CBS Democratic Debate: Live Coverage

Micah asked earlier how we thought the candidates did and whether we expect Saturday’s debate to affect the race at all. Well, we solicited our usual staff debate grades, and — according to our quick, night-of impression — this debate was not a game changer.

	GRADE
CANDIDATE	AVG.	HIGH	LOW
Hillary Clinton	B	A-	C+
Bernie Sanders	B	A-	C
Martin O’Malley	C+	B	C-

Unlike the first Democratic debate, we didn’t see Hillary Clinton as the clear winner. Her average grade was basically the same as Sanders’, who did about as well as he did in the first debate. Clinton and Sanders did beat O’Malley, who earned his second C+ average from the FiveThirtyEight crew. Of course, this was a Saturday night debate. Most of the perception of who won and lost will be shaped by the media coverage in the days to come. The terror attacks in Paris on Friday are also likely to shape the race, and how this debate is remembered. The Democratic candidates’ most memorable moments came during the domestic policy section of the debate, but how much attention will the media pay attention to them with the story in Paris still unfolding? What we think was important tonight may not be what we think was important this time next week.

And, this makes me happy! Our live blogs can be consumed many ways: as a live “second screen” experience to the debate; as a live second-screen experience while you’re doing something else (like commenter Kyle Ten Berge):

Appreciate you guys doing this. I’m not afraid to admit I mostly watched college football throughout the debate, but appreciated getting good information here.

Or, later, not live at all.

Nate, I didn’t view it as “mediocre” as much as an attempt to tread water until more people care about the race. But as you mention, Clinton had a couple of moments where her words could be used by critics.

Thanks for hanging out with us on a Saturday night, everyone. If you hang on a little longer, we’ll have a couple more closing thoughts and some debate grades.

I thought it was a weird debate, with mediocre performances all around (except for John Dickerson and the other CBSers, who were sharp). It’s not clear to me that O’Malley has any real strategy for how to defeat Clinton. It’s not clear that Sanders has any strategy for how to improve his appeal beyond his base. Clinton was playing prevent defense for the first 30 minutes of the debate, and while her tone/demeanor was forceful for the final two-thirds, there were a couple of awkward answers — like on Wall Street and 9/11 — that could later become fodder for commercials.

First, Micah, give your adorable dog an ear-scratch from me. Second, I didn’t see anyone act out of character. Trump, for example, has evolved into nice Trump/not-nice Trump. Everyone here stayed in their lane.

No. Not really, Micah. I guess the thing I’m going to be on the lookout for is whether Democrats will get feisty in the field of national security. If not, and national security starts riding up the ladder of important issues for voters, they may be in trouble.

So Farai, Nate, Harry, we’re wrapping up here. Closing thoughts? Standout moments? Anything that will have a lasting effect on the race?

I’d thought there was a good chance of a media narrative about a Martin O’Malley “surge” at some point, just because the media has clearly been bored to tears by the Democratic race and is desperate to invent new storylines. But the dude is just so milquetoast as a candidate that I don’t know if he can pull it off.

This is an interesting op-ed-style Washington Post essay by professor Kali Nicole Gross of UT-Austin, who argues “Black women are Obama’s most loyal voters — and his most ignored constituency.” The subhead is “Obama has treated issues affecting black men as synonymous with those affecting the entire black community.” So there’s always the question of whether black voting patterns, which are overwhelmingly Democratic, are detrimental in some way. I leave you to read/think.

Also on Trump, Harry: Donald Trump is the only Republican presidential candidate mentioned by any of the debaters tonight. O’Malley, of course, described him as an “immigrant-bashing carnival barker,” and Clinton said, “I don’t think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college.”

https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/665737281387552768

I should note that O’Malley did get Donald Trump’s attention. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/665735985704095744

I want to note something about Martin O’Malley, who is often an afterthought. Even if he is having a good night, he needs to be having two dozen great nights to really get into this race. O’Malley’s only at 3.8 percent in the Iowa polls. That’s far behind Clinton at 50.1 percent. To get any delegates at district and county level, he needs to be hitting 15 percent. Otherwise, he earns no delegates.

Also, a black voter doesn’t help you if she doesn’t turn up at the polls.

My belief, Farai, is you never take any vote for granted. You work for every vote. Yes, more blacks and Latinos will vote for the Democratic candidate, but winning 95 percent of the black vote as President Obama did versus 88 percent as John Kerry did in 2004 can be the difference between winning and losing.

Clinton went through a laundry list of the families of black victims of police or vigilante violence who she has met with. The Clintons historically had a very, very strong link to the black community, and of course Bill was called “The first black president.” And then, in 2008, after winning strong endorsements from black elected officials at first, Clinton saw them begin to switch allegiance to Obama. I remember when Congressman John Lewis switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama, shortly before Obama won the 2008 South Carolina primary. Clinton then watched more of her endorsements evaporate. So … Nate, Harry — do you think Clinton — and all the other Democratic candidates — have to hustle for black and Latino votes? Some people consider those demographics a Dem lock, particularly given the early Trump rhetoric about Mexico. I don’t ever think anything is a lock. (See: Clinton endorsement, John Lewis.)

As the debate turns to race and higher education, check out this recent piece we did on the racial gap at U.S. colleges. You can read the whole piece here.

https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/665733771891744769

I’m from Baltimore and must point out this story about the mother who smacked her kid around to get him out of a violent protest. She was championed by many people … and now, she is barely scraping by. Her politicized moment in the sun did not do much for her. A good read just for context.

She should be doing more of both those things, Micah and Nate. The favorable rating of the Republican Party among Democrats, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, was just 5 percent. In the same survey, 81 percent of Democrats approved of the job President Obama has done.

As the question turns to race relations and policing, I can’t help but think of how often Chris Christie has made a point of coming out as a pro-police candidate. You can be pro-healthy race relations and pro-police, but is that coded language? And is there peril on the other side, meaning the Democrats, if they don’t explicitly make an appeal to being “pro-police”?

Also just about the first time, Micah, that anyone mentioned their support for President Obama, who remains extremely popular among Democrats.

Bernie Sanders just said that working-class people are joining his campaign. More of them, however, are joining Clinton. You can see that in a Marist College poll released this week. Clinton is beating Sanders by 36 percentage points among Democrats in households making less than $50,000.

That seemed like the first time Clinton really focused on the Republicans; I thought she would do more of that tonight.

One thing I should note: The debate got a lot more testy when we went to domestic policy. If the terrorist attack in France changes the national dialogue, are Democrats going to be left out in the cold in terms of speaking to the concerns of most Americans?

Margaret Keen Harris, who’s on our live blog, points out that the Annie Oakley line O’Malley trotted out was delivered, with more vigor, by then-Sen. Obama. And Obama was then sharply criticized by former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro as sexist. But Ferraro’s critique was viewed as too strong, so the Clinton campaign got a drubbing as racist, and Ferraro quit her post in Clinton’s finance committee. Remember 2008? Knives. Drawn.

Politics is all partisan, Nate. Each side cheers things that don’t always make a lot of sense.

Clinton’s response to that Twitter question on the strange linkage she drew between Wall Street and 9/11 made very little sense, and yet the crowd in Iowa cheered it. Democrats should remember that the next time they jibe a Republican debate audience for cheering a nonsensical applause line from Donald Trump or Ben Carson.

The plugging of campaign websites is getting out of control.

Harry, I think one thing that politicians could learn from (some) journalists, as maligned as we often are, is that you just gotta explain things if there’s no context. And Clinton acknowledges this Glass-Steagall conversation could be “arcane”… but still hasn’t explained the debate in a serious way. Nor have her two opponents.

O’Malley’s latest attack on Clinton said she was “on three sides” of the issue and went in like “Annie Oakley.” I think that will be perceived as gendered language by a lot of strong Clinton supporters and could cost O’Malley.

How many times can Sanders get “there’s not much difference on guns between us” into the debate transcript?

Farai, I love all of this talk about Glass-Steagall. I’d be shocked if anyone outside a small circle of economists and Democratic activists have any clue what it is. I checked the Roper Center poll archive at Cornell, and there hasn’t even been a question about it since 1999. That was the only question ever asked about it.

Big style (sharp rhetoric! crowd cheers!) vs. substance (wait, what the hell did she just say?!?) contrast on Clinton’s answer tying her support for Wall Street to 9/11.

Interesting thoughts from James Diogenes, one of our live blog commenters tonight:

Sec. Clinton employs a rhetoric of contextualization — she takes issues and rhetorically presents them as more complicated, both to diffuse the yes/no nature of the questions she’s asked and to make her opponents seem unsubtle. When this works, it’s elegant and makes her looks intelligent and mature. When it doesn’t, she looks cagey.

Loudest applause line of the night so far: for Clinton saying that the majority of her political donors are women. “I go after all of Wall Street, not just the big banks,” Clinton said in a heated response to Sanders’s attack on her big-money donors. Sanders says he’s “showing by example” that a campaign can do without big financial donors. O’Malley approached from a different angle of attack, saying the economic advisers that the Democratic leadership uses in the White House should change. And O’Malley then doubles down by saying he agrees with Sanders. But they’re talking about the Glass-Steagall Act. You can read about it here. But how many people even know what the term means?

Harry, circling back to your point about Americans not embracing socialism and socialists, I’m constantly fascinated by the way the term is used and misused politically. Many European nations follow an economic hybrid model of capitalism with a strong element of socialism. I wonder if the way socialism gets used in political conversations make it seem more like communism. This article critiques millennials, but I think when it comes to terminology there’s a cross-generational issue.

Harry, I don’t think the first hour of tonight’s festivities is likely to have much effect on the Democratic nomination race. Bernie’s getting fired up right as I write this, though, so maybe the second half will be different.

Harry, I’ve covered every presidential election since 1996. Until FiveThirtyEight asked me to go to the political prom, I wasn’t sure I’d cover this one. And I think looking at tonight, the entire process is quite tame compared with 2008, when you could see dagger-eyed looks and barbs being exchanged between Obama and Clinton at times. So: O’Malley’s doing well, but still has not a prayer; Sanders is staying in his lane … i.e., won’t convert anyone new; and Hillary is still in the lead by far.

The candidates were arguing about what exact level the minimum wage should be raised to, but where you live can have a huge effect on how much that wage is worth. From the Pew Research Center:

As a member of the media (I know, I know), how do you think each of the candidates is doing so far? This question is to both Farai and Nate.

You wouldn’t believe how high this horse of mine is, Harry. Debates are breeding grounds for any and all forms of media bias — ours included, no doubt! — and I’d like to see the parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates do more to separate out the commentary from the debate itself.

How tall is it on that horse, Nate? (I kid … Sorta.)

Micah, If I were the Czar of Debates, I’d ban any Twitter stream, audience reaction meters, or anything like that. Not only that, I wouldn’t let the network who hosted the debate bring its pundits on afterward to tell us who won. These things are enough of an echo chamber as it is.

At least one of the people following our live blog doesn’t like it. And there’s the concept of “continuous partial attention” in the digital age, where you simply cannot process information as fast or well if you have too many elements you are toggling between.

Not really, Micah. I think it’s a nice little thing to put on there, but Twitter isn’t representative of the actual electorate. Then again, neither are the people watching a debate on a Saturday night in November.

Anybody have thoughts on CBS tacking on Tweets to its debate live stream?

You know, Farai, the topic of socialism is something that would dog Sanders in the general campaign. Only 47 percent of Americans said they would be willing to vote for a socialist in the general election campaign, according to a June Gallup poll. That’s lower than any candidate characteristic that Gallup tested. Not surprisingly, Democrats were more willing (at 59 percent), but even that was lower than every other characteristic Gallup tested.

To Farai’s question from before — does Paris make Clinton’s Iraq vote more of an issue? — the answer depends on how willing Sanders is to explicitly attribute the rise of ISIS to the Iraq War and the United States’ policy toward the Middle East. Which is an argument that you’ll sometimes hear scholars and intellectuals make but that presidential candidates are usually reluctant to invoke.