# Dem Debate Thoughts?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Here are a few of mine:

1. The debate was surprisingly substantive, relatively speaking.
2. As much as I dislike Clinton, she did great. Her response re: Wall Street was lame: "I went to Wall Street and gave them a stern talking to..."
3. Sanders is very good. I wonder how far his "tax the rich" rhetoric will take him.
4. Webb was disappointing. He's my favorite, actually, and I was hoping for better.
5. O'Malley came off well. If Clinton weren't running he might have a chance.
6. What the heck was Chaffee doing up there anyway? Dreadful.

Basically it's between Sanders and Clinton, although there's always a possibility some scandal can take her out of the race. There's still time.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

It was nice to hear a debate that, at least partially, involved policy and economics, instead of grandstanding.

I think Sanders is, to some extent, achieving his purpose - i.e. dragging Clinton to the left and forcing discussion of difficult issues like economics and prison reform instead of letting Clinton flatter bleeding hearts with soft issues like gay marriage and gun control.

I think O'Malley got some face recognition and is nicely setting himself up for a VP nom, even if he resembles a pod person. I suspect Season 3 of The Wire will suddenly become most watched on HBOGO.

Chafee, oy vey, I like him, but he was never meant for national politics. He is New England royalty and is too used to getting treated with kid gloves by the locals. His personality is great for mild mannered Yankees, and I like him a lot, but he would get slaughtered in the general election.

Webb was disappointing. He had some energy when he actually got a word in. But his whining about Anderson Cooper bending the rules just made him sound weak. If he wants to be brash, fine, but you can't be polite and brash at the same time. He should have interjected more. And the line about his enemy in Vietnam was really awkward.

And Clinton? She's Clinton. What else is there to say?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Here are a few of mine:
> 
> 2. As much as I dislike Clinton, she did great. Her response re: Wall Street was lame: "I went to Wall Street and gave them a stern talking to..."


She did indeed give them a stern talking to. At the going rate of $250K per speech, I'm sure she will use whatever tone of voice her customers ask for.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> She did indeed give them a stern talking to. At the going rate of $250K per speech, I'm sure she will use whatever tone of voice her customers ask for.


Pretty much.

I dislike when she plays the populist.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> I dislike when she plays the populist.


Yeah, it comes off as disingenuous. She sounds a lot better when she sticks to her strengths of policy analytics and generally being the cool-headed moderate.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Someone remind me again what exactly she has accomplished from a policy perspective.

Besides being a cuckoldress, I really can't think of anything remotely noteworthy. 

Oh wait, she did make a ton of dough off of hog futures, and she has a penchant of keeping any attorney within a 20 mile radius of her gainfully employed.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Someone remind me again what exactly she has accomplished from a policy perspective. .


Honestly, I don't know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I will vote for Webb in the Democrat primary. Then I will vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, hopefully Cruz, in the General Election. That way, I can vote against Hillary TWICE.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> I will vote for Webb in the Democrat primary. Then I will vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, hopefully Cruz, in the General Election. That way, I can vote against Hillary TWICE.


Ted Cruz...do you mean the Canadian? I'll vote for nearly anyone over him, except Trump and that clown Carson.

I wish Webb had done better. I really do. He's a great guy. But it seems like he's not really serious. For example, I tried on several occasions to donate money via his website, but it wouldn't actually work. I bet Clinton's website works like a charm and did from day 1. I've also looked on his website to see if there's any substantive stuff about where he stands on issues, and there's just about nothing. Disappointing. I like him precisely because he's both the hard-core combat leader and the wonky policy guy who can go deep on complex issues. Usually it's one or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if he is the smartest of the candidates. But he sure didn't give that impression during the debate.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I didn't watch the democratic primary, there was too much great baseball being played, but I saw this meme recently and it made me laugh. I figured you guys would appreciate it.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Clinton's upcoming Benghazi hearing will be her real test as the front runner of the Democratic Party. Should she misstep, Biden is now clearly willing to take her place. 

I don't believe Sanders can win the presidency, but I do believe he and Elizabeth Warren will continue to be important populist figures for some time to come.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I wouldn't trust Biden, though. He has already gone on record, and said that he is not fit to be president.
Jump to 3:20 if it doesnt do it automatically.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Biden officially will not be running.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...den-the-door-has-closed-for-a-white-house-bid


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ that means that Hillary will be the nominee and will lose the general election.

Thanks to her greed, ambition and recklessness, she's shut the door on any likely talented dem who may have thought about running in the next 8-10 years.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

She will be the nominee but win the election, although not as easily as Biden. I must confess I'm disappointed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't think so. 

She's a known quantity. About the most known quantity out there and I think she's already peaked. There aren't that many out there who are undecided about Hillary. She's got the hardcore dem vote locked up but almost anyone would. 

People don't trust her and don't like her. She will be the nominee, but I don't see her getting more than 45% of the vote. That's about where she is right now. 

Remember, she will be testifying tomorrow in front of Congress and what's worse, the FBI is still investigating her emails. The facts are the facts; she had classified information on a non-government server. She had given classified information to people who were not cleared to be in possession of classified materials. 

Even if she walks, I can almost guarantee that people around her are going to have to lawyer up and if even one of her minions pleads the 5th, it's not going to look good for her. 

And if that doesn't sink her, she will do or say something really, really stupid on the campaign trail because in the end, she is a terrible politician and has non of the personality and charm of her husband.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I disagree, although I credit your argument as possible. Much depends on the Democrats a) ability to rally its base and b) the willingness of those who are not enthralled with her to hold their nose and vote for her anyway. These two things are related, of course. I for one am in that latter camp. I'll vote for her, but I sure had hoped a solid alternative would have emerged by now. Biden would have done it--I think he's just worn out, for I believe his argument that "it's too late" is incorrect. I had hoped Jim Webb would have done it, but he ran a stinker of a campaign and might be too weird. Bernie? I just can't believe he can be elected. O'Malley? If only. In a Clinton-less race he might have stood a chance.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ that means that Hillary will be the nominee and will lose the general election.


I hope so, but I believe you have too much faith in the general population.

I believe there's people on both the left, and the right that really understand the issues and vote for who they do, because they think their candidate has the answers, but the vast majority of people have no clue who or what they are voting for.

Unfortunately I think we are looking at another Obama here, people are going to vote for her simply because she's a woman, or because it's the cool thing to do.

I follow this stuff more than the average person, and I still have no clue what makes Clinton worthy of being president.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I follow this stuff more than the average person, and I still have no clue what makes Clinton worthy of being president.


Sadly, I am in the same position as you. She's super smart, very articulate, and has a strong grasp on policy, but ultimately her real strength and the only reason why she's in the running is her celebrity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dmontez said:


> I hope so, but I believe you have too much faith in the general population.
> 
> I believe there's people on both the left, and the right that really understand the issues and vote for who they do, because they think their candidate has the answers, but the vast majority of people have no clue who or what they are voting for.
> 
> ...


Obama was/is charismatic. He was also the anti-Bush at a time that many were tired of Bush and wanted change.

The Obama presidency is not the strongest credential to run on. At some point a vote for her is a vote to continue the current admin. Most people want change and she hardly represents that. She has her built in demo but up until a week ago she was being given a challenge by a socialist.

She will be the nominee and all the crap from the 90's will surface again; whitewater, Monica, the Clintom pardons, shady fundraising and the list goes on.

Add to that new scandals and the fact that she is just an awkward candidate and I'll stick to my prediction of 45% in the general election. I just don't see her attracting the undecided and independents.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Obama was/is charismatic. He was also the anti-Bush at a time that many were tired of Bush and wanted change.
> 
> The Obama presidency is not the strongest credential to run on. At some point a vote for her is a vote to continue the current admin. Most people want change and she hardly represents that. She has her built in demo but up until a week ago she was being given a challenge by a socialist.
> 
> ...


Those are all reasons why I voted against her in the 2008 primaries and will do so again now.

Sigh.

But I'll take her over the GOP, which has lost its collective mind.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

By the way, SG, while I haven't had the patience to follow the Benghazi witch hunt, I am disappointed that the GOP isn't going after Clinton for the REAL scandal, which is the Obama Administration's failure to have a plan for what to do after Qhaddafy (sp?) falls. We should have learned in 2003 that taking out a dictator without a good stabilization plan is a recipe for disaster. It would have been rich coming from Republicans (which might be why they didn't do it...to avoid admitting that 2003 was a disaster), but they would have a legitimate point.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It's tempting to draw prallels between Iraq and Libya. Obviously in hind sight errors in intelligence and the overall post war occupation were made. 

But at least there was a plan. Iraq is strategically located, Libya is not. We thought Iraq had WMD, Libya did not. At least not in any appreciable scale.

The fact is that Libya didn't matter. We should never have intervened and in fact should have offered quaddafi clandestine assistance. As we should have with Mubarak as well as Assad. Instead we have chaos. Thank god for the Egyptian military. 

Remember too that Iraq was relatively stable when Obama took office. Not perfect, but stable.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Sadly it does seem like Clinton has the momentum to gain the nomination. GOP could still come up with a credible candidate for the Presidency despite the splintered base. I do hope they do.


----------

