Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce

[GONYK]

Yep. Don’t go after Kamala. I love these little walks down Memory Lane.

Watch on YouTube

Tulsi napalmed her

Harris is a good debater though. Her and Booker were consistently strong performers. They just never caught traction for reasons outside of their debate performances.

I think that more or less disproves the notion that elections really hang on debates.

I don't expect this election to pivot on these debates either (if they happen; I still think Trump may bail)

My premise is you have four quadrants: Biden Up/Down and Trump Up/Down and the only area I think would show real movement is Trump down because the odds of Trump short circuiting on stage is more likely than Biden doing so. I don't think either will gain too much via persuasion so it is mostly about what each could lose via debate.

Tangentially, Trump's agitation against mail-in voting is going to hurt him since his base is older and elderly voters have more reason to worry about voting in public during a pandemic. Trump actually needs mail-in voting advantages to win and somehow he fails to grasp this.

So, back to the debates, if Trump loses anything from the debates IMO it is likely just going to people not voting, just saying whatever and sitting this one out. Biden voters will vote even if the seven horsemen are in their way, but there will be some Trump voters who just crap out and don't vote. I think that is the contingent that will mostly be affected by Trump crapping the bed during debates. He could suffer a small, but significant net loss of people not voting even if it doesn't result in Biden having a gain in additional swing votes.

I think Trump's downside from debates is greater than Biden's.

Well, I agree. I don't think Joe Biden stumbling over a few words is going to make people forget about the 160,000 dead Americans and the racial unrest in the streets.

[robillionaire]

Harris wasn't that good of a debater. Well, I will say she is pretty good when she is the one on the attack, on biden and his past for example. She had one solid performance. But once the spotlight turned to her own record it was clear she had no valid defense for any of it. Biden hit her on it too. IIRC after that debate they gave her another chance to defend her record and she pivoted to attacking Gabbard on Assad and never really addressed it. For a minute they had portrayed her as a front runner and it went downhill really fast. I would prefer Biden not select Harris. I just find her to be dishonest

Is she dishonest?

Or you don't like her demeanor or debate tactics?

Actually I don't have a problem with her demeanor or debate tactics. A lot of people got mad at the way she went after Biden. I didn't but I will say it came across as rehearsed. I guess she just seems like she's pretending to be someone that she is not. I don't know how else to explain it but that's my perception. There are a few things that led me to that, one was the breakfast club interview where she was talking about smoking weed and listening to snoop dogg and the other was how she came out early supporting m4a on the debate stage and after she got the clout for it she slowly reversed course on supporting it. I don't agree with a lot of Biden's politics either but at least he unapologetically is who he is.

[Clyde_Style]

Harris wasn't that good of a debater. Well, I will say she is pretty good when she is the one on the attack, on biden and his past for example. She had one solid performance. But once the spotlight turned to her own record it was clear she had no valid defense for any of it. Biden hit her on it too. IIRC after that debate they gave her another chance to defend her record and she pivoted to attacking Gabbard on Assad and never really addressed it. For a minute they had portrayed her as a front runner and it went downhill really fast. I would prefer Biden not select Harris. I just find her to be dishonest

Is she dishonest?

Or you don't like her demeanor or debate tactics?

Actually I don't have a problem with her demeanor or debate tactics. A lot of people got mad at the way she went after Biden. I didn't but I will say it came across as rehearsed. I guess she just seems like she's pretending to be someone that she is not. I don't know how else to explain it but that's my perception. There are a few things that led me to that, one was the breakfast club interview where she was talking about smoking weed and listening to snoop dogg and the other was how she came out early supporting m4a on the debate stage and after she got the clout for it she slowly reversed course on supporting it. I don't agree with a lot of Biden's politics either but at least he unapologetically is who he is.

OK, not vibing with her or thinking she is not truly authentic is all grist for the mill and can inform your decisions of course, but it is not the same thing as saying she's dishonest

She was a prosecutor which in many instances is an inherently aggressive function and will lead to accusations of her being intolerant and punitive of the wrong people, but that does come with those kinds of jobs. What matters then is her shift as a legislator. Does she truly want to decriminalize weed? If so, then maybe her experience with enforcement of laws and convicting people informs that stance now. If she was a dork and tried to act hip when she is not is not that substantive to me either way. I mostly care about what she'll actually do. And my assumption is the platform is pretty much set whomever the VP is so her effect on policy initially will be minor.

[robillionaire]

Is she dishonest?

Or you don't like her demeanor or debate tactics?

Actually I don't have a problem with her demeanor or debate tactics. A lot of people got mad at the way she went after Biden. I didn't but I will say it came across as rehearsed. I guess she just seems like she's pretending to be someone that she is not. I don't know how else to explain it but that's my perception. There are a few things that led me to that, one was the breakfast club interview where she was talking about smoking weed and listening to snoop dogg and the other was how she came out early supporting m4a on the debate stage and after she got the clout for it she slowly reversed course on supporting it. I don't agree with a lot of Biden's politics either but at least he unapologetically is who he is.

OK, not vibing with her or thinking she is not truly authentic is all grist for the mill and can inform your decisions of course, but it is not the same thing as saying she's dishonest

She was a prosecutor which in many instances is an inherently aggressive function and will lead to accusations of her being intolerant and punitive of the wrong people, but that does come with those kinds of jobs. What matters then is her shift as a legislator. Does she truly want to decriminalize weed? If so, then maybe her experience with enforcement of laws and convicting people informs that stance now. If she was a dork and tried to act hip when she is not is not that substantive to me either way. I mostly care about what she'll actually do. And my assumption is the platform is pretty much set whomever the VP is so her effect on policy initially will be minor.

I guess that's the thing, I feel like I have no idea what she'd actually do. I think with Rice you pretty much know what you are getting. But as I have said in the past, who eventually gets the nod isn't really a big issue to me. Just more something to casually talk about. But with Biden the possibility of him not surviving the term is on the table, so you have to consider that one of them could be president.

[Clyde_Style]

Trump voters sitting this one out really is the best case scenario for Democrats. Less votes for other campaigns and Senators. If there is as much as a couple percent swing toward people not voting that could tip close contests to the Democrats across the board.

[Knick4Real]

Whoever becomes the VP pick will likely have only ONE debate with Pence if at all. Her performance will likely be judged more via the Sunday political shows and other TV appearances than a single debate.

[Clyde_Style]

Whoever becomes the VP pick will likely have only ONE debate with Pence if at all. Her performance will likely be judged more via the Sunday political shows and other TV appearances than a single debate.

I'm hoping that debate is hosted by the League of Women Voters Who Read 50 Shades of Grey so Pence loses points over who handles a bullwhip or wears a rubber bustier better

[j4remi]

I don't have a great reason for not wanting anything to do with Rice...but I just really don't want to have to deal with another few months of Benghazi BS as the GOP seeks any way to regain hateful momentum against the Democrats.

Yeah, it's an unfortunate problem. I've heard Trumpers utter "Benghazi" like it was a lucky charm. Apparently you can hold endless hearings and conduct multiple investigations and come up empty handed, yet still it persists as a relevant meme in the vegetable brains of the flock. Rice will be subjected to this nonsense.

The one thing you can count on from Kamala is her ability to shut people down. You come at her and you likely will get your head handed back to you. These times require warriors to lead the Democrats to achieve victory and stabilization of democratic functions. For that reason alone, I see why Harris is a good choice for this election and the next 8 years. There is a lot of damage to repair and you're going to need tough as nails anti-corruption people at the top.

TBH, I'm not certain about Rice's leadership qualities. She could be excellent and I just don't know it yet. At least I'm pretty confident about Harris' ability to take charge.

Was Benghazi even effective the first time around?

I don't know because everybody probably hated Clinton regardless. I'm not even speaking on this from an efficacy point of view. I just don't have the patience to have to humor, debate or entertain Benghazi conspiracies any more.

I do feel Clyde on the uncertainty about Rice too though, which is a more legitimate reason than just "I don't want to deal with that." I honestly have not paid enough attention to her to feel strongly about her. I mean, I'm not big on Harris either but I don't hate her...she's one of the flexible types that I think we can win over on key issues. It's the Knicks coaching search all over again, I'm mostly indifferent to them all.

[Knick4Real]

Actually I don't have a problem with her demeanor or debate tactics. A lot of people got mad at the way she went after Biden. I didn't but I will say it came across as rehearsed. I guess she just seems like she's pretending to be someone that she is not. I don't know how else to explain it but that's my perception. There are a few things that led me to that, one was the breakfast club interview where she was talking about smoking weed and listening to snoop dogg and the other was how she came out early supporting m4a on the debate stage and after she got the clout for it she slowly reversed course on supporting it. I don't agree with a lot of Biden's politics either but at least he unapologetically is who he is.

OK, not vibing with her or thinking she is not truly authentic is all grist for the mill and can inform your decisions of course, but it is not the same thing as saying she's dishonest

She was a prosecutor which in many instances is an inherently aggressive function and will lead to accusations of her being intolerant and punitive of the wrong people, but that does come with those kinds of jobs. What matters then is her shift as a legislator. Does she truly want to decriminalize weed? If so, then maybe her experience with enforcement of laws and convicting people informs that stance now. If she was a dork and tried to act hip when she is not is not that substantive to me either way. I mostly care about what she'll actually do. And my assumption is the platform is pretty much set whomever the VP is so her effect on policy initially will be minor.

I guess that's the thing, I feel like I have no idea what she'd actually do. I think with Rice you pretty much know what you are getting. But as I have said in the past, who eventually gets the nod isn't really a big issue to me. Just more something to casually talk about. But with Biden the possibility of him not surviving the term is on the table, so you have to consider that one of them could be president.

The VP pick will take on projects and do whatever the president directs her to do. With the mess Trump will leave behind, Biden/? will have their work cut out for them in righting a lot of wrongs.

Having a strong background in domestic policy will be a requirement for the VP pick, since she'll likely have to spend time on Capitol Hill convincing legislators to approve more funds for COVID-19, police reform, and other social issues. Harris' background in the Senate would be beneficial here, since Biden would be busy repairing foreign relationships. She would take over the Coronavirus Task Force from Pence, manage US response to the virus, promote unemployment funding for those still out of work, and more. This is not Susan Rice's wheelhouse.

I'd love to see Susan Rice as Secretary of State. The fact she's never been a candidate for anything and has virtually zero domestic policy experience concerns me. Still, I'd vote for Bozo The Clown over Trump!

[Clyde_Style]

OK, not vibing with her or thinking she is not truly authentic is all grist for the mill and can inform your decisions of course, but it is not the same thing as saying she's dishonest

She was a prosecutor which in many instances is an inherently aggressive function and will lead to accusations of her being intolerant and punitive of the wrong people, but that does come with those kinds of jobs. What matters then is her shift as a legislator. Does she truly want to decriminalize weed? If so, then maybe her experience with enforcement of laws and convicting people informs that stance now. If she was a dork and tried to act hip when she is not is not that substantive to me either way. I mostly care about what she'll actually do. And my assumption is the platform is pretty much set whomever the VP is so her effect on policy initially will be minor.

I guess that's the thing, I feel like I have no idea what she'd actually do. I think with Rice you pretty much know what you are getting. But as I have said in the past, who eventually gets the nod isn't really a big issue to me. Just more something to casually talk about. But with Biden the possibility of him not surviving the term is on the table, so you have to consider that one of them could be president.

The VP pick will take on projects and do whatever the president directs her to do. With the mess Trump will leave behind, Biden/? will have their work cut out for them in righting a lot of wrongs.

Having a strong background in domestic policy will be a requirement for the VP pick, since she'll likely have to spend time on Capitol Hill convincing legislators to approve more funds for COVID-19, police reform, and other social issues. Harris' background in the Senate would be beneficial here, since Biden would be busy repairing foreign relationships. She would take over the Coronavirus Task Force from Pence, manage US response to the virus, promote unemployment funding for those still out of work, and more. This is not Susan Rice's wheelhouse.

I'd love to see Susan Rice as Secretary of State. The fact she's never been a candidate for anything and has virtually zero domestic policy experience concerns me. Still, I'd vote for Bozo The Clown over Trump!

Yes, Rice as SoS and Schiff as AG is what I'd like to see happen

Harris would have her hands full as VP. There is so much work to do and Biden would have a capable person on the Hill in Harris.

[Clyde_Style]

Don't worry Donald!

I'm coming to rescue you!

Spoiler:

And if things don't work out you can always hide out at my dacha.

[HarthorneWingo]

Harris wasn't that good of a debater. Well, I will say she is pretty good when she is the one on the attack, on biden and his past for example. She had one solid performance. But once the spotlight turned to her own record it was clear she had no valid defense for any of it. Biden hit her on it too. IIRC after that debate they gave her another chance to defend her record and she pivoted to attacking Gabbard on Assad and never really addressed it. For a minute they had portrayed her as a front runner and it went downhill really fast. I would prefer Biden not select Harris. I just find her to be dishonest

Is she dishonest?

Or you don't like her demeanor or debate tactics?

Actually I don't have a problem with her demeanor or debate tactics. A lot of people got mad at the way she went after Biden. I didn't but I will say it came across as rehearsed. I guess she just seems like she's pretending to be someone that she is not. I don't know how else to explain it but that's my perception. There are a few things that led me to that, one was the breakfast club interview where she was talking about smoking weed and listening to snoop dogg and the other was how she came out early supporting m4a on the debate stage and after she got the clout for it she slowly reversed course on supporting it. I don't agree with a lot of Biden's politics either but at least he unapologetically is who he is.

Her father un-endorsed her after the weed comment.

[Jeffrey]

Tulsi napalmed her

Harris is a good debater though. Her and Booker were consistently strong performers. They just never caught traction for reasons outside of their debate performances.

I think that more or less disproves the notion that elections really hang on debates.

I don't expect this election to pivot on these debates either (if they happen; I still think Trump may bail)

My premise is you have four quadrants: Biden Up/Down and Trump Up/Down and the only area I think would show real movement is Trump down because the odds of Trump short circuiting on stage is more likely than Biden doing so. I don't think either will gain too much via persuasion so it is mostly about what each could lose via debate.

Tangentially, Trump's agitation against mail-in voting is going to hurt him since his base is older and elderly voters have more reason to worry about voting in public during a pandemic. Trump actually needs mail-in voting advantages to win and somehow he fails to grasp this.

So, back to the debates, if Trump loses anything from the debates IMO it is likely just going to people not voting, just saying whatever and sitting this one out. Biden voters will vote even if the seven horsemen are in their way, but there will be some Trump voters who just crap out and don't vote. I think that is the contingent that will mostly be affected by Trump crapping the bed during debates. He could suffer a small, but significant net loss of people not voting even if it doesn't result in Biden having a gain in additional swing votes.

I think Trump's downside from debates is greater than Biden's.

Well, I agree. I don't think Joe Biden stumbling over a few words is going to make people forget about the 160,000 dead Americans and the racial unrest in the streets.

I love Kamala Harris, she has teeth to bite into Trump. Whether you agree or not, Trump can hurl outrageous bombs and takes a lot of verbal abuse during debates.

However, I am wary of ANY politicians who were an AG in their previous career because there's a lot of tough decisions that are not so black and white to everyone.

[Clyde_Style]

I don't expect this election to pivot on these debates either (if they happen; I still think Trump may bail)

My premise is you have four quadrants: Biden Up/Down and Trump Up/Down and the only area I think would show real movement is Trump down because the odds of Trump short circuiting on stage is more likely than Biden doing so. I don't think either will gain too much via persuasion so it is mostly about what each could lose via debate.

Tangentially, Trump's agitation against mail-in voting is going to hurt him since his base is older and elderly voters have more reason to worry about voting in public during a pandemic. Trump actually needs mail-in voting advantages to win and somehow he fails to grasp this.

So, back to the debates, if Trump loses anything from the debates IMO it is likely just going to people not voting, just saying whatever and sitting this one out. Biden voters will vote even if the seven horsemen are in their way, but there will be some Trump voters who just crap out and don't vote. I think that is the contingent that will mostly be affected by Trump crapping the bed during debates. He could suffer a small, but significant net loss of people not voting even if it doesn't result in Biden having a gain in additional swing votes.

I think Trump's downside from debates is greater than Biden's.

Well, I agree. I don't think Joe Biden stumbling over a few words is going to make people forget about the 160,000 dead Americans and the racial unrest in the streets.

I love Kamala Harris, she has teeth to bite into Trump. Whether you agree or not, Trump can hurl outrageous bombs and takes a lot of verbal abuse during debates.

However, I am wary of ANY politicians who were an AG in their previous career because there's a lot of tough decisions that are not so black and white to everyone.

If she were only an AG before, perhaps that'd be an issue, but she's a Senator now so I don't expect her prior job to limit her ability to think with more nuance than black and white. She'd be tasked with getting legislators to line up behind WH bills which her Senate experience has prepared her to do. If and when she becomes prez she'd have the additional time inside the WH to further prepare her.

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

And people want to clown Biden over his health?

Trump is going to be an invalid soon

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

[j4remi]

Harris wasn't that good of a debater. Well, I will say she is pretty good when she is the one on the attack, on biden and his past for example. She had one solid performance. But once the spotlight turned to her own record it was clear she had no valid defense for any of it. Biden hit her on it too. IIRC after that debate they gave her another chance to defend her record and she pivoted to attacking Gabbard on Assad and never really addressed it. For a minute they had portrayed her as a front runner and it went downhill really fast. I would prefer Biden not select Harris. I just find her to be dishonest

Yeah, I didn't like how rehearsed she came across generally. When she was pressed off script, she had a great offense but no defense. It's the D'antoni Suns. I think she's a savvy politician though and will read the zeitgeist (with criminal justice reform starting to gain steam specifically) and move in the right direction.

Sidenote for everyone: Bernie's got Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush and Rashida Talib on live right now.

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

GOP trying to get Kanye West on state ballots in certain swing states in order to skim Democratic votes away from Biden.

Let the games begin.

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

FYI, Deutsche Bank has already turned over the requested documents. They clearly are getting out ahead of this because they know Trump is going to be prosecuted. They signaled this with the announcement they are doing an internal investigation of Rosemary Vrablic who was one of the primary bankers responsible for BOTH the Trump and Kushner accounts.

One other thing to keep in mind that may not be highlighted in the current reports is Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned under a cloud of suspicion because his son was one of the other primary bankers for Trump at Deutsche Bank. This led to speculation that Kennedy was coerced to make way for Kavanaugh in exchange for something. Something is fishy there too.