Five takeaways from the third Democratic 2020 debate 

The status quo wins

Thursday’s 10-way clash in Houston was a debate without knock-out blows. Joe Biden pinned down the progressives on costs, he in turn was challenged over his conservatism. 

There were neat sound-bites, searing attacks on Donald Trump and some genuinely moving moments at the end as candidates were asked to name setbacks they had overcome. But fundamentally it did not feel like there was a game-changing moment. 

And that benefits the front-runners. This race is still in its infancy, with five months to go before the first votes are cast in Iowa and another five after that before a winner is crowned. 

Even so, every debate when Joe Biden, still leading by a mile according to polling, is not politically damaged is an opportunity missed by his rivals. His double-digit lead has remained intact all year – in fact for the last three years. 

If there is to be a sudden moment when his lead is wiped out, it did not come here. 

Biden’s Obama problem

One of the strongest cards in the former vice president’s hand is his association with Barack Obama, the man he served as deputy for eight years. 

Mr Obama remains wildly popular with Democrats three years after leaving office. And while the former president has not endorsed a candidate, Mr Biden is making the most of the link. 

That strategy came under attack in Houston. Mr Biden was accused by Julian Castro, himself Mr Obama’s former housing and urban development secretary, of cherry picking bits of the former president’s legacy and claiming credit. 

The criticism came after Mr Biden had three times refused to say the migrant deportations that happened under Mr Obama’s watch were a mistake. The question was asked by a Latino host and the issue has become a thorn in Mr Biden’s side. 

There is politics here too. Mr Biden’s high standing with African-American voters has given him a formidable advantage in some early voting states, especially South Carolina. Rivals will keep looking to erode that lead. 

Andrew Yang’s upper limit

The remarkable staying power of Mr Yang, an entrepreneur who has never held public office, has been one of the stories of the 2020 campaign so far. 

He is polling sixth nationally and earned an appearance on the debate stage where other, much bigger names – a senator, a New York mayor, multiple current or former governors – fell short. 

But the debate at times shone a light on the limit of Mr Yang’s current appeal. He was articulate and fluent on the flaws in the US economy. He was generally relaxed at the podium.  

Yet on some topics he struggled. During a section on national security he was asked why he was better placed than others on stage to be America’s commander-in-chief. The response was stilted. 

His signature proposal, giving every adult American $1000 a month, may resonate with some voters (and was the subject of a gimmick on debate night – an announcement that 10 families will get to trial the policy this year). 

But doubts remain about whether he can stitch together a policy platform outside of economic issues that can push him on from outsider candidate to serious contender. 

Signs the debates are helping

Before 2019 came about there was grumbling from corners of the Washington establishment that the Democratic 2020 race would be too crowded for its own good. 

Candidates would be drowned out. Debates would descend into slagging matches. The damage done in the primaries could fatally harm the chances of the eventual nominee. 

But there was always a counter-argument – that going through that baptism of fire helps. The Democrats’ last three successful presidential candidates – Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – all made it thoroughly tightly fought primaries before taking the White House.

There were signs on Thursday that exactly that is happening this cycle. Candidates’ opening statements were more focussed. Their twenty-second policy pitches, so critical come the real presidential race, were tighter after months of honing. 

So too were the attacks. Between each of the three debates – in June, July and September – candidates clearly have worked hard on their political weaknesses, both personal and in terms of policy – and made changes. 

All of which benefits the person who will eventually take the fight to Mr Trump. 

Beto goes all in on gun reform

The story of Beto O’Rourke’s campaign has been a curious one. First a surge to fame in 2018 as he attempted to take Ted Cruz’s Senate seat. Then a period of "funk" as he considered whether to seek the presidency. 

At the turn of the year he was some commentators’ outside tip to win the nomination. But much of this year his poll numbers have slumped, hitting the ominous 0 per cent in some recent surveys. 

Then came the El Paso shooting. The killing of 22 people in Mr O’Rourke’s home town clearly deeply moved the former congressman, and angered him. On Thursday he framed his campaign pitch around the moment of clarity which the tragedy had brought. 

Mr O’Rourke did what so many past Democrats presidential hopefuls have refused to do – said explicitly that he wants to force Americans to give up some guns, specifically those designed for use in the battlefield. 

"Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," Mr O’Rourke said to cheers. He described the impact the bullets from those guns have when they make impact with a person, in moving terms. 

Mr O’Rourke went one step further – he said after conversations with gun owners he believed consensus could be found around the proposal. If he is right, his campaign – and the shape of America’s gun laws – could be in for a dramatic change.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store