On Tuesday, the Democratic Party officially kicked off its 2016 season with the first of (only) five debates between five candidates of varying degrees of seriousness. As a political scientist, of course, the debate intrigued me. As a Republican, however, my ability to assess who "won" the debate is somewhat compromised, as the sort of things I am looking for in a candidate conflict with what is important to the intended audience of the debate. Still, I can offer a few honest thoughts about how each candidate affected my perceptions of them.
First, I suppose I would have to say that Hillary Clinton was the winner. She was poised and did not allow herself to be upstaged by Bernie Sanders (even if she did seem unable to really command the stage, similar to Jeb"!" in his first two debates). She did not deliver any memorable lines (it was a truly forgettable performance, to be quite frank), but neither did she make any huge blunders. She gave a solid, but unspectacular, performance. Given how the others did on Tuesday night, that was enough for me to declare her the "winner."
As for Bernie Sanders, I was thoroughly unimpressed. Yes, I am biased because I believe in capitalism and the invisible hand of the market, but Bernie's tendency to shout his response to every question really grated on me. Although I have heard him described as a "socialist teddy bear," his gruff demeanor made me think more of Arthur Spooner/Frank Costanza more than a teddy bear. Indeed, he seemed as angry as Donald Trump most of the time, just about other issues.
Martin O'Malley had the complete opposite problem. His responses were so monotonous he seemed like he was so bored on the stage debating with his intellectual inferiors. His manner of talking reminded me of Lindsey Graham, only he was less depressing than Graham and more condescending. Part of me wonders if this campaign is an audition to be Hillary's running mate. If it is, he has to be more energetic because he was basically a human Ambien tablet on Tuesday. Truth be told, the only part I really remember from O'Malley's performance was him asking Bernie if he had ever been to Western Maryland. I found that question (and rhetorical point) odd, since many people in Western Maryland want to secede from the state if they have not already moved to West Virginia because their preferences and concerns are completely forgotten and ignored in Annapolis (ESPECIALLY on the issue of guns).
Next we turn to Jim Webb. If I was going to pick the winner based on how likely I would be to vote for the candidate in a general election, Webb would have been the undisputed champion of the evening. Webb represents a dying breed- the blue collar, Appalachian, gun-toting, pro-soldier Democrat. At the national level, Joe Manchin is the only other such Democrat I can think of off the top of my head. As such, he was the only Democrat with whom I could really find common ground- on gun control, the military, and a few other issues. Webb came across to me as the sort of character who would be president in a Tom Clancy novel- moderate, not overly partisan, and possessing a strong sense of national service and duty. He is the only candidate who was on that stage who I would have no qualms voting for next year (if the Republicans nominate a crazy person like Trump). All that said, his debate performance was only slightly better than mediocre. Despite delivering the best line of the night (about killing an enemy soldier), his performance has only really been noteworthy for the number of times he complained about not getting any airtime. Tip for Webb: just because whining is working for Trump, does not mean that whining is a good strategy.
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that Lincoln Chafee easily had the worst night of all of them. Half the time, I was wondering if he was high, since he really did not seem all that focused. When he did not seem as high as a kite, he did not seem prepared for the debate. His worst moment came when he basically used incompetence as a defense for voting for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. When running for president, it is generally not a good idea to appear as though you just vote and act the way others tell you to because you are too incompetent to cast your own vote. His other inexplicable strategy was saying that his proudest achievement was that he had not been part of any scandal in 30 years of public office. That is about as close to the absolute least we can expect of someone running for president. I had high hopes for Chafee (or at least relatively high) since I saw him address Larry Sabato's class and gave a very stately presentation that night. I believe Chafee is a statesman who could potentially make a good president, but he will not be president anytime soon, especially given his performance the other night.
On the whole, I guess I would have to say that Clinton was the "winner," if indeed, I can actually determine such a thing. She has to be careful, however, or she will allow Bernie to pull her farther from the center. As Romney and McCain showed us, moving away from the center in the primaries is a recipe for disaster in the general election. Everyone up there, with the exception of Webb (and oddly enough, Sanders) needs to be careful with their anti-gun rhetoric, or they will risk losing Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida by neglecting and alienating the blue collar Democrats in those states who value their guns more than someone like O'Malley could ever understand. Overall, I was not especially impressed with the debate, and it left me wondering: how soon before Joe Biden enters?
First, I suppose I would have to say that Hillary Clinton was the winner. She was poised and did not allow herself to be upstaged by Bernie Sanders (even if she did seem unable to really command the stage, similar to Jeb"!" in his first two debates). She did not deliver any memorable lines (it was a truly forgettable performance, to be quite frank), but neither did she make any huge blunders. She gave a solid, but unspectacular, performance. Given how the others did on Tuesday night, that was enough for me to declare her the "winner."
As for Bernie Sanders, I was thoroughly unimpressed. Yes, I am biased because I believe in capitalism and the invisible hand of the market, but Bernie's tendency to shout his response to every question really grated on me. Although I have heard him described as a "socialist teddy bear," his gruff demeanor made me think more of Arthur Spooner/Frank Costanza more than a teddy bear. Indeed, he seemed as angry as Donald Trump most of the time, just about other issues.
Martin O'Malley had the complete opposite problem. His responses were so monotonous he seemed like he was so bored on the stage debating with his intellectual inferiors. His manner of talking reminded me of Lindsey Graham, only he was less depressing than Graham and more condescending. Part of me wonders if this campaign is an audition to be Hillary's running mate. If it is, he has to be more energetic because he was basically a human Ambien tablet on Tuesday. Truth be told, the only part I really remember from O'Malley's performance was him asking Bernie if he had ever been to Western Maryland. I found that question (and rhetorical point) odd, since many people in Western Maryland want to secede from the state if they have not already moved to West Virginia because their preferences and concerns are completely forgotten and ignored in Annapolis (ESPECIALLY on the issue of guns).
Next we turn to Jim Webb. If I was going to pick the winner based on how likely I would be to vote for the candidate in a general election, Webb would have been the undisputed champion of the evening. Webb represents a dying breed- the blue collar, Appalachian, gun-toting, pro-soldier Democrat. At the national level, Joe Manchin is the only other such Democrat I can think of off the top of my head. As such, he was the only Democrat with whom I could really find common ground- on gun control, the military, and a few other issues. Webb came across to me as the sort of character who would be president in a Tom Clancy novel- moderate, not overly partisan, and possessing a strong sense of national service and duty. He is the only candidate who was on that stage who I would have no qualms voting for next year (if the Republicans nominate a crazy person like Trump). All that said, his debate performance was only slightly better than mediocre. Despite delivering the best line of the night (about killing an enemy soldier), his performance has only really been noteworthy for the number of times he complained about not getting any airtime. Tip for Webb: just because whining is working for Trump, does not mean that whining is a good strategy.
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that Lincoln Chafee easily had the worst night of all of them. Half the time, I was wondering if he was high, since he really did not seem all that focused. When he did not seem as high as a kite, he did not seem prepared for the debate. His worst moment came when he basically used incompetence as a defense for voting for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. When running for president, it is generally not a good idea to appear as though you just vote and act the way others tell you to because you are too incompetent to cast your own vote. His other inexplicable strategy was saying that his proudest achievement was that he had not been part of any scandal in 30 years of public office. That is about as close to the absolute least we can expect of someone running for president. I had high hopes for Chafee (or at least relatively high) since I saw him address Larry Sabato's class and gave a very stately presentation that night. I believe Chafee is a statesman who could potentially make a good president, but he will not be president anytime soon, especially given his performance the other night.
On the whole, I guess I would have to say that Clinton was the "winner," if indeed, I can actually determine such a thing. She has to be careful, however, or she will allow Bernie to pull her farther from the center. As Romney and McCain showed us, moving away from the center in the primaries is a recipe for disaster in the general election. Everyone up there, with the exception of Webb (and oddly enough, Sanders) needs to be careful with their anti-gun rhetoric, or they will risk losing Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida by neglecting and alienating the blue collar Democrats in those states who value their guns more than someone like O'Malley could ever understand. Overall, I was not especially impressed with the debate, and it left me wondering: how soon before Joe Biden enters?