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

11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

that would knock both my parents out of a job

What do you mean by this? Lots of problems in nationalized health insurance-care countries, but I'm unfamiliar with this particular concern.

Share this post


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

What do you mean by this? Lots of problems in nationalized health insurance-care countries, but I'm unfamiliar with this particular concern.

Sounds like something emerging from Cruz, Perry, Fiorina, Huckabee, Coulter, Beck, etc. rhetoric, which is, of course, notorious for distortions, misquotings, exaggerations, manipulative statistical focus, anecdotal evidence, and even outright lies to push their reactionary, long-debunked script, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

What do you mean by this? Lots of problems in nationalized health insurance-care countries, but I'm unfamiliar with this particular concern.

My Mom works to sell software technologies to hospitals in order to keep both their chargemasters and account masters in order and efficient operational. No doubt the need for this would decrease and competition would go down in a nationalized system of providers. My Dad works with the University Medical system in ensuring that those software my mother sells for her company are transitioning smoothly in the Hospitals, ensuring that coverage is kept for the patients and that the insurance agencies pay. This is a gross oversimplification mind you but my basic thesis is they'd have job security threatened by such a government take over that would no doubt play favorites and fall in inefficiency.

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Sounds like something emerging from Cruz, Perry, Fiorina, Huckabee, Coulter, Beck, etc. rhetoric, which is, of course, notorious for distortions, misquotings, exaggerations, manipulative statistical focus, anecdotal evidence, and even outright lies to push their reactionary, long-debunked script, to be honest.

See above, can you hear yourself, this is a real personal concern.

Share this post


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

My Mom works to sell software technologies to hospitals in order to keep both their chargemasters and account masters in order and efficient operational. No doubt the need for this would decrease and competition would go down in a nationalized system of providers. My Dad works with the University Medical system in ensuring that those software my mother sells for her company are transitioning smoothly in the Hospitals, ensuring that coverage is kept for the patients and that the insurance agencies pay. This is a gross oversimplification mind you but my basic thesis is they'd have job security threatened by such a government take over that would no doubt play favorites and fall in inefficiency.

See above, can you hear yourself, this is a real personal concern.

Fiscal conservatives, like all other socio-political agenda pushers on a big scale, in fact, regardless of where along the political spectrum you are, all make ruthless use of "scare tactics," meant to appeal to emotion and "hit home" in their presentation for their effect, hoping that this response will prevent those being couched to from examining the fact that statements are based on either purely hypothetical conjecture, flimsy statistic, exaggerated statements and scaling, absolutist declarations, and other hoodwinks and half-truths, or, at least, not fully forthcoming evidence, relying, as I said, on the emotional and "hitting home" aspect to stop those they are speaking to from soberly looking into such claims further. And, also as I said, this is a sin and problem of activist and political presenters across the spectrum, and is not indicative, or inherently more or less likely, of any specific socio-political stance or stances.

Also, it occurs to me that the philosophical, ideological, and hypothetical (because, as I've said, it doesn't exist in a pure ANWHERE in the world today) viewpoint and model of the pure Free Market Economy seems like an incredible mirror or analog of Darwinian thinking at it's finest - an odd thing to support for a staunch Creationist. :P

Share this post


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

as I said, on the emotional and "hitting home" aspect to stop those they are speaking to from soberly looking into such claims further.

So kind of like when you told me I'd feel different if I had a terminal illness? Exactly like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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)

What were your % with Delaney, Trump, Biden, and Sanders?

Share this post


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

So kind of like when you told me I'd feel different if I had a terminal illness? Exactly like that?

I suppose it was similar, but not exactly the same. I was more trying to make you stop and think, and reconsider your viewpoints. I wasn't using emotional appeal to hide any flawed statistics or manipulated information, because that particular argument was not specifically relying on any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

What were your % with Delaney, Trump, Biden, and Sanders?

Delaney was at like 68% and so was Trump.

Biden was 46% and Sanders was somewhere in the 10s or 20s if I remember correctly.

I didn't match with many people so I went to try to find some of my closest matches, I am an 81% with Ted Cruz, an 82% with Rand Paul, 84% with Ron Paul, and the highest I could find is 86% with Ronald Reagan.

This makes sense, I'm a classic conservative, I consider myself a Paleolibertarian and Reaganite. I just watched an interview with George Will on his new book "The Conservative Sensibility" on ReasonTV and I identified with a lot of what he said.

Share this post


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

and so was Trump.

I'm surprised this algorithm can correlate people being ideologically attuned to a President with no consistent platform, not enough understanding (or desire to learn) a lot of what a head-of-state really needs to know, an overt lack of perspective and proportion, and who makes up facts on the fly and makes highly unrealistic promises and pronunciations. What is their really, in a solid, defined sense, to judge ideological affiliation with, is what I'm wondering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

a President with no consistent platform

I'm curious - are there any policies in particular you are thinking of here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people have such low expectations for Williamson? She did pretty well in her town hall with CNN and I expect her to have some form of a breakout on the debate stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I'm curious - are there any policies in particular you are thinking of here?

Pretty much anything of consistency and substance one could REALLY say Trump stands for, believes, or advocates other than his damned wall and the tariff wars that will likely come back to bite him in the ass and spoil his "good economy" all the re-election statistics on this forum seem to just assume as gratis going into the election next year. What else does he REALLY demonstrate, consistently, solidly, with any conviction or sincerity, and without flip-flopping or seemingly losing interest in it, does he really stand for or advocate? And, my original question, what criteria of ideology is isidewith using to judge who stands with this vapid, fickle, non-committal, egotistical, vitriolic, "sugar-daddy" populist empty of true rhetoric, political belief, or platform, or so is demonstrated, for a percentage of being affiliated with it, ideologically? That is where I am very dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

Pretty much anything of consistency and substance one could REALLY say Trump stands for, believes, or advocates other than his damned wall and the tariff wars

It seems to me the 6 main things Trump campaigned on were 1. tougher stance on illegal immigration, 2. negotiating better trade deals and 'fair trade' with the use of tariffs if need be in order to boost the economy and bring back factories, 3. conservative judges, 4. being effective in taking on terrorism (i.e., destroying ISIS) while avoiding major foreign interventions (i.e., repudiation of the Iraq War), 5. increasing the U.S.'s energy independence and creating energy jobs, and 6. creating a more pro-business environment through things like deregulation (decreasing red tape). And perhaps you could even say 7. not being politically correct if it interferes with what he sees as America's interests.

Whether someone likes the policies or not (or the specific ways he has attempted to implement them), he seems to have pursued these 7 pretty consistently. I'm genuinely curious to hear specific significant areas where he might not have been consistent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

Why do people have such low expectations for Williamson? She did pretty well in her town hall with CNN and I expect her to have some form of a breakout on the debate stage.

The fact that the only thing I can remember from watching her town hall is that Oprah didn't respond to her email tells me otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

The fact that the only thing I can remember from watching her town hall is that Oprah didn't respond to her email tells me otherwise. 

Opposite of this - she didn't want to divulge what Oprah said. Or maybe that's your point?

My guess is Oprah said something like "Best of luck, I'm not going to endorse anyone yet!"

I found Williamson impressive in terms of her presentation in her CNN town hall, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

Why do people have such low expectations for Williamson? She did pretty well in her town hall with CNN and I expect her to have some form of a breakout on the debate stage.

I'm skeptical on her breaking out. Maybe if she were on the first night, I could see an argument. But in a night where you have Sanders, Biden, Mayor Pete, Harris(whom can be an aggressive debater, just watch her Senate hearings), and the wildcard of Yang...I just cant see how her spiritualism will come out. If anything it might even seem goofier to hear Bernie, Harris, and Biden debate on the route to Universal Health Care(a fair policy debate), and then hear Williamson talk about love and kindness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'm skeptical on her breaking out. Maybe if she were on the first night

 

Ya, I would be skeptical of anyone breaking out.

One dynamic I find interesting is that there are only 2 females in the 2nd debate - her and Gillibrand.

Share this post


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

Ya, I would be skeptical of anyone breaking out.

One dynamic I find interesting is that there are only 2 females in the 2nd debate - her and Gillibrand.

Harris is also on the second night, if I recall. But you did touch on something interesting: the gender dynamics of the debate. I doubt there will a moment similar to how Trump said, "Nasty woman" in the General Election debate; but I'm curious how the male candidates handle trying to debate a woman on national tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

You're right, 3 women, 7 men.

Yeah, and in both debates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 6:47 PM, admin_270 said:

Opposite of this - she didn't want to divulge what Oprah said. Or maybe that's your point?

My guess is Oprah said something like "Best of luck, I'm not going to endorse anyone yet!"

 I found Williamson impressive in terms of her presentation in her CNN town hall, though.

I was basically just pointing out that that was the only real moment I remember from her town hall. I remember her being pretty vague in her answers with nothing policy wise that  stood out. Her whole messaging as a spiritual leader just doesn't seem like something that would resonate well with a lot of people enough for her to catch on and have a breakout moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

Her whole messaging as a spiritual leader just doesn't seem like something that would resonate well with a lot of people enough for her to catch on and have a breakout moment.

May be, we shall see. It is unconventional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

I was basically just pointing out that that was the only real moment I remember from her town hall. I remember her being pretty vague in her answers with nothing policy wise that  stood out. Her whole messaging as a spiritual leader just doesn't seem like something that would resonate well with a lot of people enough for her to catch on and have a breakout moment. 

 

43 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

May be, we shall see. It is unconventional.

Spiritual, and religious leaders should never be politicians. Politics and religion are a highly caustic and incendiary mix. "Then render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and unto God's what is God's." But things get toxic and messy, and atrocities and injustices become more likely then ever, when those renderings get mixed up in the delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yang seems well positioned for a solid performance.  The pressure is low with a good number of high profile candidates but audience will be high.  Also, he did a solid job on Ben Shapiro’s Sunday Special a couple months ago.  If he has a similar performance on the debate stage, he should go up in the polls.

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...