CNN Democratic Debate

This debate is Bernie's big chance to move beyond white voters among the Democrats

Originally posted by Surtur
Ignoring everything else shouldn't there be a middle ground then? So one side doesn't benefit more?

Well, that's a thing, there's no natural ideal, it's more 'how much do you want each factor in the mix?'. Different underdogs benefit from debates different amounts from their debate skills- and a non underdog who's good at debates can use it to expand their lead. Each one factors in debate performance more- and also increases the impact of each, one has fewer chances to recover from a poor debate. Another factor is when you have a lot, each tends to be more specific, so that potentially allows a more well-rounded candidate to win via wider knowledge. It's kinda like a baseball season vs an NFL one, more games vs fewer. You do want enough for all the candidate's debate performance to be clear... but how much beyond that is a fairly wide open question that has a variety of opinions.

And there is a possible disadvantage to the party to do too many whoever wins- it can make the party too divided and/or voters tired of seeing the candidates so much, and makes the candidates spend more effort on each other. Note this *really* bit the Republicans last time, the long primary season (20) turned it into a slog for them. Which is why they have under half as many as last time (9 this year), if not quite as few as the democrats (6).

Unless someone becomes a major rockstar candidate, a 20 debate season is probably way too much and goes past the point of diminishing returns. But how much is a proper balance...? I'd probably go more than 6, but not a ton more. 8-10 maybe.

Hm, heck, if it didn't require so much of a judgement call I'd probably do something like 'start with 6, add 2-4 more if it looks like it'll help the party after the first few.' "Judgement call" because doing so after the fact really will be based on debate results, while setting the number beforehand at least means it's done with ignorance of who will do best.

Originally posted by Q99
Because there's no sign that she's actually involved in this?

Yes, I find her guilt-free of a lot of stuff she either didn't do or did not do what you say. It turns out that if you accuse someone of everything you can, you're going to be wrong 90%+ of the time. And often exaggerating much of the rest.

This time? Someone was asked to maybe not come to an event where Hillary does not have a say on who to invite or not invite.

Must be nice she has tricked you all into thinking she's an angel. she sure as hell dont look like one either.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Must be nice she has tricked you all into thinking she's an angel. she sure as hell dont look like one either.

Angel? Hah, Hillary Clinton? She's no angel, she's a politician! Fairly cutthroat one at that.

She is, however, only guilty of what she's actually done, not what others may want her to have done, and she does have policies with supporting in her corner, economics I'd take over any of the others and good on social issues, as positives to counterbalance negatives.

Hm, you've got a bit of a fallacy of the excluded middle going there. Either someone thinks she's horrible and believes all the accusations, or they must be deluded and think she's a flawless angel who can do no wrong.... even if their actual words are rather more in the middle.

Her trade deal flip flop, oh Im sure you will use the "she's a politician."

Funny you always have an excuse to save your people.

I love how Obama has basically done nothing for the transgender community yet you don't say shit about it.

Hide, run, deflect, change the story all you want. Wont work.

I'll be watching this, it should be a riot. Can't really play a drinking game unless it just involves "drink every time blame is shifted on the republicans". But if it's going to be remotely serious, this is the time for Sanders to take the lead.

I'm sure the Republicans will be brought up a lot, question is whether the instances where it happens are accurate or to shift blame away from themselves.

That remains to be seen, but I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

Hmm, I'm willing to bet that you'll think it's the latter...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I'm willing to bet that you'll think it's the latter...

Just like I'm willing to bet you think it's the former.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Just like I'm willing to bet you think it's the former.

Eh, I don't know, they are still politicians, and will lie to make themselves seem good.

My bet is on Blame Bush game, is set 4 times or more.

I don't know, it's been so long now that I doubt that would be an effective tactic. For Clinton, the aim will be to appear like a frontrunner and try to convince the audience that she's still the best bet of getting a democrat into the White House. For Sanders, the aim will be to fire up the left wing of the party, which might entail going after Clinton in areas where she isn't liberal/progressive enough. For the rest, the aim will be to capture attention. Chaffee, Webb, and O'Malley all want the Fiorina effect where a solid debate performance catapults a fringe candidate into the forefront. I think O'Malley might be able to use this to drum up serious attention and make himself a credible third candidate--a centrist democrat alternative to Clinton for democrats who don't like the idea of a Clinton Dynasty and who are frightened by Sanders' activism.

For those three little guys this is going to be a do-or-die night.

They are going to hammer her on her trade deal flop, especially Omalley.

I wanna see Web do something interesting.

I hope Hilary starts to cry, I don't know why.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

I hope Hilary starts to cry, I don't know why.

Cause you are sexist.

I hope Sanders wins this, who's with me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I hope Sanders wins this, who's with me.

I also hope that.

My heart would like Bernie to win the nomination, but my mind would prefer someone else, as ultimately (and unfortunately) I don't think he'd have a prayer in the general election.

I would rather have a less-than-ideal democrat in office than any of the Republican candidates, frankly.

A rundown of the non-Clinton/Sanders candidates

Martin O’Malley is a long-time Democrat politician with a solid record and, if Biden doesn't run, would fit well into the mainstream-alternative-to-Hillary slot.

Lincoln Chafee is a former Republican governor and senator from Rhode Island who, as the party moved right/he moved left, became an independent, and finally became a Democrat. Not a bad candidate, but doesn't have much to make him stand out, save that he champions a switch to the metric system.

Jim Webb is a fairly conservative Democrat and senator from Virginia. He has appeal to white moderates (whereas Sanders draws the more liberal white democrats), but not the strongest position all in all.

The latter two really aren't likely to have a chance, but O'Malley could potentially make gains in the debate.

When is it?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
My heart would like Bernie to win the nomination, but my mind would prefer someone else, as ultimately (and unfortunately) I don't think he'd have a prayer in the general election.

I would rather have a less-than-ideal democrat in office than any of the Republican candidates, frankly.

You need to go back and look at videos of sanders, he's no pussy foot and he will get up In people's faces.