Whoa, debate night 2 blew the first one out of the water to me. Been busy these last few days and had to put off giving my take, but it was just a fantastic debate I thought. It looked more spontaneous with folks talking over each other, it was confrontational in tone and watching the sheer circus of it was my guilty pleasure. My thoughts on everyone in no particular order.
Bernie Sanders-- I think he did a good job and was one of the people who came off looking strong. He has been in the game a long time and will speak plainly and forcefully, not allowing other candidates to talk over him, nor let his positions be twisted or moderators to derail his messsge. He was loud and clear about what he was for, single payer healthcare, and explained why radical change was necessary with sucessful examples. He not only has an ambitious platform, he is a straight shooter about it i.e yes, taxes would increase, stil without education or healthcare expenses you ultimately have more money in the bank.
He also seized a good opportunity to highlight having a sane voting record on foreign policy and opposing the Iraq when Biden was for it. I think Bernie came off looking the most responsible with the military out of all the people on that debate stage. He had a good comeback in response to his electability, reminding them he had a 10 pt lead on Trump.
Kamala Harris-- Now even though I think Bernie was a highlight, who I think had the most standout debate performance was to my surprise Kamala. As with Julian Castro this candidate was not one I had placed that high on my list because of some issues I had with her record as attorney general such as the truancy laws. That being said, I gotta give the devil it's due. She hit Biden with a hyperbeam. That was one of the most powerful and compelling arguments I have seen, and I hope she steals voters from him.
The mods were clearly trying to be as gentle with Biden as they could. They questioned Mayor Pete about his commitment to racial justice, and not Joe Biden? Kamala held Biden accountable for his friendship with senators who promoted segregation in the south, and more specifically his legislation to block the department of education from bussing black students into white schools in the 70s.
Kamala continued to hammer Biden on issues in a way that nobody dared, she was even better than Castro when the topic shifted to immigration and bringing out what she had done to stop the deportations in her state.
She was running knees touching elbows towards progressives with major policies in her messenger bag like ending private insurance. Now is she really for all these ambitious things that Warren and Sanders are for? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Right after the debate she backed away from the healthcare position she adopted.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1024756
But whether it was all razzle dazzle or not, a debate is a performance, and think she won that debate by miles through sheer boldness.
Marianne Williamson-- Marianne was a dark horse for me. I always thought she looked like a lovely human being, but I was concerned that she may not have known enough about the issues. She has an eccentric way of communicating that I had to get used to, but I honestly thought she was a breath of air and I liked what she had to say as the night went on. What she said about the history of our country's involvement in Latin America and how it has contributed to the immigration crises was actually profound. She had humane answers on healthcare and immigration, and I think she has a unique platform and voice to offer that other candidates don't. I don't think anyone else on the stage is for reparations checks for American descents of slaves, which is radical. Not even Kamala Harris goes this far if you look at her plan in detail.
I think Miss Marianne was witty, she looked beautiful and was really good at elbowing her way into the conversation even when she was not called on, and took a jab at Eric Swalwell, noting that young bodies can still have old ideas. I see this colorful character as the Ross Perot of 2020.
Andrew Yang-- Yang I thought was very disappointing actually. He was someone I knew of prior to this night who I think has a lot of wonderful ideas that are outside of the box, banking services through the post office, UBI, treating Puerto Rico like a real state, universal Pre-K, criminal cases against pharmaceutical executives who use false marketing and fudge testing, medical technology investments, autism intervention. It is a fascinating platform. I really wanted to get to know him even better Thursday night. I did not accomplish that. He looked visibly bored and annoyed that he was not getting questions, and seems to have somewhere along the line given up trying to become part of the conversation.
He says that his microphone was turned off until he was specifically called on. I initially questioned if Yang could really be that passive to let them do that to him, but Marianne Williamson also said they did the same thing to her. Its is very troubling now that two different candidates have said they experienced this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2019/06/marianne-williamson-mic-muted-yang-debate/amp/
In the case of Yang I think saying so little really took away from his performance, and if he was trying to speak but being blocked then that is unacceptable.
I like what he is for UBI/ The Freedom Dividend, and we got a brief introduction to that policy which might make some people curious if they did not know him. But he was not shown off to his full potential sadly. Do not let them silence you.
Joe Biden-- I thought the debates would be the biggest challenge Biden faced, and my prophecy I think is coming true. Joe Biden flubs his lines regularly, has old ideas, drifts off topic, struggles with simple questions, stops abruptly, makes contradictory statements and will just not have the facts. He does not take assaults well from aggressive opponents and was annihilated by Kamala Harris. He is going to have to watchout for Booker, De Blasio, Castro and other candidates with forceful personalities. God have mercy if more than one of them are on stage with him at the same time.
When he was asked what he would work to accomplish if he could get only one thing done in office he had no answer for us, he just went into the rehearsed line that he would defeat Trump, even when it nothing to do with the question. Other candidates said gun control, healthcare. Biden couldn't do this I think because he doesn't stand for anything. Are you really running to help people Joe or are you just a party big wig there to sit in the middle of the road and block progressives from leading the party? It doesn't look like you have thought much about what you are going to do *if* you get in office.
Pete Buttigieg-- Mayor Pete I think did well. I recognize that he would not govern in the same way that I would, but he is open about his policies, which I always appreciate, and he provides details of what he would do as an alternative. I.e I would not implement medicare for all because I am concerned about the effects of a radical change like this on the economy, I instead support creating a public option where you can buy-in to medicare to better control costs. He speaks intelligently, looks presidential and is able to answer questions in a calm, cool assuring way that is thorough. I think his answer to tough questions about imperfections of the criminal justice system he faced as mayor came across as honest, humble even. So I think he showed the ability to weather attacks.
Eric Swalwell-- I think he was more memorable than Hickenlooper or Bennet. He had at least 1 major policy he was clear and consistent about, banning assault weapons, confiscating guns if need be. He showed willingness to go after his opponents, whether it was his gun control record vs Bernie Sanders, firing questions at Mayor Pete about his response to police shootings in his city, telling Biden essentially that he was the embodiment of what is old and out of touch. I know a lot of folks didn't like him, but I thought his performance wasn't that bad tbh. He just isn't the best storyteller, with the goofy analogy of politics being like changing diapers, the overly dramatic line about remember what your kids are wearing as they go off to school because you may need to identify their bodies later, and the joke about breaking up with Russia and getting back with NATO. It is his speech writer who needs to be fired, other than that I think he's alright.
Gillibrand-- I liked her a little more than I expected too, I felt her debate performance was comparable to Mayor Pete's. She went into detail about things she had done and what she was for, paid family leave, co-sponsporing medicare for all legislation, voting against all of Trump's cabinet appointments. I think her personality gets overshadowed at times by some of the giants she was around, but she looked like she had knowledge of the subjects, and fought her way into the conversation. She was really putting in the effort. I thought she came across strong when she was talking about her record and vision on women's and lgbtq rights. She made a passionate plea. It was pretty good honestly. She has some good positions like abolishing ICE.
Hickenlooper-- I don't like campaigns that are too general. He is running against an idea. He doesn't stand for anything, just against socialism as Biden is against Trump. There's not enough to distunguish Hickenlooper from any other conservative democrat, other than looking like a prosecutor for the House of Un-American Activities Committees in the 1940s with the constant trying to scare people with labels.
Bennett-- I think his policies are a little vague, but because he has an interesting and sad family history as a descendent of holocaust survivors he stuck out to me l more than Ryan, Delaney or Hickenlooper, though they all feel like similar candidates. I think he is also a little better at debating perhaps since he called Biden out for securing the Bush tax breaks and made clear to the viewers that what he was doing behind the scenes was not something to brag about.
