I wouldn’t go as far as ‘bumbling’ or ‘forgetful’, bit Biden does seem to have lost some of his edge. I like him generally, but this just doesn’t seem like his time to me.
Also, I can’t remember who said it, but I really did not like, “We are gonna tax the hell out of the rich!” Please don’t run on that, it sounds like you are doing it for its own sake. How about, “We are going to pay as we go, and tax progressively”? Or some variation of that. I am no Grover Norquist, but there needs to be a solid reason to raise taxes.
Ehh, I think it’s lazy/ ignorant journalists.
Mr. Carter sounds just fine. Mr./ Ms. sounds fine for former anybodys.
Unfortunately, it *has *to be this way. Many politicians are the “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” type. You let them ramble beyond the limit, they ***will ***take advantage of that loophole and cheerfully keep talking on and on.
It then becomes unfair to the candidates who dutifully do abide by the 30-second time limit and don’t get to express themselves as fully as the ones who go on for 50 or 60 seconds.
Does anyone other than Miss Manners think ex-Presidents are not properly addressed as “President”? Has any ex-President since Teddy Roosevelt wanted it that way? General usage *is *proper usage, as long as it’s respectful.
Pity that Gabbard, Inslee, Hickenlooper, and Castro are all reaching the end of this line, but there are other Offices In Search Of Candidates they should look to. Some other people have added some color but just need to quit clogging the discussion, especially those who didn’t even qualify (it’s too late, sorry). Biden, Sanders, and probably Warren have missed their windows, Biden in particular is leaking air now. Harris too, after her criminal rights record is now out there. I’m ready to place a chip or two on Booker and Buttigieg.
Not another proscriptive/descriptive discussion!!!
Mind you I love me some good pedantry but really?
As to talking over time limits … You either have rules that are enforced within some degree of reason or just let people ramble on because they insist “No, this is important!” Finishing the sentence is one thing. Going on for longer than that when others are respecting the agreed to and being enforced rules is being a cheat.
Biden will neither win or lose support from this. It was good enough that those predisposed to him won’t jump ship (another first debate level would have resulted in that) but bad enough that no one will switch to him or become more firmly in his camp than they were.
That’s my concern based on two of Biden’s performances in debates thus far. That he won’t come off significantly better against the dumpster fire and people will be turned off leading to another trump win, because of electorate ambivalence.
I think Miller tried to convince me of that in another thread. I see his point now.
Biden also did not help himself at all by pointing out the cost of Medicare For All without also noting that it’s a net savings from the current (non)system. Harris tried, and got it out eventually, but the soundbite is there now.
Booker definitely elevated himself to consideration among the top dogs last night. Still too early to call it, but I think Booker, Harris, and Warren are in the strongest position at this point. Biden still on top in the polls but he seems to be losing momentum fast. He’s in the Jeb Bush position.
Whether or not he will lose momentum (to the degree he has any momentum per se) is a matter of each of us to speculate on. But a claim that he is currently losing momentum fast is a simple untruth. His last period of polling was him on a upswing back to his baseline from a dip after debate one.
There is one candidate with fairly consistent positive momentum, Warren, and I don’t think she will lose it after this. Neither will it gain her much additional steam.
Have you seen any polls taken since last night? :dubious:
To the best of my knowledge there have not been any released. Have you seen any? “Current” is as current data demonstrates. Anything else is a speculation of the future.
FWIW I doubt Booker elevated himself. I don’t think his attacks landed well and to many will reflect worse on him than on his target. But that is speculation, not a statement of what current is.
You’re leaving out the most, and most relevant, data with that pronunciamento, namely last night’s debate. But do go on.
How that debate will play out visa vis “momentum” is a speculation about the future.
If you want to play that as a data point then I’ll play. It is pretty widely accepted that his performance in this debate was better than his performance in debate one. He has moved from one level of performance to a level higher than that level. That is positive momentum.
Of course that is not the momentum we are talking about. We are talking about movement in level and/or strength of support. The most current data on that is positive momentum for him but such a conclusion is looking too closely at the trend lines - he is with some bumps pretty flat. My guess is he will he have more noise in his line but stay flat. The question to me is if Warren can consolidate the undecideds and others enough to catch and pass him. She will if he fumbles again as badly as he did in debate one I am pretty sure. But barring that I doubt it.
Not at all, in fact Russian trolls helped Bernie.
The GOP would LOVE to see Sanders as the candidate.
They consider Biden their greatest threat.
It is very easy to figure this- who is getting the most attacks? Even here? (I am not sure if we have any Russian trolls, but I know we have a few GOPers).
You dont think the kremlin could whip up a Communist Party ID card for Sanders? Maybe find some pics of him at a Commie rally in his past?
Did you see the debate? Looks like the candidates were attacking Biden/Obama more than anything else. Do you think the Russians are financing Booker, Harris, and DiBlasio?
Frankly, I do doubt it. The praise of the Sandanistas and getting drunk on his honeymoon in Russia are out there already. Doubt anyone is sitting on a Commie rally video.
It’s a stupid ploy to attack Obama in order to attack Biden. If you want to ensure Biden takes ownership of the mistakes of 2009-17 there’s a way to do that doesn’t flat out take on the Obama presidency more than the Trump presidency.
Obama is the most popular Democrat by a country mile. We are witnessing Trump tear apart his accomplishments out of spite. So for some candidates to see this and say “it wasn’t that good anyway” is a fallacy.
TPP for example would have needed to be renegoatiated anyway at some point if Hillary were in the White House now because these deals always need to be updated for the changing circumstances of the day. Saying it was a bad deal in the first place is a Republican talking point.
Debate was more comfortable to watch than the last.
Good:
Booker was manic as usual, but with less anger, and stomped on Joe like a lit cigarette. Yang had a few good rehearsed lines- including one mocking rehearsed lines. Gabbard improved quite a bit, a woman of good character and morals.
Bad:
Biden was a rag doll. Harris was bored and got blasted by Gabbard. Castro was polished but hollow. Gillibrand was an embarrassing mom on Xanax. Bennett is a moo cow. DiBlasio was an indulgent clown (really NYC?). Inslee was your friend’s annoying little brother
For being such a boring MF, Inslee is kind of fascinating as a candidate. He’s got good progressive successes under his belt, and Washington is really two entirely different states: semiarid climate & agricultural in the east, marine climate & shipping/transportation/metropolitan on the west; Nuclear and hydroelectric infrastructures. And it’s a border state 
.
I have had quite enough of NYC belligerence. DeBlasio could be the best of Obama/Clinton/Kennedy, and that accent and swagger would drive me away.
That’s my point.