Not a single question on climate change either which polls showed was the most important issue to SC voters. Good thing they managed to squeeze in that last question about the candidates' favourite inspirational quote though, wouldn't have wanted to miss that! "If you were a Twitter bio, what would it read??"

The line of questioning yesterday was just the party and the political pundits continuing to get everything wrong. Basically the entire debate was about trying to put Sanders on the spot for saying good things about aspects of social dictatures and fighters ("Really? You opposed the Contra death squads in Nicaragua? Praised Cuba for helping to end apartheid by fighting in Angola?? Liked that communists HELPED PEOPLE TO LEARN HOW TO READ?!") and it shows how disconnected they are from everything and everyone. Like I wrote earlier, it's not about ideology for the bulk of the voters below retirement age. It's about how little money people have, and how dark their future prospects are, and what these candidates are going to do to change that. The red scare is a Cold War tactic that no one under 50 can relate to anymore.

Sanders is probably going to win the popular vote in South Carolina too, and the MSNBC and CNN analysits will be at a complete loss to explain why again, despite people telling them every single day.

Like I've said before, people need to move away from Cold War political ideologies. They have nothing to do with the present moment. And the moderators are mischievious and provocative, presenting the Cuba question in black and white terms, because Cold War thinking allows you to do that. Cuba has excellent education and healthcare services. They've sent doctors all over Africa and trained African doctors in Havana. Is it really impossible to praise their advances in social services and divorce that from any (however legitimate) criticisms you have of the regime?

It was so infuriating. America should be embarrassed

Klaus wrote:

Sanders is probably going to win the popular vote in South Carolina too, and the MSNBC and CNN analysits will be at a complete loss to explain why again, despite people telling them every single day.

I don't follow this as closely as you guys, but I thought SC was basically Biden's?

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Sanders is probably going to win the popular vote in South Carolina too, and the MSNBC and CNN analysits will be at a complete loss to explain why again, despite people telling them every single day.

I don't follow this as closely as you guys, but I thought SC was basically Biden's?

Biden is facing a 2-front war and he doesn't have a clear position to ward off his challengers. Sanders has been consistently closing the gap. Bernie was 4-5 points behind in a recent NBC poll, and he could still be gaining ground based on the first 3 races. Steyer's pro black policies have also eaten into Biden's black base. 

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Sanders is probably going to win the popular vote in South Carolina too, and the MSNBC and CNN analysits will be at a complete loss to explain why again, despite people telling them every single day.

I don't follow this as closely as you guys, but I thought SC was basically Biden's?

Sanders matched him in some polls before the debate. The people they are polling usually represent a smaller volume of his voters too than they do for Biden, and the theme so far has been that Sanders has a lot more ground crew than other candidates do, and they're more driven. They knock on an insane amount of doors and hold rallies and meetings in areas where other candidates don't bother.

Historically Biden has had a lot of black support, but the numbers were much worse than he expected in Nevada which followed a clear trend so far. And like I said, the climate was the number one issue going into SC according to polling. 84 percent said it was their main concern. They tried to pretend it didn't exist during the debate but Sanders mentioned it a few times, and he was the only one that I remember doing so.

Tom Steyer mentioned climate. Said he'd make it his number 1 priority if he was voted. But no specific question on climate. The half dozen moderators did a great job of letting contestants talk over each other and then randomly moving the debate around with no clear thematic path and not allowing a quorum of candidates to answer each question. They were just tossing out bait for fights

What do you guys make of Warren's performance so far?

The biggest disappointment this year for me has been Warren. I know a few people campaigning for her that are very smart and well-meaning, so I expected Warren to be someone others could unite behind: a safe establishment democrat who can appeal to Sanders' supporters, etc.

Instead she has come across as desperate and unhinged. Her campaign initially appealed to unity and lambasted Bernie's for a minuscule personal attack (there was nothing there), but since then it seems almost all of Warren's interventions at the debates have been vicious personal attacks on the other candidates. Her appeals to "people of colour" or "trans" have landed (to me) as insincere and intellectually dishonest, too.

I'm also having a hard time trying to understand what Steyer and Klobuchar are doing on stage. Tulsi and Yang would have been far more enriching to democratic debates than those two.

So overall I think Warren has the best policy platform. She has a complete set of policies that speak to Americans, and she goes in depth in her healthcare reforms with an implementable agenda, or covers groups like black women who have been under-served before. And not just aiming adverts, but creating real policy.

When she speaks she conveys an intellect levels above her competitors. And when she was down, she came back with the murder of Bloomberg.
That said I thought she seemed a bit desperate yesterday. Going back after Bloomberg was a miscalculation. He was already reeling. There was no need to pile on with additional accusations, especially speaking out of turn. She should've just joined everyone on a Bernie bashing party, and found a way to present herself as a less polarising alternative to him

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02/michael-hudson-the-democrats-quandary-in-a-struggle-between-oligarchy-and-democracy-something-must-give.html

RC8 wrote:

What do you guys make of Warren's performance so far?

I think Warren is the perfect example of someone who'll never be trusted by the big chunk of progressive voters because at every opportunity she gets she keeps punching left and leaning right. She's backtracked on super pac's, on taking campaign donations from billionaires, on universal healthcare, and she's always been pro-war. Her foreign policy advisors consist of people who've either engineered or cheered on every major conflict in modern times going back to the Gulf war. She has voted for bloated military budgets and sanctions at every turn and has nonexistent support from people of colour.

It seems to me that the optics of it - an experienced woman, ostensibly with a platform bridging the gap between the establishment and Sanders - endeared her to liberal media who before the election were convinced that you needed a more moderate approach in order to win. Since there was absolutely no post-mortem performed on the failure in 2016, what's happening now has been a complete bewilderment to them.

Her entire campaign so far, to me, has been a cautionary tale about what happens when you don't have any strong convictions though. There are centrists on the stage at every debate night that are better at centrism than her, and she has given no one any reason whatsoever to support her over Sanders when it comes to progressive issues. I'm kinda amazed she has any support at all left.

Thing is, Bernie isn't polarizing. That's the lie. He appeals to Trump voters and to progressives and everyone in between except those that are bought and paid for by the rich and powerful. I'm not even that sold on Sanders as a truly committed leftist, let alone as some kind of radical.

Warren has solid credentials, a strong advocate for the consumer and working class. 
She has plans/ policies that she can articulate clearly, and  did not invent yesterday, like Pete.
Backtracking on issues isn’t necessarily a mistake.  IMO, It means the person is open to compromise.
My main problem with her, which I have pointed out before, is her overall stance on foreign policy, a pure hawk.
My main problem with Bernie is gun control.
I have dismissed the rest of the group.  
Pete needs to find out what he really believes in and gain some experience dealing with national issues.
To Biden I say it’s nap time.
Steyer can do his best work on climate crisis as a private citizen.
Amy, at least for me, is a too much of a centrist, more like Hilary than anyone else, at least more likeable and not so many skeletons in the closet.
And Bloomberg, well, the less said the better.  
Only two candidates for me.....So I lean toward Bernie, got my vote last time, and Warren comes in behind him.

And I have stopped watching the debates, stupid, stupid format , thanks to DNC and media, everyone comes out looking like a loser.

Anybody who can vote can nitpick about each candidate, point out policy flaws, etc. 
But....
The bottom line is who can beat trump.  
The bottom line is if you do not vote you help trump.
The bottom line is if you are voting to beat trump, you vote for the Democratic candidate even if they didn’t get your vote in the primary.  That is painful, I know.

RC8 wrote:

What do you guys make of Warren's performance so far?

The biggest disappointment this year for me has been Warren. I know a few people campaigning for her that are very smart and well-meaning, so I expected Warren to be someone others could unite behind: a safe establishment democrat who can appeal to Sanders' supporters, etc.

Instead she has come across as desperate and unhinged. Her campaign initially appealed to unity and lambasted Bernie's for a minuscule personal attack (there was nothing there), but since then it seems almost all of Warren's interventions at the debates have been vicious personal attacks on the other candidates. Her appeals to "people of colour" or "trans" have landed (to me) as insincere and intellectually dishonest, too.

I'm also having a hard time trying to understand what Steyer and Klobuchar are doing on stage. Tulsi and Yang would have been far more enriching to democratic debates than those two.

Warrens CV is impressive, and i expected her and bernie to be front runners come super tuesday. I think she missed her window to establish herself as THE progressive candidate in 2016, and the result is that bernie has solidified himself as the uncompromising people's champion in voters minds in the last 5 years. He does come across as more authentic and consistent than warren. I think americans also are quietly spooked about a woman running against trump again, even though her and hillary are very different candidates.  Then there's also what klaus mentioned about her not being moderate enough for moderates, and not progressive enough for progressives, leaving her in a no-mans land where neither wing of the party really rallied around her forcefully. Not sure how much truth there is to it, but there were a few stories about ex-clinton and ex-obama consultants joining her campaign, and that's when the more moderate talking points began to surface

Gazza M wrote:

Not sure how much truth there is to it, but there were a few stories about ex-clinton and ex-obama consultants joining her campaign, and that's when the more moderate talking points began to surface

This wouldn't surprise me, especially as her - shall we say - "economically moderate" statements seem to have come accompanied with more 'woke' twitter-progressive-like talking points as if to make up for them.

It's a shame to see her attention to detail - a huge asset - go to waste like that.

she differentiated herself from the moderate candidates really well in the early running. in the last 3-4 months she then also tried to differentiate herself from bernie - arguably the most 'popular' politician the country. i don't blame her for trying to do that, as it's part and parcel of politics. the problem is she was simultaneously trying to position herself as the unity candidate that could satisfy both wings, and it just ended up with a conflicting image that wasn't easy to market and ended up hurting her numbers. i don't see a path back for her, she's still polling around 10%-15% in the upcoming states

I don't follow this as closely as you guys, but I thought SC was basically Biden's?

it's still trending towards a biden win by at least 5 points, but thats way down on what he would've wanted. it has tightened significantly in recent months. bernie finishing a close 2nd to him and scooping up delegates in a southern firewall state like SC would still be impressive on his part

It’s sad to see Warren flailing. But at least the 2016 Bernie experiment proved that there is space for politicians with good social policies. And I think this leg of the Democratic Party will strengthen. It’s interesting to see what might happen to the party. I suspect that a bit like the Republicans, the more ‘extreme’ part of the base could be easier to consolidate. Those who fall under Bernie with more social democratic economic views probably have more consistently liberal social views as well. (Would be good to validate).

The centre is where it gets interesting. This is where all the older blacks that Biden and Steyer are. While they aren’t the future of the party, they are a stable, dependable base. Many of them also have more conservative social views.

So I think it will be easier going forward to consolidate and form an identity on the left rather than on the moderate end. It will be easier to segment folks and excite a young target audience. I suspect a permanent shift of the Democratic centre leftwards will happen

Female candidates in general have a problem, sadly... The debates are staged like boxing matches and if you surround a woman with grumpy old men who is swinging at everyone left and right, she is going to have a hard time avoiding sounding shrill and desperate when she wants to assert herself.

It's really hard to tell what the ideological momentum of these popular surges inside major parties is.

Take a look at UK Labour. The relatively moderate Keir Starmer is easily leading the left candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey in the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn, despite the ranks of members who joined when Corbyn took the leadership.

The next GOP leader is highly likely to be managed by the establishment as well.

The thing that would push the ideological territory left in the US, if it were to happen, would be the successful delivery of some of Sanders' promises. I'm a bit sceptical that will happen.

Really good points, Burns.
I do think the issues on the left are pressing concerns for Americans. American education is exorbitant. You pair that with preying and discriminatory banks and its constantly growing threat. Healthcare too. Even if no laws are passed, I think the ever growing crisis impacting younger people will lead them to listen. Remember that white boomers were somewhat shielded from these concerns through significant government investment, so they are less likely to be moved by these concerns. Will see what happens.