Well, the Democrats won the debate. After two debacles that resembled reality TV more than political discourse, the Republican party has a lot of work to do. Every Democrat on the stage came across as a more serious candidate than any Republican candidate in their silly debates.
In particular, Hillary Clinton came across strong. She looked comfortable in her skin, pushed back without looking defensive, and had smart answers to almost every question. She clearly benefitted from her drawn out debate schedule with Obama eight years ago and seemed to know how to handle almost every situation. She may have turned a corner, putting to rest the doubts of many Democrats and likely keeping Joe Biden out of the race.
Sanders did what he does well. He focused on the issues that fire up the Democratic base, calling for higher taxes on the rich, stricter regulations on Wall Street, and free college tuition for everybody. He looked muddled on gun control and his foreign policy answers were much weaker than his domestic ones.
Webb, Chafee, and O’Malley all looked more serious than any of the GOP contenders but nobody scored any significant points or made any helpful lasting impressions. Chafee had the wrong answer when he said he voted to repeal Glass-Steagall because he was so new to the Senate that he didn’t know what he was doing. Webb was most notable for complaining about not getting equal time. O’Malley has some stature but not enough to overcome Clinton’s gravitas or Sanders’ passion.
Democrats should be happy. They’ve got a field of credible, serious candidates. Their frontrunner showed she can hold her own and put Republican candidates on notice that they’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Are you just trying to play into CNN’s view of who “won” the debate? That is ridiculous. Sure her answers were more politically oriented in terms of avoiding actually answering any questions. In fact her actions are more politically oriented than issue oriented. I understand the importance of compromise, but there is also the importance of doing the right thing. Here’s a huge reason why I don’t trust Hillary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
Sanders has my vote, because we share the same beliefs. I don’t even know what Hillary Clinton actually believes. Probably what is most likely to propel her political career.
Some of the comments here are buying into the right wing assault that has vilified Hillary Clinton for so long and display a anti-woman bias. Now there’s the left wing assault too. Hillary had to be twice as good as any man on that stage to be taken seriously. Imagine for just moment that a woman had taken the place of any of the men up there and had the same comments and demeanor. Such a woman would never have made it that far. Personally, I think that electing Hillary as president will be revolutionary and will inspire many women to vote for her. And while I agree with Bernie on many issues, he does not have a chance in hell to get elected. Hillary will have a tough time too and she will need the support of every Dem to make it.
Lena, electing Bernie would also be revolutionary; he is Jewish. If Bernie can beat Hillary in the primaries, he can win the WH. He also has the advantage that many independents view him favorably, and he has supporters who are moderate Republicans. Besides, we need him to change the direction this country is heading.
Guess what? The Democratic Party has been here before, and the “purists” are again about to commit hari-cari (sp?) for the Party. Progressive Wing is correct.
I and many, many Democrats are in agreement with most of Uncle Bernie’s ideas. BUT, to put in effect (or even fight Congress for) a single issue, someone will have to be ELECTED. I saw this happen in 1980 when the “purists” were saying of Jimmy Carter exactly what they’re now saying about HRC. Sooo, they stayed home so as to not soil their ideologically pure fingers by pushing a button for Carter. They got their wish–“too conservative” Carter was defeated, but not by knight in shining armor Ted Kennedy, but by St. Ronald Reagan. So we had 12 years of Republican rule, which by current standards was actually pretty moderate! Uncle Ronnie probably couldn’t get the Rethuglican nomination today.
From the above discussions, it appears that very few people have the ability to objectively evaluate ANY of the debates. This country’s citizens are so polarized that they PROJECT their own desires onto candidates and they perceive as correct, only those issues with which they are in agreement. Any candidate who even attempts to be somewhat pragmatic is trashed.
I wish that Uncle Bernie would drop that stupidity about being a “socialist.” It may work in Vermont, but he can explain all he wants to, but the average American voter thinks no deeper than what can be put onto a bumper sticker. Uncle Bernie may not do as well as McGovern–even Massachusetts voters probably won’t push a lever for a “socialist.”
I will support whoever may have the best chance of actually winning–whoever that may be later in 2016. One of my friends who ran for, and lost, the post of county commissioner stated that if everyone who personally told him they were going to vote for him had actually done so, he would have won in a landslide. The thousands who are now cheering Uncle Bernie are still only a small portion of the electorate, and many of them will probably not turn out on election day–even if he’s the candidate.
So go ahead and do your “purist” thing and castigate HRC, Webb, or any other candidate who doesn’t fit 100% to your progressive agenda! You must like the effects of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. You must like what’s happening in Kansas, North Carolina, and other Repub states. If the Rethugs win in 2016, all three branches of the federal government will be so firmly entrenched that the US will take on the character of a fascist state. The federal election laws and even the Constitution will be gerrymandered so electors will be selected by congressional districts so even the old electoral college will look good, and any candidate besides a fascist Rethuglican CANNOT POSSIBLY become POTUS even if they win the popular vote in a landslide. I assure you, you will then be visited by the Ghost of Elections Past!
Clearly Bernie Believers passionately believe he is the cat’s meow. Other people do not yet see it, in fact may find it difficult to see beyond the old guy with a heavy accent who yells a lot. They may want to try to persuade rather than bludgeon those whose support they will need to win.
I understand Hillary Clinton being the 2016 Democratic nominee for President has been the corporatist status quo wing of the party’s four year-long dream narrative, but I have to ask, what debate were these folks watching? Perhaps there’s been a rift in the time-space continuum and the Democratic establishment and media pundits watched a debate taking place in a parallel universe. What I do know is that millions of Americans listened in stunned disbelief all day Wednesday as the media and the Democratic Party’s official representatives tried to convince us that we saw something we did not see — a Clinton debate win. This kind of “the Fix is in” behavior is exactly why Bernie Sanders’ campaign has resonated with so many Americans — Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans. This kind of behavior proves the point. In some ways, particularly regarding economic matters and foreign policy, a vote for Hillary Clinton is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our nation does not need a redecorating, it needs a complete system reboot. The fact that the party establishment and so many pundits and supposed journalists are either unable or unwilling to accurately portray the result of Tuesday night’s debate is beyond disturbing — it is alienating.
Good comment, Michael. There are 2 things that I have not seen discussed about Hillary that I believe are important. First, from my perspective, she was crowned dem nominee in 2008 for backing Obama, but she is now finding that she doesn’t have an easy shot at the nomination. Second, and big, she has been very slow in stating her position on issues that Bernie has been talking about all along. Finally, she said she supports Social Security and Medicare, and, in one place, stated she didn’t support cuts or age increases to these programs. She finally said she is against the Keystone XL pipeline. And this past week she decided she is against the TPP. This waiting for her handlers to decide what is important has made her look hesitant, as she looked after the Benghazi deaths. The fact that the goppers in Congress had cut off funds for State Department security would have been the answer she and Obama could have taken to the people of the US rather than appearing indecisive. I am not sure that we can trust her to do right for us, anymore. Besides, I already have my Bernie yard sign and my Bernie t-shirt.
What is this obsession with who “won” the debate? There were five intelligent, competent, candidates on stage who, for the most part, have reasonable positions on most issues. Each of us probably disagrees with every one of them on one issue or another, but the purpose of the debate last night was to let each one present a persona and positions and temperament to voters.
I’m well aware of how many people–including some posters here–demonize Hillary as a centrist, a war-monger, a slippery flip-flopping liar, a whatever makes them angry at the moment. I’m also aware that 23 years ago she was being demonized for being a left-wing, radical, pro-abortion, Jane-Fonda-lite elitist from Wellesley. And in all the intervening years, she has been lambasted for every word that has come out of her mouth, denigrated for revising positions, hated for sticking by her philandering husband (especially by right-wing “Christians” who protect marriage by entering into lots of them serially). Many of the successful, accomplished women I know who “can’t stand Hillary” are people who–in my humble opinion–resent her success. They seem to want some other woman to be the first woman president, but not her. I find that very weird.
But any Democrat or liberal independent or progressive-minded critical thinker who would vote for any of the Rethuglican candidates, or sit out an election because Bernie isn’t the candidate, had better have a big appetite for eating crow if the GOP takes the reins of power in 2016.
Hillary is flawed; so is Bernie (who reminds me not of a cranky Uncle Trotsky but of my YAWF/SDS/Green brother, mired in the 1960s). They’re both politicians; in fact, Hillary has run for office exactly three times, and won twice; Bernie ran unsuccessfully four times before becoming mayor, congressman and senator–he’s got a 40-year record as a “career politician.”
And they BOTH have good ideas for reshaping the country if they win. So why is it that Bernie supporters feel this obsession to abhor Hillary? Why is “feeling the Bern” often feel so damned negative? I just don’t get it.
Many Democratic and Independent voters abhorred Hillary Clinton in 2008, too. And she has no one but herself and her campaign to blame for it. That fact should serve as a caution to the Democratic Party establishment and the media punditocracy who seem so eager to crown her as the party’s nominee.
Yes, all the Democrats showed vastly more integrity and intelligence than any of the Republicans in their debate. But, among them, Sanders won hands down, not only in my opinion but in virtually every poll of viewers taken by every major news media outlet. Unless your purpose is to spin things in favor of Clinton this has to be acknowledged. Sanders clearly drew the contrast between himself and those who depend on Super PACS for campaign funds. Hillary looked lost when attempting to explain her position on opposing a reinstatement of Glass-Steagle. She had to lean on her appointment by Obama to seek forgiveness for her vote to authorize Bush’s Iraq war catastrophe that we’re all still paying for today. “Ooops, Sorry. I won’t do that again” doesn’t cut it when so many lives were lost and ruined as a result of her vote for political expediency in that moment. Her sense of judgement was further undermined in the conversation about her lack of support for Obama in his refusal to implement a no-fly zone over Syria. Clearly Clinton is too easily influenced to take military action without full consideration of the consequences and risking the lives of those in the military. Sanders received warm applause for stating his often-repeated assertions that war should always be a last resort and that the US should not get deeper into the quagmire of the middle east. Bernie was the same Bernie he has been for forty years. Hillary was the Hillary she is at the moment, which could change at any moment depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Well, Thomas, while I agree with your blog generally, the problem is that HRC tends to bring out the worst in many people. As a a result, that may cause a huge turnout of voters who eagerly want to vote against her. This would work against what many liberal/progressive/moderate voters are hoping for, i.e., a massive turnout of voters that installs a new left-of-center person as POTUS, and that also takes back at least one of the congressional chambers from GOP control.
And, in talking about a big turnout of anti-HRC voters, I am not just referring HRC-hating GOP’ers, neo-cons, Teabillies, Center-Right’ers and others who’ve hated her for over two decades.
I am also referring to those Dems, liberals, Democratic Socialists, progressives, and Center-Left’ers who just don’t want to walk down the election aisle with her for an assortment of reasons. Sure, they don’t want a Republican POTUS, but they will, at the same time, shout that Clinton is too establishment, or a liar, or a war hawk (see Cosmic Janitor’s post).
These latter types could take their marbles and go home, essentially withholding their votes for POTUS. They would thus essentially act against their own self-interest by indirectly helping to make a Republican president
CNN should have had Lawrence Lessig on the stage. He is a legitimate candidate with the singular platform of getting big money out of politics in order to have a real democracy. By having him participate in the debate, we would benefit from the spotlight on something which taints and inhibits our political system.
I agree. Larry Lessig would have been a better choice for the fifth position on the stage than Lincoln Chafee, who did little but hurt himself and the Democratic Party. Lessig has no chance, but he’s brilliant, and the fact that he’s a Harvard prof and tech nerd would pull some of the Republican’t vitriol toward him instead of Hillary.
I was very impressed with Hillary Clinton’s demeanor and her responses generally. I don’t have a problem with her referring to more detailed analyses without going into them thoroughly–not really possible in the debate format: that’s what the internet’s for, and I will be looking up the details of her positions in the next few days. Somewhat disappointed w/ Bernie Sanders, who came across a bit like your cranky grandpa; and I strongly disagree w/ his position on gun control–no one is trying to keep rural folk from shooting game: you don’t need a high-powered automatic for that anyhow.
I was quite impressed with Martin O’Malley’s answers: he doesn’t have the overall experience to be President yet, but I’d love to see him as Hillary’s VP. I think he would complement her very well and would be a dynamite campaigner.
My take on the Dem debate:
No disrespect, but Sen. Lincoln Chafee reminds me of Howdy Doody. A little goofy, with a couple of really silly answers, and only a Dem for two years. He’s outa here.
Sen. Jim Webb channels Corporal Agarn (Larry Storch) in “F Troop.” His whining about not getting enough talk time didn’t help. I wouldn’t vote for him, despite his Semper Fi credentials. Too bad his wife, the Vietnamese refugee who got a law degree from Cornell, can’t run.
Gov. Martin O’Malley got in a few good points, especially early on, but he comes on like an overgrown Eagle Scout. President? Naw, I don’t think so. Maybe VP material.
Bernie Sanders reminds me more and more of old Uncle Bernie Trotsky from Brooklyn. The family all thinks he’s a smart guy with good ideas, but they’re not going to make him president of the company.
Hillary came across as savvy, efficient, professional, looking sharp and very Presidential. She didn’t screw up, she got some unexpected help from Uncle Bernie (“sick and tired of hearing about those damn emails”). She’s going to win the nomination and be our next President.
Joe Biden is a nice guy, and President Obama must like him, featuring him in his pre-debate video, but by sitting on the fence this long Joe seems to have lost his chance. He has so many opportunities waiting for him in the private market, I suspect he’ll soon announce “I’m humbled by the attention, but in the best interests of the party I’ve decided not to run and instead will join the President in working for the election of Secretary Clinton.”
Hillary was smooth as glass. Played the role of the Hillary you like to the hilt. Unfortunately, she’s already made her first, second and umpteenth impression on most voters and is 20 points underwater in the latest CBS poll.
Bernie’s alternative: For Democrats to win — really win, including control of Congress — we need to turn on and turn out a much larger electorate that is, I’m afraid, not available to any establishment Democratic candidate or campaign.
I’m not saying Bernie can do it. I’m saying he’d have a chance. My fear with Hillary is that she would not have that chance, and either would lost outright to, say, a Rubio-Kasich ticket … or she’d win, but barely, and Congress would remain in the hands of the same tea-party jerks we have now. Meanwhile, wealth inequality, poverty, climate change would continue to spiral in the wrong direction.
To me, it comes down to whether you think we’re winning right now and things are getting better … or we’re steadily, inexorably losing our democracy to oligarchy and the earth to global disaster. If the former, Hillary’s the obvious choice. If the latter, #FeelTheBern
I am a 74 year old White Male, married, three children, retired on Social Security and Medicare. I watched the entire Debate and these are my observations.
[1.] Why was Hillary Clinton Located directly in the center two male candidates to the right of her and two candidates to the left of her?
[2.] Why were the largest number of questions asked of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?
[3.] Why were the time limits of equal time for the candidates not more forcibly enforced. The differences was very noticeable.
I watched the commentators summaries of the Debates and I watched the feed back from the Opinion groups after the Debates and found a very significant difference in the conclusions.
[4.] The Commentators and the Moderators did exactly as I expected them to do. Very pro-Hillary and mildly pro-Bernie.
[5.] What I got from the opinion groups which were made up of an equal number of Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters was that Senator Bernie Sanders won every single issue by the support of 70% to 75% of the individuals in the groups. That Hillary Supporters were disappointed and some were switching to Bernie Sanders.
[6.] Hillary Clinton got from 20% to 25% of the support from the opinion groups and lost some of her supporters. The reason given was that she did not answer the questions with details that her typical answer was I have a 5 point plan for the problem.
[7.] I believe that Gov. Martin O’Malley helped himself the most as he came off with the most charismatic and with the best personality.
[8.] Lincoln Chafee did nothing to help himself.
[9.] Jim Webb was a disaster.
I wish there were going to be more debates with fewer topics in each Debate and each candidate was given the opportunity to answer each question more thoroughly. I would suggest five minute responses and two minute rebuttals.
You’re right about the focus groups. Both CNN and Fox groups came out more for Bernie after the debate. Hillary lost support among those in the focus groups, all democrats, BTW.
All the pundits and talking network talking heads thought Hillary easily won the debate. But the regular folks were more impressed with Bernie. It just shows how out-of-touch the New York and Beltway pundits are with the rest of the country.
I didn’t see the focus group reports to which you and Ebrun refer, but most national analysts (and Brother Mills, too) seem to think that Hillary won.
Bernie did well, but many observers say he didn’t do much to expand his base. He didn’t effectively rebut the claim that a socialist is unlikely — to put it mildly — to win a national U.S. election. This isn’t Norway or Denmark. Even in the depths of the Great Depression, Socialist Norman Thomas got less than 2% of the national vote (and less than 1% of the vote in NC.)
Sanders may have made some new friends due to his “rural state” anti-Brady gun bill position, but I suspect that most of those are conservative Dems and Republican’ts who won’t vote for Sanders for other reasons.
As much as I admire Uncle Bernie personally, and support many of his positions, it would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to run him as its national standard bearer. Even a clown like Trump would beat him in every state except possibly two or three, and it could take down state Dems with him. It would be worse than 1972, when McGovern lost every state except Mass. (and DC).
Thanks for your post above. My thoughts: The placement and number of questions–I think–were based on where these candidates are placing in the polls right now. A candidate was also given the chance to respond if his/her name was mentioned or they were quoted. I agree with much of what you’ve said. The media is corporate and they now have editorial direction that reflects just that, and the consultants and talking heads have all concluded the race before it has begun either for the same reason (their corporate sponsorship), or because they have run in the same media circles so long that they have forgotten to know any better. I thought Chafee and Webb were okay. They have no place to go but up. They have not developed the art of giving a firm simple response to a complicated (and often, a leading) question. Same with Sanders on the gun issue and his un-hawkishness. (I also think Sanders is courting the working class libertarian vote, and he’s staying quiet on the gun issue for that reason.) Hillary was very well rehearsed and she was allowed to slide on her many shades of “political expediency” because of time constraints in the format and she managed to slip past those questions without looking as if she were fumbling. That absolutely will not happen if/when she is facing off with republicans. The public has now a very very sophisticated sensor for various ways one can avoid answering a question–and the talking heads still do not think the public notices such things. We do. She may have been the most poised of all those on stage last night, but she did not “win” this debate.
I would love to see forums/debates in which the candidates addressed a single issue in depth.
If they had REAL debates, it would be different. As they stand, both for “Ds” and “Rs” they are overblown press conferences with large amounts of audience interruptions, cross-talk and bull puckey. They can do away with all of them for all I care. They make big enough fools of themselves as they are continuously campaigning, beginning almost 2 years from the Presidential election, mostly to the consternation and grossing-out of the the electorate, IMHO.
Hillary was polished, alright, but she deftly deflected any questions about her sincerity, and about how she says whatever she thinks you want to hear to get her elected. I’m not buying it. Her largest contributors are Wall Street conglomerates. No thanks. I’ll take Bernie’s crumpled appearance and huge heart any day of the week. But, it’s all for nothing if we can’t gain some seats in Congress.
Hillary Clinton is an establishment insider and a first class liar, an unrepentant warmonger and a war criminal; any perusal of her actions as Secretary of State confirm these accusations. So this is who you want for your next prepackaged, ministry-of-truth media POTUS, a closet neo /con to continue the status quo of perpetual war, US. Military adventurism, austerity for the people and further imperial corporate hegemony? Enjoy, you’re going to get what you’ e got coming for your total lack of critical thinking skills – our other deficit, critical thinking
Just curious: what planet do you live on?
The other national deficit is critical thinking. Have you cross referenced your information sources or do you believe everything the US. Media tells you? Have you observed Hillary in Congressional hearings in her capacity as US. Secretary of State? Do you know what the Nuremberg Principles of International Law established? Have the US. Government and military been upholding these principles in destabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Syria, all while threatening Iran by arming the MEK terrorists? Do you know what Einstein said? “The universe and mankind are infinitely stupid, only I ‘ m not certain about the universe.”