2020 Democratic Debates: Immediate Thoughts

This blog topic are some of my thoughts from the first two nights of the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential debates.

I see it is as the beginning of the end for some. But, it can be more promising for at least one.

Night #01

Write off Beto O’Rourke—who I rate as having delivered the worst first-night performance—for being empty and saying nothing of sincerity or substance. Dismiss John Delaney for being anti-Medicare for All and making a general statement that the Democratic Party should fix problems (which is ironic because his statement about Medicare for All is not in line with wanting to think of fixing a problem). Tim Ryan started with some thoughts about the working people—appeal to the Rust Belt—which were fine; and then he falsely identified who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001—and he was out-debated by the one candidate authentically anti-war. And Amy Klobuchar, who has adjusted her anti-free college tuition position to say she is okay with it  a community college level, leaves me wondering, “How is she compelling people—moving people—to want to vote her the nomination?”

In the middle were Cory Booker and Jay Inslee—two candidates who didn’t foul up too much but neither has a lasting impact. Booker says some things he should say, as a politician, and Inslee can brag about signing Climate Change bills in his position as Governor of Washington.

The four who fared best were: Elizabeth Warren, for coming across like she is truly on board for Medicare for All. (That isn’t to say how much I believe it. She sounded, in the moment, like she is determined to deliver.) Bill de Blasio embraced progressive bona fides, which means he is politically aware, and was smart with being aggressive in the debates while others needed to do the same. Julian Castro was smart with debating immigration (and he was much superior to the 2018 U.S. Senate nominee from Texas). And Tulsi Gabbard—who was given short shrift for about 90 minutes by Comcast-owned NBC News (and she was given a smear/gotcha first question as a means to possibly influence unfamiliar viewers to look at her with a negative first impression)—had the best moment of the night with the debate question on Afghanistan (and her out-debating the pro-war congressman from Ohio’s 13th Congressional District). It is a good thing, following the debate, Gabbard trended best on Google. It was necessary for her.

Night #02

Write off John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet. Neither is a fool. They are politically manipulating an attempt to encourage a status quo corporatist hold of their party. (Especially tasteless was Hickenlooper boasting of a progressive record despite his being a big supporter of the fossil-fuel industry.) The urgency of Medicare for All, and more issues, are something they are not able to sway. (That is good.) Performing very badly was Joe Biden, because he used his record—the good parts, of course—as the back support for making his case that he should be the nominee but he was taken apart by two candidates from California. One of them was Eric Swalwell, a candidate not politically dumb but who is not compelling. He is the gun-control candidate. But, he is not anywhere near the No. 1 issue for 2020; and this has me thinking of him in the same light as the senior U.S. senator from Minnesota. (Points to Swalwell for getting the music started to pass the message to Biden: pass the torch. Yes, it is insulting to tell that to an elderly person. But, it was good. Swalwell, though, does not have enough to offer.)

In the middle were Kirsten Gillibrand, who did what the New York mayor did last night—make sure she was heard, often so, and have energy. Marianne Williamson, although sometimes not stating positions on Medicare for All (that could get me to vote her the nomination), had moments of showing she thinks outside some boxes. Pete Buttigieg, who I do not support (because his manipulation on Medicare for All), did not get discredited by any other candidate and accomplished coming across as a decent candidate to the liking of his party establishment. And Andrew Yang, though he didn’t make enough use of his limited time by creating and/or having a shining moment (as it happened on the first night with the congresswoman from Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District)—and we should have had more of him on universal basic income—had one of the best closing remarks.

The ones who were performed best were: Kamala Harris, very much a politician, who deserves credit for taking to task the 47th U.S. vice president for his waxing nostalgic over his past (stances on school busing). There is a craftiness to Harris. And Bernie Sanders, whose highly progressive vision has set much the tone of where and how these other candidates have to be politically positioned, had no problem fielding manipulative framings of questions by the NBC News panel. It’s early. But, Sanders is in a really good position.


These were just debate-performance assessments by me. The first two days. This is not to say how I would rank these candidates on their worthiness for nomination and, if the 2020 Democrats flip the White House, the presidency of the United States. (Although I did indicate so with a few, like the write-off candidates.) My position remains the same: Bernie Sanders, followed by Tulsi Gabbard—but none of the rest.