From the @NBCNews attack tracker: Warren got attacked 16 times by other candidates, Biden 2 times. This debate was pretty clearly different than the others. https://t.co/XMdOyCSI4H— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) October 16, 2019
This makes a lot of sense I think it gets lost that a lot of Bernard style policy is popular on the left and Warren has been good at carving out a broad base of support in that zone It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to out-Bernie her, so I guess the best strategy the number 4, 5, 6 ... candidates have at this stage is to try to damage her to stay in the game for when the actual primaries get started Taking on Biden/ Bernard is so much more difficult at this point
cross reference with media failure thread: Three hours and no questions tonight about climate, housing, or immigration. Climate change is an existential threat. America has a housing crisis. Children are still in cages at our border.But you know, Ellen.#DemocraticDebate— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) October 16, 2019 1184312594296737792 is not a valid tweet id ANDERSON COOPER: Irreversible climate change is going to doom all mankind to a painful heat death if we don't act soon. So, obviously, I've gotta ask: Who's your shittiest friend and why— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) October 16, 2019
This is a bad take. Wait until people have voted before you start culling candidates. That's not the media's job,
This format sucked by the way. You could present a program to end childhood starvation and the moderator would cut it off mid-sentence. But if you personally attack an opponent, they'd let it go and then give your opponent a chance to respond. It's designed for headlines and highlights, not substance. But I guess that ship has sailed.
Well, I missed the debate. But one striking thing: this Times fact-check finds a couple of probably innocent misstatements over the course of three hours, nothing you would call a lie. Has Trump ever made it through 10 minutes without a brazen lie? https://t.co/rkOUj7gpM6— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 16, 2019
I'd mostly agree except I really don't need to see the likes of Tom Steyer blow hot air for 20 minutes. That's not what I watch it for.
That is a smart strategy even if it is a cop-out, people respond better to plans when they are not told that they will have to pay more.
AP did check uncle Biden with more of those old man moments. Syria, Iraq, Turkish troops, Syrian Troops, where is Aleppo, what is the difference. https://apnews.com/7cf3f5fabe114709...low&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APFactCheck Is not lie, more like dude can keep it all together up in his head anymore.
Some more fact checkers. On Medicare for all vs. public ption for medicare (medicare for those that want it). https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...eing-pete-buttigieg-elizabeth-warren-medicar/
When the 3 front runners are all over 70, one of them just had a heart attack and the other one can't be coherent for more than 5 minutes at a time it would be naive to throw in the towel. IMO if you're meeting the debate thresholds and raising enough money to keep going, you need to keep going. When one of your front runners is dropping word salad quotes like this on a regular basis, it's political malpractice to not keep competing against him : QUOTE OF THE NIGHT!"Why in God's name should someone who is clipping coupons in the stock market make, in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who, in fact, is like I said a, uh, school teacher or FIRE PIRATE#DemDebate #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/D4rRs7D2lL— leftyaaron (@leftyaaron) October 16, 2019
538 polling. Do you prefer a candidate that agrees with you on issues, or someone that will beat Trump? 2/3rd of those polled prefer a candidate that can beat Trump. Of those Biden is in the lead with a good majority, Warren is second and pretty far behind its Sanders. 1/3rd prefer a candidate that will agree with them on issues. Of those Sanders is ahead by plurality, Warren is a close second and Biden is 3rd. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ntly-from-those-who-prioritize-beating-trump/
Not that we need to dog-pile any more on to Tulsi, but she could not be more wrong with her theory that the early voting states don't have enough influence. It's the opposite. Who the F*** cares what some pig-f**** in Iowa thinks anyway. I live near Cow Hampshite and lemmie tellya, some of those people can't think their way out of a paper bag, even if you promised them free beer! And don't even start on South Carolina! The real problem is that candidates have to pander to these people, because if you don't do well in those early states, your candidacy will be sunk, even if you might win other states that vote later on in the process. California is the last state, yet it's usually a foregone conclusion before they even get to vote! They need to do it like World Cup qualifying. Have 6 Super Tuesday voting days of 9 states each, plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Mix them up so you have different kinds of states on each voting day. Each pool would have Large states with lots of electoral votes, farm states, Western states, Southern states, small, Eastern states that people out west get mixed up, Rust Belt states, etc. For the same reason you never see Italy, Germany, Spain and Holland in the same WC qualifying group, let each voting day have a variety of different types of states. If someone wins the day with a majority of states on a given day, they have to have a pretty broad appeal. None of this crap about candidates pretending to care about the price of hog feed as the most important issue of the day!
She has reached the point where whatever she says, you pretty much know the right answer is the opposite. I don't think I've seen quite such a mental meltdown in a Democratic Presidential candidate (albeit a very minor one).
It's been correctly pointed out all along that she has been huffing on nonsense wing nut conspiracy theories Whether she believes them or simply goes trumpian for political advantage is moot She should have been tossed once she took to the fox airwaves to denounce the DNC with conspiracy theory hosts like Carlson I mean what the actual?
Careful, your coastal elitist snobbery is going to make sensitive Iowans vote for Trump. Because they would usually be all in for the Democratic platform, except you are being mean to them, so they're going to vote for more children in cages. It's your fault, you know. Good news - California has moved up to Super Tuesday for the primaries next year. So we are going to get our voices heard. We had moved ourselves earlier in the process like fifteen years ago, but campaigns got mad because they had to spend a lot more money advertising in California, and Californians got mad because there were so many political ads on TV, so we moved ourselves back to June, but after 2016 we see what happens when we let other states decide for us. Oops, there I go again with the coastal elitism. Sorry snowflakes - California is coming.
Since I I've seen the Russian asset thing in this forum, and in light of all the drama, I was wondering if anyone can link me to the evidence behind these charges. I'm a little confused, because for it to get to this point, there must be some hard evidence. Accusations of espionage and treason are not trivial. And furthermore, since she has security clearance, shouldn't this be a top priority to get her clearances repealed and potentially arrest her with charges? Are we alleging that DOD and other security agencies are protecting a known spy? Or is she allowed to go free because of some counter espionage tactic? I'm seriously wondering, because all I'm seeing today is flame wars. When I ask for the definitive evidence, all I get is innuendo. Personally I don't think a spy should be allowed to be in this race. If the evidence exists, this needs to be fast tracked. F**k counter espionage. If DOD and CIA and NSA know about it, why isn't anything being done? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm genuinely under informed because I've been tuning out the Tulsi-Russia noise. Last time I looked into it several weeks ago, it looked like a lot of empty McCarthyist innuendo. But I am willing to be convinced if someone can show some new solid evidence. Surely when one of the most influential Democrats in the country accuses someone running for office of espionage, you can't just let that play out as a Twitter fight. There needs to be some concrete follow up. If nothing else, Pelosi has the House, so if she has evidence of espionage, at the very least you can envision a Congressional investigation. Otherwise it undermines the validity of this entire process if a proven Russian spy is allowed to make it to Iowa and influence the election.
I'm skeptical of it too, but Tulsi has done very little to earn my sympathy or furnish her credibility so I struggle to come to her defence here.