2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread
 

I figured with the debates starting tomorrow it's about time for a separate thread on the matter. I know Biden has a lead in the polls at the moment but I'm not ready to crown him victor yet.

Lineup for the June 26th debate:
Cory Booker
Bill de Blasio
Julián Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Elizabeth Warren

Lineup for the June 27th debate:
Joe Biden
Michael Bennet
Pete Buttigieg
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Bernie Sanders
Eric Swalwell
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang

It's a shame that Warren and Sanders aren't on the debate floor together as it seems like they're fighting for the same crowd at the moment.

Also I feel that the lower pollers in the 2nd night got screwed because most the air time will be focused on Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg(I still don't know how to properly pronounce this name), and Harris

I don't have a personal favorite yet in this race but if I had to choose it would be Klobuchar. What say you FOFCers? Any opinions on the matter?

I also like Klobuchar, and I am surprised that she's gotten so little traction.

I an trying to keep an open mind about it, and wait and see how they perform in the debates before picking people I'm interested in. I mean we really know so little about a lot of them. I would say that Warren and Sanders are too far left/too old for me and Gabbard seems like the closest to the Republicans in beliefs/ideas. Biden certainly has the experience, but he too is too old for me.



I've been most interested in Swalwell leading up to the debates, so we'll see if that interest holds up. I'm interested in seeing how Harris and Gillibrand do too. I think Trump has done a lot of damage to our democracy with being an outsider, and so I'm not sure people like Williamson or Yang
are the right people to fix it.

Granted, this is an early report and even earlier prognostication, but here in Iowa, we've been inundated with these candidates for months, before much of the rest of the country is even paying attention. And this is my thinking thus far:

1. Warren and Sanders right now look like they're going to cannibalize each other. The fact that both of them released their "pay off student debt/tax Wall Street/free college" plans on virtually the same day right before the debates show they're vying for the same lane. That doesn't bode well for either of them, unless Sanders bows out quickly and endorses Warren (not likely, he seems a stubborn fellow).

2. In a state like Iowa, the AOC wing (read: young, progressive crusaders) of the Dem party doesn't play well outside of the major metros. So an old, experienced voice with high name recognition is going to have a commanding lead. Biden is positioned very well.

3. I think Iowa will hand Biden the win here. It's hard to see anything derailing that train in this state. The big question is whether one of the middle candidates can springboard themselves by leapfrogging the Sanders/Warren logjam. If they can, they might be able to be a legit 3rd player moving forward. I see Harris and Buttigieg (pronounced Buddha-judge) as the best possibilities. (Though I hear whispering that Buttigieg is more a media darling than a serious player right now. He may not have the money/backers to win in the long haul).

Definitely (and I believe it's pronounced Boot-i-judge or something similar). The random draw ended up screwing someone like Gillibrand or even Hickenlooper, who may have been able to break out if she was in Debate 1 (say switched with Delaney or Ryan).


She tried to go for the Biden voter before Biden got in the race. Buttigieg also takes some of her potential base. She's just not all that charismatic nor does she have more interesting ideas compared to the folks she's fighting for voters over.

---

I have two favorites, but one is rising far above the other at the moment. At the begining of the race, I was a big fan of both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren (I gave both money), but over the months, I've been far more gravitating to Warren to the point where she's my easy #1.

Nationally I think there's three big questions.

1. As candidates leave the race, how much of their support goes to Biden? He's got a solid 30-35% now, but where do the Harris/Warren/Sanders/Buttigeig folks go when they drop out?

2. Does that drop out period happen early enough to make a difference?

3. Will Sanders be a bad sport when he inevitably loses?

Yeah we have had a lot of rallies here in South Carolina too-just about all of them were here for Jim Clyburn's fish fry, certainly the most buzz the Democrats have had in the state for a while. Back in 2016, there were no, and I mean no signs or major rallies for Hillary here in Myrtle Beach and the state as a whole went strongly for Trump. But there were a few Democrats who pulled off upsets in Congressional races, so it my hope the Dems will build off of that in 2020.



Biden will play well amongst the older crowd, Booker and Harris with minorities, the younger, less experienced group probably won't do well.

I'm pretty solidly in the Warren camp atm after being initially torn between her and Sanders. Yang is a distant third. Don't particularly care for anyone else in this race at the moment.

The Morning Consult poll is good for this as they have a "Second Choice" question:

The State of the 2020 Democratic Primary

The shocking thing is that the second choice for Biden supporters are Sanders (25%) and the second choice for Sanders supporters is Biden (34%) - it's like you have a bunch of people who just want a well known old white guy :D.

So Warren supporters' second choice is Sanders and Harris at 21% (with Biden at 19%). Buttigieg supporters' second choice is Warren at 25%, Biden at 22%, and Harris at 17%. Harris supporters' second choice is 28% Biden, 21% Warren, and 11% Sanders.

It looks like Biden and Sanders will get some votes, but Warren seems well situated if Buttigieg (or even Harris) drops. Harris seems to also benefit if one of the other Big 5 drop out (aside from Sanders - who only 7% list her as their second choice).

I know perceived electability is a dangerous path to go down for Democrats but I have a bad feeling about Warren in a national election.

I hope climate change gets its due in these debates and the campaign to come.

PredictIt latest Yes Prices as of morning of first debate

Biden 26
Warren 23
Sanders 16
Yang 14
Harris 13
Buttigieg 12
Booker 5
O'Rourke 5
Klobuchar 4
Clinton 3 (Oof)
Gabbard 3
Hickenlooper 2
Everyone else 1

Warren has been surging, Sanders has been falling. Biden has come back to the pack as well. Buttigieg and Yang have stayed strong in that clear top 6.

I just can't see Warren. Let's take a version of Hillary even more unpopular with the areas of the country we lost the election in and even more of a lightning rod and see what happens this time!

With that being said, it's the self destructive Dem party, so it's probably quite likely, thinking about it. All hail Emperor Trump.

Is that just name recognition?

Partially. But some of it is likely due to people not having the same sort of ideological warfare spirit that the true believers have.

I doubt any of that is true. Warren hasn't been subject to multiple decades of the Republican attack machine. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Besides, Warren earned quite a few plaudits going into rural West Virginia a few weeks back and speaking to folks.

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country - POLITICO

Interesting read. I can attest that opioids are a huge problem in Cincinnati as the article referenced. Once of my best friends is a firefighter/paramedic there. They are paid professionals, not small town volunteers. The stories he tells me are crazy. Sometimes he has to administer Narcan 6-7 times in a 24 hour shift. Most of the time people get mad at him for ruining their high. Many times kids are in the car. It is a huge problem than needs to be addressed.

I haven't really figured out my favorite candidate yet. I like Buttigieg but feel he might not be prime time material yet. He'd be an early favorite for running mate for me, as he does need to get more spotlight but I don't think Indiana is a state that is conducive to him achieving that. (Same with O'Rourke in Texas, but I'm not really all that high on him.)

A strategic perspective is what interests me most at the moment. There are three states many believe the Dems can't lose again: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. For fun let's look at some 2012 vs 2016 numbers:

Wisconsin 2012
Obama 1,613,950 votes
Romney 1,408,746 votes

Wisconsin 2016
Clinton 1,382,210
Trump 1,409,467

Michigan 2012
Obama 2,561,911
Romney 2,112,673

Michigan 2016
Clinton 2,268,193
Trump 2,279,805

Pennsylvania 2012
Obama 2,907,448
Romney 2,619,583

Pennsylvania 2016
Clinton 2,844,705
Trump 2,912,941

In Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton clearly underperformed Obama. Since I'm from Wisconsin I looked at a few county results to see where this underperformance happened. Dane County (Madison, University of Wisconsin and some affluent liberal suburbs), Clinton actually outperformed Obama by 2000 votes. That doesn't seem to be where the problem was. Milwaukee County, on the other hand, Clinton underperformed Obama by 40,000 votes. Then there is the swing part of the state (Southwest) that is mostly rural that Clinton underperformed. But there aren't really enough votes there to rely on flipping given the strange rural lover affair with Trump. The key in Wisconsin is going to be getting people to vote in Milwaukee County. Which Democratic candidate will do that?

My cursory glance at the other two key states shows Hillary underperformed Wayne County in Michigan (Detroit) by about 80,000 votes. The same can't be said about Pennsylvania though. Hillary did underperform there, but not to the degree that Trump just flat out got people out there to vote for him. I'm not sure what to make of that.

So if my hypothesis of finding a candidate that will inspire urban turnout, which candidate will do that?

Still in on Booker. Have liked him for years. Always have liked Biden, but I think his time has passed.

And if you want to be semi-racist about it, he would get the black vote back out.

Biden's lead is built on a crushing lead with African-Americans. All that I said above may not matter because Biden may have a look on states below the Mason-Dixon line due to his very strong support from AAs.

I think the questions are how quickly will the liberal wing coalesce around a non-Biden candidate (with Warren the obvious favorite right now), and will Biden or Warren have a gaffe or poor showing that allows someone else to encroach on their lane.
My initial impression was like yours, but I actually think this set up benefits Warren as much as the legit 2nd tier candidates on night one like Klobuchar, O'Rourke & my favorite Booker. 2nd night will be a shitshow of also-ran's sometimes attacking Biden, but mostly trying to get their name out there, plus with Warren & Sanders often having the same positions I think it's better for Warren to be the first one saying them instead of Sanders getting to propose the idea half the time and Warren basically saying "Yeah, what he said."

If I was Warren I'd be happy with Sanders getting the same ideas out there and increasing the pie for both, and waiting until much closer to primaries to start arguing against him and saying you're the more electable one or whatever. Can I short Yang and Buttigieg? People can point to Trump as evidence a complete outsider can make the run, but I think the Dem machine has (rightfully) been harping on how much his lack of experience is hurting the government that it'd be easy for a mainstream candidate to convince voters to go with them over Yang/Buttigieg if it's a two horse race.

In which case Biden's worst fear during these debates is that Booker or Harris emerges as the 3rd/4th realistic option. I'm admittedly biased towards him, but I think tonight is set up very well for Booker to gain traction if he can outshine Beto & Castro. Warren isn't the most charismatic, but also isn't in a position where she'll be trying to make a splash, so I think one of those 3 has a chance to start being The young charismatic Democrat in the race.

EDIT - okay, worst fear is probably wrong. I still think the MeToo wing is going to go hard after Biden at some point, so if he has a condescending gaffe towards Gillibrand or Harris I could see that becoming an issue.

I'm with you. But unfortunately we let Iowa and NH and a few southern states pick out the nominee. By the time PA votes it’s irrelevant for me.

Warren is like the perfect candidate for me given that I'm a liberal who usually supports moderates because I see pragmatism as a necessary trait for success in politics and she's essentially the far more pragmatic version of Bernie. Having said that, I do worry about her electoral chances.

I think Biden is almost a guaranteed win in the general. He definitely increases AA turnout and I think a vast majority of Obama/Trump voters will go for him.

Joe Biden: is not going anywhere. Every poll I see has him fading.
This is not 2016, "Medicare for All" and "$15 min wage" are main stream.
He has the same baggage as Hillery without the vote for him cause he is a women backing.

Look for Kamala Harris to rise and pick up his votes.

Elizabeth Warren: She will play well early, but ultimately has no base. She is hated by Wall Street and is not trusted by the left. (for endorsing Hillery, among other things)

Pete Buttigieg: Why is he polling well? Yeah, he is gay, but his proposals make no sense.

Tulsi Gabbard: Not this time, look for her to be a player in 2004. ( if Bernie wins the nomination, serious VP candidate.)

Bernie Sanders: The way he has change the conversation in the last 4 years, he should be a shoe in. But people seem to blame him for Hillery blowing the election.
He campaigned hard for Hillery and more Bernie supports voted for her then Hillery supporters voted for Obama.

LOL at Warren having no base and being hated by the left. She has a massive lead among MoveOn voters. Bernie is barely ahead of Biden in a group that Biden doesn't appeal to at all.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-poll-n1021191

Warren - 37.8
Sanders - 16.5
Biden - 14.9
Buttigieg - 11.7
Harris - 6.8

Bernie fans have been trying to minimize Warren for months now.

Bernie has no loyalty to anyone but himself. Just today he wouldn't commit to stop campaigning before the convention.

I think he's already dead and just doesn't know it. He needs to hold on to all his 2016 voters and get some of Hillary's, and at this point neither one seems to be happening. I hope he's working on his, "the primaries were rigged," for this campaign.

[quote=larrymcg421;3241832]LOL at Warren having no base and being hated by the left. She has a massive lead among MoveOn voters. Bernie is barely ahead of Biden in a group that Biden doesn't appeal to at all.

/Shrug
We will see.

Again he campaigned hard for Hillery.
That is a verifiable fact.

He also just promised to campaign for the Democratic nominee, who ever it is.
So...

/ shrug

Charmin of the DNC resigns when their bias against Bernie comes to light.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/u...ks-emails.html

you were saying?

Almost makes one forget that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes...

edit: Besides, talk about a hyperbolic line. The article it links to speaks to a handful of emails where DNC folk talk about how they don't like Sanders (one even saying they can't say anything anti-Sanders because the Chair - DWS - doesn't want them to) and the charges are they put debates on the weekend.

And yet she LOST to Donald FUCKING Trump?

Think about how bad Sanders would have. I mean he got trounced by Clinton (who did have 3million votes more than Trump, mind)

And before you go there:

More Bernie supporters voted for Hillery
Then Hillery supporters voted for Obama.

Again a verifiable fact.

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

He was only leading by 12% in the exit poles.

He can't even spell her name right, even though she's one of the most famous politicians of this age.

Polls looked great for Clinton, I agree.

/sigh
What did I make up?
I do not recall anything that I said that was proven wrong.

BTW
told you so.

Any links?

New Pre-Election Poll Suggests Bernie Sanders Could Have Trounced Donald Trump.
http://<br /> https://www.huffpost....0c4b63b0c6928r

I can look up exit poles, but this was the first I found.
Sure you do not care, I will not change your mind anyway.

I mentioned Hillary Clinton's preelection polls for a reason. You remember how those looked? Of course one can say that the popular vote did conform a bit to the polls (and while usually the popular vote tracks to the electoral college it was not to be this time)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bernie won't stop fighting the 2016 primary, so as far as I'm concerned, fuck him. I can get Warren, who is very similar in terms of policy and isn't willing to rip the party in half to win. After four years of Trump, I think there are a lot of people that will be unwilling to follow Bernie off the cliff.

The Charmin-soft Chairman and DNC were definitely favoring Hillary, but yes, the primary was not stolen from Bernie, I don't think he would've done better nationally vs Trump (though maybe he would've played up well enough in the rust belt to win the election), and I agree his moment has passed.

I actually thought saying Tulsi Gabbard will be a strong 2024 candidate was the crazier part. I haven't paid attention to her since 2016, but I thought she was trying to go for the "willing to cross party lines" moderate shtick, but ended up just taking crazy positions that pissed everyone off.

here is a quick google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

I forgot that, but yeah, this level of sheer stupidity has my ignore list expanded.

I really do not get you guys.

Yes, I am Ultra-left
but I would think you would want all opinions.

I threw it out there,
I was right last time.
Think what you want.

later
~ken

Yeah. but I was right.

You obviously were not. But Bernie Bots are destined to think they are right forever, regardless of what happens.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bernie also hasn't faced the Republican attack machine like Clinton had endured for 20 years. There's definitely stuff in his past that the the Republicans would've exploited if he had gotten the nomination and his numbers would've sunk.

You have to consider the context. Sanders is very far left so the fact that any of his supporters voted for Trump post election is rather stunning honestly.

The fact that Hillary lost a large chunk of moderates to McCain isn't a surprise at all.

I told you people would not vote for Hillery.
She was hated by most Americans.

I told you do not nominate someone hated by most Americans, cause this time we would not vote for the lesser evil.

I am sorry, I do not see where I was wrong.

It also makes me wonder how many voters for Clinton and Sanders ended up voting 3rd party.

I'll admit I voted for Sanders in the primary last time and then ended up voting for Johnson.

Be that as it may.
Sanders is being blamed for Hillery lose by not supporting her.
He did his best.

Someone Challenged me about that and I was trying to document it.

I can tell you right now his supporters will not accept defeat. I had to stop following a couple on twitter because of how ugly they have been to the rest of the field, especially Warren. Sanders people are a level of zealot that rival Trump supporters.




I think you are dead on right. I also think Biden winning Iowa is not going to mean much, but which candidate surprises will become the dark horse.







I don't have any proof, but anecdotally? I know she is not at all the same politically as Hillary, but all I see when I see her is Hillary. I imagine people that barely follow politics definitely equate her with Hillary.

Bernie supporters have consistently taken the approach of tearing down threats to Bernie over boosting Bernie and his policies. It was Hillary last cycle, it was Beto earlier this year, and Biden is a target now.

How much of that falls on Bernie is debatable, but I don't think 12% of his supporters switching to someone that shared zero ideologically with Bernie proves he did all he could.

Bernie has a lot of left leaning millennial supporters that haven't come to the understanding that, for their own interests, who sits in the White House isn't as important as making sure someone from the left is picking judges and directing policy. Even if that means their guy loses. The GOP has always understood that and it's a reason why Dems have been routinely trounced at national politics despite a numbers advantage.

I think that we've learned that a lot of foreign meddling was not just aimed at pro-trump propaganda, but at increasing the divide amongst Bernie voters and aiming to keep many of them home in November. Its really probably best to just come into 2020 with a level head and not worried about anything that happened in 2016. A lot of folks treat Bernie and his supporters like they treat Boston sports teams. "man, nothing against bernie, but my god his fans...." There is really no productive anything to come out of any of this.

Most of the discussion here so far is about who is the most electible. What about policy?

50 posts in and this feels more like a campy sports thread than a serious thread about who should be the next leader of the country.

Dems have to figure out a way to break the Fox News cycle in these areas. For the vast majority of these people, democrat policy would help them to far greater degree than GOP policy, but they're stuck getting news from one source.

Bernie did a great job by going on Fox News and getting his ideas out to voters that thought he was a communist and Warren did a great job here.

I honestly don't know if the gains are worth the time over a single campaign cycle, but Dems need to get a lot more of this type of thing going.

Also, these numbers just show how many Sanders voters voted for Trump, but doesn't explore how many voted for Stein or Johnson, or stayed home.

She is as left as Bernie. The only one I see.
So, I see her as taking up Bernie's touch.

She is a Major in the National Guard.
Has done 2 tours in Iraq.
Looks good on TV.

Right now she is a nobody,
but with a good run can get some recognition.

She is already running for president.
I see her as someone who will be a player.

I live in NY, so I'm likely stuck voting for whomever is the choice by then.

But, if I were to have a choice that mattered, I don't care about any of the economic policies being bandied about. There are two nation changing crises coming at us, and that's all I care about right now.

Climate change is real and the effects are happening even faster than predicted.

The GOP is a white nationalist party losing concern for democracy.

Those two things should be the focus for whomever is the Dem candidate. Everything else may be nice, but it pales in comparison to climate and democracy preservation.

And I fully expect neither of these topics will be discussed much in the campaign.

Tulsi is the only other candidate as dangerous as Trump. I would vote for any of the past GOP nominees over her.

And yet she got the most votes. Any critique of her has to acknowledge that.

Please spare me..
Obama picking a republican supreme court judge, and did not even try to get him appointed.

Why do you feel that way?

Yes, but the election was not for most votes.

And she lost the rust belt states.

Abortion
LBGT
Syria
Russia
Assange
Adelson
Islam
Trump
Sisi
Modi

Yes, but they hate her and won't vote for her doesn't work when by your measure they hated Trump more.

I never said they hated Trump more (at least I never meant to say that).
They wanted change, Trump promised them change, they know he was lying, but what the hell., maybe...

Hillery offered nothing.

I found Tarcone's alt account.

Have no idea who Tarcone is, but it is clear,
alternate opinions are not welcome.

I do not feel I have been disrespectful of any others.
I have done my best to document my opinion when challenged.
Yet I get this...

Differing opinions? This board leans fairly far to the left. If your opinion isn't popular maybe it's the message rather than the opinion.

Are Sanders supporters better of now than if Hillary had been elected?

do you mean messenger?

Yes.
first of all we would be year 4 into our war with Iran.
"we came. we saw. he died." oops not this time..


Then
do you think Medicare for all would be a democratic focus, $15 dollar minimum wage etc..
would be mainstream topics under a Hillery administration?

We would have hope for a better future, not more stratus quo.

Regarding Gabbard, this was an interesting read. She seems like an oppo researchers wet-dream.

Profile: Tulsi Gabbard and Her 2020 Presidential Campaign

Hillary supported the JCPOA, so try again.

I'm interested in the economic differences but in the end I do agree with you, and if one candidate starts shouting from the rooftops about climate change above all else I'd shift there quickly.

I would have thought that climate change would be a topic that everyone agrees on, but after watching the house and senate largely ignore it and not treat it like the crisis that it is, I suppose not.

She also supported the Iraq War

Yes, but one thing isn't the other.

For example, I like steak, but that doesn't mean I like liver.

With surtt, the only thing I'm curious about is if s/he knows that its Hillary, not Hillery. And if its intentional, what's the insult that's supposed to come with that misspelling? Why not just Killery, since that's just hilarious.


Honestly, its been insanely frustrating debating the 2016 election for the last 3 years nationally and with some (NOT ALL <3 ) members of the GOP and especially Trump supporters.

I really did not expect we'd be doing the same in a dem primary thread. This is really how we get 4 more years of Trump, isn't it?

Seriously, everyone who calls themselves a democrat or who is unhappy and ashamed of the current administration should be passionately advocating for their preferred candidate at this point, but we should all have learned from 2016 by now and should be ready to all unite against Trump in 2020

This is what I thought, too, when I read that post. This is a perception is reality thing. I suspect only the more invested in politics types are going to go deep enough on Warren to see her as different than Hillary. The on the fence moderate Republicans, especially influenced by the GOP media machine-- which will certainly paint Warren with a Hillary brush-- are unlikely to be moved to vote her unless they absolutely despise Trump.

If Warren is the Dems' choice, I think it's unlikely they win in 2020.

I hope at least one candidate talks about solving the deficit.

In all honesty I get to "Hil"l and depend on spell check.
I do/did mean any additional insult buy miss spelling her name.

I have enough legitimate (I feel) issues with her to resort to screwing with her name.

Heh, I don't think Tulsi gave a f*** about the question that was asked.

Ok, next question. Hil*ry isn't running for president in 2020. How is she relevant right now? How is anything that you're arguing about from 2016 productive to the progress of the united states of america?

Substitute Biden for Hillary.

The candidates on the wings are definitely getting screwed on air time. I imagine tomorrow will be even worse.

Joe Biden has record Wall Street fundraising event.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...-amid-protests

Biden is boughty and paid for by Wall Street.
We need someone who is not.

Great job NBC

My favorite candidate of the first half: Delaney followed closely by Ryan
Least Favorite: Castro

The core ideas are still the same.

Bernie Sander's election run has not needed to change its message one bit.
The big change is that his fringe ideas are now main stream.

We need a Tulsi Gabbard hot or not.

That's a good point, and as someone who has Warren and Sanders at the top of my list I agree with you! (though woo boy Tulsi Gabbard is going to get some attention from me after the debate tonight!)

I don't know what Gabbard is, but she sure as hell isn't a progressive hero.

Clinton had a platform that was hundreds of times more progressive than Biden can ever dream of, smh. Moderate Republicans who are ok with Biden were calling Hillary the next coming of Rosa Luxemburg, ffs! I can't tell you the number of people who called her a socialist - who is saying that about Biden?

That being said, I'd vote Biden every single time over Trump.

---

Anyways, I think Warren had a great night, but Booker did very well. Inslee did ok. O'Rourke and Ryan were bad. De Blasio was just annoying. Everyone else was meh.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Heh, I thought this after the comment in the Hicks thread that political HoN requires a different scale.

(I think Tulsi is sometimes good, sometimes not as much.)

More or less agree.

Warren and Booker stood out. I thought Inslee did enough to stand out although he wasn't as strong as Warren and Booker.

De Blasio made me want to shut off the stream every time he talked or tried to interrupt.

I don't think this played to Beto's strengths and it hurt him. One on one, when given the chance to debate his ideas and let his charisma show he does better. In a large group like this his more moderate stances get picked apart.

Yes yes, agree with all this, and I really really do not want Biden to be the nominee, but if he his, then I'm getting behind him.

Ha!

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...996127232?s=19

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

None of them seemed willing to address the heart of the questions asked. It was mostly just stump speeches.

Edit: I think value from a debate, like an appellate oral argument, can come from having an opportunity to address concerns or perceived gaps in someone's candidacy or policy stance, rather than just have everybody repeat material from their websites that we can read anytime. Right off the bat, Warren is asked about concerns people have about the economic impact of far left legislation, particularly considering most Democrats think the economy is in a good place. Great question. Warren blew it off and just repeated a rehearsed shtick about the "government not working for everyone".