ChrisWeigant.com

Reactions To The Democratic Debates, Round Ten

[ Posted Tuesday, February 25th, 2020 – 22:08 UTC ]

Welcome back again to another of our post-debate snap-reactions columns. Tonight was the tenth in the continuing series of Democratic presidential debates, moderated this time by CBS. When they woke up and remembered to, I should say, because at several extended times during the night I thought the moderators had completely left the room for a coffee break. It certainly seemed that way, since the candidates just engaged in a free-for-all shouting match where it was impossible to hear what any one of them had to say. This wasn't an isolated incident, it happened over and over again. And the moderators either were too timid to even try to, you know, moderate the discussion, or they were just flat-out incapable of doing so. Or, as I said, perhaps they had all ducked out for a few moments in the hallway.

Tonight's debate seemed just as high-energy as the last time around, which was held last week in Las Vegas. The stakes couldn't be higher, as this is the last time the candidates will all stand on one stage until after Super Tuesday -- which may well eliminate a number of them. But to me (at least) tonight didn't seem quite as personal and vicious as the last installment. Perhaps this was due to Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg deciding to forego the "Amy and Pete attack each other with chainsaws" part of the program -- which, up until now, had been a regular feature of all the other debates where they faced each other on stage.

Pete Buttigieg had a new tactic, instead of just trying to eviscerate Amy. He must have hired a debate coach who told him: "Ignore the rules! They don't exist! Just jump in whenever you feel like it and start rambling! The audience will love it! Don't ever stop talking!" This got unbelievably annoying as the night wore on. Bernie Sanders bore the brunt of Pete's "I'm just going to go right ahead and talk" tactic, but he wasn't the only one, as Pete jumped all over anyone's answer at seemingly random moments. Again, if the moderators had been on the ball, he would have gotten slapped down at some point, but they didn't chide him all night -- so he kept right on doing it. I'd have to check the tape, but I could have sworn at one point someone in the audience actually yelled out: "Shut up, Pete!" -- but again, it may have just been my imagination. Or wishful thinking.

Michael Bloomberg didn't get nearly as much incoming fire this time around either, although he did take some serious blows from Elizabeth Warren once again. Warren pointed out something I thought she was going to bring up last time -- how much money Bloomberg has donated over the years to Republicans running for the Senate. She brought the issue home by dropping Lindsey Graham's name, and also pointed out that Bloomberg had given a pile of money to Scott Brown, whom she defeated to get her Senate seat in the first place. This was an obvious line of attack against Bloomberg, and Warren was the obvious person to deploy it -- which she did rather effectively tonight.

Most of the attacks tonight, naturally, were aimed at the clear frontrunner of the race, Bernie Sanders. Over and over again we were told that if Bernie wins the nomination, the Democratic Party is somehow doomed to lose not only the White House, but also every other race with a Democrat on the ballot, right down to your local dogcatcher. OK, well, maybe I exaggerate, but not by much. Gloom and doom was explicitly predicted by just about everyone on stage with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren. Warren did take her own shots at Bernie, but they weren't as apocalyptic in nature as the others.

Bernie, for the most part, was Bernie. He's heard these attacks before. He's addressed them before. And he's still doing better in the race than anyone else -- a point the others absolutely refused to acknowledge in any way (other than the obvious -- that he was the one they were all simultaneously attacking). Bernie was hit for his previous stances on gun control as well as his current stances on healthcare (of course), supporting the filibuster, free college for all, marijuana legalization, his comments on Cuba and Fidel Castro, and his stance on Israel. He held his own throughout this onslaught, it seemed to me.

Bernie is Bernie. That's his strength, really. He has been incredibly consistent throughout his political career, which means he's heard all this stuff before and he knows how to counter it. Whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to paint him as some sort of political opportunist twisting in the fickle winds of popular opinion. That image may fit some of the candidates, but it really doesn't fit Bernie at all. And it's really hard to attack him for being the "most unelectable" when he has been winning all the elections so far, so that didn't really stick either.

Who else stood out? I have to apologize, because I don't have the stamina tonight to break down each candidate's performance individually and discretely, I'm just thumbing through my notes for a few reactions. Michael Bloomberg was better than the last debate, but that's really not saying that much. He still oozes a sense of entitlement, and he really doesn't have a pat answer for his many years as a Republican. When Warren brought up his past support for GOP Senate candidates, he just flat-out ignored it, which didn't really work all that well. He also refused to admit that China wasn't a democracy, which was downright bizarre (Joe Biden correctly and immediately called him out on this). Bloomberg did forcefully deny he had told a female employee "Kill it!" when he learned she was pregnant, and he edged right up to stating that nobody should believe her story at all -- not a great look in the #MeToo era. He also denied blaming the end of redlining in mortgages for the financial collapse, which will doubtless be fact-checked later. When talking about the 40-plus Democrats who were elected to take back the House in 2018, he almost gave off a sense of ownership -- "I paid to get those 40 elected!" And Bloomberg, as Hillary Clinton did in 2016, would only go as far as saying marijuana legalization "needs more study," which is just woefully inadequate at this point in time.

Overall, though, Bloomberg had a few facts to cite to show his record as mayor of New York City, which showed he had done a little more debate practice than last time. He didn't let the others get under his skin as much, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren (who took the prize for smacking Bloomberg around tonight, as she did last time around). His worst moment came when he tried to crack an obviously-memorized joke (about how he was "surprised" the other candidates -- which he called "contestants" -- even showed up tonight "because I did such a good job of beating them last week"). This was supposed to be self-depreciating, I guess, but it fell so flat you could hear the "Thud!" it made.

Joe Biden tried hard to appear as the most presidential one on the stage, as he always does. I don't know that it did him any more good tonight than previously. He got most animated when the Obama/Biden record was even questioned, and he will also likely get some fact-checking for trying to deny Bernie's point that Barack Obama had said some nice things about the Cuban education and healthcare systems as well (this stuff is on record, Joe). Biden still seems awfully confident that he's going to get an overwhelming wave of black voter support in South Carolina, and he may well be right about that. We'll have to see how he does this Saturday.

Biden's funniest moments came when he pointed out -- repeatedly -- that nobody else on the stage was paying the slightest attention to the rules. "Why am I stopping?" he asked at one point, when the moderator told him his time was up. "Nobody else stops. Must be my Catholic school upbringing."

Biden's best line of the night came when he shot down Bloomberg's insane "President Xi is not a dictator, he has to answer to the Politburo" answer. Biden forcefully stated that Xi "does not have a small-d democratic bone in his body" and went on to hit China over the Uyghurs in "concentration camps" as well as Hong Kong and China ignoring international rules. Biden knows this stuff, he's got more foreign policy experience than anyone on the stage, and he drew the contrast starkly, to his credit. Elizabeth Warren jumped in immediately and pointed out that Bloomberg has business interests in China, but is refusing to release his taxes before Super Tuesday, which was another effective attack line.

Let's see... Tom Steyer was back on the stage as well, but didn't make much of an impression at all. Amy Klobuchar was up there yelling once again, but her routine has gotten more than a little stale by now, so whenever she upped the volume, I kind of lost focus, I have to admit. Her fierceness in debates kind of totally undercuts her whole "I'm Midwestern nice, I can win!" campaign theme, which I've commented on previously. Although it was a relief not to see her and Pete Buttigieg try to carve each other up with switchblades, for once.

Pete Buttigieg, freed up from another one-on-one deathmatch with Klobuchar, tried to take everyone else on instead. Mostly, this meant trying to talk over just about every single time Bernie was speaking. Seriously, Pete, this isn't a good look for you. Mister Calm, Cool And Collected just doesn't match up with Mister Shouty Microphone, to be blunt. Make your points, be passionate, but let other people speak when it is their turn! I mean, sheesh... one might even finish that thought up with: "for Pete's sake!" Ahem.

The final question of the night, of course, came from Gayle King. Sigh.... Really, CBS? Gayle as lead moderator of a presidential debate? Can we please not do that again? How about next time letting Major Garrett handle the whole night instead? I bet he wouldn't utterly lose control of the proceedings at any point, just for starters.

But where was I? Oh, right, the final inane questions: "What is the biggest misconception about you, and what motto do you live by?" Some tried to laugh the first part off (Bloomberg: "I'm six feet tall," Biden: "I have more hair than I think I do," Warren: "That I don't eat much -- I eat all the time!") but Bernie gave the best answer: "My ideas are not radical." As for the "words to live by," pretty much everyone nailed it. Klobuchar quoted Paul Wellstone: "Improve people's lives," Biden quoted his mother and his father, Sanders quoted Nelson Mandela: "Everything is impossible until it happens," while Warren and Buttigieg both chose Bible quotes (Warren: "As you do to the least among us, you do to me," Buttigieg: "If you would be a leader, first be a servant"), which all came off as very sincere. But then, that's what softball questions are all about, really.

OK, that's it for my notes. So overall, who do I think "won" and "lost" the debate? Well, I'd have to say that Pete Buttigieg lost, for reeking of desperation. Tom Steyer, too, for being the most boring guy on the stage. Who "won"? That's a harder call. I thought that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden both held their own effectively -- they got blows, but none really seemed to land at all on either of them. "They survived" is how I'd put it, more than "they won." Michael Bloomberg did better, but was still pretty rusty (better than "the worst debate performance I've ever seen" is not exactly a high bar to cross, in other words). Elizabeth Warren did the best job of bringing the attack -- mostly to Bloomberg, so I suppose if you were looking for more of an active participant (rather than just "they survived"), you would have to say she won the night.

Oh, and the moderators. Can't forget them. They were the biggest losers of the night, hands down. For the love of all that's holy, please send Oprah's friend back to morning television, someone....

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

64 Comments on “Reactions To The Democratic Debates, Round Ten”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: When they woke up and remembered to, I should say, because at several extended times during the night I thought the moderators had completely left the room for a coffee break. It certainly seemed that way, since the candidates just engaged in a free-for-all shouting match where it was impossible to hear what any one of them had to say. This wasn't an isolated incident, it happened over and over again.

    Haven't watched it yet, but it sounds exactly like the comments section of your blog where the same trolls continue their repetitive shit unabated over and over again. Annoying, was it?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm disappointed Biden hasn't used my favourite quote of him, in any number of variations. But, I guess it will have more punch when used in the general. Ahem.

    America leads best not by the example of its power but rather by the power of its example.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Joe Biden tried hard to appear as the most presidential one on the stage, as he always does. I don't know that it did him any more good tonight than previously.

    Seriously? You don't think that this was his best 'fake debate' performance? I must disagree - he showed clear signs of the Biden I have come to know over the last few decades.

    I know … you must have been getting up quite a bit for snacks or something and just missed the parts where Biden actually looked presidential. That must be it, right?

    Hmmm … guess I'll have to check some other analyses as I am a bit biased ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do moderators prepare for fake debates?

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    MC,

    Yep. I kinda feel sorry for the guy. Desperately trying to get a reaction out of people. I mean, what a sucky lifestyle choice. It's ironic that Michale is the one suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome," not us, because he's the one with the mancrush on Cheetogod
    , not the rest of us.

    I wonder if you and the crack whore can appreciate the fact that, since ya'all are always talking about me, by your OWN standards, it's I who have residence in ya'all's head.. :D

    I find that.. hilarious.. :D

    Don't you??

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    i almost hate to mention it, but guess who else was loyal to their man, even years after his party, his country, his continent and himself were all ashes.

    It would help if you had any reference for your statement..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and the moderators. Can't forget them. They were the biggest losers of the night, hands down. For the love of all that's holy, please send Oprah's friend back to morning television, someone....

    They're Democrats and they are Trump/America haters..

    Whatdya expect?? Logic??? Rational thought???

    Shirley, you jest...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz!!!

    Good ta see ya...

    Was getting worried ya might have gotten CB'ed on us...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it just about looks like ya'all better get used to Democrat Party Nominee Bernie Sanders..

    AND a massive President Trump re-election landslide and a President Trump-led GOP in full control of the US Government.. :D

    Can't WAIT til Nov!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    In SC, Buttigieg faces black voters wary of a gay candidate
    https://apnews.com/8e2d57dc3e8c5d26017ab9413b6035da

    And THIS is why Buttagig won't win the nomination..

    It's as simple as that...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems yell, scold and interrupt in tense South Carolina debate

    Sanders' rivals wasted little time going after the clear frontrunner. Warren went after Bloomberg ... again.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/democratic-debate-2020-highlights-key-moments-117540

    But how can this be!!???

    Democrats are as pure as the driven snow!!

    :smirk: :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER reason why Bernie won't be POTUS..

    “I happen to believe that what our foreign policy in the Middle East should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security of Israel, but you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians and the [Israelis]. And in answer to your question, that will come within the context of bringing nations together in the Middle East.”
    -Bernie Sanders

    The "suffering" of the Palestinian people is SOLELY and COMPLETELY the fault of those same Palestinian people..

    It's is the Pali's support and use of terrorism that is the root cause of all their "suffering"...

    They could live in peace side by side with Israel if they would just be content to live in peace side by side with Israel..

    But they opt for terrorism..

    And so their "suffering" is of their own making..

    It really is that simple..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Joe, Joe... Say it ain't so..

    “150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on. Carnage on our streets.”
    -Joe Biden

    While not pick on Joe specifically, this is a problem with hysterical Trump/America hating Democrats.

    They pull "facts" out of their ass that has NO BEARING on reality...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And once again..

    President Trump and the American people were the winners in last night's debate...

    :D

    Democrats simply cannot get their shit together.

    It comes from being nothing but a huge seething pulsing pile of postulating hate and bigotry....

    Welcome to today's Democrat Party...

    :smirk: :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Democratic primary riddled with chaos is a dream come true for President Trump. The president stands as the leader of a unified Republican Party and can take credit for policies that have created a booming economy and record-low unemployment rates.

    The president will continue raising money and adding to his monumental list of accomplishments throughout the spring as Democratic candidates still in the race inflict deep political wounds on each other that will be tough to recover from.

    President Trump – the ultimate political outsider – was once again the winner in Tuesday’s Democratic debate. The president’s optimistic vision for the future and his America First policies are helping all Americans realize their dreams – and the Democratic presidential wannabees have absolutely no answer for the successes Trump has achieved.

    This is the reality that the Demcorat Party faces...

    Democrats simply have no path to victory.. Either in winning the White House or holding on to the House...

    It's simply that Democrats have NO WAY to get there from here..

    Democrats best course of action would be to cede 2020 and plan for 2024 when, hopefully (for Dims) Americans will have forgotten the complete and utter disaster that is today's Democrat Party...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really hilarious when ya actually look at things..

    Democrat candidates took a step back, took a deep breath and decided it was time to act EXACTLY like they all accuse President Trump of acting.. :D

    Yea, that was a good call, right?? :smirk: :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    i almost hate to mention it, but guess who else was loyal to their man, even years after his party, his country, his continent and himself were all ashes.

    Ahhhh I get it now..

    So, what you are saying is that President Trump is Hitler and those who support President Trump are as bad as the Nazis who supported Hitler..

    Hmmmmmmm

    And you REALLY wonder why you Democrats are being thrown out of government???

    It's THAT exact elitist and woefully pathetic attitude that is why...

    It's easy to see why you hated to say it out loud..

    Perhaps you should have gone with your first instinct...

    I'm just sayin'.... :^/

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Was that the statement? It's not bad, but not his best.

    I like "This is America. There's not one single thing we can't do if we do it together."

    That statement is Joe Biden saying that we can do One Demand.

    The first statement could also be applied to One Demand.

    A candidate would be at their best to be a leader not with an example of their power (the big money funding their campaign) but the power of their example (trusting citizens enough to run a small donor only campaign).

    So come on, Liz. Sing along!

    "Give me small donor only
    Give me small donor only
    If it's good enough for Biden
    It's good enough for me."
    -Parody of song from Inherit the Wind

    I remember watching that movie a few years ago and thinking that song sounded familiar.

    Then it hit me- it's the bandaid jingle.

    That also makes a good parody for the candidates we are currently being offered.

    "I am stuck on big money
    I am stuck on big money
    I am stuck on big money
    'cause big money is stuck on me!"

    It's time to stop fighting evolution.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you REALLY wonder why you Democrats are being thrown out of government???

    It's THAT exact elitist and woefully pathetic attitude that is why...

    Nazi/Hitler comparisons are really the bottom of the barrel in expressing beet-red hysterical hate.

    If Democrats have to stoop THAT low to express their irrational and hysterical hate of President Trump??

    I would say that says a LOT more about Democrats than it does about President Trump...

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I didn't watch the DUH-bates, from the clips they are showing on Washington Journal I didn't miss much.

    In fact, from what they are showing they should not be called debates- we should call them the Monkey Trials. :D

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Do monkeys throw bullshit or just monkey shit?

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To paraphrase Cuba Gooding,Jr. from Jerry Maguire:

    Show me the monkeys!

    These monkeys were not too busy singing to put anybody down. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do monkeys throw bullshit or just monkey shit?

    "You know if you give food to monkeys, they just throw their shit at each other."
    -Pagan Min, FAR CRY 4

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    P.S.-
    Cuba Gooding, Jr. iI where I got my porn name from.

    Tuba Pudding, Jr.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops. sorry. I forgot Liz was back. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=For_WjPZ8qo

    Better get used to it, people..

    It's gonna be 10x the celebration for Trump supporters on the night of 3 Nov 2020... :D

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm not saying Donald is Hitler, nor that his followers must all be nazis. If I thought that I'd never vote for him, not to settle a bet or for any other reason. My point is that the phenomena of his popularity and propaganda have been managed in a way not seen since ww2 Germany. Isn't it possible to simply notice the similarities?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point is that the phenomena of his popularity and propaganda have been managed in a way not seen since ww2 Germany. Isn't it possible to simply notice the similarities?

    Of course there are similarities...

    But what you refuse to acknowledge is that there are similarities with OTHER campaigns as well.. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign for example..

    Basically, you are cherry picking attributes and claiming that they are exclusive to Donald Trump and Nazi Germany..

    And THAT is bullshit..

    But hay.. I am *ALWAYS* open to being proved wrong..

    Simply point to an attribute of Donald Trump that is SOLELY shared with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany and no one else..

    If you can do that, then you MIGHT have a case to make..

    If you can't, then it's apparent that the comparison shows the depth of the hatred against Donald Trump as opposed to any real and meaningful connection between the two..

    To put it in some context, find the most colossal and utterly moronic screw-up in all of history and claim that THAT shares similarities with Hillary Clinton's campaign because Hillary lost..

    You are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole...

    It's like Sanders saying that there were some good things about the Castro revolution and implying that we should emulate it..

    You find some ambiguous and common similarities between Trump and Hitler (they are both men, they are both human, they both talk too much, etc etc) that are shared amongst thousands if not MILLIONS of other people and imply that Trump = Hitler...

    I know that's not what you are saying..

    But, since Hitler is this planet's worst monster in all of human history, simply MENTIONING commonalities is to make the implication..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, to even MENTION Hitler and the nazis, who were responsible for 85 MILLION deaths, in the same sentence or context as President Donald Trump??

    At BEST, it cheapens and nullifies ANY argument that is made..

    It's like saying Obama had a muslim father and therefore is no different than muslim terrorists who have killed millions of innocent men, women and children..

    It's a ludicrous claim intimated by a totally unfounded connection..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of the hallmarks of Hitler's campaign was that Hitler was a great speaker who could rally millions..

    Donald Trump shares that attribute with Hitler...

    In THAT, there is a valid comparison...

    But Obama was ALSO a great speaker who could rally millions...

    So, it's ALSO a valid comparison to compare Obama to Hitler in that context..

    But is it a FAIR comparison??

    No it is not..

    Neither is it with Donald Trump...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Bernie slayer fails to emerge at Tuesday's debate

    None of his rivals had the time or the skill to convince voters that the democratic socialist is a radical who would ensure Trump's reelection.

    CHARLESTON, S.C. — Democrats had two chances to halt Bernie Sanders’ march toward the nomination after his triumph in Nevada: Tuesday night’s Democratic debate and the South Carolina primary on Saturday.

    Now, they’re down to the South Carolina primary.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/bernie-sanders-slayer-failed-debate-117660

    It's prediction time..

    Bernie might actually win SC thereby sealing Joe Biden's fate..

    Even if Biden eeks out a win, it won't be a substantial enough win to save his campaign..

    Interesting footnote..

    IF Joe Biden eeks out a first place win in SC, it will be his FIRST Primary win... EVER...

    That's a pretty sad commentary on Joe Biden's life, even if he can limp past SC into Super Tuesday...

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    the candidates just engaged in a free-for-all shouting match where it was impossible to hear what any one of them had to say.

    I stopped watching after a little while. This was a big part of the reason.

    Someone needs to take away control of these events from the whatever Don King wannabees are setting the rules now, and insist that things be set up so that the moderators can only turn on one microphone at a time, and any candidate who speaks out of turn will be moving their mouth silently as far as the viewers are concerned. After one candidate does a goldfish impression on national TV and gets pegged with a label over it, the others will start taking turns. Instead of having to unlearn the lessons of kindergarten in order to get a word in.

    And it's really hard to attack him for being the "most unelectable" when he has been winning all the elections so far

    Again, this makes no sense. "Electable" means that someone will make a good impression on the people who supposedly decide the outcome of the general election: a tiny number of no-college white guys in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, who won't start paying attention to the campaign for another seven or eight months. Winning a Democratic primary doesn't tell you anything about that.

  33. [33] 
    dsws wrote:

    [2]
    America leads best not by the example of its power but rather by the power of its example.

    That's a good line. I think it would be better without the word "rather".

  34. [34] 
    dsws wrote:

    I think Bloomberg won. When no one can stand to watch the "earned media" performances, the paid ads win the day. And he's got the billion-dollar advantage there.

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dan,

    agree partially that winning a primary doesn't necessarily translate to winning a general election. however, underperforming your poll numbers in a primary could mean vulnerabilities that aren't apparent on the surface, and which might or might not translate from primaries to the general. in biden's case, his staff did a terrible job preparing their infrastructure in iowa, and it cost him big. that's something that has to happen in every election, or it's curtains. warren built outstanding infrastructure and still came in third in iowa, so there may be something else weighing on her.

    JL

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    you're looking at this the wrong way. sure, there are a limited number of ways candidates appeal to voters. and sure, you could easily say that obama did this or bush did that to try to win elections. what makes donald a reasonable comparison with hitler is not any one specific thing he does that's different from anyone else, it's a list of eight or nine things, all of which line up neatly in a comparison of campaign strategy. it's never been just one thing, it's a long list of things.

    fortunately, there are also many important differences. nonetheless, enough of those similarities line up to make a valid comparison.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're looking at this the wrong way

    You mean, I am not looking at it the way you need me to look at it in order to make your point.

    Agreed.. :D

    what makes donald a reasonable comparison with hitler is not any one specific thing he does that's different from anyone else, it's a list of eight or nine things, all of which line up neatly in a comparison of campaign strategy. it's never been just one thing, it's a long list of things.

    I am only asking for one..

    One thing that is common to Nazis and Donald Trump that is not shared by any other candidate or government official..

    Just one..

    fortunately, there are also many important differences. nonetheless, enough of those similarities line up to make a valid comparison.

    A valid comparison to ANYONE who has ever motivated a large group of people..

    I could find an equal number of comparisons that line up between George Washington and the Nazis...

    Or Abraham Lincoln and the Nazis..

    That doesn't mean the comparisons are fair or indicative of anything other than hatred and bigotry..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I could find more valid comparisons between the Trump campaign and the Obama campaign than you could find between the Trump campaign and the Nazis..

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dsws-
    I'm glad someone agrees with me that electability is for the general election.

    But it does not have to come down to a small number of no college white guys. The Knight Foundation report on non-voters showed non-voters were as diverse of a group as voters, including 37% that were college educated.

    And just because someone only grajudated from high school doesn't mean they can't think. :D

    And just because they graduated from college doesn't mean they can think.

    And 20% of non-voters said the main reason they did not vote was big money controlling our political process.

    That's two in ten of the non-voters.

    And just because it's not the main reason doesn't mean it is not important to other non-voters. It could be number two for many.

    So a small donor only in the general election Bernie could easily get one in ten of non-voters to vote while the current Bernie most likely will not.

    This could add 6% to the total vote for small donor Bernie and there would be no danger of having to squeak out a narrow victory or risk a narrow loss.

    But we need to push Bernie now to get this started so that when the tiny amount of people that will not be paying attention yet and the non-voters that may need something like Bernie making the small donor commitment to get them to pay attention it will be there and ready for them to join in.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I could find more valid comparisons between the Trump campaign and the Obama campaign than you could find between the Trump campaign and the Nazis..

    i'll take that challenge. though my wagers are going to be in quatloos, as in the real i've already lost the motherlode.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'll take that challenge. though my wagers are going to be in quatloos, as in the real i've already lost the motherlode.

    hehehehe

    OK List me 5 attributes that President Trump shares with Nazis and no one else and I'll least double that that President Trump shares with Obama.. :D

  42. [42] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I slogged through this abortion of a debate. I agree that there was no game changing moment or moments amidst the caucaphony.

    The loser was CBS. The so-called moderators truly sucked, the questions added nothing in the way of illumination and it was a wasted two hours. And I'm a politics junkie!

    The only thing I'm likely to remember from last night was how irritated I was by Joe Biden's decision to sound angry and loud every time he opened his mouth. I was also underwhelmed by some of the "contestants" seeming lack of substance.

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why does it have to be shared between Trump and the Nazis and no one else?

    Is it somehow okay to share attributes with Nazis (which assumes a negative attribute) if others also share those attributes?

    Why does it matter if Trump shares negative attributes with Nazis or anyone or if the negative attributes are all his own?

    "It just doesn't matter.
    It just doesn't matter.
    It just doesn't matter."
    -Bill Murray
    Meatballs

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    I don't suppose your disappointment would leave you desperate enough to let me know if my answer to your question about Bernie was satisfactory?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH

    Why does it have to be shared between Trump and the Nazis and no one else?

    That's my point..

    There is nothing comparable between Trump and the Nazis exclusively..

    So ANY kind of comparison is not meant to actually bring facts into the open, but rather to simply shock and demonstrate the depth of hatred that people feel towards President Trump..

    Basically, it's "I hate President Trump as much as I hate Nazis, so you KNOW I hate President Trump a lot!!!" type of thing..

  46. [46] 
    dsws wrote:

    @JL
    however, underperforming your poll numbers in a primary could mean vulnerabilities that aren't apparent on the surface

    Good point.

  47. [47] 
    dsws wrote:

    [45]
    This has gone on long enough that my better judgment has finally deserted me enough for me to say the following:

    If someone reacts positively to people literally carrying swastikas, that's a connection to Nazis even if there are other people who also have reacted positively to people literally carrying swastikas.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    If someone reacts positively to people literally carrying swastikas, that's a connection to Nazis even if there are other people who also have reacted positively to people literally carrying swastikas.

    Uh.... OK....

    Fair enough.. So all you have to do is find someone within the Trump campaign who actively campaigned on reacting positively to carrying swastikas...

    I mean, turn it around.

    If someone who supports Obama reacted positively to whatever black symbol that means killing white people....

    How is that part of Obama's campaign???

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    If someone who supports Obama reacted positively to whatever black symbol that means killing white people....

    How is that part of Obama's campaign???

    And does that mean Obama and his supporters shares similarities with the group of people who want to kill white people???

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And *ONLY* those people??

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, I am sure if I gave it half an effort, I can find some black Americans who supported Obama AND supported the Nazi genocide of Jews...

    Does that mean that a similarity between the Obama campaign and Nazis warrants a mention???

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    All these pitfalls and many MANY more come into play whenever someone tries to tie any particular group they don't like to Hitler, Nazis and Nazi Germany...

    Did I do the Oxford Comma thingy right???

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    All these pitfalls and many MANY more come into play whenever someone tries to tie any particular group they don't like to Hitler, Nazis and Nazi Germany...

    I mean, Godwin's Law was a good law until the fuckhead ruined it all just because of his hate and bigotry...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal appeals court says Trump administration can withhold funds from uncooperative cities, states

    Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant

    And Trump/America haters lose... AGAIN... in the courts..

    What's it going to take for ya'all to realize that President Trump is morally, ethically and ***LEGALLY*** in the right???

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal appeals court says Trump administration can withhold funds from uncooperative cities, states

    Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant

    And Trump/America haters lose... AGAIN... in the courts..

    What's it going to take for ya'all to realize that President Trump is morally, ethically and ***LEGALLY*** in the right???

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York City and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut sued the government, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York backed them — ordering the money be released and stopping the government from putting immigration-related conditions on grants.

    But the appeals court ruled that it “cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”

    “These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the court ruled. “But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”

    It also disagreed with the district court’s claim that the conditions intrude on powers reserved only to states, noting that in immigration policy the Supreme Court has found that the federal government maintains “broad” and “preeminent” power.

    When it comes to immigration law, President Trump reigns supreme...

    Once again.. Ya'all were wrong..

    And I was dead on ballz factually accurate.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Public Service Announcement

    This morning, our government issued warnings that current stocks of necessary medical supplies are predicted to be depleted in 2 days and to prepare to prioritize/delay/cancel medical procedures.

    Not a drill.

    All my best to each of you. XOXOXO

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    This morning, our government issued warnings that current stocks of necessary medical supplies are predicted to be depleted in 2 days and to prepare to prioritize/delay/cancel medical procedures.

    Facts to support??

    None..

    Just more fear-mongering..

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Not a drill."

    So no going to the dentist?

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    58

    Facts to support??

    Sorry if the facts don't fit your pathetic worldview, but here we are.

    Just more fear-mongering..

    You go with that theory, dumb-ass.

    Meanwhile, anyone with two brain cells to rub together and the ability to read between the lines, you've been notified. I do sincerely wish you well.

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    Maybe it has to do with the consequence that Florida doesn't vote until later in March after Super Tuesday... But the only candidates I have heard from here in North Florida so far, multiple times in fact, either in TV ads, by flyers in the mail, and by text messages from Social Media, are Bloomberg and Sanders.

    My pwn personal opinion is that it is going to come down to a choice between Sanders and Biden, and possibly Bloomberg, as they are the only ones getting significant minority support. I would also not rule out Bernie winning a general election, given the impressive ground based organization he is building and the enthusiasm of his supporters. Same for Bloomberg, IF he does well on Super Tuesday, or if not, he swings his organization and money behind the Democratic candidate like he said he would.

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I get emails often from Warren asking for money (and sometimes providing info about something in the campaign). Probably still on her mailing list from a senate campaign.

    We don't vote until June so my primary vote probably will not matter again so I could even vote for myself! :D

    Wow, think of the possibilities if Bernie wins the nomination and Bloomberg uses his organization and money to help.

    This will inspire HUNDREDS (perhaps even a THOUSAND or two) of non-voters to vote for Bernie in the general election and could be the difference in a close election- especially if this inspired another 50-75 people that have been third party voters to vote for Bernie.

    That would be so much more effective than Bernie saying he doesn't want Bloomberg's money and committing to run a small donor only campaign in the general election. The MILLIONS of the 100 million non-voters and third party voters (nearly 7 million in 2016) that this would inspire to vote for small contribution Bernie would just be an insignificant blip compared to the HUNDREDS of non-voters inspired by Bloomberg's money.

    It's amazing the Republicans can compete at all with the brilliant minds of the Dems directing their campaign strategies.

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Simply point to an attribute of Donald Trump that is SOLELY shared with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany and no one else..

    While this would be impossible, as there are no singularities in psychology, I will point out one similarity that Trump and Hitler share that no recent US President shared with either of them:

    Hitler and Trump are both narcissistic psychopaths. They both viewed themselves as being the only ones that could lead the country, they were the only ones who could make their nation prosper; THEY WERE THEIR NATION! Loyalty to country meant loyalty to them.

    You prove this point everytime you refer to us as “Trump/America haters”!

    You said that both Trump and Hitler were great speakers; but that’s not even close to true — Trump speaks in babbling word salads most rallies. No, Trump and Hitler are great motivators and manipulators.

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [44]

    Don,

    I'm not that
    disillusioned, just super busy at the moment. Will chew on it and revert, probably with some questions.

    Fight the Power, Comrade!

Comments for this article are closed.