2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJosh Marshall's pretty detailed analysis of the debate
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-clarifying-encounterByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedFEBRUARY 11, 2016, 11:40 PM EST
"I cannot help noting the quality of this debate itself - how it was organized, the moderators, the quality of the questions. It was a throwback, but a good one. I do not think it was an accident that this one was organized by PBS or that they managed to bring it to a punctual conclusion. After all, this wasn't a ratings or a ad sales driver for them.
On the candidates, I thought the debate began very well for Clinton and quite shaky for Sanders. He got a very basic question about the size of government, one he would certainly get in a general election and one which I do not think he should shy away from. But he wouldn't touch it. Clinton was as strong and specific as he was hesitating and resistant to addressing specifics.
As the debate went on though I thought it became more of an even match. I cannot help but say that it surprises me that Sanders is as quick on his feet as he's managed to get in these debates. That may sound a bit condescending. After all Sanders is in his seventies and he's been in politics for decades. But there's nothing quite like the intensity of big national presidential debates. I don't care how long you've been a politician or how many local or even state debates you've been in. There's nothing like it. And virtually no one is a natural.
Clinton has been in the national spotlight for going on three decades and this is arguably her third national campaign. Obviously she's only run for president once before. But it was one of the most debate-intensive presidential campaigns ever. And her first run for Senate was so high profile as almost to amount to a national campaign. She's had tons of practice. He hasn't."
snip
Pretty interesting analysis. I don't agree with him completely, but it seems like a pretty balanced analysis from a pundit who has consistently supported Hillary.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That was an awful question. Bernie was taken aback. It was accusatory and laid out the tea-party premise of limiting government.
Everyone knows Bernie's plans includes more government. Even Hillary's plan includes more government. Duh! With more people and more problems, what else are we gonna do but ask more government for fixes? And as we take health care from private to public?
Bernie did touch on it as he went along, but that is a question that he can work on so when the republicans lob it at him he can hit it out of the park.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)He said Republicans hate big government except when it comes to controlling women's bodies!
I thought that was absolutely brilliant. As a debater, he turned the issue of "first woman President" right off, gained big points with women AND blasted Republicans for their hypocrisy!
This didn't come in response to the "big government" question--and I agree he should have answered that better, at the time--but he did address it in an extremely clever way.
I'm not sure about Democrats answering Tea Party-type questions directly (and that was one). But Bernie is VERY GOOD at sticking to his points and policies in the face of tricky questions. He should have tackled it. For instance, 'do you like Social Security? Do you like Medicare? Do you like the country being defended? Would you like a topnotch interstate highway system? Big government is NECESSARY to programs for the "common good." And here, specifically, are how my programs will not only pay for themselves, with fair taxation, but will inject new life into our economy!'
Yup, I could write the answer. And certainly Bernie could (and has!). But I forgive him that lapse because of the many major points that he did score, and the Henry Kissinger point is top of my list.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)He did answer the why of what our government should do. And by gawd, the next time it comes up, and it will, hopefully they will have a read of what you wrote here.
I wonder...... do they read DU? I swear, some of the stuff Bernie talked about seemed like it came from DU.....
Don't get me wrong,,,, I have confidence in Bernie. And know that this is his first big rodeo and figure he is just going to improve and improve and improve.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)instead of "free education".
Been hearing of a lot of older voters that "free" term is bothering them, cause they know nothing is "free".
and when Clinton attacks him by saying he is going to dismantle Obamacare, I wish he would say "Universal care, like Medicare, will replace it, which is much cheaper"
He would have the support of a LOT of insured people that way.
Bernie, are ya listening????
Stallion
(6,473 posts)although I don't agree with the premise. In many ways Democrats are failing to successfully respond to the premise
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)For example, when asked how big government should be, he should simply say that it should be as big as it needs to be to tackle the issues at hand. And considering how far behind we are on education and clean energy and healthcare costs and lifting people out of poverty and protecting the vulnerable (I'm sure I'm leaving some things out), then it needs to be however big it needs to be to take on those issues. Wherever the private sector is failing us, we need the public sector to fill in the gap. Bernie doesn't want the government to take ownership of all our natural resources or the manufacturing and distribution of smart phones, flat screen tvs, cars, food, real estate or any of the other various things that obviously can be left up to the capitalistic side of our economy. But its more efficient, cost effective and focused when we have nation-wide standards when it comes to the cost and management of the things that are essential to a decent quality of life in this day and age.