NV Debate: Early Thoughts

[wolves 29]

6 hours ago, admin_270 said:

 

Ya, we'll see what kind of movement there is in the polls ... but those exchanges with Warren were brutal.

I wonder if Warren will play this cycle the role Chris Christie played in the last, whose most significant action in the campaign was torpedoing the main opponent to Trump (Rubio) at a key time. This time, though, it would be the main opponent to Sanders. Hmmm ...

Look into how Clinton got Warren's endorsement in 2016, Warren had a list of about 50 demands that Clinton had to do, I wouldn't be surprised if she does the exact same thing to Bernie concluding with a possible VP spot.

[vcczar 1,224]

7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

 

Ya, we'll see what kind of movement there is in the polls ... but those exchanges with Warren were brutal.

I wonder if Warren will play this cycle the role Chris Christie played in the last, whose most significant action in the campaign was torpedoing the main opponent to Trump (Rubio) at a key time. This time, though, it would be the main opponent to Sanders. Hmmm ...

I wouldn't be surprised if the brutal attacks were partially planned. If Warren goes up in the polls, it most likely comes from Sanders supporters. MSNBC was showing that moments after she tore Bloomberg apart, during the commercial break, she and Bloomberg were chatting off-topic and having a cordial conversation as if nothing had happened. Hardly anyone attacked Warren, despite her going on an all out offensive. She even attacked Sanders but not in a way that would offend his supporters. 

Sanders is my preference still, but Warren is just about tied for me. 

[Centrist Emperor Kerzaris 50]

Who is this @billay guy, he seems like the embodiment of an online Trump Supporter. very toxic and aggressive. 

[Centrist Emperor Kerzaris 50]

Warren's performance highlighted why progressives liked her and why she used to be a frontrunner. Had she stayed this way and didn't follow the Bernie is a sexist fiasco, she would've been tow-to-tow with Bernie. 

Either way, this is a Warren victory and I hope she drops out after (losing in) South Carolina and endorse Bernie. 

[RI Democrat 39]

9 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I could not BELIEVE that Bloomberg's defense to all the women who have alleged extremely serious incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace was "They didn't like a joke."

I mean, holy FUCK.  

Wrong room, buddy.  The Republican debate is next door over.

If Bloomberg had suddenly erupted into flames, it would not be the worst thing that happened to him tonight.

I've been hearing "it was a joke" as an excuse for offensive behavior since, well, forever. I can't believe Bloomberg thought that was an adequate response. Does he even have any staff who helped him prepare for this? It's hard to imagine that anyone would have advised him to say that.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

Best debate so far, as people were actually debating instead of just saying their catchphrases. They did this of course as well, but it was more dynamic on the whole

However, from my point of view this debate exposed even more how bad Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and even Klobuchar are. From a Democratic point of view I also think this debate showed us, that Biden is actually the best suited candidate for Democrats. Period. Biden was coherent, calm and made many good points. He has leadership qualities and proved this already in the Senate and during his time as Vice President. On Biden's policies it was a bit of a setback, that he actually threatened the same thing, which is in fact one of the policies I criticize about Trump's presidency. More tariffs on China (or another country) is not a good move.

Bloomberg may have the best policies from my personal point of view, but he didn't do himself a favor with attending this debate. I can understand the critical points others brought forward, but I do no share most of them. Bloomberg should have continued to ''hide'' behind his ads. A good statement from him was, that he targeted communism for the first time ever on these debate stages. I don't think Bloomberg attracted many new voters with the attending of this debate stage. I mean, I cannot blame him directly, but I guess the constant attacks on him will scare more voters away from his campaign.

On the whole, I guess the Democrats are more divided after this debate which will likely help Trump. 

The moderators did a pretty bad job.... (Also too bad they did not talk about foreign policy, the Supreme Court)

 

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

10 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I wonder if Warren will play this cycle the role Chris Christie played in the last, whose most significant action in the campaign was torpedoing the main opponent to Trump (Rubio) at a key time.

That's Gabbard.

[admin_270 845]

Ok, after watching more clips, my conclusions.

Big winners of debate: Sanders, Trump

Lesser winners of debate: Biden, Buttigieg, Warren (highly successful attacks on Bloomberg, but to win the nomination it seems she needs to stop Sanders, not Bloomberg - still, I think people will give her another thought after this debate)

Lesser losers of debate: Klobuchar (needed a strong performance to follow up NH, but instead squabbled with Buttigieg), Steyer (wasn't there, even though he's pumped millions into NV advertising and in recent polls has about 10% there)

Big loser: Bloomberg (can another $500M offset the results of this debate? perhaps - he also has another debate before Super Tuesday to right the 'billionaire Titanic' after it ran into 'iceberg Warren', as Van Jones has called it)

[Patine 469]

5 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Who is this @billay guy, he seems like the embodiment of an online Trump Supporter. very toxic and aggressive. 

I think he MAY be someone whose previously been on these forums before under a different username. The problem is, I can think of several different plausible candidates as to that is. :S

 

3 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Best debate so far, as people were actually debating instead of just saying their catchphrases. They did this of course as well, but it was more dynamic on the whole

However, from my point of view this debate exposed even more how bad Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and even Klobuchar are. From a Democratic point of view I also think this debate showed us, that Biden is actually the best suited candidate for Democrats. Period. Biden was coherent, calm and made many good points. He has leadership qualities and proved this already in the Senate and during his time as Vice President. On Biden's policies it was a bit of a setback, that he actually threatened the same thing, which is in fact one of the policies I criticize about Trump's presidency. More tariffs on China (or another country) is not a good move.

Bloomberg may have the best policies from my personal point of view, but he didn't do himself a favor with attending this debate. I can understand the critical points others brought forward, but I do no share most of them. Bloomberg should have continued to ''hide'' behind his ads. A good statement from him was, that he targeted communism for the first time ever on these debate stages. I don't think Bloomberg attracted many new voters with the attending of this debate stage. I mean, I cannot blame him directly, but I guess the constant attacks on him will scare more voters away from his campaign.

On the whole, I guess the Democrats are more divided after this debate which will likely help Trump. 

The moderators did a pretty bad job.... (Also too bad they did not talk about foreign policy, the Supreme Court)

 

Do you mean here the candidates you REALLY think would be best for, and serve best, the interests, demands, and viewpoints of the Democratic voter base, or just who you would like to see as the only other viable candidate to Trump (as thus, in the rigged American two-party system, the only other one with a realistic chance of winning)? Be honest here.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you mean here the candidates you REALLY think would be best for, and serve best, the interests, demands, and viewpoints of the Democratic voter base, or just who you would like to see as the only other viable candidate to Trump (as thus, in the rigged American two-party system, the only other one with a realistic chance of winning)? Be honest here.

For this I support Biden and Bloomberg.

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you mean here the candidates you REALLY think would be best for, and serve best, the interests, demands, and viewpoints of the Democratic voter base, or just who you would like to see as the only other viable candidate to Trump (as thus, in the rigged American two-party system, the only other one with a realistic chance of winning)? Be honest here.

For this it is only Biden. 

Bloomberg is no Democrat (party) and he seemed to be the enemy on that stage. Most of Sanders'/Warren's followers could not bring themselves to vote for Bloomberg. Let's be honest. It would even be hard regarding Biden, but maybe not impossible. For the bold sentence part, there is no other option than Biden in the end. You are mentioning one of the reasons yourself. The rigged American two-party system, gives only Biden a realistic chance of winning. Sanders' and Warren's policies cannot convince a majority I think. Buttigieg and Klobuchar had probably their worst nights as well. If they are stumbling now, they would falter against Trump as well. So if you really want to have a chance on winning this, choose Biden in your interest. 

However, as always just my 2 cents.

[billay 163]

5 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Who is this @billay guy, he seems like the embodiment of an online Trump Supporter. very toxic and aggressive. 

I voted for Gary Johnson last time and will be voting for Sanders in the Missouri primary. 

I'll leave the board if differing opinions arent welcomed. This place does have a very 2016 Clinton feel where we cant possibly suggest Trump could win and we cant criticize anything the Democrats do.

[admin_270 845]

8 minutes ago, billay said:

I'll leave the board if differing opinions arent welcomed.

Differing opinions are definitely welcome. The forum does have an anti-Trump slant, and I think having more voices with other views will probably make it a better place.

You can definitely criticize what the Democrats do. I routinely tell people I think Trump is likely to win at this point.

[Patine 469]

24 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

For this I support Biden and Bloomberg.

For this it is only Biden. 

Bloomberg is no Democrat (party) and he seemed to be the enemy on that stage. Most of Sanders'/Warren's followers could not bring themselves to vote for Bloomberg. Let's be honest. It would even be hard regarding Biden, but maybe not impossible. For the bold sentence part, there is no other option than Biden in the end. You are mentioning one of the reasons yourself. The rigged American two-party system, gives only Biden a realistic chance of winning. Sanders' and Warren's policies cannot convince a majority I think. Buttigieg and Klobuchar had probably their worst nights as well. If they are stumbling now, they would falter against Trump as well. So if you really want to have a chance on winning this, choose Biden in your interest. 

However, as always just my 2 cents.

I think Biden, Bloomberg, AND Buttigieg are all too out of touch for what's needed for the issues and struggles faced by the common majority who aren't wealthy and secure in employment and lifestyle and realistically (despite the deceptive mirage of propaganda called "the American Dream," will almost certainly never be through hard work and diligent financial success alone). The Establishment as a whole is tanking and failing, and this failure is becoming more and more blatantly apparent to bigger swaths of voters. This is why "radical" candidates are cropping up in Primaries, and Congressional and State-level elections, as more and more attractive, popular, and viable. The Establishment of both parties, and their hidebound ways of dealing with things are quickly becoming yesterday's politics, and are unable to adapt to modern issues and problems that matter most to common Americans, except in the most glacial and ineffective of ways.

[Actinguy 862]

4 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

That's Gabbard.

Not if she can't get the support to reach a debate stage.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Not if she can't get the support to reach a debate stage.

True. However,  she basically ended Harris' and Ryan's campaign and she took on Buttigieg as well. Probably Buttigieg is the luckiest (besides Biden and Bloomberg now) that Gabbard is not on the stage anymore. 

[Actinguy 862]

12 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think Biden, Bloomberg, AND Buttigieg are all too out of touch for what's needed for the issues and struggles faced by the common majority who aren't wealthy and secure in employment and lifestyle and realistically (despite the deceptive mirage of propaganda called "the American Dream," will almost certainly never be through hard work and diligent financial success alone). 

Buttigieg is worth less than I am, and I'm currently stressing about the cost of a cross-country flight.  

Steyer and Bloomberg are billionaires.  All of the other candidates are worth millions.

Buttigieg alone is worth only $100,000, is still paying off TWO mortgages (on the same fixer-upper house) and six-figures worth of school debt for him and his husband.  

Buttigieg is the only candidate who is actually experiencing the issues and struggles faced by the common majority who aren't wealthy.

[Patine 469]

1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

True. However,  she basically ended Harris' and Ryan's campaign and she took on Buttigieg as well. Probably Buttigieg is the luckiest (besides Biden and Bloomberg now) that Gabbard is not on the stage anymore. 

No one who values the concepts of justice and Constitutional rights would weep for the death of Harris' campaign. And the disgusting thing is, if she had gotten more success, she might have hoodwinked many African-Africans to support her our of lack of knowledge of what she really stood for and represented.

[Actinguy 862]

3 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

True. However,  she basically ended Harris' and Ryan's campaign and she took on Buttigieg as well. Probably Buttigieg is the luckiest (besides Biden and Bloomberg now) that Gabbard is not on the stage anymore. 

Harris had her own problems and Ryan barely existed.  Crediting Gabbard for either's fall is just not true, and her attacks on Pete didn't work -- he either won or tied Iowa, and came within 2% of winning New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, where the hell did Gabbard go?

[Actinguy 862]

42 minutes ago, billay said:

I voted for Gary Johnson last time and will be voting for Sanders in the Missouri primary. 

I'll leave the board if differing opinions arent welcomed. This place does have a very 2016 Clinton feel where we cant possibly suggest Trump could win and we cant criticize anything the Democrats do.

You'll find, I think, that the majority of the most frequent commentators here are Bernie fans.  The Administrator (who is Canadian) supports Trump.   Personally, I'm a huge Buttigieg fan.  

While I hate Trump, I fully acknowledge that he can win re-election.  I didn't bother to really get involved in 2016 because I took Clinton's win to be a done deal.  I was wrong, and I learned from that.  I have been both contributing financially and volunteering with Buttigieg's campaign, and will continue to do so for the nominee regardless of who it is.  

[Patine 469]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Buttigieg is worth less than I am, and I'm currently stressing about the cost of a cross-country flight.  

Steyer and Bloomberg are billionaires.  All of the other candidates are worth millions.

Buttigieg alone is worth only $100,000, is still paying off TWO mortgages (on the same house) and six-figures worth of school debt for him and his husband.  

Buttigieg is the only candidate who is actually experiencing the issues and struggles faced by the common majority who aren't wealthy.

But Sanders and Warren are always networking and meeting with struggling people (and their advocacy groups) who are worse off than you seem to be, by self-description, to be now - and people who like exit options from crippling poverty, debt, and economic exploitation OTHER than things like joining the military, frankly. When I got to my office at the social services building on Tuesday (we have a long-weekend here that is coterminous with President's Day, but is a different secular observance), there were minutes from a social workers' convention that was held in the U.S. (and yes, social workers' coordinate internationally in an unofficial, non-binding way, to an extent) that gave some insight into why Sanders' support at the bottom rungs of the American economic pyramid feel the way they do, and where the attitude labelled "Bernie or Bust," that you, yourself, have dismissively labelled as toxic, originate from in truth.

[billay 163]

35 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Differing opinions are definitely welcome. The forum does have an anti-Trump slant, and I think having more voices with other views will probably make it a better place.

You can definitely criticize what the Democrats do. I routinely tell people I think Trump is likely to win at this point.

Trump is a moron and probably the most corrupt president since Nixon. With that said some alarm bells should be sounding when hes still winning in places like WI,IA,OH, and FL

[Actinguy 862]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But Sanders and Warren are always networking and meeting with struggling people (and their advocacy groups) who are worse off than you seem to be, by self-description, to be now - and people who like exit options from crippling poverty, debt, and economic exploitation OTHER than things like joining the military, frankly. When I got to my office at the social services building on Tuesday (we have a long-weekend here that is coterminous with President's Day, but is a different secular observance), there were minutes from a social workers' convention that was held in the U.S. (and yes, social workers' coordinate internationally in an unofficial, non-binding way, to an extent) that gave some insight into why Sanders' support at the bottom rungs of the American economic pyramid feel the way they do, and where the attitude labelled "Bernie or Bust," that you, yourself, have dismissively labelled as toxic, originate from in truth.

There is a deep difference between actively experiencing something and meeting with people who have experienced something.  You and I have spoken on here many times, but you still have no concept what it's like to have actually served in the military, any more than I have any concept of what it's like to work in a social services building in Canada.  

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Harris had her own problems and Ryan barely existed.  Crediting Gabbard for either's fall is just not true, and her attacks on Pete didn't work -- he either won or tied Iowa, and came within 2% of winning New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, where the hell did Gabbard go?

Maybe her attacks worked, maybe without them Buttigieg had won both contests. We don't know. 

You are right about Ryan, going after Ryan was a bad move considering his 1% in polls, but yes I attribute Harris's failure besides other things to Gabbard. Harris' surge in polls was also a consequence for her attacks on Biden.

Just to clarify, I am not supportive in any way to Gabbard's campaign, as I believe she can't be trusted from both a Democratic and Republican point of view.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Buttigieg alone is worth only $100,000, is still paying off TWO mortgages (on the same fixer-upper house) and six-figures worth of school debt for him and his husband.  

Buttigieg is the only candidate who is actually experiencing the issues and struggles faced by the common majority who aren't wealthy.

Even if he can't win the nomination/VP post or whatever he will at least be better off after his campaign. So he won already regardless of the outcome  Not to mention the better possibility for other runs in Indiana.

[Patine 469]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

There is a deep difference between experiencing something and meeting with people who have experienced something.  You and I have spoken on here many times, but you still have no concept what it's like to have actually served in the military, any more than I have any concept of what it's like to work in a social services building in Canada.  

I do, however, have a cousin who has served a notably long career in the Canadian Forces, and was even in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan. So, to say NO concept, as an absolute, would be inaccurate. No experience, yes, but that's different than no concept. A concept one can get they're mental picture around.

Also, I want to be very clear. I don't hate veterans at all. I have great respect for them (although those, like you, that try to belittle, diminish, or irrelevate my opinions on broader issues around military conflicts and political and other issues surrounding them in a grander sense annoy me, as you saw when we discussed these kinds of issues earlier). It is the WARMAKERS in government, lobbying groups and corporations pushing for war, and "intelligence" groups I have true bile for. A large majority of whom also have NO personal experience in the military or on a battlefield, and thus this leads to a cavalier attitude toward those in uniform, and a lack of concern for their lives and use, except as part of a machine to accomplish their ulterior political and economic motives. The warmakers should be brought to task, called out for inappropriate, misjudged, deceptive, or criminal motives and ulterior agendas, and even *gasp* tried as criminals where they transgressed law.