Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Reactions To The Democrats' First Presidential Debate

Here are some thoughts before I go to bed.

The biggest theme of the debate was class warfare, unsurprisingly. Given how popular that theme is, and not just among liberals (as we saw in the 2012 presidential campaign), Republicans should be cautious about choosing another candidate who's highly susceptible to the typical class warfare approach the Democrats take. Among the current frontrunners, Trump, Bush, and Fiorina are the most vulnerable. Somebody like Rubio or Carson would be far better. We need to argue against the Democrats on class warfare issues, and we shouldn't reject a candidate just because he's wealthy or comes from a wealthy background. But it's better to have a messenger who isn't as susceptible to the class warfare demagoguery as Romney was.

Sanders said something to the effect that the poor and the middle class are the economic backbone of the nation. He also said that all of the money in the nation goes to the rich. How does that work?

Clinton proposed some sort of expansion of government (to cover college expenses, ensure paid time off work, or something like that), and she concluded with a comment to the effect that we should "make the wealthy pay for it". She also suggested that Republicans are wrong for opposing big government on such issues while supporting big government on matters of abortion. So, we're supposed to believe that an appropriate role of government is to pay for even more of your college education and make sure you get even more paid time off work, whereas protecting children from being murdered is an inappropriate role for the government to have. Isn't that sort of like saying that an architect should stop concerning himself with the foundation of a building and give more attention to putting increasingly decorative and expensive blinds on the windows?

The candidates (except Chafee) and the audience were dismissive of Clinton's scandals. Sanders went so far as to use vulgarity to express his disgust with how much attention the scandals were getting, and the audience repeatedly cheered, loudly and extensively, when the candidates made dismissive comments about the scandals. That tells you a lot about the character of the Democratic party. And it's to the credit of Chafee (who, probably not coincidentally, is a former Republican) that he resisted the tendency to be so dismissive of character issues and scandals. Given the significant nature of the scandals Clinton has been involved in, such as the national security implications involved, I'd suggest that the Republicans prepare themselves to argue clearly and succinctly against the Democrats' dismissive attitude. Tonight's debate gave us a preview of what we can expect next year. You can be as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, and they'll dismiss that corruption with little hesitation and with loud cheering.

Clinton said that she didn't want people to vote for her because of her last name. Yet, she repeatedly suggested that people should vote for her because of her gender. The two themes don't go well together.

Webb spent too much time complaining about how little he was being allowed to speak. People don't like hearing complaints about that sort of thing, and I don't understand why some candidates keep making such an issue of it. As I recall, Rick Santorum has done that a lot over the years as well. They ought to stop doing it. If you aren't getting as much time as you'd like, look for a way to change the situation without spending so much time complaining about it.

O'Malley came across as too scripted. So did Chafee. By contrast, Sanders came across as the most sincere and the most passionate.

Clinton did better than I expected. She's not as good of a communicator or debater as her husband, and she's often bad at both. But she's had a lot of experience now, and she sometimes has good moments and even relatively good overall debate performances. That should serve as another reminder that the Republicans need to place a lot of value on communication and debating skills. Rubio, Fiorina, and Huckabee are the best in that regard. Among them, Rubio is the best overall candidate.


  1. Not only did Hillary betray national security, but the security of our allies.

    1. Indeed:

  2. Much to my personal dismay it's very difficult to envision a scenario where we won't be saying "Mrs. President" in the not too distant future.

  3. JMR makes a similar point about Fiorina's vulnerability:

  4. Clinton said that she didn't want people to vote for her because of her last name. Yet, she repeatedly suggested that people should vote for her because of her gender. The two themes don't go well together.


    hat should serve as another reminder that the Republicans need to place a lot of value on communication and debating skills. Rubio, Fiorina, and Huckabee are the best in that regard. Among them, Rubio is the best overall candidate.

    Republicans seem to have a habit of handicapping themselves by not choosing the best candidate for the general elections. When was the last time the best Republican candidate for POTUS was chosen? Reagan? Heh. I too think Rubio is the best overall choice as I pointed out tongue-in-cheek HERE.

    I've been too critical of Carson in the past. He's handled criticisms and attacks fairly well these past few weeks. But still I don't think he'd be able to keep up with Clinton's talking speed in a debate. While a Rubio or a Huckabee could. So, once again, I'd be all for a Rubio/Huckabee or Huckabee/Rubio run for Pres. and Vice Pres.

  5. Because of Hillary Clinton's charisma, self-confidence, high intelligence and rhetorical skills I think that NOW is the time for conservatives to do their best to keep Clinton out of the White House. She's had a lot of practice running for President since she became a Senator and then later the Secretary of State. We all know that was her and Bill's goal all along and she's had 14 years to hone her skills. She was already VERY bright to begin with (having earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School), and you know Bill has to be coaching her (himself being a rhetorical genius). If she becomes the nominee for the general elections she's almost guaranteed (IMHO) to be the next POTUS no matter who the Republican candidate is because the U.S. is just so liberal/"progressive" now (and continuing to move in that direction). Conservatives should do their best to try to get the other Democratic candidates to undermine Clinton's candidacy by reminding the American public all the scandals she's been involved in. The scruples of Democratic voters will allow them to take that into consideration NOW. But afterward, once she becomes the party's single candidate, they'll forget or dismiss all that dirty laundry and support her NO MATTER WHAT.

    Rubio can get under the radar. The average Democratic voter won't believe that someone as charming, handsome and well spoken could be so "bad" (from their perspective). They won't really believe he's as conservative as he actually is (though, from our perspective he could be more so). And either their "white guilt" or their sympathy for a fellow non-white minority will make them less willing to attack Rubio who's much younger and who therefore "must be" (in their uninformed perception) more hip than those older white guys he's running against in the Republican party.


    1. Thinking long term, once we get a (relatively) conservative Latino into the White House, that'll probably inspire more Latino's to become more conservative, AND eventually lead to more conservative Latinos (in future generations) to aspire to become POTUS too. He could potentially be the Latino John F. Kennedy who inspires conservatives for generations to come. Which, ironically might lead to his unfortunate assassination. Nevertheless, Kennedy's wicked murder actually made him a martyr for the democratic cause. Rubio can potentially create that kind of a legacy (preferably living of course). The Hispanic and Latino populations in the U.S. is growing and will certainly be a major political force in the next generation (since we know that they've inherited the Catholic practice of having many children). I think Huckabee would be a fine president. But liberals will do whatever it takes to oppose him. Whereas Rubio, as I said above, can get under their radar and win because Democrats will be less motivated to vote AGAINST him as well as vote FOR (say hypothetically) Hillary. From the Democratic mindset, if we have to choose between an old white guy (most of the Rep. candidates) vs. an old white woman, let's give the woman a chance. "The Old white guys have had their chance and they haven't helped very much recently" (so they perceive). But given the choice of an old white woman (from the Old Guard) vs. a young charming ethnic male, some Democrats (I suspect) will either prefer the guy, or be willing to give him a chance. Because of the superficial nature of the average democratic voter (who would rather vote for handsome/beautiful movie stars rather than philosophers), Rubio will either be the man other (democratic) men want to be, or the man women want to be with (or at least vote for). In summary, if present day Republicans are sincerely interested in preserving America's conservatism and Christian Heritage, they have to think long term, drop their white racism (where it exists) and choose the ethnic candidate found in Marco Rubio. Will they do it? I doubt it.

      I'm convinced of the above for two reasons. 1. I understand how the average ignorant democratic voter thinks. 2. I'm just as politically ignorant as they are (or nearly so). *g*

    2. The Stupidity Factor is the most important factor in choosing a candidate. Given the assumption that the majority of voters of both parties are pretty stupid or ignorant, one should ask which candidate has the greatest likelihood of winning the general elections against the other party's most likely candidate.

      Republicans can be stupid too. The proof of that is the fact that Trump was the leading Rep. candidate for WEEKS!!! That's so shameful and almost unbelievable. Yet, it's true!

      What I'm saying is that it takes a dummy to predict what other dummies will choose or not choose. I think I'm qualified (i.e. idiotic enough) to know that Rubio vs. Clinton in the general elections will likely result in Rubio becoming the 45th president of the United States.

    3. I like how Anderson Cooper's questions were hard hitting (or at least not soft balls).

      Sanders and Clinton are clearly the most charismatic of the available Democratic candidates as well as quickest in thinking on their feet. You can really only fight charisma with charisma and the Republican candidates who have comparable charisma are Rubio and Huckabee.

      If I could pick which of the two should be president, I'd pick Huckabee. But Rubio has a better chance at winning as well as having greater lasting impact politically as President by inspiring generations of Latinos to both 1. become conservative and 2. become more political (even run for governmental office).

      We can be certain that when Obama first became a candidate for POTUS, many black America registered to vote for the very first time. Unfortunately, they choose flash and looks (Obama) over substance and conviction (Keyes). Though, Keyes was sometimes too passionate (or stubborn) over arguable conservative positions. In 2008 I saw how my black co-workers were so excited about politics and voting for Obama. It was great to see their eyes twinkle with hope and expectation for the future. Rubio could do a similar thing with Latino youth.

      Finally, Rubio can look, speak and behave presidential as this video demonstrates HERE.

  6. By the way, a couple of months ago on my Facebook page, I posted some questions that I wanted to see asked at the Democrats' first debate. You can imagine how stunned I was that these didn't come up last night:

    "You're pro-choice, and agnosticism on life in the womb favors the pro-life position, so what's your best argument that what's in the womb isn't human life?"

    "Do you support state recognition of polygamy for bisexuals, or are you, by the standards of proponents of same-sex marriage, a bigot who wants to deny bisexuals their right to marriage equality?"

    1. Jason I just found a great summary you wrote in a previous blogpost comment:
      I hope Rubio gets the nomination, and I think he will. The state of the electorate limits our options, so we shouldn't just look for the most conservative candidate. We should look for an optimal balance of conservatism and electability. Given the corrupt status of the electorate, we have to find a way to win millions of non-conservative voters, including low-information voters. Rubio would be good at that, especially since the Democrats can't do much with the race and class warfare cards with Rubio. Two of the Democrats' most effective weapons would be a lot less powerful against Rubio than against other candidates. And his knowledge of the issues, personal background, temperament, and communication skills would be appealing to a lot of non-conservatives.

  7. I couldn't stand Sanders' accent. It makes him sound almost bombastic like Trump.

  8. Once again, Ben Shapiro hits the nail on the head: