Winners and Losers of Night One of the Second Democratic Presidential Primary Debate

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Paul Sancya/AP/Shutterstock (10350580j) From left, Marianne Williamson, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock take the stage for the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit Election 2020 Debate, Detroit, USA - 30 Jul 2019

Winners:

Progressives – In a night that featured the party’s progressive stalwarts and most of the centrist candidates, an ideological clash was all but guaranteed, and we were not disappointed. Much to the chagrin of the moderates, Bernie and Elizabeth shrewdly decided to team up rather than harshly hash out the differences between themselves. It wasn’t just a truce, but rather the two appeared at times like a tag team of sorts with one jumping in to further pile on a rival who had attacked the other. In the end, it wasn’t just this tactic that put this dynamic duo over the top, but rather that the two were far more persuasive than their ideological counterparts. Unlike the moderates, the progressives on stage knew how to point to things in reality (both the actual and the felt), connect it to both their vision and their platform’s solutions, and highlight the personal impacts those solutions should have all while communicating it in messages that resonated with the emotions of the audience.

Elizabeth Warren – Warren was the night’s biggest winner. It was nearly impossible to throw off this smiling warrior. Warren never missed a chance to reframe a moderator’s question or an opponent’s challenge into a place that allowed her to launch into her own vision for the nation, nor did she miss a chance to use her populist prowess to connect an issue to the frustrations of many. Unlike other rivals who just dryly mentioned their plans or used them as a crutch to hobble through a sixty-second answer, Warren made sure to seamlessly segue from real frustrations through her detailed policies to the outcomes that her supporters desire.

As if her form wasn’t enough for her to be the night’s star performer, she also benefited from having a foil in John Delaney. John continued to rail against Warren’s plans leveling that they were neither realistic nor electable to which Elizabeth had a viral clap back, “I don’t know why anyone goes to the trouble of running for president just to talk about what we can’t do.” John’s unpassionate pleas for reason fell flat, and Warren made sure to get the best out of their many exchanges.

Warren was able to draw contrast against Sanders through her performance compared to his. She was always fresh and original, struck the right passionate tone, and never veered off into a colder, ideologically driven rhetorical path. Even though Sanders still had a good night, Warren comes out on top for her more consistently resonant performance.

Pete Buttigieg – Pete, a candidate somewhere between the moderates and the progressives, had a good night standing outside of the ideological fray. Pete’s strategy for this debate was to remain relevant with his unique manner of speaking on the issues while also not pinning himself down to any hard policy positions now. He was able to have several unique and resonating quotes on stage; winning over the hearts of some of the party’s primary voters who watched despite not having as many policy proposals. Pete’s playing a long-term strategy and is hedging his bets that it will be smarter to break out when the field has narrowed and more start observing.

Some of Pete’s more memorable moments include him urging the field to disregard what Republicans say about their proposals because they will “say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists” regardless of what the proposals are. Buttigieg also got people talking about when he looked straight into the camera to warn lawmakers across the aisle that history would be watching to see if they had the courage to stand up to their president and put country over party.

Perhaps Pete’s most effective line of the night was when he previewed for the voters what a debate between him and the incumbent, something his rivals never did directly at least, would look like when he said, “Nominate me and you get to see the president of the United States stand next to an American war veteran, and explain why he chose to pretend to be disabled when it was his chance to serve.” The line is particularly potent because it taps into the top concern of Democratic voters: ability to unseat President Trump.

Pete also garnered praise for advocating a swift end to all wars during his first year in office, and for advocating a sweet spot, if you will, on health care policy in his “Medicare for those who want it.” Not all went as well for the South Bend Mayor as his latest answer on race relations wasn’t quite satisfactory. It was honest and articulate, which certainly earns him points, but it left some ajar when he said, “The racial divide lives within me.” No matter how many other great attributes his candidacy may have, he will never reach the top tier if he can’t find traction with racial minorities.

Bernie Sanders – Bernie had a far greater night this time thanks to the fodder that his moderate rivals provided him and his new surge in energy – even if it was excessive at times. Sanders was much more passionate this time around, and was able to better share his vision with more effective use of emotional appeals. Though Bernie brought a better game to this debate, he still recycled old lines at times, and got too angry at other times. Towards the end, he also withdrew into a colder, more ideological space of rhetoric that was not as emotionally engaging. It’s because of these faults that the less committed progressives will probably find that his performance slightly paled in comparison to Warren’s despite an otherwise well night for Sanders.

Bernie created several memorable moments, but one was potentially a turn-off for some. Bernie delightedly threw his hands up in the air again after John Hickenlooper mocked him for it initially, and Bernie also enjoyed shutting down John Delaney, who tried to insinuate that Bernie didn’t understand his own healthcare bill, when he told him, “I wrote the damn bill.” Bernie got overheated in an exchange with Tim Ryan who reminded Sanders, “You don’t have to yell, Bernie.” What may look like a zealous fighter to some will seem like too much for others, but at least Bernie was much more alive that night.

Marianne Williamson – Marianne needed to change some of the popular perceptions surrounding her candidacy, that she is not a serious contender for the White House, and she was able to accomplish just that on stage. Williamson repeated her tactic of sitting out much of the fray and only interjecting at just the right moments. This time around though, she didn’t say anything that drew ridicule, but rather had a lot of powerful moments that drew major applause.

Williamson criticized wonkiness and political insiders insisting that the party push for a “politics that speaks to the heart.” She tapped into the antipathy of Democratic primary voters for the current President in a unique way when she took note of the “dark, psychic force and collectivized hatred” that Trump “is bringing up in this country.” Williamson also garnered substantial applause when she highlighted the political failures in Flint, and when she advocated for the contemporary equivalent, in dollars, of the previously promised “fifty acres and a mule” as a solution to slavery reparations. She even made a moment for herself challenging some of her fellow Democrats for being afraid to utilize government to achieve change, since that is a large part of the premise of the modern form of the party.

Marianne’s stellar night left her looking more serious to others as she showcased the heights that emotional resonance can achieve alone. Though she brings a refreshingly unique perspective to politics, she is limited by a lack of substance. As much as we all are easily swayed by emotions, even the casual political observers like some more concrete ideas/policies to chew on. Williamson will have to start to ground herself in a little bit more substance if her campaign is going to be granted enough credibility to continue. She did enjoy the largest spike in Google Searches after the debate that night which should boost her donor count. We may have not seen the end of Marianne just yet, but she will need to accomplish a lot to qualify for the September debate by August 28th.

Joe Biden – Joe might have neither been on stage nor mentioned, but he certainly was a surprise winner of the first night. Why? Well, Joe just got hours of footage to study of his top two progressive competitors debating moderates. You might say, “Oh, but that footage is worthless because those moderates were flops,” but you would be missing the point to say that. Of course, the low tier candidates could not explicitly illustrate the rhetorical maneuvers to take the progressives down in a debate. However, the progressives did showcase the rhetorical techniques that Biden will now have ample time to prepare against. This can be a critical advantage for Biden coming into September’s debate unless he continues to struggle to stick to his debate prep.

Losers:

Moderates – With five solid moderates, and the highest polling one besides Biden, you would think that at least one of them would be able to rattle the progressives at center stage, but alas none were up for the job. All of them were stuck trying to argue for their policies in the progressive frame of reference which made them look weak, uncommitted to the cause, and small-minded. Many of them lacked a coherent vision to package their arguments in, and, thus, appeared to be like your old father or uncle talking you down; telling you what is and isn’t possible. Some of the proposals were much more financially, and politically/electorally feasible and more logically cogent as well, but their messages were dry as a bone and accessible to practically none who didn’t already share their views. The ideological clash within the Democratic Party between moderates and progressives will continue with Biden at the helm for the foreseeable future, but tonight certainly was a disaster for these five moderates.

John Delaney – John was the night’s single biggest loser. It’s not because he had the most to lose and lost it all, but rather just how rough his night was. He tried all throughout the night to rally viewers to be skeptical of the progressive visions being shared on stage but found no resonance. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, Delaney also performed poorly because he was not only cold as clay, but he never thought out any of his attacks on his opponents and always lost the exchange. I am certain that Delaney will not be able to return for the September debate.

Amy Klobuchar – Amy did herself few favors on that stage. Sure, she resonated the most out of her fellow moderates, but that bar was as low as picking up your feet off the ground. Amy suffered the most from being too amiable. She was asked a question about who on the stage is making false promises, as she has claimed before at her rallies, but refused to go on the offensive. It’s one thing to avoid going scorch-earth in a primary, but to not take the gloves off at all is glaringly weak. The Democrats want someone who can take it to the President on the debate stage, and it’s becoming clear to them that isn’t Klobuchar. Amy is set to return in September, so we’ll have to wait till then to see if she is waiting for the field to winnow or is simply too kind to fight.

Steve Bullock – Steve was the only fresh face this debate and, though he started out bullish, he quickly quieted down and ended with a whimper. A few times at first, he looked like someone who could take it to the progressives, but then he lost his gravitas, as if he was struggling to remember what he rehearsed, and never really recovered. His delayed presidential bid gained a lot of momentum quickly, but his performance that night might be a bad sign of what’s to come in August.

Tim Ryan – Tim might not have been walloped as hard this debate as Tulsi had got him last time, but his performance was all the more forgettable. He may have made sure to mention unions and their members more this time, which played well in Detroit, but he did forget to put his hand over his heart during the anthem; yikes. It’s seeming quite likely the Ohio congressman will be keeping his day job after all.

John Hickenlooper – Hickenlooper was the only one to speak less than Marianne. Though he made decent arguments about what he was able to accomplish as the former Governor of Colorado, he was unable to sell a vision let alone even resonate with viewers. The word on the street is that it is not long before Hickenlooper throws in the towel in order to challenge Colorado Senator Cory Gardner (R) instead.

Beto O’Rourke – Beto was on stage, but you might not remember by now. His campaign telegraphed to the media that he had learned from his mistakes in the previous debate. They signaled that Beto would be able to better take on attacks from rivals on stage, not seem as wooden in his performance, and that he would go after Buttigieg during the debate for being financed by wealthier donors. Though there were no attacks against Beto to test the former, it was clear that the latter two didn’t turn out to be true. Minus the moment that Beto acknowledged slavery and promised to look into reparations, Beto was as wooden as ever doing what he does best: recite trite, rehearsed lines. Beto will continue to hang on into the September debate, but his campaign isn’t going anywhere until he does something original, meaningful, or better yet, both.

Personal Anecdotes & Canned Phrases – While the latter of the pair may not surprise you too much, the former is something to indeed take note of how it can certainly be a loser in debates at times. Personal anecdotes can really be helpful in exemplifying the impact a policy has, but it might not always be the best approach. High impact anecdotes that engender a sense of injustice are particularly potent. Anecdotes that merely put a name to a problem that many share are typically not as useful. Debaters also need to be quite weary of how much time it costs to share an anecdote too because it is imperative to connect it back to the candidate’s vision or main point on that subject. Speaking of visions, anecdotes can’t suffice in place of one. It’s like serving a plate of icing and no cake which, traditionally at least, is not satisfactory. Numerous anecdotes on that stage, like Klobuchar’s, lacked the necessary ingredients.

We also saw a lot of rather canned phrases on the debate stage and, unsurprisingly, they all fell flat. Whether it was Bullock or Delaney chastising progressives with lines like “wish list economics” and “fairy-tale economics” respectively, or Hickenlooper warning Sanders he would “Fedex the election to Donald Trump”, these lines failed to resonate without support from more critical rhetorical elements.

Pete’s Makeup Artist – Hey, accidents do happen, but I was confused as to what was on Pete’s forehead for the first segment of the debate. Was it a chunk of hair? No. Hmm maybe it was a fresh scab? Negative. Whatever it was, it was gone after the first commercial break, thankfully.

The Cincinnati Republic is fighting to bring reason and logic back to the forefront of our politics. Join us! Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter.