2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[Binkster]

DILFy Martin O’Malley Makes Twitter Wet During First Democratic Debate

http://www.newnownext.com/dilfy-mar...r-wet-during-first-democratic-debate/10/2015/

You guys don't know what real sex appeal looks like:

 

[gourimoko]

You guys don't know what real sex appeal looks like:

Seems to work for Ivanka..

 

[godfather]

No.

That's not a "debate."

I used to debate competitively, and yelling back and forth and not actually presenting facts as premises to your arguments is not any form of "policy debate."

We don't have debates in this country.

And the questions aren't usually real debate questions either. They are "tell us more why candidate B sucks", or "address some silly and stupid controversial things you said or did". Basically it's a chance for everyone to measure their dicks compared to the other. Just terrible.

Gossip shit. Don't bring that shit to a presidential debate.

I don't like Hillary, but I actually don't have a problem with her shutting down the email question. Even though the question was addressed to be very soft, so she could anyways. They had to ask it.

I love how Bernie never fell in that trap of "tell us why this candidate is so bad". They tried to trip him up on that a lot last night, and he basically ignored the questions. And just spoke about his vision on things.

Smart too. I think people are tired of the same old politics games. There are real issues to talk about. And they don't start with what Donald Trump's latest outrageous thing he said.

Or asking silly ass questions like do "Black Lives Matters". Talk about an embarrassing question to even bring up in a debate.

 

[Jack Brickman]

But whoever that dude was moderating that debate, he was biased.

The moderators were biased during the Republican debates too. That's just how it is. It sucks, but it's not going to change.

 

[godfather]

A question for @gourimoko You definitely know politics a hell of a lot more than I do.

What are your feelings on Bush coming out. Do you still think its inevitable?

I think he might be toast, although he still has the money, you can't ignore that. I just don't think people will vote for him. I think that's legit at this point, even though technically we are still very early, and a lot of things happen.

His actual campaign seems really dry. He's reverted to just trying to tear down Trump to win. When a candidate has to go out of their way to tear down others so much, that just kinda tells you they aren't strong ones at all themselves. I think people are finally seeing through that shit.

I don't believe Trump with sustain this momentum though. I think eventually he caters.

So who the hell in going to come out in the Republicans. Rubio? Maybe even Carson? His numbers are surging and rivaling Trump.

I gotta to say, I'd be very interested in Carson if he came out and added Paul to his ticket. I like a lot of Paul's views on things. He doesn't debate very well, he has no chance of winning at all. A lot of his principles on things I like.

Not saying I'd vote for them, but I'd be at least hopeful if that were the ticket. If he went with Kasich just for the Ohio vote I'd have very little to no interest. I like Kasich personally, just not as candidate for president.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The moderators were biased during the Republican debates too. That's just how it is. It sucks, but it's not going to change.

I was just riffing off my inadvertent misspelling of Gwen Ifill's first name, not making a serious point although she was rather clearly biased in favor of Obama.

But I agree with your point - you can't eliminate bias, so why have the pretense of doing so? Instead, construct a format where the questioners are supposed to be biased. You can't bitch about biased questioners when you got to pick who asks questions of the other candidate.

 

[NasstyNate]

It's not remotely ridiculous. Why not actually understand what is being said instead of knee-jerkingly casting aspersions? I'm not the first poster to ask you to not do that.

Help me understand.

Brandname said "What was the deal with Hillary's story about knocking down doors with Obama on secret Chinese meetings? What that an embellishment or what?"

You said "Lol..... she had to find a story that tied her to Barack Obama.

Her strategy is to run Obama 2016. Essentially the path of least resistance."​

And then "Paul Begala even betrayed this strategy twice on CNN. It's smart but it's unimaginative and shows she really will say or do anything to be president."​

That's the context of your comments and my initial reply. That's all you said until your response below, so spare the I don't understand you line. If I did before this post, that's because you didn't articulate your position, and certainly didn't support your claim that she's unimaginative or that she will say or do anything to be president. You misunderstood my post talking about your bias against Clinton, which was very clear to the reader.

I haven't cast any aspersions. If people have complained, it is because they take their position being challenged as an attack. If you can give it, then take it.

But to answer your point, some of the very first questions posed to her were essentially along the same narrative. Anderson even asked her if she would "say anything to get elected" and you've actually said that my also questioning her on this is "ridiculous." C'mon.

No. In the context of the conversation, you said that Clinton running as Obama's third term shows she will say anything to get elected. From that context, yes it is ridiculous to say that, because it is a sound political strategy. Sure, there are many examples that show Clinton changes her position based on political expediency, but that's not what we were talking about, was it? You bring that up now to support your claim, but that doesn't change the fact that your comment was just a biased barb.

Clinton is spring-boarding on the Obama Administration's success with the LGBT community when it is advantageous. She doesn't take positions unless they are politically expedient. She wants to argue against the War on Drugs when expedient but pull the "leave it to the States" argument when it isn't.

While she is beloved by the African-American community, she worked behind the scenes to challenge African-American votes during the 2008 primaries and to play racial politics against Barack Obama.

Her support for banking reform is a half-hearted joke, or didn't you notice? Who is she trying to fool?

She is a corporatist, DLC, New Democrat, centrist. To stand on that stage and call herself a liberal progressive is a complete lie, and contradicts statements she's made within the last several weeks.

Her campaign is claiming she is to the left of Obama.

Fucking stop.

I agree with you. I was particularly angered by the dog-whistle racism of the Clinton campaign in the south when Obama started pulling away in 2008.

I don't think she has said enough at this point about her differences with Obama to make any meaningful statement on whether she is running to his left or right.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Gore polled better than Clinton in early polls. You had polls showing that 74% of Americans, on average in early polling (Pew 1999), were simply "tired of the scandals of the Clinton Administration," and this included 64% of Democrats.

George W. Bush was a formidable candidate, and Gore decided to bet on himself. His bet seemingly paid off considering he won the popular vote and almost assuredly would have won Florida in a free and fair recount.

Now if you want to argue that he would have done much better had he run on a Clinton third term, well, that's largely fantasy. It might be true, but, it's impossible to know or predict with any degree of certainty.

However, if your argument is that Gore should not have asked Clinton not to campaign for him; well, you'll get no argument from me there, that was very likely a mistake. But that's a completely different question than running on your own platform. Clinton is running on Obama's platform, which is appalling considering their stated policy differences.

To get back to this election cycle, Obama is very popular among Democrats and is well liked by people in general. He would likely beat everyone from either party heads up in an election.

Clinton embracing Obama's platform and "going further" is a joke because anyone who actually knows Clinton's historical positions knows she doesn't really agree with Obama on most things.



Because you've contorted the argument into this framework about Gore which makes little sense. That isn't the dynamic at play here.

Clinton didn't agree with Obama while serving within the Administration. Not on a number of issues within and without her direct oversight. These two people do not share the same ideological positions or operate in the same ideological framework on a host of issues.

Instead of running on her traditional platform, the one she held in 2007, she is simply hoping to go through the motions five more times until the general.

She is essentially pulling a Mayweather to win the Presidency.

I don't disagree with much of this, but it is more of a rant against Clinton. How does this show that her chosen strategy is unimaginative? What would be an imaginative strategy?

 

[godfather]

You guys don't know what real sex appeal looks like:

Heard he's hosting Saturday Night Live. That will be epic.

 

[spydy13]

These debates help determine who wins the early primary states. They are very important.

Sure, but we've had examples in recent years of early primaries being outliers as well (Paul in Iowa and Newt in SC in 2012, Huckabee in Iowa in 2008, McCain in NH in 2000).

Clearly Bernie and Hillary are the real deal on that side, so you're right that anything gained by a person trying to decide between those two means that the debate last night was important.

On the Republican side, despite Trump's lead in the polls it doesn't exactly feel like he has a lock on the momentum, so I can see how those would be useful for people to separate out their guy.

 

[gourimoko]

A question for @gourimoko You definitely know politics a hell of a lot more than I do.

What are your feelings on Bush coming out. Do you still think its inevitable?

I.. don't know anymore. Honestly.

I gave Republican voters more credit than they may have deserved.

Trump is honestly positioned to sweep the early voting states, and his national numbers show him winning Super Tuesday handily.

What can change? What can Trump do that he hasn't already done to erode support enough to allow someone else to step forward?

Rubio, Fiorina, and Cruz are all eating away at Jeb's support. And they are all going to likely fight through at least New Hampshire.

I'm actually quite startled by all this, but with so many candidates in the field, and the lunatic fringe (which is large in the GOP) solidly behind Trump; I don't see how anything can change.

More candidates will need to drop out and very soon.

I think he might be toast, although he still has the money, you can't ignore that. I just don't think people will vote for him. I think that's legit at this point, even though technically we are still very early, and a lot of things happen.

Candidates only drop out when they run out of money or due to enduring scandal. Bush essentially has limitless money and hasn't really said or done anything to warrant a withdrawal. I see him sticking it out, hoping to see something change the current dynamic.

If he can get to the point that this is a two man race, I think he wins; but that window is quickly disappearing.

His actual campaign seems really dry. He's reverted to just trying to tear down Trump to win. When a candidate has to go out of their way to tear down others so much, that just kinda tells you they aren't strong ones at all themselves. I think people are finally seeing through that shit.

They were caught off guard. I think we all were.

No one saw this coming until it was too late.

I don't believe Trump with sustain this momentum though. I think eventually he caters.

It's been going on now for months. I mean, what is left for him to do? What can he say that would be more controversial than anything else he's already said?

So who the hell in going to come out in the Republicans. Rubio? Maybe even Carson? His numbers are surging and rivaling Trump.

Carson is angling for an Iowa win. There's strong reason to believe this is possible.

If Carson wins Iowa, he could be sufficiently bolstered by others leaving the race that he may win New Hampshire. He'd be the presumptive front-runner at that point, and the GOP could do much worse than Ben Carson as their standard-bearer.

I gotta to say, I'd be very interested in Carson if he came out and added Paul to his ticket. I like a lot of Paul's views on things. He doesn't debate very well, he has no chance of winning at all. A lot of his principles on things I like.

Carson and Paul have very little in common, don't share political ideology, and have completely different camps backing them. Carson is being pushed to run for President by some very powerful groups. Paul is running as a reformist; not quite the revolutionary his father is but similar.

There's absolutely no way Rand Paul makes it onto anyone's ticket.

Not saying I'd vote for them, but I'd be at least hopeful if that were the ticket. If he went with Kasich just for the Ohio vote I'd have very little to no interest. I like Kasich personally, just not as candidate for president.

You can bet Kasich is on anyone and everyone's short-list. As would Jeb and Rubio, Fiorina, and others.

 

[NasstyNate]

Or asking silly ass questions like do "Black Lives Matters". Talk about an embarrassing question to even bring up in a debate.

This is not a silly question at all. Criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement often comes from the either ignorant or disingenuous statement that "all lives matter." Asking the candidates this question demonstrates whether they understand that there is a real problem in society where blacks disproportionately suffer from a wide variety of institutional harms.

It is an important question and I am glad they asked it.

 

[gourimoko]

Sure, but we've had examples in recent years of early primaries being outliers as well (Paul in Iowa and Newt in SC in 2012, Huckabee in Iowa in 2008, McCain in NH in 2000).

No one state is a predictor of the outcome of the primary; but each state plays a significant role in the roadmap to the nomination, and every candidate makes their stand (financially and otherwise) in specific regions. If they lose these regions, given the winner take all form of the process, it can be a devestating blow - especially for smaller campaigns.

This is why Iowa and New Hampshire are the two most important states in the primary season, with South Carolina and Nevada (and for several cycles Florida) also being very important.

Most campaigns will never see Super Tuesday; and these early states act as a filter imposed by the parties to facilitate that end.

Also, Ron Paul didn't win Iowa; Huckabee was a very solid and serious candidate who lasted well beyond Super Tuesday (had he lost Iowa this would not have been the case), and I volunteered for the McCain campaign in 2000, New Hampshire was his saving grace. We were ahead in SC and may have won that primary had it not been for the dirty racial politics played by the Bush campaign.

Clearly Bernie and Hillary are the real deal on that side, so you're right that anything gained by a person trying to decide between those two means that the debate last night was important.

For Sanders, last night was about introducing himself to the country. For Clinton, it was about establishing herself as a continuation of Barack Obama.

They didn't really debate ideas, unfortunately, and Clinton would have no part of any losing battle. She continually sidestepped issues and hugged O'Malley and Bernie's positions like a boxer grappling in the ring to avoid being hit. Even when O'Malley would push back and say "we don't share positions" she would counter "we're all in agreement...vote for the first woman president."

On the Republican side, despite Trump's lead in the polls it doesn't exactly feel like he has a lock on the momentum, so I can see how those would be useful for people to separate out their guy.

The volatility on the GOP side is largely due to the lack of a viable candidate.

There is a solid 25% behind Trump that doesn't look to be going anywhere, regardless of what he does.

Someone, somehow, needs to consolidate some of these candidates prior to the Iowa caucuses or Trump is going to win a plurality of the votes, a majority of the delegates, and thus win the nomination.

 

[elcheato]

This is not a silly question at all. Criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement often comes from the either ignorant or disingenuous statement that "all lives matter." Asking the candidates this question demonstrates whether they understand that there is a real problem in society where blacks disproportionately suffer from a wide variety of institutional harms.

It is an important question and I am glad they asked it.

I definitely think they should have spent more time talking about racial issues, but I do believe that question was formed poorly. Just seemed like an easy way for CNN to condense racial issues into a single question. I would have liked to see them ask about police brutality, targeting of minorities in the criminal justice system, among other issues that minorities face specifically, not just that "Do black lives matter?" question.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is not a silly question at all. Criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement often comes from the either ignorant or disingenuous statement that "all lives matter." Asking the candidates this question demonstrates whether they understand that there is a real problem in society where blacks disproportionately suffer from a wide variety of institutional harms.

It is an important question and I am glad they asked it.

I agree even though I'm on the opposite side of this.

The answer may show what a candidate truly believes about the underlying issue. Or, as a more cynical view, it at least shows how willing that candidate is to show respect/appease that particular interest group.

I don't mean that negatively, because it is an important point. You may have a candidate who doesn't like the verbiage, but understand that it is very important to a group with whom he is aligned, so he goes along with it because his sympathy for the group outweighs his objection to the verbiage.

I suspect Sanders may fall into that category. Webb, on the other hand, doesn't. He doesn't like the language, and is willing to say that even if it offends that group.

Republicans generally don't like the verbiage, and aren't willing to endorse it just to appease that group. That's probably important information to some voters, including me.

 

[NasstyNate]

I definitely think they should have spent more time talking about racial issues, but I do believe that question was formed poorly. Just seemed like an easy way for CNN to condense racial issues into a single question. I would have liked to see them ask about police brutality, targeting of minorities in the criminal justice system, among other issues that minorities face specifically, not just that "Do black lives matter?" question.

I actually thought it was framed really well. It was a Democratic debate in front of a Democratic audience, so understanding the nuance of the question was an important shibboleth.

Totally agree on the lack of followup. It is an important set of questions, and general platitudes aren't enough.