What to expect at Saturday’s Democratic presidential debate

[JackLuis]

Clinton talks trade deal, but dodges Bernie Sanders on where she stands

Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist U.S. senator challenging for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, urged the race’s presumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Sunday to take a stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the controversial 12-country trade deal that has divided the Democratic Party.

Sanders, a vocal critic of free trade, called on Clinton to join labor unions, environmentalists and other opponents of the trade package before legislation intended to "fast-track" TPP is brought up for another vote this week.

Clinton aides appearing on Sunday television news shows said she would not weigh in until negotiations were complete. But in a subsequent stump speech in Iowa, the candidate herself made comment on the TPP, if only to urge Obama to work with House Democrats who are skeptical over the deal and to voice concern over “objectionable parts” of the proposed agreement.

The remarks are unlikely to have satisfied Sanders, who has used the issue to drive a wedge between the policies of both candidates, and to undermine Clinton’s claims of a progressive agenda.

 

[Wrong Element]

It is a long way to June, but I think even his campaign said it's do or die time. That is exactly what some of the people at my table were saying. They actually said O'Malley seemed like he was gunning for the VP slot.

That will never happen, because he doesn't bring anything in particular to a ticket. And fairly or unfairly, he left office as awfully unpopular, to the point where Maryland's very blue electorate refused to back his chosen successor.

I think O'Malley ran figuring no one else would, and therefore if something happened to Clinton, he'd be there as the only alternative. But Sanders has surpassed him, and he has the distinct point of view O'Malley doesn't have. His candidacy seems more pointless than ever now.

 

[Aglaopheme]

That will never happen, because he doesn't bring anything in particular to a ticket. And fairly or unfairly, he left office as awfully unpopular, to the point where Maryland's very blue electorate refused to back his chosen successor.

I think O'Malley ran figuring no one else would, and therefore if something happened to Clinton, he'd be there as the only alternative. But Sanders has surpassed him, and he has the distinct point of view O'Malley doesn't have. His candidacy seems more pointless than ever now.

I completely agree. I was not saying this, others were. Understand, these comments were coming from a group of Bernie supporters that were attending an event he wasn't going to be at this early in the race just to watch the debate on a drop down screen and eat crappy food.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Martin O'Malley had his moment in the spotlight: from 9 until 10 p.m. Eastern time, more folks googled his name than Hillary, Bernie or *gasp* Donald Trump.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I would have to double check it, which I can't be bothered to now, but didn't Bernie announce his candidacy before O'Malley?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Martin O'Malley had his moment in the spotlight: from 9 until 10 p.m. Eastern time, more folks googled his name than Hillary, Bernie or *gasp* Donald Trump.

I wonder if the same is true and it was O'Malley that surpassed Sanders on Twitter. I thought, from what I was the Eisenhower socialist comment Sanders made would have received the most traction.

 

[mark_j]

From your friends @ HuffPo

Democratic Party Hopes No One Watches Democratic Debates

In a misguided attempt to protect Hillary Clinton's coronation as the Democratic nominee, the Democratic National Committee is doing its best to insure that as few people as possible watch the Democrat's own Presidential debates, even as tens of millions tune in to the Republican debates.

In doing so, the DNC and the Clinton campaign are demobilizing its own base, telegraphing that they don't think Hillary can stand up to sustained scrutiny, and increasing the likelihood that an energized Republican Party will take back the White House.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

When Hillary debates Trump he wont spare her when she talks out her ass or avoids answers. Trump wont be polite. He'll accuse her of being everything but a child of God, and he doesn't care if people howl. It wont be pleasant.

 

[JackLuis]

When Hillary debates Trump- It wont be pleasant.

For anyone.

 

[Nathan_Brazil]

She will eat Trump alive.

She will Hannibal him.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

She will eat Trump alive.

She will Hannibal him.

Go read some LIT poems and leave the thinking to experts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Democratic Party Hopes No One Watches Democratic Debates

I haven't checked the numbers for the Saturday Debate but the first debate was the largest Democrat turn out ever and while it pales compared to the Republican Debate (or at least that Republican Debate) they just pulled monster ratings setting the CNN record breaking something from 1990.

So if the Dems are hoping nobody is watching they are failing and failing hard. I don't know why they would do that however. Hillary and Bernie are both very smart and know policy information. . .and aren't really great charismatically. You want them to explain in detail their vision.

 

[Wrong Element]

Democratic Party Hopes No One Watches Democratic Debates

A couple of things. First, the audience for the Republican debates has been dropping as time has gone on, and the freak show appeal of Trump has waned. Fewer people watched the Fox Business debate than watched the one held on evil CNBC. I expect this trend to continue, though as far as I'm concerned, the more people that watch the GOP circus with the Carnival Barker, Alberta Ted, and Dr. Lunesta, the better.

Also, I don't believe the DNC is limiting debates because they don't think Hillary can face scrutiny. It's more that the party leadership is in the tank for Clinton and is trying to minimize any chance that a challenger might catch fire. It's not a whole lot different than what you might see on the rare occasions that an incumbent president faces a primary challenge.

 

[mark_j]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton on guns; Sanders on wage inequality

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER and CALVIN WOODWARD

 

[Sean Renaud]

There must be a more negative article than that about the Dem debates cus all of that basically boils down to Hillary and Bernie know what they are are talking about and have a disturbing trend of telling the truth. On occasion they do seem to use opinions as facts but still.

 

[JackLuis]

There must be a more negative article than that about the Dem debates cus all of that basically boils down to Hillary and Bernie know what they are are talking about and have a disturbing trend of telling the truth. On occasion they do seem to use opinions as facts but still.

I think they are just stretching the truths, unlike the Rethug's who distort reality.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think they are just stretching the truths, unlike the Rethug's who distort reality.

I just assumed there would be more blatant lies than that.

I mean Bernie says "almost all the gains have gone to the top 1%" and the reality is for a few years it was like 93%, but after that it shrank to 60% and the average household has seen 3.3% increase!

Or Hillary's number of people dead to gun violence was based on an old average (and not very precise mind you, she definitely rounded up enough that if this were math class we'd be pissed) but the gist of her statement remained "accurate". I use quotes there because whether we're loosing to many people to gun violence is a matter of opinion not a matter of fact but still.

 

[KingOrfeo]

When Hillary debates Trump he wont spare her when she talks out her ass or avoids answers. Trump wont be polite. He'll accuse her of being everything but a child of God, and he doesn't care if people howl. It wont be pleasant.

Heh-heh . . . Heh-heh . . . Hah-hah-hah-haaawww! He won't spare her?!

 

[mark_j]

Unfortunately, these articles from either party's debates have become all too common. The problem seems to be that all the candidates are trying to one-up each other, usually with lies or embellishments and fact checking most any politician would net the same results. Embellishment has become a fact of life with politicians and their true character often is revealed by how they change, spin and embellish their statements.

It's that sad and most of us get that.

Americans are trying to decide who will get us down the correct path, but that is a hopeful and almost impossible proposition when it seems all the candidates will lie. Even worse is the fact that so many people will turn a blind eye or deaf ear to even the most blatant untruths without question.

I think I would vote for a politician of either party who just told the plain truth, did not play to the polls and did not promise the moon and stars to win a few more votes.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here's the thing there is a gulf of difference between what we're seeing in the Democrat Debates and the Republican debates and I was thinking that it was just my bias. That I wasn't seeing the bullshit Hillary and Bernie were spouting because I wasn't looking closely enough or they were speaking on subjects I was less familar with than the subjects the Republicans are on.

When Bernie says almost all the gains went to the top 1% and it turns out a mere 60% of the gains went to the top 1% I ding him on accuracy or as you're calling embellishment. (I presume these guys have so much to learn that they don't make sure that every single thing they are talking about has been updated in the last six months. And according to your article what Bernie said was true it if you consider 90% almost all) it's annoying and I wish I didn't have to deal with it but the base point remains.

On the Republican side I'm hearing about how welders make more than philosophers which appears to be just 100% bullshit. They make about half as much. now if you wante to argue we need more welders than philosphers that's a separate and solid point but they don't make more money.

Carson has gone on and one about everytime we raise the minimum wage unemployment goes up and that's simply not the case. The two stats don't even seem to have a strong correlation much less an causation to each other.

Everybody I've ever met almost caught a fish that was THIS BIG. Or could have gone to college to play ball but ended up in this or that. And when you look you find they were on varsity. Were they going to play pro? Most likely no, 99% don't make it but yeah it's plausible. That's just how people are all the time.

I'm not perfect when it comes to catching minor untruths. I'm fairly good on shit that is simply blatantly false but not always. When correct I don't turn a "blind eye" but I recognize that we have limited choices and limited time and I have to choose the best option from those available not my hypothetical dream candidate who the rest of you wouldn't vote for if i could pluck him from my dreamscape.

Bernie DOES appear to be telling the truth most of the time. And when he's not it's mistakes in accuracy. Rand Paul may or may not be crazy but he's no liar nor is his father. Kasich (I'm not looking it up) from Ohio is honest. Christie is a fucking douche but lying isn't his problem, honesty is. It's like nobody told him that you just don't say that to someones face.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rand Paul may or may not be crazy but he's no liar nor is his father.

Ron Paul is crazy, but he is not a liar.
His son RAND PAUL is also crazy, and his truthiness is a bit lacking

Having said that, 32% falsehoods puts RAND PAUL far behind the Trump/Fiona/Carson contingent

 

[Sean Renaud]

havin'g just read over his mostly false on down I'll still proudly put him in the "Trust unless it sounds fishy collumn"

 

[KingOrfeo]

Americans are trying to decide who will get us down the correct path, but that is a hopeful and almost impossible proposition when it seems all the candidates will lie.

I dunno, Sanders has a pretty good record there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bernie DOES appear to be telling the truth most of the time. And when he's not it's mistakes in accuracy.

I dunno, Sanders has a pretty good record there.

Yea but Sanders is a Democrat, so MarkJ ain't voting for him.

 

[Sean Renaud]

For the record I didn't stop at Bernie and the D's. If I don't know a Paul is lying or mistaken I default to them being honest and correct. Same with Kasich or Christie (though Christie is more likely wrong than lying. I don't think he'd lie about shit.)

By contrast if Trump tells me Obama is president I'm going to check the Congressional Library because clearly I'm mistaken on current events.