USA Today -- Democratic debate in Houston: From A to F, Mastio & Lawrence grade the 2020 candidates

[TexasTowelie]

Jill: The best parts of this debate were the beginning and the end. In their opening statements and closing remarks on professional setbacks, these candidates distilled their essence and showed who they are. And that is what regular voters want and need to know. Even devoted policy junkies might have taken a popcorn break during an argument over automatic enrollment versus opting in to a hypothetical plan of Medicare for whoever wants it. But, in the personal moments that framed the debate, anyone looking for an alternative to President Donald Trump probably would have found more than one successor who would do.

David: The health care discussion was a disaster for Democrats, making the party look like a gaggle of socialists bent on beating each other to the far left flank. The remaining moderates, former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, came through the night with the most bruises. Sure, there are plenty of plausible alternatives to Trump, but how extreme will the last person standing appear after more of these debates? Trump is smiling.

Now, on to the grades ...

-snip-

Beto O'Rourke

David's grade: A. “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” That will be the line that is remembered from Thursday’s debate, and if the former Texas congressman has a chance to break through, this will be his moment. He clearly had a strategy to make the El Paso shooting the centerpiece of his pitch to primary voters. We’ll see if he overplayed that card.

Jill's grade: A-. He managed to turn the mass shooting in his hometown into a broader, bolder argument for what the country needs and why he can provide it. That memorable line —“Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” — came after he described how a 15-year-old bled out over the course of an hour because there weren't enough ambulances to get to the wounded. It’s part of his new model of throwing caution to the winds. To me it makes him a stronger candidate. But I’m not a middle-of-the-road suburban voter.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/13/democratic-debate-grading-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-column/2302105001/

[hlthe2b]

1. "David" is a Libertarian commentator and his reviews reflect that. Ridiculous

[Cha]

2. Thank you.

[TexasTowelie]

3. And "Jill" is a liberal.

Considering that there isn't really a race for the GOP nomination, there will most likely be a lot of crossover voters that are independents, libertarians, and even Republicans in states with open primaries. Candidates that show some appeal to moderates will have an advantage going into the primaries.

I certainly do understand why libertarians are not going to give high marks to candidates pushing for Medicare for All though.

[hlthe2b]

4. Read his reviews. His constant "D" ratings are not correlated simply with more liberal policies.

I frankly found his reviews obnoxious, but worse, without any meaningful nor consistent justification.

If you want to see how the debates are playing to right-leaning indies or the now Never-Trumpers, the ones most likely to come over, get THEIR opinions. This guy isn't even opposed to Trump from what I can tell, so why WOULD he offer a balanced review?

[TexasTowelie]

5. I'm not saying that he would offer a balanced review.

He is simply one of the two journalists employed by USA Today that provided an opinion on the debate performances. I don't know if he is a potential crossover voter or not, but I try to be open to reading the opinions from everyone. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to change their vote based on this article and I don't see that "David" or "Jill" are either.

[hlthe2b]

6. Just as he is free to critique the debates, I am free to critique his reviews and I did.

I think USAToday has other more conservative commentators they could have chosen for this. Perhaps next time they will choose someone less close-minded.