2020 Presidential Election 3: We're Down To Old White Men...And Fucking Kanye.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[nausicaa]

So great that Sanders can do the GOP's work for them by pushing Biden on abortion and hurting him in swing states. Maybe I was outside of it before because I wasn't a Dem, but now I so clearly see the reasons for the Sanders resentment in 2016.

God, I hope this is his swan song and he drops out after tonight. I only have so much bandwidth these days.

[nausicaa]

Oh cool, now he's pushing Biden on fracking, so he can lose Pennsylvania too. 

A graph charting my dislike of Sanders in the past two months would directly mirror one of the spread of Covid-19.

[Rachel333]

Remember how people were saying that Bernie was actually doing this debate to help Biden?

He's showing that his own ego is more important than defeating Trump, and apparently even more important than having people take the risk of going to a crowded space to vote, since he wants to keep the primaries competitive.

[fraurosena]

So, I hear Biden has publicly committed to naming a woman as VP during the debate, but Sanders prevaricated on the matter. Huh.

[fraurosena]

This comeback is everything.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Winners and losers from the Bernie Sanders-Joe Biden debate"

Spoiler

As coronavirus shuts down many activities across the country and even causes states to postpone their primaries, the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates with a shot at the nomination pressed forward with an audience-free debate Sunday night.

Here’s what we learned, in the form of winners and losers.

Winners

Joe Biden: Bernie Sanders right now needs a fundamental change in the race to chip away at Biden’s delegate lead, and it’s not clear anything transpired Sunday night that might provide that. He repeatedly pointed to votes Biden had taken as a senator and bills he had worked on that don’t fit as well with today’s Democratic Party, and Biden got testy at times. But Biden was largely focused, and he repeatedly brought things back to what was clearly a point of emphasis for him: Saying he had worked to get things done while Sanders lobbed bombs from the sidelines. “I did that, while you were watching,” he said at one point about a renewable energy bill. He repeated his talking point that “people want results, not a revolution,” and then expanded on it. “We have problems we have to solve now -- now,” he said. “What’s the revolution going to do? Disrupt everything in the meantime?"

Biden wasn’t sterling at the debate, but he seldom is, and the lack of an audience seemed to work against Sanders, who often thrives on them. Sanders also needed more from this than Biden did. Biden drove home the point that he would be a steady, pragmatic hand at an uncertain time. And the crisis we find ourselves in right now fits nicely with that message.

Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and other would-be female VPs: Biden made some real news, which is somewhat rare in these debates: “I will pick a woman to be my vice president,” he said. Sanders was asked whether he would do the same thing, and had to be pressed by a moderator before he said, “In all likelihood, I will.” This may not be terribly surprising. With two white men remaining in the Democratic field, it’s been likely the nominee’s running mate would either be a woman or a racial minority. But it did solidify that people like Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Stacey Abrams, Elizabeth Warren — and others — are now the ones competing for a shot at the nation’s No. 2 job. On the flip side, people like Cory Booker and Julián Castro will apparently not be in the mix.

Strategically for Biden, it was a wise move. He was coming off a half-hour of pretty tough attacks on his voting record on issues like the economy and abortion, and it successfully changed the subject. (Biden, for what it’s worth, has also said he would name an African American female to the Supreme Court.)

Audience-free debates: This was the first debate in decades without an audience. Let’s hope it’s not the last. The audience marred a recent debate by clearly favoring certain candidates (Mike Bloomberg) over others (Sanders). And there is really no reason for audience reactions to color who has good answers and who doesn’t. It encourages playing to the crowd rather than having substantive debates. Sunday night’s debate may not have been the best we’ve ever seen, but it was certainly better thanks to the lack of cheering and booing.

Losers

Sanders on coronavirus: One of the things that plagued Sanders during his 2016 campaign was his tendency to fall back on his economic message as kind of a crutch, even when asked about things like race relations. And that struck again Sunday night. Repeatedly when asked about coronavirus, Sanders struggled to come up with immediate solutions and reverted to talking about his Medicare-for-all proposal. When he was asked about how he would hold China accountable for allegedly covering up the spread of coronavirus, he pivoted to attacking President Trump. About the best he could muster was talking about how we needed to bring world leaders together to respond. Oh, and he incorrectly referred to coronavirus as “Ebola.”

It got to the point where Biden repeatedly pointed to the lack of answers from Sanders. After Sanders brought up one of his pet issues — income inequality — Biden shot back that coronavirus “has nothing to do with the legitimate concern about income inequality in our country.” He added, “I don’t disagree with that. You’re asking about the crisis. … It’s not going to be solved by a change in tax policy. It’s not going to be solved with a change in health care.”

Biden’s Medicare-for-all attack: While Biden is ahead in the delegate race and is on pace for the nomination, it was he who started the jousting Sunday night. While talking about coronavirus, Biden launched into talking about how Medicare-for-all wouldn’t solve the problem. “With all due respect to Medicare-for-all, you have a single-payer system in Italy,” Biden said. “It doesn’t work there. It has nothing to do with Medicare-for-all.”

Biden repeatedly made the case that such situations could be addressed with immediate action rather than an overhaul of the health-care system. But then Sanders hit back by saying, “The trick is, do we have the guts to take on the health care industry, some of which are funding the vice president’s campaign?” Biden then pulled out of the joust, saying, “I don’t want to get into a back and forth in term of our politics here.” But he started it! And then he didn’t finish it.

It didn’t seem Sanders was nearly as anxious to mix it up Sunday night. You kind of wonder if Biden hadn’t gone at him right away if they might have had a more civil debate — which would have been good for Biden. After Sanders began attacking Biden’s record hard on entitlements and bailouts, Biden appeared taken aback. When asked about how he would reach out to Sanders supporters, Biden said, “He’s making it hard for me right now. I was trying to give him credit for some things."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Rachel333]

I've seen a lot of Bernie supporters criticizing Biden for promising to select a woman, saying that he should select the best person instead of choosing someone just because she's a woman. It's always a frustrating argument, and shows their sexism. (Also they never had any issue with Bernie saying he would be looking for a female VP.) There are a number of people qualified to be VP. There's nothing wrong with saying that when you're choosing among those people you're going to choose a woman, someone who has a different perspective on things than you do.

Plus they always look at factors for VP other than their ability to do the job. They want someone who is going to help bring in another demographic, whether it's a VP from a different area of the country, or getting a young VP to complement an old president, or doing what both Obama and Hillary Clinton did: choosing a white man as VP to make people feel more comfortable voting for a black man or a woman. I bet the people upset at Biden saying he would choose a woman didn't bring out the "you should choose the best person for the job, not just choose someone because he's a white man" argument against Obama and Clinton.

[Marmion]

I was curious as to how June Lapine   is taking things . She's someone I somewhat hatewatch , who supports both Bernie Sanders , and Tulsi Gabbard . And this is what I found . I don't know if this is on the whole typical of the Bernie babes / bros , but take and make of it what you will .  

 

[Marmion]

On 3/12/2020 at 8:57 PM, hoipolloi said:

Geoff Botkin! Is that you?

 

No , and for what it's worth , my parents are both registered Republicans .  I had chosen to adopt the viewpoint of Marxian socialism , after reading up on it for myself .  Although now , I am beginning to realize just how much like a political cult some of its adherents have become .  

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I've seen a lot of Bernie supporters criticizing Biden for promising to select a woman, saying that he should select the best person instead of choosing someone just because she's a woman. It's always a frustrating argument, and shows their sexism. (Also they never had any issue with Bernie saying he would be looking for a female VP.) There are a number of people qualified to be VP. There's nothing wrong with saying that when you're choosing among those people you're going to choose a woman, someone who has a different perspective on things than you do.

Plus they always look at factors for VP other than their ability to do the job. They want someone who is going to help bring in another demographic, whether it's a VP from a different area of the country, or getting a young VP to complement an old president, or doing what both Obama and Hillary Clinton did: choosing a white man as VP to make people feel more comfortable voting for a black man or a woman. I bet the people upset at Biden saying he would choose a woman didn't bring out the "you should choose the best person for the job, not just choose someone because he's a white man" argument against Obama and Clinton.

Don't think for a minute that the potential veep has not been chosen and spoken to about it already. Waiting until after the Conference would be leaving it much too late in the game. The strategy going forward after the candidacy has been won will need to have been consolidated between them beforehand, and such things aren't done in a week or so.

[Dandruff]

I'm guessing it's either Klobuchar or Warren.  I'd prefer Klobuchar, because I'm a moderate, but I love the way Warren can kick ass (when she has the timing down).  Both bright, motivated, and well-intended...albeit with some different views on what would be best.  Doubt Pence would have a pleasant time debating either of them. 

[GreyhoundFan]

5 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I'm guessing it's either Klobuchar or Warren.  I'd prefer Klobuchar, because I'm a moderate, but I love the way Warren can kick ass (when she has the timing down).  Both bright, motivated, and well-intended...albeit with some different views on what would be best.  Doubt Pence would have a pleasant time debating either of them. 

I'd be happy with either, though I prefer Elizabeth Warren. I doubt she'd be the choice, however, due to her age. He's already battling the age issue himself.

[GreyhoundFan]

I usually disagree with op-ed writer Henry Olsen, but this is an interesting piece: "The Joe Biden at Sunday’s debate should terrify Donald Trump"

Spoiler

Sunday night’s Democratic debate was billed as the best chance for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to show he still has standing against former vice president Joe Biden. Instead, viewers were treated to something we have not seen throughout the year-long campaign: a truly masterful performance by Biden.

Biden’s debate performances to date had left a lot to be desired. He often gave rambling answers to simple questions. His energy noticeably faded the longer the debates went on. Combined with his many verbal slips on the campaign trail in recent weeks, this left many wondering if Biden had the acuity and stamina it would take to face Sanders alone.

He did, and then some. From the first minute to the last, Biden literally stood tall. While Sanders noticeably slouched, Biden stood ramrod-straight in a perfectly fitted suit. The body language alone sent a strong message that one candidate was vibrant while the other, though energetic, was elderly.

Biden’s verbal performance was better yet. He has a stutter, and there were a couple of instances when he had to force his way through. But those moments were rare and excusable. He otherwise gave the most articulate replies of his campaign. Again and again, Biden gave detailed answers in complete sentences and kept his train of thought throughout his reply.

Over the past year, there have been many times Biden looked like a fighter who had stayed in the ring too long. Sunday night, he looked like a champion at the peak of his game. In short, he looked, sounded and felt presidential.

Sanders didn’t do poorly himself. He controlled his energy well, avoiding moments from prior debates where he would manically wave his arms. He was aggressive at challenging Biden, displayed strong command of detail and looked confident. Sanders did not lose the debate because he was not up to the task.

He lost the debate for the same reason he’s losing the campaign: Democratic voters don’t want what he’s selling. Sanders has believed the United States needs a revolution all his life. His entire debate strategy consisted in showing how Biden doesn’t believe that and, as a result is not the right man to lead the country. Those who believe that likely came away convinced that Sanders is that man. But those people are a minority of Democrats.

The exit polls show this clearly. Only a minority of Democrats voting in the March 17 primaries said that the economy needed a “complete overhaul” or that the next president’s policies should be “more liberal than Obama’s.” Sanders won voters in these demographics but got wiped out among the majority of Democrats who disagreed.

His challenge Sunday night was to convince Democrats who don’t want a revolution that he should be their leader. Sanders didn’t even try to do that, giving Biden an easy win. Biden’s own magisterial performance, however, turned a win into a knockout.

It’s folly to project too far into the future, but the Biden who showed up Sunday night should terrify the Trump campaign. President Trump is normally undisciplined and impassioned when at his best and can be incoherent and angry at his worst. Scared people in a crisis normally want a leader who displays calm resoluteness, not someone whose primary political talent is liberating and channeling passion. If the coronavirus crisis is still with us in the fall, the contrast between the men will be stark and will dramatically favor Biden.

The past month has shown us how radically events can shift in politics. But the Democratic race is not going to dramatically shift again. It’s no longer Biden’s to lose. After the debate, he’s got the nomination all sown up.

 

[Audrey2]

24 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I'm guessing it's either Klobuchar or Warren.  I'd prefer Klobuchar, because I'm a moderate, but I love the way Warren can kick ass (when she has the timing down).  Both bright, motivated, and well-intended...albeit with some different views on what would be best.  Doubt Pence would have a pleasant time debating either of them. 

Would Pence be allowed to debate a female candidate, or would Mother  have to stand beside him?

[EmmaWoodhouse]

24 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Would Pence be allowed to debate a female candidate, or would Mother  have to stand beside him?

Mother and the female candidate's husband would be required to sit at the moderators' table.

ETA how would we keep those two safe from ebil passions???? It's an endless cycle of chaperones.

Edited March 17, 2020 by EmmaWoodhouse
The Billy Graham rule is stupid and complicated

[Marmion]

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

I'm guessing it's either Klobuchar or Warren.  I'd prefer Klobuchar, because I'm a moderate, but I love the way Warren can kick ass (when she has the timing down).  Both bright, motivated, and well-intended...albeit with some different views on what would be best.  Doubt Pence would have a pleasant time debating either of them. 

I would rather doubt that this would be the case , as it would undoubtedly be spun , by the Sanders campaign , if not by Trump , as connoting a quid pro quo , in return for an endorsement .  

[TuringMachine]

7 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I've seen a lot of Bernie supporters criticizing Biden for promising to select a woman, saying that he should select the best person instead of choosing someone just because she's a woman. It's always a frustrating argument, and shows their sexism. (Also they never had any issue with Bernie saying he would be looking for a female VP.) There are a number of people qualified to be VP. There's nothing wrong with saying that when you're choosing among those people you're going to choose a woman, someone who has a different perspective on things than you do.

Sorry not election related but the bolded got me. My field is male dominated, so I see this argument all. the. time. It's such a load of crap. Like it's not possible for someone to be qualified and also be a woman. And besides, when it VP, the government makes decisions that effect everyone while having abysmal representation, so I would consider being a woman as part of their qualification. 

[Smee]

6 hours ago, Marmion said:

I would rather doubt that this would be the case , as it would undoubtedly be spun , by the Sanders campaign , if not by Trump , as connoting a quid pro quo , in return for an endorsement .  

Warren didn’t endorse him though.

I like Warren and am sad she didn’t win, but I agree that she’s not a good VP choice because of her age. I think it will be Kamala Harris, though I hope there’s cabinet positions in the works for Warren and Klobuchar.

I do think Biden has already approached his VP pick so was able to answer with confidence, whereas Bernie hasn’t.

[SassyPants]

Harris is from CA, which Biden doesn’t not need to win. If he’s going to select a woman, she had better be from a swing state. 

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Harris is from CA, which Biden doesn’t not need to win. If he’s going to select a woman, she had better be from a swing state. 

Agreed. Which is why I think Gretchen Whitmer might be his choice. Don't quote me on that though.

It's interesting, I always think of Sanders as such a lone wolf, I can't imagine who he would have picked. Warren? Abrams? Or someone more boring and middle of the road?

Edited March 17, 2020 by nausicaa

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Agreed. Which is why I think Gretchen Whitmer might be his choice. 

Didn't she say it wasn't her?

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Harris is from CA, which Biden doesn’t not need to win. If he’s going to select a woman, she had better be from a swing state. 

After the way Harris attacked Biden during the first debate I'd be amazed if he would trust her as VP.  I believe her performance left a bad taste for a lot of people (myself included) and that she would probably cost him more votes than she gained.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Dandruff said:

After the way Harris attacked Biden during the first debate I'd be amazed if he would trust her as VP.  I believe her performance left a bad taste for a lot of people (myself included) and that she would probably cost him more votes than she gained.

Getting rid of Trump is the only impetus strong enough that would get me to vote for any ticket that included her.

I will lose a lot of respect for Biden if he chooses her.