• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

June 26th -- Democratic Debate -- who are you NOT impressed with? (DEMS ONLY)

DEMS ONLY - Who are you NOT impressed with?

  • Total voters
    38
truthatallcost said:
Your basis for rejecting Gabbard rests solely on the fact that she 'talked to Trump'? That's a pretty flimsy reason to reject her.
Click to expand...

There's more than that. She accepted the GOP meme that there was no collusion.



And why the hell does Breitbart like her so much?

No, she's a strange creature. I'm with her on paper ballots, but there are too many other questions.
 
Middleground said:
I've been a fan of Warren well before she became a Senator. I knew she'd start climbing the polls because she is smart, hardworking, moral and feisty. I also knew she'd knock it out of the park in debates because have you seen her youtube videos that confront fat cat bankers? Popcorn worthy. She was also a debate champ in her early years.
Click to expand...

Since an angry old white woman didn't work in 2016, try again in 2020. :lol:
 
madasheck said:
There's more than that. She accepted the GOP meme that there was no collusion.



And why the hell does Breitbart like her so much?

No, she's a strange creature. I'm with her on paper ballots, but there are too many other questions.
Click to expand...


OK, so there's more than a phony ABC news story behind your dislike of Tulsi.

On her statements regarding collusion- her point was that the issue was thoroughly investigated by the Mueller team, and it's time to move on. What's so insidious about this statement?

I don't read Breitbart, so I have no clue what they've written about her. I do know that the NYT hates her, and one of their editors made herself look like a fool for calling Gabbard an 'Assad Toadie'. This particular editor couldn't really give a cogent reason for hating Gabbard, other than the fact that Gabbard doesn't support more wars in the Mideast.
 
madasheck said:
There's more than that. She accepted the GOP meme that there was no collusion.



And why the hell does Breitbart like her so much?

No, she's a strange creature. I'm with her on paper ballots, but there are too many other questions.
Click to expand...


Her family is pretty supportive of India’s nationalist party which is extremely conservative. Looks like the caste system is going to rule India for a longer time.
 
bomberfox said:
Her family is pretty supportive of India’s nationalist party which is extremely conservative. Looks like the caste system is going to rule India for a longer time.
Click to expand...

Really Bomber? Using her family's ethnic ties against her?
 
truthatallcost said:
Really Bomber? Using her family's ethnic ties against her?
Click to expand...

Its not so much ethnic ties but the specific party that is being supported which is why i mentioned the party and not her ethnicity.Of course it would be good to be cautious about tying that to her.
 
bomberfox said:
Its not so much ethnic ties but the specific party that is being supported which is why i mentioned the party and not her ethnicity.Of course it would be good to be cautious about tying that to her.
Click to expand...

She was raised by religious zealots. I can relate, in a sense. It took her years of self discovery to break away from the hardline views her parents imposed on her. But she did accomplish that feat, and is a progressive Democrat today. Especially considering her service to our country, I believe she deserves a second chance, and the respect of not being judged personally based upon who her family members are.
 
truthatallcost said:
She was raised by religious zealots. I can relate, in a sense. It took her years of self discovery to break away from the hardline views her parents imposed on her. But she did accomplish that feat, and is a progressive Democrat today. Especially considering her service to our country, I believe she deserves a second chance, and the respect of not being judged personally based upon who her family members are.
Click to expand...

That is quite reasonable. Ill be willing to give her a fair shake.
 
Josie said:
I find it odd that you find that odd. We all love talking politics - that's why we're here.
Click to expand...

After reading your thoughts on how primaries work, (that the candidates need to push each other out with negativity) I understand why you posed the question the way you did.

I think primaries work by candidates getting the support of voters, and those not making the mark make the decision to drop out.
 
JMR said:
After reading your thoughts on how primaries work, (that the candidates need to push each other out with negativity) I understand why you posed the question the way you did.

I think primaries work by candidates getting the support of voters, and those not making the mark make the decision to drop out.
Click to expand...

You have a very Pollyannish view of things if you think same-party candidates shouldn't or won't or haven't gone after each other in hopes of knocking them out of the race. It literally happens in every single election.
 
From these results, it looks pretty clear that Elizabeth Warren and Julian Casto were the impressive ones to other Democrats last night.

Beto and de Blasio are at the bottom of the barrel.

On to tonight's debate!
 
Not a registered Democrat so I did not vote in the poll, per the request. That said, as an observer who watched the whole two hours, here's how I saw it unfold.

Here are the national polling average of the candidates, pre-debate, per RCP. Note that the only candidates polling 1.0% or better were Warren (12.8%), O'Rourke (3.3%) and Booker (2.3%). Warren did what she needed to do, consolidating her support and possibly increasing it. There was no hint in either her, or her opponents' performance, to indicate that Warren will leak support to one of them. I don't know that she hit a grand slam so much as she got a bunch of singles and walks and committed no errors.

O'Rourke, however, put up an embarrassing performance, demonstrating himself as the lightweight some critics have pointed out in the past. Booker didn't look good either. Neither has much room to lose and I can't see either going up in the polls if this kind of performance continues. Perhaps one or two of the others will now exceed the 1.0% threshold, but that's getting into the weeds. Neither Booker nor O'Rourke have a path to the nomination and none of the nine non-Warren candidates on stage last night have a prayer against Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, etc. if they can't compete with Warren on stage.

Last night really was gift-wrapped to Warren. (No, I'm not suggesting the random draw wasn't random.) She gets a passing grade and the others get anywhere from a C+ to an F, with O'Rourke and Booker the only two whose performance really meant anything to their chances.

I thought it was an awful night for O'Rourke, a bad night for Booker, quite a good one for Warren and the other seven are so inconsequential that their performance won't really matter one way or the other.
 
JMR said:
After reading your thoughts on how primaries work, (that the candidates need to push each other out with negativity) I understand why you posed the question the way you did.

I think primaries work by candidates getting the support of voters, and those not making the mark make the decision to drop out.
Click to expand...

Our republicon friends don’t recognize these Democratic debates because they focus on Issues, not trump-style name-calling. They can only master two to four word carnival barking phrases.
 
joko104 said:
Since an angry old white woman didn't work in 2016, try again in 2020. :lol:
Click to expand...

Okay!

s-l1000.jpg
 
Linc said:
Our republicon friends don’t recognize these Democratic debates because they focus on Issues, not trump-style name-calling. They can only master two to four word carnival barking phrases.
Click to expand...

Those who fail to heed this lesson do poorly on our side of the aisle.
 
Phys251 said:
Those who fail to heed this lesson do poorly on our side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

It’s now Sen. Harris’s turn to be smeared by trumpcons. It will be like this until the general election is over, since gops are so bereft on ISSUES. All they have is tds — trump despicable smears. I seriously doubt that Harris will allow trump to stalk her on the debate stage, as he did to Clinton.
 
Linc said:
It’s now Sen. Harris’s turn to be smeared by trumpcons. It will be like this until the general election is over, since gops are so bereft on ISSUES. All they have is tds — trump despicable smears. I seriously doubt that Harris will allow trump to stalk her on the debate stage, as he did to Clinton.
Click to expand...

After last night I figured that the base might rally around Warren. But now Harris has put herself right in the spotlight.

The more vicious the right-wing attacks are, the more worried they are of losing to them!
 
Phys251 said:
After last night I figured that the base might rally around Warren. But now Harris has put herself right in the spotlight.

The more vicious the right-wing attacks are, the more worried they are of losing to them!
Click to expand...

trumpcons have a serious case of tds tonight — trump's despikkkable slut-shaming — on Sen. Harris. I’m sure our gop females on DP are down with this.
 
Linc said:
trumpcons have a serious case of tds tonight — trump's despikkkable slut-shaming — on Sen. Harris. I’m sure our gop females on DP are down with this.
Click to expand...
alright, way to call the clans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom