***
‘The expected did not happen’
Larry J. Sabato is the founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and is a contributing editor at POLITICO Magazine.
After 10 hours of intense impeachment hearings, there’s nothing like a Democratic presidential debate to help you unwind. We’ve seen the number of candidates on stage wax and Wayne over the months—a tribute to Wayne Messam, the first black mayor of Miramar, Florida, who dropped out Wednesday—yet 10 contenders seems about right if your goal is to ensure that no one gets enough time to make a lasting impact.
We always argue about who did well—I’d choose Booker and Klobuchar as Most Improved—and who looked bad (your picks here). But the more important question is: Did the debate change much? Not really. These large cattle shows aren’t the way candidates win or lose in this cycle.
By the way, the expected did not happen: Mayor Pete wasn’t the center of attention despite his upward trend in some polls. Having forged ahead in Iowa, the 91 percent white state that starts the process, and in New Hampshire, the 93 percent white state that comes second, Buttigieg was expected to be the favorite target for other candidates. There were some hits, but not all that many, and Buttigieg gave as good as he got. Maybe his opponents were afraid their attacks would raise his profile further.
Just as likely, they are taking the long view, and they don’t believe Buttigieg will be the nominee. It’s hard to see how he can solve his biggest problem—a near-total lack of appeal among African Americans and Hispanics. Minorities are a big chunk of the electorate in South Carolina, Nevada, many of the Super Tuesday states and so on.
Now we can all look forward to the next debate, a few days before Christmas, when the Democratic Party hopes millions of Americans will gather ’round the Christmas tree, sipping spiked eggnog and opening a few presents ahead of schedule while watching the next installment of the search for a Trump-slayer.
What heart attack?
Beth Hansen is a Republican political strategist and the former campaign manager for John Kasich.
Perhaps it was the juxtaposition with the chaos of today’s impeachment hearings, but the participants on Wednesday night’s debate stage came across particularly confident and focused.
The ‘comeback kid’ was Sanders: Any concern about recent health issues should be allayed by his strong and passionate responses. Other standouts were Booker (excellent closing statement), Klobuchar (experienced and pragmatic policy responses) and Steyer (more engaged and part of the night’s rhythm).
Yang again came across as authentic, smart and likable—particularly in his easy defense of Steyer for being rich and spending his money on things that matter like climate change, and his initial response to what he would say on his first phone call with Vladimir Putin (sorry your guy lost … no, I’m not).
Buttigieg was again outstanding: down to earth and cerebral at the same time, calm while speaking with emotion, particularly in his strong response to Harris on race and on the importance of bringing the country together during the next presidential administration.
Gabbard did not rise to the level of her opponents, and Harris also seemed out of sync with the mostly congenial and policy-focused comments.
Warren seems to have plateaued—for now. There seems to be a ceiling for attacking the rich to expand government programs and continuing to divide. It will remain to be seen if she has plateaued or stalled, but she did not command the stage the way she did in the early debates.
Biden had trouble pulling together his comments to make his ultimate point.
The winners were Sanders, Buttigieg and relief from the mayhem of today’s impeachment hearings. 75 days until the Iowa caucuses: Let the voting begin!
‘A worthy, responsible event, if not an exciting one’
Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent . He is writing a history of the Democratic Party.
On the surface, the debate seemed much like a re-run of the previous ones—albeit with few attacks by one candidate against another. Everyone repeated their favorite stump lines and talking points; most showed flashes of humor; nearly all expressed moral outrage against billionaires, “endless wars,” inhuman immigrant policies and, of course, the Corrupter-in-Chief. It was a worthy, responsible event, if not an exciting one. No one won the debate, and, with the exception of Gabbard who harbors a delusion that “the people” support her admiration for murderous dictators, no one really lost it.
However, only Sanders and Warren combined two attributes a president should have: a profound knowledge about the problems facing the nation and a well-considered set of solutions for them. On housing, health care and the power of money in politics, their proposals matched their convictions. Some less popular candidates came across as authentic figures in this regard too: Steyer when he talked about the urgency of fighting climate change and Yang when he sketched out the perils and potential of the new economy. But only Sanders and Warren have demonstrated the ability to attract enough supporters and build strong enough organizations to defeat Biden, who continues to lead the pack while making no compelling argument besides the fact that Barack Obama made him vice president. Both the party and the country need a better nominee than him. Whether Democratic voters agree is, of course, an entirely different question.
Only women should moderate debates from now on.
Amanda Litman is the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.
Booker and Harris knocked it out of the park with standout moments, and Buttigieg didn’t back down from attacks against him. Warren was, as always, authentically and unapologetically on message.
But more important, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Ashley Parker and Kristen Welker were the big winners of the night. They proved moderators can ask insightful policy questions, do follow-ups and still make for mostly interesting television. We didn’t start with yet another half hour on Medicare, and instead we got good questions on paid family leave, foreign policy and, for the first time in more than 30 debates (between 2016 and now), a question on voting rights. Let it be resolved: Exclusively women moderators from here on out.
‘There are some political events that just do not carry with them significant consequences’
Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author and is a contributing editor at POLITICO Magazine.
I could offer you reasonably notable moments from the debate.
Biden gave a series of relatively coherent, focused answers to questions about health care and whether an ex-President Trump should be prosecuted.
Klobuchar was once again impressive and managed an appeal to local passion. Asked about the influence of money in politics, she said: “Right now one solution that would make a huge difference in this state would be to allow every kid in the country to register to vote when they turn 18. If we had a system like this and we did something about gerrymandering and did something significant about making sure we don’t have money in politics from the outside, Stacey Abrams would be governor of this state right now.”
Yang had a series of provocative notions and offered the best one-liner: Asked what he’d say to Putin the morning after the election, he said, “Sorry I beat your guy.”
Harris once again brought with her energy that had not always been apparent in the most recent debates.
Sanders looked and sounded as if his recent heart attack had left him more healthy, more energetic than before.
And thanks to moderator Rachel Maddow, we even got a question about farm policy—a constituency that has been fleeing the Democratic Party in droves. It gave Pete Buttegieg a chance to link the question to climate change.
But the most striking fact of the night was this: As far as the grubby, essential question of the battle for the nomination goes, nothing happened. The sharpest exchange of the night was between Harris and Gabbard.
Whatever the reason, it’s hard for me to see how anything significant shifted in the campaign.
There’s a good case to be made that debates should not be judged on their short-term political impact. The questions Wednesday night were often more wide-ranging and more relevant than in many past debates. It may be that Democratic voters—the great majority of which are still making up their minds—will see this debate as one more in a series of events that will lead them to a decision.
But it’s also a reminder—a particularly clear reminder—that there are some political events that just do not carry with them significant consequences. Wednesday night’s debate was one of them.
Biden and Buttigieg: Winners, with the most to lose.
Jennifer Lawless is a professor of politics at the University of Virginia whose research focuses on political ambition, campaigns and elections, and media and politics.
Biden and Buttigieg had the most to lose in Wednesday night’s debate, albeit for different reasons. In Biden’s case, his failure to clear the field revealed vulnerabilities that paved the way for Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick to throw their hats into the ring. If Biden couldn’t deliver a strong debate performance, then voters might get behind one of the new alternatives. For Buttigieg, his rise in the polls placed a target on his back. The high stakes suited both men well. Their performances were far from flawless. Biden began the night with some pretty significant verbal stumbles, and Buttigieg took far too long to assuage voters’ concerns about his political inexperience and credentials. But they still emerged as the debate’s clear winners, hands down, for two reasons.
First, Biden and Buttigieg directed their venom (for the most part) at Donald Trump, not their fellow Democrats. They made a case to the American people based on a very clear and strategic calculus about how to ensure that Trump is a one-term president. For Biden, it meant reminding viewers that he’s polling as the best candidate to defeat Trump, and that Trump knows it. In fact, Trump was so worried about the prospect of facing Biden that he engaged in actions over which he’s likely to be impeached. For Buttigieg, it meant demonstrating a willingness to push back against falsehoods and statements taken out of context—something he’d surely have to deal with in a general election. When Gabbard claimed that the mayor supported sending U.S. troops to Mexico to fight drug cartels, for example, Buttigieg didn’t miss a beat. “Do you seriously think anyone on this stage is proposing invading Mexico?” he asked. The other candidates paled in comparison to Biden and Buttigieg’s confidence and style for taking on Trump.
Second, Biden and Buttigieg channeled Barack Obama and offered a message of hope at a time when each day seems worse than the last. Biden implored voters to “get up and take the country back” from Trump. He reminded voters that America can reclaim its moral leadership on the global stage. Buttigieg didn’t use the words “red America” and “blue America,” but he made it clear that, like Obama, he would be president for all of America. Neither Biden nor Buttigieg talked much about specific plans or policies. Instead, they referred to broad principles with broad appeal. They embodied the kind of leadership that Americans say they miss in the White House.
This isn’t to suggest that the other candidates performed poorly. Klobuchar, Harris and Booker turned out solid performances. And Warren and Sanders did nothing to jeopardize their stature. But with a crowded stage, it takes a lot to shift the status quo, especially when the two candidates who have the most to lose end the night stronger than they began it.
Warren and Biden lost.
Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail .
After a long day of impeachment hearings—essentially a TV miniseries about politicians behaving badly—the fifth Democratic debate felt like programming from another planet. Unlike its counterpart, the debate showcased politicians at their most aspirational. And in large part, the field of Democratic contenders rose to the occasion. This debate may not have clarified much for voters, but it allowed several of the candidates to shine.
At the top of the list: Booker, a consistently fine debater who has been unable to leverage previous performances into tangible rewards. His exchange with Biden over marijuana legalization is a classic example of how a debater can detonate a planned moment in a spontaneous-seeming way, while simultaneously scoring political points. Harris also gave a strong, energetic showing that reminded viewers of her initial appeal. Sanders successfully made his case with a good deal more wit and less shouting than usual, while Yang added an element of down-home folksiness and brought issues to the table that nobody else raised. Klobuchar—as in the October debate—demonstrated humor and an easy demeanor, and Buttigieg emerged not only unscathed by his competitors but crisp and forthright and willing to scrap.
The debate had two losers: Warren—who did not manage to advance her candidacy with this performance—and, more glaringly, Biden. If these debates were a reality TV competition, the judges would have unanimously voted Biden off the show at the end of the broadcast. It wasn’t just his gaffe about “punching” against domestic violence, which was bad enough. It was his overall lack of sharpness. The debate took place on Biden’s 77th birthday, yet it gave neither the vice president nor Democratic voters any cause for celebration.
‘It was extremely surprising that no candidate stepped up to hit’ Buttigieg
David Polyansky was a senior political and communications adviser for Ted Cruz for President.
This was the best debate for the Democratic field so far. Overall, Democrats should be pleased with the performance of everyone on the stage, but, again, the base driving the field further and further to the left only increases President Trump’s chances of reelection.
One of the hardest things in presidential primary politics is for an underdog like Buttigieg to spike in early support ahead of Iowa and then be able to hold that momentum into success on caucus night. It is during debates like this, when the public, news media and your opponents are focusing attention (and possibly firepower) when you start to get a feel as to whether a candidate has the necessary staying power. From the outset Buttigieg looked practiced, polished and prepared for the moment. His ability to sell his narrative when asked why the party should trust someone with so little electoral experience and success was strong. He reminded viewers that he was the least wealthy candidate on the stage, wore our nation’s uniform in combat operations and today represents the type of middle-America community that Donald Trump has been so successful with.
Considering the stakes, it was extremely surprising that no candidate stepped up to hit him truly hard until Gabbard, whom he easily and successfully countered. Overall, Wednesday night’s performance by the mayor was an important step forward for him on his march toward a potential Iowa upset.
Biden struggled in his opening and near the close of the debate. Many times he comes across as tired, flat and seems to have trouble remembering the most basic elements of his practiced lines. Or he makes gaffes such as repeatedly using the term “punching” when talking about fighting against domestic violence—or when he referred to Carol Moseley-Braun as the only black female senator elected, with Senator Harris standing a few feet away. For one of the leading candidates in the field, he was an afterthought for the better part of the all-important first 30 minutes of the debate.
However, when finally given the opportunity by the moderators to engage during the middle of the debate, Biden did a very nice job and looked and sounded like a former vice president. He contrasted with both Sanders and Warren on Medicare for All, which is a key wedge issue in his efforts to hold the middle of his party. He also very naturally weaved throughout his answers the need for civility coupled with his history of bringing people together to get things done. And he also showed some much-needed toughness when he pushed back on Tom Steyer over his claims that he was the only one on the stage to prioritize climate change. On a night that started and closed a little bumpy for him, Biden had a strong middle stretch that reminded many Democratic voters why he may be their best shot to beat the president.
Sanders did exactly what he and his team must have hoped for: hit the high-points that have made him attractive to the consistent base of progressive support he has held throughout both of his presidential candidacies. He doesn’t seem to come into these debates with new approaches or ideas that are intended to expand that support. Rather, he looks to be playing solely to maintain his core audience of support and is incredibly disciplined in doing so.
Warren was, as always, steady and policy-focused. It will be hard for any of her challengers to find a way to match her confidence, energy and poise. And while some tried to disagree with her on the merits of her policies, there is nobody on the stage that comes close to her ability to present and defend her agenda and vision.
Formulaic, but informative.
Jennifer Victor is a professor of political science at George Mason University, a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Political Networks and a member of the board of directors of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.
After a heavy day of news bombs from the impeachment hearings, Democrats managed to hold a substantive and fiery debate to a probably exhausted audience. The debate seemed like a series of bilateral boxing matches rather than a group debate. There were poignant exchanges between Biden and Booker, Gabbard and Harris, Harris and Biden, Warren and Biden, and others.
The paired contests made for good television and easy to follow narratives that emphasized specific points of difference between candidates on wealth inequality, racial justice, foreign policy and gender equality. In a race between candidates who largely agree on issues, the event provided a window into substantive and stylistic distinctions between the candidates in a way that seemed productive.
The debate also seemed to follow a sort of script: Biden makes a gaffe; Gabbard insults the party whose nomination she’s seeking; Booker makes a play for more attention; Yang talks about income inequality; Steyer talks about climate; Warren talks about economic justice; Harris talks about all kinds of justice; Kobuchar shows policy depth; and Buttigeig fires up the youth base.
The next debate is in December, and it’s time for the party to start winnowing the field a bit more. But it’s unlikely that anything that happened in the debate Wednesday night will have a big impact on what the field looks like four weeks from now.
The left is blowing it—because neither Sanders nor Warren is blowing it.
Dan Lavoie is a progressive communications strategist.
The left has its two best presidential candidates of my lifetime—and it might be blowing its big chance.
The progressive left has two legitimate frontrunners in Warren and Sanders. The rest of the major candidates represent varying levels of “let’s just get back to pre-Trump and forget this whole thing ever happened.” One of those sides is going to win—and in turn, set the direction of the Democratic Party for the next decade.
Last night’s debate made it obvious just how much the heart of the party is driving left: anti-war, pro-Medicare for All, universal pre-K, criminal justice reform, etc. But the politics hasn’t moved quite as fast, opening the door for a more moderate candidate to take advantage of a split left and win the 2020 nomination. And with yet another solid performance from both Warren and Sanders, each of their supporters are even more convinced (understandably!) that their candidate has the best chance to win. With no rationale for either to step aside to unify the left, the chances grow that they may both lose to a moderate who can scrape together a plurality.
The left has clearly won the party’s policy fight. If they’re not careful, though, they will lose the political fight.
‘Harris breathed some life into a now-longshot campaign’
Michael Starr Hopkins is a Democratic strategist who has served on the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Delaney.
On a night overshadowed by the historic impeachment hearings, strong women reminded the party why the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. goes straight through female voters.
From the anchors to the candidates, women shined on a crowded stage and made the men look like co-stars in a wide open Democratic race. Harris ended Gabbard’s campaign and looked devastatingly comfortable when she said the president got “punked” by North Korea. Harris has been criticized for failing to deliver 10-word answers, but on a sound stage named after Oprah Winfrey, Harris breathed some life back into a now-longshot campaign.
Klobuchar also had a strong night. She continued to build on her steady momentum and strengthened her campaign. Klobuchar’s line about Pelosi beating Trump landed like a haymaker. Does anyone think Trump won’t respond?
What was obvious was the fact that too many of the moderate voices in the party were missing. With more than 10 weeks left until the Iowa caucuses, the race for president is just getting started. The winners of debate No. 5 were the American people. The Democratic candidates continue to prove that from top to bottom, every one of them would be a better president than the current occupant of the White House.
Harris won—and Steyer, Yang and Gabbard need to quit now.
Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.
Harris was the clear winner in Wednesday night’s debate, followed closely by fellow senators Booker and Klobuchar. Biden had a really bad night. Sanders just faded into the noise. Warren had a good moment talking about redlining. But the night belonged to the senator from California.
She was sharp; she was focused; she was hard-hitting; she was passionate; and she took on Donald Trump. Her best line of the night: “Donald Trump got punked.” And she brought up the way in which black women voters are treated by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, which needs them to win!
Mayor Pete was there, but he did not have any great breakout moments. And the rest of the field was also there but not in any kind of meaningful ways. I am going to stick with what I have said all along: Steyer, Yang and Gabbard need to go. They are not going to get the nomination or be the VP choice. They should get out. This field really needs to get down to the top five or six candidates so that we, the people, can really hear a substantive debate on the issues we all care about.
‘It’s easy to see why Klobuchar is rising in Iowa’
Liz Mair is a Republican campaign communications consultant.
The winners Wednesday night were, in order, Klobuchar, Biden, Booker and Yang. It’s easy to see why Klobuchar is rising in Iowa: She comes across as competent, funny, smart, likable—someone you wouldn’t worry about being sworn in, in 2021. She should be in the top five, maybe even top three or four. This debate might result in Klobuchar getting to 10 percent in Iowa, which would significantly shift the way this race unfolds.
The debate moderators seemed less focused on Buttigieg than I would have expected given his Iowa polling. I suspect that is a manifestation of the beginning of a bit of a slide for him.
The Elizabeth Warren we saw Wednesday night doesn’t look like a lady who really has plans—or if she does, they might suck, and whether or not they do, she might alter them 25 times between now and the Iowa caucuses. That’s a bad look for her. It felt to me as though she’s lost some steam and will continue to lose steam.
‘The Little Debate That Could’
Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.
Does K-12 education exist in America? Because, judging from Wednesday night’s debate and others, it clearly doesn’t.
The optics didn’t much change. The stage was less crowded but the discussions were still very much tailored for audiences over 45. It was quite hard for The Little Debate That Could to stand out after two consecutive days of dramatic, damning impeachment hearing testimony. The collective yawns and eye rubs from post-hearing exhaustion were practically audible in the first hour of this debate, with some snark-filled adrenaline in the second hour.
There was a battle between the candidates who are desperate to show they believe they can be president and the candidates who—real talk—you can tell aren’t so sure. There will be much said about how much Biden gaffed and fended off frontal assaults from Booker and Harris, but we’ve been there before while he remains steady and sure. Twitter doesn’t pick nominees, primaries do. Buttigieg’s Maynard Jackson reference was rich considering he awarded only 3 percent of South Bend city contracts to minority firms. Gabbard seemed out of her depth and off balance. Biden jammed up Steyer on climate. Yang played it cool. Harris had stronger moments on black women and North Korea, for sure. Sanders is still more interested in revolution than winning elections, and Warren’s ‘I have a plan’ punchline is getting more worn with each passing selfie.
Klobuchar and Booker stood out, and so did the centrality of race.
Seth Masket is a professor of political science and director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, and campaigns and elections.
This was a relatively positive debate. Most of the questions were directed at the polling leaders, but not that many direct attacks were, unlike in the last debate when many candidates attacked Warren for not having a plan to pay for her proposed health care reform. Somewhat surprisingly, not very many attacks were directed at Buttigieg, despite his recent polling surge, and some candidates notably avoided direct attacks on him.
There wasn’t an obvious winner, but the candidates who have been getting more debate time as the field narrows, like Klobuchar and Booker, had particularly strong appearances. Harris has been waning somewhat in recent polls but also had a number of particularly good moments.
There weren’t too many glaring gaffes, with the notable exception of when Biden tried to brag about his support among African Americans and seemed to forget that Harris was in the Senate, and then denied he’d said that. It was no worse than other gaffes he’s made this year, and his polling has been pretty robust despite these, but it was a memorable moment and stood apart from an otherwise pretty solid performance.
A lot of what we saw Wednesday night were reminders that race is at the heart of debates within the Democratic Party, whether the main discussion is about health access or abortion or marijuana or anything else.
Kamala Harris showed up for black women.
Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.
Harris won the debate when she fired off these seventeen words:
“A criminal is living in the White House,”
“Justice is on the ballot,” and
“Show up for me.”
I make this bold statement despite whatever conventional wisdom may say tomorrow. I make this statement not as a fellow graduate of Howard University, as a fellow lawyer, a friend of Harris, or even as the daughter of immigrants to the United States (both of my parents were born and raised in Jamaica).
I watched the fifth Democratic presidential debate through the lens of a black woman, a feminist, an independent voter and as an individual who believes deeply in social, racial and gender justice, religious freedom, and the free market.
Like women across the country, I watched as someone who believes firmly that all issues are women’s issues and was thrilled to watch a debate hosted solely by an all-female panel of moderators addressing issues that ran the gamut from national security to the environment to health care reform. But I also watched as a mother who has watched every hour of the impeachment hearings with thoughts about what our great nation has become since the 2016 presidential election.
So, I watched with no passion about most of what was said by most of the candidates for the first 90 minutes of the debate. I watched the 2020 Democratic contenders who made it to the debate stage located in a movie studio built by Tyler Perry, a black man, on land in the heart of Dixie, wondering who was going to show up for the black women who will vote to elect the next president of the United States—to keep our children alive; keep us safe from death at the hands of police; appropriately punish the likes of women (and men) who have come to be known in our community as “Barbeque Becky,” “Permit Patty,” and “Cornerstore Caroline”; protect the rights of black and brown people to vote; push for criminal justice reform, judges and a justice system dedicated to the rule of law and justice for all; advocate for reproductive rights, protection from sexual violence, the rights of the LGBTQ community and freedom from religious bigotry; and protect the United States Constitution and our democracy from the White House’s current inhabitant. After all, our democracy was built with the blood, sweat and tears of black men and black women.
Iowa and New Hampshire polls aside, middle America aside, and Trump supporters aside, the next president of the United States could be elected largely by black women and Wednesday night, Senator Harris was the only candidate who showed up for us.
‘The stakes get higher and yet the interesting moments get lower’
Sean McElwee is a writer, data analyst and co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
The stakes get higher and yet the interesting moments get lower. Across the board we are seeing a field of candidates in stasis and a debate format incapable of creating real decision points for voters.
Not a lot of pizzaz, and that’s a good thing.
Jesse Ferguson is a Democratic strategist, former official in Hillary Clinton’s campaign and former IE executive director of the DCCC.
Wednesday was a day of sunlight, revealing the truth about the current occupant of the White House. People learned more bombshell revelations about the corruption and criminality of the president, witnessed a hearing that revealed things which feel like a cross between The Godfather and the Sopranos, and saw a Republican Party that’s become obsessed with 4chan conspiracies and alternative facts so they can please a constituency of one.
Wednesday night, voters saw steady articulation of the alternative to Trump with Democrats addressing real policy solutions to many of the issues that people worry about around the kitchen table. They saw a Democratic Party united in defense of democracy, with a substantive agenda to improve people’s lives.
These debates might not always have the most pizzaz, but our candidates have shown people that Democrats care about the size of the middle class, not the size of their hands. For the 350 days between now and the general election, that’s not a bad contrast for people to see.
‘Buttigieg walked away unscathed’
Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator, resident fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy Institute of Politics and former communications director for Ted Cruz for President.
It’s conventional wisdom in presidential politics for the surging candidate to receive incoming fire on the debate stage, yet Buttigieg walked away unscathed. For that reason, I view him as the winner of the Democratic presidential debate in Atlanta. Buttigieg also attempted to address a campaign challenge of connecting with black voters by saying, “Faith teaches me to reach out to those who are marginalized in our society.”
Aside from a winnowing field, the Democratic debates have been relatively similar with a stark contrast between the far left wing of the party and the moderates.
Biden received the most incoming fire on stage, yet he held his own and closed with a fiery plea for voters to “get up and take it back” so that America can lead the world again.
Warren and Sanders continued to hold the left flank of the ticket, touting Medicare for All and the urgent need to address climate change. Klobuchar stood in strong contrast as a moderate voice, telling viewers, “We need to be honest about what we can pay for.”
Things could change as potential candidates eye jumping in the race, promising to be the moderate voice that can unite the party and ultimately defeat President Trump, but for now, nothing’s new.
Is Biden’s brain working?
Matt Bruenig is the founder and president of the People’s Policy Project, a progressive think tank.
In last night’s debate, Biden showed the country once again that his brain is not fully functioning. He could barely get through a sentence without losing his train of thought or starting over. I kept expecting him to wander off the stage with a thousand-yard stare. I can’t be the only one who sees this. At some point, you have to think that Biden’s Bad Brain will have some kind of effect on his level of voter support.
Don’t sleep on Sleepy Joe.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest.
The candidates that flourished, to borrow Gordon M. Sondland’s phrase, were the ones that went big or went home. Harris showed she had game with her emphatic declarations, “We have a criminal in the White House” and “Donald Trump got punked by North Korea.” What’s more, her incineration of Gabbard for dunking on Barack Obama for years on Fox News offered further evidence that she would be a human blowtorch either as a presidential or vice presidential candidate. Warren and Sanders, true to form, came out swinging on the need for radical reform. Buttigieg was remarkably fluent and poised about the need for moderation, though a certain arrogant complacency crept into some of his statements. But the most erratic candidate was, of course, Biden, who rescued his performance in his closing statement with a Reaganesque exhortation that America’s best days are ahead of it. His vigorous close showed that anyone who dismisses his candidacy as sleepy and somnolent should think twice.