'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Wonderboy]

I think Bernie did fine, but the socialism/Denmark thing just kills him with moderates and independents. Hillary had a very well reasoned response and defense of capitalism. People other than the far left like that.

Personally, Hillary looked to be the most experienced and presidential of them all. She clearly scored with women and minorities, which the Dems have to have in order to win. She looked tough without sounding shrill. She was in charge of the facts. And she showed a very human side. I think she will rebound very well after this debate in the polls, especially as measured against the Republicans running, who now look more like a clown show than ever.

If I want someone to keep kids off the lawn, I'll get Bernie. But for President of the United States? I just don't think Bernie fits the bill for most Americans. Hillary clearly does.

[Hornsby]

I thought Sanders won the debate, but Hillary didn't do anything to hurt herself at all. She more or less promised something for everyone and that the rich would pay for it all. Very generic and very smart. It still seems inevitable that she'll be the nominee given her large war chest of cash and endorsements. She's very good in that format and outside of O'Malley drawing some blood on the Wall St/Glass Steagall issue, she was left unscathed. I thought Sanders let her off the hook too easy on her Iraq vote. You can tell she thinks she's in because she spent the more time hammering the GOP than the other 4--she is already looking ahead.
I really like Sanders the more I hear from him. I have serious doubts about the fiscal viability of some of his plans, but there is ZERO doubt about his authenticity. I respect and admire that.
O'Malley had a good night. Lot of folks think he's angling to be the VP, but I wonder if that Wall St exchange with Hillary is going to play well with her.
I don't like the whole 'clown car' metaphor, but let's just say Webb and Chafee were woefully under prepared and over matched. I'm hoping they are not invited to the next debate, because they didn't bring anything to the table.

+1

1st of all, I get what JJ was saying, it was (IMO) sarcasm at the idea that we should follow the lead of a country with no military and the US on speed dial should anything come up bad. Which I kind of agree with, cherry pick the good ideas for governance around the world and move this country forward. It's impossible to turn us into a democratic socialist state, so why keep hammering that theme? Call the idea you like something else and move on.

Also, Sanders really looked lost at the idea of foreign policy, and for me that an automatic loser. Someone who's in charge of the worlds policeman (like it or not), has got to have a MUCH better grasp on things, or he'll get buried by foreign sharps. HRC has proven experience in that arena and is much more likely to have success, IMO.

One thing I did like about the format was this: If someone mentioned you, you automatically got a chance to respond...sharp and fair.

Again, I think that this proves that there is really no need for more than 5-6 debates, it's a two person horse race, that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt last night.

[Wonderboy]

One thing I did like about the format was this: If someone mentioned you, you automatically got a chance to respond...sharp and fair.

Again, I think that this proves that there is really no need for more than 5-6 debates, it's a two person horse race...

Agree and agree.

[Moonlight J]

I think Bernie did fine, but the socialism/Denmark thing just kills him with moderates and independents. Hillary had a very well reasoned response and defense of capitalism. People other than the far left like that.

Personally, Hillary looked to be the most experienced and presidential of them all. She clearly scored with women and minorities, which the Dems have to have in order to win. She looked tough without sounding shrill. She was in charge of the facts. And she showed a very human side. I think she will rebound very well after this debate in the polls, especially as measured against the Republicans running, who now look more like a clown show than ever.

If I want someone to keep kids off the lawn, I'll get Bernie. But for President of the United States? I just don't think Bernie fits the bill for most Americans. Hillary clearly does.

I love Bernie, and I wanted him to win last night, but he got off to a terrible start but caught up toward the end

[Wonderboy]

I love Bernie, and I wanted him to win last night, but he got off to a terrible start but caught up toward the end

I like him as well and he is just what this country needs as far as a wake-up call about out of control capitalism. But when almost 60% of the voters are scared by the word "socialism", that is just not a recipe for a winning presidential campaign. But at a bare minimum, he is performing a valuable service to the country. Kind of like John the Baptist, but without the follow up!

[ironfist]

Webb was really annoying with his "I'm not getting my fair share of time here" while every time they went to him, I kept thinking "why are we wasting time on this guy?" Hopefully if they have another debate Chafee and Webb will bow out. There's really no reason to waste time with them when everyone else really wants to hear from the top two.

Chafee had that look kind of like Monty Burns. I kept waiting for him to put his fingers together and cackle maniacally.

[DJBeasties]

Hillary did well. I don't particularly like anyone on either side but I still think we are headed for Trump vs. Clinton.

Looking forward to the bad lip reading video.

[Hornsby]

Looking at the debate from a distance of 12 whole hours, I'm going to flip-flop (or evolve, as I prefer to see it) my idea that Biden will now enter the race. After last night, there's really no need for him, he was a Democratic placeholder in case either of the big 2 blew up the wrong way, and they didn't. So I look for Biden to make an announcement in a week or two, maybe less, that he's not going to run.

[gcstomp]

I watched, and I felt reassured that we had adults in room ready to tackle issues. But the issue is the debate was largely nuance, very similar agendas, at least in contrast to the stark R that will without doubt crash the economy again. (Not that there exists proof beyond history/coincidence.) Anyhoo, the debates would be far more relevant if we could have the top 2 D vs whoever the top 2 R on the debate stage for a few debates. Imagine Trump and Carson (or is it Fiorna, Bush XIII? who are top 2) tackling questions as actual thoughtful participants without attack, just stating their positions and how it would work based on their relative experience.

The D would absolutely eviscerate the R side. As Trump would trumpet his great wall idea, as Carson, who at one time must have been a gifted mind open to science, open himself up to his obvious diminished capacity from his once upon a time intellectual heights as he espouses anti science rhetoric. Or would our future be best served by Bush, he of "stuff happens" who rewrites his brothers history, it wasnt Bush that nearly collapsed the world economy and entered an illegal war based on lies, such pedigree earns him a seat at the big chair again?

The D side demonstrated an elevated level of discourse, heated but respectful, void of silly grade school ad hominem. On stage in Bernie and Hillary were 2 greatly experienced, vastly greater qualified candidates than can be conjured in the belly of the R beast machine.

[Judge Jude]

My second-hand call from Twitter and analysis claims that Webb and Chafee were buried and a tombstone put up, whether they know it or not.

I saw O'Malley on MSNBC after, and he wasn't terrible. sounds like Hillary and Bernie had their moments, too, and if Bernie works too hard on "forget us, let's just follow Denmark" plan, he's doomed.

cherry-pick the best ideas/results worldwide is a political winner.
let's learn how it works from a country with a $500 military and a cell phone number to Washington, DC if Scandinavia gets dicey, and...

sigh. no one has ever read a notes column

2 of the candidates were said to be dreadful and their dreams are over, whether they know it or not. even VP is now just a pipe dream.
O'Malley seems to be able to fog a mirror, at least.
Bernie wants us to emulate Denmark, which resonates with almost what, 10 percent of the country? and they have nothing in common with us. you can pick one or two elements of other country decision-making, but don't ask American voters to just follow the leader.

does that help?

[Erik]

It still seems inevitable that she'll be the nominee given her large war chest of cash and endorsements.

Yep, minus some sort of major scandal. (Benghazi doesn't qualify, neither does the email thing unless there's more to it than what we know now.) Minor scandals won't matter, everyone's already like, "oh, that's what the Clintons do." She's almost as Teflon as Reagan.

[Erik]

I still think we are headed for Trump vs. Clinton.

Still too early to say that about Trump. Many contenders still in on the R side, and Trump is not who the Wall Street wing of the party wants. As I've said before, the only members of a GOP ticket since WW2 who were not the preferred choice of the Wall Street wing were Goldwater, Quayle and Palin. And Quayle wasn't THAT objectionable to them. Clinton, however, has far better odds at being the D nominee than anyone right now does at being the R nominee.

[Hornsby]

Despite what's being proclaimed here, Sanders won the debate according to an astounding number of polls (Slate, Fox, CNN, and on and on). He won among Dems, Independents, and just about every affiliation possible. I guess people aren't so shallow as to give a shit about socialism or Denmark, thankfully. I'd hope that we'd be better than that here, too.

I don't think that's going to matter much...the professionals are all in on HRC at this point. From the Washington Post 202 column:

THE BIG IDEA:

— Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only candidate on stage last night who looked like a plausible president. She had gravitas and filled the stage, while her four rivals came across as unelectable, unserious or both. In short, she solidified her status as the Democratic front-runner. Clinton’s strong performance will, at least temporarily, quiet doubts among party elites and make it less likely that Joe Biden enters the race.

The conventional wisdom among Washington elites that this was a T.K.O for HRC cemented overnight. This morning’s clips are, by far, the best Clinton has enjoyed all year. From nonpartisan reporters to thought leaders across the spectrum, there was a near consensus that Hillary won.

The Post’s Karen Tumulty, in an A1 analysis, says that Hillary’s self-assured performance “showed that she remains the person to beat.”
“Clinton makes convincing case” is the all-caps banner on CNN.com.

Liberal activist Van Jones on CNN: “Hillary Clinton was Beyonce. She was flawless.”

Conservative Post columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News: “She was competent. She wasn’t afraid. She was aggressive.”

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni: “I never doubted that Hillary Clinton had many talents. I just didn’t know that seamstress was among them. There were moments … when she threaded the needle as delicately and perfectly as a politician could.”

New Republic senior editor Brian Beutler: “Clinton staked out the sweet spot between aspirational and pragmatic politics, when she dubbed herself ‘a progressive, but…a progressive who likes to get things done.’”

Vox.com editor-in-chief Ezra Klein: “Clinton reminded a lot of Democrats that they want her debating the GOP nominee next year.”

Mother Jones Washington editor David Corn: “HRC folks should hope for a Clinton-Bush general. Compare her performance to his.”

The Atlantic’s James Fallows: “HRC had her best two hours of the past two years.”

The Boston Globe’s Annie Linskey highlights Clinton’s disarming sense of humor: “During a commercial break, it took her longer to return to the stage from the bathroom, a fact she attributed to her gender. ‘It takes me longer,’ she said. When asked late in the debate what would distinguish a Clinton presidency from the current administration, she answered simply: She’s a woman.”

Post columnist Dana Milbank: “Clinton was a head shorter than her rivals when they lined up on stage for Sheryl Crow’s version of the National Anthem … But after that moment, she towered over them.”

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza: “Clinton was confident, relaxed and good-natured. … She also smartly turned at least three questions into broad-scale attacks on Republicans, effectively playing the uniter role for the party — and winning a ton of applause in the process.”

New York Times political correspondent Jonathan Martin: “Strong night for Hillary – will calm Dem nerves & tamp down Biden buzz. She helped herself a good deal, was elevated by comparison.”

“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd: “Clinton was easily the most polished and prepped candidate on stage. Wasn’t even close. But Sanders isn’t going anywhere.”

[Hornsby]

Of course the establishment supports the establishment candidate. The circlejerk among the "professionals" is obviously much stronger than it was among normal human beings.

So the question becomes this: Will you support HRC in the general election if/when it comes down to that? How many Sanders supporters are simply going to stay home or cast a "protest" vote if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?

[DMT]

Of course the establishment supports the establishment candidate. The circlejerk among the "professionals" is obviously much stronger than it was among normal human beings.

Exactly...Clinton did have a strong performance, but she by no means separated herself.

Sanders really should've been more aggressive, particularly about her support of the Patriot Act, a no-fly zone in Syria, and the fact that she lied through her teeth about Khaddafi and Libya.