Democratic Debate Discussion Thread

[Fiddytree]

Of course, the GOP could have simply dealt with it by not going along with the plan. Like when they asked Fiorina about Trumps looks comment, she could have said, "no one cares about that, do you have any real questions, Jake?"

Not for two hours.

 

[Fiddytree]

There were plenty of questions about one or another candidates "flip flops" and whether another candidates position was "weak" or "strong". Candidates were also asked about their criticisms of other candidates positions. The difference was in the responses, not the questions.

The republicans should take some personal responsibility for how they responded to questions and what they've said while campaigning

That's not how the moderators themselves presented it before the Democratic debate (Tapper and Cooper). The overwhelming emphasis was on tying the flip-flops specifically to policy and away from personality clashes. Yesterday afternoon a few hours or more before the debate, Cooper said personality questions would bear no fruit (or something to that effect with the fruit metaphor) and thus it was his view that he should not attempt to get those responses. Tapper, on the other hand, specifically designed hours of questions dedicated to (if I may be permitted to using another fruit metaphor) "low hanging fruit" for the expressed purpose of getting personality clashes. He argued it was simply him fostering an already present dynamic.

Yet that is beside the point. They know their job is, on the whole, to create questions and steer responses toward policy and not personality bickering. However, the moderators long before hand ensured that could not happen and the network itself advertised (before and during) the circus rather than the policy divide. Then to top it off, CNN acts as if this became an inherent quality to the GOP debates themselves and that they had no substantial role in it. Not only have its own commentators skirted the issue; its own writing staff is engaging in that argument (Democratic debate: 6 takeaways from Las Vegas - CNNPolitics.com). We know that's simply not true because magically when the questions themselves were better, the circus act went away. Furthermore, the quality of Fox's own debate prior to the CNN debate was perhaps not as thrilling as the Democratic debate (it's hard to do so with that many candidates), but it was a very respectable debate. The key difference? Moderating approach and quality.

While this could very well have been somewhat a consequence of individual moderator choices, CNN has been entirely disingenuous with its role in selectively lowering the quality of dialogue for a political Party it's not particularly keen on.

 

[DDD]

Even if she's a lying, corrupt, inept piece of ****.

Lying is a given for all politicians. Corrupt she is not. The rest is just derogatory.

 

[jonny5]

You do realize that you are telling a woman what women think, right?

No, im pointing out the obvious, that women think differently than men.

 

[azgreg]

The old auto race analogy that you can't win the race on the first lap, but you sure can lose it on the first lap came true last night. Chaffee lost the race on the first lap last night.

 

[jonny5]

Not for two hours.

Sure they could. They could have all agreed before hand not to allow the moderator to start fights.

 

[American]

The old auto race analogy that you can't win the race on the first lap, but you sure can lose it on the first lap came true last night. Chaffee lost the race on the first lap last night.

CNN is crowing about how awesome Hillary was. I'll bet they'd tried beating her up like Trump, didn't they? LOL NOT

 

[Chomsky]

That line was from Baretta?
I only remember...."Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

Yep, it was.

Tony Beretta was also fond of: "And you can take *that*, to the bank"!

I loved that show.

And I became a big Robert Blake fan, too.

What other actor can deal with a bird on his head?

Sammy Davis sang the theme song!

 

[Chomsky]

Hillary invoked Obama's name over and over and over again. I can't stand her but it shows her skills as a politician. She was pre-emptively tying herself to Obama so that Biden can't, in the event he gets in.

Yes, agreed.

No doubt she's skilled & experienced, and it shows. But then again, her husband in my opinion was the most skilled politician of my lifetime - I have little doubt of that.

But she really surprised me, since I generally do not find find her likable, but do find her plastic.

As Obama might say: "She was likable enough" last night, and also reasonably authentic; both her and Sanders seemed comfortable & loose on stage.

She did very well for herself last night, and I suspect her money spigot will turn back on - to full! (if it ever even shut-off)

 

[Higgins86]

Just watched the highlights of the debate.

From an outside perspective the democratic debates are just so much easier to watch as their seems to be less personal attacks and much more substance in their answers. Overall I thought the tone of the debate was pretty reasonable and each candidate made some solid points. ( Webb did come across as a bit of a baby though).

As a non-American I think Sanders is just as dangerous if not more than someone like Trump. The Middle East is on the brink, Russia is trying to show her power by testing our resolve and China continues to act aggressively with its cyber war tactics and its power moves in the South China Sea. Sanders is a coward and has no place running the most powerful military in the world. Isolationism is not how we get through this.

 

[Chomsky]

I watched the Debate and was hoping Sen. Webb would do something to get him some positive attention. I don't really think he did. Senator Chaffee should drop out of the race as soon as possible, he looked like and old man who was scared to me. Governor O'Malley reminded me of a younger brother who was always saying "look at me" and trying to get a seat at the big kids table. He should also be ticked off about the background because he looked like an elf in a lot of the shots on my TV. I think both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders made it clear that they are the two main candidates in the Democratic Party this year and Mrs. Clinton has the advantage of both money and clout. She has a national machine and let's be real, the party elite are mostly behind her.

The one big thing I took from the debate overall, other than it was really a pep rally for the party, was confirmation that if a Democrat wins the Presidential Election AND if they regain control of Congress, we are going to see a new wave of socialistic programs paid for by those who are deemed to be "too rich". Every one of those people on the stage last night with the possible exception of Mr. Webb, were in unison in their chant for the "rich to pay more". The Democrats have learned from our current President that class warfare works and Hillary is working hard to get out the woman vote so they can all finally see a woman as President.

I wouldn't get too concerned about the House flipping - that chance is virtually nil. The GOP at the statehouse level have redistricted & gerrymandered the districts pretty well. And I also think it's unlikely the Senate flips, but it is possible.

So if the Dems win the Presidency, look for more of the same with her or him accomplishing little through legislation, but using executive orders & administrative privilege. However after 4-8 more years, prepare for ObamaCare to be irreversibly entrenched, if it isn't already.

 

[Chomsky]

Bernie didn't do himself any favors last night. He needs to have a much better 2nd debate in order to sustain his numbers. He did not look Presidential last night. His voice and his anger will grate on moderates. Can you imagine him debating someone like Rubio if they end up as the candidates? Talk about Obama making McCain look old and cranky.

While there's truth in what you say, others may see his faults as demonstrating authenticity. Mr. Trump has some similarities with his screw-ups I think, but his base loves him for it.

I think this election is one where authentic candidates are embraced, and PC poll-tested talking-point candidates are rebuffed. And candidates perceived as honest and authentic are accepted with their blemishes.

But you are right in that when Bernie goes to far, he does veer dangerously close to 'cantankerous old-man territory'. Young people seem to love him though, but then doesn't every kid love grandpa?

Hope he stops short of: "Hey! Get off of my grass"!

 

[US Conservative]

He ****ed up, according to what was being discussed all over the MSM this morning. He practiced what he was going to say and muffed it. He meant to insult her over the emails, not protect her.

Really? Thats kind of a big thing.

 

[US Conservative]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton, Sanders revise history in Dem debate

My Way News - AP FACT CHECK: Clinton, Sanders revise history in Dem debate

Dems being dems...

 

[Turin]

Well it seems Hilary won both the Democratic debate and the Republican debate. yet there are many good discussions and thoughts among front runners of both parties.


I could sse Bernie and Hilary liked / respected each other yet they really just focused on important issues and I appreciated this. I hope they stay on important issues.

Biden would make the race more interesting ---the other three on stage were marginalized as they really do not stand out despite being good people in general.

I am not saying this is who I am supporting yet at this point in time I suspect it will be Bush v. Hilary in the general election. Does anyone else think this?

 

[eohrnberger]

I got the over all impression that Bernie and Hillary were falling all over themselves buying votes with their give away programs, and looking for whom to stick with the bill.

I'm just hoping this 'vote buying' isn't what is going to be rewarded with a presidency. It'll be the end of the nation.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

• This is a variant expression of a sentiment which is often attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Fraser Tytler, but the earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
• Variant: The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

While yes, miss-attributed, none the less truthful.

 

[Turin]

There were plenty of questions about one or another candidates "flip flops" and whether another candidates position was "weak" or "strong". Candidates were also asked about their criticisms of other candidates positions. The difference was in the responses, not the questions.

The republicans should take some personal responsibility for how they responded to questions and what they've said while campaigning

Exactly --- yet deflection is what they did as they made fools of themselves!

 

[Turin]

Webb started a bit weak, but the last half of his introductory remmarks were very strong. Since then, nothing.

Clinton is so far doing well in not only sounding confident in the face of her bona fidas being questioned. She also argued that finding common ground underlines her brand of progressivism. She was about ready to fall into a pit, but avoided it.

Sanders thus far is rhetorically dominating the conversation.

O' Malley was largely forgettable.

Chaffee was almost entirely forgettable.

Good succinct summary!

 

[sangha]

That's not how the moderators themselves presented it before the Democratic debate (Tapper and Cooper). The overwhelming emphasis was on tying the flip-flops specifically to policy and away from personality clashes.

That's not the debate I watched. Here are some of the very first questions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency.

You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.

Will you say anything to get elected?

That's not about policy; It's about character.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. Just in July, New Hampshire, you told the crowd you'd, quote, "take a back seat to no one when it comes to progressive values."

Last month in Ohio, you said you plead guilty to, quote, "being kind of moderate and center." Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?

And another question about Clinton's character.

COOPER: Just for the record, are you a progressive, or are you a moderate?

Again, not about policy.

COOPER: Senator Sanders. A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?

Again, not a question about policy. At best, it's a question about campaign strategy.

COOPER: Denmark is a country that has a population -- Denmark is a country that has a population of 5.6 million people. The question is really about electability here, and that's what I'm trying to get at.

You -- the -- the Republican attack ad against you in a general election -- it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist.

Doesn't -- doesn't that ad write itself?

Again, not about policy.

COOPER: You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?

He then basically invited the others to attack Sanders with, which they declined to do.

COOPER: Just let me just be clear. Is there anybody else on the stage who is not a capitalist?

COOPER: We're going to have a lot more on these issues. But I do want to just quickly get everybody in on the question of electability.

Governor Chafee, you've been everything but a socialist. When you were senator from Rhode Island, you were a Republican. When you were elected governor, you were an independent. You've only been a Democrat for little more than two years. Why should Democratic voters trust you won't change again?

Another character question. Nothing to do with policy

Now take a look at the transcript of the 1st GOP debate
Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the Primetime Debate

It starts out with Baier asking all the candidates to raise their hand if they pledge to not run as an independent should they not win the GOP nomination. Trump does not raise his hand, so Baier starts asking him questions and, out of the blue, R. Paul interjects with

PAUL: This is what’s wrong!

BAIER: OK.

PAUL: I mean, this is what’s wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes, he’s already…

BAIER: Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Hey, look, look! He’s already hedging his bet on the Clintons, OK? So if he doesn’t run as a Republican, maybe he supports Clinton, or maybe he runs as an independent…

BAIER: OK.

PAUL: …but I’d say that he’s already hedging his bets because he’s used to buying politicians.

How did the mods questions force Paul to accuse Trump of buying politicians, supporting Clinton, etc?

Yet that is beside the point. They know their job is, on the whole, to create questions and steer responses toward policy and not personality bickering. However, the moderators long before hand ensured that could not happen and the network itself advertised (before and during) the circus rather than the policy divide.

No, their job is to get ratings. If it's anyone's job to steer the discussion to policy and not personality, then it's the candidates job.

 

[MTAtech]

I got the over all impression that Bernie and Hillary were falling all over themselves buying votes with their give away programs, and looking for whom to stick with the bill.

I'm just hoping this 'vote buying' isn't what is going to be rewarded with a presidency. It'll be the end of the nation.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

While yes, miss-attributed, none the less truthful.

It is so horrible for candidates to promise the public programs that actually make their lives easier and better and make this a better county. It's far better to lavish the wealthy with tax-cuts.

 

[eohrnberger]

It is so horrible for candidates to promise the public programs that actually make their lives easier and better and make this a better county. It's far better to lavish the wealthy with tax-cuts.

It's so horrible that so many are so easily taken in by bribes that are never delivered.
Bribes that breed a permanent dependance on government for the receivers, and a distinct disincentive to produce from those who's wealth is taken by the force of the government gun.

US politics has now disintegrated to 'a chicken in every pot' style of campaigning? How can that possible be any good?
That's little more than a race to bankruptcy and economic destruction (which party can promise more each campaign)

It's a historic example.

Recall the poverty rate at on set of the 'War on Poverty'. About 20% if I recall.

Some 50 years later, we still have a 20% poverty rate, the cost has skyrocketed, but now even in poverty everyone has cell phones, wide screens, etc. etc. etc. (as if that's poverty) rampant abuse and gaming of the system.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

That's not the debate I watched. Here are some of the very first questions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

That's not about policy; It's about character.

And another question about Clinton's character.

Again, not about policy.

Again, not a question about policy. At best, it's a question about campaign strategy.

Again, not about policy.

He then basically invited the others to attack Sanders with, which they declined to do.

Another character question. Nothing to do with policy

Now take a look at the transcript of the 1st GOP debate
Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the Primetime Debate

It starts out with Baier asking all the candidates to raise their hand if they pledge to not run as an independent should they not win the GOP nomination. Trump does not raise his hand, so Baier starts asking him questions and, out of the blue, R. Paul interjects with

How did the mods questions force Paul to accuse Trump of buying politicians, supporting Clinton, etc?

No, their job is to get ratings. If it's anyone's job to steer the discussion to policy and not personality, then it's the candidates job.

I would argue that many of the examples you listed had to do with policy, just not on specific issues but instead on how they will government, hence the questions about progressive vs moderate or being a capitalist or not. Which Sanders really did some dancing around.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Our best days are behind us"

Jack's idea of a winning political platform

I don't think those days were best. They were merely easiest.

 

[Jack Hays]

2016 Election
[h=2]The Media Is Overestimating Clinton’s Debate Performance[/h] By Nate Silver

 

[jonny5]

Dont know if anyones mentioned more than 2 candidates in this thread, but apparently there were 5 people. Heres some highlights from them.

Chafee: I'm the only one running for president that has been a mayor, a United States senator, and a governor.
Webb: I've fought and bled for our country in Vietnam as a Marine. I spent years as Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy -- in the Reagan administration.
Omalley: And, after 15 years of executive experience, I have learned how to be an effective leader.

on Guns:

O'Malley: It's time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun safety legislation as a nation.
Chafee-So, I would bring the gun lobby in and say we've got to change this. Where can we find common ground?
Webb: So we do need background checks. We need to keep the people who should not have guns away from them.

On Military Force in Middle East

O'Malley: no commander in chief - should take the military option off the table, even if most of us would agree that it should be the last option.
-I believe that a no-fly zone in Syria, at this time, actually, Secretary, would be a mistake.
-We have failed as a country to invest in the human intelligence that would allow us to make not only better decisions in Libya, but better decisions in Syria today.
Webb:the greatest strategic threat that we have right now is resolving our relationship with China.
-[Iran Deal] It was a position of weakness and I think it encouraged the acts that we've seen in the past several weeks.

On Energy

O'Malley - we need to make American 100 percent clean electric by 2050.
Webb:I'm a strong proponent of nuclear power. It is safe, it is clean. And really, we are not going to solve climate change simply with the laws here.

On racial Division:

O'Malley -we have a lot of work to do to reform our criminal justice system, and to address race relations in our country.
Webb-What I have discussed a number of times is the idea that when we create diversity programs that include everyone, quote, "of color," other than whites,

On economics:

Omalley-we need to separate the casino, speculative, mega-bank gambling that we have to insure with our money, from the commercial banking - namely, reinstating Glass-Steagall.
-We would be a stronger nation economically if we had paid family leave.
Chafee: So there's still a lot more money to be had from this top echelon. I'm saying let's have another tier and put that back into the tax bracket. And that will generate $42 billion.

On immigration:

O'Malley - I would go further than President Obama has on DACA, and DAPA.
Webb: I wouldn't have a problem with that [undocumented immigrants getting Obamacare?]

On Security:

O'Malley: Snowden put a lot of Americans' lives at risk. Snowden broke the law
Chafee: As long as you're getting a warrant, I believe that under the Fourth Amendment, you should be able to do surveillance, but you need a warrant. That's what the Fourth Amendment says. And in the Patriot Act, section 215 started to get broadened too far. So I would be in favor of addressing and reforming section 215 of the Patriot Act.
- what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment.
Webb:We've got a vast data bank of information that is ripe for people with bad intentions to be able to use. And they need to be destroyed.