Democratic Debates: The Moderates Strike Back
“In this discussion already tonight,” Rep Tim Ryan said on the stage last night, “we’ve talked about taking private health insurance away from union members in the industrial Midwest, we’ve talked about decriminalizing the border, and we’ve talked about giving free health care to undocumented workers when so many Americans are struggling to pay for their health care. I quite frankly don’t think that is an agenda that we can move forward on and win.”
Before I even had that cut-and-pasted onto this piece the Trump surrogates where splashing it all over social media. Ryan, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, and newcomer Steve Bullock all took turns aiming fire at their more progressive counterparts generally and the two progressives at the center of the stage specifically. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders spent most of the night defending themselves and a more progressive agenda for the Democratic Party trying to oust President Donald Trump.
The first part of round two of the Democratic Primary Debates saw the moderates try to get their voices heard against the progressives who were the center of attention both on the stage and in the coverage of the party as of late. With frontrunner and relatively moderate Joe Biden waiting for night two, Warren and Sanders were the center of attention both in positioning and as targets for attack. It all lead to a long debate that ranged from a rather in-depth discussion on healthcare to broader topics such as trade, race, climate change, the economy, and the one thing to bind them all — defeating President Donald J Trump.
The only newcomer to the stage was Montana Governor Steve Bullock, and for two-plus hours he was having himself quite a night until he tripped on a nuclear question that both in pronunciation and Wile E Coyote over-the-cliff scrambling put an end to Bullockmania before it really got rolling. Marianne Williamson received the biggest cheers, most google searches, and the internet attention award for her answers that ranged from “pox on this whole house” to invocation of “dark mystic forces.” John Delaney managed to get #Delaneymentum trending for a while sparring with Elizabeth Warren before she one-lined him back to the 0% bracket from whence he had come. Hickenlooper continued his dislike for Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke & Amy Klobuchar were also there along with the aforementioned Tim Ryan.
The problem with the two night debate format is with the front-runner watching on TV while awaiting the second night, most of what happened here will be forgotten about come tomorrow evening. The much juicier matchup of Joe Biden already promising to go after Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, who will flank the former VP on the stage, is in sharp contrast to fellow travelers Warren and Sanders declaring and holding to their insistence they would not be attacking each other. It was sound strategy for the moment, as indeed it allowed a broader progressive front between the two against the also-rans attacking them, but in the long run isn’t helping either candidate. The truth is with Sanders, Warren, and Kamala Harris bottlenecked for places 2-4 in polling since the last debate, they all need each others voters to climb Mt. Biden. Senator Harris will get the front-runner, while Sanders and Warren were punching down to the Delaneys and Hickenloopers of the world. Their camps can spin it any way they want to, but it’s hard to see how barely 24 hours of news cycle and not much to brag about helps them before Joe vs Harris II dominates tomorrow and Thursday. While the first night talked about race, the second night will be doing so with all the candidates of color. The first night had a, frankly, really good debate and discussion on healthcare, but the second night will have Biden being a full-throated champion of the Affordable Care Act he can actually hold claim to as others find their places on the M4A spectrum.
In other words, Biden probably won the first night of second debates without ever setting foot on the stage. The gathering of moderates that won’t be making the cut to the next debates made the case for him, and in the two progressives having to answer lesser competition their clips will contrast to Biden the front-runner who they weren’t even on the stage with. Much was made of Kamala Harris’ well-planned attack on a shaky Biden in the last debate, and both her and Senator Warren were recipients of fawning media coverage of them “surging” or “breaking out” but the fact of the matter is the polls are basically where they were before the first debate as we conclude the second: Joe Biden way out in front. The narratives can keep talking about the horse race and the rise of progressive ideals, but we now have months worth of data that a large swath of the Democratic party is still riding with Joe Biden for the moment. When the Trump campaign itself is tweeting out MSNBC segments on the popularity, or lack there of, of some of the key progressive issues from the debate, the unresolved schism in the party reflected in Biden’s resilient polling becomes a bit clearer:
Yikes! MSNBC polling guy dumps cold ice all over #DemDebate tonight.
Decriminalizing border crossings, Medicare For All, healthcare for immigrants…all unpopular with voters. pic.twitter.com/TIMyCGdKZN
— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) July 31, 2019
All told, this first night’s after-effect is somewhat dependent on what happens on night two, but it is doubtful anything meaningful changed. Till something changes it, this is a three-tiered race of Biden at the top, Warren, Harris and a floored-out Bernie Sanders below, and then everyone else. And most of the everyone elses will, mercifully, be gone come September. So same time, same channel tomorrow night to see the reverse of night one, as the frontrunning moderate Joe Biden takes center stage to weather the assault from all sides that is surely coming.
So the speaking times:
Here are the Detroit #DemDebate speaking times by candidate at the end of the first night https://t.co/anW5FCjMWG pic.twitter.com/k2QG7OnJi7
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
And the highlights, in order of their placement onstage, left to right:
Spiritualist and author Marianne Williamson
“I almost wonder why you’re Democrats,” Marianne Williamson tells her fellow presidential candidates. “You seem to think there’s something wrong about using the instruments of government to help people.” #DemDebate https://t.co/WRCW9SqFlV pic.twitter.com/oV8BtQE7Ha
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Williamson: Flint crisis is part of US society’s “dark underbelly.”
“If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this President is bringing up in this country…Democrats are going to see some very dark days.” pic.twitter.com/hiH0VYBoNq
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio
Tim Ryan: “I’m here to say this isn’t about left or right. This is about new and better. And it’s not about reforming old systems, it’s about building new systems” https://t.co/kfaGz9NaKH #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/zjhgFsL7vX
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Rep. Tim Ryan to Sen. Bernie Sanders: “You don’t have to yell.”#DemDebate #DemocraticDebate https://t.co/L33vBbv7RG pic.twitter.com/RbhnaHT2qE
— The Hill (@thehill) July 31, 2019
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn
Amy Klobuchar: “We come from a country of shared dreams, and I have had it with the racist attacks. I have had it with a President that says one thing on TV, that has your back and then you get home and you see those charges for prescription drugs and cable & college.” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/8R1HzYT22N
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Amy Klobuchar says that as President, she would take on the NRA: “The people are with us now. After Parkland, those students just didn’t march. They talked to their dads and their grandpas and the hunters in their family and they said there must be a better way.” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/r3q01KNLOZ
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg: “We’re not going to be able to meet this moment by recycling the same arguments, policies and politicians that have dominated Washington for as long as I have been alive.” https://t.co/39CCWIc9xx #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/9mWPExLRZe
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Pete Buttigieg on how he’d convince African Americans that he should be the Democratic nominee: “As an urban mayor serving a diverse community, the racial divide lives within me.” https://t.co/OLqaiAbThb #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/JLrOjukcYA
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt
“You don’t know that,” Rep. Tim Ryan tells Sen. Bernie Sanders when Sanders says “Medicare For All” will provide union members with better health coverage.
Sanders responds: “I do know that — I wrote the damn bill.” https://t.co/eLVyIAvatR #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/sjDMx6dnG5
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Bernie Sanders: “We have got to take on Trump’s racism, his sexism, xenophobia, and come together in an unprecedented grassroots movement to not only defeat Trump but to transform our economy and our government” https://t.co/3oXnBfWzEU #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/m0RCySqeUc
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass
Sen. Warren: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for…I’m ready to get in this fight. I’m ready to win this fight.” https://t.co/lrVE7B6VCO #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/n8kwp3VjpA
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
“We are the Democrats,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, “We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone. That’s what the Republicans are trying to do.” https://t.co/oRT2pUk1W4 #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/nFYhoUy028
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
former Rep. Beto O’Rourke D-Texas
Beto O’Rourke: “In the face of cruelty and fear from a lawless President, we will choose to be the nation that stands up for the human rights of everyone… We will ensure each one of us is well enough and educated enough and paid enough to realize our full potential” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/155Ns9Z1Yv
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Beto O’Rourke on gun violence: “In this country, money buys influence, access, and increasingly, outcomes” https://t.co/illkXAtqzh #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/Qwek1rYeWR
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
former Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo
John Hickenlooper said he thought Sen. Bernie Sanders’ policies were too extreme for the White House.
Sanders then threw up hands, prompting Hickenlooper to say, “Throw your hands up…”
Sanders snapped back, saying, “I will.” https://t.co/5KqjTkaZft #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/VzAL44mrLB
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) July 31, 2019
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper says Sen. Bernie Sanders’ policies are a “disaster at the ballot box,” adding that “you might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump.” #DemDebate https://t.co/oRT2pUk1W4 pic.twitter.com/uNcYndGjfP
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
former Rep. John Delaney, D-Md
John Delaney: “I’m the product of the American dream, I believe in it. I’m the grandson of immigrants, the son of a construction worker” https://t.co/J3N2u5vk2d #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/KdfMch0kec
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
John Delaney slams Bernie’s “Medicare For All” plan for the Democrats.
“Why do we have to be the party that takes things away?” Delaney asks.
https://t.co/QPrGh6lgl7 pic.twitter.com/0Y1i0zYunN— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) July 31, 2019
Gov. Steve Bullock, D-Mont
Steve Bullock: “I’m a progressive, emphasis on progress, and I’m running for president to get stuff done for all those Americans Washington has left behind” #DemDebate https://t.co/izkrRJMD8V pic.twitter.com/NfSAc7hTXH
— CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019
Bullock: “We need to get back to nuclear proliferation.”
Warren: “What??”
Bullock: “When you have folks … de-proliferation. Reducing that.” pic.twitter.com/t6lXmhxXCU
— Tom Namako (@TomNamako) July 31, 2019
The counter is that this is the last stand of a group of people who are almost certain to be cut out of the September and subsequent debates:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-debate-mini-bidens.htmlReport
Having not watched the debate and only skimming the media reports, what strikes me is how furiously the media outlets are scrambling to assign a winner, and establish a dominant narrative.
Because what they are trying to do is harvest clicks and eyeballs and maintain their standing as the Cult of The Savvy.
It doesn’t seem to me that much changed for the Democratic base voters who are, after all, the ones of primary importance here.Report
You are correctReport
Well, they are also trying to nudge the primary results.Report
I don’t know if they are (at least consciously). There’s no attention-grabbing story so far, and if they manicure it a little they may be able to find one.Report
Sometimes it’s what is called out. I didn’t watch the debates, but I could very easily see the media playing a game of “Only Positive, Only Negative”. So, if, for instance, they like Warren, and don’t like Delany, then the highlight reel of the debate only shows moments when Warren slams Delany, but ignores any response from Delany (except for stunned looks after he got slammed).
Sure, people who watch the debate might remember Delany landing some solid hits on Warren, and maybe a few Delany supporters will put those in their highlight reel, but if Warren has the support of the media outlets with the larger audiences, the Warren highlight reel is what everyone will remember.Report
I love the “how many google searches” were done as a metric. You can’t tell the difference between “I loved that and want to know more” versus “What the heck did I just watch?”.
Desperation for instant poll results leads to some really odd metrics, and of course there’s the whole meta aspect as people react to the reaction to the debates. What goes viral? What do people talk about that informs people who didn’t watching the debate — which is most people? What are the takeaways?
These things take time. You can’t poll them right away, you can’t put them up ahead of time and show you can foretell the future. Analyzing google searches or grabbing any online poll and splashing it up there is pure guesswork.
I’m not a fan of whatever consultant likes to judge debates using a hand-picked audience with dials, but at least he tries to get an audience specifically of undecided voters and says so. “This is a specific, limited sample. Everyone will draw a million conclusions unsupported by this anyways, and I’ll encourage it, but at least I told you it was a limited, specific sample not representative of the public as a whole, whom are mostly decided at this point.”
But I guess “We’ll find out over the next week whether this debate, or tomorrow’s, had any effect on the race” doesn’t really nab those viewers.Report
I sometimes almost pity pundits and tv talking heads, that they have a job requirement of Telling Us What It Means, even if they have to pull something out of a dark place and present it as the declaration of an oracle.Report
That is one of many reasons I pay them little attention, and focus on the small part of what they say that has factual (or potentially factual) content.Report
I recall, way back during the early oughts, reading a pundit’s column — George Will perhaps, I cannot recall — and realizing that for all the authority he was writing with, he literally knew even less than I did about the subject.
The next few years of endless Friedman units coming and going, then watching Alan Greenspan’s comments both right before and right after the crash and realizing that he’d missed the largest market bubble since the Great Depression and seemed unable to believe it had actually happened…..
Nobody can tell the future. The ones to worry about are the ones who sincerely believe they can. And for some reason, they keep ending up on my TV.Report
The universal pundit thing is terrible. There is no way any of these people can be remotely knowledgeable about a hundred different complex topics. It’s one thing for a guy like Krugman, who is a licensed econ knower, to talk about econ but Will and his ilk are useless.Report
There was an interesting study that found experts are less good at predictions than non-expert generalists and autodidacts, who incorporate a broader range of experience and gut feel into their reasoning.
The Atlantic: How to Predict the Future
A few excerpts:
The highly specialized experts (“hedgehogs”) were contrasted with the generalists (“foxes” or “integrators”).
What all this means is that the pundits are possibly the least likely people to correctly predict an election.Report
Some kind of political Gell-Mann amnesia?Report
What usually seems to happen is that some professional in a field connected to whatever is being talked about makes an accurate prediction based on info they know intimately. And then they are asked about an ever-widening set of facts that are further and further from what their knowledge base is. And yet we still consider them trust-worthy due to that one correct moment.
It isn’t helped by that person being feted by the media and then growing an outsized opinion of their importance.Report
I see a lot of libertarians (aka as middle-aged white guys) making hay of this tweet this morning:
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1156378191247892480
“Politics is the art of the possible” is a cliche and like all cliches there is something to it. However, there is also something about people declaring something not possible simply because they don
‘t like the proposal but don’t want to say as much. The moderates are basically throwbacks to a Democratic Party that existed twenty years or twenty five years ago but not anymore. The Party has moved to the left. But there are still lots of Democrats who overlearned the lessons of the 1990s and would also stand to lose power, influence, and pay more taxes with a more progressive Democratic Party platform. How dare universal health care get in the way of being toasted by billionaires at Davos and gorging on the corporate trough.Report
I think a lot of self described moderate Dems haven’t grasped how swiftly and completely the Reaganomic free market cult has collapsed.
There are still a lot, like Ryan and Biden, who want to start every conversation by reassuring everyone how much they favor market based solutions, like they they are debating an imaginary Reagan from 1984.
I think also they are still instinctively flinching from the “radical” label.
If there is a silver lining to Trump it is that norm-busting works both ways. Americans have now lived two years with a president who has acted radically and done things once thought political suicide and still the sky hasn’t fallen.
UBI, postal savings bank, Wall Street regulation…I don’t see any of these things as political poison, to a people who wake to a President casually discussing slaughtering ten million Afghans, and everyone shrugging nonchalantly.Report
Do you mean this Reagan?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/
I’m personally skeptical of UBI for the same reasons as Erik Loomis on LGM but who knows. Largely, I concur. There are lots of Democrats out there who overlearned the lessons of the 1970s-90s* and they want to stick to the course because of course champagne toasts at Davos are nice.
*To be slightly fair, I think lots of middle-aged white Republicans overlearned the lessons of Reagan too and think that they always apply.Report
I don’t know how anybody can possibly live in a place where rent isn’t $3000/month.Report
This is probably just my cishetwhitemaleness speaking, but I think that whether a policy is actually a good idea is actually kind of important. I wouldn’t expect someone who throws around the word “anti-intellectual” as much as you do to be so hostile to the idea.Report
Why do that when all you need to do is refer to race, sex, and sexual orientation? Apparently it’s all anyone needs to know about anything.Report
Note that being “possible” isn’t even enough. The US is a pretty rich country. Most of the stuff far-left wing of the Democratic Party wants to do is technically possible, just not good policy. It’s possible to raise the minimum wage to $25 tomorrow. It’s possible to legally require all prescription drugs to be sold at marginal cost. It’s possible to cancel all outstanding student loans. It’s possible to impose rent control nationwide. It’s possible to build the wall.
These are all just really bad ideas. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Warren’s outburst above basically puts her on the intellectual level of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.Report
What is more interesting is the fact that no one on that stage could muster up that retort.Report
Oh you had the “I don’t understand” quote in the post. Oh well.Report
We do try to do quality work for you, SaulReport
I didn’t watch the debates (I was at the climbing gym!) but I did read a lot of tweets. There was one thing I was maybe kinda expecting but didn’t see anything about.
Did anybody mention Russia, Mueller, or Collusion during the debate?Report
Not a peepReport
Is this an indicator that impeachment is off the table?
Ah, that has nothing to do with the debates, though.
Wait. Did they ask if Trump should be impeached?Report
Oddly, candidates that have been happy to demand impeachment on camera could not find time in nearly 3 hours to bring it up in any way, shape or form. Odd, that.Report
I’m not sure because it was so pathetic that for a while I flipped over to watch Dance Moms because I’d never seen it before.
But from what I’ve read, Trump hardly even came up as a real issue. Biden and Warren teamed up and viciously argued with the center-left governors about whether their plans were crazy or not, and then they’d cut over to Williamson who’d say they were all crazy losers because they were ignoring dark psychic forces.Report
As an aside, the entire debate was way too white. Monday the The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fired a bunch of top staffers because they felt the committee had too many white people.
From The Hill:
The debate was bad, but their chaos regarding 2020 congressional elections may be a far more damaging effect of their current War of Racial Obsession, in which even Nancy Pelosi is accused of being a racist.Report
For years I had a theory that most mass-media beer advertising actually helped Budweiser. The ads, for whatever brand, were largely generic celebrations of Beer As Such, not ads for the specific brand. I always thought such ads promoted the market leader, Budweiser, rather than the particular brand that paid for the ad.
The moderate Democrats — I use the term with some hesitation because Mayor Pete certainly had it right that the Republicans will paint any Democrat as a gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist — basically spent Tuesday night selling Moderation As Such, to the benefit of Joe “Budweiser” Biden, rather than their particular brand.
Report
Damn.
This is a good comment.Report
What’s with those non-functional links (“Feature Unfeature Bury Unbury”) along the bottom of the comment? I gather they’re moderator actions, but why are they showing up for a mere mortal like me?Report
I see them on the one CJColucci comment, but nowhere else. Unless they start showing up in more places that they shouldn’t, let’s just put it down to WordPress being WordPress and attaching links (that point nowhere) to that comment.
It’s certainly not the strangest thing I’ve seen WordPress do.Report
They’re most likely an artifact of comments going into and coming out of moderation. The Feature/Bury system is odd.Report
The lesson of the 2016 campaign is that a lot of voters want to hear more about aspirations and feelings than they want to know about incremental creep.
I think they get that when you get in office, you deal with realities, which might well mean not enough votes. But they want the Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAG) that was talked about in Built to Last, the best business book ever written.
That’s how I relate to Medicare for All, which I consider a slogan. It’s wildly ambiguous, and could mean anything from a public option to abolishing health insurance. But as a slogan, it means, “we could easily do better than we are doing”, because most people who engage with Medicare think it works pretty well. Maybe not great, but miles better than nothing.Report
Sure, but when Medicare for All becomes “We’ll force you to give up what you have and get on Medicare” it goes from a big hairy audacious goal to a big hairy audacious threat. And voters do not like threats.Report
The absolute saddest element of the “moderate” candidates was the way they tried to defend union’s and their interests by saying universal healthcare would go against those group’s interests as “their healthcare is all they have.” Solidarity forever, but not so much for these voices of the unionized.
Seems a smarter strategy to support healthcare for all people and thus giving those unions something else to fight for in negotiations.Report
Did something happen to a bunch of comments here?Report
Yours somehow ended up in moderation.
I looked for it, found it, then freed it.Report
Gabbard won her second debate. She’s two for two.Report