#DemDebate Thread

Comments and thoughts on the DemDebate? Here's a great place to put them.

I would also like to talk about the Republican primary debate, since I have not watched the democratic primary debate.

Who do you think won that?

Foreign policy is the greatest issue right now. I am voting for a strong commander in chief who can shut the power vacuums that are opening up throughout the world. Countries are buying or taking influence, and the United States is enabling this.

What I do not want are warmongers, which is why a couple people like Carly Fiorona should not win. I also think all democrats are too weak, except maybe Hillary Clinton, who I hate as a politician in over 100 ways.

Bernie Sanders would probably be a good Democrat president because he will reform a lot of the ways corporations and trade partners are exploiting the economy and interfering with the free markets. He supports raising taxes and increasing social spending, and that does not fly with me.

I think Ben Carson deserves to win this race. Level head on foreign policy, not a lot of history to taint his reputation, and may even lower taxes and social spending.

Foreign policy was also the greatest talking point in the first republican primary debate.

Turnoffs were when they wanted to increase spending to Israel, repealing the Iran deal, and strongarming, which gains votes but isn't very attractive to reasonable voters.

Marco Rubio killed on foreign policy issues, so he would get my vote if he had the nomination.

Blackflag: You seem to have a view very similar to mine, although I don't think Sanders would be a good fit. FIorina's foreign policy is just asking for war with Russia, or at least straining the relations even more than they already are. There's a difference between exerting and displaying American prowess and facilitating war. Sanders seems to have quite a few (as you mentioned) Democratic views that are doomed to failure, particularly the "living wage." Ben Carson is a great candidate, and should definitely win the nomination and the presidency. As you mentioned, he's level-headed and has a clean past, along with his tax policy and spending. I also appreciate his logical approach to everything. I think it'd be nice to have someone that's NOT a past politician as the POTUS... less scandals. I also really like his views on social issues, but that's strictly personal.

Blackflag: Yeah, he's probably the *best* politician in the race, both parties considered. Foreign policy is important, and he has a great plan. Since you seem to be a little libertarian, what do you think of Rand Paul?

ColeTrain: My views:

Clinton - solid performance, well rehearsed, a little shaky on rebuttal, 8/10
Sanders - impassioned, direct, occasionally unresponsive, 8/10
Webb - arrogant, alternative, did well to present himself as conservative alternative, 6/10
Chafee - polished message, unable to answer direct questions, made little impact, 4/10
O'Malley - worst overall, message failed to connect, and had no stage presence, 3.5/10

Blackflag: I have a two-sided view on this.

If we see debates as a form of political entertainment, then Trump has won this entire thing already. He's hands-down been the most entertaining character in any election I can remember, from any country really, with a serious enough following to ever come out on top in any poll. It's pretty incredible what he's achieved.

If we see debates as competitive communication like I tend to do, I think Rubio and Fiorina are neck-and-neck so far for the strongest performances. Both have had some great lines and the kind of confident delivery that scores points in competitive debate circuits.

Notable people who I think have done particularly poorly in the debates are many, but two standouts for me are Bush and Paul. Christie has been very inconsistent, and Cruz has been pontificating far too much. Candidates like Kasich, Huckabee, and even Carson, have yet to make a seriously strong impression to set them apart from the rest of the field. Carson has the advantage of being an outsider, and from an ethnic minority, but that has yet to come across in the debates.

So a mixed bag of performances really.

ColeTrain: Ultimately I feel like most people will judge these debates on who a) doesn't screw up in a way that's easy for the media to mock, and b) has a policy that is most appealing to voters. And I think that's part of the tragedy of the modern political process. After all, given these parameters, you have to wonder why you have debates in the first place.

admin: What about democrats though? Those are all conservative politicians you mentioned, unless you were referring specifically to the republican debates.

Also suprised you thought Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina were good. They rack up most of their points by taking hardline stances on foreign policy. The only difference being that I see actual common sense with Marco Rubio, whereas Carly Fiorina is way to ambitious and honestly does not have much of an idea what kind of challenges she would be getting into taking the reigns of the US military.

Most party voters are aware of this though.

If we see debates as a form of political entertainment, then Trump has won this entire thing already. He's hands-down been the most entertaining character in any election I can remember, from any country really, with a serious enough following to ever come out on top in any poll. It's pretty incredible what he's achieved.

Yes, he fell to one of the last in the polls after the first primary.

This is how it goes every time. You have candidates who rack up a large amount of attention, but as soon as you get to real debates, they always get exposed and fall to the back of the pack. The best example of this is always that one libertarian republican who runs each election.

I think it'd be nice to have someone that's NOT a past politician as the POTUS... less scandals. I also really like his views on social issues, but that's strictly personal.
Thinking the same thing. It is refreshing to have someone in there not previously associated with politics. Very refreshing!

Some people question whether he actually has a realistic chance of winning, attempting to be a second black president and all.

Since you seem to be a little libertarian, what do you think of Rand Paul?
Don't get me started about Rand Paul; I can't stand that guy!

Blackflag: I answered my views on the debate performances of democrats in the post immediately before.

I need to clarify once again that I'm simply scoring them on how *well* they did in the debates specifically, as opposed to what I may think about their policy or degree of common sense (and honestly, policy-wise I have little good to say). Fiorina has adopted a brash style and has come across as well-practiced on every answer she's given. Rubio has a slower, more emotional style that has frequently stolen the spotlight on issues like immigration. Their styles are quite different so its hard to compare, but both are doing well in the debates as far as I can tell.

Blackflag: I think the great counterpoint is probably Obama.

admin: Well I was talking about republicans. The democrat nomination is fair game every year.

Noticed that there were only 5 democrat candidates compared to 16 republicans?

Blackflag: Yeah, but I think in terms of their debate quality, the two are roughly on par. If anything the larger field of republicans makes it harder to stand out in those debates on particular issues.

Blackflag: Fair enough. I guess I thought you might like him.

Blackflag: Well, he's way different than Obama, and I think that will be enough to sway voters. But yes, it is VERY refreshing!