Though commentators havenoted that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) democratic socialist ideas have largely come to define, or at least push to the left, the Democratic presidential field, the candidate himself was overshadowed to some extent in his first appearance on the debate stage last month. That changed Tuesday.
I thought Bernie started sharp and scored great points, and he mostly kept his answers robust but within the time limits. He just came off as strongest on the stage tonight for me.
He started off pretty shrill. Of course he always kind of sounds like that, probably even whispers loudly with lots of superflous hand gestures for emphasis.
But, seriously, a big part of Bernie’s persona and appeal is that he’s a guy with lofty goals who’s so fed up with the failings of rule by organized money that he will no longer be restrained by social convention. There are a lot of folks in this country (myself included) who are furious at our leaders for their failure to demonstrate any sense of urgency on all kinds of pressing issues. Bernie’s “cranky old man” schtick speaks to those people, who finally see the intensity of their own frustrations mirrored in him.
Not a Hick fan but I felt like he got the best of Bernie with that hands in the air gesticulating exchange thing. Sanders otherwise did Sanders - which is to say he did fine, but probably did not move the needle much.
Clinton News Network were just as bad as I thought they would be though no worse than MSDNC. First, CNN turned the debate into a Powerball event then Tapper doing his best imitation of David Frum. Please but the debates on C-Span with the League of Women Voters in charge. Way too much of the debate is about the corporate moderators who should be invisible. Also, limit the debates to two issues, one domestic and one foreign, so it is about depth of policy and not about who gets the best memes.
Makes sense therefore will never happen. It is all about $$$$$$ nothing more, nothing less. If I am interested in ideas and policy I’ll look at the various websites, you are never going to get much from the modern “American” debate format. That format is designed to maintain (1) a horse race (2) generate one liners and (3) of course $$$$$$.
He had a good night, but I wouldn’t say he was strongest. Warren was on fire and to a certain extent, she and Sanders almost seemed to be team tagging.
I think they both did well. They pretty much wiped the floor with everyone else. But I’m not one hundred percent sure that’s a good thing.
Not only that, I think was more in control of her emotional responses and reactions. That pays off long-term if voters start to feel your opponent seems angry all the time.
I generally agree. I didn’t make myself clear enough last night cuz, reasons. I was trying to say that I thought Bernie managed his time better than Warren, to make his points quickly and with some zingers for emphasis during last night’s debate.
I still like Warren’s ideas better than Bernie’s on the whole and I feel that she and Harris are the stronger candidates not named Biden.
Warren kept making astonishingly strong points last night, but really needed more time to fully articulate them than the format allowed. She kept getting caught out with her hand in semi-full gesticulation hovering over the lectern in a way that had me wishing I could physically stuff a sock into Jake Trapper’s mouth. I think Bernsie did a better job of working within the debate parameters timewise.
This is why CNN stands for Crapbucket News Network. Nine voters does not make a sample, and how were they sampled? Did anyone ask Gary Tuchman how he selected his nine voters? I think he started with the results he wanted, and waited until he found nine voters. How does he even know they’re Democrats? If someone asked me about Republican debates, I’d just lie about my party affiliation and then start making shit up. (If possible, I’d record my side and make sure I went public with it.)