https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/politics/bernie-sanders-twitch-trnd/index.html
Sanders is planning on doing twitch streams.
First results for the effects of the first debate are in, and are mind-boggling.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/
Well, Castro and Warren did well, and Beto O'Rourke bad, other than that it is not so clear. For complete unknown reason this desaster for Tim Ryan actually helped him.
| Mnementh said: First results for the effects of the first debate are in, and are mind-boggling. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/ Well, Castro and Warren did well, and Beto O'Rourke bad, other than that it is not so clear. For complete unknown reason this desaster for Tim Ryan actually helped him. |
Besides him getting called out by Gabbard the rest of his performance was alrigjt.
I understand Warren was already the leader of those on stage, but I think she really crushed it. Castro kicked ass as well, though mostly on the stuff he was familiar with, so I give the crown to Warren. Gabbard did okay, reminded me of why I used to like her, I think she'll get a bit more recognized and definitely connected with her foreign policy audience so she probably gains from this. Bill de Blasio shocked me by going full Medicare For All with Warren. He made good use of his interruptions, while Delaney did not. Bill de Blasio probably helped himself with certain people with the content of his interruptions, but pissed off others just by interrupting so much, while Delaney had nothing to say when he butted in, and just annoyed everybody. Beto was beaten to a bloody pulp. Poor bastard. Tim Ryan I recognize people liked for some reason, but he really just didn't do anything for me. I have a slightly better opinion of him now than before, but he looked really bad in that exchange with Gabbard. Not that I don't feel that Al-Queda needed to be dealt with, or that the Taliban are bad dudes for aiding them, but just that he got them mixed up like that looked really bad. Amy Klobuchar didn't humiliate herself or anything, but damn was she boring, and seemed to say a lot without really saying anything. Really cemented her place in my mind as one of the most "meh" of the major contenders. Cory Booker too, but to a lesser extent, however for the guy who got the most talking time to underwhelm me so much, what a waste of an opportunity. Jay Inslee was there and said some nice things I agree with I guess, but underwhelmed on climate change, he was supposed to be the big climate change guy and really bring that subject into the debate and he says Trump is the greatest geopolitical threat? Come on man, the answer is obvious to anyone that really understands climate change that it's climate change, how could the climate change guy say anything else? So disappointed there, but otherwise he did okay. If he had really knocked it out of the park for me on climate change he'd have ended up higher in my rankings.
Biggest Losers:
1. Beto O'Rourke
2. John Delaney
3. Tim Ryan
4. Amy Klobuchar
5. Cory Booker
Biggest Winners
1. Warren
2. Castro
3. Bill de Blasio
4. Tulsi Gabbard
5. Jay Inslee
Really though, only Warren and Castro really gained all that much, and only Beto and Delaney really lost all that much. The rest were between kind of meh to very meh.
| Jaicee said: I think it's clear that the overall "winners" of the night, in terms of whose poll numbers will likely improve as a result of their performance last night, were, in order, Julian Castro and Cory Booker, while Elizabeth Warren enjoyed a solid showing that will sustain her as well, and that if anyone truly "lost" last night, it was Beto O'Rourke, particularly for his early use of some combination of Spanish and pig Latin to answer a very simple question (to which end, I thoroughly enjoyed it when the Telemundo anchor later inquired of him in Spanish in a way that sounded sarcastic to my ears). Julian Castro was the surprise of the evening for me, getting my attention early on by pledging to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment for women, and then sustained it throughout the debate over immigration and refugees, calling out Beto's opposition to decriminalizing illegal border crossings flatly. A couple really strong moments there that will definitely get him a well-deserved boost in visibility going forward. Cory Booker's emotional comments about gun violence in his community and argument for a national (optional) gun buyback program were another standout moment in the debate for me that I thought was powerful. Another was Elizabeth Warren's robust defense of trust-busting, which no other candidate is advocating the same volume of that she is. Those were some standout moments for me. That said though, I also found the contents of this debate more alienating than I thought I would. I mean the candidates (most of them anyway; I'm not sure what exactly Amy Klobuchar and John Delaney were doing) clearly were tacking left this time around, unlike in any other of these debates I've seen to date, and that pleased me in a way, but also was weird in that, really for the first time ever, I felt like some of what the Democratic Party stands for today is just too fanatically left wing for my taste (which is saying something), just speaking purely for myself here if I can. I noticed, for example, that the audience cheered and applauded Tulsi Gabbard's robust defense of the Taliban and felt absolutely disconnected from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in that moment. I mean yeah technically she was correct to differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but to be frank, as far as basically everyone in my Poor Trump Town USA community is concerned, the Taliban is best known for harboring Al Qaeda in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks and refusing to hand over the organization's leaders afterward, so it's not actually viewed as a good and positive organization whose intentions are especially trustworthy. Or another example would be Bill De Blasio's particularly striking 'anti-war' moment when he implied that perhaps we shouldn't have participated in World War II and just let the Nazis cook the rest of the Jewish people in their ovens; WW2 being one of only two military conflicts we've involved ourselves in to date that the general public doesn't regret. It went beyond foreign policy though. I really disliked the talk of a carbon emissions tax, I mean just as a low-income working person who still uses a gasoline-powered car and has bills to pay. I think that the candidates should focus on addressing global warming through the expansive public works programs that have been proposed, not by making the lives of working class people needlessly harder than they already are. I also just don't agree with the candidates' proud and popular-in-the-room support of the Equality Act, which is the legislation that would outlaw all single-sex public spaces in America: single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, athletic teams, rape crisis centers, women's shelters, etc. Legislation similar to that was been passed in Canada last year some of the consequences have been really startling, like the de-funding of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter because they only hire women and only serve women and children. I highlight that case as a rape survivor myself because I wouldn't have gone to a shelter had it meant having to spend the night with grown men I didn't know. Not right after something like that. There was also the specter of gun confiscations raised for the first time in a Democratic debate that I've seen this time around. Nobody supported such a policy, but I was caught off guard that one of the moderators actually suggested it. A ban on the future sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal and rigorous background checks for all gun purchases, and a voluntary federal gun buyback program are one thing, but I'm afraid I would have to object to an actual federal confiscation of firearms. I happen to be a hunter. There are woods nearby my house and, frankly, it's a common lifestyle in my particular community to take advantage of that fact to save money on food because we're not really the wealthiest people, generally speaking. Taking away options like that might make some urban areas safer I imagine, but it would be disastrous for the livelihoods of many people in smaller, rural communities like mine, including for my own. On the other hand, one thing that very much pleased me about this debate was the attention that it drew to opioid addiction. Alcohol and opioid addiction are by far the most serious problems facing my community. I've lost a close friend to it. Yes, these drug companies that pass off some of the deadliest and most addictive drugs there are as just normal, harmless painkillers have blood on their hands and should absolutely pay a price for it! A very high price that includes imprisonment for their executives as far as I'm concerned. People here will listen to anyone who has ideas about how to address drugs, so I'm glad that was a topic of discussion. I sincerely hope it continues to be one in these debates going forward. I'll add one more thing: I watched the debate with a small group friends and family and while my personal opinions were as stated above, the prevailing view in that small group was that the most agreeable candidates were Elizabeth Warren and Tim Ryan. Consider that a small sample of the Trumpland opinion. I mean for those who are interested in swaying a certain number of Trump voters to the Democratic camp anyway. No one here cares about whether things like trust-busting, increased access to health care, and increases in the minimum wage are framed as capitalist or socialist, nor does anyone here relate to talk of "Latinx's" with an X or the impending hippie dippie Age of Aquarius. What people here want above all is to be convinced that the given candidate for president understands and sincerely cares about them and is on their side. And yes, there are sides in life, to this community's lived experience. Warren and Ryan convey that aura. I'm just pointing it out. |
I've made my negative feelings for Gabbard known in this thread, but I thought the cheering in that moment had more to do with the way she showed up Ryan with her knowledge, not that anyone in the audience loves the Taliban. Mostly the Dem base just wishes we hadn't gone to Iraq and would like to be less involved in the Middle East in the future. Not many of them are actually defending the Taliban. I'm 100% positive that what was being cheered was not "a robust defense of the Taliban" but rather a girl soldier kicking a guy's ass in a debate by having a better understanding of the situation, and her being on the side of "we got too involved in the Middle East with fruitless wars."
For climate change, I don't think we'd ever as a country go with a straight carbon tax nationwide even with a full Dem caucus. A much better tax based idea is the carbon dividend, where you tax the companies, but to prevent them from just passing the tax to the consumer, you give the tax collected from the companies back to the consumer. All industries are taxed according to their carbon footprint, and consumers get that money back. The smart consumers then green up their lifestyle so they're affected by the tax less, but still get to collect the dividend, so that environmentalists and smart consumers that can't normally afford an electric car can just save up the dividend to buy one, and start profiting off of stubborn combustion engine users. Since the switch to greener products and services would inevitably dry up the dividend, the tax that fuels it goes up gradually to keep the flow of the dividend steady while increasing the incentive to switch to greener stuff until the math is just overwhelming. It's revenue neutral so it doesn't increase government size, which makes it semi-bipartisan in appeal, while not screwing over the average consumer. Since it's the "bipartisan" route while also having a populist flavor, I suspect it is the route that will be tried first and most successfully. Of course, it's nothing without a Green New Deal style infrastructure investment to make green products and services easy to use, like charging stations and the like. But infrastructure is also super popular and wouldn't be all that hard to get moving on.
I wouldn't worry about guns. The three leaders of the pack right now, Bernie, Biden, and Warren, are all never going to go for confiscation of guns. Warren is probably the left-most candidate here, and she specifically called out during the debate that gun collectors and hobbyists should be thought of differently and given more respect with regard to gun safety than the ones that are actually doing the killing. I thought she was pretty respectful of different lifestyles in her statements. But also, in general, don't worry about the Democratic party and guns. Gun confiscation is not being seriously considered by anyone mainstream. It was raised by the moderators because that's show business. They're trying to boost ratings with a shocking question that they hoped would get a shocking answer. In 2016 they did this with questions to Trump like "are you a comic book supervillain" but on the Democratic side, they can't use simple shit like that. The people watching are educated and want substantive policy discussion. So they threw out a question about a policy they thought would shock.
I agree that opioids are a huge issue, probably one of the easiest ones to score back votes from Obama>Trump voters with, since it's often their communities that are most deeply affected by them. Democrats have a lot more things they can do that would come naturally to them that would make a huge difference. Locking up rich executives is definitely Democrat territory, if only some of them had the guts to go there. Bankers too, for the Great Recession and all the white collar crimes they got away with. Oil executives too, for having, especially in Exxon's case, all the scientific data they needed to know about climate change, way back in the 80s, yet not doing anything about it except trying to deny, obfuscate, confuse as many people as they could about the scientific truth, and now we're on the verge of such horrific irreversible damage to the environment that it could cause civilizational collapse or even human extinction. All sorts of good could be done by actually prosecuting white collar crime, and a populist Democratic run Department of Justice is the easiest way I see to make that a reality. Warren or Bernie are our best bets on that front, no one else comes close.
According to https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/
Elizabeth Warren was the runaway success story gaining substantially in the polls while the others mostly saw small rises, with Beto being the sole loser. Castro was a distant second. Here are the gains/losses on the polls after the debate:
1. Elizabeth Warren +5.9%
2. Julian Castro +1.8%
3. Tim Ryan +1%
4. Cory Booker +0.9%
5. Amy Klobuchar +0.5%
6. Bill De Blasio +0.3%
7. Jay Inslee +0.2%
8. John Delaney +0.2%
9. Tulsi Gabbard +0.1%
10. Beto O'Rourke -1%
Another Metric was favourable/unfavourable - it seems many are still undecided on a number of candidates.
All candidates saw improvements in favourability and unfavourability.
Only Elizabeth Warren avoided any significant increase in unfavourability - which is interesting considering she was on the extreme left of the candidates in the debate. The largest increases in the unfavourable vote went to Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, John Delaney, and Beto O'Rourke.
Julian Castro saw a massive increase in favourability, while Beto is the only one that saw only an insignificant increase.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Warren and Harris are killing it. Though I doubt the ticket will have two females. Can you just image the outrage an unisex ticket would cause?
So far Buttgieg and Biden aren't getting demolished as some people thought they would, however.
Edit - maybe I spoke too early about Biden. Still, I feel only Harris and Buttgieg are actually debating well. Like, Castro, Booker and Warren tier.
Last edited by haxxiy - on 27 June 2019
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
