Damn nikkas really stayed quiet on this post
The bad faith arguments vs Bernie used to last 5 pages... now it's only down to 7 posters bullshytting .. damn
Official 2020 Democratic Primary Debate Thread
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
The bad faith arguments vs Bernie used to last 5 pages... now it's only down to 7 posters bullshytting .. damn
All that's left is for Steyer to run out on stage and spit in Bloomberg's face
Warren was just absolutely vulgar
daemonova
hit it, & I didn't go Erykah Badu crazy, #yallmad
The 3 last VP debates
Biden beat Palin
Republicans didn't care about Paul Ryan
Pence stuck his sword out and let Kaine do all the work, dude was a white cory Booker
It's a bad faith argument. When Bernie made his pronouncement that he would stay in Hillary had won more votes and more pledged delegates than Sanders and it wasn't even close.Damn nikkas really stayed quiet on this post
ill_will82
What you see, is what you get
storyteller
Veteran
Well that was a fun, but pretty uninformative debate. We got more BS and attacks than we got real substantial explanations about how anything proposed is going to work. I always stick to an idea of "who helped themselves the most?" as the key to how I rate performances. In this case, I really felt that staying on message and rounding in policy points were crucial as a way to separate from the pack...that's because it was a shark tank. Everyone went each others' necks and it became a case of wondering which candidates actually brought some substance to go with the punches. You could see a number of candidates trying to make their last stand while others had to play defense, but at times this turned into petty bickering that took away from idk...actually telling people how you'll help them. But a few candidates did manage to standout for more than just mudslinging, let's go...
1. Warren: I honestly don't even feel like this first place spot is debatable. Warren planted her flag right out of the gate with haymakers for Bloomberg and then when Scarface quitting his job in Halfbaked on everybody else too. But what separated her from the rest of the pack wasn't that she fired on all sides, it's that her attacks were built on policy. "Pete's healthcare is a powerpoint, Amy's is a post-it, Bernie's on the right track but needs more" is a great way to not just hit the other competitors but to prop up her own policy proposal. She used Bloomberg to highlight her corruption bill at another point as well. Even when the Senator swung on non-policy bases, she didn't seem petty. Asking Bloomberg to waive the NDA's of victims of sexual harassment played out beautifully.
I try to throw in a bit of the weaknesses too and I really have to nitpick to even get something for Warren here. What I will say, is she doesn't need the anecdotes to close her statements. They're strong on their own merits so she doesn't need to go over her time telling one person's story. Using that tact once or twice, like the rationing of insulin story, I understand. But she goes to well on that tactic too often and it gets watered down. Just don't overdo it and you're good Liz.
2. Bernie: Two main reasons why Bernie's here...one, I don't think any of the attacks lobbed at him will dislodge his spot at the top of the pack; and two, he dropped some absolute gems amid constantly defending himself from the rest of the pack. Pete lobbed Bernie an alley-oop by bringing up a Scandinavian country as having the American Dream. Bloomberg queued Bernie up perfectly to hit his Corporate Socialism message out the park. Then, after a rough start, Pete gave Bernie a second shot to defend M4A's pricing and I loved it. To fill that in, Bernie brought up an article from the Lancet that posits M4A will save 450 billion dollars compared to the current paradigm. When I tell yall that the Lancet is one of the, bar none, top medical journals around this isn't just conjecture. One of my job duties is working on collection development at a medical library. That article and that journal is a big deal.
That's not to say Bernie didn't have hiccups. He got hit a LOT and didn't always get a chance to defend himself, also didn't always stick the landing on his defenses. But what helped monumentally was that people would chime in to attack each other rather than pile on. When Joe, Kamala Harris or Warren have been targeted as front runners in the past, EVERYONE hit them (except Bernie in Warren's case). Bernie had the benefit of Bloomberg being Lex Luthor out there (and boosting Bernie's message just via presence) and Pete/Amy personal feuding to make most attacks on him forgettable.
3. Biden: I don't know how much Joe Biden actually helped his stock, but he definitely got a boost. Joe started really strong but faded badly as the night wore on. His attacks on Bloomberg were full of fire and his energy was great early on. Biden also did some solid work boasting about his work with foreign policy during the Mexico discussion (I call BS but the aesthetic worked and I can't hate on that part) while doing a nice job overall trying to reach PoC. The best example of this is how he kinda tried to take credit for stopping Bloomberg's stop and frisk disaster but the Mexico play meant he came across as defending black and latino voters both during different parts.
Joe kinda flopped toward the end though. He started stumbling over his words at times and looked bad on the "what has anyone else won?" comment (Warren dropped the CFPB bomb on him). His closing statement wound up about Bernie and then Bernie got the last word to render that pretty toothless. But Joe still benefits most of all from Bloomberg being dismantled and Biden also never had to play defense.
4. Pete: So the top three helped themselves and I think Pete held his position but didn't gain much. The problem with Pete is that he's always been vapid on the debate stage, but when someone who virtually never offers anything but platitudes also tries to attack the rest of the candidates...he comes across as an a$$hole. Remember Swalwell badgering Biden to pass the torch? That's how Pete came across to me. He'd make an attack, the other candidate would respond and he'd ignore the response entirely to belabor his original point. This was blatant when Klobuchar called him out for using canned material, he circled back to a vapid attack about forgetting a name and then Warren stepped in to tell him to STFU and stop acting like a baby (I'm paraphrasing this WILD; she did this way more diplomatic but that was the underlying message).
But Pete did hit everyone and manage to lock Klobuchar down in a tit for tat. So he was at least able to get a lot of mic time. That said...what exactly did he offer? Do you remember him actually offering much of anything other than a weak healthcare offering that Warren torched in a sentence? I don't.
5. Klobuchar: Well, Amy Klobuchar started alright with strong shot at Bloomberg for telling other candidates to get out of his way. But like Buttigeig, she rarely found opportunities to push any sort of policy vision besides ideas that got punched back by other candidates. She did spin forgetting Obrador's name into pointing out her bonafides in foreign policy but I'm not sure that helped...not because Pete spun it back to forgetting AMLO, but because after Warren came to Klobuchar's defense the moderator pointed out that Amy did poorly on all things Mexico. That moment hit harder than any of Pete's attacks.
But that's the other side of it too...Pete kept hitting Klobuchar with pretty petty attacks and Amy lost her patience more than once. She did a "you think you're so perfect" jab at one point and a "what are you calling me dumb?" comment at another. I got why and felt just as annoyed; but it really doesn't inspire confidence that she'd stand with Trump and keep her composure. I don't see how she gained anything and she may have lost a bit last night.
6. Bloomberg: My dude spent all that money to get on stage, all that money on ads and stolen staff...but didn't hire anyone to prep him for the debate? Bloomberg's apologies for his past were empty. The one time he came close to mentioning policy was when he essentially said "and yeah what Warren and Biden alluded too...we should do that stuff." Every candidate hit him for something and the closest thing he got to a highlight was repeating the "Bernie has three homes" comment which originates from Republicans and try-hard haters. Dude let his frustration out at one point where the crowd actually made a recoiling sound because Mike snapped on Joe Biden. This dude wound up being the walking embodiment of privilege. He showed no merits to be president or proof why he actually earned anything he's got. He's the tall kid that made the basketball team before the coach realized all he's good for is getting dunked on.
No positives for this bum. He did nothing well. My favorite low point was his claim that he'd worked for his billions to which Bernie brought up the fact that his employees did the actual work. But Warren, Amy and Biden all have posterizing dunks on this guy. This should be grand opening, grand closing. Let's see if he can buy his way out of the hole he dug.
In Closing: The most entertaining debate was also the least substantive. I didn't learn anything new, but we're political junkies posting on a politics board. The real issue is that I don't think anyone else learned anything new either. Newcomers or grizzled vets alike, we just watched a soap opera for the price of high theater. The biggest voice on my social media timelines is Republicans talking about how ridiculous it all looked (self-awareness not being their strong suit). There wasn't a big idea to come out of this. The messaging? Bloomberg sucks. I hope hope HOPE that the secondary message is "Warren's in this race" though. Because they've tried to prop up Biden, Pete, Amy and Bloomberg to avoid Bernie winning...but like I've said all along, Warren's his only true competition.
Also...goodbye any arguments for abolishing the electoral college. I don't think these candidates can make the argument that who gets the most votes should win when all but Bernie said procedure >>> the will of the people. That's probably a necessary strategy. It's a pretty clear concession that they think Sanders will finish with the most delegates and they need a work around to win. But it also means that if Trump wins the electoral college, no gap in the popular vote tally will matter. Because the "whataboutism" is baked in with a video clip to support it now.
1. Warren: I honestly don't even feel like this first place spot is debatable. Warren planted her flag right out of the gate with haymakers for Bloomberg and then when Scarface quitting his job in Halfbaked on everybody else too. But what separated her from the rest of the pack wasn't that she fired on all sides, it's that her attacks were built on policy. "Pete's healthcare is a powerpoint, Amy's is a post-it, Bernie's on the right track but needs more" is a great way to not just hit the other competitors but to prop up her own policy proposal. She used Bloomberg to highlight her corruption bill at another point as well. Even when the Senator swung on non-policy bases, she didn't seem petty. Asking Bloomberg to waive the NDA's of victims of sexual harassment played out beautifully.
I try to throw in a bit of the weaknesses too and I really have to nitpick to even get something for Warren here. What I will say, is she doesn't need the anecdotes to close her statements. They're strong on their own merits so she doesn't need to go over her time telling one person's story. Using that tact once or twice, like the rationing of insulin story, I understand. But she goes to well on that tactic too often and it gets watered down. Just don't overdo it and you're good Liz.
2. Bernie: Two main reasons why Bernie's here...one, I don't think any of the attacks lobbed at him will dislodge his spot at the top of the pack; and two, he dropped some absolute gems amid constantly defending himself from the rest of the pack. Pete lobbed Bernie an alley-oop by bringing up a Scandinavian country as having the American Dream. Bloomberg queued Bernie up perfectly to hit his Corporate Socialism message out the park. Then, after a rough start, Pete gave Bernie a second shot to defend M4A's pricing and I loved it. To fill that in, Bernie brought up an article from the Lancet that posits M4A will save 450 billion dollars compared to the current paradigm. When I tell yall that the Lancet is one of the, bar none, top medical journals around this isn't just conjecture. One of my job duties is working on collection development at a medical library. That article and that journal is a big deal.
That's not to say Bernie didn't have hiccups. He got hit a LOT and didn't always get a chance to defend himself, also didn't always stick the landing on his defenses. But what helped monumentally was that people would chime in to attack each other rather than pile on. When Joe, Kamala Harris or Warren have been targeted as front runners in the past, EVERYONE hit them (except Bernie in Warren's case). Bernie had the benefit of Bloomberg being Lex Luthor out there (and boosting Bernie's message just via presence) and Pete/Amy personal feuding to make most attacks on him forgettable.
3. Biden: I don't know how much Joe Biden actually helped his stock, but he definitely got a boost. Joe started really strong but faded badly as the night wore on. His attacks on Bloomberg were full of fire and his energy was great early on. Biden also did some solid work boasting about his work with foreign policy during the Mexico discussion (I call BS but the aesthetic worked and I can't hate on that part) while doing a nice job overall trying to reach PoC. The best example of this is how he kinda tried to take credit for stopping Bloomberg's stop and frisk disaster but the Mexico play meant he came across as defending black and latino voters both during different parts.
Joe kinda flopped toward the end though. He started stumbling over his words at times and looked bad on the "what has anyone else won?" comment (Warren dropped the CFPB bomb on him). His closing statement wound up about Bernie and then Bernie got the last word to render that pretty toothless. But Joe still benefits most of all from Bloomberg being dismantled and Biden also never had to play defense.
4. Pete: So the top three helped themselves and I think Pete held his position but didn't gain much. The problem with Pete is that he's always been vapid on the debate stage, but when someone who virtually never offers anything but platitudes also tries to attack the rest of the candidates...he comes across as an a$$hole. Remember Swalwell badgering Biden to pass the torch? That's how Pete came across to me. He'd make an attack, the other candidate would respond and he'd ignore the response entirely to belabor his original point. This was blatant when Klobuchar called him out for using canned material, he circled back to a vapid attack about forgetting a name and then Warren stepped in to tell him to STFU and stop acting like a baby (I'm paraphrasing this WILD; she did this way more diplomatic but that was the underlying message).
But Pete did hit everyone and manage to lock Klobuchar down in a tit for tat. So he was at least able to get a lot of mic time. That said...what exactly did he offer? Do you remember him actually offering much of anything other than a weak healthcare offering that Warren torched in a sentence? I don't.
5. Klobuchar: Well, Amy Klobuchar started alright with strong shot at Bloomberg for telling other candidates to get out of his way. But like Buttigeig, she rarely found opportunities to push any sort of policy vision besides ideas that got punched back by other candidates. She did spin forgetting Obrador's name into pointing out her bonafides in foreign policy but I'm not sure that helped...not because Pete spun it back to forgetting AMLO, but because after Warren came to Klobuchar's defense the moderator pointed out that Amy did poorly on all things Mexico. That moment hit harder than any of Pete's attacks.
But that's the other side of it too...Pete kept hitting Klobuchar with pretty petty attacks and Amy lost her patience more than once. She did a "you think you're so perfect" jab at one point and a "what are you calling me dumb?" comment at another. I got why and felt just as annoyed; but it really doesn't inspire confidence that she'd stand with Trump and keep her composure. I don't see how she gained anything and she may have lost a bit last night.
6. Bloomberg: My dude spent all that money to get on stage, all that money on ads and stolen staff...but didn't hire anyone to prep him for the debate? Bloomberg's apologies for his past were empty. The one time he came close to mentioning policy was when he essentially said "and yeah what Warren and Biden alluded too...we should do that stuff." Every candidate hit him for something and the closest thing he got to a highlight was repeating the "Bernie has three homes" comment which originates from Republicans and try-hard haters. Dude let his frustration out at one point where the crowd actually made a recoiling sound because Mike snapped on Joe Biden. This dude wound up being the walking embodiment of privilege. He showed no merits to be president or proof why he actually earned anything he's got. He's the tall kid that made the basketball team before the coach realized all he's good for is getting dunked on.
No positives for this bum. He did nothing well. My favorite low point was his claim that he'd worked for his billions to which Bernie brought up the fact that his employees did the actual work. But Warren, Amy and Biden all have posterizing dunks on this guy. This should be grand opening, grand closing. Let's see if he can buy his way out of the hole he dug.
In Closing: The most entertaining debate was also the least substantive. I didn't learn anything new, but we're political junkies posting on a politics board. The real issue is that I don't think anyone else learned anything new either. Newcomers or grizzled vets alike, we just watched a soap opera for the price of high theater. The biggest voice on my social media timelines is Republicans talking about how ridiculous it all looked (self-awareness not being their strong suit). There wasn't a big idea to come out of this. The messaging? Bloomberg sucks. I hope hope HOPE that the secondary message is "Warren's in this race" though. Because they've tried to prop up Biden, Pete, Amy and Bloomberg to avoid Bernie winning...but like I've said all along, Warren's his only true competition.
Also...goodbye any arguments for abolishing the electoral college. I don't think these candidates can make the argument that who gets the most votes should win when all but Bernie said procedure >>> the will of the people. That's probably a necessary strategy. It's a pretty clear concession that they think Sanders will finish with the most delegates and they need a work around to win. But it also means that if Trump wins the electoral college, no gap in the popular vote tally will matter. Because the "whataboutism" is baked in with a video clip to support it now.
^ Good analysis.
I'm not sure how to call this one for Biden. He was no one's target, got in some clean shots of his own on Bloomberg (and even landed a few strays on Bernie), and was relatively coherent throughout and actually fiery at times. That might classify as a win for him, especially given the lowered expectations of late.
And yet...Mike wasn't really the guy he (and the rest of the centrists, FTM) needed to torch. That was Bernie, and while he connected on a few jabs, they didn't really make a dent. And the very fact that he wasn't attacked - really, he was all but ignored - shows he's not currently seen as a legit threat, which is even more concerning for him.
I'm not sure how to call this one for Biden. He was no one's target, got in some clean shots of his own on Bloomberg (and even landed a few strays on Bernie), and was relatively coherent throughout and actually fiery at times. That might classify as a win for him, especially given the lowered expectations of late.
And yet...Mike wasn't really the guy he (and the rest of the centrists, FTM) needed to torch. That was Bernie, and while he connected on a few jabs, they didn't really make a dent. And the very fact that he wasn't attacked - really, he was all but ignored - shows he's not currently seen as a legit threat, which is even more concerning for him.
Jesus H. Christ
I died for your sins
It's going to get ugly real quick. I thought all of them would of said yes as a sign to unify.
I get it it's strategy but not it's good strategy...
Uno Venova
Your honor, I was merely capping.
The bad faith arguments vs Bernie used to last 5 pages... now it's only down to 7 posters bullshytting .. damn
Man that nikka Bernie has no chance
Aight he's winning states and polls but he'll never beat Trump
Aight polls got him winning the white house vs Trump but he'll never get anything done
storyteller
Veteran
It's going to get ugly real quick. I thought all of them would of said yes as a sign to unify.
I get it it's strategy but not it's good strategy...
It's short term strategy that completely ignores long term goals. I'd say this has been a problem for the Dems for a long time now too. They rarely seem to have a coherent long term strategy.
Json
Superstar
Except the way socialism is attacked in America is a redistribution of wealth so the optics of it look bad to low info voters. It’s a short catchy idea that sticks in terms of marketing.
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
The worst argument I keep hearing about concerning M4A is that it won't pass so it's foolish to support Bernie or anyone in favor of that policy.
Think about that for a second. Their argument is that you shouldn't vote for the candidate who is going to advocate for what you want because other voters or members of congress might not want it.
Imagine if these morons were around in the '50s and '60s.
Edit: As a side note. So many people vote against their own self-interests and are proud of it. It's crazy.
Yang criticizing someone's debate performance is.
Like breh you were horrible up there when you had your chance.
yang's problem wasn't his debate ability.
Safe to say Liz is will eat trump alive
trump ain't no bloomberg
if warren did this to trump then trump will reply with 'maybe i should've grabbed your p*ssy instead'
and still get away with it
