Democrat presidential debate official thread

Joe has lost what's left of his mind... dude needs to drop out and get to a nursing home.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the field gets pared down. Klobuchar, Biden, and Pete took 49% of the first round votes and Bernie and Warren took 43% and Yang, Steyer and others ate the remaining 8%. In the final vote, the moderates took 51% and the liberals took 47%.

To me, that indicates the moderates in the Democratic party still hold a majority, at least in Iowa. If Klobuchar runs out of money and Biden continues to look weak, that would be a big boost to Pete. If Warren drops out, which she won't, Bernie would be dominating everyone, while the moderates split their votes.

When Bloomberg gets added to the mix on Super Tuesday, it won't help to clarify things. I'm guessing that Bernie will actually go on to win New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and probably Super Tuesday, while the moderates continue to split votes. Bernie will win all these contests, but still not hold a majority in any of them.

Honestly, who should be the candidate if they show up in Milwaukee and the delegate totals are:

Bernie 25%

Bloomberg 20%

Warren 15%

Biden 15%

Pete 15%

Klobuchar 10%

Your scenario will not hold. Except for Senator Sander's inflow of cash, the other corporate candidates all feed from the same or similar 1/2 billionaires, billionaires and corporations. The only one's with enough money to make it to Milwaukee are Bloomberg, Sanders and Steyer. Out of Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren, three will drop out prior to Milwaukee Convention. We are going to want the minutes, hours and days of our lives back debating and worrying about Buttigieg. He is going to get his clock kicked in in southern states.

Maybe Boot Edge Edge can get a spot in Trump’s White House in 2020!

He could be director of LGBT+ rights!

Trump wrote:

Maybe Boot Edge Edge can get a spot in Trump’s White House in 2020!

He could be director of LGBT+ rights!

Not going well for the Dems ...

This was the worst week for Democrats since Donald Trump’s election-night shocker of 2016.

Why it matters: In less than 200 hours, Democrats botched Iowa, watched Trump hit an all-time popularity high, debated ousting the DNC chair, and watched a socialist soar and an ideological civil war intensify.

Axios' Margaret Talev reports from New Hampshire that amid real enthusiasm at candidate rallies, there's an underlying unease about unifying the party enough to get the kind of turnout needed to win in November.

What we're hearing: There's a new fatalism in my conversations with Democrats, with many telling me that what once seemed unthinkable — Trump's re-election in November — is now starting to look more likely than ever.

In a CNN segment this morning that included Friday's rosy economic statistics, a graphic asked: "IS TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION PATH WIDENING?"

This is all the more galling to Democrats because they believe he truly sees himself "above the law," as House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff tweeted Friday night, after Trump's impeachment acquittal.

Reality check: A New York Times live fact-check blog on Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday came up with 8 statements labeled "misleading," 7 "lacks"/"needs context," 6 "false," 5 "true," 4 'exaggerated," 3 "mostly true," 2 "partly true," 1 "weighted but mostly true" and 1 "lacks evidence."

The entries became shorthand for how Democrats see the presidency.

Between the lines: Talk to well-wired Republicans and they'll tell you Trump is fully capable of self-sabotage — that enough exhausted voters will finally say: "Just make it stop." But here's why Dems are apoplectic about the terrain:

In the Gallup poll this week that put Trump at 49% approval, a record for his presidency, just 1% had no opinion — leaving few persuadables.

Whoever is ultimately nominated will start in a tremendous hole against a Trump campaign has been relentlessly organized and optimized over the past three years. Axios' Sara Fischer has documented how the Trump campaign is mastering Facebook and Google ads.

The constant Trump rallies serve as an ongoing dry run for Election Day, with eye-popping metrics.

What's next: Recriminations over the botched count of the Iowa caucuses are continuing into a second week. Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in the House, told C-SPAN "Newsmakers" (via AP):

"There are some serious discussions taking place here on Capitol Hill as to what ought to happen at the DNC."

Asked whether DNC chair Tom Perez must go, Clyburn said: "That's a decision for him."

You keep doing back flips over one poll having him 49%, which is usually not a good number.

But the average of the major polls has him at 45.5% with a 51.8% disapproval.

Reuters has him at 42% approve, 55% disapprove.

After the first couple months of his presidency, Trump has had a disapproval rating over 50% everyday single day for almost 3 years now.

Love him or hate him has been set in stone.

Are haters gonna hate, or are haters gonna vote?

He can't survive 51% of the country voting for the Democrat.

Better root for a strong liberal or moderate third party candidate or write ins if you are a Trump fan.

This Iowa mess or any question of the Dem nominee will not be on any one's mind on November 3rd.

Pondering whether (and why) anybody believes in the Biden is the most electable line. He doesn't have strength in Iowa or New Hampshire, which should be strong for him if his electability argument is based on appealing to white rural voters. As far as I can see the electability depends almost entirely on his support among black voters in the south. Those are generally not electoral vites that are in play in the general election, so you could really call this "nominatability" not electability.

I'm not as concerned as much about who can beat Donald Trump. I think they all could.

My concern is more about who can do the job for 8 years.

Compromise and working across the aisle is no longer a feature of an American president.

Republicans wouldn't vote for a bill created by a Democrat if it was a tax cut and an abortion ban. If it's Democrat sponsored, it is a no-go.

Choose the president for what executive orders they would make and what rhetoric they would say or tweet.

Congress doesn't do anything.

They do need a Democrat majority senate to confirm justices, though.

Do you always just post articles instead of articulating your own thoughts?

I don't get why Amy Klobuchar isn't more appealing to sane Democrats.

99% of the time I am articulating my own thoughts. 1% of the time I will post articles - like James Carville's - that I think highly represent the quandray that the Democratic party is currently in.

quickndirty wrote:

I don't get why Amy Klobuchar isn't more appealing to sane Democrats.

I keep hearing stories about how bad she treats her staff. She has even admitted how that is mostly true. I could never support a person who treats her staff that poorly. I remember how then-First Lady Hillary used to throw ashtrays at her staff. That is not normal behaviour. That is behavior of a sicko.

I think the problem with Amy is that she is a woman and people are gun shy of that now.

Same with Elizabeth.

Trump treats his staff horribly and that doesn't seem to hurt his support.

L L wrote:

I think the problem with Amy is that she is a woman and people are gun shy of that now.

Same with Elizabeth.

Trump treats his staff horribly and that doesn't seem to hurt his support.

L L - do you think that many American males are still unable to support a female candidate?

Sally Vix wrote:

L L - do you think that many American males are still unable to support a female candidate?

I think hypothetically every American can support a female candidate.

But I think each time one emerges they get judged in a different way.

And not just by men but sometimes even more by women.

I look at AOC picking Bernie over Warren.

And the emergence of Mayor Pete over Amy Klobuchar.

Now, Bernie has been ever consistent with his message and people like that, while Warren's positions evolve a bit.

And Pete has a more soothing tone than Amy, whose voices cracks a bit.

Warren's policies are more palatable than Sanders.

Klobuchar's experience and message should put her way above Buttigieg.

I don't know has happened to Biden unless Rudy's plan worked.

People will simply vote for who they like and use anything I wrote above to rationalize why they chose who they chose.

Sally Vix wrote:

99% of the time I am articulating my own thoughts. 1% of the time I will post articles - like James Carville's - that I think highly represent the quandray that the Democratic party is currently in.

Newsflash: Trump and Republicans are going to claim that any democratic nominee is a socialist whose plans are going to destroy America. There is no quandry.

James Carville is a pro-corporatist, third-way architect. No more DINOS.

L L wrote:

I'm not as concerned as much about who can beat Donald Trump. I think they all could.

My concern is more about who can do the job for 8 years.

Compromise and working across the aisle is no longer a feature of an American president.

Republicans wouldn't vote for a bill created by a Democrat if it was a tax cut and an abortion ban. If it's Democrat sponsored, it is a no-go.

Choose the president for what executive orders they would make and what rhetoric they would say or tweet.

Congress doesn't do anything.

They do need a Democrat majority senate to confirm justices, though.

I disagree with you on that. The most important thing is to beat the poorest most dishonest president that I have seen in my lifetime. I don't assume for a minute trump will lose in a cake walk. The dems need every possible edge to take him down.

I have been a Biden supporter and still am but I have concerns. He seems tired and is not as articulate as I prefer. I know too many people who hate trump but who would not vote Bernie or Elizabeth. So I am totally against Bernie or Elizabeth.

I also like mayor Pete, kloubachar and maybe Bloomberg. Mayor Pete is smart, articulate and doesn't rattle, but I worry about bigotry toward gays. It could cost him votes. Most bigots toward gays would have voted trump but not all. (Sounds weird to say I would hate to lose the votes of bigots against gays)

L L wrote:

People will simply vote for who they like and use anything I wrote above to rationalize why they chose who they chose.

There is much truth to that. Often people really don't fully understand why they like a candidate. Often if they like a candidate they will say the policy position that they hear the candidate support is important to them to and why they like that candidate. (But actually cause and effect are switched)

Same thing with people who say they dislike X candidate. Like with Bernie for instance, people ascribe all kinds of ridiculous things to him and call him extreme because they heard some pundit on TV call him extreme.

Most people in general are just parroting things about the candidates they read or heard somewhere other than listening to these candidates or looking at the policies and thinking for themselves.