Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Thoughts on the 3rd debate

Recommended Posts

What were your thoughts on the 3rd debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like next round to be top-tier in one debate, everyone else in other.

Biden, Bernie, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, maybe one other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Castro tends to sound like Obama in terms of his cadence. I assume it's intentional and practiced.

I didn't see someone on the stage who I would assign a high probability to being able to beat Trump. Just my intuition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden - too old, when he's not bleeding from his eye or having verbal slip ups, it appears he's having problems keeping his teeth in.

Bernie - too old, too grumpy, too socialist. Makes a great independent Senator from Vermont.

Warren - too socialist, lacks charisma. I think she's actually the strongest candidate at this point, or Harris.

Harris - doesn't feel authentic to me. However, I think she's one of the strongest at this point.

Booker - bland. Nothing stands out about him. Can't even get his girlfriend to endorse his candidacy.

Klobuchar - lacks charisma. Great in the Senate, not on the campaign trail for President.

Yang - Ron Paul 2.0, but with good executive and managerial abilities. Low charisma, but he's trying to use that to his advantage. Most interesting candidate at this point IMO.

O'Rourke - seems to be saying more and more outrageous things to try to get attention. Would get flattened by Trump.

Buttigieg - too young, just seems to lack gravitas. Has higher charisma, but not high enough. Maaaaybe good enough to beat Trump, but I doubt it.

Castro - with Yang, one of the more interesting candidates. Cheap shot at Biden in the debate. I put him at a question mark right now.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Castro, don't get me wrong, but it was a cheap shot he took at Biden. Also, he was wrong! Biden didn't say people needed to opt-in. He said they'd be auto enrolled in cases like cancer. 

I assume what Castro meant is that Biden says, by omission, that if you don't have a serious illness as such that you are not auto-enrolled in Biden's plan. Regardless, Castro was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I love Castro, don't get me wrong, but it was a cheap shot he took at Biden. Also, he was wrong! Biden didn't say people needed to opt-in. He said they'd be auto enrolled in cases like cancer. 

I assume what Castro meant is that Biden says, by omission, that if you don't have a serious illness as such that you are not auto-enrolled in Biden's plan. Regardless, Castro was wrong.

I just didn't like how proud of himself he was when was he doing that. 

Share this post


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

I just didn't like how proud of himself he was when was he doing that. 

Considering he is polling the lowest, he has nothing to lose. 

It might've been a low blow, but I think he got some attention to his campaign. Unlike Beto, who is trying so hard yet hasn't yielded results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden - Looked terrible and sounded worse.  Young voters are not looking for an 80 year old man who will yell at them.  Also, he said parents need to have their kids listen to RECORD PLAYERS to help develop their ability to speak.   He wasn’t making a joke.  My best guess is he meant “Alexa” but forgot the word.  He had a ton of stumbles.  He referred to Bernie as President, just like he did with Booker last time.  Also: Castro may have been rude, but he was also right.  Biden DID forget that he said they’d have to buy in to his plan instead of being automatically enrolled.  Biden was just an absolute mess.  I feel bad for the guy, but he is not capable of the job.  Listening to the closing arguments, I was struck by the fact that EVERYONE on that stage was more mentally coherent than the former Vice President.

Bernie - too old, too grumpy, too socialist. Makes a great independent Senator from Vermont.  (I agree with @admin270 here.)

Warren - She comes across as the smartest, most capable, most experienced person on the stage.  With Pete seeming to go nowhere, Warren might be my new favorite.  Also, I watched the debate with my six year old daughter and she liked Warren the most too.

Harris - The “no we can’t/yes we can” line should have been huge but she flopped it.  Trying desperately to be likeable, at the expense of her experience.  I liked her better when she was serious — she is not capable of the humor she is trying to pivot too.

Booker - Such a great speaker, such a great story.  I’m just not sure whether it’s true.  It feels like a well crafted, skilled performance.

Klobuchar - This is her third debate, and she is still so shaky and on the verge of tears every time she speaks.

Yang - Completely forgettable, has no business being on that stage.  The only line i actually remember from him was his joke that he knows doctors and healthcare because he is Asian.  It bombed terribly.

O'Rourke - He threw a Hail Mary by proudly declaring he was going to take away AR15s and other weapons designed for the battlefield.  We’ll see if it’s a touchdown or an interception.

Buttigieg - I love Pete, but he is just not good at these mass debates.  I’d like to see if he does better in five-person debates.

Castro - Was it a cheap shot?  Maybe.  It certainly crossed him off Biden’s VP list.  But here’s the thing:  Castro was RIGHT. Biden did forget what he said two minutes earlier, and you dont treat the dominant frontrunner with kid gloves.

Share this post


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

Biden - Looked terrible and sounded worse.  Young voters are not looking for an 80 year old man who will yell at them.  Also, he said parents need to have their kids listen to RECORD PLAYERS to help develop their ability to speak.   He wasn’t making a joke.  My best guess is he meant “Alexa” but forgot the word.  He had a ton of stumbles.  He referred to Bernie as President, just like he did with Booker last time.  Also: Castro may have been rude, but he was also right.  Biden DID forget that he said they’d have to buy in to his plan instead of being automatically enrolled.  Biden was just an absolute mess.  I feel bad for the guy, but he is not capable of the job.  Listening to the closing arguments, I was struck by the fact that EVERYONE on that stage was more mentally coherent than the former Vice President.

Bernie - too old, too grumpy, too socialist. Makes a great independent Senator from Vermont.  (I agree with @admin270 here.)

Warren - She comes across as the smartest, most capable, most experienced person on the stage.  With Pete seeming to go nowhere, Warren might be my new favorite.  Also, I watched the debate with my six year old daughter and she liked Warren the most too.

Harris - The “no we can’t/yes we can” line should have been huge but she flopped it.  Trying desperately to be likeable, at the expense of her experience.  I liked her better when she was serious — she is not capable of the humor she is trying to pivot too.

Booker - Such a great speaker, such a great story.  I’m just not sure whether it’s true.  It feels like a well crafted, skilled performance.

Klobuchar - This is her third debate, and she is still so shaky and on the verge of tears every time she speaks.

Yang - Completely forgettable, has no business being on that stage.  The only line i actually remember from him was his joke that he knows doctors and healthcare because he is Asian.  It bombed terribly.

O'Rourke - He threw a Hail Mary by proudly declaring he was going to take away AR15s and other weapons designed for the battlefield.  We’ll see if it’s a touchdown or an interception.

Buttigieg - I love Pete, but he is just not good at these mass debates.  I’d like to see if he does better in five-person debates.

Castro - Was it a cheap shot?  Maybe.  It certainly crossed him off Biden’s VP list.  But here’s the thing:  Castro was RIGHT. Biden did forget what he said two minutes earlier, and you dont treat the dominant frontrunner with kid gloves.

 

15 minutes ago, CentristGuy said:

Considering he is polling the lowest, he has nothing to lose. 

It might've been a low blow, but I think he got some attention to his campaign. Unlike Beto, who is trying so hard yet hasn't yielded results. 

I guess my biggest issue with Castro in that moment was more so this line than anything “I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama and you’re not." It might have been a good zinger and he might really have nothing to lose but it just felt really low. The entire debate felt like I was watching the 2016 Republican debates with just a couple dabs more of policy. Gotta admit though that I think Biden actually recovered really well with the Castro incident when he replied “That’ll be a surprise to him."

Share this post


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

Warren - She comes across as the smartest, most capable, most experienced person on the stage.  With Pete seeming to go nowhere, Warren might be my new favorite.  Also, I watched the debate with my six year old daughter and she liked Warren the most too.

Warren is probably my number one plausible choice, despite ranking her consistently near the bottom of my list for well over a year. I don't see the nominee being anyone outside the top three, and she may actually have a better shot than Biden or Sanders versus Trump. 

20 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Harris - The “no we can’t/yes we can” line should have been huge but she flopped it.  Trying desperately to be likeable, at the expense of her experience.  I liked her better when she was serious — she is not capable of the humor she is trying to pivot too.

Harris completely drove me away this debate. When Biden asked her how she could do something unconstitutional via executive order, her only response was "yes we can!" Which is an incredibly dangerous way to view the office of the Presidency. I'm still stunned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually giving some thought to Booker right now. I'm not super-impressed with what I've heard about his record in Newark, but he seems like he might be able to find a happy medium between being too far left and too boring and establishment-y. And he's definitely one of the more polished speakers on the stage.

I'm not so sure that Biden did actually forget what he said, though I am concerned that he doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be. Here's his original statement, then the statement that prompted Castro's "you forgot" comment:

"If you want Medicare, if you lose the job from your insurance — from your employer, you automatically can buy into this. You don't have — no pre-existing condition can stop you from buying in. You get covered, period."

"They do not have to buy in. They do not have to buy in."

I'm not seeing a contradiction here. He says you automatically *can* buy in, not that you have to. To me, Castro is the loser of that exchange, as it felt like a low blow and kind of a stretch factually.

Harris just seemed awkward and "off." I agree that if she's trying to be more folksy, it isn't working and she should find a different approach. 

I'd probably be in Warren's camp by now if (1) she hadn't pulled that stupid DNA stunt last year and (2) she were a little more flexible on health care. I'm not convinced that Medicare for All, once people actually understand what it means, is a political winner even if it's probably the best policy. Of the Big Three, I'd say she probably had the best night, if only by default - Biden seems too rambly and Bernie too shout-y.

Of the ones who weren't there, Bullock is probably the one I'd most like to see more from right now - the others have had a couple of bites at the debating apple and didn't demonstrate anything especially impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

 

I guess my biggest issue with Castro in that moment was more so this line than anything “I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama and you’re not." It might have been a good zinger and he might really have nothing to lose but it just felt really low. The entire debate felt like I was watching the 2016 Republican debates with just a couple dabs more of policy. Gotta admit though that I think Biden actually recovered really well with the Castro incident when he replied “That’ll be a surprise to him."

Castro said his plan differs from Biden's in that you don’t have to opt in to Castro’s plan, it’s automatic.

Biden insisted his plan is also automatic, no opt in.  Castro called him out on that, correctly calling back to Biden’s comment that you “can buy in.”  Either that’s an opt in or Biden stumbled in explaining his plan.  Either way, Castro was right.

As for the “surprise” line, it was a snarky response to a snarky attack.  

I’d posit that whatever points Biden gained in that exchange, he lost when Bernie was talking about how cheap healthcare is in Canada and Biden’s only response was “This is America.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have to answer who suits my views best I'll stick with Biden, Klobuchar and Yang.

But let's come to my neutral impressions of this night.

Biden - his views seems good and reasonable. I am afraid the Democratic base looks not for this. I do not care about Biden's age. My personal advice for him would be to retire, but not because I think he's not capable of doing that job, but simply to have him a calm retirement phase. 

Bernie - During the first half the socialist fire which was ignited on other debate stages was not visible. Bernie was at his strong points during the the second phase again.

Warren - Same here. She was not really visible for me during the first half, but became better during the second half.

Harris - I don't know if she makes this wiggling on purpose (I don't even know if anyone ever noticed this) but they give me the impression she's trying to copy some potentially cool ''ghetto style''. If that's not noticeable to others and that's simply her it's okay, but if she's trying to act cool I guess she's failing. Compared with her stand-out moment in one of the first debates, her performance this time was not even close to that.

Booker - I actually think he had again a very good debate night. I know his impression likely won't resonate in the upcoming polls, but he seems to have a vision and he's certainly very good at communicating it very well.

Klobuchar - as Anthony pointed out (and yes I took the liberty to copy your list, so I make sure I won't forget to mention a candidate @admin_270 ) she truly lacks charisma and she certainly cannot excite anyone outside of Minnesota. This didn't change last night.

Yang - funny, entertaining and a good orator. He definitely brings in a fresh voice and image to the debate stage. During the beginning it seemed that he was treated very unfairly, because he was basically ignored.

O'Rourke - Had a great night I think. The first. 

Buttigieg - he isn't my favorite and this didn't change yesterday. His performance was not really exciting to me and when he slipped into the question which was clearly addressed to Yang I thought C'mon boy.

Castro - had a great night as well and his attack on Biden will give him some headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the surprise of no one, the NY Times and Washington Post declared Warren the winner and Yang the loser.  One wonders how much of the stories were written before the debate started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts:

1. Biden didn't seem all that together, but he showed enough of his usual self to probably keep frontrunner status. I think some of his mishaps aren't age. I think it's sort of extraverted mistakes. That is talking before you've thought something through or talking while thinking of something else to say simultaneously. This might be the reason for the President remark to Sanders. He wanted to say something about President Obama but got what he was thinking about mixed up with what he was saying. I occasionally do things like this, and have since I was a kid. I'm a lot more restrained online because I can see my words on the page, but in person, I'm not concise like Buttigieg, I'm similar to Biden. I make slip ups because I'm already thinking about the 30 things I want to say when I should be thinking about what I'm saying at the moment. While Biden is old, I think some of the slipups could be on account of his natural extraversion, if he has a thinking-to-verbal process similar to mine. 

2. Sanders. He had a bad night on account of his voice. He didn't chime in as much as usual. He didn't add anything new to his message.

3. Warren is consistently strong at debate. However, she is party dorky and part spinster Aunt that hasn't gotten to socialize with humans in 10 months. Yet, she does come off as more enthusiastic than the others, more prepared, more can do, and she's full of ideas. She's also relatively optimistic. If this was an election prior to TV, she's be the frontrunner and would crush Donald Trump. 

4. Harris. I think her debate tactic this time was a lot better, however awkward. She seemed to be channeling Marianne Williamson or something. She was almost too laid back. She should have presented herself this way from the beginning. Now it comes off as too abrupt. 

5. Buttigieg. He would be perfect on the stage if he brought some sort of emotion to his voice and didn't sound as neutral as a getting directions from your GPS. Will do better when the field narrows on the debate state, I think. Not good when competing with so many personalities. 

6. O'Rourke. His best debate so far. He's definitely in desperation mode. I also think he won't run for the Senate if he's talking about taking guns and compensating gun owners with money. It will be interesting to see what this does for him in the polls. 

7. Yang. He's always the most entertaining on the stage, but this time he came off as gimmicky. Otherwise, he was intelligent as usual.

8. Booker. I thought he was quite solid. If the debate was about having the least negative moments, I'd say Booker won. He didn't make many splashes though. 

9. Klobuchar. She's far from my favorite, but she had some shining moments. 

10. Castro. He was brutal. I think he was trying to prove that he was tough. Like O'Rourke, he's in desperation mode. If this doesn't rise him in the polls, he could drop out. 

Overall, I think the debate was good. Unlike @admin_270 I feel like many of them could beat Trump in a debate, and some in the general election. Let me preface this by stating that I think Trump is not a very good debater. He is rarely specific, rarely factual, not funny, not energetic as a debater, not photogenic, but he has two things in this favor. 1) He absorbs attention. 2) He knows exactly what his base wants to hear and ignores all conflicting ideologies.

Of the list above, I think Trump, in a debate, could beat Sanders, O'Rourke, Yang, Klobuchar, and Castro. Sanders is too predictable of a debater since he repeats himself. Trump could just consistently call him a "socialist" or "commie" and that would probably work. O'Rourke, Yang, Klobuchar lack a killer instance, which will be needed on the stage against Trump. Castro has the killer instinct, but he seems kind of awkward giving it. 

I think Warren and Harris are very prosecutorial, very specific, and won't take crap from Trump. I think Warren is the better of the two because 1) she can be optimistic, 2) she comes off as more authentic. Both of these women are major improvements on Clinton's canned debate lines, and almost too cautious and planned attacks on Trump. Clinton was about as tough as a politician needs to be, but she was not a tough debater. Warren and Harris are. Warren, especially, is a much much different woman from Hillary Clinton. 

I think Biden has what I call a Biden factor and it seems to increase as he gets older. No matter if he succeeds or stumbles, he seems to always be likable. This might be a killer for Trump, who is tremendously unlikable (low favorability, low approval). Trump and Clinton were the two least likable candidates in US history most likely. Trump remains there and all 10 of these Democrats are more likable than Clinton. Biden is very much so. 

Buttigieg is like the total opposite of Trump, which I think helps Buttigieg. However, I think he really needs to learn how to let it loose sometimes, especially against Trump. That said, he's about as charismatic as one can get for not showing emotion. 

Booker. This man is a killer. He will be unrelenting against Trump. I think he knows he'd have to keep the momentum of attacks on his side, piling them on Trump and not letting him breathe. I think Booker is the person that could do that. He also has a great story that contrasts with Trump. Voluntarily living in public housing to get to know his constituents. Getting 2nd degree burns by rescuing a neighbor's kid. Etc. These are things Trump would never do. He does need to learn to sound a little more authentic at times. All the candidates could learn from Warren. Even if her lines are prepared, they don't sound like they are. 

I think it is a good sign that a moderate (or centrist?) like @Actinguy is now considering Warren. That's at least one bit of evidence that Warren can at least get moderates or centrists to potentially vote for her. She's certainly the candidate most likely to bring Progressives to the polls (outside of Sanders). That generates to turnout. Progressives, I think, are more likely to not vote if they don't get the candidate they want, than moderates or centrists who are often less idealistic. As such, while Biden does better in the polls vs. Trump than Warren, the actual case might be the reverse with Warren getting basically the same voters Biden would get, but also bringing in more college students, and former Bernie or Bust voters, people that usually vote Green etc. She's definitely going to outperform Clinton in WI, PA, MI, and considering the margins there were 1% or less, I think Warren could be the favorite to win in a General Election. (I think Biden would be too by the way, but even more risky). Of the candidates above, I think the following beat Trump: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Harris. The latter two would generate African-American turnout in a way Clinton did not, while also being more favorable than Clinton nationally, even Harris. I think O'Rourke, Klobuchar, Castro would be too close to call, and I think O'Rourke's gungrabbing would kill him in the general (even though I support it). Sanders and Yang are such outliers that I think centrists and moderates that are more traditional, more cautious to change, might not get behind politicians that are all about major changes. I like these two, but I'm a little hesitant to say that Midwestern voters that would vote for Biden or even Warren might get behind Yang or Sanders. As you know, Sanders is my favorite politician, but he's not meant to be president, even if I vote for him in the primary for the 2nd time. The difference between Warren and these two is that Warren, for all her idealism, is actually quite practical and she's a policy maker. She's can do and will do. 

If I were Trump, and Trump were capable of self-doubt, then I would be worried about several of these Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I forget to mention Sander's voice.

Share this post


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

To the surprise of no one, the NY Times and Washington Post declared Warren the winner and Yang the loser.  One wonders how much of the stories were written before the debate started.

Warren as the winner makes sense. Although arguments could be made for others. Yang could be a loser, but I don't think he was THE loser. I wouldn't be too skeptical since this declaration is within the realm of possibility based off what I saw. I'm more surprised with Yang as loser than Warren as winner. I think Yang did better in the previous debate though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

Good summary - many points I agree with. I think a lot of people are looking at Warren at this point. However, her health insurance position is supported by a minority *in the Democratic party*, where most want a public-private hybrid. I'm not sure she can really change her position on this at this point (nor, presumably, does she want to - she probably genuinely believes it's the best position), but I see that position as one of the major obstacles to her taking front-runner status in the primaries as of now. The other major obstacle, of course, is Sanders.

Share this post


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

@vcczar

Good summary - many points I agree with. I think a lot of people are looking at Warren at this point. However, her health insurance position is supported by a minority *in the Democratic party*, where most want a public-private hybrid. I'm not sure she can really change her position on this at this point (nor, presumably, does she want to - she probably genuinely believes it's the best position), but I see that position as one of the major obstacles to her taking front-runner status in the primaries as of now. The other major obstacle, of course, is Sanders.

I think she can alter her stance on it considering there are a lot of ideas. She could make it seem like a Convention compromise. It would also make her seem flexible which will help her appeal to the center. 

Share this post


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

Bernie - too old, too grumpy, too socialist. Makes a great independent Senator from Vermont.

 

4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Bernie - too old, too grumpy, too socialist. Makes a great independent Senator from Vermont.  (I agree with @admin270 here.)

 

3 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Bernie - During the first half the socialist fire which was ignited on other debate stages was not visible. Bernie was at his strong points during the the second phase again.

I would just like to point out again, if I may, that Bernie Sanders is not REALLY a Socialist - he's a Social Democrat, and a pretty milk-sop, moderate one as the international movement goes. Despite a lot of accusations, labelling, and slander against a lot of elected U.S. politicians in many offices at all levels of governments, virtually all of the Democratic Party of the United States (especially by such engines of ignorance, misinformation, and outright lies like Fox News and such), there have not really been any true, died-in-the-wool Socialists elected in the United States since the 1940's, except maybe in a few city councils, but all such Socialists tend, and tended, to have Third Party labels of appropriately-aligned parties, and not to be Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren - Definitely the best of the night. She continues to show that she is the most intelligent candidate and the best at actually explaining her plans and a clear solution to the problem. Sometimes I feel like she sounds a little too smart for the average voter lol

Beto - He actually had a really solid night. His answer on mandatory buyback for assault weapons was probably the biggest moment of the night, big applause from that. He also had other good answers as well. 

Castro - He was aggressive and I liked it. When he called out Biden for forgetting what he said two minutes ago, he was actually 100% correct if you look at the transcript. Nothing malicious about it, he was just calling out Biden for not actually knowing what his plan does.

Bernie - He was clearly getting over an illness or just had a tired voice from so many speeches, and it hurt him a bit. Not his best performance by any means. He still got his typical points across, and they are good points, but he didn't do anything to convince people who aren't on his side. 

Booker - He had an okay night. He gave some good answers but was pretty unmemorable for the most part.

Harris - She was trying too hard to have a big moment I think. Some of her answers, like the Wizar dof Oz comment, was just weird lol

Yang - He's just up there doing his own thing. He had some good answers and also some bad answers (charter schools , foreign policy).

Buttigieg - He was pretty unmemorable. He just answers with anecdotes and stories and doesn't give any policy substance. 

Biden - He was rambling a lot and slipping up as usual. It wasn't any worse than his other debate performances though

Klobuchar -  Bad. She tried so hard to get in some good one liners and they were all so cringe-worthy. She is out of touch with the party as well.

Share this post


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

I would just like to point out again, if I may, that Bernie Sanders is not REALLY a Socialist

'too socialist' = 'too far toward socialism on the capitalism-socialism spectrum'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

'too socialist' = 'too far toward socialism on the capitalism-socialism spectrum'

Maybe from the bad stereotypes inspired in a lot of Americans without thinking or education by the "ghost of McCarthy," but not really in a practical sense.

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...