Those were such high caliber debates, no matter who you supported. Tonight I kept thinking that our best and most forceful debaters in 2020 are our weakest electoral candidates. That is not where you want to be against an incumbent. Our bench took such a hit for a decade minus the governorships. This is why we desperately needed Hillary to win in 2016 so the bench could restrengthen now and avoid a mush group like this, where nobody has anything close to an ideal blueprint.
* Bloomberg was a disaster for the first hour. It was like he hadn't even practiced speaking, let alone debating topics that were guaranteed to be thrown at him. He doesn't have the Trump mode of arrogantly lying about anything, or turning around the question to criticize the deliverer. Instead of meekly apologizing he should have gone on offense regarding his plans in the future. The voters he appeals to would be more than accepting of that. TV critics like Van Jones are whiffing the big picture regarding Bloomberg's teflon. A performance like tonight wouldn't impact Bloomberg's general election chances at all. But the type of primary voter in this party unfortunately loves to ignore everything except who appeals to the middle, like those white golf fans on the Naples shuttle bus. I guarantee none of them would give a flip about Bloomberg's performance tonight.
He did improve markedly and somewhat shockingly over the second half. Totally different person just when I thought he might cave. Granted, the subject matter was easier for him. Short effective sound bytes.
* Klobuchar was testy and very weak, other than a few good moments. She appropriately got the Mexico question and didn't handle it well. Then unbelievably her second chance response to the Dreamers question from the same Hispanic questioner was even worse. We win? Seriously, that's your answer to protecting the Dreamers? All of these questions are predicated on winning. As I've emphasized all along the Hispanic vote is going to be surprisingly difficult this cycle. Amy doesn't seem to understand that and has nothing prepared on the topic. Overall Amy is very good but you can see she doesn't like being on the defensive. She repeatedly tried to talk through her allotted time. Her response to Pete was pathetic, "Are you calling me dumb?" Something like that.
* Biden is simply 8 years too old. That stood out to me all night. You can see he knows the topic and has all the ammo but his mind doesn't always cooperate. The tip off is when he closes his eyes while desperately trying to retain and recite. Still, he had some very strong moments. If Biden were still 2012 caliber this would be an easy choice. But since it's 2020 it's inevitable he would have many wobbly moments during a fall campaign and likely in the debates
* Sanders led off with emphasis on turnout. I simply don't respect that. Turnout is for suckers. Early in the debate I frankly wanted to punch Bernie Sanders in the face. Not for anything he said. He seemed intent on monopolizing the entire 2 hours. These moderators had no sense of fair distribution in the early going. Sanders and Warren took full advantage while Biden just stood there. Eventually it became more balanced although I didn't look at the time specifics. No question Sanders is a formidable debater. He listens adroitly and has all the instinctive responses. Nothing needs to be memorized. You can see that this guy went toe to toe with Hillary. He is essentially like a horse dropping in class. So many negatives. That's the devastating aspect. Probably much easier to gauge here in Florida, and also since I know so many white guys my own age and how they think. The old Cuban guy who sits next to me at Canes football games was ranting all last season that he can't believe we may be on the verge of a socialist receiving a nomination. I thought he was overstating the potential. Nope, he was not. The Dunces of Turnout have no clue how ignorant that reliance is. If Sanders is the nominee I won't pay attention. He would need everything to break perfectly including a weakening economy and declining Trump approval number.
* Warren will be beloved here as a result of tonight's debate. No question about it. She was the fiery informed well spoken liberal. Elizabeth Warren needs a United States of America with even distribution of liberals and conservatives, instead of 9% more conservatives than liberals. I prefer big picture to any flowery belief that now is the time, just say it and both chambers will bow. Her combination of gender and ideology would require a severely favorable national tilt. That does not describe a race against an incumbent. At least she is in a favorable state allowing a senatorial career. Every time I see an impressive liberal woman like that I think of equally talented and passionate ones who get stuck in heavy red states, and therefore we never hear of them.
* Pete is very good albeit somewhat snarky very good. I realize this is obscure but I love that he always refers to people as "who" and not "that." It is a long term pet peeve of mine. Even Amy flubs it sometime, saying things like, "We need a nominee that..." Gad, that drives me nuts. I always have to watch these things on delay because if someone uses "that" I basically don't hear anything said for the next 10-15 seconds minimum. I was getting my car fixed the other day and an old episode of Mr. Bean was playing on the television in the waiting room. My gosh, that's Pete. It was an episode of putt putt golf with the golf ball somehow ending up on a bus. Mr. Bean devoted the next half hour to every type of rescue of that golf ball. He putted from some incredible predicaments. I knew darn well that when I got home and googled Mr. Bean Pete Buttigieg that I would hardly be first. Sure enough, the comparisons were everywhere.
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
= new reply since forum marked as read
If I were to vote in a presidential