Iowa Democratic Debate 2020: Five key takeaways as the gloves come off
The first Democratic presidential debate of 2020 happened at Drake University in Des Moines in Iowa on Tuesday, January 14. While it was the first (overall seventh) presidential debate of the year and the new decade, it was also the last before the first major test of this election year — the Iowa caucuses.
The occasion was an important one for more than one reason but there was clearly a shortfall in the six candidates' overall performance in the debate despite them getting more time to speak.
After the US' spiraling crisis with Iran following the death of its top military leader Aassem Soleimani, it was expected that foreign policy will remain in the central focus of the debate. It started on those lines only to include other aspects of domestic politics.
Here are the top five takes from the debate:
Lack of direction in foreign policy
All the candidates were hell-bent to thrash President Donald Trump's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, but none could come up with a fresh alternative.
They were found disagreeing with each other on the nuances of military policy, allowing their subjective takes to prevail more as a moralistic appeal to the voters. In reality, the talks lacked substance.
The performance of a top candidate like Elizabeth Warren on the foreign policy issue was particularly disappointing. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were busy proving who had a futuristic viewpoint on foreign policy decades ago.
Pete Buttigieg took an indirect dig at the gerontocracy at play saying: "There are enlisted people I serve with barely old enough to remember some of those votes," as he referred to the 2002 voting on Iraq war.
Lesser-weight Tom Steyer made a lot of sense when he said the US needed to work on tragedies like the Australian bushfire as part of its foreign policy.
Warren v/s Sanders
It didn't send a happy message to voters but for Warren, it was a big win. She struggled to score enough points on foreign policy issues but on the question of "women can't become the president of the US' as allegedly told to her by Sanders, she delivered a masterstroke.
She pointed at the electoral vulnerability of all four men on the podium. The concluding shot of her refusing to shake hands with Sanders after the debate made it abundantly evident that Warren is not really a feeble liberal who cannot beat Trump if the opportunity arrives.
Trade
There were a lot of talks on trade and Sanders was quite clear in presenting his viewpoints. He disagreed to toe the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA even while admitting that it saw modest improvements over the decades-old NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) that Trump has regularly attacked.
The candidates agreed over the point that Trump's trade war with countries like China and Washington's own allies has affected America's jobs and rural economy, particularly in Iowa — one of the country's leading export economies.
A political stance no doubt but the last thing the Democratic candidates need is a poor start to their mission to beat Trump. Steyer, who was the most pro-green during the debate, said he would not sign the deal as it did not address climate change enough.
Pete Buttigieg's rise
The good thing with the former South Bend mayor is that he has constantly the top three — all above 70, a chase and the field — looking favorable for him ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
The 70s' club members looked more unorganized in Iowa, especially because of the Warren-Sanders controversy, while the 38-year-old Buttigieg displayed steadiness and depth.
One with administrative as well as military experiences, Buttigieg has the advantage of looking at things from various perspectives besides, of course, the fact that age is on his side.
In Des Moines, Buttigieg spoke with authority over Trump's Iran fiasco and that was impressive. He asserted that the Trump administration admitted that the 2015 nuclear deal signed with Iran was working before pulling out of it and it had substance.
Policies received more focus
Presidential debates see a lot of talks on personalities (with Trump, it has become all the more normal) but the Des Moines debate saw policies getting a priority over people.
The candidates spoke over foreign policy, health care, child care, climate change and this made it much easier for the otherwise rattled voters to know where each of the six hopefuls stand.
Yes, the Warren-Sanders issue was a bit of a personal low but yet the candidates deserved a pat for talking on various issues even while trashing Trump in unison.