Democratic Debates 3-6
You may have noticed that CopyrightBro had lots to say after the first and second democratic debates, but neglected to publish anything about debates 3, 4, 5, and 6. This wasn’t a mistake. Those debates were all rather unmemorable; none of them were groundbreaking, and none of the candidates seemed to evolve much or show new sides of themselves. It was a very “same story, different day” sort of situation. Honestly, I was sick of hearing the same argument about healthcare every. Single. Time. I got burnt out.
I do want to briefly comment on some of the candidates and note how my thoughts on them have changed over the course of the the four debates I haven’t already commented on.
The Defeated
Harris: Kamala also seemed to use her blackness as a tool at times, which I just think is bad form. She dropped out rather suddenly, citing a lack of funding. That’s plausible — she was taking hits in the debates and donations seemed to stall — but I think her exit could potentially be explained by blackmail. She seems like she might have some particularly nasty skeletons in her closet. In any case, she’s demonstrated that she’s a terrific senator and prosecutor during the Kavanaugh hearings, and I think we’re better off having her stay in the Senate.
O’Rourke: He’s gone. Unfortunately, he gave Republicans a terrific sound bite to use to rile up their base when he yelled “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” during a nationally televised debate.
Gilibrand: As predicted, she simply didn’t have enough momentum to get to the White House. I still like her dedication, though, and she’s still memorable months after leaving the debate stage.
Booker: While I was warming up to him, he didn’t seem particularly genuine to me in a lot of scenarios, and he seemed to accentuate his blackness when it was convenient. I don’t think he was a bad guy, but I’m not upset that he’s out of the race.
Gabbard*: Tulsi is no longer one of my top picks. I think she’s a very interesting candidate, but I’m less convinced of her character. Perhaps I’ve been swayed by the negative media coverage she’s received in the wake of being caught up in a twitter storm that accused her of being a Russian asset. In any case, it’s also interesting that she feels so at home on Fox News; I’m not sure what to think of that. It’s worth noting that she was the only candidate to not qualify for a debate, and then qualify for the one that succeeded the one for which she didn’t qualify.
Yang*: He made it farther than I expected, and he was somehow able to hype up his Freedom Dividend plan the whole way.
*It’s worth noting that while these candidates didn’t qualify for the most recent debate and I’ve characterized them as “defeated”, they still haven’t ended their campaigns, so they technically aren’t out of the running.
The Late Boomers Bloomers:
Tom Steyer: Bought his ticket.
Mike Bloomberg: Bought his ticket.
The Pack Leaders
Elizabeth Warren: I think Elizabeth Warren has the best chance of beating Donald Trump. The other serious contenders, Pete, Biden, and Bernie, each have flaws which I think will be enough to keep them from pulling enough Trump voters onboard, despite that they do all boast unique advantages. All in all, I think Warren has a solid set of plans, and if she can truly crack down on corruption to even a tenth of the extent to which she hopes, America will be much better for it.
Pete Buttigieg: I like Pete’s more moderate politics more than I like Warren’s more progressive ideas, and I think Pete has made a good effort to reach out to independents and moderate Republicans. I think it’s more important than ever to try to slow down the swing of the political pendulum, and the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to get people from both sides of the aisle on your team, not just enflame your base against your competition; the enflamatory approach will just make those who lose the election even more angry and the winning side will feel more vindicated, deepening the divide in our country. However, I don’t think Pete is terribly electable because he’s gay. Even though he’s the type of guy whose sexuality doesn't precede him, it will be difficult for a gay man to take votes away from Trump’s evangelical base. All in all, I think that if Pete gets the nomination, the amount of hate that would flow from Trump’s ignorant base would be enough to move gay people back, regardless of whether Pete wins the general election. While I like him the best and would like to see a same-sex attracted president, I don’t think America is ready for that. Give it another ten years, and then I think a same-sex attracted man could make a strong run for the presidency without incurring so much hate that his candidacy ultimately results in a step back for LGB people.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie’s health is a concern, as well as his age. From a policy standpoint, he’s very similar to Elizabeth Warren. I’m not surprised that he’s a serious contender, but I don’t think he’s our best option. The fact that he calls himself a democratic socialist gives the right a lot of ammunition to use against him and convince him that he’s a threat to democracy, even though those same people would likely agree with a decent amount of Bernie’s ideas. The word “socialist” has such strong connotations that I doubt anyone claiming such a label could win against the republican propaganda machine.
Joe Biden: I really had hoped that people wouldn’t still be taking Joe Biden seriously at this point, but here we are. While his name recognition will help him and the nostalgia of the Obama administration may pull a select few undecided voters to his team, I think there’s a solid argument to be made that he’s the most career-y of the career politicians running in 2020. Not to mention the fact that Trump has already gotten a head start on attacking Biden, I don’t think it’s smart to give him the nomination. As far as policy goes, he’s very similar to Pete, except he’s way older, and given the choice, I think we’d be crazy not to install a younger POTUS.
Last But Not Least
Amy Klobuchar: I think Amy is a another very interesting candidate. If you’d asked me four months ago to list the candidates who’d still be around at this stage, I never would’ve guessed Amy would have a place in that group. I still find her to be a very genuine candidate. The facts that her jokes don’t always land is retable yet cringeworthy. I appreciate her moderate take on a lot of issues, and her demonstrated ability to win in purple and red districts is a huge plus. She handles herself well in debates and would wipe the floor with Donald Trump. Unfortunately, I don’t think she has a great chance of getting the nomination due to her low rank in the polls and the fact that she’s facing two stronger candidates who are also occupying that moderate space, but who have the benefit of being male (though one is gay, so that detracts a bit from the male privilege points he receives). It seems unlikely that she’ll be the nominee, but I’ll be very happy if she is.