3rd Democratic Debate 12/19/15

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@BobLibDem

Jesus, Martin. You aren’t going to win, you don’t deserve to be on that stage, you’re running for veep, shut the hell up.

And he’s not gonna win that either.

[foolsguinea]

@John_Mace

I didn’t mean to imply that “outsider” was the only strategy he was employing. And there is a large overlap between “Governor of State X” and “Washington outsider”.

Fair 'nough.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

O’Malley is Democratic John Kasich-and about as relevant.

Well, I still think Kasich has a chance when the Anyone But Trump bloc gets its act together. He was reasonably well-regarded when he was in Congress.

O’Malley probably has a tougher road ahead–except inasmuch as he has only two celebrity candidates ahead of him and could suddenly be very relevant if either of them has a stroke.

[Urbanredneck]

@Rick_Kitchen

Lines to the Ladies room are longer.

No what happened is the ladies room had multiple stalls and another woman was already using one of them but Hillary wouldnt “share” and wanted to wait until the other woman finished. Basically she wanted her own private bathroom.

Thats why she was late.

Hillary is a huge control freak and an expert on getting what she wants.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Well, the woman in the bathroom was Lis Smith, O’Malley’s campaign manager. Smith dates Elliot Spitzer, the former New York Governor who resigned after being caught frequenting prostitutes. Maybe Hillary felt something would rub off.

[adaher]

She already associates with Anthony Weiner’s wife and her husband. She’d better carry a lot of Clorox wipes with her.

[Urbanredneck]

Does that mean she cant pee in the same room as her?

[Airbeck]

So none of you have ever had to drop a deuce and wanted to wait until the bathroom was clear before firing away? You don’t know everything about her bathroom trip and why she was delayed, and you should stop acting like every little thing that happens is a clear indictment of her personality. Its pathetic.

This is why criticism of Hillary doesn’t seem to work very well for the right. They focus on silly things like this all the time and then wonder why it isn’t bringing her down the way they anticipated. If you aren’t part of the right that already hates her with the passion of 1000 suns, this kind of stuff has no traction.

[Urbanredneck]

@Airbeck

So none of you have ever had to drop a deuce and wanted to wait until the bathroom was clear before firing away? You don’t know everything about her bathroom trip and why she was delayed, and you should stop acting like every little thing that happens is a clear indictment of her personality. Its pathetic.

This is why criticism of Hillary doesn’t seem to work very well for the right. They focus on silly things like this all the time and then wonder why it isn’t bringing her down the way they anticipated. If you aren’t part of the right that already hates her with the passion of 1000 suns, this kind of stuff has no traction.

Because the left does it just as much.

[elucidator]

We’re not perfect, just better. It’ll do.

[SlackerInc]

I’m a little surprised to find that one proposal Hillary made in the debate is not getting a lot of attention:

Widows and orphans first. Muir pointed out that most Americans, in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, oppose accepting Middle Eastern refugees. Clinton replied that refugees are extensively vetted and we shouldn’t abandon our country’s tradition of welcoming the world’s victims. But then she added: “I would prioritize widows and orphans and the elderly. … That would, I think, give the American public a bit more of a sense of security about who is being processed and who might end up coming as refugees.”

That’s a significant concession. Clinton is proposing to counter regional or religious discrimination—against Arabs or Muslims—with discrimination based on age and sex. Drawing on her reading of the public’s “sense of security”—i.e., polls—she’s prepared to appease us by tightening the immigration spigot, lest we elect a Republican who might shut it off altogether.

This is very similar to a proposal I made here on the SDMB (and at Daily Kos and a few other places) a month ago:

Democrats can triangulate and say “Okay, it might not be a good idea to bring in Syrian men. But we are not going to be like the heartless Republicans and turn away women and their small children. Furthermore, let’s look by contrast at how little we have to fear from immigrants from Latin America. We should be welcoming them with open arms, and providing legal status for those already here.” That’s a winning political message, and even if you think it is unjust for the Syrian men turned away, in utilitarian terms it does the most progressive good for the most people.

Back then, this was almost universally jeered here as “unconscionable”, “terrible”, “immoral”, “bigoted”, “asinine”, and “pure theatrics” (and that’s just from a quick perusal of the first page of the thread). Left Hand of Dorkness even assured everyone “But of course it won’t happen, because it’s politically tone-deaf, satisfies nobody, and is foolish on its face. So no worries!” Still sure 'bout that, LHOD? :dubious:

[foolsguinea]

I for one endorse the idea that Syrian men be sent to ISIS to be “recruited” while their wives and children are naturalized into the United States of America as war widows and orphans.

No, wait, not “endorse,” what’s the word I want? The opposite of that.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

Did Hillary propose that Syrian men be sent to ISIS? Or, whose proposal are you referring to?

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Urbanredneck

Because the left does it just as much.

cite?

[MindsEye_Watering]

@Urbanredneck

Because the left does it just as much.

It does? Wow.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@foolsguinea

Fair 'nough.
Well, I still think Kasich has a chance when the Anyone But Trump bloc gets its act together. He was reasonably well-regarded when he was in Congress.

The necessity of forming an Anyone But Trump coalition itself undermines Kasich’s chances further-uniting such a disparate group requires getting the support of anti-Trumpist Tea Partiers (ie upper middle class Evangelical exurb types who despise Trump’s populism) which would require either supporting their candidate (Ted Cruz) or a candidate at least somewhat tolerable to them (Marco Rubio). Having the Establishment or elite moderate types gather around Kasich just means there’s a permanent three-way rift which just might allow Trump to win.