2nd DEM Debate Thread: July 30 & 31, Detroit (MI), CNN

[Progressive Pessimist]

Of course, this could always happen:

https://twitter.com/aejacobs85/status/1144631447166357504?p=v

Whoa whoa whoa! Ben Gleib is running!? How did I not know this before? If he is serious, he is failing at his own Idiotest.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Question:

Are seated debates not common in the US ?

I’d like to have a debate where candidates are seated in cozy chairs like we have here in Austria.

Debate podiums are unnecessarily stiff.

There was a 2008 GOP primary debate that looked like a game show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9EzQy1qHMc

Seated debates just look weird, they look less like presidential debates and more like a family dinner conversation. Truly, if a candidate can't be standing for thirty minutes till a commercial break then that candidate probably isn't strong enough to be president

You just gave me an idea. A presidential debate around a literal dinner table.

Actually, I change my mind, that seems super cool. It will just be like Thanksgiving just eight weird uncles who keep trying to be woke

That sounds better than my family's Thanksgiving dinners.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Does anybody else think Biden is gonna go after Harris on something and it's gonna massively backfire?

I’m sure he’s going to go after for being a prosecutor vs him being a public defender, and I’m sure she’s already got a response prepared for that.

That's really all he has, he can't go after her on her spotty criminal justice record because he wrote the bill that may have forced her to abide by the bill.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Gretchen: I know I'm biased, but Michigan is the greatest state of the country, right?

Audience: lukewarm applause  😂 #FAIL

She probably runs in 2024 if next year doesn't work out for us.

I'd be down for that, but if Trump wins in 2020 there won't be much of a country left to even run.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This debate was certainly livelier than last month's first night debate, yet I actually have less to say about it. So don't fear an overly long Progressive Pessimist post right here. Just a slightly long one.

All I'll say overall is that I think everybody either improved or performed similarly to their last debates with Buttigieg, Sanders, and Williamson being the standouts. Buttigieg was on point and staked a very interesting niche for himself. Sanders was a lot more animated and didn't just rely on his stump speech (maybe it's because he was on the defensive more). And Williamson came across as a lot less loopy and wacky compared to last time. She actually made some great points (also did she dye her hair?). Bullock is also kind of a winner since he got to finally put himself out there. He isn't going anywhere though and switch to the Montana Senate race as soon as possible. I doubt that this debate moved the needle very much for any of the candidates, but those three stand to benefit the most, if at all. I don't think there really any losers either, if it's anyone it's Hickenlooper just because the guy has no stage presence and couldn't help but stammer and fumble his way through his answers. Though Delaney too might have come out slightly weak since he was on defense a lot also.

When it comes to issues and messaging though, the progressives definitely won the night. It's pretty clear that the more mainstream candidates just don't have a meaningful way of inspiring enthusiasm like Sanders and Warren do. The only issue I think they won their exchanges with those two on was with eliminating private insurance. Seriously, I appreciate the idea that private insurance on principle shouldn't exist, but it's a non-starter as a  successful part of an appealing health care plan.

Also one more thing, this debate was simultaneously more organized than the NBC ones, yet also more chaotic at the same time somehow. Perhaps that's partly due to some of the fluff before the debate actually started, but also probably due to the seemingly shorter response times. When discussing substantial policy issues like these, even with ten candidates, they need at least a little more time to respond to questions and exchanges. Maybe ten candidates just isn't tenable enough for a relatively smooth debate. At least there were no microphone issues.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No one is making a big deal about this because:
1. He's white.
2. He will not be the nominee.
3. I'm pretty sure that he is still a naturally born citizen.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wow! In reading all the posts I had to catch up on in this thread I might be the hot-take king tonight!

1. Biden massively improved. Sure, he still slurred a few words but he instilled a little bit more confidence in me if he ends up being the nominee...which is probably as likely as ever. He will not suffer any drop in support like last time. He defended himself adequately enough and dished out a little offense too. Also strangely, he got as much support from other candidates as he got flack. Bennet and Gabbard managed to disrupt some of the attacks on him. Gabbard sympathizing with Biden "being lied to" was especially surprising. I thought she was going to tear Biden a new a**hole for that. Biden clearly can, and so far has benefited from a competitive primary. Unlike Clinton I think he can end up being a better general election candidate because of it. He cannot get complacent again though. Maybe those are low standards, but I'll take any reassurance that I can.

2. Gabbard was fine, and going after Harris was clearly a good move on her part. I doubt she gains much support out of it though and everything else out of her was fairly generic and forgettable.

3. Harris was never going to top her last debate performance, especially in becoming more of a front-runner, and therefore a target, since then. But she performed well everywhere outside of Gabbard's criticisms. This forum really does have an irrational hate-boner for her. She will not suffer much for this, and will still be in the top four. Granted, she probably won't see another bump like last time either.

4. This forum also has an irrational hate-boner for Gillibrand. What did she do that was so wrong? I'll agree that her campaign is probably done as she is unlikely to make the September debates since her candidacy just doesn't seem to be clicking with many, but I still like her and I think she deserves better. Perhaps you may not be gung-ho towards her, but to see such vitriole (as with Harris) is really kind of baffling to me. I'm not a Gabbard fan, but I was fair to her in acknowledging that she won in an interaction with a candidate that I prefer.

5. Booker won the night overall, and if anyone is going to gain in the polls, it will be him. He may have a bump like Harris did, albeit a smaller one. It might not be enough for him to enter the top five though.

6. As for everyone else-Bennet, Inslee, and Yang all improved as well. De Blasio did about as well as last time and stuck to his offense strategy, but to more mixed results with this debate. One way or another, this will probably be our last debate with all of them, save for Yang, so how they did almost doesn't matter.

So there are my most recent thoughts, if anyone cares. I also want to add, that the numerous interruptions from the crowd were especially interesting. Was all of this coordinated or just coincidence?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Why did Harris call Biden "Senator", when he actually should be referred to as "Mr. Vice President". That's kind of ridiculous.

I think it was just a mistake. He was a Senator after all, and some people still remember him for that. I don't think it was an attempt to condescend on her part. Similarly Biden referred to Booker as "the Future President," that was definitely a flub, but both he and Booker ran with it. It was one of several funny moments in the debate.