Democrats (almost) united against Trump…

Thursday was the third of the Democratic Presidential Debates but, really, the first that mattered. This was our first chance to see the main rivals together on the same stage; experienced political brawlers like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren standing next to the younger Turks such as Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, and Cory Booker. Would the candidates go after Biden? Would Warren dominate the stage with her big ideas and quiet delivery? Just how loudly would Bernie be able to shout? And how much money would Andrew Yang throw at voters to make them like him?

The night began how it would largely play out. Candidates worried about blue on blue crossfire came together with a unity of purpose, which was to direct most of their venom against the sitting president. The night was better thanks to this truce. The exception, however, was Julián Castro who had clearly been drinking at the peppery Cool Aid again. At his first opportunity, he went snarling after the former Vice President. He tried to make a point about Biden’s age, suggesting that Biden had forgotten what he’d said only moments earlier about people’s automatic right to healthcare. It was ungracious even if he was right. The problem for Castro was that he wasn’t right. Biden hadn’t forgotten. It was Castro who’d got it wrong.

The attack didn’t play out as Castro perhaps expected. Other candidates leapt to Biden’s defence and there was an audible gasp from the room. It would prove to be the big takeaway from the night. Others might learn from Castro’s mistake, but Castro might not get another chance. This was one of those moments that could easily disqualify a candidate. At the very least, it must have surely done his candidacy real harm.

Other than that brief exchange, the night was calmer than previous debates, which is probably down to the experience of the candidates. There was no need for minor players to lunge desperately for the microphone. It left room for the debate to shape into a battle between the progressives and the moderates. One side had slightly unambitious plans that had the financial numbers to back them up. The other had radical schemes which would be funded by shaking that money tree sitting in the garden of the ultrarich. In those terms, it didn’t settle much. How you read it probably has a lot to do with how much you believe in money trees.

In terms of individual performances, the night was easier to interpret. Biden came out swinging. For much of the first two hours, this was his best performance, marrying pragmatism with real energy. Biden is good when his messages are clear. Towards the end of the second hour, he visibly flagged and he reverted to the Joe Biden who can’t seem to settle on what he wants… I mean what he’s trying… Look, it’s simple. He’s trying to say things, folks. You know how it is! This is America, damnit!

Effective when he simply repeated “Afghanistan will not be put together”, he struggled around the subject of Iraq where he descended into some rambling nonsense about the Kurds and the Shia. The same was true of his answer about education, which resembled a bowl of word soup thrown against a wall. If that had been it, it would have been a half-decent performance but, unexpectedly, he recovered to enjoy his best moment of the debates when asked to talk about personal challenges. Everybody knows Biden’s backstory but perhaps they have not heard this answer. He quoted Kierkegaard, which makes it sound worse than it was. It was genuinely moving but also reflected that folk wisdom quality that underpins his “Joe is just a decent guy” candidacy.

The opposite was true of Elizabeth Warren who tried hard to paint her big progressive pictures but struggled to reach a few of the corners. She presents herself as the academic in the room but, really, every answer seemed to involve using “all the tools” and reigning in Big Business. This was platitudinous stuff and another of those slightly bland performances delivered in a whisper that some people seem to enjoy. Some commentators were surprised she didn’t go after Biden. That’s not her problem. She needs to articulate her plans with more detail otherwise her opponents can simply wave their arms and ask how she pays for everything.

To answer the earlier question: Sanders proved he could shout very loudly indeed. He was in full Uncle Bernie mode; abusing his microphone which spent the night popping under his plosives. That’s not to say some of it wasn’t effective. He wouldn’t be leading in New Hampshire polls if he weren’t also capable of making strong points. His defence of Democratic Socialism was booming but effective, as was any time when he condemned injustice and poverty in the world’s richest economy. It’s just that his numbers might climb if he stood a foot further back from the mic.

Kamala Harris, meanwhile, was much improved over the second debate, though that was a very low bar she had set herself. Her strategy was obviously to turn her attacks on Trump and it worked. What didn’t work were her jokes which sometimes left her chuckling to herself. One about the Wizard of Oz didn’t even make sense. Trump, she said, is like Oz, the guy behind the curtain, who was “a really small dude”. She was probably thinking about the munchkins.

Speaking of munchkins… It’s hard not to like Pete Buttigieg. He continues to prove himself the most articulate of the candidates. He is measured and intelligent, though we knew that already. When asked about his personal challenge, he talked candidly about his sexuality and that challenge clearly remains. There must be a reason why his numbers aren’t rising and why, in a recent poll, voters believed he was the one candidate who would struggle against Trump. It’s certainly not his ability, his personality, or his campaign.

Another standout performance was that of Beto O’Rourke. He’d been lucky to make it through after two tepid performances in earlier debates but here his delivery was fluid and on point. He has rediscovered his spark and it might well be that the shootings in El Paso have helped him to refocus. All night he was good on topics involving gun control, immigration, and social issues.

Of the remaining candidates, in descending order of effectiveness, we come to Cory Booker, who remains something of an enigma. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem to click for the New Jersey Senator and his answers lack an edge. It’s a shame. He had the best laughter lines of the night and you simply can’t discount how personable he is. At the same time, you can’t entirely rely on it either.

It was not a great night for Amy Klobuchar. Like all candidates, she had good moments but too many of her answers rambled and dwindled away to nothing. The better candidates know how to structure their answers to build momentum and give the crowd a reason to cheer. It’s a skill she could do with learning. We know she’s a serious politician. We have yet to see that she can be an effective leader.

There’s a reason Julián Castro occupied one of the end pedestals on the stage and his attack on Biden makes it’s hard to imagine that he’ll be promoted. He came across as arrogant, mean, and reaffirmed the sense, from other debates, that he is not as clever as he clearly thinks he is. No story about the challenges in a Democrat’s life should begin with a boast about earning $100,000 as a lawyer.

Speaking of money, Andrew Yang’s presence on the Democratic stage must rank alongside Area 51, Bigfoot, and the enduring popularity of Mickey Rourke as one of the big mysteries of America. He started the evening by promising to give 10 families $1000 a night for a year; a taster of his previously announced plans for universal income. It’s not clear what the Federal Election Commission will say about such an overt bribe to voters, but his appeal never seems far from his pocketbook. And, to be completely vulgar about this, he is not as rich as he acts; his net worth being in the low millions. Bland generic answers and a lacklustre personality don’t explain why there are always big cheers for him in the audience. Perhaps he pays them. Nothing else reasonably explains his appeal. It’s most odd.

The biggest loser of the night was, again, the three-hour debate. It gets worse. The fourth debate in October returns to the two-night format and will re-embrace the wider field. That’s right. Marianne Williamson might be back with her universal transcendental energy love fields from the nth dimension.