2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt sounds as though Clinton "won" the debate for the following reason...
Sanders' goal wasn't in fact to "win" the debate; it was to slow Clinton's upward trajectory AND to peel away some of her supporters, because that's the only way he can win the Primary. To that end, he needed to expand support beyond his traditional base. From what I've read, he didn't add an issue to the discussion that hadn't already been debated, and Clinton didn't flub an issue that hasn't already been thrown at her ineffectively.
nb - someone will point out all the online polls that said Sanders won -- and that's part of the problem. The people who run out after a debate to search out online polls and vote on them are already enthusiastic Sanders supporters; they don't reflect any shifting of votes from Clinton.
Cha
(320,554 posts)Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/insiders-bad-night-for-bernie-215901#ixzz3rZPLIGb6
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Oh my
Cha
(320,554 posts)dmosh42
(2,217 posts)Baitball Blogger
(52,714 posts)comprehensive legislation for veterans. It was a response to a question asking what crisis have you faced that shows you're ready for the presidency. (Very loose paraphrasing on my part.)
Really, a president doesn't know what kind of Congress he will face until after the election. But, Bernie is a smart man. He knows how the game is played.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...if IWR didn't stop people from voting for her in 2008, it won't stop them now.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...and FWIW, I ended up supporting Obama then.
Your opinion is informed by....?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)To protect HRC at all costs - By the DNC DWS DLC THird-Way Party Establishment.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)like this?

or this?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Good to know
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Baitball Blogger
(52,714 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)
When you have the CIA pointing out that the Bush Administration was faulty in their response to early warnings prior to 9/11, it makes you reexamine everything that occurred since that time that kept us on a road we shouldn't be on today.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)She Doubled Down.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
riversedge
(81,530 posts)she did not double down--she said it was a mistake.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Bush already had
1- The terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution were still binding, desert storm hostilities ended with a cease fire and all the u.n. resolutions were still in effect.
2- Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·
Only one person voted against war and that was Rep Barbara Lee. If the 2002 iwr was a vote for war, why was Iraq invaded by hans blix and the u.n. weapons inspectors?
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Because she is against:
Ending SuperPACs
Free College
Reinstating Glass-Steagall
And because her foreign policy decisions resulted in ISIS and she tied her Wall Street donations to 911. DISGRACEFUL!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)when the new national polls come out. That won't even tell us who is winning state by state, but we will have some clues. Right now is anyone's guess how the general public feels about the debate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)grew his cadre of supporters at all, in fact, I think anyone on the fence would have turned away. He seemed irritated, distracted, and tired. He was leaning on that podium like he needed support.
These poor kids that run around cache-clearing and dummying up the online polls need to understand that there's no cache-clearing at the voting booth. That's asking for awareness, though, and they're more interested in the appearance of "winning" to the point that they're doing it like a North Korean dictator--it's just absurd.
O'Malley might have helped himself a bit, particularly with the Trump 'carnival barker' line. An undecided voter might just be tempted to respond with O'Malley's name to a pollster after that great quip. I just found his performance inartful--he did not seem comfortable in his own skin.
Hillary had a few openings that she did not take. She could have asked him for a list of congressional candidates who are running on his 'revolution,' or a list of current congress people who endorse him. He said twice that the business model for Wall Street is fraud, which might make New Yorkers queasy given their city's dependence on the financial sector. Such a statement would not play out well in the GE.
She seems to be saving up for a future debate.
Bernie's explanation of his efforts on veterans' benefits in response to the question of how he would handle a crisis like Paris was a bit odd.
artislife
(9,497 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nothing will really change, ergo it's a win for whomever holds the lead.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)a tad specious. Sure, internet polls are what they are. But a stilted poll designed by the purchaser of the poll is also what it is, and the folks who spend money and time in advance to do some funky number work are clearly committed to that game completely. 'Do not read internet polls, read only the polls we had made for you to read, that's what's fair'.
To be very clear, internet polls are flawed, the PPP polling is intentionally skewed and only dinging one of those things makes your position look weak to me. Manipulative statistics are manipulative. Not just some of them. Contrived and meaningless results are contrived and meaningless results, not just some but all.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Among Democrats, Clinton is seen as winning by more than two to one, while independents are split between Clinton and Sanders.
Handling the Issues
In light of the terrorist attacks on Friday night in Paris, Saturday night's debate shifted much of its focus to foreign policy, terrorism, and addressing the threat posed by the Islamic militant group ISIS. On these topics, Clinton scores a commanding lead over her rivals. More than six in 10 Democrats and independents who watched the debate think Hillary Clinton would do the best job on each of these measures, compared to about a quarter who pick Sanders, and about one in 10 who pick O'Malley.
But on domestic issues, views are more mixed. While Clinton has a slight lead over Sanders on handling gun policy (43 - 36 percent), Sanders beats Clinton by almost two to one on handling income inequality. When it comes to the economy and jobs, Clinton and Sanders are about even. O'Malley trails both candidates on all of these by a wide margin.
Hillary Clinton 51
Bernie Sanders 28
Martin OMalley 7
Tie 14
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-won-the-second-democratic-debate-november-2015-cbs-news/
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.