Debate Wrapup

Ken AshfordDemocrats, Election 2016Leave a Comment

demodebate

The point of any debate is to draw contrasts and attract new voters. Did anyone do that in last night’s first Democratic debate?

Perhaps, but only with those who hadn’t decided up until now.  I don’t think Sanders swayed any Hillary voters and I don’t think Hillary swayed any Sanders voters.

Still, it was a good debate in that it was an actual debate, rather than a food fight like you have seen on the Republican side.  The winner, without a doubt, was the Democratic Party showing itself to be the grown-ups.

Anderson Cooper, sadly, became a stand-in for all the media folk trying to make the Democratic contest about emails and Benghazi! and “socialism.”  But that was shut down pretty quickly because the candidates — and certainly the audience — were united in disdain for the superficiality of where Cooper and the other moderators wanted the discussion to go.  Note to journalists:  Democrats are not Republicans.

Equally annoying was the tokenist questions.  Seriously.  Cooper might just have easily said, “And now here’s a woman with a woman question.   And after that, a black guy with a black question.”  Really?

That said, Hillary Clinton did very well.  She was poised, polished and highly competent at appealing to various segments of the Democratic electorate. She was personable and authentic.  She did what she had to do.  Conservatives who hoped that she would fall flat on her face must have been sadly disappointed, and perhaps a little nervous.  (Conservatives pundits like to cast Hillary as “robotic” and calculating, and therefore inauthentic, but that was laid to rest by Clinton’s off-the-cuff quip to the fact that she urinates differently than her rivals).

Unfortunately, the media is being a tad hyperbolic about her performance. Mark Halperin, for example, gave Clinton a perfect A. The New York Times, which has been very tough on Clinton, was full of praise for her.  Politico says “Clinton Crushes It“.

Yes, that’s a bit much.  I think this is so they can play a “Clinton comeback” narrative, which annoys me because I don’t think Clinton was ever “down”.  The Benghazi/email thing has been a distraction, but only for the media.  As Sanders admitted, everybody (certainly on the left) is simply sick of hearing about the “damn emails.”  This morning, talking heads in the media are saying Sanders gave a “gift” to Clinton — no, that’s not what that comment was.  It was an indictment of the mainstream media’s obsession with the non-scandal.

Most of us NOT in the media didn’t think the ginned-up “controversy” sent Clinton into disarray.  Therefore, we don’t buy the notion that she “proved herself” last night.  After all, Clinton has been the frontrunner and nothing but the frontrunner. And last night, we merely saw why she is the frontrunner.

So saying that we saw a “Clinton comeback” last night is a bit like saying Tom Brady is making a “comeback” after Deflategate. Clinton’s political skills, like Brady’s QB skills, don’t have anything to come back from.

As for Sanders — well, truth be told, I am more politically aligned with him than I am with Hillary.  Except on guns.  For the life of me, I cannot fathom some of his positions on guns, in particular his past voting record on giving gun manufacturers immunity from liability, and his voting no (twice) on the Brady Bill.  Yes, I know that he voted against the Brady Bill because he thought states (rather than the federal government) should be the ones to limit firearms, but I don’t even agree with that.  Not that Sanders is terrible on guns — there are plenty of reasons why the NRA gives him an “F” — but I think he could be better on it.

[Note: In the interest of fairness, I will say that I have problems with some of Hillary’s positions, too, past and present.  Her voting records on the Iraq War, for example.  And her position on not reinstating Glass-Steagall regulations.]

But my problem with Sanders is that he shows no sign that he can work outside comfort zone.  I’m not saying that he is entrenched like the House Freedom Caucus; I’m saying that he seems a bit Johnny One-Note on issues of income inequality and Citizens United (yes, they’re related).  And while I wholeheartedly agree with him, and am energized by his passion on those domestic economic issues, I worry about other areas.   I’m not as comfortable with him in foreign policy — for instance, dealing with, say, Putin.

That said, Sanders had an extraordinary debate, especially for those who had never been exposed to him before.  I think he might appeal to “angry” independents who simply cannot stomach the Republican Party of “No”.  He’s appealing because he always looks like he’s too busy for the stupid shit. Or combs. I still predict that, even if his star rises in the short term, it has a limited life span after Iowa and New Hampshire.  But it is a good thing he is in this race, if only because it pulls Hillary to the left.

As for the other three, well…. the Democrats held their kids’ table debate and their main debate at the same time.

Lincoln “Block O’ Granite” Chafee looked like he wandered onstage by accident, and noted twice that he had never had a political scandal.  He voted against Glass-Stegall because it was his first day on the job and he got confused because his dad had just died.

Martin O’Malley defended his record as mayor in Baltimore, where there were riots this year, and seemed a little confused about foreign policy (Assad didn’t “invade” Syria; he became President of Syria — a not insignificant difference).

And Vietnam veteran Jim Webb, the candidate most likely to want you off his lawn, said his military service gave him leadership skills — he also humblebragged about killing a guy in ‘nam.  (In fairness to Webb, the stories behind his Navy Cross and Silver Star medals are interesting and worth a read.  The word “valor” applies to Webb, no doubt).

But Chafee and Webb clearly didn’t belong there.  I would vote for either of them before I would vote for ANY of the Republican offerings, but I don’t think they could ever be presidential material.  O’Malley would be a fine president; he’s just not the best choice by far (I especially liked his 90-second closing speech saying the Republican debates were lessons in intolerance).

As for the candidate NOT there — Joe Biden — I don’t have a lot to say.  I don’t think many Democrats were looking at Sanders and Hillary and thinking, “I hate BOTH of them.  I wish Biden would get in.”  Hillary’s performance might make Biden think twice about getting in (she’s a better debater), if he was planning on getting in at all.

UPDATE:  Conventional wisdom said that there would be fewer viewers watching the Democratic debate compared to the two GOP debates.  And conventional wisdom was right.  But there were far more viewers last night than expected.  While exact numbers are yet to be released, the 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. hours averaged an 11.2 household rating, meaning that 11% of all American homes with TVs were tuned in.  That breaks the previous Democratic debate record set in 2008, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off in prime time on ABC. That debate had an 8.9 household rating and 10.7 million total viewers.

UPDATE 2:  It was 15.3 million viewers.  And while that was significantly less than the 24 and 23 million viewers for the first two Republican debates, respectively, it shows that a vast segment of the country has not forgotten about the Democrats and is looking to them for answers.