Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Who Won Last Night-- And Who Totally Sucked?

>

Who Will Be The Democratic Nominee? by Nancy Ohanian

Biden's name wasn't mentioned last night-- and the half dozen conservatives who were onstage fared badly, although none of them were boo-ed despite the barrage of Republican talking points that flew out of the mouths of Delaney, Frackenlooper, Ryan and Bullock each time one of them spoke. Each candidate gained twitter followers after the debate and according ti Google Trends, Marianne was the most-searched of the ten candidates during the debate in 49 out of 50 states, Montana being the outlier:
Marianne- 8,005
Liz Warren- 5,772
Mayo Pete- 4,553
Bernie- 2,331
Delaney- 1,135
Bullock- 1,079
Amy Klobuchar 782
Beto- 718
Frackenlooper- 407
Ryan- 372
Ryan, Delaney, Frackenlooper and Bullock were all really and and I hope we never have to hear about any of them again. Tragically, none of them seem to have the vaguest clue of what Medicare is and one is tempted to wish unspeakable healthcare problems on them and their families so that they find out. But that would be so, so wrong. Instead, save your worst thoughts for the person on the stage who really did the worst last night: Jake Tapper. CNN probably pays him handsomely and they could have saved a lot of money and had a more honest performance had they just tasked either Michael McAdams or Chris Pack from the NRCC to be the moderator. I'm sure either would have done it for free. Despite Tapper's best efforts to goad Elizabeth Warren and Bernie into fighting with each other, the two progressive champions seemed prepared to ignore him.

According to Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin at the NY Times this morning, neither took the bait. "On an evening that could have produced explosions in their own political rivalry, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren instead formed something of an ideological tag team to defend their shared agenda, above all on health care. Though each is seen as the other’s chief obstacle in the Democratic race, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren did not at any point clash directly. Instead, they battled an array of comparatively obscure candidates who used the debate as an opportunity-- and for some of them, likely a last chance-- to express alarm about their party’s embrace of immense liberal policy goals, like the creation of a 'Medicare for all'-style health care system, Mr. Sanders’s No. 1 issue, and a broad liberalization of the immigration system."

I don't know that we're electing a debater-in-chief, but CNN asked Todd Graham, the director of award-winning Southern Illinois University debate team to grade how each candidate did last night.
Elizabeth Warren A+

Warren hit all the right notes with her tone, demeanor, language choices and especially her policy-specific answers. She struck the right balance between progressive and pragmatic while pounding away at corporations, the rigged system, greed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and more.

...To Delaney: "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for."

Bernie Sanders B+

Sanders was clever to use the word "radical" when reminding us his health care plan isn't as crazy as many make it out to be. It's in fact used successfully by other countries, including Canada. Sanders' rhetoric was also compelling when he reminded everyone that Republicans aren't afraid of big ideas, so Democrats shouldn't be either.



And while he took some hits on removing Americans' choices from health insurance and the potential effects of providing undocumented immigrants with free health care and education, Sanders' defense was generally successful.

Mayo Pete B

Buttigieg's idea that military action needs three-year sunset clauses, forcing Congress to regularly reevaluate our involvement oversees was brilliant-- especially coming from a veteran. And he's getting good at calling out hypocrites in the Republican party who stand for party over country when supporting Trump. His advice that Democrats should not worry about being called socialists was spot-on.

Unfortunately, Buttigieg failed to distinguish his ideas from Warren's or Sanders' on issues such as debt-free college. And he lacked the fire of some of the other candidates.

Beto B

O'Rourke gets "most improved" from his previous debate. Most of his answers were clear and concise. But when asked how to beat Trump, O'Rourke offered nothing more than what we saw from him in his battle for the Texas Senate-- a battle in which he was defeated. Democratic voters must be shaking their heads in disbelief that O'Rourke thinks the same strategy that lost to Ted Cruz can somehow beat Trump.

Amy Klobuchar C+

Klobuchar wasn't as specific, memorable, or personable in this debate. And it began with an opening statement that was all over the place. While she occasionally had good points, like calling out Trump's criticism of Baltimore, she was often missing in the debate (perhaps due to the moderators not calling on her enough).

Steve Bullock C

Bullock's strength was moderation. He successfully criticized "wish-list economics" and was believable when he talked about workers and farmers losing money when Trump tweets about trade. Unfortunately, he failed to defend a clear position on nuclear weapons, with a muddled and confusing answer in which he said, "Never, I hope, certainly in my term or anyone else, would we really even get close to pulling that trigger."

Tim Ryan C-

Ryan was partially successful in his pragmatic approach to answering questions. But some lines seemed forced, as when he said to Bernie Sanders, "You don't have to yell." Heck, Sanders was actually pretty calm (for Bernie) at the time. Plus, Ryan's Ted Talk-esque conclusion about not capturing the left or center lane but instead capturing the viewers' imaginations was so contrived it made me laugh out loud.

John Delaney D+

With a better stage presence than he had in the previous debate, Delaney improved. And he made some sound points about finding realistic climate policies. He was actually holding his own on that issue until attention turned to Elizabeth Warren. Unfortunately, Delaney was outdone by Warren's on-point and number-specific climate response. Nice try for Delaney, but he was upstaged in the end.

Frackenlooper D

He didn't stick to his strongest arguments like he did in the previous debate when he constantly pointed to examples of his successful governorship. Hickenlooper was unfocused in many of his answers, from saying "there is a way of looking at trade that is therapeutic," to mumbling something about "big, you know, noisy hangars" when discussing American military foreign policy. Plus, his lack of energy was noticeable compared to others on stage.

Marianne D-

The problem with Williamson in this debate is that for every legitimate criticism of our government she gave-- and there were several-- she lacked follow-up solutions. She derided the "political insider game and wonkiness and intellectual argument," without offering a clear picture of her practical alternative. And her closing statement was something about emotional and psychological gobbledygook that finished with a crescendo like she was singing the big finale of a Broadway musical.
Two polls, a twitter poll that is still active and may show which candidate was most puke-worthy:



And a slightly more traditional poll that Crooks and Liars is still running today:



And for anyone interested in my own gut reaction to the candidates last night. (Marianne is a personal friend and I can't grade her)
Elizabeth Warren A+
Bernie A
Amy Klobuchar C
Mayo Pete D
Beto D
Bullock F
Ryan F
Frackenlooper F
Delaney F
I'm hoping we never have to hear from any of the F's again. According to the RealClearPolitics polling averages, none of them are remotely qualified to be on the stage since they are all polling between 0.3% and 0.7%.


Labels: ,

3 Comments:

At 2:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must need new glasses.

Every time I see a reference to that guy from Montana, I read his name as "Buttocks."

 
At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The debate format was a worse food fight than the previous NBC version. It made things very difficult for anything substantial to be said by any candidate. For instance, I've heard more about Mayo Pete's delivery style than I did any substance in his words.

Being a survivor of a McKinsey assault on my employer, Mayo's blather sounded just like the crap we heard from them when they were screwing up my job. But I can see how people would be fooled by his low-key, "I'll slide off to the side where no one notices me so that I might ride up the shoulder to the fast lane" strategy.

For me, despite affinities for Bernie and Liz Warren, I remain uncommitted to supporting any candidate. I await tonight's kerfuffle to see who remains standing afterward.

I only hope that some of these mistaken impressions get real and get off the stage.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Bernie and Elizabeth for what they are -- compliant insurgents (they'll talk about what needs to be done, but when the party refuses, they'll accept it)

Who won? Jake Tapper, the media and their corporate advertisers.
Who lost? everyone below the 1%.
Who totally sucked? the media, corporate advertisers plus everyone on stage, moderating and in the audience who felt that anyone on that stage was going to fix anything at all.

I really want to like Williamson, she being maybe someone who could run as a third (Bernie and Elizabeth won't... they've proved that) and make a tiny bit of noise... but she keeps coming off as just weird.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home