Tagged: John Hickenlooper
Upcoming Democratic Party debates, who’s in (and a recap of my predictions)
The field for the next debate this Thursday on Sept 12th is baked. Following is my original prediction with the actual results color coded – names in green made the next debates, red did not, red strikethrough didn’t make the cut and dropped out of the running.
- Folks who will move on to the next round and totally deserve it (i.e. no duh)
- Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Marianne Williamson
- Folks that will move on but really don’t need to be there (i.e. wasted spot)
- Andrew Yang, Cory Booker
- Folks that deserve to move on but probably won’t (i.e. damn shame)
- Amy Klobuchar, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet
- Folks on the cusp (i.e. hmmmmm)
- Pete Buttigieg, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan, Kirsten Gillibrand
- Folks who won’t make it, and who won’t be missed (i.e. good riddance!)
- Bill de Blasio, Beto O’Rourke, Tulsi Gabbard
Frankly, I am pretty surprised this thing largely went the way I thought it would. The biggest surprised to me is that Beto made the cut. And while I am surprised that Marianne Williamson didn’t make it, I am also a little heartened. Seeing sanity prevail and logically cutting people with no prior governing experience and crackpot ideas is wonderful. She added to the conversation, so glad she was there, but it is her time.
There are 3 other intrepid souls running not listed above. Joe Sestak and Tom Steyer took advantage of everyone being distracted by summer vacations to do a stealth entrance to the race. Because that is the best way to run a presidential campaign, on stealth. The third, of course, is my man Wayne Messam. I think at this point he is investing nothing in the race so there is really no cost to staying in or dropping out.

Democratic Debate 2 (or rounds 3 and 4, depending on how you are doing your math) recap
2 debates in and it is still damn early in this process. The best way I have heard this described is that the fist primary election (the Iowa caucus) is after the Superbowl and the NFL pre-season hasn’t even started. And the convention is almost 6 months after Iowa!
However, I tried to make the point earlier, but it well made here as well… we just don’t know how this is going to play out…
Regarding John Delaney, Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper, and some others who are still a far cry from double digits in polls, remember this: In January 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern’s support was around 3 percent, which means he was within the margin of error of zero. Six months later he clinched the nomination.
This election is one of the most consequential I have ever taken part in and it is important to stay engaged in the process.
TL;DR – Looking at the results of 20 people brawling (debating??) for 6 hours, I have bucketized the debate candidates into 5 categories:
- Folks who will move on to the next round and totally deserve it (i.e. no duh)
- Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Marianne Williamson
- Folks that will move on but really don’t need to be there (i.e. wasted spot)
- Andrew Yang, Cory Booker
- Folks that deserve to move on but probably won’t (i.e. damn shame)
- Amy Klobuchar, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet
- Folks on the cusp (i.e. hmmmmm)
- Pete Buttigieg, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan, Kirsten Gillibrand
- Folks who won’t make it, and who won’t be missed (i.e. good riddance!)
- Bill de Blasio, Beto O’Rourke, Tulsi Gabbard
Anyways, some thoughts…
Continue reading
The democratic candidates, how full of shit are they? Debate 2 initial roundup
Ugh, 6 hours of debates took some time to digest.
Firstly I do like the time rules that CNN placed – they were very stingy with time and as soon as any candidate started pontificating or bloviating, they were cut off. It was great!!
Each of the 2 debates had very different dynamics based on their participants. The first featured the 2 far lefties Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and while they usually do a better job of controlling the conversation and driving a cohesive vision, the centrists came out SWINGING. They did a much better job of showing that they too can be passionate AND get stuff done. The second was “beat up on Joe Biden” night. Joe was prepared and came out fighting, showed he can take it tho, mostly.
The first debates last month annoyed me to no end because the candidates weren’t offered a chance to give an opening statement so each person just took their first chance (or two) to speak, ignored the question and just gave their opening statements then. Moreover, it generally encouraged them to say whatever talking point they wanted to and not ever try to stick to answering the actual asked question throughout.
I wanted to be prepared with a way to score them this time around. I came up with the following scale:
If the candidate had more than 1 chance to speak on a topic (like Biden, who was constantly being attacked so constantly got a chance to respond) their ratings were averaged for that topic. This was based on the quality of their answers, not necessarily if I agreed with it or not. The opening and closing statements were just graded on a flat 1-5 scale for how good they were.
The resulting table was stack ranked as an average of all of their answers (rightmost blue column):
Some quick thoughts from this:
- John Delany was the unexpected standout in this exercise. He was on topic, direct and made a great case for the moderates. I was really impressed, especially for someone who came out of nowhere
- Steve Bullock had a solid night too… as the other guy who came out of nowhere (and being his first time on stage, he didn’t qualify for the first debates), he spent more more time introducing himself which made for some off topic responses, but overall made a strong impact on me
- Bernie tends to goes off on a rant and then doesn’t answer the question
- Kamala Harris lost points by similarly not answering attacks against her, just saying “that’s not true” and not offering up any counter narrative why we should believe her
- Kirsten Gillibrand had a relatively solid performance marred by a rather lame open and close
- Bill di Blasio spent more time lobbing attacks and not actually answering any question
- Marianne Williamson didn’t answer a lot of the questions, she spent a lot of time trying to steer the discussion back on to her spaceship with mixed results
Will have a more comprehensive recap tomorrow…
Presidential candidate 404 pages, round 3 of 3
Continued from rounds 1 and 2 of my review of the 404 pages for the candidates for president (you know, the aspects of this race that really matter)… here is the rest of the bunch.
Marianne Williamson
https://www.marianne2020.com/hateistheanswer
Continue reading
Democratic field, a visualization redux
It seems like the Democratic field is baked in and with the debates looming, figured I’d update this view from about 4 months back.