When compared to the Republican Presidential debates, last night’s Democratic Presidential debate was superb, and did the nation proud!
All three candidates—Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley—were exceptional in their performance.
All three were civil, intelligent, comprehensive, and compassionate in their domestic and social agenda.
All three were balanced, reasonable, knowledgeable and measured in their statements on foreign policy issues.
Any of the three would be an outstanding President in the Oval Office.
Having said that, it seems to me that Bernie Sanders, already ahead in many public opinion polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, probably gained the most by his performance last night.
Hillary Clinton, however, held her own, and Martin O’Malley, who in any other year would be a likely front runner, looked good, but still, it is clear that his quest for the Presidency is a lost cause for 2016.
I thought that both Clinton and Sanders had strong debates, although as usual, Clinton is a superb debater and did the best; no idea why the DNC et al. limited the number of these things, as more debates would have helped the Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular.
John Kasich, on the Republican side, and Martin O’Malley, on the Democratic, side are in the same category: possible vice-presidential picks whenever that time arrives. They don’t have any feasible shot at the top nomination.
There is this part of me very tempted to predict the 2016 nominations for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But, I’m going to wait a little longer on the Democratic side. Between the two parties, I think the Republicans are the ones with more courage for nominating a candidate who is “aggressive” (meaning, makes the party and the D.C. elite uncomfortable with his ideas and his image). But, if this were to be a Trump-vs.-Sanders election, and there is no indication that 2016 looks anything like 2008 (meaning, there was no feasible shot for the White House party to hold on with a third consecutive presidential election victory in 2008), then it would be hard to predict at this early enough stage which one would win. It would be foolish to underestimate either of them. Worse than that would be the learning nothing from history by speaking of Trump and Sanders in that vein, “This country would never be willing” to elect either of them president … which has been said of other presidents of the past, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and, our current president, Barack Obama. (In other words: It is not wise to say, with total confidence along with cockiness, who and what the people are willing to elect and re-elect to the presidency of the United States.)
I anticipate there will be a lot of insults hurled, during primary season, at Clinton and Sanders supporters by Clinton and Sanders supporters. So, I’m holding off on predicting the Democratic nomination to see, as we get closer to Iowa and New Hampshire, a possibly clearer picture. But, Trump is well ahead in his party. It’s too late for establishment-preferred Marco Rubio; but, not just that, if that party tries to swiftboat Trump, he can turn around and run as third-party candidate, end up with a percent of the U.S. Popular Vote similar to a 1992 Ross Perot, and make damn certain Republicans cannot flip the presidency come November 8, 2016. That is reason enough why the most powerful in the Republican Party will not try to destroy Trump’s shot at the nomination.
What a Trump-vs.-Sanders matchup would represent, more than anything, is an electorate (from each respective party) which says, “We don’t like the establishment of our preferred party. We don’t want more empty promises and campaign rhetoric. We want huge change. We want a candidate we believe is willing to make that change. And we don’t believe any of your party-preferred candidates, especially your top favorites, would actually deliver.”
D, I was about ready to say today that if the Republican Party has not lost its mind, it would still consider Kasich, easily their best candidate. Maybe it cannot happen, and I so state in what I am about to publish, but Ohio is still the crucial state, and I am not ready to dismiss Kasich, at least in the Vice Presidency with Marco Rubio. We shall see what transpires in the coming weeks!
Hmmm. Evolution vs. revolution? I’m leaning heavily towards “evolution,” simply because a progressive “revolution” isn’t realistic in this country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-clinton-and-sanders-its-evolution-vs-revolution/2016/01/18/e9ef2330-be0a-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
Norbrook’s Blog points out that, if we want change, other offices, especially local and state, are just as important as the Presidency.
https://cendax.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/some-thoughts-for-democrats-this-new-year/
I agree with both of you, Princess Leia and Rational Lefty!
I agree with this – that the partisan polarization is not one single cause.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/01/democratic-debate-visions-clarified.html
CNN is going to be having a Democratic town hall next Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-martin-omalley-town-hall/index.html
Black and Latino Democrats are Hillary’s firewall.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/hillary_clinton_s_ties_to_black_democrats_will_save_her_campaign_from_bernie.html