.
.
.
As readers may have heard, the first real debates of the 2020 Presidential election season are due this Wednesday and Thursday, June 26 and 27. (We don’t count President Trump’s rapid policy and position reversals as real Republican “debates.” “Surreal,” perhaps.) We’ll see 20 of the 24 or so Democratic candidates debate, ten per night.
Yes, donkeys can race! And sure, we’ll take this down if the nice-seeming folks at Grand Voyage Italy object — but surely their tours to Alba can use a little free publicity!
The draw assigning candidates to nights, many people have noted, was weird in that way that truly random ones often are. Warren is the only front-runner on Night One, meaning that she has both a spotlight on her fact and a target on her back. We’ll get a good sense of how she wards off attacks. Night Two, by contrast, has Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Harris, who (except maybe Harris) have been generally considered to constitute the party’s current top tier.
So why isn’t Night One a dud? Because nominees sometimes come from other than the front-runners — Jimmy Carter and Trump being the prime examples. Five candidates from Night One — Beto, Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, and Gabbard would probably be considered in the second tier right now, along with only Gillibrand on Night Two. Other longshots, like Swalwell, Inslee, and Yang, are possible but unlikely — but Swalwell would have the best chance to shine of the three because he’s
Let’s take a look at somewhat similar pairs of the candidates, one from each night, ranked in rough order of the strength of the one in the first debate, and see how they stack up against each other:
Warren & Sanders Top-Tier Financial Reformers
Beto & Buttigieg Handsom Young Blarney Men
Klobuchar & Biden Senate Establishment
Booker & Harris Senators from the Talented Tenth
Castro & Gillibrand Identity Pols
Gabbard & Inslee Single Issue (non-Cal)
Swalwell & Yang Single Issue (Cal)
DeBlasio & Bennet Under-performers
Delaney & Hickenlooper Anti-Social(ists)
Ryan & Williamson Party Fringe
- Among the top-tier financial reformers, Warren and Sanders are pretty much equal right now.
- Among the young Irish-related smooth-takers, Buttigieg (Mayor of Notre Dame’s South Bend has just a slight edge over Beto (aka “O’Rourke”), who has faltered.
- Among centrist Senate types, Biden clearly has an edge over Klobuchar, but if he squanders it — and he well might — she’s likely to fill this role.
- Among the bright and presentable African American Senators, Harris has an edge on Booker, but hasn’t caught fire.
- Among this pair emphasizing their identity (Latino and women, if you’re not keeping track), Castro probably has a slight edge on and Gillibrand (who faces more competition in her category).
- Among this pair of candidates pushing prominent single-issue, Gabbard (anti-war) seems to lead over Inslee (climate change).
- Among this pair of Silicon Valley candidates mostly pushing single issues, Swalwell (digital national security) has the better over Yang (guaranteed annual income) among all but 4Chan peeps and perps.
- Among people performing way worse than their current office would suggest, NYC Mayor DeBlasio is about even with Colorado Senator Bennet.
- Among people who are trying to get a Cabinet position by slamming democratic socialism, Delaney trails Hickenlooper by a margin that doesn’t matter.
- Among fringies within the party, longtime pro-gun anti-abortion (now flip-flopped on both) populist Ryan is about even with Oprah-connected “New Age spiritual guru” Williamson, and I suppose each has a puncher’s chance.
In other words, while pairing #1 is tied and #2-4 do favor Night Two, pairings #5-7 favor Night One candidates — who will have much more time and air to connect, and one of whom is likely to be seen as the person who moved into a higher tier. So you’re watching the runners/racers jostling for position in the middle of the pack when you watch Night One — and with the split among top candidates on Night Two the first night may actually be more influential on the race.
Moving on from the list, let’s consider who didn’t make it.
Left out to Wither:
Steve Bullock (Reformist Trump-State Montana Governor)
Mike Gravel (Fiery Lefty Former Alaska Senator, Age 88)
Wayne Messam (Liberal Black Athlete & Florida Mayor)
Seth Moulton (National Security-oriented Mass. Congressman)
Here’s a little bit on the Frozen-Out Four before we move on;
- Bullock (better accomplishments than Hickenlooper) should’ve made this debate, but was busy governing.
- Moulton (foreign policy more centrist than Gabbard) could make the next one.
- Messam (more liberal than Booker) could take Black votes in the South.
- Gravel (considered unserious) won’t even get protest votes unless Sanders drops out.
Bullock seems to be making more hay from being left out than he’d have made if he were in. I think he’ll be at least Tier Three if not Two soon. But if you want to know who’ll be there with him, you’ll need to watch both nights!
*Terrible……what a complete waste of time.
After watching the debates I conclude there is not much bench strength in the current lineup……
I strongly disagree. Over the two nights, I saw at least seven or eight candidates whom I’d be happy to see represent my party. Fewer who I think would win, but at least four of those. (Biden ain’t one.)
I’m sure you do. There were a few that I thought had potential to be real players. I doubt our high potential lists coincide.
For example, I bet you found Senator Harris to be a top candidate? Quite the ‘spontaneous’ response to Biden’s “racism”; complete with t-shirts!
Yes, I presume that our choices differed, except that maybe you liked how well Buttigieg and Castro did.
I haven’t written about them yet because my immediate reactions to each almost exactly matched the “popular wisdom.” On Night 1, Warren did wonderfully and Castro creamed Beto in the battle of Texas. Booker did better than I expected, enough so that I had to remind myself that I can’t stand him. Klobuchar and Gabbard — yes, Gabbard — both were credible. Delaney was the Williamson of the first debate, from an opposite direction. Ryan was better than I expected, but not good enough. DeBlasio talked a good game, but deserved to be ejected for interrupting.
On the Night 2, I thought that Bernie made his essential point — that he had the courage and guts to be “lots of beer as well as foam” — to but basically treaded water. (He’ll be able to point back to this performance when others, like Harris, start backpedaling. Or should I say continue.) Biden did better than I expected, but he’s still out of touch with the under 60 crowd and completely failed to understand the issue Harris was raising. He’s not racist, he’s just oblivious, and Trump would chew him up and spit him out. Harris would match up best against Trump, followed by Bernie. I liked Bennet more than I expected; did not like Hickenlooper. I thought that Gillibrand did a good job, but was obviously hampered by being MaryAnn crossed with Gilligan standing next to Harris’s Ginger crossed with the Professor. Buttigieg did well, even though I doubt some of his sincerity. I do think that he’d match up well with Trump. Williamson commands a portion of the Democratic electorate about equal to LGBTs, so it’s interesting to see her treatment. (I’m not surprised that Republicans are now donating to her to keep her in the debates.)
No, Harris’s attack on Biden wasn’t spontaneous — nor did it have to be, nor is it disappointing that it wasn’t. It was simply masterful — and presaged what she’d be able to do to Trump, IF he’d even debate her, which I think that he’d find a way to avoid doing. Biden’s pointing out that Harris herself could have been bused was lame: the point of FEDERAL control is that the benefits of busing should not have been limited to those Blacks fortunate enough to live in Berkeley, but to those in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and other anti-civil-rights state as well. He doesn’t get it. He TOTALLY doesn’t get it. I guess I’d vote for him in November, but I’d expect him to lose.
I wrote in these pages four years ago that Gillibrand — essentially Hillary without the baggage and WITH the dreaded authenticity, credibility, and likeability — would have beaten Trump. I feel even more strongly so today. As a debater, Hillary would have been in the bottom five of this 20. She’s not the rotten person that she was made out to be, but outside of her comfort zone of supporters she came off badly. Yes, she won the popular vote — due to the Supreme Court issue — but she was a red cape to middle-class men. Gillibrand isn’t; Warren isn’t; Harris isn’t; neither are Gabbard and Klobuchar. The concerns that we’re decades away from being able to elect a women as President were always wrong: we were simply never going to elect one particular woman as President. I’m quite excited at how well the Democratic women candidates performed. (Five out of six, anyway.)
*Yeah, we wanted Kinky Friedman, but his latest album didn’t come out until late.
So we will settle for Biden-Harris 2020 and wait patiently for AOC to become 35
so we can vote for her in 2024!