Skip to main content

Democratic Debate Review (Debate 1, Night 2)

Here's how I rank the Democratic candidates' debate performances from debate 1, night 2:

10) Andrew Yang: Based on what I had seen of this guy, I thought he had the potential to make a splash on the debate stage. I thought it was all but inevitable he'd provide at least one witty remark which would get talked about post-debate. How wrong I was... In a 120 minute debate, Yang spoke for approximately 3 minutes (or 2.5%). While he may have unfairly been asked fewer questions than some of the other candidates, the guy just didn't seem like he wanted to be there. I don't know if the setting was overwhelming for him or what the deal was, but as soon as the moderators called it a night, Yang sprinted out the door. Very disappointing performance.

9) Bernie Sanders: I like Bernie. I voted for him in the 2016 Ohio primary. One thing I love about the guy is he's fought tooth-and-nail for a progressive agenda for more years than I've been alive. That's part of the problem, though, when he gets on the debate stage. He repeats the same lines over and over and over again, almost ad nauseum. Last night he came across as old, cranky, and disinterested. While Bernie has never been a particularly strong debater, last night's performance was subpar even for him.

8) Joe Biden: Yikes... Like Sanders, Biden presented himself as, eh, aging (to be kind) and disinterested - like it was past his bedtime or something. Not only that, but whether it was sensible or not, the former Vice President was on the defensive all night. Even after Kamala Harris confronted him and started her spiel with, "I do not believe you're not a racist," Biden responded that he wasn't a racist. He never gave eye-contact during the discussion, cut himself off on multiple occasions, and seemed to be in grandpa mode all night, where he continually said, "Back when I was a kid, things were great, so much better than they are now!" Harris may not have knocked Biden out, but she certainly knocked him down, and it'll be interesting to see how he rebounds from this devastating performance (and how voters respond).

7) John Hickenlooper: The former Colorado Governor needed a breakout night and, well, that didn't happen. I'd be surprised to see him on the debate stage again. In any case, hopefully his exposure on national television will open up new possibilities to drinking games which include his last name. Then again, cops may start using his last name as part of sobriety tests: "Will you step out of the vehicle? Okay, while walking in a straight line and touching your nose, say 'Hickenlooper' twelve times fast.'"

6) Eric Swalwell: I think I finally figured out what Eric Swalwell's problem is. I've seen the guy being interviewed on MSNBC several times, and he always comes across as intelligent, reasonable, and a Democratic politician to keep your eyes on in the future. Ever since the outset of his campaign, though, something has felt off. Swalwell had one solid line, where he used Joe Biden's own words against him when, 32 years ago, Biden said the torch needed to be passed from the Democratic elders to the next generation of progressive politicians. That's the thing, though. Every one of his lines comes across as overly rehearsed and/or forced. Also, who did the guy's makeup last night? Bozo the Clown? Swalwell's young and has promise, but I don't think he's ready for the big stage just yet. Hopefully this serves as a positive learning experience for him in the future, where he can settle down a bit, be more comfortable showing genuine personality, and run a campaign more representative of who he is.

5) Marianne Williamson: She's an easy target for jokes. I've even been guilty of poking fun at her almost stoner-like personality. Having said that, though, I think her performance was better than a lot of people are giving her credit for. She has no chance of winning the party's nomination and won't be the eventual nominee's running mate, but she made some good points last night and basically called on whoever the eventual nominee and running mate are to wake the f*ck up, so we can defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

4) Michael Bennet: I kind of feel bad for this guy. He has some decent ideas and comes across as a transition from moderate to liberal, but the guy comes across as so soft-spoken, it's difficult to hear, let alone feel at times what he's saying. Not only that, but his voice comes across like a nerdy frat kid who likes, more than anything, to surf.

3) Kirsten Gillibrand: Gillibrand's performance wasn't mind-blowing or anything, but I think she did enough to warrant another debate appearance. She obviously learned from night 1 of the debates that you can't rely on the moderators for viral moments, so like several male candidates in night 1, she interjected with her two cents a number of times. For people who criticize her for "not being lady-like" in that regard, bite me. How can we let the male politicians get a free pass on interrupting moderators or other candidates, but then go on and criticize female politicians for the same behavior? If we're truly about equality, we can't. Simple as that.

2) Pete Buttigieg: I find it unfortunate that the media seems to be focusing most of their attention on Buttigieg's response to the recent tragedy in South Bend, Indiana, where he's mayor. It was an imperfect answer, but at least the guy owned his mistakes, took responsibility, and said, "I (We) have to do better." When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate admit to and take responsibility for a mistake? I found that honesty and humility to be kind of refreshing. Aside from that response, "Mayor Pete" had a pretty good night, where he provided zingers for Donald Trump, GOP Christian hypocrites, etc.

1) Kamala Harris: Is there really any debate to who won this debate? Senator Harris brought her A-game to the debate stage, as she showcased preparation, passion, intelligence, and hope. She dominated. Period.


Who should stay in?

1) Kamala Harris

2) Pete Buttigieg

3) Kirsten Gillibrand

4) Bernie Sanders

5) Joe Biden


Who should get out?

1) John Hickenlooper

2) Marianne Williamson

3) Eric Swalwell

4) Michael Bennet

5) Andrew Yang

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"