By comparison, yes. Okay, it’s a low standard these days.
I thought she sounded like she didn’t comprehend her own rehearsed talking points, and struggled to recall them, so she inserted pauses in strange places while not pausing between sentences.
We did hear a novel debate tactic last night - if you’re caught without a good answer, spew some banality in Spanish while you try to think of one.
WillFarnaby, the Democratic anti-war faction consists of everyone but Gabbard.
She is hardly pro-war.
Somebody just leaked Bernie’s search history - at the top, “How to learn Spanish in one day” 
Viewers last night will be surprised to hear that. Better get out the word.
The responses to last night’s debate are depressing. We have learned nothing from the Trump era.
Beto and Castro got into an argument over a particular piece of immigration legislation and all the reactions I’ve seen say that Castro was the winner and Beto looked weak during the exchange. But why? Because they’ve examined the issue and found that Castro knew it better and had a better solution? No, it’s because he was louder, more forceful, he said “if you had done your research” and basically he came off looking tougher. Not one analysis of who was right and who was wrong.
Trump is going to win again if this is who we are.
Relax. There’s no way we were ever going to get a crowded primary without sharp exchanges at debates. This is entirely normal; it would be unprecedented to go a single debate without a few such exchanges.
I’m not referring to the conflict as the problem, it’s the lack of analysis. Tough guys are “winners” regardless of who is right.
Blame the debate format. At least Castro explained the specific law he was trying to change – and, like it or not, screen-confidence is a skill that our nominee will need.
Looks like Gabbard is the consensus winner of the first debate.
It is what it is…let’s hope the tough guy toughs it out to win the primary and then wins the election.
Not sure about that’s
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/politics/who-won-democratic-debate/index.html
Nope.
Gabbard was being googled a lot, even by me, since few had heard of her. That doesnt indicate she did well.
All the Gabbard googling (Gabbling? Goobarding?) indicates to me is that lots of people had been reading or hearing the name Tulsi Gabbard for at least a year without knowing what she looked like, and now that they’ve seen her and noticed that she’s attractive and poised, she momentarily has their attention and they will read her Wikipedia article and then probably not think about her again. She’s a real long shot, politically, and she didn’t say much in the debate that was remarkable - the general impression seems to be that she is unreadable.
The only way she could improve her numbers is by saying something really unusual and memorable in the next debate. Maybe her strategy is to play it cool for now and then deploy some kind of rhetorical bombshell to surprise everyone, later on down the line.
Well politics has always been that way, especially in the era of video technology. Toughness connects with the parts of our brain that have been with us for millions of years. In evolutionary terms, language, logic, epistemology is pretty new to us, so the guy/gal who can communicate toughness and alpha-ness often wins.
I don’t think there’s a single consensus winner, but clearly Warren was strong. I thought she was as strong as anyone on the stage. I felt others that had particularly good nights (even if they aren’t necessarily my top choices) were De Blasio, Booker, Castro, and Inslee.
It’s interesting because while I thought Inslee did fairly well, I didn’t think he came off as particularly great, but I’ve seen a couple of articles and commentators that have rated his performance well. Doesn’t mean he’ll last long, but it probably keeps him in the race for another month.
O’Rourke and Ryan just looked like they were out of their element. I’ve seen Tim Ryan in news interviews and he looks comfortable with people one on one, but he seemed nervous under the glare of the spotlight, as did O’Rourke. I felt O’Rourke was beaten up pretty badly by Castro, who just blindsided him with his attacks.
I don’t think it’s clear that Warren was strong. I would not post that it’s clear she was weak, although I think she was. “Clear” implies that everyone can see it.
I don’t think any time it’s just you and DeBlasio raising your hands, that you should feel like you are in a solid place.
I also don’t think Warren seems as strong as people are saying, and I think part of it has to do with her voice. I’ve said this many times: someone’s voice is really, really important. It’s not a male/female thing either, there are some people who just don’t sound authoritative.
There is a certain beseeching tone to the sound of Warren’s voice, it sounds like she’s trying so very hard to sound heartfelt and dramatic but to me it just comes off as “grating.” Frankly I think Bernie Sanders suffers from the same thing. They both always sound so desperate when they talk. I get that this is a critical moment with a lot at stake, and some emotion is warranted, but I think a calmly authoritative style really works better.
Delaney, Ryan, DeBlasio, and Warren, I would rate all their voices as a weak point. Booker and O’Rourke I would say are neutral. Gabbard, Inslee, and Castro I would rate as having good authoritative voices. My favorite speaking voice of any of the candidates is Buttigieg’s. How he actually performs in the debate, will remain to be seen.