Debate Winners

Last night’s Democratic debate offered a brutal mix of politics and Celebrity Deathmatch. Most pundits agree that Warren scored the most talking points, but that she didn’t do enough to leapfrog Sanders in the polls. Her most frequent victim, Michael Bloomberg, got in a few zingers of his own, but his performance did little to resolve questions I have about the wisdom of jumping into the race so belatedly. The other progressive front runner, Bernie Sanders, did even less to dispel my fears that he’s a doctrinal megalomaniac. He avoids facts as assiduously as our current president, who was the actual winner of the debate because the Democratic candidates were so busy tearing each other down.

As I predicted would happen on the blog almost a month ago, moderators raised the issue of fracking in Rust Belt states. Warren, Sanders, and Biden indicated that they would end fracking immediately–revealing a willingness to write off crucial states to Trump because they refuse to compromise on issues that are important to them. Ladies and gentlemen, politics is the art of compromise. I’ve come to believe that none of those candidates can win an election against the current president as a result. The more important issue for Democrats becomes finding a competent bureaucrat who can win the primary.

“Competent bureaucrat” may not sound sexy, but after four years of a president who ignores Congress and enjoys shredding diplomatic protocols, that’s exactly what the country needs.

This entry was posted in National Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Debate Winners

  1. Bert says:

    Honestly, the upcoming election looks bad for democrats based on what’s above. They sound like they’ve written off entire states worth of votes just to prove a point. Thanks democrats for giving Trump free states in the election! I cannot agree more that we need someone who knows what their doing because there are too many incompetents, too many far lefts, and too many far rights for the betterment common people. Trump’s proven to be a new type of president and I’ve begun to wonder if anyone can be good for office.

  2. Conner Davis says:

    While I am currently not in support of candidate currently, I do have an issue with the claim that not compromising on crucial issues makes a person a bad bureaucrat. Although extreme, one great example of this is slavery. If not compromising on crucial issues makes a person a bad bureaucrat, then President Lincoln could be considered a terrible one for not compromising on slavery, or President Washington for breaking away from Britain, or President Roosevelt for agreeing on the unconditional surrender of german during WWII; however, they are still considered by many to be some of the best presidents the country has had. Therefore, this claim insinuates that most American leaders were not “competent bureaucrats”.

  3. Alden Wiygul says:

    Let’s be honest there is not one person in the democratic race right now that the entire party can agree on. The two people that have won the caucuses are Buttigieg and Sanders. Buttigieg isn’t going to win because most of America just isn’t ready for an openly gay president and Bernie is iffy because of some peoples issues with his platform. This divide in the democratic party is the exact reason Hilary couldn’t beat Trump. If the party doesn’t band together to support on a candidate soon the split is still going to be there when the 2020 election comes, which will leave Trump in the advantage.

  4. Courtenay Sebastian says:

    Oh, man. First off I’d like to say how much this made me laugh. I’m not a hugely political person, but the way you made everyone out to be was interesting. However, I will be a tad political here. I personally hope that the republicans keep office. To delay the inevitability of a president worse than Trump, I believe that its crucial to keep him. Now, as I said I’m not a large political person, but all the controversy over this year’s candidates really grinds my gears. I hate hearing, Bernie this and Trump that and god forbid Hilary. I just hope this talk goes away in the foreseeable future for my sake.

  5. Alyssa says:

    This is exactly why George Washington didn’t want us to divide into parties. Right now many people want you to pick a side, and while there are some issues that shouldn’t be compromised on, there are many that could be. Democrats aren’t willing to go out ans show some people facts that could possibly sway a hard core Republican to vote Democrat once. There isn’t enough compromise from anyone on any side and I’m honestly afraid that if a democrat does win then it will be war here in the south with some wanting to leave the United States. Maybe a new system is needed, but it is not very practical. If we want to continue with parties, then maybe we should find someone to split the whole of US 50/50 and everyone can be happy, except for us moderates and independents… maybe an island in Hawaii for us?

  6. Guillermo says:

    The schism within the democratic party is also a large contributor to its inability to select a strong candidate for the primaries. I think that the compromise could, however, come after the bold statements made by the candidates. Because they have stated such radical and seemingly unwavering stances, there is a wide range of compromise to be made than, say, a stance similar to what our current president has. Keeping with protocol and maintaining a public image wouldn’t be bad for a president in the future, given that our current one uses twitter a bit too much for my tastes to talk about the country. However, until the democratic party settles on a candidate, he has a decent shot at reelection.

  7. Gracie Rowland says:

    The polarization of our country from our current two-party system is disheartening and destructive. Frankly, I don’t know who I’m going to vote for in the Democratic primary because I dislike them all. From petty attacks to vague platforms and promises, these candidates don’t know what the hell they’re doing. (and please, don’t even get me started on Biden) Sanders has the best shot of winning the Democratic nomination, but I fear that he will lose to Trump because of his unrealistic socialist goals. Compromise seems out of the question to these dim-witted candidates, and bridging the gap between the political chasm seems as likely as Trump using proper grammar on Twitter.

    (This comment doesn’t have much of a point other than me saying that I kind of hate politics and definitely hate both parties)

  8. Bryonie Mandal says:

    As I am a Canadian, I don’t and can’t say too much about American politics because I can’t vote or put in my say in any kind of politics. However, I noticed, the democratic politicians are messy and the current party is not someone I am favorable for. I would rather the party in charge be in the democrat’s favor but there needs to be more community at the party. People need to come together and not be a nuisance to the party and irrationally snitch on people or tell the rumour.

  9. Piper Britt says:

    I am not into politics in the slightest, so you must excuse whatever stupidity I am about to spew. I think that the democratic politicians need to stop treating their debates as a way to tear down their fellow candidates and treat them like they should be treated, as a way to inform the American people of who the politician is and what they stand for. Although these debates seem very entertaining, how can people learn who they are trying to put into office if the people act like a pack of wolves every time a question is asked?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *