There was a study during the 2016 elections that showed that over every successive election, the percentage of policy questions had reduced with moderators in debates asking more personality questions. The trend really spiked in 2016 with Clinton being bombarded with “but her emails” questions. It might have fallen to ₂₀% policy questions.

Further, Vox wrote a 2016 article that showed that even on these questions Trump and Clinton spent only half the time actually answering the question.

We are in an in era where we expect candidates to answer gibberish to questions unrelated to job experience. Thus, it’s not unsurprising that candidates are uninformed and unprepared.

Questions about Clintons e-mails aren't really personality questions though, they are questions about her record. I'd say thats fair enough. Policy is only one aspect of things and record matters as much or more. Obama ran on a policy of shutting down Gitmo and Trump ran on a policy of building the wall.

Claudius wrote:

We are in an in era where we expect candidates to answer gibberish to questions unrelated to job experience. Thus, it’s not unsurprising that candidates are uninformed and unprepared.

I agree with you to a point, but we're talking about candidates for the Presidency who are about to be touring a heap of border states where Mexican politics is a local issue. This is like an Australian not knowing who Jacinda Ardern is, it's pretty fucking pathetic.

Her closing remarks are almost worse:

GV: just one final question. How do you plan to win the support of the Hispanic vote in NV and the whole southwest if you can't tell me who the president of Mexico is?.....

AK: Because my heart is with the people of this country and my heart is with immigrants...

Burnwinter wrote:

I agree with you to a point, but we're talking about candidates for the Presidency who are about to be touring a heap of border states where Mexican politics is a local issue. This is like an Australian not knowing who Jacinda Ardern is, it's pretty fucking pathetic.

Don't even need to go that far - imagine the outcry/memes if one of them didn't know the Canadian PM. It would torpedo their entire campaign.

Burnwinter wrote:

Claudius wrote:

We are in an in era where we expect candidates to answer gibberish to questions unrelated to job experience. Thus, it’s not unsurprising that candidates are uninformed and unprepared.

I agree with you to a point, but we're talking about candidates for the Presidency who are about to be touring a heap of border states where Mexican politics is a local issue. This is like an Australian not knowing who Jacinda Ardern is, it's pretty fucking pathetic.

It’s ridiculous. I agree. And shameful.

Of course you'd expect Klobuchar to know the name of the Mexican president, but I think it's much more telling that she can't say anything at all about his politics. That's more important than his name, but she's just blanking out. It looks like somene who's lucked their way into getting a job interview for a position they're in no way qualified for, and to be fair that's exactly what it is.

Or one of those subtle tinges of race-ism?

Feels as much like "beltwayism" in this case, doesn't it …

klobuchar and pete are empty vessels. their only appeal is to a mythological idea that republicans and democrats can work together to fix the problems with this country. republicans are interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing the social safety net, eliminating a woman's right to choose, and rolling back every environmental regulation on the books. the idea that any democrat thinks they can work with republicans should be disqualifying. neither one of them has actual fleshed out, quality plans in place to make a meaningful difference in this country.

still blows my mind the way warren has been treated over the last 6 months

mdgoonah41 wrote:

klobuchar and pete are empty vessels. their only appeal is to a mythological idea that republicans and democrats can work together to fix the problems with this country. republicans are interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing the social safety net, eliminating a woman's right to choose, and rolling back every environmental regulation on the books. the idea that any democrat thinks they can work with republicans should be disqualifying. neither one of them has actual fleshed out, quality plans in place to make a meaningful difference in this country.

still blows my mind the way warren has been treated over the last 6 months

I bumped into an old schoolmate the other night. Doing really well. Told me he’s not voting Warren because she’s exactly like Clinton. Okay!? Both successful white women. What else? Crickets. But that’s the initial impression I’ve heard a few times. While she’s also a dangerous socialist in some quarters

Burnwinter wrote:

Feels as much like "beltwayism" in this case, doesn't it …

More this. What’s the regression? 
White, male, Midwest, moderate, low terms in senate, tall, good orator etc. 

I guess the real winner was the centrist friends we made along the way.

American media is a circus looking for a bigtop. This kind of faulty hypothesis-driven reporting is reprehensible.

Democrats solving for 'electability' / who can beat Trump. Whoever came up with that concept needs to be put in a jail cell with four walls and no doors

arsedoc md wrote:

Bloomberg is second in national polls now? I don't understand how ads work on people. So strange.

i dont get it either. but, i think getting him on a debate stage would be bad for him, because hes an empty suit with no real proposals. i think his rise in the polls can be attributed to the following, in no particular order:

• he entered the race very late and got a big bump, just like sanders did when he entered, and just like biden did when he entered
• once you are in the race, you start to come under scrutiny and if the attacks stick, you will lose support. just in the last 2 weeks, hes taken a flurry of criticism for his issues with race and his poor record. this will only intensify. but it took like 4 months of sustained attacks on biden for that stuff to show in his poll numbers. it will catch up to bloomberg
• people are terrified (rightly so) of trump being re-elected, and i guess they think replacing him with a slightly less awful oligarch is better than trump winning. trump winning is the single worst outcome possible in 2020. bloomberg winning is a very close second.
• bloomberg has spent a massive amount of money on old media (tv), and i think the type of people who react to tv ads are the same type that have landlines and respond to telephone polling. those people do vote in numbers, but i think it does skew the sample. i havent had a landline in almost 20 years, and ive been called exactly 2 times in the last 10 years to ask to be part of a poll.

i dont think hes going to win the nomination. i just wish he'd get out of the race. if we're going to put a billionaire up against trump, id rather it be steyer, since at least his policies are progressive, even if hes a dickhead trying to buy the presidency. but he has no chance either.