Connect with us

News

Trump-Biden debate draws smaller audience as voters tune out US election

Published

on

Trump-Biden debate draws smaller audience as voters tune out US election

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

Thursday night’s US presidential debate was watched by 48mn television viewers, a sharp drop from the numbers that tuned in to the clashes between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the 2020 campaign.

CNN, the Warner Bros Discovery-owned network which hosted the event, said just over 9mn viewers had watched on its own channels, narrowly ahead of Fox News and ABC News, with cable rival MSNBC drawing about 4mn viewers. Another 30mn people tuned in on CNN’s digital channels or YouTube, it added.

The combined television audiences were well below the totals for previous presidential debates, however, extending a pattern of US media outlets reporting less interest in their election coverage this year.

Advertisement

Trump and Biden drew 73mn viewers for their first debate in 2020, while Trump and Hillary Clinton pulled in an audience of 84mn for the opening showdown of their 2016 contest.

With full control over the style, content and format of the debate, CNN inserted rules that are atypical for US political events, such as foregoing a live audience and muting each candidate’s microphones unless it was their turn to speak.

Have your say

Joe Biden vs Donald Trump: tell us how the 2024 US election will affect you

The debate was also a stark departure in tone from last year’s CNN town hall event with Trump, when a studio audience filled with the former president’s supporters prompted comparisons with his raucous rallies. CNN’s own media commentator slammed the town hall as a “spectacle of lies”, and Chris Licht resigned as CNN’s chief executive just a few weeks later.

By comparison, Thursday’s night’s debate was restrained. With microphones muted, there were no shouting matches, and with no audience or press in the room, it was quiet. The moderators played a background role, leaving the debate largely a back-and-forth dialogue between Trump and Biden. 

Advertisement

However CNN was criticised for one significant choice: moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash largely avoided fact-checking the candidates in real time. The format seemed to favour Trump, who was allowed to make a series of unsubstantiated claims without being challenged during the 90-minute programme. 

The debate was a big test for CNN — the network that pioneered the dramatic, ultra-competitive cable news format in the US in the 1980s, but whose audiences have dwindled in recent years. It was easily the biggest moment yet for CNN chief executive Sir Mark Thompson, who took over as leader of the channel last year and has been tasked with turning around its business and restoring its brand.

CNN landed the sponsorship of the debate in May, beating out competitors including Fox News. The network seized on the moment, promoting the event heavily and forcing its rivals, who simultaneously broadcast the debate, to display CNN’s logo prominently on their screens.

The event was unique for a number of reasons. It was the first presidential debate in decades that was not organised by an independent commission, after Biden and Trump chose to bypass the tradition. It was also scheduled far earlier than usual in the election cycle. In previous years, the initial match-ups between presidential candidates took place in September or October. 

CNN has a fraught history with Trump, who frequently attacked the channel during his presidency. But on Friday morning, the Trump campaign blasted an email out to his supporters titled: “I love CNN . . . Because they gave me the opportunity to wipe the floor with Joe Biden.”

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending