Politics: Democratic debate - Dec. 19, 2019 (CNN, PBS)
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Alright, so here's my review of "Everyone Attacks Pete."
Buttigieg was in everyone's crosshair. I think everyone except Biden and Steyer took a swipe, which on one hand is odd since he's polling 4th nationally, but makes total sense when you remember that he's polling 1st in Iowa, which is the communal launchpad for everyone except Bernie and Biden. He took a lot of incoming fire, but IMO was ready for all of it and did a great job of deflecting and firing back.
Warren was... okay. Not great. She tried to make this debate more about corruption and less about her healthcare fiasco, and she mostly succeeded. Until she attacked Pete. I'm pretty sure she made wine caves a trending thing, but I think she overplayed her hand on this one. Pete had a good argument about uniting donors of every class against Trump, and he was able to show Warren's hypocrisy without actually calling her a hypocrite by noting that she transferred millions raised from these same fancy wine cave dinners into her current campaign. She let the topic drop after that and I think he came off better.
Amy did a better job in her Pete scuffle. She started by defending the Washington establishment experience on stage (no idea how that sounds to voters, but it was rhetorically good in the moment) and used that to attack his experience. She kept calling him "mayor" and "local official" in a somewhat condescending way, but used that to draw parallels between her successful statewide elections compared to his much smaller city elections. I think it was pretty effective on stage, although in her post-debate interviews a few folks were like, "Amy, check the scoreboard" in response to her "Pete's not electable" argument. Not sure if this resonates with anyone here, but I also get an emerging sense of gay erasure coming from Amy's argument re: Pete, where she claims that a woman with Pete's experience would never have made it as far as a white man, while entirely ignoring the historic nature of the first openly gay presidential candidate. In some ways, the fact that its not really mentioned is a victory. In other ways, the fact that some women in this race attack his identity while ignoring that he's gay is, in fact, erasing the triumph of Pete overcoming his own hurdles against traditional political identity norms.
Sanders probably had his worst debate. He had several gaffes that I would've expected from Biden. He was given a question on race but dismissed it to return to a previous question. He didn't really have a good answer when questioned about his age. Given everything else on stage, he was largely forgettable, but there were several uncharacteristic missteps.
Biden actually had his best debate of this cycle. He was on point all night, didn't have any of his usual stumbles, and gave an emotionally moving answer toward the very end. Both he and Sanders stayed out of the fighting (makes sense, they don't need to win Iowa to continue), so they weren't as memorable overall. But he had a very good night.
Yang and Steyer were also present.
Buttigieg was in everyone's crosshair. I think everyone except Biden and Steyer took a swipe, which on one hand is odd since he's polling 4th nationally, but makes total sense when you remember that he's polling 1st in Iowa, which is the communal launchpad for everyone except Bernie and Biden. He took a lot of incoming fire, but IMO was ready for all of it and did a great job of deflecting and firing back.
Warren was... okay. Not great. She tried to make this debate more about corruption and less about her healthcare fiasco, and she mostly succeeded. Until she attacked Pete. I'm pretty sure she made wine caves a trending thing, but I think she overplayed her hand on this one. Pete had a good argument about uniting donors of every class against Trump, and he was able to show Warren's hypocrisy without actually calling her a hypocrite by noting that she transferred millions raised from these same fancy wine cave dinners into her current campaign. She let the topic drop after that and I think he came off better.
Amy did a better job in her Pete scuffle. She started by defending the Washington establishment experience on stage (no idea how that sounds to voters, but it was rhetorically good in the moment) and used that to attack his experience. She kept calling him "mayor" and "local official" in a somewhat condescending way, but used that to draw parallels between her successful statewide elections compared to his much smaller city elections. I think it was pretty effective on stage, although in her post-debate interviews a few folks were like, "Amy, check the scoreboard" in response to her "Pete's not electable" argument. Not sure if this resonates with anyone here, but I also get an emerging sense of gay erasure coming from Amy's argument re: Pete, where she claims that a woman with Pete's experience would never have made it as far as a white man, while entirely ignoring the historic nature of the first openly gay presidential candidate. In some ways, the fact that its not really mentioned is a victory. In other ways, the fact that some women in this race attack his identity while ignoring that he's gay is, in fact, erasing the triumph of Pete overcoming his own hurdles against traditional political identity norms.
Sanders probably had his worst debate. He had several gaffes that I would've expected from Biden. He was given a question on race but dismissed it to return to a previous question. He didn't really have a good answer when questioned about his age. Given everything else on stage, he was largely forgettable, but there were several uncharacteristic missteps.
Biden actually had his best debate of this cycle. He was on point all night, didn't have any of his usual stumbles, and gave an emotionally moving answer toward the very end. Both he and Sanders stayed out of the fighting (makes sense, they don't need to win Iowa to continue), so they weren't as memorable overall. But he had a very good night.
Yang and Steyer were also present.
The rest of your post I didn't quote but I think it was spot on.
I thought Amy had some pretty good body punches on Pete. He wants to be seen as reconciliatory for the nation, yet her argument made him seem dismissive of not only Washington experience, but I couldn't help but think she was trying to put in a subliminal "he hates the olds" type feeling into voters. They hear her calling him out for being "disrespectful to the experience on the stage" coupled with his desire for "generational change" and I think some sociologist came up with that attack with a goal of putting an uneasy feeling in the voters he had so successfully been peeling off.
In the end, I think they both walked away bloody from that exchange. Pete seemed to reflexively go to his being gay as a sign of proof of his love for the first amendment, and the experience of coming out while running for mayor and get reelected. I only point this out because for so long he has tried to not use his sexuality to differentiate his experience, or at least he didn't seem to be attempting to use it to define his experience. It felt that way a little bit last night.
I say all that to say that I am still 100% Pete, haven't donated yet, but will soon. Just some observations from a realistic Pete supporter.
I thought Pete made Warren look bad in this skirmish.
With Klobuchar his answer was as good as it could be.
I again thought Pete was the best debater on the stage.
With Klobuchar his answer was as good as it could be.
I again thought Pete was the best debater on the stage.
I watched and listened to a pundit on MSNBC last night before going to bed and he said some stuff I thought was spot on. He said he thought too many of these candidates are not talking enough about the future. They continue to drag up the past - and in particular Trump's past - in their campaign rhetoric.
He said that when you look at the polls that have Trump beating all the current candidates - the reason is the candidates are not focusing on real life issues in people's lives and things that really matter to them.
Then I was listening to Andrew Yang's post-debate conversation on CNN and he said that when he's among folks around the country - no one brings up the impeachment stuff - they are simply asking for help with all kinds of personal issues that are actually affecting them personally.
He said that when you look at the polls that have Trump beating all the current candidates - the reason is the candidates are not focusing on real life issues in people's lives and things that really matter to them.
Then I was listening to Andrew Yang's post-debate conversation on CNN and he said that when he's among folks around the country - no one brings up the impeachment stuff - they are simply asking for help with all kinds of personal issues that are actually affecting them personally.
She got hammered by Pete. No ifs and or buts. He destroyed her in that exchange. It was beautiful...
Totally agree. Warren lost her fight, but Amy maybe narrowly won? Pete didn't have a great retort to her electability argument and he'll need to refine that. I don't think he's intentionally downplaying that he's gay, but since the punditry keeps ignoring it, that risks the trap of him seeming like your standard non-diverse white male. And frankly, Klob has leaned into that for a while now, which might be partly why he reflexively went there. It was fine, but he can probably smooth the edges on that answer a bit more before the next debate, because she's gonna continue to have the knives out for him until Iowa.
Warren... sigh. I was really high on Warren when she first entered the race, but I've come to the conclusion that she's actually the worst politician on that stage (which, like, includes two non-politicians). She just keeps walking into obvious mistakes. The DNA test. Her M4A backpedal. Now this donor purity thing. She's been advertising that she would take this punch for weeks (another mistake), but even a cursory look at her own fundraising shows that it's a flagrantly hypocritical stance. There is probably nothing more damaging in US politics than looking like a hypocrite at this late point in the primary, and she just invited Pete do that to her. I saw this attack coming for weeks and told my Warren supporter friends that it was a huge mistake and yet.... here we are again. I like most of her plans, but she's a weak candidate.
Thought it was interesting that only Yang answered the last question in the debate. Everyone else deflected it into some kind of political statement.
All she asked is - of all the candidates 1) is there someone you would ask forgiveness of or 2) what would you give a gift to?
All she asked is - of all the candidates 1) is there someone you would ask forgiveness of or 2) what would you give a gift to?
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Orange Bowl CFP Qtr: #4 Texas Tech v #5 Oregon - Rust vs B1G Pride (ESPN Noon ET)'- CajunCrimson
Replies: 286 -
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Becht rejoins Campbell, transfers to Penn State- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NFL draft order for Round 1: The first 13 slots are set, and the Raiders will pick at No. 1
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Sources: TCU's Hoover picks IU after campus visit
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Huskers land Irish QB Minchey via transfer portal
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: UCF upgrades at QB, adds JMU transfer Barnett
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0