Nevada Debate Winners and Losers

Funny how watching Dems try to convince me to vote for them made me think of the late Keith Jackson, the master of a well-timed Whoa, Nellie! But I've gotta tell you, other than Holy Gloves Off, Batman! Jackson's favorite expression is right up there as a concise description of the whole debacle - er, debate.

Sorry about the slip-up. I forgot I was watching a debate. Well what passes for a debate, anyway. (We really can make these much better.)

I was somewhat prepared for a battle, given that the evil Michael Bloomberg was on the stage for the first time, and, of course, given that Chuck Todd and Hallie Berry were among the moderators.  But I was honestly unprepared for a cage match, - and that's what it was.

From my perspective, here are the two biggest losers.

• The moderators. From the get-go, they had no control. From the get-go, the point was to get the network's talking heads some camera time. From the get-go, why did they bother having the newspaper journalist and the Telemundo representative, if the point was to have Chuck Todd "ok, ok, ok, ok-ing" throughout all of the answers, as if he was sitting at his desk on MTP, and to have Hallie Jackson throwing dangerous eyes at the candidates as they asked questions designed specifically to create sound bites and memes? Lester Holt was window dressing, the other two, even more so. If NBC wants to interview the candidates, they should bring them on their networks and do it that way.

• Voters. Did anyone learn anything new about any of the five candidates who have been slugging it out for months? Nope. The same policies received the same old rebuttals, with little new added. Bernie Sanders, aka That Guy from Vermont (TGFV) waved his arms around, Senator Klobuchar told some more mom jokes, Mayor Pete defended himself and his community, Papa Joe took credit for everything that happened during the Obama years, and Senator Warren reminded everyone she's still in the race. We did learn a little about the new-to-the-debates billionaire, Mike Bloomberg, including what he sounds like in person, if you will, vs. only hearing his voice on commercials. 

Others on the losing side, IMO? Bloomberg, of course. He hasn't been on a debate stage, and I think he underestimated what would come his way, right out of the gate. He will get better in these things, if he wants to, like the rest of them did. They all get better. He did better on the offensive than he did playing defense; and he landed a couple of strong hits on TGFV. It seemed clear Bloomy believes the polls and the pundits who have identified "a clear frontrunner" from the two people who are virtually tied in actual results.

Papa Joe Biden was energetic and animated, but I don't think he made up any ground at all. To me, he was just another old white guy on the stage, one who is living in the past. I think the past is what's keeping him in the polls, and if we ever have a real debate, not one of these circular firing squad things, that will become more apparent. Similarly, TGFV managed to hold his own but his message is getting really boring, and his constant anger is annoying as hell. I'm not a billionaire, I never was a union member, and I didn't want to be either one. Still don't. I don't want to be one - I don't think I even know anyone who wants to be one, to be honest. But I think they have every right to exist, just like grumpy old Democratic Socialists have a right to exist. 

And, here are the two biggest winners.

• Elizabeth Warren. She punished everyone on the stage for being slighted by people who, for the most part, were not in the room. She'd been left out of the key question on not just one poll, but two: the Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, which Lester Hold actually cited during the debate, on a question to TGFV, and one from Emerson College.  The question she was left out of? Who wins, Warren or Donald Trump.  You know, one of the most important questions these early polls ask. Everyone paid for that slight. The Warren we saw last night was the one who was endorsed by the NY Times as the best of the progressives (along with Amy Klobuchar as the best of the centrists).

• Mayor Pete. I like him, so I admit I have some bias - but not enough to discount anything I might raise as an urgent issue, if you know what I mean.  Last night, I think he did reasonably well pushing back against both TGFV and Bloomy. I think he scored some points when he reminded everyone he's the only one on the stage who's not a millionaire, and also when he said that burning down the house and buying out the house (TGFV and Bloomy) were not the only options, and that Americans can join together and accomplish a lot in the middle. I think he did less well when he battled Amy Klobuchar, but he stood in and took it when she fought back, and he didn't back down. 

Many folks were commenting on social media that Trump voters won the debate. They did have a good night, I think, with only a handful of mentions of their candidate's name, and lots of fodder for the inevitable attack on who ends up the Dem nominee. 

Now, here's what the pundits thought, starting with the Washington Post:

• Winners: TGFV; Warren taking down Bloomy; the moderators
• Losers: Bloomy; Biden; Klobuchar; TGFV defending his supporters from (totally valid) accusations of 'nastiness'

From the NY Times Opinion gang, using a 10-point scale:

• Winners: Warren (8.4); TGFV (7.2); and Mayor Pete (6.9)
• Losers: Biden (6.2); Klobuchar (6.0); and Bloomy (2.9)

From the folks at Vox:

• Winners: Warren; TGFV; and viewers
• Losers: Bloomy; Moderates; diversity; and 'tough on crime' policies

And, from CNN:

• Winners: Warren; TGFV; Mayor Pete and Papa Joe; a contested convention
• Losers: Bloomy; Klobuchar; Jon Ralston (the guy from the Nevada Independent)

I'll close the punditry section of this post with these two points from Politico, who didn't pick winners and losers so much as they set the stage for what we're up against. On the one hand, there's Bloomberg.

Mike Bloomberg may have bought his way onto the debate stage in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, but the rest of us are in his debt. These once-every-couple-weeks rituals had become so familiar that watching till the end was a chore. Anyone interested in the future of the Democratic Party had no trouble sticking through all two hours of this latest one. It was raucous and occasionally rude—also substantive and relevant to the choice Democrats are in the midst of making. 

And on the other hand, there's Mayor Pete, from his closing argument.

“We've got to wake up as a party,” Buttigieg implored. “We could wake up two weeks from today, the day after Super Tuesday, and the only candidates left standing will be Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, the two most polarizing figures on this stage. And most Americans don't see where they fit if they've got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks that money ought to be the root of all power.”

Finally, here are the keywords (from yesterday's post) for my debate drinking game that scored me a beverage: delegates; Super Tuesday; South Carolina; people of color; Nevada Culinary Union; stop and frisk; Elizabeth Warren. (I admit I took some liberties with that last one, scoring three times when other candidates at least said her first name. Which, as noted above, is more than some pollsters bothered to do.)

So, where to next?

• Nevada's early caucus voting is over; in-person caucusing happens this Saturday.
• South Carolina's primary is the 29th. And yes, there'll be a debate before then, and yes, Bloomy has qualified. Tom Steyer has not yet qualified.
• Super Tuesday is March 3rd.

Whoa, Nellie!