If you watched the Democrat debate last night, I do terribly apologize. That’s at least two hours of your life that you’re never going to get back, more if you watched NBC’s extensive pregame coverage.
There was “Beto en español.” There was Elizabeth Warren, who — at the very least — postponed her breakout performance to a later date.
There was Jay Inslee, governor of Washington, who decided that the greatest national security threat we faced wasn’t Iran or North Korea or Al Qaeda, but instead Donald J. Trump — and got applause for it.
However, there was one standout from Wednesday’s quotefest, and it wasn’t who you might have thought.
I present to you the Drudge Report’s take on who won Wednesday’s debate: Tusli Gabbard.
Drudge Report’s instant poll shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as the biggest winner of the first night of the Democratic presidential debates pic.twitter.com/2t7BTBhKPy
— United States Trends (@Trends4USA) June 27, 2019
The poll has Gabbard passing Warren, Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke.
Now, granted, this isn’t the most scientific way of declaring the Hawaii representative the winner of Wednesday’s first Democrat kumite showdown.
This isn’t exactly scientific. It’s a Drudge Report poll, after all. However, given how few numbers were offered up last night, I think we’re safe in saying that it’s about as scientific as any proposal we saw. (All right, perhaps a little less, but still.)
So, why did Gabbard win the debate?
At least for Reason, it was because she “Wrecks Dems With Powerful Anti-War Debate Answers.”
“War with Iran would be worse than war with Iraq,” Gabbard said.
“Donald Trump and his chickenhawk cabinet — Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and others — are creating a situation where a spark would light a war with Iran. Trump needs to get back into the Iran deal, swallow his pride, and put America first.”
This was different than “the positions of other Democratic candidates on stage. Cory Booker was the lone debate participant to say that he would not automatically re-enter the Iran deal worked out by President Obama, suggesting a better deal could be had.”
According to Newsweek, it was because she was fact-checked Rep. Tim Ryan about the causes of 9/11. Quartz also found her to be a “breakout candidate” on the strength of her search results, though it failed to provide insight.
In short, Gabbard was the candidate many seemed to embrace in a sweepstakes where nobody seemed to embrace a candidate.
If you were a conservative and came away from Wednesday’s event without a preferred candidate, well, join the club. However, Gabbard seemed to make the most sense — though that wasn’t any huge leap, given who was on the stage.
Thursday gives us the next batch of liberals — which means the putatively sane Joe Biden, along with Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris. Can’t wait to see what they have to say about migrant deaths under the Obama administration.
Come to think of it, Gabbard still might end up making the most sense. And that should be scary.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.