Damerman
Member
Cooper is legendary status as of tonight.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic National Primary Debate #1 |Tokyo2016| Rise of Mecha-Godzilla
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
OuterLimits
Member
Yeah, he made sure to say he isn't a pacifist.
benjipwns
Banned
That's not why Hillary thinks she's more qualified. It's because she's herself. Any other reason she says is just pandering.
Exactly.
He's also one of the few political guys openly calling our system an oligarchy. I think it's just him, Sanders, and Warren.
In a similar way, my point earlier about unexamined ideas can apply to things like how people tout we have freedom. Freedom is an idea: you can't own or have it. And even if we were to entertain the idea as a state of being with a presence to it, we sure lack a lot of it compared to other parts of the world. These ideas stay unexamined and result as a kind of pseudo-propaganda. They're not propaganda outright for they don't fight anything right this moment, but they make people accept an unexamined social meme which risks people being combative to change and accepting faults. I guess you can see that in the socialistic medicine shit and the idea of a "welfare state" many bemoan about. Free will would be a big one that peeves me, and I kind of get offended when people even argue for it nowadays.
We're in for one fucking rude reality check with the environment and technology this century, friends. And our unexamined ideas may be the problems to our very solutions, and this is just on the macro level. Micro level like how seem think Black Lives Matter is an anti-white movement only shows how some ideas - like racism - have been left unexamined in the social ego of many parts of the culture here. Ideas need to be examined to see if they match the world, or are an affront to it.
American exceptionalism is nothing but sounds of language. It has zero credibility to it. What it describes is not the described, and I mean that more than meta-Buddhist shit.
My point had nothing to do with left or right: let's talk about what is, and drop all of the acts that create illusions. Don't coddle the people with Kool-Aid they just want to hear.
heliosRAzi
Banned
The grenade won.
Damerman
Member
one of his strongest messages that he tries to convey is that he isn't there to zing democrats. He makes it clear that he wants a real honest debate and not just a flurry of attacks and gotchas. He would come accross as a real hypocrite if he did attack the other dems during the debate.
Hillary did what she needed to, which was performing well enough that people don't freak out that she's about to collapse. She also positioned herself well so that there are no real openings for Biden to enter. She dodged pretty hard on some of the early questions about her flip-flopping on things like trade, but she dodged well enough that people seem not to have noticed.
Bernie, similarly, did what he needed to do. He delivered his message on the big stage. He got a little shaky when he had to defend his record on guns, but recovered well from that.
O'Malley is actually think did really well, considering he came in with pretty much nothing. He positioned himself as a totally plausible replacement for Hillary, should anything ever happen to tank her campaign, while also playing the team player well enough that he can be in contention for some cabinet seat or another.
Webb I feel bad for, because I think he did fine, but his platform just isn't going to sell. He's basically the guy Democrats wish Republicans still were, but who now has to run in a party that doesn't really want him because of how off the rails the Republicans have gotten. I think there's something admirable about A) having a platform and B) being willing to take your platform to somewhere it may not be super popular rather than share the stage with a bunch of racists and kooks. That "hear, hear" he gave when O'Malley mentioned the lack of racists and anti-immigrant talk on the Democratic stage felt like it meant something coming from someone as far outside the typical left as him. All that said, his whining about time was unbecoming, and his joke about killing a guy in Vietnam was pretty tone deaf for this audience.
And that brings us to Chafee. Holy shit. How does a guy who enters with literally zero percent in the polls, a man best known for his ardent support of the metric system, a man with nothing to lose, still manage to lose so hard? My girlfriend started to cringe from secondhand embarrassment watching him, and the audience was palpably outraged at his "it was my first day!" defense. Anderson was working so hard to try and hide how taken aback he was, and I think O'Malley was actually in shock for a few seconds. Why is he even here? It's not like Bernie or Webb where he has a serious alternate vision for the party, and it's not like O'Malley where he can seriously present himself as a substitute for Hillary. I don't know what he's thinking at all.
Bernie, similarly, did what he needed to do. He delivered his message on the big stage. He got a little shaky when he had to defend his record on guns, but recovered well from that.
O'Malley is actually think did really well, considering he came in with pretty much nothing. He positioned himself as a totally plausible replacement for Hillary, should anything ever happen to tank her campaign, while also playing the team player well enough that he can be in contention for some cabinet seat or another.
Webb I feel bad for, because I think he did fine, but his platform just isn't going to sell. He's basically the guy Democrats wish Republicans still were, but who now has to run in a party that doesn't really want him because of how off the rails the Republicans have gotten. I think there's something admirable about A) having a platform and B) being willing to take your platform to somewhere it may not be super popular rather than share the stage with a bunch of racists and kooks. That "hear, hear" he gave when O'Malley mentioned the lack of racists and anti-immigrant talk on the Democratic stage felt like it meant something coming from someone as far outside the typical left as him. All that said, his whining about time was unbecoming, and his joke about killing a guy in Vietnam was pretty tone deaf for this audience.
And that brings us to Chafee. Holy shit. How does a guy who enters with literally zero percent in the polls, a man best known for his ardent support of the metric system, a man with nothing to lose, still manage to lose so hard? My girlfriend started to cringe from secondhand embarrassment watching him, and the audience was palpably outraged at his "it was my first day!" defense. Anderson was working so hard to try and hide how taken aback he was, and I think O'Malley was actually in shock for a few seconds. Why is he even here? It's not like Bernie or Webb where he has a serious alternate vision for the party, and it's not like O'Malley where he can seriously present himself as a substitute for Hillary. I don't know what he's thinking at all.
Yeah. That was terrible.
SolarPowered
Member
I think the gun portion of the debate would have been a nice way for Bernie to transition into the issue of gerrymandering and representation in congress. Urban centers may have higher populations (as someone told me earlier in this same thread), but the sheer amount of "rural" or low population districts in America surely has to be having a disproportionate effect on gun policy legislation and I suspect the NRA is taking full advantage of it.
Citizen's United, Gerrymandering and no major efforts on the voter representation front (election holiday, multiple voting days, independent/computer drawn districts and mandatory voter registration) are really hurting this country.
dehydratedbabies
Member
forever
EatinOlives
Member
This. Both Sanders and Clinton did really well and honestly I can't pick a "winner" no matter how hard I'd try. They weren't perfect and had their own blunders, but both were very strong and on point, had no problem agreeing with each other or other candidates when it was necessary, and you could tell when they were talking about something passionate to them because it just shook the house.
And I absolutely agree this debate was on a whole other level as the Republican party ones. A completely new level. Entirely about the issues, and when the question was sensationalized political BS (e.g., Clinton's emails), pretty much everyone universally shot it down. Amazing.
Pretty much every single country talks up how great it is, no? What do you want, for Bernie to butt in and say "No, actually, we're trailing other countries here and here and here"? That's political suicide which is only appealing to a small segment of the left.
It's not like the candidates weren't up there talking about how we need to do better on education and incarceration and healthcare all the other usual things, but that's not enough?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Is there a good highlight clip out there somewhere? I missed the debate but wanna get the straight poop on what went on.
OuterLimits
Member
Btw, I kind of missed the part on the Patriot Act. Was Clinton the only one kind of defending it? I remember her trying to say it's a delicate balance between civil liberties and security.
Vicetrailia
Member
As someone who works and goes to school full-time, fuck what hillary said about having skin in the game while you go to college paid for by taxes. If you have the ability, you should be able to go without having to work wherever. Students should be encouraged to do internships and co-ops instead.
She brought up that she was potentially the first female president a few times, in kind of jarring ways absent any elaboration. Now, that can be elaborated on. I mean, obviously it's a bad thing that there has not yet been a female president; that reflects poorly on us. Women's issues are particularly salient right now and it's not just a quirky fact of our system that decisions about women's health policy are overwhelmingly made by men. And so on.
I think the lack of elaboration was intentional. Basically she's aiming for exactly the reaction you're having, from Fox and similar. She can then both elaborate on why her gender isn't totally irrelevant and talk about her very impressive resume. She's Hillary fucking Clinton - it's not like people don't know anything about her record. Then it looks like she's being attacked, as a woman, for pointing out the obvious in ways not intended to be comprehensive answers to questions about her qualifications. Like, she brought it up in answering how she'd be different from Obama. But she gave a substantive answer too - she's advertising herself as not different from Obama. It's hard to imagine a way that that plays out that doesn't help Clinton drive up her favorability with women.
He's one of the few actual journalists on CNN, and one of the few TV journalists, who take their job seriously. I was shocked when I found out he was moderating, I was sure no one would ever let someone like him within 100 miles of an actual debate. Now if only we could get him for a GOP debate.
The thing with Bernie and guns is, due to his stance on gun control and how Democrats view the issue, he can't dodge it or sidestep or transition into something else. If he did he would look even worse than he did on the issue.
At the beginning of the night i might have agreed with you. But after hillary stuck a shiv in him on guns he needed to retaliate.
And the attack im envisioning i dont even think is that negative. clinton is like many politicians in that she gets money from donors and results are expected in return. Bernie has to be willing to point out clinton is very much a part of the system hes criticizing.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
"Here's Johnny"
One of Hillary's biggest mistakes in 08 was her reluctance to play up "first woman president." It's a no-brainer this time around, particularly when the Republicans are begging women to vote against them.
eh, independent of Bernie or Hillary's college plans, I'd much rather students be working X hours a week for a wage than continue to be exploited as a reliable source of unpaid labor.
eh, independent of Bernie or Hillary's college plans, I'd much rather students be working X hours a week for a wage than continue to be exploited as a reliable source of unpaid labor.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
That would be great! I think he would drill some of those GOP folks very hard and maybe keep the circus aspect out of it. One could only hope!
Regarding Sanders and guns, that's fine, and I agree he shouldn't flip flop. He should do a better job explaining his position and why he voted the way he did. For example, I thought he did a great job on explaining why he voted the way he did on the immigration question whereas on the gun question, he stuttered and sounded very unsure and uncomfortable out there. Prepping could go a long way towards fixing that issue. Stand your ground, but do a better job explaining yourself and your position. Like I said, the same is true for Clinton and some of the questions she is uncomfortable with.
UnforgivenTwin
Member
Looks like he just caught a sniff of a fart he let loose.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I know he want apeshit a week or so ago, is it worse now?
TheLaughingStock
Member
Not quite like that at least AFAIK. Someone says, "We can learn x, y, and z from so-so country!" and you respond, "This is Denmark! USA is a big country!"...is just silliness. Denmark isn't some anomaly doing better and it's not as if America is right there at the top of a whole slew of key metrics that countries are compared on. Trailing is a kind word to use in some cases.
Yup, and she pathetically blamed bush for going beyond what the patriot act allowed as if the patriot act was a ok as is.
Hey you politicians. We already struck a balance between liberty and security. Its called the fourth amendment. Start following it.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Uhhh... vwyyaaa... uhhh... words...
SolarPowered
Member
What I'm about to ask is a genuine question and not me trying to defend Bernie, the NRA or current gun laws. Is there currently a way to actually pass substantive gun legislation with this current congress and SCOTUS? After Sandy Hook I just don't see how anything will get done without congress being completely dismantled and put together again. That would require some pretty big voter legislation to empower people who actually want to challenge the NRA.
When it comes to stuff like gun legislation, citizen's united, free college tuition and single payer I don't see Bernie or Hillary knocking it out of the park. What I do see on the other hand are laws/SC justices put in place to try and set us on a path where we can get these things. I see 2020 as a very important year because of district redrawing and the next presidential election.
If you're asking if it's enough, some of the proposals literally aren't enough. The ACA is still an inferior system to every developed nation on the healthcare front, and Hillary's college plans have the same hindrances. By comparing us to other nations, that becomes clearer and clearer. How can it be enough when we're absolutely behind, even with what's on offer and what's being proposed? It will have to be worked on, yes, but that requires us to see where this shit works, first. We have to do that by looking at the countries who do it better, and that starts by acknowledging that they do it better. Otherwise people will settle for mediocrity, like the proposed college solution. It solves some of the problems, but not all of them, and is still primitive to most developed nations. People in this very thread like the idea of working X hours to "pay off" a busted loan system, when much of the developed world pays its citizens to go to, and focus on, college. Some have even spun the "you can work AND go to college" which, again, shows how backwards we are even with this very fucking approach when we look at the rest of the first world.
Sanders is the only humble person who's admitted other countries can do better than us, so what's the harm in trying to take what works in the world? Or are we to ignore the principles of globalization to the backseat for the poison called nationalism?
Hillary didn't concede to what Sanders implied regarding Denmark - and even then he botched why such countries are fantastic examples to follow - but outright refuted the claim about looking beyond this country as a model to follow, as if we're a walled garden, let alone one that holds up in the developed world.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Does anyone have a link to the part where Clinton gives it to Republicans? I can't find it on YouTube.
The bold is exactly why it will never happen. If real journalism took place it would expose everyone on the GOP stage as hacks. They can't let that happen, lest the illusion be shattered.
The thing in, on guns he doesn't really have an explanation that sounds good. Either he was for the things he voted for or he voted that way to stay in office. The former won't work in a democratic primary and the latter would shatter the illusion a lot of his supporters have of him as a guy that always sticks to his principals. It would turn him into just another politician and that would be the end of the line for him.
There are things that could be done, but not with Congress the way it is. Congress is going to be a bigger issue than SCOTUS when it comes to guns. SCOTUS isn't going to ban background checks, so expanding those and closing loopholes is definitely an option. If the Democratic nominee has long enough coattails, some actual gun control is possible. Congress doesn't need to be dismantled, the Democrats just need 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.
Damerman
Member
I would laugh, but that's really all people talk about... Their free speech and right to bear arms.
User 463088
Banned
I've been re-watching parts of it and a few things I noticed.
Sanders on the socialist thing. It was not a good answer. His answer to "How will you deal with the socialism thing" was "I'll tell people what it is." Okay. So....you needed to do that. He didn't. He and some of his supporters keep punting that down the road a bit. This is one of the biggest issues against his candidacy. You had the stage. You had a chance to address it, and he punted. This was half forced error, half Clinton's well timed and well framed criticism, and half Cooper's response to him. (I know that's more than the number of halves necessary....math is hard.)
The gun issue is a problem for Sanders. He can't keep saying rural over and over and hoping that it'll all just go away. This is a big issue within the Democratic party. He needed a better answer. This will not help him in the AA community.
Sanders looked bad the first half because he didn't get to talk about economic issues. Imagine how shaky he'd look in a foreign policy debate. He cannot realistically pivot every single thing back to economic inequality. I know he wants to. I know that's his comfort zone.
On Hillary's side, I think she was incredibly smart in writing out Biden. She positioned herself as the successor to the Obama legacy, while showing that she's still her own woman. There was no reason for Joe Biden to enter the race after tonight. I think Joe played the waiting game a bit too long. If he wanted to run, he needed to be up on that stage. I think that was Hillary's goal tonight. You cut off Biden before he starts, the polls go back to their pre-Biden levels where her lead is in the 20-30 point range.
She has to stop saying god-given potential. I fucking hate that expression. It's annoying as all hell. SHe used in 2008 and I hated it then. Drop it. Just say potential.
As to her bringing up she's a woman, ya'll must have missed 2008. She was constantly running away from the fact that she would be the first woman president. It was annoying. Those lines were not for us. They were for the soccer moms out there.
Finally, I do think Sanders made one big mistake tonight: the email line. When your enemy is drowning, maybe you don't throw them an anvil, but you can let them well enough alone. No real Dem would have used it against her, but he didn't need to help her out there. (I think the email thing's a big nothing, but her chief rival just wiped it away for her.) If I'm her campaign, I'm sending him a thank you card tomorrow.
The narrative will be that Hillary won the debate. Her numbers will improve at the sake of Biden's, which will further the narrative that she turned around her poll numbers (which didn't need turned around outside the Beltway.) Sanders didn't do anything to hurt himself, but I don't think he landed (any) blows against Clinton.
O'Malley, though. I'ma watch him. Firstly, he's hot as fuck, and secondly, he performed better than I expected. I can see him picking up some of the Biden support that I think is going to crater in the coming weeks.
Sanders on the socialist thing. It was not a good answer. His answer to "How will you deal with the socialism thing" was "I'll tell people what it is." Okay. So....you needed to do that. He didn't. He and some of his supporters keep punting that down the road a bit. This is one of the biggest issues against his candidacy. You had the stage. You had a chance to address it, and he punted. This was half forced error, half Clinton's well timed and well framed criticism, and half Cooper's response to him. (I know that's more than the number of halves necessary....math is hard.)
The gun issue is a problem for Sanders. He can't keep saying rural over and over and hoping that it'll all just go away. This is a big issue within the Democratic party. He needed a better answer. This will not help him in the AA community.
Sanders looked bad the first half because he didn't get to talk about economic issues. Imagine how shaky he'd look in a foreign policy debate. He cannot realistically pivot every single thing back to economic inequality. I know he wants to. I know that's his comfort zone.
On Hillary's side, I think she was incredibly smart in writing out Biden. She positioned herself as the successor to the Obama legacy, while showing that she's still her own woman. There was no reason for Joe Biden to enter the race after tonight. I think Joe played the waiting game a bit too long. If he wanted to run, he needed to be up on that stage. I think that was Hillary's goal tonight. You cut off Biden before he starts, the polls go back to their pre-Biden levels where her lead is in the 20-30 point range.
She has to stop saying god-given potential. I fucking hate that expression. It's annoying as all hell. SHe used in 2008 and I hated it then. Drop it. Just say potential.
As to her bringing up she's a woman, ya'll must have missed 2008. She was constantly running away from the fact that she would be the first woman president. It was annoying. Those lines were not for us. They were for the soccer moms out there.
Finally, I do think Sanders made one big mistake tonight: the email line. When your enemy is drowning, maybe you don't throw them an anvil, but you can let them well enough alone. No real Dem would have used it against her, but he didn't need to help her out there. (I think the email thing's a big nothing, but her chief rival just wiped it away for her.) If I'm her campaign, I'm sending him a thank you card tomorrow.
The narrative will be that Hillary won the debate. Her numbers will improve at the sake of Biden's, which will further the narrative that she turned around her poll numbers (which didn't need turned around outside the Beltway.) Sanders didn't do anything to hurt himself, but I don't think he landed (any) blows against Clinton.
O'Malley, though. I'ma watch him. Firstly, he's hot as fuck, and secondly, he performed better than I expected. I can see him picking up some of the Biden support that I think is going to crater in the coming weeks.
benjipwns
Banned
It kinda was, the voters changed 9 Senate seats from Democrat to Republican giving them control of both Houses while moving another 13 House seats from Democrat to Republican, and flipping 11 more state legislative chambers from Democrat to Republican.
Her lead was already in the 20-30 point range among registered Democrats, it's going to bump up to 40-50 if Biden decides not to run.
After the gifts the GOP has been giving her on that issue in the last week, Bernie would have been killed if he tried to hit her on that. It would have ended his campaign then and there. He was smart to play it the way he did, it was the only move he could make that allows him to stay competitive.
neurosisxeno
Member
Yup. 2014 was the year of voting against your best interests. In the electorates defense, it was shit turnout and the Democrats ran mostly horrible campaigns.
TheKaeptain
Banned
There were a lot of DILF post on twitter about him.
?? This country is positively paralyzed on what to do about our gun problem and I didn't see anything from Hillary tonight that strongly distinguished her position from what Sanders is offering. The only thing they really tried to beat him up for was for trying to see both sides of the gun debate rather than just unilaterally proposing tighter gun control. I don't think that's really going to work against him, at all.
User 463088
Banned
You're right. We'll probably go back to July(ish) numbers. Sanders seems to have plateaued in the mid 20s. Not sure where I was getting my numbers from. In my defense, I'm tired lol
As to the emails, I would have just remained silent. He shouldn't have hit her with it, but he didn't have to help her either. My best argument is that he saw her score points on the "No" thing and decided he wanted to try to score a few on his own. That's the cynic in me anyway.
You probably were thinking of the "all respondents" results, which have been very favorable to Bernie due to his support among independents. It's an easy mistake to make.
He did score some points on the e-mail thing though. He looked like an adult and came off very well with that response. He looked like he was there to talk the issues and the important things, that matters. He gave the best response he could.
SolarPowered
Member
At least it's nice to know that Bernie and Hillary might be on the same page with the SCOTUS. I know she'd do at least that much and Bernie mentioned that closing gunshow loopholes would be a big deal in his interview with David Axelrod (around 36 minutes).
It sounds so easy on paper (or on screen for us), but he we are three years after sandy hook and thousands of gun related deaths with nothing to show for it. I didn't mean anything crazy when I said congress needs to be "dismantled" though. I just meant we'd need to gain a ton of house seats and enough senate seats (with as few blue dogs as fucking possible).
fuck
I could see Hillary or Bernie getting a bump from this. Maybe both. Hillary's biggest problem is that she was constantly stuck in a loop of bad news; Bernie was gaining on her, email scandal, Biden thinking of jumping in, leading to Bernie gaining on her, etc. Having a strong debate performance changes this somewhat and gives the media some good news to report about her which could help.
Bernie's biggest problem is that comparatively few Democrats know about him, especially nonwhites and the debate could help with this. Whether either or both of them actually get a bump in the polls remains to be seen.
Bernie's biggest problem is that comparatively few Democrats know about him, especially nonwhites and the debate could help with this. Whether either or both of them actually get a bump in the polls remains to be seen.
Hearing a sane presidential debate was..... kind of therapeutic after sitting through those two circus shows led by Trump.
Bernie did as well as I thought he would but Hillary is clearly the better performer.
O' Malley smells like a VP and I think he knows it.
I hope they bring Webb back. He's like an adorable bulldog.
Bernie did as well as I thought he would but Hillary is clearly the better performer.
O' Malley smells like a VP and I think he knows it.
I hope they bring Webb back. He's like an adorable bulldog.
Closing the gun show loophole is like the bare minimum. Taking away gun manufacturers, and sellers, immunity would also go a long way towards helping as would allowing the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms to have a head and allowing the FDA to gather information on gun violence. There's a lot of stuff that the GOP dismantled under Bush that could be reinstated that would definitely help with our gun problems.
Isn't that the truth lol
A presidential election is probably the best bet for getting it done though, what with turn out being so high.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked