The Second Night’s Democratic Debate: Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg The Stars, But Eric Swalwell And Marianne Williamson Gained Notice

The second night’s Democratic Party debate has two clear winners—Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.

But Eric Swalwell and author Marianne Williamson also impressed this author and blogger, although no one in reality would think that Williamson would have any chance to win the nomination.

Joe Biden’s dominance is no longer such, and it could be a sign of troubles ahead, as his performance was lackluster, while not eliminating him, but a lot of homework is ahead if he is to keep his lead in the polls.

Bernie Sanders came across as strong in his views, but one still has to wonder how his ideas can be seen as pragmatic and possible, were he to be elected, which seems doubtful.

The remainder of the list—John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Andrew Yang—did not come across well to this observer.

So at this point, while nothing is final, one would think the true competitors are, besides Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the following in no special order:

Elizabeth Warren

Kamala Harris

Pete Buttigieg

Julian Castro

Amy Klobuchar

Jay Inslee

Cory Booker

Eric Swalwell

We are far from knowing who will be the nominees of the Democratic Party, however, and the people will decide in the caucuses and primaries beginning about seven months from now.

39 comments on “The Second Night’s Democratic Debate: Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg The Stars, But Eric Swalwell And Marianne Williamson Gained Notice

  1. Southern Liberal June 28, 2019 10:11 am

    Although Marianne Williamson made a couple of good points, like we have “sick care in this country, not health care”, I thought that she floundered and lost focus.

  2. Princess Leia June 28, 2019 10:13 am

    Like I thought about DeBlasio, I thought that Gillenbrand was annoying.

  3. Southern Liberal June 28, 2019 10:16 am

    As an idea guy, Bernie is great — I love what he has brought to the conversation, and I do believe that it has moved the party in a more progressive direction. But that’s not good enough. You have to be able to talk about how you are going to implement your ideas.

  4. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 10:20 am

    Williamson came across as too hippie-like. Twitter users are having a field day joking about her for that reason.

  5. Former Republican June 28, 2019 10:28 am

    Next debates are on CNN in late July.

  6. Princess Leia June 28, 2019 10:30 am

    I second that in regards to Bernie, Southern Liberal.

  7. Former Republican June 28, 2019 10:35 am

    Bernie is using the same speech and trying the stale magic trick of skipping over details. That ain’t gonna fly this time.

  8. Rational Lefty June 28, 2019 10:36 am

    IF Biden stays in the race, will Obama eventually endorse him? Or maybe someone else? Or will Obama stay out of it all the way to Nov., 2020?

  9. Former Republican June 28, 2019 10:37 am

    I think that Obama will NOT endorse during the primary.
    He’ll campaign his heart out for the Democratic nominee in the summer and fall of 2020. He’ll give a great speech at the Dem convention for the nominee, too.

  10. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 12:25 pm

    I’m in agreement with this assessment about the debates.

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/28/the-subtext-of-the-democratic-debate/

    The mood of the country was very different during the 2000 election when a lot of attention was paid to the question about which presidential candidate you’d rather have a beer with. But then came 9/11, and seven years later, the Great Recession. By 2008, people were more interested in hope and change. The election of 2016 was a backlash to that change for the people who felt threatened not only by the first African-American president but also the country’s rapidly changing demographics.

    It can be helpful to think about the first Democratic debate through the lens of attempting to understand the “mood” of Democrats in 2020. There has been an attempt to understand Biden’s lead in polls through the lens of the electability question and assume that is because, as a white male, he is the safe choice. I suspect there is a lot of truth to that assumption. But lurking behind that is the constant rage and chaos spurred by the presidency of Donald Trump. It is also very possible that Democrats are looking for the candidate that can bring back some good old-fashioned stability.

    It is through that lens that I think Josh Marshall is on to something with his analysis of Thursday night’s debate. He notes that political analysis is too often focused on text and misses the subtext.

    ————–
    The big winner tonight was Kamala Harris. She was consistently strong in her answers…Somewhat like Booker last night but much more so, she took possession of the room and turned it to her advantage. She repeatedly kept talking until she was done talking and did it without sounding rude or grating. She could do that because she embodied command. She made the moderators sound annoying. She continually showed through actions rather than words that she’s powerful, that she commands the room, that she shapes the moment rather than being shaped by it. This sort of demonstration of command is always important. It’s especially important when the ultimate opponent is Donald Trump.
    ——————–

    Taking command of a room is something that is almost impossible to quantify. But it stems from the kind of self-confidence that allows someone to put ego gratification aside and speak in the moment thoughtfully, rather than defensively. It is particularly profound when combined with a high level of intelligence—both intellectual and emotional. In other words, it is the exact opposite of Donald Trump. Instead of joining the president in the gutter, the candidate who embodies that kind of self-confidence will command the room, making him look small and weak.

    Marshall is right that Kamala Harris took command of the room on Thursday night and that Booker demonstrated the same thing, although not as powerfully, on Wednesday night. But I would add Julian Castro to the group —which is precisely why he surprised so many people and garnered a lot of attention.

    On the other end of the spectrum, Biden came off a bit rattled and confused, which is why his performance was confounding to those who have seen him be able to take command of a room. While some pundits are giving Kirsten Gillibrand points for what she accomplished in the debate, it is worth noting that they are almost always focused on the text of what she said rather than this kind of subtext. On the latter, she came off as a bit desperate and defensive. Finally, the text of what Sanders had to say was nothing new, which is why he gets points for consistency. But where his rageful yelling captured the moment for a lot of people in 2016, voters are in a very different place right now. The specter of the next president being someone who waves their arms, shouts, and talks about the need for a revolution is not going to play well with Democrats this time around because it signals more chaos.

    There is still a lot that will effect this race, where voting doesn’t even begin for another six months. So the result of this debate will not necessarily be determinative. But we’ll see an increase in support for Harris, Booker, and Castro based on their performance. Polling at FiveThirtyEight following Wednesday night’s debate is pointing in that direction: both Castro and Booker got the biggest bump in their overall favorability numbers compared to where they stood prior to the debate.

    While the candidates all had a lot of important things to say, the three who took command of the room are the ones who did the best job of tapping into the subtext of the 2020 election for Democrats.

  11. D June 28, 2019 12:44 pm

    Southern Liberal writes, “As an idea guy, Bernie is great — I love what he has brought to the conversation, and I do believe that it has moved the party in a more progressive direction. But that’s not good enough. You have to be able to talk about how you are going to implement your ideas.”

    He has.

    What one does not do, given the complex dynamics of Washington, D.C., is reveal every little step he intends to take.

    An example of this, from Night #01 of the debates, was when the candidates were asked how they would deal with U.S. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.

    No one handled that question well.

    One of this site’s members actually had the answer. I was thinking it before as well. I would run a 50-state campaign in which, should I prevail (along with the Democratic pickup of the presidency), I would win no less than 40 states. 80 percent of the nation’s states. Including Kentucky. (Including its best companion state, Tennessee.) This would include down-ballot races in which there would be an unseating of Mitch McConnell by his Democratic opponent. That is how at least one of the Night #01 debate candidates should have answered the question. (Was that question directed at Elizabeth Warren? To Warren and at least one other candidate? I have to go back to that.)

    Supposing, for the moment, Sanders unseats Trump. But McConnell, whose seat is scheduled as well in 2020, wins re-election. Should Sanders reveal every little step he intends to take as McConnell could take in all that information?

    By the way: That question from the corporate Comcast’s NBC News (which has an agenda that is against Medicare for All and Bernie Sanders) about Mitch McConnell was garbage.

    I will also mention it is stupid to continuously ask how something groundbreaking and brand new, at least in the U.S., will be implemented as if—because it may seem impossible in the minds of some—it is something a candidate, especially if elected, should not even try to achieve. (So, shut up about it, already!)

    This was a problem with Hillary Clinton, in 2016, when she said the following: “People who have health emergencies can’t wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.”

    It lacks vision. It lacks imagination. It lacks a point of why people should vote for you [to be president of the United States].

    Let us not lose sight of this fact: 2020 is an incumbent year. 2016, like 2008 and 2000, was a year in which an incumbent U.S. president was term-limited and we had to elect a new U.S. president. We don’t have to do that in 2020. It is like 2012 and 2004. We can re-elect Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump. We the People have that choice. The White House opposition party, the Democratic Party, has the challenge of unseating a U.S. president whose job-approval support from his own party is around 90 percent. That effectively assures re-nomination. An incumbent U.S. president does not get unseated by an opposition-party challenger who does not have at the very least a vision, an agenda, which calls for the need to change course with the direction for this country. Election 2020 will not be an exception.

  12. D June 28, 2019 12:49 pm

    Ronald,

    My assessments of the Night #01 and Night #02 debate performances are in the “Debate Mix” threads. It is possible for me, but I choose not, to copy and paste them in your applicable threads (including this one). I will leave them as they are.

  13. Former Republican June 28, 2019 1:33 pm

    Bernie shows that he is weak when the subject is not about Wall Street and big corporations. Ask him a question about things like racial justice or abortion, he fails to answer the question and pivots back to his stump speech.

  14. Former Republican June 28, 2019 1:34 pm

    Bernie shows that he is weak when the subject is not about Wall Street and big corporations. Ask him a question about things like racial justice or abortion, he fails to answer the question and pivots back to his stump speech.

  15. Princess Leia June 28, 2019 1:40 pm

    D – Polling shows that people like the ideas of Medicare For All until you talk about getting rid of private insurance, then support drops. Also, polling also shows that people are more interested in a hybrid system, like the UK has, for example.

  16. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 2:10 pm

    No one talking about Medicare For All has mentioned that a third of new Medicare recipients opt for Medicare Advantage HMO plans.

  17. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 3:22 pm

    Cory Booker was just interviewed by Ali Velshi. He mentioned about the idea of having some single issue debates, so that we can go more in depth about various topics.

  18. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 3:33 pm

    Polling shows that many Democratic voters say they would prioritize fixing the system over overhauling it entirely. Those people are the audience for the health care pitch from Biden, Bennet, Buttigieg, and others: expand health coverage but don’t go overboard.

  19. Southern Liberal June 28, 2019 3:42 pm

    Personally, I preferred Wednesday night’s debate better. The first night felt like a debate about ideas. And candidates agreed with each other as often as they disagreed. Thursday night’s debate had a lot more talk about people: Donald Trump, for one, but also each other. Thursday night felt like it was about candidates trying to elbow each other out of the way and make the case for themselves. I felt that Wednesday’s debate simply gave a better sense of what the Democratic Party might stand for, other than being against Trump and in favor of somebody else.

  20. D June 28, 2019 5:22 pm

    Princess Leia writes, “D – Polling shows that people like the ideas of Medicare For All until you talk about getting rid of private insurance, then support drops. Also, polling also shows that people are more interested in a hybrid system, like the UK has, for example.”

    I am aware the health-insurance industry is doing what it can to fight off Medicare for All—which involves creating narratives and pollings, in specific areas of the issue to which you are referring, as they are a part of the health-insurance industry’s attempts to get people to reduce their support of Medicare for All. But, this is groundbreaking. It has moved the country to the point that the health-insurance industry isn’t just fighting against Medicare for All; it is now fighting for its survival. People hate the health-insurance industry.

    I stand by what I have mentioned (since last year): The Democrats will not win back the presidency of the United States without a nominee who is truly supporting, and is determined to deliver, Medicare for All.

    * * * * *

    Pragmatic Progressive writes, “Polling shows that many Democratic voters say they would prioritize fixing the system over overhauling it entirely. Those people are the audience for the health care pitch from Biden, Bennet, Buttigieg, and others: expand health coverage but don’t go overboard.”

    “Many Democratic voters” is not sufficient information. And, given that Medicare for All polls 70 percent nationwide—from which 85 percent comes from Democrats and an outright majority 52 percent from Republicans—that is enough national support where you cannot spin it and make it become unpopular.

    What is also a fact is, when you have a president of the United States, he or she leads. If you want one who manages, then you don’t want a president of the United States. Certainly not one who meaningfully helps this country and its people. You would want a president of the United States who makes you feel good for the fact that he is affiliated with your preferred political party. That has nothing to do with leadership.

    Barack Obama had the chance, after he was elected to his first term in 2008—and with 59/60 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 250+ Democrats in the U.S. House—to “[fix] the system.” He chose to not do that. He chose to not deliver on a public option (suggested nowadays by corporate Democrats, feeling the heat, but still doing what they can to oppose Medicare for All by using the public option as a compromise that benefits the corrupt health-insurance industry); let alone a single payer system; nothing to compete with private insurance; and no re-importation for drugs.

    When you write, “don’t go overboard,” what you come across as saying is this: I, Pragmatic Progressive, oppose Medicare for All. I am willing to say or write, from time to time, that Medicare for All sounds like a nice idea. Maybe even inspiring. But, ultimately, I oppose Medicare for All. And I do not want every person—every man, every woman, every child—to have health insurance. I do not mind that there are people who are in debt, even declaring bankruptcy from the high costs. And I do not mind that there are people who died because they had insufficient or no coverage.

    This is also true of other people, here, who feel the same—and are posting, from time to time, anything related to trying to diminish and/or dismiss the need for Medicare for All. There is no avoiding that you are making a choice between the health-insurance industry and the people—and, if you are choosing the health-insurance industry, this is not being “pragmatic” and—despite it being one of the words that are the name of this blog site—it is the opposite of “progressive.”

    That is not going to get accepted for Election 2020. If the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination goes to yet another hollow, corporate Democrat—one who is not truly on board for, or one who even opposes, Medicare for All—that will result in re-election for Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump. “Joe Biden, Michael Bennett, Pete Buttigieg, and others” [who also oppose Medicare for All]—each of them a corporate Democrat—will not be president of the United States. None of them should be. If the 2020 Democrats nominate someone who is against Medicare for All…well, no matter how much self-identifying Democrats grieve over the fact that Donald Trump is U.S. president, they will deserve having lost again to a re-elected Trump.

  21. Pragmatic Progressive June 28, 2019 7:46 pm

    I don’t oppose it. I’m talking about people are interested in hearing about options, such as gradually reducing the age eligibility for Medicare or even having some kind of opt-in for Medicaid, rather than blowing things up, starting from scratch, creating chaos.

  22. Rational Lefty June 28, 2019 7:49 pm

    Ratings are in. 18 million viewers tuned in to the Democratic debate.

  23. Rational Lefty June 28, 2019 10:11 pm

    Ugh! The debate in July is going to have 20 people again! I thought the point of this debate was to start winnowing the field down?! There are some people that clearly need to go back to their day jobs!

  24. Rustbelt Democrat June 29, 2019 8:16 am

    In addition to joking around with Putin at the G20, Trump cozied up to the Saudi prince, MBS.

    And, this morning, Trump has tweeted that he wants to shake hands with Kim Jung Un at the DMZ.

    This fascination Trump has with dictators is sickening!

  25. Former Republican June 29, 2019 8:55 am

    If Trump loses in a close election, he may not give up power.

  26. Rustbelt Democrat June 29, 2019 10:48 pm

    Can’t someone tell the Tyrant Toddler, “NO!”

  27. Princess Leia June 29, 2019 10:49 pm

    Storms are in the forecast for that day. He’s scared of rain. He’ll probably cancel it so his hair won’t melt.

  28. Pragmatic Progressive June 29, 2019 10:54 pm

    Please, God, strike him with a bolt of lightning!

  29. Pragmatic Progressive June 30, 2019 11:10 am

    Whatever way Trump gets kicked out of office, I’m celebrating by putting me up a Thank You, Jesus sign!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.