Durham, N.H., MSNBC Democratic debate (February 4, 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 fifth Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC on February 4, 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 fifth Democratic debate—which took place February 4, 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. This debate was part of four additional debates added to the original six-debate schedule after negotiations between the candidates, and have been sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.[1].
Basic Information
Date: February 4, 2016
Time: 9:00 pm EDT
Location: Durham, New Hampshire
Venue: University of New Hampshire
Sponsors: MSNBC
Moderators: Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow
Participants
|
|
Ballotpedia's Insiders Poll
Fighting Hillary on display in Democratic debate
February 5, 2016
By James A. Barnes
Trailing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest New Hampshire pre-primary polls by wide margins, Hillary Clinton fought tenaciously to maintain her claim on the Democratic presidential nomination in the only debate between the two contenders before Granite State voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
And in a survey of more than 100 Democratic and Republican Party political insiders, more than three-out-of-five Democrats said she was the "biggest winner" of the Democratic debate hosted by NBC News in Durham. While moments in the debate were bracing as both candidates fired off sharp salvoes, it’s unclear whether this face-off will turn the tide for Clinton in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
Among the 63 Democratic Insiders—party strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists and allied interest group operatives—who responded to the survey, Clinton’s reputation as formidable debater was reaffirmed. Many of those who thought she won the encounter offered reasons related to one of her principle calling cards in the Democratic race—her experience relative to Sanders’.
“[Former] Secretary [of State] Clinton continues to demonstrate a breadth and depth of understanding of the extraordinary range of challenges a president faces that Sen. Sanders—for all his sincere passion—lacks,” said one Democratic Insider. “She is the only one ready to be President,” said another. “Bernie a great guy; so is my next door neighbor.”
But the debate also showed how tenacious she is, as when she accused Sanders and his campaign of an “artful smear” for implying that the huge speaking fees she’s earned from Wall Street and firms and other groups could influence her positions and outlook. “I think her opening about his criticism of her bordering on questioning her integrity threw him off for the opening minutes,” observed a Democratic influential. “That and the contrast on foreign policy made it her night.” Echoed another, “She survived on Wall Street and crushed him on national security.” And a third maintained, “HRC was passionate but in control: Impressive.” This survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candor from the Insiders.
Almost one-in-five Democratic Insiders thought Sanders carried the night, in large part because many the debate’s topics related to a central theme of his campaign, that the party should promote and unabashedly liberal agenda and banish undue corporate influence from its ranks. “It’s the oldest rule of strategy—military or political—the side that controls the ground usually wins the battle,” declared one Democratic insider who thought Sanders prevailed in the debate. “All the fireworks were on his definitional turf: Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, speaking fees, what a true progressive is. No change in New Hampshire and Bernie will gain nationally.” Another echoed, “It was on his turf almost all night.” And third judged, “Sanders either emerged with a draw or an advantage on every segment except foreign affairs, where he was awful, and Clinton is excellent. Luckily for Sanders, relatively few Democratic voters prioritize foreign policy these days.”
And some of Sanders’ fans in the Durham debate also felt that Clinton’s aggressive-at-times demeanor was not flattering. “She is too shrill, needs more human moments,” averred one Democratic Insider. “Bernie is classy and grassroots at same time.” Another warned, “Hillary is too defensive and not likeable. Bernie is more progressive and much less establishment. Bernie wins.”
Among those Democratic Insiders who thought the debate was draw, the reviews for the show itself were mixed. “Most substantive debate so far. Both are so much better than any of the R’s,” declared one Democrat. Another said, “Nothing gained, nothing lost although [moderators Chuck] Todd and [Rachel] Maddow could have asked better questions to avoid the food fight.”
Republican Insiders (41 participated in the survey) had a different take on the Democratic face-off in Durham—roughly half awarded the debate to Sanders—but they offered critiques of the two contenders similar to those of the Democratic Insiders.
“Every time Sanders stands next to Clinton as an equal while tainting her with Wall Street silver, he appears reasonable and genuine,” said one Republican Insider who thought the Vermonter won the debate. “Wall Street is Clinton’s albatross,” maintained another.
Favoring Clinton in the debate, one GOP Insiders described her as “aggressive, confident and strong. Bernie wasn’t bad but just out-classed.” Another wondered why the Democratic Party sanctioned relatively few debates in the first place, “She’s good at this, why are they hiding her?” And a third said, “There was only one potential Commander-In-Chief on the stage; it was Hillary Clinton.”
Style also mattered to Republicans in judging the debate. “I couldn't disagree with him more at a policy level and as a result could never vote for him, but he focuses on what he believes in and doesn’t take the cheap shot,” said one Republican Insider of Sanders. “Hard not to like him.” Asked another, “What happened to Hillary being above it all? Very nasty night.”
The Republican White House hopefuls will make their case to New Hampshire voters in a debate on Saturday night: Expect similarly forceful blows to be exchanged.
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 February 4, 2016, in Durham, New Hampshire. The transcript prepared by The Washington Post was used to measure candidate participation and audience engagement.[2] 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 NBC Democratic debate in January 2016.
Segments
The fifth Democratic presidential debate featured 25 unique discussion segments covering progressive policy, national security and domestic issues. These discussion segments were measured by any shift in the theme of a discussion prompted by one of the moderators: Chuck Todd or Rachel Maddow.
- Opening statements
- Achievability of Bernie Sanders' policy proposals
- Progressivism
- Affiliation with the Democratic Party
- Establishment politics and endorsements
- Public campaign financing
- Banking policy and Hillary Clinton's relationship with Wall Street
- Regulation of corporations
- Ground strategy in Iraq and Syria
- Ground strategy in Afghanistan
- Bernie Sanders' foreign policy
- U.S.-Iran relations
- National security and North Korea, Iran and Russia
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Audit of the Iowa Democratic caucuses
- Bernie Sanders' electability
- Hillary Clinton's private email server
- Bernie Sanders' alleged endorsement misrepresentations
- Death penalty
- Water crisis in Flint, Mich.
- Trade agreements
- Prioritizing reforms
- Abolishing or creating new federal agencies
- Vice presidency
- Closing statements
"These candidates are both running for the Democratic nomination, but they are very different from each other when it comes to what matters most and how they would go about the job of being president. Our job tonight is to draw out those differences so you, the voters, can understand them and be fully informed," said Todd at the beginning of the debate.
To this end, the first four discussion segments following the opening statements related to each candidate's identity as a progressive. The moderators allowed several uninterrupted and lengthy exchanges between Clinton and Sanders on campaign finance reform, healthcare reform, student loan reform, and banking policy, in addition to the original topic of these discussion segments.
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 participated in 22 discussion segments and 24 discussion segments, respectively. The only discussion segment Sanders did not participate in covered whether there were any federal agencies that should be abolished or created.
Clinton did not participate in the discussion segments on public campaign financing and the regulation of corporations. She was invited to comment on the Sanders campaign's alleged endorsement misrepresentations but declined to do so.
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 preemptively joined a discussion segment once to criticize Sanders' foreign policy. Sanders, similarly, interjected himself only once into the discussion segment on U.S.-Iran relations.
Candidate participation by speaking order
This study also calculated the number of times a candidate spoke first or second during a discussion segment, whether prompted by a moderator with a question or invitation to rebut or by interjection.
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.
Clinton received the most instances of audience engagement during the discussion segments on whether she was part of the establishment or influenced by contributions from Wall Street. She was jeered once, however, when she accused Sanders of launching an "artful smear" campaign against her.
Sanders' instances of audience engagement were distributed equally throughout the debate.
Candidate speech analysis
|
|
Debate Commentary
The columns below were authored by guest columnists and members of Ballotpedia's senior writing staff. The opinions and views belong to the authors.
Sanders Held the High Ground in New Hampshire Debate
February 5, 2016
By Karlyn Bowman
Karlyn Bowman, a widely respected analyst of public opinion, is a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
Seeing last night’s spirited one-on-one Democratic debate in Durham, New Hampshire, reminds us how difficult it is to have coherent meaningful exchanges with six or seven candidates on the stage, as the Republicans have had to do.
This week Hillary Clinton postponed several high dollar fundraising events, which is one of many indications that Bernie Sanders’ attacks on her connections to Wall Street are having an impact on her campaign. Democrats have railed for years about the influence of money in politics. Clinton’s response that it was time “to end the very artful smear” campaign that she accused Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders of conducting, was the most riveting moment of the evening. But while it was a tough response, it probably doesn’t answer the concerns of many ordinary Democrats about the amounts Clinton has taken for speeches and her ties to big money. Sanders’ impressive fundraising from small donors gives him legitimacy on the issue, and he had the high ground last night.”
Polls show that the Democratic Party has clearly shifted to the left and that it may have shifted more than the GOP has shifted to the right. The January NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that about a third of Democrats want a president who is more liberal than President Obama. Democrats in Iowa also gave that response. Many in the party have abandoned the “L” word for “progressive,” and last night’s effort by both Sanders and Clinton to claim the mantle was fascinating. Sanders had the better claim last night. While Clinton looked confident last night, Sanders seemed much more authentic in this exchange and on others.”
But it isn’t clear that Sanders’ message will work beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. And it wasn’t obvious to me that many minds were changed by last night’s encounter.
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
| |||||||||||
