Sanders, Clinton meet in 1st one-on-one debate of campaign

The Democratic Party is in the great position of having two distinct, but immensely qualified candidates to choose from. They need only caution Sanders and Clinton to keep it real and refrain from attacks that could weaken their opponent before the general, and then get out of the way. Then they can sit back and let the voters decide. Rather than being torn, many Democrats would be happy with either one as the nominee.

CrazyJoe: Having a 74 year old socialist and a woman that 80% of the voters find not trustworthy hardly seems 'immensely qualified'. They are exceptional, but not in a good way.

karlrb,

You think people trust Ted Cruz? Even Republicans don't trust Ted Cruz. The guy is as slimy as they come. And then you have Trump... Both Sanders and Clinton run circles around these two.

"You think people trust Ted Cruz? Even Republicans don't trust Ted Cruz. The guy is as slimy as they come. And then you have Trump... Both Sanders and Clinton run circles around these two."

I agree Cruz is utterly repulsive and Trump is Trump but how about Rubio? He is the clear bookies favourite to win the nomination. I'd hate to see a Republican in power but Rubio can't be ignored.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders meet Thursday night in their first one-on-one debate of the Democratic campaign as each tries to show they are the better advocate for progressive values...The candidates are arguing over who is more committed to, and capable of, carrying out a liberal agenda on health care, income inequality, worker rights and more.

Meh. Clinton is "progressive" in a incrementalist, practical sort of way and criticized for being to close to Wall Street. In this way, she really is more like Obama. Except she flubbed one of the most important votes of her career and gave Bush his war.

Sanders is going to pummel HRC with that, with her ties to Wall Street, with her incrementalism, and with her compromises. Most Dems, like me, who do not think Obama went far or fast enough will back Sanders. Those who differ, and also really want to vote for a women, will go for Hillary.

but Rubio can't be ignored.

The moment voters start to look at Rubio seriously -- because they haven't really been able to thus far because of Trump's silliness -- they'll discover that Rubio's got a fair share of slime on him as well.

a woman that 80% of the voters find not trustworthy

Sorry, karlrb, but that's a fib. The number sits at around 60%.

Having a 74 year old socialist...

Reagan was 69 when he was elected. Also, the electorate doesn't really respond to outdated McCarthyism the way they used to, as evidenced by Sander's obvious popularity. Conservatives are just going to have to find a new way to discredit the man, because "socialist" just doesn't pack much of a punch anymore.

they'll discover that Rubio's got a fair share of slime on him as well.

For movement conservatives, slime is not a bug.

It's a feature/

I agree Cruz is utterly repulsive and Trump is Trump but how about Rubio? He is the clear bookies favourite to win the nomination.

I think at this point in time. Rubio is pretty much a decent person.

I'd hate to see a Republican in power but Rubio can't be ignored.

But the alternative of a Democrat in office again would be far worse.

Jimizo,

Rubio is scarier than the two front runners in a lot of ways. I was glad to see he wasn't gaining much traction among conservatives up until now, but that seems to be changing. I still think he comes off as too young and trying a little too hard to be taken seriously though, so my feeling is that his party won't be going with him this time around. I could be wrong though. He's definitely someone to watch out for though.

Rubio is a light weight. Which hasn't stopped Republicans before.

Rubio for the bronze! It was too funny when Santorum was being questioned on the Joe Scarsborough show. Joe was trying to get Rick to say one thing that Rubio has accomplished in the Senate. He is in the same party and he couldn't think of anything substantive that Rubio has done. Then you look at the guy's record and find out he has been busy missing more senate votes than any other Republican. Sounds like a real hard working guy.

But the alternative of a Democrat in office again would be far worse.

I haven't heard a single compelling argument to explain how that would be bad, aside from the usual broad generalizations steeped in political bluster, racism, and macho jingoism. In fact, there still hasn't been a compelling argument for what precisely Obama has done wrong in his time in office that has left the U.S. in any condition demonstrably worse than when h entered office on the heels of a Republican president, who, using the same yardstick conservatives apply to Obama, ushered in the Great Recession.

Under Obama, 9.3 million new jobs were created in the private sector, while we still saw a net loss of close to 4 million government jobs at the state and federal level. Smaller government! Conservatives should be elated.

Corporate profits are up 166%, the S&P index is up 139%, and oil production in the U.S. is up some 87%. Gun buyer checks spiked 58% while homicides dropped 11%, and federal spending has been 4.8% lower than it was when Obama took office. Conservatives should be bouncing off the walls in sheer bliss about all of this.

These are all things conservatives swear are the bread and butter of their political philosophy, and supposed dead from their representatives, but when one actually delivers, they label him a failure and a threat to America's future?

But wait! That's not all that's happened!

There are now 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.

There are 444,574 fewer people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program rolls than when George Bush Jr. was in charge (he broke the mold by adding 14.7 million people to the program during his tenure, BTW).

The unemployment rate is currently sitting below the historical median.

Real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.

The number of long-term unemployed has dropped by 614,000 from where it was after the Great Recession (not Obama's Recession, as many conservative would like to reimagine things).

Wind and solar power generation have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of all produced U.S. electricity.

And all of this after inheriting an economy that was nearly crippled by the Lehman Shock fallout caused exclusively by unfettered greed among those Wall Street jackals that conservatives swear are really only a force for good in the American economy.

Methinks the fact that the improvements I mention happened under a Democratic president, and not a Republican one, is the key reason conservative continue to insist the sky is pink when it is indeed blue.

Modern conservatism has became a sad, pathetic joke that can scarcely be compared to the conservatism exercised by my grandmother's GOP. It's a hypocritical, shrill endeavor steeped in willful ignorance and myopic double standards, more content on petty squabbling amongst its own than in any actual progress for America. And this is why the GOP will lose in November. Again.

The problem about Sanders,many democrat voters believe is a good choice,but they are not sure,nor can trust his ability to stand up to republicans if they give him votes,this why they prefer to vote for Hillary.Hopefully Hampshire will change facts on Sanders favor,but its also getting tough and harder in other states where Hillary has much support,On the other hand,i still see no chance for Trump.

@MrBum,

Its more of you hating on Trumps personality but to say he cant deliver is very stupid. Hillary and Sanders are still politicians. Obama made many promises and they fell. I suppose you think Sanders will get everything hes promising eh?

. . .to say he cant deliver is very stupid.

He can't deliver because many of the crazier things he's made a centerpiece of his "platform" are supported by almost no Democrats in Congress and very few Republicans. He can't deliver because the checks-and-balances system wouldn't let him until he pursued something reasonable.

Obama made many promises and they fell.

What promises, precisely?

On the death penalty, Clinton nails it.

On NAFTA, TPP, etc. Sanders nails it on 'free trade' v 'fair trade.'

I'm leaning Sanders.

Great debate.

@LFRAgain,

Hes very reasonable. Once again your dislike is more about personality and the fact that he isnt promising free everything. Not sure how you think Sanders can deliver. His plan is even more outrageous.

Its the current situation that has festered over the years ie. illegal immigrants, spending waste, corruption, bad trade, low paying jobs etc. I guess you think these arent issues.

Im sure you are aware of Obamas campaign so you should know the platform.

He can't deliver

Oh, ye have little Faith.

pointofview,

[Trump's] ery reasonable.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe Trump is an egotistical windbag in love with himself, willing to say or do anything in order to create the illusion of relevance in the absence of any real talent.

Im sure you are aware of Obamas campaign so you should know the platform.

So, in other words, you either won't or can't answer my question.

Let me help. Just to make things easy for everyone, I went to the non-partisan Politifact to see their list of some 500 campaign promises. The current tally shows that Obama met 45% of his campaign promises, compromised with Congress on another 25%, and failed to achieve 22%, with the remaining 8% still in limbo.

Not too shabby for someone working with a majority Republican House and Senate.

@LFRAgain,

You are a Democrat supporter so of course youll say Trump is this and that. Thats what you do.

I`m neither a dem or rep. Not even American. I look at the issues and solutions. You continue to look at the personality.

I look at the issues and solutions.

I'm a U.S. citizen and that is all. I oppose the vast majority of Trump's so-called "solutions" because on the face of them, they stand in direct opposition of everything I know and believe.

Closing U.S. borders to immigrants and visitors based solely on religion? Nope.

Making torture something the U.S. does as a matter of course? Nope.

Defund Planned Parenthood? Nope.

Cut funding to the Department of Education? Nope.

Climate change is a hoax? Nope.

Cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency? Nope.

No limit on guns? It's all due to mental health issues? Nope and nope.

Vaccines cause autism? Nope.

Don't raise minimum wage? Nope.

As if these weren't enough for me, he absolutely loses his mind at the slightest mention of a woman needing to breast feed her child or go to the bathrom to urinate. That's just plain weird.

Yeah, I think he's a supreme asshat, but even if he were a refined, smooth-talking charmer, I'd still oppose him.