So, yeah, that could explain all the Bloomberg support in the audience, as well as the anti-Bernie sentiment.Less than 24 hours after a Live 5 News report on the high cost of a guaranteed seat at the Democratic Presidential Debate, the Charleston County Democratic Party no longer shows the option on their website.
A report Thursday stated people looking to watch the debate in person would have to pay for a minimum sponsorship package of more than $1,700 for a package that also includes multiple First-in-the-South events.
"The only guaranteed way to get a ticket is to become a sponsor of the debate,” the website stated.
But on Friday, the Charleston County Democratic Party chapter removed the sponsorship link and changed its wording to: “Unfortunately, CCDP will not have any tickets to distribute.”
Party officials explained tickets are handed out to organizers like the Democratic National Committee, CBS, Twitter and the Black Caucus Institute.
Then, they are first given to paid sponsors and handed to campaigns to pass out extras.
Live 5 News
President I-Don't-Have-Time-To-Watch-TV was on it:
A "chocker"??? Does that have anything to do with "covfefe"? Or "smocker"? Or is that something that mafiosi understand? *
Politico got 15 "experts" to comment on the debate. Here are some excerpts:
Joe has made similar complaints in every debate I've watched.Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail.
An air of desperation permeated this gathering, not surprisingly, given the realities of the calendar. The biggest desperado of them all: Biden, who substituted nostalgia for vision and loudness for coherence. Biden spent almost as much time griping about not getting called on as he did discussing the topics on the table—the wrong move for a debater who already reads like a crabby codger.
Politico
And CBS should have never allowed any political ads during the debate.Bloomberg’s overall tone-deafness is staggering, as evidenced in the weird joke he made about having won the previous debate, a quip so odd that it eluded even those in the live audience whom Bloomberg had seemingly paid to cheer. Another problem for the former mayor: The Bloomberg whom voters were watching on the debate stage could not hold a candle to the Bloomberg who kept popping up during commercial breaks. The two Mikes may as well have been different people.
Obviously not. Why then do so many people say they haven't made up their minds?Buttigieg and Klobuchar managed to stay out of each other’s grills this time, both of them striving mightily to promote the appeal of a moderate Democratic nominee. Articulate as Buttigieg may be, he is shaping up to be a divisive figure. (Evidently one person’s brilliant is another person’s smarmy.) Klobuchar tried her damnedest, but instead of relishing the experience, as she has in previous debates, she was reduced to last-ditch pleading. A joyless Klobuchar is not the Klobuchar debate audiences have come to expect.Jennifer Lawless is a professor of politics at the University of Virginia whose research focuses on political ambition, campaigns and elections, and media and politics.
Finally, a word about the moderators of this broadcast: Let’s stipulate that moderating a live TV debate is a singularly tough job and that any journalist in this role can have an off night, but this was an especially off night for Norah O’Donnell, Gayle King and the small army of journalists whom CBS saw fit to add to the dais. Too often the questioning stoked conflict for conflict’s sake, and the candidates were allowed far too much leeway to run amok. When debaters sense weakness in moderators, etiquette flies out the window and chaos ensues. That’s what happened in this high-intensity, low-information debate.
If I had to come up with a motto that emerged from this debate, it would be an homage to Nike: Just Do It! It’s time to vote. We don’t need another debate. We don’t need another town hall. We’ve reached the point of the primary season where these debates provide little in the way of new information. Voters have seen the candidates engage in robust conversations, breakout moments and lackluster performances. They’ve viewed prepared statements, rehearsed accusations and off-the-cuff responses. They’ve developed a sense of the candidates’ strengths, weaknesses, experiences and temperaments. This isn’t to say that debates can’t matter or that citizens don’t learn from them. But we’ve reached the point of diminishing marginal returns. It’s enough already.
The South Carolina audience actually seemed quite disdainful of Sanders, to the extent that at one point when he said something and they responded with groans and boos, he looked out at them and said, "Oh, really? Really?" quite testily.Larry J. Sabato is founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and is a contributing editor at POLITICO Magazine.If I’ve learned one thing over these 10 Democratic debates, it’s that identifying the loser is easier than picking the winner.
And the loser Tuesday was everybody on stage. The Democratic Party. Any hope for sensible, coherent debates.
Out-of-control candidates talked over one another, and hapless moderators were unable to enforce the rules. I’m partly sympathetic. The classroom can be like that—a tug of war between teacher and unruly students, although I’ve never had a class with people constantly waving their arms in the air and begging, “Pick me, teacher. I know the answer!”
[...]
To no one’s surprise, Sanders was the primary target. He’s the current frontrunner so it was his turn to fend off attacks. As befits a frontrunner, he was the center of attention, and as far as I could tell, he shed only a little blood. Almost no one’s mind was changed. Sanders has the most intense support, though nowhere close to a majority. His backers will stick with him through thick and thin, and that’s enough in a still-crowded field.
Let us hope not. At least in its present form. Democratic socialism is capitalism lite. I think the younger folks understand that. And why not free tuition? It's already in place on the state level in mnay places.Bloomberg isn’t even on the South Carolina ballot, yet there he was on stage [...] . Bloomberg improved his performance from godawful last week to merely awful this time. Warren finished administering the beating she gave Bloomberg in his first debate. It made no difference because Bloomberg’s TV ads appeared before, during and after the show. Shouldn’t the stations and networks pass on airing any candidate’s advertisements during a debate? Shock us, and maybe introduce a small element of fairness, even if it costs you a few dollars.Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.
[...]
Steyer was passionate and finally got a decent share of debate time. Maybe it wins him a few more points on Saturday, probably eating into Biden’s vote. As of yet, though, no one sees Steyer as a real contender to be the Democratic nominee.
[...]
I’ll finish by noting my own (biblical) words to live by: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The Democratic debates, combined with the presidency of Donald Trump and the coronavirus, suggest we ought to stock up on nonperishable foodstuffs.
What a mess. It was exhausting. At times, I felt as if I was watching a team of 5-year-old kids peacocking for attention. They raised their hands incessantly, talked over and interrupted one another frequently, and ignored the questions they were asked to discuss whatever they felt like discussing. Bloomberg even delivered an incredibly bizarre joke about the Naked Cowboy that no one outside of New York could have comprehended.
[...]
On issues of racial and economic justice, Steyer really stood out. His statements on these issues gave him standing with the African American community that he probably hasn’t enjoyed to date. For the first time over the many weeks of debates, he made us want to listen to and believe in him.
As always, Warren was superior on issues of gender, racial and economic justice. However, Tuesday’s attack on Bloomberg didn’t seem to resonate with the audience and may have caused her campaign more harm than good. Bloomberg does not appear to be a Harvey Weinstein, and the allegation [she] made against him [that he told a pregnant employee to "kill it"] will inevitably be investigated. If it proves to be inaccurate, Warren’s attack on Bloomberg may hurt her campaign and the #MeToo movement.
[...]
Bloomberg’s discussion about his experience with charter schools in New York was a beautiful symphony for the ears of the thousands of people of color who are advocates of school choice. His work in creating Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are huge feathers in his cap, but his ability to get things done may not be enough for him to dispel the myth that he is a Republican in a Democrat’s clothing.
[...]
The Democratic Party has changed drastically before our very eyes. The caucuses in Nevada proved that a large swath of Democrats of every demographic believe in and want all of the things that Sanders and Warren are promising. The phrase “Democratic socialist” doesn’t frighten many of them. However, no matter how boring he was in demeanor, Bloomberg was correct when he declared that the country just can’t afford many of the things that are being promised. Most Americans must know that a wealth tax will not propel a Democrat into the White House; that there will never be government-mandated free tuition for public colleges and universities; and that capitalism is as American as apple pie.
Was she on the right channel?Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent. He is writing a history of the Democratic Party.
he Charleston debate was, until near the end, an irritating mess. All the candidates—save Steyer, who remains an earnest irrelevancy—devoted themselves to hurling unfunny snarks and personal attacks against the others. Biden and Sanders seemed in a competition to see who could shout louder and more often, and Warren appeared, for some reason, far more interested in thrashing Bloomberg once again than in promoting any of her famous plans. After an hour or so of this, Preet Bharara, the New York prosecutor whom President Trump fired early in his tenure, tweeted, “I would like to cringe less during debates relating to who will become the most powerful leader on earth.” Amen.Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.
Finally, when the moderators, who consistently failed to keep the debaters from interrupting one another, got around to asking about foreign policy and the threat of a global pandemic, the candidates showed that they can be calm, intelligent people who would not, like the incumbent in the White House, conduct diplomacy as if it were a popularity contest. But even then, most of their answers boiled down to pat phrases about “consulting our allies” and the like.
The best debate yet for Biden. He was firm. He was forceful. He was fierce.
I think it's a personality thing: he doesn't have one. (h/t Jean)Atima Omara is a political strategist and former president of the Young Democrats of America.
The race was on to convince the predominantly black electorate of the South Carolina Democratic primary who was the best candidate for president. From criminal justice reform to affordable housing to education, black voters were discussed a lot more than in previous debates.
Definitively Biden shined more, if simply because his lines got more applause and cheers, which reflected his strong standing with black voters, especially age 50 and up. He even blurted out that he would appoint a black woman Supreme Court justice toward the end.
[...]
Steyer, for all his ads and early organizing work in South Carolina, still seems not to make much of a dent on the debate stage.
I don't mind Steyer. He has some good points, but I can't see him having the chutzpah to be an effective president.
Perhaps because it was a debate for a national election?Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.
Let's first establish the debate’s losers, to get it out the way: the CBS moderators. If getting paid to just sit there and let the candidates brawl in a verbal battle royale is the way it's supposed to work, a handful of South Carolina high school students could have done it better.
[...]
If there was a debate winner, it was Biden for looking solid; Buttigieg came in second for attempting a holistic conversation about the significance of Democrats needing to win the trifecta of the House, Senate and White House.
Biden also finally got the memo: Drill in on Sanders, and drill in hard. Between Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg and even, at one point, Warren, Sanders ended up looking rattled and more ranty than ever, rambling off his hypothetical poll matchups versus Trump and his approval ratings in a way that looks, unmistakably, Trump-like. Maybe that doesn’t hurt him, since his force of yelling keeps him impenetrable and his core supporters are only energized by every attack, but it ensures his base doesn’t grow anymore beyond that. I’m still trying to figure out the shrewd calculus behind Warren’s relentless pursuit of Bloomberg; and even as she poked holes in Sanders and needed to as a way to siphon off his support, she went right back to hitting Bloomberg’s buttons. Klobuchar was just there, filling time.
[...]
South Carolina is held down by high poverty, food insecurity and other ailments, and yet this debate went in other directions.
He appeared that way because he's way behind in polls and debates, and he felt assured that South Carolina is his for the taking. He doesn't believe in himself. It's in his posture and his presentation. He gets chuffed when he feels in self-promoting territory. Much like Trump. Too bad Biden can't always arrange that, like Trump can. We should accept Biden's judgment of himself.John Neffinger is a speaker coach, lecturer on political communication at Georgetown University and Columbia Business School, former communications director of the Democratic National Committee and co-author of Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential.
This was not a great night for the Democratic Party. The moderating was not strong; there was a lot of shouting and cross talk; it was unpleasant to behold. Through all of that, not a lot changed the dynamic of the race, which is good news for Sanders, even as he stumbled several times under fire and even got booed by the crowd. (In Bernie's defense, this crowd was the Democratic establishment.)
Biden and Bloomberg did just enough to give them a chance to do well on Super Tuesday and hope to pick up a larger share of the vote should other candidates drop out.
[...]
Biden could have been sharper, but he looked vigorous and more commanding than usual, and that helps him going into South Carolina.
And that's a good thing.Fundamentally, this still feels like Sanders’s race to lose. The rest of the field is split, there’s no consensus alternative, and it’s likely Sanders will pick up a bunch of other candidates’ voters as they drop out. There is a case to be made against him, whether you agree with it or not, but it was not prosecuted in a sustained way during the debate. [...] “Socialism!” doesn't seem any more off-putting to voters than the rest of the spectacle we witnessed Tuesday night.
And even worse: that's two hours (and more) the candidates will never get back. They could have been campaigning somewhere they need votes.Amanda Litman is co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.
That debate was a downer. Nobody won, but somehow all of us at home lost. That’s two hours of our lives we’ll never get back. And even worse: Barely a minute of those two hours was spent discussing reproductive rights, climate change or immigration reform, which might have made the evening at least a little bit redeemable.
You can read the rest of the comments in the article here.
There was a moment, right at the beginning of Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, when things could have gone in a different and more thoughtful direction. Elizabeth Warren was gently—too gently, by many people’s standards—poking Bernie Sanders by saying that they both shared popular progressive policy programs but that she was best suited to act on them as president.
[...]
The stage was set right there for a discussion of the limits of progressive politics within the Democratic Party. All of the others could have jumped in at that point; Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden could have given the audience a look at where they thought the limits were, and Biden could have provided a long view of how hard it is to get progressive ideas through our political process. Instead, Buttigieg decided to set up the Bloomberg-Sanders binary so he could position himself as being the national trank gun, whereupon the hot spittle and steaming bile erupted and the moment was lost, alas.
[...]
This was the worst political debate I ever saw, and the reason for that was the moderators. None of them had the faintest idea what their jobs were or how to do them. It was also a more-than-marginally corrupt enterprise; CBS allowed one of Michael Bloomberg’s ads to run during one of the commercial breaks, which was inexcusable. Seats were sold for a $1,700 minimum “sponsorship” to the South Carolina Democratic Party. And the paradigmatic moment came when Bloomberg, under fire from Warren for all the money he’d raised for Republican senatorial candidates, including Scott Brown when he was running against her in 2012, came right up to the edge of saying that he’d bought the 2018 Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives.
[...]
Everybody talked over everybody else, and then got angry at the moderators when those sad sacks finally tried to restore order by enforcing a time limit that everybody ignored. I’ve seen better organized soccer riots. And while I have no doubt that channels were changed all over America, and the polls may make me a liar over this, I doubt profoundly that any minds were changed—except, again, for those belonging to the Bloomberg-curious among us.
[...]
Warren took a pop at him on his healthcare plan, pointing out that, when she produced her plan with its precise cost figures, the online weasel patrol that attends the Sanders campaign lied about it and about her. That set off the same general scrum over healthcare policy that’s been a running feature of these debates for over a year now. But the main event was the attempt by the rest of the field, Warren excepted, to pin some of Sanders’s ancient quotes on him regarding Fidel Castro and Cuba. Sanders looked beleaguered and cranky, so much so that, when Buttigieg finally opened the floodgates on his formidable reservoir of sanctimony, Sanders whiffed on it.
[...]
"We're not gonna win these critical House and Senate races if people in these races have to explain why the nominee of the Democratic Party is telling people to look at the bright side of the Castro regime.”How could Sanders miss on this? Maybe, while he’s in South Carolina, Buttigieg could drive on up to Orangeburg, where, in February of 1968, fired by the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s, three students were shot down while trying to integrate a local bowling alley. Or he could discuss how the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s, as expressed at the Stonewall Inn in New York, was still relevant to our lives today. Or he simply could walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge a couple of times. I’m nostalgic for a lot of that. This was “OK, Boomer” shot through with a kind of entitled contempt for the importance of historical memory.
Charles P Pierce
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
*All I could find was an Australian definition:
British slang:
And a Russian YouTube account:
No comments:
Post a Comment