Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Highlights iOS and tvOS Apps for Watching U.S. Presidential Debate

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
66,321
35,371



Apple recently updated the iOS and tvOS App Stores with a collection of apps that will be able to live stream tonight's first presidential debate, airing at 9PM eastern at Hofstra University. The debate between presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump marks the beginning of the seven week final stretch between the first debate and election day on November 8. There will be three presidential debates in total, and one vice presidential debate.

On both App Stores, Apple's "Watch the Debate Live" section contains a few of the same apps. For iOS, top billing goes to major social networks Twitter and Facebook, and then news outlets CBS News and ABC News. Twitter recently launched a live streaming tvOS app, so it's also first on the Apple TV app store, followed by CBS News, ABC News, Washington Post Video, Reuters TV, and more.

presidential-debate-app-store-800x347.jpg
Watch the Debate Live on iOS:

[*]Twitter
[*]Facebook
[*]CBS News
[*]ABC News
[*]The Washington Post
[*]Reuters TV
[*]NBC News
[*]CNN
[*]Fox News
[*]YouTube
[*]Univision NOW
[*]MSNBC

Watch the Debate Live on tvOS:

[*]Twitter
[*]CBS News
[*]ABC News
[*]Washington Post Video
[*]Reuters TV
[*]NBC News
[*]Bloomberg TV
[*]CNNgo
[*]Fox News
[*]YouTube For those with a cable subscription, Wired reported that all three upcoming presidential debates will be broadcast simultaneously across most major networks and cable channels: ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, Univision, and C-SPAN.

Earlier in the month, the Commission on Presidential Debates confirmed that both Facebook and Snapchat will be covering each debate to provide content for users of both social networks. Users can comment and ask questions on Facebook Live videos, and follow along to Snapchat's Live Stories "from the different perspectives of students from the debate host universities, volunteers, media and many others."

Although not included in Apple's collection of apps, other streamable services will support debate coverage, including: BuzzFeed News, Hulu, PBS, Yahoo, and more.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Highlights iOS and tvOS Apps for Watching U.S. Presidential Debate
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/26/ios-tvos-presidential-debate/
No thanks. Apple has proven its bias against other candidates in the past. I'd rather find a source ran by grown-ups that may or may not like all candidates but won't actively run a bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: miniyou64
The candidate I'm voting for won't be present, so I see no point in watching.

#LetGaryDebate

Just to respond to anyone who wants to yell at me about voting third party in advance:

#1 - It is possible for third party candidates to win, as long as they run between the major parties. Ross Perot handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton because he was running on the right. He stole votes exclusively from Bush Senior. Ralph Nader similarly handed the 2000 election to Bush Junior because he was running on the left, exclusively stealing votes from Al Gore.

Gary Johnson is running down the middle, stealing votes equally from both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He easily leads with independent voters (AKA, swing voters, the people who decide elections), voters under the age of 30, and veterans.

If you want to vote for him, but are afraid you'd be handing the election to <insert name of candidate you hate most>, go to http://balancedrebellion.com/ - They'll match you up with someone who hates <your lesser of two evils> from the same state you live in. Both of you then pledge to vote for the candidate you most like, knowing that you haven't handed the election to anyone, because you nullified a vote for that person.

#2 - Gary Johnson doesn't have to sweep the map. If he wins a single state, it becomes difficult for either of the other candidate to reach 270 electoral votes. In that case, Congress determines who wins the election. Republicans control both houses by a small majority, but many have already said they back Johnson, not Trump. Thus the anti-Trump Republicans can cooperate with Democrats (who unanimously despise Trump) to hand the presidency to Johnson.

#3 - The presidential debates are controlled by a board of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. They set arbitrary rules for what it takes to be in the debates. In 1992, they said you only needed to have 5% support in national polls to be in the debate. Ross Perot had 6% so qualified. By the time of the election, he won with 19%, largely because the extra exposure from the debates gave him a huge boost in those final 2 months.

This year, Johnson has 13% support before the debates. So the threshold was arbitrarily moved up to 15% to exclude him. Had he been in the debates and received a boost similar to Perot's, it's reasonable to think his support would have gone to between 26% and 40%, potentially giving him the plurality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zsbradt, extricated, bwillwall and 7 others
thermodynamic said:
No thanks. Apple has proven its bias against other candidates in the past. I'd rather find a source ran by grown-ups that may or may not like all candidates but won't actively run a bias.
Click to expand...

NPR for you it is then. They actively try to be so unbiased that they are bland.

Bias sells it seems
 
Do these debates actually influence anyone to change their mind?
Will there be a single Trump supporter watching the debate, who suddenly thinks "actually, Trump is an idiot.. I had no idea.. I'd better vote for Hillary"??
Or vice versa?
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
The candidate I'm voting for won't be present, so I see no point in watching.

#LetGaryDebate

Just to respond to anyone who wants to yell at me about voting third party in advance:

#1 - It is possible for third party candidates to win, as long as they run between the major parties. Ross Perot handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton because he was running on the right. He stole votes exclusively from Bush Senior. Ralph Nader similarly handed the 2000 election to Bush Junior because he was running on the left, exclusively stealing votes from Al Gore.

Gary Johnson is running down the middle, stealing votes equally from both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He easily leads with independent voters (AKA, swing voters, the people who decide elections), voters under the age of 30, and veterans.

If you want to vote for him, but are afraid you'd be handing the election to <insert name of candidate you hate most>, go to http://balancedrebellion.com/ - They'll match you up with someone who hates <your lesser of two evils> from the same state you live in. Both of you then pledge to vote for the candidate you most like, knowing that you haven't handed the election to anyone, because you nullified a vote for that person.

#2 - Gary Johnson doesn't have to sweep the map. If he wins a single state, it becomes difficult for either of the other candidate to reach 270 electoral votes. In that case, Congress determines who wins the election. Republicans control both houses by a small majority, but many have already said they back Johnson, not Trump. Thus the anti-Trump Republicans can cooperate with Democrats (who unanimously despise Trump) to hand the presidency to Johnson.

#3 - The presidential debates are controlled by a board of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. They set arbitrary rules for what it takes to be in the debates. In 1992, they said you only needed to have 5% support in national polls to be in the debate. Ross Perot had 6% so qualified. By the time of the election, he won with 19%, largely because the extra exposure from the debates gave him a huge boost in those final 2 months.

This year, Johnson has 13% support before the debates. So the threshold was arbitrarily moved up to 15% to exclude him. Had he been in the debates and received a boost similar to Perot's, it's reasonable to think his support would have gone to between 26% and 40%, potentially giving him the plurality.
Click to expand...
As much as I love your rhetoric, Gary Johnson just hasn't garnered enough popularity nationwide to appeal to the masses. I wish that wasn't the case but it is wishful thinking at this point. Better for us to realize our collective errors and focus on the next election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nagromme and millerlite
tennisproha said:
As much as I love your rhetoric, Gary Johnson just hasn't garnered enough popularity nationwide to appeal to the masses. I wish that wasn't the case but it is wishful thinking at this point. Better for us to realize our collective errors and focus on the next election.
Click to expand...

That's why it's so disappointing to hear he wasn't allowed in the first debate. That's the platform where he would have garnered a large popularity (or at least more than he currently has). I think a lot of people agree with most of his views and plans for the country, they just don't know that they do (I didn't until 4 months ago). So they decide to vote the lesser of two evils or don't vote at all.

The debate commission is a hinderance to real democracy :(. But maybe he can get in the second debate. Either way, he's got my vote this election and this was actually the first time I donated to a political campaign.
 
At least this is better than Apple "News" highlighting opinion pieces on one of the candidates as if they were actually news.

Disclaimer: I dislike them both but Apple "News" is hardly objective or fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveW928
BMcCoy said:
Do these debates actually influence anyone to change their mind?
Will there be a single Trump supporter watching the debate, who suddenly thinks "actually, Trump is an idiot.. I had no idea.. I'd better vote for Hillary"??
Or vice versa?
Click to expand...

By definition couldn't it only affect the undecided? I think it is estimated that something like 75-80% of America will be watching, and only 8% of those watching are still undecided.

And the contrary to your statement would be that people finally get to hear Hillary speak and realize she actually IS a criminal and not trustworthy. She doesn't typically speak in public so it is not out of the question. Not saying Trump was the best option from the GOP but I do think Hillary is unfit to be President. Her record as Secretary of State proves this, and she will try to cover it up tonight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deadman64
I'm glad to see there are options for people who don't have to verify a network provider before watching a given stream (i.e. YouTube). Not that I care about either of the major party candidates.
Given his lack of broad coverage, the number of comments I see from Johnson supporters (here, on Facebook, and elsewhere) tell me he should be in the debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back