Trump will do one debate.
Even right-wing people will call it cowardly if he bails completely from a debate. But one debate accomplishes two things that matter for him.
Here’s the deal. Biden has always spoken in rambling, meandering fashion. And a lot of people LIKE it. They think it means he’s not giving them pre-packaged soundbite responses. There’s been criticism right in this thread about Harris trying to give “clever” answers, with Yang’s “who wants to be a $12,000aire” opening statement, and with Buttigieg unloading a sound bite that the Republicans and NRA will keep replaying after all of us were dead. All you can say about Biden is that he talks too much and can’t explain himself in 15 words or less. And you call that “dementia?” How many of you here ever talk to your parents!
FWIW, throughout his rambling, garbled answer, I knew exactly what Biden was trying to say. And I don’t give a shit that he said “record player” instead of “iPad” or some other damned contraption.
And here’sthe speech that Trump gave last night. Biden sounds like a genius compared with Trump.
Although I have to say, a debate between the two would probably be like watching two people yell at each other in Esperanto. We might get the gist of it, but would never be able to totally comprehend either of them.
Fair points.
But these are dramatically different programs. So in the first year, when he talks about lowering the age to 55, does that mean he is going to have one program for people 55 to 64 and traditional Medicare for those older than that? At the end of the four years does he eliminate traditional Medicare? It’s all just talking points with no more substance behind it than Trump’s promise to give people “something great”.
Beto, not Buttigieg.
Their Buttigieg snickering will be completely predictable too.
He reminds me of Howard Beale, in both a good way and a bad way - he can drop some uncomfortable truths that resonate with a lot of frustrated people, but he’s also a shouty dishevelled old man.
I’m intrigued by Buttigieg’s intended strategy. My suspicions remain that his primary goal is to build his brand this time around without risking too much, but with an eye on any opportunity to fluke upwards should it arise, given the way he’s playing it. His numbers are pretty steady in the 5-10% band, and while he may pick up a bit more support when the ones below him drop out he’s unlikely to overtake Biden, Sanders and Warren unless they crash themselves out. Still, stranger things have happened. And if he doesn’t get anywhere, he’ll still be on the rise and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him doing a DNC address along the way as well as other profile-rasing activities. If the Dems don’t win in 2020, he’ll be a strong contender for 2024.
In contrast, the other up-and-coming populist, O’Rourke, is almost certainly on a “White House or bust” track. Losing two high profile campaigns in a row will taint him; at best he’ll run for governor when Texas goes a bit more purple. I can’t see him coming back in 2024.
Fortunately for him, he may not pay a price for that anytime soon, but that’ll change once people start tuning in.
Yeah, Cheap shots wont work. Sure Harris scored in the 1st debate with one, but that was well planned.
I like Beto for Veep.
Yeah, banning the sale and importation is one thing, and altho it is pointless, i dont oppose it much. However- Door to door confiscation of guns is a very bad idea. Even talking about it will energize those 70 Million gun owners.
More like “Castro lit himself on fire.”
My guess is that he’s (well) done, even grading on a “he’s really running for VP/Cabinet” curve.
If nothing else, it will energize them to buy more guns. Does O’Rourke realize that what he just said will result in thousands of people going out and buying thousands of AR-15s and thousands of boxes of ammo? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people shopping at gun stores RIGHT NOW, today, as a direct result of what he said.
Clearly he is not savvy enough to consider the real-life consequences of foolish statements like that, which means he is not remotely savvy enough to be running for president.
He’s from Texas. He wouldn’t be a functional adult if he doesn’t realize there are people who will react that way. I lived in a quiet residential area in Houston and my neighbor across the street had 4 second amendment placards in his window. Including one that was something like “Warning: Owner is clinging to his guns and religion.”
“Loser! Low energy! SAD!”
“Malarkey!”
“Fake news!”
“MALARKEY!”
ETA: There were also a couple of points where Cory Booker used the word “dagnabbed” or “dagnabbit” (IIRC) and I thought to myself “Oh, he’s going for the Biden vote!” 
It is fine for Beto to come out strong with a gun confiscation position, because he really has no chance of attaining the nomination.
The problem is that when he says these things and goes unchallenged, it looks like an official part of the Democratic Party’s platform, and that is a vote looser.
The other candidates actually missed a really good opportunity to connect with moderate gun owners by upbraiding Beto for such a remark, saying “we can’t just confiscate peoples’ legally owned property - that’s not the country we live in. I am in favor of reasonable gun control but that is NOT reasonable.” Or some variation thereof. The fact that it did go unchallenged, as pointed out above, is not a good look for these candidates.
That response was personal to Beto. Several commended his conduct in the aftermath of the shooting in El Paso. They couldn’t then scold him for something that hit home personally.
Otherwise known as a, “Please burglarize this house first,” sign.
I did not watch the debate, nor see the clip in question where O’Rourke made his pronouncement. AIUI though, the crowd wildly cheered, and none of the other debate participants disavowed his statement. Is that correct?
If so, then, while Robert O’Rourke is a silly man who says a variety of silly things, a much bigger story than his comment IMHO is that he is merely saying what the rest of the candidates wish to do.
That would be cool, but seems unlikely unless someone who is not a white man is at the top of the ticket.
I always think it’s interesting, how Bernie gets away with being so disheveled. I agree with feminists who point out that a woman would never even remotely be able to succeed in politics if she looked like a bag lady.
I told my son, who adores Bernie and sends him money all the time, that although I know it’s his brand to not care about such things, the lack of attention to grooming is accentuating his appearance of being really old. Some quiet work on hair and makeup might ameliorate that a bit.
If that is so, the Democratic candidate needs to jump all over it, calling him out as a coward. And it wouldn’t hurt to tie that in with his draft-dodging days.
That would assure a vote along party lines. I believe it was a very bad idea.