October debate

[Kraken]

This one kinda snuck up on me; it's Tuesday night.

Warren is the front runner in some polls, and Bernie just called her "a capitalist through and through," which might actually make a lot of people more comfortable with her, although they're fighting words among Bernie socialists. Anyway, the buzz is that the field will be coming after her. I hope they do; so far she's floated above the fray and stayed on-message and steadily advanced. She's a good debater and I'd like to see her mix it up.

As usual, there will be too many people on stage for that to be satisfying. We really need a Biden-Warren-Sanders debate. I might spot you a Harris and a Buttigieg, but it's time to lose the also-rans.

I'll be watching; I hope that impeachment will be on everyone's tongue, and that they'll get into foreign policy.

[$iljanus]

The CNN commercial for the debate sounded like a SNL skit as the announcer was reading off the absurd number of names in the debate. Hoping for a major culling in time for the next one. In the meantime there's baseball to watch.

[Jeff V]

The CNN commercial for the debate sounded like a SNL skit as the announcer was reading off the absurd number of names in the debate. Hoping for a major culling in time for the next one. In the meantime there's baseball to watch.

I heard a commercial touting "something something largest field yet!" Seems they are going the wrong way if that's the case. I think I was even supposed to appear, but there was a schedule conflict with my kids dance classes.

[El Guapo]

This one kinda snuck up on me; it's Tuesday night.

Warren is the front runner in some polls, and Bernie just called her "a capitalist through and through," which might actually make a lot of people more comfortable with her, although they're fighting words among Bernie socialists. Anyway, the buzz is that the field will be coming after her. I hope they do; so far she's floated above the fray and stayed on-message and steadily advanced. She's a good debater and I'd like to see her mix it up.

Bernie was mostly working off of Warren's famous line that she's a "capitalist to her bones", so what he said was pretty fair.

But more broadly, this seems like a huge ('yuge) opportunity for Warren, although the messaging is a little tricky. She's basically now a co-frontrunner with Biden, but her surge hasn't really come at Biden's expense. So if she's going to fully break through and solidly pass Biden, she's going to have to take a big chunk of his voters, but she'll have to do that without alienating too much of her progressive base. So I think priority 1 for her tonight should be to come off as generally sensible and not radical. Sanders remarks are probably helpful in that respect, so she can say "yes, I believe firmly in capitalism, but it has to be *fair* capitalism, so my reforms are designed to make capitalism work for the many...etc. etc." If the crowd comes after her that seems probably helpful as well (as long as she answers well) because it will boost her time talking and wind up boosting her stature in the race as well.

[Kraken]

This one kinda snuck up on me; it's Tuesday night.

Warren is the front runner in some polls, and Bernie just called her "a capitalist through and through," which might actually make a lot of people more comfortable with her, although they're fighting words among Bernie socialists. Anyway, the buzz is that the field will be coming after her. I hope they do; so far she's floated above the fray and stayed on-message and steadily advanced. She's a good debater and I'd like to see her mix it up.

Bernie was mostly working off of Warren's famous line that she's a "capitalist to her bones", so what he said was pretty fair.

But more broadly, this seems like a huge ('yuge) opportunity for Warren, although the messaging is a little tricky. She's basically now a co-frontrunner with Biden, but her surge hasn't really come at Biden's expense. So if she's going to fully break through and solidly pass Biden, she's going to have to take a big chunk of his voters, but she'll have to do that without alienating too much of her progressive base. So I think priority 1 for her tonight should be to come off as generally sensible and not radical. Sanders remarks are probably helpful in that respect, so she can say "yes, I believe firmly in capitalism, but it has to be *fair* capitalism, so my reforms are designed to make capitalism work for the many...etc. etc." If the crowd comes after her that seems probably helpful as well (as long as she answers well) because it will boost her time talking and wind up boosting her stature in the race as well.

I agree that she's well-positioned going in, and I think she has a good shot at coming out the same way. Definitely needs to be at the top of her game, though.

She was the first candidate to come out for impeachment, so she can try to take ownership of the night's biggest topic. Syria could trip her up; foreign policy is not her strongest suit (although I can't think of anyone else who particularly shines there, either...maybe Butti and Gabbard get some points for being veterans). But then, these debates don't usually spend much time on foreign policy. Everyone gives thier canned flag-waving answer and the night moves on.

The most dangerous line of attack on her -- because it's true -- is "You want to take away everybody's health insurance and raise their taxes!" She needs to either explain why that's a GOOD thing, or backpedal to Medicare for Some (the opt-in version that even Biden says he supports). I don't think she can soften her position while Bernie is still in the race. So she needs to be ready with something along the lines of "Would you rather pay $500 a month for government insurance or $1000 for what you're getting now?" -- in other words, make it clear that even though your taxes will go up (and they will), you're going to save money overall. That message keeps getting lost because it's too nuanced for these 45-second debate bursts. She can't say "Yup, Imma raise taxes!" without a good block of time and some visual aids to explain why we should be happy about that.

[LawBeefaroni]

Some people would rather pay $500 more per month for their insurance.

It's not as simple as A is less than B.

[El Guapo]

This one kinda snuck up on me; it's Tuesday night.

Warren is the front runner in some polls, and Bernie just called her "a capitalist through and through," which might actually make a lot of people more comfortable with her, although they're fighting words among Bernie socialists. Anyway, the buzz is that the field will be coming after her. I hope they do; so far she's floated above the fray and stayed on-message and steadily advanced. She's a good debater and I'd like to see her mix it up.

Bernie was mostly working off of Warren's famous line that she's a "capitalist to her bones", so what he said was pretty fair.

But more broadly, this seems like a huge ('yuge) opportunity for Warren, although the messaging is a little tricky. She's basically now a co-frontrunner with Biden, but her surge hasn't really come at Biden's expense. So if she's going to fully break through and solidly pass Biden, she's going to have to take a big chunk of his voters, but she'll have to do that without alienating too much of her progressive base. So I think priority 1 for her tonight should be to come off as generally sensible and not radical. Sanders remarks are probably helpful in that respect, so she can say "yes, I believe firmly in capitalism, but it has to be *fair* capitalism, so my reforms are designed to make capitalism work for the many...etc. etc." If the crowd comes after her that seems probably helpful as well (as long as she answers well) because it will boost her time talking and wind up boosting her stature in the race as well.

I agree that she's well-positioned going in, and I think she has a good shot at coming out the same way. Definitely needs to be at the top of her game, though.

She was the first candidate to come out for impeachment, so she can try to take ownership of the night's biggest topic. Syria could trip her up; foreign policy is not her strongest suit (although I can't think of anyone else who particularly shines there, either...maybe Butti and Gabbard get some points for being veterans). But then, these debates don't usually spend much time on foreign policy. Everyone gives thier canned flag-waving answer and the night moves on.

The most dangerous line of attack on her -- because it's true -- is "You want to take away everybody's health insurance and raise their taxes!" She needs to either explain why that's a GOOD thing, or backpedal to Medicare for Some (the opt-in version that even Biden says he supports). I don't think she can soften her position while Bernie is still in the race. So she needs to be ready with something along the lines of "Would you rather pay $500 a month for government insurance or $1000 for what you're getting now?" -- in other words, make it clear that even though your taxes will go up (and they will), you're going to save money overall. That message keeps getting lost because it's too nuanced for these 45-second debate bursts. She can't say "Yup, Imma raise taxes!" without a good block of time and some visual aids to explain why we should be happy about that.

I think foreign policy will tend to benefit Biden the most, as the "elder statesman" (emphasis on elder, I suppose), and because he can say things like he was in the situation room when the Bin Laden raid went down.

On Warren and MFA, she's already made the case that people will be better off with MFA. She's been asked whether she would support raising middle class taxes to pay for it, and she repeatedly dodged the question in favor of saying "everyone will be better off overall" (which is an implicit but not explicit yes). The problem is that the answer is yes, but she can't really say that explicitly, so she winds up looking like she's playing political games (which she is to some degree).

[Kraken]

Some people would rather pay $500 more per month for their insurance.

It's not as simple as A is less than B.

Sure, and that's what Warren should be talking about: Not only will you pay less overall, there won't be any more co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network surprises, etc., and employers will love getting out of the health insurance business. She can (and should) make a factual argument that will convince the skeptical. But...maybe not until after the primaries, if she can continue to dodge and weave until then. I'm skeptical that her rivals will let her get away with it tonight, though. It is her biggest policy vulnerability. But with a dozen people trying to talk over one another, she might skate by again.

[LawBeefaroni]

Some people would rather pay $500 more per month for their insurance.

It's not as simple as A is less than B.

Sure, and that's what Warren should be talking about: Not only will you pay less overall, there won't be any more co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network surprises, etc., and employers will love getting out of the health insurance business. She can (and should) make a factual argument that will convince the skeptical. But...maybe not until after the primaries, if she can continue to dodge and weave until then. I'm skeptical that her rivals will let her get away with it tonight, though. It is her biggest policy vulnerability. But with a dozen people trying to talk over one another, she might skate by again.

"Deducta-what?"
"She gonna take your money!
"Oh, hell no!"

[El Guapo]

Some people would rather pay $500 more per month for their insurance.

It's not as simple as A is less than B.

Sure, and that's what Warren should be talking about: Not only will you pay less overall, there won't be any more co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network surprises, etc., and employers will love getting out of the health insurance business. She can (and should) make a factual argument that will convince the skeptical. But...maybe not until after the primaries, if she can continue to dodge and weave until then. I'm skeptical that her rivals will let her get away with it tonight, though. It is her biggest policy vulnerability. But with a dozen people trying to talk over one another, she might skate by again.

It's what Biden and Buttigieg should hammer her on, for sure. But a lot of the other candidates have endorsed MFA as well, so have the same vulnerability.

[stimpy]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

[Kurth]

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on this stage?

[stimpy]

She's hot?

[Alefroth]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

You'd have to be stupid to answer that with a simple yes or no.

[Holman]

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on this stage?

During the foreign policy segment, she decried our current "regime-change war" at least six times in two minutes. By this she means the fighting in Syria in rebellion against Bashar Assad.

The moderators turned to Pete B, who had smart things to say about our betrayal of the Kurds, and then they turned back to Tulsi. She said "regime-change war" at least three more times in her response.

Who the hell is she working for?

[El Guapo]

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on this stage?

During the foreign policy segment, she decried our current "regime-change war" at least six times in two minutes. By this she means the fighting in Syria in rebellion against Bashar Assad.

The moderators turned to Pete B, who had smart things to say about our betrayal of the Kurds, and then they turned back to Tulsi. She said "regime-change war" at least three more times in her response.

Who the hell is she working for?

She's the candidate for people who think that Sanders is too far to the right. And the thing is that the far left and the far right have a lot of things in common in terms of desired policy outcomes.

[stimpy]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

You'd have to be stupid to answer that with a simple yes or no.

Then I guess Bernie Sanders is stupid, huh?

[Zarathud]

You know what else was a Regime Change War?
* Fighting the Taliban and ISIS.
* Fighting Hilter in World War Ii.
* Fighting the Confederacy in the Civil War.
* Fighting the Revolutionary War against tge British.

It’s the non-Regime Change Wars where we’ve been rubbish.

[El Guapo]

You know what else was a Regime Change War?
* Fighting the Taliban and ISIS.
* Fighting Hilter in World War Ii.
* Fighting the Confederacy in the Civil War.
* Fighting the Revolutionary War against tge British.

It’s the non-Regime Change Wars where we’ve been rubbish.

Well, most of those examples weren't regime change war. The Civil War and fighting ISIS were regime-destroying wars (or anti-insurrection efforts). The Revolutionary War was a regime-creating war.

[Zarathud]

You'd have to be stupid to answer that with a simple yes or no.

Then I guess Bernie Sanders is stupid, huh?

Yes, Bernie Sanders is stupid.

[malchior]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

The question is a trap to begin with. It isn't a yes or no question. That said she shouldn't have gone down this road. It is too complicated a policy when the media can't get beyond mudslinging.

[Smoove_B]

They're pushing for soundbites they can loop on 24/7 news media - candidates saying very specific things that will either inspire support or fear. I personally find this entire dog-and-pony show gross.

[Alefroth]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

You'd have to be stupid to answer that with a simple yes or no.

Then I guess Bernie Sanders is stupid, huh?

I don't know. Is that what you guess?

[Kraken]

She's hot?

I, too, noticed that she was sweating again below her neckline. Maybe she just needs to apply her makeup lower, because the sheen on her chest is distracting. (Or is it designed to make me think about her chest? Hmm).

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on this stage?

During the foreign policy segment, she decried our current "regime-change war" at least six times in two minutes. By this she means the fighting in Syria in rebellion against Bashar Assad.

I'll confess to shouting at the TV then. Invalid premise! First, it's not our war and never was; and second, regime change stopped being the point long ago. Syria is a total clusterfuck, sure, but we're there -- or, we WERE there -- to prevent ceding the outcome to Assad, Putin, and Iran while maintaining an important ally. This is probably a more nuanced answer than you should put forward in a debate, but somebody should've torched Gabbard's strawman.

More generally: There was a segment near the end where the camera was on Sanders, Biden, and Warren while they were mixing it up together, and I thought Yes, give us 90 minutes of them! Biden managed to put together a whole statement without being vague and stumbling over words as he and Warren both flashed their daggers. I went "Ooooo, burn!" when Biden claimed credit for pushing Warren's Consumer Protection Agency through the Senate, and she responded by thanking Obama for his help.

The horde went after Warren, as expected, and she held her own, although she never shined especially brightly.

While I would like to see the focus narrow to the three front runners, there are three others who I think still have a pulse: Harris, Buttigieg, and Booker. A dark horse surge is unlikely, as is the nature of dark horses, but it's still early and they all add to the conversation. (Every time I see Harris, my dislike of her personality grows even as I like what she's saying; I'm trying to set that aside.) I'd even invite Yang back because he makes me smile. How can you not like someone wearing a MATH pin? Also, I would like $1,000 per month, please.

[stimpy]

Senator Warren, will you raise taxes on middle income workers to pay for Medicare for all, yes or no answer.
Senator Warren: Blah blah blah la la la la avoid avoid avoid answering, blah blah blah.

Fuck....can any of these talking heads answer a fucking question???

You'd have to be stupid to answer that with a simple yes or no.

Then I guess Bernie Sanders is stupid, huh?

I don't know. Is that what you guess?

Yep. And it's been verified by Zarathud.

[El Guapo]

She's hot?

I, too, noticed that she was sweating again below her neckline. Maybe she just needs to apply her makeup lower, because the sheen on her chest is distracting. (Or is it designed to make me think about her chest? Hmm).

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on this stage?

During the foreign policy segment, she decried our current "regime-change war" at least six times in two minutes. By this she means the fighting in Syria in rebellion against Bashar Assad.

I'll confess to shouting at the TV then. Invalid premise! First, it's not our war and never was; and second, regime change stopped being the point long ago. Syria is a total clusterfuck, sure, but we're there -- or, we WERE there -- to prevent ceding the outcome to Assad, Putin, and Iran while maintaining an important ally. This is probably a more nuanced answer than you should put forward in a debate, but somebody should've torched Gabbard's strawman.

Biden did. At one point he was saying that the point of the Syrian engagement was never regime change, but was instead to keep the regime from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people.

[rittchard]

Many of the analyses I've read have Pete "winning" last night's debate, and while I loved "Mean/Tough Pete" I still didn't feel like we heard enough from him for it to be a clear "win." I swear it felt like there were half hour blocks where he wasn't even on the stage, but I guess with 12 people everyone probably felt their candidate got short changed. Maybe I fell asleep in between lol. The oddest mis-step was when they introduced the age topic and went from the old fogies to the youngest candidate at 38... Tulsi? WTF only every news piece since Pete showed up has introduced him as the youngest at 37. It didn't really matter but it was just annoying. Ditto when Biden claimed no one else had released their tax returns when I'm pretty sure a bunch of them have, at least I know Pete did because I actually looked through them months ago. And I was surprised the moderators didn't go to Pete when Warren brought up her new "I don't take donations from tech execs" thing, which she has used as attacks on him the past week. That would have been fun to watch.

Anyway, my favorite moment had to be Pete bitch slapping Beta, who if you hadn't been following has been nipping at Pete on Twitter the last few weeks. Beta should just drop out, he seems really desperate at this point. I did think it might have seemed a bit out of context when Pete tells him he doesn't need lessons on courage from him (if you hadn't followed the Twitter-bait), but for Team Pete fans I think it felt so good as it has been an annoyance for a while now.

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

[Holman]

It'll be interesting to see how Pete's solid/aggressive performance moves the polls. He has avoided attacks until recently, but attacks are a two-edged sword.

I think he's got a lot to gain from a Biden collapse, but that's still in the future.

[Kraken]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

[The Meal]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

Undersigned,
-The Meal

[Smoove_B]

I was listening to communist talk radio while trying not to get washed off the road on the way home tonight and they pointed out Mayor Pete is a non-starter because he is currently polling 0-1% with African Americans.

[LawBeefaroni]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

You'd think so but...America.


And on paper now is a long way from next November.

[Daehawk]

I dont see any of them beating Trump. He's like an embedded tick except the dog likes him there.

[Kraken]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

You'd think so but...America.


And on paper now is a long way from next November.

Well, I still don't think Trump is going to be the nominee, so....

[malchior]

I was listening to communist talk radio while trying not to get washed off the road on the way home tonight and they pointed out Mayor Pete is a non-starter because he is currently polling 0-1% with African Americans.

He has no shot at fixing that either.

[El Guapo]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

Undersigned,
-The Meal

It is wishful thinking, though.

[Kraken]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

Undersigned,
-The Meal

It is wishful thinking, though.

Yeah, I didn't realize Butti has basically 0 support among blacks. Unless he can change that, he's going nowhere.

[El Guapo]

This may just be wishful thinking, but it is feeling to me like it might come down to Warren vs. Pete, and then the party will have to decide if they want to go more moderate liberal or not.

That would be a win/win outcome. I'm with Warren all the way, but Pete's my favorite moderate. Either one of them will beat Trump.

Undersigned,
-The Meal

It is wishful thinking, though.

Yeah, I didn't realize Butti has basically 0 support among blacks. Unless he can change that, he's going nowhere.

Warren's not much higher either, FWIW.

Regardless, I don't think any of the second-tier candidates are going anywhere until one of Biden / Warren / Sanders falters Buttigieg is one of the ones who *could* plausibly surge if and when that happens - most likely would be one of him / Harris / Klobuchar / Booker. But one issue that Pete would have is that I imagine the party establishment would favor the other second-tier candidates rather than risk going with a young gay mayor. He could surge quickly enough that the party would make its peace with him, but it's another obstacle that the others don't have.

[Kraken]

At this early stage, when only partisans are paying close attention, I would expect African-Americans to like Biden because he was Obama's #2. If/when Biden is gone, where will blacks go? Politico says Warren is gaining with them lately: "A Quinnipiac University national poll last week showed Warren winning 19 percent of the African American vote — a 9-point jump over the poll’s August results. In the latest Morning Consult poll, released Wednesday, she’s up by 5 percentage points with black voters since August."

Anyway, I'm revising my estimation of Biden's vulnerability for as long as he can count on that large, important demographic.

[El Guapo]

At this early stage, when only partisans are paying close attention, I would expect African-Americans to like Biden because he was Obama's #2. If/when Biden is gone, where will blacks go? Politico says Warren is gaining with them lately: "A Quinnipiac University national poll last week showed Warren winning 19 percent of the African American vote — a 9-point jump over the poll’s August results. In the latest Morning Consult poll, released Wednesday, she’s up by 5 percentage points with black voters since August."

Anyway, I'm revising my estimation of Biden's vulnerability for as long as he can count on that large, important demographic.

Yeah, that's part of my point that Biden isn't actually super vulnerable despite the media endlessly talking about him like he is. Not just due to his African-American support, but also because he's the #2 choice in polls of a lot of voters, even in surprising ways (like the number of people who want Sanders but have Biden as their #2 is surprisingly large).