Democratic candidates debate was a Republican loose-loose
Univeristy of New Hampshire in Durham was the place to be on Thursday, Feb 4th, when Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders had a rare opportunity. They debated one-on-one, while the Republican "wanna-bees" had to watch! Indeed, the Republican candidates, as they line up right now, will never have the same experience as the Democrats. Obvious to the pundits, the Democratic candidates were brilliant.
Although the interesting "give and take" in the real debate (not a political Republican Punch and Judy show), is still under analysis, it's the Republicans who lost in the New Hampshire forum. In fact, Republicans lost because none of their so-called debates came remotely close to talking about issues, vision, ideas, accomplishments or policies, like we heard from Sanders and Clinton. In my opinion, Secretary Clinton was well prepared for the debate and she often took charge of the dialogue!
Although the Democratic duo presented often divergent visions for the Democratic party, the quote from Senator Sanders summed up their differences. "On our worst day," he and Hillary Clinton have more in common than they do with any of the Republicans. As a matter of fact, I would carry that quote further. Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton have more in common with each other, than with Republicans, because each of them is smarter, more articulate, positive, visionary and dedicated to their passion for public service than any in the Republican candidate's line up.
In other words, if the 2016 presidential election were held today, the Republicans would be in disarry while the Democrats remain focused.
For example, Iowa showed the disarry. I can't get over how the Republicans created a three way split in their Iowa Caucus while the two Democrats divided their forums (aka "caucuses") right down the middle. It's mathematically impossible for the three top tier Republicans, "win = 28%" "place = 24 %" and "show = 23 %" at the Iowa Caucus, to delcare victory. As a matter of fact, the third place candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, celebrated as though he won a national election, but he didn't even garner 25 percent of the caucus! In other words, 3 out to 4 Repbulican caucus voters cast their ballot for somebody else!
On the other hand, the Iowa Democrats clearly gave rousing support for both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. It's likely we'll never know, with certainty, who the decisive Iowa winner was, because the archiac rules created a situation that was simply too close to call. (Anybody who's ever been to a caucus can confirm the backwards process). In fact, both Sanders and Clinton won with close to 50 percent, a much bigger margin of support than the paltry 28, 24 and 23 percents in the Republican caucus.
In the New Hampshire debate, with Sanders and Clinton, it was the Republicans who lost because they have been unable to generate a vision for America. Their campaign is based on negativity, fear, and concrete conservatism so severe it makes Calvin Coolidge look like a liberal.
Republicans lost in the New Hampshire debate forum because both Sanders and Clinton spoke intelligently about issues that matter to people. They weren't engaged in ego building or personality analysis, (like the "boy in the bubble", as Governor Christie described his rival, Senator Marco Rubio).
Moreover, Republicans also lost a winning strategy, because the Democrats clearly own the issues that matter. It's difficult to understand how Republicans can hope to win the national election when the economy is growing and unemployment is lower than it's been in decades.
Of course, as the Republican pundit Steve Schmidt said, modern voters don't necessarily make decisions like they have in the past. In fact, the voters are now evaluating a candidates potential for being a leader, rather than on concrete data, like economic trends.
Well, maybe the celebrity quotient has kicked into the 2016 election equation. Indeed, the "Trumponian" show has probably raised the bar on how motivated voters are to support a particular candidate. Therefore, if celebrity really enters into the equation, the two who share the highest applause ratings from their supporters are unquestionably Secretary Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump. Therefore, the Republicans will have lost yet again because, the New Hampshire Democratic debate performance of Secretary Clinton, created a "loose-loose" for "Trump the Chump".
He has no grasp of the issues, he's never going to upstage her (she's definitely not made for TV Megyn Kelly!) and she has plenty of experience standing up to right wing extremists - and it shows.
In the University of New Hampshire Democratic candidate debate, it was the Republicans who lost.
Although the interesting "give and take" in the real debate (not a political Republican Punch and Judy show), is still under analysis, it's the Republicans who lost in the New Hampshire forum. In fact, Republicans lost because none of their so-called debates came remotely close to talking about issues, vision, ideas, accomplishments or policies, like we heard from Sanders and Clinton. In my opinion, Secretary Clinton was well prepared for the debate and she often took charge of the dialogue!
Although the Democratic duo presented often divergent visions for the Democratic party, the quote from Senator Sanders summed up their differences. "On our worst day," he and Hillary Clinton have more in common than they do with any of the Republicans. As a matter of fact, I would carry that quote further. Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton have more in common with each other, than with Republicans, because each of them is smarter, more articulate, positive, visionary and dedicated to their passion for public service than any in the Republican candidate's line up.
In other words, if the 2016 presidential election were held today, the Republicans would be in disarry while the Democrats remain focused.
For example, Iowa showed the disarry. I can't get over how the Republicans created a three way split in their Iowa Caucus while the two Democrats divided their forums (aka "caucuses") right down the middle. It's mathematically impossible for the three top tier Republicans, "win = 28%" "place = 24 %" and "show = 23 %" at the Iowa Caucus, to delcare victory. As a matter of fact, the third place candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, celebrated as though he won a national election, but he didn't even garner 25 percent of the caucus! In other words, 3 out to 4 Repbulican caucus voters cast their ballot for somebody else!
On the other hand, the Iowa Democrats clearly gave rousing support for both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. It's likely we'll never know, with certainty, who the decisive Iowa winner was, because the archiac rules created a situation that was simply too close to call. (Anybody who's ever been to a caucus can confirm the backwards process). In fact, both Sanders and Clinton won with close to 50 percent, a much bigger margin of support than the paltry 28, 24 and 23 percents in the Republican caucus.
In the New Hampshire debate, with Sanders and Clinton, it was the Republicans who lost because they have been unable to generate a vision for America. Their campaign is based on negativity, fear, and concrete conservatism so severe it makes Calvin Coolidge look like a liberal.
Republicans lost in the New Hampshire debate forum because both Sanders and Clinton spoke intelligently about issues that matter to people. They weren't engaged in ego building or personality analysis, (like the "boy in the bubble", as Governor Christie described his rival, Senator Marco Rubio).
Moreover, Republicans also lost a winning strategy, because the Democrats clearly own the issues that matter. It's difficult to understand how Republicans can hope to win the national election when the economy is growing and unemployment is lower than it's been in decades.
Of course, as the Republican pundit Steve Schmidt said, modern voters don't necessarily make decisions like they have in the past. In fact, the voters are now evaluating a candidates potential for being a leader, rather than on concrete data, like economic trends.
Well, maybe the celebrity quotient has kicked into the 2016 election equation. Indeed, the "Trumponian" show has probably raised the bar on how motivated voters are to support a particular candidate. Therefore, if celebrity really enters into the equation, the two who share the highest applause ratings from their supporters are unquestionably Secretary Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump. Therefore, the Republicans will have lost yet again because, the New Hampshire Democratic debate performance of Secretary Clinton, created a "loose-loose" for "Trump the Chump".
He has no grasp of the issues, he's never going to upstage her (she's definitely not made for TV Megyn Kelly!) and she has plenty of experience standing up to right wing extremists - and it shows.
Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton at the University of New Hampshire on Feb 4th
Labels: Secretary Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, Steve Schmidt, University of New Hampshire
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home