The Democratic Debate From Someone Who Didn't Watch

Last night was the first of three democratic candidate debates. Three. There are over twenty people running for one position, twenty people who believe they have a shot at becoming President of the United States.

Honestly, at this point, the Democratic/Republican primaries have regressed to some sort of American Idol -like spectacle where people who are fully aware that they have next to no chance at winning, leverage the platform for their own selfish desires. Assuming this is true, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a man who ran a reality T.V show won.

Now I, like I assume most people, didn’t watch the debates live. Firstly, I don’t have cable but I am also not a registered Democrat so I have absolutely no say in who they choose to put forward as a candidate. I also don’t think I can stomach it.

It’s not that I disagree with their ideas, I agree with most of them (shocker: a 23 year old liberal arts grad is a liberal) but I can’t stand the posturing. These debates feel like an episode of The Bachelor where the candidates are the bachelorettes and the moderators/America are the Bachelor to appease. From the articles/highlights I’ve seen, it felt like America (the hunky, albeit shallow bachelor) muttered “I really like Spanish food” and then three candidates jumped up and scream “Me too! I love Spanish food! Me encanta la comida de Espana!” It’s just so desperate and the worst part is they don’t have a choice.

They need to somehow make themselves the most noticeable out of a field of 20+. This means they need to appear as if they are the “most democratic Democrat.” Then, once they emerge “victorious” they need to take on Donald Trump and his middle American army who will take every less-than-moderate stance they took during the primary and mutate it into some sort of declaration of the end times.

This is why I believe Donald Trump will be reelected.

From a purely numbers standpoint I feel we can safely assume that all the people who voted for Hillary Clinton will vote for whomever is on the Democratic ticket. But, Hillary lost and in order for this new person to win, they must somehow attract people who didn’t vote for Hillary and some who voted for Trump. Keep that this person they must somehow appear moderate after nearly a year of “out-liberaling” their 20+ compatriots. Then Donald Trump and his middle American army who will take every less-than-moderate stance they took during the primary and mutate it into some sort of declaration of the end times.

Somehow, one of these 20 candidates must appeal to both the blue-blooded liberals as well as the wishy-washy independents and some guilty Trump voters. Also, they must do this when the word “Socialist” is essentially equivalent to “Mao Zedong Sympathizer” (despite the fact that 95% of the things we use are from a socialist system. How’d you get to work today Ronald? Oh, on the publicly funded AKA socially funded roads? Interesting….).

To that end, having not watched the debate and being a person who fell asleep in November of 2016 thinking Hillary was a shoo-in, I think that Julien Castro, Amy Klobulcher, Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker even have the best chance of winning. Castro killed the debate by most accounts, Klobulcher is the female candidate with the least risk it seems and isn’t from the coasts (which swing voters hate apparently) Gabbard has positioned herself as the anti-war candidate which is… good I guess? And Booker is super passionate about everything. My issue with Booker is that I feel like I’m being scolded by a teacher in the inner city whose “trying to reach the kids” and I don’t think that will sit well with middle American white voters.

But, again, I know nothing. Pollsters know nothing. The media knows nothing and we’ll see what madness unfolds in November of 2020. Can’t wait to be asked to recount my experience during this time to my grand kids for a school project.