He started taking at like 1130 ET, was this a ploy by the DNC? Resolves YES if I think that probably Biden’s speaking time was pushed later by the DNC based on a desire for prime time viewers not to see him.
Reliable mainstream news sources will be especially convincing to me probably.
Making the market since I’ve seen murmurs from folks like Silver that this was intentional.
1,000People are also trading
Hmm, I came to a very different conclusion. I'm still well over 80% confident that the DNC intentionally did this. He began speaking at 11:30 ET (TV coverage ended just before his speech that night), whereas Kamala, for example, began speaking precisely on time, a full hour earlier at 10:30 ET, and the entirety of her speech was aired. Both were the final, keynote speeches of the day. It's pretty clear the party valued Kamala's speech starting exactly on time, and was perfectly happy to let Biden's speech stretch past TV coverage.
Resolving NO since I’m leaning towards them being bad at scheduling than intentionality. They canceled a number of prime time folks (or at least the singer), to try to get it all back on track.
Also, they had Barack begin after prime time the next day (was scheduled at 11 eastern, began a bit after), which seems to me to indicate the DNC doesn’t value prime time slots a ton? Sure, Biden began a good deal after that, but still Obama finished after Biden began
Barack spoke after prime time too, right? 8 something to 840 or so. What incentive would they have for that?
Honestly what is the alternative? That the speaking slots were chosen randomly? That Biden couldn't make a prime time slot because of a family dinner?
Somebody was intentionally making a schedule for DNC and they obviously were aware of when the prime time is and they decide that it would be better if somebody/something else had that slot.
Dunno, could just be running behind schedule. According to the DNC, the problem was excessive applause, which doesn’t seem super unlikely? Looks like there is some evidence they were off schedule, with the NYT reporting James Taylor’s song was canceled because the festivities were running late.
I could be giving them too much benefit of the doubt, but canceling events and speakers does make it seem unintentional
Are you deciding based on preponderance of evidence (>50%) or will you need to be reasonably confident?
Uh, I’ll go with probably happened, which if I had to ball park a percentage would be like 70%?