Looking forwards to lots of bullshit "both sides" coverage about how the debate is just as insane as the GOP one.
One of Lincoln Chafee’s main reasons for being in the race is that he voted against the Iraq War while Hillary Clinton voted for it. The Iraq War may have helped to bring down Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, but it’s a different time. Back then, 21 percent of Democrats said the Iraq War was the most important issue. When Chafee announced his campaign, just 3 percent did.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton: Together they won the debate, because last night it really hit me what a great pair they make. He is forcing her to talk about income inequality and campaign finance reform, she is taking his anger and turning it into something more palatable. Time and again, Sanders serves up the Howard Beale moments, and Clinton translates them into smooth talking points. Sanders gets you upset about a problem, Clinton convinces you she can fix it. I remain unconvinced that Sanders can get elected— we are not going to elect a socialist in America in 2015— but the longer he stays in the race, the more he reveals the concerns of the disaffected voter who is not crazy enough to vote Republican, the more Hillary can run on those concerns in a more appetizing way. They need each other. We need them.
Predictions: O'Malley sails onto Clinton's ticket, they face Trump and Vivica A. Fox next November.
*looks anderson cooper dead in the eye*
"the sandinistas were the good guys in nicaragua, you piece of shit"
Paul did not seem too amused when he answered those who used a Google search to ask whether he was still running for president.
"I don't know. I wouldn't be doing this dumbass live streaming if I weren't. So yes, I still am running for president, get over it."
"This is live, we can't edit this right?" Paul continued.
Even though Paul's campaign touted the live stream as a way to get behind-the-scenes access to Paul, the senator himself didn't really seem to understand why it was being done.
Asked by a reporter why he was live-streaming the entire day, Paul said that he wasn't quite sure.
"I wish I knew," he said. "I've been saying, I don't want to do this, I don't want to do this and now we're doing this," he said, according to The Washington Post.
The truth is, Sanders has offered Clinton — and Democrats — a million gifts so far this season. Among the most valid fears was that Hillary’s candidacy would go unchallenged, would proceed as a coronation. But the senator from Vermont has already ensured that this won’t be the case. He is a serious challenger, a smart and good man who is probably going to beat her in early states, and perhaps beyond. This is not bad news for Hillary. As tonight’s debate showed, it’s great news. It means there's someone to keep her on her game; no Hillary is worse than a coasting Hillary. It means an engaged electorate and candidates who need to pay attention to the direction in which their party’s voters want to go.
Modeling results is a simple concept: look at past data, identify patterns, and use those patterns to make predictions. So we begin by aggregating data from past U.S. presidential elections, but are immediately hampered by the fact that there aren’t very many elections to work from — 25 if we go back 100 years.
So we created a much larger database of elections by looking beyond the United States to hundreds of presidential and parliamentary elections in democratic countries around the world. This exercise gave us far more data to work with: a sample size of more than 450 elections from 35 countries.
>Hillary Clinton is bad because she has a screechy voice and should be in prison over Benghazi emails.
>Democrats are bad because they support $15 minimum wage. The Taco Bell across town screwed up my order, and now they want $15 an hour?
>Bernie Sanders is bad because he spent so much time plugging his website instead of debating.
[Objection: But he has to! He doesn't take any money from billionaires and Super PACs! He's funded entirely by regular people!]
>Bernie Sanders is bad because he gets all his money from regular people.
>Better to get all your money from billionaires than regular people. What, he says they need $15 to survive but then he's shaking them down for cash? Which is it?
[Objection: But candidates funded by the super-rich are beholden to the super-rich!]
>How would it be any different with Bernie Sanders?
[He's not super-rich, or funded by them!]
>Of course he's super-rich, he's a senator.
[Objection: Bernie Sanders is the least wealthy candidate in the race. Also, isn't it troubling that you automatically assume all senators are super-rich?]
>Bernie Sanders is bad because he can't manage his money. Or he's hiding his money.
>Also, Hillary Clinton is bad because she and Bill are super-rich.
Hendrix at Woodstock, Reggie Jackson in the World Series, Jesus after he died and became the son of god because his supporters coudnt find his body where his murderers said he was, and Lincoln Chafee at the Democratic debate. The Dems finally have a transcendent candidate that is the spearhead of a movement that has been building in the country for decades.
Chafee stared right into that camera last night and connected with dozens of Americas when he admitted that he had no idea what was in a bill he voted for that basically gave the major banks prima nocta over your paycheck because it was his first day on the job. I stand with Governor Chafee on this point. When I started my second stint at Outback they didnt just let me handle the bloomin onion, they put me on salads or saucing up the roo balls or whatever. You cant just expect one of 100 people in the United States chosen to represnt you in the worlds most powerful law-making body to go on the job and be competent from Day 1. I blame Harry Reid for not giving him some easy no-brainer assignments like voting to give up his constitutional duty to declare war because the President said he had this one under control.
Chafees magnatism and charisma borders on almost animal-like. This man fights like a lion and makes love like adonis. Have you ever tried to run a Presidental campaign off of only $30,000? During commercal breaks he was extreme couponing for attack ads in Guam. The scrap and zeal that just oozes out of every orifice of this guy screams Oval Office.
What else to make of this piece by Jake Flanagin or this piece by Amanda Marcotte, both of which have the same absurd idea: that the biggest problem that Bernie Sanders faces, politically, is the online conduct of his biggest online fans. The biggest problem! A Jewish socialist from Brooklyn in the land of Reagan, and his biggest problem is a few dozen people on Twitter!
Let’s think about some likely Democrat primary voters. Like, say, a white woman who lives in the greater Cincinnati suburbs, who can’t get enough hours at her part-time job organizing records for a oral surgeon, and whose ex-husband can’t pay her child support because his only income is disability payments. Or a black bus driver in Maryland who’s worried about what’s going to happen to his pension in the next union contract negotiations. Or a Hispanic first grade teacher in Florida who doesn’t know if her school’s funding is going to get cut yet again. Or a retiree in Pennsylvania whose economic security is dependent entirely on Social Security and Medicare. Or a Laotian immigrant in the Bay Area who’s struggling to bring her mother into the country.
Now: which of these people, do you think, is going to vote based on the conduct of Bernie Sanders fans on Twitter?
Nate Silver has the Bernie Sanders campaign figured out. Ignore what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, the “data-driven” prognostication wizard wrote back in July, when Sanders was polling a healthy 30 percent to Clinton’s 46 percent in both contests. That’s only, Silver says, because “Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are liberal and white, and that’s the core of Sanders’ support.”
Silver has a chart. It shows that when you multiply the number of liberals and whites among state electorates, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa rank first, second, and third. Texas is near the bottom—a place where Bernie Sanders should feel about as welcome as a La Raza convention at the Alamo, right?
I have a new friend who begs to differ.
natesilver: OK, there probably won’t be a revolution. But there’s more of a precedent for someone like Sanders being nominated than someone like Trump. I’m not saying the chance is high. I’m selling at 13 percent. But you’ve seen candidates like George McGovern and Barry Goldwater emerge when the party establishment failed to nominate acceptable choices. Obviously that doesn’t work so long as Clinton remains strong. But if she were to drop out tomorrow, I’m not sure Biden beats Sanders.
What's really ass-backwards odd about our establishment punditry, is that they've finally started accepting the fact that Donald Trump is leading the GOP presidential field (took them a while).
But when it comes to Bernie Sanders beating Hillary in recent polls in important states, and in the debate last week, not so much.
Just look at the pundit response to the debate.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic primary field with 49%, followed by Bernie Sanders 1t 29% and Joe Biden at 15%.
“Mrs. Clinton was the only Democratic candidate whose standing improved significantly in the post-debate poll. Support for Mr. Sanders dropped 6 percentage points, from 35% in September, on a ballot that included Mr. Biden, and it fell by about the same amount without Mr. Biden in the race.”
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds Clinton leading with 54%, followed by Sanders at 23% and Biden at 16%.
A new Morning Consult poll shows Clinton leading with 56%, followed by Sanders at 24%.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Clinton’s support jumping 10 points since the debate.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
GOP candidates didn’t just have a field day at CNBC’s expense during the actual debate. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson sent emails to supporters asking for donations to help fight media bias.
“Friend, I am declaring war on the liberal media, and I need to ask a personal favor from you. We need your immediate help to fight back — do that by clicking here to donate $35, $50 or $1,000,” Cruz wrote.
So let's see. The GOP has canceled a debate on NBC. Three upcoming debates are scheduled on Fox News and Fox Business, but there are other Republican debates scheduled to take place on CNN and Salem Radio (twice), CBS, and ABC.
Will those media organizations stick up for NBC the way the rest of the media stuck up for Fox in '09? They should say that they no longer intend to be part of their debates, unless NBC's broadcast rights are restored.
But they won't. Instead, they'll kowtow to any of the party's demands (and to demands from the angry Republican candidates who are getting together to demand that the debate hosts lick their boots).
None of this rises to the level of "silencing tactics," you see. It's OK if you're a Republican.
The list of possible reforms to future Republican debates is growing as several campaigns get ready for a Sunday evening meeting in a northern Virginia hotel. And there is one point of agreement among some of them: Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has let them down, as have the television network hosts, and it is time for the candidates to have more say in the process.
As the epic, historic post-debate drama unfolded and RNC Chair Reince Priebus wrote NBC out of the RNC book of life/debates last week, one of our readers made a pretty obvious point. If this were a matter of the President or the White House or Congress or the Democrats axing Fox News, not only would there be a chorus of whining from Fox (understandable enough) but all the other networks would almost certainly be coming together to support Fox on free press grounds.
And here? Well, as far as I can see basically no one, neither the networks institutionally nor the high profile journalists have said anything about the RNC's fairly comical decision to ax NBC news.
“Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.”
Cruz does not appear to be bothered. The senator and presidential candidate seems to relish the fact that so many fellow Republicans love to hate him. On the trail, the Texas Republican fondly recounts his skirmishes. His campaign blasts out fundraising e-mails quoting the critical words. When Boehner called Cruz a jackass, his campaign’s solicitation quoted him as saying, “I will wear it as a badge of honor because I refuse to join their club.” A super PAC supporting Cruz released a radio spot Tuesday boasting that Boehner referred to Cruz as a “a pain in the you-know-what.”
I tend to believe it’s usually better to let idiots and charlatans tie their own nooses around their own necks.
For example, last night there were a lot — a lot — of examples where candidates would say in one breath that we needed to wipe away any and all government regulation and let the market decide everything. And then in the very next sentence they would insist on some kind of sweeping government regulation that, for example, told banks how they had to spend or invest their money, or how big they were or were not allowed to get. And they’d just go on and on about how they would force these things on corporations. And then they’d wrap up by saying how much they would never have the government interfere or make regulations.
I’m not sure you need a moderator to point these things out to people. I think people who care enough to watch a debate can, quite likely, actually dress themselves in the morning on their very own, without help from their parents, just like a big kid.
Not able to use their time needling the moderators, Trump and Carson especially were forced to actually answer questions, and it made each of them look terrible. They each looked uninformed and over their heads.
« Older Why are glasses so expensive? | The Seventeen Faces of Julian Vandervelde Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments