HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » So I talked to some peopl...

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:21 PM

So I talked to some people I know

who watched last night's debate.

They had their own private little debate party, and talked to me about it today. Present: two Rinos, some Dinos, an independent, and the rest harder core democrats. Some of them are experienced debaters: a coach, and a couple of college team debaters. None of them have a preferred candidate yet.

Here are some things they said:

Webb: Clueless. Needs to be gone.

Chafee: What, is he in middle school? What an embarrassment of lame excuses.

O'Malley: It looks like he's applying to be someone's VP.

Sanders: Rough, but strong, and commanded the best moment of the night. They said something else, but I don't want to start another flame war when I'm just reporting the word I got on the street, so to speak, so I'll leave that off.

Clinton: Polished, professional, well done even though much of what was well done was excusing and avoiding.

*disclaimer: these are not my thoughts. I just thought it would be interesting to consider some outside voices.

8 replies, 1027 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply So I talked to some people I know (Original post)
LWolf Oct 2015 OP
winter is coming Oct 2015 #1
Vattel Oct 2015 #2
stillwaiting Oct 2015 #3
Vattel Oct 2015 #4
stillwaiting Oct 2015 #6
artislife Oct 2015 #7
TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #5
LWolf Oct 2015 #8

Response to LWolf (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:23 PM

1. Sounds pretty on-target to me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:31 PM

2. I can see why they had those impressions.

 

Clinton was seen by many as winning because she did come off as polished. But if you focus on the content of what she said, a lot of it was pretty cringeworthy. Her defense of Libya was sad and pathetic. Her remark about talking to Wall Street was embarrassing. Her ramblings in response to her inconsistency in describing herself as a progressive to a more liberal audience and as a moderate to a more conservative audience was obvious avoidance. Her little falsehood that what she had said was that she "hoped" the TPP would set the gold standard in trade agreements was all too convenient misremembering. Her claims about Snowden having had an opportunity to enjoy whistleblower protections and still get his information to the public were blatant lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:19 PM

3. It seems many judge the debate based on who gave the best SALES performance.

As if that's the most important factor in choosing our president. Who can SELL people on what they're SAYING (not what they've done or will actually do). Are they poised and confident when they are selling themselves to you? THAT'S all that matters for some. That is what's "professional" and "presidential".

Pay no attention to the actual issues or whether the person that's selling themselves is actually selling a different version of themselves than their past behavior, actions, and associations would reasonably indicate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:30 PM

4. Even worse, the MSM do exactly that all too often.

 

Remember when the MSM touted Reagan as beating Mondale in a debate because he made a good joke about age? It didn't matter that Reagan had nothing to say of any substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:36 PM

6. I overwhelmingly reject the way these people judge the "winners" of a debate.

It makes no sense to me to choose someone as the winner if they come across as unbelievable to me (or if I disagree with them on major policy issues). I could never support a candidate as the winner if that's the case, and that IS the case for me. Wish it weren't so, but it is.

Being able to tell a joke, wanting to have a beer with someone, doing a good job on SNL,etc. <--------- All of these things are such unbelievably stupid things to place any emphasis on when choosing the best President that will serve average Americans interests best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:36 PM

7. Words matter

 

though we would be hard pressed to understand that point by many of the OPs and posts we have read in the last 24 hours...


Oh well, it still is about the issues for us Bernie supporters


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:34 PM

5. The idea Clinton was solid much less won and even less dominated the foreign policy discussion

is way out deep in left field to the point of being delusional she was not only wrong but foolishly so, as badly as he did overall Chaffee was kicking her ass on the content of his points and positions in this area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:52 AM

8. That was my take as well.

Polished, and very strong in her presentation; the weaknesses were with what she had to say, not how she said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread