22 December 2024: The three latest written interviews of me are here, here and here.
Showing posts with label Andrew Yang. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Yang. Show all posts

Thursday, December 19, 2019

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

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

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.

Thursday, September 12, 2019

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

Thursday, June 27, 2019

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
InfiniteRegress.tv