Winners and Losers of the July DNC Presidential Debate

BWPU DNC Presidential Debates Analysis

By Jack Versace and Ashwin Prabu

An in-depth analysis of the key moments in the debate as well as major takeaways for voters

Introduction

On Tuesday, July 30, the second set of Democratic Debates for the 2020 Presidential Election began. With so many hopefuls throwing their names in the hat to enter the race along with the relatively low requirements of qualification, CNN had to split the 20 candidates into two nights (10 per night). Which candidates that would appear in day one or day two were randomly selected by CNN a few days prior to the debates.

Day one was highlighted by noted progressives Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), second-tier polling candidates such as Mayor Pete Buttigieg (South Bend, IN) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN), relatively moderate candidates like Governor Steve Bullock (MT), Representative John Delaney (MD), Representative Tim Ryan (OH), and the list was rounded out by candidates who are declining in popularity in recent polls such as Author Marianne Williamson, Representative Beto O’Rourke (TX), and Governor John Hickenlooper (CO). One of the clearest results of day one was highlighting the emerging party divide between progressives and moderates, and deciding which ideology would define the Democratic Party in the upcoming election.

On day two, poll leaders Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris (CA) faced off in a highly anticipated rematch of June’s Debate. Following the leaders was a large group of bold progressives including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Secretary Julián Castro, Senator Cory Booker (NJ), Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Governor Jay Inslee (WA), and Mayor Bill de Blasio (NYC). Filling out the last podium was the moderate, Senator Michael Bennet (CO). Day two’s debate was noted as a clash between aggressive debaters and saw many conflicts arise such as the ones between Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe Biden about social progress and a women’s role in the workplace, and between Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard about Kamala’s past role as Attorney General in the California criminal justice system and in its reform.

Day One:

Immigration

The main divide within the party on this issue truly expressed itself when the question of whether illegal immigrants should be a criminal offense or not was presented. This was one of the most important moments of the debate, and its severity was magnified in light of the current poor treatment of illegal immigrants on the border. Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren answered swiftly, making their point very clear that they plan to decriminalize illegal immigration and instead treat it as a civil offense, but Buttigieg wavered when prompted about how he would deal with certain forms of crossing the border, conceding that he would still treat fraud as a criminal offense. In fact, Sanders went one step further, pledging to provide free healthcare and college education to the immigrants.

This idea of decriminalization was then strongly challenged by Tim Ryan, Beto O’Rourke, and Steve Bullock, who all emphasized that the current tearing apart of families and horrendous conditions are a product of the way President Trump has utilized the law and not the fault of the law itself. Bullock specifically stated, “What you have to do is have a President in there with the judgment and the decency to treat someone that comes to the border like one of our own.” Ryan went further, saying that decriminalizing does not even prevent a President from tearing apart families and subjecting them to poor conditions, citing a different power that the president has to make these types of decisions. Ryan stated, “And even if you decriminalize, which we should not do, you still have statutory authority, the President could still use his authority to separate families”. O’Rourke contended that we need to maintain the strength of our border and provide consequences to illegal crossings, especially because he plans on spending money to improve the conditions in Latin American countries so that families can feel safe in their home countries and not have to feel the need to make the dangerous voyage. Finally, Bullock argued that providing healthcare and free college tuition to illegal immigrants will incentivize crossing, even more, citing Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary as evidence.

However, Warren fired back, contending that regardless of who is in office, a law that gives the president the power to separate families is immoral and needs to be removed. She specifically stated, “What you’re saying is ignore the law. Laws matter. And it matters if we say our law is that we will lock people up who come here seeking refuge, who come here seeking asylum. That is not a crime”. However, this does come across as a little hypocritical as the whole problem around illegal immigration is that people are ignoring the law and still crossing the border. Warren also missed the point about how O’Rourke and Ryan agree that those seeking asylum shall not be criminally prosecuted. However, because these points were not raised during the debate, Warren was able to control and redirect the narrative and the focus of this issue and truly resonate with and provide the most compelling argument for the live audience and TV viewers.

Foreign Policy

This issue resulted in a fierce clash in policy ideas between Steve Bullock and Elizabeth Warren. When asked about the nuclear climate, Warren strongly stated that America must adopt a No First Use policy with our nuclear weapons to protect other countries and ensure that America is not the aggressor, citing a reduction in potential miscalculations by other countries as the main reason to side with her on the issue. Bullock contested her policy, reasoning that a No First Use policy does not place America in a strong position to protect our allies when they get attacked. Bullock could have extended his point and argue how a No First Use policy makes America weaker when it comes to foreign policy and reduces the fear from other countries, causing them to be more willing to challenge American interests and potentially start unwarranted conflict, but he, unfortunately, did not utilize his time well enough to make this point.

Healthcare

On this issue, most of the people on the stage agreed on medicare for all of the people who do not have it with people having the option of choosing their private insurance. Only Sanders and Warren provided plans that would include removing private insurance from the people that have it, citing how terrible and corrupt the current insurances are right now. However, John Delaney was able to staunchly defend his compelling plan. He utilized his experience in the healthcare industry to explain the disadvantages of Medicare for All, such as hospitals not having enough money and eventually being forced to close down.

His ethical appeal as someone that truly understands the industry as well his logical reasoning about the merits of private insurance for certain people truly helped him persuade the audience into supporting his healthcare plan. His plan includes providing everybody who does not have healthcare government-funded healthcare and allowing people who like their private insurance to continue using it. Additionally, he talked about the economic advantages of his plan and explained how it is cheaper since only the people in need of healthcare will need to be covered instead of everybody being covered under a Medicare for All plan.

Education

Another key issue during the first debate was that of education. The candidates argued mainly over the issues of student debt, free college tuition, and national minimum salary for school teachers. Senator Sanders proposed the most progressive policies including making public universities tuition-free, canceling all current outstanding student debt, and instituting a federal minimum salary of $60,000 per year for teachers. Senator Warren wasn’t far behind him, agreeing with most of what he said and adding universal Pre-K, raising wages for childcare workers, and providing federal funding for historically minority

colleges.

Mayor Pete quickly rebutted the idea of wiping away current student debt (which was supported by the likes of Beto O’rourke, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren), by saying “That would be great for us. And then the next day, there would be a student loan program and people would be out taking student loans wondering they weren't -- why they weren't lucky enough in timing to get theirs wiped away completely, too.” By pointing out that this solution was very expensive and only solved the problem of student debt currently, instead of changing it for future generations, Buttigieg displayed his critical reasoning abilities.

Representative O’Rourke also added that he thought free four-year public college was unrealistic given the current budget and the possibility of a Republican Majority Congress striking it down in 2020. Instead, O’Rourke pledged support of a free two-year college, where students could obtain associate’s degrees, saying “I support free two-year college, earn that associate's degree, realize your full potential, debt-free four-year college. But unlike some of the other candidates on the stage, that's not just for tuition. That is room and books and board, the full cost of being able to better yourself so that you can better this country, and then for that schoolteacher who, in many places like Texas, is working a second or a third job, full forgiveness for her outstanding student loan debt, forgiveness for that person willing to work at the V.A. and serve our former service members.”

Senator Klobuchar also pitted herself against the idea of free four-year college for all, by criticizing its universality. Specifically, she disagreed with the concept that all American students should receive free tuition, asking rhetorically “Do I think that we're going to vote to give free college to the wealthiest kids? No, I don't think we're going to do that. So that's what I'm talking about.” Ultimately the issue of education came down to the specifics of each candidates programs for loans and if they would make college free.

The Economy

Given the success of the current administration's economy (record low unemployment and record highs in the S&P 500 and NASDAQ), the economy is a key issue for many moderate voters and “Blue Dog Democrats.” It was a major goal of the Democratic Presidential candidates to present a plan that will continue the economic growth, address the upcoming issue of automation (loss of jobs in retail/ call center/ etc.), and help people of lower economic classes who have not felt the benefits of economic success thrive as well. Most candidates on the stage communicated their plan to target moderates and two-party voters, except for Senator Sanders and Senator Warren, who both spent the night rattling on about increased taxes on the wealthy, establishing a national $15/ hour minimum wage, increasing unionization, and attacking large corporations.

The largest opponents of this anti-business rhetoric were John Delaney, Steve Bullock, Amy Klobuchar, and John Hickenlooper. The main criticism the moderates had was of how unworkable the progressive policies were and how they were unlikely to pass in congress. Governor Bullock called Senator Sanders policies “Wishlist economics”, and Representative Delaney added that Bernie was dreaming up “Fairytale economics.” In addition, Delaney attacked Senator Warren by calling her ideas “Dead on arrival”, in reference to if they would pass or not on the floor of the Senate. Bernie, in an attempt to back up Warren from facing criticism from Representative Delaney, said “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas. Republicans are not afraid of big ideas. They could give $1 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and profitable corporations. They could bail out the crooks on Wall Street.”

In the fight against automation, Mayor Buttigieg prescribed the public re-training of professions that are soon to be obsolete, allowing the unionization of contract workers, and an overall doubling in the size of unions. Representative O’Rourke said that he would incentivize apprenticeships and other skilled artisan labor because it is more difficult to automate. “And we do not do that at the expense of unions. We elevate them as well and make it easier to join an apprenticeship to learn a skill or a trade that you can command for the rest of your life,” said O’Rourke. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan also made it clear that he was concerned about defending factory jobs (Said he would fight against medicare for all so union members could keep the quality healthcare they petitioned for), and ensuring a smooth transition as automation ends jobs. Ryan said that his main economic policy plan was creating adding the position of ‘Chief Manufacturing Officer’ to his cabinet, and meeting frequently with them in order to discuss job loss and the international trade deficit with China.

Overall, the debate on the international and domestic economy can be summed into two quotes: When Senator Klobuchar said, “A lot of people are making promises, and I'm not going to make promises just to get elected.” And when Governor Hickenlooper said “Socialism is not the answer, don’t give trump four more years.” These attitudes are those of the moderates who fear the far left-wing economic policies being proposed by Sanders and Warren will lead to the re-election of Donald Trump in 2020. These moderates strive to build off the current economy by adding new environmental regulations that will not stifle business, fighting for the rights of union workers, and ending Trump’s tariffs and by proxy the trade war with China.

Day Two:

Environment

This was the platform where the environment champion, Jay Inslee, could make his voice heard. Repeatedly, throughout the debate, Inslee preached the severity of the current environmental problems and attacked President Trump for not doing enough to address this issue. In fact, Inslee even went as far as criticizing Vice President Joe Biden for not being strong enough on the environment. He stated “ Mr. Vice President, your argument is not with me, it's with science. And unfortunately, your plan is just too late. The science tells us we have to get off coal in 10 years. Your plan does not do that. We have to have off of fossil fuels in our electrical grid in 15. Your plan simply does not do that.” Biden did not directly refute but instead continued to elaborate on his plan that would create jobs and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Inslee was so strong on this issue that Kamala Harris and Cory Booker had no other choice but to completely agree

with Inslee.

Kirsten Gillibrand also emphasized the severity of the environmental crisis and pledged to be extremely strong on this issue. A co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, Gillibrand promised to “Clorox the oval office”, but also dodged the second part of the question which inquired about the feasibility of the Green New Deal. Tulsi Gabbard, while not a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, also promised to be strong on environmental issues, citing her success introducing the Off Fossil Fuels act to congress as evidence. Andrew Yang did not really answer the question, and instead redirected his answer to focusing on economic issues.

While Inslee was by far the most compelling on this issue, the agreement that nearly everybody had with his plan may actually work against him in the polls.

By narrowing himself so much on this issue, he loses the ability to appear strong and compelling on other issues facing the country, and since everybody agrees to adopt his ideas, he loses out on the ability to express to voters why to specifically vote for him. Kamala Harris understood this very quickly and responded to Inslee by saying, “ I mean, I have to agree with Governor Inslee. And I'm going to just paraphrase one of your great sayings, Governor, which is we currently have a president in the White House who obviously does not understand the science…. And the reality is that I would take any Democrat on this stage over the current president of the United States, who is rolling it back to our collective peril”. By agreeing with him 100 percent and by saying that any Democrat would prioritize saving the environment, she took away all of the leverage Inslee had on this issue.

Criminal Justice

On this issue, things got the most heated, as candidates brought up past history to diminish the credibility of one another. The debate on this issue began with a clash between Biden and Booker over who’s past record and current plans are most indicative of a president that will reform the criminal justice system. Vice President Biden started off by presenting his plan that included treating the illegal use of drugs as a matter of public health and sending people convicted of drug crimes directly to rehabilitation, where they can embark upon a path of better citizenship and by stating that his plan is similar to Senator Booker's. Booker then responded, sidestepping the similarities between their plans and instead focusing on their past record on criminal justice. He explained how the Biden has been a part of the majority of crime bills since the 70’s, and how his tough on crime laws destroyed impoverished communities. Biden responded, tainting Booker’s resume by pointing out how more African Americans were sent to jail in Booker’s time as mayor of Newark than before. However, Booker beautifully rebutted, stating, “ Mr. Vice President, there's a saying in my community, you're dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don't even know the flavor. You need to come to the city of Newark and see the reforms that we put in place. The New Jersey head of the ACLU has said that I embraced reforms not just in action, but in deeds.” On this issue, Booker got the better of Biden, especially when discussing their past in criminal justice reform.

This debate got even more heated on this issue. In fact, just when the conversation was over, Gabbard shifted the debate back to criminal justice and highlighted Senator Harris’s past. Gabbard accused Harris of putting 1,500 people in jail for marijuana possession and then laughing about smoking marijuana herself. She also accused Harris of blocking evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row. Harris responded in a more general tone, explaining how she fought for substantial reform on the criminal justice system in California, and also highlighted how her legislative experience should be taken more seriously than Gabbard’s “fancy speech”. However, Gabbard fired back on the legislative experience, stating, “The bottom line is, Senator Harris when you were in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people's lives, you did not. And worse yet, in the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.” Senator Harris once again generally responded to the attack on her past by reassuring voters that she is against the death penalty and wants to push reform. Harris stated quote, “History shows that and I am proud of those decisions.” This is the most important takeaway for voters on the issue; what is the actual history of Kamala Harris in these decisions. If Gabbard’s claims are in fact true, it could be a major blow to Harris’s credibility and presidential aspirations.

Defeating President Trump/ Electability

One of the most important issues of the upcoming Democratic Primary is electability in the general election. Keven Robillard from Huffington Post said this about a poll the Huffington Post conducted before the debates: “The poll shows that 52% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters think it’s more important that the party nominate the candidate who’s most likely to defeat President Donald Trump, compared to 38% who’d rather see a nominee who most closely shares their opinions on the issues.” This is something that moderates have been trying to take advantage of, by attempting to persuade voters that they are a safer choice because they are more likely to beat President Trump. On the other hand, progressives are trying to take advantage of this situation by pushing a far-left progressive agenda, knowing that they can rely on a large number of votes from moderates and republicans (who consider themselves “Never Trump-ers”), regardless of the policy they pursue. As Mayor Buttigieg said during night one regarding the conservative perception of Democrats, “If it's true that if we embrace a far-left agenda they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it.”

Condemning the President was a clear and obvious choice for all of the Democratic Candidates, as he will be the opponent of whoever secures the DNC nomination in the general election. However, the extent to which they criticize his policies and rhetoric show a deeper political strategy. Knowing that they wouldn’t face any opposition in their criticism of the President, the candidates were free to say whatever they willed to earn their soundbites. One of the most daring attacks on the Trump was from Senator Kamala Harris who said this about the incumbent President, “And I will tell you, we have a predator living in the White House. And I'm going to tell you something. Donald Trump has predatory nature and predatory instincts. And the thing about predators is this. By their very nature, they prey on people they perceive to be weak. They prey on people they perceive to be vulnerable. They prey on people who are in need of help, often desperate for help. And predators are cowards.”

However, some candidates on night one such as Tim Ryan and John Delaney insisted that we decrease our focus off of bashing the President and instead focus on policy issues and improving the lives of Americans. Senator Booker shared a similar sentiment, expressing that “I have a frustration that sometimes people are saying the only thing they want is to beat Donald Trump. Well, that is the floor and not the ceiling. The way we beat Donald Trump is not just focusing on him. He wants to take all the oxygen out of the room.” Overall, criticizing Trump specifically on social issues, immigration, and tax breaks for the wealthy was a consistent trend among the candidates, and an effective one at that, earning applause at almost every instance.

Foreign Affairs

Mostly everybody agreed that the United States should get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Tulsi Gabbard stood out by going one step further, stating that she promises that all the troops will be removed before the end of her first term in office. Her time serving in Afghanistan provided her with an ethical appeal and made her more persuasive when she explained how severe the cost-of-war is right now in Afghanistan. Gabbard stated, “I was deployed to Iraq in 2005 during the height of the war where I served in a field medical unit where every single day I saw the high cost of war…..This is about leadership, the leadership I will bring to do the right thing to bring our troops home, within the first year in office, because they shouldn't have been there this long.”

This ethical appeal was particularly effective when challenged by Senator Cory Booker, who advocated against setting an artificial deadline that is extremely soon, as it could possibly “create a vacuum that's ultimately going to destabilize the Middle East and perhaps create the environment for terrorism and for extremism to threaten our nation.” Gabbard pointed out that politicians setting these arbitrary deadlines in their promises like what Booker intends to do is exactly the problem, stating, “For too long, we've had leaders who have been arbitrating foreign policy from ivory towers in Washington without any idea about the cost and the consequence, the toll that it takes on our service members, on their families.” Through this, Gabbard is highlighting how politicians have been promising to remove the troops from Afghanistan for years now, but because no official deadline has been set, they have not been compelled to actually take action and the troops still remain.

Conclusion

These two debates served a few significant purposes in terms of narrowing down the cluster of Democratic Candidates. They re-affirmed the perceived gaps between candidates who could possibly win the nomination (Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Klobuchar, Bullock), those who add something meaningful to the discussion but are unlikely to win (Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee), and the candidates who cannot win and don’t add much to the debate (Marianne Williamson, Beto O’Rourke, Michael Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, and Bill de Blasio). In addition to the debate forming these new groups of distinctions among the candidates, the debate provided the opportunity for voters to see the temperament and debating ability of the candidates, as well as their proposed policies and plans.

The biggest winners coming out of debate night one were the pair of moderates John Delaney and Steve Bullock, and the pair of progressives Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Delaney and Bullock proved that they will stay strong on business and keeping the option for private healthcare to sway moderates, whereas Sanders and Warren appealed to progressives and liberals by speaking of their endless plans and big hopes for the future of America with great social progress and free public healthcare and college tuition. The only real losers of debate night one were Mayor Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke. They didn’t lose in the sense that they performed poorly, but because they didn’t have the stand out performances that were anticipated of them and that they needed to gain momentum for their campaigns.

The biggest winners coming out of debate night two were Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and Tulsi Gabbard. Biden and Booker both revamped their campaigns with aggressive debate styles and impressive overall performances, redeeming themselves from poor performances in the previous debate. Gabbard had a standout performance highlighted by her attack on Senator Harris’s prosecutorial record and her calm composure. As a result of this strong showing, Gabbard was the most-searched candidate on Google during and after the debate. The biggest losers of the debate were Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Bill de Blasio. Gillibrand and Harris were both victims of extreme embarrassment during the course of the debate. Gillibrand at the hand of Biden, and Harris at the hand of Gabbard. Despite an overall strong performance, Senator Harris couldn’t overcome the attacks on her record as CA Attorney General, even falling five points in the polls after the debate. Gillibrand came off very elitist and patronizing, especially towards the midwestern middle-class voters who she is seeking the support of. This in addition to Biden’s strong attack against her, saying this when Gillibrand attacked his stance on the social role of women’s rights and representation in education, despite previously supporting him: “You (Gillibrand) came to Syracuse University with me and said it was wonderful. I'm passionate about the concern making sure women are treated equally. I don't know what's happened except that you're now running for president.” Governor de Blasio had an overall weak showing, which was ultimately defined by the other candidates criticizing him as the Mayor of New York City where Eric Gardener was recently killed in an act of police brutality.

Sources

Beauchamp, Zack, et al. “4 Winners and 3 Losers from the Second Night of the July Democratic Debates.” Vox, Vox, 1 Aug. 2019, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/31/20749497/2020-democratic-debates-presidential-election-winners-losers-night-two.

CNN. “Tulsi Gabbard Most Googled Democrat after 2nd Detroit Debate - CNN Video.” CNN, Cable News Network, 1 Aug. 2019, www.cnn.com/videos/media/2019/08/01/tulsi-gabbard-most-googled-cnn-detroit-debate-2nd-night-es-sot.cnn.

Edwards-Levy, Ariel, and Kevin Robillard. “Democrats Still Care A Lot About Electability.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 22 May 2019, www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-electability-poll_n_5ce5b302e4b09b23e65d5a7c?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMk-JqSygLPAUcp8UpG0hxCPhd-wWL7swUb1wjRgh2c4pfQn-7bFpJv2NkasJO79LeWU9GNzUSHOPOR8faf31lSDg3kuJPzZ40ihozjkQ0fHiX9XzG4_wcLuCJAwCZMarwgj6IQ_fzrCQu2StSoXZnvqqgN5nrNuIcKPDGHvaWkO.

The Washington Post. “Transcript: The First Night of the Second Democratic Debate.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 July 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/31/transcript-first-night-second-democratic-debate/?utm_term=.6af3fe2591c8a.