The Democratic Presidential Debates

OnWis97 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

F Me In The Brain said:

IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump

Grand Wizard?

I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).

• Warren: Fauxcahontas
• Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
• Mayor Pete: Police department
• Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff.  She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
• Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement? 
• All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.

The 2020 election is already over.

Lerxst1992 said:

OnWis97 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

F Me In The Brain said:

IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump

Grand Wizard?

I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).

• Warren: Fauxcahontas
• Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
• Mayor Pete: Police department
• Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff.  She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
• Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement? 
• All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.

The 2020 election is already over.

Bingo. That is why dems lose.

If our candidates uses the incorrect email server we lose and if they nominate someone who believes two versions of rape are funny, they win.

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I'm all into defeatism.

But...

I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I'm all into defeatism.

But...

I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

wndowpayne said:

Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?

Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.

This does not look so republican to me-

• Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
• Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
• Allow people to keep their private insurance
• Cap health care prices
• Lower drug costs
• Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
• Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums

A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 

Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.

You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.

The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 

And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?

You always say I'm deflecting when I reject the premises of your questions. You're creating a false dichotomy and insisting I choose one side of it. I'm refusing. 

How is that a false dichotomy? Are you naive enough to believe that Team Trump Treason will appoint liberal or middle of the road SCJs? Or that once appointed, they’ll find their soul and do the right thing? So which side or parts of a side do you choose?

Because there are alternatives. No. No. Still refusing.                                              

Halifax2TheMax said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.

But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 

Everything relies on the assumption that it will be a “free and fair” election. It won’t be. Those Florida felons granted the right to vote? Denied. Shenanigans in repub controlled states? Absolutely. Foreign interference? You betcha. Any steps taken to prevent any of it? Not a chance. Hello banana hammock.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I'm all into defeatism.

But...

I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 

Regarding your first paragraph. I would like to see it that debate, if you figure out which one it was. I have an exceptional gift for getting the feel of people. And I have stated before how I have learned to view Pete. And yes, mrussel claims that is because he is eating in on Bernies lead, but one who has been keeping up with this thread will now my turn came before that. I think the big thing was the article about Pete updating his wiki page himself and not admitting it. Says a lot about a person. Haha. 

But disregarding what I feel about the guy, I think Pete trying to "president" himself through debates with Trump who will go after him being gay and racist and young and small and whatever will be nasty but effective for Trump with voters. And Pete won't be able to comeback with much.

Regarding your second paragraph. I don't remember Trump really debating much (in good faith) against Hillary, or in th republican Primary. I think he will show up - he loves the spotlight - but he will spew lies and car-saleman himself to the audience on voters -- and not talk/Debate with the dem candidate or the moderators. 

He will go on about the great economy and witch hunts. And the lesser dem candidate will try to debate him on the lies like it was an ordinary debate. Instead of using the space to destroy him (and like Trump, speak to the audience/voters).

There is no way to "gotcha" Trump. So just disregard him. And tell truth about him (like Bernie is pretty damn good at ("trump is a corporate socialist") and I think Warren and Amy would excel at)), instead of arguing against him.