2020 Democratic Debate, Part 4: CNN Tries to Make Lemonade Out of Rocks

Thanks to some very awesome Youtubers, I was able to view last night's debate through a non-corporate lens. I won't do the "Winner/Losers" thing, but I will give my impression on their overall effectiveness:

• Joe Biden: He's pretty much riding off name recognition at this point. Combined with the fact that (1) his polls are based on landline calls and (2) most of his supporters don't watch news stories related to him, he's fairly insulated from just having a massive drop. In other words: as long as older voters (and the media) keep propping him up, Biden's not going anywhere. Which is said, because you have to sift through his word salad to find any real points, and most of the time those points are either common-sense or too wonky for the average voter to care about. In short, he's not beating President Trump on a debate stage, and he's not going to convince many former-Obama-voters-turned-Trump-voters to switch back. 
• Kamala Harris: It seems like her answer to every problem is to either apply Clintonian rhetoric or punitive action. Last night she basically stole Kristen Gillibrand's pro-woman platform, which could foreshadow what she plans to do if any of the other mid-to-low tier candidates drop out before she does. She still can't defend her record adequately, which means problems in a general election debate. She's all but lost the black vote after Gabbard decapitated her. With the exception of Gabbard and Biden, none of the other candidates really pay attention to her on the stage, which is probably one part "I agree with her" and one part "she's not a real threat," but my impression leans to the latter. Her attempt to be some kind of hybrid of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is not resonating in an area where the voters want authentic populism.  
• Elizabeth Warren: She said all the right things (for the most part), which only hurt Sanders because she's using his lines. Anytime she's been confronted with something outside her wheelhouse (which boils down to making the economic field fairer for more people) she gets flustered. No one has brought up some of her more obvious flaws (that for more than half her life she was a Republican, she has no real answer for health care, how using a false ethnic identity has helped her career) which is is one of the many things that's keeping her safe...in the primary debates.
• Pete Buttigieg: Everything notable about him is identity politics: he's openly gay, he worked in the intelligence community, he served in the military, he's a mayor. He compiles his experiences into anecdotes and platitudes that tell us nothing about how he'll govern beyond "maintain the status quo." What's his "passion policy?" I haven't heard one yet.
• Beto O'Rourke: Aside from the guns stance, he's not running on anything. And O'Rouke is the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Trump. Not exactly inspiring.
• Andrew Yang: Aside from the appeal of UBI, Yang comes across as the left-leaning libertarians that rose up during the Bush years and joined the Democratic Party (think Daily Kos and Arianna Huffington). While he's able to explain the logic of his ideas, he hasn't been able to explain how he's going to convert the non-believers, let alone how his ideas will impact our financial reality. He feels like a third party candidate who's too apprehensive to run as a third party candidate. 
• Amy Klobuchar: Someone had to wave the centrist flag proudly! Sadly for her, this isn't the 90's, and both her ideas and smug disdain for any ideas to her left is tired. Her touting that she can work with the current incarnation of congressional Republicans -who are pretty loyal to Trump to a fault at this point- is not a plus. 
• Cory Booker: When you're surprised that you're being asked question in a debate you basically had to beg your supporters for help to get into, your campaign is hurting. And the whole, "We just need to beat Trump!' is so 2004 George W. Bush. 
• Tulsi Gabbard: Tulsi using her "now-that-I-got-in-I-might-not-go" ploy was enough to get her some TV time pre-debates, but I', not sure that she used it to her full advantage. The smear merchants are still running "Assad articles." She didn't get many questions that weren't foreign policy-based. She pulled out a giant hand cannon and aimed it at Warren's head, but got cut off by the moderators for a "commercial break." The calm, reflective demeanor that makes her appealing is what also keeps her from being effective in these debates. Tulsi is the equivalent of the sports team that's built for the playoffs, but always struggles in the regular season. 
• Julian Castro: When Castro wasn't talking, I forgot he was there. He seemed to have stepped back after going after Biden (for being a forgetful, mumbling goof) and like others, he has no "passion policy" that he can fall back on. 
• Tom Steyer: He bought his way into the debates using his "we must impeach Trump" movement (which he started like two years ago?) yet mentioned it about as much as the others. Now if this were me, I would be all, "It took you guys long enough to catch up!" even if the idea/strategy is prone to backfire. That said, he neither said anything too appealing or too revolting. 
• Bernie Sanders: Like Gabbard, Bernie got questions that were either rehashes ("how you gonna pay for Medicare for All") or smears-in-disguise ("you're kinda old, should we be worried?"). He handled them as best he can, but having the rest was certainly a plus in term of appearance. His biggest obstacle is that in order to reach the general election, he's going to have to (1) distinguish himself from the left-leaning pretenders and (2) show that he can aggressively challenge the other candidates without coming off as grumpy.