-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Momentum seems to be on mayor Pete's side. A combination I would like to see as the final two would be either Buttigieg/Booker or Buttigieg/Klobuchar. B and B are both Rhodes scholars (which would be attractive to college graduates) , and Booker would help Pete attract more black voters. Klobuchar, unlike Trump, actually has a sense of humor, and also has a track record in "reaching across the aisle", so would likely attract voters who went from Obama supporters to Trump supporters (people like Midwestern farmers hurt by Trump's tariffs) and who now could be switched back again to the Democratic slate. It's been 35 years since Geraldine Ferraro was tapped to be the first female vice presidential candidate. Perhaps it's time to do it again. Kamala Harris would also be a logical choice, but I think she's had enough stumbles that she would hurt the ticket. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/winners-losers-november-democratic-debate/
-
-
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I watched the Democratic debate last night. Except for fewer candidates on the stage, it seemed like a rehash of previous debates. Again it was the defender of Medicare for All (Sanders) doing his thing against the defenders of ObamaCare. Same arguments except that Elizabeth Warren is no longer touting the Medicare for All line of Bernie. Not much of substance on foreign troops in the Middle East. Now it seems that special ops forces are okay but not large numbers of combat troops. Sanders continues to castigate Biden for voting for the Iraq War. Biden muddled through as usual...no gaffs I suppose is remarkable. Elizabeth Warren seemed feisty and was able to win points with her "women can be president" line. Amy Klobuchar was very noticeable with her Iowa farmers narrative. She did well. Tom Steyer seemed like a back bencher. Buttigieg was articulate as usual, but otherwise didn't make a big mark with zingers and such that the media seem to love. For me it was a rather ho hum debate having followed all the others. But for others watching perhaps for the first time it might have made impressions. Meanwhile Trump was holding yet another rally in Milwaukee at the same exact time if the debate. He wants to be in the spotlight. Yes Nancy Pelosi will put him there again as she sends the House impeachment proceedings to the Senate for trial. There was no mention of that in the debate nor the latest bomb shell Rudy revelations.
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I suffered through another Democratic debate last night, this one in South Carolina but with broader appeal to the Super Tuesday states as well. I thought CBS did a poor job of moderating, and the "contestants" made a poor showing for lack of discipline by continually interrupting each other and talking (shouting) at the same time. As one commentator said, it was more like watching a Jerry Springer show. I wouldn't know because I don't watch Jerry Springer either. It is not real vetting...more like a circular firing squad with Trump on the sidelines fueling the fires while eating popcorn and enjoying the show. And looking at "who won the debate" articles in the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico, one get's different opinions. I have seen many of the candidates answer questions calmly and intelligently in one-on-one interviews, but put them on the debate stage, and it seems like different personalities emerge. I don't know that these debates have that much value as a criterion to assess who is presidential. Once elected president, the only other time a president actually debates as when he/she runs for president again. I would rather have a president that is less of a stage actor and more of a knowledgeable deep thinker who takes his/her time to act then "jumping in" to score debate points. In that regard, I will cast my ballot for Pete Buttigieg this week knowing full well that some of the other stage actors have appealed more to the emotions of the electorate in that venue.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:I suffered through another Democratic debate last night, this one in South Carolina but with broader appeal to the Super Tuesday states as well. I thought CBS did a poor job of moderating, and the "contestants" made a poor showing for lack of discipline by continually interrupting each other and talking (shouting) at the same time. As commentator said, it was more like watching a Jerry Springer show. I wouldn't know because I don't watch Jerry Springer either. It is not real vetting...more like a circular firing squad with Trump on the sidelines fueling the fires while eating popcorn and enjoying the show. And looking at "who won the debate" articles in the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico, one get's different opinions. I have seen many of the candidates answer questions calmly and intelligently in one-on-one interviews, but put them on the debate stage, and it seems like different personalities emerge. I don't know that these debates have that much value as a criterion to assess who is presidential. Once elected president, the only other time a president actually debates as when he/she runs for president again. I would rather have a president that is less of a stage actor and more of a knowledgeable deep thinker who takes his/her time to act then "jumping in" to score debate points. In that regard, I will cast my ballot for Pete Buttigieg this week knowing full well that some of the other stage actors have appealed more to the emotions of the electorate in that venue. Except no chairs were thrown, just insults.
-
|