For me being a bit wonky on the policy tip and well left of the majority of people, watching night two was kinda brutal fam. It was still an improvement in terms of candidates having moved left, but it was also like a small collective of shallow impersonations...and Bennett. The fights were focused on the past rather than the future; the lefty voices didn't have the substance to back their moral calls to action; and lanes for candidates to separate themselves were left damn near untouched. I'm not just talking about attack chances either. But I'll get into the whiffs as we go along.
Tier One Castro: Consider me biased when it comes to
Castro; the protests in Puerto Rico and that entire situation deserves a mention considering it's home to 3 million American citizens who are fight corruption and facing a Constitutional Crisis. Castro actually referenced them in spite of there not being all that much to gain from it; it's just the right thing to do and he had me hooked from there (it directly impacts my family). On the night, Castro staked out Immigration as his topic again and he also offered some solid responses across the board. He also did something no one else managed to on this night...he acknowledge his mistakes from his past and said he's grown and learned from them. On a night that everyone else couldn't do that; he stood out with substantive answers and made himself harder to hit on his record.
Tier Two Booker:
Booker handled back and forths with Biden better than anyone else on the stage and that matters when Biden has the biggest support to siphon from. He played to the left of the moderates but comfortably to the right of the lefties that are consistently characterized as radicals. I'd liken his performance to Buttigeig's from night one. He managed to be inoffensive, make solid points and did a good job staking out Criminal Justice as his focus...but he dips because he missed on some easy opportunities. He really should have circled in his reparations bill which has 5 other candidates sponsoring it (
@DonKnock you were right, they didn't come close to discussing reparations and I Booker didn't even try). He also could have done more to separate himself from his old pharmaceutical friendliness and acknowledged his shortcomings in Criminal Justice when the Newark attacks hit. This could be a bigger issue to me because I'm from the area so I'm familiar with this past.
Tier Three Yang, Gabbard and Inslee: These three probably got themselves googled more than anyone.
Yang is great at identifying problems but literally circles everything back to his UBI, it's good messaging but do people really think 12K a month is going to solve every problem that he tried to bring into it? Wage gap question? He brings in 12K for stay at home moms. Foreign Policy? I signed a promise to end needless wars...btw UBI. It's a great way to hammer home that he sees the problems and also get to his goal but if the vision keeps circling back to this UBI than I'm worried he's not gonna do enough beyond it.
Gabbard is the rare case where I think outfit choice helped. The all white suit stood out like crazy during the pan shots and made her memorable before she spoke. She gave some of my favorite answers on the night and also had the biggest attack moment, hitting Kamala Harris in an obvious weak spot. Where I docked her points is that there were times where I think she needed to couple broader statements with a more substantial policy attached...nobody did this well from tier three on. She did really well though and could be up there with the top two. I wouldn't be mad at that case being made.
Inslee gave answers that I really liked but didn't have an "it" moment. Which is to say, he gave us a ton of substance but didn't have something you could clip out or quote easily to make viewers remember him clearly. Tulsi had the Harris shot, Yang had some jokes, Inslee had nice answers but no big highlights. This is especially frustrating when his climate change policies absolutely thrash everyone else and he knows enough to mention that but doesn't tell the American people what those policies actually are. For my tastes, he's 1b to Castro's 1a but in terms of efficacy he falls toward the middle of the pack.
Tier Four
Biden: Big improvement from last time but he caught an onslaught of attacks and I seriously doubt he did much more than hold serve. That's not a bad thing when you're the front runner but it does dip him on this list because others actually helped their positions in the race whereas I think Biden's performance earns casual indifference. The one spot he really did himself a favor was in proving he's not defenseless. The Harris smackdown made him look extremely vulnerable and he fought back last night. However, there was a lot of hand washing on his record all night and it was utterly reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's inability to connect her new positions to her past ones. That disconnect is dangerous with the anti-establishment nature that the electorate has taken on.
Tier Four Bennett and Deblasio:
Bennett says all the solid things that a good moderate candidate would and he had some nice moments on the night, but I couldn't get over his utter lack of charisma. Forget setting himself from the other candidates, I couldn't separate him from a group of middle aged white dudes in suit and ties. Ironically, he probably did carry a bit more substance than others above him but in the debate game you've got to stand out...he didn't. I bet he has a world's best BBQ'er grilling smock though.
Deblasio's frustratingly close to landing good points but too longwinded to beat the CNN clock. When he finally had a chance to stand out, he got shut down by Don Lemon for trying to talk about Iran and just swallowed his thought. That failure of anybody to circle in past mistakes in Iraq with our current trajectory toward Iran is on everybody (especially CNN) but Deblasio had it in his grasp and let it slip. He did the same by not stepping up and demanding more attention during the M4A portion, offering mostly platitudes while allowing Harris' M4A to be conflated with the actual progressive bill that everyone was excited about in 2016.
Tier Five Gillebrand and Harris:
Gillebrand says some good things but just never comes across sincere. It all feels rehearsed...she kept doing a repeat the last phrase thing that probably goes over well at a rally where everyone loves you, but when you're trying to draw in newcomers it feels practiced and phony. Where Booker missed a chance to throw in his reparations bill; she whiffed on the Postal Banking idea and Campaign Finance plan. Those are pretty much all she has to separate herself from the pack because there are better versions of everything else she's proposed. Hell, I donated a dollar to give her another chance at mentioning Postal Banking...I want my money back.
Harris was able to make her healthcare plans sound great until the policy dropped. Then she was getting attacked from people to her right and on the left of her legislation but the shocker was that she didn't have any defense prepared. Bernie and Warren parried the tax increase comments with ease by bringing up actual cost for the American people going down. Kamala Harris said "that's a republican talking point...back to Biden." She did that enough times to seem like she was trying to scapegoat the guy instead of defend her own bill. She had nothing for Tulsi attacking her record as a prosecutor either. She only stood out when she was attacking somebody but in terms of policy vision, she barely offered anything from defending her views to just plain expressing them. I think she was the biggest loser from both nights, more to lose than clowns like Tim Ryan or John Delaney while getting dunked on just as much as they did.
@Serious @the next guy
I don't know why people act like Russians/alt right is influential among democrats. It's not.
