Debate coach: Bad night for Bernie

[CajunBlazer]

Debate coach: Bad night for Bernie CNN by By Todd Graham

(CNN) For Thursday night's Democratic debate, I'm focusing my debate coach evaluation squarely on improvements.

Hillary Clinton: A-

She still interrupts too much. No improvement there.

She still has a terrible answer to the question of why she won't release her Wall Street speech transcripts. But Sanders won't release all his tax returns either. (They're both still ducking questions with answers that don't pass the smell test.)

However, Clinton did have a better debate in some significant ways. The first was in demanding Sanders produce examples of her being influenced by Wall Street, as he has so often charged. She asked for an example, and when he couldn't come up with one, she said, "This is a phony attack designed to raise questions with no evidence or support... he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example."

Good response...but this wasn't even her best retort of the night.

(snip)

Bernie Sanders: D

First, he had nothing new. By this point in the debate cycle, Sanders should have been ready with specifics on how he'd pay for his proposals without raising the debt, hurting businesses or crushing the middle class. But he was not prepared with this.

He couldn't specify how he'd break up the banks, which he said he'd let them do themselves somehow.

Sanders demonstrated an inability to understand either the premise of questions or that he was contradicting himself, which is not a sharp debating stance.

To show his gun-control bona fides, Sanders repeated his oft-told story about how the NRA caused him to lose an election in 1988 by opposing him. But Clinton was ready for this, and for the first time in a debate, smartly produced an account of what happened after 1988. Sanders won every election, she said. Why? He made promises (or softened his stance to) the NRA.

She even noted that in his own book Sanders claims he won in 1990 because the NRA opposed his rival. Indeed, as she pointed out, he voted against the Brady Bill five times.

So if you're keeping score at home, while Sanders could not provide a single piece of legislation that Clinton supported (or blocked) that offered proof of her being influenced by Wall Street, she slammed home an example of Sanders being influenced -- and changing his voting because of influence -- by the NRA. She noted that he's been a reliable supporter ever since that first election loss.

(snip)

[2pooped2pop]

1. lol

we must have watched different debates.

[CajunBlazer]

12. No, same debate

He is a debate coach and doesn't view Sanders as as a saint like you do. I watch the debate and I was absolutely sure that Sanders fans would would come away thinking that St. Bernie had done WONDERFUL job. They always do, just like the young women in the audience who screeched every time Sanders said any thing like he was 74 year old rock star.

As a former competitive debater myself I can see his points clearly. What you need to understand that in competitive debates and you are debating proposition, the subject matter is unimportant. I might be asked to take one side of an issue today and the defend opposite side of the same issue tomorrow. You are judged as whether you were more effective is present your assigned side of an issue than your opponent.

The author has judged many debates and has learned to put aside whatever prejudices he might have on the issues and just judge the performance of the debaters.

Hillary is good debater, but not great because she is not good at spontaneity. That is the ability come up with sharp and/or amusing comments on the spur of the moment that sets her opponent back on his heels. Of course, Bernie lacks that ability as well. However, Hillary makes up for that lacking with preparation; she was ready for anything last night. Bernie, not so much.

[Gothmog]

2. As a former high school and college debater, I agree with this analysis

[msanthrope]

11. College debater, law school mock trial. Yes. Nt

[Gothmog]

17. Same here but I also did moot court and law review

[gordyfl]

3. At the End of the Debate Bernie Received the Bigger Applause. Clearly Bernie Won the Debate.

Examples:


SANDERS: That was my view way back, and I introduced legislation to do that. Now, Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000 a speech.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: It is important — it’s always important. It may be inconvenient, but it’s always important to get the facts straight. I stood up against the behaviors of the banks when I was a senator.

I called them out on their mortgage behavior. I also was very willing to speak out against some of the special privileges they had under the tax code.

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements? So they must have been very, very upset by what you did.

BASH: Secretary Clinton, if I may, Senator Sanders keeping bringing up the speeches that you gave to Goldman Sachs. So I’d like to ask you, so you’ve said that you don’t want to release the transcripts, until everybody does it, but if there’s nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters’ minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: "You know, first of all — first of all, there isn’t an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused...."

BASH: Madam Secretary...


BASH: Senator Sanders, one second, please. Secretary Clinton, the question was about the transcripts of the speeches to Goldman Sachs.

(APPLAUSE)

Why not release them?

CLINTON: I have said, look, there are certain — there are certain expectations when you run for president. This is a new one. And I’ve said, if everybody agrees to do it — because there are speeches for money on the other side. I know that.

BASH: Secretary Clinton, we’re going to get to the tax returns later, but just to put a button on this, you’re running now for the Democratic nomination.

CLINTON: Right.

BASH: And it is your Democratic opponent and many Democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. It’s not about the Republicans...

(APPLAUSE)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. He was grading the debate and not the crowd.

[Betty Karlson]

23. So he was judging technique, not crowd reponse?

Here is some truth for you: crowds vote, techniques don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Here is some truth for you. Hillary Clinton will ne the nominee.

Some boorish supporters of a certain candidate violated the rules for the audience and booed a candidate. The Clinton supporters were too polite to respond in kind. I would have told them to STFU and probably caused a melee.

[Betty Karlson]

26. Clinton would be GE disaster at the top of the ticket.

The party will implode before our eyes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Hillary will be the next president. I know that disappoints you...

Too bad.... Too sad...

[Betty Karlson]

28. Wow... the level of presumption. First, you posted as if there were no primaries to be had,

now you post as if the GE is not going to happen either. How can you sustain such an anti-democratic attitude?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Your logic is flawed.

If I assert with confident that the Golden State Warriors will be the 2016 NBA champions that doesn't mean I have an anti-basketball "attitude". It just means I reviewed the available information and drew the most logical conclusion from it.

[Betty Karlson]

32. Not a basketball enthousiast. But I still know presumption when I see it in politicians.

Clinton is a GE disaster feeling entitled to happen. Sanders is a landslide victory the DNC doesn't want to have.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. My opinion is based on readily observable facts.

And those readily observable facts suggest the Vermont independent has less of a chance to become president than Herr Trump and Rafael Cruz, Jr.:


http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner#Link3

[Betty Karlson]

36. Polls suggest Clinton would barely win from Trump, and lose to any other GOP-er.

How is that for a readily observable fact?

How entitled must her supporters be to want to risk all that? What is it about the status quo you are so desperate to preserve?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. "Facts are stubborn things..."

Polls suggest Clinton would barely win from Trump

NO , THEY DON'T. ergo:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

[Betty Karlson]

40. So you agree that she would lose to pretty much every other GOP_er?

And so your entire hope is based on Trump clicnching the nomination in tandem with Clinton? Astounding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. You might want to try your obscurantist debating tactics on nickelodian. They might work there.

Hillary-Clinton-Rafael Cruz:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-cruz-vs-clinton

[Betty Karlson]

42. that graphic went up to March. There have been some shifts (negative for Clinton) since then.

something to do with 57% of the public thoroughly distrusting her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. CONFIDENCE OF LEAD The probability that Clinton leads Cruz is 99%.

that graphic went up to March. There have been some shifts (negative for Clinton) since then.

^^^^^^^^
OBSCURANTISM


I don't believe any serious observer expects the G E winner to win by thirty points, especially when the last seven elections have been decided by eight points or less.

[Betty Karlson]

46. Confidence of lead was calculted over trend up to March. Your logic fails:

three months old data is not prima facie still valid. When 57 % of voters turned out to have a trust issue with Clinton, her calculated lead started dropping: in polls against Sanders, in polls against the GOP field (where she would only - narrowly - beat the blundering neo-fascist) and so on.

For you to insist that three months of developments did not happen - I wonder what president Adams would call that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Only the latest polls are included in the average. That is where the Confidence Interval comes from

Herr Trump and Rafael Cruz Jr. will not be POTUS, notwithstanding your fervent desire they will be.


Oh:

[CajunBlazer]

48. You're distorting the facts or looking at very old polls

Here are the latest two National polls:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 48, Trump 41 Clinton +7

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CBS News Clinton 50, Trump 40 Clinton +10

Those are bigger margins than any presidential election in the last 40 years.

In addition we don't elect our President by the popular vote, in the Electoral College state poles indicate that Clinton would beat Trump by a landslide. For instance the latest Georgia should Trump losing to Hillary. Georgia has gone for a Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter.

[Betty Karlson]

60. So you too admit that she'd lose to Cruz - and you still insist on taking that risk?

[CajunBlazer]

61. Okay, so you can't read - conversation over.

[Betty Karlson]

62. Yes I can read - and I saw that was the part of my response you didn't address.

In debating societies, that is called conceding the point.

[metroins]

38. The primaries were over a month ago.

Hillary is leading by a huge margin of delegates and 2.5 million votes.

She ran a better campaign.

[Betty Karlson]

39. Nope, the primaries are still going on. NY will not be happy to learn you consider it negligeable.

[CajunBlazer]

13. You don't win debates because your fans are more enthusiast.

There were equal numbers of Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters audience. The Sanders supporters were just younger and acting like they were young girls at a rock concert. That doesn't mean $#/!~.

Or no more than when Sanders fans clickity clak Sanders to the top of internet polls. Enthusiastic people can only vote once.

[Betty Karlson]

29. You don't win primaries with bought and paid-for establishment mouthpieces.

[CajunBlazer]

64. Sure you do

And if Hillary has "bought and paid-for establishment mouthpieces" and she is definitely winning with them. And, oh.... by the way, Bernie is losing without them. Maybe he ought to recruit some.

[Betty Karlson]

65. Yes, I certainly remember him losing eight of the last nine states. Wait: that was Clinton!

Seems Bernie doesn't need them. But thanks for admitting that Clinton's support was mostly bought.

[CajunBlazer]

66. Maybe I should start using the sarcasm emoticon when appropriate

[snowy owl]

5. He stays on message; she goes for gotchas. They were dishonest gotchas but effective.

So much for political junkies. Those of us with a vision for the future and who want our democracy back from the 1% know that Bernie is our answer. But the gotcha girl may have won the debate. Sometimes debates are won dishonestly. For those of us who are educated on the issues, it is hard to accept.

[CajunBlazer]

14. In otherwords he says the same thing every time he talks.

[Betty Karlson]

30. Yes, unlike Cinton he doesn't change positions just because a poll or focus group has been had.

[DesertRat]

6. Good analysis

[JCanete]

7. Good thing this expert weighed in to tell us why Bernie actually lost this debate

or we might have missed it.

And the grading here is absolutely arbitrary. He gave her points for trying to be high and mighty about gun violence? the woman who laughed when she said "we came we saw he died..." is going to lecture somebody else on the seriousness of death and violence? It was ridiculously sanctimonious theatrical pandering, and to Bernie's credit, he wouldn't be brow-beaten by it. For that matter it was intentionally misconstruing what he was chuckling about, which was her mischaracterization of his positions. Don't tell me she didn't know this when she decided to try to score points by making him out to be callous.

This article smacks of all kinds of bullshit too, so I'm not surprised he digs hers.

"Sanders should have been ready with specifics on how he'd pay for his proposals without raising the debt, hurting businesses or crushing the middle class. But he was not prepared with this." This isn't an example of a debate coach grading a performance in an impartial way, it's an example of a private citizen at best, and corporate stooge at worst, trying to define the win conditions based upon an entirely fabricated narrative about raising taxes. What the hell does he think is happening to the middle class now? Because of higher taxes?

Totally credible source you guys found here!

[tabasco]

8. LMAO.

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Typical style over substance hogwash from the corporate whore media.



Sanders kicked ass.

[CajunBlazer]

19. Only on internet polls

clickity click, clickity click

[Betty Karlson]

24. Hellbound sluts lusting after racist and sexist Bernie-bros, the lot of them

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. If you don't mind I will defer to the opinion of a championship winning debate coach

If you don't mind I will defer to the opinion of a championship winning debate coach and not a value laden poster with a partisan axe to grind:


Todd Graham is director of debate at Southern Illinois University. His teams have won national championships for three years, and he's been recognized twice as the national debate coach of the year. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his

[tabasco]

44. Clinton's numbers are tanking.

Sanders' numbers are surging.

Go figure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Sriracha sauce

Sanders' numbers are taking in NY where he needs to win:



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-york-presidential-democratic-primary


Oh, if you are going to cite national polls don't bother. There is no national primary and even if there were 60% of the people already voted.

"Go figure."

[redstateblues]

52. Not where it counts-in NY, PA, MD, CT, RI

Hillary's lead is holding steady

[frylock]

9. I gave Hillary an A++ and Bernie an E-

[JTFrog]

10. Indeed.

Hillary should have this wrapped up in no time. I'm pretty sure he lost any chance of being elected last night.

[mcar]

15. I agree completely

[SoLeftIAmRight]

16. Roll Tide

...

[CajunBlazer]

18. No, Go Blazers!

Don't assume everyone is an Alabama fan. You'll piss off a lot of Auburn and UAB fans who hate Alabama sports teams.

In other words don't display your ignorance for all to see.

[Recursion]

22. Did UAB get its team back? (nt)

[CajunBlazer]

56. Yes we did get our UAB football program back!

If you are familiar with the story, you know Alabama boosters on on University of Alabama Board of Trustees did their best to take our football program away for from us, and they did manage to kill the program for a few months. But they screwed up and pissed us off, and pissed off the the entire city of Birmingham, including its business leaders.

We did everything in our power to bring the program back. We held rallies, we invaded Board of Trustees meetings, we raised lots of money, we marched to the UAB Administration Building, and gave Ray Watts, the puppet that the BOT installed as President of UAB, such such a hard time that he traveled with a four man security team where he went. He worked remotely most days and when he went into his office he took a helicopter to the roof the nearby hospital helipad and from there through back passageways to his office. His wife didn feel safe going to the grocery store or the hair dressers even though no one knew what she looked like. "Fire Ray Watts!" became the most popular chant at basketball games and all of our protests on campus.

I was personally on a small team that raised money and developed commercials we ran local TV stations and on another team of about 35 of us took off from work and spent 6 days lobbing every State Senator and Representative to enact punitive legislation against the BOT. We had a rally of 500 people on the steps of the Capital Building in Montgomery day that the state legislature went into session.

No one thought that we could win because the BOT was considered untouchable. It is run by a tight group of Trustees who are almost all graduates and fans of the Tuscaloosa campus and its Crimson Tide athletic programs. They have always blatantly favored the Tuscaloosa campus over UAB and UAH (Huntsville), but no one could do anything about it. The Board is self perpetuating. That is when a Trustee leaves the Board for whatever reason, the other Trustees chose his/her replacement, and they elect another of their own. So they answer to no one. They are also very rich and very political powerful. For years the BOT has been the private fiefdom of Paul Bryant, the sleazebag son of Alabama former legendary coach, Bear Bryant.

But the BOT and their puppet, UAB President Ray Watts, made a crucial mistake. They used the lack of money as their excuse for shutting down the football program, even though everyone knew it wasn't about money. Everyone knew it was to keep UAB from growing into a competitor to their precious Crimson Tide football team, though no one really believed that was even possible. They keep their plans secret for 6 months to make sure that our athletic boosters weren't alerted to the coming program termination so didn't have time to raised the funds to prevent it.

Once the announcement was made after the 2015 season, and the ruckus started, the President's office started leaking documents like a sieve. On particularly damaging document showed that the President had hired one of the best national public firms, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to advise him on how to best shut down the program. That same set of documents showed that the President had lied to our biggest financial boosters, the Mayor and City Council of Birmingham, and the press when he said that he was studying the matter, but had not yet made a decision on whether to shut down the football program. The leaked document produced by the public relations firm clearly indicated that he had made the final decision at least four months before and probably earlier than that.

Portions of the document along with the the puppet President's lies were published on the front page of the local newspaper. Yet the President, Ray Watts, was not fined or even admonished by the BOT, a clear sign that he was doing their bidding.

We keep in close contact with the columnists and sports writers of the Birmingham News, the local newspaper, and they were all over the situation, writing columns and articles super critical of the BOT and the puppet President at least three or four times a week. We continued to feed them juicy stories and leaked documents and they ate it up. The pressure mounted every day.

We commissioned a study by a Sports Economic firm which prove that UAB was making money, not losing money on football.

Finally former UAB players who are now successful businessmen and other other big UAB financial boosters pulled recruited a group of 99 of the richest and most powerful businessman in Birmingham to join our cause. The day before the President had set to make a decision on whether to bring the program back or not, a group of those businessmen had a meeting with the UAB President, Ray Watts. By then we had pledges of $15 Million over the next 5 years, but Watt had said that wasn't good enough. The Business men produced a document and all signed it personally guaranteeing all of the funds necessary not not only bring back the football program, but also to build top rate coaches offices, nice practice fields and an indoor practice building - all of the facilities necessary for the program to be successful that the BOT had never let us build before.

The next day Ray Watts announced he would allow the football program to return. UAB took an $11 million dollar loss when it shut down the program and that was gone forever.

Through it all our great football coach, Bill Clark, hung with us. He was under contract and chose to stay at UAB to see if we could get the program back rather than seek another job. He started recruiting and rebuilding the coaching staff the day after the announcement. Soon after the City of Birmingham Civic Center Board announced that they would finance and build a new outdoor football stadum where UAB would be the primary tenant. The new on campus football facilities are currently in design and construction should start soon.

Coach Clark decide that it would take until until the start of the 2017 to recruit the players to necessary to rebuild the team. The NCAA allowed us to recruit players above the normal 25 recruit per year limit and ruled that our recruits the lose any of eligibility until we start playing again in the fall of 2017,

They tried their best to kill our program, but in the end it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to UAB football. You never know what you have until you lose it. The students, faculty and the city of Birmingham are all solidly behind the program. People all over the nation nation know the story and we now have fans pulling for us all over the country. We fraught back against incredible odds and won. It will be a great book one day. When the Blazers come back, we are going come back stronger than we have every been before.

The 45 players which Coach Clark recruited this year was the best recruiting class in Conference USA and the best in UAB football history. Before, we might get one or maybe two 3 star recruits per annual recruiting class. Now we are we attracting 4 and 5 star recruits and 3 star recruits are common.

Damn right we are going be back! They tried to shut down our program and instead they created a monster.

[Recursion]

59. Glad to hear it. Go blazers!

I'm a Bulldawgs fan myself, but always glad to see our neighbors play.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

49. They got a name for the winners in the world

Some people win

Some people win and do so with class

Roll Tide

[CajunBlazer]

50. Some programs buy national chanpionships

They are like the one percent, like the big banks, should be disbanded.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

51. Roll Tide - 4 out of the last 7

I watched them - if you watched them you would have seen the Crimson Tide players handing money to the other teams before each play

it was shocking - nobody was trying to stop it - oh my

lol

[CajunBlazer]

53. Don't worry, you're going need to replace your coach soon

And like the bear, no one is going to want to follow Nick.

[Lucinda]

20. KNR

[angrychair]

21. Hey

Your the person that posted an OP using neo-Nazi , anti Semitic, holocaust denial hate sites and their crazy conspiracy theories about Sanders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251941346

[Umbral18]

35. That is cute, you think debates are about debating. nt

[CajunBlazer]

58. It's not cut - it's about Sanders getting his butt beat for the entire nation to see

right before the critical NY primary.

[Demnorth]

54. Great analysis.

He was weak, especially on a fundamental issue - the big banks - and failed to justify his insinuations that Clinton has favored Wall Street, while it was proved he had that relationship with the NRA.

I suppose he had to push for this debate prior to the 19th, yes, but it was a gamble that didn't work. He seems used to giving rallying cries promoting his vision, but not so comfortable or prepared to explain how he would achieve these goals.

Clinton had her ups and downs, but mainly ups. She communicated really well how her plans were thought out, very solid.

[Vattel]

55. Talk about a fallacious appeal to authority.

[CajunBlazer]

57. talk about a weak attempt to talk BS

[Vattel]

63. A debate coach, no less. I guess I should defer to the expert.