The CNN Democrat Debate Thread

[Denny347]

Here to lighten the mood, SNL opened last night's episode recreating the Dem debate....Larry David was Bernie Sanders....OMG that was funny. I love Larry David. They rip them all up pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Twangbanger]

H

Let's not forget about ObamaCare and that Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. They never "move on" and "accept it" as they demand their political enemies do. We're 1 SCOTUS justice change out away from having either of those cases reversed or severely curtailed.

I'm not sure if you followed what I was saying, so I will try to clarify. I gather Doug was saying the Democratic Party is imperiling itself by marginalizing their Radical Left Wing. I just think the mainstream Democrats are doing a pretty good job keeping things under control, and are in nowhere near as bad a pickle as the mainstream GOP right now. So I believe any reports of the mainstream Democrat party's impending demise are greatly exaggerated. They're in good shape to control things right now, for reasons I mentioned. The mainstream GOP? We'll see, but I'd be worried if I were them.

But I totally agree with your assessment of the Supreme Court situation. I think many gun owners don't get what a perilous situation we're in, especially some of the more liberal gun owners. That court is going to shift, and although they may not totally throw Heller out the window, the term "infringe" still hasn't been defined well enough for my taste, and there is nothing (that I have seen) establishing that your right to defend yourself with guns extends outside your property lines (which will be a real shocker for a lot of people, if NRA doesn't advance a good case while we still have a sympathetic court, and a future SC ends up balkanizing CCW by throwing it back to the States).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not sure if you followed what I was saying, so I will try to clarify. I gather Doug was saying the Democratic Party is imperiling itself by marginalizing their Radical Left Wing. I just think the mainstream Democrats are doing a pretty good job keeping things under control, and are in nowhere near as bad a pickle as the mainstream GOP right now. So I believe any reports of the mainstream Democrat party's impending demise are greatly exaggerated. They're in good shape to control things right now, for reasons I mentioned. The mainstream GOP? We'll see, but I'd be worried if I were them.

But I totally agree with your assessment of the Supreme Court situation. I think many gun owners don't get what a perilous situation we're in, especially some of the more liberal gun owners. That court is going to shift, and although they may not totally throw Heller out the window, the term "infringe" still hasn't been defined well enough for my taste, and there is nothing (that I have seen) establishing that your right to defend yourself with guns extends outside your property lines (which will be a real shocker for a lot of people, if NRA doesn't advance a good case while we still have a sympathetic court, and a future SC ends up balkanizing CCW by throwing it back to the States).

I was addressing this paragraph. Admittedly, I'm kinda reading, posting, and watching football. so it's possible I missed something.

That willingness to bend, of course, does not mean the mainstream Democratic party will be successful, by itself. But there's another factor, and it's that the Far Left is neither as principled nor as effective as the Far Right in advancing their goals. They have a "fire in the belly" problem. It's not surprising Occupy has petered out. They're spoiled. They're soft and lazy, and are easily swayed by the trickle of treats Democrats can so easily give. Democrats have no compunction against achieving their political goals by resorting to the "Public Treasury Goodie Bag," which contains most of the stuff the Left really wants.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

The only thing I was doing was making an observation. I don't think the "liberal left" will rip apart the democratic party, but I am wondering if it will begin to put pressure on the moderate democrats to swing more liberally, or at least to go beyond simply giving lip service like the republicans did before the tea party arrived.

I note that the "mainstream" democrats are all hailing Hillary (moderate, mainstream) as the clear winner. This is in apparent contrast the the base (more liberal, demanding greater reforms) that chose Bernie as the clear winner.

What I am thinking is that we could see a greater fracture within both parties over the next 20 - 40 years as the marginalized camps of both major parties begin to rethink and possibly form new parties that are less broad based. This could hurt both parties. Or perhaps this is just the inevitable evolution of parties that have tried to include too many people and now we're finally slipping through their fingers.

Hillary, as much as I disagree with her, is generally a "moderate" democrat. (Caveat: I am only speaking here fiscally, NOT socially) She has profited by the system and will do what she can to maintain the status quo. Under her there will be no significant reforms of commerce. She doesn't want to rock the boat that she and her husband are sitting in. Bernie, on the other hand, wants to tip the boat and have half the riders fall out! Large corporations that make money by simply gaming the system and hiding behind public ignorance will be in far greater peril if Bernie is elected. This is in stark contrast to Hillary's keeping an even keel.

We have seen the republicans being pulled to the right, to the point that the party machine could not cope. It has tried to co-op the rebels, with limited success. I am wondering if the democrats are looking at a looming left surge within their own party that may cause them serious disruption over the next several election cycles.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Twangbanger]

To All,

The only thing I was doing was making an observation. I don't think the "liberal left" will rip apart the democratic party, but I am wondering if it will begin to put pressure on the moderate democrats to swing more liberally, or at least to go beyond simply giving lip service like the republicans did before the tea party arrived.

I note that the "mainstream" democrats are all hailing Hillary (moderate, mainstream) as the clear winner. This is in apparent contrast the the base (more liberal, demanding greater reforms) that chose Bernie as the clear winner.

What I am thinking is that we could see a greater fracture within both parties over the next 20 - 40 years as the marginalized camps of both major parties begin to rethink and possibly form new parties that are less broad based. This could hurt both parties. Or perhaps this is just the inevitable evolution of parties that have tried to include too many people and now we're finally slipping through their fingers.

Hillary, as much as I disagree with her, is generally a "moderate" democrat. (Caveat: I am only speaking here fiscally, NOT socially) She has profited by the system and will do what she can to maintain the status quo. Under her there will be no significant reforms of commerce. She doesn't want to rock the boat that she and her husband are sitting in. Bernie, on the other hand, wants to tip the boat and have half the riders fall out! Large corporations that make money by simply gaming the system and hiding behind public ignorance will be in far greater peril if Bernie is elected. This is in stark contrast to Hillary's keeping an even keel.

We have seen the republicans being pulled to the right, to the point that the party machine could not cope. It has tried to co-op the rebels, with limited success. I am wondering if the democrats are looking at a looming left surge within their own party that may cause them serious disruption over the next several election cycles.

Regards,

Doug

Good points. I get what you're saying. I simply believe the Dem. Party will be able to avoid any harmful long-term consequences by shifting to the left. I believe the GOP may not be so lucky. (Remainder of post edited / deleted as essentially pointless).

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Jim Webb considering an independent run presser tomorrow.

 

[Cygnus]

Jim Webb considering an independent run presser tomorrow.

He was certainly the odd duck in the debate. Way to the right of the rest.

 

[jamil]

He was certainly the odd duck in the debate. Way to the right of the rest.

He's at least a decade or so shy of being anything but fringe-right in the Democratic party.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The current state of the Dem Race

 

[Twangbanger]

The current state of the Dem Race

I have learned not to judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes...and this picture certainly puts the whole Monica Lewinsky thing into perspective.
If I woke up next to that every day, and suddenly ML was bringing me pizzas while wearing a thong...(shudder) yeesh.

 

[actaeon277]

This is the debate I saw....

[video=youtube;-vQ2RVqJCNM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vQ2RVqJCNM[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/20/the-democrats-denmark-fetish

 

[jamil]

This is the debate I saw....



Okay. That. Was. Um. Funny. However. I didn't make it through the whole video. I was beginning to think they were headed south. Ouch.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

.

 

[5.56'aholic]

You mean fair and balanced FOX?

if you think any major news network is fair and balanced, i have news for you......

The moderator sets up the discussion, plain and simple. if you think otherwise, then i am sorry for you.

 

[Jludo]

if you think any major news network is fair and balanced, i have news for you......

The moderator sets up the discussion, plain and simple. if you think otherwise, then i am sorry for you.

The moderators set it up but that doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a well done, well balanced debate.

 

[jamil]

The moderators set it up but that doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a well done, well balanced debate.

If it is balanced, then one shouldn't be able to tell which side the moderators favor personally. A Republican debate should have the same sorts of questions asked as the Democratic debates. Did Anderson Cooper ask questions that pit candidates against each other? Did Anderson Cooper ask any "clown" questions? Now, granted, I do think Anderson Cooper would have been fair with Republican candidates. But I am quite certain that Jake Tapper, if he were moderating a Democratic debate, would not ask questions that pit Democrats against each other as he did with the Republicans.

The preference of most of the media for Democratic candidates is obvious. The preference of Fox news for Republican candidates is obvious as well, but less obvious in the debates, and much less obvious than the preference of other networks for democratic candidates.

And we won't know how fairly FOX would moderate a Democratic debate because the Democrats won't do a debate on FOX. Probably because they're too afraid that FOX might ask the same kinds of questions that CNN and CNBC asks Republicans.

I think it would be better for each party to choose moderators for debates and have a neutral venue for debates that could be broadcast by any network that wants to broadcast it.

 

[Jludo]

If it is balanced, then one shouldn't be able to tell which side the moderators favor personally. A Republican debate should have the same sorts of questions asked as the Democratic debates. Did Anderson Cooper ask questions that pit candidates against each other? Did Anderson Cooper ask any "clown" questions? Now, granted, I do think Anderson Cooper would have been fair with Republican candidates. But I am quite certain that Jake Tapper, if he were moderating a Democratic debate, would not ask questions that pit Democrats against each other as he did with the Republicans.

The preference of most of the media for Democratic candidates is obvious. The preference of Fox news for Republican candidates is obvious as well, but less obvious in the debates, and much less obvious than the preference of other networks for democratic candidates.

And we won't know how fairly FOX would moderate a Democratic debate because the Democrats won't do a debate on FOX. Probably because they're too afraid that FOX might ask the same kinds of questions that CNN and CNBC asks Republicans.

I think it would be better for each party to choose moderators for debates and have a neutral venue for debates that could be broadcast by any network that wants to broadcast it.

I think Cooper would have done just as well for the Republican debate, I will say I didn't seem CNBC botching the most recent one so badly. I think after the first debate all the networks could see were dollar signs so it became up to the moderators not to turn into gameshow hosts.

 

[jamil]

I think Cooper would have done just as well for the Republican debate, I will say I didn't seem CNBC botching the most recent one so badly. I think after the first debate all the networks could see were dollar signs so it became up to the moderators not to turn into gameshow hosts.

As I said, Cooper would probably have remained as professional with Republicans as he was with Democrats. Jack Tapper, on the other hand, was not very professional with Republicans, and likely would have acted more professional with Democrats.

I judge fairness on whether the same kinds of questions would be asked in the same tone and tenor for either party. The CNBC moderators made their contempt for the candidates pretty obvious.

For example, it's fair to question Trump on how he plans to do the things that he's promising. The Wall. Making China pay for it. Whatever. But I seriously doubt the same moderator would frame any question to any Democratic candidate as a comic book version of a presidential campaign. Clinton's candidacy is at least as "comic book" as any candidate on either side.

Maybe they see Trump's candidacy as "comic book". I do. But serious journalists understand that it's it's not their place to judge that for voters. Real professional journalists ask serious questions with professional tone and tenor regardless of their personal bias. It's fair to ask tough questions aimed at exposing the truth. So ask the question professionally, without contempt, and let the candidate's answer define him or her as "comic book".