On June 27 2019 12:16 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, we need to get the main contenders on one stage. Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, and Booker should not be broken up anymore.
I agree, and I also think that having a smaller group of candidates on stage at the same time will be more useful; last night it felt very diluted.
My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1a (#1b is tonight with the other candidates):
TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion):
1st place: Julian Castro (4.5/5). He's the only low-polling candidate who piqued my curiosity and got me Googling him and his policies. He clearly won in the showdown vs. Beto, and other candidates went out of their way to agree with him and align themselves with him, which makes him look very strong. I don't see him suddenly surging into the Top 3 Democratic primary candidates, but if any of tonight's zero-polling candidates were to receive a bump, I would expect it to be him.
2nd Tier: Booker (4/5), Warren (3.5/5), Klobuchar (3.5/5).
3rd Tier: de Blasio (3/5), Delaney (3/5), Gabbard (2.5/5).
4th Tier: O'Rourke (2/5), Ryan (2/5), Inslee (2/5).
Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate:
General/Miscellaneous:
a. I wish every candidate had a minute to give their own opening statement, instead of half-answering the first question or being confined to specific and different questions. (Closing statements were okay.)
b. There's zero chance that the Republicans will watch this debate (too much Spanish speaking).
c. Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd coming on stage and transitioning into mic issues. What the hell? Seriously? This is a presidential debate. I wouldn't be surprised if the debate lost a lot of viewers during this period of technical difficulties.
d. One-word answers as responses to huge, important questions (like geopolitical threats) are lazy, stupid, and devoid of substance. There's a time and place for one-word answers, but debates beg for actual nuance and contextualization.
Elizabeth Warren:
a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; reasonably covered all the points I was hoping she'd hit.
b. The instant hand raise in favor of government healthcare; well done, putting your money where your mouth is.
c. Aligns herself with Bernie in many places, which is a very good idea (especially since Bernie isn't on stage with her).
d. Managed to take back the mic a second or third time over the other candidates, which was impressive.
e. Caught off guard by the "abortion term limit" question; didn't really answer it.
f. Dammit, Warren, say "Fight like hell", not "Fight like heck".
g. I'm not sure what to make of her initial gun answer, in that she gave a strong, emotional appeal to us handling guns in better ways, but didn't directly answer the question about what the federal government's role should be. My guess is that her non-answer is an appeal to the general election, not an appeal to the Democratic primary.
h. Chuck Todd throwing Liz Warren a softball about how she has plans for everything (she hasn't really talked too much about her specific plans in the first half of the debate), but her response about Mitch McConnell was just meh.
i. Final thoughts about Liz Warren: As the only frontrunner in this debate, she was in a uniquely risky position, but I don't think she gained or lost a ton of support here. I was hoping to see her feature more of her specific plans in this debate, and I don't really think she did that. She also didn't really exist in the second half of the debate. Maybe, as a Liz Warren supporter, my expectations were a little too high for what I wanted her to show in a debate format featuring nine other candidates. (I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Bernie Sanders tomorrow.) She got out relatively unscathed, and I really, really want to see her up against the other frontrunners.
Beto O’Rourke:
a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question but what he said likely came off as powerful, plus the Spanish will resonate).
b. Very smart to be the first one to reference women's reproductive rights and overpopulation in prison.
c. Beto is getting out-immigrant'ed by Castro, then mostly faded away into the background except for the occasional anecdote.
Cory Booker:
a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question and didn't even speak Spanish).
b. Good answer about holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and dealing with opioid addiction.
c. Nice Spanish answer to the ICE/ immigration question, and also discussing DACA.
d. I appreciate the criticism of "thoughts and prayers" as a response to gun violence, although he didn't answer with much substance on what to do about it.
e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh.
f. Did you know that Cory Booker is an African-American man in an African-American community!?!?!?
g. I think, overall, Booker did a reasonably good job at appealing to a variety of people, interjecting at the right times, and commanding presence.
Amy Klobuchar:
a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement, but pretty basic.
b. "All foam and no beer" hit home for half, and came across as cringeworthy for the other half.
c. Wrecked Jay Inslee's assertion about how he was the only one to fight for women's rights.
d. Reasonable (not amazing, not awful) answers across the board, but really wasn't assertive or memorable.
John Delaney:
a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; he did a pretty good job of trying to outline why he's unique.
b. Within 40 minutes, he's essentially become irrelevant.
c. Shouting out of turn and getting shut down. Kewl.
d. Response about Mitch McConnell was even worse than Warren's.
Tulsi Gabbard:
a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement.
b. Didn't contribute anything substantive to the healthcare discussion, and she had the opportunity to.
c. I appreciate her anti-war and de-escalation stance, but I feel like this is the only thing I know about her and it's not enough.
d. Good recovery from the LGBT support question.
Julian Castro:
a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (the cheers and clapping for the Equal Rights Act might tip it to 4.5/5).
b. Strong pro-woman (and pro-trans) point about reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade.
c. Good immigration plan and he's the first one to use raw language ("it should piss us all off"), which I really like.
d. Took back the mic for immigration a second time, which was very impressive.
e. Both Ryan and Booker are trying hard to align themselves with Castro, which shows Castro's strength.
f. Good answer about police accountability and racial prejudice.
g. Best closing statement.
Tim Ryan:
a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; I just found his answer (and stare) really boring.
b. Dude, you know you can talk during this debate, right? (Some heavy irony later on in his closing statement, when he talks about the importance of being heard.)
c. Good reference to emotional and mental health, although bullied kids aren't necessarily the ones who are shooting up schools.
d. Got some cheers with appealing to blue collar workers.
e. Did you just try to go up against Tulsi Gabbard on literally her only strength? The military? Really?
Bill de Blasio:
a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement.
b. Going out for blood against Beto, but I don't think it really landed.
c. Good monologue about Democrats needing to be the party of immigrants.
d. His interjections are coming off pretty coarsely now.
e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh.
f. "I'm raising a black son" came off like a political stunt, somehow.
Jay Inslee:
a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; it's too early and easy to reference Trump.
b. Repeatedly trying to come off as the "first" or "only" person to do something, and it's not really working.
c. Climate change is "everything" to him... and he didn't really lay out specifics.
VOD of the debate is attached, starting at the 2-hour mark and running for about 2 hours:
EPT
