An excellent article. It's unashamedly pro-Sanders, but defends itself well. Al jazeera has no reason to favor a particular candidate, but their reasons for liking Bernie are at least genuine. And they do a good job of capturing his appeal.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Lol, if that's all you took from this debate you should feel bad. The Clinton News Network literally asked each republican to argue each other's past.
Cooper hit the candidates with their hardest issues- starting Webb on Black Lives Matter. Bernie on gun control. Chafee's party swing. Everyone on the deregulation that lead to the start of the financial crash. Yadda yadda. And even when they got to stuff like the e-mail server, Bernie just went, "Enough with the e-mails, let's talk issues."
It's certainly not like the Republicans were *hesitant* to go after each other. They fought each other in both debates, on two networks.
Remember why Trump got so very much airtime in the first debate- every time someone went after him he got a chance to respond, so he just racked up the response time as everyone tried to take a shot. Really worked to his favor.
It's pretty clear the Democratic candidates- all of them- were more focused on trying to make it about the issues and mainly arguing about their differences in policy. Blame it on the moderation if you will, but the Republicans didn't strike me as interested in not-attacking each other. They wanted to knock down Trump and Jeb- and they did knock down Jeb pretty well- and it showed that's what they were after.
Originally posted by Digi
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/10/how-the-democratic-debate-revealed-sanders-true-strength.htmlAn excellent article. It's unashamedly pro-Sanders, but defends itself well. Al jazeera has no reason to favor a particular candidate, but their reasons for liking Bernie are at least genuine. And they do a good job of capturing his appeal.
Interesting article.
FiveThirtyEight came across as more positive for Hillary's odds (and note, these are odd-people, they're mostly talking numbers more than who they like, and whether the odds went up or down for each candidate) notes the likability thing just like Al Jazeera did- more notably, in that she didn't push that angle in the debate like some of her campaign adds have been doing.
I also note that they really criticized her hard for not getting back to the foreign policy thing- considering it's Al Jazeera, no surprise there, and a fair point. I imagine we'll see more in foreign policy debates to come.
And while I'm at it, 538 thinks the media underestimated Hillary going into the debate, but overestimated her debate, and basically notes a lot of the big praise probably comes from the overly-low expectations going in. It only impressed them so much because they'd bought into their own narrative and forgot her fundamentals, or as the prior article says, 'they've managed to get about back to the right place, but for the wrong reasons.'
Originally posted by Q99
Talking policy and demonstrating an attitude that suggests they're capable of governing and working with others... what is this world coming to?
You do realize the Republican debate was the exact same, with one or two Trumpisms? Lucius has been known to be a nutjob. He would make you seem far right.
As far as the Democratic debates, it was pretty clear the 4 were moving out of the way for hilary.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You really think the Republican debates were comparable to the Democratic one? Like from my view, rather than policy it was a lot about showboating and attacking the other candidates, particularly Trump and Bush.
Yea, I believe it was comparable in the sense that there was legitimate debate about issues going on. And unlike the Democrat debate, where everyone already knows who is going to be the candidate (which makes things much easier in my opinion), it's a free for all for the republicans. But calling it day and night would be an extreme exaggeration.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
hmm i thought bernie won, as did all the majority of popularity polls and focus groups...but cnn told me that hillary won. i'm sure the fact that time warner is one of her top contributors has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
My thoughts exactly, somehow they gave her the win when she literally was a bore.
Won't let me hotlink, but I thought this was interesting (assuming it's true):
Originally posted by -Pr-
Won't let me hotlink, but I thought this was interesting (assuming it's true):
as was this
and this http://imgur.com/gallery/MVfUc
