The Democratic Presidential Debates

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This exchange was absolutely insane.

https://twitter.com/theMRC/status/1217280493634220032?s=19

She was already on record with the release that she is claiming he said that her.  I think the moderator wanted to get Sanders on record before asking Warren what she thought about it.  We already knew Warren says it happened.  I don't see anything wrong with it, tbh. 

1. One of those people is flat out lying and only one of them was asked directly about it on a nationally televised debate

2. This exchange:

CNN: “Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?"

SANDERS: "That is correct."

CNN: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?"

I am by no means a Sanders supporter, but come on.

I'm saying Warren already released a statement saying it happened, so we knew where she stood.  Again, I don't think it's a great question by any means, but the Sanders people have done a good job of turning the question into the problem rather than the alleged statement.  And you're right, someone is lying I suppose.  I have no idea who.  I don't care for either, and frankly I should be rooting for more of this as it's good for the moderates.  But I don't like the candidates eating each other either.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This exchange was absolutely insane.

https://twitter.com/theMRC/status/1217280493634220032?s=19

She was already on record with the release that she is claiming he said that her.  I think the moderator wanted to get Sanders on record before asking Warren what she thought about it.  We already knew Warren says it happened.  I don't see anything wrong with it, tbh. 

1. One of those people is flat out lying and only one of them was asked directly about it on a nationally televised debate

2. This exchange:

CNN: “Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?"

SANDERS: "That is correct."

CNN: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?"

I am by no means a Sanders supporter, but come on.

I'm saying Warren already released a statement saying it happened, so we knew where she stood.  

Bernie also stated his truth, and we know where he stands. So maybe the question to him would have been "What do you think about Elisabeth Warren lying to you like this man? Does it hurt?"

OnWis97 said:

Dems continue to eat each other.  

why do you keep harping on this, like there's any other way for this to go down? that's how a primary works. republicans did the same in 2016. don't tell me you don't remember how trump personally insulted and made up lies and nicknames about every one of his opponents? like you expect them to huddle in a room, decide among themselves "ok, you have a better chance at beating him, I'll drop out, you go for it!". Every alpha player on a team wants the ball as they think they are the best chance at scoring. if you aren't in it to win it, then you shouldn't be there. 

I tried to watch. Feel asleep eventually. The Warren / Sanders stuff was cringe worthy. Especially about the 30 years. 

Lerxst1992 said:

OnWis97 said:

Dems continue to eat each other.  

Can we just give trump his 4 more years and move on?

That does seem to be what the Dems are aiming for.    From what I've heard so far, I'm glad my TV reception was such that I couldn't watch it.  I probably wold have cringed through the whole thing.   It's depressing as hell to watch this shit come down.

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

OnWis97 said:

Dems continue to eat each other.  

Can we just give trump his 4 more years and move on?

That does seem to be what the Dems are aiming for.    From what I've heard so far, I'm glad my TV reception was such that I couldn't watch it.  I probably wold have cringed through the whole thing.   It's depressing as hell to watch this shit come down.

I don't think it is, but geez...maybe I need to tone down my scrolling through Twitter, but given how thin the margin can be in swing states, I feel like angry supporters of primary losers are going to stay home (except for those that vote Trump out of spite). The question is, can the party unite behind the eventual winner like it did for the most part (minus a few Hillary supporters) behind Obama?  I envision high-fives among Bernie supports in 2016 when Trump won...and I'm concerned they'll be doing it again this fall.

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

OnWis97 said:

Dems continue to eat each other.  

Can we just give trump his 4 more years and move on?

That does seem to be what the Dems are aiming for.    From what I've heard so far, I'm glad my TV reception was such that I couldn't watch it.  I probably wold have cringed through the whole thing.   It's depressing as hell to watch this shit come down.

I don't think it is, but geez...maybe I need to tone down my scrolling through Twitter, but given how thin the margin can be in swing states, I feel like angry supporters of primary losers are going to stay home (except for those that vote Trump out of spite). The question is, can the party unite behind the eventual winner like it did for the most part (minus a few Hillary supporters) behind Obama?  I envision high-fives among Bernie supports in 2016 when Trump won...and I'm concerned they'll be doing it again this fall.

Twitter definitely leads you astray.  Remember all the talking points about how left the party was at the beginning of the campaigns, and twitter was the source for all that consternation. But when the polling came out, the cumulative moderate vote is 10 points higher than the cumulative progressive vote.  And that's if you consider Steyer a progressive.  I don't know that I do or not.  But either way, it still looks like a moderate party to me.  

I think it is a moderate party overall, though there are some people that want to take far-right-Trumpism and counter it with being far-left (strategically bad, imo).

The question is how unified it can be.  It doesn't take too much spite to swing a couple of purple states.  I hope that come about May, we're all pretty certain about who the nominee is going to be and then the dedicated candidate-followers can have ample time to see it as Trump vs. X and be reminded of what's at stake.

And I say this as a middle aged white guy who doesn't stand to lose anything if Trump is re-elected.  I probably gain personally, but he's still a POS.  

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

OnWis97 said:

Dems continue to eat each other.  

Can we just give trump his 4 more years and move on?

That does seem to be what the Dems are aiming for.    From what I've heard so far, I'm glad my TV reception was such that I couldn't watch it.  I probably wold have cringed through the whole thing.   It's depressing as hell to watch this shit come down.

I don't think it is, but geez...maybe I need to tone down my scrolling through Twitter, but given how thin the margin can be in swing states, I feel like angry supporters of primary losers are going to stay home (except for those that vote Trump out of spite). The question is, can the party unite behind the eventual winner like it did for the most part (minus a few Hillary supporters) behind Obama?  I envision high-fives among Bernie supports in 2016 when Trump won...and I'm concerned they'll be doing it again this fall.

Twitter definitely leads you astray.  Remember all the talking points about how left the party was at the beginning of the campaigns, and twitter was the source for all that consternation. But when the polling came out, the cumulative moderate vote is 10 points higher than the cumulative progressive vote.  And that's if you consider Steyer a progressive.  I don't know that I do or not.  But either way, it still looks like a moderate party to me.  

I think it is a moderate party overall, though there are some people that want to take far-right-Trumpism and counter it with being far-left (strategically bad, imo).

The question is how unified it can be.  It doesn't take too much spite to swing a couple of purple states.  I hope that come about May, we're all pretty certain about who the nominee is going to be and then the dedicated candidate-followers can have ample time to see it as Trump vs. X and be reminded of what's at stake.

Yes, agreed.  People who are unwilling to compromise typically don't stand to actually lose anything if Trump gets re-elected.  Sure they'll wring their hands for the immigrants, the gay community, the poor that are losing their food stamps.  But will the Bernie Bros lives actually change very much?  Will those middle and upper middle class white people be in a materially different spot in 4 years?  Probably not.  

I can't believe I'm making another Bernie defense, but I think the Bernie Bros thing (especially as distinctly as you laid it out) unintentionally erases the voices of people of color and women who support him. Hell, the guy got early endorsements from Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib. I think it's reasonable to attack his platform (and boy would I), but I think it's marginalizing to be that reductive about his base.

Yeah I'm not saying that all Sanders votes are Bernie Bros, uncompromising in nature.  But they do exist and there's little doubt that his supporters did not vote at the same level that Hillary voters went with Obama in 2008. And my point is that they have little to lose, truly.  

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Even Mika "Mayor Pete lovah" gets it. Then every Pearl Jam fan should.

https://twitter.com/SpittingBack/status/1217422280134840321

Sorry, I don't think the question is the story.  The story, if there is one, is whether Warren or Sanders is being dishonest with the characterization of the conversation.  Sanders supporters love to make it about the media.  They always do.  "Every Pearl Jam fan" don't have to act as a monolith.