Category Archives: Democratic Debates

When is Late too Late?

By tmess2 | Published November 11, 2019

Over this past week, former Democrat-turned Republican-turned Independent-turned Democrat New York City Mayor, Media Mogul, and actual Multi-Billionaire Michael Bloomberg filed paperwork to run in the Alabama Democratic Presidential Primary.

At this point, Mayor Bloomberg has not officially announced that he is running for President.  It was just necessary to file to be on the Alabama ballot to keep his options open.  With a deadline of Friday, Mayor Bloomberg has not yet filed for the New Hampshire primary.  (He is not alone.  Of the candidates who have qualified for the November debate, Cory Booker and Tom Steyer have not yet filed for the New Hampshire primary.   Likewise, Julian Castro — who has met the donor threshold for the November debate but seems unlikely to meet the polling threshold — also has not yet filed for the New Hampshire primary.)  But let’s assume that he (or somebody else who missed the deadline for Alabama) might still get into the race.  Is it too late for somebody new to get in the race.

By requiring that every state allocate delegates proportionately, the Democratic rules theoretically make it possible that nobody will win a majority of delegates to the Democratic convention allowing those delegates to revert back to the days in which the convention actually had to choose between several candidates.  In those days, winning key primaries was a factor in that decision.  So it was not necessary to enter the race early and compete in all primaries. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Presidential Candidates | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When is Late too Late?

Overall Thoughts on the July Debates

By DocJess | Published August 1, 2019

Wow! Night two was a completely different event from night one. The favoritism in CNN’s development of how they would ask questions, and to whom, was there for all to see. Next up, ABC, and I hope they pick a more equitable format.

The debates showed the schisms in our big tent. And that would be really great in normal times, when the policy differences would end up being hashed out for the platform, and we would find confluence and concurrence. These are not normal times. Meaning that, for example, Gabbard’s take down of Harris’s record in great detail was written down by Trump’s campaign team, where the salient names and dates will be added to the list, and if she is the nominee, they’ll use flash cards with pictures, and it will be used against her. Those historical comments are now the lens that will be used in evaluating any of Harris’ criminal justice policies.

It’s also obvious that no one really knows how to sell a health care plan, other than Sanders. I’m personally not a fan of his plan, as written, I think there are better approaches to get to the eventual goal, but he is able to explain things in simple terms, where others cannot. And for every single candidate pushing Medicare for All in ANY form, how is it that they cannot say the following? Continue Reading...

Comments Off on Overall Thoughts on the July Debates

31 July – Debate Continues

By DocJess | Published July 31, 2019

We can’t really talk about expectations for tonight without understanding what happened last night. In the interest of full disclosure, I spent last evening with people who, while they like certain candidates, are truly laser focused on “who can beat Trump”. Thus, this was not a watch party in support of any candidate.

The consensus of our group was that Sanders won over Warren (yes, this is counter to conventional wisdom), Buttigieg nailed most of his positions, and Bullock did well. We were split on the best line of the evening, but in hindsight it probably was Sanders saying “Because Trump’s a pathological liar, and I tell the truth.” (Feel free to disagree.) And whether we or the talking heads are correct will play out in dollars over the next days.

The biggest question about last night, going in, was the debate between the far left and the moderates. The moderates needed to land body blows and 90% of the time, they were unable to do so. Bullock did well on campaign financing, and that may be enough to garner a spike in internet searches. Whether it will it get him to 2% with 130,000 donors in the next few weeks is left to be seen. Delaney, Ryan, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and Williamson are done. Note to John: PLEASE drop out now and win over Cory Gardener. We need the Senate. Likewise, O’Rourke, who has qualified for September, should PLEASE drop now and for the good of the country, win over John Cornyn. Continue Reading...

Comments Off on 31 July – Debate Continues

30 July Debate – What to Watch

By DocJess | Published July 30, 2019

Here’s what I’m watching for this evening:

  • It’s an “all white” debate. Due to the draw, everyone up on the stage this evening is Caucasian. I’m interested to hear what they have to say about Baltimore, racism, and how we move forward against a 2020 campaign that 45 will make all about race and the urban/rural divide. Especially interested in whether Buttigieg can get any traction with African-Americans as his polling numbers with that cohort are currently at zero.

 

  • Sanders v Warren. In 2016, the economic policies between Sanders and Clinton couldn’t have been more stark. Now, Sanders shares the far left lane with Warren, and she has fleshed out some of his proposals and presented plans in tandem with some of his others. How will they differentiate themselves, especially as regards health care? Will there be a socialist v capitalist moment? My overall belief is that they both have the money and ground game to make it through to Super Tuesday easily. But only one of them makes it to Milwaukee.

  Continue Reading...

Comments Off on 30 July Debate – What to Watch

Biden, Bennet in

By Matt | Published May 13, 2019

Still waiting on Bullock and De Blasio. And watching to see if Williamson, Gravel or Messam actually make the debate stage (not just qualify)

Definitely running:

  1. Rep. John Delaney
  2. Sec. Julian Castro
  3. Gov. Jay Inslee
  4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  5. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
  6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
  7. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  8. Sen. Kamala Harris
  9. Sen. Cory Booker
  10. Sen. Any Klobuchar
  11. Andrew Yang
  12. Sen. Bernie Sanders
  13. Gov. John Hickenlooper
  14. Rep. Beto O’Rourke
  15. Rep. Tim Ryan
  16. Rep. Eric Swalwell
  17. Rep. Seth Moulton
  18. Sen. Michael Bennet
  19. VP Joe Biden

Potential candidates who have shown some interest: Continue Reading...

Also posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Biden, Bennet in

Debate Rules

By tmess2 | Published February 16, 2019

This past week, the Democratic National Committee announced the standards that will be used to determine which candidates will appear in the first two debates of the cycle (one in June and one in July).  As these standards set a very low bar to participation, it is more likely than not that each debate will actually be two debates on consecutive nights.

A candidate can qualify by meeting one of two standards.  First, a candidate qualifies by getting one percent in at least three “approved” polls.  I assume by “approved” that the DNC means a poll by a reputable media organization that, at the very least, includes all of the declared candidates that major media organizations and blogs like this site are listing.  (There are always a large number of unknown candidates who file paperwork with the FEC and file declarations of candidacy in states like New Hampshire.  Currently, beyond the present and former elected officials that are listed here, there are four other candidates who filed paperwork with the FEC to run.)  Figuring that we will probably end up with fifteen to twenty candidates, it is likely that there will be over ten candidates who meet this standard.

Second, a candidate can qualify by raising $65,000 from a minimum of 200 donors in a minimum of 20 states.   Those candidates who have declared and have announced fundraising to date appear to be blowing well past this threshold.  This threshold appears to be set in a way that favors late declarers.  If a candidate who declares before May 1 hasn’t raised more than $1 million from over 1,000 donors in over 30 states by June 1, it is unlikely that they will be the nominee.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Debates, Democratic Party, DNC | 1 Comment

Who Won Last Night on the Road to #DNCPHL2016?

By DocJess | Published March 10, 2016

Before we get into my analysis – what’s you’re take?

Off the bat, I thought the biggest loser was Univision. While the young man singing the Star Spangled Banner, their production values flagged after that. The microphones didn’t seem to work well, and the juxtaposition of both English and Spanish made things difficult to understand. It seemed distracting. The interviewers kept interrupting that time was up, which brings up an overall question I have about debates: who’s voice is most important in a debate? If you’ve got two candidates on the stage legitimately engaging in discourse on a topic, do we really want the questioners to move on? I’m not talking about a free-for-all (Little Marco and Big Donald you know who you are) but a legitimate back and forth – I always thought that’s what debates were supposed to be. The moderators do get kudos for pressing for answers on tough questions, and indicating that sometimes their questions were not directly answered, but…. My other overall debate question is that in this time of technology, if moderators at ALL the debates want to enforce time limits, why don’t they just turn off the candidates’ microphones. Okay, I’m done now. onto substance. 

It was obvious that gloves were off in this session. While the candidates still showed basic respect for one another as people, they were all over one another in terms of substance. Sometimes, though, it was off base. Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders because the Koch brothers put out an ad supporting his stance on the Import-Export Bank. There is not one person who can spell “Koch” who believes that Bernie Sanders is in their pocket. She also cherry picked little pieces of major legislation to knock Sanders’ vote. Most legislation, barring naming post offices in the House, is huge. I remember pouring through the 3,000+ page ACA legislation. There are often good things and bad things in the same bill, and it’s necessary for Senators and Congressmen/women to make an overall judgement on what is best for their constituents even if they must swallow a paragraph they don’t like. It was very disingenuous of her.

Both candidates did well in discussing climate change impacts on South Florida, which is one of the hardest hit places in the continental US. They both had decent positions on immigration. Their positions on the latter were slightly different, but in case you were thinking of not voting in November, both were worlds better than the GOP position of deportation, walls and family break-ups.

One of the most telling points on immigration related to the 2007 immigration bill which included a guest worker program. Sanders had opposed it, Clinton had been in favour. They were both in the Senate at the time. Here’s the thing about that guest worker program. It was SUCH a bad program that it was worth it to vote down the rest of the bill. Here in Pennsylvania, we had experience with that program. Kids aged 18 – 22 were hired to work the summer under a guest worker program to work for Hershey’s candy. They came through an organization that placed mostly college kids throughout the country. These kids (or their parents) paid for an “educational experience” where the kids would work some of the time for pay, and spend the rest of their summer here getting to know America’s sites and people. Instead, the kids were forced to work 12 – 18 hours a day, put up in substandard housing, and when they complained were threatened. The program was a money maker for the companies that attracted and placed the kids. They never actually got paid because money was taken for housing and food. And don’t forget their passports were held.

The moderators really went after Hillary Clinton, asking her if she would quit the race if indicted. As is her wont, instead of answering yes or no, she just said it wouldn’t happen. They pressed her on her loss in Michigan, and on her high unfavourables. she said “I am not a natural politician”. Really?

In the end, while I believe Sanders won on facts (which is always my marker) – it really was a draw because neither was mortally wounded by the other, and nothing changed the calculus of the race.

 

Also posted in Bernie Sanders, Elections, Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Who Won Last Night on the Road to #DNCPHL2016?

Republican Winnowing; Democratic Solidifying

By tmess2 | Published November 8, 2015

We are coming up on the November debates — the Republicans on Fox Business Channel, the Democrats on CBS.  The sheer size of the Republican field (and the impossibility of being fair to all of the candidates) continues to drive everybody mad.  Arbitrary criteria lead to candidates being shuffled to the “JV” debate or excluded all together; and the shortness of time leads to candidates being upset about not getting a chance to make their points.  On the other hand, with only five candidates originally and three candidates left now, the time issues are not that pressing on the Democratic side.

For the upcoming Republican debates, three candidates have been excluded from the JV debates (Lindsay Graham, George Pataki and Jim Gilmore).  Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum will take part in the JV debate.  The main event will feature Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, and Rand Paul.

The number of Republicans running creates a potential paradox in the normal money primary.  At this point in the campaign, trailing candidates routinely find themselves in a catch-22 — they need more funds to become competitive but they need to become competitive to get more funds.  However, putting aside Carson and Trump (as most of the money folks seem to think that both will collapse), several of the candidates can point to a poll showing them within the margin of error of third place in at least one early state.  However, it is highly unlikely that 15 candidates will make it to Iowa.  I would not be surprised if Senator Graham decides that with Rand Paul not being a serious contender that he no longer is needed to assure that the Republican field takes an aggressive stand on foreign policy.  If Gilmore and Pataki were actually running expensive campaigns, I would not be surprised for them to call it a day soon.  Since they aren’t, they might just stick around.  Santorum, Huckabee, and Jindal are all competing for the same slot — currently occupied by Ben Carson.  At some point, the lack of funds will force one or all of them to drop out.  The November JV debate may be the last chance for one of these three to become the alternative to Carson.

Chris Christie may be in the most interesting position of all of the candidates in the JV debate.  He is currently polling around 8% in New Hampshire and is within 3% of Rubio.  It is possible to spin a scenario where Christie could win a substantial number of delegates from “blue” districts in places like New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and California where moderate Republicans have substantial influence.    But at some point, he has to make a solid argument why he should be the center-right candidate.

The other candidates that need strong performances are Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush.  Fiorina is trying to straddle the line between outsider and establishment.  However, she is not the first choice of either group.  It is unclear how much longer she can wait for Trump and Carson to collapse.  At some point, Bush needs to gain traction and stop the slow sink to just another candidate status.  His super-pac has the money to allow him to run through early March, but at some point he is just no longer relevant to the race.

My hunch — for whatever it is worth — is that we will see three to five candidates withdraw between now and the end of the year, leaving ten candidates running in the February races.  My hunch says that Graham and Jindal are the most likely to drop out, but beyond that it an open question.   On the other hand, the initial primary field will almost certainly include Carson, Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio.

While the Republican debates are still about who will make it to Iowa, we seem to be set for the final field on the Democratic side.  There is a theoretical possibility that Martin O”Malley will withdraw before Iowa, but I think that he will stick around as the “just in case” candidate, running a very low budget campaign.  The Democratic debate will be if anybody can alter the perceptions of the field or whether the campaign will continue to solidify.  There is always the possibility that some issue will arise that shakes up the field, but I don’t see either Senator Sanders or Governor O’Malley being likely to engage in the type of attack on Secretary Clinton that it would take to reset the race.  If not, Secretary Clinton appears to be polling well in most of the early states and seems likely to win the majority of delegates up for grabs in February and March.  With the support of the automatic delegates for Secretary Clinton, that should be enough to get Secretary Clinton the nomination.

Also posted in GOP, Money in Politics, Politics, Republican Debates | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

What to Look for in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

By tmess2 | Published October 13, 2015

Unlike the previous three-ring circuses put on by the Republicans, tonight’s debate will only have five candidates.  More importantly, with so few candidates, there is little need for the candidates to go after each other at this point of the race.  Rather, what each candidate needs to accomplish in this debate has very little to do with the other candidates.  With that said, here is my take on what the candidate’s goals need to be heading into the debate.

Also posted in Bernie Sanders | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What to Look for in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

Pre-Labor Day Reflection: The State of the Presidential Race — Democratic Primary

By tmess2 | Published August 30, 2015

Presidential primary races follow a somewhat predictable path.  We are nearing the end of the first stage of the race for both parties — the stage in which candidates enter the race or decide not to enter the race (or leave the race when their initial efforts as a candidate prove underwhelming).   Time is starting to run out for candidates to enter the race as the last time a candidate won their party’s nomination while skipping the early primaries is 1968.

Right now the field can be split into three tiers.  In tier one, there is Secretary Clinton.  Even in the most unfavorable polls, she is getting near 50% of the vote nationally (roughly the same numbers that she got in 2008).  As long as Secretary Clinton is getting near 50%, it will be very difficult for another candidate to win the nomination given the Democratic proportionality rules.

In the second tier, you have Senator Sanders and Vice-President Biden.  Both are polling well enough that they will get some delegates.  Senator Sanders is more the anti-Clinton candidate and appeals to those who think that the party needs to run a more liberal candidate.  Vice-President Biden is more the not Clinton candidate, appealing to those who think that Secretary Clinton has too many vulnerabilities to win the general election.  Of course, Vice-President Biden has not yet entered the race.  If he decides not to run, some significant portion of those currently supporting him will decide to hold their noses and support Secretary Clinton.  While it is too early to project individual states, Senator Sanders appears to be competitive in Iowa and New Hampshire.  His problem is that both states are likely to be narrow wins.  While there are some other early states that Senator Sanders might narrowly win (although he may comfortably win Vermont on March 1), Secretary Clinton is favored to win other states by large margins.  Vice-President Biden does not currently have any early states that appear to be places where he can win.  Slightly over half (2,050 out of 3,760) of the pledged delegates come from states that hold their first tier (either a primary or local caucuses) by March 15.  While delegate counts from the caucus states are tentative, if Secretary Clinton is at or over 1,000 delegates, and neither of the other two candidates is over 800 delegates, there will be pressure for Senator Sanders and Vice-President Biden to suspend their campaigns.

In the third tier, you have Governor O’Malley, Senator Webb, and Governor Chafee.  None of these three candidates has gotten much attention or support so far.  Each of the three has a different idea about how they can get to viable candidate status, but all three essentially need Vice-President Biden to decide not to run, Secretary Clinton’s support to collapse, and Democrats to decide that, however much they might agree with some of Senator Sanders’s ideas, that picking a nominee who describes himself as a Democratic Socialist would be a mistake.  At this point, all three look likely to be gone before the March 1 primaries.  (There are also 26 other people who have filed papers with the FEC as candidates for the Democratic nomination, none of them have held federal or state-wide office and none have any name recognition.  In other words, they will be on the ballot in some states but are unlikely to win more than a handful of delegates as “protest” votes.).

In short, unlike 2008 when then-Senator Clinton was merely the solid frontrunner at this point of the race, it looks like this race is Secretary Clinton’s race to lose.  One factor contributing to this current state of play is the composition of the Democratic Party.  Roughly speaking the Democratic Party has three roughly equal factions — the white Progressive faction (significant in the northern farm belt and New England), people of color (significant in the South, Southwest, and the rust belt), and the Moderate/Establishment faction.  To win a candidate typically needs the support of two of the three factions.  While Secretary Clinton is more liberal than her husband, the Moderate/Establishment faction remembers the Clinton presidency as generally positive (despite the personal flaws of the Clintons).  Similarly, people of color generally have positive feelings towards the Clintons and would have supported Secretary Clinton in 2008 against any candidate other than Barack Obama.  Any candidate who wants to beat Secretary Clinton needs to break her hold on one (or both) of these two groups.  If not, Secretary Clinton will have the support of enough pledged delegates and superdelegates by the end of April (over 2900 delegates tentatively allocated) to be the nominee.  (Currently, it takes 2,242 total delegate votes and there are 714 superdelegates.  If Secretrary Clinton reaches 1,600 delegates with a lead of over 400 delegates, my hunch says that we will see a very quick tide of endorsements from the superdelegates to end the process.)

Also posted in Bernie Sanders | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments