Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:16 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413

First Dem debate field set


No real surprises here except maybe that Williamson made it

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/polit...eup/index.html

3 guys were left out
  #2  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:58 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,026
So if I'm reading this right, there's two debates, each with a mix of those high and low in the polls? This sounds like it'll be a mess. And those who get in the first debate will probably get a bigger boost.
  #3  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:27 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
So if I'm reading this right, there's two debates, each with a mix of those high and low in the polls? This sounds like it'll be a mess. And those who get in the first debate will probably get a bigger boost.
It's one debate split across two evenings.
  #4  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:43 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It's one debate split across two evenings.
Well, that's what they're calling it.
  #5  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:50 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
So if I'm reading this right, there's two debates, each with a mix of those high and low in the polls? This sounds like it'll be a mess. And those who get in the first debate will probably get a bigger boost.
Assigned to nights by random selection. We could see Biden and Sanders who are the two leaders in the polls not debate each other. You could also see the second night being skewed toward those leading in the polls and everybody ignores the first night.

It's a tough problem. The GOP with a wide field in 2016 used straight up poll averages to rank order candidates. The debates were on the same night with the early round conflicting with a lot of meal times being those behind. The problem was that there wasn't really a statistically significant difference between the last candidate in the main debate and most of those on the undercard. They put the frontrunners in one debate and then pretended that the meaningless differences in poll averages meant something. There was a strong element of randomness hidden behind the supposedly non-random metric they used. A candidate that couldn't make the main debate was mostly screwed. The DNC is taking a different tack. In effect, they are giving more voice to those with lower initial name recognition and less money to juice polling to still get an early audience on the big stage. It's a technique. It's one that has issues. The GOP approach has issues too. I'm not sure there's a clearly better option that makes sense.

Last edited by DinoR; 06-13-2019 at 07:50 PM.
  #6  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Not completely random. Those polling 2% or higher will be split between the two nights.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...d-june-1344368
Quote:
Eight candidates have a polling average at or above 2 percent right now: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. With the newly announced rule, four would be guaranteed to appear on the first night, and four would be guaranteed to appear on the second night.
Not impossible to have four one night include none of Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg. But at least Harris would have to be on the other card and that draw is highly unlikely. Also very unlikely to be Biden and no other of the pack aiming to be his challenger.
  #7  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Having just read the article, I see the selection is not actually fully random. The top 10 and lower 10will be separately assigned to the two nights, thereby guaranteeing top 10s on both nights.
Quote:
NBC will divide the 20 Democrats vying to take on President Donald Trump into two groups: those with a polling average at 2% or higher and those whose polling average is under 2%.

NBC, according to a DNC aide, will then do a random selection, dividing up the top tier and lower tier into the two nights to ensure an even mix of candidates on each debate stage.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-13-2019 at 08:39 PM.
  #8  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:36 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not completely random.
Thanks. I missed that around the stories that mostly focused on rules changes for inclusion in the third debate. That certainly helps the DNC intent compared to what the initial announcements were.
  #9  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:25 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
3 guys were left out
I'm happy to drop Bullock, Messam, & Moulton. Hickenlooper, Ryan, & Bennet wouldn't really be missed either.

I think I'd be down for dropping all the boys but five. You can keep, say, Sanders, Inslee, Castro, Yang & DeBlasio. Tell the others to go home, and nothing of value would be lost.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 06-13-2019 at 09:28 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
I've been ninja'd many times but for some ungraspable reason this felt different.

The top of my head calculation is there's a 40% chance that the top 2 candidates are together, 12% chance of the top 3 being on the same night and a 2.4% chance of the top four directly facing off. So it should be mixed up pretty good.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-13-2019 at 09:41 PM.
  #11  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:40 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
foolsguinea, are you seriously suggesting to drop the front-runner? And leave Yang in in his place?
  #12  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Yang's got "vision".
  #13  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:03 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
foolsguinea, are you seriously suggesting to drop the front-runner? And leave Yang in in his place?
Yang is more interesting than Biden, let's be honest. Yang would almost certainly be a far worse president than Biden, but it's not like either of them are really going all the way, whatever they say.

But fine, you can have Biden as a sixth.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 06-14-2019 at 01:04 PM.
  #14  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:07 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Sanders, Biden and Harris in night 2 along with Yang and Mayor Pete

lineups here

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ebate-n1017676

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 06-14-2019 at 01:08 PM.
  #15  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Well, what do you know. If Warren had been night 2 it would have been all the top five there but now she is kind of stuck on the night filled solely with people polling 3% and less. It could be turned into an advantage but I have fear she'll have trouble shining surrounded by yahoos swinging for the fences.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-14-2019 at 01:32 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:37 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,298
It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The loud whining from the Bernie Bros has caused the DNC to do everything possible to try to avoid bias. I think the Republicans has it right with the kiddie table debates.

But, it’s still just the end of June. Hopefully some of the vanity candidates will start dropping out and a few should be looking at the Senate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #17  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:52 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
the lower polling people could drop out if they look bad in the debates. or if they run out of money as well.
  #18  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:26 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, what do you know. If Warren had been night 2 it would have been all the top five there but now she is kind of stuck on the night filled solely with people polling 3% and less. It could be turned into an advantage but I have fear she'll have trouble shining surrounded by yahoos swinging for the fences.
The only yahoo on night 1 is Gabbard; the rest are either weak or under-performing. I thinks she's better off going first instead of getting crowded out by the other front runners.

Last edited by asahi; 06-14-2019 at 02:27 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:34 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
the lower polling people could drop out if they look bad in the debates. or if they run out of money as well.
IMHO the first candidates to drop out should be those who didn’t make the debate. Next should be the low polling candidates who perform poorly during the debates. I think the ideal situation would be that by the time the Iowa caucus gets here the field will be in the high single digits, then around 4 or 5 by Super Tuesday and 2 or 3 after that.
  #20  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:38 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The only yahoo on night 1 is Gabbard; the rest are either weak or under-performing. I thinks she's better off going first instead of getting crowded out by the other front runners.
Well it depends on what the rating numbers look like. There is a chance that a lot of people won't watch Night 1 because Warren is the only one polling over 3% there. Whereas Night 2 has Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg.
  #21  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:47 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
I wonder how many people actually sit through the entire debate and whether it's necessary to have a captive audience. So many people watch video clips of the debate highlights the next day. Maybe the goal is to create some highlights.

The other goal is to not look completely stupid and unprepared like Rick Perry was in 2011.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZYQ9IYeOlU

The top 4 just need to survive; the pressure is really on Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, and maybe Amy Klobuchar. They still have hope, but they need to be remembered for something positive.

As for everyone else, there's literally no hope. The rest of the field has almost no hope at all and are aiming for potential cabinet spots or future runs for office.
  #22  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:51 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Either way, it's about clips. You want to generate some good clips for your people to show, and you want to avoid having bad clips for your opponents to show.

Well, that, and impressing the pundits. If enough people say "So-and-so performed strongly in the debate", it won't matter if it's not true.
  #23  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:47 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
My goodness. I think if I switched my registration to Dem, then I might qualify to be in one of these debates.

The random selection seems silly. Nobody wants to hear from the nobodies taking time away from the frontrunners. The GOP had the format right: stick the wannabes in their own debate and if someone shines, then maybe he or she moves up the next time.
  #24  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:21 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Rather than submitting to chance, a trusted wise man should be appointed to select the slates for the two nights (possibly keeping his criteria secret). Here's how I'd set them:

I assume there will be three 2-session debates. There are three ways to choose a pair from the front-runners (Biden, Sanders, Warren) and each way would be a setting for one of the three debates. In the first 2-session debate, the odd-man out from the front-running trio would appear on the stage with both Buttigieg and Harris (or whoever the 2nd-tier runners are). Remaining contenders might be set randomly. I would use performance in the 1st debate to adjust the size or composition of this 2nd-tier group for the following debates.
  #25  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:00 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The random selection seems silly. Nobody wants to hear from the nobodies taking time away from the frontrunners. The GOP had the format right: stick the wannabes in their own debate and if someone shines, then maybe he or she moves up the next time.
The GOP format was effectively random for a lot of candidates. The difference in poll averages between those who made the last slots of the top card and the undercard/wannabe debate was statistically meaningless for a lot of the early debates. It felt less random because we attached numbers. They just weren't meaningful numbers.
  #26  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:06 PM
Hatchie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Boston
Posts: 67
( To Massachusetts Cong. Seth Moulton: )

Moulty!

Don't turn away
(You're gonna make it, baby)
Don't turn away
(Ah, try to make it, baby)
Don't turn a-waaaa-aay!
  #27  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:56 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
septimus, what if the identity of the top three changes in between the debates? I mean, theoretically, any of them could end up being the front-runner: If that's not true, then why even have a primary at all?
  #28  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Rather than submitting to chance, a trusted wise man should be appointed to select the slates for the two nights (possibly keeping his criteria secret). ...
2% seems like a silly cut-off to me, treating the top three or four as same to those not within that pack. I'd have stated that the top four in polling need to be divided to two each night by random selection, then the next four, and then randomize everyone else.

That said the "trusted wise man" making the decisions ... likely smoking a cigar in a back room ... is precisely what needs to be avoided.

I suspect they will also be fairly strict about trying to give each candidate near equal time in this go around. Of course that's going to end of night come to maybe a total of six minutes per candidate, spread out over multiple 60 second answers and 30 second possible follow ups.

I'm expecting that most of them will pretty much ignore whatever the actual questions are in favor of pushing their main campaign themes, telling their life stories that they want people to connect to, listing their accomplishments, and delivering canned zingers looking for media play. Maybe six 60 second snippets is not the best way to actually debate ideas. This will be more like competing Twitter feeds than anything else.

Not sure how this sort of format can change too much, barring a Perry-esque meltdown. Yes as noted somewhere above, people will more react to how "presidential" they come off in tone and body language, than anything about any ideas.
  #29  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:30 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,776
Throwback to 2016: Republican debate candidate walkouts.
  #30  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... That said the "trusted wise man" making the decisions ... likely smoking a cigar in a back room ... is precisely what needs to be avoided. ...
Off-topic: It is the lack of trusted wise men that has turned main-stream media into unreasoned or badly focused click-races. Trustworthy "cigar smokers" might have stopped the hyper-polarization of Congress and certainly would have stopped the election of Trump. We've touched on this before in other threads.
  #31  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:40 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
No perfect criteria for debate line-ups can be decided in advance. That is the appeal of letting them be set by trusted wise men. (Admittedly, trusted wise men may be in extremely short supply these days. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
septimus, what if the identity of the top three changes in between the debates? I mean, theoretically, any of them could end up being the front-runner: If that's not true, then why even have a primary at all?
(In my proposal, there would be 8 or however-many candidates on each stage, getting equal time. I'm just "seeding" the line-ups.)

It may be hard to jointly satisfy with certainty the TWO goals of
(a) Splitting the four then-current front-runners 2-2 in all three 2-session debates.
(b) Ensuring the big pairings (Joe v Bernie, Liz v Bernie, Joe v Liz) each occur exactly once.

As you saw, with the 4th-place contender still unclear I made some flexibility there. If standings change radically, then I, as trusted dictatorial wise man , might reserve the right to make major changes for debates #2 or #3.
  #32  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:33 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Personally, I think that whoever is sponsoring a debate should just decide on their own who to invite when, what format to use, and so on. If the debate is sponsored by the DNC, then it's the DNC's call how to run it. Does this mean an opportunity to put their thumb on the scales? Yes, and this is a problem why?

But then, I also thought that it was perfectly kosher for the DNC to favor Clinton over Sanders, even though I myself supported Sanders.
  #33  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:36 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
That said the "trusted wise man" making the decisions ... likely smoking a cigar in a back room ... is precisely what needs to be avoided.

I suspect they will also be fairly strict about trying to give each candidate near equal time in this go around. Of course that's going to end of night come to maybe a total of six minutes per candidate, spread out over multiple 60 second answers and 30 second possible follow ups.
The problem with the cigar filled room is that those select few choose the candidate, not that people reasonably try to keep a debate below 10/20 people.

As you note, the candidates that the people really want to hear from get only six minutes of time and are drown out by at least 15 or 16 candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning, but get equal time to the real candidate out of some perverse sense of fairness.

Even when that happens, like in the GOP debates in 2015, the moderators always focused on Trump with the wannabes bitching that they didn't get "their" equal time.

The selection will be somewhat arbitrary, but I would rather see a manageable debate of 3-5 top candidates that two debates, with the front runners split between the two, just to adhere to a sense of "fairness" to let someone will 11 supporters be heard.
  #34  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The problem with the cigar filled room is that those select few choose the candidate, not that people reasonably try to keep a debate below 10/20 people....

... I would rather see a manageable debate of 3-5 top candidates that two debates, with the front runners split between the two, just to adhere to a sense of "fairness" to let someone will 11 supporters be heard.
And many others would rather give those less known a chance to become known rather than have a sense of a foreordained conclusion.

A balance must be struck.

While I have significant quibbles with the specifics the idea of a debate in which those who have met some reasonable minimal standards get a chance (even be it vanishingly small of one) to break out is reasonable. The CNN town halls were also that chance (and was part of Buttigieg's breaking out into the second tier pack).

But no question after round one the criteria need to be tightened, and then more as the round after comes along. Because, yeah, this won't be any debate so much as Cliff Notes stump speeches and scrolling through dating app profiles. After this it needs to get down to a list small enough to at least meet for a cup of coffee. Then real dates, before we decide who we want to meet momma.
  #35  
Old 06-15-2019, 04:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Personally, I think that whoever is sponsoring a debate should just decide on their own who to invite when, what format to use, and so on. If the debate is sponsored by the DNC, then it's the DNC's call how to run it. Does this mean an opportunity to put their thumb on the scales? Yes, and this is a problem why?.
As was described about a billion times during the 2016 primaries, it is against their own damn rules to put a thumb on the scales. I am really rather flabbergasted that it hasn't sunk in with everyone who reads Elections regularly.
  #36  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:38 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Then that's a stupid rule.
  #37  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Then that's a stupid rule.
Yeah, I guess they were trying to look small "d" democratic. Super stupid.
  #38  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:27 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Looks like they’ve set up Warren to be the big winner in the first night in hopes that she will knock off Bernie, who is problematic from their standpoint. Look for the post-debate talking heads and media coverage to be lauding Warren despite a mediocre performance. Easy opportunity for a free day of positive media. Very smart move by DNC.
  #39  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Looks like they’ve set up Warren to be the big winner in the first night in hopes that she will knock off Bernie,
So you are immediately assuming this was totally fixed?
  #40  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:54 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So you are immediately assuming this was totally fixed?
It’s the safest assumption considering the exposed DNC tactics from last time. I wonder who will be fed questions beforehand this time around.
  #41  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:58 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Looks like they’ve set up Warren to be the big winner in the first night in hopes that she will knock off Bernie, who is problematic from their standpoint. Look for the post-debate talking heads and media coverage to be lauding Warren despite a mediocre performance. Easy opportunity for a free day of positive media. Very smart move by DNC.
Even assuming the draw was fixed, I doubt this would even be possible. This early in the process the only one who can knock off Bernie is Bernie himself, if he has a really poor performance. My guess is that Warren probably won’t even mention Bernie, choosing instead to explain her platform to the American people.
  #42  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:24 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
If Warren remains strong, then I think Bernie gradually fades out of the picture.
  #43  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:41 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The selection will be somewhat arbitrary, but I would rather see a manageable debate of 3-5 top candidates that two debates, with the front runners split between the two, just to adhere to a sense of "fairness" to let someone will 11 supporters be heard.
I know you're being hyperbolic, but even fake candidate Mike Gravel had more than 11 supporters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But then, I also thought that it was perfectly kosher for the DNC to favor Clinton over Sanders, even though I myself supported Sanders.
Just because you think something is a "stupid rule" doesn't mean breaking the rule is kosher. (Oy.) Especially when they stated the rule, published it, and then broke it. Not for nothing did Donna Brazile later try to apologize for some of that nonsense & at least appear to repudiate it.
  #44  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:45 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If Warren remains strong, then I think Bernie gradually fades out of the picture.
I...no, I don't think that's going to happen. Or rather, he's so big & his base are so attached to his particular message that even if he fades, he'll still be very visible next summer.
  #45  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I...no, I don't think that's going to happen. Or rather, he's so big & his base are so attached to his particular message that even if he fades, he'll still be very visible next summer.
There's only room enough for one of them, IMO. At some point, you have to win a contest; you can't just finish 2nd or 3rd again and again.

At the moment, Bernie is still arguing the second strongest candidate, but he's a distant second behind Biden, and the most upward movement in recent weeks has come from Warren and Buttigieg.

Suffice it to say, we will know more once the post-debate polls start coming in
  #46  
Old 06-16-2019, 07:06 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I...no, I don't think that's going to happen. Or rather, he's so big & his base are so attached to his particular message that even if he fades, he'll still be very visible next summer.
And a substantial number who were motivated, at least in part, by misogyny towards Clinton will be similarly motivated towards Warren. But he's yesterday's news, yes - infatuation has an expiration date.
  #47  
Old 06-16-2019, 12:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Ultimately, of course there's only room for one of them. There's only room for one of all of the dozens of Democratic candidates, because there's only going to be one Democratic nominee.
  #48  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A balance must be struck.

While I have significant quibbles with the specifics the idea of a debate in which those who have met some reasonable minimal standards get a chance (even be it vanishingly small of one) to break out is reasonable. The CNN town halls were also that chance (and was part of Buttigieg's breaking out into the second tier pack).
This. I hardly think it would constitute a thumb on the scales for the DNC to have put the top 5-8 (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, and maybe Klobuchar, Booker, and Beto) in the main debate, and put the rest in a 'kiddie table' debate. And one or two participants in the 'kiddie table' debate would have stood out from the crowd, and gotten enough support to be included at the grownup table in the next round.
Quote:
But no question after round one the criteria need to be tightened, and then more as the round after comes along. Because, yeah, this won't be any debate so much as Cliff Notes stump speeches and scrolling through dating app profiles. After this it needs to get down to a list small enough to at least meet for a cup of coffee. Then real dates, before we decide who we want to meet momma.
Seconded, and I like your imagery.
  #49  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:38 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
highest poll people are in the middle of the stage

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ection-1368691

sort of like Olympic swimming where the fastest guys/gals are in the middle of the pool
  #50  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:28 PM
Darth Sensitive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,555
Had a good interview with Bullock on the PRE politics podcast recently. Wish he had made the debate stage, and it was frustrating to find that he missed by either one polled voter in or a weighting issue depending on how you see it.

Personally, I think there should have been a snake draft by the candidates. Biden gets first pick of the 18 candidates, then Sanders gets two and three, Joe gets four and five, etc. I like seeing how the candidates want the matchups to shake out. (Of course, I want playoff teams in sports to pick their matchups too.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017