I blogged yesterday about how most of the candidates promised the moon without a realistic plan to enact their proposals given the existence of Congress, the likelihood that Republicans will keep the Senate, and the existence of the filibuster. Many of the candidates (except Jay Inslee notably) did the same thing tonight, so I’ll refer you to that.
Instead, I tried to use tonight to watch for what we can learn from how the candidates answer the questions. What do the candidates reveal about how they perform under pressure, how they frame policy to elicit support from different constituencies, and their thinking styles (complex/nuanced vs. simple/binary), all of which are important governing skills, from how they answer questions about political policy.
On the whole, some of my various thoughts were:
- In general, Joe Biden kept his cool and didn’t get flustered in the face of frequent frontal attacks from other candidates. He’s had a lifetime of practicing political exchanges and debates, and I think it came through tonight. He did a good job criticizing people’s records while treating them civilly as human beings. And he was more subdued than I would have expected. It makes me wonder how he’d debate Donald Trump if he gets the nomination and frame his campaign messaging to appeal to the Obama-Trump voters that he’d try to win back.
- Kamala Harris had some strong moments and weaker moments. She got flustered and nervous when talking about health care, but she was confident and strong when talking about civil rights and criminal justice, as would be expected given her previous experience and policy expertise.
- Julian Castro is smart and his answers suggest (to me, at least) an evidence-based, nuanced approach to politics and governing. His Latin America Marshall Plan is brilliant and his housing plan is admirable. His comments on the political ramifications of beginning impeachment hearings against Trump were spot on. It’s a shame he’s not getting more attention.
- Cory Booker did about as well as I expected. He has strong answers to some questions and is a bit undisciplined on others. I don’t know that he’ll have much movement as a result of this debate.
- Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, Andrew Yang, and (to my surprise, I’ll admit) Tulsi Gabbard all did perfectly well, but I don’t know that any of them did anything that will help them be on the debate stage in September when the requirements are tightened up a bit.
On the whole, the candidates on the stage tonight were, on average, stronger than those on the stage yesterday (with the exception maybe of Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren). I agree with this take by Jennifer Victor:
These candidates are bringing it. Each one with a standout-ish moment. Unlike last night, there aren’t any candidates who obviously should not be on that stage.
Except DeBlasio, obvs.#DemDebate
— Jennifer Victor (@jennifernvictor) August 1, 2019
Also, check out these informal candidate placement schemas by some of the writers at FiveThirtyEight that graph the various candidates along a left-vs-right ideological spectrum and an establishment-vs-insurgent/outsider spectrum: