Democratic "Debates"

[Julius Seeker]

It wasn't a real debate, more like a mass interview convention.

My rankings:
1. Elizabeth Warren - this is probably expected, but she ran away with it by dominating the entire first half. She didn't say much in the second half, but the goals scored by the other candidates didn't catch up. She came off as really knowing her shit by being able to quote policy history. She got placed with an easy crowd, so she was able to shine. She basically stole the thunder from Tulsi Gabbard by coming out stronger than anyone in favour of Medicare for all, this is where Gabbard was expected to shine, and instead fell flat.
2. Julian Castro - again, a guy who knew his shit, and TOTALLY crushed Beto on it.
3. De Blasio - He had the best stories, came off as very experienced and successful due to citing his accomplishments as Mayor of New York (I know he's generally disliked, but he is less disliked than average of Mayors of New York since at least the 1980s, New Yorkers generally hate politicians).
4. Cory Booker - solid 4th, he spoke a lot, but the main area where he stood out was his charisma, but he didn't shine as an experienced Mayor in the way De Blasio did.
5. Inslee - got in very little, but his pro-Green stance was highly appealing.
6. Tulsi Gabbard - fell a little flat, and was outshined by Elizabeth Warren and Inslee on most issues - her only real plus is she knew the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
7. Tim Ryan - generally decent, but DIDN'T seem to see the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
8. Amy Klubichard - I am not sure what the fuck she was talking about most of the time.
9. John Delaney - Kept trying to interject the way De Blasio did, but flopped. He kept defending Beto's poor policy positions, is he Beto's father or something?
10. Beto O'Rourke - Donde esta la biblioteca? Castro and De Blasio manhandled Beto on the issues of the border and Medicare for all. He came off as being completely unprepared and nervous. I've seen it suggested that Texans like the kind of weak-ass bullshit he was doing, and that he didn't want to sacrifice his future candidacy there as a Senator or Governor - a HUGE mistake on his part. It made him look like an idiot.

But my opinions don't necessarily translate to the American voter. So, who gained and who lost on today's polls?

1. Elizabeth Warren rose from 12.2% to 18.1% (+5.9%)
2. Julian Castro 0.3% to 2.1% (+1.8%)
3. Tim Ryan 0.1% to 1.1% (+1%)
4. Cory Booker rose from 3.2% to 4.1% (+0.9%)
5. Amy Klobuchar 0.4% to 0.9% (+0.5%)
6. Bill De Blasio 0.2% to 0.5% (+0.3%)
7. Jay Inslee 0.3% to 0.5% (+0.2%)
8. John Delaney 0.2% to 0.4% (+0.2%)
9. Tulsi Gabbard 0.4% to 0.5% (+0.1%)
10. Beto 3.8 to 2.8% (-1%)

While Beto may appear as the biggest loser, Joe Biden tumbled down a full 6%, despite not being in the debate. Other losers include Pete Boutidege (-1.8%) and Kamala Harris (-1.5%). Bernie fell from 2nd to 3rd in the Democratic rankings despite making a 1.5% gain up to 17.7%.


Predictions for this evening:
From what I understand, Biden is a very Beto-ish type politician, but while the people in the second line-up are generally polling stronger, I'm uncertain they'll be as sharp a crowd as Warren, De Blasio, and Castro. Bernie knows his shit. Andrew Yang also knows his shit, but he speaks with a lot of corporate buzzphrases (paradigm shift, core competency, break open the silos, etc...) and technically correct terminology s that (ironically) makes him sound like he's a cross between inexperienced and full of shit; it won't even matter if what he says is correct. I'm a fan of Yang's policies, but he's weak at communications: I fear that people might agree with his points until they hear it come out of his mouth.

My expectation is Bernie Sanders runs away with tonight. While he's against a lot of the higher polling people, I think his group will actually be weaker than last night's group. I'll probably like Andrew Yang's presentation the most, but I doubt he finds any significant gains. If Biden is Beto on steroids, then he's tonight's big loser - and the biggest loser of the combined debates.

[Replay]

Warren won, pretty much full stop. Passion, audience support, and her economic injustice and healthcare issues clearly defined and resonating.

Booker looked strong to me too. The concern in his eyes speaking about the assault rifle violence in Jersey is apparent.

Julian Castro was a surprise as well, annihilating O'Rourke on border policy and gaining points with me.

Weak links seem to be O'Rourke and whoever that faceless gray-haired thick-necked chode at the end was who was still flapping terror attacks from almost twenty years ago as an excuse for continued militarism. It was actually nice to see Gabbard wreck him.

Who was that guy even? I hate militarist Democrats. Those who do not believe that the Department of Defense is for defense - not the Department of War - cannot get my vote.

EDIT: It's Inslee. He's off my support list entirely. I did not trust him one damned bit.
EDIT 2: Nope, corrected by Seek, was Tim Ryan.

[Julius Seeker]

EDIT: It's Inslee. He's off my support list entirely. I did not trust him one damned bit.

Inslee was the environmentalist. The militaristic guy you're thinking of is Tim Ryan.


On to tonight:

Aside from Yang and tonight's group being weaker than yesterday's, my predictions are mostly wrong so far.

* Kamala Harris is absolutely crushing this debate, it's not even close. She's the clear winner in hour 1.
* Yang is bombing hard, worse than I thought. He is very jumbled in his answers.
* Bernie is disappointing, he's too vague. He's not doing poorly, but he's below last night's top 4 (Warren, Castro, De Blasio, and Booker). He basically scored one really nice blow by paraphrasing a Tommy Douglas pro-medicare speech from 40 years ago. But he should have landed 3-4 of these by now.
* Biden is holding on stronger than I thought.

EDIT: Kamala Harris is SMASHING up Biden.
I've noticed that this group backs up into talking points a lot more than yesterday's group. This is disappointing, reminds me of Trudeau.

[Replay]

Thanks for the heads-up. It's unfortunate that I can't even identify him, but hoo boy, that was the kind of thing I never want to see in liberal debates again.

We gotta get a new Carter up there somehow. Love or hate him, and whatever else one thinks of his Presidency, his work as a peacemaker in his post-Presidential term has been ongoing and blessed. He was a good, kind, meek man in a bad town that does not value these things, but I still think we're better for his time there.

[Replay]

No surprises on Harris. She's going to make the cuts to the further rounds of the debates and deserves to. She may be the breakout star of this year.

[Replay]

I'll back Warren, Harris, Booker, Castro, and Sanders in any combination for any positions right now, including the Presidency.

Neutral on Biden, Inslee, Klobuchar and Gabbard.

Beto and Ryan lost my support in these debates. They're unsuitable as candidates to me at this time.

[Julius Seeker]

I think Kamala Harris came off weak in the latter third and called in on the closing statement. But I think she was so strong in the first half that she still came off first while Bernie came back strongly in the last quarter for a solid #3 although Buttigieg held 2 as he was strong throughout.

I wasn't as much a fan of night 2 because the focus was very heavily on an appeal to emotion, they evaded questions and backed up into talking points often, and only Yang followed the rules and it worked against him since it put him at a disadvantage (even though he would have lost regardless). This one was MUCH harder to grade as a result.

My rankings right now:

1. Kamala Harris - strong for the first 60% or so of the debate, completely savaged Joe Biden on race relations, but then after that moment had nothing to say in the last 40% of the debate or so and finished very weak.
2. Pete Buttigieg - Never weak, somewhat strong, I didn't like him as much as Castro or De Blasio. His weakness is he sounded too scripted. He was close to Booker, and actually hit some better, but Booker came off a lot more authentic.
3. Bernie Sanders - Really disappointing, but he came off very strong in the final quarter. Unfortunately, his first 75% was full of vagueness and backing into talking points that weren't very related to the questions. Easily had the strongest closing statement of the night.
4. Kristen Gillibrand - Was like a weaker Buttigieg. Although she DID seem to improve throughout, as though she was learning along the way.
5. Joe Biden - Was doing well until Kamala Harris killed him, and he never began to recover after that. He came off worse than everyone last night except Beto, but fortunately for him the rest of the cast was weaker.
6. Swalwell - Nailed Buttigieg on an incident where someone in his town got shot.
7 (tie). Andrew Yang - I think he got exposed as being somewhat two dimensional.
7. (tie) Hickenlooper, Bennet, Williamson - I have no idea what these were saying. I think they said some interesting things, but I completely forgot. Maybe I'll watch clips and edit these guys up.

Overall I rank them like this:
1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Kamala Harris
3. Julian Castro
4. Bill De Blasio
5. Cory Booker
6. Pete Buttigieg
7. Bernie Sanders (sigh)
8. Kristen Gillibrand
9. Inslee
10. Tulsi Gabbard
11. Joe Biden
12. Swalwell
13. Tim Ryan
14. Amy Klubichard
15 Big tie - John Delaney, Andrew Yang, Hickenlooper, Bennet, Williamson
20. Beto O'Rourke

I think, except Joe Biden due to pre-existing popularity, everyone below Bernie Sanders is done. I expect Biden to see severe damage after this round of debates, and he will probably fall behind Elizabeth Warren in the coming weeks.

Note: after checking around, it seems a lot of people felt Bernie was the solid #2 of the night over Buttigieg. But I didn't see it that way. Others liked tonight's "debate" better than last night's. I felt the opposite. While I felt I learned a lot on the first night was sharp and on point, the second night was far more vague, repetitive, and a lot of wide net casting without getting too much into specifics. No one told great stories like last night (except Kamala Harris). I didn't feel I got to know half the candidates in night 2, while I felt I got to know everyone from night 1.

To sum it up:
Night 1: Stories, focused policy position discussion, questions answered.
Night 2: Generalized platform discussion, emotional responses, focused on talking points instead of answering questions

Anyway, just my opinion. Polling will probably show a different result.

[Replay]

I think we agree on a few things.

Warren, Harris, Booker, and Castro turned in strong debates and look ready to contest both in primaries and the general. And Sanders remains popular because he was, well, the real Dem winner from the last cycle. Hillary cheated.

Beto was really not good at all. And I'd like to promote the notion that Ryan was even worse. These two men are not espousing Democratic priorities right now.

Biden is overrated. It's gonna be a shame if they Hillary him into the nomination. I miss the Obama years right now as much as anyone but he's just not Obama II, he's the Democrats' creepy old uncle who remains perennially popular because he lucked into a brilliant Vice Presidency somehow.

I'm not sure how to rate de Blasio and Buttigieg. Mayor-President runs are hard, because towns take a lot of energy to run, and both of them are suffering in their mayorships due to attention elsewhere. I'd prefer it if they focused on doing a good job where they are.

[Shrinweck]

I'm still completely for Warren. The more I see the more I support her so much that Sanders is kind of an after thought. So far I'd be happy with a few others but my support for Biden has waned. He's clearly not running as a representative for the younger part of the party. If this were any other presidential primary I would that say that that's a strong strategy, but if he keeps performing like last night then he's going to have a lot of his support cannibalized by more convincing and charismatic democrats.

I can't get excited for Beto. Once in a while I hear something interesting come out of his mouth but then I realize it had very little substance (like a lot of the people running). I wish him well in what he does other than this but I can't see him becoming much more appealing. The New York Times had a list of positions held by elected presidents. The news is surprisingly bad for people who have at most been House of Representative members. Two ever. With the last one coming from 1880. Those aren't betting numbers.

Buttigieg is appealing, but also does not seem to have much substance. He's only a few years older than I am and that hurts him as well, since I just don't have a lot of confidence in someone that young leading the country. I like that he's getting his face out there - maybe in 10-20 years I'd be happy to vote for him. Mayor is a tough gig, though. A lot can happen politically to end his career. Senators have it good. Also, if you're curious how many presidents have been mayors (as their highest position) - the answer is 0. So, uh, jesus fucking christ. Not that it stopped Trump from being the first person with no military or political experience, but it still hurts.

I kind of like the dumb sappy shit Williamson had to say last night, but it doesn't mean I'd vote for her. Swalwell had some interesting sound bites but nothing that built any momentum with me.

Basically, Warren is still the only person I'd happily vote for in the primaries here in March. Booker, Harris, Sanders, Castro, and even maybe Biden still have plenty of time to become my second choice, though. I feel like Castro and Booker are incredibly strong picks for VP who could use the clout for future elections, although it's likely, as always, to come from the rather large pool of people not running.

Last nights debate was kind of a shit show, especially compared to the rather peaceful debate the night before with Warren and everyone else. There was a lot less talking shit, too. I think there's a lot more to be gained from not drawing blood until the pack thins to less than six. Well, either that or handling it like Harris. The food fight thing was clearly prepared and kind of eye-roll worthy, but telling the bickering politicians to get their shit together made her stock go up. Also helps to not get into a shouting match like Sanders and Gillibrand.

[Replay]

Warren made me a fan with her performance, not least of which when she was 1 of only 2 candidates in a huge field to raise her hand and say - yes, I'll give up my cushy SenateCare and go on the same insurance policies I'm proposing for Americans.

Big courage, big heart. She destroys Trump in current polling. I'll take her in a heartbeat and be proud to call her our first woman President!

[Replay]

I like Warren/Booker as a ticket for maximum demographic appeal and courage, even though it would exclude my top candidate - Harris - from the Executive power positions.

Harris would make a *fantastic* Secretary of State or Attorney General - my goodness, if she were America's top cop, the things she could do to go after private prison owners and corruption generally.

In general I think it's becoming clear that Warren has a strong chance to overturn Biden in the polls based on her greater courage, heart, and preparedness. Her quiet sensibility is really impressing every single person I know in America with liberal leanings.

It may be her time.

Pocahontas for President!

[Julius Seeker]

I think De Blasio was auditioning for Vice President. In the banning private insurance question, Elizabeth Warren put her hand up, then he looked at her and put his hand up after. When Beto attacked the idea, De Blasio SAVAGED him!

If that’s not a “Hey Elizabeth, Beto’s head: my gift to you, and you don’t get your hands dirty” moment I don’t know what is =)


Also, Williamson, while I put her on the bottom, I think her performance from strictly an entertainment perspective was probably #2 next to Kamala Harris. She also won the trending war on google and has grabbed a lot of headlines. I predict that even though I felt she didn’t do well, that she’ll go up in the polls. She obviously came off as weird (battling Trump with the power of love ‘n all) but a lot of people seem to find it both charming and meme-worthy!

[Julius Seeker]

Some commentary on https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/de ... bate-poll/

FAVOURABILITY
As a note, all contestants gained in both favourability AND unfavourability with the exception of Joe Biden, who lost favourability, and Elizabeth Warren who lost unfavourability.
Taking favourability and unfavourability into account, the most favourable contestants are:
1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Kamala Harris
3 (Statistical Tie): Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Julian Castro
4 (Statistical Tie): Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg


THE POLLS
After the second debate, people swung back in favour of the day 2 candidates. Despite Castro being a major star, his star hasn't risen as far as his debate performance suggests it should. Kamala Harris's dominance of Joe Biden was a massive victory for her. Another disappointment is Kristen Gillibrand who I thought had a really good showing and is perhaps the only other candidate on stage 2 (besides Kamala Harris) that I learned something about.
Rankings:
1. Joe Biden - 31.5%
2. Bernie Sanders - 17.7%
3. Kamala Harris - 16.6%
4. Elizabeth Warren - 14.4%
5. Pete Buttigieg - 4.8%
6. Cory Booker - 2.8%
7. Beto O'Rourke - 2.2%
8. Julian Castro - 1.7%
9. Andrew Yang - 1.2%
10. Tulsi Gabbard - 0.7%

WINNERS AND LOSERS OF THE DEBATE
Despite polling numbers, what really matters is the shift. And things could change a lot in the coming week when media sources get ahold of clips and start playing them on repeat.

Here are the biggest winners:
Kamala Harris: +8.7
Bernie Sanders: +2.9
Elizabeth Warren: +1.8
Julian Castro: +1
Amy Klobuchar +0.5

Biggest Losers:
Joe Biden -10%
Pete Buttigieg: -1.9
Beto O'Rourke: -1.4
Kristen Gillibrand: -0.3
Cory Booker: -0.2

So yeah, my opinions were quite a bit different than the general population except on Biden.

ANALYSIS
While all the candidates share views, there is certainly a different focus. Economic progressives focus on Medicare for all, green energy, and taxation policy; while the social justice candidates focused on border issues and identity-based inequality, and law/police system. The last groups are the moderates: Biden, O'Rourke, Bennet, Ryan, etc.. who are only interesting because they're losing big time.

Social Justice candidates
* Kamala Harris won BIG with social justice points.
* Julian Castro also had a social justice approach, and so his gains were cut short by Harris.
* Buttigieg, another social justice focused candidate, came off as too rehearsed despite being the second composed in his answers during night 2. Harris's more authentic approach seems to have cut him down significantly.
* Cory Booker ended up losing due to Kamala Harris taking his support.
* Swalwell pretty much plaid a weaker version of De Blasio in that he took it upon himself to attack Biden, but made no gains because Kamala Harris shone far brighter.

Economic Progressive candidates
* Bernie Sanders won a moderate victory.
* Elizabeth Warren made huge gains and lost a lot to Bernie in night 2.
* Gillibrand made losses as a result of the stronger candidates. gained from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
* Bill De Blasio was a good attack dog, but failed to make significant gains due to Bernie and Warren having cleaner hands. I think he's running for Vice President!
* Yang was flat.
* Inslee lost in the end due to being a less well-known candidate.

At this point, where do I see things going?

1. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both economic progressives will continue to gain. I think if one gives up, the other picks up the majority of the support.
2. Kamala Harris is the sole major social justice candidate, so I see her going far into second before Warren or Sanders give up, then she slips to third. But CAN potentially take the win depending on:
3. Biden will continue to evaporate, his support is going mainly to the social justice side, so Kamala Harris will be the big winner there if things continue to go as is. I think Biden is losing about 3/5ths to Kamala Harris and 2/5ths to Warren/Sanders.

That means Kamala Harris +18.9 and Warren Sanders +12.6 or:
Bernie/Warren at 44.7 and Harris at 35.5, not factoring in undecideds or the support of the other 22 candidates.
So my prediction is Bernie or Warren win, but Harris is a strong contender, and it would be FOOLISH for Bernie not to pick Harris as Vice - Warren has she doesn't need Harris for the female vote, she can go Castro, Buttigieg, or Harris.

What do you guys think?

[kali o.]

I dont know how anyone watches these debates and doesnt get sick to thier stomaches. The identity politics was off the charts. Harris calling Biden a racist (but not racist) and lying about her own history.

None of these people has a chance in 2020 if they are bringing far left ideas to the main stage (free healthcare and education for illegals, open borders, UBI, no limit abortion, gun confiscation, etc).

Having watched both debates...Harris was the most despicable and slimy. Hilary Redux, just without the experience.

Bernie was the biggest "surprise". I mean, I knew he had little fight in him after he wilted in 2015/16 when 2 teenage girls rushed his stage - but he faded in these debates fast. The raised tax question completely deflated him and his talking points.

[Julius Seeker]

[Don]

I didn't watch the debates but from reading the summaries, I find that despite claims about being equal and whatever, the 'old white guy' prototype is still relatively advantageous even in America and I'm not sure the younger guys like Warren can easily get through. This mentality will change some day but it seems to be making a last stand with Trump. Heck, even the fact that Biden is the front runner shows that America still seems to prefer to go with some known quantity. It probably doesn't help that with Congress being mostly ineffective it'd be pretty hard for any of the younger guys to have a meaningful track record when the entire legislative body isn't doing anything.

Ignoring the party issue aside, I don't understand why America votes for old guys in political positions. I think Robert Gates was saying that people in their 70s shouldn't be running for president because you're simply not in the kind of physical/mental condition expected for such a job. Likewise we know a lot of the Justices are really old and again do you really think some guy who might be senile is really the guy you want on the highest court of the land? Why does a system favor old guys who are objectively not as qualified as their younger counterpart simply due to age related issues?

[Replay]

The Democratic base is sick of creepy old white men, and Biden is not showing signs that he's prepared to assiduously avoid that territory. It may be profiling; but it's true. I know nobody liberal right now who is just Biden gung-ho. I want to meet these people, if they exist, because I wouldn't put it past him to be juicing his numbers or have a few favorable friends who are reporters at prominent newspapers doing writeups for him.

Biden is running on Obama's fumes. He's not Obama. And Obama's endorsement may be what ultimately chooses the winner of the primaries this round. I like Joe, but I don't love him. He has always been quietly snug with the military-industrial establishment. He wrote a counterterrorism bill that heavily later influenced the PATRIOT Act. I want to see his policy positions, I want to see his actual position on legislating civil rights, in peacetime and in war, and I want to see a Middle Eastern peace plan from him as a gesture of good faith. It won't be hard to beat Trump's, apparently. They all fucking fail, but he needs to at least try to even get my support right now.

[Don]

I think it's pretty weird that you pretty much have no grooming process for either party as I can't think of any raising stars in either party in terms of accomplishment. Yes some of them say something cool on Twitter but there's no actual deeds to back it up. If I recall Obama pretty much had nothing in his background either since he was quite young. You'd think a country as big and powerful as USA you'd have people with a list of accomplishment lining up for either party but this just isn't happening. I think the US Government is setup to be quite inefficient, since checks & balance is a fancy way of saying someone else can always screw you if they wanted to. It's probably some kind of freak accident that you didn't have the current kind of paralysis you see at the federal level when people actually disagree on things in the past.

People joked that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush, and now it seems like Biden is the frontrunner and his best trait is that he's not Trump. This is a guy Bin Laden was telling his operatives don't risk their lives trying to kill him because it's not worth it. I don't think Biden is a bad person, but he seems rather ordinary and it makes me wonder why this is the best the Democratic party can come up with. Maybe the American political system just isn't very good, and I wonder right now we're seeing a sense of reckoning. After all, if you go by history an imperial dynasty is the best form of government for every century except the last two (China leads the world in pretty much all objective categories in history), so just because America's been doing great in the last century or so doesn't mean its system is the best or even good. The way I hear the American talk about the Constitution and Founding Father, you'd think this is some kind of Theocracy since you'd have to believe the origin to be divine in nature to have such faith in it, given that there are many clearly bad or obsolete ideas that clearly the Founding Fathers never thought of but we're supposed to stick to it as the supreme law of the land. At least if you're going to by the Bible or a similar text it's pretty hard to argue against something that allegedly come from a divine being. I mean, reading the Constitution arguments reminds me of Mega Man X series where Dr. Light has prepared for all contingencies for the 15 games that took place long after his death, since clearly the Founding Fathers have to be that prepared to account for advancements that are completely unthinkable during their days.

[Shrinweck]

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/statu ... 83232?s=19

Lol she is great

[kali o.]

I don't think Biden is a bad person, but he seems rather ordinary

He appears so because the rest of the dem line up is literally fucking crazy. They've gone far left, over the cliff. They are embracing socialism. They are advocating benefits and spending for non-citizens while their own citizens are suffering. They celebrate killing babies and tranny reproduction justice. Shit is fucked up.

Biden is "ordinary", but no one else stands a chance against Trump in a general. It's the passively informed and tumblr/twitter crowd driving the Democrats at this point but that won't translate.

[Julius Seeker]

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/statu ... 83232?s=19

Lol she is great

I think they should stick with her, she might legalize ayahuasca =D

[Replay]

Would be nice to see soft drug legalizations and decrims discussed as a policy set.

In particular it's really past time America embraced the cannabis economy, which is worth hundreds of billions a year in jobs, taxes, etc. to this nation - "Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere" was actually said by George Washington.

A promise to pursue decriminalization/stop Federal raids on cannabusinesses would go a long way, just as it did in Obama's era.

[Replay]

Overall though, I'm happy and hopeful. Biden isn't a shoe-in and a fix like Hillary was, not yet - field is open - and many deserving candidates are getting a shot to become future stars of liberalism. Warren, Booker, Harris, and Sanders are all topnotch progressive candidates who deserve their shot and just might get it!

[Julius Seeker]

The second round of debates.

Again, I much preferred the first night - I felt Warren and Sanders shone brightly. Bernie needs to stop saying that his ideas are socialist, they're not; he likes to keep using the term socialism even though his positions have changed over the past 30 years. The magicians trick works though as a lot of his fans (particularly the culty ones) think he's been saying the same things for like 30-40+ years when the reality is he's using the same words - they mean very different things now than they did in the 80s. Still, that's a gripe I have with a particular faction of Bernie fans and not Bernie himself; if you've done even 5 minutes of research on socialism, you know that Bernie's positions are standard mainstream social-democratic. I don't even think he's to the left of Trudeau (the first Trudeau, not the current one), and certainly not to the left of Tommy Douglas -- although he has dropped some Tommy Douglas lines. He also paraphrases FDR quite a lot.

If Bernie is running on the leftist positions of FDR, then Warren's views can be categorized as a mixup of FDR and Teddy (who, while republican, was HIGHLY progressive on a lot of issues; Warren wants to break up big corporations, Teddy DID break up big corporations). I loved how Warren (and Bernie too) criticized CNN for their stupid questions and format; Warren shot them down "If you're looking for someone to make personal attacks against so and so, you're asking the wrong candidate," and she instead stuck to debating issues rather than idiocy. For the most part, it set the tone for the entire debate... but it didn't carry over to night 2.

Anyway, I enjoyed night 1 of the debates. I felt that Delaney played a far better role as a Devil's Advocate critic for Bernie and Warren to respond to than the CNN team did. So while I don't agree with Delaney's positions, his presence was welcome.

Marianne Williamson got to clarify her positions a bit better. She's one that scares people, because (like Bernie) she uses language which perhaps she shouldn't. She sounds more like a spiritual libertarian than anything, and that scares the crap out of people when it comes to vaccinations; something I know she has had to clarify a stance on like eight dozen times. I thought she did well; she's an author and has a great understanding of history (probably better knowledge than the others).

Tim Ryan had a lot of good points, but again said something stupid that a sharp Bernie was quick to point out:
Bernie was laying out a list of specifics in the medicare for all bill
Ryan said, "Yeah, but you don't know that's all in there."
Bernie responds, "Of course I do! I wrote the damn bill!"
Probably the funniest moment of the night. Tim Ryan, I think he has mostly good intentions, but he's not the brightest.
Klobuchar is kind of like Tim Ryan, except smarter.

Beto and Buttigieg did A LOT better this time around, and we learned a lot about their positions.

The people that left little impression on me:

Then there was this Hickenlooper guy (he was there in the last round of debates), and I completely forgot anything he said.

Then, Steve Bullock who reminds me a lot of someone, I can't put my thumb on it. But otherwise, he didn't leave an impression.

So 8 out of 10 candidates I felt I learned more about. Though, again, I wish there was more policy debate. They kept cutting everyone off all the time. Poor moderation by CNN; but the poor moderation was not the fault of the moderators; they just had lousy instructions to follow.



Night 2 was a bit of a shit show, to be honest.

Only 4 people shone to me:

Andrew Yang and Inslee got to their policies and presented those. They were the only two people there that avoided the personal attack game which CNN pitted them in. Again, like Warren and Sanders, Yang criticized CNN for attempting that.

Everyone else focused on Joe Biden, attacking him; but all it served to do was give him a lot more media exposure and a strong platform to clarify his positions. Kamala Harris tagged him with an attack on the bussing thing again (which I found out later actually occurred back in 1977, 42 years ago) and he fired right back at her with an attack on her record, which then got hammered in more in-depth with an attack by Tulsi Gabbard against Kamala Harris. I guess when it comes to her strategy: live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yang, Inslee, and Biden.
My 4th good candidate would be Booker. He was involved in the mudslinging game, but only because Biden slung mud at him; and Booker didn't even bother fling mud so much as "Mr. Biden, do you really want to play the game of comparing records with me?" And then he proceeded to go off on his successes as Mayor. Biden helped Booker out there in the exact same way that everyone else was helping out Biden... although their intent was attacking. Booker stuck primarily to policy position attacks rather than personal/record attacks.

De Blasio was hammering on Biden with both record and policy attacks, so some good and bad. But he did NOT help himself out there since he didn't provide any details of his positions, just what he didn't like about Biden's.


I'd say the winners are Warren and Sanders. With runner ups being Biden, Williamson, Yang, and Booker. Then as bronze medalist being Buttigieg (despite being a bit of a dork).

Kamala Harris and Tim Ryan being the biggest losers.
Delaney gets an award for being the "I just don't give a shit" guy because he knows he's done. Again, I don't agree with him, but I respect how he conducted himself (he had a lot of critiques, but they were all based on current topics, unlike the crap in night 2 which was mostly about stuff that happened years to decades ago) and how he played the devil's advocate and giving Bernie and Warren a lot to respond to.

[Shrinweck]

I missed night one, but night two was pretty awful. Hopefully the candidates will have a better idea of what not to do in future debates after that.

Still can't imagine voting for anyone but Warren in the primary.

[Julius Seeker]

I think Biden's done after the next debate. He must know it's his last chance to recover... and he's not going to win looking amateurish when compared to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who now hold the 1 and 2 spots in polls.

So it now looks like this:
1. Elizabeth Warren 20% (up from 18%)
1. Bernie Sanders 20% (up from 19%)
3. Joe Biden 19% (down from 22% last week)
4. Kamala Harris 8% (Same as last week)
5. Cory Booker 4%
5. Pete Buttigieg 4%
7. Andrew Yang 3%
8. Marianne Williamson 2%
9. Julian Castro 2%
10. Beto O'Dork 2%
11. Gabbard and Kloubichar 1%

Looks like finance reform democrats are winning over Americans while social justice and left-leaning conservatism are falling.

[kali o.]

The current front runners have no chance outside of a primary (including Biden imo after seeing he might not be all there due to age). Gabbard and maybe Buttplug would stand the next best chance in a general. The rest have embraced the extremists on the Left and that will work against them in a general.


Harris would have stood a good chance if she came off genuine and honest; instead of courting the crazies and being vague on issues.

Unless something strange happens, I am expecting a 2nd term for Trump.

[Julius Seeker]

I've noticed that Andrew Yang has been using a version of the Green Party of Canada slogan "Not Left, not right, but forward."

[Replay]

Full transcript of the Nov. 20 debate, for those interested:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... 9-n1088186

[Replay]

My assessment of the good and bad from the Nov 20. debate - note that I did not watch, but did read the majority of the transcript:

Winners:
-Tulsi Gabbard, who insisted on her right to be both a Democrat and an antiwar candidate, pointing out that her criticism of Hillary in 2016 barred her effectively from the process - just like Sanders
-Bernie Sanders, who came across as very focused and prepared this debate, unlike the past, with more moderate plans than Warren's
-Andrew Yang, who is making points about inequality and why it's likely to continue that even the rest of the field isn't, and appears to be the candidate solving the problems we'll have ten years from now
-Joe Biden (yes, I said it), who actually made a strong case as the centrist position of choice for those who want respite from the current situation without instituting major costly programs, and he did it without devolving needlessly into attacks on others
-Tom Steyer, who for another billionaire candidate seemed quite friendly and focused on his message of economic development

Neutral:
-Warren, who was quite prepared and brave but still can't capably answer questions about how the United States can reasonably afford her medical plan
-Buttigeig, who didn't make any major mistakes but still seems green compared to the rest of the field

Losers:
-Harris, who came off as needlessly combative by attacking Gabbard
-The GOP, which had better prepare for a long fight as nearly every candidate on the stage stated their belief in the need to impeach and even criminally prosecute Donald Trump