Discussion for article #241787
In the internet echo chamber, which seems like it’s coming up Bernie all the time, I think a lot of Dems forget that there is a huge world of Democratic voters out there who think very differently.
I think Bernie did very well in the debate, and his numbers will improve. But I also think Hillary did equally well because she laid to rest a lot of the concerns people had of her going in. Her numbers will also improve by swinging a lot of the “Biden supporters” her way.
2 Likes
the Daily Show doesn’t make me laugh as much since Stewart left. 
5 Likes
It’s sad. I can see why Amy Schumer turned it down. Who could follow an act like Jon Stewart?
1 Like
I believe a good sitcom could actually come out of that debate:
Webb & Chafee: The Really Odd Couple
Picture it: ~The two main characters enter.~
Chafee: “Did you take my Sabra tomato hummus single serving? I had save it specially’ for my snack!”
Webb: “Just be glad you have good food. In Nam’ we ate worms and dirt!”
Chafee: “It was the last helping. That was so not nice…so plebeian.”
Webb: “Would you just be quiet. I’m watching the game. I killed a man once; don’t make me do it again.”
2 Likes
It took John years to get there. We should give Noah a little time.
3 Likes
Clinton’s performance may also cement Biden not entering the race.
1 Like
If Biden enters the race, he would draw voters away from Clinton. Biden doesn’t have a clamoring group of “enthusiastic” voters supporting him now. Biden is a stop gap candidate that establishment Democrats are promoting out of fear that Sanders could defeat Clinton. Biden is a spoiler who would hurt Clinton; nothing more.
I’ve actually enjoyed it a lot since Noah took over. Stewart was good as well, but both men have their own styles. I sometimes think people forget that Stewart could be rough around the edges and told some really flat jokes too.
2 Likes
I love how people dismiss anything that disagrees with their views with phrases like “internet echo chamber”.
Senator Sanders has a good shot at winning the nomination and the general election because he has the ground game to do so. The big tests will be Iowa and New Hampshire. Should he win those, Clinton is facing the narrative that has already been set up for her which is “Hillary Clinton Fails Again!” Truthfully, Clinton should have been out there countering the notion that she was the inevitable victor from the beginning so as to avoid such narratives.
Still, Clinton has a lot of supporters. If she speaks more with the passion that she showed during the debate, she might actually draw support away from Sanders. Part of her big issue is that she comes across as being rather passionless. The Daily Show’s joke of her being a Dalek is actually incorrect. She comes across more like a Cyberman (Donald Trump, however, would be a Dalek).
Right now, people really don’t care about the candidate’s background as much as the strategists think they do. Honestly, the litany of children and ancestors is not resonating right now due to the fact that we are more interested in knowing what these people will do for us in office.
In the debate, Clinton and Sanders came across as if they were the eventual Ticket, and they might. This Q&A Session was more or less a draw with Clinton coming ahead slightly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the two of them are the eventual ticket. Odds on are that it would be Clinton/Sanders.
We knew Stewart’s commentary was his own and that he understood the people and issues he was talking about. Noah is like a local TV news anchor – a pretty face reading a script he is not connected to. The show can still be entertaining, but I no longer consider it essential viewing.
2 Likes
I don’t think there’s really all that much difference policy wise between Sanders and Clinton. As some have noted she seems a bit more up on foreign issues so that seems like it will make her a little better outside of internal US issues. And I really think she’ll pull in a lot of independent and barely right republican women votes. Hard right wingers, male or female won’t be any more likely to vote for Bernie just because he’s a white man.
The power of the Daily Show was that Stewart made us THINK – the laughter was just what opened the door.
3 Likes
At which point, I believe you’ve missed some very good analysis.
Thing is, you don’t know how much of this is Noah’s views on things. Not all of the stories Stewart covered in his tenure as host of the Daily Show were based around his views and let us not forget that every time they handed the Daily Show an Emmy that there were about a dozen people up on that stage. Stewart had a team of writers and researchers who helped him present his stories.
My local news station’s anchors help set the tone for their broadcasts, but the reality is that they aren’t out there interviewing people every day (though our anchors have done things like go on a deployment with our local National Guard unit). Stewart set the tone for the show and people wrote to that. He could and did upon one occasion fly without a writer, but the bulk of the time, Stewart read from a script.
The thing is, Stewart’s savvy about these issues and his views also evolved over time.
But, if you want to leave the show, go right ahead. Some of Noah’s analysis has been far savvier than Stewart’s.
1 Like
Don’t think it will be a Clinton/ Sanders ticket. Clinton will pick someone younger, probably from the west or southwest named Castro.
1 Like
No. The “Big Tests” are NOT Iowa and New Hampshire. Those are outliers and always have been.
The “Big Test” are South Carolina and Ohio, possibly Florida, though those come rather late in the Primary game.
Many, MANY times candidates do well in Iowa and New Hampshire only to disappear down the rat hole of history.
They are just an early indicator of who is CURRENTLY paying attention, not how the entire nomination will go.
The MSM has blown these two state primaries way out of proportion to push the “Horse Race” meme they depend on for ADVERTISING $$$.
1 Like
How often do candidates win in Iowa or New Hampshire only to disappear entirely? I’m trying to think of them, but kind of coming up blank, especially when you have a very small field like this one. South Carolina is pretty much a write off since it will go to the GOP no matter who it is.
In 2008, Clinton had the same narrative, and when she did not win both Iowa and New Hampshire, the narrative was that she was vulnerable to Obama. She inevitably lost.
Since 1972, either the first or second choice in the Iowa Caucuses went on to win the nomination with 4 exceptions- 1988 (GOP), 1972 (Dem), 1988 (Dem) and 1992 (Dem). In New Hampshire, either the winner or the runner up went on to be the nominee over the same period. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss either race.
I would actually doubt that she would choose someone like Castro largely because without Sanders’ machine to back the ticket, she will face a much harder time winning in November. Castro brings very little in the way of solid campaign pluses. He’s never run a national campaign. He’s largely an unknown. And minorities are less likely to play identity politics than tends to be assumed. Please remember that Republicans constantly try to run minority candidates even against old white men and fail.
There are other considerations here, however. Vermont has three whole electoral votes. Sanders is also 74. Others can readily embrace his views if they don’t already.
I think Castro would be a great pick.
2 Likes
I agree… and hope we’re right. Sanders would be sadly wasted as VP. VP’s generally don’t do a whole lot actively, and I can’t see Hillary using him to full advantage, given their differences in focus and policies. If Hillary wins the nomination I want Bernie right where he is, in the Senate and in the public eye for his own strengths, just as Elizabeth Warren is way more important where she is than in the Executive office.
1 Like
If Sanders were the nominee, he would be.
For Clinton, however, picking Castro will turn off white male voters while not netting any significant number of Hispanic voters and not guaranteeing California’s electoral votes beyond the fact that California is already going to go Blue. Castro, as a young man, should also focus on gaining power in the House rather than taking a largely ceremonial position.
For both, picking Castro would also feel like pandering to the Latino Community, which may turn off some Latino voters. I know that many campaigns love to pander to a particular Community, but that tends not to work very well, and trying to secure the electoral votes of a state by choosing a particular nominee hasn’t worked very well since the 1992 Election. With states basically being locked in to particular voting patterns and a diminishing of regional pride, choosing based on locale and state has not really effected the elections since then, and pandering to a particular Minority Community has never really worked since the only people who tend to vote identity politics in this country are white men.
Incidentally, I’m not saying that Sanders would be the ideal candidate, but he has many pluses to bring to the table that aren’t brought by someone like Castro.