The four parts are posted on the Sun-Sentinel website (They are labeled I-IIII but aren’t posted in order; so, some futzing is required to view it sequentially.)
My overall impression is that it’s similar to what would have been seen if the first 2016 primary debate had been limited to HRC and Sanders. DWS uses the same debate strategies and HRC. Specifically, she filibusters to get a larger portion of the time, repeats campaign talking points, skirts/deflects questions that don’t favor her, interrupts and talks over her opponent, claims consistency when not in evidence, denies her failures and takes credit for the successes of other Democrats.
The “I’m very proud of X” is a stock answer that both DWS and HRC make frequent use of. Guess it’s effective when focus group tested. I find it annoying at best.
One difference between HRC and DWS is that DWS smirks a lot. It’s both unattractive and condescending to the audience.
That said, Canova didn’t seem to appreciate how difficult it is to debate a candidate that uses the HRC/DWS strategy. As with many before him, he let his frustration with not getting to speak show. In that way DWS got more time to speak and put Canove in a whine position about it. A pre-debate time limit to address a question that cuts off the speakers’ mic when reached would put a stop to this nonsense, but DWS would never have agreed to that. The only effective alternative is to come armed with a few quick jab jokes about the time disparity (along with a little smile to relieve the tedium of his limited facial expressions) and quickly move on with a sharp response that is also as pithy as possible. Don’t waste time on issues and/or records that require long responses if the differences are small and/or the issues/records lack major substance.
For example when DWS claimed a long-standing record of supporting Democratic candidates, Canova should have come back with, you mean like the
three Democratic challengers to incumbent Republicans – the Diaz-Balart brothers and the ever-insufferable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen -friend to terrorists who blow up passenger jets –
that you didn’t support because you are friends with those three Republicans?
Canova did touch on the Democratic losses in the 2014 midterms when DWS was DNC chair, but again it wasn’t sharp and focused. It left standing DWS claim to have been instrumental in Obama’s re-election and that had the quality of being more important.
DWS put Canova on the defensive several times about his Democratic Party credentials. His responses were too long-winded and lacked the requisite punch for an underdog and first time candidate. Something shorter such as “I’ve always been an FDR Democrat and briefly considered that could better be advanced by being an independent. Unfortunately, Florida isn’t like Vermont [smile] and here a liberal has to work through the Democratic Party or not work at all on important issues for these times.
The FL CD-23 is a tough one for a candidate such as Canova. Coming early in the primary cycle, Sanders didn’t do well anywhere in the state but was weaker in CD-23 than some others. While Sanders may well have done better in FL if that primary had been later, CD-23 would have been a weak district for him.
Canover tried to thread the needle on I/P and Iran. Failed. That allowed DWS to wrap herself around Obama and Israel. Canova was left flailing on why he didn’t support Obama’s Iran deal. There’s no room for nuance on I/P among that Democratic primary constituency and no way to beat someone like DWS on that issue. What he did say wasn’t qualitatively different from DWS’s position. My recommendation would have been to agree with DWS on this issue and move on. That may have horrified some of his small donors outside FL, but at this point in the election cycle that wouldn’t matter. If that’s his authentic and fully considered position, he could have preserved viability as a candidate for a future election in CD-23 (except not as a primary challenger to DWS) but won’t get the same level of financial support from those outside FL.
Canova also got tangled up over the minimum wage. Like a double foot-fault. It’s fine to say one supports a $15 minimum wage, but not fine to say “I don’t know how that’s accomplished.” A decent answer would have been, “the same way every increase in the minimum has been done by Congress.” Then remind the audience that it’s been nine years since the last one was done and none in my opponents last four terms. Add in that congress needs to return to the days of passing increases in the minimum wage no less infrequently than every six years or better yet index the minimum wage for inflation and automatic increases.
A major task for Canova in this one and only debate was to hit her hard on payday lenders and wrap himself around Elizabeth Warren. With DWS filibustering the time, he couldn’t rely on the moderator (who did make an effort to be fair) to get the debate there. Shaving seconds off the time he used for all of his responses may have opened up enough time. Still, being prepared to seize an opportune moment to redirect the debate was also necessary. The moderator would probably have indulged him after the seemingly endless repetitions from DWS tooting her own horn with “I’m proud ….” I’ve been wonderful, successful, … “I’m a Democrat…” “My constituency loves me …” “My family lives here, I’m a breast cancer survivor.”
It wasn’t that Canova was bad and DWS was good. If the scoring were based on staying on topic, DWS would have been the clear loser. It’s not even that DWS scored any real points. It’s that Canova didn’t either, and that’s nowhere good enough for an underdog challenger.
