What a disaster that was huh? That debate was just a mudslinging match, it was a perfect amalgamation of how Donald Trump is able to constantly use "look at what they did" to justify his more extreme versions of politics as usual. Candidates saw Warren's bump from the last debate and all decided to try and get their attack highlight...and they all failed. The moderators had no control over anything and didn't even appear to have a coherent strategy for when to let rebuttals happen. CBS also had zero control over a crowd that literally boo'ed everything thrown at Bloomberg from mainly Warren and Sanders. In the end there was some productivity. We got extended comments about helping the black community and my pet issue of funding the CDC properly came into view. But the big conclusion here is that there were no real winners. I'm not sure anyone actually helped their case and gave us anything new to work with.
Typical note: I base the rankings on who gave themselves the best chance to move up the ladder or make gains.
1. Biden - No one did particularly well, but at least Joe Biden finished with two things going for him. First, he quickly and frequently pointed out that the debate was a mess with the "angry old man" vigor that can be charming when used right. He had a couple of laugh lines in there. Second, for one of the leaders in SC polling, he got out of there without anyone hitting his agenda. This dude took credit for every positive Democratic development for the last thirty years and nobody bothered to mention that he was exaggerating most of the time. Like I've said, everyone was weak and he did have flaws. His CDC answer during the coronavirus bit was nearly incomprehensible between the slurring, losing train of thought and moderators distracting him. Taking credit for everything that's ever gone right also started to get old. But overall, if anyone came away with an improvement, it's probably Joe.
2. Warren - In a similar fashion to Biden, Warren got a nice boost from being able to avoid most of the fray. She reminded everyone that Bloomberg has 60+ accusations of harassment early and the one-sided crowd boo'ed her a bit, but I think she got the point across without hurting her image. From there, Warren played a game of letting the candidates snipe at Bernie, then sealing off those attacks by pointing out the ideas and goals are popular but that she feels her plans are better. I'm not entirely sure if that will be enough to peel off votes from the moderates, but it reinstilled the "this woman actually has plans and goals" idea that she gained steam running on in the first place. So she managed to thread the needle of "these are the most popular ideas" and "their attacking Bernie but my plans are better which is why they aren't hitting me." I get what she was going for and think she did so effectively. My one concern is on a night with so much venom, she could end up an afterthought for her best responses...also her Foreign Policy answers have consistently sucked. So Biden edges this.
3. Bernie - I know half the board will cling to the Castro jabs or ignore that the M4A payment plan assumes we all recognize there's already federal money spent on healthcare that would combine with his new funding mechanisms...but ask yourself seriously, do you think last night removed Bernie from front runner status? I don't. I'm a bit shocked to see polls where he wound up atop the field for last night's performance, but I think that reflects his overall standing right now. It was impossible to miss that he was a constant target, but he stuck to message and got some really nice shots in. Bernie continues to stand out for refusing to bend to pressures (ie: the entire Castro thing that echoes Obama's attempts to normalize relations but is now bad for...reasons I guess); and I think that's a big boost since his base of support is anti-establishment and looking for someone to fight. His best moment for me was pointing out that the U.S. has interfered in a lot of other governments, but I think the most important message for the public came in the comment that Pete tried to drown out which Bernie doubled down on to close the show
"What I'm proposing is not radical, it's what the people want" ...I think hammering that home before the general election is important for someone sitting in the lead right now.
4. Amy - Klobuchar also got the "no one's attacking me" bump but she did nothing with it. She didn't push any new ideas or messages and her own platform looks milquetoast even next to the other moderates. Her strategy seemed focused on being able to win Republican support...literally, that's the idea that stood out from her performance. In a Democratic Primary, I'm not sure that's the most important or valuable takeaway you want to give an audience.
5. Steyer - Had some solid answers but generally speaking, does anyone think this guy's name will come up meaningfully after last night? He probably should have hammered home his support for reparation with that opportunity and a long discussion on race. But he still did well there to bring up that EVERYTHING systemically has been built on the backdrop of certain racial tensions. That said, that was his one time saying something meaningful and he didn't bring that thought around to a policy proposal that clearly addresses it. He identified the problem without much weight on the solution. That was a problem with most of his answers imo.
6. Bloomberg - This dude had a crowd that was clearly supporting him and still managed to get crickets on a joke attempt. He was awkward, once again didn't have good answers on harassment or his tax returns...and the tax returns was bad. It's an issue we recognize because of Trump and his excuse got blown up by the other billionaire on stage. In terms of good? He actually did identify why the coronavirus threat is worse than it has to be. He mentioned Trump cutting CDC funding and attempts to limit NIH funding as well. All of our systems that would help address and handle a potential pandemic have been weakened. But then other candidates were more forceful about replenishing the institutions. So even on a decent answer, others stole his thunder. That's besides whiffing and getting hit for redlining, soda sizes, stop and frisk, taxes, sexual harassment, etc. Also; the man almost slipped and said "I bought them" about Democratic senators, inadvertently boosting the messages of Bernie and Warren.
7. Pete - No one did more ad-libbing while others spoke, tried to steal the mic from the moderators only to be silenced or generally spoke over others more than Pete Buttigeig. His complete inability to wait his turn or act like an adult was every millenial stereotype embodied. The man started on a message about how he's someone the party can unite behind, then he attacked and provoked others all night. Pete's focus was mostly on Bernie but it got to a desperate point where we'd be two topics later and Pete's trying to latch on to Warren's filibuster mention or Bernie's use of the word "radical." The canned lines didn't land; the petulant behavior trashed any image of uniting people he wanted; and Pete came off as little more than a pest. Don't let this slip by either, Bernie mentioned the actual projected cost of Pete's M4all-who-want it BS which is higher than M4A that he always attacks. Pete didn't refute it, he compared it to the cost of the entirety of Bernie's platform...weak.
Lastly, the 1700 dollar guaranteed seat drama was pervasive on twitter. On top of that, independent coverage of the debates got copyright stricken by a third party group CBS was paying. The typical response came out "you're being conspiratorial" which doesn't really explain why there's such a heavy profit motive being applied here. It's a not a conspiracy to complain that the seats are too expensive, limiting access to an event that we're supposed to want as many people to have access to as possible. It's not a good look to cut off sources that are providing explanations and commentary on what we're hearing. You want turnout? Make the debates available to as many audiences as possible. And if you don't want to look like you're biased for one candidate, the least you can do is not run his campaign ads every commercial break. I'm certain he bought the time like everybody else, it doesn't change the optics on that. And we've heard all too much about optics in relation to Cuba's literacy vs Castro's legacy for anyone to feign ignorance on how something might not be bad but can give off a bad impression.
