| Jumpin said: Anyway, on further thoughts, I think the three Elders were solidified: Sanders, Warren, and Biden. There were attacks against them, but they were all weak and inconsequential, mostly brushed off because they were either not accurate or not significant. I only think Sanders, Warren, or Biden affect each other at this point, the others aren't necessary at this point. I hope that the next debate focuses on these three without the rest of the noise. I'm not saying the others did poorly in the given format. I thought many came off great. But the issue is that there's nothing new. Nothing moves except Beto, who I felt came off amateurish - he lacked the convictions he had the last time. So he's back down to where he was after the first debate. Buttigieg, again, came off inauthentic and imprecise, shifting subjects to fit his talking points even if they were blatantly off-topic. Steyer is the only one who I felt I learned anything new about. I didn't make a huge splash, but he came off competent, but he reminds me of an imitation brand Inslee. I think he's too little too late. If there's anyone on the stage who I wish was polling better, it would be Booker, Castro, and Yang. I feel they're underachieving, but at the same time, Yang is a newbie, so it's expected for him to be where he is. I hardly can wait to see where these three go in the future. I think Booker is right that the winning candidate needs to be able to inspire. I also agree, strongly, with him that the petty attacks are a waste of time and counter-productive. |
Well, the top 3 accounts for around 70% in the RCP-averages, so that means the other candidates are still worth 30% all together. Which means they still have importance - if they drop out and decide to endorse one of the top 3.











