Debates show Democrats still look capable of missing an open goal

It’s been a sobering two nights watching the two Democratic presidential debates this week while also keeping an eye on the way the Conservative Party is going about picking their new leader and Britain’s next Prime Minister. In the UK we sometimes worry about having too little scrutiny of the candidates (and, certainly, after the BBC’s lamentable one-hour show, that seems a justified complaint), but the situation in the US is reversed. How is it possible to seriously follow politics when there’s so damn much of it?

Four hours of questions and answers over two nights felt excessive but this was only the beginning. There’ll be another two-nights of debates at the end of July, but they too only mark the end of the first spasm of the campaign. The DNC will then raise the bar, allowing only those candidates with 2% of support in at least four polls to go through to the next series of the  debates. Thus far, the only winners are those sadists who enjoy watching politicians sweat on a hot stage.

The first two debates pretty much typified the problem with this format. Ten candidates per night stretched it to breaking point and suggested that the DNC needed to have done more to whittle the field down. The result was a night of rushed soundbites, where candidates slip easily and unravel quickly. Did we really need these debates to underline that Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, and even John Delaney, probably shouldn’t make the cut? Perhaps not, though an argument could be made for getting a good early sense that Beto O’Rourke looks increasingly overpromoted in this election cycle. Fighting for a Senate seat probably would have been his wiser move.

Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, consigned to the first night, both played to their strengths, though each was essentially each other’s polar opposite. The former might have the most mature thought-out policies, but she also has a terrible delivery. Cory Booker is not so great with policies but certainly understands how to deliver them. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, meanwhile, was memorable for a couple of strong remarks but the hasty format didn’t suit her more measured style. It’s also hard to believe that, despite a pretty good showing on the night, that Governor Jay Inslee will proceed deep into the contest.

The only surprises on the first night were New York Mayor, Bill de Blasio, and Former Mayor of San Antonio, Julián Castro.

De Blasio is always going to divide audiences. Some will have been put off by his aggressive stance, but he needed to force himself into the national consciousness and it was telling how he produced the first intervention of the night. He might not be a good bet for the ultimate prize, but he deserves to go further. If by any smallish miracle he did find himself on the Democratic ticket, he would prove a force of personality to match and probably defeat Donald Trump.

Julián Castro, meanwhile, looked and sounded the part but, at some point, you also knew he’d make a slip that betrays a failure of knowledge. Thus it proved. No sooner had he entered into the abortion debate than he clearly aimed to promote his more progressive credentials. That’s when he suggested the abortion rights should be extended to “trans women”. It might be a trivial slip, barely noticed by most people, but it’s typical of the man who recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show and confused socialism with communism. He meant “trans men” (women who identify as men), rather than offering abortion rights to women who were born as men.

The first night typified one of the problems the Democrats face. The leading candidates (Warren, Booker, maybe Castro) don’t feel complete, while the more complete candidates (de Blasio and Klobuchar) aren’t leading. If they could perform some freakish autopsy on the first set of candidates and create one of their choosing: they’d take Booker’s delivery, Warren’s brain, and Castro’s political touch. They’d also have De Blasio’s fight and Klobuchar’s quick wits.

It’s why the second night was more interesting. The candidates lining up included four of the heavy hitters who exhibit multiple strong qualities.

The popular takeaway has been that Joe Biden had a bad night. The Guardian today says he was “savaged” by Kamala Harris. That overstates it and it was more double-edged than that. The line “I’m not a racist but…” is rightly ridiculed when used in any context but so too should variations of “I do not believe you are a racist but…” Harris used it to bring up the subject of “bussing” students into previously segregated schools. Harris spoke of a schoolgirl who was “bussed to school every day”. This was the setup to the best pre-prepared hit of the evening. “And that little girl was me.”

Biden’s reply looked unprepared and highlights the challenge he faces when attacks on his record will require him to relitigate policies that are decades old and mainly forgotten. His best counter came when he began to say that “I was a public defender. I didn’t become a prosecutor. I came out and I left a good law firm to become a public defender, when, in fact…” But it didn’t go anywhere. Biden’s problem is that he leaps between thoughts and doesn’t fully commit to one line of argument. He could and should have pressed Harris’s record as a prosecutor. Perhaps next time.

Did it hurt Biden? It should have warned him to prepare for this kind of attack. He needn’t have a specific answer to every charge but, certainly, needed to offer a more strident and practised statement of his civil rights credentials. Harris, in turn, might earn plaudits today but the attack felt cheap. Moderates might not like it as much as progressives. The power of identity politics of any kind, much loved on the Left, dwindles rapidly the closer to the centre you get.

It’s a point Kirsten Gillibrand could do with learning. She spoke well around women’s rights but was too narrow in her appeal. She also tried desperately hard to make herself part of the debate, following Bill De Blasio from the first night, by using interjections right from the start. Also like De Blasio, the result was divisive.

Beyond this, the rest of the second night was characterised by a surprising number of attacks on Bernie Sanders, who nevertheless gave his typical wild hair, wide-eyed, arms flailing performance, which at one point came close to slapping Biden who was stood next to him. His message was the same as ever: if nothing changes, nothing will change. The problem for Sanders is that everything has changed from last time. Biden is right to say, as he did in his closing remarks (his best moment), that the next election will be about defeating Donald Trump. The Revolution will have to wait.

Pete Buttigieg gave the sort of performance which shows why he’s risen from nowhere to be considered among the leading pack. Biden could learn a little from the way the South Bend, Indiana mayor used humility as a positive force. “I couldn’t get it done,” he admitted when pressed on why his city has so few black police officers. Beyond this, it was a calm lesson in how personal stories can succeed in American politics if tied to some grander vision.

It was a vision that other candidates lacked. Instead, they relied too heavily on anecdotes. Eric Swalwell, the ever-present figure on cable news networks, clearly believes his own hype but his performance was a little too contrived; telling Biden how he remembered the Vice President saying it was time to pass the torch to a new generation… 32 years earlier. He also had the second worst line of the evening: “When I’m not changing diapers, I’m changing Congress”.

Michael Bennet was solid but this wasn’t the performance expected from the senator who gave such a withering speech during January’s government shutdown. His words then became a viral hit. The same can’t be said about Thursday’s performance. He needs to rediscover his “fire and brimstone” delivery. It could carry him a long way.

As for the rest. John Hickenlooper was so far to the right that he misfired on nearly every issue, while Andrew Yang said so little he might well have been stage dressing. Meanwhile, Marianne Williamson was completely out of left field. Not everything she said was terrible, but she will be remembered for the terrible promise to “harness love for political purposes”. And that, in an odd way, was the real takeaway from the two nights. The Democrats still look capable of missing an open goal. If they’re serious about government, they really need to stop wasting people’s time.

Let us know your view. Send a letter for publication to letters@reaction.life