# Democratic Debates 7/30 & 7/31 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 30, 2019, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867 "2019-07-30T13:07:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/261 "2019-08-02T23:25:18Z")
Biden: Here’s my plan! I’ll finesse Kamala Harris into challenging me to arm wrestle! Obama: She’ll break your arm. Biden: Elizabeth Warren? Obama: Joe? No. Just no. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/262 "2019-08-02T23:52:35Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Not much movement. CarnalK, you mentioned “bumps and troughs” after the first set of debates; do you have a citation for that? It’s rather common knowledge but ok. [Kamala Harris’s Debate Bounce Is Fading](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harriss-debate-bounce-is-fading/) > [@](#): > > We’ve documented for years how polls tend to rise and fall — in what are often fairly predictable patterns — after events like debates and conventions. In general, what suddenly goes up in polls tends to gradually come back down after a matter of a few weeks. Conventions typically produce polling swings of 4 to 6 percentage points toward the party that just nominated its candidate, for instance — but the polls usually revert back to about where they were before after a few weeks. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/263 "2019-08-02T23:59:26Z")
I guess more to the point is this quote: > [@](#): > > Harris has fallen to 12.2 percentage points from a peak of 15.2 percentage points. She was at 7.0 percent before the debate, so she’s lost about a third of what she’d gained. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/264 "2019-08-03T00:07:16Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s rather common knowledge but ok. > [Kamala Harris’s Debate Bounce Is Fading](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harriss-debate-bounce-is-fading/) Okay, thanks. But how does any of that translate into evidence that “a wide group of people must be paying attention”? Your argument seems to be that if only, say, 8% of registered voters were paying attention, then there would be no movement at all in polls after the debates. And since the polls are not completely static, then that proves that a much larger percentage of registered voters are paying attention. I don’t think that reasoning holds up. I gather you’re basing your view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters—? But even if that were the case, the relatively small changes we’re seeing in reactions to the 20 Dems could stem from huge reactions by the small Woke Twitter/lefty-activist demographic–and no reactions by the vast majority of respondents. If the Woke reactions are averaged in with the ‘little or no change in views’ of those poll-respondents who aren’t paying attention, then we’d see what we actually do see: changes of a few percentage points in approval of Biden et al. At any rate, to come up with anything beyond speculation, we would need to take an in-depth and statistically-detailed look at the methodology of any polls we might find relevant. In the absence of such a deep dive into the methodology: you believe that “a wide group of people must be paying attention,” while I believe that only a fraction of Americans are paying attention. I don’t think we’re going to settle this difference in views in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/265 "2019-08-03T00:11:48Z")
Biden seems to be in a strong position right now, but I’ll point out that both in 2008 and in 2016, Hillary Clinton had bigger leads than Biden does, but that lead ultimately collapsed both times. It collapsed too late to save Bernie, but she went from having a nearly 50% lead at the start of that race to barely a 1% lead as late as April of 2016 before finally pulling away once she got closer to clinching the nomination. In 2008, Obama didn’t actually lead in the polls until February. Sometimes voters just need to see for real just how “electable” someone is or isn’t before changing their minds. I see a lot of Hillary in Biden. Obviously a different gender and a number of other differences, I reckon, but there’s this idea that Biden’s the inevitable winner and voters often rebel against the idea of a coronation. So even though there’s not much movement in the polls yet, don’t be surprised if there’s a sudden shift that occurs much later in the year. Voters may not really be paying attention at this point. This stage of the race is about weeding out those who have neither the funding nor the popularity to compete. But even though we’re two debates in, the race has really yet to begin. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/266 "2019-08-03T00:17:04Z")
Aside: I beg your tolerance for a question that may already have been answered…but its making my brain itch. Those disruptive shouts from the audience? Who, what, why? Antifas? Q-Anon? Americans for Bat Boy? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/267 "2019-08-03T00:45:28Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Okay, thanks. But how does any of that translate into evidence that “a wide group of people must be paying attention”? > > Your argument seems to be that if only, say, 8% of registered voters were paying attention, then there would be no movement at all in polls after the debates. And since the polls are not completely static, then that proves that a much larger percentage of registered voters are paying attention. > > I don’t think that reasoning holds up. > > I gather you’re basing your view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters—? But even if that were the case, the relatively small changes we’re seeing in reactions to the 20 Dems could stem from huge reactions by the small Woke Twitter/lefty-activist demographic–and no reactions by the vast majority of respondents. If the Woke reactions are averaged in with the ‘little or no change in views’ of those poll-respondents who aren’t paying attention, then we’d see what we actually do see: changes of a few percentage points in approval of Biden et al… I don’t see how math and reality could support this rebuttal. Harris got about an 8% bump after the debate. If only 8% were paying attention then they were all non-Harris people who all switched their preference after the debate. Or there was some other reason, untalked about, that created such a big sudden bump. Those are both really hard to believe. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/268 "2019-08-03T12:18:32Z")
I agree: there were clearly many people who watched highlights and were influenced by them. It’s silly to judge the impact of the debates by the Nielsen ratings for who actually watched live all the way through. Although that is still a hell of a lot more people than watch CNN or MSNBC when there are not debates on. For those channels, that was blockbuster viewership. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/269 "2019-08-03T12:34:14Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I agree: there were clearly many people who watched highlights and were influenced by them. It’s silly to judge the impact of the debates by the Nielsen ratings for who actually watched live all the way through. Although that is still a hell of a lot more people than watch CNN or MSNBC when there are not debates on. For those channels, that was blockbuster viewership. The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/270 "2019-08-03T13:49:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Aside: I beg your tolerance for a question that may already have been answered…but its making my brain itch. Those disruptive shouts from the audience? Who, what, why? Antifas? Q-Anon? Americans for Bat Boy? “Fire Pantaleo!” Aimed at DeBlasio. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/271 "2019-08-03T14:06:09Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates. That bothers me too. Like the utter lack of evidence from the punditry or highlight clips of Beto’s strong performance Tuesday. They couldn’t really say he bombed, so they just ignored him entirely. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/272 "2019-08-03T14:30:18Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates. Related to this, I saw on MSNBC last night (I believe the origin was the Washington Post) that within minutes of Tulsi Gabbard calling Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor into question, accounts with “bot-like” characteristics were flooding the internet with posts to the effect that Gabbard had devastated Harris at the debates. Hmmmmmm, wonder who that could have been? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/273 "2019-08-03T14:47:31Z")
> [@OttoDaFe](#): > > Related to this, I saw on MSNBC last night (I believe the origin was the Washington Post) that within minutes of Tulsi Gabbard calling Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor into question, accounts with “bot-like” characteristics were flooding the internet with posts to the effect that Gabbard had devastated Harris at the debates. > > Hmmmmmm, wonder who that could have been? It’s entirely possible it could have been Russian bots, but let’s not forget that there’s a lot of homegrown media manipulation. I’d say the vast majority of social media and general media manipulation is homegrown. The incident you’re referring to above strikes me more as garden variety tooling, which can have an impact, but it’s not on the scale of what Russia does. What Russia has done, and what it will do, isn’t simply online influencing; they do full-scale **information warfare**. It’s important to understand that what Russia did in 2016, and what they will likely do in 2020, is use **weapons-grade information warfare devices**. This will include deep data mining, and it will also include vast hacking operations which go beyond hashtag campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/274 "2019-08-03T17:16:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Fire Pantaleo!” Aimed at DeBlasio. Why then did they interrupt Booker? ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/275 "2019-08-03T17:36:40Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Why then did they interrupt Booker? Were someone’s pants on fire? So it seems that you _can_ shout “fire” in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with “Panteleo”. You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it’s the “there once was a man from Nantucket” variety. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/276 "2019-08-03T19:50:57Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Were someone’s pants on fire? So it seems that you _can_ shout “fire” in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with “Panteleo”. > > You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it’s the “there once was a man from Nantucket” variety. David Brooks on PBS last night made the same point, in different words. He said that Trump runs on values and emotions; you don’t counter that with policy proposals. You have to run on a campaign of “these are the American principles that we espouse”. I’ve heard the exact opposite argument eloquently expressed on this very forum: that you can’t run just being anti-Trump; you have to state what you’re _for_. Damfino what the right answer is. I sure hope the Democrats thread the needle and figure it out. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/277 "2019-08-03T20:58:22Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Why then did they interrupt Booker? New York, New Jersey, same thing? NFI. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/278 "2019-08-03T21:15:13Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it’s the “there once was a man from Nantucket” variety. Well said, although I think Harris and Inslee are less guilty of this than most. Mayor Pete too, but he is not ready for other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/279 "2019-08-03T22:14:54Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Were someone’s pants on fire? So it seems that you _can_ shout “fire” in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with “Panteleo”. > > You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it’s the “there once was a man from Nantucket” variety. Post of the day. Very good insights. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867/280 "2019-08-04T04:04:17Z")
I’m re-watching the most recent debate now to try to get a deeper read on what went down, and I noticed something that I hadn’t really thought about the last time but which now seems quite significant. During the immigration question, after Biden delivered his reply (haltingly, inarticulately, and trailing off at the end), it’s Castro’s turn and he begins his statement by looking at Biden and saying “It’s obvious that one of us has learned from the past and one of us hasn’t.” The crowd erupts in cheers and applause. It should be noted that all Castro even said at that point just amounts to “I disagree with you,” but the way he delivered it obviously brought out a wave of hearty affirmation from the crowd. And this tells me one thing: The audience likes to see Biden get smacked down. I don’t think this bodes well for his prospects against Trump if he’s the nominee. Edit - he also says shit like “the fact of the matter is that, in fact, …”. I’ve heard him called a “gaffe machine” but my impression of him from these debates isn’t that he makes “gaffes”, it’s that he just sucks ass at talking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-debates-7-30-7-31/837867.md?page=15)