Debate Night Analysis (Dems, 2/11)

This time it was on PBS. Let me just say, I love PBS because they provide a simple free YouTube live stream. None of this cable-subscription-required, watch-a-million-ads, stand-on-your-neighbor’s-balcony-and-read-lips business.

The moderators again had a light touch, but pressed when questions were not answered. It was a very scholarly, mostly respectful, and quite substantive. They stuck to issues and proposals.

At one point, an interesting question came up. Gwen Ifill asked the question, ‘what about white people?,’ which I thought was refreshing. For all the focus on minorities we typically see in politics, it was nice to see it mentioned that the blue-collar white folks can have it pretty rough too. Studies have not been kind to middle class whites recently, and it was addressed.

This was a meaty debate, mostly devoid of fireworks. It was one for the policy wonks out there and was overall what one might expect from PBS.

Let’s break it down by candidate:

____________Hillary Clinton_____________

Hillary needed to do well after being shellacked in NH. She lost everyone (women included) in a 22-point drubbing. She donned a very loud yellow jacket, and I know it’s bad form to talk about a female politician’s fashion choices, but it was distracting. There you have it.

She did well. She kept her cool, sounded reasonable, and played it like a front-runner. After NH, you have to imagine the strategy has become first and foremost: ‘do no harm’.

She stumbled again on the money question. It’s one that will not die and one she cannot win. Her insistence that there is no quid-pro-quo for big money from big donors is drawing skepticism and will keep doing so.

The moderators even got specific and focused on her top two donors George Soros and Donald Sussman who alone are responsible for half her donations from the finance sector.

Hillary looked like a deer in the headlights and gave shaky non-answers; even going so far as to accuse Sanders of being in the pockets of the gun lobby despite him not having received donations from that industry, but for voting against a bill that would have allowed gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers. It was the political equivalent of “look, your shoe’s untied.”

Despite that, this was a very meaty debate from Hillary. She was the detailed candidate in the debate, focusing on specifics, statistics, and solutions. It was a very strong performance that left Sanders looking a bit one-demensional with his laser focus on income inequality and corruption in campaign finance.

She ended forcefully, defending and handcuffing herself firmly to President Obama; attacking Sanders for previous criticisms of the president, it was a sour note to end on, making her look like a bit of a bully and Sanders handled it masterfully saying ‘there’s one candidate here who ran against Barack Obama and it wasn’t me.’

____________Bernie Sanders____________

Sanders was his usual optimistic self. His response to the last question citing FDR as his primary political inspiration was delivered with an earnest passion. It’ll be overlooked, but Sanders did what he needed to do; bring the passion and challenge with aggression.

He really is relentless in his utopian vision. It is stirring to hear him talk about uniting a country, but one wonders whether it’s realistic. He was reactive most of the time, and he needed to be proactive. Hillary was on her A-game though, and the specificity and perspicacity of the questions favored her pragmatic style.

Bernie’s small-donor money machine has been going crazy since NH and his victory settled the electability question (at least whether he can win the nomination, not necessarily the general) once and for all. It is opening up a lot of democratic voters who just assumed Clinton would win to take a second look at the elderly democratic socialist with the crazy hair.

He presented an attractive vision of middle-class prosperity, upper-class taxation, renewed infrastructure, negotiation over conflict, calmed racial tension and called for hope in unity… then he beat Hillary Clinton and became president. The question is whether Bernie Sanders can now do the same as Barack Obama and whether voters will trust him to deliver.

___________Summary___________

This will go down as a win for Hillary, but I don’t know it will be enough to slow down Sanders’ momentum. Voters are giving him a second look and most who do are switching camps.

Ta-Nehisi Coates along with Michael “Killer Mike” Render, two major thought leaders in the black community have indicated support for Sanders and a changing tide with black voters could swing the race in South Carolina. A decisive win for Sanders there could start a domino effect, although it’s unlikely.

Clinton today trotted out many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and an endorsement from their PAC to try and stop the bleeding. Today’s debate performance shows she’s got the message and is taking the Sanders movement and his fundraising juggernaut seriously.

For his part, Bernie is now under the spotlight of media scrutiny. It’s going to be interesting to see whether he can present his ideas of democratic socialism effectively, without Americans just hearing the ‘socialism’ part and extending that out to communism.

_________Team Red Post-NH Body Count__________

The GOP field is finally beginning to winnow down to a manageable number. Here’s who is left standing:

Trump — Race-baiter, huckster, and megalomaniac extraordinaire. He is the poison pill republican voters seem all too happy to swallow.

Cruz — Master manipulator, evangelical exploitationist, and self-proclaimed martyr for principle. Cruz is another unelectable choice, but one that at least leaves the republican party somewhat intact.

Rubio — Fresh-faced, hopeful young firebrand Latino senator running on a ‘New American Century’ platform, hitting hard against liberal ideas of joining the rest of the world with old fashioned American exceptionalism. **Current software version does have some glitches, upgrades promised soon.

Bush — Desperate, panicky moderate with a familiar name (but not too familiar! Think 80’s, wasn’t that fun?) with gargantuan sums of super PAC ad money who’s mom thinks he’d be great. Has thusfar spent over $1,500 per vote on average.

Kasich — Popular governor of a must-win state. Fairly moderate, good record, highly electable, entirely forgettable and lacking funds to compete… but second in New Hampshire because some states just want to watch the world burn.

Carson — A retired neurosurgeon in partial hibernation who has not been informed his campaign is over.