I’m actually thankful for Swalwell. Purely for the fact that his “pass the torch” line allowed him to be the one to call all the old candidates old and Pete could sit back while America realizes he’s younger than Swalwell after a quick google.
DNC Debates, Round 2
- Thread starter jthomas666
- Start date
Here's a dirty little secret: debates don't mean diddly squat. The absolute worst pounding ever administered in any Presidential debate was Lloyd Bentsen jack hammering Dan Quayle in 1988. (Okay, it was a VP debate, but you know what I mean).
Dukakis lost the election about as badly as Quayle lost the debate. Despite the institutional importance given to them - they don't mean "nothing," but they mean "next to nothing." That's not so true at the lower level (Todd Akin serving as the best example). But they don't matter.
What CAN do you in, however, is what Lee Atwater used to call "a defining moment."
Ed Muskie "crying" on the back of a truck when he raged against William Loeb's attack upon him.
George H W Bush just sitting there while Reagan said he was paying for the microphone.
Teddy Kennedy unable to answer "why do you want to be President."
Bob Dole snorting, "Stop lying about my record" after losing the 1988 NH primary (I believe he was on NBC).
And - obviously - Howard Dean's infamous speech (I thought Dean was a bumpkin joke whom I watched Tim Russert expose as a complete fraud the first time I saw him, and I never could have voted for him - but I also thought he got a bum rap on that one speech, too).
Of course - and here's where they intersect - when the defining moment occurs IN the debate.....that's what everyone fears. Ford saying Poland is not under Soviet domination, Reagan decking Mondale with the line about "youth and inexperience," Dukakis botching the capital punishment question, Bush 41 looking at his watch, and Romney talking about his "binders" of women.
You can lose every debate - but if you win the post-debate spin then it doesn't matter.
Gore thumped Bush two out of three, but he lost the spin in one of his two wins.
Clinton thumped Trump all three times - but the most memorable moment of any of those three was Trump's, "And you'd be in jail" comment.
Btw - I don't watch these things (last debate I saw was the Cheney-Edwards one in 2004), but I know enough about the views of everyone here that I can get a good take on what happened just by reading here (which is why I'm here).
So thanks everyone for your input.
I agree that the debates are mostly useless especially when I have good enough information on the three candidates likely to still be around by the time the Alabama primary happens. Optics are more important than content with these things.
Harris absolutely killed it. She combined empathy and outrage in a very effective way. What she did to Biden last night needed a parental advisory.
Buttigieg was also fantastic. He remains the best communicator of ideas in the field, and his words have a raw honesty that I find refreshing. Swalwell caught him off guard with the police shooting comment, but IMO that interjection reflected more poorly on Swalwell than on Buttigieg.
Sanders seems to still be running the 2016 campaign? His record has only one track, and we've all heard it before. The moderators kept trying to get him to explain HOW he could invoke some of his grander plans, and he never took the opportunity to really explain that. Disappointing.
Biden spent all night campaigning for Barack Obama, licking his wounds, and begging the moderators to stop asking him questions. He's a terrible candidate.
Gillibrand interrupted more than de Blasio, and seemed uncertain what to do with the spotlight whenever she got it. The summary of her contribution is, "my turn."
Yang didn't get much time. I appreciate him advancing the idea of UBI, but that is not a realistic 2020 issue.
Bennett came across as a nice guy. That is all.
Hickenlooper tried to convince everyone that he's already solved every problem being discussed. He and Inslee would get along.
Swalwell deserves an assist for taking the torch from Biden and letting Harris savage him with it.
Williamson was... just incredible.
Buttigieg was also fantastic. He remains the best communicator of ideas in the field, and his words have a raw honesty that I find refreshing. Swalwell caught him off guard with the police shooting comment, but IMO that interjection reflected more poorly on Swalwell than on Buttigieg.
Sanders seems to still be running the 2016 campaign? His record has only one track, and we've all heard it before. The moderators kept trying to get him to explain HOW he could invoke some of his grander plans, and he never took the opportunity to really explain that. Disappointing.
Biden spent all night campaigning for Barack Obama, licking his wounds, and begging the moderators to stop asking him questions. He's a terrible candidate.
Gillibrand interrupted more than de Blasio, and seemed uncertain what to do with the spotlight whenever she got it. The summary of her contribution is, "my turn."
Yang didn't get much time. I appreciate him advancing the idea of UBI, but that is not a realistic 2020 issue.
Bennett came across as a nice guy. That is all.
Hickenlooper tried to convince everyone that he's already solved every problem being discussed. He and Inslee would get along.
Swalwell deserves an assist for taking the torch from Biden and letting Harris savage him with it.
Williamson was... just incredible.
I will drink to that. Is there some reason they could not have made the debates one hour each with 5 candidates?
Prisoner of the moment much? I remember everyone after the first 3 debates on the RNC side saying Trump and Cruz were toast...
I think truthfully the first debate(s) that kinda matters is the one in before and after Iowa. Then you pretty much know who is for real and who should pack it up.
While the debate might feel like it showed us something, but just remember strength and weakness changes from debate to debate because those who dunk on front runners in the previous debate can’t do it the same way again without sounding like a broken record or being countered in an effective way. Look at how effective Ted Cruz’s line “ Trump took money from Democrats” was from his 1st time to his millionth.
I think the only serious candidate with no chance is Sanders and that is because he is splitting the vote with Warren while also not tapping into much else.
IMO no, at least for the top 3. I don't think the performances we saw from Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg were flashes in the pan. I think each has a ton to offer that will keep them in until the very end.
For the others, you might be right. I'm keeping an eye on this 538 pre/post debate poll, which I think will be pretty interesting.
This is basically how I feel about it as well. I hope Yang sticks around because I like him even if I don't agree with him.
At the very least Oprah's spiritual adviser and Eric Swalwell have GOT to go.
Well Harris didn't wait very long to start moving to the center...
Kamala Harris Says She Misunderstood Question About Eliminating Private Insurance
Kamala Harris Says She Misunderstood Question About Eliminating Private Insurance
at this point, i am not too worried about the semantics around individual proposals. i am just happy that there is an adult conversation about health care/health insurance policy taking place.
Agreed. FWIW, I think a hard position on eliminating private insurance is a mistake for the general election.
No one supporting Medicare for all is likely to get it passed anyway and most of them are smart enough to know that in reality (including Bernie).
So, while it may differentiate candidates right now the reality of the situation means there probably isn't much difference in what the candidates would actually pass (if they pass anything) as president.
yeah, from the bits i watched of the debates there is a push to put a spotlight on the disagreements which is understandable with such a large field. but it does seem like there are actual policies and ideas being talked about which is nice for a change.
I think Mayor Pete ( I just have a hard time with my phone with his name so I go with Mayor Pete), Warren, and Harris are rising, but the obstacle is the # of candidates makes Biden stronger with the most loyal base in the race. Point is while it is funny and somewhat advantageous to hit Biden in last night’s debate, they really need to start knocking out the others right now.
biden's problem is the same one he had the previous two times he ran for president. he is not a good candidate and he can't get out of his own way. i think that will continue to show itself. i've always sort of liked biden, but i just don't see any situation where he makes it through the primaries.
I might be biased because I think Biden is an empty paper bag who's only high in the polls because he sits on Obama's shoulders, but I actually don't think his base is that loyal. I think a lot of people have the impression that he's the "safe" choice to beat Trump and support him exclusively for that reason. IMO, the moment that impression changes, and I think it started to last night, a lot of Biden's support will abandon him.
Not sure how everyone feels about Mayor Pete's hot dog position, though.
Q: Is a hotdog a sandwich?
Pete: No.
Q: I mean a hot dog is just an open faced sandwich with a special bread shape.
Pete: OK but an open-face is not actually a sandwich. It's sandwich-related but it's not a sandwich.
Q: A hotdog is not even open-face. Like a hoagie or a sub, it is meat sandwiched in bread. It has all the elements of a sandwich, and is therefore a sandwich.
Pete: True, it is meat partially surrounded by bread. But "sandwiched" implies symmetry. Even a burger, which is only barely a sandwich, is mostly symmetrical. A hot dog is not.
Q: I disagree that symmetry is fundamental to the definition of a sandwich. A sub is not symmetrical, but everyone can agree that it is a sandwich.
Pete: It is structurally symmetrical, not morphologically symmetrical. Draw a line through pretty much any part of a sub (from top to bottom of course) and you get bread, meat, bread. The same is not true of a hot dog.
Q: Is a hotdog a sandwich?
Pete: No.
Q: I mean a hot dog is just an open faced sandwich with a special bread shape.
Pete: OK but an open-face is not actually a sandwich. It's sandwich-related but it's not a sandwich.
Q: A hotdog is not even open-face. Like a hoagie or a sub, it is meat sandwiched in bread. It has all the elements of a sandwich, and is therefore a sandwich.
Pete: True, it is meat partially surrounded by bread. But "sandwiched" implies symmetry. Even a burger, which is only barely a sandwich, is mostly symmetrical. A hot dog is not.
Q: I disagree that symmetry is fundamental to the definition of a sandwich. A sub is not symmetrical, but everyone can agree that it is a sandwich.
Pete: It is structurally symmetrical, not morphologically symmetrical. Draw a line through pretty much any part of a sub (from top to bottom of course) and you get bread, meat, bread. The same is not true of a hot dog.
He is apparently getting a sizable chunk of black voters. Hopefully, as his past is discussed more and more (like last night) they will leave him for Kamala or Warren.
New Posts
-
-
-
Joke thread - including cartoons, memes, and misc - Part VII
- Latest: crimsonaudio
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-