Wow! Night two was a completely different event from night one. The favoritism in CNN’s development of how they would ask questions, and to whom, was there for all to see. Next up, ABC, and I hope they pick a more equitable format.
The debates showed the schisms in our big tent. And that would be really great in normal times, when the policy differences would end up being hashed out for the platform, and we would find confluence and concurrence. These are not normal times. Meaning that, for example, Gabbard’s take down of Harris’s record in great detail was written down by Trump’s campaign team, where the salient names and dates will be added to the list, and if she is the nominee, they’ll use flash cards with pictures, and it will be used against her. Those historical comments are now the lens that will be used in evaluating any of Harris’ criminal justice policies.
It’s also obvious that no one really knows how to sell a health care plan, other than Sanders. I’m personally not a fan of his plan, as written, I think there are better approaches to get to the eventual goal, but he is able to explain things in simple terms, where others cannot. And for every single candidate pushing Medicare for All in ANY form, how is it that they cannot say the following?
“Folks, this is an issue of math. Everyone seems to say taxes will go up, but what you should look at is how much money is in your pocket. So if taxes go up $500 a month BUT your insurance premium, deductibles, co-pays and drug costs go DOWN $1000 a month, that’s an additional $500 you can spend monthly on something else. And while the numbers may vary, the principle is to look at the net cost to you and your family.”
There were great lines last night, with the winner going to Booker, in response to Biden:
“If you want to compare records, and I’m shocked that you do, I’m happy to do that. You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor.”
Runner up to Gillibrand who would Clorox the Oval Office.
Mostly though, it was a scrum and the two sets of protesters didn’t help. As per usual, my take diverges from the MSM and people who are already all in for a candidate. Here goes anyway.
I’ve been reading the demographics on age, race and voting. Next year, there will be a lot of older white people voting, and if history is prologue, at least half of them will vote for Trump. And we cannot get them back. Then, there are a lot of millenial and GenZ potential voters, and they are mostly people of color, and both they and the whites amoung them tend to be to the left. The sole thing that our party is aligned on is the need to vanquish Trump no matter what. So the lens I use to evaluate candidates is who can go on the ticket that can attract the younger people, and how can they be enervated to get to the polls?
I think that there must be a person of color on the ticket or we lose. I’m torn on the issue of whether or not there needs to be a woman on the ticket, but I’m sure about the person of color. When both Obamas go out next summer and fall on their across the country trip, they’ll be able to grab the 2008/2012 Obama voters, and a lot of young people who weren’t old enough to vote in those elections. They’ll certainly do this, and we need a ticket that looks like America. While I’m not convinced he’ll get the traction, I think Booker is the candidate who should be there with the Obamas. He’s left of center, but not too left, his baby bonds program can get through Congress, and he talks in a language that makes sense to many people across the board.
One final thought – people keep saying that Moscow Mitch is the problem for the enactment of any presidential agenda. This is like the old game we used to play in college where they’d put a paper bag over your head, and set up a scenario, and ask what you’d take off first. People always forgot to remove the bag. The way you prevent Moscow Mitch from being a problem is to (a) vote him out of office and (b) retake the Senate. Don’t consider him an obstruction, make him a non-issue.
