Nevada debate
Pete started well but tailed off. The exchange towards the end b/w he and Amy was pretty nasty and didn't help either of them IMO. Was a departure from their demeanor in hours of previous debates and made both look desperate.
One saving grace from recent events is that although Andrew Yang is out, at least we can look forward to enjoying his cheerful insider insights;
I wanted Mike to shine and he died a quick death. Trump won last night.
After this debate, I am now undecided.
Bernie for sure is LAST on my list. You cannot win against the clown with a socialist label (trying to be realistic here).
jeffl said:
I wanted Mike to shine and he died a quick death. Trump won last night.
Bloomberg had no defense prepared because there really isn't any honest defense for some of the things he's done.
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I wanted Mike to shine and he died a quick death. Trump won last night.
Bloomberg had no defense prepared because there really isn't any honest defense for some of the things he's done.
He could have at the very least said that he would explore the NDA's and see if they could be reopened.
It's amazing that he was not prepared for that line of attack
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I wanted Mike to shine and he died a quick death. Trump won last night.
Bloomberg had no defense prepared because there really isn't any honest defense for some of the things he's done.
Whomever gets the nomination, they all are going to NEED him when it comes to the general election. Remember the midterms?
"Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, emerged as a powerful and effective force, as well as the biggest outside spender promoting Democratic House candidates, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Records filed so far show that organizations controlled and funded by Mr. Bloomberg spent more than $41 million on 24 House races, much of it on eye-catching ads rolled out on social media and broadcast on television in the crucial final days of the campaign.
And while it’s impossible to conclude that any one factor tipped the balance in a race, Mr. Bloomberg appears to have reaped the benefits of his millions in giving. Democrats won 21 of the 24 races he sought to influence. Of those, 12 had been considered either tossups or in Republican districts."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-democrats-donate.html
this exchange from a few weeks ago looks pretty spot on right now
ml1 said:nohero said:
I suspect that's the strategy behind letting him onto the stage in Nevada. For all the handwringing about "bending the rules", the debate stage is not the best outlet for Bloomberg to get his message out before Super Tuesday.
he's not a guy who likes to be challenged. If they all go after him, we'll likely see the pissy, churlish "how dare you question me" Mike Bloomberg.
ml1 said:
I don't know. I didn't see him as churlish. He looked like someone who knew it was coming, figured he'd let them call him out on it and then see what the fallout was. He could do himself a lot of good by working on the NDAs as well as releasing his taxes, if only to hammer another nail in Trump's coffin.
I thought it got everyone screaming and pointing, which just looked like mass hysteria. The moderators let them all yell at one another and look frantic. He looked like, hey, if you want me to take on Trump, fine, if not, I'll go back to the city and enjoy life.
I miss no drama Obama. Everyone looked too caffeinated. At least Mike wasn't yelling. A couple of wisecracks and an eye roll.
It's a tight race. They are competing with each other. It's bound to get a little heated.
I didn't come close to falling asleep. I can't say that about the previous "debates"
STANV said:
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I wanted Mike to shine and he died a quick death. Trump won last night.
Bloomberg had no defense prepared because there really isn't any honest defense for some of the things he's done.
He could have at the very least said that he would explore the NDA's and see if they could be reopened.
It's amazing that he was not prepared for that line of attack
He could have prepared by lying. But he didn't. Unlike the liar who said he'll release his tax returns or the other one who said he'll release his full health records.
He could have said "yeah, no problem, I'll look to open the NDA's" while intending to not do so.
The moment Biden pointed at Pete and said "this guy opened his NDAs..." and Pete waived his arms and signalled it was about clients he worked with., not alleged bad jokes about women in the workplace (or worse)... priceless look on Pete's face. Worth the price of admission.
I also watched some of Trump's AZ rally. People cheering at lies. You can't watch five minutes of it without becoming less intelligent.
sbenois said:
Everyone lost last night.
Except Trump.
Luckily you are wrong.
The Dems won by giving a knockout blow to Bloomie.
Warren won by taking no prisoners.
drummerboy said:
Luckily you are wrong.
The Dems won by giving a knockout blow to Bloomie.
Warren won by taking no prisoners.
And Warren is killing it in her Town Hall tonight. She's the best that I've seen her.
dave said:
I also watched some of Trump's AZ rally. People cheering at lies. You can't watch five minutes of it without becoming less intelligent.
Anyone who insists that the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to the Trump voter, should be made to watch the response of those voters in these rallies.
I’ve missed where anyone has insisted that the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to the voter who attends Trump rallies.
But all Trump voters are the same, you say? Well, OK, then.
DaveSchmidt said:
I’ve missed where anyone has insisted that the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to the voter who attends Trump rallies.
But all Trump voters are the same, you say? Well, OK, then.
I don't know how many people there may be who voted for Trump (in spite of knowing who he is), who could then be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around. I think turning out the voters who didn't vote for Trump (or for anybody else) is a better strategy.
nohero said:
I don't know how many people there may be who voted for Trump (in spite of knowing who he is), who could then be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around. I think turning out the voters who didn't vote for Trump (or for anybody else) is a better strategy.
I think that the best one can hope for is that those who voted for Trump and are not the "Trump rally type" simply don't show up in November. The number of them who are likely to switch and vote for the Dem (any of them) I suspect is infinitesimal.
This has been a core debate topic on here for as long as we've been discussing the 2020 election. People have their respective views that are largely fixed. We won't know any more about which side is right until November.
I personally believe there are a lot of voters who voted for Obama, Trump and then Democrat in 2018 who disapprove of Trump and need to be kept Democrat for 2020. Many of these voters live in the states that are electorally important.
Projecting forward to say, September, a Bernie rally featuring AOC will fire up the progressive base and get out the vote in CA, NY and MA. But for every vote that brings in, >1 vote will be lost in MI, WI and PA.
Again, only time will tell.
Some more observations and reporting, related to nohero’s and Steve’s comments, while we wait:
Can the Democrats win over these swing voters—people like Rochester who voted for Trump in 2016 but have become turned off by his behavior? Or is the Democrats’ best hope that these voters will simply sit out the election? Should the party play for their support, or is it better off focusing its energies elsewhere?
Can Democrats Win Back Trump Voters—Without Compromising Their Soul? (The Nation)
The number of viewers for this last debate was amazing. The only reason I can think of is that people were curious about Bloomberg. Will this continue?
galileo said:
The number of viewers for this last debate was amazing. The only reason I can think of is that people were curious about Bloomberg. Will this continue?
I think it will. And I think it's more than Bloomberg. I believe it's the timing. Once Primary season began, most people probably decided that they had better tune in.
As much as I love debates, I learn so much more about the candidates watching Town Halls but not many people have the time. In the past few weeks, watching Warren, Klobuchar and Biden, I heard them present ideas and plans as opposed to the sound bites that are delivered in the debates. But the debates serve as a quick intro which may send someone to their site or a Town Hall to get a closer look and half the country will be casting their vote in a week or so.
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
I’ve missed where anyone has insisted that the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to the voter who attends Trump rallies.
But all Trump voters are the same, you say? Well, OK, then.
I don't know how many people there may be who voted for Trump (in spite of knowing who he is), who could then be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around. I think turning out the voters who didn't vote for Trump (or for anybody else) is a better strategy.
It has been reported that the various Trump rallies are comprised of somewhere between twenty and thirty percent ("20% to 30%") registered Democrats. Just what I have heard. I would think that the DNC would want their registered voters to vote in the 2020 general election (even if they have been to a Trump rally). I am uncertain what method was used to derive the percentage of registered Dems at various Trump rallies (and, thus, I am uncertain on how to weight this factoid).
See: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/20/surprise-report-20-of-the-audiences-at-trump-ralli/
RealityForAll said:
It has been reported that the various Trump rallies are comprised of somewhere between twenty and thirty percent ("20% to 30%") registered Democrats. Just what I have heard. I would think that the DNC would want their registered voters to vote in the 2020 general election (even if they have been to a Trump rally). I am uncertain what method was used to derive the percentage of registered Dems at various Trump rallies (and, thus, I am uncertain on how to weight this factoid).
See: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/20/surprise-report-20-of-the-audiences-at-trump-ralli/
Given the caveats and the sources listed (Washington Times, Townhall, Washington Examiner, and Redstate), there's not much more that can be said.
BG9 said:
He could have prepared by lying. But he didn't. Unlike the liar who said he'll release his tax returns or the other one who said he'll release his full health records.
He could have said "yeah, no problem, I'll look to open the NDA's" while intending to not do so.
Guess what:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/bloomberg-nda-116632
Bloomberg did have that "can I confer with my attorneys?" look on his face when the NDAs came up during the debate, but probably thought that saying that out loud would make him appear unfamiliar with the contracts. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis as it were. Nothing that spending another $50 million on targeted media can't fix.
dave said:
Bloomberg did have that "can I confer with my attorneys?" look on his face when the NDAs came up during the debate, but probably thought that saying that out loud would make him appear unfamiliar with the contracts. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis as it were. Nothing that spending another $50 million on targeted media can't fix.
Warren made the point that it wasn't just about the lawsuits, it was about electability.
This whole episode demonstrates Bloomberg's arrogance. Unless his staff is completely incompetent, the "What's the response about the NDAs" question would have been raised in debate prep. If Mike said, "I'll just brush it off, say maybe someone didn't like a joke I told", I can't imagine they'd actually agree with that.
I can imagine Bloomberg saying, "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing" if anyone tried to suggest a better response.
nohero said:
Warren made the point that it wasn't just about the lawsuits, it was about electability.
This whole episode demonstrates Bloomberg's arrogance. Unless his staff is completely incompetent, the "What's the response about the NDAs" question would have been raised in debate prep. If Mike said, "I'll just brush it off, say maybe someone didn't like a joke I told", I can't imagine they'd actually agree with that.
I can imagine Bloomberg saying, "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing" if anyone tried to suggest a better response.
All true.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Buttigieg should rehearse in front of a mirror to keep the sneer in check. In a film noir version of last night Amy would have thrown a drink in his face.