Democratic debate

[BoSoxGal]

Thoughts?

I still love Bernie, but I have to admit Hillary presented very well and I think she'd beat the pants off any of the Republican candidates in a debate.

[Lord Jim]

Laying aside the substance of what was said, (if we were going to talk about substance, in my view of course they all lost) it seems to me Hillary was the clear winner last night...

She beat Sanders like a drum, particularly in the discussions on gun control and capitalism...

It seemed like she was the only one who had actually prepared for the debate, and nobody really went at her. Even when she gave weak answers that a good, prepared debater would have pounced on, nobody took the opportunity.

O'Malley had a few good moments and seemed to become less stiff and more engaged as the debate went on. The other two were hopeless. Webb looked like he had a pole shoved up his ass, and whined like he did too. Chaffee was hilariously awful.

[Guinevere]

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done."

There were more punchy quotes (Bernie wins hands down on the emails one), but this exactly encapsulates why I'm voting for HRC and why I've always supported her. She has the right background and ideals, but she knows ideals are not enough. You have to be able to lead and to govern (this was also a huge issue in 2008 for me and why I didn't support Obama at the primary stage and I think my concerns were proven true). She can and will lead and govern. She was Presidential, credible, direct, and firm. I honestly was not thrilled with the "I'm a woman" line, but I can overlook that.

She (and OMalley) eviscerated Bernie on guns. Apparently he does care about political expediency on some issues. Bernie did better on Wall Street - but his message is getting redundant and he needs a wider base. I don't think he's going to get that based on last night's performance.

OMalley was fine on substance but sooooo soft spoken. He seemed too soft to me, which was surprising.

Webb was a complaining uptight clown. Chaffee a 2 meter stiff board.

[Lord Jim]

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done."

You take that as a stand alone, and I admit it sounds good especially in the context of the Democratic nominating process.

But taken in the context of how she came to give that statement in the debate, that's example of an opportunity that no one exploited...

She was asked why on one occasion recently she had called herself a moderate, and then on another she called herself a progressive, and wasn't that an example of political expediency depending on the audience.

Sanders could have seized on that answer of hers and asked, "Well, Hillary then why did you call yourself a moderate? And why should we believe you won't revert back to that position?

But instead it was allowed to stand as an unchallenged applause line...

She was never challenged on her Wall Street ties, or all the money she's made in personal appearance fees from corporations, or the way she allowed State Department employees to earn tax payer paid salaries while simultaneously being on the payroll of private companies, or on a myriad of other points that she would be vulnerable on with the Democratic base...

If Sanders has any serious intention of winning, he's really going to have to up his game and start going at her hard on her areas of vulnerability. Hillary clearly has no problem going at him on his.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, I missed it. Durn.

[Guinevere]

This says it well: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

I never doubted that Hillary Clinton had many talents.

I just didn’t know that seamstress was among them.

There were moments in the first Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night when she threaded the needle as delicately and perfectly as a politician could.

The debate’s moderator, Anderson Cooper, noted that she’d told some audiences that she was a progressive but extolled her moderation in front of others. Wasn’t she just a chameleon, flashing whatever colors suited her at a given moment?

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” she said strongly but not stridently. “I know how to find common ground and I know how to stand my ground.” It was a practiced line — so practiced that she used it, somewhat awkwardly, a second time an hour later. But it was also a well-crafted line.

Like her main rival onstage, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, she had complaints about our country. Unlike Sanders, she communicated an unshakable pride in it nonetheless.

Sanders said America should look to Denmark. Clinton countered: “We are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America.”

Even when she was confronted anew by her vote in the Senate long ago to authorize the invasion of Iraq, she was neither defiant nor apologetic, steering a smooth midcourse by recalling that at debates in 2008, Barack Obama had attacked her for that. “After the election,” she pointed out, “he asked me to become secretary of state. He valued my judgment.”

The subject of Iraq caused her less grief than Sanders suffered on gun control, when not only Clinton but also Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, rejected his explanation of votes in the Senate against various bills and his insistence that he was representing rural areas with gun cultures, not a nationwide electorate. It was clumsy because he presents himself as a creature of pure principle, immune to political convenience.

But on Tuesday night an odd sort of role reversal occurred. For much of the debate, Sanders somehow came across as the embattled incumbent, targeted by the other four candidates, while Clinton came across as the energetic upstart.

He seemed bowed, irascible. She seemed buoyant, effervescent. It was as poised a performance as she’s finessed in a long time, and while I’ve just about given up making predictions about this confounding election — I never thought Donald Trump would last so long, and I never saw Ben Carson coming — I think Clinton benefited more from Tuesday’s stage than Sanders did.

She mixed confidence and moments of passion with instances of humor, and her manner was less didactic and robotic than it can often be. From Cooper and from the four men bookending her at the lecterns, she had everything thrown at her: Iraq, Benghazi, her coziness with Wall Street, her personal wealth.

But she was seldom rattled, though the discussion of her use of a home-brewed server for her emails as secretary of state did prompt a visible stiffening of her posture, a conspicuous strain in her smile. Will she ever, ever find language that takes full ownership of her mistake and that puts real flesh on her continued claim that she’s being as transparent as possible?

It was possibly her worst moment.


It was perhaps Sanders’s best. Surprisingly, he called for an end to talk about the emails, saying there were more important issues to focus on. High-mindedness met unusual campaign-trail generosity and gallantry. Clinton laughed and beamed. They shook hands, and I half expected a hug.

The debate isn’t going to change the fortunes of Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb, who were at the edges of the stage and will remain on the edges of the race. O’Malley might benefit an iota, and grew bolder as the night progressed.

Sanders grew redundant, returning with questionable frequency to a single issue — greed and income inequality — that made him sound like a one-note candidate. He’s 100 percent right to question corporations and trumpet the plight of the middle class. But he does so as more of a firebrand, calling for a “political revolution,” than as someone who can be trusted to make meaningful progress.

Clinton had her own redundancies, saying twice if not thrice as often as was necessary that she’d be the first female president. She’s gone from sidestepping her gender in 2008 to roaring about it now.

Apart from that, she was mum when silence served her best and fiery when that was the right call — for instance, when she vowed to “take the fight to the Republicans.”

And she benefited from the visual contrast when she stood side by side on TV next to Sanders, with his slight hunch, his somewhat garbled style of speech, and a moment when he cupped his hand behind his ear, signaling that he hadn’t heard the question.

He evoked yesterday. Despite many decades in the political trenches, she didn’t. It was a nifty trick. Turns out she’s a bit of a sorceress as well.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Every one of them, on both side of the aisle, have flaws, weaknesses, and are, after all, human politicians. But taking all of that into account, it is crystal clear to me who offers the best plan, the best vision, and the best leadership for this country -- HRC.

[Big RR]

Guin--I saw part of the debate last night and, while I think Bernie did make some good points, I do think Hillary came across as the winner. I'm trying to remain open minded, and it's too early for me to make any choice yet, but I do think she helped herself last night.

[Sue U]

I thought Hillz and O'Malley turned in the best individual performances. Bernie was not as fluid as I would have liked, but smooth has never been his style. Webb was terrible and if he has any supporters they should both run away from him as fast and far as possible. Chaffee, while not hurting himself, didn't help himself either, and remains a non-entity.

I am glad the candidates did not attack each other, Chaffee's occasional snipes about ethics and credibility notwithstanding. It helped focus the evening on issues, policy and the candidates' approaches to governing, which is what the debate (it was not a debate) should have been. It also differentiated the Democrats as thoughtful and serious, rather than the kavalkade of kray-kray and weapons-grade stupid that has been the GOP campaign so far.

[Lord Jim]

I'll say this...

Despite the fact that overwhelmingly anyone who has knowledge of how these are supposed to work, (both here and in pundit land) all agree that Hillary was the clear winner last night, and that Sanders pretty much blew it, I am not prepared to say that the scientific polling in the next few days will reflect that consensus...

This is a weird year; the old familiar rules don't seem to apply...

After the first GOP debate, the consensus among the "knowledgeable" people was that Trump had clearly done poorly overall and really shot himself in the foot with the Megyn Kelly exchange...

A few days later the first scientific poll comes out and his numbers went up...(he also had the highest percentage saying he won the debate)

After the second GOP debate, the consensus among the "knowledgeable" people was that Trump had done even worse, and that Ben Carson had turned in a lackluster and unimpressive performance...

Trump's numbers held steady, while Carson's took a big jump...

Well, that's just those crazy Republicans you say; Democrats will respond much more rationally...

Well, maybe not...

There are some early indicators that mirror the gap between the "knowledgeable" and the "teeming masses" after this debate, that were present after the GOP debates:

1. Facebook

According to US News and World Report, Bernie Sanders was the most talked-about candidate on Facebook, with Clinton in a distant second. A US News liveblog poll, conducted on Facebook, asked viewers to select the candidate they think won the debate. Sanders was the overwhelming favorite, with 82 percent of the vote.



2. Twitter

Bernie Sanders was mentioned 407,000 times on Twitter — more than any candidate combined. He also picked up an astonishing 42,730 new followers during and after the debate, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 25,475 new followers. In an analysis of tweets, 69 percent of those mentioning Bernie Sanders were positive. Only 56 percent of tweets mentioning Hillary Clinton were positive. When comparing the frequency of mentions, Bernie Sanders’ name or handle was mentioned 12,000 times per minute, while Clinton’s name or handle was mentioned 8,300 times per minute.

3. Fundraising

In Bernie Sanders’ closing statement, the Vermont senator mentioned how he recently set fundraising records by raising $26 million in the last quarter with over 650,000 contributors giving an average donation of $30. Sanders even threw in a last-minute fundraising ask, and it worked: the candidate gained a whopping $1.4 million in new contributions after the debate.

4. Focus Groups

When the mainstream media polled focus groups to ask who won the debate, group participants overwhelmingly chose Bernie Sanders. CNN selected a group of undecided voters in Nevada; conservative messaging guru Frank Lutz picked a focus group of Democratic voters in Florida; Fusion picked out a focus group of millennial voters from Miami. And in each instance, focus groups thought Bernie Sanders won the debate. Luntz’ participants described Sanders as “strong,” “smart,” and “for the people,” with nearly all participants picking him as their favorite. Fusion’s focus group picked Sanders 8-3.[ I saw some of the Luntz focus group discussion. I was absolutely floored. I couldn't believe that these people had watched the same debate that I had.]

5. Online Polling

Out of every mainstream media organization conducting an online poll asking participants who won, Bernie Sanders destroyed the competition. It wasn’t even close. Even Fox News and Drudge participants said Sanders won by a huge margin.

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-b ... its-claim/

Now, none of this is any kind of scientific polling, and its easy to dismiss by saying, "well, Bernie's supporters skew younger and they're more likely to be active online and in social media".

All of that is true; the real polls that will come out in the next few days are not going to show Sanders winning the debate with a 68-82% margin...

But it does indicate that he's likely to do a helluva lot better both in the "who won the debate?" polling and his overall support numbers then a lot of "knowledgeable" people think...

It also indicates that among those inclined to support him, Sander's debate performance did absolutely nothing to discourage or dispirit them. Quite the contrary; his performance seems to have left them more enthused and fired up than ever....

[Lord Jim]

Here's the Luntz focus group...

Sign post up ahead...

Prepare to enter:

[Big RR]

Jim--I do think among likely democratic voters (not necessarily primary voters) there is a bit of any "anyone but Hillary" movement; Bernie is currently the candidate they have seized on because there is no other viable candidate presented. and many of those will be convinced that Bernie won the debate solely based on their views of Hillary (if they watched debate at all). Which is why I think polls (or debates for that matter) this far out are pretty pointless.

[Sue U]

I don't think it's so much "anybody but Hillary" as it is Sanders' message resonating with many in a disaffected electorate, reflecting the very reason for their disaffection: "For whose benefit is this government being operated? Why aren't the middle and working classes getting a fair share of the economic recovery, while those who are already super-rich profit in outsized proportion? Why are we always told we can't afford what every other industrialized nation has and takes for granted?" While Hillary pledges to work the system to "get things done," Sanders is raising these questions as a direct challenge to the system itself. That's why he talks about a political revolution, and why he draws so much support. He taps into the same vein of frustration with "politics as usual" that Trump does.

[Big RR]

Sue--I agree with you about Sanders' message and his supporters, but think a lot of the electorate really don't know all that much about him and his policies, they just want a change from business as usual, and, rightly or wrongly, see Hillary as just that. The fact that there has been a push to get Biden to run taps into this.

[oldr_n_wsr]

they just want a change from business as usual

That is the slogan for this presidential election cycle. Only problem is....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.....

[Lord Jim]

While Hillary pledges to work the system to "get things done," Sanders is raising these questions as a direct challenge to the system itself. That's why he talks about a political revolution, and why he draws so much support. He taps into the same vein of frustration with "politics as usual" that Trump does.

I think that's exactly right. (And Carson's popularity speaks to this as well)

With a significant portion of the population, (larger than at any time in the 40 years I've been following politics) across party lines, there is a visceral anger and frustration with the political establishment that is so deeply felt that it overrides any other consideration...

To this group, being unpolished and unprepared in a debate are seen as positives, so long as you are also seen as strong and as fed up with "the system" as they are. They are seen as positives, because they interpret this lack of polish and preparation as indicators that you are untarnished by "politics as usual"...

[BoSoxGal]

I don't think it's so much "anybody but Hillary" as it is Sanders' message resonating with many in a disaffected electorate, reflecting the very reason for their disaffection: "For whose benefit is this government being operated? Why aren't the middle and working classes getting a fair share of the economic recovery, while those who are already super-rich profit in outsized proportion? Why are we always told we can't afford what every other industrialized nation has and takes for granted?" While Hillary pledges to work the system to "get things done," Sanders is raising these questions as a direct challenge to the system itself. That's why he talks about a political revolution, and why he draws so much support. He taps into the same vein of frustration with "politics as usual" that Trump does.

This!

[Guinevere]

Sue--I agree with you about Sanders' message and his supporters, but think a lot of the electorate really don't know all that much about him and his policies, they just want a change from business as usual, and, rightly or wrongly, see Hillary as just that. The fact that there has been a push to get Biden to run taps into this.

Joe Biden, the man who has run for President more times than HRC? No, I don't think the Biden push is about "change," its about "we don't like Hillary." Which is one more reason I still don't think he is going to run.

[Guinevere]

I don't think it's so much "anybody but Hillary" as it is Sanders' message resonating with many in a disaffected electorate, reflecting the very reason for their disaffection: "For whose benefit is this government being operated? Why aren't the middle and working classes getting a fair share of the economic recovery, while those who are already super-rich profit in outsized proportion? Why are we always told we can't afford what every other industrialized nation has and takes for granted?" While Hillary pledges to work the system to "get things done," Sanders is raising these questions as a direct challenge to the system itself. That's why he talks about a political revolution, and why he draws so much support. He taps into the same vein of frustration with "politics as usual" that Trump does.

It sounds good on its face, and its a movement that is perhaps wide, but rather shallow. What I mean is that the average Bernie voter is not middle and working class, his message is clearly not resonating with that demographic (which is why HRC is ahead nationally). Instead, Bernie is the voice for the college kids and (generally) the educated middle and upper middle class (who may have their own vision of improving life for the middle and working classes). A lot of them are definitely "ABH" in what I've seen them post on social media and heard them say in the press. Far more anti-HRC than HRC folks are anti-Bernie. I also noticed that as a group, they were apoplectic that HRC got such good post-debate press. It was kind of amusing, they blamed it all on the corporate ownership of the media. Maybe that's true, but they never complained when so much of that same media (especially the NY Times) was kissing Bernie's backside (and trying to kick HRC's) all summer . . . . . .

[Big RR]

Guin--sure he's run a number of times, but I don't think people see him as an insider the same way they do Hillary. Sure, there may be some people who truly don't like her, but I think a lot of people think of her as business as usual for whatever reason. Biden may be vice president, but I would bet a lot of people couldn't identify the VP by name if asked, although they would have been able to identify the SOS as Hillary when she held that post. Which is what gives him an outsider status (and her not) in some people's minds.

FWIW, I don't think there's a lot of legitimate reasons to dislike Hillary for most dems--her positions are fairly consistent and she has done well and been effective in the positions she has held. But many just don't trust her; for some, I'm sure it is because she's a woman (face it, this sort of prejudice is alive and well, sadly), but for others the reasons are more obscure.

[Guinevere]

I agree the legitimate reasons to dislike her are few, but I recognize there are, and always have been, a lot of people who don't like her (on the Democratic side. I'm not touching the Republican reasons with a 10-foot pole). My Swede, who loves and respects smart educated women, cannot abide her, but he can't articulate it well, except he claims its a trust issue. Whatever, its there, its real, and (I think) it would be silly to pretend it doesn't exist.