• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hirok2099

Hirok2099

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,399
rjinaz said:
I'm not sure how you could say he's not genuine when he spends all his time traveling around the US talking to the people basically one on one.

Not that it matters mind you, the guy is finished but I do take issue with the idea that he's disingenuous. He's a super nice guy, but, he's not going to be president.

I hope he lands in the administration somewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The part that bugs me abot him is that he seems to change his stance on debates way too often and it really hurts his credibility. He is among the most progressive candidates when campaigning but a total centrists on the debates. Maybe his advice team is counseling him wrong but is then it would be his fault for listening to them. I want to think he is really a progressive if only because he looks soo uncomfortable in the center.
 
lmcfigs

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Helio said:
Beto should've stayed in Texas. I said that way back in December but PoliEra yelled at me for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was on the wrong side of this one. But it's pretty strange how the argument has flipped. It used to be that Cornyn was a better candidate than Cruz and Beto would've lost anyway. Now it's, "Cruz is actually very popular in Texas, and Beto would have an easier time". I swear these arguments are coming form the same people.
 
Vas

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
Last night was a wrap on the Bernie brand as far as I'm concerned. Warren does what Berntendon't.
 
Otakukidd

Otakukidd

The cutest v-tuber
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,615
Anthony Hopkins said:
Arhh so for uhc to be possible they need all the talent, property and equipment from the private institutions.
Kinda makes sense I suppose.

The only thing, though jeff bezos, Bill Gates or any other wealthy person are not going to wait in line for healthcare like everyone else, I don't know how bernie can outlaw private doctors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought it was to not to not have private doctors but to not have private insurance. If there was no private insurance there would be no need for private vs public health care. Everything would just be available to public. People that have a shit load of money would just pay out of pocket for their own private doctors like they do now.
 
Tappin Brews

Tappin Brews

#TeamThierry
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,882
Wtf is with Chris Matthews? Every single post debate interview boiled down to "what are your top 5 reasons why Bernie Sanders is a terrible candidate?"
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Maxim726x said:
Speaking of mindnumbing...

Does the Church of Bernie realize that this campaign strategy lost in 2016? Were you old enough to be following politics at that point?

PS: It's 'mindnumbingly'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

His continued sucess and transformative impact on the Democratic Party must drive you crazy. Even when he losses, he's winning. He's fighting for something bigger than an election cycle, not that any other candidates aren't.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
lmcfigs said:
I was on the wrong side of this one. But it's pretty strange how the argument has flipped. It used to be that Cornyn was a better candidate than Cruz and Beto would've lost anyway. Now it's, "Cruz is actually very popular in Texas, and Beto would have an easier time". I swear these arguments are coming form the same people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I got whiplash from that.
 
Ryuelli

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,209
Umbrella Carp said:
Beto would not be bringing Texas into play at this point, I'm sorry. Trump is winning Texas by 60% regardless of who the Dem is
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I wouldn't be too sure. You're probably right, but Texas is looking very interesting right now.

image.png
 
Strike

Strike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,365
SuperNintendoChalmers said:
Yup. It seems for years that the Democrats choose to focus on compromising/watering-down on policies to appease Republicans instead of actually pushing left policies that could help people. if Republicans are capable of major, earth-shaking right-focused changes once they get in power then how come the Democrats can't? Or rather, why do Democrats always need to adjust their policies for a Republican palate instead of just taking the initiative to make their changes regardless. This debate proves that you have some democrat candidates who want to drive significant change (Warren/Sanders) and others who are merely willing to maintain the status quo in a safe manner with democrat butts in the driving seat (the rest).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Somebody actually brought up George McGovern last night. Some of them still haunted by the beatings Dems took in the 70's/80's and think that third way politics are still necessary. Thing is though Republicans have shown time and time again that they are not willing to compromise on anything. It's a waste of time. They've spent the last couple years passing things with no Democratic support because they had the majority. Why can't they do the same thing?
 
Maxim726x

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,076
jviggy43 said:
Maybe because there isnt actually substance from arguments like "oh church of bernie bros dont understand how REAL politics work" and "Are you old enough to understand politics?".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Criticizing Bernie's strategy lacks substance, does it?

The argument I'm making is that this is the same exact Bernie who lost 5 years ago, in a field of two. Wouldn't you want to try to change the message to start broadening his support? I don't understand why him sounding robotic and predictably on message is a positive.

Forget proselytizing about how it plays politically, how about asking a simple question: If it didn't work 5 years ago against one candidate, what makes you think it's going to work now against 20?

Seeya said:
His continued sucess and transformative impact on the Democratic Party must drive you crazy. Even when he losses, he's winning. He's fighting for something bigger than an election cycle, not that any other candidates aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If this were actually true, he would drop out and let Warren take the spotlight. But that's not going to happen, is it?

And no, it doesn't drive me crazy at all. We needed a voice like his to drive the party left. Well, he did drive the party left. What purpose does he serve now?
 
Steel

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
So, as it turns out, despite people thinking Delaney got extra time, he was 7th overall in time. And warren and Sanders got like 7-8 more minutes than him and by far the most time. Funny how that works.
 
Vas

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
Steel said:
So, as it turns out, despite people thinking Delaney got extra time, he was 7th overall in time. And warren and Sanders got like 7-8 more minutes than him and by far the most time. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He served the role of the 1 liberal punching bag on that Fox Five show.
 
Ryuelli

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,209
Steel said:
So, as it turns out, despite people thinking Delaney got extra time, he was 7th overall in time. And warren and Sanders got like 7-8 more minutes than him and by far the most time. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Delaney was #3 or 4 at around half time, he definitely get less speaking time in the 2nd half though.
 
Geist

Geist

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,579
Kyra said:
I'm not sure anyone predicted his fall off to be as sharp as it was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tbf, all the signs were there during and after his Senate race. A huge chunk of his Nationwide support came from the context of a Texas Senate race. The Presidency is a very different context.
 
Last edited:

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Maxim726x said:
Criticizing Bernie's strategy lacks substance, does it?

The argument I'm making is that this is the same exact Bernie who lost 5 years ago, in a field of two. Wouldn't you want to try to change the message to start broadening his support? I don't understand why him sounding robotic and predictably on message is a positive.

Forget proselytizing about how it plays politically, how about asking a simple question: If it didn't work 5 years ago against one candidate, what makes you think it's going to work now against 20?



If this were actually true, he would drop out and let Warren take the spotlight. But that's not going to happen, is it?

And no, it doesn't drive me crazy at all. We needed a voice like his to drive the party left. Well, he did drive the party left. What purpose does he serve now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you think he has accomplished his goal it only shows that you don't understand him. Nor the fact that the leftward push and messaging is currently stronger with both of them together to let one of of them take the heat and to help acclimatize their bases to one another. There's no need for a 'single' left candidate at this point and once there is, whomever between them remains will be stronger for it.

But by all means confined with vapid attacks like comparing Bernie voters to a cult (when they switched over to Hilary more than Hilary voters switched to Obama) and poisoning the discourse.
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
Maxim726x said:
Criticizing Bernie's strategy lacks substance, does it?

The argument I'm making is that this is the same exact Bernie who lost 5 years ago, in a field of two. Wouldn't you want to try to change the message to start broadening his support? I don't understand why him sounding robotic and predictably on message is a positive.

Forget proselytizing about how it plays politically, how about asking a simple question: If it didn't work 5 years ago against one candidate, what makes you think it's going to work now against 20?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe make that more of your point instead of using childish, unoriginal bernie insults at posters next time then if you want to be taken seriously, idk.

Also no, Bernie's messaging has had a resounding impact on many of these candidates positions where almost everyone has been pushed left on the same issues we faced 5 years ago today. His polls show his message is continuing to resonate with people (despite places like MSNBC fudging numbers to make him look worse). The bigger problem from Bernie's campaign last time around is he ignored the south which wiped him out in a land slide on super tuesday. If he had even put in some effort to mitigate the gains Clinton made there he might have had more of a chance since delegates are awarded proportionally. I would attribute strategy, not messaging, as being Bernie's biggest failing last time around. If he can fix that he has a chance, but it certainly isnt a problem with his messaging (His segments were constantly being applauded last night and health care is his big topic which plays incredibly well at the national level).

I'd also argue that 20 candidates is really like 4 or 5 candidates. Most of these people are wasting their time and resources.
 
Maxim726x

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,076
Seeya said:
If you think he has accomplished his goal it only shows that you don't understand him. Nor the fact that the leftward push and messaging is currently stronger with both of them together to let one of of them take the head and to help acclimatize their bases to one another. There's no need for a 'single' left candidate at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At this point? No.

But if you think Bernie is actually going to drop out of the race is Warren is pulling ahead, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Tracygill

Tracygill

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
1,853
The Left
The blob of mediocre unremarkable right wing concern troll candidates that poll at 0-1% and say they worry about the perception of the democratic party are out of touch with the 2019 electorate.

 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
"if Bernie were serious about moving America left he would drop out and stop trying to move America left" has been a top contender for dumb shit that keeps getting brought up like it's not dumb shit
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
BADMAN said:
Dude. She donated her time to AIDS patients during the fucking epidemic to help these people heal and to give them spiritual guidance at a time when they were completely forgotten by the government and the public. Is this shit corny? Yes. But she helped people through their final days of a goddamn plague. Was giving them a little hope and something to believe in a bad thing because it was based in spirituality? I may not believe this shit either but at least she was trying to help a devastated, forgotten community.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She. Cannot. Be. President.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Maxim726x said:
At this point? No.

But if you think Bernie is actually going to drop out of the race is Warren is pulling ahead, I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You vastly misunderstand the differing dynamics between them and now. They're not comparable, nor will be his decision if it comes the scenario where it's time for one of them to drop out in the event that it's him.
 
Gobias-Ind

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,025
Maxim726x said:
If this were actually true, he would drop out and let Warren take the spotlight. But that's not going to happen, is it?

And no, it doesn't drive me crazy at all. We needed a voice like his to drive the party left. Well, he did drive the party left. What purpose does he serve now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In 2016 the narrative was that he was hopeless and delusional because he'd never get support from non-white voters.

Now we've got "He's clearly not serious about change because he won't drop out and try and shoehorn his movement into Elizabeth Warren's."

Like what the fuck man seriously? The rationale that he should drop out and try to convince the base of support he's gained to support a candidate that makes white corporate lawyers who don't hate gay people a little less uncomfortable is insane.
 
Byakuya769

Byakuya769

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,718
Why aren't Bernie and Warren pointing out that if your employer has a plan and you're allowed to choose a public option, you're likely going to lose out on the portion of your compensation that was formerly being used by the employer to subsidize your private plan?

Unless all employees on an employer's plan switch to the public options, the employer will still be spending money on healthcare that's not readily allocable to participating and non-participating employees.

Or am I just wrong?
 
Wraith

Wraith

Member
Jun 28, 2018
8,892
Warren and Sanders had a pretty great night. Both were able to stand out more than in last month's debates. The moderate team of Delaney, Ryan, Hickenlooper and Bullock targeted them a lot, but I think that only helped Warren and Sanders stand out. (They also got a few great sound bites out of it, which doesn't hurt.) Was glad to see they avoided taking shots at each other. Only thing Warren said that gave me pause was around "millions of new green jobs" which... sure, that's a good goal to build towards, but job promises like that are always a bit risky.

Was really impressed with Buttigieg's performance. A lot of good responses. And among the Medicare-as-public-option crowd, I think his pitch makes a lot of sense. (I support M4A, but I'm not going to pretend a real, universal public option, there for everyone regardless of age, income or employment, wouldn't be a huge step forward from what we have now.)

Beto didn't really stand out, but he had a much better night than in last month's debates, and a few solid answers.

Klobuchar - Again, I feel like she gets kind of lost in the moderate crowd, and nothing about her platform is really making her stand out. She mentioned "heartland" a few times, which I guess is code for "Hey, we really need to win Wisconsin and Michigan this time." But I just don't see her going the distance here.

I kind of ended up lumping Delaney, Ryan, Hickenlooper and Bullock together as the "don't worry, we're not scary socialists" moderate team, and I'm really not here for what they're selling. Bullock really failed to make the case for why he thinks a nuclear first strike needs to stay on the table.

Marianne - I'm glad she's out there saying some things other candidates aren't, but... Her repeated hits against "wonkiness" seem like a justification for not giving us any actual plans for what she'd do as President. Other than the reparations answer she gave, I still don't know what her plans are. Then add the fact that she has zero political experience and she's apparently antivax lite (maybe not against vaccines, but against them being mandatory), she's never been a serious contender.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
also the people forcefully trying to put a wedge in between Sanders and Warren are so fucking transparent, stop it
 
DTC

DTC

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,582
Tracygill said:
The blob of mediocre unremarkable right wing concern troll candidates that poll at 0-1% and say they worry about the perception of the democratic party are out of touch with the 2019 electorate.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Dems lost 2014 by 6%. Do you want to repeat that performance in 2020?

Bullock / Delaney / Hickenlooper, the "unremarkable right wing concern troll candidates" policies are to the left of 2000 Al Gore, 2004 Kerry 2008 Obama, 2012 Obama, and 2016 Hillary. And pretty much any democratic nominee ever aside from McGovern. I don't think Obama was a rightwinger.
 
impiri

impiri

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,277
Wow, Bernie vs. Warren, it's finally happening! Let's check in and see how they're going after each other

 
Vas

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
_Karooo said:
president and vice president.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think that is highly unlikely. Almost always the nominee picks a running mate that expands their appeal among crucial voting blocs. Warren, for example, isn't polling so well with PoC, correct? I'd think she'd want a running mate who could help energize that group, for example.
 
_Karooo

_Karooo

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,029
Vas said:
I think that is highly unlikely. Almost always the nominee picks a running mate that expands their appeal among crucial voting blocs. Warren, for example, isn't polling so well with PoC, correct? I'd think she'd want a running mate who could help energize that group, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe, who would she pick? I doubt it will be Cory Booker or Harris. It doesn't matter after one becomes the nominee I suppose.
 

Deleted member 9972

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
684
_Karooo said:
president and vice president.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regardless of the politics of the idea, ideally you don't want a 78 year old male as vice president, as it's supposed to be a position of stability if something should happen to the president and that's not something you can be confident about at that age. But I'm sure if either of them manage to secure the presidency, the other would be invited for a position in the Cabinet somewhere.
 
Vas

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
_Karooo said:
Maybe, who would she pick? I doubt it will be Cory Booker or Harris. It doesn't matter after one becomes the nominee I suppose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Very tough to say. Early, too. Probably some mayor or governor you've never heard of. That's usually how it goes. I think folks want to see a happy ending where Bernie and Warren both stand atop the world with their hands in the air, and it's just not feasible. What I foresee is Sanders being faced with a damn hard choice sooner than later if the trajectories of their respective brands continue as believe they will.
 
Chaos Legion

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,924
Ichthyosaurus said:
For some it will, others will double down on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh well.

Helio said:
Pragmatism is what got us here in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd have to disagree.
We've already elected arguably the best president (of my lifetime at least), who ran on hope and change. A transformational change on how the government could work for its people rather than for those operate within it.

I love Obama, but if I have to give him a knock for anything, it's the man was damn naive and we were as well, to be honest. But despite the Congressional roadblocks that impeded him for most of his presidency, it's amazing to see what he actually was able to do creatively through his executive actions and foreign policy to dictate the country's and the world's path forward.

But in the bat of an eye, we elect an individual who has made serious inroads in eroding the progress made. We had a chance to elect a politician that promoted one of the most liberal agendas arguably from a presidential nominee from a major party and decided to go with a con man.

Democrats by and large agree on the same fundamental core principles with different approaches on getting their. Pragmatism in this sense is that the most liberal plan that is passed will depend on the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Pragmatism is that the law Bernie signs will by and large be the same that Biden signs. Pragmatism is that even if the whole country was Democratic, a lot of these policies would be tough sells. Pragmatism is Mitch McConnell being evil.

So give me a candidate that tells me all of these political realities and that's what I want to hear. I don't like him, but Booty was right. The infighting about political idealogue between the Democratic candidates is juvenile. I'm backing who literally has the best chance of beating Trump, saving the Supreme Court and picking up the most down ballot votes.

**Note I have no interest in being labeled a dirty centrist who hates policies. I'd love aggressive, comprehensive gun reform. Hell, I'd settle with any type of gun reform, which the majority of the country believes in. But see how even the most liberal people here are aware that's not going to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.