Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

I'm confused about which Nate is being referred to now, Cohn or Silver.

----

From a peruse of various media, there doesn't seem to be a pervasive narrative unlike the last debate where Clinton was seen as the clear winner.

There seems to be a common thread in that Clinton was under attack for a lot of the debate.

But in terms of winners and losers, for the most part it seems the verdict is either that there was no particular winner and/or by virtue of that as the front-runner that gives Clinton the de facto victory as they failed to really dent her despite her bizarre deflections at times.

So I don't really expect much to change out of this.

 

[Officerrob]

I'm confused about which Nate is being referred to now, Cohn or Silver.

----

From a peruse of various media, there doesn't seem to be a pervasive narrative unlike the last debate where Clinton was seen as the clear winner.

There seems to be a common thread in that Clinton was under attack for a lot of the debate.

But in terms of winners and losers, for the most part it seems the verdict is either that there was no particular winner and/or by virtue of that as the front-runner that gives Clinton the de facto victory as they failed to really dent her despite her bizarre deflections at times.

So I don't really expect much to change out of this.

That's how I saw things. There were some glancing blows to Hillary, but a haymaker needs to land for something to change. Hillary was poor with Wall Street, and Bernie was bad with guns, same old same old

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Vox was impressed by the debate tonight:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/15/97374...sis-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/in/9492871

 

[titiklabingapat]

Adam brought up a good point. Women of Hillary's generation do not take kindly to perceived ganging up of one of their own. Two men versus one woman just isn't good optics for Democratic women. If Hillary plays this right, and subtly, it can blunt the narrative that she lost. Obviously she didn't lose since the narrative seems to be that the debate just maintained the status quo.

 

[VanMardigan]

Vox was impressed by the debate tonight:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/15/97374...sis-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/in/9492871

I don't get it, I'm reading the transcript portions they used as examples of Hillary gibberish..... but the statements seem coherent and make sense to me. I know exactly what she is saying. This isn't gibberish, it isn't Trump or Carson making stuff up whole cloth. Is their problem with how general the statements are? I didn't watch the debate so maybe the delivery made those statements seem worse.

 

[Makai]

Liberals need to realize that specific policies solve or cause problems, not amorphous regulation/deregulation.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I only caught the last question of the debate and the closing arguments, but I was surprised and disappointed and how poor Bernie handled both of those. Admittedly a small slice of the debate, but it's not good to end on a weak note.

 

[User 406]

Normally I'll read through the debate threads, but I can't finish this one. Everything being blown up into one-dimensional caricatures and overly simplified prescriptions. Can't wait for this damn primary to end.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm just really worried in any general people will eat up the republicans full throated war mongering.

If we lose this becasue of foreign policy... ugh.

If we get a republican SCOTUS, national right to work, the gutting of health care becuase people are scared of ISIS....

 

[User 463088]

On Saturday evening, Park Street Strategies (PSS) conducted a three-hour dial focus group with 33 undecided Democrats in Des Moines, Iowa. During the focus group, the respondents, all likely caucus-goers, live-dialed the entire Democratic debate, responding second-by-second to the candidates’ responses, and found that Hillary Clinton has clearly won this critical democratic debate.

“Clinton clearly won the Iowa debate tonight, and may have essentially ended the race. It was clear that Clinton’s answers on terrorism, and her improved answers on domestic issues, moved undecided Iowans in striking ways. It has almost definitively made Clinton the likely nominee, and is a profound lost opportunity for Sanders and O’Malley,” said Chris Kofinis, of Park Street Strategies.

The following are the top six insights from the focus group:

1. Who Won: Clinton won the debate by a 23 to 10 margin compared to Sanders.

2. Who’s More Electable: By a 31 to 2 margin, these voters agree that Clinton is the most electable candidate.

3. Who is a Stronger Commander-in-Chief: Citing her experience, these voters unanimously think Clinton would be a stronger commander-in-chief than the other candidates.

4. Paris Effect: In light of the recent attacks in Paris, Clinton’s message on terrorism resonated very strongly with the group.

5. Wall Street Weakness: Clinton is vulnerable on donations and Wall Street. Her answer on 9/11 was very ineffective.

6. Who Won Undecided Voters: After the debate, 11 respondents said they now plan to vote for Clinton, while only 3 moved to support Sanders.

Focus Group

I don't really put a ton of stock in focus groups, but it's good for setting a narrative.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm just really worried in any general people will eat up the republicans full throated war mongering.

If we lose this becasue of foreign policy... ugh.

If we get a republican SCOTUS, national right to work, the gutting of health care becuase people are scared of ISIS....

Hillary and every Republican other than Carson and Trump and Rand have the same ideas regarding ISIS, this seems unlikely.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hillary seems pretty well trusted on national security and she's not too far to the left of what like Jubbush would say.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Also, can I say that Cruz and Jeb! wanting only to bring in Christian refugees is the dumbest idea I've heard of in this entire race?

An ISIS fighter will lie about being a refugee, but won't lie about being a Christian. Anyone who buys into the plausibility of this idea is a dumbfuck who should be officially tagged as such.

 

[User 463088]

So, does Bernie want Medicare for all or does he want to utilize the plan he put forward in 2013's "American Health Security Act"?

Because the latter, of which he had no cosponsors for, gets rid of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE and FEHBP. It keeps the VA, though.

The Program amends the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund and appropriates to the Fund specified tax revenues, current health program receipts, and tax credits and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. While the final structure of the financing component is still under consideration and is subject to change, the tax revenues in the draft include a new health care income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions.

The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services. Budget increases would be limited to the rate of growth of the gross domestic product. Each state’s budget for administrative expenses would be capped at three percent.

Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it. The state program could negotiate with providers and consult with its advisory boards to allocate funds. The state program could also contract with private companies to provide administrative functions, as Medicare currently does through its administrative regions. State programs could negotiate with providers to pay outpatient facilities and individual practitioners on a capitated, salaried, or other prospective basis or on a fee-for service basis according to a rate schedule. Rates would be designed to incentivize primary and preventive care while maintaining a global budget, bringing provider, patients, and all stakeholders to the table to best determine value and reimbursement.

LInk to the BIll

Because, if that's still his plan...uh, no. A national health insurance plan should not be left up to each individual state. No way. I'd also like to see him sell the idea of getting rid of Medicare. Interestingly, no one cosponsored that bill with him. Maybe he's changed his mind, though, and wants to just expand Medicare. If so, I wonder what made him decide to take that route instead of the one he advocated for two years ago.

 

[User 406]

If we get a republican SCOTUS, national right to work, the gutting of health care becuase people are scared of ISIS....

Why stop there? They could overturn Obergefell, gut the VRA further, shit, even Roe v Wade might be vulnerable.

But people from the debate thread assert that the Supreme Court argument is no longer valid because they're just sick of hearing it.

 

[Owzers]

I get nervous when i hear Graham and other republicans say we need to take out ISIS...then Assad...and then hold Syria until it is stable. The last part is definitely the creepiest.

 

[Black Republican]

is it wrong for me to say some in the GOP would love similar paris attacks in usa for political gain?

 

[Owzers]

is it wrong for me to say some in the GOP would love similar paris attacks in usa for political gain?

maybe not love, but a worthwhile tragedy.

 

[Joey Fox]

is it wrong for me to say some in the GOP would love similar paris attacks in usa for political gain?

Yes, it is wrong unless you can prove that. There's more than enough evidence Obama underestimated ISIS, and that was before more innocents got killed. Hopefully he starts acting like a wartime president to protect the homeland.

 

[Tarkus]

Why won't they call it what it is? Radical Islamic terrorism. It's so fucking strange.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Why won't they call it what it is? Radical Islamic terrorism. It's so fucking strange.

Why is this even a talking point? It seems like some effort to discredit the Democrats but I don't get it.

 

[Y2Kev]

Well, the moderator last night sort of spelled out the argument as well as I've seen it: softness of terms leading to softness of response. I honestly don't know who we're saving from offense by saying "Radical Jihadis" or something vs. Radical Islamic Terrorism so I don't understand why we don't just say Radical Islamic Terrorism to take away this talking point.

 

[Cerium]

Focus Group

I don't really put a ton of stock in focus groups, but it's good for setting a narrative.

Politico agrees.

Insiders: Bad night for Bernie

Bernie Sanders had the weakest night of the three Democrats onstage at Saturday night’s debate.

That’s according to a survey of the POLITICO Caucus, a bipartisan group of influential strategists, operatives and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, who weighed in immediately following the second Democratic primary debate.

Nearly half of Democrats surveyed said the Vermont senator lost the debate, and only 10 percent of Democrats said he won. Those insiders who said Sanders had the worst night argued that he appeared out of his depth on foreign policy a day after terrorist attacks rocked France. He spent just a few seconds addressing the matter in his opening statement before pivoting to his familiar pitch about the economy, in stark contrast to rival Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state who devoted her entire statement to the Paris attacks.

“He made a mistake right off the bat in switching from Paris to the economy, and had an uneven performance,” a New Hampshire Democrat said.

"He was clearly not comfortable discussing detail on foreign policy matters," agreed another New Hampshire Democrat.

Others said the self-described democratic socialist made no effort to appeal to the broader Democratic Party, and reinforced perceptions Saturday night that he is unelectable.

“Focused entirely on his base which demands the pure," said an unaligned Iowa Democrat. "Worst answer: Asked directly how he would work with a GOP Congress, he argued that the Political Revolution would sweep aside all in its path.”

 

[User 463088]

Politico agrees.

Insiders: Bad night for Bernie

CBS Released a Poll as well


Who do you think won the debate?

Clinton 51%
Sanders 28%
O'Malley 7%
Tie 14%

She also had a 40 point+ lead on who best can handle foreign policy, terrorism and ISIS. Slight plurality on gun control as well.

It's also important to see that while Bernie made himself look better....so did Hillary by essentially equal numbers. Clearly, more people seeing him isn't enough to get people to #FeeltheBern.

 

[Owzers]

Well, the moderator last night sort of spelled out the argument as well as I've seen it: softness of terms leading to softness of response. I honestly don't know who we're saving from offense by saying "Radical Jihadis" or something vs. Radical Islamic Terrorism so I don't understand why we don't just say Radical Islamic Terrorism to take away this talking point.

it does feel like the Obama administration doesn't say it because they haven't said it and to start now would admit they probably should have from the start.

 

[NeoXChaos]

CBS Released a Poll as well


Who do you think won the debate?

Clinton 51%
Sanders 28%
O'Malley 7%
Tie 14%

She also had a 40 point+ lead on who best can handle foreign policy, terrorism and ISIS. Slight plurality on gun control as well.

It's also important to see that while Bernie made himself look better....so did Hillary by essentially equal numbers. Clearly, more people seeing him isn't enough to get people to #FeeltheBern.

the goalpost will be moved to december's debate and then January and so forth.

 

[User 463088]

the goalpost will be moved to december's debate and then January and so forth.

And then if she wins in Iowa, then the Iowa voters just didn't get it, but really, they will! And then South Carolina.....then Nevada....Then, if she gets enough delegates to win, then the entire thing was nothing but a media fix....

Ratings were down, obviously. Looks like the audience also skewed old. (Shock!)

 

[Cerium]

Bernie fans like to pretend that he's the new Obama, but this guy is not even Howard Dean tier.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I thought Bernie performed well, personally. Hillary did her thing, of course, but I didn't think there was a clear leader.

 

[User 463088]

Bernie fans like to pretend that he's the new Obama, but this guy is not even Howard Dean tier.

Dean only yelled sometimes. Bernie likes to yell all the time. My mom, god love her, hopped up on pain pills last night kept asking me "Why does he yell so much?" She was also happy when Hillary mentioned that 61% of her donations came from women. Hillary is the first candidate my mom has personally sent any more to. She was (may still be) part of a teacher's union who gave money, but it was never personally out of her pocket. She decided to start donating each month.

I thought Bernie performed well, personally. Hillary did her thing, of course, but I didn't think there was a clear leader.

The issue is that he pretty much tried to ignore anything that wasn't about economics. His opening, for instance, he spoke about France for ten seconds, and immediately jumped into his stump speech. No one in their right mind doesn't think Bernie isn't strong on his version of what our economic policies should be. (I agree with him in some things but disagree with him in others.) However, he's getting clobbered by Hillary among things like foreign policy and national security. He had a chance to try and tackle that issue, but he punted on it.

Which goes back to what I've been saying all along. If the President is solely responsible for economic policy, then Bernie can make a strong case. However, I'd argue that domestic policies are barely 50% of the issues a President has to deal with. In fact, I believe they have far more control over foreign policy than domestic one. (The purse strings still reside with Congress). I also take issue that every single domestic issue is intrinsically tied to income inequality....but that's another thing all together.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Well, the moderator last night sort of spelled out the argument as well as I've seen it: softness of terms leading to softness of response. I honestly don't know who we're saving from offense by saying "Radical Jihadis" or something vs. Radical Islamic Terrorism so I don't understand why we don't just say Radical Islamic Terrorism to take away this talking point.

It just looks like semantics to me. Okay so you call it whatever you wanna call it, now what? What does day 2 look like in this new world? The military doesn't bomb with words so what are we doing here.

As usual, politics is a dog and pony show when we need it to be substantive the most. Same thing with this whole "contained" quote. I defy anyone to read the entire statement and tell me it doesn't explicitly describe the battlefield in Iraq and Syria but that's what we're doing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's approval rating is 50 on Gallup. President Failbama mirite

 

[Daniel B·]

Politico agrees.

Insiders: Bad night for Bernie

That’s according to a survey of the POLITICO Caucus, a bipartisan group of influential strategists, operatives and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, who weighed in immediately following the second Democratic primary debate.

Yeah, we already know the establishment loves Hillary. What's your point, that the American people can't show the establishment "the bird", by simply voting in the primaries? Oh, but wait, Hillary now has 100% of the superdelegates; I wonder what we need to do?

According to myself and plenty of other GAFers, Bernie beat Hillary in the debate. Although I thought Bernie [post=185565914]comfortably[/post] won the debate, outright, others have O'Malley winning, with Hillary last.

And, don't bother mentioning your garbage tier (PPP etc) polls. I can think for myself and I'm sure Bernie's campaign is cognizant of the influence polls have on the electorate and will act accordingly.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well, the moderator last night sort of spelled out the argument as well as I've seen it: softness of terms leading to softness of response. I honestly don't know who we're saving from offense by saying "Radical Jihadis" or something vs. Radical Islamic Terrorism so I don't understand why we don't just say Radical Islamic Terrorism to take away this talking point.

I've always taken it to be basically an extension of Bush's "religion of peace" talk. The idea is that it's not just important for Muslims here that they not be lumped in with terrorists but also that it's strategically useful to avoid giving the religion of terrorists the legitimacy of the label "Islam". Obviously you can argue that "radical Islam" identifies it just fine but I can understand a reluctance to even grant it that much. There's been a lot of effort to position the US as being on the side of "true" (peace-loving) Muslims. Sociologically this is sort of a mess but it's plausibly rhetorically useful in making it hard to identify the US as the enemy of Islam and in communicating that "radical Islam" isn't "true Islam".

At least, I doubt that "the administration won't say 'radical Islam' because they're idiots who don't understand what they're up against" is what's going on here.

 

[Snake]

Obama's approval rating is 50 on Gallup. President Failbama mirite

At this time in his Presidency, George W. Bush had a 32% approval rating. Clearly the message to be gleaned from these two data points is that Obama is the same as Bush, and that we will soon be welcoming President Johm McCain.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I REALLY hope that the way the Republicans are going to differentiate their foreign policy isn't that they're going to kill more innocent people in Syria and Iraq.

Ted Cruz's trash statement has me extremely worried.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1140662

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yeah, we already know the establishment loves Hillary. What's your point, that the American people can't show the establishment "the bird", by simply voting in the primaries? Oh, but wait, Hillary now has 100% of the superdelegates; I wonder what we need to do?

According to myself and plenty of other GAFers, Bernie beat Hillary in the debate. Although I thought Bernie [post=185565914]comfortably[/post] won the debate, outright, others have O'Malley winning, with Hillary last.

And, don't bother mentioning your garbage tier (PPP etc) polls. I can think for myself and I'm sure Bernie's campaign is cognizant of the influence polls have on the electorate and will act accordingly.

What about the CBS poll?

 

[Makai]

We're going to build a Death Star. A huge Death Star with a big beautiful laser. Planets are going to come into The Empire but they're going to come in legally.

 

[User 463088]

What about the CBS poll?

Any poll that doesn't "Feel the Bern" is immediately garbage tier. It needs to be unskewed, re balanced, interpreted, and mansplained/Bernsplained to us.

 

[Daniel B·]

What about the CBS poll?

They saw the live feed .

Seriously, I feel like with the live feed, I only saw half the debate. Our unreliable college internet connection didn't help.

 

[Officerrob]

Yeah, we already know the establishment loves Hillary. What's your point, that the American people can't show the establishment "the bird", by simply voting in the primaries? Oh, but wait, Hillary now has 100% of the superdelegates; I wonder what we need to do?

According to myself and plenty of other GAFers, Bernie beat Hillary in the debate. Although I thought Bernie [post=185565914]comfortably[/post] won the debate, outright, others have O'Malley winning, with Hillary last.

And, don't bother mentioning your garbage tier (PPP etc) polls. I can think for myself and I'm sure Bernie's campaign is cognizant of the influence polls have on the electorate and will act accordingly.

It was cute before, but now it's getting embarrassing. The debate thread was some straight-up Hillaryis44 level garbage

 

[Tarkus]

They saw the live feed .

Seriously, I feel like with the live feed, I only saw half the debate. Our unreliable college internet connection didn't help.

 

[Daniel B·]

It was cute before, but now it's getting embarrassing. The debate thread was some straight-up Hillaryis44 garbage

So, what you're saying is, the hundreds of thousands that made the effort to go to one of Bernie's rallies, are just going to sit out the primaries? In your dreams.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

So, what your saying is, the hundreds of thousands that made the effort to go to one of Bernie's rallies, are just going to sit out the primaries? In your dreams.

You're right. Ron Paul won the nomination in the same way.

 

[Officerrob]

So, what your saying is, the hundreds of thousands that made the effort to go to one of Bernie's rallies, are just going to sit out the primaries? In your dreams.

Every single person who's been to a Sanders rally could vote, and he's still going to lose. I like Bernie, I appreciate he's in the race to push Hillary to the left, but this is beyond ridiculous. There is no massive millennial revolution coming that will sweep the nation, period

 

[Y2Kev]

I've always taken it to be basically an extension of Bush's "religion of peace" talk. The idea is that it's not just important for Muslims here that they not be lumped in with terrorists but also that it's strategically useful to avoid giving the religion of terrorists the legitimacy of the label "Islam". Obviously you can argue that "radical Islam" identifies it just fine but I can understand a reluctance to even grant it that much. There's been a lot of effort to position the US as being on the side of "true" (peace-loving) Muslims. Sociologically this is sort of a mess but it's plausibly rhetorically useful in making it hard to identify the US as the enemy of Islam and in communicating that "radical Islam" isn't "true Islam".

At least, I doubt that "the administration won't say 'radical Islam' because they're idiots who don't understand what they're up against" is what's going on here.

Of course, and I agree. This just smacks of some weird gaming-side classification of "what is a JRPG" or something. It's obviously Islamic fundamentalism. It's hard for me to understand who would be upset in the Muslim community by people calling it that, unless there are people we think would be upset by our identifying there being a fundamentalist sect of Islam.

 

[Daniel B·]

Every single person who's been to a Sanders rally could vote, and he's still going to lose. I like Bernie, I appreciate he's in the race to push Hillary to the left, but this is beyond ridiculous. There is no massive millennial revolution coming that will sweep the nation, period

Are you sure about that? I might be wrong, but aren't voter turnouts for primaries normally very low, so upsetting the apple cart, with a huge influx of new blood, is not only possible, it's inevitable?

 

[B-Dubs]

Are you sure about that? I might be wrong, but aren't voter turnouts for primaries normally very low, so upsetting the apple cart, with a huge influx of new blood, is not only possible, it's inevitable?

No. While turn out for primaries is low, the people turning out for Sanders rallies are also a drop in the bucket in terms of size of the electorate.

 

[User 463088]

So, what you're saying is, the hundreds of thousands that made the effort to go to one of Bernie's rallies, are just going to sit out the primaries? In your dreams.

Of course not. Many of them will vote. Many of them may not. However, it's not enough.

Your guy is down in the polls. He has major issues with real Democrats, AA, women, moderate Democrats, Seniors....everyone who isn't essentially young and (mostly) white. To pretend that he's really running away with this thing when he's 30 points behind is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. You want him to win. Great. I'm happy for you. But you have supplanted your desire and enthusiasm with the reality of the race. That doesn't help your guy win. Every time something comes out that doesn't favor your candidate, don't immediately start trying to figure out why it's wrong. Assume it's right, and figure out how to better address the issue. That's how you win a campaign and how you win supporters!

 

[Daniel B·]

No. While turn out for primaries is low, the people turning out for Sanders rallies are also a drop in the bucket in terms of size of the electorate.

Interesting. I see in 2000 and 2004, voter turnout for the Democratic primaries was 7%. In 2008, it swelled to 23%, of registered voters.

But, for the last time, it isn't 2008? No, you're right, Bernie is going to do better than Obama. No? How about Bernie doubling the record for a primary rally?