DNC Takes Democratic Primary Debates 12 Steps Backwards
Just when you thought the insanity of the baseball team-sized Democratic Primary field was starting to ebb, the hapless DNC is here for you:
A DNC spokesperson told POLITICO that all candidates will participate in one debate that evening. The news was first reported by CNN, which is co-hosting the debate in Ohio along with The New York Times.
Twelve candidates have qualified for the October debate so far: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang. Gabbard and Steyer missed out on the September debates but met the polling criteria for the October edition in recent weeks.
I would love to have some insightful, thoughtful bit of analysis here, but…frickin’ why?
The idea of a primary is to find the candidate best suited to win the election. It is not supposed to be a party-wide T-ball game in which each participate is guaranteed an at-bat and their moment of glory. Booker and Castro have both privately and publicly been admitting they are near the end without a miracle that comes bearing dollar signs. Harris is in full-blown free fall, trailing the likes of Yang in her home state of California. Tucker Carlson’s favorite candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, is returning to the over-bloated stage after having missed the last debate and coming off a week where she was against impeachment before she was for it. Andrew Yang is continuing his mostly social media-fed lark of a campaign, while Tom Steyer took “buying himself an election” from a folksy saying to a mission statement. Beto O’Rourke has been systematically ruining any chance he has at future office by going so far off the deep end on gun issues that even the Daddy Warbucks who spends millions funding the fight on such things, Michael Bloomberg, described his recent statement as “so impractical” and “just isn’t all that productive.”
Really the only three people that should be on the stage are the three that have been the leaders for some time: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, and – let’s be honest – Sanders is only there because his hardcore supporters are willing him to be so. Pete Buttigieg has probably done enough to be included if you want to expand the field to someone under the age of 70, and if you just have to have a slightly more moderate option included in case Joe Biden falls down – which is looking like a distinct possibility – throw the steady Amy Klobuchar in there as a fall back.
But that’s it. The rest of them are taking up space, and frankly, wasting our time.
This isn’t the old days, where you are discovering things about the candidates. We have Google and YouTube, and enough debates from this cycle alone to know what we are dealing with. The big “viral moments” from the other debates, which are the arguments the also-rans make that they can break out, didn’t affect the polls much, if at all. Tulsi wacked Kamala Harris and promptly failed to qualify for the next debate. Cory Booker got a sick burn in on Joe Biden, but the senator’s own current flavor of Kool-Aid is telling donors he is about done unless something changes. Julian Castro was roundly criticized by nearly everyone for what was perceived as an unfair and high-handed attack on Joe Biden. Kamala Harris’ own pre-planned attack on the former VP over busing is now looking like it was the high water mark of a lackluster and disappointing campaign. But hey, some folks that shelled out for them will still have the T-shirts.
What is needed is a focus on the candidates who actually have a chance to win the nomination. Elizabeth Warren having to defend her plans for more than 90 seconds, not just declare that she has them, and spar and parry some — any — pushback from a candidate or moderator that she thus far has escaped. Sanders could stand to be asked why he is a better candidate than Warren when they believe mostly the same things and the latter is far more palatable to folks than the former, and defend his proposals beyond “I wrote the damn bill!” that wasn’t passed anyway. Biden fielding questions on his fitness, his checkered 40+ year record, and yes, he needs to be asked about and answer the Ukraine questions. Democrats can yell “right-wing talking points!” all they want, but you better get some practice in now on those things that Team Trump is going to be playing on repeat.
The specter of the impeachment drama should make the DNC and the campaigns tighten up and bear down, not relax. It’s going to be harder for the candidates to get airtime beyond commenting on impeachment, harder for their other messaging to be heard, and shorten the window they will have to do so before the Iowa Caucuses first of the year. The DNC should have trimmed the fat from this electoral exercise months ago, and the failure to do so is going to be even more glaring when the candidates gather in Ohio. November’s threshold is reportedly going to bump up, but a party that is needing unity for some very tough fights ahead should be more Fast and Furious and less Margaret Mitchell by now. President Trump might be vulnerable, and may be reeling, but the one certain way he will not be beaten is by committee. The DNC and party powers that be need to get on with getting their champion chosen for the war to come.
There has been a prevailing notation in some corners of Team Blue that no matter who the candidate is, victory is inevitable. Democrats who want to win should shush those folks every time they even try to say that. President Trump, even weakened, will be formidable for a party that has shown little sign they understand just how it is they lost to Donald Trump in the first place. The wise candidate, and party, would assume impeachment is not going to remove him, scandals will not affect him, and the 2020 election will be one of the most contentious, off-the-map chaotic political events in recent memory. Anything short of that mindset, and the dangers of assuming victory could lead to a repeat of the shock the party experience in November 2016.
The old sports adage is you play like you practice. The Democratic Primaries and debates are practice, proving grounds before entering the arena with a Trump campaign that will be playing to win, playing for keeps, and playing without any regard to the consequences. The DNC should get serious about how they are conducting their primary. Before it is too late.
This seems like an unequivocally bad move. The thing that keeps striking me is the lack of real winning narrative anyone is building. Nothing like the yes we can or middle way that took the last two successful D campaigns to the White House. The closest to it is Bernie but he’s too much of an outsider.
Two things the DNC needs to get straight.
1. Trump is basically scandal proof. Doesn’t mean the inherent indignity and scandalous nature of his presidency should be ignored but its value is very limited to inspiring base turnout in urban corridors. It will not turn the midwestern jurisdictions that will decide the election. Relying on it as the primary weapon is folly.
2. For God’s sake push someone to develop a brand ready for nation wide battle. Warren is kind if sorta trying but she lacks the personal touch. If shes going to be the nominee someone needs to help her hone the message (which I do think is a good one, she just isn’t always great at communicating it to people who don’t share her cultural lexicon).Report
“The idea of a primary is to find the candidate best suited to win the election. It is not supposed to be a party-wide T-ball game in which each participate is guaranteed an at-bat and their moment of glory.”
I think this is the reason. They’re protecting the candidates from being exposed (especially Warren and Biden). That will backfire on them. Better to test them now than in the general.Report
Eh, given the amount of… shall we say… “shenanigans” going on last time within the DNC, the DNC wanted to avoid even the appearance of shenaniganry.
Say what you will about this little debate, it’s not like when the DNC pre-cleared the field for their particular Chosen One whose turn it was.
I know. If only we had a Democratic Party run by wise people, they could have pre-winnowed the wackiest of the candidates out *WITHOUT* pre-winnowing out the good ones. That’s the problem, innit? We aren’t. So we have to pick between trusting the wisdom of the people and trusting the wisdom of the party. 2016 left us saying “okay, maybe that wasn’t awesome” about the party.
As dumb as this stunt is, it’s still less dumb than picking Clinton.
(Note: Iowa Caucuses are in February. This would be dumber if it were, say, December. As it is, it ain’t even October yet.)Report
I wanna quibble and say perceived shenanigans rather than actual ones since HRC did the field clearing pretty much by herself. But Jaybirds core point is right and it’s wildly rich that any right winger who caviled all through 2016 about how HRC stole the nomination would now complain about the DNC’s studious even handedness.
And Biden, even though there is not any there there in the Ukrainian issue, needs to demonstrate that he can argue that truth and defend it in public or else the narrative that it was corruption will run around the world before the truth can get its boots on. And if he can’t energetically manage that then he needs to get the hell out of the way and endorse another moderate.Report
The difference between “shenanigans” and “perceived shenanigans” is a hair I am not sure I’d be able to split.
That said, it was not the right-wingers who were complaining about HRC stealing the nomination (at least from where I was sitting). It’s more that they were observing HRC play the game poorly this time to make sure that she and hers actually got it instead of effing up like in 2008.
It was the left-wingers screaming the loudest about HRC stealing the nomination and they could point to all sorts of stuff. Is the DNC using Superdelegates a shenanigan? Of course not. It’s how the game is played and anybody who enters the Dem Primary should know that. Is the stuff that Guccifer 2.0 allegedly found a shenanigan? Of course not! People have free speech and they’re allowed to have preferences! Is the secret agreement that Clinton entered into with the DNC in order to have control over all of the DNC’s financial, strategic and staffing decisions a shenanigan? (Wait, did that really happen? Golly!) Of course not. That’s just how the game is played.
But the Sanders supporters felt like there were thumbs on the scale and having people on the left scream about shenanigans is a hell of a lot different than right-wingers doing it.
Right wingers scream about anything, after all.Report
I would point out, that HRC won the nomination without a single superdelegate. Even in normal delegates she beat Bernie handily in almost every state. If nothing else this primary far has demonstrated just how empty those particular complaints from the Bernie left are. Bernie barely is peoples third choice and only got the support he did in 2015 because Hillary had convinced or intimidated all the other candidates to not run.
But one of the various pleasures of the Clinton era being over is that I don’t have to relitigate all things Clinton again.Report
The problem is that Democrats don’t have a candidate with the gravitas of Obama or the intimidating presence of Hillary. But there’s an easy fix for that.
Hillary and Chelsea have been doing public appearances all week, so there’s speculation that Hillary might jump in if Biden looks wounded. If nothing else, she would make lots of money off a renewed bid, and the potential to “make lots of money” is a pretty good indication of what she’ll do in any given situation. Some of the other candidates might tear into her on the debate stage, but as soon as the cameras are off they’ll probably commit suicide.
If she does indicate she’ll jump into the race, millions of Democrat party loyalists will say “I think I just threw up a little, in my mouth.”Report
I’d honestly vote for her over most of this field, baggage and all.Report
Ehhh I think that’s one of those things that can only be said when there’s a high level of certainty you’ll never have to live up to it.Report
Hillary Clinton doesn’t love the right (odds are she loathes them), so why on earth would she give them the thing they’ve been longing for ever since 2016? She’s done.Report
Well, Hillary has two options: Run or don’t run. She won’t win in November, but she does have to ask herself, “Which option results in a higher 2021 net worth for me? Which is going to result in more donations to my charities? Which is going to generate future multi-million dollar book advances? Which is going to have people acting like my lackeys and toadies and paying to fly me all over the country, catering to my every whim?”Report
Heh, yeah that;s how right wingers see her. You’ll all be so confused when she doesn’t run, nor even make a gesture towards running.Report
I wish I could understand the lack of love for Buttigieg here in OT.
Being against the three front runners for several reasons, including, but not limited to, being over 70, and coming from the Coast/Washington/New England corridor, i have been looking for another candidate that can address the issues we have in front of us, without the baggage that will hinder Biden, Bernie, and Warren. And, like the OP points out, several of the minor candidates, including, alas, Beto, really have no there there.
I’ve spent several hours watching some of Mayor Pete’s interviews and campaign events. Man, the guy is smart, and has put a lot of thought on many of the country’s problems, and, like Warren, he, too, has a 14 steps plan for each one (afterwards reduced to only nine steps, because Mayor Pete is for efficiency (*)).
Though most of his stump speeches are repetitions of ideas he’s presented in almost the same language in many other events, what he excels at is in the subsequent Q&A. He listens attentively, engages with the person, an gives a serious, detailed, answer that is not just a platitude. And no matter how technical or managerial his response is, it never comes out as patronizing. Since Bill Clinton left the stage, I haven’t seen a politician do this as well as Mayor Pete. In a national campaign, he would be really powerful. (**)
(*) You’ll get the joke if you hear him speak.
(**) Do yourself a favor, just watch his response to being compared to Alfred E. Neumann by Trump -the words “literary reference” will never mean the same.Report
If your favorite issue is (X), then your preferred candidate will be someone else.
That’s pretty much it.
I think that he’s the *PERFECT* VP choice for anybody but one of the White Males… but at the top of the ticket? Nah. Because if you like (X), (Other Candidate) does a better job of representing that.Report
That doesn’t tell me much, or anything about
1- Would Buttigieg be a good president?
2- Who would Jaybird want to be the candidate for president?
I guess you are grudgingly accepting he would be an asset to the campaign, except for Biden (and I don’t understand why not for Biden).Report
Don’t use “Who would Jaybird want to be the candidate for president?” as a yardstick for anything. I think Justin Amash might have my vote this time around, maybe, I guess.
As for whether Buttigieg would be a good president… um… maybe? He’d probably still drone the crap out of the Middle East and end the trade wars in Asia and probably expand the whole H1B visa program… which, I think, is the current definition of “good president”?
But if the question is “why hasn’t he caught on?”, I’d say it’s because, whatever your bugbear, someone else flies that banner a little more brightly. (He’s a *PERFECT* VP, though.)Report
For whatever the opinion of a foreign libertarian is worth, I think Buttigieg is the candidate I would be most interested in voting for.Report
My concern about Buttigieg remains the same — the direct jump from mayor of a city of 103K in a state where he probably couldn’t win a US House or Senate seat to President of a country of 330M (with nukes and the world’s reserve currency) makes me very nervous.Report
Though on paper that comment sounds reasonable, I wonder if a jump from the Senate with little else to show of (Biden, Bernie) makes any more sense (*).
At least Mayor Pete has been a mayor of a city of 103k for two periods, and has some experience managing a budget and a large number of employees, white and blue collar, being responsible for a large, facing education, policing, transportation, weather and disaster, housing, etc. issues.
We can discuss if he’s done a good A+ job, a gentleman’s C job, a dreadful job (probably not, he won reelection handsomely, increasing his percentage of votes), but it is executive experience. Would a state governor have more, and more applicable, experience? Yes, but for some reason, no governor has been able to get close to the magical 2%.
(*) I give Warner credit for knowing a lot -really a lot- about economics (**), and Harris to know about criminal and policing issues.
(**) And for some reason, i do get the idea that McKinley alumnus Buttigieg can at least hold a candle to Senator Warren in that respect, and probably towers over an other candidateReport
I feel you, but Trump himself has demonstrated that a jump from no public service to the presidency is reasonable. Then again, just because the GOP has stooped that low doesn’t mean the Democratic Party should do so as well. Still, Buttigieg, has done decently and I would trust him to hire a good cabinet and that’s a large part of the way there. He’s still my second fav.Report
Seems to me that familiarity with running Big Government is less important – MUCH less important – than the character of the candidate.Report
When I heard 12 candidates, I immediately assumed 2 six-man debates. It didn’t occur to me that they’d be increasing the number of podiums.
If I were in charge, I”d rank the candidates in terms of polling strength, then have one debate with number 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and one debate with the others. This guarantees that there wouldn’t be a second-tier debate. I realize it also means that the first and second candidate won’t get to go against each other, but I think it’s the best way nonetheless.Report