On Saturday November 14th, Drake University hosted the second Democratic Presidential primary debate. Unlike the Republican debate, which featured eight candidates, the Democratic debate showcased only three candidates on the pursuit for Presidency: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. This came as the result of Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb dropping out of the race following the first Democratic primary debate on October 13th.
Recommended for you
During the debate, the three candidates touched on a wide range of topics, but focused on national security and foreign policy. Watching the debate from the perspective of a college student in America, certain topics--such as minimum wage and college tuition--are more relevant to my life. Thus, I decided to focus on matters that seem more appealing to the young American, as well as touch upon some topics relating to the recent terror attack in Paris. So, without further ado, I present to you my recap of the second Democratic primary debate.
Moderator John Dickerson began the night with a moment of silence for victims of the Paris attack, which took place the day prior to the debate. Following that, the candidates moved on to their opening statements which, for the most part, focused on their individual reactions to the terror attack in Paris. Sanders, choosing the more, what some are describing as, “dovish wing,” stated that he was “shocked and disgusted” by the attacks, promising to “rid the planet of this murderous organization that is called ISIS.” Personally, I was disappointed by Sanders’ statement. Of course I, along with a large majority of the world, want to terminate ISIS. That is a given. I do agree with him touching on that topic, but I wish he had added more to his statement.
Clinton, for example, mentioned that the election is more than electing a President, it is also about electing a Commander in Chief. Furthermore, she told the crowd of her plan of action regarding U.S. policy in the fight against terror groups, including, but not limited to, ISIS. Similarly to Clinton, O’Malley went more in depth in his opening statement, claiming that the U.S. will further efforts to terminate ISIS, but in order to do so, the country must work together with the Middle East: “This is the new face of conflict and warfare [...] we must be able to work collaboratively with others.”
From the opening, the candidates were then asked to respond to the U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS as well as the claim made by President Obama, just a few hours before the attack in Paris, in which he claimed that ISIS had been contained.
Clinton responded to this by emphasizing that the fight against ISIS is not America’s fight. If the U.S. is going to fight, it will be to assist those who directly take on the jihadist terror group. Americans cannot, and should not, take on full responsibility for the war against terror. Subsequently, Sanders and O’Malley distanced themselves from Clinton in this respect, both supporting the U.S.’s direct involvement in the fight. But, unlike O’Malley, Sanders argued that the U.S. could not go into the fight alone. O’Malley believes that the U.S. rising above and confronting ISIS head on is the best route of confrontation. Rather than delve into a more detailed approach on how to contain ISIS, Sanders took a different course. He blamed Clinton for the rise of the terror groups in the Middle East due to the Iraq War. Doing so, he pointed out that Clinton had in fact voted to engage in the Iraq War while in the Senate. Feeling confident, Clinton did not hesitate to respond to Sanders' stabs by acknowledging that, “[She has] said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.” Later on, Sanders made the loaded claim that, “This is a war for the soul of Islam," to which Clinton added, “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam…I think we’re at war with jihadists.” Clinton also stated, “We are not at war with Islam or Muslims, we are at war with violent extremism.” All of these statements, including the ones made by Sanders, resulted in loud applauses and cheering from the crowd.
Moving onto the topic of college (something that is extremely relevant for most, if not all, my readers), Clinton bashed Sanders when she disagreed with his support for free college for everyone saying, “I don’t think taxpayers should be paying for Donald Trump’s kids to go to college.” This was a jab at Sanders who believes that everyone in America should have the opportunity to receive a college education. Sanders thinks that a free college experience would encourage all students to study harder earlier on knowing that they will not be limited in their options when looking to further their education. Ideally, Sanders “want[s] those kids to know if they study hard, they do their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will in fact be able to get a college education because we are going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free.” He also wants to lower the interest rates on college debt. As a current college student myself, free college sounds almost too good to be true. But, a free education is not something that I think, for the time being, would be possible without dramatic costs, both monetary and otherwise. On the same topic, O’Malley showed support for debt-free college education in the U.S., advocating that the through-the-roof interest rates on student loans need to be cut--a very practical first step.
Eventually, the candidates moved to the topic of minimum wage--another topic very relevant to college-age persons. Contrary to the GOP debate, where the Republican candidates had the audacity to insist that the minimum wage is in fact too high, the Democratic candidates took a more humanitarian approach. Sanders began the discussion by calling for an immediate raise: “Millions of Americans [are] working two or three jobs because that wages that they are earning are just too low [...] So I believe that in fact this country needs to move toward a living wage. It is not a radical idea to say that if somebody works 40 hours a week that person should not be living in poverty.” From experience in retail services, to a brief experience in the restaurant service industry, I fully support Sanders' testimony. O’Malley followed up Sanders by asserting that an increase in minimum wage would have a positive chain effect on the economy as a whole: “The more our people earn, the more money they spend, and the more our whole economy grows.” Finally, Clinton, attempting to play everyone's advocate, showed her support for a raised minimum wage, although not as high as Sanders' $15/hr. To begin, Clinton showed her support for a $12 federal minimum wage and, “That is what the Democrats in the Senate have put forward as a proposal.” Thankfully, she continued, “I do believe that is a minimum,” for areas (such as New York City) where the cost of living is greater, the minimum wage will go up.
Unfortunately, the most exciting and unpredictable thing to happen during the entire debate was when it ended about five minutes early.
To conclude this piece, here is some interesting information that came as a result of the debate:
Immediately following the debate, the support for each of the candidates has not changed much with Clinton dipping .2%, and O’Malley and Sander rising, the polls now stand at:
Clinton: 54.5%
Sanders: 33.5%
O’Malley: 2.8%
