Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Charleston, South Carolina NBC News/CBC Democratic debate (January 17, 2016)
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This article focuses exclusively on the fourth Democratic debate hosted by NBC News on January 17, 2016. Click here to access Ballotpedia's full 2015-2016 presidential debate coverage. A schedule for Democratic primary debates can be found below.
Ballotpedia's coverage of the fourth Democratic debate—which took place January 17, 2016—includes an overview of the event's basic information, a debate preview, statistics and post-debate analysis. Polling data was used to determine which candidates participated in the debate. More information on participants and rules for inclusion can be found in the "Basic Information" tab below.
Basic Information
Date: January 17, 2016
Time: 9:00 pm EDT
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Venue:
Sponsors: NBC News, YouTube and Congressional Black Caucus
Moderators: Lester Holt and Andrea Mitchell
Participants
|
|
Ballotpedia's Insiders Poll
Democratic Insiders: Hillary dominates Charleston debate
January 18, 2016
By James A. Barnes
As she has done in the past, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated the January 17, 2016, Democratic presidential primary debate in Charleston, S.C., in the eyes of Democratic Party Insiders. In a Ballotpedia survey of nearly 100 Democratic and Republican Party political operatives, an overwhelming 78 percent of Democrats said she was the "biggest winner" of the debate. Not much has changed since the first Democratic debate on October 13, 2015, when a whopping 89 percent said she prevailed in that face-off.
Among the 73 Democratic Insiders—party strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists and allied interest group operatives—who responded to the survey, Clinton’s frontrunner status was reaffirmed. “Hillary looked confident and in charge,” said one Democratic Insider. “She held her own on economy and excelled on foreign policy,” said another. “Support for Obama’s Affordable Care Act wise and practical,” added a third. This survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candor from the Insiders in both parties.
For Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the 22 percent who thought he won the night was an improvement over that first debate when only nine percent thought he prevailed in that encounter. “Bernie took some hits on guns, but he hit back on health care and Wall Street very effectively,” said one Democratic Insider. “Sanders was better tonight than in past debates and looked good on the health care questions,” said one Democratic Insider. “Clinton is generally the better debater but Sanders appeals to the base more.”
“Bernie had a good night, but didn't change the race, hence it is a win for HRC,” reasoned one Democratic Insider, who said Clinton had won the debate. Echoed another Democratic Insider who felt Clinton had carried the evening, “Senator Sanders clearly won the debate, but Secretary Clinton came across as presidential, cool, a fighter, and ‘likable enough’ to be president.” While those two sentiments—praising Sander’s performance, but saying Clinton nonetheless carried the evening—appear contradictory, they are consistent with the logic that party elites often use when judging a presidential primary debate: If the frontrunner emerges from a candidate face-off without any serious wounds, that person is viewed as the “winner,” even if an opponent may have turned in a better performance, because the debate didn’t dramatically alter the dynamics of the nomination contest.
Party elites also often favor a more pragmatic approach to governing and that was a prism through which some Democratic Insiders view debates and this nominating contest. “Secretary Clinton offers thoughtful, practical means to address a range of the challenges facing the country, while Senator Sanders continues to offer pipe dreams that have no chance of becoming law,” maintained on Democratic Insider. Added another, “If you have been a Socialist or a Democrat in a largely Democratic state, you haven't learned how to be a consensus-builder. Hillary has.”
Only 25 GOP responded to the survey, and that is a small sample size upon which to draw too many conclusions. With that cautionary note, these Republican Insiders had a distinctly different view of the Democratic debate: 88 percent thought Sanders had won the debate. To some Republicans, Sanders wins by going toe-to-toe with a frontrunner like Clinton. “Bernie won merely because Hillary let him be a player in this race,” said one GOP Insider. “It was hers to win.” Another maintained, “Hillary went after him, legitimizing him across the country.” And a third wondered, “HRC is on the ropes, does Bernie have the stomach to go in for the knock out?”
Other Republicans gave Sanders credit for pushing the discussion in the Democratic contest. “The Vermonter is driving the train,” said one GOP Insider. “Bernie cleaned up nice and gave the Progressive zealots a night on the town,” added another.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley was seen as the “biggest loser” of the Charleston debate. That can be the Insiders’ verdict on a candidate who is trailing badly in the polls. Even among those who gave him favorable reviews, many Democratic Insiders nonetheless feel he just can’t catch on with enough Democratic primary voters to make an impact on the race. “O'Malley was the best I have seen him, but it's too little too late,” said one. “Martin O'Malley was very good tonight when given a chance to speak and it won't move him to five percent [in the polls],” echoed another.
“He should stop taking cheap shots,” said a Democratic Insider who thought Clinton had won the debate. “It's not like he has any chance at all.” And a Democratic influential who thought Sanders had won the debate chastised O’Malley, asking, “What is he doing? What is the purpose of his candidacy?”
Many Democratic Insiders who supported Clinton also felt that Sanders’s passion came across as angry. “Bernie was so angry; is that a Socialist thing?” chided one Democratic elite. “Sanders acts like the angry old man getting kids off his lawn,” jabbed another.
But Clinton had her style critics as well. “Hillary was yelling too much and overly aggressive reflecting her anxiety about Iowa and New Hampshire,” professed one Democratic Insider. “She needs to be more conversational and lower her decibel level.”
Watching the debate, it seemed at times as though the former Maryland governor who trails in the polls was almost an afterthought, so Ballotpedia asked the Democratic Insiders a simple question: “Do you think the debate was fair to Martin O’Malley?” By a solid 60 percent to 40 percent ratio, the Democratic Insiders said it was. However, by some key metrics in this Ballotpedia analysis, it wasn’t.
The amount of time that both Clinton and Sanders spoke was roughly double the amount of time that O’Malley spoke. Moreover, when the interactions between the moderators and the candidates were analyzed, both Clinton and Sanders were prompted by the moderators to speak on a topic more than twice as often as O’Malley was. More often than not, O’Malley was forced to interrupt to inject his views on debate topics, whereas Clinton and Sanders were almost always prompted by the moderators to share their views on a point of discussion.
For Democratic Insiders who said O’Malley had been treated fairly, the primary rationale they cited was his weakness in the polls—even if they differed on his exact standing. “He’s at 3 percent,” said one Democrat. “Just being on the stage was more than fair.” Another echoed, “He got more than fair treatment for someone at four percent in the polls; lucky to be up there.” And a third said, “He's at six percent in the polls—we need to hear from the real candidates.”
Some Democratic Insiders seemed to feel that O’Malley should just be grateful he got an invite to the prime time event. “They let him get on stage,” said one. “He had time to introduce himself and his vision,” said another. The lesson here may be: when you’re way behind in the polls, don’t expect a lot of sympathy from party professionals.
But a substantial minority, two out of five, disagreed and felt the debate was not fair to O’Malley. “I think if he were given equal time, he'd have much higher poll numbers,” said one Democratic Insider. “The media is trying to cut him out.” Another Democrat, concurred, saying, “Elite media behavior disgraceful.” And a third Democrat said, “Didn't give him an equal opportunity.”
All of those comments quoted above came from Democratic Insiders who said that Clinton had won the debate. However, among all 56 Democratic Insiders who said Clinton won the debate, 64 percent said the debate had been fair to O’Malley, and 36 percent said it wasn’t.
Insiders who said Sanders won the debate also had mixed views on whether O’Malley got a fair shake. “No, but he probably got more airtime proportionate to his poll numbers,” replied one Democrat. “Don't know why they did not give O'Malley equal time.” Said another Democrat. “With only 3 candidates, there was no need to do that.” And a third said, “O'Malley got fewer questions and almost no redirect answers,” noted another. “Of course he has had 6 months to improve his standing to the point where he would get those questions, so it is possible his own fault.”
Overall, among the 16 Democratic Insiders who said Sanders had won the debate, they split 50-50 on whether O’Malley got fair treatment in the debate. Perhaps this is empathy from those supporting another underdog.
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia and co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics. He has conducted elite opinion surveys for National Journal, CNN and the on-line polling firm, YouGov.
Statistics
This article analyzes the central themes of the Democratic presidential debate held on January 17, 2016, in Charleston, South Carolina. The transcript prepared by The Washington Post was used to measure candidate participation and audience engagement.[1] Footage from the debate was consulted where there were ambiguities in the text.
To compare the statistics of this debate to those of the previous Democratic debate, see the analysis of the ABC Democratic debate in December 2015.
Segments
The fourth Democratic presidential debate featured 20 unique discussion segments covering domestic, economic and foreign policy. These discussion segments were measured by any shift in the theme of a discussion prompted by one of the moderators: Lester Holt and Andrea Mitchell. The candidates also fielded several questions from YouTubers.
"Our purpose here tonight is to highlight and examine the differences among the three Democratic candidates," Holt said at the start of the debate.[2]
- Opening statements
- First 100 days
- Gun control and gun manufacturers' liability
- Police and criminal justice reform
- Heroin epidemic
- Healthcare
- Uniting the country and bipartisanship
- Youth vote
- Banking policy and campaign finance reform
- Funding federal programs
- Tax reform
- Climate change
- U.S.-Iran relations
- Ground strategy against ISIS
- Obama administration's foreign policy
- U.S.-Russia relations
- Privacy, technology and national security
- "Lone wolf" terrorism
- Bill Clinton
- Closing statements
Overall participation
Participation in a discussion segment was defined as a substantive comment related to the discussion segment's topic. Jokes and attempts to gain permission from a moderator to speak were not considered participatory speech acts. In some instances, candidates who participated in a discussion segment diverted from the prompted topic.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each participated in 17 discussion segments, while Martin O'Malley joined 14 discussion segments.
Candidate participation by behavior
Participation in the debate was also measured by the candidate's behavior at the start of each discussion segment. This study considered whether a candidate was initially prompted by a moderator to speak during a discussion segment or whether he or she independently engaged in the discussion segment by interrupting another candidate or calling on the moderator for permission to speak. A candidate's conduct after they joined a discussion segment was not considered.
Clinton and Sanders principally engaged in discussion segments after prompting from a moderator. In contrast, more than half of O'Malley's participation was the result of him interjecting himself into the debate.
Candidate participation by speaking time
According to speaking time estimates from Politico, Clinton and Sanders each spoke for approximately 28 minutes.[3] O'Malley spoke for only 14 minutes, registering half the amount of time Clinton and Sanders had.
Candidate participation by speaking rate
Each candidate's speaking rate was calculated by dividing the total word count of the candidate's speech during the debate with his speaking time as measured by Politico. O'Malley not only spoke significantly quicker than both Clinton and Sanders in this debate, but he also surpassed his own rate in the previous Democratic debate by 51 words per minute.
Candidate participation by segment vs. speaking time
The amount of time a candidate spoke did not necessarily align with the number of issues he or she covered during the debate. Clinton and Sanders were nearly equally matched in both speaking time and number of discussion segments.
Candidate participation by speaking order
This study also calculated the number of times a candidate spoke first, second, or third during a discussion segment, whether prompted by a moderator with a question or invitation to rebut or by interjection.
Clinton and Sanders were each asked to speak first nine times. O'Malley, however, was asked to speak first only twice. When moderator Lester Holt called on O'Malley to deliver his closing statement before the other two candidates, he acknowledged this disparity, saying, "Didn't see that coming, did you?"[1]
Audience engagement
Audience engagement was measured by noting applause, cheering, or laughter in The Washington Post's transcript. Footage from the debate was consulted when the text was ambiguous about to whom the audience was responding.
With 33 separate instances of applause and laughter, Sanders received the most vocal response from the crowd. Among all three candidates, the discussion segments on domestic issues, like police and criminal justice reform, healthcare, and banking policy, garnered the strongest live audience response.
Candidate speech analysis
|
|
|
Democratic Debate Schedule
Click the schedule to return back to the top of the page.
See also
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
Footnotes
