Just my picks. I have no idea what others value in a candidate.
I admit I have not looked into Mayor Pete. All I know about him is what I have seen in the media. But . . .
He was the debate winner by my standards. Followed by Gabbard and Klobuchar.
I think Sanders was the big loser because of two things; the controversy over his age and health, and that he loudly nailed himself to the Socialist standard. I don't think it matters that he claims it to be Democratic Socialist. I think all folks will hear is socialist.
Biden? I don't mean to be mean, but I think a simple term describes his stage projection: Has-been. Too old, Too white, and Too (formerly), status quo.
Warren? I am choking on her plans. It's like a painful drumbeat; "I have a plan for that." I think she also missed her opportunity to lay out the details of some of her plans.
Booker? Nice performance, but the guy just doesn't seem earnest. For some reason, I don't trust him.
Yang? Most politely put - probably ahead of his time. Or the nation.
Harris? I get the impression she is running for the prize, not the passion of commitment.
Steyer? I wasn't impressed.
A very fine review from a known fence rider, Gus! I hope we hear from a biased person.
Ha! I am feeling validated. I posted just before the debate ended. Now, as I watch the after-show spin room it seems the really smart pundits agree that Mayor Pete won the night.
I agree with virtually your entire post. (Geez, twice in one week!)
That said, Buttigieg and Gabbard are too young and inexperienced. Klobuchar is a major hothead.
The Democrats have opened the door to a strong Republican candidate.
Remembering that this is just a conversation about debate impressions . . .
I also thought about the age thing when I pondered a Buttigheig/Gabbard ticket. I thought no way, too young, too inexperienced.
As a single candidate, I think Mayor Pete's age might be more of a plus than a negative. Especially if his VP pick was older and more experienced - like Klobuchar or Warren.
I don't think you have to worry about a strong Republican candidate other than Trump.
LOL. I assume you are teasing me with that last sentence.
If not, you are assuming he doesn't get impeached and found guilty by the Senate, he wins the Republican nomination and the economy doesn't fall into recession in the meantime.
Even then, any Presidential candidate has a tough time winning the election with a 38% approval rate.
Otherwise, Romney, Kasich, Flake and others are manuevering hard for the Repub nomination.
No, I wasn't teasing you bud. I don't think the Senate will convict Pres. Trump, based on the information we have so far. I think he will have the Republican party nomination and support.
And, with his base, I think he will be a very strong candidate. However, I don't think his unshakeable base is enough to give him a victory. If the Dems can put up an acceptable candidate--to Moderates and Independents--I think he has alienated enough of those voters to cost him re-election.
I agree this was Mayor Pete's night. I have liked his calm, well-spoken demeanor from the beginning and believe he could rise to be inspiring in a manner similar to Obama. His more centrist approach could appeal to Biden voters who are uncomfortable with Biden's age and his ability to handle Trump's childish tactics.
That said, I thought Biden came across sharper than usual.
I was less impressed with Gabbard this time, and I liked Klobuchar's passion.
Bernie was awesome Bernie. Warren was sharp and easy to understand, as usual.
Yang did well and I agree with hard sun that people are giving him a second look.
Beto, Booker, Harris: I think they're going to be gone eventually.
I was pleasantly surprised by Steyer. Hubby liked him and Mayor Pete a lot.
Me? As I have previously stated, I would be fine with almost any of them, but I am looking for who works the hardest, leads the most efficient and competent campaign, displays sincerity, passion, and the ability to take on the bully toddler and expose him for the ignotant, incompetent, corrupt POS that he is.
So far, that's Warren.
Okay, you and Cred take Warren. I will take Buttigieg.
I think he will break out and become one of the top three with Warren and Biden. He might even make another Obama-like surge to the top. Hmm . . .
Tulsi is the only decent person in the bunch, and so, she has no place in the US Democratic party.
I would not object to Pete and he may well be my 2nd choice after Warren.
I think that experience in these perilous times is important. I need all hands on deck for the changes in the current system that I seek. I don't think that a man barely old enough to meet the Constitutional Requirement for being President could bring enough experience and technique to the mission at hand.
But he is not wishy washy like the centrists tend to be and is more explicit in supporting an progressive agenda than many of the others.
Warren has an Achilles heel in regards to her Medicare for All plan. But, she is a clever and resourceful public servant and I am sure that she will educate the public on its advantages or it moderate a little bit. We will see.
Hi Cred. I see his short "experience" resume' as a plus. He can't certainly bolster the experience factor with the right VP and cabinet choices.
To repeat my mantra; I don't want a mechanic for president, I want a leader with ideas and vision.
I don't see Warren in that "leader" category. I see her as the mechanic that may know how to fix things but doesn't have the right vision for the nation. I think the problems with her Medicare for All plan shows that. Combining with her refusal to admit it can't be paid for as she proposes, and that taxes won't be raised on all citizens and that scrapping all private healthcare is not supported by the majority of our nation, I think you are right that it will be her "Achilles heel."
Curious, GA, what would be your recommended VP choices, another Centrist, somebody to tone down what would be considered radical leftist proposals?
People are skeptical today, so I want both a mechanic and a idea person/ visionary, that is represented by Warren. The idea and vision thing can be just broad generalities.
I say that Warren has the correct vision for the nation and is going in the direct that I prefer, but that is just my opinion. Outside the Medicare for All problem, I agree with her proposals.
I agree with you about Warren. The reason she is steadily gaining support is because she understands where she wants to be (the vision), sets goals, objectives, and steps to achieve them (the plan), then hires the right people and leads them to carry out then plan (the action).
I'm impressed with her campaign.
His VP choice question could be an interesting discussion Cred.
My first, shoot-from-the-hip thought would be Klobuchar. I don't see any other current candidate as a profitable choice.
Oops, that first "can't" should have been a "can."
"Yang? Most politely put - probably ahead of his time. Or the nation."
I remember this is what they said about Obama. I think he's going to make a run at it after people really start looking into his positions. There's more than UBI...he's an entrepreneur touting what he calls "human centered capitalism," ranked choice voting, etc. And, he's excellent speaker akin to Obama.
He did well enough that I think he'll move up at least a bit in the polls, and If he gets more air time in the next debate, I think he'll shine even more.
I like mayor Pete okay, but I don't think his policies are likely to garner the excitement needed to challenge Warren or Sanders in the end. He is definitely well spoken also.
Remembering that this is just a conversation about debate impressions . . .
Yang did spark my interest, a little, but not enough to drive me to check out more about him. Mayor Pete did.
I thought his comparison of Alaska's oil dividend with his UBI program seemed a poor one to me. Alaska's comes from oil production royalties, Yang's comes from taxpayer's pockets. Also, I don't have the impression that Alaskans have benefitted from, or used that royalty check in the manner Yang says his UBI would benefit Americans.
But that is just an impression, I haven't looked into it.
I watched many clips of the debate and all of Yangs opportunities to speak. I thought he did well enough for himself to gain at least some traction. We will see.
Mayor Pete's vague "national service plan" seems like a dud to me. However, he did do some good things for South Bend. It's rep certainly got better since his tenure began and jobs are looking up there I understand. "Blue dog Dems" in Indiana like him. I'm definitely not agaist him, I just thing Yang's vision is more well-formed at this point.
Yang's UBI is $1000 a month for everyone regardless of income. So, if they take it from you, they are giving it back. The Alaskan oil dividend is " a state-owned investment fund established using oil revenues." So, while the cash isn't coming directly from tax payers, there are definitely similarities. It's probably the closest thing in the states to UBI thats done on a large scale. I don't see how Alaskans could not benefit from getting over a grand every year.
As a side note, isn't this just productive: No check for you if you were : "convicted of a prior felony or two or more prior misdemeanors since January 1, 1997" --kick em when there down so they commit more crimes...seems like the way to run a state, and a country.
Regarding your last thought; if you meant "counter-productive," and if that is a stipulation of the UBI, (or the Alsaka program), I agree with you.
I also agree with a thought I think I have seen you put forth; Once you have done your time the penalties and discrimination should stop. (generally speaking of course).
Yes. I meant it as a sarcastic productive. It's a stipulation of the Alaska program....hopefully not of Yang's UBI. It's good to read your opinion about once the time has been done. It's not an easy issue to campaign on...now and then politicians make a show of supporting felon rights but not much is really done..outside of a few states where employers cannot look back beyond certain time frames for criminal records. Of course, someone convicted of financial crimes should not be a financial adviser, and a sex offender of any kind should not be working around children or living across the street from parks, etc.
I watched all of Mayor Pete's performance, and yes, he did well. At this point, I'm torn between Pete, Warren, and Yang...leaning towards Yang. Sanders yells too much for me..I think it's especially important we get a level-headed President come 2020.
It's really tough to figure out which of them is most disgusting. I saw this and did laugh a bit though. So typical of a Democrat. They always say things they do not mean. They're always pretending to be things they can never be. It's pitiful.
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
by The General Conservative 3 years ago
Should a Presidential debate moderator be neutral? Or should they act as a fact checkers?Take a moment to follow my page for political hubs and engaging questions! Thank you!
by dashingscorpio 4 years ago
Have you ever changed your voting plans based upon a presidential debate?Do you believe any presidential debate could cause a conservative to vote for a liberal or vice versa? Are these really "sporting events" for voters to cheer for (their team) whenever their "person" gets...
by Cassie Smith 7 years ago
What is the role of a moderator during a presidential debate?Considering Candy Crowley's role, I don't think a moderator should:1. Pick questions that apply to only one candidate: How would you differ yourself from Bush? Clearly that question was only for Romney, Obama's answer to that...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ ) After Trump's plane landed something magical happened.A gigantic bolt of lightning...
by k12rswow 7 years ago
When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|