Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

First Democratic Debate Poll!

First Democratic Debate Poll  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think will perform best on the first night?

  2. 2. Who do you think will perform best on the second night?

  3. 3. Hypothetically, if a 3rd debate was allowed for the remainders, who would perform best?



Recommended Posts

The line up has been announced! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second day is definitely much better than the first. All the big names except for Warren (Beto and Booker are like mid tier) are on the second day. I think Warren will be able to easily be the best on her day. The second day will be really interesting and will also probably get a lot more viewers than the first day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 3 from the first set: Warren, Castro, Gabbard. 

Top 3 from the second set: Yang, Buttigieg, Hickenlooper.

Hypothetically, I guess Messam might be the most charismatic out of those four so, him maybe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I don't support him as President, I think this is going to be Beto O'Rourke's breakout moment.  Unlike any other candidate on either stage...including Biden and Sanders...Beto has debated one-on-one against the very best the debating world has to offer.  

Ted Cruz.

Don't get me wrong -- I hate Cruz and hope he wakes up tomorrow to find all of his limbs have fallen off.  But he IS a masterful debater, and O'Rourke had to train incessantly to hold his own against him.  

So my money is on O'Rourke being the breakout surprise winner.

That said...wouldn't it just be amazing if it was John Delaney instead?  Like he's been going at this for damned near two years now, and he FINALLY gets his moment in the sun?  Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So what’s the consensus here, is the draw a big win for Warren or big negative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
52 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Even though I don't support him as President, I think this is going to be Beto O'Rourke's breakout moment.  Unlike any other candidate on either stage...including Biden and Sanders...Beto has debated one-on-one against the very best the debating world has to offer.  

Ted Cruz.

Don't get me wrong -- I hate Cruz and hope he wakes up tomorrow to find all of his limbs have fallen off.  But he IS a masterful debater, and O'Rourke had to train incessantly to hold his own against him.  

So my money is on O'Rourke being the breakout surprise winner.

That said...wouldn't it just be amazing if it was John Delaney instead?  Like he's been going at this for damned near two years now, and he FINALLY gets his moment in the sun?  Haha.

This many candidates two separate nights. Somebody not in the top 5-7 will do well and become the next media darling. And someone in that top 5-7 will stumble and will fall from the pack.  The question obviously is who.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

So what’s the consensus here, is the draw a big win for Warren or big negative. 

Negative.  She's going into a debate with front-runner expectations (because the real front runners are missing) despite currently being in 3rd (arguably 2nd, with most recent polls) place.  The bar is high -- and Warren's schtick is detailed policy proposals.  How much time is she going to have to do details while on the stage with nine other candidates desperately trying to make a name for themselves as they are largely unknowns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Negative.  She's going into a debate with front-runner expectations (because the real front runners are missing) despite currently being in 3rd (arguably 2nd, with most recent polls) place.  The bar is high -- and Warren's schtick is detailed policy proposals.  How much time is she going to have to do details while on the stage with nine other candidates desperately trying to make a name for themselves as they are largely unknowns?

One advantage that she will have is that many of her opponents will be attacking Biden and not her, even though she's the "front-runner" within the debate she was put in. I think Delaney and Ryan will be the ones that attack her. The others, I think, will be going after Biden. I expect the first debate to have more to do with going after Trump. 

The 2nd debate, with Biden in it, will likely be a Biden attack fest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there’s a good chance that either Swalwell or Castro will have an abrupt Buttigieg-like rise fueled by charisma and a ton of media attention. I don’t think either one will use that to successfully break into the top tier of Biden, Sanders, and Warren though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both debates offer low-profile candidates a chance to break out. My guess is more people will watch the second (Biden vs. Bernie), so that debate probably offers a greater chance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

So what’s the consensus here, is the draw a big win for Warren or big negative. 

I think it's an excellent draw for Warren (minus the less viewers) as she has a clear advantage in terms of polling, so more will end up listening to what she is saying than some of the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, good news for Yang, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Bennet, Williamson - even Harris and Buttigieg, who are now sharing the stage with the former Vice-President and also the runner-up from the last election. On the other hand, it depends on how the debate is structured - they might not get as much time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

If that's true, good news for Yang, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Bennet, Williamson - even Harris and Buttigieg, who are now sharing the stage with the former Vice-President and also the runner-up from the last election. On the other hand, it depends on how the debate is structured - they might not get as much time.

Supposedly they're making a special effort to give each candidate equal time regardless of polling.  Works out to be about 12 minutes per candidate.

Of course debates tend to get dominated by certain candidates regardless of the moderators' intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is assuming night two will have more viewers, and while it likely will, I don't think viewership will be drastically different. Most Americans are hungry for their first official taste of 2020 and the first night of debating is going to have high viewership no matter who is in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

This thread is assuming night two will have more viewers, and while it likely will, I don't think viewership will be drastically different. Most Americans are hungry for their first official taste of 2020 and the first night of debating is going to have high viewership no matter who is in it.

I plan on watching both, but am more excited to see the second one. They should have switched Bernie and Delaney. I feel that Bernie should be with Warren and Inslee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I plan on watching both, but am more excited to see the second one. They should have switched Bernie and Delaney. I feel that Bernie should be with Warren and Inslee. 

Poor Delaney, all he wants to do is debate Bernie on healthcare, stop killing his dream! 

(I took the Isidewith Quiz and matched highest with Delaney, including over Trump, so now he is precious to me and I must defend him)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Poor Delaney, all he wants to do is debate Bernie on healthcare, stop killing his dream! 

(I took the Isidewith Quiz and matched highest with Delaney, including over Trump, so now he is precious to me and I must defend him)

I don't know. You might change your point-of-view on healthcare if you get some debilitating or terminal disease or condition and your insurance company pulls one of their infamous loopholes to get out of paying for treatment and you and your family can't afford it out of your pockets. Might be a bit of a late change of heart then, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I don't know. You might change your point-of-view on healthcare if you get some debilitating or terminal disease or condition and your insurance company pulls one of their infamous loopholes to get out of paying for treatment and you and your family can't afford it out of your pockets. Might be a bit of a late change of heart then, though.

Thank you, I shall certainly at that point then wish for a radical nationalization of all healthcare providers that would knock both my parents out of a job as opposed to sensible and moderate insurance reform that would solve such an issue while not creating a monopoly far worse than anything that could be concocted in a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Thank you, I shall certainly at that point then wish for a radical nationalization of all healthcare providers that would knock both my parents out of a job as opposed to sensible and moderate insurance reform that would solve such an issue while not creating a monopoly far worse than anything that could be concocted in a free market.

I haven't seen or heard of this nightmare scenario in most wealthy First World Nations with nationalized or semi-nationalized healthcare (all of them but the U.S., and the Five Dragons), but the "Free Market Solutions" you speak of as a pure scenario are on full display in India, Ukraine, Brazil, and Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I haven't seen or heard of this nightmare scenario in most wealthy First World Nations with nationalized or semi-nationalized healthcare (all of them but the U.S., and the Five Dragons), but the "Free Market Solutions" you speak of as a pure scenario are on full display in India, Ukraine, Brazil, and Mexico.

Ah yes, India, Ukraine, Brazil, and Mexico. 4 nations renowned for their true Free Market! No Cronyism to be found and no ill ties between a corrupt Big Government and corrupt Big Business left from remaining (or hell, current) Socialist and Communist regimes! No sir! Paragons of Capitalism at it's finest and as any Classical Liberal, defender of Economic Liberty, or Libertarian would tell you, are truly shining examples of the products of the towering minds of Locke and Smith put to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ah yes, India, Ukraine, Brazil, and Mexico. 4 nations renowned for their true Free Market! No Cronyism to be found and no ill ties between a corrupt Big Government and corrupt Big Business left from remaining (or hell, current) Socialist and Communist regimes! No sir! Paragons of Capitalism at it's finest and as any Classical Liberal, defender of Economic Liberty, or Libertarian would tell you, are truly shining examples of the products of the towering minds of Locke and Smith put to work!

Not quite correct. Those four countries (as well as the U.S.) have the ultra-wealthy elite who have "prospered" from the Free Market use their "gains" to bribe their governments to pass laws benefitting them and making them exempt from many taxes, regulations, and obligations the poorer and less fortunate are saddled with, and crippling labour laws and laws protecting consumers, calling these measures "good for business" and "protecting the free market," when in truth, a Neo-Feudal Aristocracy is being built, piece by piece, in all but official title and name, to preserve the disproportionate wealth of those already rich and limit the realistic and probable upward mobility to their ranks of the poor, except in niche markets, or specific roles (like highly paid entertainers of various sorts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Not quite correct. Those four countries (as well as the U.S.) have the ultra-wealthy elite who have "prospered" from the Free Market use their "gains" to bribe their governments to pass laws benefitting them and making them exempt from many taxes, regulations, and obligations the poorer and less fortunate are saddled, and crippling labour laws and laws protecting consumers, calling "good for business" and "protecting the free market," when in truth, a Neo-Feudal Aristocracy is being built, piece by piece, in all but official title and name, to preserve the disproportionate wealth of those already rich and limit the realistic and probable upward mobility to their ranks of the poor, except in niche markets, or specific roles (like highly paid entertainers of various sorts).

It is then, by definition, not a Free Market. And again, these four countries have histories of large governments controlling swaths of the economy and forcing this to happen, not so in a Free Market Capitalist society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

It is then, by definition, not a Free Market. And again, these four countries have histories of large governments controlling swaths of the economy and forcing this to happen, not so in a Free Market Capitalist society. 

There is a reason I used "Free Market" in quotation marks. Including for the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

It is then, by definition, not a Free Market. And again, these four countries have histories of large governments controlling swaths of the economy and forcing this to happen, not so in a Free Market Capitalist society. 

But since we are, almost certainly, unable to change each other's minds or convince each other of our points-of-view, as usual, I suggest we agree to disagree, as things have not yet gotten nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

But since we are, almost certainly, unable to change each other's minds or convince each other of our points-of-view, as usual, I suggest we agree to disagree, as things have not yet gotten nasty.

Consider me in agreement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...