Democrat presidential debate official thread

That's about 99 percent of the population.

Nope. His run for the presidency is a total waste of time. People in the US are not ready for a First Lady Boi.

Bernie was awesome, has the best history, best policies, and is well deservedly the most popular candidate.

Warren had an outstanding night for her, mostly attacking Bloomberg.

Klobuchar and Biden had nothing important to say, as usual.

Bloomberg and Buttigieg were terrible.

Bernie voted against the 2007 immigration bill, I’ve lost all respect for him.

Low quality debate. It seems according to pundits the winner is the person who is the loudest and the most effective at personally attacking others.

As usual NBC is not ready to run a debate.

This seems to be the point of the primary where needs of the ego supersede needs of the party or country.

Sally Vix wrote:

lot of Biden stans here wrote:

Douglas, pleas stop believing that Drudge is a credible news source.

Drudge is much, much more credible than MSNBC or CNN. Those 2 are jokes.

This is one of many examples as to why you have no credibility.

Rachel1 wrote:

Bernie voted against the 2007 immigration bill, I’ve lost all respect for him.

Quote by Bernie in 2007:

What happened with the passage of Nafta? In Mexico, the agricultural sector has been decimated by cheap exports from American agribusiness. Poverty has increased, the middle class has declined and people are literally dying in the desert trying to flee Mexico for the U.S.

Working families in Mexico suffer, the rich have gotten richer and we now have the obscenity of the wealthiest person in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim Helu, coming from a country in which millions of families struggle to feed their children. This may be the kind of economic development championed by you, but not by me. We can have trade policies that can do better, that must do better.

The full statement is here:

Not much help for the 12 million people it would have helped.

But now he wants to abolish ICE, why doesn’t he pick winnable battles?

Rachel1 wrote:

Not much help for the 12 million people it would have helped.

Seriously, Mexico doesn't have 12 million billionaires.

T. Paine wrote:

It'll be anarchy for the DNC and they will lose a generation if Bernie has the most delegates at the end of the race and he's not given the nomination.

No. They didn't lose them in 1968, and they didn't lose them in 2016. There's not much to lose in any case - they're not really engaged in politics, never have been, never will be, it's all hype.

In 2016 they all went straight to Pokemon Go! and forgot about the election entirely.

It was much more common for a back room of party insiders at the convention to choose the nominee back then. They had just started transitioning away from that prior to 1968. It's been 50 years since then. I know I'm not the only one who won't vote if the nomination is stolen like that.

Pretty interesting as well that the "democratic" party isn't interested in democracy if a non establishment candidate wins. 5 out 6 candidates said "follow the process" aka use super delegates to win on the 2nd round rather than the person with the most votes wins.

That's exactly what I mean by millennials and younger not being truly engaged in politics. The people who wrote the caucus rules, the convention rules, invented the super delegates, they are engaged in politics. Simply showing up and voting just scratches the surface.

Boycotting the general election after failing to take over a party you knew was thoroughly corrupt only shows the shallowness of your involvement. Without a hero to lead you, you are lost in the weeds with no idea what to do or where to begin.

In 2024 it will happen all over again. They do this every cycle, there's always someone rounding up the sheeps. Jesse Jackson in 1988, Howard Dean in whatever year that was. Kucinich ran one year.

T. Paine wrote:

I know I'm not the only one who won't vote if the nomination is stolen like that.

It can't be stolen if it was never his in the first place. At any rate, I would actually vote for a a Democrat if they nominate someone sensible, i.e. not Sanders, so I guess I'd cancel out your non-vote.

moanswers wrote:

comedyrelief wrote:

I actually support this idea. I think if you are over 80, you should have to carry your own private cancer supplement, otherwise you should just receive palliative care. People trying everything to live forever is bankrupting health care, making it less affordable for you and I.

Let's see how you feel about that when you are in your late 70s and are still healthy.

It would be interesting to see insurance companies have the option to break out a supplemental coverage like this. Maybe they do have that option. Has term health insurance ever been marketed? I think it's kind of a great idea. When you're 30 or 40, you could buy this policy for old-age care if it was important to you. My dad is 81 and in good health, but my mom has passed. He told me when she passed that he had a DNR in place and is still enjoying life, but is ready to die at any moment and at peace with it. I'm 100% certain that if he was diagnosed with any terminal cancer that he would just choose hospice over treatment at this point.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

moanswers wrote:

Let's see how you feel about that when you are in your late 70s and are still healthy.

It would be interesting to see insurance companies have the option to break out a supplemental coverage like this. Maybe they do have that option. Has term health insurance ever been marketed? I think it's kind of a great idea. When you're 30 or 40, you could buy this policy for old-age care if it was important to you. My dad is 81 and in good health, but my mom has passed. He told me when she passed that he had a DNR in place and is still enjoying life, but is ready to die at any moment and at peace with it. I'm 100% certain that if he was diagnosed with any terminal cancer that he would just choose hospice over treatment at this point.

Catastrophic and long term health care exist.

Living wills, health care proxies help sort out these decisions for the sick and their relatives.

At 81 my mother had surgery to remove cancer, at 86 it didnt make sense.

The debate seemed to focus on Bloomberg because he is rich and is trying to buy the election.

But Tom Steyer is also rich and spending a lot, but we didn't see him on the stage. That's because Bloomberg has campaigned more effectively.

Bloomberg did not fare well in the debate.

And he has not been giving interviews and not even speaking in his ads, other than voice overs.

His major problem is that he is an old school Republican at heart, and that party no longer exists.

He doesn't fit in as a Democratic candidate. But he is a viable candidate for president if there were a major party for him.

I am still a Warren supporter, and I am glad that she fared well last night.

Klobuchar was given an unfair question about the president of Mexico and Warren defended her.

I think Klobuchar was solid.

Biden was Biden.

Bernie was Bernie. With those two, you know what you're getting, it just matters if you like that.

Buttigieg continues to impress me and I think he likely will president one day, if not this cycle.

As far as a brokered convention, let's wait until there are votes from more than 2 states to get into that.

Super Tuesday will change the picture.

Anyone that wins zero states on that day may have to drop.

Is it possible that all 6 of them win at least one state on Super Tuesday

Alabama

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Maine

Massachusetts - Warren's state

Minnesota - Klobuchar's state, must win for her

North Carolina

Oklahoma - Warren's birth place

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont - Bernie's state

Virginia

California is the biggie and I think winning Virginia and Colorado would be big

T. Paine wrote:

Pretty interesting as well that the "democratic" party isn't interested in democracy if a non establishment candidate wins. 5 out 6 candidates said "follow the process" aka use super delegates to win on the 2nd round rather than the person with the most votes wins.

Super delegates aside, it's totally possible that at the convention, Bernie could lose by just having all the moderate delegates consolidate behind a single candidate against him. Bernie needs to do one of two things to get the nomination. Win the majority of delegates OR win more delegates than Biden, Bloomberg, Pete, and Klobuchar combined. If he does either of those things, it will be political suicide for the super delegates to go against him. However, if he doesn't win more delegates than the combined moderates, he'll probably lose the nomination, and despite what all the Bernie Bros will say, it will be a fair contest.

You really want a majority to pick the candidate, not a plurality.

If no one gets a majority of the delegates there is a process to eliminate candidates to get to a majority.

I agree that it is ugly.

That's what I like about my proposal.

Have rounds. Probably 3 of them.

Take an official national vote/poll online to choose the top 10.

Then all states vote from that group to choose the top 4.

Then all states vote to choose the top 2.

Then all sates vote one last time to choose the winner, which will mathematically have a majority of the votes.

That would be Democratic. And no state would have an advantage over another.