The media loves a winner, and after the Democratic debate, pundits leaped over each other to declare their choices for who “won” the debate. Most, unsurprisingly, chose Clinton, because that’s what everyone expected.
But I say no one won.
Debates aren’t elections. They’re not sporting events. In some ways, the candidates aren’t competing against each other but instead are using the debate to promote themselves in a forum that allows voters to compare. 
You “win” the debate by outperforming expectations. You “lose” by making mistakes or coming across as unlikable and untrustworthy.
I still remember Gerald Ford in a debate with Jimmy Carter claiming that there was no Soviet presence in Poland. (Hint: there was.) The press and the Democrats pounded on him for being ill-informed and he just sunk lower in the polls. George Bush looked at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton, as if to say he was bored and this wasn’t really important to him, and that allowed the press to label him as aloof and uncaring. Al Gore’s sighs during his debate with George W. Bush made him look arrogant instead of making Bush look stupid and that didn’t help his campaign (even though he was right about Bush saying idiotic things that deserved sighs).
No one made those kinds of errors last night, although there were some comments that didn’t stand up to scrutiny when fact-checked (although nothing like the kind of lying and outright dishonesty we have seen during the Republican debates).
Hillary “won” yesterday’s debate in that she answered the questions, seemed knowledgeable, and didn’t make any mistakes. But the bar was low for her — she is a good debater, she’s been doing it for years, and she’s always well prepared. We knew what to expect from her, and she met expectations, so pundits claimed her the winner.
Bernie Sanders, however, had everything to gain. Most people knew very little about him. He didn’t make any mistakes, and he pounded his issue concerning income equality, which is a winning topic that any Democrat should push. At the same time, he gave the GOP a lot of clips they can use against him in a general election to portray him as a crazy socialist who hates capitalism, so that doesn’t really help (although in this election year, being “anti-capitalism” may help bring in more young voters).
Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley, and Jim Webb merely had to show to their supporters that they were viable candidates, and of the three, O’Malley came out the best. Webb just seemed angry and many of his positions are just too moderate for the kind of Democratic activists who get involved in elections this early. Chafee had lame excuses for much of his previous votes, and really doesn’t have a chance. These three are probably just jockeying for a Vice Presidential nod.
Based on most unscientific polling, voters said Bernie Sanders won, and if you look at the fact that he took in another $2 million in donations within 24 hours of the debate, I’d say that makes it easier to say he “won” by the standards I set. He outperformed expectations. Again.
10. Sanders, confident of victory or wishing to appeal to the youth vote, lights up a blunt while Hillary is talking
9. Webb arrives wearing a Spider-Man costume, thinking it will help people remember his name
8. Hillary’s face falls off, revealing intricate clockwork mechanism
7. Chafee admits that if this doesn’t work, he’ll see which other political parties might accept him
6. Biden strides on stage mid-debate carrying a beer, slaps everyone on the back, and screams “Where’s the party?”
5. Webb and Hillary go mano a mano after a particularly nasty discussion of trade agreements; Webb carried out by EMTs during commercial break
4. O’Malley pretends to be from Massachusetts, then Nevada; finally breaks down crying upon admitting he’s from Maryland
3. Bill Clinton kicked out of the audience when close-up camera reveals him giving Hillary secret messages via his phone; turns out he was playing ‘Angry Birds’
2. Sanders announces his running mates, Ben & Jerry
1. Trump, jealous of all the attention, storms the stage and calls everyone ‘losers’
Every once in a while, I’ll see one of these memes that say things like “Your people killed mine” or “Your people enslaved mine.”
No, I didn’t.
My ancestors came over to America long after slavery was ended. They had nothing to do with American Indians being killed.
And even if they did, so what? I had nothing to do with it — I wasn’t even born yet.
Taking blame or credit for things your ancestors did always seemed silly to me, and it’s one of the biggest problems that the world faces. There are still people in the Middle East fighting over things that happened 1000 years ago.
Yes, the native Americans were treated terribly. Yes, many blacks were held in slavery in our country. Absolutely. I am not saying “get over it” — far from that, because we should always remember what happened to make sure it never happens again. Instead, I am saying that we should stop identifying each other as “part of that group” (either the oppressed or the oppressors at the time) and stop prejudging people that way.
Isn’t that the root of all discrimination? Assuming that if someone is from a certain racial or ethnic group, they are your enemy?
Obviously, if someone is a part of a present, current-day group they specifically joined and identify with, that is completely different. Someone waving a Confederate flag is pretty easily identified as a jerk. If your bumper sticker says “Obama go back to Kenya” yeah, I know you’re not my friend. That’s not “pre-judging” someone, that’s “judging them based on the evidence presented.”
Prejudice refers to judging people based on things they have no control over (race, sex, country of origin, sexual orientation, age, etc.) And it’s especially true when you judge them over things that happened before they were even born.
I’m presently in Washington DC as an invited guest panelist at Capclave, a literary science fiction convention, where I am promoting my book “Bloodsuckers: A Vampire Runs for President” (among others). Late last night, I was on a fun panel wherein the four of us were challenged to improvise a story based on random suggestions of things from the audience. It was great fun.
But since this is DC, some of the suggestions were political — which is fine with me.
cartoon by Mike Luckovich
I went first, and the three items I was given were “A hat with free will,” “Diet coke” and “Speaker of the House” — so I began a story about Paul Ryan using Harry Potter’s Sorting Hat to determine whether he should be Speaker and being told that he would have to seek out a hobbit named Robert Reich and go on a quest … the story went downhill from there as each panelist took their turn with three new suggestions, involving the Three Stooges, Santa Claus that only spoke in anagrams, a dragon that thought he was Liberace, and a giant robot with a small potato for a heart who was constantly saying “size doesn’t matter.”
But this was in no way as strange, bizarre, and convoluted as the real story for the Speaker of the House. For the first time in American history, nobody wants this powerful and important position, second in line for the Presidency. This is unprecedented.
The Republican party is in such disarray that no one wants to be captain of the sinking ship. The sinking ship that has a continuous mutiny. While it is sailing in the opposite direction of where it needs to go. With a dangerous cargo that… okay, enough of that metaphor. You get the point.
Oh sure, there are a few that want the position but no one is taking them seriously. None of them have enough support to make a difference, and that’s the key — the party is totally disorganized and can’t get its act together, which is why Boehner wants out in the first place.
As for me and my fellow Democrats? We’re just going sit here in the bleachers and watch the demolition derby. Pass the popcorn!
You may have heard about the “good guy” with a concealed carrying permit who saw a shoplifter run out from a Home Depot and decided to be a hero, shooting into the parking lot after the miscreants.
As you can expect, people in the area screamed and ran for cover as she took on this self-appointed role. Too bad she didn’t hit the thieves, because everyone knows the penalty for shoplifting is death.
No police officer or security guard would have done that. They’re trained and understand that deadly force can only be used in self-defense or when others are in danger. Unarmed thieves stealing a toaster pose no threat to anyone.
And this is the biggest problem with guns these days: almost anyone can get one, whether you know how to use one or not. And then too many of the people with guns imagine themselves as some movie hero, buying into the “good guy with a gun” theory, thinking that somehow they’re going to save the day and do a better job than trained professionals.
If you join the military or a police force, they do not just say “Welcome aboard! Here’s your deadly weapon.” You go through training, which is more than just target practice. You learn how and when to use it; you learn about safety; you learn to treat the thing like the dangerous instrument it is. And then they watch you and will take your weapon away if you do stupid things like shooting at an unarmed shoplifter.*
The woman who did the shooting may still be charged and should be, since she endangered everyone there. Hopefully, even gun owners will agree that this was wrong and will not rally to her support.
Not holding my breath, though.
* Well, theoretically, anyway.
ventrellaquest.com 