Democratic Debate #1 Thread (Night 2)
welcome to debate #1, night 2. the first thread on this turned out to be about twice as active as i was expecting (i estimated at most 50 or so replies), and that was for the "undercard" so unless something changes with this night, i think we'll be doing these in pairs from here on out--at least until either the DNC pushes out enough candidates for one debate, or activity drops significantly in these threads. previous night's thread can be found here if you'd like to continue the discussions of last night's candidates. anyways here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:
first off, i recommend you sort by newest first instead of the default since this thread will likely be semi-active and covering a live event.
How to Watch:
The debate is being broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo, and will air live across all three networks starting at 9 p.m. ET.
Telemundo will broadcast the debate in Spanish.
The debate will stream online free on NBC News' digital platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, the NBC News Mobile App and OTT apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, in addition to Telemundo's digital platforms.
livestreams will also be available on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube because the DNC mandated that of its partners for the debates.
Democratic Presidential Debate: See The 20 Candidates Who Will Be Onstage
- Michael Bennet (Senator from Colorado)
Bennet is running on fixing a broken political system, the blame for which he puts at the feet of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Bennet says spending from wars and tax cuts was essentially the U.S. lighting “money on fire.”
- Joe Biden (Former vice president)
Biden’s top concern is less about reshaping America and more about returning America to “normalcy.” He argues that if President Trump gets another four years, the DNA of the country will be fundamentally altered.
- Pete Buttigieg (Mayor of South Bend, Ind.)
The 37-year-old is making a generational-change argument. He argues for progressive processes — like fixing redistricting and voting rights — in addition to policies — like being more cautious on war and more progressive on climate change and health care.
- Kirsten Gillibrand (Senator from New York)
She’s focused on women’s rights, especially when it comes to health care. She boasts that a Fox host called her “not very polite” for speaking out about the “nationwide assault on women’s reproductive freedoms” and “fundamental human rights for women.”
- Kamala Harris (Senator from California)
Harris’ slogan is “for the people,” and she’s making the case that President Trump is a “fraud.” The former prosecutor says Trump is fighting for the wrong people — the powerful and wealthy — while she wants to “advocate for the voiceless and vulnerable.”
- John Hickenlooper (Former governor of Colorado)
The centrist has a pragmatic message. He says pragmatists aren’t against big things; they know how to get them done. He has also spoken out against Democrats’ lurch toward socialism, warning that moving in that direction would reelect President Trump.
- Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont)
Sanders wants to beat President Trump, but he believes the way to do it is not with “middle-ground” approaches, but with promising wholesale progressive change. He’s the only candidate willing to wear the (democratic) socialist label.
- Eric Swalwell (Representative from California’s 15th District)
He has focused his campaign on ending gun violence in the country, targeting semiautomatic assault weapons in particular by calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback.
- Marianne Williamson (Spiritual guru, entrepreneur)
The New Age author is campaigning with a philosophy of “Think. Love. Participate.” As an outsider to politics, she believes change needs to come from the outside and that “half-truth tellers” can’t beat President Trump.
- Andrew Yang (Founder of Venture for America)
The startup investor is running on a data-first approach to the presidency. His big idea is to address the threat of automation with a Universal Basic Income, in which every adult would get $1,000 a month.
Candidates will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. No opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.
Five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.
NPR has 7 questions of their 8 for the debates which apply to today's debate:
Will Biden stand up to the scrutiny?
Is the debate an opportunity or danger zone for Bernie Sanders?
Can Harris and Buttigieg stand out?
Do the pragmatists or progressives win out?
How much of a focus is Trump?
How will foreign policy factor in?
Who will stick in voters' minds?
other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:
I appreciate Buttigieg, Yang, and Harris actually answering questions instead of ranting about whatever they want to with their time. It's so annoying hearing a question and then "thanks for the question about healthcare. Here's why I want to raise the minimum wage and tax the wealthy."
Here's why I like it when they color within the lines and answer the question that's given - being President consists entirely of having random questions thrown at you.
Actual presidents faced with actual crises can't just pivot and say "well, before I get to North Korea I'd like to talk about my plan to land humans on Mars".
Candidates can and do give rehearsed & prepared speeches all the time. Debates are supposed to shake that up, and face them with something at least a little bit unexpected, and force them to deal with it in real time.
You mean like going to G20 and finding out that all that adult talk is complicated and fucking off to Korea? ;)
Ya there was a bunch of that last night too, which was annoying.
The best one was Beto, who ignored the question in spanish so that nobody would notice.
"I'm going to defeat Trump with love." I could practically hear the audience cringe at the cliche.
I cringed at home pretty hard at that one.
It gets better.
I missed that one. Who said it?
That was marianne williamson at the end during closing remarks. She was rightly pointing out that Trump harnessed fear to run the election, but then she pulled out that hippie cliche.
Apparently she's an anti-vaxxer. I had no interest in anything she had to say after I'd learned that.
People have been digging up her old tweets (sorry for the buzzfeed link, just the easiest place to find a collection of them.), and she is batshit insane.
How did she manage to make it onto that stage? I had never heard a single person mention her until last night.
I listened to her interview on Pod Save America a few weeks ago and I dont understand how anyone could take her seriously. She is a good speaker and exactly the kind of idealistic person you would want leading an activist organization that pushes politicians to enact progressive policies, but she not informed enough or remotely pragmatic enough to run the executive branch. Frankly, it's embarassing to see someone like that on stage with the other candidates, especially when a more serious candidate like Seth Moulton is sitting at home.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about Bernie Sanders too.
Yeah, she called vaccines Orwellian and compared being pro-choice about vaccines to being pro-choice about abortion.
She quickly walked that back, but still missed the point entirely:
Besides being almost as word-salady as the current President, she doesn't seem to understand that the CDC already studies vaccines and don't get paid by big pharma.
I agree about Hickenlooper. The GOP has been calling Dems socialist for a long time. They won't stop even if the Dems nominate someone like Hickenlooper :/
I really wish Biden would stop invoking Obama. Which I get is kind of hard, they worked on a lot of stuff together, but it just feels like he's riding coat rails. Dude don't tell me what you and Obama did, tell me what you're going to do.
Hillary in 2016 already ran for a "3rd term of Obama". It feels like Biden thinks we can just sweep 4 years of Trump under the rug and move forward with his Presidency as Obama's 3rd term.
It's also really weird because Obama himself has not said a single word since Biden announced his candidacy. You would think with how much they worked together, he would not hesitate to endorse or at the very least corroborate what Biden is saying.
I suspect that is SOP though, especially this early in the race. A former president throwing their endorsement behind a candidate this early, especially their former VP would seem....I dunno, nepotism isn't the right word but close.
Sanders felt like a broken tape recorder to me in the beginning. All I hear from him is the same talking points over and over. I believe he makes some valid points, but he makes them like a man wearing a tin foil hat.
What about his talking points seem like a tin hat wearing man?
The way he expresses himself sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me.
He is asked a question on diversity, and suddenly he segways into his main talking point which he has already covered a few times in the debate.
You sure it's the way he's expressing himself, or are you partial to thinking the content of his speech is conspiratorial?
I can't imagine thinking someone expresses themselves like a conspiracy theorist while finding the content of their speech valid. That kind of person I would just think is.. passionate?
I understand the point he is trying to make, and indeed the data shows that America has growing inequality (look at the Ginni index). I agree that it is unhealthy for a society to have some members who hold extreme power, which billionaires certainly have compared to the rest of us, and I agree that it is an issue.
I do not, however, as Sanders does, confuse poverty with inequality. Poverty has dropped in America vastly between now and basically any era in our history, yet inequality has grown. Sanders sees is inequality as the causal factor of societal ills ( a perspective I disagree with) which is why that is all I he ever talks about. And for me, it is simply tiring for me to hear that Sanders-esque accent say "Millionaires and Billionaires" one more time.
He doesn't. Do you have examples of him saying things that show he's confused about this?
That was my problem with him in 2016, and it doesn't seem like anything has changed for 2020.
All he knows is one stump speech.
fivethirtyeight is already seeing significant movement from the pre- and post-debate perceptions of people who went last night. you can track those here. highlights:
also, on the fundraising front: cory booker had his best fundraising night so far post-debate. so did john delaney
Honestly surprised Castro went up. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I basically heard “I wan’t open borders” from him. I just don’t think a lot of Dems want what he’s preaching or have immigration as their main priority at all.
Edit: I guess I’m not that surprised considering few knew who he was. I bet he has a low ceiling for favorability though.
castro probably went up the most overall because he came off as pretty competent in his time speaking while being one of the basement dwellers going in, both polling wise and name recognition wise. that said, his movement has only translated into 2% support from something around 0.2% support on average, so it's not like he suddenly went from worst to first (and it's also not clear how sustained any of these bumps will be or if he'll continue rising).
Castro surprised me in a positive way. I had little information on about half the field going in, him being one of them, and he came off as surprisingly competent and passionate about issues. Perhaps the field he was against wasn't the strongest, but he seemed in the top 4 for sure last night.
buttigieg with a really good answer on family separation and decriminalizing crossing the border there. the setup played perfectly to his strengths.
biden also had a decent answer, and sanders got at a good point of using executive orders and addressing the root problems that drive people to migrate here.
harris just leapfrogged into first place unambiguously for me. holy shit, did she just eviscerate biden.
I dont really even like Harris but that was incredible
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/05/harris-renews-effort-to-block-gender-reassignment-for-trans-inmate/
It's from a few years ago but I highly doubt that she has changed her views. Hopefully you will change your mind about her being your first place...
i'm well aware of harris's history and her career as a prosecutor. you don't need to tell me about it. in fact, i'm pretty sure i covered that in an early edition of TWIEN.
While amazing to watch, does her debate performance make her a better candidate?
i mean, yeah? running for president is like, 75% an exercise in performance art and persuasion, not in what people subjectively think makes someone a good candidate. donald was a tire fire, but he performed a good enough act and persuaded enough people to win by a narrow margin in the states that counted. you absolutely don't need to be a "good" candidate to win the presidency, you just need to be a convincing one, and harris was far and away the most convincing person on the stage after she dismantled biden.
If anything this makes me worried because harris is perhaps the worst candidate for the democrats right now for so many different reasons.
Do you want to share those reasons with the class?
Do you think the average American would want to sit down and have a beer with Kamala?
Fortunately for her, the question has to be would the average Democrat want to sit down and have
Starbucksa beer with Kamala.
You can support a candidate without supporting everything they stand for. I'm pro-life and campaign for Bernie.
well, there's also the part where i was referring to harris in the context of this debate and not my support, which i haven't really touched upon in this exchange. most likely my vote is going to either bernie or warren; it would take a lot to shift my vote to harris in the primary.
Prison complexes tend to avoid any sort of costly medical care, no matter the impact on quality of life or even the threat to life.
Her time as a prosecutor is really showing through there.
Closest thing Biden had to a comeback is that he was a public defender instead of a prosecutor, but that probably sailed over a lot of people's heads if they don't know Harris' career history.
There was a split camera with them looking at each other during their exchange and I think Biden died in that moment.
It was pretty brutal to watch. He appears to have realized he was holding the shovel to his own hole and put it down real quick.
This entire debate is putting me to sleep. Same old song and dance, nothing new, heard it all before, talk is fucking cheap, and this debate format is hot garbage (as always). Trump is going to kick their collective asses if this is as good as it gets.
The format is pretty terrible, in no small party just due to having to deal with so many candidates. I'm looking forward to the field narrowing considerably and the debate actually being.... debatey.
What I don't get is why they hold the debates in huge auditoriums, yet also complain about the crowd making too much noise.
Just get rid of the crowd entirely and do it in a TV studio. The audience serves absolutely no purpose.
And enforce rules by actively managing mics.
They used to put lights on the podiums so everyone could see when they went over the time limit. Why did we stop doing that?
actually, i think they did do something like that during these two debates? biden cut himself off mid sentence impeccably a few times, which suggests there had to have been some kind of mechanism besides the moderators telling them how much time they had. i don't think he's that good at guesstimating time.
Yeah, there's definitely a timer they can see on the stage, but not the audience. I don't get why that is.
Maybe they realized the timer is a distraction and people pay more attention to it than what the candidates are saying.
Buttigieg mentions healthcare is personal to him because his father died last year.
Biden mentions it's personal to him as well because his wife and child were killed in a car crash...in 1972.
Both are personal tragedies that affected them, does the time difference really matter?
It kind of seems weird. Everyone gets fucked by our healthcare system. It doesn’t score any points to say “I have interacted with this system.” It’s just a lame way of trying to elicit sympathy.
Buttigieg's argument was that his experience losing a loved one in the current American healthcare system gives him a better understanding of what the problems with healthcare are and how to fix them.
The experience that Biden mentioned happened 47 years ago, so it doesn't inform Biden about healthcare in the same way. Bringing it up doesn't advance any substance in the debate. It felt like a cheap way for Biden to get screen time with "hey, my wife is dead, feel sympathy for me too".
He also talked about his son, who died in 2015 after years of suffering from brain cancer.
I wonder what it's like to be in congress, go on national TV and be like "EVERYONE I WORK WITH SUCKS AND THE WHOLE THING SHOULD CHANGE!", and then go back to work.
Or being POTUS and saying "Here's what I'm going to do in my next term", and then going back to the White House and ignoring that problem.
overall, my takeaways:
overall power rankings for this debate: harris >> sanders > buttigieg > everybody else > biden >>>> yang
across the board power rankings: warren = harris > sanders > buttigieg > castro = de blasio > booker > biden > everybody else > beto > gabbard >>> yang
I'm a big fan of Yang because of his UBI enthusiasm, but I agree he did not make a great impression on stage.
Seemed to me like he was happy to let the rest punch themselves out like children. He's already qualified for the next couple of debates, so he'll still be around for a while. He's got time.
They asked him a total of two questions, and he was asked to chime in on one other and on the everyone-answers questions. He barely spoke at all. I only saw him raise his hand to ask for a response opportunity once, right before they went to break.
I agree with you on most everything! I would say that Buttigieg impressed me the most, followed closely by Harris, and then nobody else haha
My top 10:
Warren > Buttigieg > Harris > Castro > Klobuchar > Booker > Biden
Ok it's only a top 7 cause I couldn't find more I liked.
Your top 3 for POTUS, VP, AG, respectively, seems like a good complementary lineup to me.
I hadn't thought about positions but those actually make a lot of sense. I'm sure Castro would get some cabinet or director position relating to immigration too.
Yang: "I met with a farmer in Iowa". Drink.
Jesus I’m going to need a supply of whatever Marianne Williamson is on if my brain is going to survive this primary.
Actually agree with her point about sickness care. There should be more preventative medicine in our healthcare system.
I mean yah, she is a bit out there, but quite frankly she is a demonstration of the idea that anyone could be president (regardless of if you think it's true).
She’s dumb as a bag of hammers and her commentary is entirely fell-good “motivational speaker” crap. She doesn’t even know what she means by half of it. These are bumper sticker slogans.
Don't get me confused. She is entirely unqualified to be president. but clearly, several tens of thousands of Americans disagree with us, and if this woman is how they choose to express themselves in the election, I feel it justified to hear what she has to say.
Is it though? Donald Trump is President and the only reason we need to listen to anything he says is so we can figure out how to repair/mitigate against the damage he's about to do. Subtract away the power and he deserves irrelevance. If there was a Leftist version of Trump it would be her. Completely empty-headed platitudes, no command of issues or how anything works. Just a totally disingenuous grifter. I see no reason we're obligated to listen to the voices of people who got suckered in by her act. They need deprogramming, not validation.
Because you need to understand an argument before you can prove it wrong.
People won't listen to you unless they feel like you would show them the same respect.
There is no argument. It's woo-woo bullshit that exploits desperate people. You don't need to listen to cult leaders, you need to keep vulnerable people the hell away from them.
Then it should be easy to make an argument against it.
No, you should empower vulnerable people to tell the difference between good arguments and bad ones.
It doesn’t matter if you make an argument against it or how easy it is. It isn’t meant to engage people on a rational level, so reason doesn’t stop it.
By definition, vulnerable people are incapable of doing this. This is equivalent to saying we shouldn’t prosecute fraud, but appeal to marks to just not be such easy marks.
This sort of naive “marketplace of ideas” nonsense shows no understanding of social psychology and is the reason the Republic is being pulled apart by bullshit artists.
This lady tried to tell people with HIV to cure themselves with positive thinking. Her bullshit gets people killed.
Yeah, she’s definitely a... unique voice on the stage. I’ve no problem letting her make her case within the process. I can easily see people’s reactions to her make her a protest vote though.
I've never heard of her before tonight, and all her comments smelled richly of someone practiced at sounding very smart while saying nothing of substance. Which to be fair, a lot of politicians do as well, but hers was next level. I can't recall a single detail about her position on any topic other than she wants to be president.
She’s gonna harness the power of love to bring healthcare instead of sickcare man!
For just $25 a year you can get her daily A Course in Miracles emails with a daily lesson read by Marianne herself.
I just don't get how she was able to get on the stage? Like how did she even get up there?
She passed the donor/polling support threshold.
After all the ELECTION RIGGED! charges in 2016 the DNC went out of its way to be fair to everyone running and lowered the bar to get a national stage by a lot. It's a serious overcorrection, IMO and results in this clown-car debate format we saw last night.
These vanity candidates with no realistic shot at winning, like Delaney and Williamson, need to peace out and leave the credible candidates a chance to be heard so the public can actually evaluate them. In this case, being obsequiously fair minded to every candidate ends up being unfair to the voters who end up not getting a decent look at the people they're being asked to evaluate because the signal/noise ratio is too low.
I think that there needs to be less active winnowing of the field (as an external force). Y'all seem not to remember that running a campaign takes money and donations that candidates can't sustain if they aren't getting donations. There is a built-in check that will force these candidates to meet the reality of their candidacy head on.
Now you can say "but any dollars that get donated to these candidates is wasted," but the people who choose to throw their money at these apparently lost causes have every right to do whatever they want with their money (especially since money is legally speech, thanks Citizens United). And in any case, the voters that support them might be less in line with democrats generally and alienating them may have a detrimental impact on trying to persuade them to vote for whoever the democratic nominee ends up being.
It's only a check on people who aren't independently wealthy.
Moreover, in the case of people like Williamson (or Ben Carson in the 2016 GOP race), they're not actually running to be President. They're just bogarting the mic so they can raise their profile and sell more books or whatever. It's a clear corruption of the process for personal ends. They don't need to worry about the calculation to consider winning, they just need to be in it enough to keep their faces on your TV because it's an ad campaign for them not a political one.
Nah. We don't need moonbats defining the Democratic Party candidacy for us. For every one of them you attract you lose 10 voters who actually have some grounding in reality.
I don't see any reason there needs to be a rush right now to push people out of the race. I think the market forces of running for president will do that well enough on its own. Let's revisit this after people start voting, because at that point I'm pretty sure I'd agree with you.
Most of the debates happen before the first votes and vanity candidates take time away from semi-realistic long-shots, like Castro or O'Rourke, or issue focused candidates, like Inslee or Ryan, from being able to get their actual message out.
Crowding the field like this does a disservice to voters by taking away their ability to make informed choices. It lumps series people in with moonbats in the public mind and doesn't let them get a fair shake.
Well, given that Williamson is (now) the only candidate to have higher unfavorable ratings than favorable ratings among these 20, and that even beyond these 20 we still have a fairly serious outside candidate in Steve Bullock, I think there's enough information moving around now (in part thanks to the debate) for interested people to research and make up their own minds.
I think the average voter ends up being pretty competent about these sorts of things. They might not all vote, but the lion's share of Democrats are already engaged in what's going on (polls I've seen put it between 60-80% who are paying some or a lot of attention to the candidates).
Basically, I'm not sure having two fewer candidates really matters that much at this stage. But again, the "this stage" part is crucial to my calmness. I'll get a hell of a lot less calm as the cycle progresses.
That said, when we're in June 2020, my tone is going to be much different because the longer the wait at that point if the nominee is clear, the longer the senseless delay before the Democratic candidate can begin building a general election field operation. But June 2019? Plenty of time to let things play out naturally.
unironically, it's because she appeals to wine moms, and there are a lot of wine moms! she has like, 85,000 unique donors, i think, which doesn't stack up to much money but it does stack up to debate eligibility since she's also polling juuuust high enough to meet the polling criteria. doubt she makes it to the september debates, though.
early morning aftermath:
harris has unsurprisingly come out with a statement that she had a huge night of fundraising:
harris has generally been the consensus winner, from what i've seen, and watch parties in iowa seemed to react pretty in line with both the twitter and newsroom punditry this time around. see this iowa starting line post
biden camp is unsurprisingly in shambles, has been since last night:
they damage controlled that somewhat, of course, but they really can't be too happy with how that all went last night:
overnight ratings are in, and it looks like warren definitely got kinda screwed by the lot as far as viewership for this first set of debates. viewership for the first debate was clocked at 15.3 million (without streams accounted for, which probably vaulted that number at least into the 17 million range), and estimates here are looking more like 17 million (without streams again) for the second. that's a pretty decent difference if you peg that against the total number of voters in 2016's primary, which was about 30 million; luckily, we have at least 11 more debates after this which warren will most likely be a part of if she continues to poll as she currently is.
idk, considering that Warren basically stood out almost alone in the first debate and all the other "big" names were in the other debate, getting only about 2 million less total viewers doesn't seem that bad to me. And I wouldn't compare to total primary voters but instead to the first Republican debate's viewership (edit: 24 million, I guess).
whew, turns out those projections were off by a million! 18.1 million apparently tuned in for last night's, which is of course a record (previous one: 15.4 million for the DNC).
Kamala was the clear winner across both debates for me.
I think that Warren and Buttigieg both had a decent showing, with Castro fairly close behind them. I hope the three of them and Harris all get a good bump out of these debates. They are clearly a stock above the rest.
Biden just completely crumpled last night to me. I think Swalwell was completely on point with his "pass the torch" line and think that would have been a top defining moment of the debate had Harris not completely eviscerated Joe shortly after. Mitch McConnell has proven that Biden's folksy calls for bipartisanship just don't work at this point and it comes off as naive at best to me.
Bernie was basically a non-factor. I really don't need to hear him call for a "political revolution" for the millionth time and he did not have a single memorable moment for me. Like Joe and Hickenlooper, he just comes off as an old white man far past his prime.
I think it is really unfortunate how much attention Williamson is getting for her nonsense ramblings on the sidelines last night. Her hippy health guru nonsense is going to get tons of Twitter play and cable news clips, and could help raise her profile further, which is just ridiculous. She never should have made it this far and she made last night way too farcical.
he'll probably rise, assuming that his rise isn't offset by other people's performances this week. after harris he's generally the person i'm seeing namedropped as a winner of the second debate, although personally i'd put him third after sanders since sanders did what he needed to and seems like he'll come out of the debate in about the same place as he started.
i just don't see it as mattering this early on, tbh. public perception really means fuck all this early on, and we have at least eight or nine more debates before people even start casting their ballots. the only people who should really be worrying about their polling are the people logjammed below the 2% mark, since that determines future eligibility for debates. everybody else can kinda afford to just cruise for now, because they'll have plenty of chances to define themselves in a meaningful way to voters in the future.
Oh man I can’t imagine what possessed Symone Sanders to take this Biden gig. First he’s got her pretending to be okay with his being cozy with Eastland and now this. Of course they anticipated this line of attack. That’s what makes this so embarrassing for him! He had nothing to say in response. If he can’t hit back on that without looking lout of touch and senile what’s he gonna do to Trump?
Did Buttigieg just imply that other candidates are light on policy?
He actually has more than you'd think. He doesn't normally talk about it when he's campaigning, but his issues page on his website has WAY more than it used to.
that would be incredibly dumb if he did, because last i checked he has no policy page and people have to piece together his policies to figure out what his platform is.
I checked his website recently for the first time in a while. WAY more details than there used to be.
Mr. Political Revolution is disappointingly timid about making any structural changes to our government. No to removing the filibuster? No to packing to court? WTF Bernie if you’re not ready to get serious about playing hardball you might as well go hang out with Marianne Williamson.
Where are the Hard Leftists here? Are y’all actually down with this? If we can’t count on Bernie to be bold about shaking the system up we’re in trouble guys.
Just out of ignorance - what do you think about his proposal to rotate judges?
Honestly, I think neither rotations nor packing are going to work because, looking at the numbers, I doubt very much we'll have a Democratic senate. Hell, with the scotus decision today, I doubt we'll have a Democratic house.
Not parent poster, but I think he might run into more constitutional problems with rotation than with packing, considering the latter has precedent. It'd probably require an amendment as opposed to a simple congressional majority.
The Constitution is actually really vague about the makeup of the Court. It doesn't suggest a number of justices or how they're supposed to be appointed. Really the only stipulation is that they have lifetime appointments unless they fail to exhibit "good behavior" and their pay can't be docked. Almost everything about how the court works is a matter of norms and custom.
So in theory, you can rotate people between the Supreme and Inferior federal courts since they're technically at the same status. The main proposal to do this is to keep the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as they are, but to supplement with a rotating bank of Justices from the other courts to bring the overall count up.
As a matter of structure it's actually a good idea. Right now way too much jurisprudence is done based on the personal idiosyncrasies of 9 people and too much of our political stakes hinge on when the Reaper decides to collect. If you rotate the justices people can't tailor their cases/arguments based on who they will be arguing to, they have to make arguments that stand on their own and count on a random panel of judges to decide on it. It would, overall, just make the whole system an process more impartial and rational.
In practice though, like I said the Republicans have packed the lower courts too so I don't think this idea by itself will be enough to actually play the kind of legislative hardball we'd need to undo Republican ratfucking of our electoral system.
This general systemic weakness of the court actually one of the reason previous courts have been fairly reluctant to exercise any legislative prerogative, unlike high courts in other countries. They don't have real power, and they're usually aware that the second they step too far out of line of the other branches their influence evaporates in a flash. This happened before when they told Andrew Jackson to desist on relocating the Cherokee Nation. Jackson said the court made their ruling, but let's see them enforce it and pushed on with the Trail of Tears anyway. Nobody said shit because there was shit all to do about it.
John Roberts seems to understand this, which is why he's a bit cautious about undoing the New Deal and the Warren Court. But some of the other hardline right wingers, like Gorsuch and Alito, seem to think they can get away with more impunity. And who knows, a few more rulings undermining the possibility of free and fair elections and they just might.
The conservatives have already packed the lower courts too. Who would we be rotating in?
They packed the Supreme Court too. Gorsuch sits on a stolen seat.
The looks on the other seasoned politicians’ faces as he was talking said it all. It was clear he pulled a super rookie move letting himself get bogged down in random accounting details.
his second answer, which was much less figure based, didn't seem much better either and was also pretty shaky. you can tell he's not exactly in his comfort zone up there--i wouldn't be either, though, given that he has no fucking experience and is sharing a debate stage with people who have been in politics for longer than he's been alive.
Swalwell WENT FOR IT!! not sure how much that helped or hurt either him or Biden, to be honest.
It did nothing for him, all it did was tee up Biden to get talk time.
This debate is really making it clear why seasoned politicians are so much better than these noobs. They’re so much better at digging into policies and doing it in a way that’s accessible. The small fries are just spewing pabulum or failing to advance their message at all.
Honestly, that was a fantastic answer on healthcare from Mayor Pete. He's not my top choice, but damn he sounds smart.
He's my top choice...for the 2028 or 2032 primary. Dude's young and has a real bright future.
And yeah, he's whip-smart. Rhodes scholar, Naval intel, Mckinsey consultant, etc.
I agree completely. We need someone with experience. Mayor Buttegieg needs to climb up the ladder a bit first.
I don't think we agree completely - I do think he has enough experience to be president, he's just not currently my first choice.
I don't think anyone who hasn't previously had a large constituency should sit in the Oval Office. Senators, Congresspeople, Governors, and the Mayors of large cities have all had large constituencies.
How big is South Bend, Indiana?
south bend has a population of about 102,000 people which has barely moved since the last census, and it's the 301st largest city in america.
Err, I mean, that's more than 3,000 times fewer constituents than the entire country. Comparatively, the Governor of the smallest states would have 561 times as many constituents if they became president, and mayors of cities over 1 million in population would have less than 329 as many constituents.
This is a very favorable format for him. He has enough space to go a mile wide, but there is not enough time for anyone to notice he’s not much more than an inch deep on anything.
Goooood. Shut up about Trump! You're not debating Trump! Everyone there already thinks he sucks, so talk about something else!
Edit: 538 said Bernie had mentioned him the most... Sigh. What happened to not wanting to talk about Trump? He was all about that at the town halls.
They specifically asked him a question about Trump. That’s why he mentioned him.
that's not surprising, because biden is specifically defining himself against trump, and so is gillibrand.
fivethirtyeight has released their second post-debate poll, which should round out the news for this set of debates:
here's to hoping this time, when they shift from the first moderator panel to the second one, they don't fuck it up spectacularly like they did last night and eat into the time candidates have.
bernie came off as pretty good on that healthcare question, but amazingly enough so did williamson! i actually thought she answered that the best of the folks who have gone so far, edging out sanders and buttigieg. she raised a bunch of points other people don't really get into with the healthcare debate.
This fight between Biden and Harris is fantastic.
Harris is going in on Biden
I would be totally satisfied with a Harris-Warren or a Warren-Harris ticket (though it will be a shame to lose either of them in the senate).
I’ve been rooting for Harris since before she announced, and I think she’s done a good job tonight.
Given I knew nothing of Williamson, I actually liked what she’s said, but I don’t think she’s electable (I don’t think any non-politician outside the Democratic party would be able to win the presidency).
Obviously Williamson is a hard no, but I appreciate the role she played in the debate.
are we seriously relying on marianne williamson to be the voice of fucking radicality on climate change in this format? jesus christ.
The best thing about this debate is that it will give the DNC the excuse it needs to pare down the other debates to be less of a clown car.
The next debates should be 2 nights again but with 10 total candidates. Give them more time to actually explain their position and policies instead of relying on quick one-liners to try and grab support.
I hear tell of a time when people took the entire day, and went to listen to a handful of people debate for long hours with thoughtful consideration.
I wish I had both the time to listen, and the well reasoned arguments to listen to.
All the candidates should be at podiums facing outward on a giant circular platform. Build the stage so you can only see 3 or 4 at once, but by rotating the platform you can change which 3.
Candidates not on stage have their mic cut off so they can't interrupt the ones on stage.
For the "lightning round" questions, you just spin the platform nice and slowly, so each candidate gets 60 seconds in front of the audience, then their mic is cut and the next candidate takes their turn.
I definitely liked last night's debate more than tonight's. And I swear to all that is, the next time I am forced to watch Chuck Todd hug the desk as he tries to blither on about this fun new question format that he used the previous night to hideous effect (but apparently he liked that there was variety), I will full Office Space on some fax machine somewhere, and I will NOT clean up the wreckage.
Warren seems a pretty clear and easy favorite for me. She talked the most about clear, actionable policy and did so in an emotionally compelling way that fits with her life's work and life's story.
Klobuchar comes second for me right now. I don't mind it when a candidate resists the allure of promising the sun and moon and stars to voters for votes, and I think she's genuinely hilarious. Seems like the happy warrior sort to me, and it feels refreshing.
I think third for me now is Buttigeig? I don't even. It's probably a three-way tie between Buttigeig, Biden, and--oh god, I don't want to say this, please don't judge me too much--Delaney??? I don't even know what I'm doing with my life. Making awful decisions, I guess.
The candidates who if they drop out tomorrow I won't notice: (1) Bennett, (2) Ryan, (3) de Blasio, (4) Yang, (5) Swalwell.
The candidates who I'd really wish they'd drop out instead of using the nomination process to promote their latest book on love and happiness: Marianne Williamson. And girl, stop calling the leader of New Zealand. She does NOT want to go on a spa date with you.
New-age guru and author Marianne Williamson is criticizing the other candidates for being too superficial.
Right after praising Donald Trump for his messaging. Her being there is a joke and it’s embarrassing for the DNC to have her there.
She started out sounding kinda conspiracy-theorizing, but I thought she rounded it out and actually did better than I expected.
Of course she sounded good. She's a self-help author. Speeches that sound good but have little or no actual content is her job.
She has 0.000% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency. She's taking up valuable time that would have been much better spent hearing from the non-vanity candidates.
I disagree. I think having an array of candidates with different ideas and backgrounds is good for democracy. We could just let the party put forth only their well oiled machines and have less choice. Do I like Marianne, no, but do I think she or another lower tier candidate has something to offer, yes. If nothing else they can force the machine to speak to issues they have dismissed. They should have broken this up into 4 debates.
The rules are the rules. Probably will be more restrictive about candidates in the future.
Good opening from Bernie in my opinion. He got in a good response to the increased taxes question. Seriously, people are so disingenuous about that. NO ONE ever talks about premiums going away when they ask him about it.
Edit: They seem to be mentioned Trump a bunch more so far. Joy. :/
I've been trying to go into these without having any predetermined expectations or "feelings" about candidates. I wasn't as successful as I wanted to be last night, and this night looks like it may be harder.
Oh! Just realized they added name tags on the bottom of the screen! SOOOOOO much better.
Idea for a new debate format: candidates have to pass around a talking stick so only one can talk at a time.
yeah, this is much messier than last night's debate, christ.
at the break now, i've got to say this debate is considerably worse and less structured than last night's and i feel like i'm getting a lot less out of it than i did last night's.
I blame Gillibrand. She seems to be speaking over other people more than anyone else.
Not a huge fan of Harris but her background in law enforcement really shows through with the answer to the gun question.
$12,000 a year for everyone in America making less than $100k a year? Not much incentive to work. The party of "free stuff" is really going extreme.
Extreme? It's not far enough IMO. UBI had to be a part of economics going forward if we're going to avoid an incomprehensible level of unemployment due to automation and AI. By the time it actually becomes necessary, it will be too late to establish an economic safety net.
And the horseless carriage will put blacksmiths out of a job!
And who is going to pay for this anyway?
The main point is a system that rewards laziness will certainly fail.
Like all of those folks that are retired and don't work who do nothing to contribute to society anymore? Except for taking care of thier grandchildren, volunteering, etc.
Arguing that people who don't have a job are automatically lazy illustrates that a fundamental shift in perspective is needed in the US. People inherently want to feel useful and validated by society, they want to contribute. For all of human history up until relatively recently, contributing for most people meant helping everyone survive. As less and less human labor is needed for everyone to have their basic needs met, why should we focus on inventing new ways of forcing people to spend the majority of their life earning what they need to survive?
UBI does not incentivize laziness, it allows for a safety net, bringing stability to those who would normally be strapped with uncertainty about being able to care for their family is any kind of unexpected expense occurs. Not having a job does not make you lazy.
I don't know if I agree with that premise. Try explaining the internet and how many people use it in their day to day jobs to worker 70 years ago.
Theres to be more research on whether or not UBI works. More inflation is definitely a possibility, and Yang's VAT is by definition regressive.
If by describing the role of the internet in modern work you're implying that the new tech that makes some jobs obsolete will also create jobs, I don't disagree with that. However as we've seen over the last 100 years, the amount of jobs created by a tech is nowhere near what it renders obsolete. Jobs have been created in entirely new fields that have compensated, however the pace at which the trend continues to occur is accelerating and each individual can only adapt so quickly. People need stability to plan their lives, not a continually changing job market competing for jobs that barely allow them to pay thier bills.
Just look at the timeline. We're already automating the jobs that provide nearly half of all employment. Find me a single historical precedent that's anywhere near that extreme. Thinking of this as something that has happened before misses the problem entirely.
The market will find things for people to do, but if they have no money to pay for anything, there's no market. There's also no customers left. Half the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. That's the half that'll be out of a job shortly. We need a social net to handle the transition.
That's also what got Trump elected, since he was the only guy talking about this four years ago to the people who had lost their jobs by then. Judging by the debate stage I saw tonight, Trump is still the only guy talking about it.
My current go to illustration of this is truck drivers. I work at one of the big 4 auto manufacturers. I watch what's happening in the AV space. They're coming, and we shouldn't worry about if the AV car Trolly Problem. We should worry about truck drivers.
At the peak of the coal industry, there where around 80,000 people employed in it. Think of how much of the political conversation in recent decades had been driven by what happened when those jobs disappeared. Think of the economic wastelands it created out of towns and cities that lost their main employment opportunities.
There are over 3 million truck drivers in the US. If even just 3% of those jobs are given to AI, you're already looking at a larger problem than the automation if the coal industry.
Yeah, that shoe is going to drop fairly soon. Add in 4.4 million retail workers, 3.3 million cashiers, 3 million in food service, 2.8 million clerks, all of whom are already being replaced in large numbers by automation of one form or another. Call center workers will be on that list too. Any 'unskilled' labor job is on this block, and it adds up to almost half of the current job market according to bls. Every minimum wage hike speeds this up immensely, corporations will not pay people $15 an hour unless they have no other option - and they have plenty of other options lately.
Our previous unemployment issues even back during the great depression don't even register as a blip on this wave. This is something new.
I do get a laugh out of the people who suggest retraining the workers. I'll wager you can train a computer to do something much faster than a human within the next decade. There's no race to employment that a human can win, so retraining is not on the table. Yang also makes a point of bringing up how bad we are at retraining anyway, it's never worked.
He has all the right numbers and a surprisingly solid portfolio of answers, all of them much more market friendly than the other democrats which is why I like him. He'll get the libertarians on board once they hear about him. I just don't know how he can manage to pitch it when even explaining one of the problems takes longer than a minute. He needs a big screen so he can bust out the powerpoint presentations.
Could you point to anywhere in the nation that you would be happy to retire on $12k a year?
Paid off house and a spouse is 24k a year.
Five guys sharing a large home unit as flatmates is $60k a year, that's enough to hunker down and start a business of some kind. So is a family of five where everyone is over 18. That's kinda the point - the lone $12k isn't enough, but in any cohabitation, it starts to add up fast.
It's $12,000/year for everyone. Regardless of how much you make.