The second Democratic primary debate, same as the first?
Who won the debate? That is almost a meaningless question. The only way to win a presidential debate is to win the election in November 2020. Everything else is just warmup.
Did some of the candidates improve their chances or hurt their causes? My first impression is that Kamala Harris did a very good job of debating, which should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to her career. She often set the agenda, especially on the civil rights issue. Joe Biden started out well but became defensive when civil rights issue came up. Marianne Williamson, whom few people have ever heard of, was clear, articulate, and intelligent. She showed razor-sharp political instincts. But she doesn't have a prayer to win. Kathleen Gillibrand made sense and kept her cool. She also has little chance. Bernie Sanders sounded like a crazy person, which seems to be what his supporters like about him. The other men made very little impression on me.
All of those impressions could change as the public has time to digest what the debaters said and how they acted during the debate.
Just as in the first primary debate, the moderators lost control. The candidates who shouted most loudly got more turns to speak. Politicians tend to be forceful people and the moderators didn't seem to know how to regulate them. However, the loudest and most forceful debater might not make the best president. The moderators' job is to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance. That didn't happen last night and it didn't happen tonight, either.
These debates were still important, however. Here's why: the press has been reporting most forcefully and repeatedly about the candidates who already have name recognition, like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. They have consistently under-reported the female candidates, and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren in particular both deserved better. Although the moderators' bias still showed in these debates, Harris and Warren and some of the other lesser-known candidates were able to make their points. That in itself was worthwhile.
What else? Issue discussions were brief and shallow. Candidates fought to be heard. There was too much yelling. The moderators sometimes let their own egos take over.
Nevertheless, the sometimes very liberal positions that the candidates took will not play in the general election. Voters should expect to hear the Democratic nominee take somewhat more conservative positions about immigration and maybe healthcare in the general election. That is because political candidates have two audiences: the first audience consists of the ideologically-motivated primary voters, while the second audience consists of the broader group of voters in general. Donald Trump handled that divide with finesse in 2016. Hillary Clinton struggled with the same problem. How will the 2020 Democratic candidate do? Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment