The second debate night

Pretty much everyone agrees that the big story of the night was the emergence of Kamala Harris.  Like Warren the day before, she greatly enhanced her perceived electability -- by being so devastatingly effective debating Biden, she reassured voters that she would be effective against Trump as well, at least in debates.  Again, we'll need to wait a few days for real polling data to become available (online snap polls are meaningless), but I'm guessing she'll get a boost in support.

I think Biden, by contrast, damaged his perceived electability.  His response was irritable, evasive, and completely lacking in empathy, and he stumbled into yet another error by saying he agreed with busing being decided at the local level but objected to it being imposed at the federal level -- a de facto endorsement of the segregationist "states' rights" stance of that time.  (His actual position on busing in the seventies was more negative than he implied in the debate.)  His campaign's post-debate comment on the exchange was just as tone-deaf and clueless.  If he couldn't handle Harris any better than this, it raises doubts about his ability to handle Trump.

(For analysis of the debate overall, see here.)

I feel vindicated in my assessment last week that Biden's choice of segregationists as examples of the virtue of being able to work with people one "disagrees with" was a serious blunder.  Given the length of his career, there were doubtless many other people he could have used as examples, but he chose a monstrous figure like Eastland who virtually personified a system of oppression that kept millions of Americans subjugated on the basis of skin color.  He still doesn't seem to realize why this choice was a mistake or to grasp that it potentially alienates millions of black voters (and other people aware of the history of racism in the US) whose votes he will need in both the primary and the general.  And he's continued to dig in deeper each time he's challenged on it.  At the very least, it raises a concern about what further self-damaging blunders he's likely to make in the sixteen months between now and the election.

In short, the debates demolished the electability argument for Biden.  Harris, Warren, and perhaps others now look more capable of defeating Trump.  Buttigieg also made a good impression.  As on Wednesday, none of the minor candidates really distinguished themselves.  Assuming these impressions are confirmed by polling, those among them who could plausibly do so need to start thinking about running for Senate instead (Marianne Williamson can perhaps try for ambassador to Pluto).  Sanders is still in the running with substantial support, and Biden remains a heavyweight and could recover if he gets a grip on his problems and changes course.  There could still be some future stand-out moment from one of the minor candidates, but their performances so far give no reason to expect one.  The nominee will almost certainly be either Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders, or Biden.

By the way, the audience for Wednesday's debate was 15.3 million, while that for Thursday's was 18.1 million (source).  These are impressively-large numbers for a primary debate, but still small compared to the total potential electorate -- 130 million people voted in 2016, and the number of Americans qualified to vote is over 200 million.  So, again, most voters will get their impressions via news coverage and videos of the highlights -- which means it may take some time for the effects of the candidates' performances to show up in polling data.