Synopsis: Altogether, this debate was noteworthy for the dignity the candidates held in their sparring with each other. Bernie even went so far as to support Hillary when she was pegged on the email controversy. Hillary emerged as the overall winner, delivering herself very well. Hillary’s polls are likely to improve. Bernie delivered a mediocre to disappointing performance, dodging questions and repeating the same rhetoric ad nauseum. Although Sanders is not going to see a boost in the polls for his performance at the debate, he will probably not slip much. Webb capitalized on his military experience, mentioning his experience in the Pentagon several times. O’Malley missed out key opportunities to shine, but still did fairly well, perhaps well enough to almost break single digits. Chafee will likely be forced out of the race after his poor performance and laughable acknowledgement of his ineptitude early in his political career.
Debate Rubric (Because Marzano is god?):
| Superior-4 | Proficient-3 | Poor-2 | Unsatisfactory-1 | |
| Factual Information | that annoying kid down the block that memorized the dictionary | pretty factual | essentially a quack | “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” |
| Comprehension | thorough understanding | pretty good understanding | hardly a candidate | Donald Trump |
| Persuasiveness | manipulative af, logically and emotionally | amateur manipulator | needs some work | just no |
| Delivery | JFK level shit | watered down JFK | needs to learn how to speak | Ben Carson |
| Rebuttal | addresses arguments with great counter-arguments | pretty good counter-arguments | addresses some, but still, no | ignores counter arguments entirely |
Running according to points below:
1. Hilary Clinton (20 pts.)
2. Martin O’Malley (16 pts.)
3.Bernie Sanders/Jim Webb (13 pt.)
4.Lincoln Chafee (5 pts.)
Hilary Clinton- Total: 20 pts.
| Factual Information | 4. Libya information questionable, misstated her past position on the TPP. |
| Comprehension | 4. Good comprehension of foreign policies |
| Persuasiveness | 4. Great answer to email scandals, women’s issues, foreign relation understanding |
| Delivery | 4. Great speaker. Had charm. Suitable replies in times of stress |
| Rebuttal | 4. Great rebuttals. Addressed issues like emails very well. Great rebuttals to flip-flopper issues. |
Bernie Sanders: 13 pts.
| Factual Information | 3. Everything Bernie said was factual, just repetitive |
| Comprehension | 2. Did not understand foreign affiars. Kept repeating same policies: “raise min. wage”, “reform wall street”, “support the middle class”. Actual actions to do so are fuzzy. Avoids questions when possible. |
| Persuasiveness | 3. Is passionate and very persistent, but does not appeal to moderate Democrats |
| Delivery | 3. Again, very passionate, but it felt like he was yelling at America, not relating to us. |
| Rebuttal | 2. Seemed to repeat himself (a theme for the candidate), yet provided little substance. Avoided many questions such as “Would his personal beliefs risk the financial stability?”. |
Martin O’Malley: 16 pts.
| Factual Information | 4. O’Malley had several stats to discuss and delivered thoroughly crafted plans to bring about goals such as a green electrical system by 2050. |
| Comprehension | 4. Was fluent and informed on every topic discussed. |
| Persuasiveness | 3. If you listened to his actual words, he had a lot of very compelling arguments |
| Delivery | 2. His arguments were compelling, but his voice was so monotone and it was hard to listen to them |
| Rebuttal | 3. Was not given sufficient opportunities to show off skill. For the few, did decently well. For example, when asked about his “tough on crime” position as mayor of Baltimore, O’Malley spun the question around to make himself seem to be a compassionate supporter of economically disadvantaged black youth. |
Jim Webb: 13 pts.
| Factual Information | 3. He wasn’t incorrect about what he was saying, but it wasn’t anything new or special. |
| Comprehension | 4. Great comprehension of issues. Unfortunately, his infliction destroys the credibility of otherwise knowledgeable backgrounds. |
| Persuasiveness | 3 His speaking wasn’t good enough for him to be persuasive. Lots of credentials |
| Delivery | 2. Poor public speaker. No infliction of tone. |
| Rebuttal | 1. Like Chafee, there were few (if any) opportunities for Webb to refute arguments against him. |
Lincoln Chafee: 5 pts.
| Factual Information | 1.Did Chafee say anything factual? I didn’t hear anything worthy of comment. At the very least, he didn’t seem to lie, he just didn’t say anything of substance. |
| Comprehension | 1. The man just about acknowledged that he did not understand what his vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagall would do. Acknowledged that he voted for big banks because he didn’t understand them when he JUST arrived in the U.S. Senate |
| Persuasiveness | 1.One cannot be persuasive if he has no discernible argument. |
| Delivery | 1.His fluency was the worst of any of the candidates. He didn’t have a single statement where he didn’t stutter or pause. |
| Rebuttal | 1.I almost feel sorry giving Chafee a 1 here, as he had almost no opportunities to refute any attacks against him, as nobody made any. |