Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan for That
The First 2020 Democratic Debate Part 1
Elizabeth Warren, Senator of Massachusetts, dominated, her policy-driven approach and collected manner, leaving a strong impression that she was a step above the rest of the field. She rarely interrupted and rebuked other candidates, inspiring a much-needed cool that some had previously felt was lacking. Her policy proposals were unabashed and unwavering in their progressiveness and, unlike Beto O’Rourke or Cory Booker, she didn’t sugarcoat even her most radical economic and social policy objectives.
There was a moment when, by a show of hands, the candidates were essentially tested on how progressive they were on healthcare. Only Warren, whose hand shot up immediately, and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio stood by single-payer. This was a defining moment: prior to last night, Booker, Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tim Ryan had all said they support single-payer. But none of them raised their hands when asked if they would create a national healthcare system. This divided the field into the hard-core progressive wing and the rest, effectively allowing Warren to stand out in a way Booker and Beto could only dream of. Warren was able to play to her political and policy strengths in that moment, effectively signaling that she had the leadership abilities to be president.
In short, Warren was able to fix her biggest public speaking problems while maintaining and expanding her social and especially economic policy hegemony. In doing so she established herself as the clear frontrunner of the pack.
Warren’s performance wasn’t perfect, though, as her strategy of composition and stoicism often got in the way of inserting herself into debates that she could win. One such example of that was the expected showdown between Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Senator of Minnesota, that never came.
I rated all the candidates on a “progressiveness scale” based on their positions on a number of party wing-defining issues such as single-payer healthcare and support for the Green New Deal. The highest scorer (the most progressive) was Elizabeth Warren, with a score of 1.12, beating out last night’s second most progressive candidate, Cory Booker, who scored 1.02. On the other end of last night’s debate — the moderate wing — were candidates John Delaney (.32) and Amy Klobuchar (.47). This lay the foundations of a clash between the centrist wing, led by Klobuchar, and the die-hard progressive wing of the Democratic party, led by Warren and Booker. However, that confrontation never came to fruition.
I did want to see a Warren vs. Klobuchar battle. Warren could have triumphed over Klobuchar, further cementing her place on the top of the pyramid by defeating the most ideologically opposite candidate (unlike Klobuchar, Delaney doesn’t have enough clout to fill that role). Klobuchar, on the other hand, could have received a much-needed boost in the polls (she’s polling somewhere around 1 percent) by going toe-to-toe with the frontrunner, positioning herself as a first-class candidate.
The ideological debate never came, in part because of the randomized field on the first night. Though the average score on my progressiveness ratings for the first night is about the same as the second night (an average of .808 compared to .805), there was no clear leader of the Democratic mainstream or centrist factions on the first night. Joe Biden will fill that role tonight (so expect more intraparty division tonight). Some expected Klobuchar to fill that role in the first round, and therein gain support for her opposition to Warren and the progressives, but she didn’t. She didn’t play aggressively enough and, for that, her performance was underwhelming.
Other Winners
After Warren, I’d argue the second winner of the debate was Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and Obama-era Housing Secretary, who played to his policy advantages expertly and was able to take the stage far more than the moderators expected. When immigration reared its head, Castro was able to put forward specific policy solutions with a striking urgency that allowed him to commandeer the entire debate around that issue. When Beto O’Rourke — former Texas congressman and Senate candidate — stepped up to the plate, Castro skillfully took him down. Immigration was a chance for O’Rourke to show his policy expertise, but Castro trumped him in the details, proving himself an adversary who could be counted among the top candidates in that field. Castro also dominated the stage, especially when the discussion turned to issues he was the strongest on. He spoke nine times during the debate, speaking less only to Booker.
Bill de Blasio also had a strong debate. He didn’t speak as much as he could have, but when he did he made good points and conveyed them with well-crafted monologues. I was, frankly, surprised by him. He was also able to recognize O’Rourke’s weaknesses and, like Castro, acted on them, confronting and correcting O’Rourke with ease.
Beto Defeated
The biggest loser of last night’s debate was Beto O’Rourke. Since the beginning of his presidential campaign, O’Rourke has been unable to get the steam behind what he did during his 2018 campaign to unseat Republican Ted Cruz and become Senator of Texas. He’s bled his coalition of latinx and young voters to progressives like Warren and Sanders, moderates like Biden, and younger candidates like Buttigieg and Castro. The debate was his chance to redeem himself politically and show that he has what it takes to be a national candidate; he doesn’t.
From the beginning, his monologues, though grounded in pragmatic policy, were uninspired. He was unable to compete in debate with either Castro or de Blasio, both of whom disassembled his arguments on immigration and health care, respectively. It’s unfortunate, really, because O’Rourke is not a bad candidate. He’s been able to galvanize incredible movements in the past, and he’s a popular politician who comes from an ever more critical red state. 2020 is just not shaping up to be his year.
Looking Forward
Tonight’s debate will be very different from yesterday’s. First, the candidates are, on average, three times more popular than those of the first half of the debate, polling at an average of 6.69% compared to 2.27%. Second, the top two candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, will be going head to head, and their opposing wings of the party (what I call the Democratic mainstream and the die-hard progressives) will be forced to faceoff. Though, surprisingly, Warren was not much of a target during the first part (she was not attacked to the extent I expected — the other candidates instead scrambling for second place), its reprise should be much more aggressive — Biden and Sanders squaring off with Buttigieg and Harris desperately trying to insert a campaign-defining soundbite. Presumably the other six candidates will say something, though I wouldn’t expect much from them.
I’ll be back tomorrow for a second review of the First 2020 Democratic Debate. Until then, Carter out.
