Politico.com

Clinton Won the Debate—Biden Lost It

2015-10-14

The frontrunner typically stays above the fray—but Hillary Clinton wasn’t afraid to mix it up at tonight’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas. She threw blows at Bernie Sanders over his gun control record and his affection for the generous social safety net of Nordic countries. Sanders, by contrast, seemed more interested in attacking the economic status quo. Given a chance to criticize Clinton’s email scandal, he instead <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/2016-presidential-debates-democrats-las-vegas-214724">threw her a life preserver</a>. Clinton, like debate moderator Anderson Cooper, mostly ignored Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee—the three candidates on the stage <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html">below one percent</a> in the polling averages—perhaps calculating that beating them down wasn’t worth the effort. But they didn’t ignore her. Reading off the playbook Barack Obama used against Clinton in 2008, the other candidates repeatedly needled Clinton for her vote in favor of the Iraq War. Unlike 2008, however, Clinton was ready with a response: “I recall very well being on a debate stage about 25 times with then-Sen. Obama debating this issue. After the election, he asked me to become secretary of State.” But was she—or someone else—tonight’s victor? Who was the biggest loser? And will Clinton’s performance reverse the erosion in her support seen over recent months? To help politico magazine’s readers cut through the spin, we asked several of the nation’s premiere political strategists for their read on the debate. Their snap reactions are collected below. ***‘Hillary Clinton won by a mile’ By Ed Rollins, Republican political consultantHillary Clinton won by a mile. She is a veteran debater and it showed. She was articulate, her answers were thought through and she clearly defended herself when her opponents came after her. Chafee was missing in action. O’Malley defended himself well on Baltimore. Sanders probably reinforced his socialist base, but no serious person could see him as a President. I think he was the biggest loser, but his answers were consistent with his philosophy. Jim Webb, a man I admired as a marine who served his country with heroism and as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, is going nowhere but his voice is important. The bottom line is Hillary should not be underestimated.***‘Debates can … solidify the existing hierarchy. That’s what we saw tonight’ By Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for PoliticsClinton went into the debate the frontrunner and she came out exactly the same—probably strengthened in that role. Sanders went in as the chief challenger and he came out the same—likely reinforced in that role. O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee went in as also-rans, and their status is confirmed.Clinton’s deep experience in debates shone brightly. She was better than at any similar forum in her previous campaign. Sanders’ strength of conviction was steely; the most liberal Democrats were thrilled. O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee all had decent, but not game-changing, moments. (If anybody inched up, it was O’Malley.) However, the trio has the satisfaction of proving “Saturday Night Live” wrong when they were called “the three mannequins from Jos. A. Banks.”Debates can generate a roller-coaster effect; ask this year’s Republicans. Debates can also solidify the existing hierarchy. That’s what we saw tonight.If Joe Biden was looking for a reason to run, he’ll have to find it elsewhere.***‘Bernie won the debate for Hillary’ By Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s FutureBernie won the debate for Hillary. Both had solid performances. But when Bernie said “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” the tension release in the room was palpable. He united the crowd and helped the Clinton campaign turn the page. Back in May, I wrote that Democratic voters wouldn't let the e-mail controversy rattle them because they have “ <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-hillary-vs-jeb-118466">Clinton Fatigue Fatigue</a>.” That hasn't seemed true over the summer, but it sure did tonight, because Bernie made it OK for Democrats to not care.Hillary was eager to make the pragmatist case against Sanders, pointedly saying she is “a progressive who likes to get things done” and rejecting Sanders' dream of an America that emulates socialistic Denmark. When she tried a similar contrast with Barack Obama eight years ago, it went poorly. But that was against the backdrop of her Iraq war vote, and against a wilier opponent. It’s true that Clinton has sought to minimize daylight on Keystone and TPP. But these other responses show she doesn't believe she needs to go outside her ideological comfort zone to win the nomination.***‘Sanders slowly revealed that he is likely going to be the Fabian Ron Paul of the Democratic 2016 race’ By Jonah Goldberg, conservative syndicated columnist and authorHillary Clinton won. She was the best of the field, which is not exactly as high a compliment as it might sound given how abysmal everyone else was. Even Bernie Sanders slowly revealed that he is likely going to be the Fabian Ron Paul of the Democratic 2016 race. He will raise money off of his line that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” but he also signaled that he’s not serious about doing what it takes to win. Whether that unseriousness is driven by cowardice or high-minded naïveté, I have no idea. The question for Joe Biden is a vexing one. On the one hand, Hillary had a good night. On the other hand, the rest of the field seemed not ready for primetime (though Jim Webb was very impressive as he fought for a Truman-Kennedy party that no longer exists). Biden has to be saying to himself: I can mop the floor with those guys. The question is, at this point, is that enough? ***‘These other candidates cannot defeat Clinton unless she defeats herself’ Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal BallA big part of the decline in Hillary Clinton’s numbers over the last several months has been that she has been trapped in a recurring cycle of bad news. The falling poll numbers are a story. So are the private emails. And the Sanders surge and Biden’s shadow candidacy. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether she deserves a break, but she’s probably about to get one: Clinton was a clear winner in the debate and likely will be covered as one. There are more ups and downs to come but Tuesday night was a vivid reminder: These other candidates cannot defeat Clinton unless she defeats herself. The main landmines along the path to the nomination—the e-mails, the Clinton Foundation fundraising, Biden—remain in front of her. Whether they detonate is anyone’s guess.***‘The clear loser tonight was Joe Biden’ By John Hudak, Brookings fellow in Governance Studies and author of the FixGov blogEveryone tries to focus on who wins a debate, but tonight, it is important to focus on who lost. The clear loser tonight was Joe Biden. Voters and prospective voters saw a group of individuals showing various hues of “readiness to lead.” They heaped upon Democratic voters plenty of red meat, touching on issues that matter to the party. They connected with voters at their level, showing empathy, understanding and sensitivity to the challenges that the average American faces. Absent from that conversation, absent from that discussion of ideas, absent from that vision of the future was Joe Biden. His wheel spinning, his machinations about whether he should run ultimately left him in the dust. After tonight, Democratic voters aren’t hungry for an alternative. If anything, they are more confused about which one of a number of good options they have to pick from. The Democratic Party doesn’t want one additional choice; they want another look at a very satisfying menu before their waiter takes their order.***‘Perhaps the biggest strategic winner was Joe Biden’ By Carrie Sheffield, Forbes contributor and senior writer at Opportunity LivesThe clear rhetorical winner tonight was Bernie Sanders (a truly terrifying thought, in my view, for the American taxpayer and broader society). Hillary Clinton held her own through a solid performance with no major blunders and a couple policy swipes at Sanders via gun control and economics. However, perhaps the biggest strategic winner was Joe Biden because Clinton was unable to definitively rout Sanders, who faces looming questions about mainstream appeal and general electability. Biden sitting at home watching these contenders may feel growing confidence after tonight that he may be able to split the middle of the Democratic Party, siphoning enough of Clinton’s support to forge a victory. A substantial push from Organizing for America alumni would help.Generally, CNN executed the debate well, with great follow-up questions delivered with firmness by moderator Anderson Cooper. However, it was unfortunate that CNN allowed for such a divisive question on racial issues, e.g. whether Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter. Such a limited worldview leaves little room for substantive dialogue and changes.Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb were generally weaker and unremarkable (Webb so much so that Cooper told him he was wasting his time!). This also gives Biden a greater potential to jump in given the narrowness of the race.***‘It was most certainly not a good night for Joe Biden’ By Douglas Schoen, pollster for President Bill ClintonIt was not a good night for Joe Biden. Not a good night at all.Tonight’s debate showed America that we have two credible, competent and enthusiastic Democratic candidates for president in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders.If Joe Biden was watching the debate looking for an opening, it’s not altogether clear that there is one for him. That’s not to say that Biden wouldn’t be a valuable addition to the field, but Clinton and Sanders made it clear that they are both strong on the issues and, at core, very appealing candidates. Sanders and Clinton looked more like a pair of fearsome advocates for core Democrat principles than adversaries. They demonstrated that it is possible to find common ground on the left, even with clear differences in their approaches to the economy and foreign policy most notably. As compared to the GOP debates, we saw a unified party that eschewed personal attacks in favor of espousing a vision for moving the country forward. There were three others on the stage, but they didn’t change the trajectory of the debate in the slightest. In the end, it was a very good night for Sanders. It was an even better night for Hillary, if only because no one laid a glove on her and she made no gaffes. And it was most certainly not a good night for Joe Biden.***‘I suspect both Clinton and Sanders fans got pretty much what they wanted’ By Ed Kilgore, liberal commentator, blogger at Washington Monthly’s Political Animal and Managing Editor at <a href="http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/">The Democratic Strategist</a> .Not a “game-changy” kind of debate, but then Democrats aren’t frantic to winnow their field. I suspect both Clinton and Sanders fans got pretty much what they wanted from their candidates. The former was extremely smooth, the latter extremely passionate. Both had good lines, and both in important respects reinforced each other—most obviously in Sanders’ attack on the media preoccupation with Clinton’s emails, but also in Clinton’s general refusal—except on gun control, the one issue where she was clearly to Bernie’s left—to raise questions about Sanders’ “socialism.” Sanders may have suffered from being one of three intermittently angry-looking old men on the stage. His volume got out of control near the end of every answer, and his gesticulation became very mechanical. I suspect his shouted call for a “political revolution” is the sort of thing that could come back to haunt him if he wins the Democratic nomination. Of the “lesser” candidates, Martin O’Malley obviously did the best job, getting across his record in Maryland pretty effectively and closing with a JFK-ish generational appeal to millennials. But no breakthroughs for O’Malley, and he’s still struggling to answer questions about what’s been happening recently in Baltimore. Unless you are an expert on banking regulation or Syria, you wouldn’t watch this debate and think the Democratic Party is undergoing the kind of divisions that are tearing Republicans apart in Congress and on the campaign trail. That’s good for all the donkeys. ***‘The Democratic candidates are running significantly more to the left … than in the 2008 cycle’ By Paul Goldman, former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia.Hillary Clinton showed tonight the reason her email mess is so frustrating to supporters. Without it, she is the clear front-runner for President, leaving the Democratic opposition in her wake, and Vice-President Biden not contemplating a late entry. Let’s be honest: But-for the seven month email controversy, there would have been no prime time date tonight, she could have blown-off debates until next year.Statisticians claim there is no provable connection between the email controversy and the issues connected to former First Lady’s emails. This defies common sense. Since it started, her once highly positive image as flipped into one distinctly negative, especially with 60 percent finding her untrustworthy. Surely her big drop in Democratic support can’t be mere coincidence?This is why the debate audience stood and applauded wildly when Senator Sanders said it was time for the media to stop with the email stories and focus instead on the real issues. A brilliant move, since he gets all the plaudits for being magnanimous opponent, but knowing it won’t stop the media frenzy. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee don’t belong on a prime time debate stage. Former Governor Martin O’Malley showed he did belong, but 2016 isn’t his year, at least for President. Senator Sanders had a rocky start, but gained his footing and got his message across: I’m running as a big change maker, not merely a reformer. So if you just want more tinkering around the edges, vote for Hillary. Front-runner Hillary Clinton wanted to show Democrats why she once had 73 percent support: by and large, she did. She is moving as close to “revolutionary” Bernie as she feels she can. That’s the big debate story: The Democratic candidates are running significantly more to the left—at least by traditional definitions—than in the 2008 cycle. This is only October, the first Iowa vote still three and a half months away. A continued leftward drift could be worrisome if the Republicans nominate a credible ticket. Where does this leave Biden? There is still plenty of room for him to run as the pro-Obama reformer. But the longer he waits, the harder it is going to be. *** ‘This may well prove to be the major inflection point the Clinton campaign has been looking for’ By John Neffinger, who runs the Franklin Forum PAC and teaches political communications at Georgetown and Columbia Universities.In case anyone forgot who our next President is going to be, Hillary Clinton reminded us all tonight. There will be plenty of other ups and downs in the 2016 campaign, but she comes across clearly as the most qualified, most Presidential candidate in the race on either side. This may well prove to be the major inflection point the Clinton campaign has been looking for all summer. She started the evening tight, but after jumping in on Bernie to offer an inspired defense of small business and capitalism (saved from itself), she began to relax, and soon became confident and commanding. Ultimately she enjoyed herself significantly more than anyone else on stage—note that was ultimately the same key dynamic animating Trump’s victory in the first GOP debate. Her rehearsed answers on email and Iraq came across conversationally and confidently. She smiled naturally and often, but also showed toughness throughout, and even some genuine anger about Republicans’ attacks on Planned Parenthood. There were places she could have done even better, but her combination of strength and warmth made her the clear natural leader onstage. This is (and has always been) such a good format for her—even better than sit-down interviews or podium speeches—it raises the question why her campaign has not bucked the conventional frontrunner wisdom and joined O'Malley in pushing for more debates. It wasn’t just a good night for Hillary though. It was a good night across the board for Democrats. Bernie comes off like an Old Testament prophet, and he did not look any more like a President than he ever has. But he brought his trademark passion, and his words will resonate with people looking for hope in our politics again. Bernie may have just become a Democrat, but he is great for the Democratic party’s public image. So is having a tough but thoughtful former Marine onstage (though bragging about killing a guy in Vietnam might have been a bridge too far), and having a former Republican who says his old party left him. Martin O'Malley made a good case that he got a lot done in blue Maryland, and he is easy on the eyes. But where Hillary came off as unscripted and conversational, O’Malley’s consciously steely gaze and pretentious tone made him seem less like someone running to be President than someone auditioning to play one on TV. Please relax dude. ***‘The clear winner was the Black Lives Matter movement. By Van Jones, regular contributor to CNN and former Obama administration special advisor The clear winner was the Black Lives Matter movement. Bernie Sanders eloquently addressed the suffering caused by structural racism, spoke the name of some of its victims and proposed clear ideas to reform our policing and criminal justice system. Secretary Clinton called for a new New Deal for minorities in America. Do either of those moments happen without brave women like Alicia Garza speaking up, declaring “#BlackLivesMatter,” and challenging the candidates to do better?The loser? Republicans. Contrast the way the Democratic candidates spoke to the young, multi-racial emerging electorate with Republicans’ racist, xenophobic, anti-women displays at their first two debates. Progressives are chasing the voters of the future, and Republicans are heading toward an electoral dead end. *** ‘The Democratic bench looked exceptionally weak tonight’ By John Hart, Editor in Chief of Opportunity Lives The winner of tonight’s debate, other than Hillary Clinton, was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and the entire Republican field. Jindal is representative of a cluster of Republican candidates who are not polling well but who could have easily outclassed the Democratic field and stood toe-to-toe with Clinton. The Democratic bench looked exceptionally weak tonight next to a Republican field that has far more depth and diversity. Former Senator Jim Webb, for instance, was most animated when he was debating moderator Anderson Cooper and highlighting the injustice of not being granted enough time to debate. The quote of the night obviously goes to Bernie Sanders for his passionate defense of Clinton’s handling of her email controversy. His line that “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” drew big applause from the crowd. But it was one line of many that showed a party that is tone deaf and <a href="http://opportunitylives.com/despite-the-drama-the-gop-is-well-positioned-for-2016/">out of step</a> with the electorate. Recent Gallup polls suggest the public is deeply suspicious of empowering a government 75 percent of the country believes is corrupt. Meanwhile, 49 percent of Americans believe the government is an immediate threat to the rights and citizens of ordinary citizens. Yet, the prevailing policy solution tonight was more government.Rather than being a debate, it was an evening of progressive pabulum and one-upmanship. One could hear the hidden voice of a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8V9Rl9IneA">fast-talking auctioneer</a> guiding the discussion, “I’ll match your free health care and raise you free tuition.” Never mind that the best way to make something expensive is for Washington to make it affordable. Tonight also showcased a party that continues to fetishize issues like <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx">climate change</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/02/can-we-stop-acting-like-campaign-finance-is-a-major-voting-issue/">campaign finance reform</a> voters simply don’t care about. The debate revealed a modern Democratic Party that has been reduced to a mutual admiration society chaired by the Clintons. Even as several candidates spoke passionately about the need for compromise and for both parties to work together, no one seemed bothered by Clinton’s line describing Republicans as her enemy. When the general election season begins any number of Republicans will pose a far greater challenge to Clinton, should she be the nominee, than any of her admirers disguised as rivals. *** ‘This debate won’t change much’ By Brett O’Donnell, former advisor to the Bachman, Romney and McCain campaigns for president.Hillary was clearly the most prepared for the debate. Her answers were crisp and well rehearsed. She was passionate and showed her experience on the debate stage. She got the best of Bernie Sanders on the gun issue and surprised the field by being willing to mix up with them, even initiating attacks. However, Bernie Saunders appeared as the most authentic candidate. It’s clear that Saunders is running to lead a movement and Clinton is running for the office. Twice Clinton used the first woman president argument as a warrant for her candidacy. While Clinton answered all of the attacks against her well, she still hasn’t offered a clear and cogent warrant for why she should be president beyond being the first woman president. After all, heading into this debate she moved her positions closer to Sanders to pander to the left more and render Sanders economic arguments non-unique. In fact, she refused to answer whether it was Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter and couldn’t identify a single difference between her presidency and President Obama’s. Moderator Cooper asked her if she is willing to say anything to get elected, and while she didn’t quiesce, her polished answers contained the evidence for that claim. She even had the worst line of the night sounding very Clintonesque in saying, “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position.” Yet, no one on the stage, not even the authentic Saunders, effectively made the case that they’re more prepared to take on the Republican nominee more than she is. And while the others attacked her, no one managed to land a knockout blow while she gained strength as the night went along. Hillary was clearly the most aggressive debater on the stage and that is why most will see her as the victor—proving again that it is best to play to win debates rather than survive them. Better to prepare to win than to assume you can just go be yourself and that will be good enough to win. And perhaps that preparation and assertiveness is the key to looking presidential in a presidential debate. This debate won’t change much. Those who are for Hillary will see her as the winner and those that are for Bernie, will see him as the victor. O’Malley was good, but not good enough to move many voters his way, and the others weren’t up to the challenge save one who killed his enemy. And this debate would have been much more entertaining with Joe Biden on the stage.