He has been such a Hillary basher over time, and when he does his winners and losers lists she's almost always a loser-not matter how much of a reach. So for him to admit she won last night means-she must have won.
His analysis makes sense as well. I think she was able to define him last night.
"I thought Sanders was forceful and effective, as always, when talking about economic inequality and campaign finance reform. I thought he may have allowed himself to be put in a box as a single or double issue candidate down the line by Clinton, however."
"Sanders also continued to struggle when the debate moved off of domestic issues and onto matters of foreign policy. On a question about what the right next steps were regarding American troops in Afghanistan, Sanders's answer was rambling and generally non-sensical."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/winners-and-losers-from-the-5th-democratic-presidential-debate/
No one can claim he knows much about foreign policy. His main retort to this is always the same: well you know, I didn't vote for the Iraq War and Hillary did.
We know Bernie but is that all you've got? There is more to judging who will make an effective commander in chief than one vote.
When he was asked about electability he also again went to general election polls which are totally meaningless right now.
For her part, Hillary did very well-as even Cillizza concedes:
There are those who will see Clinton's tone in those first 30 minutes as over the top and, therefore, ineffective, but it seemed to me that she set up lots and lots of attacks that she can follow through on beyond New Hampshire."
Finally I also agree with Cillizza that the MSNBC moderators shined. They shined by not making it about them. Great job from Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd.
They didn't try to ask 'tough' or gotcha questions and as Cillizza says, they didn't cut into discussions constantly with 'next topic.'
"Todd and Maddow did the thing that is both hardest and best for moderators at this level: They let the candidates actually debate. There is nothing that drives me crazier than when a moderator steps into the middle of a genuine conversation/disagreement between two (or more) candidates in order to move on to some other topic. The whole point of a debate is to figure out where the differences are and how each candidates explains those differences, not to try to see who can ask the most questions. Todd and Maddow got out of the way of the candidates tonight, which is exactly what good moderators should do."
"All true. I agree this was the best moderation of a debate yes in this primary election. I guess the only defense you can make of other moderators is that it's easier to moderate a two person debate as there isn't much of an issue of getting everyone enough time. "
"Also, kudos to the duo for asking thoughtful questions that haven't been asked of the candidates a thousand times before; Todd's question to Sanders about why he wasn't taking public financing for the primary campaign was an A+."
I agree that Todd's question was good-it kind of pointed out that with all the talk of money in politics, even Sanders admits you do have to raise lots of money in a modern campaign. If anything his performance has less shown that money in politics is evil than some sources are more legitimate in his eyes than others.
His analysis makes sense as well. I think she was able to define him last night.
"I thought Sanders was forceful and effective, as always, when talking about economic inequality and campaign finance reform. I thought he may have allowed himself to be put in a box as a single or double issue candidate down the line by Clinton, however."
"Sanders also continued to struggle when the debate moved off of domestic issues and onto matters of foreign policy. On a question about what the right next steps were regarding American troops in Afghanistan, Sanders's answer was rambling and generally non-sensical."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/winners-and-losers-from-the-5th-democratic-presidential-debate/
No one can claim he knows much about foreign policy. His main retort to this is always the same: well you know, I didn't vote for the Iraq War and Hillary did.
We know Bernie but is that all you've got? There is more to judging who will make an effective commander in chief than one vote.
When he was asked about electability he also again went to general election polls which are totally meaningless right now.
For her part, Hillary did very well-as even Cillizza concedes:
There are those who will see Clinton's tone in those first 30 minutes as over the top and, therefore, ineffective, but it seemed to me that she set up lots and lots of attacks that she can follow through on beyond New Hampshire."
Finally I also agree with Cillizza that the MSNBC moderators shined. They shined by not making it about them. Great job from Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd.
They didn't try to ask 'tough' or gotcha questions and as Cillizza says, they didn't cut into discussions constantly with 'next topic.'
"Todd and Maddow did the thing that is both hardest and best for moderators at this level: They let the candidates actually debate. There is nothing that drives me crazier than when a moderator steps into the middle of a genuine conversation/disagreement between two (or more) candidates in order to move on to some other topic. The whole point of a debate is to figure out where the differences are and how each candidates explains those differences, not to try to see who can ask the most questions. Todd and Maddow got out of the way of the candidates tonight, which is exactly what good moderators should do."
"All true. I agree this was the best moderation of a debate yes in this primary election. I guess the only defense you can make of other moderators is that it's easier to moderate a two person debate as there isn't much of an issue of getting everyone enough time. "
"Also, kudos to the duo for asking thoughtful questions that haven't been asked of the candidates a thousand times before; Todd's question to Sanders about why he wasn't taking public financing for the primary campaign was an A+."
I agree that Todd's question was good-it kind of pointed out that with all the talk of money in politics, even Sanders admits you do have to raise lots of money in a modern campaign. If anything his performance has less shown that money in politics is evil than some sources are more legitimate in his eyes than others.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-wont-bernie-do-public-financing.html
No comments:
Post a Comment