Why Did So Many People Vote for Trump?

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 156, in which I consider why more than 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in the just concluded Presidential election.

Further reading: Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm

Check out this episode!

Truth Wins in the Marketplace of Ideas

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 155, in which I put Joe Biden's victory in some philosophic context: it offers proof of John Milton's argument, way back in the Areopagitica, that truth can win in the marketplace of ideas, even this age of social media.

 

Check out this episode!

Podcast: Grounds for Optimism the Day after the Election

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 154, in which I explain how Joe Biden is winning the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.

Check out this episode!

Grounds for Optimism at 9:30 in the Morning, the Day after the Election

The counting in the 2020 Presidential election in the United States continues, despite that fascist in the White House.   And the results are providing grounds for real optimism.

Joe Biden is close to being called winner in Wisconsin.  He's beginning to move up in Michigan (AP is already calling Biden leading in Michigan).   AP and Fox News have Biden winning Arizona.  He also won a district with one electoral vote in Nebraska.   That's enough to make him President.  

And ... Philadelphia's mail-in ballots, to be counted tonight, could well give him a victory in Pennsylvania, too.  Even Georgia's still in play.  I'm moving from guardedly optimistic to solidly optimistic. 

The course of true democracy never did run smooth.  It's beset by ignorance and fascistic impulse in the populace at every turn.   An impulse that bids people to act on their worst instincts, to ignore facts and throw away logic in favor of gratifying grievances and delusion.   Trump has fanned these flames at every turn.

But the counting continues nonetheless.  Hope and truth and respect for truth persist.   And I expect, before this day is over, that it will triumph over the despoiler in White House, and consign him to the ignominy of history.

"Abraham Lincoln Over There"

I've been thinking about the second and final Presidential debate between Biden and Trump last week.  Obviously, and as I said on Twitter and Facebook right after the debate, Trump was less abusive than he was in the first debate (faint praise), but Biden held his own, and delivered a vastly more effective closing statement.   But as Election Day -- or the end of Election time -- looms, and that last debate fades into history, I'm realizing the highpoint of the debate, certainly its most memorable line, came when Joe Biden looked at Trump and said, "Abraham Lincoln over there..."

This came a little after Trump had claimed with a straight face that he done more for African-Americans than any other President, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.  It had much the same power as Lloyd Benson's rejoinder to Dan Quayle's statement in the 1988 VP debate that he and Jack Kennedy had been of a similar age, allowing Bentsen to say to Quayle, I knew Jack Kennedy and you're no Jack Kennedy.  Quayle had been warned by his prep team not to say that in the debate -- he had been saying that on the campaign trail -- and Bentsen had been well prepared for such a statement.  In the case of Trump, there's no warning such arrogance,  and it didn't matter if Biden had been prepared for that statement and was ready with the Lincoln jibe, it was delivered with just the right tone at just the right time.

Trump unsurprisingly went on to dig a bigger hole for himself, responding that he had never said he was Abraham Lincoln.  This was literally true but a lie in effect.  Everyone had heard him compare himself to Lincoln just a few minutes earlier.  The denial also showed that Trump is metaphor-blind.

In all fairness to the Trump-Quayle comparison, Quayle did go on to win the Vice Presidency in that 1988 election.  But that was only because George H. W. Bush ran a much better campaign for President than his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis.  Though anything is possible when the votes begin to get counted next week, and underestimating Trump's support is an ever-present danger, I expect Joe Biden to do much better than the ersatz Abraham Lincoln who masquerades as President.

Harris vs. Pence in VP Debate: Pence Avoids Answering Most of the Questions

I didn't keep a strict count, but I'd say VP Pence avoided answering more than half the questions put to him by Susan Page in the just concluded VP 2020 debate.  The most egregious avoidance came near the end, when Pence didn't answer Page's question about what Trump would do if he lost the election.  That is, the all-important question of whether Trump would peacefully leave office, as the law requires, if Biden won the election.

And that, in turn, raises the question that was raised last week about Chris Wallace: why wasn't Page more forceful in holding Pence to account when he ignored her questions?  She was somewhat better than Wallace in challenging Pence when he talked over his allotted time, but as a moderator, shouldn't she have insisted that the candidate answer the questions put to him?   Is that part of the job of a moderator?  As it was, she complained a lot but took little action.  Once again, a mute button would have helped.

Meanwhile, Harris had a good outing.  She more than once stopped Pence when he was talking over her, intruding on her time, and offered a both logical and passionate defence of her and Biden's progressive positions.  For his part, Pence was far better than Trump in presenting his conservative positions or whatever exactly they were than was Trump, but that's faint praise indeed.

In general, I doubt that this debate changed many if any minds.   But Biden is now so far ahead in the polls, that probably doesn't matter.  What Trump needed tonight was a decisively powerful and winning performance from his Vice President.  What he got was a somewhat weary, smug presentation which will likely do nothing more than seal the much deserved fate of this rapidly disintegration administration. 

Biden vs. Bernie in our Coronavirus Time

A powerful Presidential debate just concluded between Biden and Bernie on CNN.  The backdrop and of course the greatest sources of questions were about the Coronavirus pandemic.  But there were other crucial issues debated as well.

I thought both candidates did well, but Biden did better.

On the Coronavirus, and health care in general:  I'm strongly in favor of universal health care provided by our government (see my William H. McNeill and The Logic of Universal Health Care from January 2017).  But I think Biden's way of getting there -- building upon  Obamacare, with a free, robust public option -- is better than Bernie's (which amounts to just magically declaring that we'll have free universal healthcare).  In other words, at all times, but especially in this time of the Coronavirus, practical construction is more reliable than revolution.   Biden added to this with his point about look how poorly Italy is doing in combating the Coronavirus.  They have free healthcare for all, and their  problems with the Coronavirus show that their way is no sure way of limiting the devastation of the virus.

And Biden did very well with his commitment to put a progressive woman as Vice President on the ticket, in contrast to Bernie who, the best he could say was "in all likelihood" he would put a woman on his ticket.  I also liked Biden's commitment to put an African-American woman on the Supreme Court.

As for the past, each candidate had some warranted criticism of the other.  But for me, the criticism that counted the most was Biden's critique of Bernie for voting no on the Brady Bill to limit guns no less than five times.  That's another crucial, literally life-and-death issue.

I'm looking forward to Tuesday's primaries and Bernie's recognition that the best way to get rid of Trump is for Bernie to give his support to Biden,

Fifth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners

The six-person Democratic presidential debate just concluded on CNN was easily the best debate so far - best in clarity, power of ideas, and even charm - so far.  Whether this was because of the fact that six candidates had more time than ten and more to express their views, or because these six candidates had better views to express ... well, it's probably a combination of both.

But I thought Klobuchar and Steyer especially stood out in their answers to just about all of the questions, and their concluding comments, and I expect that will help both of them in Iowa and beyond.   But Biden, still not the most articulate person on stage, was clear enough.  And Warren, Bernie, and Buttigieg were articulate and passionate, too.

My favorite exchange, in terms of both truth and humor, was between Biden and Bernie:

• Biden: Kim Jong-un said: "Joe Biden is a rabid dog who should be beaten with a stick" 
• Bernie: "Other than that, you like him." 
• Biden" "0ther than that I like him.  And then he sent a love letter to Donald Trump"

Next, I thought Warren got the better of Bernie in the "can a woman be elected President" controversy.  Although Bernie denied saying that, and offered his view that of course a woman could be elected President, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, Warren just seemed more believable in both her unspoken denial and her commitment to women in politics, with her example of woman being more electable than men.

On health care, I still remain unconvinced by Bernie and Warren about the way to get to universal health care in America.  It's a laudable, essential goal, but Klobuchar, Biden, Steyer, and Buttigieg made more sense in building towards on what we already have, via the Affordable Care Act.

Warren was also excellent on politics not being the most important thing - in this case, returning to Washington and sitting as a senator in the trial of Donald Trump takes precedence.   All the candidates agreed that, one way or another, Trump has to be removed from office.  Seeing him voted out of office by the Senate would be satisfying, but I'll take any of the candidates on stage tonight beating him in the election this coming November.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers  ... [missed third debate, I was in Canada] ... Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the 4th Democratic Presidential Debate - just concluded on PBS and CNN - was easily the best so far (but with the proviso that I saw and reviewed both parts of the first and second of these debates, but I didn't see the third, because I was up in Toronto doing this event).  Maybe tonight's debate was stronger because there were fewer people up on stage, so each of the seven candidates got more time to talk.  Maybe last night's Impeachment of Trump inspired the candidates (it certainly inspired me).  But, for whatever reasons ...

I thought the exchange in response to the question about Obama's recent statement that women would do a better job of governing America was outstanding.  All the candidates (with the exception of Yang, who I don't believe gave an answer) responded with clarity, style, and humor.  That included Biden, who easily had his best night, and Steyer, who I thought really came into to his own tonight, with consistently strong answers about how his Presidency could tackle the problems of our time and really make a difference.

But Bernie had a powerful night too, with clear expositions of his socialist perspective.  And Klobuchar was strong, in her defense of improving Obama-care rather than scrapping it in favor of Medicare for all, a position she shares with Biden, in opposition to Bernie and Warren.  And Klobuchar and Buttigieg got in some good lines in their one-on-one exchange, as did Warren and Buttigieg in theirs.

So all the candidates, with exception (again) of Yang, had excellent nights in tonight's debate.  Since Biden was already leading in the national polls, his having such a strong outing is especially significant, since it reinforces his already considerable strength.  But Steyer stepping into the light was notable, too, and the performances of all the other candidates (other than Yang) was more than enough to keep them in the running.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the fourth 2020 Democratic presidential debate, just concluded on CNN, had far more winners and far fewer losers than in any of the previous debates.  Meaning: just about everyone did well.

Among the highlights:

• Biden, who started off a little less than totally coherent in his phrasing - as he often does - did far better in the second half of the debate, and distinguished himself with powerful statements on the need to hit the ground running as President, and his copious experience on many issues ranging from foreign policy to gun control.  He also offered a good critique of Warren's proposals lacking specifics of how they'd be financed.
• Warren gave a strong defense of her progressive policies, and, on the process of campaigning, I was glad to hear her say (with a bit of sarcasm) that "selfies must be the new measure of democracy" - which is almost precisely the point I made after her four+ hours of selfies to all who wanted them after a rally and talk in New York last month (see my McLuhan in an Age of Social Media). 
• Bernie also gave a strong defense of his policies, very similar to Warren's, and he also was almost charming in some of his banter with other candidates.
• Buttigieg gave an excellent defense of his proposal to expand the Supreme Court, and/or in some way to get out of the cut-throat politicization of the Court that currently grips this country.  On the other hand, I though he was unnecessarily aggressive in challenging Beto on Beto's proposal to have a mandatory buy-back of all assault weapons in the U. S. (which I support).
• I thought Beto, in general, was the most effective he's been in the debates so far, finding a good balance between passion and logic in his presentations, and offering an excellent, vivid example of working with a Republican (whom he got to know sharing a car ride from Texas to Washington, DC).
• Harris gave one of the best arguments I've ever heard on the urgency of women having complete control over their bodies.
• Klobuchar was also more effective than she's been in the past, and offered a believable mix of pragmatism and idealism in addressing our myriad problems.
• Even Andrew Yang made some good sense tonight, pointing out that breaking up monopolies - splitting of behemoths like Amazon - is using an old solution to the new problems of the 21st century.   On this one point, I agree with Yang not Warren.
• Tom Steyer the billionaire made his debate debut tonight.  He didn't get much time, but gets points from me in siding with Bernie and Warren that billionaires should be taxed far more than they are currently.
• Booker had the second best example of a social relationship with a surprising person: Booker the vegan had dinner with the "meat eating" Texan Ted Cruz.  He also was good in saying that women are entitled to control their own bodies, because that's a right intrinsic to all people. 
• Castro was typically lucid and reasonable, especially his observation that "police violence is also gun violence, and we need to address that".  I don't know why he isn't doing better in the polls, but this may well be the last time we'll see him on the debate stage.

That leaves just one candidate - Gabbard - for whom I can't think of anything positive worth noting in her debate performance.  Gabbard is wrong on so much many issues - especially foreign policy, and she's friends with Trey Gowdy? - that I'd find it hard to vote for her, unless somehow she were the Democrat running against Trump.

Third 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

The third 2020 Democratic Presidential debate just concluded in Houston on ABC-TV.  It was longer the first four - nearly three hours - and was just one debate, of the ten leading candidates, rather than the two debates of ten each, one day after the other, which is the way the Democratic debates proceeded in June and July.  I thought tonight's debate was also better.

Joe Biden, in his quiet way,  had a very strong and successful night.  He was excellent on a variety of topics, including health care.  Contrary to Castro's calling out Biden for forgetting that Biden just said that Biden's health care plan required people to "opt in," Biden did say that people who couldn't afford any health care would be automatically enrolled.  (More on Castro below, who owes Biden an apology.)  Biden was also strong on both defending Obama's immigration policy and saying, also, that times have changed - I think that's a fair and accurate appraisal.  Biden was also Presidential in the public appreciation he expressed to Beto about his comforting the survivors of the El Paso shooting. And Biden's closing response about the personal tragedies in his life and how those gave him purpose rang deep and true.

Amy Klobuchar also had a good night.   She consistently was a unifying voice, and was 100% on target in her attack on Mitch McConnell.   It's important but easy enough to say Trump is a disgrace to his office.  But McConnell's freezing of the Senate on everything from gun control to immigration is also a crucial piece of why our country is in such difficult straits.  Beto O'Rourke was especially good on gun control and his insistence on taking away the most dangerous guns that are out there in so many hands.  And Kamala Harris had an effective night, with her blend of social sensitivity and prosecutorial zeal directed at Trump.

Elizabeth Warren was ok, and didn't get enough time.   Cory Booker did a little better than in his previous two debates, but loses points for saying "dagnabbit".   Pete Buttigieg were good but didn't really break any new ground.

And then it went seriously downhill.  Bernie seemed haggard and haranguing, and also said nothing new.   Yang was irrelevant.  And, I truly think Castro talked himself out of Presidential contention with his ill-informed and graceless attack on Biden.

I'll see you back here after the next debate.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ...   First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

The headline of the second part of the Second Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, is that Joe Biden did a lot better than he did in the First Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month. He was still a little inarticulate at times, and a little too prone to let the moderators interrupt him, but he was very impressive.  And so was just about everyone else on stage in Detroit tonight.

Some highlights -

• De Blasio is completely right that current, private health care premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses, not to mention costs of prescribed medications, are far more expensive than what we would pay in taxes for universal, government-provided heath care.  On the cost of pharmaceuticals, good for Biden for highlighting that these obscenely high costs need to be brought under control
• Castro and Gillibrand were right to call on De Blasio to immediately fire Eric Garner's killer, officer Daniel Pantaleo (Harris joined in on this call, too.)
• Inslee was right to call for end of Senate filibuster.
• Biden handled criticism of some of his past decisions pretty well.  He explained what he was trying to accomplish at the time, on issues ranging from busing to the Hyde Amendment, and he got support from Gabbard and Bennet.
• In general, just everyone on stage was sharp and combative when needed.  I'd say the weakest, in terms of ideas and constructive engagement, was Andrew Yang.

One point about Harris: she again wrongly contrasted science vs. science fiction in Democratic vs. Republican positions on climate.  Not that the Republican positions aren't fantasy and counter-factual, it's that science fiction is not that, and not the opposite of science.  She did the same thing in the first debate last month.  Here was my response.

The September debate is next up, and there will no doubt be fewer candidates up on stage for that.  I'll be back with an assessment of what should be another exciting, even inspiring, night.

See also Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the first part of the second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, was much better than the first part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month.  By "much better," I mean that almost every candidate on the stage expressed her or himself better than what we saw last month.

Among the highlights -

• Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were clear, passionate, and outstanding on their view that the avarice of private health insurance means that the best path forward is the government provides all of it.  As Bernie said, health care is a human right.  (I would add, the government protects us from human parasites, why not from micro-parasites and lethal cells?)  And as Warren said, private insurers are all devoted to maximizing profits, which means taking in as much money as possible in premiums, and keeping expenditures for health care to a minimum.  Later in the debate, Rep. Delaney's equation of private pensions and private health insurance was wrong: there is no immoral profit motive in companies providing pensions for employees.
• Amy Klobuchar was outstanding on the need to finally stand up to the NRA as the only way to get sensible gun reform in America, and stop the massacres.
• Back to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren: Bernie was better than Warren in wanting to cancel all student debt, in contrast to Warren, who wants to cancel 95% of that debt.  But good for Warren for being better than everyone else on that stage on that issue, other than Bernie
• Good for Pete Buttigieg for insisting that all U. S. military engagements (i.e. wars) get Congressional approval,  and that approval have a three-year sunset clause.  Here's a better idea: how about we follow the Constitution, and insist on a Declaration of War (but also with a sunset clause).
• Buttigieg also put out an important challenge to all Republicans in Congress: do you want to be remembered as someone who didn't speak up about the racism of Trump?
• Bernie's denunciation of Trump as a "pathological liar" is always good to hear.
• Especially powerful closing statements by Buttigieg, Warren, and Bernie.

As to everyone else in the debate, I thought that Rep. John Delaney spoke the best, and offered the best arguments against Bernie and Warren.  But I didn't agree with him.  And as for the rest, well, I look forward to not seeing them on stage in the third debate, in September.

See you here tomorrow night.

See also Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Minor Quibble with Kamala Harris: The Opposite of Science Fact is not Science Fiction

Although it's at most a minor quibble with Kamala Harris's superb performance in this past Thursday's Democratic debate - see my assessment of that over here - I thought, as a past President of the Science Fiction Writers of America (1998-2001), that I ought to weigh in on a concern which has made it all the way to The Washington Post.

The concern arises from Harris's point made during the debate that our response to climate change needs to be based on "science fact not science fiction".   Unfortunately, this contrast, likely the product of one of Harris's writers not what she herself may think, shows a woeful misunderstanding and ignorance of science fiction.  Anyone who has read any of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke, not to mention Verne and Wells, would know that science fiction does not deny or belittle science.  To the contrary, the essence of science fiction is to use science as a foundation to explore dramatic situations, including global catastrophes, and predictions of the future.

As a science fiction author myself - of novels and short stories - I have had the majority of my short stories (some 17) published in Analog Magazine, aka Analog Science Fiction and Fact Magazine.  Over the years, newer writers have asked me what I would recommend for enhancing their chances of getting published in Analog.  My answer: get your science right, and make sure it plays a decisive part in your story.

The fundamental connection between science fiction and science fact has been recognized by scientists such as Marvin Minsky, who said Asimov's robot stories inspired Minsky's life-long work in AI, and by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who cited Asimov's Foundation series as inspiration for Krugman's work in economics.

And, to get back to Harris's inapt comparison, it's not that hard to find suitable opposites to science - pseudo-science, fantasy, conspiracy theory, all would have worked well in Harris's formulation.

But, as I said, this is a minor quibble, and now that I've gotten it of my system, I can return to thinking about who is the best candidate to beat Trump.  Harris's performance on Thursday makes her a major contender.

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the second part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential debate was better than the first part - on yesterday - in that more of the ten on stage had standout moments.   My assessment follows, in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

Harris was clearly outstanding and the best tonight.  She was powerful and eloquent on health care and immigration.  She was strong on the need to curb racism, including an attack on Biden for working with Southern racist Senators.  I liked her intention to take executive action on banning assault weapons (though Swalwell was even stronger on this issue), and she had the best closing statement.

Gillibrand did a lot of good for herself on the need to curb gun violence, and on the danger of compromising on women's rights.  I think she'll rise in the polls as a result of tonight's performance.

Among all the crucially important issues that beset us, I put reducing gun violence, aka gun control, at the top of the list.   I therefore agree completely with Swalwell putting gun control at the top of his list.  His plan to buy back assault weapons makes good sense, and he captured the stakes in this issue well with his observation that we need to "love our children more than our guns".

Bennet was correct to speak about Nazi concentration camps in his denunciation of the camps for immigrants at our Southern border, and he was right to stress the need to win back the Senate in the 2020 election (as Booker did last night).

Sanders had a strong closing statement, and he was passionate as always on the need to equalize wealth in America.

Buttigieg was powerful and articulate on the need to end police racism, but Swalwell did him one better by challenging him to fire the Police Chief of South Bend.

Biden took a long time to come alive - too long - and responded pretty well to Harris's attacks (but he should have kept talking).   He was excellent on the evil of putting children in cages, strong on the need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and right to hold gun manufacturers responsible (but why let the NRA off the hook?).  His closing statement was ok - which is about the best you could say about his overall performance.

The other three either outright crazy (Williamson), too focused on a single issue (Yang), or nothing special (Hickenlooper).  I don't expect any of them to be on stage for the next debate.

But I'll be back here with another review.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers



Joe Biden does become President in this 2014 novel

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the first Democratic debate - the first of two - was excellent and inspiring.  Here are my thoughts on the winners and losers:

There were no outright gaffs by anyone - the closest was Ryan saying the Taliban were responsible for 9/11 (the Taliban did support Al Quaeda) - so I'll share what I thought were the strongest moments.  If I don't mention someone, that means in my opinion she or he did not do very well.   The following is in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

I thought De Blasio made the greatest number of excellent points, beginning with his opening statement on the soul of the Democratic Party.  He followed with a powerful denunciation of the greed of health-insurance companies, and the need to replace them with Medicare for all.  He later  made the astute point that Americans have lost their jobs not due to immigrants but the actions of big corporations.  He was also eloquent on the need to do more about police victimization of minorities, and on the need for Congressional approval of U.S. military actions.  And I liked his answer on the biggest threat to the U.S.: Russia and its interference with our elections.  (Given the number of times that the 2-hour MSNBC broadcast was interrupted by blank screens, I wonder if the Russians weren't hacking some of MSNBC's computers.)   All in all, I thought De Blasio established himself tonight as a passionate and articulate candidate.  Given his low standing in the polls, his performance was the biggest surprise.  As someone who works in NYC, and lives close by, I'm happy to see this.

Booker was excellent, too.  He was right on about health-care insurers profiteering, and on ICE and their Nazi tactics (my word not his).  I also liked his vision of the Democrats not only winning the Presidency but both Houses of Congress in the next election.  And it was good to hear him talk about the need to protect LGBQT communities.

Warren started out great on the need for healthcare for all, and for Roe vs. Wade to be enacted by Congress into Federal law.  But she wasn't strong enough on gun control, and was silent or didn't say enough on some major issues, including immigration.  Given that she is pretty high up in the polls, her performance was not as good as expected.

Klobuchar, on the other hand, was better than expected.   I liked her brief for a sane foreign policy, and she was excellent on kids leading the charge for better gun control.   I think she came out a lot better than she went in on this debate.

Castro was likable and very effective on ending the criminalization of illegal immigrants (those violations should be civil offenses).  And he was 100% right when he said the tragic drownings of a father and daughter in the Rio Grande today should not only break our hearts but "piss us all off".  I think his performance tonight made him much more of a contender.

And ... that's it.  No one else made much of an impression, including Beto O'Rourke, whose weak performance tonight might be the effective end of his campaign.

See you here tomorrow after Part 2.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers