Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This isn't about fan service its about being informative.  

No, it isn't. You're talking about picking two specific candidates to put in one debate because it's what "people want to see", which is highly debatable (forgive the choice of words) anyway. There's no reason to rig the process to get two candidates the stage together. There is plenty of time, plenty of debates, plenty of opportunities for candidates to spar with each other. 

 

In 2016, the DNC clearly chose to limit the number of debates to help Hillary. The Republicans, ridiculously, outsourced to FOX to allow them to pick which candidates belonged in any debate. This time we have a process which gives everyone a chance. They are actually doing things well here (save for the way they chose "upper tier" candidates for the first debate). There are a lot of candidates, it shouldn't be up the DNC or anyone else beside the voters to weed out candidates this early. Give them a couple of debates, let them make their case, and if they're not showing much support, start winnowing them down. They have a plan for doing that and it's a god one. I don't know why people are so worried about booting people now that they don't want to give the voters a chance to hear all the candidates equitably. 

 

For the record, there is no reason Harris vs. Biden is anything that's going to light up the next debates. She had a specific personal issue that she brought up to differ with Biden. We have zero reason to think they are going to provide fireworks next time. For all we know, it'll be Buttigieg vs Bernie or Warren vs. Beto. Let's just wait and see.

[NoCalMike]

For what it's worth, I thought Harris came off the best during the debate, not even taking into consideration the moment she went after Biden.  

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

No, it isn't. You're talking about picking two specific candidates to put in one debate because it's what "people want to see", which is highly debatable (forgive the choice of words) anyway. There's no reason to rig the process to get two candidates the stage together. There is plenty of time, plenty of debates, plenty of opportunities for candidates to spar with each other. 

 

Gemstone lady is not going to get the nomination, everyone knows it, its a waste having her up there taking time from the other candidates.  It absolutely should be paired down now to make sure the people most likely to win in the general get the time they need to explain why they should be the person.  This isn't just about the nomination, both sides are watching already.

 

7 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

In 2016, the DNC clearly chose to limit the number of debates to help Hillary. The Republicans, ridiculously, outsourced to FOX to allow them to pick which candidates belonged in any debate. This time we have a process which gives everyone a chance. They are actually doing things well here (save for the way they chose "upper tier" candidates for the first debate). There are a lot of candidates, it shouldn't be up the DNC or anyone else beside the voters to weed out candidates this early. Give them a couple of debates, let them make their case, and if they're not showing much support, start winnowing them down. They have a plan for doing that and it's a god one. I don't know why people are so worried about booting people now that they don't want to give the voters a chance to hear all the candidates equitably. 

 

Because that's what reading is for.  Save something damn near other words, no one in the lower ranking is going to vault into the top 4 or 5, we all know it, and its because people have been reading about this candidates before then ran and since they announced.  The debates is a chance to go after other candidates and try to get as much attention as possible, Harris wouldn't of made the food fight comment if that wasn't exactly what was happening, it was a mess.

 

7 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

For the record, there is no reason Harris vs. Biden is anything that's going to light up the next debates. She had a specific personal issue that she brought up to differ with Biden. We have zero reason to think they are going to provide fireworks next time. For all we know, it'll be Buttigieg vs Bernie or Warren vs. Beto. Let's just wait and see.

 

That wasn't only time she went after Biden, and its because he's the front runner and she wants that spot.  Absolutely she'll come after again, she needs the black vote from him to get the nomination.  It's working, why stop?  Castro went after Beto because they are from the same state and only one person can win Texas.

[Rufus T Firefly]

So, you want the party to immediately, at beginning of the process, decide to pick 4 or 5 people out of 25 that they think "have a chance" and eliminate everyone else from getting an equal opportunity to present their case to the voters. We can just agree to disagree there. 

 

For the record, very recently it's debacle whether or not Harris would have made the cut off for being one of the top 4 or 5 candidates. 

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

So, you want the party to immediately, at beginning of the process, decide to pick 4 or 5 people out of 25 that they think "have a chance" and eliminate everyone else from getting an equal opportunity to present their case to the voters. We can just agree to disagree there. 

 

For the record, very recently it's debacle whether or not Harris would have made the cut off for being one of the top 4 or 5 candidates. 

 

No, just move up the threshold for being on stage now as opposed to waiting any longer.  23 declared but only 20 got to be in the debates, DNC already doing what you don't want them to do.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

“We’re doing it again...” - John Legend

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

42 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, just move up the threshold for being on stage now as opposed to waiting any longer.  23 declared but only 20 got to be in the debates, DNC already doing what you don't want them to do.  

You're right, they decided to include only the 20 candidates who showed an absolute bare minimum of support. There's really no difference between that and literally eliminating 80% of the legitimate candidates before the majority of voters have started paying attention to the election. Those two things are exactly the same.

 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

You're right, they decided to include only the 20 candidates who showed an absolute bare minimum of support. There's really no difference between that and literally eliminating 80% of the legitimate candidates before the majority of voters have started paying attention to the election. Those two things are exactly the same.

 

 

When you have that many candidates polling at 1% and trying to figure how to take back the senate, yes, its in the DNC's and really all our best interests to put more consideration for who they let run for presidential nominations and get on these debates. 

 

 

That's been pretty emblimatic of the polling, especially once Bjden jumped in.  DNC had plenty of time to say 2% instead of 1%.  And did anyone really changed their minds about these people I'm talking about leaving out, has it really helped them the way it needed to?  Outside some polling showing it actually did help Castro, who doesn't stand a chance for nomination anyway and could be running for Senate instead, no, it hasn't.

 

 

I can see your point in wanting to give them a chance first, I disagree, but we did it, now we know, lets stop it already.  And let PBS run the debates, clown show by NBC.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, just move up the threshold for being on stage now as opposed to waiting any longer.  23 declared but only 20 got to be in the debates, DNC already doing what you don't want them to do.  

I'd like to see them pick the top 12 and have two debates of 6 each.  Allows more time to talk.  And if you aren't in the too 12, you aren't going anywhere anyway. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

 

59 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

I don't see "if elected, I promise to prosecute my predecessor" working. 

 

For a Democrat. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[88Comrade2000]

Most people aren't paying attention and honestly, probably won't until after the New Year.  We are still 7 months from the first primaries/caucuses.

 

The lesser candidates will start dropping out after the next debate. Simple reason- they won't have the money.  By the time this thing gets really serious later in the fall; I doubt there will be 25 candidates.  I'll be surprised if they are more than 10 candidates after the 4th debate in October.

[Hersh]

Harris is going to have to really screw up to not be on the ticket at this point. Could America hand a Harris/Mayor Pete ticket? I think the GOP's heads would explode. 

 

I still think a Harris/Sherrod Brown ticket would win going away but I hate the idea of potentially losing a Senate seat. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

Get a clue, Biden.

[Cooked Crack]

Gonna become a substitute teacher real quick.