery first.</p>
<p>If I win and the ticket is transferable, I’m giving it Denzera.</p>
<p>Working at my internship during the event.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sort of fun exercise is all anecdotal (the fact remains that voter registration numbers don’t measure “most watched” / “most interest,” and Skraylor has no support for his assertions), but I discussed this with my parents not too long ago and they felt like Kennedy/Nixon generated way more interest. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either way, it’s going to be historic from a racial / gender perspective. However, we won’t know for many years whether the shape of the country will be dramatically altered by the results of this election. Perhaps the 1860 or 1864 elections were the most historic??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve missed my point. The fact that unprestigious colleges host presidential debates / forums / stump speeches means that it’s not a sign of greatness for a school to be able to host such an event. Columbia having its students selected for Rhodes Scholarships or having its faculty elected into a National Academy are indicia of Columbia’s prowess. I haven’t commented on this prestige issue in terms of the event’s importance or whether CU students are fortunate to be able to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>how did you enter the lottery if you are no longer a student?</p>
<p>C02: let it go!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given the demographics of newly registered voters (mostly americans under 25) this election cycle, I still believe my assertion is correct. Unfortunately, this is really impossible to prove since it’s quite obvious based on newspaper/magazine subscriptions and TV news viewership that people are getting their information from sources we cant really measure. Yes maybe only 5.5mil people watched saddleback on MSNBC but you can’t count the number of people who decided to watch replays or read overviews on the internet (granted you could go slogging through pageview numbers but that’s an inaccurate measure at best, wrong at worst).</p>
<p>Skraylor, you can’t win an argument. Need I remind you all?</p>
<p><a href=“http://yvonnet.org/fun/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg[/url]”>http://yvonnet.org/fun/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg</a></p>
<p>Even now, I’m sure C02 will be unable to resist coming in and replying with yet more banter that nobody wants to hear. Perhaps it’s nice to hear himself talk (type?). But I think the rest of us have moved on. Please don’t feed the ■■■■■.</p>
<p>That’s great. I’d never seen that before. Very funny.</p>
<p>I don’t think I need to respond to that last post – we’ve fleshed that part out enough. I’m moving on unless someone has something new/different to discuss.</p>
<p>anyone hear anything about the lottery that was supposed to take place today?</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t think they’ve actually decided yet. At least, none of my friends have jizzed on my facebook bragging about how they won the lottery.</p>
<p>The Bwog said that they did the lottery but aren’t announcing the victors until tomorrow. Something about the Secret Service running checks or something.</p>
![http://yvonnet.org/fun/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg[/url]](http://yvonnet.org/fun/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
