US Presidential Election 2020

eagle eye

From all I've read it appears that Castro was the big winner. He got his name out there big time, it'll be interesting to see how he polls in a week's time.
O'Rourke by all accounts was awful from looking like everything was rehearsed to being clueless on many issues.
Di Blasio did badly too from what I've read. He came across as very argumentative, almost Trump-like,which won't go down well with Democrats.

Only thing bad for Castro is his surname.

NSAman

pixelburp wrote: »

These debates are meant for Democratic voters, makes sense they would channel issues that matter - or are perceived to matter - to the voters they're chasing. The language will change once the race comes down to 2, and later when it's vs. Trump because obviously the net will need to be cast wider. For now, bringing up so-called 'identity politics' makes sense & is fine.

It’s not fine. I would vote Dem traditionally. Currently, there is not one of them I would vote for. If I am not liking the direction they are going in, who else is being turned off the party?

The only person last night I had any regard for was Delaney. I am worried that these crazy policies being pursued (free everything in other words) will turn off traditional voters of the Democratic Party. They are great pipe dreams but they will NOT be attainable in this country.

The fact that Spanish is now seen as the first language says it all.

Playing to the masses and identity politics is really turning me off the Dems. What alternative is there? <<<<shudder>>>

pixelburp

NSAman wrote: »

It’s not fine. I would vote Dem traditionally. Currently, there is not one of them I would vote for. If I am not liking the direction they are going in, who else is being turned off the party?

The only person last night I had any regard for was Delaney. I am worried that these crazy policies being pursued (free everything in other words) will turn off traditional voters of the Democratic Party. They are great pipe dreams but they will NOT be attainable in this country.

The fact that Spanish is now seen as the first language says it all.

Playing to the masses and identity politics is really turning me off the Dems. What alternative is there? <<<<shudder>>>

"Saying a few words in Spanish to placate a demographic", is hardly "the first language", that's a little hyperbolic. No more so than when Sinn Fein pre/append their speeches with some token Irish, a little Spanish is scarcely some great abandonment of the majority. It's a blatant political stunt, but there are a large swath of Spanish speakers in the US :shrug:

As to the rest, well TBH bar Warren, that debate wasn't even the also-rans, it was the no-chances. "Crazy policies" such as Medicare are polling quite well, so you're not necessarily in the majority here either. It's a hot topic but an increasingly popular one. "Free everything" is kinda reductionist, especially as Social Democraies such as, you know, Ireland offer public and private healthcare without breaking the bank. America is way behind the curve here...

batgoat

And Warren's college policy will draw in plenty of voters as well.

NSAman

pixelburp wrote: »

"Saying a few words in Spanish to placate a demographic", is hardly "the first language", that's a little hyperbolic. No more so than when Sinn Fein pre/append their speeches with some token Irish, a little Spanish is scarcely some great abandonment of the majority. It's a blatant political stunt, but there are a large swath of Spanish speakers in the US :shrug:

As to the rest, well TBH bar Warren, that debate wasn't even the also-rans, it was the no-chances. "Crazy policies" such as Medicare are polling quite well, so you're not necessarily in the majority here either. It's a hot topic but an increasingly popular one. "Free everything" is kinda reductionist, especially as Social Democraies such as, you know, Ireland offer public and private healthcare without breaking the bank. America is way behind the curve here...

Oh I agree America is behind the curve on many things. Introduce free health care for all with the current system and add free education, free pre-k see what happens to the tax rate.

Something has to be done about education, healthcare etc. that is without doubt the major failing here. But, the costs involved are astronomical. I seriously don’t think the dems have a snowballs chance in hell of doing these things without major backlash and causing more issues than solving them...e.g.obamacare.

TheDiceMan2020

Google Analytics of candidate search results before and after debates. VERY Interesting!

Itssoeasy

Just in case people want to listen to the debate last night, if you download the lawrence o' Donnell last word podcast the latest episode is the debate. I've only listen to the very start and the opening statements.

The Phantom Jipper

NSAman wrote: »

It’s not fine. I would vote Dem traditionally. Currently, there is not one of them I would vote for. If I am not liking the direction they are going in, who else is being turned off the party?

The only person last night I had any regard for was Delaney. I am worried that these crazy policies being pursued (free everything in other words) will turn off traditional voters of the Democratic Party. They are great pipe dreams but they will NOT be attainable in this country.

The fact that Spanish is now seen as the first language says it all.

Playing to the masses and identity politics is really turning me off the Dems. What alternative is there? <<<<shudder>>>

Spanish is now seen as the first language? The debate was held in Miami and was being televised on Telemundo, I suspect that's why 3 people spoke in Spanish for a few seconds...

rossie1977

NSAman wrote: »

It’s not fine. I would vote Dem traditionally. Currently, there is not one of them I would vote for. If I am not liking the direction they are going in, who else is being turned off the party?

The only person last night I had any regard for was Delaney. I am worried that these crazy policies being pursued (free everything in other words) will turn off traditional voters of the Democratic Party. They are great pipe dreams but they will NOT be attainable in this country.

The fact that Spanish is now seen as the first language says it all.

Playing to the masses and identity politics is really turning me off the Dems. What alternative is there? <<<<shudder>>>

Crazy policies..a little research would tell you the that the main issues Dem voters want addressed are climate, affordable health costs, affordable college education, low wages.

I mean if you are ok with paying out thousands for routine hospital procedures or seeing your kids $200,000 in debt upon leaving college I suppose it's ok but most Americans don't share your feelings

The argument that issues pretty much every western nation take for granted can't be attained in the US is very strange. Maybe if the US diverted expenditure away from military and stopped giving giant corporations huge tax breaks maybe they could afford stuff that matters to the ordinary folk. Maybe half the population that no longer vote would start again.

FDR had a vision in 1944, are you suggesting that's impossible in 2019?

NSAman

rossie1977 wrote: »

FDR had a vision in 1944, are you suggesting that's impossible in 2019?

Tell me how.

Simply put, the American model in its current state has morphed into control by corporations. Government has failed and is failing all over this country.

Don’t get me wrong, I abhor education costs. Having a mortgage around young people’s necks before they have a chance to start life, is unfair and totally restrictive...education is now a business. I abhor the fact that healthcare causes more bankruptcy for families than almost anything else..healthcare is now a business.

But, to say we are going to get rid of this, is BS in the extreme.

Saying you want a $15 minimum wage is great, what implications does that bring? They want to tackle low wages...that’s fine a laudable thing. Raise minimum wage, add free healthcare means employer drops healthcare costs. If healthcare is not up to speed....where does that leave employee? Better or worse?

Every action has a reaction. The system has to change here all at once, or those who they are trying to assist will be worse off.

pixelburp

NSAman wrote: »

Tell me how.

Simply put, the American model in its current state has morphed into control by corporations. Government has failed and is failing all over this country.

Don’t get me wrong, I abhor education costs. Having a mortgage around young people’s necks before they have a chance to start life, is unfair and totally restrictive...education is now a business. I abhor the fact that healthcare causes more bankruptcy for families than almost anything else..healthcare is now a business.

But, to say we are going to get rid of this, is BS in the extreme.

Saying you want a $15 minimum wage is great, what implications does that bring? They want to tackle low wages...that’s fine a laudable thing. Raise minimum wage, add free healthcare means employer drops healthcare costs. If healthcare is not up to speed....where does that leave employee? Better or worse?

Every action has a reaction. The system has to change here all at once, or those who they are trying to assist will be worse off.

That reads tremendously like "Can't win, don't try". There's no question the grip lobbyists have is incredible and that's ultimately what's enabling corporations to squeeze the ordinary Joe/Josephine.

But the first step in getting anywhere near a solution, is to make sure someone of vague principle, and ability to followthrough on that principle, is elected. Education won't get better while Betsy DeVos is the head of the Education Debt that's for sure, and with talk of debt forgiveness for students from ... uh, I'm not sure but I want to say Harris or Warren, you can see those small steps starting. Obviously there's the question of who will pay for all this, but for an incredibly wealthy country, that will shout from the rooftops of its "Can Do!" attitude, it becomes remarkably negative when it wants to.

Also vital for the Democrats to get back the SEnate of course; President Sanders won't achieve anything if Mitch McConnell is killing every bill that comes his way.

rossie1977

Usually what do people do when they get extra money like a wage increase..they usually spend it on products/services and goods provided by giant corporations which in turn raises profits so win win for everyone.

Stuff like trickle down economics has failed miserably and has caused wealth inequality to plummet to levels not seen since Great Depression.

The Government could easily deal with healthcare and education costs but administration after administration since LBJ have failed to do so. Per capita the US already spends more public money on healthcare than every nation on earth except Norway which is a double kick in the teeth.

The conservative fiscal policies that brought Bill Clinton into power in the early 90s no longer appeal to Democratic voters.

NSAman

pixelburp wrote: »

That reads tremendously like "Can't win, don't try". There's no question the grip lobbyists have is incredible and that's ultimately what's enabling corporations to squeeze the ordinary Joe/Josephine.

But the first step in getting anywhere near a solution, is to make sure someone of vague principle, and ability to followthrough on that principle, is elected. Education won't get better while Betsy DeVos is the head of the Education Debt that's for sure, and with talk of debt forgiveness for students from ... uh, I'm not sure but I want to say Harris or Warren, you can see those small steps starting. Obviously there's the question of who will pay for all this, but for an incredibly wealthy country, that will shout from the rooftops of its "Can Do!" attitude, it becomes remarkably negative when it wants to.

Also vital for the Democrats to get back the SEnate of course; President Sanders won't achieve anything if Mitch McConnell is killing every bill that comes his way.

It is not about not trying, they are goals and goals that NEED to be achieved. To say “I’m going to give free healthcare, free education” is rubbish. It’s electioneering at its worst...and yes I know they are aiming for an election.

Tangible thought out plans are what are needed in my mind. This is what we are going to do and this is how... to my mind that is why the Dems lost the last election and Orangeman is in the driving seat. Vaguery and lack of a clear path works against the Dems, in my opinion. Stick to two points and make them happen showing how those can be achieved. Diluting that with so many worthy but pipedream issues will seem as if the whole campaign is false.

I know this “debate” was aimed squarely at democratic members, but the level of the candidates last night was simply abysmal. Warren, simply doesn’t have the charisma, o’rourke looked stupid, De Blasio is a dead duck and pompous, Delaney imho I saw a glimmer (just) but no light, Castro was ok but as someone said earlier name recognition is important, the rest were forgettable.

Tonight will tell is Dems have a chance or not. If I can watch I will.

rossie1977

Considering the current presidents main policies in 16 were building a wall and getting mexico to pay for it, that healthcare would be easy and jailing his political rival it would be great to see candidates debate actual policies the people care about.

Policies didn't win Trump last election because Clinton had far better and more clearly defined ones.

Debates didn't win Trump last election because he was awful during them and only thing people remember was his sniffling.

The US presidential election has become a popularity contest. Trump will win if he and the media tear down his opponent enough to a point they are as unpopular as he is. If they fail to do that Trump will lose.

pixelburp

NSAman wrote: »

It is not about not trying, they are goals and goals that NEED to be achieved. To say “I’m going to give free healthcare, free education” is rubbish. It’s electioneering at its worst...and yes I know they are aiming for an election.

Tangible thought out plans are what are needed in my mind.

What you're saying is not wrong, but IMO neither the Primary or National Election is the time for details, plus the nature of the eventual opponent throws all those presumptions and conventions out the window. Say Sanders wins it: he could spend his entire campaign, and every debate detailing his Medicare-For-All policies ... and Trump will just blather "Socialism", "Who will??" or whatever lame nickname he'll have conjured up ("Tired Bernie" or some-such), and it'll derail the entire conversation.

Obviously the reverse is true: if Sanders is going to get pilloried either way, why not spend the time addressing the logistics? It seems you want someone who has, if nothing else, deep convictions in which case Sanders or Warren is probably your better choice - because the few times they have gone into details, they've outlined where the money will come from (IIRC, a tax on top earners)

I have to say, you're literally the first person I've read, anywhere, who has had a favourable thing to say about Delaney. He appears to have nothing going for him, and getting booed at a Democrat convention in California has probably already guaranteed his failure (IIRC, he came out against Medicare-For-All, in a wishy-washy, let's not go crazy sorta way).

ancapailldorcha

No more of the "Orangeman" stuff please. Insults aren't welcome here.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

The US presidential election has become a popularity contest.

When has it been anything different?

There was an arrogant overconfidence of winning states like Michigan and Wisconsin which for the most part were ignored.

Trump campaigned far harder overall, the last weeks of his campaign he was doing up to five large rallies a day.

AbusesToilets

NSAman wrote: »

Tell me how.

Simply put, the American model in its current state has morphed into control by corporations. Government has failed and is failing all over this country.

Don’t get me wrong, I abhor education costs. Having a mortgage around young people’s necks before they have a chance to start life, is unfair and totally restrictive...education is now a business. I abhor the fact that healthcare causes more bankruptcy for families than almost anything else..healthcare is now a business.

But, to say we are going to get rid of this, is BS in the extreme.

Saying you want a $15 minimum wage is great, what implications does that bring? They want to tackle low wages...that’s fine a laudable thing. Raise minimum wage, add free healthcare means employer drops healthcare costs. If healthcare is not up to speed....where does that leave employee? Better or worse?

Every action has a reaction. The system has to change here all at once, or those who they are trying to assist will be worse off.

It's the same story over and over, politicians say it's not politically feasible = the interests of corporate backers would be impacted. I read a book of essays by Chomsky (who I'm no fan of) but in one section, he referenced a survey of US citizens relating to universal healthcare. ~ 70% said it should be a basic right, and ~ 40% thought it already was. The desire is there, and has been for decades. The political class has refused to address it because of it contravenes the interests of business.

As to how to pay for these ideas, tax tax tax. How many of the corporations listed on the Dow pay an effective tax rate of 0%? Force corporations to come to heel and pay their fair share and end the culture of corporate socialism.

Rjd2

One of the more amusing elements of the debate last night.

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1144070046056165376

NSAman

pixelburp wrote: »

What you're saying is not wrong, but IMO neither the Primary or National Election is the time for details, plus the nature of the eventual opponent throws all those presumptions and conventions out the window. Say Sanders wins it: he could spend his entire campaign, and every debate detailing his Medicare-For-All policies ... and Trump will just blather "Socialism", "Who will??" or whatever lame nickname he'll have conjured up ("Tired Bernie" or some-such), and it'll derail the entire conversation.

Obviously the reverse is true: if Sanders is going to get pilloried either way, why not spend the time addressing the logistics? It seems you want someone who has, if nothing else, deep convictions in which case Sanders or Warren is probably your better choice - because the few times they have gone into details, they've outlined where the money will come from (IIRC, a tax on top earners)

I have to say, you're literally the first person I've read, anywhere, who has had a favourable thing to say about Delaney. He appears to have nothing going for him, and getting booed at a Democrat convention in California has probably already guaranteed his failure (IIRC, he came out against Medicare-For-All, in a wishy-washy, let's not go crazy sorta way).

Perhaps I am the first person to actually listen... (i somehow doubt it) But he was the only outsider (to me) last night. It was like they were all singing from the same hymn sheet. They were like sheep, no originality and certainly no one had an original thought. I'm sorry, but being over prepared without injecting your own personality into answers is something anyone can do. We DID see O'Rourke's personality shine through though, the lights are on but no one is home there...

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As to how to pay for these ideas, tax tax tax. How many of the corporations listed on the Dow pay an effective tax rate of 0%? Force corporations to come to heel and pay their fair share and end the culture of corporate socialism.

Tax, tax, tax, but we all know the corporations are not going to pay for this, despite them saving a fortune on Healthcare costs if this does come to pass. The ordinary Chad/Sandy is going to be the looser again.

It may surprise you to know that poverty levels amongst working families in this country are shocking. The local food banks have queues each thursday and most of these people are working two jobs.

The way America is set up currently, and this is the main point from my perspective, is that Government is protected with tax which may be smaller from your pay packet, but indirect taxation i.e. property tax, sales tax, etc accounts for a massive chunk of change from working families. To change this system to include free anything, will involve a complete re-organisation of government. Do I trust government to do this? Absolutely not.

Where I think changes can be made and need to be made are in the following areas:

Health
Drug purchasing: Fixed negotiated rates.
Capping Insurance company profits (health)/Refunds for those who do not use insurance/fixed cost procedures.

Education
Again, fixing the cost of education (to start).
Not allowing construction costs to become part of student fees... if you want to expand the campus have alumni pay for it..(I say this as I see the construction of most university campus projects throughout the USA as the main development in construction in the USA)
No more pay to play.

Low Wage Economy.
While many have tried this $15 minimum wage, it ultimately will push up the cost of living for all. That has been evidenced in Seattle and most cities/states where this has been implemented. Tax breaks for the low paid are what are needed. Seeing the poverty here where I live by people willing to work and working hard, is difficult to stomach. There has to be incentive for those too lazy to work (and there are many) and awards for those in low paid jobs to continue to work. That in my opinion can only be done through tax incentives/breaks. Raising the minimum wage, just creates more tax but ultimately costs more in rising costs for the low paid, so they never get out of the merry-go-round.

The Spanish stuff was bizarre.

And one of the candidates saying his first act as president would be to put illegal illegal immigrants who haven't committed a "serious" crime on the road to citizenship was imo bizarre. That along with the Spanish just sounds like Americans are #2.

It was talked about in the main Trump thread and I agree with some who thought the Dems were being pushed too far left. I think for that big middle ground of voters, accepting Trump's mental retardation (just quoting Iran, don't ban) would be easier than accepting what would be the building blocks of an open border with people like AOC coming into the limelight within the next decade opening it up more.


Then again, I'm not the best with US politics. Who knows.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

The Spanish stuff was bizarre.

For one, the debate was held in Miami; it was a pretty transparent attempt at local flavour, and to court latin voters. Tokenism at its finest but not the worst idea in the world. Couldn't see a Republican doing that without fear of Fox News screaming at them. Not sure how that demographic traditionally votes - obviously 'latin' covers about a dozen ethnicities and nationalities - but they're a maligned but important demographic.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

For one, the debate was held in Miami; it was a pretty transparent attempt at local flavour, and to court latin voters. Tokenism at its finest but not the worst idea in the world. Couldn't see a Republican doing that without fear of Fox News screaming at them. Not sure how that demographic traditionally votes - obviously 'latin' covers about a dozen ethnicities and nationalities - but they're a maligned but important demographic.

I get the why.. But time will tell whether the Latino community appreciated it. Everyone would take that differently. Some liking it; some not liking it. I personally wouldn't take it well if the candidates who spoke Spanish only did it on TV.

One tweet I saw somewhere had a person saying they were in tears feeling they were truly appreciated for the first time because they spoke Spanish. Odd imo.

BluePlanet

NSAman wrote: »

Tax breaks for the low paid are what are needed.
That in my opinion can only be done through tax incentives/breaks.

Low earners are already below the earning threshold and don't pay Federal and State taxes. The only tax they pay is at the cash register.

What they need, is a pay rise.

AbusesToilets

NSAman wrote: »

Perhaps I am the first person to actually listen... (i somehow doubt it) But he was the only outsider (to me) last night. It was like they were all singing from the same hymn sheet. They were like sheep, no originality and certainly no one had an original thought. I'm sorry, but being over prepared without injecting your own personality into answers is something anyone can do. We DID see O'Rourke's personality shine through though, the lights are on but no one is home there...



Tax, tax, tax, but we all know the corporations are not going to pay for this, despite them saving a fortune on Healthcare costs if this does come to pass. The ordinary Chad/Sandy is going to be the looser again.

It may surprise you to know that poverty levels amongst working families in this country are shocking. The local food banks have queues each thursday and most of these people are working two jobs.

The way America is set up currently, and this is the main point from my perspective, is that Government is protected with tax which may be smaller from your pay packet, but indirect taxation i.e. property tax, sales tax, etc accounts for a massive chunk of change from working families. To change this system to include free anything, will involve a complete re-organisation of government. Do I trust government to do this? Absolutely not.

Where I think changes can be made and need to be made are in the following areas:

Health
Drug purchasing: Fixed negotiated rates.
Capping Insurance company profits (health)/Refunds for those who do not use insurance/fixed cost procedures.

Education
Again, fixing the cost of education (to start).
Not allowing construction costs to become part of student fees... if you want to expand the campus have alumni pay for it..(I say this as I see the construction of most university campus projects throughout the USA as the main development in construction in the USA)
No more pay to play.

Low Wage Economy.
While many have tried this $15 minimum wage, it ultimately will push up the cost of living for all. That has been evidenced in Seattle and most cities/states where this has been implemented. Tax breaks for the low paid are what are needed. Seeing the poverty here where I live by people willing to work and working hard, is difficult to stomach. There has to be incentive for those too lazy to work (and there are many) and awards for those in low paid jobs to continue to work. That in my opinion can only be done through tax incentives/breaks. Raising the minimum wage, just creates more tax but ultimately costs more in rising costs for the low paid, so they never get out of the merry-go-round.

Good points. I feel the first thing that the Democrats need to do, if they gain power, is to wrest away the tools of democracy from corporate interests. Voting reform, an end to gerrymandering, an end to unlimited corporate money. Until actual citizens control the tools of government in a real sense, it's all just hot air.

The demarcation between the ruling business class and the working poor are unassailable, as things stand. It doesn't matter which party is in power, they are insulated from any real interruption to their activities. Just look at the fall out from the 2008 crash. Not one person from Wall St faced prosecution for their actions. They have simply continued to do what they want, and bought the politicians who can enact the legislation they desire.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

It was talked about in the main Trump thread and I agree with some who thought the Dems were being pushed too far left. I think for that big middle ground of voters, accepting Trump's mental retardation (just quoting Iran, don't ban) would be easier than accepting what would be the building blocks of an open border with people like AOC coming into the limelight within the next decade opening it up more.


Then again, I'm not the best with US politics. Who knows.

Immigration isn't a right and left issue though. Open borders certainly isn't a far left thing because the most far left countries on earth are the hardest in the world to try and enter.

pixelburp

So the heavyweights tonight (sorry Warren): last nights was a fairly tepid, bar a few moments like Castro v. O'Rourke. Biden's the man in front so I wonder how aggressive his rivals tonight will be. I could see Sanders & Harris being diplomatic, while those at the back like Hickenlooper might be the ones to go for broke.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Immigration isn't a right and left issue though. Open borders certainly isn't a far left thing because the most far left countries on earth are the hardest in the world to try and enter.

Stating the obvious here, illegal immigration is good for Democrats. Sure immediately they won't be able to vote but down the line they'll have kids and their kids will have kids and relations will get over and so on who will be able to. It guarantees them future voters.

The partisan divide on immigration didn't just magically happen. We don't need the statements echoing from members of the Democrat party like AOC + Beto to confirm what's going on, nor the handing out of driver licences and other incentives being given out in blue states. Illegal immigration means changing demographics which means more votes for the Dems but at a massive financial cost to the country.

Then we could look into progressive ideology and all that and wanting to get rid of all the auld white fellas. It isn't just financial cost either...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972

"80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S."

BluePlanet

peddlelies wrote: »

The partisan divide on immigration didn't just magically happen. We don't need the statements echoing from members of the Democrat party like AOC + Beto to confirm what's going on, nor the handing out of driver licences and other incentives being given out in blue states. Illegal immigration means changing demographics which means more votes for the Dems but at a massive financial cost to the country.

A massive cost to the country?
More likely a massive boon to farmers and other employers.

Anyway the way to fix the problem permanently is to fix the countries they are fleeing. But Republicans and (establishment) Dems are too selfish for that.

rossie1977

Immigration is a big issue because Trump is doing such a terrible job. If Trump hadn't taken such a hard line stance and called the immigrants dogs, murderers/rapists or banned Muslims this wouldn't be an issue. Trump and his administration come across as heartless monsters so it is an easy topic for Dems especially Hispanic Dems to target. Remember Obama deported more people than Trump has so far but he had sympathy for immigrants fleeing war/poverty.

Obama and Hillary came across as heartless in Michigan where they offered the people of Flint nothing and backing the Republican governor.. Trump waltzed in with a left wing promises and won state.

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

So the heavyweights tonight (sorry Warren): last nights was a fairly tepid, bar a few moments like Castro v. O'Rourke. Biden's the man in front so I wonder how aggressive his rivals tonight will be. I could see Sanders & Harris being diplomatic, while those at the back like Hickenlooper might be the ones to go for broke.

A lot of the ore vocal Harris and Sanders fans dislike Biden for obviously different reasons, both of there campaigns are a little tepid right now so they really should go for Biden.

On last night on reflection, obviously also rans, but Tulsi and Castro did their chances of been VP no harm whatsoever and yeah that will be the best either can expect when this is over.

Rjd2

rossie1977 wrote: »

Immigration is a big issue because Trump is doing such a terrible job. If Trump hadn't taken such a hard line stance and called the immigrants dogs, murderers/rapists or banned Muslims this wouldn't be an issue. Trump and his administration come across as heartless monsters so it is an easy topic for Dems especially Hispanic Dems to target. Remember Obama deported more people than Trump has so far but he had sympathy for immigrants fleeing war/poverty.

Obama and Hillary came across as heartless in Michigan where they offered the people of Flint nothing and backing the Republican governor.. Trump waltzed in with a left wing promises and won state.

Hilary got criticism from the left of the base for been relatively centre right on immigration, I do recall her been asked did she support open borders and shut it down instantly. Sanders also came under criticism for saying no the same question and said open borders was a libertarian fantasy.

Anne Coulter ffs actually said Bernie was ok on immigration once.:p

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Obama and Hillary came across as heartless in Michigan where they offered the people of Flint nothing and backing the Republican governor.. Trump waltzed in with a left wing promises and won state.

I don't know how to reply to this. Perhaps broaden your horizons?

eagle eye

Trump is winning in 2020 with what I'm seeing here.
Is it too late for Martin Heinrich to get in the race?

Rjd2

Looking at this objectively Harris has won this debate easily as her attack on Biden will gain a lot of coverage. Biden has a large base, but that might hurt the older black voters who so far have been loyal to him. Biden definitely a mess after that and the line " Im out of time" will come back to haunt him even if he gets the nomination.

Sanders the most substantive of the candidates but at times his gruff manner will put of those on the fence. Like Warren an okish if dull night for him.

Yang got little coverage which was annoying and will have lost good will by running down the PUTIN ~~~ DEMOCRACY~~~rabbit hole for cheap Maddow pops. A missed opportunity for him.

Williamson a strange candidate, but more interesting than many of the no hopers on set.

Gillibrand slick, stylish and even emptier than Beto.

Rjd2

Harris went at him over his past policies regarding race and Sanders regarding Iraq and both hurt him. I can imagine the likes of Booker,,,Tulsi and others watching that debate very closely. Biden is in trouble for sure after tonight.

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

Looking at this objectively Harris has won this debate easily.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Imo Buttigieg and Hickenlooper came out best. I thought Harris came across terribly but she did hurt Biden, thing is she came across to me as very fake.

Rjd2

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Imo Buttigieg and Hickenlooper came out best. I thought Harris came across terribly but she did hurt Biden, thing is she came across to me as very fake.

Harris is not my cup of tea but she massacred Biden in what will be the most discussed and watched moment of the entire week easily. That's more than enough for week 1.

Itssoeasy

I see Harris got the viral moment and Biden had a rough night at the office.

pixelburp

I had a feeling this was a sink or swim for Harris; her campaign got a bit of a bump at the start but like a lot of others, got swept aside once Biden stomped in and commanded the polls.

I was happily asleep while the debate happened but as I watch bits & pieces, Harris definitely came out with the best quotables. When the bickering & talking over each other started, her likely rehearsed line to calm the crowd looked great. I can see her getting a bump.

Bernie was Bernie; I mean, at this stage we all KNOW his policies and stances, so all he has to do is stay the course and should be in with a shout. It's easy to become used to and numb to his talking points but the guy's consistent, and he shot down Bennett ably enough when challenged on Medicare 4 All.

As with last night, you got the no-hopers taking big swings; Swalwell (fairly) criticising Biden for being too old - the story about Biden passing the torch, 32 years ago, was on point. Biden's so old I've never actually seen a 'working' picture of him as a young man. He has been old forever. I haven't seen many of the other smaller candidates so can't comment too much. As mentioned, Bennett got shot down for opposing Medicare4All.

As to Biden? Blood hell. If they pick him it's a Trump victory; he's precisely the kind of slick, superficial establishment figure that lost the Democrats the election the last time around; Harris demolished his Civil Rights stances so easily & ably, Biden simply smirking his way through it all, he'll be destroyed by Republican smear campaigns. He just presents all wrong - he's a good wingman, Obama picking him as running mate was a deft move; Obama the good cop, Biden the bad cop.

FreudianSlippers

eagle eye wrote: »

Trump is winning in 2020 with what I'm seeing here.
Is it too late for Martin Heinrich to get in the race?

Harris, on view of what happened last night, will eviscerate Trump in debates and make him look like the weakling he really is to the portion of his base who only really respect him because he's a bully. Trump will be wanting anyone but Harris after last night.

rossie1977

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Harris, on view of what happened last night, will eviscerate Trump in debates and make him look like the weakling he really is to the portion of his base who only really respect him because he's a bully. Trump will be wanting anyone but Harris after last night.

Does it matter though? I mean Clinton wiped floor with Trump during 16 debates.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/TheNewThinkerr/status/1144431877115305984

Amusing and true.

Its a weakness for Harris, but I doubt anyone in these identity politics era would dare bring it up bar possibly Bookier and maybe Warren.

On the Harris v Biden issue....its hard to know will it matter,,,Biden's base is not online whatsoever,,,its older and they have been with Biden for a long time. More blows will need to be landed I think.

hill16bhoy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Does it matter though? I mean Clinton wiped floor with Trump during 16 debates.

There were three head to head debates. Clinton clearly won them, but a lot depends on how you win them, the manner in which you speak and whether people can relate to you.

Rightly or wrongly, or should I say just wrongly, Clinton was portrayed as a shrill, corrupt villain by Trump. Clinton also had a record to defend. Trump is now the one with record to defend and he's been an utterly terrible president.

Harris, as a prosecutor, is good at crafting memorable lines and really sticking the metaphorical knife in to an opponent with words.

I think her quiet, measured but sometimes devastating delivery could work very well in a two way format and visually, age wise, ethnically, she is a huge contrast to Trump. That's not the case with Biden or Bernie.

To me it now looks clear that Warren and Harris will battle it out for the nomination.

Biden has the momentum of a freight train - one falling back down a hill, that is.

pixelburp

rossie1977 wrote: »

Does it matter though? I mean Clinton wiped floor with Trump during 16 debates.

These will be different debates in tone though: in 2016, Trump could promise to Drain the Swamp, Lock Hillary Up, Build a Wall, and cycle through a sequence of seductive promises to all those disenfranchised voters, voters who likely saw Clinton as the Establishment incarnate. Trump was the "sure, he couldn't be any worse than those Washington suites" choice.

2020 will see Trump in a new position for him: having to defend his decisions and record; while his base will likely vote for him come hell or high water, the undecideds can look back on 2 years of the Trump Presidency, and compare that to the guy (presumably) ranting onstage. Trump has a shadow now, it's going to follow him into 2020.

What will Trump's strategy be here? He's not a details oriented man, certainly not in his speeches, so it's hard to see what he can say during these debates as quick counters to the Democrat's broad "you're doing a terrible job" approach. None of the previous soundbites will work, and will only serve to prove he can't deliver these things.

rossie1977

Harris is good debater no doubt and she has shown that in Senate but who exactly does she appeal to? Like I said before I don't see how she wins rust-belt and remember she needs Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to win Presidency. Trump will go in there again with a faux left wing message and promise world.

rossie1977

pixelburp wrote: »

What will Trump's strategy be here? He's not a details oriented man, certainly not in his speeches, so it's hard to see what he can say during these debates as quick counters to the Democrat's broad "you're doing a terrible job" approach. None of the previous soundbites will work, and will only serve to prove he can't deliver these things.

We saw his strategy at SOTU
1. I am the only one keeping America safe and working. Without me country is doomed.
2. Economy is best ever, elect my opponent and it will fail.
3. I am the only one saving us from war in middle east, North korea and Russia.
4. Socialism will destroy America, Dems want to America to be socialist like Venezuela, only I can stop that.

hill16bhoy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Harris is good debater no doubt and she has shown that in Senate but who exactly does she appeal to? Like I said before I don't see how she wins rust-belt and remember she needs Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to win Presidency. Trump will go in there again with a faux left wing message and promise world.

Trump's performance in those states was overstated.

In Wisconsin he actually got less votes than Romney in 2012, and the increase in his vote over Romney in the other rust belt states was nothing to write home about.

Harris is taking a lead from Warren on a lot of policy positions and Warren's positions will go down well in the rust belt states.

Democrats need to select a candidate that will get their base out in big numbers and you get the base out by going for bold policy positions like public healthcare and an increased minimum wage.

Also with Harris as candidate, black turnout would increase markedly from 2016.

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

Harris came across last night like nothing short of the four letter c word. She came across like everything was rehearsed too.
She has no hope of getting the nomination anyways.

Can't you say that about ALL politicians and debates though? Of course she rehearsed and had pre-written responses - they all do. Heck we do the same for our own speeches, interviews and so on. Trump being the obvious exception to the rule here (and continues to be), but saying a politician had rehearsed a debate seems a little ... disingenuous? I mean I think I get what you might mean, that perhaps the good politician can make it seem like they're speaking off the cuff, but we all know that's ultimately not true.

NSAman

pixelburp wrote: »

Can't you say that about ALL politicians and debates though? Of course she rehearsed and had pre-written responses - they all do. Heck we do the same for our own speeches, interviews and so on. Trump being the obvious exception to the rule here (and continues to be), but saying a politician had rehearsed a debate seems a little ... disingenuous? I mean I think I get what you might mean, that perhaps the good politician can make it seem like they're speaking off the cuff, but we all know that's ultimately not true.

Agreed, like this magnificent speeches by Obama while turning his head to each teleprompter..;)

Actors the lot of em..;)