Sept 12 Democratic Party Debate: Winners and Losers

darkprincealain · Oct 7, 2019

If my preferred candidate (not Bernie, btw) doesn’t get the nomination, it doesn’t matter. I’m voting blue no matter who because four more years of the current occupant and the current occupant’s regime would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, in my opinion. Taking my ball and going home would serve into the current occupant’s hands, just on simple history. Third party votes in a first past the post system like we have in the US never work out as they’re intended.

Marian Perera · Oct 7, 2019

darkprincealain said:
If my preferred candidate (not Bernie, btw) doesn’t get the nomination, it doesn’t matter. I’m voting blue no matter who because four more years of the current occupant and the current occupant’s regime would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, in my opinion. Taking my ball and going home would serve into the current occupant’s hands, just on simple history. Third party votes in a first past the post system like we have in the US never work out as they’re intended.

Thank you. This approach makes sense to me.

RedRajah · Oct 7, 2019

As I (and his own parents) keep trying to tell my husband, we don't have the luxury of him "voting his conscience" anymore.

CWatts · Oct 7, 2019

RedRajah said:
As I (and his own parents) keep trying to tell my husband, we don't have the luxury of him "voting his conscience" anymore.

This to infinity.
A quick Google shows that Susan Sarandon has a net worth of $50 million and got herself a tax cut while the world burns.
Meanwhile those of us working schmoes need to vote like we're next in line for the firing squad.

MaeZe · Oct 7, 2019

Kjbartolotta said:
At this point, the rigged primary narrative has been disproven and debunked enough times I just accept people are going to believe it regardless of the evidence. Like people believe 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary in California or that Obama was a secret Muslim.

If you're offended HRC got emailed a question about the Flint Water Crisis, that's one thing, but there's no truth to the claim that somehow the DNC is using super delegates to shut out the more progressive candidates, as if that's even possible. And yet we keep having to hear about it over and over. And the onus isn't really on the people trying to prove HRC won legitimately (which has been covered on this site multiple times), but rather on the people claiming it was rigged without evidence.

WRD Klein, I'll be honest that part of me kind of likes her but she lost me years ago. Beyond just the fact that she thinks Biden is a bad candidate (and we're on the same page there), I can't really see what she's alleging about DNC hijinks. I'm plenty unhappy about Tom Perez's tenure as chair of the DNC, but I also got frustrated with how quickly people cried foul the moment the DNC said it didn't want to host a climate change debate. For good reasons or bad ones, their reticence to host it might have others causes beyond keeping Biden's positions secret, because I think Biden's positions here are going to be galling to a number of progressives and activists (and me) but not to a large percentage of Dem voters.

In case it wasn't already clear, I didn't buy the DNC debate rigging at all. As for this time, I merely said it was possible, not that it was certain. Is there another reason for them not to have a climate debate?

Just my opinion: Donna Brazile sent that question to feel like she was in the in-crowd, not because Clinton couldn't have answered the question just fine without the help.

The superdelegates have been addressed by the DNC and did not impact the 2016 primary. I too get annoyed when, despite the facts, people keep repeating it influenced the primary.

What did Klein say about DNC hijinks? I missed that and can't find DNC in a search of the transcripts.

I am not a fan of Perez at all. That vote confirmed my belief the old guard was in power and that's too bad.

MaeZe · Oct 7, 2019

Trump's campaign was telling everyone if they didn't vote for him the country would change, the SCOTUS, immigration, religious freedom, everything. He stirred up the white Evangelicals and the white supremacists with dystopia fear-mongering.

We need to do the same, stir up fear-mongering about what will happen if Trump is reelected.

Kjbartolotta · Oct 7, 2019

MaeZe said:
In case it wasn't already clear, I didn't buy the DNC debate rigging at all. As for this time, I merely said it was possible, not that it was certain. Is there another reason for them not to have a climate debate?

What did Klein say about DNC hijinks? I missed that and can't find DNC in a search of the transcripts.

Huh, I misread the post and thought it was Klein alleging the DNC refused to host a climate debate to protect Biden. I'm not a 100% on board with some of the points she makes here and kinda worry we're seeing smoke and assuming fire when I can't really find anything Hunter Biden did wrong. As to how it looks, well, throw it in the pile with the other stuff that's got me unexcited about the candidate who's still standing firm in first place.

As for reasons to not to have debate, can't really say but part of me feels like climate change is one (very, very important) issue among many and the majority of candidates have good plans that are going to have a hard time getting past the Senate if the GOP is still in charge. Of course a debate is a good idea, but at the time part of me wondered if it was just an attempt to jam in another debate and create controversy when the candidates are mainly creating drama by sniping at each other and splitting hairs. That's a cynical enough take I'm not ready to fully sign off on it, but you can color me over-sensitive about any issue like this that goes on blast and suddenly starts driving down enthusiasm among Dem voters. It's hard to know for me when the party leaders are seriously f-ing up and when we're buying into a Dems in disarray narrative.

I think it was foolish of them to refuse but think it could come down to time, money, or energy they didn't think worth expending, or simply stubbornness or an unwillingness to listen.

My own issue with Perez is that he simply seems incompetent. I think he favors the old guard but also wants to be all things to all people, whatever he's doing I don't think it helps anyone.

Agree that Brazile did a disservice for no good reason, and apologies if I seemed to imply you were suggesting rigging, just wanna do my part to slam the door on that nonsense hard.

Roxxsmom · Oct 7, 2019

I have concerns about Sanders' health, and have reservations about some of his past decisions, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat before consigning the country to another 4 years of Trump. I think any progressive, or even moderately liberal person, would agree. He will have a VP who is certainly going to be a much better option than Trump or Pence, no?

I can only hope that the most ardent Sanders supporters will do the same if their guy doesn't get the nomination. There is an infinitely long list of prospects that are better than what's in the White House now. Heck, my dog is a better prospect.

Much is made of the "Bernie Bros" who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 because they preferred to see things burn. Some existed, but this was a thing with some Clinton supporters who didn't vote for Obama back in 2008. I can't find data on in-party voter defection to the other party by voters whose top primary choice didn't get the nomination, but I am guessing there is always a certain percentage of "sour grapes" voters who go for the opposite party candidate out of pique over the primary results (or simply because the primary process is so divisive in of itself they believe the rhetoric that the other candidate from their party might as well be from the other).

I don't know what percentage of Progressive voters might be that stupid this time around, but I am guessing it might be smaller, given how truly toxic Trump's presidency has been so far from the perspective of anyone who isn't firmly on board with the entire conservative agenda (seriously, even conservatives should see how toxic it is, but that's another issue).

In 2016,iIt was relatively easy for some to rationalize that the campaign "promises" he made were all bluster and bravado the first time around, and he would settle in and pick a reasonable cabinet and listen to them--after all, he'd been a Democrat once, right? Anyway, it was pretty clear his personal life wasn't aligned with the values of the far right, and he promised trade reforms to "help the working class." I think it was a naive thing to think, but it would be beyond naive to believe it again.

The question is, will spurned primary voters show up to vote en masse for whoever wins the primary, or will they stay home and sulk (or cast ballots with none of the above or hopeless write ins)?

Another question is how many moderates who voted for Trump last time might stay home if they can't bring themselves to vote for whichever Democrat is chosen?

Elections are won and lost based on which group of voters feels that fire in their bellies that makes them brave foul weather and long lines (in states that still make it hard for people who work for a living to vote) to cast their ballots--especially in swing states.

MaeZe · Oct 7, 2019

Kjbartolotta said:
Huh, I misread the post and thought it was Klein alleging the DNC refused to host a climate debate to protect Biden. I'm not a 100% on board with some of the points she makes here and kinda worry we're seeing smoke and assuming fire when I can't really find anything Hunter Biden did wrong. As to how it looks, well, throw it in the pile with the other stuff that's got me unexcited about the candidate who's still standing firm in first place.

She might have said that. I thought you were talking about the 2016 primary. But either way, your post was fine, not offensive at all.

ElaineA · Oct 7, 2019

Roxxsmom said:
Another question is how many moderates who voted for Trump last time might stay home if they can't bring themselves to vote for whichever Democrat is chosen?

This is what is painful about the current party leadership. Those. People. Don't. Matter. They're as likely to vote Republican as Democrat no matter what they say, no matter who the candidate is, or what has been done to cater to them, so don't waste money trying. Activate the base. Activate the core, most reliable voters, and then get numbers growth on bringing along younger voters. This idea of catering to white middle class, middle aged women and men who like don't like Trump swearing in tweets, and at the same time, counting on all black voters to just go along while being completely ignored, is idiocy. Pure idiocy. And the data backs it up, at least according to Rachel Bitecofer's analysis, and she's been pretty spot-on.

Millennials and younger will be the biggest *available* voting bloc in 2020, and they definitely trend liberal to progressive. Get them out, make them reliable voters, and don't look back.

Sage · Oct 7, 2019

Underdawg47 said:
I plan to vote for Bernie despite his health procedure. I'd rather have one year or less of Bernie in office than a full term of any other Democrat running. I vote according to policy that is beneficial to me as a citizen. Now if Bernie happens not to win the nomination, then I plan to vote for the Green party candidate. I don't believe in 'Blue No Matter Who" because most Democrats do not represent my better interests. Unlike Bernie, I made no contract or swore no oath to support Democrats in the general election. You can't have unity in a party that actively tries to keep progressive candidates from becoming the nominee by using Super Delegates, and various other rules to keep them down. Now that is just how I plan to cast my vote, I am not one to tell others how they shall cast their own vote.

Not telling you how to vote, but wondering what it is about Bernie that makes him stand out to you from the other progressive candidates. Or, alternatively, what about the other progressive candidates turns you off from them?

Underdawg47 · Oct 10, 2019

I vote for a candidate based on many factors. Politically I fall on the far left of the political spectrum. I am a member of the Green party, but I will vote for a Democrat only if the candidate meets certain criteria.

1. Number one and most important, Does not take corporate money in their campaign. This is very important to me because it shows where one's true loyalties lie. Of all the Democrats running in the 2020 election, Bernie is the only one, with perhaps the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, that is not taking corporate money. Elizabeth Warren says she is not taking corporate money right now, but has stated that she plans to do it during the general election. All the other candidates do not meet this important criteria. I will not vote for a centrist because they do not represent my better interests.

2. Policy proposals is my second most important reason. Bernie so far is the ONLY candidate fighting for Medicare for All. All the other candidates have watered down versions that still involve private insurance companies. Bernie stands for cancellation of all student debt, free college, taxing the rich and making them pay their fair share, Net Neutrality, a Green New Deal,etc. His proposals go far beyond that of the other candidates. Tulso Gabbard is good on many of these things, but recently she has proposed some things that I don't agree with. Elizabeth Warren seems to be a progressive by aping much of Bernie's policies, but tends to back track.

3. Past voting records and actions. Bernie has been politically consistent in his voting record and policy proposals for his entire career. He did not vote for the Iraq War, or the Patriot Act. He fought on the side of civil rights for Blacks, gays, and women his entire career. He did not waffle or veer from his path unlike many of the other candidates.

4. Trustworthiness and integrity. If anything, Bernie is honest and does what he says he is going to do. In some ways it is what makes me want to vote for him and it also makes me mad at him. I believe that Bernie will fight for the things he proposes, but he also says he will suppose the other Democrat if they happen to win the nomination. He had proven to be true to his words, and supported Hillary, and begged his followers to do so also, against the will of his followers.

Now there are things that I disagree with Bernie on. He is not a perfect candidate. The things I don't agree with Bernie on is his not addressing the corruption of the DNC in regards to cheating and voter purging. I don't agree with Bernie for going along with the Russiagate witch hunt. I don't agree with Bernie for siding with US against Venezuela. And I certainly didn't like it when Bernie traveled the country campaigning for Hillary and begging his followers to vote for her. I also didn't like that Bernie traveled around with Tom Perez. I understand he thought it was best to do this, but I disagreed. However, I will vote for him if he is the nominee because I think he has policies closest to the Green party and that I think he has the best chance of any of the other candidates for beating Trump because he appeals to ordinary people who are tired of politics as usual.

Now if Bernie does not win the nomination, I have a perfectly good party to vote for with the Greens. Voting Blue no matter who, may be something that Democrats do, but I am not a Democrat.

Lyv · Oct 10, 2019

Underdawg47 said:
He fought on the side of civil rights for Blacks, gays, and women his entire career. He did not waffle or veer from his path unlike many of the other candidates.

Except when he did.

Remember back when Planned Parenthood made a thoughtful, reasoned endorsement of Hillary Clinton, based on her lifelong commitment to women's rights and long list of achievements? When they were under siege already, and he called them "establishment?" I do. I remember his followers viciously attacking Planned Parenthood and vowing never to support them again. He made some weak comment that did nothing to call them off. He hurt Planned Parenthood at a particularly vulnerable time. I don't have any women friends who forgive him for that, nor should they.

And I don't know any Black people who excuse his coy little nudge to his supporters on election eve that people thinking of voting for Trump were not sexist or racist. Permission granted to his faithful base.

His grand civil rights record is pretty weak when you actually look at his. Did you see him get booed at She the People? He richly deserved it. Shows up to an event centering women of color and couldn't speak to race at all, as usual, and hauled out "I marched." I've done more for racial justice than he has, and I'm just some average woman in MA.

Then there was 2006. I remember clearly how hard we were working in Massachusetts to hold on to marriage equality. We stood alone in the US, knowing we had to hold on, for LGBTQ+ citizens in MA and beyond. We had to. There was a concerted effort to put the question on the ballot, invalidating the court decision, and we weren't sure we were going to win. The odds were against it. And up in Vermont, Bernie Sanders, a supposed civil rights champion, senator of a nearby New England state, was asking if he supported marriage equality in Vermont. He said no. That dealt us a blow.

Everything I wrote in this post was Bernie Sanders hurting people actually fighting for civil rights, the people in the trenches, doing the work he never did, endorsing candidates they knew would make their lives better, which was almost never Bernie.

And yet, he's Teflon on this stuff to some of you. Well, he's getting vetted this time, and it's why you're seeing him slip in the polls. And that was before his heart attack, which his team tried to downplay, when Hillary was excoriating for stumbling once. Bernie hardcore supporters were practically planning a funeral protest.

It's your vote, so do what you will. But Bernie is a pretty poor specimen of "civil rights fighter."

Underdawg47 · Oct 10, 2019

I disagree. I have never seen Bernie give a speech against gay marriage, but I do like this talk he had about gays in the military,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riFAwLUfXyI and his vote on DOMA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d014Dj7yZw8. At the time of the 2016 election, Bernie said in that tweet that he didn't think that most people who were voting for Trump were racist or sexist. I totally agree with what he said. people were angry at the system and the DNC cheating. People were voting for Trump out of frustration with the DNC and it wasn't just white people. Trump offered them false change, He was the anti establishment candidate during the general election, while Hillary was mostly more of the same. I knew that both Trump and Hillary were terrible choices for me and so I voted for Jill Stein the Green party candidate, who did represent my better interests. I don't agree with the booing that Bernie received when he has always fought for civil rights.

Of all the other candidates running for the 2020 election, show me a candidate with better progressive voting records, better progressive policies, and who doesn't take corporate money, and I would consider voting for them over Bernie.

mccardey · Oct 11, 2019

Underdawg47 said:
he didn't think that most people who were voting for Trump were racist or sexist. I totally agree with what he said.

Oh, goodness me. They'll do until some actual racist, sexists come along, I would imagine.

Lyv · Oct 11, 2019

Underdawg47 said:
I disagree. I have never seen Bernie give a speech against gay marriage,[snip]

That's why I linked to a story with video. You can disagree but you would be factually wrong.

If you aren't going to read my links, why would I read yours?

You would also see why he voted against DOMA. He wasn't against it; he objected on the basis of states' rights, which has often been used against LGBTQ+ people. Again, his objection was a question of states rights' and when it came to his own state in 2006, he spoke against marriage equality. I've provided links, and I obviously know about his anti-DOMA vote, because I know why he objected.

Obviously you were wrong when you said he never wavered, and I've shown you clear examples of him wavering. I can't do more than that.

Lyv · Oct 11, 2019

mccardey said:
Oh, goodness me. They'll do until some actual racist, sexists come along, I would imagine.

True.

Bernie knew what he was doing with that tweet. He was sullen and angry and selfish about losing to Hillary Clinton and he nudged his supporters to vote for Trump. I'll throw in an imo, but it was pretty obvious.

Gregg · Oct 11, 2019

Roxxsmom;10591330 Another question is how many moderates who voted for Trump last time might stay home if they can't bring themselves to vote for whichever Democrat is chosen? [/QUOTE said:
How about Clinton voters who think the party has shifted too far to the left. Will they stay home?
And then there are the big money donors from Wall Street who fear Warren. What will they do?
From CNBC:
"Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wal...rs-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html

darkprincealain · Oct 11, 2019

Meh. I understand strategy is important. But to throw my values away in the primary because to vote solely based on strategy is to throw away the entire purpose of a primary, in my opinion.

Wall Street hated the New Deal, too. But it’s still a free country, for a while yet at least.

Kjbartolotta · Oct 15, 2019

Not sure how interested I am in watching a 12-person free for all tonight. Hella salty about Tulsi being there (wasn't she gonna sit this out because of corruption?) and I can't take Yang serious as anything but a low-key chaos candidate. As for Steyer, well, not happy he's there either, but at least he's someone who's taken time to build relationships and has credibility within the party.

Still like to fantasize about what this primary would be like if it was just Warren, Harris, Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, and (my personal guilty pleasure candidate at this point) O'Rourke, but we're waaaaay far out from that kinda wishful thinking at this moment.

ElaineA · Oct 15, 2019

I'm not watching either, especially not after finding out the NYT is one of the primary planners of the event. This little gem from Vanity Fair today gives a peek into their mindset:

As another Times journalist put it, “Something will happen, I’m sure, where the angry left blue-check-mark mob will find something to be outraged about.”

I just want a straightforward discussion of issues without panelists goading the participants and pitting them against each other with grade-school-like taunts. "He called you ugly, what do you have to say about THAT?"

Is that too much to ask?

Prozyan · Oct 15, 2019

ElaineA said:
Is that too much to ask?

Reasoned and intelligent discourse in politics? Yeah, it is.

thebloodfiend · Oct 16, 2019

ElaineA said:
I'm not watching either, especially not after finding out the NYT is one of the primary planners of the event. This little gem from Vanity Fair today gives a peek into their mindset:

I just want a straightforward discussion of issues without panelists goading the participants and pitting them against each other with grade-school-like taunts. "He called you ugly, what do you have to say about THAT?"

Is that too much to ask?

I've been pretty annoyed with the NYT opinion pieces on the debates as well. I don't need a climate change denialist who's said pretty racist things telling me what he thinks about the democratic primaries for a "difference of opinions." I didn't like when my university ever so condescendingly acted like I needed to be exposed to rightwing opinions—as if I wasn't already aware of them—and I don't need the NYT to bring people who should be writing for the Wall St Journal to their front page.

Regardless, I don't have time to watch the debates anymore, as quite frankly they were milquetoast entertainment at best in 2016 that exposed nothing I didn't already know.

Reformatting them would nice, to actually discuss issues at hand. Cutting of microphones when someone talks over their time, not allowing lies, personal insults, etcetera. Actually making the candidates answer their questions.

Kjbartolotta · Oct 16, 2019

thebloodfiend said:
Reformatting them would nice, to actually discuss issues at hand. Cutting of microphones when someone talks over their time, not allowing lies, personal insults, etcetera. Actually making the candidates answer their questions.

Giving the candidates anything resembling an equal (or at least reasonable) amount of time to speak would be nice too.

Been a craptastic primary so far. I have six candidates so far I would feel GREAT about supporting in the general, various issues with aside, and yet I've never been more doom and gloom about the state of the party, the hot takes from the punditry, and the general clowning.

Roxxsmom · Oct 16, 2019

thebloodfiend said:
I've been pretty annoyed with the NYT opinion pieces on the debates as well. I don't need a climate change denialist who's said pretty racist things telling me what he thinks about the democratic primaries for a "difference of opinions." I didn't like when my university ever so condescendingly acted like I needed to be exposed to rightwing opinions—as if I wasn't already aware of them—and I don't need the NYT to bring people who should be writing for the Wall St Journal to their front page.

I do wish the media would figure out that "balanced" coverage isn't simply finding two people with polarized views and giving them space to yell at each other or to repeat the same talking points over and over, not bringing anything new to the table. And it certainly isn't about finding the most extreme example of a particular party* and giving them space to defend Trump's lies.

I want to come away with new information, or at least a sense I've heard an opinion I haven't heard before, or hear a familiar opinion expressed in a different way. But shouting matches and radicalized views are sensational, I guess, and sensationalism gets eyeballs. And many people nowadays are simply looking for confirmation that the other "side" is crazy or evil or whatever. There's no shortage of media outlets willing to give them that.

*Mind you, it's hard to tell what is "mainstream" in the GOP these days, when their own POTUS is tweeting hateful, crazy (and demonstrably false) garbage each day and is so very rarely challenged from within his own party (and when he is, it's generally with all the force and conviction of Hans Mole Man's mutterings from the Simpsons).

Sept 12 Democratic Party Debate: Winners and Losers

starting over

Special Snowflake? No. Hailstone

down the rabbit hole of research...

Potentially has/is dog

Beastly Fido

All about that action, boss.

Supreme Guessinator

I meant to do that.

I meant to do that.

I meant to do that.

Life is good

Potentially has/is dog

All about that action, boss.

Are you one, Herbert?

Cory

Potentially has/is dog

Beastly Fido