July 23, 2019
The two days of the Democratic Primary debates saw a lot of movement in the polls after the dust settled. Kamala Harris was the biggest winner, and the primaries are shaping up to be an interesting fight between the various wings of the party and who will determine the party's destiny for the foreseeable future.
__________________________
The first two Democratic debates were the first chance for the country to take a look at the 20 (at the time) candidates who had declared for the White House in 2020. The first night featured Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker, Bill DeBlasio, John Delaney, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, John Inslee and Tim Ryan. Of those mentioned, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, and Tulsi Gabbard stood out, at least according to Google searches. Personally speaking, while Julian Castro won viral moments, I believe Tulsi Gabbard was the best candidate on the stage. She was calm, deliberate and made sound points on the best foreign policy for the United States. I think Ms. Gabbard came across as the most impressive candidate, but watching on television, I could not wonder if MSNBC was covertly trying to prop up its preferred candidates, Senators Warren and Julian Castro, who got most of the speaking time, while Tulsi was left to speak in short bursts, and was drowned out by audience reactions to obviously rehearsed lines from Mr. Castro and Beto O'Rourke. Additionally, her mike during the debates mysteriously cut off and she was not able to enter into discussions on various topics. For those scarred by how the DNC handled Bernie Sanders in 2016, it appears nothing has changed.
The second debate featured Marianne Williamson, Oprah's former guru, John Hickenlooper (former Governor of Colorado, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, California Senator Kamala Harris, New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Eric Swalwell. The frontrunners for this debate were obviously Mr. Biden, Senators Harris, and Sanders. At a distance, Senator Gillibrand was in the picture, but her support is inconsequential at this moment. Most did not stand out by providing any substantive policy proposals. Instead, it was risk-averse, bland talking points for the majority in the group on stage. Pete Buttigieg tried to speak about race, but Kamala Harris provided the best moment when she criticized Joe Biden's working relationship in the Senate with two former segregationists. Senator Biden did his best to work with those he disapproved of and realized during his early years in the Senate that in order to pass legislation that would benefit the American people, he needed to work with members whose beliefs he disagreed with. This is what most people in the country have to do in their professional lives on a weekly basis. Senator Harris chastised Mr. Biden for his desire to have a working relationship with those senators who opposed federal busing programs. Ms. Harris said that she benefited from busing, and was one of the first students who was bussed to her school. She even created a hashtag (#thatlittlegirlwasme) that she miraculously made into a t-shirt immediately after the debates. Total coincidence, right?
I would venture to guess that this exchange was premeditated by Senator Harris since Biden was the front-runner, and she needed a viral moment to gain supporters and move up in the polls. It worked. Mr. Biden for his part did not react quickly and counter her accusations with a forceful defense of his record on behalf of his constituents, and what he thought he needed to do to benefit the American people. His clumsiness did not win him any new supporters and seriously challenged his standing atop voter preference. Some of his major donors have abandoned him. Democratic party insiders want someone who can be as effective a flamethrower as President Trump, and Mr. Biden did not give primary voters that impression during the night.
The other candidates did not stand out. There were empty platitudes about embracing immigrants, being closer to American ideals, providing Medicare for All, and other Democratic policies sound nice but require immense taxpayer funding. We live in an age where extensive follow-up or in-depth analysis about what funding policy requires, or for how long, nor for the term of the funding is never asked. America is so divided that neither party needs to provide a sound solution for what they oppose. Republicans want to overturn the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare," but do not give any concrete options that are a better alternative. Democrats think President Trump colluded with the Russians and overturned vote totals in the last presidential election, but do not provide proof that a crime was committed. Liberals had pinned their hopes on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, but nothing in the report gave any credence to accusations. I am not arguing that President Trump is absolved of anything, but is there any evidence that can turn the public mood against the president, which can be used to impeach and convict him?
If the Democrats do not get their act together and nominate someone (Tulsi Gabbard in my opinion) who can wither President Trump's barbs and nicknames and effectively counter his bluster with popular and pragmatic solutions to the nation's ills, Donald Trump will get re-elected easily. Ms. Gabbard has "the right stuff," and has a good sense of America's military role in the world is (nation-building should not be its central purpose). Additionally, I think she can handle his zingers and affinity for nicknames for his opponents. I am confident she will give it back to President Trump and will not cower under the pressure in the presidential debates. Unfortunately, the Democratic party's key donors have not given her fundraising dollars, part of that I believe is to wait and see which White House aspirant shows some serious mettle. The other idea is that most of the money people within the Democratic party want an insider who can effectively win back the White House. For many of them, Mr. Biden is the preferred choice. Senator Harris has potential, however, but she has a lot of baggage that no one has brought forth into the discussion, nor has she made proposals that the country can get behind. How she handles this pressure will determine if her recent surge will morph into a tidal wave towards the nomination.
As of now, the Democratic party does not have a message that will rally their base but also win new fans from Republicans and independents. Will the inmates still run the Democratic asylum or will the party head to the wilderness for the foreseeable future?
The second debate featured Marianne Williamson, Oprah's former guru, John Hickenlooper (former Governor of Colorado, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, California Senator Kamala Harris, New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Eric Swalwell. The frontrunners for this debate were obviously Mr. Biden, Senators Harris, and Sanders. At a distance, Senator Gillibrand was in the picture, but her support is inconsequential at this moment. Most did not stand out by providing any substantive policy proposals. Instead, it was risk-averse, bland talking points for the majority in the group on stage. Pete Buttigieg tried to speak about race, but Kamala Harris provided the best moment when she criticized Joe Biden's working relationship in the Senate with two former segregationists. Senator Biden did his best to work with those he disapproved of and realized during his early years in the Senate that in order to pass legislation that would benefit the American people, he needed to work with members whose beliefs he disagreed with. This is what most people in the country have to do in their professional lives on a weekly basis. Senator Harris chastised Mr. Biden for his desire to have a working relationship with those senators who opposed federal busing programs. Ms. Harris said that she benefited from busing, and was one of the first students who was bussed to her school. She even created a hashtag (#thatlittlegirlwasme) that she miraculously made into a t-shirt immediately after the debates. Total coincidence, right?
I would venture to guess that this exchange was premeditated by Senator Harris since Biden was the front-runner, and she needed a viral moment to gain supporters and move up in the polls. It worked. Mr. Biden for his part did not react quickly and counter her accusations with a forceful defense of his record on behalf of his constituents, and what he thought he needed to do to benefit the American people. His clumsiness did not win him any new supporters and seriously challenged his standing atop voter preference. Some of his major donors have abandoned him. Democratic party insiders want someone who can be as effective a flamethrower as President Trump, and Mr. Biden did not give primary voters that impression during the night.
The other candidates did not stand out. There were empty platitudes about embracing immigrants, being closer to American ideals, providing Medicare for All, and other Democratic policies sound nice but require immense taxpayer funding. We live in an age where extensive follow-up or in-depth analysis about what funding policy requires, or for how long, nor for the term of the funding is never asked. America is so divided that neither party needs to provide a sound solution for what they oppose. Republicans want to overturn the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare," but do not give any concrete options that are a better alternative. Democrats think President Trump colluded with the Russians and overturned vote totals in the last presidential election, but do not provide proof that a crime was committed. Liberals had pinned their hopes on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, but nothing in the report gave any credence to accusations. I am not arguing that President Trump is absolved of anything, but is there any evidence that can turn the public mood against the president, which can be used to impeach and convict him?
If the Democrats do not get their act together and nominate someone (Tulsi Gabbard in my opinion) who can wither President Trump's barbs and nicknames and effectively counter his bluster with popular and pragmatic solutions to the nation's ills, Donald Trump will get re-elected easily. Ms. Gabbard has "the right stuff," and has a good sense of America's military role in the world is (nation-building should not be its central purpose). Additionally, I think she can handle his zingers and affinity for nicknames for his opponents. I am confident she will give it back to President Trump and will not cower under the pressure in the presidential debates. Unfortunately, the Democratic party's key donors have not given her fundraising dollars, part of that I believe is to wait and see which White House aspirant shows some serious mettle. The other idea is that most of the money people within the Democratic party want an insider who can effectively win back the White House. For many of them, Mr. Biden is the preferred choice. Senator Harris has potential, however, but she has a lot of baggage that no one has brought forth into the discussion, nor has she made proposals that the country can get behind. How she handles this pressure will determine if her recent surge will morph into a tidal wave towards the nomination.
As of now, the Democratic party does not have a message that will rally their base but also win new fans from Republicans and independents. Will the inmates still run the Democratic asylum or will the party head to the wilderness for the foreseeable future?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe large field of candidates is reason for limited time for the debates. Those with quick repartee or those like Kamala Harris throwing curve balls to score points does not allow the American people to nominate a candidate capable of substantive policy and governance experience. It seems that the current priority is to beat President Trump's barbs or twitter tirade with quick wit and nothing else. We shall soon find out if the American people prefers a President who leads this country with twitterability or with brilliance of a statesperson.
ReplyDelete