DEM Debate — Remember there are two sets of judges, the MSM and ordinary people, and the former is more powerful as to shaping public opinion. In part because they control the organs of media in the days of the post-debate follow-up. Thus, it was practically no contest between Gore and Bush in their first debate, but the MSM declared that since GWB had done so much better than expected, it was practically a draw.
The MSM judges will have a thumb on the scale for Clinton. If that’s not enough, they will stick their other thumb on the scale for O’Malley or Webb, whichever delivers the better performance between the two. Unless we see a different and more aggressive Sanders at the debate, he’ll hold his own, but the best he can score with these judges is a draw.
The committed supporters of any of the candidates will, unfortunately, put a thumb on the scale for their preference. Unfortunate, because that clouds their perception of what took place at the debate. Generally in these multi-candidate forums, none of them are impressive. And few are so pathetically bad that they aren’t seen or heard from again.
Unless the moderators strictly enforce the time clock and don’t focus more attention on one of the candidates (which never seems to be how these things are run), Clinton will have this edge. In ’08 when this edge for her was more equally shared with Obama, he gained some points at her expense. The effect was subtle because he was only slightly more consistently better than she was. With the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, the others were all in the same league. Also note that only Clinton and Edwards participated in all the 2007 debates. The 2008 debates did help Clinton, but not because her performance improved against Obama.
The number of possible outcomes are finite but too many and boring to list. While a “clean” and clear win by O’Malley or Webb is possible, it’s one of those “what ifs” that too complicated to consider now. (And I’m completely ignoring Chafee and Lessig.) So, the possible basic outcomes are:
- A Clinton MSM “win.”
- Clinton-O’Malley or Webb MSM tie “win”.
- Clinton-Sanders MSM tie “win.”
- Sanders-O’Malley or Webb MSM tie “win.”
Under outcome #1, Clinton consolidates her support and picks up those waffling between her and Biden. Sanders would stall or lose a few points in the polls. Any window for Biden would be closed.
The second one would also lead to a consolidation of Clinton’s support and O’Malley or Webb would pick up a large chunk of Biden’s poll numbers and some of Sanders’ soft support. Leaving Clinton only slightly short of closing the deal, but no room for Biden.
However, if public opinion differs from that of the MSM judgment wouldn’t that alter the equation and Biden’s decision under those two outcomes? Not really. It would only define whether it was a two person or three person race with some chump change leftover.
The public judgement would play a larger role under the third MSM decision — Clinton-Sanders tie “win.” Possible public opinions:
a) Agree that it was a tie and both are equally strong.
b) Disagree and Sanders was the clear “winner.”
Under (a), both Clinton and Sanders would move up in the polls at Biden’s expense. Under (b) Sanders number would increase but Clinton’s wouldn’t collapse.
There’s one more #3 public opinion potential outcome:
c) Agree a tie and “meh” for all four of the candidates. That’s a large opening for Biden.
The last one #4.
a) If the public agrees, Sanders and O’Malley move up at Clinton and Biden’s expense. Clinton’s operation is too robust for her to fall further than 2nd place in national polling based on one debate. O’Malley moving into a contender slot means Joe stays out.
b) If the public disagrees — Sanders the clear winner and O’Malley merely a distant second — chaos in Camp Clinton. Biden moves in.
Eight plausible outcomes. Only two of which would favor Biden getting into the race. As Joe is his own sort of “meh” and Clinton is staying in the race, under the 3(c) scenario, Biden would have to out hustle Clinton and Sanders. That seems a high bar to me. Thus, 4(b) is the most realistic scenario that would lead to a Biden candidacy. (Of course he could screw this all up by jumping in before the first debate.)
7 Major Headlines: Clinton Clearly Winning the MSM War!
Initial reports from the public judges disagree agreement by a wide enough margin that they (contrary to my projection) may carry weight. And O’Malley should move up from being an asterisk but not sufficiently strong or different enough from Clinton or Sanders to move into being a viable contender.
Bottom line, Biden stays out of the race.
Here’s what I expect from the debate:
As for Biden, I still say, if he gets in with significant party elite support (and I have trouble seeing him jump without it), it will be a game to save Clinton. If Biden were going to do anything as a Presidential candidate, it would have happened by now.
Not sure how that “game to save Clinton” by Biden works. All this “will he or won’t he” talk seems to have achieved a slowed down or stopped Clinton’s numbers falling and Sander’s numbers rising. The polls also indicate that he takes more from Clinton than he does from Sanders, and therefore, his entry could put her in a worse position as far as holding onto the lead.
Where did this “Sanders is weak on FP” meme come from? Clinton then — for IRW — and now — for no fly zones in Syria which is contrary to Obama’s position. Sanders is on the other side of those to two questions.
Webb as attack dog is not his style from what I’ve seen of him. iirc he was calm and measured when running against Allen. The one more likely to be aggressive is O’Malley, but he has to be careful as that presentation style does have a downside. Hence, we have President Obama and not President Clinton.
I’m not particularly wild about Bernie’s proposal for “how do we pay for it.” But at least it would pay for it. Unlike the trillions we squander on wars and nobody ever asks how are we going to pay that.
Haven’t a clue as to how Lessig will perform or the MSM and public response to whatever he says. Chafee’s policy positions are fine and he’s decent man, but he has the charisma of a wet noodle.
However, what any of them says and how articulate and attractive in how they say it matters less how the MSM judges score the bout.
1 – How is Bernie more vulnerable? Hillary and her hawkishness would seem to be.
2 – Jimmy Webb might aggressively go after Hillary on her Iraq vote and her tendency to want to involve the US militarily in ME countries.
3 – She’s a pol, they all pander. Do you expect her not to mention or allude to minority issues? Would be politically stupid.
4 – Lessig hasn’t been invited, apparently didn’t make the cut per CNN rules.
5 – I think Bernie will do fine. He’s been in this political business for decades, and he doesn’t strike me as the timid type to get flustered or defensive. He’ll have good responses ready.
Biden, per the polls, takes about 2/3 of the support that otherwise would go to H. So Bernie would greatly benefit by him getting in. I’m not sure however, as much as I would enjoy the added entertainment value, whether it’s such a good thing for the party to be split roughly among 3 candidates heading into the final primaries and the convention. History says such a fierce intraparty battle for the incumbent party in the WH usually means defeat for that party in Nov.
My assumption, as I stated in a previous thread, is that if Biden gets in, he will lose and his delegates will eventually go to Hillary. I think that is foreseeable, though possibly not by Biden himself. Since it is foreseeable, I think that major party backers of Biden will have that in mind. From that perspective, it doesn’t matter how many delegates Biden takes from Hillary because she will get those in the end. It just matters that he take some from Bernie too. Specifically, if Sanders continues to ascend and Biden gets in (if Sanders does not, Biden doesn’t get in, IMO), Biden can do one or more of the following for Hillary:
Will concede that analyzing it through the delegate perspective does suggest a Biden run would help Clinton. And the primary voter population might not see through ruse.
It could also end up this way with a Biden candidacy:
Deny Clinton a delegate majority, but because of the bitterness of the primary season between the two establishment candidates, the Biden delegates make a deal with Bernie instead. All sorts of wild, unexpected things could occur at a historic, brokered convention (have the Dems had one in the modern primary era?) so nothing should be lightly dismissed as impossible.
They can’t go there. If Clinton has more delegates in a three-way race, they have to give her the nomination. Otherwise, they’ll lose too many female voters for Biden to win the general election. Too many of those women voters felt cheated in 2008 even though Obama won fair and square. They won’t get in line with the DEM nominee if there’s a hint of her losing out by unfair means and that’s what a brokered convention with Biden and Sanders delegates forming a coalition would look like to them.
Yes, if she ends up in June with the most delegates among the three. But what if Biden’s entry costs her just enough to nudge her into a close 2d or 3d place? What if Bernie ends up narrowly ahead of the two establishment candidates as a result of Biden getting in and diluting H’s vote? Generally, would the candidate with just barely (by a few delegates) a plurality have a convincing case that s/he is therefore entitled to the nom?
Well, in the Sanders first and Clinton-Biden as close 2nd and 3rd scenario, we would never know what the results would have been had Biden not entered the race. It would be nothing more than conjecture that he hurt Clinton more than he hurt Sanders.
No do-overs in primary contests.
In a three way — 40%-35%-15% Clinton-Sanders-Biden result, it’s best if Sanders and Biden fold their tents. Same if it’s Sanders-Clinton-Biden, 2nd and 3rd fold their tents.
And let’s not forget that with Bernie, this is not just about personalities. The big money boys in the Democratic Party would be perfectly happy with either Clinton or Biden, but will do everything to undermine Sanders, not because of his personality, but because of his politics. They are likely to undermine him even if nominated. That’s what they did to McGovern.
Well big labor won’t be around to undermine Sanders because big labor doesn’t exist anymore.
It’s sort of depressing to realize that for Sanders to succeed a majority of voters have to behave like citizen adults. To reject all the bs that’s been dished out by both political parties for decades. Suspect that a solid majority in both parties aren’t near that realization. Would sure like to be wrong on that perception.
No, it won’t be big labor this time around, at least big labor is not enough. But corporate money is more of a force, and we will hear endlessly how white of a male Sanders is.
Clinton is “whiter” than Bernie.
You really think the MSM will suddenly do a 180 and frame Qs and interpret the outcome to Hillary’s benefit? Unlikely.
They did favor her early in the 2008 debate process, usually by overpraising her debate performance. But then there were dozens of debates and they started ridiculously early, and so the MSM thinking was probably Let’s build her up a bit now when it doesn’t matter and go after her when it does.
This time only 6 debates, and rather late in the process. Hillary is likely to get more than her share of snarky Qs about emails and issues of trustworthiness, and Benghazi and Kaddafi/Libya and her call for a NFZ in Syria and her hawkishness generally.
On the FP Qs, Bernie is likely to come out looking much better to the Dem base, other than on Israeli-Palestinian issues if those ever are raised.
Bernie might also benefit with Qs posed to her about her recent drift leftward on DP/economic matters. But only marginally. Hillary is likely to reemphasize her strong backing by the minoritiy community and her long standing interest in their issues. Can Bernie break through with them, make a compelling enough appeal without going negative? A key question as he’ll need their support to overcome Hillary in post-NH states.
Whatever personal animus the media might have for Hillary will be left aside in her conflict with Bernie, because the party elite and the media elite do not want the party moved way left, and that is going to matter a lot more than the fact that the media tends to pick on Hillary out of habit. Between Obama and Clinton, or Biden and Clinton, personalities loom large because substantive differences are small. With Sanders, there are real substantive differences.
The MSM, at a certain point in the process, may decide to upgrade Bernie in their coverage. The goal — get the Dems to nominate a Jewish socialist in order to pave the way for the GOP to win the WH.
Well, we’ve seen how well that worked out when the MSM decided to shake up the GOP primary by going all Trump all the time for over a month. Their efforts since then to slay the monster of their own creation have been as effective as spitballs.
It’s not clear that Bernie is a worse GE candidate than Clinton. That’s not what the polls show. Of course, most people don’t know that much about him, so that could change. But if you’re actually going to strategize on such a basis, you’d better be damn sure. A lot of labor MPs saw someone way left who they thought had no chance of winning – in some cases, who they backed as a token leftist, assuming he would not win and not actually wanting him to – win in a landslide. GB and the USA do have some political similarities. You’re stipulating that they would be the farm against Bernie. I think they are a lot more cautious than that. Especially since, who is Bernie going to be running against? Judging from right now, Trump, Carson, or Fiorina. You’re going to bet the farm on one of those when you could have had Clinton?
Mind you, that’s what I think the MSM might calculate.
Moi, I’m officially Undecided. But still mulling over how Bernie’s overall profile would play in the general. All along I’ve said he’s closer to my politics than the others.
If he was only a little more boldly progressive in his FP stance, — especially towards Russia/Putin — it would be a no-brainer for me. Including funding him and volunteering.
You really think the MSM will suddenly do a 180 and frame Qs and interpret the outcome to Hillary’s benefit?
Are you speaking of those posing the questions at the debate of the MSM post-debate round-up? Either way, I totally disagree with the liberal meme that the MSM has been relentlessly negative towards Hillary for decades. (You even concede that early in the 2008 debate process she was given more favorable consideration than the other candidates received.)
Overall, Clinton has received far more attention and love from the media than any other politician not elected President. The media also thrives on scandal and controversy. The higher the public profile of the subject, the more media attention the scandal/controversy commands. Did we hear of the other twenty guys busted for getting a bj that same day as Hugh Grant? Of course not. Also attention, either positive or negative, feeds whichever segment of the population that loves or hates the celebrity because a high percentage of ordinary people form attachments or dis-attachments to celebrities that they don’t personally know and based on almost exclusively mediated information. (Those like Oprah and Ellen are more directly experienced because of the volume of their presence in a format that is less subject to scripting, but they are still seen in a role that they are playing.)
With a fair, balanced, and critical press, Clinton’s high public approval ratings during her tenure as SOS wouldn’t have happened. 2008 Think Progress
Rather bizarre that the subordinate carrying out the policies of GWB/Cheney would enjoy better fav/unfav ratings than her bosses.
I’m saying the MSM tends to praise H (even at times Bill) but when it doesn’t matter. In the offseason (as with their kinda gushing and overdone praise of her Statesmanship in 2013-4), in the early debates of the 2008 cycle.
Whether done pre meditatively or just done as they went along, the MSM’s early pre-season, inconsequential praise served to build her up in ways that couldn’t be supported by the facts, leading to some gaudy and unrealistic early poll #s that were a mile wide and inch deep. It also serves the media to be able to show disingenuously that with this praise, they are not relentlessly, consistently hostile towards her.
“Attention and love from the media”? Yes, pseudo scandal attention, and love when it doesn’t matter. They gave her the pre-season championship trophy. Big whup. They do not intend to crown her the champ when the actual voting starts. The over attention to the non scandal of the emails was another early indicator that they were not going to let her get the nom easily, or at all if they can possibly prevent it.
Politico
Clinton SOP — stall, deny, parse, blame the “vast right wing conspiracy” against Clinton, and when all that fails, apologize for having made a mistake. Yet in this case, she has still not answered why she did it. As Snowden pointed out in an interview — and not addressing possible classified information that may have ended up on her server — it would NOT be a non-issue a government employee in a sensitive position that exclusively used a personal e-mail server for government business. So, why does she get special consideration and merely has to say, “Sorry?”