![]() |
Quote:
|
My thoughts on the debate are probably pretty well lined up with everyone else's.
Kamala Harris: Absolutely dominated the debate. There is no question at all that she won the debate even without her tactical nuke to Biden, but I enjoyed that very much and I think it boosted her even further ahead. She gave clear and concise answers to questions, didn't take shit from anyone and wasn't afraid to actually debate, carried herself very well and had an answer for everything. I'm not her number one fan because she's too friendly with Israel, but I think she actually stands the best chance of coming out in front against Trump because of her fire, oration and ability to control a debate. Bernie Sanders: I really like Bernie. His policy and his drive resonate really strongly with me and if you guys don't want him I'd love for him to suddenly develop a desire to move to Australia lmao. That being said, a recurring problem with Bernie is that he isn't strong in a debate. As passionate as he is, he often goes off on tangents that don't answer the questions as well as they should and he isn't an amazingly skilled orator. He handled himself reasonably well in the debate and certainly didn't lose any ground, but it wasn't a strong and commanding showing like Harris had either. Joe Biden: He's a centrist that could just as easily be in the Republican party as the Democrats and his "left" ideas and his campaign are motivated a lot more by a desire to be President than they are a desire to do well for the US or the world. So I found it very satisfying to see him floundering. He struggled to answer some of the questions, didn't put on a strong showing and wasn't even able to handle the, frankly, petty attack from Swalwell early on well let alone hold any ground when Kamala Harris got to him. Eric Swalwell: He was utterly terrible for the entirety of the first half. His interruptions were irritating and everything he said lacked substance. His attack against Biden has me torn because on the one hand it was a solid point against Biden but it also came off impertinent and petty and served as the entirety of his platform for the early part of the debate. He did however improve dramatically during the segment against gun control and he remained fairly strong after that. I don't think he's got a chance but he wasn't as terrible as initially he appeared. Pete Buttigieg: He had a solid showing I thought. He answered questions well and mostly displayed solid plans. I don't agree with everything he said, but as a general rule I don't dislike his overall policy. I think overall he did a really solid job of connecting with his audience and I think that while it's unlikely he'll come out the nominee, he'll be in the race for the long hall with the likes of Warren, Sanders, Harris and Biden. Andrew Yang: Now, I think he got stiffed a bit. He definitely got asked far fewer questions than the other candidates. He has some interesting policy ideas too, although he didn't explain them well enough for me to get a good grip of exactly what he's planning. Which was a recurring theme with him. He wasn't getting the same attention as the others so he needed to be on-the-ball when he did get a chance to speak but instead he was either unclear or just flat out flubbed every answer he gave. There's a lot of social media hype around him but I don't think he actually has a hope in hell and he was definitely one of the worst during the debate. Michael Bennet: Second worst of the night. While his policy wasn't bad it wasn't the best either... I think. It's hard to say because he came across an absolute moron. He wasn't attentive, he spoke painfully slowly and yet still managed to stumble over every answer he gave. I didn't come out of that debate with anything resembling a positive opinion of him. Kirsten Gillibrand: Gillibrand was solid, albeit a bit one-note and braggy. Her policy ideas do seem pretty good and she represented herself alright. That being said, she essentially gave the appearance of being Kamala Harris Lite. She said a lot of similar things but not nearly as well or with the same level of detail. She talked a lot about how she had the best plan but never actually elaborated on what that plan was. She doesn't have a chance. John Hickenlooper: Similarly to Gillibrand, he said a lot of "I am the only one/I have the best" shit without ever actually saying anything that set him apart from the others. His policy is okay, but isn't as good as any of the (good) big players or dark horses like Castro from the previous debate. He was overall really forgettable apart from looking like a discount Mr. Rogers. No hope in hell. Marianne Williamson: Get the fuck out. Harris was by far the winner of the debate while Buttegieg and Sanders were solid. The rest were either middling, forgettable or terrible. Overall, I think the ones who actually have a shot at getting the nomination are Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg and Corey Booker and maybe Tulsi Gabbard have a darkhorse shot but I wouldn't consider any of them likely winners. Of that group I think Kamala Harris is the only one I am absolutely certain of winning over Trump while Biden is the only one I'm certain of losing. My personal favourites are Bernie and Warren but I also quite like Harris and Castro and I think Buttigieg and Gabbard are alright. Can't stand Biden or Booker but fuck it, I'd take them over Trump. |
Something I have to wonder about the debates is how sincere all of the candidates are about everything they said. I remember, at least in the first debate, there was a lot of "yeah fuck the corporations and the 1%, power to the people!!1!!1!" statements being made, but I have a hard time buying that everyone who said something like that really means it. Some of them, sure, but everyone? Nah. American politicians on both sides of aisle have never exactly been not friendly with corporations and the super wealthy so I'm skeptical of everyone or mostly everyone suddenly apparently being like this.
I don't think that it was only issue that garnered more similar responses than I thought it would, but my memory's not always the best and I wasn't exactly sober for either debate night. on a side note, Marianne Williamson is a gem, but in a "you're a fun meme" way and not a "you'd make for a good president" way |
Whoa, debate night 2 blew the first one out of the water to me. Been busy these last few days and had to put off giving my take, but it was just a fantastic debate I thought. It looked more spontaneous with folks talking over each other, it was confrontational in tone and watching the sheer circus of it was my guilty pleasure. My thoughts on everyone in no particular order.
Bernie Sanders-- I think he did a good job and was one of the people who came off looking strong. He has been in the game a long time and will speak plainly and forcefully, not allowing other candidates to talk over him, nor let his positions be twisted or moderators to derail his messsge. He was loud and clear about what he was for, single payer healthcare, and explained why radical change was necessary with sucessful examples. He not only has an ambitious platform, he is a straight shooter about it i.e yes, taxes would increase, stil without education or healthcare expenses you ultimately have more money in the bank. He also seized a good opportunity to highlight having a sane voting record on foreign policy and opposing the Iraq when Biden was for it. I think Bernie came off looking the most responsible with the military out of all the people on that debate stage. He had a good comeback in response to his electability, reminding them he had a 10 pt lead on Trump. Kamala Harris-- Now even though I think Bernie was a highlight, who I think had the most standout debate performance was to my surprise Kamala. As with Julian Castro this candidate was not one I had placed that high on my list because of some issues I had with her record as attorney general such as the truancy laws. That being said, I gotta give the devil it's due. She hit Biden with a hyperbeam. That was one of the most powerful and compelling arguments I have seen, and I hope she steals voters from him. The mods were clearly trying to be as gentle with Biden as they could. They questioned Mayor Pete about his commitment to racial justice, and not Joe Biden? Kamala held Biden accountable for his friendship with senators who promoted segregation in the south, and more specifically his legislation to block the department of education from bussing black students into white schools in the 70s. Kamala continued to hammer Biden on issues in a way that nobody dared, she was even better than Castro when the topic shifted to immigration and bringing out what she had done to stop the deportations in her state. She was running knees touching elbows towards progressives with major policies in her messenger bag like ending private insurance. Now is she really for all these ambitious things that Warren and Sanders are for? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Right after the debate she backed away from the healthcare position she adopted. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1024756 But whether it was all razzle dazzle or not, a debate is a performance, and think she won that debate by miles through sheer boldness. Marianne Williamson-- Marianne was a dark horse for me. I always thought she looked like a lovely human being, but I was concerned that she may not have known enough about the issues. She has an eccentric way of communicating that I had to get used to, but I honestly thought she was a breath of air and I liked what she had to say as the night went on. What she said about the history of our country's involvement in Latin America and how it has contributed to the immigration crises was actually profound. She had humane answers on healthcare and immigration, and I think she has a unique platform and voice to offer that other candidates don't. I don't think anyone else on the stage is for reparations checks for American descents of slaves, which is radical. Not even Kamala Harris goes this far if you look at her plan in detail. I think Miss Marianne was witty, she looked beautiful and was really good at elbowing her way into the conversation even when she was not called on, and took a jab at Eric Swalwell, noting that young bodies can still have old ideas. I see this colorful character as the Ross Perot of 2020. Andrew Yang-- Yang I thought was very disappointing actually. He was someone I knew of prior to this night who I think has a lot of wonderful ideas that are outside of the box, banking services through the post office, UBI, treating Puerto Rico like a real state, universal Pre-K, criminal cases against pharmaceutical executives who use false marketing and fudge testing, medical technology investments, autism intervention. It is a fascinating platform. I really wanted to get to know him even better Thursday night. I did not accomplish that. He looked visibly bored and annoyed that he was not getting questions, and seems to have somewhere along the line given up trying to become part of the conversation. He says that his microphone was turned off until he was specifically called on. I initially questioned if Yang could really be that passive to let them do that to him, but Marianne Williamson also said they did the same thing to her. Its is very troubling now that two different candidates have said they experienced this. https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2019/06/marianne-williamson-mic-muted-yang-debate/amp/ In the case of Yang I think saying so little really took away from his performance, and if he was trying to speak but being blocked then that is unacceptable. I like what he is for UBI/ The Freedom Dividend, and we got a brief introduction to that policy which might make some people curious if they did not know him. But he was not shown off to his full potential sadly. Do not let them silence you. Joe Biden-- I thought the debates would be the biggest challenge Biden faced, and my prophecy I think is coming true. Joe Biden flubs his lines regularly, has old ideas, drifts off topic, struggles with simple questions, stops abruptly, makes contradictory statements and will just not have the facts. He does not take assaults well from aggressive opponents and was annihilated by Kamala Harris. He is going to have to watchout for Booker, De Blasio, Castro and other candidates with forceful personalities. God have mercy if more than one of them are on stage with him at the same time. When he was asked what he would work to accomplish if he could get only one thing done in office he had no answer for us, he just went into the rehearsed line that he would defeat Trump, even when it nothing to do with the question. Other candidates said gun control, healthcare. Biden couldn't do this I think because he doesn't stand for anything. Are you really running to help people Joe or are you just a party big wig there to sit in the middle of the road and block progressives from leading the party? It doesn't look like you have thought much about what you are going to do *if* you get in office. Pete Buttigieg-- Mayor Pete I think did well. I recognize that he would not govern in the same way that I would, but he is open about his policies, which I always appreciate, and he provides details of what he would do as an alternative. I.e I would not implement medicare for all because I am concerned about the effects of a radical change like this on the economy, I instead support creating a public option where you can buy-in to medicare to better control costs. He speaks intelligently, looks presidential and is able to answer questions in a calm, cool assuring way that is thorough. I think his answer to tough questions about imperfections of the criminal justice system he faced as mayor came across as honest, humble even. So I think he showed the ability to weather attacks. Eric Swalwell-- I think he was more memorable than Hickenlooper or Bennet. He had at least 1 major policy he was clear and consistent about, banning assault weapons, confiscating guns if need be. He showed willingness to go after his opponents, whether it was his gun control record vs Bernie Sanders, firing questions at Mayor Pete about his response to police shootings in his city, telling Biden essentially that he was the embodiment of what is old and out of touch. I know a lot of folks didn't like him, but I thought his performance wasn't that bad tbh. He just isn't the best storyteller, with the goofy analogy of politics being like changing diapers, the overly dramatic line about remember what your kids are wearing as they go off to school because you may need to identify their bodies later, and the joke about breaking up with Russia and getting back with NATO. It is his speech writer who needs to be fired, other than that I think he's alright. Gillibrand-- I liked her a little more than I expected too, I felt her debate performance was comparable to Mayor Pete's. She went into detail about things she had done and what she was for, paid family leave, co-sponsporing medicare for all legislation, voting against all of Trump's cabinet appointments. I think her personality gets overshadowed at times by some of the giants she was around, but she looked like she had knowledge of the subjects, and fought her way into the conversation. She was really putting in the effort. I thought she came across strong when she was talking about her record and vision on women's and lgbtq rights. She made a passionate plea. It was pretty good honestly. She has some good positions like abolishing ICE. Hickenlooper-- I don't like campaigns that are too general. He is running against an idea. He doesn't stand for anything, just against socialism as Biden is against Trump. There's not enough to distunguish Hickenlooper from any other conservative democrat, other than looking like a prosecutor for the House of Un-American Activities Committees in the 1940s with the constant trying to scare people with labels. Bennett-- I think his policies are a little vague, but because he has an interesting and sad family history as a descendent of holocaust survivors he stuck out to me l more than Ryan, Delaney or Hickenlooper, though they all feel like similar candidates. I think he is also a little better at debating perhaps since he called Biden out for securing the Bush tax breaks and made clear to the viewers that what he was doing behind the scenes was not something to brag about. |
Quote:
|
Latest debates have been announced - immediate takeaways are that Gravel was subjected to the usual gatekeeping trickery, Kamala vs. Biden II: Electoral Boogaloo will happen, CNN hopes Bernie & Warren will eat each other alive and finally, Pallas Athena Marianne Williamson is back for one more round.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also curious about the Gravel thing because I had also heard he met the requirements. I only recently heard of him but I like him. |
Quote:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/2020-democratic-debate-night-two-lineup-cnn |
Quote:
|
I was infuriated by Gravel not being included in the debates as well. I wasn't planning on posting on this, but I am happy that folks here know of his reputation, so I am cheered up enough to add my two cents. Gravel is absolutely brilliant with rock solid credentials and proven history as a progressive, most ambitious platform out there on foreign, social or economic policy. He is an honest man too. This is the legendary senator who fillabustered the draft for the Vietnam war again and again to stop the war, and made the Pentagon papers public record. He takes no prisoners. I loved his recent commercial exposing Joe Biden for the empty suit that he is. I put it down below for your entertainment and delight.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFNgzF32Ug What's troubling about Gravel not being included in the debates is that you are not required to meet both the polling threshold and the individual donor threshold to qualify for the debate. A number of candidates currently participating in the second debate do not meet both criteria. Bill de Blasio, Delaney, Tim Ryan, Michael Benney, Hickenlooper only meet 1 qualification as well, yet they got seats in the debate. The maximum amount of people allowed in the debate is 20, and the current field of candidates well exceeds that number. It is a historically-large primary. Now I don't blame the DNC just for not allowing more than 20 people, it is already confusing and the debate stage is honestly overcrowded at just the 20. So I don't object to their making cuts, but the other candidates cut from the first and second debate did not meet any of the qualifications, Wayne Messam, Tom Steyer, Seth Multan, Joe Sestak. This was not the case with Mike Gravel. He is the only exception to this. He had over 65,000 individual donors, so ousting him is more controversial. What makes the situation appear biased is that now that Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race there was an empty space, and it was given to another nobody, Steve Bullock who was not in the first debate. Steve Bullock definitely did not meet the donation threshold. Even his meeting of the polling threshold I would question because initially the DNC rejected a poll he submitted showing him above 0 as not an acceptable source. If he really did get 1% in the polls though, he still does not have the donation threshold. It is a legitimate source of debate-- which criteria is better? The polls or the donations? You could make the argument that having the individual donors as Gravel has is a better representation of who supports you since Bullock is not polling outside of a margin of error. If the polling is more important to you however then every candidate should have the equal opportunity to be accounted for in a poll. If you are not represented as an option in the polls for people to vote on then of course you will not meet that qualification, so you face a catch 22. Also bear in mind that you can't just go get anyone to do a poll for you. The DNC has specific polls they will review, and there is no deviation from it. There have been polls that did actually show Gravel meeting the threshold like Emerson, but they weren't polls the DNC slated for consideration. It is a system that is unfair. Frankly I think the party would rather give the slot to another corporate candidate, enter Bullock, than they would a firebrand like Gravel. |
Tulsi is suing Google for suspending her ads after the first debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html There's an archived version on reddit if the paywall blocks you. https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsi/comments/chro2k/tulsi_sues_google_for_suspending_her_ads_right/ |
On a side note - Marianne Williamson is absolutely a meme contender, but at the same time, who else gets the impression that she is decidedly more sincere than nearly every other candidate on stage?
|
Quote:
|
Marianne Williamson is sincere I am sure. She has shown interest in politics since the 90s, and has donated to many democratic candidates and causes. She supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. She also ran for congress herself in 2014 as an independent. Her work helping others through her charitable foudations is even older.
Now the recent bid for the nomination by hedgefund manager turned philanthropist Tom Steyer gives me more pause. Not saying that his message won't be worth hearing, we'll see. He at least says he is for a living wage. I am just pointing out that his interest in activism is newer than Marianne's by comparison. He's most associated with lobbying to impeach Trump. Marianne at least proved to me that she has all the magnamity of a meme queen this month. When she heard that Mike Gravel was trying to raise money to get to 60,000 individual donors she rallied her supporters to his aid in a rescue mission, requesting they make a donation to the Gravelanche's campaign. She was fighting for an equal playing field, and explained the importance of having Mike's alternative voice in the conversation. There is a snippet from the letter she wrote down below. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451916-marianne-williamson-campaign-uses-fundraising-email-to-help-rival-2020 She gave him a boost of over 10,000 people fast. So on the basis of integrity I think she checks out. I personally like having Luna Lovegood in the race. Loony but good. I'd take her right now over 10 of the Wormtails on our debate stage. |
I haven't been catching up with politics as of recent, but I do think that Sanders has a pretty good chance of defeating Trump.
|
I think that all of these candidates bring something to the table and the primary should be very engaging and telling. I hope to see Rep. Swalwell throw his hat back into the ring, I do not think we saw enough of him to really see how the voters would respond to his potential candidacy. I wonder what the reaction is to Mayor Bloomberg categorically rejecting a bid to campaign as well.
|
Quote:
|
Round two begins today! What are your expectations?
|
Some numbers for the night, Warren led everyone in speaking time with 18 minutes and 33 seconds, followed by Sanders, Buttigieg, and Bullock.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/30/us/elections/debate-speaking-time.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur Marianne Williamson, seems to have made a large impression, as she got the most twitter followers of the night despite having far less speaking time. https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1156395768217051136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Overall from twitter impressions it seems that Marianne Williamson has set herself up as the latest flavor of the month now that Kamala Harris has fallen behind, and Buttigeg has practically disappeared. |
Finally managed to see round 1 of the second debate. Some quick thoughts.
Overall, it seems pretty clear that most of the candidates went into this with the mentality of targeting Sanders and Warren both because they are front runners and because they are much more progressive. I think both Sanders and Warren did a good job of defending their stances and I think in particular Bernie stepped up his debate game after the feedback from the first debate. Warren I think was a little bit too obstinate when it came to the moderators and a little too keen to interject herself into every discussion - but overall this didn't hurt my impression of her too much and I can see how it would improve her standing in the eyes of others. Buttegieg handles himself very well also. I don't agree with everything he said, but overall he has a good demeanour and a solid plan for how he wants to run the country. He comes off as genuine and he's prepared to stand up for his policies and provide a back up argument. He's certainly not my favourite candidate but I'm happy with him. Delaney was good in the debate... but that's not necessarily a good thing. He, much like Biden, is an embodiment of the typical, centrist DNC. The way he talks about middle ground routes and making feasible promises sounds good but it's lip service to the impossible because it ignores how extremely divided US politics is. The middle road is a dead end where things don't necessarily get worse but they don't improve either. Unlike the other moderate candidates, however, he did handle himself extremely well in the debate and he spoke well so he gets credit for that. Marianne Williamson... I have no idea. She's a meme. I can't tell if all this is just a Trump-inspired publicity stunt or of she's simply misguided enough to actually think she should be the President. I will give her credit that she did sound better this time around, might have done some more research or something. That being said, she still has no qualifications and she still isn't actually presenting a plan to do any of the things she talked about. What she did do though was act as though she re-enacting every cheesy presidential speech from every bad over-patriotic movie ever. Every time she speaks she makes it clearer she doesn't belong on that stage but that she might make a good activist if she focused her energy there. The rest all blended together. Let them hence forth be known as the DNC conglomerate because they were all spewing the same pointless, centrist, republican-pandering content as Delaney but with a fraction of his eloquence and political savvy. Not much more to say on them. So from round 1 I liked Sanders, Warren and Buttegieg and the rest can bugger off. |
Quote:
|
I don’t recall anyone thinking Jeb Bush had a chance in hell - one reason why Trump managed to succeed was due to the weaknesses of/the strong dislike of the other candidates, there were no heir apparent candidates on the Republican side unlike with the Dems.
|
Quote:
There's a reason why I said it was a massive assumption based on poll numbers, and also that the debates can change things. In the first debate, it was clear that Warren/Kamala/Castro were the headline makers, while I haven't done a whole lot of looking into who exactly "won" the second debate or turned heads this time around aside from maybe Tulsi for dunking on Kamala. I've also heard Warren did really well, as did Sanders. What these two debates have in common is that both were pretty poor showings for Biden. Whether that really matters is something we'll end up seeing, or whether his demographic will keep holding onto him and make him the hill they die on. That said as things seem to be currently, it's pretty much down to only like four or five people that really matter. The rest are there for TV screen time or to get their name out there so they can run for local/federal office later on. |
Good on you for being immediately defensive without even trying to be rational. Truly well done.
I said the voters can flip on a dime. Anything can change things, not just debates. Whether the voters care about how other people think Biden did in the debates does remain to be seen, yes. Everyone has their supporters, it's not over until it's over. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.