2020 Primary Politics: 04 Predicted January Debate Lowlights, UPDATED


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

Good time Amy prepared for the fight. again.

With the January 2020 Democratic Debate starting in a few minutes, here are the projected lowlights of the evening:

  1. While Elizabeth Warren will not attack Bernie Sanders unprompted over his allegedly telling her in 2018 that a woman would have trouble beating Trump in 2020 (which he denies saying), Amy Klobuchar will attack Sanders for being a repulsive sexist and attack Warren for covering him and not mounting this attack on him before now.
  2. Amy Klobuchar will continue to maintain that winning a several elections in Minnesota is proof that she would win an election for President, despite her losing this primary badly so far.
  3. Amy Klobuchar will continue attacking other candidates on the basis that their ideas are not the only good ideas while continuing to attack other candidates for adopting her own proposals.
  4. Amy Klobuchar will continue to suggest that her having co-sponsored bills on various issues is proof that she is best equipped to deal with them.
  5. The pundits will conclude that this is the debate where Amy Klobuchar came through and won.  (Which is fine with me because she won’t have won and will just take votes away from Biden.)
  6. Elizabeth Warren will not announce that she plans to pick Julian Castro as her Vice President … until just before the Nevada primary, when the white states are safely out of the way.  But she will adopt his “Adios, Trump!” line, which will not end well.
  7. Joe Biden will be asked the “Groping, Stroking, Sniffing, Hugging, Licking” question again and will be indignant, honestly clueless as to what anyone will be upset at this.  He will maintain his standing among women over, oh, 70.
  8. Pete Buttigieg will continue to claim that being elected mayor of a liberal college town in the 2010s while being gay is some sort of amazing feat, when the real amazing feat is having the gall to run for everything he possibly can when he’s just the Mayor of a city that is not just smaller than Costa Mesa, but smaller than Ek Cajon, and he can’t even win most of the demographics (young gay religious veteran) that he proudly represents.
  9. Tom Steyer will continue to demonstrate the truth of Ronald Reagan’s dictum that anyone who wants to be a politician should spend time studying acting by showing what happens when an amateur takes the stage.
  10. Bernie Sanders will do too much quoting material he has said in previous debates and too little time on the witty little zingers that will have been the highlight of the debate.

The Day After’s Reckoning

  1. To my shock — and I wasn’t alone in that — Warren did go off on Bernie after a prompt (for which she or her team were responsible for eliciting), so we’ll never know whether Any Klobucher would have gone after Sanders and Warren because there was no need to do it.
  2. Klobucher asserts that her winning Minnesota proved that she could win the Presidency.  True.  Unexpected was Warren apparently agreeing, but that’s part of her taking on the Hillary mantle.
  3. I think that she might have done this once.
  4. I think that she might have done this too, but I’m not sure.  What I am sure of is that chloroform would not keep her from speaking for at least 20-30 seconds past her limit.
  5. There was the usual amount of Klobuchar love from the cable networks, but more excitement at the Warren-Sanders fight.
  6. She didn’t announce it, but this was a gimme.
  7. It’s amazing that this didn’t happen, but that’s “fairness” for you.
  8. Quite to the contrary of my expectations, Buttigieg did not mention his being gay in the one place where we would have expected it.  He mentioned that when he debated Trump on foreign policy he’d be able to reply on his military record, and that when Trump invoked religion in a debate he’s be able to rely on his knowledge of scripture.  But neither of those statuses, nor his being young, is any sort of a historic first for a Presidential candidate.  The big first is that he is an out and proud (and married) gay man — something that Trump will surely use against him cynically and horrifically.  That’s the important match-up, both his strength and his vulnerability — so why didn’t he talk about it in that answer?
  9. Tom, please — look at me.  OK, now don’t look at me (and everyone else) when you’re answering questions.  Look at the questioner like everyone else does.  Learn from others.
  10. Bernie was a little better in not simply repeating catch-phrases for bold policies that we’ve already heard.  But what people are going to remember is his denying that he made a sexist statement to his “friend” Sen. Warren.  He gave a good answer to that — that he’d have to be crazy to say that a woman couldn’t win the Presidency when Hillary Clinton almost did — but how well can one do with a “he-said/she-said” situation?  It’s not going to be what people remember.


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)