Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

First, the presidential race so far has been an extremely stable affair, with little disrupting Mr. Biden’s consistent polling lead — not a pandemic, not record joblessness, not mass protests over policing and racism, and not an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy. A 90-minute debate will be hard-pressed to move the needle more than those factors.

Second, the debate still represents one of Mr. Trump’s best opportunities to jostle the current dynamic, his first chance to speak directly to an audience of tens of millions of Americans alongside Mr. Biden.

Mr. Trump has always been a showman, and debates have been some of his biggest stages as a politician. He jawbones, interrupts and lashes out in unusually personal ways, and he generally exerts an intense gravitational pull toward whatever he wants the spectacle to be about.

But as a description of the belligerent, earsplitting, deeply depressing first debate between President Trump and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., he was dead on. It didn’t end well. It didn’t begin well. And the parts in between were pretty lousy, too.And that seemed to be very much the president’s strategy.The advantage to being the one who derails a debate is that people assign symmetrical blame for asymmetrical behavior. They throw up their hands and complain about the bickering from “both sides.”

Tonally, the challenger wanted to show he could stand up to a bullying, brawling debater, and to make the case that he would be a steady alternative to a constant earthquake of a presidency.

Mr. Biden also needed to avoid a repeat of his worst performance of the campaign, in his first Democratic debate, when Senator Kamala Harris — now his running mate — challenged his record on school segregation. Then, Mr. Biden seemed surprised, abashed and unprepared.

Some are predicting that these debates will shatter records for viewership, so this year, capturing students’ interest may be less of an issue than it has ever been.

Candidates for the Democratic race for the White House are taking part in a TV debate, with gun control and healthcare among the main topics

Mr Sanders' universal healthcare plan, announced two hours before the debate started, would see citizens pay what he called "a 2.2% income-based premium" towards healthcare. Companies would pay an extra 6.2% of an employee's income towards the plan.

Polls indicate Ms Clinton and Mr Sanders are neck-and-neck ahead of the caucus in Iowa, where voters will decide who they want as their preferred candidate. She had once commanded a large lead.

There’s no frontrunner, the president has just been acquitted for impeachment and voters still don’t know who won the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. With rank-and-file Democrats desperate for a solid standard-bearer, the candidates rushed to argue they were the best bet to beat President Donald Trump, setting off a surreal meta-debate about that most ineffable of political qualities, “electability.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden, coming off a dismal fourth-place Iowa showing, practically conceded New Hampshire right off the bat, arguing that the first four nominating contests should be regarded as a group. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who appears to have won the most Iowa raw votes, argued that his movement could realign American politics by increasing voter turnout. And Pete Buttigieg, who’s receiving a surge of new attention since his unexpectedly strong Iowa result, positioned himself as a Washington outsider.

At first, everything was going great for Buttigieg. Fresh off a strong showing in the muddled Iowa Caucuses and surging in the polls in New Hampshire, Buttigieg started the debate in a virtuous cycle: he is a favorite punching bag of his rivals, but nearly every time his opponents attacked him, he was able to parry the response into another opportunity to push his message of unity, belonging and futurism. He talked about a “style of politics” and the need to “turn the page” from “the politics of the past.”

Solid instant results for Biden. CNN found that Mr. Biden won the debate, 60 percent to 28 percent, while CBS News and an early cut from a Data for Progress poll found far closer seven- and 12-point leads for Mr. Biden.

A deeper look is still good news for Mr. Biden. With all of these factors at play, it can be hard to know what to make of the instant poll results. You might be tempted to just discount them altogether.

The big picture: It’s hard to say anyone clearly won the debate last night, and that’s a win for Mr. Biden. He was the front-runner heading into the debate, and it was the president who needed a win to try to narrow the race. None of the instant poll results, whatever their merit, do much to dispel that view.

Mr. Trump’s debate performance on Tuesday against Democratic nominee Joe Biden, GOP campaign strategists said, encapsulated his struggle to frame the race in the same consistent and persuasive way he did in 2016, as he spent the night ticking through multiple attacks he and his campaign have rotated through for most of the past year.

Mr. Biden has maintained a consistent lead in public surveys

Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Biden’s time in government and called him an avatar for much of the liberal wing of the party. He questioned the former vice president’s health, attacked his son and tried to paint Mr. Biden as ill-equipped to stem the violence that has erupted at times alongside civil rights protests during Mr. Trump’s fourth year in office.

Mr. Biden, the Democratic nominee, leads the president, 53% to 39%, among registered voters in the new poll, which was conducted in the two days following the debate but before news emerged that Mr. Trump had tested positive for Covid-19. Mr. Biden’s 14-point lead compares with an 8-point advantage last month and 11 points in July, which was his largest of the campaign at that time.

evidence that an individual news event—the debate—is having a material effect on Mr. Trump’s political standing, at least for now

His support has never before fallen below 40% on the ballot against Mr. Biden.

Vice President Pence wasn’t following the rules — not about timing, not about interrupting — during Wednesday’s debate. Moderator Susan Page’s efforts at polite shushing, uttering repeated “thank you’s,” was about as effective as a cafeteria monitor trying to halt a food fight. It fell to Harris to remind the vice president, “I’m speaking” — something he already knew but chose to ignore.

If Harris had raised her voice in those moments, she would have been labeled shrill. If she had frowned, she would have been labeled a scold. If she had raised a hand, she would have been called angry or even unhinged.

she smiled as she held her ground — and of course they called it a smirk, a grin that by definition comes off as irritating or smug. But it was more than that. Harris gave Pence “The Look” — and you don’t have to look up that phrase to know exactly what I mean.

There are five weeks to go until Election Day, but almost a million ballots have already been cast in this election, according to Michael McDonald, a turnout expert at the University of Florida who runs the U.S. Election Project, which tracks voting. That’s up from less than 10,000 early votes cast at this time four years ago.

Biden’s 2019 tax return shows taxable income of $944,737 and a federal tax bill of $299,346. Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, reported $3,018,127 in taxable income and paid $1,185,628 in taxes.

There are five weeks to go until Election Day, but almost a million ballots have already been cast in this election, according to Michael McDonald, a turnout expert at the University of Florida who runs the U.S. Election Project, which tracks voting. That’s up from less than 10,000 early votes cast at this time four years ago.

In the wake of Tuesday’s messy debate, we got a different kind of survey: a so-called instapoll. People tell a pollster they will watch a debate and agree to take a poll after it’s over. These surveys are quirky in some ways, but they do a decent job of gauging a debate’s effect. This time, the news was generally good for Joe Biden.

CNN found that Mr. Biden won the debate, 60 percent to 28 percent, while CBS News and an early cut from a Data for Progress poll found far closer seven- and 12-point leads for Mr. Biden.

But a closer look in this case raises the possibility of good news for Mr. Biden. His favorability rating improved by a net four percentage points, compared with how the same respondents answered before the debate. The president’s rating declined by a net four points.

let's acknowledge that both candidates fudged, exaggerated, or flat-out lied on just about everything pertaining to foreign economic policy during last night's debate.  It was a truly bipartisan fib-fest.  I could go through the debate transcript line by line, but let's just hit the highlights.  At varous points, one or both of the candidates tried to convince undecided voters of the following:  1)  Energy independence is the cure for what ails the U.S. economy; 2)  The U.S. loses from trade with China, and tougher trade enforcement will fix that; 3)  Free trade with Latin America will create millions and millions of jobs; 4)  The only reason China is doing well comparatively is that it's keeping its currency undervalued; and finally 5)  Illegal immigration is threatening the American economy.  Let's inject a little reality here, shall we?  Repeat after me:  1)  Because most energy sources are traded in global markets, energy independence has zero effect on the economy (though there might be a few security dividends). 2)  The United States benefits a great deal from trade with China and the rest of the world. 3)  Perfect trade enforcement would have only a marginal impact on employment; 4)  China's currency interventions have been slowing down for much of 2012.  Literally. 5)  Illegal immigration into the United States "has been in reverse for several years."

The biggest whoppers in last night's U.S. presidential debate

After spending the past year designing  and making this course, however, let me say that those who believe that it will be easy to "scale up" existing lecture courses into the online world are kidding themselves.

Several Republicans have suggested that they'd be open to torturing suspected terrorists if elected — especially New Hampshire primary winner Donald Trump.

"Waterboarding is fine, and much tougher than that is fine," Trump said at a Monday campaign event in New Hampshire. "When we're with these animals, we can't be soft and weak, like our politicians."

Previously, Trump promised to "bring back" types of torture "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" during Saturday's Republican debate. The rest of the GOP field took a somewhat more nuanced position. Marco Rubio categorically refused to rule out any torture techniques, for fear of helping terrorists "practice how to evade us."

The simmering rivalry between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz spilled into the open Tuesday night during the final Republican presidential debate of the year, as the two senators tussled over a string of issues that served to highlight front-runner Donald Trump's discomfort with policy substance.

event here was dominated by national security and terrorism in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

But Trump, who has fueled intense controversy by proposing a ban on Muslims entering the United States, often faded into the background. He even struck an uncharacteristically conciliatory tone by pledging his commitment to the Republican Party -- putting to rest rumors of an independent run -- and holding his punches from the surging Cruz.

Just seven Republican presidential candidates will take the debate stage Thursday night in South Carolina,

 In a word, energy. The former Florida governor has made no secret of his ambivalence about debates

His brand is pragmatism, and the smaller debate stage may give him a chance

Clinton raises women’s rights in Democratic debate

There were no explicit questions about women’s rights in the fourth Democratic debate Sunday night, but the candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton, did what they could to insert them into the conversation anyway. 

“we have seen women no longer paying more for our insurance than men.” 

Bernie Sanders is mad as hell -- and he's hoping Democratic voters are, too.

Hillary Clinton tied herself tightly with President Barack Obama and argued she'd build on his legacy, as the Democratic presidential contenders clashed Sunday night in Charleston.

Sanders = Trump

British lawmakers on Monday engaged in a spirited debate about whether to ban Donald Trump from the U.K. over his remarks about Muslims

"His words are not comical, his words are not funny. His words are poisonous," said the Labour Party's Tulip Siddiq, who argued in support of a ban.

More than 500,000 people signed an online petition calling for Trump to be blocked for "hate speech" after he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States in the wake of attacks by extremists.

This week, we ask the question: What comes next for America and disinformation? The past four years have seen an alarming erosion in the public trust in news, coupled with a spread of conspiracy theories, junk science and outright falsehoods by none other than the President of the United States. With a new president elected, how does Joe Biden help steer the country back toward facts, science and truth? SE Cupp talks to CNN Senior Political Analyst John Avlon about all this and more in our CNN Digital video discussion, but first Avlon tackles the future of fact checking in a CNN Opinion op-ed.

That's because the disinformation ecosystem is still proliferating via social media and the hyper-partisan fragmentation of society. Trump is a symptom rather than its root cause. There is every reason to hope that the presence of a president who does not lie all the time will not exacerbate our divides on a daily basis. But it would be dangerously naïve to believe that the underlying infrastructure of hate news and fake news will be solved with a new president.

Let's start by recognizing reality. Fact checking Democrats this election cycle has offered a far less target rich environment. This is not because either party has a monopoly on virtue or vice, but because Democrats' falsehoods during their presidential debates have been comparatively pedestrian -- likely to focus on competing claims about calculating the 10-year cost of Medicare for All, or who wrote-what-gun control bill, or how many manufacturing jobs have been lost, or when a candidate really started supporting a raise in the minimum wage.