Democratic Debates

[Ratt Mhule]

Bernie has a large backing of loyal voters. He gained votes during his Fox News Town Hall. He killed it that night. Tonight he did not gain many or any votes from people seeing him for the first time. He will still be in top 3 based on his base. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Frott Scost said:

Bernie has a large backing of loyal voters. He gained votes during his Fox News Town Hall. He killed it that night. Tonight he did not gain many or any votes from people seeing him for the first time. He will still be in top 3 based on his base. 

Agreed...he is horrible on TV and I think everyone knows that but I think he is better in person.  

[JJ Husker]

Did Joe Biden have a debilitating stroke? He's an idiot. I liked him better when he was crazy uncle Joe many years ago. Now he seems to belong in an old folks home, babbling to himself in a corner.

 

Bernie may have some good and out of the box ideas but I just don't see him being able to work with others or build any consensus or to be taken completely seriously. May have to start looking into that ex-patriot Mexican beach retirement plan. We're so f#cked.

[Ratt Mhule]

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Did Joe Biden have a debilitating stroke? He's an idiot. I liked him better when he was crazy uncle Joe many years ago. Now he seems to belong in an old folks home, babbling to himself in a corner.

 

Bernie may have some good and out of the box ideas but I just don't see him being able to work with others or build any consensus or to be taken completely seriously. May have to start looking into that ex-patriot Mexican beach retirement plan. We're so f#cked.

 

Dude relax this is a democratic primary. The majority of people watching are dem voters who will vote for any dem candidate put forth. Its the first debate which is a f#&%ing mess having 10 people try and talk over each other. Im sure the debates will be less of a circus as the field thins to the front runners. And when the general debates start it will be a different story. Trump will be exposed as a fraud. 

[DrunkOffPunch]

28 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Yang needed to talk more. 

This was the first debate I think I’ve ever watched but I missed the first 30 minutes. Are you supposed to just step in or what? It seemed like to me they only really asked questions to half the candidates and the rest only got a couple. I saw they had their hands up at times do they get called on to jump in or do you just start talking and force your way in?

[Ratt Mhule]

4 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

This was the first debate I think I’ve ever watched but I missed the first 30 minutes. Are you supposed to just step in or what? It seemed like to me they only really asked questions to half the candidates and the rest only got a couple. I saw they had their hands up at times do they get called on to jump in or do you just start talking and force your way in?

 

The ones polling the best get the most talk time. So if you are not one of those people, yes, you need to step in, butt in, interrrupt to get your ideas across. Which is why these debates are a circus because you have people polling at 0% standing on stage? Why?

[Danny Bateman]

10 person debates are a horrible idea. Yang didn't butt in, was polite, waited his turn and thus had a very poor performance, IMO. I know a lot of people thought he was poised for a big step forward with a good performance, but he just didn't get enough time.

 

Biden looked old at times. Seemed like he was a bit rusty and had a hard time getting out his arguments articulately. Very clearly was not prepared for several attacks against him. I thought other times he did well.

 

Bernie was meh. Definitely stayed pretty close to his typical stump speech. The "You mischaracterized my position - It was a quote!" interaction was kind of funny.

 

Harris and Buttigieg did the best. Harris absolutely crushed Biden midway through on segregationalists/busing. Buttigieg owned the recent police shooting in South Bend. The buck stopped at the top, with him - a refreshing distinction from Trump, who never accepts responsibility for anything. Both of them seemed like actual human beings and I think that's invaluable in connecting with voters and earning their support.

 

Everyone else was pretty meh. Williamson was kind of a kook but actually raised some interesting points, IMO. Swalwell's "Break up with Russia and makeup with NATO" was super cringey.

[DrunkOffPunch]

6 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

The ones polling the best get the most talk time. So if you are not one of those people, yes, you need to step in, butt in, interrrupt to get your ideas across. Which is why these debates are a circus because you have people polling at 0% standing on stage? Why?

Thanks. Why not give a more equal talk time across the candidates? Aren’t Biden and Sanders pretty known quantities already? I guess what’s the benefit of preferential treatment to candidates people already know a lot about? I agree with others though 10 is way too many people though.

[JJ Husker]

32 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Dude relax this is a democratic primary. The majority of people watching are dem voters who will vote for any dem candidate put forth. Its the first debate which is a f#&%ing mess having 10 people try and talk over each other. Im sure the debates will be less of a circus as the field thins to the front runners. And when the general debates start it will be a different story. Trump will be exposed as a fraud. 

 

Oh I get that. I know it's still very early and this crowded format is a mess. I was just hoping to be a little impressed here early on. Problem is I know the majority of these aren't going to be there at the end (obviously). I just find it a little surprising that Booker and Buttegeig are the two that have stood out to me. I still want to like Bernie because I do like some of his ideas but I think he might just be a little too wild to be electable,. I'm not sure I'm ever going to get there with him. And I don't think the other two stand a chance. And with Warren and Biden being two of the frontrunners we may very well get sh#tshow part deux.  I just hope somebody does something that makes me want to actually vote. Simply not being Trump should be enough but so far I'm not sure it will be. Hopefully the Dem party gets their sh#t together and advances a reasonable candidate. Somehow they managed to steal defeat from the jaws of victory last time. I fear maybe not much has changed.

 

BTW, how did that author lady on the left end get into this deal? Makes me feel like I could've shown up and they would've given me a podium.

[Ratt Mhule]

As a progressive, I was hoping for more from Bernie tonight. But as I think about it, he didnt do as badly as I originally thought. Bernie is Bernie. He sticks to his talking points. He is uncorrupted and always will be. He fights for the middle class and poor. Hes had the same positions for 40 years. He called for gay marriage 20 years before it became legal. He marched with MLK and for civil rights before it was popular to do so. He called for medicare for all since the 90s. He is who he is and the only reason people are even talking about universal heathcare, free/affordable college and a $15 minimum wage is because of Bernie. He is the litmus test for all dem candidates. Some people like that, some dont but he will never change and I respect that. 

 

 I do hope in September debates he has a night like he had on fox news. And as far JJ saying he will lose against Trump, every national poll since 2016 has him beating Trump. No doubt in my mind he would have beaten Trump in 2016. The state polls in Michigan, Wiscosin, Pennsylvania have him beating Trump by double digits in 2020. These are the states Clinton ignored because they were Obama states and they all went to Trump which helped him win. I think he has a good shot if he is the nominee. 

[JJ Husker]

7 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

As a progressive, I was hoping for more from Bernie tonight. But as I think about it, he didnt do as badly as I originally thought. Bernie is Bernie. He sticks to his talking points. He is uncorrupted and always will be. He fights for the middle class and poor. Hes had the same positions for 40 years. He called for gay marriage 20 years before it became legal. He marched with MLK and for civil rights before it was popular to do so. He called for medicare for all since the 90s. He is who he is and the only reason people are even talking about universal heathcare, free/affordable college and a $15 minimum wage is because of Bernie. He is the litmus test for all dem candidates. Some people like that, some dont but he will never change and I respect that. 

 

 I do hope in September debates he has a night like he had on fox news. And as far JJ saying he will lose against Trump, every national poll since 2016 has him beating Trump. No doubt in my mind he would have beaten Trump in 2016. The state polls in Michigan, Wiscosin, Pennsylvania have him beating Trump by double digits in 2020. These are the states Clinton ignored because they were Obama states and they all went to Trump which helped him win. I think he has a good shot if he is the nominee. 

 

I may have been a little hyperbolic in my assessment of Dem chances at beating Trump. That is probably coming from my frustration at not being more taken by some of these candidates. As you probably know, being accepting and open to Dems is a relatively new thing for me. I was just hoping some of them, one of them, would make it easier for me. Oh well, there's still plenty of time.

 

I respect Bernie for being who he is and sticking to his guns long term. I just wish I got some sense of him (or any of them) having broader appeal. There has to be a very large number of Trump supporters that it wouldn't require much at all to sway them away. But you're right, it's probably not yet the right time to be looking at the race that way. 

[Ratt Mhule]

5 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I may have been a little hyperbolic in my assessment of Dem chances at beating Trump. That is probably coming from my frustration at not being more taken by some of these candidates. As you probably know, being accepting and open to Dems is a relatively new thing for me. I was just hoping some of them, one of them, would make it easier for me. Oh well, there's still plenty of time.

 

I respect Bernie for being who he is and sticking to his guns long term. I just wish I got some sense of him (or any of them) having broader appeal. There has to be a very large number of Trump supporters that it wouldn't require much at all to sway them away. But you're right, it's probably not yet the right time to be looking at the race that way. 

 

I definetely get it. Youre a moderate conservative so the moderate dems probably appeal to you more than the Sanders and Warrens of the world. Kamala Harris came off super progressive tonight. I was shocked in a good way and she killed it! When she raised her hand along with Bernie to get rid of private insurance I couldnt believe my eyes. 

 

If healthcare is your number one issue (it is mine also) than these are your best options. I dont trust the others as far as I can throw them as far as healthcare goes eapecially when they are still receiving donations from big pharma, etc. Trump cant hide from the fact he was about to throw 32 million off healthcare and is still trying to dismantle the ACA. The general debates wont be a fox news call in or Trump rally. He will have to answer for this and he will be exposed big time. 

[Moiraine]

I didn't watch it because I can't vote in the primary anyway and I'll vote for whichever Democrat is running against Trump. I have a few candidates I would prefer, like not-Biden and a couple others, but I'm not gonna become a Democrat just to vote in the primary.

[Danny Bateman]

41 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

  

I may have been a little hyperbolic in my assessment of Dem chances at beating Trump. That is probably coming from my frustration at not being more taken by some of these candidates. As you probably know, being accepting and open to Dems is a relatively new thing for me. I was just hoping some of them, one of them, would make it easier for me. Oh well, there's still plenty of time. 

 

I respect Bernie for being who he is and sticking to his guns long term. I just wish I got some sense of him (or any of them) having broader appeal. There has to be a very large number of Trump supporters that it wouldn't require much at all to sway them away. But you're right, it's probably not yet the right time to be looking at the race that way.  

 

One issue I've noticed is that there's a couple different theories about how to expand a candidate's appeal enough to win a general election.

 

The Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar et al. model is to be more of a center-left moderate than a progressive in order to appeal to centrists and center-right voters in addition to your party's base. This seems like more of your lane, if you prefer Buttigieg and Booker.

 

Sanders, on the other hand, is more of an honest populist that casts himself as actually caring about people instead of all the junk politicians usually allow to dictate their decisions.

 

Honestly I think either path could win next year. The question is which one would be more effective and would yield the better governance.

[NM11046]

8 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Didn't you see my post?  There isn't a positive surge for Gabbard. It was a concerted effort by conservative trolls on Reddit to skew the results to the least-threatening, lowest polling Dems. They also gave a big false bump to Bill DeBlasio.

 

Gabbard actually sides with Bernie Sanders far more than she does with any conservative. The trolls don't like her any better. They're just using her for the joke.  

I did - I get the Drudge thing, but I saw a couple people here say she did well, as well as some friends of friends on FB.  Just amazing to me that this early on we still see suh divergence of opinion.