Althouse: Who won?

October 16, 2019

Who won?

Who won tonight’s Democratic debate?
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 16, 2019

46 comments:

David Begley said...: Candidate to be named later. Bloomberg or Schultz, Howard.; 10/16/19, 6:31 AM
Tank said...: I didn't vote because I only watched the first hour. Based on that hour, it looked like they assumed Warren was the nominee because she seemed to get about 50% of all the talking time. They are all terrible, some slightly less terrible.

Even the Democrats are calling Warren out as, essentially, a liar, for not admitting that her medicare for all plan will raise taxes on all.; 10/16/19, 6:33 AM
rehajm said...: Trump. Again. Hillary came in second.; 10/16/19, 6:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Trump... though I'd say he was tied with the Washington Nationals.; 10/16/19, 6:38 AM
iowan2 said...: I didn't watch. Lack of MSM response would inform me, President Trump won.

Voters that don't consume massive amounts of political media, have reached a conclusion that Dems have been trying to Impeach the President since the inauguration. All political, nothing of substance. Everything after Mueller exoneration, is white noise. Supposedly this new inquiry is on going, but no named crime. Something Ukraine, and the investigation has illuminated Biden, who is defending himself, while President Trump is still waiting for an explanation of what he did wrong, while the investigation is being done in private.

Things are better for people than they have been for decades. Domestic, and foreign affairs are great. The negative stuff they do hear is white noise, because its constant and non specific.

Vote Trump to keep America great; 10/16/19, 6:39 AM
Tank said...: Why does Cernovich use Yang's last name and Tulsi's first name?

Sexist.

I mean it.; 10/16/19, 6:41 AM
sunsong said...: I don't know who won. It's hard to read the dem party right now. Morethan anything they want to win and get rid of donald.

It will be interesting to see the post debate polls; 10/16/19, 6:43 AM
Francisco D said...: I won because I did not watch the "debate."

I also win when I ignore sunsong's trolling.

You can be a winner too.; 10/16/19, 6:52 AM
Francisco D said...: I read four opinion pieces on who won.

Interestingly, everyone seems to have a completely different take.; 10/16/19, 6:53 AM
Jeff Brokaw said...: My oldest son lives in Iowa and says Tulsi signs are predominant. He likes Yang though. So, yeah, what Cernovich said.

I don’t even watch these things but just from the resulting coverage that highlights the crazy from all the other candidates, these two are the last sane ones in the room. Yet the power brokers and kingmakers hate both of them, obviously. Nice work, Dems.; 10/16/19, 6:55 AM
AllenS said...: Does the Fake Indian ever change her clothes? Does she only have that one pair of black pants? You can't be the President if you only have one pair of pants that happen to be black.; 10/16/19, 6:57 AM
cyrus83 said...: Hillary won if limiting this to the Democrats. Overall Trump is probably the winner, the Democrats would do better if they had un-televised debates. The Trump campaign already has so many commercial spots it can make just using debate footage.; 10/16/19, 7:04 AM
Howard said...: Who is watching this shitshow?; 10/16/19, 7:10 AM
Fernandinande said...: Why does Cernovich use Yang's last name and Tulsi's first name?

Racism! The Othering of Yang, emphasizing the inscrupulous nature of the Chinaman.; 10/16/19, 7:24 AM
Clyde said...: Michelle Obama was the big winner. The plurality of Democrats that want someone other than the twelve candidates on offer are yearning for her (28% according to a poll I saw, which was more than any of the current frontrunners). While most Republicans do not like her, Democrats do, not for any particular accomplishment but for the fact that she is former President Obama's wife. And black, and female. The fact that 28% of Democrats polled like her better than declared candidates like Biden, Warren and Sanders speaks volumes about the quality of candidate currently on offer. They have no idea what her policies might be, but she gives them warm, fuzzy progressive feelings, and that's good enough. "Give us Barabbas!" indeed!; 10/16/19, 7:45 AM
Michael K said...: Was there a debate?

Good game from the Nationals.; 10/16/19, 7:51 AM
Tina Trent said...: The Never-Trumpers won. Their whisper campaign -- now creeping out in libertarian astroturf open-borders circles in several states -- designed to advance Tulsi (the name she's using, so it's hardly sexist to use it) as a viable third party vote will deliver us from Trump.

That President Warren will oversee the transition is irrelevant to these ethical nullities.; 10/16/19, 7:51 AM
Kay said...: Lol, I didn’t even realize this happened.; 10/16/19, 7:53 AM
Leland said...: Washington won last night.; 10/16/19, 7:56 AM
SeanF said...: Tank, don't you know Asians put the family name first and the given name last? Obviously, Cernovich used their given name for both.; 10/16/19, 7:59 AM
PJ said...: Why does Cernovich use Yang's last name and Tulsi's first name?

Cernovich might be guided by each campaign’s preferred form of reference to its candidate. For example, Gabbard’s official website is “Tulsi2020” while Yang’s is “Yang2020” and most of their swag (bumper stickers, yard signs) reflects those preferences.

But before we acquit Cernovich of sexism, we should pause to reflect on how the patriarchy arranged the political incentives so as to produce this outcome.; 10/16/19, 8:17 AM
Josephbleau said...: It seems that the Democrat posters on this blog have become disenchanted with the set of candidates offered so far. It will be really depressing for the party when none of these candidates are accepted as viable and a ringer comes in at the last minute. It will look like deception by party elites. Same as the elite Hillary buries prole Bernie act of the last election.; 10/16/19, 8:28 AM
narayanan said...: Tank said... Why does Cernovich use Yang's last name and Tulsi's first name?
____________

Tulsi-n and Yang

go together; 10/16/19, 8:39 AM
Seeing Red said...: I’m not on Twitter,

My response would be “Other,” since I would have written Me since I didn’t watch it.; 10/16/19, 8:39 AM
Professional lady said...: Not watching. Even if the Democrats had a decent candidate I wouldn't vote for a Democrat since the party has gone so far left wing and bat-shit crazy. As I've mentioned before, I very reluctantly voted for Trump. Trump has kept his promises to the electorate to the best of his ability. All the "Resistence" has done is put me firmly in Trump's camp. Anecdote: my millennial nephew-in-law and I were having a political conversation. He told me that he had voted for Obama twice. He said there was no way he would vote for anyone but Trump after the unceasing shit show put on by the Democrats. I wonder how many more are like him.; 10/16/19, 8:39 AM
MayBee said...: sunsong said...
I don't know who won. It's hard to read the dem party right now. Morethan anything they want to win and get rid of donald.

I wish that were true. If they just wanted to win they would not be throwing all the BSC ideas out there (free college! Free healthcare! Impeach Trump! $1,000 a month for everyone! Confiscate guns! Not illegal to cross our border without legal permission!). What are they thinking?; 10/16/19, 8:48 AM
Megthered said...: me because I watched the baseball game.; 10/16/19, 8:51 AM
Darrell said...: Our record Economy would CRASH, just like in 1929, if any of those clowns became President!

--Donald Trump Facebook; 10/16/19, 8:52 AM
Known Unknown said...: "Why does Cernovich use Yang's last name and Tulsi's first name?"

Gabbard's URL is www.tulsi2020.com
Yang's URL is www.yang2020.com

He's just following their direction.; 10/16/19, 9:00 AM
Big Mike said...: Who won last night? The Nats and the Astros!!!; 10/16/19, 9:09 AM
Big Mike said...: (And Donald Trump); 10/16/19, 9:10 AM
AllenS said...: As always, Trump won Tuesday night. He always does. Oh, and Green Bay won Monday night.; 10/16/19, 9:22 AM
GRW3 said...: Trump, of course. In the category of "They Never Learn" I expect whomever the nominee is will be shocked, shocked to find that Trump will run against the promises they made in the Democratic primary campaign and not ther new, more reasonable positions in the general (like Republicans in the past). If he talks about their general positions at all it will be in contrast to ask "Which is the lie?"; 10/16/19, 9:42 AM
SoLastMillennium said...: Who won??

That Drunk Blogger on PJ Media?

https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/drunkblogging-the-october-democratic-debate/; 10/16/19, 9:49 AM
mccullough said...: Biden. He’s by far the most likeable.; 10/16/19, 9:56 AM
BJM said...: The few clips I watched were appalling. None of their plans/schemes/ideas are grounded the real world. How did the Dems come to this pass wherein they don't have a viable candidate?

Bring on Michelle, at least the race would be WWE level entertaining.; 10/16/19, 9:58 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: "Oh, and Green Bay won Monday night."

Not according to the Lions. They are applying the Hillary Standard. They won, and could beat the Packers 'again.'; 10/16/19, 10:04 AM
Doug said...: Buttijigger won.

None of these nattering nabobs is going to beat Trump in 2020, but Mayor Pete staked out the position as the Voice of Reason amidst jabbering fools.

Four years of high visibility activities for him with liberal interest groups, lots of barking at the Trump administration. Come 2024, Fauxcahontas, Crazy Bernie and Slow Joe gone to their just rewards - Buttijigger will have the Golden Ticket.; 10/16/19, 10:05 AM
Michael said...: Who won?
Anyone who didn't watch it.; 10/16/19, 10:32 AM
Big Mike said...: @Michael, you win this thread.; 10/16/19, 10:55 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Biden did himself the best on the night, Harris was absolutely awful beginning to end.

Of course, Biden was treated with kid gloves- no one took the obvious tactic of questioning Biden's son making millions from his father's policy portfolios during the Obama Administration- simple obvious graft to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. One doesn't even have to disdain the impeachment movement in the House to do this, either. One could quite easily say that Trump deserves impeachment, but that Biden deserves to have a thorough colonoscopy on this influence peddling.; 10/16/19, 11:27 AM
Yancey Ward said...: If there is going to be another candidate nominated that wasn't on that stage last night, that candidate has to enter the race before New Hampshire/South Carolina. In my opinion, they really need to enter before Iowa. Trying to parachute in after February, or hoping for a brokered convention is just irrational.; 10/16/19, 11:29 AM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: why is everyone using Cernovich's last name, and not "Mike"?

for Dems, the 'least amount of crazy/dementia' seems to be the winning formula, but they'll have none of that.; 10/16/19, 11:48 AM
Eric said...: Anyone who watched the baseball game instead.; 10/16/19, 12:59 PM
Bilwick said...: On the REASON.com blog someone called Warren "America's Mother-in-Law From Hell." Sounds sbout right.

There's also an article on Warren illustrated by a scary-looking photo of her with her usual teeth-bared grimace and looking like she's trying to simultaneously trying to hit the photographer with a karate chop and a left hook. One commenter suggested that the photo be reproduced on Halloween cards.; 10/16/19, 1:51 PM
Lazarus said...: Of course the old temptation is to use the man's last name and the woman's first name, but in this case, Cernovich is going with the more distinctive name.

Say "Andrew" or "Gabbard" and people may have to think for a minute about who you're talking about. Say "Yang" or "Tulsi" and it's obvious who you mean.

Bernie and Kamala and Beto. Biden and Klobuchar and Buttigieg. It makes sense.

The ones that give trouble are Cory Booker, Liz Warren, Tom Steyer, and the anonymous white guys who manged to get elected to something somewhere but don't make the big debate. For all of them, they use both names.; 10/16/19, 6:57 PM