5 votes

Stats: CNN Debate 1-26-2012

(Sorry for the delay, there were prior engagements.)

Some heavy baiting coupled with a fairly hands-off style from CNN's Wolf Blitzer resulted in several tussles between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunners. Mitt talking the most of all the candidates with 24:09 (mm:ss) and Rick Santorum & Newt following closely with 22:08 and 21:31 respectively. Ron Paul once again lagging the rest of the field with 13:57 of speaking time, good enough for 17% of the overall pie.

Total Talk
Romney - 24:09
Santorum - 22:08
Gingrich - 21:31
Ron Paul - 13:57
Total - 1:21:46

Romney - 29.53%
Santorum - 27.07%
Gingrich - 26.32%
Ron Paul - 17.07%
Total - 100.00%

Turns Talking
Gingrich - 31
Romney - 29
Santorum - 20
Ron Paul - 16
Total - 96

Full stats & commentary:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks for doing this! May I

Thanks for doing this!

May I suggest another stat?

Questions asked specifically to incite rebuttals/arguments/bickering.

These are designed to give Mitt and Newt more talk time. I stopped counting after Wolf asked two within the first segment.

I think that's a good idea

I guess the reason I've avoided things like that is because it seems more subjective than just a flat number. I think you're right though in that it deserves accountability, I'll see if I can come up with some "attack stats" for future debates. Maybe include "rebuttal opportunities denied", "inciting questions" and how many Rebuttals it resulted with. I'll chew on it! Thanks for the feedback. :)

Dr. Paul Cut Himself Off Several Times

So the times are not such an indictment as the turns talking.

They reward bad behavior: Attack and you get more turns.

They love conflict, not actual debating.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Thanks for this..why do these

Thanks for this..why do these hounds think they can pick our president? So unnerving..

It gets frustrating...

but I think with Wolf specifically that he was going for a highlight-worthy debate which is why we see so many prompted attacks. My personal feeling is Wolf is one of the more fair moderators, the Fox News debate was utterly disgusting in not just how much time they gave Dr Paul, but in *which* questions they gave him and how they set him up as "left of Obama" and focused on foreign policy, etc etc. I was livid after looking at the numbers.

To be clear, Wolf certainly could've done far better by focusing on policy issues instead of campaign trail trash talk, but even with that he did a comparatively decent job overall.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, I agree.