"Per PBS, the debate live streams across PBS NewsHour’s, Politico’s, PBS’s, and CNN’s digital and social platforms totaled more than 8.4 million viewers." more commentary: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sixth-democratic-debate-draws-lowest-viewer-numbers-yet
Wine cave unmasked! The horrors!! Flight attendants, corporatists, and community college folk plotting in secret! https://m.sfgate.com/opinion/article/About-Pete-Buttigieg-s-wine-cave-dinner-I-was-14925435.php I have grown to really dislike Warren.
ha! I know the GARM parlance but I do not hate her. my least favorite of her stunts was her saying that prominent economists were just “wrong.” That was actually very Trumpy, in a no-I-am-just-always-right kind of way.
Warren sucks. She's too left. She's a Saturday Night Live character. This stunt screams politician, and people are tired of that schtick. If Hillary couldn't win, Warren absolutely can't. Bernie sucks. He's too far left. He, like Warren, is too old. (Although Trump is too) he's also too far left. Biden sucks. He's too old and is out of touch with reality, and younger America will see him as a step away from an Alzheimer's unit. Pete is starting to suck (all jokes aside). But I'd still vote for him. The only two candidates I'd be happy to vote for from the Democratic party we Klobuchar and Yang. And even then, I'm not happy voting for anyone that wants to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. Enter Yang. This party is not going to win the White House if it's constituents don't wake up. These people are kidding themselves in running. They have no chance at beating Trump. Yang and Klobuchar do.
Warren is the only one I know would lose, and even she might win because Trump sucks so badly. But you’re right in the sense that she’s the same candidate as Hillary. Why run the same candidate twice in a row against the same opponent?
Its sad she feel she has to attack Buttigieg. Bernie and Biden aren't trying to take out those polling level candidates. She should run like Biden and Bernie, play the part.
Warren just has really bad political instincts when it comes to campaigning. That or really bad advisors. Probably both. The Pocahontas thing was entirely self induced then you have the whole healthcare fiasco. All she had to do was say YES, own it and try to introduce a better version of M4A. Instead, she awkwardly refused to answer the yes/no question, took heat, introduced her absurdly unrealistic healthcare “plan”, took more heat then topped it off with a proposal asking for a public option. Needless to say, she nosedived in the polls. Now she’s attacking Pete for the very same thing she’s guilty of. Not only that, but she previewed this line of attack prior to the debate. Gillibrand did the same thing with her big rehearsed attack on Biden. I like and respect her as a Senator, but I’m absolutely terrified at the thought of her leading the ticket.
That's a terrible comparison. Their similarities end at being old blonde ladies. If you view candidates through an extremely superficial scope, then surely they are the same candidate. If we look at policies, then running Pete, Biden or Klobuchar would be WAY closer to Hillary and "running it back" then Warren.
The only combo that can beat Trump at this point is Biden with a strong moderate VP Candidate. Biden is no real threat to anyone and he is one psych eval from being locked up. With Biden, at worst, you have 'status-quo-but-not-trump'. If he loses his last marble, which is seeming to increase in odds, have a reasonable moderate VP. This nation doesn't want a leftist president.
Similar personalities; not just physical appearance. She can’t “rock the vote” in swing states any more than Hillary can.
Why not? She strongly opposed the trade deals that crushed the rust belt. She one of the toughest candidates on wall street corruption. She has inspiring policy proposals like universal college, healthcare and child care, a living wage, net-zero emissions my by 2050, campaign finance reform, affordable housing plan. Warren (like Bernie) is running on making significant changes in an attempt to better the lives of the American people, she's running against corruption. Hillary ran on wanting to keep things the same, being an extension of Obama, with hopes of attempting to make incremental changes by trying to please the republicans who will stonewall everything regardless of how moderate the proposals are. Very similar to Joe, Pete, and Amy's game plans. Do you look at anything outside of appearance, personality and how you personally think candidates are perceived on the political spectrum? Why don't you take into considering the actual policies, plans and past records when trying to compare candidates?
Sure the policies are important and in another election year they would be doubly important. I don’t think it matters much this year because they’ll all be better than Trump. Her and Bernie represent the ambitious Left of the party and they fill those roles well. Unfortunately the average voter is looking more or less at things like personality, upbringing, grit. The intangibles if you will. I don’t think any of the top 5 or 6 are unqualified and they all bring some decent policy arguments. I like Kobluchar’s experience as a prosecutor (respected that about Harris too). I like her three terms as a senator in a key midwestern state. I like her moderate policies, ability to reach across the aisle, and praise from her colleagues. Beating Trump is the most important thing. I loved Obama as an idealist in 2008. “Yes We Can!” The whole nine yards. He inspired me. Booker inspires me but his campaign is finished. I view Amy as a great candidate to beat Trump, who will still push forward some progressive goals
Bernie fans are definitely smearing Pete left and right. They’re perfectly fine with screwing it up for everyone else if their guy doesn’t get in.
100%. I know some Bernie supporters who refuse to vote if he doesn't win the nomination. Now keep in mind, their votes don't particularly matter because of the electoral college so who knows how they'd actually vote if they lived in a swing state and not a deep blue state. But a handful of them have told me they see Trump as an "accelerator" if you will. In other words, things will get so bad under him (in their mind) that the bulk of the voting population will swing hard to the left in 2024.
Lets face it, most people don't really look at policy. Every candidate has their warts, but give me Elizabeth Warren over anyone else in the field.
Why do people think that the candidates who can't even convince 5% of Democrats to vote for them after a year of campaigning are the only people who could possibly win a general election?
