2nd DEM Debate Thread: July 30 & 31, Detroit (MI), CNN

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

^ You're disgusting, Sanchez.

I mean, you're not much more likable than her, so....?

[lfromnj]

Gabbard really just needs to go away; she doesn't deserve to be on that stage and it's mesmerizing to me that anyone would be feeling good about her after last night. Every time she spoke it sounded stiff and scripted. The best was when Harris totally ignored and said 'well Gabbard is WRONG' and then just moved back on to Biden.

The rest of your analysis was awful and reflective of why the rest of America hates the hardcore Democratic establishment shills like you, but this portion was particularly hilarious.

The reason Hillary lost, particularly among white women, is because she's a bitch. She is. A good example is my mom, who is pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, and very turned off by Trump's vulgar nature. She voted for him enthusiastically in 2016 because she just thinks Hillary is a downright bitch. She thinks she has a bad personality on top of literally everything else. A lot of white women share that view. And a lot of people in general share that opinion. And it's because it's true: Hillary is a bitch. She's mean. She's nasty. She's unlikable. And she's a horrible, horrible person. That's the only transparent thing about her.

Kamala Harris, as we saw in her interview where she claimed that voters should listen to her rather than Tulsi because, and I quote literally, "I'm a top tier candidate and she's not," is of the same vein that Hillary is.

And don't claim the sexism card. Tulsi Gabbard isn't unlikable. Amy Kloubuchar isn't nasty. I'm finding Elizabeth Warren to be increasingly endearing on a personal level. Even Gillibrand can be funny, as her clorox joke from last night proved. But Harris? Nah.

Her staffers disagree.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I really can't understand why this site clutches its pearls if Harris or Clinton is called a "bitch," while basically everyone on here calls Trump a "fat rapist pig daughterf**king man-baby a**hole douchebag" on the reg. I mean, both are true, but I don't see how one is any more offensive than the other.

They literally claim Tulsi apologizes for someone killing civilians, ignoring the fact that she's by far the most anti-war Democrat candidate since Dennis Kucinich. Atlas has been batsht crazy when it comes to it's devotion for candidates.

True, but not particularly surprising for a political forum.

[Hollywood]

I really can't understand why this site clutches its pearls if Harris or Clinton is called a "bitch," while basically everyone on here calls Trump a "fat rapist pig daughterf**king man-baby a**hole douchebag" on the reg. I mean, both are true, but I don't see how one is any more offensive than the other.

They literally claim Tulsi apologizes for someone killing civilians, ignoring the fact that she's by far the most anti-war Democrat candidate since Dennis Kucinich. Atlas has been batsht crazy when it comes to it's devotion for candidates.

This is true.  I feel like the election, debate, and polling section of the forum should be more analytical, but that might be less fun without providing members an area to banter.  Like I fully expect other members to call me a racist, sexist moron over my criticisms of Kamala Harris and post opinions such as "Kamala is god" in that candidates thread, but it's silly in general topic threads.  I don't care whether you support a certain candidate. I want to know why. 

[OneJ]

My review of the second set of debates:

Debate 2A: It irked me that all of the poc candidates didn't get a spot here and got a spot at the other debate instead and the fact that Warren still doesn't get the chance to share the stage with Biden yet. Although I didn't think Sanders and Warren would go after each other, there was still a tiny piece of me that worried that it could happen this early. Thankfully, it didn't happen. This was a pretty good debate that already proved to be better than debate 1A which wasn't a bad debate by any means, but 2A is just better.

I think Sanders won this debate with Warren and Williamson behind him. The former two did well defending themselves and played nice offense while Williamson really outperformed my expectations and certainly improved over the last debate. She even got a good amount of applause this time. Speaking of improvement, Beto also did better here than in the previous debate and he didn't use Spanish this time! However, O'Rourke didn't say or do anything particularly noteworthy. Buttigieg did well, except for that "racial divide lives within me" comment that clearly rubbed people the wrong way.

Then you have Delaney who, for someone so minor, got so much time trying to be relevant and ended up getting used as a punching bag for Warren and Sanders. At least he tried to make his case, but he needs to get the message that no one cares about him.

Debate 2B: My expectations, as one might imagine, were a lot higher for this debate and I, therefore, looked forward to this debate more than Tuesday's. If you haven't watched this debate yet, don't watch the whole thing. Just watch the highlights and you good. This debate was a major disappointment and is by far the worst debate. It was pretty boring most of the time and I nearly fell asleep watching it.

I'd say the winner of this debate is Yang because he didn't get attacked like everyone else and focused on his issues with the little time he got. The 1st runner-up is Gabbard for having the guts to tackle Harris and tackling her on criminal justice while passing up on the opportunity to go after Biden possibly trying to become his running mate as weird as it sounds. 2nd runner-up might actually be Biden for coming a lot more prepared to fight back after that pitiful performance in debate 1B, even after almost everyone attacked him.

On the other hand, while everyone else did alright for the most part, I think we have a clear loser here: Harris. She really didn't do good at all this debate considering how high everyone's expectations of her were before the debate. Harris looked like she needed her 5-hour energy pronto. Her trying to go after Biden after underperforming expectations already looked desperate and she couldn't defend herself to well against Gabbard. She tried to improve later on, but it was too late.

Also, I want to give a shoutout to CNN for being CNN with not only those questions but also trying their hardest to pit Biden and Harris against each other...on the first question. I mean at least build up the tension throughout the debate. It really shows how desperate they were to get a moment like what happened on MSNBC.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Why did Harris call Biden "Senator", when he actually should be referred to as "Mr. Vice President". That's kind of ridiculous.

I think it was just a mistake. He was a Senator after all, and some people still remember him for that. I don't think it was an attempt to condescend on her part. Similarly Biden referred to Booker as "the Future President," that was definitely a flub, but both he and Booker ran with it. It was one of several funny moments in the debate.

[here2view]

I didn't watch the first night, but if I had to give grades to the second:

Booker: A I really don't like him at all. He's a fraud and his views on education are deplorable. But he had a very good night

Gabbard: A- She did a fantastic job attacking Harris

Yang: B+ He had some humorous parts and I feel like he'll do better with a smaller field

Biden: B+ He got the better of Harris in the first 30 minutes, and did a lot better than he had in June

Bennet: B- Good points on education and the importance of schooling, plus healthcare as well.

Castro: C Completely mediocre after a great first debate

Inslee: D+ I had to look up who the 10th person in this debate was because I forget about him. Next.

de Blasio: D Just a pathetic excuse for a candidate who really fits the mold of a stereotypical loudmouth New Yorker. He just embraces the most leftist positions possible without the conviction of Warren. He also spent some time as an additional moderator in asking questions to Biden.

Harris: F If Biden got her, then Gabbard annihilated her. Kamala also disappeared for a large portion of the middle part of the debate. She has some believability issues.

Gillibrand: F What the f*** did I watch?? The white privilege answer was pathetic. On two occasions moderators went to her and she took 3-4 seconds to speak while just saying, "um." Just completely caught off guard. She telegraphed her "BuT mUh StAy aT hOmE mOtHeR" attack on Biden well before the debate, and he fought back against that well. All around that was a joke. I can't believe some people here actually think she did well. That was a dreadful performance.

[The Free North]

I didn't watch the first night, but if I had to give grades to the second:

Booker: A I really don't like him at all. He's a fraud and his views on education are deplorable. But he had a very good night

Gabbard: A- She did a fantastic job attacking Harris

Yang: B+ He had some humorous parts and I feel like he'll do better with a smaller field

Biden: B+ He got the better of Harris in the first 30 minutes, and did a lot better than he had in June

Bennet: B- Good points on education and the importance of schooling, plus healthcare as well.

Castro: C Completely mediocre after a great first debate

Inslee: D+ I had to look up who the 10th person in this debate was because I forget about him. Next.

de Blasio: D Just a pathetic excuse for a candidate who really fits the mold of a stereotypical loudmouth New Yorker. He just embraces the most leftist positions possible without the conviction of Warren. He also spent some time as an additional moderator in asking questions to Biden.

Harris: F If Biden got her, then Gabbard annihilated her. Kamala also disappeared for a large portion of the middle part of the debate. She has some believability issues.

Gillibrand: F What the f*** did I watch?? The white privilege answer was pathetic. On two occasions moderators went to her and she took 3-4 seconds to speak while just saying, "um." Just completely caught off guard. She telegraphed her "BuT mUh StAy aT hOmE mOtHeR" attack on Biden well before the debate, and he fought back against that well. All around that was a joke. I can't believe some people here actually think she did well. That was a dreadful performance.

Fantastic summary and I agree on Gillibrand in particular. She came off as more contrived than I thought was imaginable. Its a shame really because I do think she would be a decent president, but shes trying to so hard to play a woke progressive that shes completely drowned out any authenticity in her candidacy.

[Gustaf]

Sanchez snowflake whining about people being nasty is pretty funny. I guess he's afraid other people will be as nasty as he is if they get any power.

The main story out of this debate is Biden holding his own, IMO. Second is Harris failing to capitalize. I think Booker did best out of the mid-tier.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

It's too bad that Gillibrand's attack on Biden flopped as badly as it did and that her point about white privilege was as poorly articulated as it was, because I think she was actually having a really good night otherwise. She was really strong on healthcare, as she was in the first debate, and she wasn't afraid to tear into de Blasio regarding Pantaleo, an exchange that she obviously won out on. Her Clorox line, although clearly rehearsed, was well-delivered and well-received. She was also smart to mention her work on repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and the 9/11 first responders healthcare fun in her opening statement.

Unfortunately, I think that the lackluster moments I mentioned overshadow all of the favors she did for herself otherwise. Biden completely failed to provide a logical justification for what he said, but the audience clearly found his clapback to be more compelling than her criticism. And I think the point she was trying to make about white privilege and race was a good one, but she really struggled to convey it effectively.