ChrisWeigant.com

The Debate Segment I'd Really Like To See

[ Posted Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 17:56 UTC ]

Tomorrow night, ABC will host the third Democratic presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle. For the first time, the top 10 candidates will all be on the same stage together. I have no idea what questions will be asked of the candidates, but if it's anything like the past two debates then they'll probably miss the biggest issue that most Democratic voters are looking to see addressed by the potential nominees. No, I'm not speaking of climate change, or healthcare reform, or gun control, or immigration reform, or any of the other single issues the moderators have used to show the (mostly) minor differences between the various candidates' stances. Instead, I'm speaking of the number one priority that Democratic voters have been telling pollsters throughout the entire contest so far is the most important to them: beating Donald Trump. Which is why what I'd like to see tomorrow night is an entire debate segment devoted to how, exactly, each candidate would take on Trump if they become the one who gets the chance to confront him face-to-face on a general election debate stage.

Now, I don't fault the debate moderators of the first two debates, since they did attempt to get the 20 candidates (over two nights) to differentiate themselves from each other on various hot-button issues. That's all fine and good, because the candidates were introducing themselves to the Democratic electorate, so exploring ideological differences was entirely valid. But at some point the debates should start to reflect what can only be called the ideological ambivalence of Democratic voters this time around. Poll after poll shows that while ideology might be of some importance to voters, what is even more important is beating Trump. Analysts have bent over backwards trying to explain this dynamic, usually falling short due to their use of conventional wisdom from past elections that just isn't all that relevant in the age of Trump. Pundits express amazement -- over and over again -- that supporters of Joe Biden often list Bernie Sanders as their second choice. When viewed through a strictly ideological lens, this makes no sense, since Biden is supposed to be fighting for the "moderate lane" against people like Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg (and plenty of others), while Bernie Sanders is supposed to be fighting for the "progressive lane" against Elizabeth Warren and the other progressive candidates. In this model, the race eventually boils down to two ideologically-opposed candidates, who then battle it out in the primaries.

But the "Biden, or maybe Sanders" voters out there do make perfect sense when viewed through a purely political lens instead of an ideological one. Poll after poll shows Biden with the best chance of beating Trump, closely followed by Sanders. Biden's margin of victory has consistently remained higher than Bernie's, but Bernie is always right behind, nipping at Biden's heels. Other Democrats don't always fare as well in the head-to-head matchups (although Elizabeth Warren has been improving in this regard, of late). So if voters are aware of these polls, it makes perfect sense that Biden voters would move to Sanders as their second choice, if their overriding concern is who will be best able to defeat Trump. In many polls, this dynamic has a flip side as well, because when Sanders voters are asked who their second choice would be, a large portion of them list Biden (and not, as might be expected, Warren).

Pundits have been trying to grapple with this situation, but they mostly get lost in the weeds of defining what precisely the word "electable" means. Is Elizabeth Warren electable? Does Biden's electability mean he'll carry the day no matter what? Would Bernie be electable in the suburbs? The hair-splitting goes on and on. But for some reason, the pundits usually never bother to use the literal definition of the term -- "electable" merely means being able to be elected. Donald Trump was the most electable Republican in 2016, because he won the party's nomination, even though no pundit at the time said he was the most electable. That's it, plain and simple. The most electable person is the one who gets the most votes, not the most raves from the pundits. Currently, Democrats want to nominate someone who will get the most votes against Trump. That's all there is to it. The candidate might be old, young, female, male, moderate, progressive, whatever -- but all of that takes a back seat to whether they can beat Trump or not.

Which is why I'd like to see a whole debate segment exploring this concept. What these debates are, in part, is an audition for which candidate has the best chance of beating Trump. I do not believe that I am alone when I say that I watch the debates and ponder how each candidate would stand up to Trump on a future debate stage. Are they strong enough to withstand his playground insults? Can they think on their feet and counter with devastating comebacks of their own? Do they have the facts at hand to skewer how much Trump lied to his supporters during the 2016 campaign? Do they have the moral outrage that will be necessary to win the election against such a narcissist?

Those are all important questions, as far as I'm concerned. To me, they are all much more important than: "What flavor of healthcare reform do you favor, and why is it better than all the other Democratic proposals?" -- a question which has been asked in various forms in both previous debates and has already pretty much outlived its usefulness. Splitting hairs between various proposals ignores an 800-pound elephant in the room, because no matter what any Democratic president proposes, it will have to make it through Congress. No plan will emerge unscathed from the sausage-grinding, in other words, so we'll have plenty of time later on to have endless debates over the gritty details of any sweeping proposal -- on healthcare, on green energy, on guns, on all the other hairsplitting subjects that have consumed the first two debates.

Instead, here's what I'd love to see tomorrow night:

"Joe Biden has put taking on Donald Trump at the center of his campaign so far. Granted, he has the luxury of doing so because he's been the frontrunner. So I'd like to start with Mr. Biden and ask what you would say directly to Donald Trump's face on a debate stage next year. If Trump calls you 'Sleepy Joe' and questions your mental faculties in his usual playground language, what would your response be?"

Then the moderators should work their way down the line, from Biden to the lowest-polling candidate on the stage, and ask them various versions of the same question, perhaps quoting a few Trump tweets to get direct reactions. To Elizabeth Warren, the obvious setup would be to ask how she'd respond to the first time Trump called her "Pocahontas" to her face. For Bernie Sanders, perhaps ask how he'd respond to Trump calling socialism un-American. Of course, Trump hasn't taken the time to personally bestow insulting nicknames on every single Democratic candidate, so people like Andrew Yang and Julián Castro would of necessity have to get more generic versions of the question.

But however the setups were phrased, the most valuable use of the third debate (to me, at least) would be to devote an entire debate segment -- allowing all the candidates to individually respond -- to the burning question of how each of them would take on Trump. They should be invited to speak directly to Trump, as if he were on the stage with them, and they should be invited to give the voters a preview of how exactly they would debate the president. Would they stoop to their own playground-level insults? Would they effectively use humor to get the audience to laugh at Trump's buffoonery? Would they prosecute the case against Trump's presidency in devastating ways? Would they make a moral case for why the country's better than Trumpism?

There are obviously many ways to approach the subject. Some of them will be more effective than others. Delivery and timing will be crucial. So will humor and command of the facts. All of these candidates are running for the chance to directly take on Donald Trump next year. The voters keep saying over and over again that this is indeed their overriding concern when weighing each candidate. The Democratic debates should allow the voters a preview of how effective these candidates could be in direct confrontation with Trump, because that is precisely what they're running for.

Democratic voters have shown an astonishing amount of ideological ambivalence to the candidates so far. A moderate candidate would be OK, but then again so would a fire-breathing lefty -- as long as they can be relied upon to beat Trump. Biden voters will support Sanders or Warren, and vice versa, if the polls show they're the best candidate against Trump. Unlike the last two open Democratic presidential primaries (2008, 2016), there are more than two major candidates and the differences between them are not all that personal. As one commenter here put it a few days ago: there won't be any of that "Party Unity My Ass" (PUMA) nonsense this time around. Beating Trump is so important that minor differences in style or policy will easily be overlooked.

But which candidate will truly be the best against Trump? Will a wonky, detail-heavy takedown of Trump work, or will a heartfelt emotional appeal be better? To borrow Michelle Obama's framework, will going low be more effective than going high against Trump? Will scathing insults work, or will outright ridicule be better in the end? These are all very crucial questions, and very crucial differences in approach. The only way we'll be able to weigh and decide which we think will work better is to see them on display. Which is why I would dearly appreciate it if the ABC hosts allow for a free-for-all segment where the differences of the Democrats takes a back seat to auditioning their strategy for beating Trump in the debates, and in the general election campaign as a whole.

The networks which host the debates all want to get good ratings, but so far they've tried to do so by getting Democrats to beat each other up. The "breakout moments" (what few of them there have been) have all been one Democrat ripping into another Democrat. But breakout moments could also erupt if they were all explicitly invited to take the fight directly to Trump himself. You just know he'll be watching, and one measure of the effectiveness of such a segment would be which candidate Trump couldn't help but respond to on Twitter. That would all but guarantee which clip would get the most airplay the next morning, after all. So I sincerely hope the moderators give each candidate the chance to get under Trump's skin in a big way. Because that is really what the nomination contest is all about -- who can best beat Trump, not who can best beat up the other Democrats on the stage.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

75 Comments on “The Debate Segment I'd Really Like To See”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    As one commenter here put it a few days ago: there won't be any of that "Party Unity My Ass" (PUMA) nonsense this time around.

    How many quatloos do you want to put on that, my friend?? :D

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    It would be interesting.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Of equal interest would be questions about how they would deal with #MoscowMitch if Rs keep the Senate. It might even be more revealing.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden would say that Trump is full of malarkey, to his face, anytime, anywhere.

    Heh.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Asking how they will stand up against Trump while campaigning/debating is an important question to those only concerned with beating Trump.

    Asking them how after they are elected they will stand up to the big money interests that finance their campaigns is an important question to those only concerned with fixing the problems that caused Trump that will not be solved by replacing him with a big money Democrat.

    And Democrats only concerned with beating Trump need to recognize this and understand that they will not win without those that are concerned aboot fixing the problems that caused Trump that will not vote for big money Democrats.

    If you want to win you have to act like adults and take your turn and give in to the demands of the people you need in this election as you have demanded from others for the last thirty years.

    #FU-ITSYOURTURN

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just remember, everyone … a great debater and campaigner does not a fine POTUS make.

    I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious here.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6] Elizabeth Miller

    I quite agree! There was a time that the fantasy of Hillary delighted me, as I just knew it would make the Repugs apoplectic. I suppose I'm evil.

    Fast forward to 2016 and I had to hold my nose to vote for her. She's just too Corporate, part of the DINOs who've been enabling the disaster that's been Reaganism for 40 years now.

    I have the same problem with the "moderates" especially Uncle Joe. And I shall again hold my nose and vote for Biden. Sigh.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    To be clear, NOT in the donation decisions I make nor the CA Primary. Elizabeth or Bernie/Bernie or Elizabeth, they'll both do.

    They are what America needs and either one will clean Trump's clock, a-yup!

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [7]

    Er, for the record, "...the fantasy of Hillary becoming President ..."

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And no, I'm not going to bap out 2,000 words like "Michale". Or Mikhail as I like to think of him. Yo Misha, most folks switch to decaf before midnight. I mean, most Americans. Heh.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1]

    OMG Misha, you...you...you have quatloos?

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once you figure out who Joe Biden is, if that ever happens, then you won't have to hold your nose at all.

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    Gurl, I'm old enough to have voted for Carter back in 1980, so I know Joe. A decent fellow, a man of the people even, who's miles better than any Repug Presidential hopeful in recent memory. And I like him!

    But radical challenges require radical countermeasures. and it's time for the pendulum to swing back, waaay past the center, in order to cure America of the devastation wrought by Reaganism.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    Granted, Elizabeth, "holding my nose" to vote for Joe is a bit much.
    I guess I'm afraid that I'd be as disappointed in a Biden administration as I was in Obama's. I mean, Barry had "Hope and Change," the Congress in his corner and a nation flat out hungry to move past the madness of W. He could have been FDR for crying out loud! But maybe he believed his own "reach across the isle and compromise" rhetoric a bit too fervently.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: "Joe Biden has put taking on Donald Trump at the center of his campaign so far. Granted, he has the luxury of doing so because he's been the frontrunner. So I'd like to start with Mr. Biden and ask what you would say directly to Donald Trump's face on a debate stage next year. If Trump calls you 'Sleepy Joe' and questions your mental faculties in his usual playground language, what would your response be?"

    "Sleepy Joe," "Pocahontas," "Crazy Bernie"... how juvenile. It sounds like the Cartoon President binge watches the Disney Channel along with his Fox News propaganda; it certainly explains the grade school vocabulary and the conducting foreign policy via pathetic tweet. If he spent half as much time serving the country as he does getting schooled by celebrities on Twitter... Chrissy Teigen, now there's a real talent in the naming department... hashtag "President Wussy Bass Witch" ;)

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But which candidate will truly be the best against Trump? Will a wonky, detail-heavy takedown of Trump work, or will a heartfelt emotional appeal be better?

    I said it before, and I'll say it again: It'll be a tag team. "Wonky" will work for certain people, and takedowns will work for the others. It'll be a mixed bag by a tag team.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    As one commenter here put it a few days ago: there won't be any of that "Party Unity My Ass" (PUMA) nonsense this time around.

    How many quatloos do you want to put on that, my friend?? :D

    I mean, think about it. In 2016, Trump was the epitome of evil.. He was the candidate that would, literally, destroy this country..

    And PUMA was alive and well..

    This time around, most everyone here has conceded that President Trump has NOT been even CLOSE to as bad as everyone thought he would be..

    So, in 2020, PUMA is likely MORE of a possibility..

    Especially if it's Biden who gets the nomination.

    Hell hath no fury like a progressive snowflake scorned..

    So.. Yea.. We will DEFINITELY see PUMA this time around..

    50,000 quatloos says so.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden would say that Trump is full of malarkey, to his face, anytime, anywhere.

    Heh.

    And President Trump would say that Biden is sleepy and creepy Joe to his face anytime anywhere..

    I am not sure that's a GOOD thing, eh?? :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    MtcCaddy...

    I know I will never see an answer, because you never have any facts to back up your claims.

    They are what America needs and either one will clean Trump's clock, a-yup!

    Explain to me exactly HOW a candidate that promises open borders, full free healthcare to illegals, banning of fossil fuels and at birth abortions.....

    Explain to me how such a candidate will appeal to Independents and NPAs.. Because it's THOSE people who will pick our next POTUS..

    Can you explain how EXACTLY this will happen??

    No, you cannot..

    And that is an answer in itself..

    It's just a pipe dream.. Wishful thinking.

    It will NEVER happen..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, how do ya'all feel about the SCOTUS siding with President Trump AGAIN??

    I mean, seriously.. Day in and day out ya'all claim that the courts are going to slap down President Trump..

    And day in and day out, President Trump prevails..

    Hell, President Trump is even winning in the frakin' ***9th CIRCUIT***!!! Ya'all just HAVE to know that is a harbinger of doom for the Democrat Party...

    How many times do ya'all have to LOSE and LOSE BADLY before ya'all concede the point??

    "At least once more, Ms Swann"
    -William Turner, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, The Black Pearl

    I am concerned for ya'all's health and safety.. If you are this delusional now, when ya'all are losing all the time....

    How is it going to be when President Trump is re-elected??

    What will happen to ya'all's tender and vulnerable psyches then??

    Have no fear.. I will be around to help you thru that troubled time and bring you to the final point of the 5 steps..

    ACCEPTANCE

    Hay.. What are friends for, eh? :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in MORE good news for this country..

    'Historic milestone': Senate confirms 150th Trump judicial nominee
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/11/senate-confirms-150th-trump-judicial-nominee/

    "It's about the souls, Dean. You'll understand when you need to."
    -Death, SUPERNATURAL

    It's about the judges, people.. And President Trump has cemented a REAL and LASTING legacy that, unlike Obama's flimsy legacy, can't be signed away and eliminated with the stroke of a pen..

    President Trump's vision will be with us for the rest of our lives...

    Kinda gets ya get all choked up, doesn't it?? :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Yoo: Supreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect

    But a larger issue is at stake: whether a single federal judge can issue a nationwide order blocking presidential action or even legislation passed by Congress.

    Importantly, Wednesday’s Supreme Court order wasn’t a final ruling on the merits of the new Trump asylum policy. The high court simply ruled that an order by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar blocking the new policy cannot take effect until the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the asylum policy.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state – had earlier ruled that Tigar’s order blocking implementation of the Trump asylum policy could only take effect in those states and Guam, but not nationwide.

    However, the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday overturned even that narrower appellate court decision, effectively blocking Tigar’s order from going into effect anywhere until a final high court ruling.

    Once again, all those people who claimed that President Trump's asylum policies would not go into effect, raise your hands... :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump administration announces major crackdown on asylum seekers
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-announces-major-crackdown-on-asylum-seekers

    President Trump is going to secure the southern border whether Democrats like it or not!!

    And you people just have to realize one vital FACT..

    When it comes to immigration... President Trump will ALWAYS win...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House's ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration – handed the White House a partial victory in the case on Monday by ending the nationwide injunction against the asylum policy. However, the 9th Circuit kept the injunction alive within the territorial boundaries of the circuit, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington.

    The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the policy's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts.

    TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES MAJOR CRACKDOWN ON ASYLUM SEEKERS, CITING WIDESPREAD FRAUD

    President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”

    Doesn't get any better than this, people.. :D

    Out of all the Presidents, it's been President Trump who has done the most good for immigrants..

    Clamping down on crimmigrants is important to that process...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Joe Biden has put taking on Donald Trump at the center of his campaign so far. Granted, he has the luxury of doing so because he's been the frontrunner. So I'd like to start with Mr. Biden and ask what you would say directly to Donald Trump's face on a debate stage next year. If Trump calls you 'Sleepy Joe' and questions your mental faculties in his usual playground language, what would your response be?"

    Com'on people, let's be realistic here..

    If KamalaSutra Harris can knock Biden on his heels and leave him BEGGING the moderator to end his time to talk.....

    Ya'all just GOTS to know that President Trump is gonna bitch-slap Biden silly..

    After President Trump is thru with Biden, he is gonna look like he was rode hard and put away wet...

    Biden has as much chance of beating Trump as Bob Dole had in beating Clinton..

    A Biden/Trump match up is going to be a massacre on Biden and, frankly, it's going to be painful to watch..

    I told Joe that running a third time will be a HUGE mistake for him.. Better to exit the Political world on top rather than to have your final act in politics be getting bitch-slapped left and right by Donald J Trump..

    I mean, look what happened to Hillary after Donald Trump was thru chewing her up one side and down the other?? She's the lowest of the low in the Democrat Party and sinking fast..

    Is THAT what you want for your legacy, Mr Biden???

    It's not to late...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    And no, I'm not going to bap out 2,000 words like "Michale". Or Mikhail as I like to think of him. Yo Misha, most folks switch to decaf before midnight. I mean, most Americans. Heh.

    Hay, MC.. I wanted to thank you for this rent-free space I have in your head..

    But I have to ask.. It's kinda empty in here.. Ya mind if I fill up the space a little.. Maybe a jacuzzi and a tennis court.. Then it will be more like my real home.. :D

    Thanx.. Yer a peach.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    But radical challenges require radical countermeasures. and it's time for the pendulum to swing back, waaay past the center, in order to cure America of the devastation wrought by Reaganism.

    Yea.. Cuz that's worked out so well for you Dumbocrats in the past, eh?

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

    How did Dukakis or Mondale enjoy their presidencies...

    Oh that's right.. They were BEATEN because they also wanted the "pendulum to swing back, waaay past the center"..

    How did that work out for them, MC???

    They were smeared all over the floor by Reagan, then Bush...

    Which is EXACTLY what's going to happen with the 2020 election..

    It's people like you who make it IMPOSSIBLE for the Dumbocrat Party to field a decent candidate..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    Yo Misha, most folks switch to decaf before midnight. I mean, most Americans..

    Actually, I don't drink coffee.. Ever.. Never have, never will...

    I do enjoy a nice cup of tea every once in a while..

    But, thank you for your interest in my beverage choices..

    And, once again.. Thanx for this rent-free space in your head.. It's pretty kewl.. :D

    A bit dafty... But still pretty kewl..

    :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, now.. As I did yesterday, I felt sorry for ya'all, what with all your losses in the SCOTUS, the 9th and North Carolina... Like yesterday, I was gonna cut ya'all some slack out of sympathy...

    But, since MtnCaddy wants to talk about me so much, it would be a grave disservice to ya'all if I took the day off..

    Thanx, MC for proving to me that my presence here is very much needed and very much desired..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of how low Clinton has sunk...???

    Hillary Clinton gets brutally mocked for reading printouts of her own emails at art exhibit
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-gets-brutally-mocked-for-reading-printouts-of-her-own-emails-at-art-exhibit

    She's reduced to reading her emails aloud to try and garner attention..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Seriously, Joe.. Is THAT how you want to go out??? Reading the Crime Bill and the Bus'ing legislation and your bankruptcy bill aloud as you try to relive and revive your past glory??

    Say it ain't so, Joe...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:


    Jonah Goldberg
    ?
    @JonahNRO
    Hillary should fire all of her advisors and anyone else who said this was a good idea. https://twitter.com/huffpost/status/1171880306825211904

    HuffPost
    ?
    @HuffPost
    Hillary Clinton read her own emails for an hour at an art exhibition in Venice where all 60,000 pages are on display.

    "They are just so boring," she reportedly said during the visit.

    It's so sad and pathetic how Hillary is trying to extend her fame...

    How many Democrats just want her to disappear? I am betting the majority of them here in Weigantia do.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, CNN runs with a report that turned out to be complete and utter bullshit..

    El Paso 'hero' arrested by Secret Service before meeting Trump at White House: report
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-paso-shooting-hero-arrested-secret-service-white-house-trump-chris-grant

    How many times does CNN have to LIE before ya'all condemn CNN??? Aren't you people the heroic TRUTH warriors??

    Oh, that's right.. It doesn't matter if it's all lies if it attacks President Trump... :eyeroll:

    That's called situational principles, people.. And it's WORSE than having no principles at all..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the I COULDA TOLD YA THAT department..

    Democrats lost in NC just weeks after decapitating the DCCC's top staff for being too white
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dems-lost-in-n-c-just-weeks-after-decapitating-the-entire-dccc-leadership-because-it-was-too-white

    Identity politics lost the NC races for the Democrats..

    Well, no shit...

    Identity politics ALWAYS lose..

    The ONLY reason that the Dims took the House in 2018 is because all the Dem candidates who won ran as Republicans...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    With that scandal still hanging in the air locally, and with Republicans nominating the author of the state's controversial ban on local gender ordinances (the so-called "bathroom bill"), the conditions seemed right for Democrats to pull off the victory.

    Unfortunately for them, however, the Democratic organization responsible for this race, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had its eye off the ball. Less than six weeks ago, after a nasty little fight between Democratic members of Congress, the DCCC's entire senior staff was abruptly purged for no reason other than it was perceived to be too white. And no, that's not a figure of speech or an exaggeration — the senior staff chosen by DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos, D-Illinois, was forced out because they had been born as part of the wrong race.

    How could Democrats be SOOOO stoopid as to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory??? :eyeroll:

    Identity politics.. It's the Dumbocrat way...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It appears that no one had anything against these particular staffers ... except for the color of their skin. Although roughly half the committee’s full-time staff (13 of 27) were nonwhite, this was not enough for some Democratic members of Congress. They complained DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois had brought in too many white staffers when she won the position. And they put enough pressure on her that she sacrificed her loyal staffers to the god of diversity.

    And look what happened... Democrats LOST..

    "Okay. You know how you’re on an airplane and the flight attendant asks you to turn your cell phone off, and you’re like; I ain’t turning my cell phone off, that’s doing no harm to the damn airplane? Well, this is what we get. That’s what happens, it gets up there, bounces around on the satellite, and bam! Just turn your damn cell phone off. Now you’re going to drop off a cliff cause your GPS don’t work."
    -Agent J, MEN IN BLACK 3

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    To reiterate: Democrats probably just lost a House seat thanks to their stupid, one-track-minded preoccupation with "intersectionality" and "white privilege" — the latter being a fancy term used by academics to lend respectability to judging other people based solely on racial stereotypes.

    When it comes to race, the Democratic Party has only a hammer, and as a result, everything looks like a nail to them. And as long as they keep along this path, the nation can only benefit from their obsessions continuing to cost them political power.

    Word....

    How is it that Democrats could be so completely and utterly stoopid!??

    Well... They're Democrats... :eyeroll:

    That explains it...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy,

    OMG Misha, you...you...you have quatloos?

    For the record, I am the undisputed authority of all things Trek here in Weigantia.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the COLD DAY IN HELL department..

    Publix grocery chain asks customers to not openly carry guns
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/460932-publix-grocery-chain-asks-customers-to-not-openly-carry-guns

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy,

    And no, I'm not going to bap out 2,000 words like "Michale". Or Mikhail as I like to think of him. Yo Misha, most folks switch to decaf before midnight. I mean, most Americans. Heh.

    You seem to know alot about Russian names and their diminutives and such..

    Are you Russian??

    So, why did you help President Trump win the election??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are trying to spin the North Carolina GOP that, since it was so close, that it was actually a Dem win...

    OK... Let's look at it from that angle..

    Why NC-9 Should Frighten the Democrats
    Minority voters are starting to walk away.

    Last week the Democrats were touting the special election in North Carolina’s 9th District as the first major contest of the 2020 cycle, and the polls indicated that Democrat Dan McCready might win what should be a pretty safe GOP seat. By Wednesday morning, after Republican Dan Bishop had won, their focus had shifted and much commentary was devoted to his “thin margin of victory.” Little notice was taken of certain voting patterns that should frighten the Democrats. Specifically, McCready did far worse than expected in every county but one, and many of those counties are dominated by minority voters.

    The most unnerving example, from the Democratic perspective, is rural Robeson County. The ethnic makeup of this county is as follows: Native American (38.6%), White (25.7%), Black (24%), Hispanic (8.52%), Two or More Races (2.15%), Asian (0.66%), Other (0.275%). On Tuesday the Democrat received a fraction of the votes he received in 2018, running for the same seat. Ryan Matsumoto of Inside Elections provides the gory details: “McCready won Robeson County by only 1.11 points, a MASSIVE decrease from his 15.31 point margin last November.” In 2012, Obama carried Robeson by 17 points
    https://spectator.org/why-nc-9-should-frighten-the-democrats/

    No matter HOW Democrats try to spin it... NC shows that things are bleak for Democrats in 2020...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nearly 60 percent of Cumberland County’s approximately 333,000 residents are Black, Hispanic, or a member of some other minority group. McCready won it in 2018. Dan Bishop won Cumberland on Tuesday.

    All across the country, Minorities are abandoning the Democrat Party by the millions even the TENS of millions....

    It makes sense.. For Decades, Democrats have done nothing but give lip service to black Americans and hispanic Americans.. Then along comes President Trump and BOOOM... Unemployment levels are down to their lowest points EVER....

    LOWEST.....POINTS.... EVER

    Minority Americans are not stoopid.. They know a good thing when they see one... And they are flocking to President Trump and abandoning Democrats left and right...

    Black and hispanic Americans are asking the Democrat Party, "What have you done for me lately??" and Democrats are simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Huh?? I dunno..."

    And THAT is why Democrats will lose in 2020 and lose BIGGLY....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The above scenario played out in NC in EVERY COUNTY except one...

    In the affluent white AKA the Elitists section of Mecklenburg county was the ONLY area where Democrats increased their performance since 2018..

    Rich white people gave Democrats their ONLY gain..

    EVERY WHERE else, Democrats lost ground to the GOP..

    So, spin all ya want people.. But FACTS are FACTS...

    And the FACTS prove that the North Carolina elections paint a foreboding and disastrous picture for Democrats in 2020...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Harvard-Harris poll released in early September asked the question, “How strong do you think the U.S. economy is today?” A majority of Blacks (53%) answered, “Strong.” In answer to the same question, a majority of Hispanics (54%) gave the same answer. These are far higher marks than any GOP president has received, particularly from Blacks. It isn’t necessary to consult the Delphic Oracle to discover why they are responding in this fashion. Black unemployment hit 5.5 percent in August, the lowest rate on record.

    No matter WHICH metric the Democrats want to use, the fact remains the same..

    Minorities are abandoning the Democrat Party...

    It's THAT simple...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    And that’s what the voters did. But it wasn’t racist rednecks or people who wallow in “white privilege.” They weren’t the “suits” from Mecklenburg County who voted for Dan McCready on their way to play with pivot tables in Charlotte office buildings. The voters who elected Dan Bishop to the House of Representatives are the people who actually work for a living in places like Cumberland, Richmond, and Robeson counties. They are by no means all white, and they remember all too well what it was like during the Obama years and how it felt to go hat in hand to the unemployment office. That should frighten the Democrats badly.

    Says it all... No further elaboration necessary..

    Democrats should be very VERY afraid...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Where has my little buddy Neil been???

    Haven't seen him in AGES....

    I bet he's become a Trump supporter!! :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right... Aww right..

    I'll take a break and let ya'all catch up.. :D

    Just remember.. I'm a marathon.. Not a sprint.. :D

  47. [47] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    Kick (16)

    Tag team is right. As Ali said, “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Homer Simpson said, "Float like a butterfly and sting like when I pee.."

    :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hot Mic Catches Marianne Williamson Slamming Liberals: What Does It Say That ‘Conservatives Are Nicer to Me’?
    https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/marianne-williamson-slams-liberals-in-hot-mic-moment-what-does-it-say-that-conservatives-are-nicer-to-me/

    It says that liberals are hateful elitist intolerant bitches and if your not part of their clique you don't have the right to exist...

    That's what it says about liberals...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    It says that liberals are hateful elitist intolerant bitches and if your not part of their clique you don't have the right to exist...

    That's what it says about liberals...

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    His putative chief rival, Joe Biden, claims that Trump “inherited a good economy, as he has inherited everything in his life.” He didn’t inherit billions of dollars, though his father was a wealthy man. He didn’t inherit a television audience of 25 million viewers every week for 14 years. He didn’t inherit a fine and attractive wife and family. And he did not inherit the presidency of the United States. (And the economy he did inherit was a flatlined “new normal” of 2 percent GDP growth, 1 percent per capita GDP growth, bought with annual increases in the accumulated national debt of 10 percent.) But if the president wants to put the election away now, all he has to do is be a bit more gracious: more of a chief of state of a great people and of the world’s greatest power, and less of a backbiting, counter-sniping denizen of the nether political regions. To drain the swamp, he has to get clear of it. He has earned the ability to separate himself from the insalubrious stratum of an officeholder fighting for his life against historic calumnies and malfeasances. All but his most febrile enemies will concede his cunning, determination, and stamina, and, in a slightly rabble-rousing way, his panache. He has won every round in the toughest and highest league in the world. Now it’s time to show some class. Those who know him know he is capable of it. The office sought the man, and the moment seeks the conduct.
    -Conrad Black

    Yup... Yup...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, let's take a look at some old business, eh??

    First off.. Did the Mueller report ever get released totally unredacted??

    No?? OK, so that's one loss for Democrats..

    Moving on.. AG Barr.. He ever get dragged before that House committee??

    No?? OK.. Loss #2 for Democrats..

    McGann?? Hicks?? Were they ever forced to appear before the House committee??

    No?? WOW.. Tough break for Democrat eh??

    All those court cases against President Trump for clamping down on the southern border, re-routing funds to the wall, etc etc...

    Democrats win ANY of those court cases???

    Not a single one.. Wow, Democrats are really being decimated, eh??

    More recently, how about that NOAA official statement.. Every get retracted or mitigated by any NOAA official???

    No??? Too bad...

    Well, crap, fellas...

    Looks like ya'all got nothing to show for all of ya'all's bravado and bullshit...

    A big huge fat nothing...

    Well, ya'all can't say ya weren't warned...

  53. [53] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Reading, hmm, reading, hmm, reading, hmm...
    4 pages later: pagedown,pagedown,pagedown,....pagedown.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, I know..

    Facts hurt.. Better to just scroll thru..

    Easier to maintain your delusions that way... :D

    I don't mind..

    Being totally factually accurate is it's own reward.. :D

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Conrad Black thinks Trump is going to change his spots and show some class, Michale?

    Good luck with that.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Trump inherited an economy nicely recovering from the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    Thank the Gods he didn't take office in 2009.

    But, the real question is what kind of economy Trump will be leaving for his successor …

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, Barry had "Hope and Change," the Congress in his corner and a nation flat out hungry to move past the madness of W. He could have been FDR for crying out loud! But maybe he believed his own "reach across the isle and compromise" rhetoric a bit too fervently.

    First off, Barry? Please.

    Check your facts and history on the 2009-2016 congress.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, Conrad Black thinks Trump is going to change his spots and show some class, Michale?

    Good luck with that.

    Oh yea.. I realize it's a big ask.. But I definitely could see President Trump doing it, just to frak with all the haters.. :D

    Trump inherited an economy nicely recovering from the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    No. Trump inherited an economy that was barely limping along.. Yunno.. The "new normal" of 2% GDP, as Obama said..

    If Hillary had been elected, we would STILL be limping along at the "new normal" 2% GDP...

    First off, Barry? Please.

    You DO realize that Obama only insisted on being called "Barack" after he realized how politically advantageous it would be to use his full name and not the diminutive..

    Up to that point, he was "Barry Obama"...

    Factual story..

    Check your facts and history on the 2009-2016 congress.

    You mean, the facts and history where Obama promised Republicans he would include their ideas in TrainWreckCare and then flipped them the bird when he realized he could force it thru without their help using Reconciliation..

    THAT "facts and history"???

    Or maybe you mean the "facts and history" where Obama flipped the bird to the GOP in congress and stated, "I don't need you. I have a phone and I have a pen"

    OR... Maybe you mean the "facts and history" where Obama bragged that "elections have consequences" and then spent years crying about the consequences when the GOP took Congress...

    There is PLENTY more "facts and history" of this nature... :D

    But, the real question is what kind of economy Trump will be leaving for his successor …

    I predict that President Trump, in Jan of 2025 will live an economy that is exciting, vibrant and running like a well oiled machine.. :D

    I have a time viewer and I have already taken a look.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    US attorney recommends proceeding with charges against McCabe, as DOJ rejects last-ditch appeal
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-attorney-recommends-proceeding-with-charges-against-mccabe-as-doj-rejects-last-ditch-appeal

    Rut Roh, Raggey...

    An Obama minion is going to jail.. :D

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Using 'Barry', Michale, is not meant to refer back to Obama's personal history and, I don't like it.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I predict that President Trump, in Jan of 2025 will live an economy that is exciting, vibrant and running like a well oiled machine.. :D

    Well, I really hope you're right, if for no other reason and for my own sake.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The fact of the matter is that there are a confluence of factor gathering that signal an economic downturn, world wide.

    It is also a fact that Trump is not addressing that situation but rather adding to the mix.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Using 'Barry', Michale, is not meant to refer back to Obama's personal history and, I don't like it.

    I am sure President Trump or Mitch McConnell doesn't like all they names that they are called either..

    Something to think about, eh? :D

    Well, I really hope you're right, if for no other reason and for my own sake.

    :D You will be happily pleased in 2025.. :D

    The fact of the matter is that there are a confluence of factor gathering that signal an economic downturn, world wide.

    Actually there is not.. It's all a bunch of rumor and innuendo and outright falsehoods being thrown about to damage President Trump politically..

    When one looks at the actual factor in play objectively and without spin..

    Americans and the economy are doing pretty darn good.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually there is not.. It's all a bunch of rumor and innuendo and outright falsehoods being thrown about to damage President Trump politically..

    When one looks at the actual factor in play objectively and without spin..

    In other words, the Leftist MSM is trying to CREATE a recession by claiming there already is one, just to damage President Trump politically..

    But it won't work.. Patriotic Americans are smarted than Democrats.. By a factor of 100..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take my word for it..

    CNBC's Jim Cramer: 'The Only People Talking About a Recession Are Us'
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2019/09/08/cnbcs-jim-cramer-only-people-talking-about-recession-are-us

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    17

    This time around, most everyone here has conceded that President Trump has NOT been even CLOSE to as bad as everyone thought he would be..

    You're either reading a different forum or you're mentally challenged or both.

    Pick a lane:

    * Trump/America haters
    * This asinine bullshit.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Texodus’: Why the Lone Star State might turn blue for real this time
    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2019/0912/Texodus-Why-the-Lone-Star-State-might-turn-blue-for-real-this-time

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    EVERY Dem Presidential Candidate has PROMISED to END and/or BAN fossil fuels..

    There is simply **NO WAY** Texas is going blue..

    Not now.. Not ever...

    Keep dreaming, Democrats.. As long as we are an oil based economy, it ain't NEVER gonna happen..

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, there is no future for fossil fuels.

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    D You will be happily pleased in 2025.. :D

    I had better be happily pleased long before that.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The question, Michale, is not whether there will be an economic downturn but whether Trump will act to prevent or worsen it.

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Change 'prevent' to read: mitigate in the comment above,

    Please and thank-you.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    EVERY Dem Presidential Candidate has PROMISED to END and/or BAN fossil fuels..

    BS. Prove it. You're either lying or you're ignorant of the truth.

    There is simply **NO WAY** Texas is going blue..

    Not now.. Not ever...

    If the possibility didn't exist, there'd be no need whatsoever for the Trumplicans and Conservatives to be whining like little bitches about it. As a for instance, I haven't heard any Democrats whining incessantly about New York going "Red." *laughs*

    It's not a matter of "if" but "when" Texas will go "Blue." It's already been "Blue" so your statement about "ever" is already a massive pile of BS.

    Keep dreaming, Democrats.. As long as we are an oil based economy, it ain't NEVER gonna happen..

    Well then, it's a good thing "we" are not an oil based economy. Perhaps in your demonstrable and ever-present inability to recognize facts from the regular bullshit you spew, you have simply confused "US" with Kuwait, Libya, and/or Saudi Arabia.

    There's a cure for ignorance: Crack a book. :)

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    I've enjoyed all the debates including tonight's. While there's been some jabs exchanged they've never been horrible and overall the candidates have shown each other respect.

    The "problem", if there is one, is that we have several solid candidates so the field remains stubbornly large. Tonight's debate probably won't change much because everyone had really strong moments and no one had a terrible moment, campaign-killing moment - tho there were two moments that may cause some damage, one for Castro and one for Biden. (I'll address them further down.) OTOH it may be that the second tier will get smaller because it's so hard for any one candidate to break out.

    Quick assessments:

    Biden
    Joe started strong with good energy and minimal stumbling. He was clearly want to be aggressive and show he's a "fighter", etc. He came out strong in defense of the ACA, essentially attacking Warren & Sanders and M4A. Their respective responses were strong and he didn't really rebut them so it came out as something of a draw.

    But as has happened previously, he struggled more and more as time passed. He had a pretty bad word-salad answer to a question about his past position on reparations (transcript here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/12/20863709/democratic-debate-abc-biden-record-player).

    His last answer, on the question of resiliency, started badly, then slid into the familiar references to his life's tragedies, but did end strongly.

    I don't think Joe's likely to have gained many new followers and he may have lost a few as concerns about his age start to get more pronounced.

    Sanders
    Bernie's voice was very raspy and he did his normal yelling but his answers were pretty solid. I don't think he's likely to have gained or lost followers after this debate.

    Warren
    Elizabeth was unflappable, positive, solid in her answers. She covered familiar territory in several answers but also had some standout new material. Re: Afghanistan she talked about the need to stop using the military to solve problems the military can't solve. She made the point about corporate influence affecting issues across the board well. Etc.

    I don't think she scored any breakout hit moments, but she didn't hurt herself. (Well, we're going to find out if her M4A stance hurts her. She made her case well but we'll see if she succeeded.)

    If she lost support I think it would be over M4A. I think she may pick up some support from Bernie/Joe-leaners as they both, in different ways, showed their ages tonight.

    Harris
    Kamala did a great opening statement in that she went after Blotus. All the openers were solid but hers stood out. She used that same approach to several questions and I liked it every time. No bad moments. She may get a bounce after tonight.

    Buttigieg
    Several good responses and overall solid performance. Question is did he attract anyone new?

    Booker
    Good answers, humor, great performance overall. He's positioning himself well for VP consideration if he can't break into the top tier.

    O'Rourke
    Beto did his best debate tonight - the El Paso shooting has centered him and given him sort of a thematic place to work from. I LOVED his answer to whether he'd confiscate assault weapons: a blunt YES. Will it be enough?

    Klobuchar
    Amy also had her best debate so far. Every answer was solid and if they were rehearsed they didn't sound rehearsed. Her "centrism" doesn't cut it for me for potus but I think she'd be great as Secretary of State.

    I could see her getting a bounce after tonight - she may pick up Biden voters who are worried about his age.

    Yang
    Andrew always has interesting answers and he had a cadre of supporters in the audience cheering for him. His announcement about giving 10 families $1000/mo for a year fell a bit flat, though. I don't see him as a serious contender but do think he adds to the discourse. I doubt his numbers change much.

    Castro
    Julien's night was almost all good except for when he accused Joe of having forgotten something he'd said 2 minutes previously. I think he overdid it. He went for the throat with Beto in the first debate over a disagreement and this had the same feeling. (Tonight he was especially gracious to Beto.) Attacks are tricky. We want candidates who can dish it out as needed but there's a line and Castro crosses it more than anyone else. I think it will hurt him.

    It will be interesting to see if numbers shift for anyone.

  74. [74] 
    Paula wrote:

    Biden
    Joe started strong with good energy and minimal stumbling. He clearly wanted to be...

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also Julián , not Julien. Damn.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]