I don't generally watch candidate debates, but I read about them later in both purportedly objective media sources and in opinion pieces. I always enjoy these "who won/who lost" articles. Candidates who are ahead in the polls are usually said to have won the debate if they did not flub their lines, appear senile, or allow others to score knockout blows against them. Candidates who are behind in the polls, on the other hand, are said to have won if they had memorable moments or staggered the frontrunner with a nice verbal jab.
They all say Joe Biden won the most recent debate, mostly because he didn't seem befuddled even once in the whole three hours. Me, I'm delighted with his "Let's be constitutional" response to Kamala Harris' gun-control plan. What a novel idea! I have no confidence in Joe, but there's his touché moment.
As for Kamala Harris, she's running as the "No, let's not be" candidate in the guise of being the "Yes we can" candidate. Analysis here.
Is it my imagination, or does everyone talk about the executive orders they'll make on the first day in office (they're more likely to say, "on Day One")? They're all auditioning for the role of the-man-on-the-white-horse, riding in to save the day. It's an emergency situation, they all contend, and so there's no time for Constitutional niceties, etc. So Biden's comment really stands out.
Not that I'd ever vote for a Scrantonian, mind you. The only one of the Democratic candidates I have any admiration for is Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn't allowed in the debate because she isn't a serious candidate like, say, Andrew Yang. He promised to give people money, thus proving his seriousness.
But in truth, I most likely won't vote for anyone in the coming election, or I'll opt for a 3rd party candidate if one of them seems refreshingly intelligent and, well, real. Have you seen Biden's hair/teeth/tan?
No comments:
Post a Comment