Friday Talking Points -- Debate Slate Set

{Program Note for DemocraticUnderground.com readers:
This is a weekly roundup column of what is going on in the political world. For the duration of the 2020 campaign, I've been instructed to post it under the "Democratic Primaries" category rather than the "General Discussion" category, whenever the primary race is discussed. This discussion may be a large part of the column, or a very small part. Just wanted to clarify this up front, to avoid any objections that most of the post is "off topic."}



We have to begin by first ignoring all the rampant criminality spewing forth from the White House -- just for the moment, mind you -- to concentrate instead on looking forward, not back. Because we're less than two weeks away from the first round of Democratic 2020 presidential primary debates, and the Democratic National Committee just announced the lineup for the two nights.

Yesterday, they cut the field down to 20, which left four candidates out in the cold: Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Andrew Messam, and Seth Moulton. Today, they held the draw (our prediction: in future, the draw itself will be televised on C-SPAN...) and announced the lineup for each night. In doing so, the random nature of the draw conspired to almost entirely defeat the D.N.C.'s ultimate goal for holding such a draw in the first place -- not to have a "kiddie table" debate.

Learning from the response to the Republican 2016 debates, where candidates were separated into an "adult-table debate" and a "kiddie-table debate" (or, to be less caustic, an "undercard" debate) by their standing in the polls, the Democrats this time around decided to prevent this from happening by randomizing the process. Everyone who qualified would have a clear shot at both nights. They then refined this concept even further -- in an attempt to make the spread even more even -- by deciding to hold two draws, one among those in the top tier of polling and one among the lower. This way, the top tier would get divided evenly between the two nights, which would (they figured) prevent a single top-loaded debate from happening.

They figured wrong. Because out of the top five candidates in the current polls, four of them will be appearing together on the same night, while the other will be taking on a slate of all the lesser candidates on the other night. The only way they could have avoided this would have been to further refine their criteria so that (for instance) "out of the top four in the polling, two will appear each night," or something similar.

Here are the two nights' lineups. First, the roster for June 27: Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, and Elizabeth Warren.

On the next night, everyone else who qualified will appear: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang.

It's pretty clear to see that the first night will be "Elizabeth Warren versus the field," and a pretty weak field at that. There are only three names on the first night's list that regularly poll above a single percentage point: Booker, Klobuchar, and O'Rourke. None of them is in the front rank of candidates, really. They're at the top of the lower tier, in fact. But Warren will face them without having to take on any of the other heavyweights in the race. So it's really an "Elizabeth and all the kids" debate.

The second night will be a sharper contest, with four of the top five having to face off against each other. The biggest matchup in this top group will be Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden trading blows, of course. But Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg will also be in the mix as well.

This was always a possibility, as I pointed out a few weeks ago. Random rules means that randomness rules -- the very matchup you're trying to avoid might just randomly pop up, in other words. It'll be interesting to see if the D.N.C. just sticks to the format it now has or decides to refine it further. If they keep with the system for the second debate, chances are it will be a little more evenly divided. But you never know -- it could be just as lopsided as this one is now going to be.

Of course, we'll be watching both nights, and we could easily turn out to be pleasantly surprised at the level of discourse on both nights. The real divide and the real debate may happen not between candidates either polling well or polling poorly but rather between the ideologies of the candidates. Which candidates will be vying with each other over who is more progressive? Which moderate candidates might take each other on? And will the sparks fly between the moderates and the progressives, allowing for a "breakout moment" for some lesser-known candidate? The whole point of allowing as many candidates in as possible to the first two debates was to present as many different viewpoints as possible, so this might be adequately achieved no matter what the lineup. As we said, we're certainly going to be tuning in for both nights, just to see.

As for the primary race itself, a major shift seems to be underway. It's too early to really tell (a few more polls next week might confirm it), but the race at the very top now seems to have expanded. What was a two-man contest is now shaping up to be a two-man-one-woman contest, as Elizabeth Warren may have caught up to Bernie Sanders. Neither one of them has topped Joe Biden in the polls yet, but Warren seems to have doubled her support in a matter of a week or so -- the most significant movement we've seen yet in the polling. She now leads Bernie in polls in Nevada (by 19 to 13 percent), California (18-17), and at least one nationwide poll (16-12). So second place is now officially up for grabs. Ironically, this will be the one interesting matchup (Warren v. Sanders) that we won't get to see in the first debates.

Speaking of good polling, Trump seems to be getting thrashed no matter which Democrat runs against him. A recent national Quinnipiac poll showed Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg beating Trump by five points (47-42 percent), Warren beating him by seven (49-42), Kamala Harris beating him by eight (49-41), Bernie Sanders topping trump by nine (51-42) and Joe Biden beating Trump by a whopping 13 points (53-40). Obviously, that's a pretty good place for the entire party to be, right about now.

Trump isn't just getting thrashed in public polling, either. His own campaign's internal polls paint an even more dismal picture. This was initially reported by the New York Times, but they didn't provide the actual polling data. Today, ABC got the full scoop, with the numbers. Trump's own polls show him losing to Joe Biden in Pennsylvania by 16 points, losing Wisconsin by 10 points, and losing Florida by seven. Trump is up in one state, but barely -- he only leads Biden by two points in Texas. Trump initially said, of the Times article, that it was nothing more than: "Fake numbers that they made up & don't exist," and that: "We have great internal polling -- we are winning in every state that we polled," but this time around the Trump campaign admitted that ABC's numbers were indeed correct (although, they pointed out, they were old numbers from March).

Trump, meanwhile, announced to the world that he'd certainly welcome foreign governments' attempts to influence the 2020 election, by taking a look at any opposition research they happened to pass along to him. In other (more Trumpian) words: "Yes, collusion!" You just can't make this stuff up, folks. Republicans all visited a pretzel factory in Pennsylvania to practice their defense of the indefensible, once again. How we long for the days when Republicans used to hector liberals for their "moral relativism."

In related news, Kellyanne Conway will be keeping her job even though she breaks federal law on a regular basis. This is all part of Trump's new political strategy, it seems: "How can it be a conspiracy when we do it in plain sight?"

One person not impressed with Trump's interview was Ellen Weintraub, the head of the Federal Elections Commission. She released a statement which didn't mince words at all:

She also channeled her inner Joe Bob Briggs (tagline: "I'm surprised I have to explain these things" ) by tweeting a preface to this statement: "I would not have thought that I needed to say this."

In other "cleanup on aisle Trump" news, the president insisted that the Chinese economy had lost "$15 to $20 trillion in value since the day I was elected." China's economy is only $13 trillion, making this impossible. Also, Trump tweeted (in a lame attempt to excuse away that Stephanopoulos interview damage) that he had recently met with the "Prince of Whales." On the internet, much hilarity ensued. Oh, and the "friendship tree" that the leader of France gave to Trump has died -- the most fitting metaphor yet for Trump's attitude towards foreign policy.

In other "impossible to reconcile reality with Republican nonsense" economic news, a GOP leader in Congress came out and sheepishly admitted that those giant tax cuts are not, in fact, "paying for themselves," because GOP tax cuts never do, of course. Let's just check the actual facts, shall we?



Remember when Republicans used to pretend to care about deficits? It wasn't that long ago, as we recall. The deficit for this year is also way up, and may top $1 trillion before we're done.

It should come as no surprise, really, that Donald Trump is leading the Republicans off a financial cliff, since that's the only thing he's really ever been good at. His own campaign has reportedly stiffed at least 10 local cities for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he's topped the $100 million mark for how much American taxpayers have now had to pony up to foot the bill for his many, many golf outings. Remember when Republicans used to complain about the president golfing too much? Yeah, those were the days....

This spurred Obama's former White House ethics chief to suggest to Democrats in Congress that they introduce a "Golf On Your Own Damn Dime Act." Nice one!

One thing paying for itself (and then some) is marijuana, at least out in Colorado. State tax revenues from weed have now officially topped one billion (that's "billion with a B" ) dollars. This was far faster than all the projections had anticipated, by the way. A clear message for all the states which have not legalized recreational marijuana -- just look at all the money you're leaving on the table by continuing the failed War On Weed!

And finally, to mark the president's birthday in the best possible way, we encourage everyone to have a #HappyJohnMcCainDay (tweet it out to everyone you know, and help the hashtag's trend!).





We have to at least give Elizabeth Warren an Honorable Mention this week, for her surge in the polls, but we're going to hold off on the main award for her until we see if it is a real trend or just a few outlier polls.

Instead, we're giving the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, for his impressive legislative speed (and his even more impressive political savvy).

Immediately after Donald Trump's disastrous interview with George Stephanopoulos, Warner sprung into action. He drafted and introduced a bill in the Senate which would make the law crystal clear on the illegality of a political campaign accepting information on their opponents from foreign governments or foreign agents. His bill would have required campaigns to report any such attempts at interference to the F.B.I. Who, after all, could be against such a thing?

Warner moved for unanimous consent in the Senate, which would have allowed the Republicans to avoid having to go on the record in a roll call vote, but all it takes to derail this maneuver is a single objection. Senator Marsha Blackburn stood up and objected. While most of the Republicans in the Senate either condemned Trump's remarks or were silent, Blackburn stood up for Trump's right to get all the help he needs from Vladimir Putin. Remember when Republicans used to have the ability to feel shame? Nah, didn't think so....

This was more than a political stunt by Warner. As a stunt, it worked exactly as designed, that cannot be denied. But it also points to a larger problem -- Mitch McConnell refuses to bring up any electoral reform bills, including ones designed to prevent foreign interference in our elections. This is in keeping with his entire "legislative graveyard" strategy, it should be noted. Democrats really need to make as big a stink about this as possible (as we suggested yesterday, by prominently asking Republicans: "What Would Reagan Do?" ). And now Democrats will have Warner's bill to point to, when exposing how cowardly Republicans are now acting.

That, to us, is more than deserving of a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Warner moved quickly and decisively, and by doing so caught the Republicans with their pants down. Well done, Senator!

{Congratulate Senator Mark Warner on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.}





We've got two candidates this week, but since one of them is old news, really, we decided to just give him a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.

Joe Morrissey, a former delegate to the Virginia state legislature, plead guilty to "delinquency of a minor" after it was revealed he had had sex with a 17-year-old secretary. Now he's staging his political comeback.

In mitigation, he did eventually marry the woman and had three kids with her (they all pose in his campaign literature now). Because Morrissey just won the Democratic primary for his state senate district, unseating an incumbent, he is all but assured of winning in November (the Republicans didn't even put up a single candidate in their own primary, so Morrissey will be running unopposed). But again, his disappointments all happened years ago.

This week, however, Joe Biden said something rather stunning for a Democrat to say in 2019. This wasn't some sort of "Biden gaffe," either. While speaking to a group of "lobbyists and donors," Biden expressed his warm feelings for a rather put-upon group: "Wall Street and significant bankers and people, they're all positive, they can be positive influences in the country."

He did follow this up with: "But they didn't build the country. The middle class built the country." But that doesn't really change things much.

Now, Joe Biden hails from a very banking-friendly state. Delaware is a corporate-friendly state in general, and Biden has long been a friend of the big banks. He's personally written bills to help their bottom line, in fact (at the expense of all those middle class folks he identifies with). So it's not all that surprising that he'd say something like this.

What is surprising is that he'd say it at all, after witnessing the Great Recession at Barack Obama's side, though. Wall Street bankers are not exactly the most-beloved group among Democratic voters today, and for good reason.

So far, this seems to have slipped under the radar of the political media, mostly. Also so far, none of his Democratic rivals have picked up on it and used it against Biden. But then again, the debates are less than two weeks away -- so perhaps they're saving it to fling directly in his face or something.

But we noticed it, and we visibly cringed when we heard about it. Loving bankers is not the image the Democratic Party really should want to be presenting these days, and that's going to be a much harder thing to do if Joe Biden becomes the party's nominee for president. Which is why we have to give Biden this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

{Joe Biden is currently a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to seek out his contact information on your own if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.}




Volume 531 (6/14/19)

Today we're dispensing with our regular format, because there were two important campaign speeches this week worth highlighting. Frontrunner Joe Biden gave a speech in Iowa where he strongly castigated Trump (his prepared speech mentioned Trump a whopping 76 times), and Bernie Sanders gave a speech defining what he means by his brand of socialism (hint: it's F.D.R.'s brand, too). Both have enough excellent talking points within them that we had to defer to the professionals this week.

First, let's take a look at Bernie's speech. (We should mention that these quotes come from three different articles reviewing the speech, so they may in fact be out of sequence from the actual speech itself.)



Bernie's best crowd response came when he quoted Roosevelt directly: "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred." After the crowd went wild, Bernie quipped: "I must say, it does sound a little contemporary, doesn't it?"

Biden's Iowa speech, like his entire campaign to date, focused entirely on the differences between him and Donald Trump. Of which there are many. (Once again, these quotes were taken from three different articles, and are thus quite likely out of sequence.)



Biden had plenty of snappy one-liners like that last one during his speech. Most notable:



And finally, Biden's response to Trump's 2016 campaign slogan was pretty priceless as well: "Let's make America America again."

Those are two pretty good speeches from the Democratic frontrunners, we have to admit. While we're still just at the start of the whole campaign, it's refreshing to hear that the Democratic candidates have already hit the ground running in such fine fettle. The pre-eminent question on Democratic voters' minds is going to be who is best positioned to beat Donald Trump. Biden and Sanders both seem fully aware of this dynamic already. Which is good news for Democrats, even if neither of them emerge as the eventual nominee. We've got to take this fight directly to Trump and his Republican minions, because you just know that Trump certainly isn't going to fight by Marquess of Queensbury rules. Or those of the Prince of Whales, for that matter.




Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank