A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I'm making the next one and I will be.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The 2nd Democratic National Primary Debate
- Thread starter kingkitty
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, bud. I'm on it. This has been planned in advance.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Nope, I claimed it. I would be happy to work with you on it.
Not saying I agree with it.
But it's a widespread way that people have been acting. The amount of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders fan-twitter's I've seen where people just turn everything into an all out war where they constantly declare how their side won.. lol.He's got the GOP debate. Also, we've been using PoliGAF to keep track of these things.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Oh, I thought we were talking about Democratic lol
Oh, Dem debate. I don't care - I'm doing the next Republican one. You might want to talk to B-Dubs because we organize these in the PoliGAF thread. and he's in the queue for your thread.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
That's not how it works. PoliGAF doesn't get to decide who posts the OTs. It's a pretty inclusive group, which is why I don't participate it in. I will contact B-Dubs.
Just a head's up, that's for gaming-side from what I can tell. If a mod wants to set one up for the OT that's cool.
Feel free to take this one, I've got a project with a pretty strict deadline plus I don't want to start something over this. PoliGAF is pretty open to whoever, but it is how we've been organizing these. Most people don't even care about making threads for this, usually it falls on us to make one at the last minute as a result. A mod came in and told us to make threads for stuff like this last cycle so discussion isn't only in PoliGAF.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
It's for OT as well. That's why I put OT in front, per the OP instructions.
Well like I said, the mods pretty much tasked poligaf with making the threads a while back since they never got made otherwise.
Yoda
Member
Polls show most thought Hillary won the debate
PPP
Democratic Voters Overwhelmingly Think Clinton Won Debate; Particularly Strong on National Security Issues
67% of voters think Clinton won the debate,
20% for Bernie Sanders
7% for Martin OMal
On a related note 63% of viewers said the debate gave them a more positive opinion of Clinton, compared to 41% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of Sanders, and 37% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of OMalley.
-Clinton is by a wide margin the candidate debate watchers trust the most on national security issues. 75% say they have the most faith in Clinton on that front, compared to only 17% for Sanders, and 5% for OMalley. National security issues were a primary focus tonight in the aftermath of yesterdays tragedy in France, and Democratic voters by far and away trust Clinton the most on that issue.
-Whats particularly striking is how universal the sentiment that Clinton won the debate tonight is among all the different groups within the Democratic Party. 86% of African Americans, 73% of women, 70% of moderates, 69% of seniors, 67% of Hispanics, 65% of liberals, 61% of white voters, 58% of men, and 50% of younger voters all think that Clinton was the winner of tonights debate.
CBS/GFK Poll
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-won-the-second-democratic-debate-november-2015-cbs-news/
Hillary Clinton won the debate. Fifty-one percent say Clinton won, compared to 28 percent who favor Bernie Sanders. Just 7 percent pick Martin O'Malley as the winner. Fourteen percent called it a tie.
Among Democrats, Clinton is seen as winning by more than two to one, while independents are split between Clinton and Sanders.
In light of the terrorist attacks on Friday night in Paris, Saturday night's debate shifted much of its focus to foreign policy, terrorism, and addressing the threat posed by the Islamic militant group ISIS. On these topics, Clinton scores a commanding lead over her rivals. More than six in 10 Democrats and independents who watched the debate think Hillary Clinton would do the best job on each of these measures, compared to about a quarter who pick Sanders, and about one in 10 who pick O'Malley.
But on domestic issues, views are more mixed. While Clinton has a slight lead over Sanders on handling gun policy (43 - 36 percent), Sanders beats Clinton by almost two to one on handling income inequality. When it comes to the economy and jobs, Clinton and Sanders are about even. O'Malley trails both candidates on all of these by a wide margin.
Why are there separate sections for:
Terrorism and the militant group ISIS?
They really aren't, them and Bernie are the only ones that want to acknowledge systems that definitely work in other countries while Hillary supporters and the GOP want to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
That could very well be the case, but OT claiming is suppose to be done there. I don't make the rules.
I agree with this.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I love how Hillary is now grouped with the GOP. The ultimate saltiness...
Delusional to the degree this culture can accept what they say as accountable.
Go look at the Fox thread about college. We have a significant psychological illness that is in the way, here.
You also reminded me of Hillary's claims justifying not going the whole way on college like Bernie wants, too. "We're AMERICA" is not an answer, and neither is socially mandated labor for education subsidies to the whole tuition crisis. Saddening shit.
I don't think Hillary supporters agreed with her claims, I hope. None of the ones on GAF have, though they like her approach. Probably because, like the ACA, it fails at being decent, but it's merely more decent than our status quo. That's how low the bar is for us.
Oh yes because divisive tribalism like this garbage is very helpful. Hillary will win the nomination, there, you heard it from a Bernie supporter, but don't sit there and act like Bernie's comments aren't dragging Hillary further to the left because she knows if she doesn't, she WILL lose the youth vote and then she'll definitely be "feeling the bern."
Well if that's true then maybe the Millennials have got it right after all. The system is corrupted and shattered by misinformation and fear mongering and there is nothing a vote can do to change it. Maybe Wall Street will decide to be "charitable" and just share their wealth....
*snort*
meltdown indeed.
I know you've pulled the "my candidate" as a possessive trait too, queen. Not surprised you agree with the other user.
Like attracts like.
Besthelboy
Banned
I know you've pulled the "my candidate" as a possessive trait too, queen. Not surprised you agree with the other user.
Like attracts like.
Don't worry Foffy. I remember our previous discussion.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Yes, it's me who's being divisive and pretending...especially considering I literally said this last night
My point is that while Hillary isn't as left as Bernie supporters would like, and her policies are more about trying to fix the current system instead of trying to rebuild it like Bernie's, it's people pretending she's no different from the GOP and misconstruing her pragmatism that's truly damaging.
Don't worry Foffy. I remember our previous discussion.
I recalled I asked you why do you act like who you're for is some sort of thing you tribalize, and I think you never answered.
We were also speaking about the hardcore Bernie fans, too, so I think that's what we focused on instead.
I think the conversation had to do with criticism of "my candidate" or something of the kind in your words regarding the attacks on Hillary, which is how Bernie came up.
Smugness levels among people sporting Hillary avatars are off the charts.
It is puzzling that this debate really made it completely obvious who Hillary represents and people in this thread have complemented her on her ability to get out of saying so outright. Bernie went on for some time about not taking corporate money, not having super PACs - the kind of thing independent candidates would be saying too if they were allowed in these debates - and Clinton deflected when it came time to explain why she's not the establishment, corporate candidate. Well, she is that candidate, and there's no nice way to say it.
Establishment means status quo, "business as usual." Status quo is not good enough for me, and I find it strange that it's good enough for anyone interested in seeing positive change. Remember that candidates are not legally held to enacting any of their campaign promises. Given her corporate support, I have no confidence that she answers to the voters who elect her based on those promises. Those are words. Donations are money. Guess which speaks louder in politics. I find it strange that other people choose to ignore this. It's a different kind of idealism, I suppose. Worse than any found in the Sanders camp, IMO.
For my point of view, Hillary loses the debate because she is the establishment candidate. I will never vote for another establishment candidate again no matter how good they may sound, I learned my lesson after Obama. What gets me is how people who have followed politics longer than I have still think a mainstream candidate bought by business is the best choice. But then we fall into lesser of two evils stuff, the worst cop-out in US political thought.
What does the word "universal" mean to you? As I said in an earlier post in this thread, both parties are held back by the "if this helps someone that doesn't need help, we shouldn't do it" mentality. Republicans bring up people taking advantage of welfare, Hillary brings up Trump's kids getting free college. Literally the implication of Hillary's statement is that rich people shouldn't get free access to college, ergo college must still cost something. Nevermind that the cost of any college means very little to the super rich. And nevermind that the poor will be working part time during college under Hillary's plan. Because (according to the her answer in the first debate) when Hillary was young she did that and thought everyone else should too. The Democratic version of bootstraps.
We've got to move past excluding groups out of pettiness. It's not doing us any favors. And if the Democratic side is about excluding the 1% from free stuff, that's really not such an economic burden to take on. Comparatively, the Republicans have much more to lose when they stop excluding the poor.
Cerium deserves to get called out for his smug shitposts, the last two pages have been lesser for them. Before it was people giving their personal reactions about the debate, not polarized "my team won, your team lost" bullshit straight out of popGAF. There was a way to present polls that didn't temporarily turn the thread into a shitshow.
My fuckin' f r i e n d. Absolutely on point.
It's a double-bind and bootstraps. It infers a choice, kind of creates it as an ultimatum because if one does not assimilate, they become a have not, and assumes one can pull themselves up to assimilate fully.
It's about as unintellectual as it gets to a solution. BUT, it is a solution to the mess we have, but that says more on the mess and less on the solution itself.
Elfforkusu
Member
Great post. Though I will still vote for Hillary if I have to -- because I do think that one side is clearly worse than the other, even if it barely registers on the dial. It's still a losing bet when you're choosing between establishment candidates. It's the turd sandwich vs giant douche question. But if you can break from the establishment, you actually might get a choice that's more appetizing!
It sounds like, after all these years, the Clintons are still chasing after the Reagan Democrats. I wonder how many of those voters are even still alive.
teruterubozu
Member
Plenty, as long as the youth turnout stays low.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
if we find ourselves in a new ground war in syria, i wonder if that will validate the republicans in that way -- they've been clamoring for increased action in Syria/Iraq in their rhetoric (their actions are a different matter). Certainly makes Jeb Bush more "appealing" since he has the aura of the Iraq war around him and that... might help him?
That's not even the problem I have, directly. It's that she falls into the exact same problem some have defending the college system as is: "this is what I went through, ergo, this is what everyone else should do, too."
No. What you did is what you did. The question we should be asking is what is the most reasonable approach, regardless of anecdotal experience, to apply to everyone. What is the best one-size-fits-all imposition, that complements factors naturally, fairly, and humanely. We could even be wiggly, but policy never is. Only loopholes.
I'll even use me as an example. I did not pay a penny for college, and I even dropped out. But I am greatly aware of the circumstances of others, and know for a fact not everyone had it like me. And I do not use my experience of college - I found it wasteful and not a big deal in going - to be the same for others. Knowing how people struggle, just for the want to learn, bothers me. Curiosity should not be limited by income. Ever. Even in a society that demands the want to learn as a must to learn, but that's the social ego being garbage, as usual.
Projects like the ACA and Hillary's education answer are literally not that, and this is why even in their actual or potential success, they're still failures. They handle some results of the problems of their frameworks, but never the methods, reasoning, or designs that produce them. Do either projects even come close to accomplishing what the developed world that America is somehow a part of? Absolutely not. If they're stopgaps, that's one thing, and I've brought up the ACA specifically because Hillary has turned her back on the single player endgame. Granted, some of her donors benefit from the about face, and that's probably why she's done so..
As someone who's pro Hillary, I really don't understand why Sanders didn't go harder on her over the 9/11 blunder. I'm not an American, so fill me in, but wouldn't that have been good politics? He can't decide whether or not to place nice or play hard, he's being too clean for no reason at all. I would have taken her to task for that 9/11 deflection. I think he has a thing about getting aggressive with women.
And seriously Hillary, you knew Wallstreet was the question they were going to ask you for how long, and you still had no answer? How could she have been so embarrassingly unprepared?
And seriously Hillary, you knew Wallstreet was the question they were going to ask you for how long, and you still had no answer? How could she have been so embarrassingly unprepared?
This is actually how Hillary's painted him, too. During the first debate, he mentioned how yelling about guns won't solve the problem. She actually had the balls to spin this as a sexist remark, that it's only said "to women."
If you mean him yelling in conversations, that's just Bernie. He gets that heated up, usually. As for him being clean, that too is just Bernie. He wants to focus on points and not people, but the problem there was the point was potent enough to hit with a sledgehammer, and he didn't do it because it would be seen as attacking the person.
I mean he ain't yelling enough because he doesn't want to look like he bullies women. I get why, but if there was ever a moment to attack, it was then, but instead he complimented her for some reason. It just seemed so... limp.
As soon as I heard her say 9/11 I was like "ohhhhh shit, it's on now"... Nope. She got applause. Then the moderators called her out via that tweet and... She did it again to more applause. 9/11 is such a difficult subject to navigate that only the most opportunistic of politicians will use it to their benefit (Giuliani, Christie, Clinton) and only the most brash will attack someone on it (Trump going in at Jeb over "my brother kept us safe"). Bernie, for better or worse, doesn't really fit into either camp.
teruterubozu
Member
9/11 is simply played out. Obama went after Hillary for 9/11 in 2008. I'm sure if they go down the 9/11 path, Hillary would be fully prepared.
zero shift
Banned
Ignoring the poll based on what is literally a pro-Hillary thinktank (people are actually defending this? REALLY?) it is kind of sad to see that Hillary won the debate. She definitely had the worst arguments of the three on most issues (especially with the economy, education, and healthcare), and had a shameful amount of pandering. It just goes to show what really sells the average voter on candidates.
Mind you this isn't a post saying that Bernie was the victor, as his performance at the debate was hardly a slamdunk. However out of the three I took away as Hillary performing the worst by far.
Mind you this isn't a post saying that Bernie was the victor, as his performance at the debate was hardly a slamdunk. However out of the three I took away as Hillary performing the worst by far.
I'm a little surprised to see the chest-thumping. I thought Hillary won the first debate. She certainly handled herself better than the other candidates. Between the two debates and the forum, I thought this one was easily her worst performance.
teruterubozu
Member
"She held her ground" seems to be the overriding approval for Hillary in both the Benghazi inquisition and the debates, which I find strange. Great, she can hold her ground. She's always been good at deflection, we all know that. I want to see something more substantive, but so far it seems like she's going with the "3rd term" angle.
Whooooooaaaaaa
PPP is a pro-Hilary organization?
zero shift
Banned
She held her ground while getting dozens of punches to the face. She was soon covered in bruises and her knees were often buckling. Yes she held her ground, but I can't see how it would result in a decision in her favor.
Too bad that Warren didn't want to run. I would at least enjoy to see what she would say in the debates.
To be fair, it isn't like Hillary supporters don't often have their own shtick of her being the quintessential candidate with a flawless record. Many act like if you don't support Hillary, you are a traitor to the American left and poison to the electoral system (even though 99% of Bernie supporters are going to vote for Clinton).There is a reason people jumped on the Obama bandwagon over her in 2008 in droves.
If it was conducted on behalf of a pro-Hillary organization? Absolutely. I don't see it any different than people citing Heritage articles.
zero shift
Banned
I guess I should refrain my hostility.
Again I don't doubt Hillary won, I believe she did win and believe the CBS poll fully. I just find it fishy when citing a poll that was produced by an organization that (may) demand specific results.
That's idiotic and reeks of conspiratorial nonsense. PPP isnt going to conduct a biased and flawed poll just because a Hilary organization paid for it. It would ruin their reputation and drastically hurt their future business prospects because their business heavily relies on the public trust. Being known as a shill polster organization would destroy them.
Hilary paid for the poll because she guessed that the polls would favor her and she wanted to set the tone for the media reaction and coverage early. She paid PPP to conduct an early poll. PPP did it and reported the findings.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked