I spent some time this evening reading the entire transcript of the Democratic debate and analyzing the answers. I know, what really counts in terms of the campaign is the overall impression left, and the media take on it afterwards.
But just for fun I rated every answer, like I was a boxing referee counting which punches landed. I tried to be semi-objective, giving a point to a strong answer even if I did not agree with it. I gave multiple points (up to three) to a longer answer that contained separate arguments that were well-connected, not just repetition. I gave a point to an argument followed by applause, whether I thought it was strong or not. I gave a zero to weak answers, and a negative one when I thought an answer hurt the candidate -- only twice, Chafee on his Glass-Steagall vote, and Webb's enemy soldier. I also separated out follow-ups to the same question on additional lines.
Then I divided the debate into 'rounds' -- individual questions -- and if there was a clear winner, identified who won the round.
Over the fold for the table and discussion.
|
Webb |
Bernie |
Hillary |
O'Malley |
Chafee |
Intro |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
B |
"concerns" |
0 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
B |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
Guns |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
O |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Russia/Syria |
|
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
Libya |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
|
H |
conscientous obj |
1 |
1 |
security threat |
|
1 |
|
|
|
B |
|
emails |
|
2 |
2 |
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
1 |
race |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
B |
income inequality |
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
2008 bailout |
1 |
1 |
Glass-Steagall |
|
|
|
|
-1 |
free college |
|
2 |
|
|
|
B |
social security |
|
1 |
1 |
immigration |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
O |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
VA |
|
1 |
|
|
|
B |
Patriot Act |
|
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
B |
Snowden |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Third term? |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
revolution |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
insider |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
H |
|
|
|
1 |
climate change |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
O |
family leave |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
H |
marijuana |
|
1 |
1 |
Republican obstruction |
|
2 |
|
|
|
B |
enemies |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
closing |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
O |
|
TOTAL |
8 |
45 |
37 |
30 |
7 |
|
ROUNDS |
|
7 |
4 |
4 |
So I have Bernie winning on points, followed by Hillary and O'Malley a close third. I was actually more impressed with O'Malley than I expected to be, and I think he "out-performed" his standing. Now, the points awarded are also a function of how many questions each candidate was asked, and how much time they had. And of course my awarding of points is not objective, it depends on what arguments I find compelling.
Looking at "rounds", Bernie wins 7 by my count, Hillary and O'Malley 4 each.
The most significant moment of the debate in my estimation was not any of those repeated by the media over the last two days. It was Bernie's correct identification of climate change as the foremost threat to the national security of the United States. The other candidates (except Webb, and especially O'Malley) have good things to say about the issue, but when it comes to "security" fall back into familiar ways of thinking. Bernie has the mental agility to correctly perceive the problem, which is the number one reason I am supporting him.