Jump to content
270soft Forum

My Thoughts on the Tuesday Debate


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

John Delaney, our winner, hit it right on the head when he said "This is no longer about choosing the best policies or most sensible solutions for them, this is about going on an anti-private sector crusade". And that's unnacceptable for an American President.

This was my personal favorite part of the debate (next to Hickenlooper v Bernie), and they promptly moved on from this moment like it meant absolutely nothing. That was disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just now, TheLiberalKitten said:

Tim "Union" Ryan

Tim "Jobs" Ryan

 

cringiest moment was when he ended the debate by saying something like, "I hope what I said captured your imagination tonight" lmao

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

I agree -- I absolutely HATE when candidates do that.

"Let me tell you about my friend John.  John is divorced, he has an unkempt mustache, he has served time for twelve unrelated larcenies.  Now, in MY healthcare plan, John's butt acne would be covered..."

I loved (hated) the part when Warren was going on her BS stump speech for the 30th time and was in the middle of her sob story going on for like 2 minutes and the moderators try to get her back on the actual question and she just dismisses him and tries to think of where she was in the stump speech and when the audience laughs at her foolishness she snaps and yells at the audience. In my view it was a total debate meltdown for her, she cracked under pressure.

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

I loved (hated) the part when Warren was going on her BS stump speech for the 30th time and was in the middle of her sob story going on for like 2 minutes and the moderators try to get her back on the actual question and she just dismisses him and tries to think of where she was in the stump speech and when the audience laughs at her foolishness she snaps and yells at the audience. In my view it was a total debate meltdown for her, she cracked under pressure.

I hated that so much. It felt like a lecture. Lost the young vote in a snap. People in the audience cheered I think and she said, "THIS ISN'T FUNNY THIS IS SERIOUS" or something lmao

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

My tiers (calculating only for how the candidates were perceived by me for my own support of them)

  • Tier 1
    • 1a: John Delaney was the winner of both the debate and my heart. He did everything he needed to do to prove he was the clear choice for me, moderate, successful, centrist in the face of the left-wing crowd and the far-left powerhouse on center stage. He masterfully rebutted and debunked the left-wing talking points used by Warren and Sanders and never once delved into the handringing sob stories several other candidates just love to throw into their stump speech.
    • 1b: Steve Bullock proved to be a very similar force in the debate, debunking Leftism when it needed debunking and leaving Warren sputtering and clueless for several exchanges just as Delaney did Sanders. I made these two my tier 1 because while they're both to the fringes of the stage, they at least provided a powerful voice to fight back against the two big losers. Bullock also brought executive gravitas that no other candidate sans Hickenlooper really presented forcelly, he gets my Number 2 spot. And all I'm saying is Biden/Delaney or Biden/Bullock and I'll be signing up to campaign against Trump every day.
    • 1c: John Hickenlooper was like a slightly worse Steve Bullock, giving him the number 3. He effectively defended bipartisan governing against Leftist attacks on its merits. Like Bullock he made his case about being a Democratic Governor. Similarly, his campaign slogan "We didn't get there through Socialism" is another point of great hope for me that the Democratic Party isn't about to go off the rails on a crazy train Ozzy Osbourne style. I particularly enjoyed his dismantling of Warren's Immigration Policy. 
      • All 3 candidates in Tier 1 performed well and were lauded for their ability to comprehensively hand Warren and Sanders their collective behinds
  • Tier 2
    • 2a: Tim Ryan could be running with the big dogs... but then he opens his mouth on ultra-protectionism. Beyond that he is another one that provided a valid case against Bernie and Warren's insane off-the wall policies like the government annexing portions of the job market, open borders-lite, and nationalizing sectors of the economy. He is certainly best improved in my mind, a title he shares closely with John Delaney, at least he didn't mention getting "wi-i-iped by China".
    • 2b: ORB MOM is the mother of my Orb Power and I love her very much. She transcends rankings and will be your next Commander-in-Chief. I felt the energy of her answrs despite heavily disagreeing with her policy. At one point I even found my body gyrating to her energy, she fires me up man. 
    • 2c: Back to your regularly scheduled programming with Pete Buttigieg who made some valid points and while not really grasping every concept the ones that the other did seemed to have some paltry opposition to Warren and Sanders but that might have just been him trying to be memorable. I believe it was him that called Warren and Sanders out for poor phrasing but overall he escapes Tier 3 by the skin of his teeth and the charisma of his campaign.
      • Tier 2 is full of people that "would be good if" and that's ultimately why they land here instead of with the 4 losers behind them, I like'm, don't love'm and I certainly don't gotta have'm.
  • Tier 3
    • 3a: Amy Klobuchar was eh at best. She wasn't very memorable and failed to use her Midwest background nearly as well as Bullock or Hickenlooper. She felt off and never buttressed her "I've won every time" stump speech with policies probably for fear those rural Minnesotans would be repulsed upon hearing them. Either way she didn't seem to have the guts to finish all her thoughts which, maybe it was a good thing but either way gave her a lackluster score. She also repeated the "I've one every race everytime everywhere" speech way to much and even cut herself off the final time she gave it because she knew she was repeating it over and over.
    • 3b: Beto O'Rourke is just my definition of a "why" candidate. He never should have run, he's not cut out for this, go back to Texas and run for City Council, don't even insult them by running for Senate or Governor. I don't have much else to say then he is the only candidate (including even Klobuchar!) that I really can't remember a single policy or outstanding piece of rhetoric used.
      • Tier 3 is filled with candidates that should know better but are just caught between "am I moderate, liberal or progressive?" WHO KNOWS ALL 3!!! Ineffective and forgettable they've really screwed themselves by this point.
  • Tier 5
    • 5a: Bernie Sanders went absolutely bonkers this debate. He was emotionally unbalanced (not as much as Warren), unprepared to defend his poor policy (not as much as Warren) and came off as believing he was entitled to the Nomination (not as much as Warren). He definetly believes what he's saying though. But what he's saying will doom the Democratic Party. He was quite simply terrifying and proved to me that the Socialism lives loudly within him.
    • 5b: Last Night's biggest loser was Elizabeth Warren! Warren was like Sanders but cold callous and calculated. She repeated several stump speeches several times just to fit them in together and snapped at the audience for laughing at her bullshit. She clearly thinks she's the righteous moral choice and my God was it satisfying to see her get jumped and taken behind the woodshed by everyone else. She lost her marbles and her cool clearly having her skin gotten under by the moderate opposition destroying her policies on national television.
      • These two scare me. Like really scare me. I called it Tier 5 and not 4 for a reason. These two would probably be even more dangerous for our Democracy than Trump and that is saying A LOT. They were angry, unbalanced, poorly prepared, and had their policies shoved in their face by people who, you know, aren't Socialists. I was quite frankly appalled that these two could be center stage in the Democratic Party. John Delaney, our winner, hit it right on the head when he said "This is no longer about choosing the best policies or most sensible solutions for them, this is about going on an anti-private sector crusade". And that's unnacceptable for an American President.

 

This sounds more like political bias than a debate performance analysis. I'll say the same of anyone that puts Warren and Sanders at the top and all the moderates dead last. Now that I reread this, I'm guessing this is just your personal list, but saying "Last Night's biggest loser" makes it sound like it's a critique. By almost all counts, pundits have considered Warren as one of the winners. I certainly thought she was one as well, despite my belief that there was no clear winner. She was specific, passionate, articulate, and she generally could rebut well in a debate where no one was flawless in defending themself, including Sanders and Warren, who, I think, did better on the defense than the moderates did on attack. I think the moderates ruined an excellent opportunity for their cause. They went for saying what Warren and Sanders can't or shouldn't do without (most of the time) offering alternatives. They would mention being pragmatic, but it is never pragmatic to not have ideas. And we all know that the ideas that are discussed by candidates become the "pragmatic" versions because they go through a two-party Congress. I think Warren had the great moment of the debate when she said, "Why run for president just to talk about what can't be done?" That's the most JFK, RFK, Obama, FDR, LBJ statement of the debate season so far. While I won't argue with your personal dislike of Sanders and Warren as candidates, I think any analysis that puts her and Sanders last in the debate last night is probably ill-conceived or saturated in bias. My hesitant list of  winners were Williamson, Ryan, and Warren (in so far as they helped their chances at rising in the polls). I say this with Williamson being my least favorite, and Ryan being way too moderate for me. For the second debate in a row, I didn't even put Sanders (my favorite candidate) among the winners. I do agree that Delaney did well. I think calling Warren "poorly prepared" is laughable. She's probably routinely the most prepared Democrat. Not a single one of them on the stage is as specific in policy, which is one reason she's probably my 2nd favorite candidate. Certainly, any human is going to flub an answer from time to time, but she knew her business more often than others did, whether one agrees with her ideas or not. 

If this list is just of your favorite-to-least favorite candidates, then I apologize for what I've written and what I'm about to write. If this is primarily an analysis of the debate, then I think this is probably the worst and most biased debate analysis that I've ever read, despite making a good point or two on occasion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'd judge the debates based on a single factor:

Did my opinion of the candidate go up?

Did my opinion of the candidate go down?

My opinion of Steve Bullock went up.  I thought he was an interesting presence on the stage.  I went from not caring that he even exists as a person, to thinking "maaaaaaaaaybe that's the voice that counteracts Trump."  He's not my top pick right now, not by a long shot.  But my opinion of him increased.

My opinion of Tim Ryan went down.  I went from not caring that he exists as a person, to questioning WHETHER he exists as a person.  Is it possible that he is a robot?  A hologram?  Can anyone else even see him, or do I need a quick trip down to psych?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

I think you did more on your policy bias than on how they actually debated.

Well,i was talking mostly about how i liked them tonight and yes policies had huge influence over it.

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

I hated that so much. It felt like a lecture. Lost the young vote in a snap. People in the audience cheered I think and she said, "THIS ISN'T FUNNY THIS IS SERIOUS" or something lmao

No, they were laughing. They weren't cheering. I was glad when she said that. It shows she isn't just pandering to a crowd. If she had a racist crowd that was calling to send a US Rep back to "their country," you know she's going to shut them up, even if she counts on their vote. That's integrity. I know you don't really care about that in a candidate. 

I will admit, I don't like the sound of her voice and that she does often sound professorial. But the superficial isn't what we should be weighing in an election. It should be the content and the character of the candidate, their relevant talents, their relevant weaknesses, and their vision, their history of relevant accomplishments, and a specific platform that addresses what needs to be changed and specific solutions for those. I would easily vote for a thrice trans-gendered mishappen dwarf muslim with no charisma that has all these traits over someone that lacks relevant content, character, ability, accomplishment, vision, specific platform/solutions, etc.  Let's stop focusing on the superficial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar Lol did you not read the first sentence of my post?

"This is my personal ranking"

I grade the debate just like Acting guy says below

10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I guess I'd judge the debates based on a single factor:

Did my opinion of the candidate go up?

Did my opinion of the candidate go down?
 

Im really not sure who my.candidate is yet, so like I said, my analysis was all about who I thought did the best to win MY support.

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

No, they were laughing. They weren't cheering. I was glad when she said that. It shows she isn't just pandering to a crowd. If she had a racist crowd that was calling to send a US Rep back to "their country," you know she's going to shut them up, even if she counts on their vote. That's integrity. I know you don't really care about that in a candidate. 

I will admit, I don't like the sound of her voice and that she does often sound professorial. But the superficial isn't what we should be weighing in an election. It should be the content and the character of the candidate, their relevant talents, their relevant weaknesses, and their vision, their history of relevant accomplishments, and a specific platform that addresses what needs to be changed and specific solutions for those. I would easily vote for a thrice trans-gendered mishappen dwarf muslim with no charisma that has all these traits over someone that lacks relevant content, character, ability, accomplishment, vision, specific platform/solutions, etc.  Let's stop focusing on the superficial. 

I don't think Warren is that bad of a candidate. She is professional, and she has experience and credibility and a mostly consistent platform and would be a solid B+ pick for you guys if she ends up winning. But literally nobody gives a shit about her sob story, in fact, I can't remember the name of the person in it, all I remember was that it was about healthcare and she interrupted multiple times trying to finish it.

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

I guess I'd judge the debates based on a single factor:

Did my opinion of the candidate go up?

Did my opinion of the candidate go down?

My opinion of Steve Bullock went up.  I thought he was an interesting presence on the stage.  I went from not caring that he even exists as a person, to thinking "maaaaaaaaaybe that's the voice that counteracts Trump."  He's not my top pick right now, not by a long shot.  But my opinion of him increased.

My opinion of Tim Ryan went down.  I went from not caring that he exists as a person, to questioning WHETHER he exists as a person.  Is it possible that he is a robot?  A hologram?  Can anyone else even see him, or do I need a quick trip down to psych?

It's funny because I thought Ryan did well in debate this time with his focus on manufacturing. I would say that he helped himself. That said, he should probably drop out. 

My opinion of Bullock is lower than it was before the debate. I had heard him on radio and liked him. He recently wrote a fairly vicious Op-Ed on the student loan debt crisis. While I understood his point, he had no solutions, and it seemed to be an attempt to cater to those with no college education or those that didn't have college debt or were lucky enough to pay it off. I'm all about alternative view points, but you have to have respectful and compassionate alternatives when opposing a plan designed to help people who are struggling. So while the Op-Ed made him my least favorite candidate other than Williamson, I had no opinion of him as a stage debater. 

While I think he did well in representing rural Democrats, I found him often inarticulate. No one stumbled over their words more, which sort of made it hard to understand what he was saying. I also found him mostly repeating what Hickenlooper and Delaney were trying to say. I think Delaney greatly outperformed Hickenlooper and Bullock. 

Perhaps, my newfound bias against Bullock is clouding my judgment, but I'd like to see see a specific moment in the debate where you think Bullock performed especially well. 

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

@vcczar Lol did you not read the first sentence of my post?

"This is my personal ranking"

I grade the debate just like Acting guy says below

Im really not sure who my.candidate is yet, so like I said, my analysis was all about who I thought did the best to win MY support.

#YangGang my brother

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's funny because I thought Ryan did well in debate this time with his focus on manufacturing. I would say that he helped himself. That said, he should probably drop out. 

My opinion of Bullock is lower than it was before the debate. I had heard him on radio and liked him. He recently wrote a fairly vicious Op-Ed on the student loan debt crisis. While I understood his point, he had no solutions, and it seemed to be an attempt to cater to those with no college education or those that didn't have college debt or were lucky enough to pay it off. I'm all about alternative view points, but you have to have respectful and compassionate alternatives when opposing a plan designed to help people who are struggling. So while the Op-Ed made him my least favorite candidate other than Williamson, I had no opinion of him as a stage debater. 

While I think he did well in representing rural Democrats, I found him often inarticulate. No one stumbled over their words more, which sort of made it hard to understand what he was saying. I also found him mostly repeating what Hickenlooper and Delaney were trying to say. I think Delaney greatly outperformed Hickenlooper and Bullock. 

Perhaps, my newfound bias against Bullock is clouding my judgment, but I'd like to see see a specific moment in the debate where you think Bullock performed especially well. 

Sure.  I have no doubt that you paid closer attention to the debate than I did.  By the second commercial break, I was wandering in and out of my living room as my interest had waned.  I actually turned the tv off and headed to bed while there was still about 30 minutes left.

I don’t think I have strongly held beliefs about the issues being debated right now. I have zero student debt and excellent health insurance.  The issues I really do care about...gay marriage, not putting children in cages, not discriminating against Muslims, respecting women, and just generally not being a fucking monster...are generally agreed upon by every Democrat candidate.

So when I’m looking at candidates, I’m asking:

1) Can you beat Donald Trump?

2)  Are you mentally capable of the job?  

3) Am I reasonably convinced that you are not secretly evil?  (That’s a strange question, but Tulsi Gabbard just sets off endless alarm bells in my mind, screaming at me to run)

 

Steve Bullock convinced me that his three answers could be yes.  

Buttigieg is still my strongest yes, but Bullock is in the running for number two.

 

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

Sure.  I have no doubt that you paid closer attention to the debate than I did.  By the second commercial break, I was wandering in and out of my living room as my interest had waned.  I actually turned the tv off and headed to bed while there was still about 30 minutes left.

I don’t think I have strongly held beliefs about the issues being debated right now. I have zero student debt and excellent health insurance.  The issues I really do care about...gay marriage, not putting children in cages, not discriminating against Muslims, respecting women, and just generally not being a fucking monster...are generally agreed upon by every Democrat candidate.

So when I’m looking at candidates, I’m asking:

1) Can you beat Donald Trump?

2)  Are you mentally capable of the job?  

3) Am I reasonably convinced that you are not secretly evil?  (That’s a strange question, but Tulsi Gabbard just sets off endless alarm bells in my mind, screaming at me to run)

 

Steve Bullock convinced me that his three answers could be yes.  

Buttigieg is still my strongest yes, but Bullock is in the running for number two.

 

Gabbard is the most self-centered candidate. Most of what she says, even in her ads, are about herself. The other candidates focus more on ideas and people. This is what sticks out most to me when she speaks or when her ads air. 

I like your three questions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar From an unbiased standpoint I still think Warren cracked. She repeated the same stump speech to two different questions and fell into the sob story anecdotes. But like I said, I wanna know who I can feel comfortable voting for as an Anti-Trump Conservative and that was easily Delaney for me. He stood up to the Far Left politics being espoused by center stage and he made it clear he wont lead the party in that direction. Bernie, for the first time I've seen of his modern appearances, veered back into his old days of literal Socialism, so that scares me that those tendencies never really left him. Warren wasn't particularly far behind. Especially with the cringe capitalist answer.

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

@vcczar From an unbiased standpoint I still think Warren cracked. She repeated the same stump speech to two different questions and fell into the sob story anecdotes. But like I said, I wanna know who I can feel comfortable voting for as an Anti-Trump Conservative and that was easily Delaney for me. He stood up to the Far Left politics being espoused by center stage and he made it clear he wont lead the party in that direction. Bernie, for the first time I've seen of his modern appearances, veered back into his old days of literal Socialism, so that scares me that those tendencies never really left him. Warren wasn't particularly far behind. Especially with the cringe capitalist answer.

Counterpoint: His smile 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar From an unbiased standpoint I still think Warren cracked. She repeated the same stump speech to two different questions and fell into the sob story anecdotes. But like I said, I wanna know who I can feel comfortable voting for as an Anti-Trump Conservative and that was easily Delaney for me. He stood up to the Far Left politics being espoused by center stage and he made it clear he wont lead the party in that direction. Bernie, for the first time I've seen of his modern appearances, veered back into his old days of literal Socialism, so that scares me that those tendencies never really left him. Warren wasn't particularly far behind. Especially with the cringe capitalist answer.

It still disturbs me - and this coming from a my job as a social worker - how quickly and easily, and seemingly thoughtlessly, you condemn social institutions that, without which create completely unnecessary, aggregious, and even inhuman suffering by neglect and give a government that follows these ideas you cherish a cold, card, and cruel face to so many, and all in the name of "conservative" politics, which, at the fiscal level, regardless of what's told to whom and lies and myths are spread, serve the very rich, first and foremost, and a descending order of social stratification levels of IMMENSELY diminished benefit down each tier. But I do not believe there are any ethics or morality to supporting governments and politicians who kiss the asses of powerful corporates while lying on worn old scripts to their constituents.

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

It still disturbs me - and this coming from a my job as a social worker - how quickly and easily, and seemingly thoughtlessly, you condemn social institutions that, without which create completely unnecessary, aggregious, and even inhuman suffering by neglect and give a government that follows these ideas you cherish a cold, card, and cruel face to so many, and all in the name of "conservative" politics, which, at the fiscal level, regardless of what's told to whom and lies and myths are spread, serve the very rich, first and foremost, and a descending order of social stratification levels of IMMENSELY diminished benefit down each tier. But I do not believe there are any ethics or morality to supporting governments and politicians who kiss the asses of powerful corporates while lying on worn old scripts to their constituents.

wut

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

wut

Basically you want a "Conservative" instead of Warren, Sanders, etc., you are automatically "bad" for espousing very soft and moderate (globally speaking) Social Democratic politics. I could just see it in your post. And the policies you always Conservatives over specifically Social Democrats to espouse I believe is a case that you don't REALLY understand what it is you reflexively oppose...

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...