What Went Down On Night Two Of The Second Democratic Debate

Yang focuses on immigrant success stories — like his father’s — and away from “distress” stories. Ultimately, this highlights how hard it is to distinguish between immigration and asylum policies.

Biden starts talking about legal immigration, which Trump has also been trying to reduce.

The idea that victims of sexual violence typically aren’t able to claim asylum is something that might be worthy of greater discussion.

Yang has done well tonight. He hasn’t spoken that much, but when he has spoken, he’s a lot more confident, and he has skillfully steered the conversation toward his main issue, automation and universal basic income.

That’s a good point, Nate. Especially if Biden is looking to gain/maintain the moderate voters

I think the, “we are playing into Republicans’ hands,” line works once.

If you’re curious about why Obama’s immigration legacy might be something of an albatross for Biden in today’s Democratic party, I outlined why Obama was criticized from the left on immigration in a piece for the site today.

Gabbard gives a vanilla answer on immigration while Yang references his father as an exemplar of what immigration can bring to the United States.

Like just using a good one-liner doesn’t matter if it comes in the middle of a fairly wonkish, detailed debate about immigration, on which Biden isn’t necessarily on the wrong side of public opinion.

I’d say this is General Election Joe talking. “Get in line” etc.

Whoa, I don’t think that Castro line was as effective as the rest of you seem to think.

Castro dunks on Biden on immigration just like he did on O’Rourke in the first debate.

I think the protests during Biden’s remarks are probably a decent preview of what we might expect if he is the nominee. He’ll have to defend parts of the Obama administration that were unpopular with activists on the left.

I’ve been wondering whether Obama’s immigration legacy was going to be a problem for Biden. Castro says he “hasn’t learned the lessons of the past.”

As I wrote today in a piece today on the Obama administration’s immigration legacy, Obama was criticized as “deporter-in-chief” for removing high numbers of undocumented immigrants from the country. Biden has been attacked for this recently — interesting to see him asked about it so directly.

Biden looked like he got gut punched by Castro when Castro said “one of us has learned the lessons of the past.”

Whoa, Castro.

About an hour in, Booker has made the most Trump mentions. Around this time last night, Warren had mentioned Trump eight times.

I really hate this framing of immigration differences. I think the candidates differ on refugees, asylum, and the focus on criminal/civil is not particularly helpful. Biden even attacks Castro. He is attacking everyone.

My perception is that the Democrats used to always balance their arguments on immigration by stressing the need for border security. I’m not hearing that tonight.

Jake Tapper and Don Lemon look like angry principals when people chant in the crowd.

Yeah, to Perry’s point about the decriminalization debate — Gillibrand made the point that it should be a civil offense, but most of these candidates are going to talk about the human crisis at the border.

The safe territory for Democrats on immigration is criticizing the status quo under the Trump administration, and Bennet, Harris and Gillibrand have turned to that.

It seems, also (having not looked at word counts) that the idea of “Republican talking point” is coming up more in this debate.

I tend to take very seriously the polling results that show that people prefer “Medicare-for-everyone-who-wants-it” over “Medicare-for-all.” Most people have health care and know someone on Medicare. In contrast, I tend to think that polls on “decriminalizing the border” aren’t telling us much, because I don’t think most people know much about criminal versus civil offenses.

Harris gets more forceful when talking about the Trump administration’s immigration policies. That’s the kind of compelling oratory that won her the first debate.

Biden spoke about holding pharmaceutical company executives responsible for the opioid crisis. As Poll Bot mentioned during the first Democratic debate, according to an April 2019 Ipsos/NPR poll, 57 percent of Americans think pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids “should be held responsible for making opioid abuse worse,” while 29 percent disagree. The poll also found that 71 percent of Americans think the government “should do more to restrict opioid distribution.”

Harris bringing up a Florida facility housing 2,700 migrant children — it’s good to tie your debate answer to real world happenings. (This is in her answer about decriminalizing border crossings.)

Castro just mentioned his plan to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans believe that the government should develop a plan for at least some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents, according to a CNN/SSRS poll from late June. Only 3 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of Republicans believe the government should deport all people living in the U.S. illegally.

In the last debate, Biden raised his hand to say that he supported decriminalizing crossing the border. According to recent polling, more Democrats oppose that idea than support it. I will be interested the hear if Biden changes his position. I assume he will, but we’ll see.

Now we shift to immigration. I’ll be curious to see if there’s any discussion of not just immigration but integration — that is, policies for integrating immigrants once they are here.

The decriminalization question naturally goes to Castro, who got attention during the first debate for his answer on this topic. He says he’s “disappointed” that people on stage have taken the bait on the “open borders” talking point.

Castro is, of course, in my view totally correct that making border crossing a “civil,” instead of a “criminal” offense is not “open borders,” no matter what Jeh Johnson says.

Obama’s DHS secretary said that decriminalizing the border would amount to “open borders.” Castro says this is a “right-wing talking point.” Of all the candidates, he’s probably been the most openly critical of Obama’s immigration policies.

Perry, re these attacks making a Biden-Harris ticket more unlikely, I think people will overlook a lot of primary squabbles for the chance to be vice president (or president). George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had a very nasty primary in 1980 but still joined forces in the general.

Like in the first debate, Biden is cutting himself off.

I would agree with Nate there, Biden has looked on firmer footing than in the first debate.

I have heard lots of people say they want a Biden-Harris ticket. Getting a bit harder to see that, with these two bashing each other two debates in a row.

Yes, I found this much harder to follow. I think part of the reason is that Biden is trying to defend Obamacare without sounding totally wed to the status quo, and Harris is trying to talk about Medicare for All without sounding totally disruptive. As someone already said, the other candidates- Bennet and de Blasio – did a better job articulating those principles.

This is starting to feel like a classic scenario where media expectations got out of hand after the first debate and that’s making things much easier for Biden and harder for Harris in this debate. At the same time, I do think she’s been pretty bad and he’s been pretty good.

I think the issue tonight is that these plans are not as cut-and-dry as Medicare for All. They’re more complicated and nuanced, and harder to explain. That makes the conversation harder to follow and also drags the candidates into the weeds.

There’s been so much back and forth tonight. This seems way better than last night from that standpoint.

Eh, I don’t know that Biden’s attacking of the coasts is a good move for a person who wants to win the Democratic primary.

So again, on night two Democrats tackle health care first — except I’ve found this conversation a lot harder to follow and not as compelling as last night’s. Do others agree?

Micah is correct. De Blasio explained Medicare-for-all better than Harris. Bennet explained the opposition to Medicare-for-all better than Biden.

Is this our first Biden “malarkey” sighting of the 2020 campaign? I’m sure he’s said it on the trail. It’s an old favorite.

I always forget how much Biden loves the word “malarkey.”

This is the part of the confusion of the last two days. As de Blasio said, paying your health care through taxes or paying your health care through premiums at your job is still paying for your health care. It would be useful to know who will bring costs down for people — and this discussion isn’t telling me who will have lower out of pocket total costs.

I feel like the lower-tier candidates are doing a better job making both Biden’s and Harris’s sides of this argument.