Why is CNN the exclusive channel for the Democratic debate?

Anyone?

Floridatexan wrote:
Anyone?

I don't know but Warren won the night.

Well, FOX wouldn't want to air it, anyway -- they like to keep their viewers in the dark about what Democrats actually say, and just tell them bullshit versions of what they said. They like to re-cut things and edit them so they sound bad... so they wouldn't have aired that live anyway.

I guess CNN put up the money and sponsored it? I honestly don't know. It's not something I really worried about.

I guess I just expected it to be aired by ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. So it took me several minutes to find it and I missed the first part. I agree that Senator Warren was outstanding. She is and has been my first choice. She reminds me of my first real boss...a diminutive lady banker with a stern exterior and a heart of gold...firm but fair. She taught me so much, worked around my class schedules and gave me full time employment every Summer. I am forever in her debt.

I don't know much about Des Moines except that was the page that Damaged ****sad smile**** Eagle came from. That's the creepy con who posted here and bragged about the joys of sleeping with his sister. He would viciously attack anyone who questioned the morality of sleeping with his sister the way IPOTUS attacks anyone who questions him but that's another story. The highlight of Colbert's bit is when Warren points out that only the women on stage are undefeated against republican swine and the men lost a total of 10 times, ouch!

Bernie's zombies are now busy on Twitter (aided by Russian bots, no doubt -- the Russian bots love to promote Bernie because he's the most divisive force for the Dems in decades) trying to smear both CNN (for questioning Bernie) and Warren (#NeverWarren). It's beyond stupid.

This is what happened last time and we've learned nothing. I am getting increasingly sorry that that heart attack didn't at least end that sonofabitch's campaign (and I'd've settled for it killing his ass off -- it'd be a benefit to the world, overall, the guy's a shit). Bernie is why we have Trump in the first place and he and his army of morons are well on their way to doing it again.

I'm not sure Warren's the best choice (I'm not sure who is the best choice... I like Biden but there are weaknesses there that could sideline him), but Bernie is no choice at all, he's got no chance, and he's stirring up hate for her because she's "in his way" and the BernieBots can't handle it. Without Bernie in there we'd probably still have Kamala and Booker, too, and they were far better candidates than he is, and should have gotten much farther.

The second we screw up and nominate goddamn Bernie, the right-wing are going to open up a treasure box of of intel they have on him and he'll be done for as a candidate by the end of the day. Ever notice how they never take any real shots at him, and always even defend him? They're waiting for us to make an unforced error, fuck up, and pick him, because they already know how to take him out.

Watch who they attack now. That's who they don't know a way to deal with.

Whether Sanders or Warren, doesn't matter, the Republicans will eat their lunch and run "socialist" ads seven days a week and we'll have Trump again in a heartbeat.  There are problems with the other candidates as well, especially Steyer, who's waaay out of his league and looks like nothing so much as a deer caught in the headlights, but either Sanders or Warren will spell death to Democrats in 2020 for certain.

RealLindaL wrote:Whether Sanders or Warren, doesn't matter, the Republicans will eat their lunch and run "socialist" ads seven days a week and we'll have Trump again in a heartbeat.  There are problems with the other candidates as well, especially Steyer, who's waaay out of his league and looks like nothing so much as a deer caught in the headlights, but either Sanders or Warren will spell death to Democrats in 2020 for certain.

So we've been told, over and over and over again. I'll wait and see who the nominee is because I already know I'm voting blue. Maybe it will be a brokered convention and Hillary will come riding in to unite the Party. After all Hillary won the last election and that was without the benefit of Bloomberg's constant adds, bashing the brains out of the orange shitweasel who is now planted in our house.

RealLindaL wrote:Whether Sanders or Warren, doesn't matter, the Republicans will eat their lunch and run "socialist" ads seven days a week and we'll have Trump again in a heartbeat.  There are problems with the other candidates as well, especially Steyer, who's waaay out of his league and looks like nothing so much as a deer caught in the headlights, but either Sanders or Warren will spell death to Democrats in 2020 for certain.

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Independent voters will decide the election. Or better yet: Moderate voters will decide the election. Or, wait for it … If Democrats can move to the middle, they will win in 2020.

These tropes conjure up a particular image: a pivotal bloc of reasonable “independent” voters sick of the two major parties, just waiting for a centrist candidate to embrace a “moderate” policy vision. And there’s a reason this perception exits: You see just that if you look only at topline polling numbers, which show 40-plus percent of voters refusing to identify with a party, or close to 40 percent of voters calling themselves moderates.1 But topline polling numbers mask an underlying diversity of political thought that is far more complicated.

Moderate, independent and undecided voters are not the same, and none of these groups are reliably centrist. They are ideologically diverse, so there is no simple policy solution that will appeal to all of them.

To better understand the unbearable incoherence of moderates, independents and undecideds, let’s start by visualizing them. Drawing on data from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group,2 a research consortium that works with YouGov to conduct large-scale surveys, I pulled voters who3 …

Identified as “moderate”
Identified as “independent,” even when pressed to pick a party4
Said they were undecided on how they would vote in a 2020 match-up between President Trump and a generic Democrat.
Here’s how big each group is in the electorate overall, and how much they overlap:



(more: "moderate" voters are all over the ideological map)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

Then again there is this graphic that describes the 2020 election.