The Democratic Presidential Debates

CM189191

cincybearcat said:

You know was Elizabeth Warren was speaking about education during the debate I really felt like Bloomberg or someone missed a huge opportunity.  Should have turned to her and said, "Elizabeth, Love your passion on this topic.  You'll make a great Secretary of Education in my administration"

At which point Warren would have chewed him up and spit him out.

You think she doesn't prep for this sort of scenario?

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

cincybearcat said:

You know was Elizabeth Warren was speaking about education during the debate I really felt like Bloomberg or someone missed a huge opportunity.  Should have turned to her and said, "Elizabeth, Love your passion on this topic.  You'll make a great Secretary of Education in my administration"

At which point Warren would have chewed him up and spit him out.

You think she doesn't prep for this sort of scenario?

What if he would have said "Hon, you'll make an adorable sec'y of education in my admin, way better than that woofer Betsy."  
Would that be okay?  Asking for a friend/candidate.  

Ledbetterman10

CM189191 said:

cincybearcat said:

You know was Elizabeth Warren was speaking about education during the debate I really felt like Bloomberg or someone missed a huge opportunity.  Should have turned to her and said, "Elizabeth, Love your passion on this topic.  You'll make a great Secretary of Education in my administration"

At which point Warren would have chewed him up and spit him out.

You think she doesn't prep for this sort of scenario?

President Warren has knows the right way to pick a Secretary of Education...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-yvUOQm0E

what dreams

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

So Vegas still says Bernie or Biden, basically.  And as people not named Warren drop, the odds will swing closer to Biden.  

* - edit, wait a minute.  What has happened in the last two days that has moved the numbers toward Biden?  Is it simply the most recent SC polling?  I saw that Biden has reasserted a lead in FL over Bernie too.  The Castro stuff does not play well there.  

Purely anecdotal but I saw a couple polls early in the week with Bernie and Biden virtually tied in SC. Post-debate the ones I've seen have Biden with like a 20 point lead. If all that is right, I guess it means they see him as pulling ahead in that moderate lane.

Clyburn endorsed Biden yesterday

JimmyV

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

pjl44

what dreams said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

So Vegas still says Bernie or Biden, basically.  And as people not named Warren drop, the odds will swing closer to Biden.  

* - edit, wait a minute.  What has happened in the last two days that has moved the numbers toward Biden?  Is it simply the most recent SC polling?  I saw that Biden has reasserted a lead in FL over Bernie too.  The Castro stuff does not play well there.  

Purely anecdotal but I saw a couple polls early in the week with Bernie and Biden virtually tied in SC. Post-debate the ones I've seen have Biden with like a 20 point lead. If all that is right, I guess it means they see him as pulling ahead in that moderate lane.

Clyburn endorsed Biden yesterday

That would certainly help, too

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

JimmyV

Are you comparing CA, NY, ME and MD to...South Carolina? Texas, fine, but at least Beto's race was close. 

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

pjl44

You know, that would be an interesting strategy for a party.

Figure out what you consider to be swing states and only hold primaries there. Solid red states won't vote D no matter what. Solid blue states will vote D no matter what. Find out which candidate is preferred in the states where you have to duke it out.

pjl44

People would lose their mind because it's Not What We're Used To but there's a strategic argument to be made

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

You know, that would be an interesting strategy for a party.

Figure out what you consider to be swing states and only hold primaries there. Solid red states won't vote D no matter what. Solid blue states will vote D no matter what. Find out which candidate is preferred in the states where you have to duke it out.

I think it's a recipe for failure.  It will decimate your party at the non-swing state level and possibly negatively affect down ballot and local races.  My argument is tongue in cheek completely.  I could get behind a 3 Super Tuesdays (vs all voting in one day) or some other type of calendar, but I would not support a swing state-only primary. 

pjl44

Clinton won NY by 22
Trump won SC by 14

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

I know you don't mean it this way, but here's how that would play...  You're basically telling the 60% of Dems in SC that are black to move to the back (of the bus).  That won't play well.  Remember, this is why that state is an important bellweather, it's the first one that is diverse.