Thursday night’s debate was much more interesting than Wednesday’s, because more of the A Team was present. In retrospect, with the exceptions of Warren, Castro, and Booker, Wednesday night was the kid’s table in comparison. So how did the grownups do?
For Vice President Biden, it was a mixed night. Senator Harris woodshedded him on civil rights. He was strongest when he made emotional pronouncements on issues like health care, where he has suffered so much personally. But he was often unfocused and vague, and at least once he started an answer by saying he had three points and only managing one. He’s also particularly prone to some verbal tics, repeating “look, the fact of the matter is, folks,” far too often. I think he took a net hit tonight; he simply looks like the previous generation, not the future.
Senator Sanders was true to form. He didn’t change any minds or make any serious mistakes. But if you listened closely, you heard someone who at times avoided the question, or answered with empty rhetoric. He’s better at complaining about what he sees as wrong with America than proposing actual ways to improve it. For angry rhetoric, he can’t be beat on the Democratic stage.
Senator Kamala Harris had an excellent night. She ruled the stage on occasion, was always on point, and had strong answers and personal insights on every subject. She’s in the final four if articulate answers, strength, and clarity have anything to do with the process.
Author Marianne Williamson. She had the least impact of any of the participants. It’s not clear to me why she’s running; it seems like an exercise in vanity. In her closing statement, she offered “love” as the antidote to President Trump’s “hate.” I was reminded of Mike Royko’s nickname for then-Governor Jerry Brown of California in 1976: Governor Moonbeam. Hers is the moonbeam candidacy of 2019.
Governor Hickenlooper claimed that he had “done what the others talked about,” and that was an effective phrase. But it wasn’t enough to make him a player on this stage. This was not a good night for moderates, and Hickenlooper is right down the middle.
Former tech executive Andrew Yang largely disappeared into the woodwork. He didn’t have any trouble answering the questions put to him, but there weren’t many, and his answers weren’t thrilling. His technocrat approach seems bland compared to the passion elsewhere on stage.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg had a strong night. Buttigieg manages to sound smart, reasonable, and passionate at the same time. If running a modest-sized city in the middle of the country is sufficient experience to warrant a run for President, then he’s right where he should be. His worst moment since his campaign began has come recently with the shooting of a black man by a white police officer in his city. His answer to the question of what went wrong was smart, passionate, and reasonable. Whether that is enough or not remains to be seen.
Senator Gillibrand was one of the standout speakers on the stage. She made her first comments by interrupting and proved to be one of the most aggressive debaters all night. Her only weakness was a tendency to offer corruption in politics as the source of every problem and ending it the beginning of every solution. Of course, everyone wants to root out corruption, but that’s easier said than done. Just sayin’.
Senator Bennet was articulate for the most part, and occasionally eloquent, but he was lost on the stage in the company of larger egos and political talents. He made no serious mistakes, but I can’t see his candidacy running much longer.
Representative Swalwell did better than his wing position might have dictated. He got in some good answers and took down Vice President Biden effectively by telling him, in a nice turn of phrase, to “pass the torch” to the younger generation, making pointed references to his youthfulness and Mr. Biden’s age. I don’t think it was enough for him to survive his minor status or to greatly elevate his candidacy.
What of the two nights of so-called debate taken together? Who are the survivors who get to continue the long road toward the White House? From the first night, Warren, Castro, and perhaps Booker. From the second night, Harris, Buttigieg, Gillibrand did best, but Biden and Sanders will probably survive because their name recognition is so strong. That leaves us with eight candidates – a much more reasonable number than twenty-five, but still far too many to begin to talk about a single nominee. We have a long way to go. The rest of the pack should do themselves and the country a favor and retire now before they take up any more of America’s attention and time.
Great analysis. I thought Gillibrand looked desperate unlike Harris who looked assured and strong. Mayor Pete was also very strong.
I don’t think interrupting is effective unless: 1) You have a unique perspective (for example Kamala Harris on race) 2) the issue is a core tenet of your campaign 3) you are tacitly or openly being attacked. And maybe 4) you are calling for decorum — ie. The Harris food fight line.
I’d be open to hear Gillibrand interrupt on issues of women’s rights/metoo since it her core expertise, but it felt to me she wanted to be heard on every issue which obviously wasnt possible.
We should get down to Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, Biden and Sanders. But I think the debates are also well served by one voice like Delaney who are willing to speak unpopular truths on behalf of moderates and independents.
Great analysis. I thought Gillibrand looked desperate unlike Harris who looked assured and strong. Mayor Pete was also very strong.
I don’t think interrupting is effective unless: 1) You have a unique perspective (for example Kamala Harris on race) 2) the issue is a core tenet of your campaign 3) you are tacitly or openly being attacked. And maybe 4) you are calling for decorum — ie. The Harris food fight line.
I’d be open to hear Gillibrand interrupt on issues of women’s rights/metoo since it her core expertise, but it felt to me she wanted to be heard on every issue which obviously wasnt possible.
We should get down to Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, Biden and Sanders. But I think the debates are also well served by one voice like Delaney who are willing to speak unpopular truths on behalf of moderates and independents.
Interesting — the question is does interrupting under these admittedly weird debating conditions (so many people on stage, such brief opportunities to comment, not getting to develop themes or even a clear POV) serve you well because it gets you more airtime, or ill because it marks you as either aggressive or desperate or both? Gillibrand certainly got more airtime than she otherwise would have, but you found her desperate and I thought she was hard-edged, in a New York way, like de Blasio, which doesn’t serve her well beyond the East Coast. Also I thought she had too much makeup on, which made her look washed out under the lights. That may have contributed to your sense of her desperation. In contrast, Harris interrupted effectively, and came across as tough but not either desperate or aggressive. The lone voices, like Delaney, presumably are in it for a cabinet position or influence in the party/at the convention. That’s a perfectly acceptable strategy, just a lot of work for not much reward (unless you actually do get a cabinet position).