SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we've-got-virtually-a-year-of-this dept.
Have you ever felt the burning desire to be in the same room with Presidential candidates during a 2-3 hour long debate? Now you can be there virtually from the comfort of your own home!
CNN and NextVR will make history on October 13th by hosting the first-ever live stream of a news event in virtual reality, giving viewers a front-row seat to CNN's 2016 election debates.
The network is partnering with virtual reality technology platform NextVR to stream the CNN Democratic Presidential Debate live, in full 3D immersive virtual reality, from Las Vegas, NV.
The live stream follows CNN and NextVR's first virtual reality experience at the CNN Ronald Reagan Debate, where it quietly filmed the highest rated event in CNN history in virtual reality to make it available to users on demand. This experience is now available to users who have a Samsung GearVR virtual reality headset by visiting the NextVR portal in the Oculus Store. Once downloaded, the debate can be seen from the perspective of an audience member at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
The October 13th debate will feature 5 candidates, along with Vice President Biden should he choose to enter the race. You can discuss the debate on my journal.
[Ed's Comment: Discuss the technology in the comments below, but please leave the political discussion for Takyon's journal.]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:19PM
Confusingly ethanolfueled's political topic is arguably more interesting. More so than in some previous years its a very reactive field, for various sexism reasons the gender of the first declared veep candidate will determine the other veep candidate's gender, for example. Likewise if one side puts up a semi-outsider FIRST, then the other side can afford to toss up an outsider, sorta kinda. If I phrased it poorly what I'm getting at is more than usual this election is going to be about the parties responding to each other, not the aristocracy or the general public, so a thread talking -D and -R is "better" this time around than a specific thread only talking about the -D. -D as in Democrat, just to make it clear.
https://soylentnews.org/~Ethanol-fueled/journal/1518 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:17PM
Don't really see that as the theme this season. On the GOP side, being an established politician is pretty much a death sentence right now. The only possible exception being Cruz who, by virtue of being considered an outcast by pretty much every other elected official, is managing to run more as an outsider despite being a sitting member of the U.S. Senate.
The Democrat side is more conflicted since it basically has the worship of the State as it's central organizing principle yet their base too has the hankering for an outsider bug and the conflict between the two impulses is causing Sanders. Even though I think (or at least hope) they realize that in a general election Sanders is far more unelectable than Trump, certainly more unelectable than either Dukakis or Mondale.
I'm going to be watching the debate tonite, but not in VR. That is pointless. There are a lot of events suitable for testing out VR, a political debate is just about the least interesting one imaginable. Some politicians talking? How exciting.
However the more interesting thing than anything likely to be said will be the ratings when they are released. While beating the yuge numbers Trump has brought to the Republican debates is off the table, I do not rule out the Sanders effect getting numbers 50-75% the size of the CNN Republican debate. If that happens and is at the upper end of that range then Hillary is done.
More so than in some previous years its a very reactive field, for various sexism reasons the gender of the first declared veep candidate will determine the other veep candidate's gender, for example
Gotta give ya a WTF?? look on this one. If Hillary is the D choice at the top of the ticket then Carly will be the Veep choice on the R side because they really are that dumb. I am a Republican, I know how dumb our side can be. But there is zero chance of a female veep on the D side. If Hillary is tossed aside again the feminists will not be mollified by a token veep nomination who is not HIllary. No D would accept Hillary as their veep any more than Obama could be forced into it. A Clinton is simply far too dangerous to have that close. The only scenario that has even been floated is the Biden + Warren with Biden making a one term promise leaving Warren a clear path to hammering home a five term Democrat dynasty. But that is just fanboy yearning, not a very viable political plan. And Warren's gender isn't the central appeal of her candidacy like it is with Mrs. Clinton.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:52PM
Ah that was based on the polling observation that Any-R wins in November if they're up against Hillary so aside from some kind of viking funeral of pushing her off into the sunset to retire her for good and get her out of the way, there's no way she goes up as nominee. I agree she's not going to tolerate a vp spot.
The other observation is if the last one was about getting a black guy in office this one is about getting a woman and Hilary is un electable and none of the other female candidates stand a chance as nominee in the polls, HOWEVER theres binders full of women on both sides as veep possibilities.
I don't think Sanders really is all that un electable, polls show him more electable than Hillary, so I could see him and Warren. They might be the first -D I've ever voted for.
Meanwhile in Ethanol post I proposed a great female -R governor of OK running mate for Trump, former real estate / mgmt yet plenty of big gov experience... I could see it. The city slicker and the rural resident... it could work...
You know who's missing, both sides, this time around, is anyone with any foreign policy ideas or experience.
As a meta observation "supposedly it would be better not to mix tech and politics" but here we are, and I'm mystified how either The Debate or our little discussion here would benefit by wearing VR headsets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:40PM
You know who's missing, both sides, this time around, is anyone with any foreign policy ideas or experience.
I'm personally more concerned with domestic policy than foreign, but I believe one of the candidates was Secretary of State. That job may just involve a little bit of foreign policy experience...
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:58PM
political 'debates' don't happen in the US. not sure they ever did, but they certainly don't now.
100% waste of everyone's time.
no REAL important questions are allowed. this is all a 'polite' conversation where nothing real is introduced. nothing to shake up their true masters who are donating all the cash to this terrible waste of money called 'an election cycle'.
VR for this? oh come on! lipstick on a pig is more like it.
the 'candidates' will never be those that will do what is needed for the country. the 'candidates' are bought and sold by their masters and they will not talk about things that will displease their masters.
in the US, its all a farce. you guys DO know that, right? like wrestling, its fake. its not real and its certainly not honest.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:50PM
I look at it this way.
Think of the amount of time a candidate spends:
That tells you what kind of government we have.
My call is that it is a poorly governed Plutocracy tempered with some Democracy.