What did American voters learn from Democratic Debate #1 ?

[99th_Monkey]

What did we learn from the Democratic presidential debate?
by Egberto Willies * SUN OCT 18, 2015 * Daily Kos

Much was learned from the first Democratic presidential debate. The most obvious thing is that the cast of characters running on the Democratic side is a serious bunch, in sharp contrast to the clown car represented by the Republican cast of characters.

Also, any real progressive or liberal should have no problem voting for four out of the five candidates who appeared on that stage. And yes, Jim Webb may be in the wrong party, based on the visible discomfort he displayed toward more progressive topics.

Here are five big takeaways from the first Democratic debate for the 2016 presidential race:

The American corporatocracy is scared of Bernie Sanders. By all empirical measures, Bernie Sanders won the debate. He won it on Twitter. He won it in polls on most of the TV websites and on blog sites. Immediately after the debate there were no scientific polls, but there were reactions from focus groups on Fox and CNN. Sanders won them both. So why was there a blanket acceptance by the national punditry that Sanders won? Why were they all talking in unison? They had to. Sanders held his own and immediately became plausible to millions who had no clue who he is or what he represents.

The Democratic Party is no longer in the grip of the DLC. The Democratic Party on stage at the Democratic debate was not a centrist party. It was not a center-left party. It was a populist party. Even Hillary Clinton did her best to dispel her infatuation with pleading guilty to being a moderate, and boldly claimed she is a progressive.
More takeaways are below.

The Democratic candidates are a serious bunch. There were a lot of substantive issues discussed at the debate, many of which are important but aren't generally discussed. Glass-Steagall, banking, health care, and much more actually took center stage. Of course silliness had to be inserted somewhere. The traditional mainstream media did its job in showing their shallow disregard and lack of seriousness.

Americans are very interested in what Democrats have to say. Many expected a lackluster viewership of the Democratic debate. Why? Many accepted the narrative that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and Hillary Clinton will be crowned as the Democratic nominee. The punditry, led by the pronouncements of their darling Donald Trump, were proven wrong. More than 15 million Americans tuned in. That is the highest viewership of any Democratic primary debate ever. While it's true that viewership didn't match the Republican debate's, it's understood that the spectacle would have gotten higher numbers regardless, given its clown car nature.

Democrats are very satisfied with President Obama’s path for the country. There was not one policy critique of President Obama. In fact, every candidate tried their best to be as close to him as possible. Even better, they all wanted to expand on his policies—from health care to immigration to education assistance and more.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/18/1433505/-What-did-we-learn-from-the-Democratic-presidential-debate

[onehandle]

1. That Hillary will be the nominee.

I kid. I kid.

Nobody learned that on that night. They knew it long before.

[quickesst]

2. +1

.....one.

[Fawke Em]

4. Seems like I heard that same thing about this time in 2007, too.

[onehandle]

5. There is no Obama.

I was not in the Hillary camp in 2007.

There is no Democrat that can beat her this time. Or any non-Democrat.

[Fawke Em]

3. I think there's a typo in there.

This sentence: "So why was there a blanket acceptance by the national punditry that Sanders won?", should read: "So why was there a blanket acceptance by the national punditry that Clinton won?"

The people liked Sanders. The punditry liked Clinton.

[99th_Monkey]

7. By jove, I think you're right. I totally did not catch that. Great observation Fawke Em

Either it was a typo or ? well actually I can't imagine what else it could be.

btw I love your handle.

[Uncle Joe]

6. That virtually all the national punditry work for and are paid by six mega-conglomerates, that's

not very scientific either but it is what it is.

Thanks for the thread, 99th_Monkey.

[99th_Monkey]

8. Hey, the number 6 is science enough for me.

you're welcome Uncle Joe.