1st DEM Debate Thread: June 26 & 27, Miami, MSNBC & NBC & Telemundo (9-11pm)

[Progressive Pessimist]

Is everyone ready for Julian Castro to creep everyone out by imitating Obama's voice (tone, pitch, mannerisms, everything) to Uncanny Valley levels?

As funny as this image is, and may always be, Schultz being featured dates it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

DNC has listed the qualifiers, a total of 20 candidates over 2 debates:

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Sen. Kamala Harris of California
Former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas
Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Rep. Eric Swalwell of California
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Author Marianne Williamson
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang

Bullock, Gravel, Messam & Moulton did not qualify


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/dnc-names-20-candidates-who-will-appear-stage-first-democratic-n1017316

I still can't believe that Williamson qualified. Everyone else I saw qualifying, more or less.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yeah, I don't see why this is bad for Warren. She is undoubtedly the one in the strongest position against the other nine. There is no way she won't be the most talked about candidate of that night's debate. Granted, perhaps the relative lack of other more notable (top ten) candidates may cause viewership to be smaller than the other night. Or maybe not, since it looks like it will be the first night. Regardless, it's going to be her night for sure.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm going to be cynical but Tulsi and Gillibrand probably benefit in someway by just being the most telegenic people in their groups.

I don't know, this is arguably the prettiest primary in the history of this country, relatively speaking of course.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Pete is gonna look awfully short next to Biden it may dampen the whole young/old contrast. Think he might show up in these?

I know this isn't a huge deal, but Biden seems to have shrunk a bit over the years. I'm 5'11" and I am taller than Biden when I've met him by a hair. And I am only a couple inches taller than Pete who is maybe 5'8.5". And he will also be beside Yang who is around that 5'8" mark, too. So Pete won't look short, not like the half a foot height difference between Rubio and the other R's in 2016.

It's normal though. As humans get older, our bone density decreases and makes us become slightly shorter overtime. It'll happen to all of us. Trump too, who prides himself on his height.

However, taller candidates do usually perform better in elections...usually (though I am reminded that DeWine beat Cordray last year).

[Progressive Pessimist]

They announced the podium placement for both nights:

Night One:
de Balsio - Ryan - Castro - Booker - Warren - O'Rourke - Klobuchar - Gabbard - Inslee - Delaney

Night Two:
Williamson - Hickenlooper - Yang - Buttigieg - Biden - Sanders - Harris - Gillibrand - Bennet - Swalwell

Source

Pretty cramped stage. Thank God Abrams isn't running. I don't think they could fit in both of her podiums.

Jesus, man

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's interesting to see such a large array of opinions in what people took away from the debate in this thread. I guess I'll add mine:

Warren: She was the center of attention during the first half of the debate and held her own. I don't think she had any standout moments, but her position is stable and that's all she really needs. It was interesting how little attention she got in the latter part of the debate though.

O'Rourke: Alright, you finally got me. He should drop out and maybe run against Cornyn. I'm conceding that. I still like the guy, and wanted to support him, but he is not ready. He undeniably had the worst performance, and that opinion seems universal. He was almost as awkward as that technical difficulty with the microphone. Side note: what the f*** happened there MSNBC!? The second he clumsily transitioned to Spanish in his opening statement, I knew this was going to be rough for him. He as also on the ropes from most candidates who seemed intent on skewering him the most, I don't know if that was planned or if Castro and de Blasio just took advantage of the opportunities before them.

Booker: My Senator impressed me. I think his performance was overall very good and I could see him gaining a bit in the polls. Maybe it's bias towards him being one of my elected officials, but I think I've been too bearish on him throughout this campaign.

Klobuchar: As always, she was good on substance and notably she actually wasn't as dull as she usually is. Her zingers were really hokey though, and they kept happening the second she ran out of time, nearly every time. Overall a good performance though.

Castro: Everybody seemed impressed by him, but to me he is the most generic person running in this campaign (along with Bennet and Swalwell). He is excellent when he discusses immigration and his connection to it, but I wasn't blown away by him. He did well though, there's no denying that. I just wasn't floored by him like everyone else seems to be.

Gabbard: It kind of pains me to say it, since she is one of my least favorite candidates in the field, but I think she came off really well. Dare I say it, but she also impressed me. Her moment with Ryan especially might just have been the highlight of the night. It's really the only moment I can see being replayed. She destroyed him, and was correct on the issue they were debating. I may have actually grown slightly more fond of her candidacy, mostly on a surface level...slightly.

Ryan: I thought he did really well towards the beginning of the debate, I was almost ready to call him one of the night's winners...but then that moment with Gabbard absolutely embarrassed him. His folksy, Midwestern, "populist" charm fell flat on its face as he was reduced to a stuttering incoherent nervous mess.

Inslee: Poor Jay Inslee probably got the shortest end of the stick tonight. I feel like he talked the least. So much so that I can't really assess his performance. I thought his focus on climate change would have made him more distinguished in this debate, but by accident or by design that just doesn't look to be transpiring.

De Blasio: He also pleasantly surprised me. He was on the offense in a big way and came off as having this "I don't give a f***" New York attitude. He was throwing shade (a term I hate, but is just too appropriate here) everywhere, especially at O'Rourke and more slyly towards Buttigieg and was able to be a "populist" while also not alienating us "coastal elitals" like Ryan always seems to. I don't see myself supporting him, or having much faith in him as a nominee, but he was definitely one of the most entertaining candidates to watch tonight. I can see him gaining slightly in the polls too.

Delaney: Finally we get to Delaney, who was just kind of obnoxious to me. He tried to butt into a lot of peoples' statements and acted very dismissive of some of the more ambitious ideas from the other candidates. He is one of the worse performers tonight, as I see it.

So there are my overly long thoughts. It went about how I expected it-a contest for attention, but ultimately with few memorable moments. I'm fine with that though. Simpletons like the President may have found it BORING!!! Our politics needs less sideshow moments and more substance, which there was in this debate. It was helpful for an undecided Democrat like myself to be able to get to know the candidates better and see them in a different setting. For one thing it was helpful in assuring me that O'Rourke would not make a good nominee, which is unfortunate, but something I'm glad to have finally accepted. I doubt it will move the needle very much in the grand scheme of the primary though, and probably be forgotten about by tomorrow, but it served its purpose.

The format was very messy though. A stricter threshold with less candidates participating probably would have been preferable. Even with that said, I expect tomorrow's debate to be much more interesting since there are more well-known candidates and more potential for fireworks.

I'll see you all then. Expect those thoughts to be even longer than these ones here, sorry.

[Progressive Pessimist]

My bingo card for this evening:

Not bad, but I doubt Swalwell will even get to talk enough to say all of the things on the spaces he is mentioned on.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I guess I'll do what I did yesterday and go candidate by candidate and how I think they did in this much more fiery and somehow messier debate, even as there weren't any technical difficulties:

Biden: Biden started off really strong to me. It was nice to finally hear him talk some policy and entertain more relatively progressive ideas. I also appreciated that he came off as passionate about something for once when it came to healthcare and how he recounted the numerous tragedies he's faced over his life. I was under the impression that he would be this debate's Warren where he remains stable by not making many waves or drawing much attention to himself, especially as Sanders, who I expected to criticize him the most, avoided doing so. But then came that moment with Harris. Of all the people to absolutely whoop Biden, I really didn't think she would do it, I thought she would be more conciliatory towards him. Sanders and nearly every other candidate, other than Bennet and Swalwell, missed a real opportunity to weaken the obvious front-runner. He started in a passable way, but he did not end very solidly. He seemed to become frazzled and incoherent after that exchange with Harris. Hell, he even ceded that he was going over time as a way out of it. All that said, I don't see his position improving after tonight, and I could see him finally hemorrhaging some black support to Harris, but I don't think his performance will harm him irrevocably.

Sanders: What the hell is there to even say about him? He did exactly what I expected him to do, and what he always does: his stump speech. Yes, yes, I agree but could you actually try to answer the direct question or go into more detail for once? What I didn't expect was for him to get more of the brunt of criticism than Biden and from more candidates. He was on the defense most of the night even as he turned it all around slightly with his closing statement. Again, that statement just being a derivation of his stump speech, which works much better as a statement than as a rebuttal in a debate. He didn't do what he needed to in order to revitalize his campaign, and like in 2016, the hype around him is still alien to me.

Buttigieg: He too did what he usually does. He is possibly the most well-spoken of all the candidates and it works to his advantage. He had some solid answers on a lot of questions until he had to address the recent policing controversy in South Bend. He avoided the question over the diversity of its police force, and I am writing him off since it seems like he is just the diametric opposite to appealing to black voters which is beyond essential in both a Democratic primary and a general election. Overall though, he still did well.

Harris: She has always been in consideration as the candidate I wanted to support, but her weak polling and my fears over her "electability" always steered me away. But I think I am finally ready to admit that she might be the candidate for me. She is often hand-waved as being weak on policy and just being an "identity politics" candidate, but tonight she was fantastic with her answers and her overall performance. I think she may be underrated for the general election and in this primary. If anyone from both nights is going to see a surge in the polls, it's her. She took this debate by the horns and wrestled it into submission. This was her opportunity to differentiate herself and stand out, and she took it for all its' worth. Her reputation sort of hinges on how prosecutorial she is towards Trump Cabinet officials and others, so a weak debate performance would have undermined that, but she did not let that happen. I'm still not quite 100% professing my support for her, but I am leaning the most towards her of anybody now!

Yang: I was never much into the "Yang Gang" hype, but he really did get the shaft in this debate. That was not fair for him to be so ignored. But from what I got out of hi, I'm not particularly impressed. He seems very knowledgeable and smart, but he is also awkward, stiff, and probably should have taken more opportunities to interject himself into the discussions. His cult status will remain just that. His support is not going to expand beyond the internet.

Gillibrand: A lot of what I said about Harris could be said about her too. I think she is underrated. The only reason I am putting Harris above her is because I think Harris would perform better in a general election due to being able to better connect with voters of color. Otherwise, I think Gillibrand is great too and staked out a position against corruption, which I think she articulated better than Sanders. It's close between her and Warren as the number two candidate that I'm considering. The women in this race are heads and tails above their male counterparts overall, and especially in these debates (I'll get to Williamson though).

Bennet: If he didn't have an exchange of his own with Biden, he wouldn't have left an impression on me. But I still think his performance was better than some of the other more forgettable generic Democrat-like candidates in the race. He needs an overall theme to his responses or something, and then maybe he could become more formidable. He is not the worst white man in this race.

Hickenlooper: The other Colorado politician did just as I expected him to. He was this debate's John Delaney without the interruptions and sense of entitlement. His only schitck seemed to be complaining about Socialism and staking out the usual "I was a Governor and did these things" rhetoric. I will say though, he had an exchange of his own that was slightly overlooked when he basically said that Pete Buttigieg failed at reforming policing where he succeeded. That was Hickenlooper's best moment of the debate, and maybe of the whole campaign.

Swalwell: I was almost shocked at how well he started with the "pass the torch" line against Biden. That was really good! But that moment went to his head and it's all he really talked about throughout the debate, other than gun policy. Hell, it even backfired eventually when Williamson clapped back at him. H's an empty suit and while the theme around "passing the torch" actually isn't a bad one, someone like Buttigieg does it better. He has no reason to be in this race.

Williamson: Okay...what the living hell!? I was barely able to follow anything she said or why she was saying it. She wants to taunt Jacinda Ardern? She's against policy proposals? What?! You're running for President, even Trump sort of proposed things. It was especially maddening because in between her incoherent stream-of-consciousness rambling, came a few good points like when she brought up how American foreign policy affected the contemporary refugee crisis. That should have been discussed more, but it was lost in her absolutely air-headed tirades. She was entertaining as hell though, I won't deny that. I can see people contributing to her campaign just to keep her in the debates and giving us more of this wacky, New Age babble. Maybe she'll be our Trump? At this point, why not? In all seriousness though, I have no idea why she's running for President and I have no will to support her (my updated signature mostly implies that I will support one of Gillibrand, Harris, or Warren).

I am eagerly looking forward to this field finally narrowing and seeing future debates, with all this said now. I am mostly satisfied of where the party is at: even our most white-bread moderate candidates seem to agree with the more progressive candidates. That tells me that the party is more united in its goals than it may appear. I am especially calmed by the fact that candidates are actually discussing the Supreme Court and winning back the Senate. Those are two massive concerns of mine. It's rare that I take anything positive away from anything, so these debates might just be worth their weight in gold when it comes to making me feel slightly better about the future. I still don't know who would do the best against Trump, and I still don't know who I am wholeheartedly supporting, but these debates have helped in spite of the relative bedlam.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump gave Clinton a pass to run as a progressive (I don't care what anyone else says, she ran the most left wing campaign of any Democratic nominee in decades) and that will apply to the 2020 too. Anyway, Americans don't actually care about policy intricacies, and converting undecideds matters less than ever. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter at all, but this election will be about turnout, and as long as our nominee can excite the Democratic base enough to overwhelm the Republican base (which will be enthused as well, because they always are)  like in 2018, they can win.

In reference to undocumented immigrants benefiting from public health care, I think the candidates (even Biden) defended themselves pretty well on that. It's one of those issues that is beneficial to society as a whole, even as it may not be tangible. It's a lot like providing public housing for homeless people. That actually saves tax dollars and keeps insurance premiums lower and hospitals and prisons less full. The only reason not to commit to policies like that is because of peoples' natural knee-jerk "why can't I get a free handout, yet they do!" instincts. It's hard to fight against, but is inherently irrational when contrasted with the objective reality of the situation.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump gave Clinton a pass to run as a progressive (I don't care what anyone else says, she ran the most left wing campaign of any Democratic nominee in decades) and that will apply to the 2020 too. Anyway, Americans don't actually care about policy intricacies, and converting undecideds matters less than ever. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter at all, but this election will be about turnout, and as long as our nominee can excite the Democratic base enough to overwhelm the Republican base (which will be enthused as well, because they always are)  like in 2018, they can win.

In reference to undocumented immigrants benefiting from public health care, I think the candidates (even Biden) defended themselves pretty well on that. It's one of those issues that is beneficial to society as a whole, even as it may not be tangible. It's a lot like providing public housing for homeless people. That actually saves tax dollars and keeps insurance premiums lower and hospitals and prisons less full. The only reason not to commit to policies like that is because of peoples' natural knee-jerk "why can't I get a free handout, yet they do!" instincts. It's hard to fight against, but is inherently irrational when contrasted with the objective reality of the situation.

You sound like a Yang voter. You argue just like he does on these issues.

I may disappoint you by saying that I wasn't much of a fan of Yang's performance last night, at a superficial level, but I did appreciate his very wonky, straight to the point responses for the little time he had. I'll definitely give him that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

100% truth right here. Sure, the format was kind of messy, and there are indeed too many candidates, but they were still far more substantive debates overall than any GOP debates of the past few cycles.