Well I mean, wouldn't you be confused too? Can't blame her for asking herself who the hell these two guys are
Democratic Debate: Night One
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
I watched the first couple of minutes but couldn't bring myself to live through two hours of torture, so I switched to the Cardinal baseball game. I did turn back between innings, however. Here's my observation of the little I saw:
The night seemed designed to showcase Warren; NBC and the Party wanted to prop her us as best they could. She got the first question and it was obvious she knew in advance what the question was going to be. Her response was clearly a canned speech she had practiced ahead of time. That's about when I turned it off. One thing I noticed was every time I turned it back on she was the one answering a question. It might have been coincidence, but I never saw anyone else. Did she get the lion's share of airtime?
My observation of Warren is she's possibly a robot. Every response was with the same emotional intensity, she had no ebb and flow. It was as if every possible problem the country faces is of the same importance. Which means they are of no importance to her. They are just chances for her to show her empathy with whatever mistreated group a particular problem is designed to appease. To me she came across as an angry schoolmarm. There was no up and down with her demeanor, just continuous constrained passionate fury. There were a couple of times I thought she might break into tears. I saw no presidential mettle in the woman whatsoever. God save the country if she wins, we will need His divine intervention.
As I said she is the only person I ever saw speak, so I have no idea who "won" the debate.
I have doubts that Tulsi would accept a VP candidacy if it is offered. There is no doubt in my mind her anti-war stance is real, while it's nothing more than another chance for the others to pontificate about. If she were VP she would have to "defend" all administration actions. I don't think she could bring herself to do that if a President Biden, for example, continued the multiple war efforts currently being waged. Just my opinion.
IDK if Tulsi would accept a VP candidacy if offered, just my thoughts that I think she's worthy of it. I think she will drop out sooner rather than later and is still a recognizable name to pair with a more establishment candidate, especially one of the remaining males, Bernie maybe? Seems like he'd take a shot at asking her.
I get the Warren is a robot vibe as well but she knew going into last night that she shouldn't make a mistake and canned responses will work. She wasn't challenged. She didn't get the lions share of talking opportunitites but she was top 3 as far as words spoken.
Honestly, the 2nd half of the debate was a lot of Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow with their very long winded questions and they should have just let Lester and Savannah run the whole thing IMO, felt like they actually controlled the amount of time candidates got to speak fairly well.
I was getting an alarm permit in Dallas by phone yesterday. They asked if I had any weapons or kids or elderly people in the house. Obviously the police would like to know what they are walking into when the respond to an alarm, but I sure didn't like the idea of telling the government about weapons I own ...
So who won?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/gabbard-triumphs-initial-online-polls-wins-debate/
@Ponca Dan should like this.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/gabbard-triumphs-initial-online-polls-wins-debate/
@Ponca Dan should like this.
Interesting on the Google Searches trending with Tulsi as most searched in a majority of states.
True, but I don't really think she "wowed" anyone. She did what she had to do, not mess up.
IMO, given those around her and those who were not there (because they are going tonight), she should have made more of an impression.
Not a surprising statement coming from a Republican. I understand you don't like this policy position of De Blasio (or Warren for that matter, who agrees with de Blasio) but that doesn't mean De Blasio didn't have a good night among Democrats. His argument probably is a big win for him among Democrats, especially the base of the party.
De Blasio needs the attention of Democratic primary voters right now. He needs more positive articles written about him, which he is now getting (see link). That was his goal last night and I think he succeeded. Whether it helps his poll numbers is yet to be seen.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/addybaird/bill-de-blasio-2020-democratic-debate
NBC analyst declared a winner
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald-trump-winner-of-first-democratic-debate
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald-trump-winner-of-first-democratic-debate
What I saw was only two of 10 would go for giving up their private healthcare for gubment run crap; pretty telling
Maybe, but I have doubts. I think you have become too accustomed to typical opportunistic politicians who don't have any principle they would not violate under any circumstances. Tulsi showed in the last election she is not your father's politician, publicly calling out the Democratic Party for stacking the deck against Bernie. And I am confident her anti-war stance is not just rhetoric looking for a hook to latch onto potential voters. She is a true believer in that regard. If she were VP I cannot see her defending a pro-war policy her boss, the president, might promote or initiate. She would condemn such an action putting her at odds with her president and the party that would swallow any claptrap he might initiate. If she were VP and the president got us into another war, or continued one of the many wars we are already involved in, it would not surprise me to see her resign in protest. I don't think someone like Biden would want to take that chance. I don't think the post will be offered, and I don't think she would accept if it were.
"Not a surprising statement coming from a Republican." Discount my opinion on it, that's fine and dandy but don't come complaining back to me when you need a heart procedure and need to wait 4, 5 months, or a year for it to be done with your medicare plan. I don't want government controlling prices, plans, when and what doctors I see, reducing the quality of care I receive, extending wait times. You're about to put 300+ million people on a government run healthcare system and don't expect any hiccups or outright failures, SMH.
I don't doubt that Gabbard's foreign policy stance is legit. However, she is a politician and she is running for President. She wants to move up the ladder (and there is nothing wrong with that, btw). If Biden offered her the VP spot, she would take it. There is no doubt about it.
I do agree with you though that if Biden is the nominee, it is highly doubtful he would offer Gabbard anyway. There would be better choices for him that would not create the potential troubles that a possible Gabbard pick could bring about.
I'm not discounting your opinion. I just stated that your opinion is what one would expect from a Republican but that De Blasio wasn't seeking to impress Republicans last night. It is misguided to judge his performance based on what Republicans think of his policy proposals.
Except for Gabbard, not a single one of them could have received 5% of the Dem vote just 12 years ago. There platform is so far left it is not recognizable to normal Dems and independents.
Honestly, Trump should be easy pickings for them, but they are going to lose by insisting on policies that a super majority of Americans either don’t agree with or don’t think should be close to a priority.
These are loser ideas: open borders, benefits for illegal immigrants, late-term abortions, pro-Palestine, making tax rates more burdensome, proposing an obviously unconstitutional and impossible to implement wealth tax, reducing personal freedoms, wiping college debt but not recognizing/rewarding work, focusing on a fake Russia collusion conspiracy, promoting victimhood, identity politics, and embracing socialism.
Honestly, Trump should be easy pickings for them, but they are going to lose by insisting on policies that a super majority of Americans either don’t agree with or don’t think should be close to a priority.
These are loser ideas: open borders, benefits for illegal immigrants, late-term abortions, pro-Palestine, making tax rates more burdensome, proposing an obviously unconstitutional and impossible to implement wealth tax, reducing personal freedoms, wiping college debt but not recognizing/rewarding work, focusing on a fake Russia collusion conspiracy, promoting victimhood, identity politics, and embracing socialism.
He’s not out to impress Republicans but a candidate that can’t speak to moderates doesn’t have a chance in winning, that’s a fact.
You don't know that he can't speak to enough "moderates" (you are just assuming he can't). We haven't got to that part of the election yet.
Also, a very important fact to remember is that a candidate who can't fire up the Democratic base to come out and vote for him/her doesn't have a chance of winning either.
Actually, a majority of Americans believe in many of the policies they are advocating according to most polls.
But don't let that get in the way of your assertions.
Hmmm, 73% of Americans support lowering illegal immigration, even in NY 62% do not support the bill to allow late term abortions, only 29% support socialism.
No, I will stick to facts. Although I will agree that wealth tax is probably supported because greedy people love the legal taking from others.
After thinking about it overnight I have concluded you are wrong about Tulsi. There is no way she would accept an offer for VP. It would completely neuter her. She would just become the pretty face of whatever administration she would have to shill for. That’s not her style. She’s not one to stand silent while her government continues to behave monstrously.
Instead she will become the face of the peace movement. She is brilliant, articulate, intellectually very quick on her feet, is an incredible interviewee. She could actually do some good as the voice of reason in today’s hyper-partisan war-filled atmosphere.
An offer to make her VP would be a blatant attempt to shut her up. They’d have her traipsing all over the world attending funerals and ribbon cutting festivities, anything to keep her out of the spotlight. She’s way too smart to fall for that trick.
No, I think you’re dead wrong. Even if it were offered (it won’t be) she would politely say no and launch her career as an independent voice of reason in this ever increasingly mad world.
"An offer to make her VP would be a blatant attempt to shut her up." lol, seriously?
Ponca, I don't know what you are smoking, but it must be some good stuff.
Gabbard is a politician and a progressive politician at that. She wants to move up the ladder, she wants to be at the table where the decisions are made. If you think she would pass up the VP spot and a place at that table to have influence so she could go out and become an "independent voice of reason" (whatever that is), you are off your rocker.
Again, Gabbard would take the VP spot in a heartbeat. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is probably what she is angling for or a place in the cabinet. Sure, she would prefer to be on a ticket with someone like Sanders who she has more in common with. But if Biden came calling, and offered her a place at the table, she would jump at such an opportunity.
The problem is, Biden wouldn't make such an offer so this conversation is really mute. Not to mention that Biden may not even be the nominee. Gabbard needs someone more aligned with Sanders to get the nomination in order to get a spot in the future administration.
Medicare for all that takes away private insurance isn’t a moderate take. That’s full tilt left. What you are failing to remember is that once you get out of the Dem primary (and your public debate views are out) whoever wins takes on the President. If you don’t think he’s going to bring up slashing private insurance, raising taxes, and covering undocumented immigrants under medical plans then you are living under a rock. Even worse if that person flip flops on their position to win the Dem nomination and change their stance just to beat President Trump. You have to be able to talk to moderates and quoting Che Guevara in the place where a large population of Cuban immigrants shows me he isn’t a smart man.
First, moderates are not identical. There are all types of moderates, and I know some self-described moderates who support Medicare For All.
Trump is also not popular with many moderates or Independents. His policies turn many of them away and the future Democratic nominee will make sure to point that out as well.
And lastly, while I agree with you that the Democratic nominee will need some moderate (or at least independent support), the nominee must also fire up her/his base and get those voters out to the polls in order to win. There is no doubt about that.
"An offer to make her VP would be a blatant attempt to shut her up." lol, seriously?
Ponca, I don't know what you are smoking, but it must be some good stuff.
Gabbard is a politician and a progressive politician at that. She wants to move up the ladder, she wants to be at the table where the decisions are made. If you think she would pass up the VP spot and a place at that table to have influence so she could go out and become an "independent voice of reason" (whatever that is), you are off your rocker.
Again, Gabbard would take the VP spot in a heartbeat. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is probably what she is angling for or a place in the cabinet. Sure, she would prefer to be on a ticket with someone like Sanders who she has more in common with. But if Biden came calling, and offered her a place at the table, she would jump at such an opportunity.
The problem is, Biden wouldn't make such an offer so this conversation is really mute. Not to mention that Biden may not even be the nominee. Gabbard needs someone more aligned with Sanders to get the nomination in order to get a spot in the future administration.
We'll just have to disagree on this. An anti-war Gabbard would be sent out to fetch coffee while the "big boys" were deciding which country to bomb next. She would be silenced on purpose, sent overseas on goodwill excursions at every opportunity.. The job would be offered to her only if the presidential nominee was sure he could keep her quiet. I don't think Tulsi is a typical politician that seeks power for power's sake. She would understand that she would have much more influence as an independent voice, even if that means resisting a president from her own party. Which she could not do if she were a part of the administration. She stood up to Hillary's machine, and she would stand up to any president that wanted to keep us involved in war.
But you're right. She won't be offered the job. For precisely the reason I state. No presidential nominee that is beholden to the neocon/neoliberal establishment would dare to offer her the job.
“I know some moderates” is the equivalent of I have a black friend.
Yes, people are generally not one issue voters however, the take of taking away private insurance and putting the entire country on a government run healthcare plan is a progressive or in other words very liberal plan, would you not agree?
