With the Presidential primary season in full swing and the first official results of the Iowa caucus (belatedly) released, each candidate still playing the game has begun buckling down on specific issues and the underlying reasons that make them the most suitable and electable candidate for president. Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders went into Friday night’s New Hampshire debate toe-to-toe as winners of the Iowa caucus, with 13 pledged delegates and 12 pledged delegates respectively. Elizabeth Warren trailed behind with 8 promised delegates–Biden left with a self-proclaimed “gut punch” of only 6 delegates, and Amy Klobuchar received one pledge. This adds to 40 of Iowa’s 41 total delegates–it is arguable that the final delegate may be pledged to Bernie Sanders, as no clear winner of the election was announced in a suitable and time-efficient fashion.

With this in mind, every candidate at Friday’s debate seemed to be particularly direct in their attacks and counterarguments. The issues discussed included party strategy, health care, impeachment, foreign policy, opioids, gun control, the Supreme Court, race, money in politics, climate change, and poverty. The New York Times tracks how long each candidate was able to speak on each issue and in total.

Because many candidates realized how valuable an opportunity to speak became as the night progressed, they began tying any general topic back to their core platforms. Andrew Yang, with only about eight total minutes of speaking time the entire debate, was able to relate discussions of Gun Policy and the Opioid Epidemic to his plans to alleviate these crises with a Freedom Dividend/Universal Basic for every American, every month. Also, as Juliette Reyes, a global affairs writer at the New Voice, comments on The New Voice’s live analysis of the debate last night, “…(Klobuchar) and Warren are making great points here. Both senators have really branched off the general issue of racism and defined it tightly to their platforms. This is a winning strategy for the primary, but more importantly, the general in particular.”

Candidates Biden, Bernie, and Buttigieg spoke emphatically and extendedly on foreign policy–specifically on the “endless wars” waged in varying parts of the world by the U.S., and whether they planned to prolong, slowly de-escalate, or withdraw completely from those activities. On one issue, for example, it was agreed upon that the drastic measure Donald Trump took to terminate Iran’s Qasem Suleimani would not be a decision anyone on the Democratic stage would have made as president, as it has not inherently bettered the people of America and our nation’s standings as a whole in the international community.

When discussing money in politics, Warren emphasized that she and Klobuchar were the only candidates on that stage who were not billionaires and did not receive support from billionaire special interests or Political Action Committees. When the rhetoric changed to call out individuals who worked to buy their way into maintaining a presidential campaign (addressing Mike Bloomberg, who not qualify for a spot on the stage), Yang and Steyer were, by default, subtweeted.

These were the biggest moments from tonight's Democratic debate in New Hampshire: https://t.co/lHyT3T4FpB pic.twitter.com/3W2uUjRe1y — TIME (@TIME) February 8, 2020

Throughout every topic discussed, the two particular perspectives offered were based on extensive knowledge-based judgment or experience-based tenure, a contrast coined by Pete Buttigieg. It will be left for the American people to decide whether a substantial tenure and familiarity with Washington-based politics will prove more electable than the refreshed and reflective-of-today values of the younger/less politically-experienced candidates.

But by the end of the night, who maintained the most effective rhetoric? Who provided the most succinct counterarguments? And who failed to?

The Winners

Bernie Sanders

Bernie left hesitation at home last night. With very little restraint, he made sure every candidate was differentiated from his values and his platforms, and why their indecisiveness and inconsistency would comparatively give America a dimmer future than what he has planned. He clashed with the candidate who gave him a serious run for his money in Iowa–Pete Buttigieg, quite explicitly stating, “I don’t have 40 billionaires, Pete, contributing to my campaign,” during the discussion on money in politics. He was more strong and steadfast in his support of Roe V. Wade, given the context of the current Supreme Court set up, and fully supported putting that right to privacy and bodily autonomy into bill writing.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar: "If you have trouble stretching your paycheck to pay for that rent, I know you and I will fight for you. If you have trouble deciding if you're going to pay for your childcare or your long-term care, I know you, and I will fight for you." https://t.co/Rhy9aOaDTU pic.twitter.com/daEgXHeLLk — ABC News (@ABC) February 8, 2020

Amy made some of the most powerful arguments and personal appeals of her entire campaign on Friday evening. She discussed the issue of voter discrimination in regards to America’s ongoing fight to achieve social, racial, and socioeconomic equality–an issue very few else have discussed in length. She also describes how her upbringing, in particular, has been able to prepare her for the long strenuous road to servant leadership as President of the United States. In response to other candidates’ claims that a career politician is the least effective method towards including fresh perspectives in executive deliberations, she counters by saying her tenure in Minnesota and Washington political spheres has prepared her for compromise and negotiations in a way that inexperienced candidates could not.

Honorable Mentions

Elizabeth Warren

Warren was able to make the most of her almost 16 minutes of speaking time last night, but still lacked the impact that the winners of the debate were able to leave on audiences. She provided an interesting and compelling statistic in regards to her wealth tax, claiming the proposed two-cent wealth tax could eliminate student loan debts for 43 million Americans. This platform still remains controversial in the eyes of many American voters, however. In addition, she asks for the other candidates and all viewers to keep the reality of housing discrimination in mind when discussing social inequalities. She strongly answered and explained “No,” when the moderator inquired if she believed Mayor Pete was able to completely address the increase in drug incarcerations in his mayoral home base of South Bend, Indiana under his executive presence.

Joe Biden

Biden was able to contribute substantially to last night’s debate. You could tell the results of Iowa definitely fueled his fervor on Friday, as his responses were more emotional than usual. Between discussing his views on foreign policy, specifically how he now could not stand for if his child, like many other children of American military parents, were to stay any longer in a country host to “Endless War,” and his ability to humble himself when addressed by past votes cast by him in favor of war efforts, he established himself effectively as foreign policy candidate. However, this seems to be the only issue of American policy people can wholeheartedly support him. As a result, he was not able to differentiate himself from other candidates, as he took many passive perspectives on social issues and Supreme Court discussions.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg holds a town hall in Burlington, IA\r\r\r(Photo: Carina Teoh/PFA)

Pete had a fighting chance to win this debate, but he received far too much flack for the ease with which he accepted billionaire donations for it to go unnoticed. He was able to provide a unique perspective on foreign policy, but it is unclear if he will be able to succeed Biden’s established understanding of international affairs, even with his military experience. His greatest appeal now is to hopefully maintain platforms that a majority of Democrats can agree on as well as encourage an influx of what he likes to call, “Future Former Republicans,” to the Democratic party.

The Losers

Andrew Yang

We were able to catch a reappearance of Andrew Yang, the front running Democratic minority candidate, on Friday night. Unfortunately, he reappeared at a time where very little credibility had been thrown around for wealthy candidates in the race. The other candidates were quick to point out what happened with the last… and current… billionaire-in-chief, and it is unlikely democratic voters who just wish to see Trump out of office will throw their votes for another wealthy candidate with low polls, little speaking time, and quite different perspectives to solving America than that of the tenured politicians.

Tom Steyer

We have to stop making foreign policy decisions in the old way. Everyone wants access to our market. We can use that to convince them to get serious and take action on climate. pic.twitter.com/4lhsmGDklY — Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) February 8, 2020

Similarly, Tom Steyer is a low-polling billionaire whose primary focus on climate change does not allow for him to gain ground in areas that other candidates have substantially proven themselves in. Especially when Sanders has arguably the same enthusiasm for climate justice as Steyer does–only with greater publicity and more climate-focused politician endorsements. The non-billionaire candidates are working to reduce the rhetoric that could allow for the general election to be a face-off between two of America’s politically-inclined (yet still inexperienced) billionaire businessmen.

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: