And Then There Were Two: pre-NH Democratic Debate Recap and Takeaways

Last night, Sanders and Clinton fought hard to represent Democrats in New Hampshire, a state whose motto is “live free or die” and is generally regarded as New England’s last bastion of the confederacy.

It was a great debate made notably better by the absence of Martin O’Malley (sorry, Martin). Without people constantly butting in for 30 seconds, the omnipresent clock and battles with moderators were absent and the candidates were able to have a compelling, complete conversation. At one point Hillary declined 30 seconds to respond to a point, causing Jim Webb to roll over in his political grave.

There was a lot of meat in this debate (and I say that as a vegetarian) and while the candidates often agreed or declined to attack on issues, the debate was still sharper and more gloves off than previous ones, though neither was able to ground and pound the other. Here are are the core points each candidate made.

Hillary’s Arguments

I’m not going to make promises I can’t keep.
I’m a progressive who gets things done.
Bernie is not levelling with people about how much his plans will cost.
I don’t want to start over with another national debate about health care.
Experts who have evaluated my plans have found that they are better.
I have more endorsements, including from Vermont’s other elected officials, because they know I am effective.
Just because I took money from Wall Street doesn’t mean I’m bought. Wall Street has spent tons of money against me. Instead of “‘artful smears”, show me a case where I’ve changed my position.
Bernie has become the gatekeeper of progressivism, but by his definition of what’s progressive, Obama, Biden, and other popular elected officials would not be considered progressive.
Wall Street shouldn’t be the sole focus, as reforms are needed in other sectors — oil companies, real estate, etc.
I am not establishment, because I am a woman running to be the first woman president.
I have been thoroughly vetted, so there will not be surprises about me in the general election.
I am best able to be commander-in-chief, which is an essential part of the job description starting from Day 1.
We need to end not just income inequality, but inequality based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Sander’s Arguments

My positions are not radical — we are the only major nation without free health care and many provide free university as well.
Hillary Clinton has the support of the establishment, but the people don’t want more of the establishment.
We need to overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics before other reforms can be passed.
To think the reason Wall Street got deregulated and Pharma companies charge American customers more than others, etc. is not because of the large amounts of money they put into the system is ridiculous.
My goals will require a political revolution and I have proven I can lead one. What will get done doesn’t just require me, but Republican leaders seeing the people demand change.
I am more electable because Democrats win when there is a higher turnout. People are disengaged from the political process and I can inspire them to change that.
Hillary herself said “I am a moderate,” and you can’t have it both ways and be a moderate and a progressive.
I may not have foreign policy experience of Clinton, but I have better judgement — I voted against the Iraq war.
The economy is rigged and almost all new income is going to the Top 1%.

A bunch of these statements are false or misleading — no matter who you support — though I think Hillary was a little more honest (am I the first person to say that?) based on the findings of the factchecking organizations.

In terms of delivery, both candidates did well and had their moments. I do think Sanders is a better speaker. He uses simpler, more heartfelt-seeming language. The difference is illustrated in the beginning of their closing statements:

“My dad came to this country at the age of 17 from Poland. Didn’t have any money, couldn’t speak English…he died pretty young.”

“Well first, thanks to MSNBC and thanks to all of you for holding this debate before the New Hampshire primary. I am going to campaign as hard as I can between now and Tuesday to earn your votes in that primary…”

Guess which said which!

Hillary came across as a very competent manager-type overall. She has moments where her responses seemed calculated — pivots to borrow Sanders’s talking points, moments where she uses very political language. That said, she also moments of real passion on the water crisis in Flint and in defending herself from what she called Sanders’s smear that she has been bought — even saying “if you have something to say to me, say it to my face,” which is as close as she gets to saying “you want to go, old man?”

One widely shared blog this week asserted that Hillary “couldn’t yell” because she was a woman. I disagree with this — when she raises her voice and gets angry she becomes more human and connects with people.

So who won?

It depends. Do you judge who sells their positions better vs. who is advocating better positions? Who comes across better if you watch the full debate vs. who won it to Americans who’ll see a 30 second clip on the news? I watched the entire debate twice, once live and once after. The first time I thought Sanders was ahead, the second time I thought Hillary did.

Here are my personal impressions.

Sanders’s appeal is similar to Trump’s. To the right wing, Trump is their friend who has a simple, obvious solution for everything. To the left wing, Sanders represents that too.

Immigrants are the problem — build a wall. Let’s make things free — have Wall Street pay for it. Here’s one weird trick to solve all the country’s problems.

It’s easy to say “let’s tax Wall Street” or “make the billionaires pay.” It’s harder to say “do the numbers add up?” or “Will it just cause financial firms and billionaires to relocate?” If banks and billionaires are so evil they’ll avoid taxes by storing money in other countries, won’t they avoid taxes by just moving to them?

Clinton tried to hit on this, bringing up that experts supported her plans (though on Wall Street regulation this is a misrepresentation), and that Bernie is making promises he can’t deliver. I don’t think she drove the latter point home as much as she should have, but I think she is right.

He says he’ll only raise taxes on the rich, but if you actually analyze his plans, taxes do go up dramatically across the board.

When he was asked about the first thing he would do in office. He said you have to overturn Citizens United on the grounds that without it you won’t get anything done.

Citizens United is a supreme court decision — to overturn it requires a constitutional amendment or a number of conservative justices retiring, being replaced by liberals, and the case being re-challenged. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 support in the House and Senate and 3/4 of the State legistlators. If Bernie says that is necessary to get things done — it’s not getting done. There’s a difference between something being ambitious and it being a Hail Mary. There was a chance for a political revolution — Obama entered office with huge public support and supermajorities and still failed to accomplish a health care plan anywhere near as ambitious as Sanders’s. The only thing that has changed since then is it has gotten more difficult to get things done in Washington.

Another key question that was brought up was electability. The moderators mentioned previous ‘revolutionary’ candidates who had inspired a lot of support from their parties — McGovern and Barry Goldwater — got trounced in the general election. Head to head polling shows Bernie as surprisingly robust against Trump and Cruz, and many people strongly dislike Hillary, so now it seems debatable if he actually be a worse candidate. However, as Hillary touched on (but again didn’t really drive home) this doesn’t account for a very strong factor — The GOP has not attacked Sanders and instead is attacking Hillary on his behalf. Hillary mentions that she has been vetted and any mud about her has already been dragged out. This is important. We don’t know that much about Sanders’s past. If there’s one picture of him near a burning American flag in the 1970s, his candidacy is DOA. He’s been a radical since the 1960s. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was just cropped out of Che’s t-shirt selfie.

When looking to the general election, another Sanders weakness is the commander-in-chief issue. Keeping the country safe is one of the leading concerns in this election. People generally trust Republicans more than Democrats on this issue, but Hillary polls even with Trump. Sanders is clearly not as focused on foreign policy and Americans are not going to have faith a person whose foreign policy resume is built on one vote against the Iraq war to be at the helm in that situation. Additionally, it is wishful thinking to imagine that Russia, China, Iran and others are not going to test the American president no matter who they are. No matter Sanders’s desire to focus on economics, if China celebrates his election by taking the Spratly Islands what is he going to do? Deploy a strike force to implement a modern-day Glass-Steagall there?

Where he has shown offensive capability is using the “establishment” and “moderate” labels against Hillary, and Hillary defended against them once well and once poorly.

Her good defense was to show that they’re arbitrary labels. Obama is popular among Democrats but by Sanders’s definition is clearly a moderate, though Sanders clumsily tried to deny it in the debate. The Clintons are surely establishment insiders, but the first Clinton president is still beloved by Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, one of the most left-wing elected officials, was speaker of the house. Yet when we apply the broad term “establishment” to individuals, we imagine them all as fat-cat colluders lighting J.P. Morgan’s cigars with a middle-class person’s tax payment. It is, to some degree, just a meaningless label. That said, Sanders not having a SuperPAC is his strongest claim to being an outsider, as is his history of being an independent candidate — and, arguably, his only sponsoring 3 pieces of legislation passed in 20 years, two of which involved renaming a post office in Vermont. He places less emphasis on that, but it may come up in the Vermont primary.

Sanders also calls the many officials who endorsed Hillary part of the “establishment”, and the ones who endorsed him bold “progressives”. Hillary vocally tried to focus on their voting records, saying “I don’t think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady Bill five times” in a line that drew an audible “Oh snap!” from the audience. That said, when she refers to Sanders using an “out of context quote” to call her a moderate, it’s worth noting the quote is literally her saying “I am a moderate.”

Hillary’s poor defense to the establishment attack — and one that could hurt her — was her assertion “Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.” This is a) obviously false (since about half the country thinks she exemplifies the establishment), b) ridiculous from someone who has been a power player since 1992, and a c) boldfaced attempt to play the female card as a get-out-of-jail free card, having already used up her 9/11 one. Some feminists may disagree with this criticism, but the idea she feels entitled to the presidency is one of the primary attacks against Hillary Clinton and these statements reinforce it. I actually think wanting to vote for the first female president partly for the message of inclusiveness it sends is reasonable, as was voting for Obama partly to show it was possible to have a non-white president. The difference is Obama took the high road and never said “you should vote for me because I’m black.” Your supporters can spread that message for you, but saying it yourself comes across tacky and against the deeply ingrained American sense — whether true in practice or not — that you should have to earn whatever you get on your own merits. If you don’t think voters are turned off to the idea of someone getting elected because of how they are born, maybe email Jeb Bush about it.

So who won the debate? After watching it, I came away more convinced that Hillary was the better candidate to support, so I thought she won.

Then I saw ABC news recapping the debate by showing Sanders saying “we need a revolution” and Clinton saying “I am a woman so I can’t be establishment” and I was no longer convinced.

I’ll get back to you after the primaries.