10/13 Democratic Debate GDT - live on CNN.com at 8:30pm EST

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 10/13 Democratic Debate GDT - live on CNN.com at 8:30pm EST

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Watched this last night with a good buddy, thought bernie had a few rough points in terms of delivery* but overall did great and was happy to see my feed blow up with some of the best bernie moments. I was actually quite surprised with Hillary, she came across much more economically left than I expected in terms of general points, but I think her specifics often betrayed her allegiances. Stuff like refinancing student loans, failing to really take a stand against wallstreet, etc, all gave me the impression that when push came to shove she has no intent of actually taking on the oligarchy. She feels kinda like obama round 2, she's saying a lot of the right things but I feel like if her rear end is ever planted in that office that all is going to go right out the window in the name of "compromise". People kept saying itt that bernie came across as angry or shouting, and I can see that, but I think it also came across as passion. Bernie came across like he genuinely wanted to do something about class inequality and he wasn't going to do it by asking nicely and hoping the bankers cooperate.

*In particular I think the guns issue went over badly for the audience, but at the same time I think stuff like that is what gives him some appeal to moderates. I've had pretty conservatives friends/family link bernie sanders related stuff on social media because he's right, trying to take guns away from rural people is dumb and wouldn't accomplish anything anyways.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 05:19

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Something that seems kinda strange to me is if you look at any of the post debate vids of focus groups or any of the post debate online polls people largely seem to think bernie "won", even for the groups that admitted going into the debate they were planning on supporting hilary and yet most of the morning after articles focused on hilary instead. Not trying to throw on a tinfoil hat here but I'm kind curious as to how the writers decided Hilary came off better despite the general public in any measurable way so far supporting the bern. Seems like if you're going to write a morning after opinion piece the focus groups and online polls would be best to go off of, or do they have other sources?

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 23:54

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

By what metric did Hilary win though, literally every focus group on every news agency thought bernie won, including loving fox news, and while online polls do tend to favor fringe candidates bernie wrecked those too. Obviously we should wait for the more scientifically robust polls and focus groups before making conclusions but I think there's significantly more evidence suggesting that people thought bernie came across as a passionate populist and hilary came across as a plastic politician. It just seems dumb to keep repeating "hilary won" based off nothing other than a bunch of suit wearing white people clapping at one of Bernie's first major events that exposed him to people who weren't already following his campaign.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 01:19

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Mitt Romney posted:

Drop the tin foil hat.

Every single metric that doesn't involve online polls and TV-centric focus groups points to a decent Clinton win/performance and that's really all she needed to do. She exceeded expectations. Bernie came off as non-presidential.

It's hilarious that people are actually bringing up a Luntz Foxnews focus group as evidence that Bernie won the debate.

I saw at least 3 vids of focus groups from different news agencies and each time they were feeling the bern. Adjectives used to describe him were "strong, sincere, passionate, powerful", goons are being way too cynical about him coming across as an angry old man, he came across as someone who cared.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 01:22

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

A Neurotic Jew posted:

"Bernie Sanders won by every conceivable metric except one: actual polls"

Think you need to take out the s there, you linked one poll (though I do appreciate it) and even in the one you linked it was a pretty narrow split in votes between the candidates and largely everyone thought bernie did well too. I'll be interested in seeing more as they come out.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 01:47

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/#more-37396

So by those counts the google polls were among the most accurate last cycle?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 21:08

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Good, eat poo poo people pretending there wasn't blatant bias in the post debate coverage.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 21:10

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Where's mr. his body language and tone ruined his chances now, I honestly don't get why goons were so cynical about him appearing passionate on the issues rather than plastically smiling with slow deliberate speech. Historically haven't americans been pretty big fans of the gogetters, even to a fault?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 21:13

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Amused to Death posted:

That google poll looked good until I saw 80% of respondents were men, which creates an issue since there is a gender gap in Bernie vs Hillary support. Alsomthe poll skews heavily young on top of it

Is it really projected that women are going to vote more for Hillary just to shoot for that first woman potus status because that is the lamest reason in the world to vote for someone. I guess going by her response to how she's different from b-rock the islamic shock went over it shouldn't surprise me, but it still would be incredibly disappointing.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 22:21

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Dan Didio posted:

Why?

I just think it's a really poor reason. There aren't policy differences between bernie and hillary on women's issues and bernie has an overall better record on human rights issues in general. I guess you could make the argument that Hillary might prioritize them more, but honestly I'd be doubtful about that because she's more beholden to corporate interests than bernie is and stuff like family leave are going to be fought tooth and nail by the people funding her campaign. I understand it could be viewed as a symbollic victory putting a woman in the white house but I guess I just think she should get there for policy reasons rather than her lack of penis in itself. Like if you're a pro woman economic centrist then fine knock yourself out, but if you're pro woman economic leftist bernie is the better choice on paper.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 23:10

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Obama is actually a pretty good example because he did roughly jack poo poo about the industrial prison complex and non-violent drug offenders, I mean it was nice that he had a bunch of good soundbites where he took a dump on racist stuff but he never actually effected any positive policies there to my recollection. Voting for obama cause he was black didn't really pan out for anyone.

I voted for Stewart Alexander last cycle for reference cause his policies matched what I wanted the most of any candidate before someone tries to make a dumb gotcha out of this.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 23:19

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Dan Didio posted:

Why do you think a woman's perspective is purely 'symbolic'?

This is such an unfair trap question I'm not even going to bother answering it and instead will just pose one back at you:

If carly were the R nom and the D was a man, should women vote for carly for a woman's perspective?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 23:28

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Dan Didio posted:

Then why did you say it?

Where did I say that it was "purely"?

quote:

If they value that perspective, they should vote how they best see fit, personally, to get it represented in the upper echelons of political power, sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_CyDI87Rc
looollllll

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 23:34

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Dan Didio posted:

If your view is that outside of their pre-recorded policy positions Hillary's experiences as a woman amount to a 'could be viewed' symbolic victory, and that voting for her on any basis like that is 'disappointing', then the only reasonable conclusion is that you think a candidate's gender is meaningless outside of symbolism.

Do you think that the differences between how men and women experience society are purely 'symbolic' or not?

Actually if you stopped being disingenuous for two seconds and read the previous sentences in that very paragraph you'll see that I hint at something that is both another reason (meaning you're "purely" symbollic line is a flat out bald face lie wrt to what I said, there was literally a second reason in that very post) and something that strangely seems to be referencing a woman's perspective might prioritize different issues, the exact point you're trying to pretend I don't believe in because you're being an annoying person.

ArbitraryC posted:

I just think it's a really poor reason. There aren't policy differences between bernie and hillary on women's issues and bernie has an overall better record on human rights issues in general. I guess you could make the argument that Hillary might prioritize them more, but honestly I'd be doubtful about that because she's more beholden to corporate interests than bernie is and stuff like family leave are going to be fought tooth and nail by the people funding her campaign. I understand it could be viewed as a symbollic victory putting a woman in the white house but I guess I just think she should get there for policy reasons rather than her lack of penis in itself. Like if you're a pro woman economic centrist then fine knock yourself out, but if you're pro woman economic leftist bernie is the better choice on paper.

"them" being women's issues, I just disagree with that idea because I think when push comes to shove the people who paid for her campaign aren't going to support stuff like maternity leave and paying for birth control.

Dan Didio posted:

I'm not really concerned about you telling some hypothetical, non-existent irrelevant woman how to vote, but more the thing where you do it for real, existing women. Stay on target.

Maybe I was subtly hinting that policy is the important part that has the biggest impact on the most people?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 23:43

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Dan Didio posted:

I bundled timing and enaction of policy in with 'policy' because I assumed you'd view 'policy' and 'policy enaction' as the same thing. I apologize. You still haven't answered why you view the differences in perspectives of men and women in other areas as symbolic.

I'm not answering it because I already implied I did believe that (e: that the difference in perspective is important) and certainly never said anything that indicated I didn't believe that. I find it to be an offensive leading question that's very transparently trying to imply something about me and I think that's a lovely debate tactic.

quote:

So? I'll ask again, simpler; why do you think women should cleave to your standards and reasons for voting? And why is it 'disappointing' when they don't?

I think policy is more important and would find it disappointing if people ignored it in favor of voting for someone because of their gender or ethnicity. Bernie and Hilary have (afaik) identically progressive policies wrt women's issues and I genuinely believe that when women's issues overlap with economic issues (such as healthcare covering birth control, paid maternity leave, welfare for single moms), Bernie is going to have his hands much less tied down than Hilary will. I was a big Jill Stein fan in 2012 and understand why people (women in particular) would want a woman in the white house, but at the same time stuff like the debate moment where Hilary differentiated herself from Barrack with her 'obvious' line to huge cheers left a bad taste in my mouth. If women's issues are the stuff that you want to decide your vote then I think instead of saying "I want a woman in the office" you should be saying "I want someone who will push forward the most progress for women in the office". There are a lot of poor single mothers out there (I was raised by one) and it is my respectful opinion that bernie will do far more for than hilary will. You can disagree if you want, but I would find the disagreement disappointing if the only justification was 'because I'm a woman and she's a woman'.

ArbitraryC has issued a correction as of 00:17 on Oct 16, 2015

# ¿ Oct 16, 2015 00:13

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

paranoid randroid posted:

are you really having that hard a time understanding why women might prefer, out of two candidates with identical positions on a particular issue, the woman

In a vacuum, no, in this particular context, yes.

e: well not so much that I don't understand but that I would personally disagree with the reason

# ¿ Oct 16, 2015 00:17

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

paranoid randroid posted:

hillarys been a public figure on the topic of womens issues for a long rear end time. shes immediately more recognizable on the issue than sanders. even if sanders positions offer more comprehenisve solutions, hillary still has more cultural clout on the issue and people are going to instinctively cleave to her.

To me this is a flaw in the system I guess.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2015 00:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 05:19

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

paranoid randroid posted:

public perceptions of candidates are frequently not rooted in concrete fact *touches your forehead and awakens your third eye*

And is it wrong of me to find this disappointing? We've gone full circle.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2015 00:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 10/13 Democratic Debate GDT - live on CNN.com at 8:30pm EST