Octopus Overlords

Yup, there's another one tonight at 9 pm EST, less than three weeks before the votes start landing. The player characters are the four leaders -- Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg -- plus Klobuchar and, for some reason, Steyer. Expectation is that Warren and Sanders will bring out their knives and joust for the progressive mantle; IDK if we'll really see that, or if it's mainly media setup, but that's what pundits are looking for.

I'm also reading that this is the first debate that unengaged voters will watch. Supposedly most Americans are only just beginning to pay attention, so the stakes are higher than in the previous cattle-call debates.

I'm beyond cynical over the absurdity that is the (D) party at this point, but I'm honestly having a hard time imagining a more anemic event than the debate that's been scheduled tonight.

Prediction: Someone will try to make a soundbite-ready barb at Biden, Warren or Sanders. This is the 7th debate and there are still 12 people running for an election that is ~298 days away. An overview:

The six candidates who qualified are Biden; Sanders; Warren, the senator from Massachusetts; Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana; Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer.

The previous debate was the most entertaining of the lot, so I'll tune in again tonight even though I'm sick of the sniping about health care plans. With the primaries almost upon us, there should be some sparks. There Can Be Only One, and each of the people on that stage intends to be that one, and each sees a path to doing it. Except maybe Steyer; it's hard to imagine any scenario where he comes out on top...presumably he imagines one.

Moderators will try to set up a fight, but I suspect that both Warren and Sanders will play the "We have more important issues to talk about" card.

How did Steyer qualify but not Bloomberg?

From what I understand, he doesn't want to be on the debate stage - he's happy to just buy air time. From Vice:

Bloomberg is the only candidate who has hit the polling threshold but not the donor requirement, which is surely because he won't take donations—if he wanted, he could run ads soliciting small donations and get the required 225,000 people to chip in a buck or so, as his fellow billionaire candidate Steyer has done.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:16 pm How did Steyer qualify but not Bloomberg?

Steyer has also enjoyed a polling boomlet because he is absolutely flooding certain markets with TV ads. His name recognition is suddenly very high, and at this early stage a lot of people's poll answers come down to that.

I thought everyone except Biden had a pretty good night -- that man can't get out a sentence without stumbling over himself, and he looked like it was past his bedtime. Even Steyer held his own. At the same time, I doubt that anybody changed any minds tonight. If you went into it with a favorite, you probably came out with the same favorite. I like Warren because she's the smartest one of the bunch; many don't like her because they don't trust intellectuals. Klobuchar has always grated on me and always will.

If pressed to declare a winner, I'd give it to Bernie for loosening up and being the most authentic. He seemed to genuinely enjoy being there, relishing fighting the big fight.

i super want a list of different questions. tired of hearing about health insurance and child care.

Also, I still don't know what to make of the alleged spat between Warren and Sanders over his supposed remark about a woman being unelectable. He emphatically stated that he never said that and gave a heartfelt pro-woman answer. Then Warren elliptically refused to back down without actually calling him a liar. In the end, it's a he-said, she-said that will be quickly forgotten because it didn't generate the desired reaction. But, as a political junkie, I'd still like to know which one of them is lying or just plain wrong.

It seems bizarrely out of character for Bernie and she is running this cat and mouse game on it. I cant be 100% sure but I'm 99% sure she is playing some game here. Also using an EA to cancel student debt is insane. Might as well set the market on fire. I'm for comprehensive relief but that is wayyyyyy too far. And obviously Bernie's plan is even worse.

I can't be sure, but it sounded like their interpretation of what was said was different. I base this on how they responded. Bernie indicated he never said a woman can't be President. Warren heard a woman cannot beat Trump (in 2016). I could absolutely hear him saying that and bent it into Bernie thinking a woman is/was incapable of being President. Regardless, it seems like a strange hill to die on.

What I didn't get was the moderator asking Bernie about it, him denying it and then her follow up to Warren was, "When Bernie told you a woman can't be President..."

Like...he literally just said it didn't happen.

Joe seemed sedated. Not Trump level high as a goddamn kite slurring his words sedated, but down. From what I saw (admittedly not much), we're in trouble.

Primary debates: dysfunctional family airs dirty laundry.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:28 am Primary debates: dysfunctional family airs dirty laundry.

Democrats: A dysfunctional family ignoring that the house is on fire while they debate in the smoky room about things that they can't or won't actually do.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:46 am Joe seemed sedated. Not Trump level high as a goddamn kite slurring his words sedated, but down. From what I saw (admittedly not much), we're in trouble.

One recap that I read this morning said that Biden was present, and that's all anybody expects of him.

I only watched 30 minutes or so of the debate (sections mostly focused on trade and the Sanders/Warren “a woman can’t be President” thing). My takeaways:

Biden can’t get it done. As much as I would have liked him to be present a solid moderate candidacy in opposition to Trump, I just think he’s too far past his prime. Watching him stumble and bumble and struggle on stage was just painful. He’s just not a compelling candidate today.

Warren came across pretty well last night, but she still seems like a broken record with her attacks on “multinational corporations.” She just seems so over-the-top anti-business.

Bernie was Bernie. How many times did he rant about how he is “sick and tired” of this or that? He comes across as a grouchy curmudgeon. But at least he had his moment when he forcefully and unequivocally committed to help any other candidate who is nominated win the general election. I hope the Bernie Bros noted that.

Buttigieg did well, but he looks so green. I wish he had 10 more years of experience. His youth and freshness are a double-edged sword: both exciting but also deeply worrisome.

I don’t care enough about Steyer or Klobuchar to comment, although Klobuchar’s invocation of the name of her close personal friend, the governor of Kansas, whose name she couldn’t remember was truly cringeworthy.

All in all, I remain unimpressed with this field of candidates and very worried that we’re going to be stuck with Trump for four more years. Bummer. Big, huge, terrible bummer.

I did not watch the debate, but I suspect Tulsi Gabbard gave her best debate performance yet.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:59 am I did not watch the debate, but I suspect Tulsi Gabbard gave her best debate performance yet.

Yes, she protested the regime change in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

How are any of these milquetoast candidates gonna stand up to Trumps barrage?
Dems are in deep, deep trouble.

Hopefully there will be more voters who dislike racist, homophobic juvenile insults than there are Trump supporters.

stimpy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:03 pm How are any of these milquetoast candidates gonna stand up to Trumps barrage?
Dems are in deep, deep trouble.

Consider: HRC, a deeply flawed candidate beat Trump, who was not under impeachment, by 3 million votes. The Dems made landslide gains in 2018. Trump's base is static. You could make a strong case that even milquetoast wins this election.

Except

1. Clinton wasn't deeply flawed (she had vulnerabilities, much of which were the results of decades of Republican attacks, but she also had plenty of strengths. See her victory in the debates when, by comparison, none of the Republican candidates were able to do well during the primary)
2. Trump will be the incumbent this time, which will likely make it more difficult to defeat him.
3. IIRC, the 2018 victory was less about gains, and more about lower turnout among Trump voters. Voters who voted in 2016 but didn't vote in 2018 were much more likely to vote for Trump. (It's also not clear to me that the anti-Trump sentiment is as strong post Democrats winning the House and than it was prior to it)

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:29 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:03 pm How are any of these milquetoast candidates gonna stand up to Trumps barrage?
Dems are in deep, deep trouble.

Consider: HRC, a deeply flawed candidate beat Trump, who was not under impeachment, by 3 million votes. The Dems made landslide gains in 2018. Trump's base is static. You could make a strong case that even milquetoast wins this election.

That's what Dems will have to count on. Working against them: Four more years of voter suppression and more effective foreign interference. After seeing Putin's success in 2016, all of our adversaries are working hard to reelect Trump and sow chaos.

In the next few months, voters will decide whether to go boring (Biden) or bold (Sanders). The boring approach doesn't motivate anyone, but might peel off some of those hypothetical fence-sitting Republicans. The bold approach fires up the base and might inspire some of the vast numbers of non-voting voters to vote. Neither approach is a sure winner. IMO, Warren is the best bridge between them, but trying to keep a foot in each world isn't helping her now.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:19 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:29 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:03 pm How are any of these milquetoast candidates gonna stand up to Trumps barrage?
Dems are in deep, deep trouble.

Consider: HRC, a deeply flawed candidate beat Trump, who was not under impeachment, by 3 million votes. The Dems made landslide gains in 2018. Trump's base is static. You could make a strong case that even milquetoast wins this election.

That's what Dems will have to count on. Working against them: Four more years of voter suppression and more effective foreign interference. After seeing Putin's success in 2016, all of our adversaries are working hard to reelect Trump and sow chaos.

In the next few months, voters will decide whether to go boring (Biden) or bold (Sanders). The boring approach doesn't motivate anyone, but might peel off some of those hypothetical fence-sitting Republicans. The bold approach fires up the base and might inspire some of the vast numbers of non-voting voters to vote. Neither approach is a sure winner. IMO, Warren is the best bridge between them, but trying to keep a foot in each world isn't helping her now.

I would consider that Trump hasn't caused total economic collapse, taxes for the working person have been cut nominally, and the stock market continues to show gaining value for people's retirement. The Dems have to show they aren't crying wolf, even as Trump talks about both sides, assassinates people, fucks porn stars behind his pregnant wife's back, doesn't divest himself, influences markets, makes unilateral decisions as if they were national security, sleeps with Putin, lies daily, etc... etc... etc... I don't know the right approach, but I do hope there is one and we take it.

After wanting him this time four years ago, I'm swallowing my pride, and realizing Sanders is more about Sanders being president, than he is about being the right president for the US. I'll still vote for him, but I won't like it.

The strong economy is going to be a big hurdle for defeating Trump. I think that goes without saying.

...so I probably shouldn't have said it.

538: The January Debate in Six Charts.

Interesting result on pre- and post-debate favorability. By 538's survey, Sanders dropped 3.6 points in favorability. Biden lost 1.6, and the rest rose.

Trump screwed over people with retirement plans as of January 1, forcing payouts to adult children and grandchildren of any age over 10 years instead of their lifetime.

Warren and Bernie could get no traction out of this tax hike on the working class, as their proposals are worse. Trump also needs to get the trade war out of the headlines before Democrats can argue it’s a “hidden tax” on US consumers.

Sigh...CNN is crowing about having the audio from Warren and Sander’s post debate drama. Were they always this slimy?

My Grandparents arguing.....
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ate-099542

Four more years of MAGAing. We are well and truly fucked.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:44 pm Sigh...CNN is crowing about having the audio from Warren and Sander’s post debate drama. We’re they always this slimy?

We are.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:44 pm Sigh...CNN is crowing about having the audio from Warren and Sander’s post debate drama. We’re they always this slimy?

The audio was newsworthy in that the interaction was heavily discussed and what was talked about was heavily speculated and media follows the ratings, and I think any modern media would have released it if they had access to it (though maybe not in the days before 24 hour news channels).

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:50 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:44 pm Sigh...CNN is crowing about having the audio from Warren and Sander’s post debate drama. We’re they always this slimy?

We are.

Lol...turnabout is fair play.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:43 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:50 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:44 pm Sigh...CNN is crowing about having the audio from Warren and Sander’s post debate drama. We’re they always this slimy?

We are.

Lol...turnabout is fair play.