Hillary Scores Debate Win -- Among Democrats
A Commentary By Michael Barone
Going into the Democrats' first presidential debate Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton seems to have banked on one thing: that far fewer Americans would be watching than watched the Republican debates in August and September.
That assumption proved correct. Early Nielsen ratings indicate that 13 million viewers tuned in. That's more than the previous Democratic record of 11 million. But it's not much more than half the 23 and 24 million who watched the Republican debates.
Clinton, in what National Journal's Ron Fournier called "a performance that was as dishonest as it was impressive," clearly spoke persuasively to that heavily Democratic audience. With a timely assist, it should be added, from the one rival with poll numbers high enough to have qualified him for prime time if were a Republican: Bernie Sanders.
"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," Sanders said. "Me, too! Me, too!" Clinton replied. The highly partisan crowd roared and the two candidates shook hands. The "damn emails" still trouble all Republicans and most Independents, but Democrats don't like dissent and relished Clinton's repeated attacks on Republicans.
Clinton was careful also not to leave much room between her 2008 vanquisher and 2009-2013 boss, Barack Obama. On foreign policy, she noted that "he valued my judgment and I spent a lot of time with him in the Situation Room, going over some very difficult issues." Not much room left for Joe Biden, reportedly watching the debate from the Vice President's house.
On Libya, he "made the right decision at the time." She noted her role in advising Obama on the "tough decision" he had to make about Osama bin Laden -- on which Biden gave contrary advice. On Syria, she applauded the administration for being "engaged in talks right now with the Russians to make it clear that they've got to be part of the solution to try to end that bloody conflict."
In another forum those statements would be subject to challenge. Most voters don't believe the Osama decision was tough. It's hard to argue their handling of the Libya crisis has held up over time. It's pathetic to plead with the Russians, who are bombing our allies and blocking the "no-fly" zone that Clinton backs, to change their course. Overall polls give Obama negative marks on foreign policy.
But almost all Democratic voters have favorable feelings toward both Obama and Clinton. So Clinton's rivals mostly drew back from attacking her. The rare dissent on policy -- notably Jim Webb's succinct statement opposing the Iran nuclear deal -- was met with silence from the other candidates, the questioners and the audience. The fact that most voters oppose the deal was ignored.
Focus group participants took a different view of the debate from almost all pundits, who scored it as a victory for Clinton. Democrats with favorable feelings toward Clinton are indeed flirting with the Sanders candidacy. Left-wing Democrats, like right-wing Republicans, are enchanted by candidates who dare to take stands they perceive as unpopular with voters generally.
But such candidates don't get nominated. Sanders gamely tried to appeal to blacks, who make up 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters, by decrying the nation's high prison populations and calling (as Clinton and many Republicans have) for changes in criminal sentencing. He, like all except Webb, embraced the "black lives matter" slogan without regard for the actual Black Lives Matter platform.
But that seems unlikely to move black voters away from the wife of the man once hailed as the first black president and the first secretary of state for the man who actually fits that description.
Sanders also risked turning off some Democrats by repeatedly criticizing the United States for lacking welfare state provisions like those in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Clinton responded with an eye on the general election as well as the primaries. "But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America."
The Democrats' talk about economic inequities might convince a man from Mars that we're in the seventh year of a reactionary Republican presidency. You didn't hear much praise of the signal Obama achievements, Obamacare and the Iran deal. And candidates' policies to reduce inequality -- higher minimum wage, paid family leave -- seem pathetically inadequate beside the candidates' dire diagnoses.
The debate left little doubt about who the nominee will be, or about her presentational skills when not faced with opposition. But as Bloomberg's Megan McArdle writes, "Democrats wasted their chance to test Clinton."
Michael Barone, senior political analyst at the Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), where this article first appeared, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.