Final Lineups for CNN's Democratic Debates
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/second-2020-democratic-debates-lineups-cn...
Night 1:
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former Rep. John Delaney (Md.)
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.)
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)
Author Marianne Williamson
Night 2:
Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.)
Former Vice President and former Sen. Joe Biden (Del.)
Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)
Former Housing Secretary and former San Antonio, Texas, Mayor Julián Castro
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)
Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.)
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang
So Night 1 is Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg; Night 2 is Biden, Harris, Gabbard.
Not terrible. We need to contrast Sanders and Warren. Maybe Harris will tear Biden another orfice, or maybe Biden is prepared to fight the last war and will make a fool of himself punching Harris who will be like "why me, bro?".
Comments
I say we make this much more interesting.
Enough of this battle royale shit. That only rewards those who know how to pounce on opponents when they're distracted.
I say we go to Double Elimination Tournament, because anybody can have an off night. One a night, with the American people getting to vote based off that nights performance. We wrap the whole think up in a couple weeks and save the taxpayers some money. Winner goes on to face the current President IN THUNDERDOME! (What, You don't expect me to put actual RULES on this thing? I want my president to know how to WIN!)
I mean, yeah, probably the corporate scum will eventually ruin it, but for a few years the show is gonna be AWESOME.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HeZrI5Giw4]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yes, it should be like "Amerikan Idol"
The sheep at home, vote from behind their boob tube screens with their remotes.
Voters and bots phone in after each "performance" with ratings. Anybody polling less than say 20% of audience approval immediately gets the hook (They've already got the crooks)
Where is Mike Gravell?
I received email that he made the cut.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Yeah, got that memo too
Another scam?
No scam
Gravel's team thought he had qualified via meeting the minimum number of unique donors criteria. The DNC decided not to include him because of the polls, many of which did not include Gravel's name. The polling criteria is very suspect because the DNC decided which polls to use to meet that criteria. Gravel's team appealed, but we alll know how democratic (small d) the Democratic Party really is. NOT!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Knockout punch?
VP Biden may have drawn the short straw. He's not only got to deal with Kamala Harris, but there's Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Julian Castro, & Kirsten Gillibrand. This is an opportunity to get attention the way Harris did after the first debate. Somebody's likely to bring up Anita Hill. Maybe Gillibrand? I would expect Tulsi to mention Biden's foreign policy boo-boos. This could be interesting.
Who Replaced Swalwell?
Was it Bennet or Bullock? I honestly can't remember who was in the first debate.
Gravel did have the needed numbers, but the DNC limits the debates to 20 candidates. I'm not sure why they decided Bennet/Bullock (whichever one is new) was higher on the list, but I'm sure Gravel endorsing Tulsi or Bernie on stage is not what they would want.
Too bad Ryan didn't drop out.
I believe
Bullox replaces the sadly departed Swallowell. I think he's the Gov of Montana.
Haven't checked his record, too lazy. But guessing he's probably pro-guns and overall a Demican RepubLite type, similar to Tester.
Long gone are the Montana days of Mike Mansfield, former Majority Leader for Dems in the Senate, a very ethical guy of liberal leanings, and against Lyndon's War. Dems apparently have given up on running a true Dem in these big mountain states (Idaho also once had Frank Church, another liberal notable in the senate) and have gone all-in for the bipartisan safe route.
(edit: Another Unknown History sidebar: Mansfield was probably the major mastermind, chief architect, behind the famous 1964 Civil Rights Bill getting passed in the senate, and not LBJ, who knew it would be a very tough vote and so, being the rather cowardly pol type and worried about a bill with dubious chances being too closely associated with his name, he decided to let Mansfield take the reins (if the bill passes, LBJ figured rightly, he would get the credit; if it failed, he could always point the finger at others for their insufficient efforts). MM then brought in Sen Humphrey as his floor leader, with assistance in public advocacy from AG Bobby Kennedy. Those 3 were the primary movers and shakers on the bill, with minority help from the cranky but not insane Ev Dirksen, whom Mansfield graciously and wisely and probably unavoidably allowed considerable leeway in the final crafting.)
LBJ
I enjoyed your trip down memory lane, but I'm giving LBJ more credit. Although mostly toothless, LBJ as Senate Majority Leader managed to get the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 & 1960 passed. This warm up helped in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. IMO LBJ was a masterful politician and would have been considered a great president; however, he made horrible decisions regarding the Vietnam War and his bad choices brought him down, as it should have.
Limited comment
so as not to derail this thread, then I will shut up: Limited credit only on that bill which was at the top of JFK's list of bills to do when Dallas happened. LBJ effectively had no choice but to proceed -- failing to act, to wait still longer (as he wanted to do, per his belated comments to JFK in the summer of '63) would have put him in political difficulty with the liberal wing of the party, much more prominent back then, and he didn't want to have such party worries heading into the fall election. I think, suspect, his playing both sides of the party in the '57 and '60 bills was just a clever "give 'em both a little of want they want" political play which didn't fully commit him one way or the other. It merely positioned him nicely to claim affinity for both sides in the runup to the '60 election, which indeed he sought to win, albeit by backchannel methods. (similar to his 2-facedness with his 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- he knew it would position him politically with the general electorate as tough but not too tough or crazy -- after all, it wasn't quite a Declaration of War -- like the perceived "warmonger" Barry.)
Generally, he was an old school, corrupt, inside power player, usually having to do with ill-sought-and-gained financial contributions flooding into his office, carefully arranged to go to him not the DNC, all overtly pay-to-play style. If this is what some consider "political genius", well it's up to you. Finally, in the COPO and mass culture, he's been given the Harry Truman treatment in rosy. narrowly-and-poorly focused hindsight. This is mostly nonsense, both as to HST and LBJ.
But appreciate your thoughts, and I'm not unaware my position on this is not the majority one, but I'm often in the minority.
Definitive LBJ biography only goes up to 1964; awaiting volume 5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Lyndon_Johnson
Unshutting up
just briefly, I promise. Not as definitive as you might think. Caro is a mixed bag, some say a bit of a sellout whitewasher in hopes for more Pulitzers, per a fellow author I know who knew him back when (see, e.g., his taking a dive on the JFK assassin in the last vol). And you don't get rewarded by the Establishment if you stray too far from the reservation. More in another thread another time ...
Caro pulls his punches, does he? Dang nabbit.
But why am I surprised that in order to rise, historians too have to get past the gatekeepers and be approved? How could it be otherwise that in the history books that come out of this arrangement, the fix is in?
Essay some time?
Maybe an essay on LBJ would be good some time. Yes, LBJ's a mixed bag, but the man accomplished a lot and cared about the little guy and less fortunate. I never heard him bellow about the middle class. By Gawd, he was going to fight a War on Poverty and he meant it. If our pols are too saintly, it's just not fun studying them. LOL
That's an idea Karl,
but please don't count on me too much to take point. I'm lazy, disorganized, terrible at linking, and anyway most of my knowledge comes from book larnin' over many years, and most of my LBJ is in deep storage.
Cheers ...
Warren's Weaknesses
Take yer pick. These and more are linked all over the innertubes and growing in number and breath of issues everyday:
Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-socialism...
That Time Warren Cheered Trump. Well, this was disappointing... Elizabeth Warren stands up and applauds Trump's promise that "America will never be a socialist country." https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=416898935744430
Elizabeth Warren hates money in politics, keeps taking campaign donations from rich lobbyists and corporate executives https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-hates-money-...
Elizabeth Warren ripped Joe Biden’s big Philly fund-raiser. Last year, she did an event with some of the same rich donors. https://www.inquirer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-presidential-fu...
Leftover PAC money funneled into Warren's campaign https://www.gloucestertimes.com/election/leftover-pac-money-funneled-int...
Elizabeth Warren's 'big money' rejection doesn't apply to general https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/26/elizabeth-warrens-big-m...
Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Turned To A Big Donor To Pay For The DNC Voter Database, Despite Her Fundraising Pledge https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-fundrai...
Warren has a plan for Wall Street — and Wall Street isn’t panicking https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-e...
Why Wall Street prefers Warren to Sanders https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2019/07/18/why-wall-s...
Elizabeth Warren on Bernie Sanders: "He’s a socialist, and I believe in markets." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-...
Elizabeth Warren decided to specifically stand up and applaud Trump when he said "America will never be a socialist country." https://twitter.com/HammerMtPress/status/1094369068063358976 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6B_MYpByUs&feature=youtu.be&t=3753
No doubt, Wally.
But even with all that (I'm sure -- just don't have oodles of time to look at all your cites) I would vote for her w/o hesitation against Trump in the general, if it comes to that. Do I want to get ready to live under martial law and a dictatorship with a second Trump term -- possibly after a total re-write of the Constitution after the states-driven new Convention -- maybe have to go underground, or will I accept a somewhat disappointing yet not entirely unfavorable half-loaf, with Democracy still intact. Gee, let me think about that one ...
My primary objection to her is electability, the optics and audibles of seeing and hearing her, this rather nice lady of substance, try to debate the bully in the fall. Trump would brutally Pocahontas and cynically sound-bite her all night, while she would pull a Michelle Obama and try to go high with her TMI plans and program points. Dukakis tried to appeal to Americans' better angels. That one didn't work out so well.
If Bernie's doesn't miraculously secure the nomination . . .
. . . I probably won't even vote for the first time ever since I was old enough to vote in 1972.
There's no chance that my state will vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate.
I don't see any candidates other than Bernie having any chance, as small as it might be, of securing the nomination, beating Trump, and fighting the fight backed by a broad-based movement with the critical mass necessary to even begin to combat global heating and eventual climate catastrophe.
I'm not going to engage in the politics of the absurd after the Dem Convention of 2020.
I too am in
a deeply Blue state, and so have a few options. But, first, it's way too early in the cycle to be drawing lines in the sand, though it's tempting in the case of Biden. It's also all too easy to carve out a Highly Principled Progressive profile in these forums, all the easier as we are anonymous keyboarders and no one will know how we actually vote anyway.
And unlike last time in the general, I am not very enthusiastic about the (probable) Green candidate. Dr Stein was intelligent and credible, someone I didn't have to hold my nose for. The dude who seems lined up to be the G nominee is a 24-time loser in his political races. He didn't even get elected to city council in his town, let alone Dog Catcher. I would have thought a bit more of him had he been successful in at least achieving Dog Catcher. Even Town Crier. Maybe even Town Crank or Town Drunk. But no, nothing to show for 24 races. The last effort, against gov Cuomo of NY, resulted in a whopping 1.7% of the vote.
I'd rather write in Dr Spock, though I think it's a bit late for that in his case. Or Paul McCartney, even though born Brit. But to credit him for all his great music*, and recalling how he and John were appalled by the racism they saw in the U.S. in the 60s, avoided playing venues in the South which segregated by race, and appalled by the VN War, though they had to be careful in speaking out on the latter, after seeing the wildly hostile response in the US to John's Jesus remarks. Paul, also to his great credit, privately supported WR critic Mark Lane re the assassination and volunteered his musical skills to that effort.
(* "Yesterday", the light, charming movie out currently, positing a parallel world where the Beatles never existed, is a pleasant 2-hour entertainment featuring, mostly by cover via the main character, many Beatles/McCartney tracks. Plenty of amusing Fab Four trivia references sprinkled throughout, most Beatles fans will pick up on. One unusual plot twist towards the end -- some will like it, others not, but amazing physical resemblance to the historical person (plus plenty of makeup work). And I'm still not at all convinced by Paul's official explanation of the backstory of his Hey Jude song, as repeated in the movie. Makes no sense. Enjoy if you can this summer.)
Well I'm in Michigan
I voted Green in 2016. If Warren is the candidate, I will vote Green in 2020.
Warren sucks. If we are going to put another Obama/Clinton in office, let Chelsea run.
Don't ever forget. It takes a Democrat to screw a Democrat.
I will never ever vote for Warren, and I'm doing everything I can on social media to hurt her campaign. I owe her and the Democrats not a GD thing. If I'm going down, I'm taking her with me. There can be no reform until people hold them accountable.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
There's not likely
to be a chance for reform with no democracy, under a Trump 2d. I would expect the Rs to move boldly and aggressively to continue the ongoing movement to enlist enough states -- is it 34 (?) -- to hold a new Constitutional Convention. That won't be one where individual rights are expanded, where women and minority views are protected. It will be about further enshrining God and Guns. Gone with the wind will be the amendment on term limits for president (the Trump Amendment). So long federal income tax. And voting directly by the people for the senate. (edit: and very strict registration requirements to vote for any federal office. No early voting either.) An amendment to help corporations too, no doubt.
Opposition political parties -- will they still be allowed?
These are the stakes, as I see it. Preserving democracy, what's left of it, and even that is well worth preserving. And if that means I need to be a little more flexible, if it comes to it, next fall, then so be it. Again, I realize I'm taking a small minority position here, maybe even a Minority of One.
But do wake me up if the Greens decide to nominate someone who isn't a 24-time loser.
Well the democrats have sure been holding Trump's
feet to fire. Oh wait..they haven't. The democrats do not oppose anything that Trump and the republicans are doing and if enough states turn red for a constitutional convention then remember it's because of how many seats turned red during Obama's tenure. What have democrats done to try to change that? In so many races the republicans run unopposed. Or democrats will back the republicans over a progressive candidate.
Lesser evil voting is why the country is such a mess right now and if Obama had been anything but a empty suit president Hillary would probably have won. This and if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary and she had won fair and square.
Don't try to shame or scare people into voting for democrats. I voted for hope and change and saw neither.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Bingo, SD! I reflexively voted for
WJC the first time he ran, because I was a lifelong 'Yellow Dog' Dem.
Since then, I've tried to be a heckuvalot more discerning.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The Democratic Party will reform or die.
I don't care which, and I will not extend their life support by voting for Warren or any other corporate-owned whore again. If Trump wins, it is on the heads of all the people who refused to stand up and hold Democrats accountable the last 40 years. Can't have an opposition party without an opposition.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Give a beer to dat lady!
Cheers!
'Nuff said
Pocahontas will never get the vote from non-estaszblishment / non-neoliberal Dems. Independents, seeing a choice between her and Trump will choose Trump.
Agreed, Alligator Ed.
That's why I'm hoping against hope, and doing what I can and voting for the Bernmeister.
CNN reported that they made a pact in December,
not to go after one another on the campaign trail. (they are quoting reporting in New York Magazine) So, it'll be interesting to see how they handle being on the debate stage, together. (Warren and Bernie) My 'guess' is that it'll be a relatively tame performance. But, you never know. I 'hope' they're both willing to delve into the details of their proposals.
Now, to my knowledge, there are none of these on the other debate evening. So, Mr M and I are waiting with bated breath to watch 'Biden'--especially, versus Harris and Booker. Biden's so reliant on the AA vote, that he's surely toast if he blows it.
Overall, we'd like to see more substantive questioning. Considering the slate of hosts/moderators, though, not gonna hold my breath. Since it's CNN, figure it'll be all about ID Politics.
Can't remember for certain, but, don't recall a single question (during the last debates) about Social Security and/or specifically 'senior-related' issues.
Also, don't remember the Dude's name (except it starts with an 'A' and he's from Florida
), but, last election cycle, we occasionally enjoyed having 'live threads' while the debates were ongoing, which were quite fun and interesting.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I'll watch youtube clips the day after each debate
Too many bozos on that bus for me.
I think Bernie is too kind a soul to go after Warren.
And if he makes any criticism, the cries of sexism will drown out any chance of reasonable discussion of any issue.
Oh hell, anything he says will be twisted to accuse him of sexism.
That said . . .
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/ceeivl/this_is_white_cu...
Stupid debates...
Didn't watch the first one. Won't watch the second one.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
High pollers in the center, low pollers on the ends.
There were ten in the bed
And the little one said,
"Roll over! Roll over!"
So they all rolled over and
one fell out
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
Repeat as necessary.
I would say that Lizzie took her borrowed axe and gave progressivism 40 whacks. And when she saw what she had done, she gave Bernie 41. One thing about Lizzie, she is true to her word.
In other words, she's not faking it. She's the real deal--ask Pocahontas if you don't believe her.
Not faking it.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHV64GcuT5c]
the microphones only work in the middle
as we've learned from the last set of "Celebrity Sound Bite".
"Celebrity Sound Bite".
I'm so stealing this.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Rules for the debate....
The window to become eligible closes on July 16. Candidates will be informed the next day if they will be invited to participate in Detroit.
CNN will air a live draw on July 18 to determine the specific candidate lineups for each debate night.
Maybe this one will be less like fledglings chirping to be fed.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Well at least
CNN wisely got rid of the stupid Raise Your Hands questions. But how stupid of all the Dems to fall in line and fail to object to this ridiculous type of questioning. Polite Party they are -- nearly 40 yrs of Miss Manners as I see it.
I rather prefer the way the French did it for their last presidential. Eleven candidates (yes, even including the person representing the minor Workers' Struggle Party) in nationally televised debate, regulated (unlike here) by their national presidential election commission, televised over their govt-owned airwaves (another time when govt can play a positive role in our lives ...). Each of the eleven candidates given an equal amount of time, even the lowest polling ones. Presumably there was an electronic timer/hour glass thingy so each candidate, and all mods, knew how much time each had remaining. Memory says this debate went on beyond the two hours we have here -- so 3 or 4 hours likely. Good to very good viewership numbers, if short of record-breaking.
Overall a better system. Everyone got a fair shake. And in France, a much shorter election cycle, by law (yes, I know about our 1st Amendment). Official campaigning has an official start date, some 5 weeks before voting. Roughly equal time allowed pre-election for media appearances (not strict by the minute, but a rough approximation of equal time for all candidates). Also, and I"m only somewhat sure of this -- limitations as to content and time on campaign ads in the traditional electronic media.
If it wasn't for my laziness, I might be inclined to move there.
It should be
Biden & Bernie and Warren and Harris instead of Biden and Harris and Bernie and Warren.
I don't trust that this is being drawn from a hat
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
They’re using those Iowa coin-toss coins from 2016
that supposedly resolved six out of six “random chance” toss-ups in Hillary’s favor.
Same coin, I don't doubt.
I want so much to sic Tulsi on
creepy, Tio Joe, accomplice of banksters and credit card companies and also of the serial drone murderer. Add his violations
of personal spaceof women and children and he's a perfect candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.
Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.
I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the pack. In the general, it will be the Green Party nominee, whoever he or she may be.
I would rather see questions which force
candidates to make a commitment to particular stances.
IMO, doing this,
is a win for the candidates.
Not for the People.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.