I wasn’t going to watch the debate until I found out that Tulsi Gabbard would be in it.  And for the most part, she didn’t disappoint.

But let’s start at the end.  Brian Williams, after the debate was over, declared how great the moderators were.  He said they should be named permanent-standing debate moderators.

Yes, like how Rachel Maddow opened the debate immediately with questions about Trump impeachment. She asked her second question with the premise of, “after the after the bombshell testimony…today.”

This is the woman who spent the last three years talking about the end of Trump because of Russia collusion.  For someone who spent so much time on one story, you would think she would have gotten more right than what she did.  Now she has moved on to the next scandal to obsess about.

Elizabeth Warren was asked at least three questions before some of the other candidates had even talked.  I guess she is an MSNBC favorite.

Of course, the biggest thing with the moderators, just like the establishment media in general, is the things they don’t ask.  They lightly asked Joe Biden about his son and Ukraine at the beginning. Biden just ignored that portion of the question, and the moderators didn’t seem interested in following up on that one.

There are never any questions ever about the Federal Reserve.  And this was with Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) as one of the moderators.

MSNBC is as establishment left as they come.  The network isn’t far left because they generally support war and surveillance. They don’t have much problem with someone like Kamala Harris, just as they didn’t have a problem with Hillary Clinton.

The Losers

At this point, I don’t know who the Democrats really want to face Donald Trump.  On paper, they should be beating Trump.  But when you have to pick a particular candidate to face him, then he all of a sudden doesn’t look so easy to beat.

Joe Biden, the establishment favorite, is in big trouble.  He is 77 years old, and he sometimes acts like he’s 90.  He can’t help himself in sniffing the hair of young girls in public.  Right out of the gate at the debate, he was stumbling over his words.

At one point, Biden made a major gaffe, saying he had the support of the only African-American woman elected to the Senate.  This, he said, while Kamala Harris was up on stage with him.  He meant he got the support of the first African-American woman in the Senate.  I don’t really care that he said this.  It is kind of funny.  But in our day of political correctness, it is hard for him not to be criticized by the left.

The whole impeachment saga against Trump sank Biden anyway.  The MSNBC moderators can basically ignore it, but I can guarantee that Trump and the Republicans won’t ignore it in the general election if Biden is the nominee.  We will be seeing ads with Biden bragging about how he withheld money from Ukraine in order to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating the company employing his son.

Biden wasn’t the only loser.  Elizabeth Warren didn’t do terrible, but she hasn’t gotten any more likeable either.  She continues to talk about a wealth tax and her Medicare-for-all plan that would essentially be impossible to pay for.

Senator Pocahontas has sunk a little in the polls.  I was surprised to ever see her in the lead, even if briefly.  She comes across as nervous and fake.  Not everyone else will see her this way, but I don’t see where she picks up significant votes that Hillary didn’t get.  If there is a bad enough recession before November 2020, then anyone has a chance against Trump. But aside from that, I think Warren will have a tough time against Trump, and I think Democrats are starting to realize that.

Amy Klobuchar tried to be the moderate of the group.  She is one of the few Democrats who will actually point out that offering “free” stuff costs money.  She came across as very nervous though.  For that reason alone, she belongs in the loser category for this debate.

Kamala Harris is also on the loser side.  She got into another exchange with Tulsi Gabbard, but this doesn’t really benefit Harris.  Ever since her first debate, she just hasn’t been impressive at all.  She wasn’t horrible in this last debate (from a Democrat’s perspective), but I doubt she’ll get any significant traction.

There was one question about paid maternity leave.  Harris said she favors a mandatory 6-month paid maternity leave. During this same response, she said that we need to do something about the gender pay gap where women are paid 80 cents on the dollar.

Did anyone else across America see the total contradiction within just a few sentences of each other?  Unfortunately, probably not many did see the contradiction.

If an employer has to pay a woman for 6 months to do nothing every time she has a baby, then the employer is probably going to pay women (particularly of child-bearing age) less money than men.  This isn’t a sexist thing.  This is a “not-wanting-to-lose-money” thing.

The whole wage gap story is phony anyway.  If there were this big of a wage gap, why wouldn’t employers just hire women? Are there that many sexist employers out there who are just willing to pay 25% more to men for the same exact work?

The studies on a wage gap are phony because they aren’t comparing people who do the same exact work.  They don’t fully account for hours worked, flexibility, and other factors that go with a job. And to the extent that there is any wage gap, you can blame people like Kamala Harris for these stupid ideas that distort the marketplace and do not allow voluntary exchange.

The Winners

The two people that stood out to me in the debate were Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg.  These two had an exchange about foreign policy, but I think they were probably two of the most likeable candidates.  It was during their heated exchange that I saw Buttigieg a bit flustered, but that was the only time.

I don’t think Gabbard is going to win the nomination.  The establishment is too much against her.  My hope is that she gains more traction so that she can continue to be in the debates, and she can continue to be a thorn in the sides of the establishment candidates.

At this point, I actually think Mayor Pete (as people call him) has a good chance at the nomination. He may get it by default because he is the only one who is not old, is likeable, can put two sentences together, and is not hated by the establishment.  Maybe Yang could fit this category, but I don’t think the establishment is thrilled with him.

Buttigieg has been going up in the polls significantly.  People have been saying that he hasn’t been getting much support from the black community.  They aren’t sure if it is because he’s gay, or some other reason.  Bernie doesn’t get much support from the black community either.

Overall, this probably isn’t a big deal.  Most black people aren’t going to vote for Trump or any other Republican no matter what.  The only difference is whether they show up to vote or not.  The turnout will never be as high as it was for Obama in 2008. If it is Buttigieg against Trump, the black community will still support Buttigieg.

I actually don’t think it matters much that he is gay.  It becomes more of a party thing in the general election.  And the fact that he has not held high political office (he is mayor of a relatively small city) probably doesn’t hurt him. Trump never held a political office before 2017.

As for Gabbard, I was happy with her performance.  Her answers to questions on things like race and the environment were not that great, but they could have been a lot worse too.  I wish she would take every single question back to foreign policy.

Still, she had a couple of very good exchanges.  She battled Kamala Harris, who took the side of Hillary Clinton.  Harris criticized Gabbard for appearing on Fox News and meeting with Trump when he was elected.  She also criticized her for criticizing Obama.

Gabbard probably met with Trump because she was hoping to influence his foreign policy.  If only Trump had appointed Gabbard as Secretary of State, we would be in a much better place right now.

As for appearing on Fox News, it is the Trump effect of bringing parts of the political right towards a more peaceful foreign policy.  Tucker Carlson has Gabbard on his show, and he has become more sympathetic to a less interventionist foreign policy.

Gabbard is to trying to get exposure where she can.  She isn’t afraid to go on Fox News and answer sometimes-tough questions. Most of the other candidates dare not go on there because they might actually be asked something relatively hard.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have to make sure that the narrative is controlled, and they can only be asked questions by the members of the establishment.

As for Obama, I just wish Tulsi would go after Obama more.  She should criticize him for all of the wars he started, particularly in Libya and Syria.

Tulsi can still be frustrating for a libertarian, even when she is talking foreign policy.  She should be even less apologetic than she is.  When they accuse her of being an asset of Putin or an Assad apologist, she should call them out harder than she does.  She should say things like, “So if you had it your way, you would rather have thousands of people die in a war because you refuse to talk to anyone that you consider bad.”  She came close to saying something like this to Buttigieg, but it still could have been a little stronger.

She has time to prepare for these debates.  She needs to come prepared with a good, hard response to these types of smears. Still, I would give her overall performance a 7 out of 10.  I enjoyed watching her, and the debate would have been so boring without her.

The Neutral

There are some candidates where I don’t think they came out ahead or behind.  I would say Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders fit this category.

Steyer is going nowhere, and nothing changed for him.  Yang still has an outside shot, and he does come across as likeable and genuine. I just don’t know if he can overcome that establishment hurdle.  I think the establishment doesn’t like him because his bribery is too in your face.  Instead of offering healthcare programs and education, he is just offering cash every month.

Booker had an ok performance, but nothing that was attention grabbing.  I don’t expect him to move up after the debate in any significant way.

As for Bernie, I think he did ok during the debate.  It was typical Bernie.  He’s horrible on almost everything except foreign policy.  But he almost never talks about foreign policy except when asked.  Therefore, I don’t trust he would do what he says.

The only reason Bernie may have come out slightly ahead is because the other high-profile candidates did so bad.  I think Biden and Warren both did poorly.  Maybe Bernie gets a slight bump because of that.

But the guy is 78 years old, and he just had a heart attack.  He has a really loyal following, but I don’t know if it’s enough to win the nomination.  Things would have to work out just right for him, and the establishment still doesn’t want him in there.  They don’t fully trust him to keep the military-industrial complex up and running.

Conclusion

The race is still wide open.  There are five or six candidates that you still can’t count out.

I hope Tulsi stays in the race for a while.  I hope her poll numbers go up so that she can stay in the debates.  She is getting the Ron Paul treatment.

From a libertarian standpoint, she is obviously a lot more frustrating than Ron Paul.  She doesn’t get a lot right with domestic policy, but what should anyone expect?  She is a Democrat.  Compared to the others, even her domestic policies are better.

Ron Paul was more solid on foreign policy as well.  But Gabbard is easily the best in this election cycle.  She is continuing to criticize the regime-change wars. I think she should go after this issue even harder.  When she is asked about a domestic issue, she should turn it back to foreign policy.  If you really want money to help the American people, you aren’t going to get it by increasing taxes on the rich.  You can get it by ending these wars.