Democratic contenders for the party’s presidential nomination are in Las Vegas Saturday for a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
As a format, this is much better than the debates, although perhaps too short to be really useful. Is there a link to what was already recorded?
This seems to be a link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?463244-1/democratic-presidential-candidates-participate-2020-public-service-forum&vod
There seem to be problems with the sound for Castro.
Edit: Oh, I now see that the live link lets you go back to the beginning, and it seems to have better sound.
Biden is just wrapping up now. It is interesting to see that several times he launches into a kind of “I’m one of you” story, but quickly catches himself and makes a statement to be clear that he has had a lot of privileges. For example, he started by saying that he grew up in a three bedroom house, and then notes that they were not poor, and without actually saying middle-class, that is what he implies. Later, he launches into his patented story of his first wife and her tragic accident, but qualifies it by pointing out that others have endured worse and with less support.
He may somewhat have undermined his campaign by saying that young people should get involved in politics, presumably allowing for a wide range of such participation and not requiring running for office. There are people who want to get involved, including running, but they keep being told that they cannot strive for what they want, and, essentially, that it ain’t gonna happen. That is a tough balance to maintain, encouraging while also tamping down expectations and enthusiasm.
It was an interesting performance, but I must say that it does feel a bit like a performance. On the other hand, he is not the only candidate where I get that feeling. I got it even more from Booker, who kept saying that pretty much everything was going to be his main priority, although not quite in so many words. He kept saying that I am (or we are) going to do this or stop doing this, without any implication of what the tangible means to do so would be. (Admittedly, even this format demands rather truncated and thus necessarily superficial answers.)
Only caught the tail end of Biden. Thought he looked relaxed and engaged, but yeah it was a bit of a performance.
Beto has been impressive, speaking on the El Paso shooting basically in real time. Weird to say that he’s underrated after all of last year’s hype, but he feels underrated to me.
Just tuned in, Beto comes across 10 times better than on those stages with 9 others. He is well spoken and knows his subjects.
I started it back at the beginning. Castro was okay, but he was a bit haltering when he spoke (uh . . . uh . . . uh), and he didn’t seem to have the same energy as in the debates. Maybe he does better with others to play off of. I like Warren (and she is still my preferred candidate), but she didn’t seem to come off as well here as elsewhere, including the debates and the town halls. I am not sure what the difference was. It may be that the union moderators seemed a little hostile (that is too strong a word, but it does cover the sense) to her, particularly on healthcare. (Her healthcare ideas may be hard to sell to unions who have often sacrificed a lot for the sake of better healthcare deals, although I think over time those agreements have not worked so well for them.)
Edit: Now she is talking about Goldman Sachs, and is doing much better. She points out the corruption factor with gusto.
Edit2: She got a question about people who have already paid off their college debt, and either didn’t quite hear it or dodged it a bit. (I am not sure what the right answer here should be. I think that there should be some kind of means test and perhaps performance, actually graduating with decent grades, and perhaps in some cases it should be tied to some kind of public payback, like teaching at an inner city school or working at a medical clinic. I am not sure what to say to someone who feels anger because they were responsible under the terms of their deal and don’t get the same kind of benefit as others. On the other hand, the more expensive we make it, the harder it will be to make it happen at all, and where do you make the cutoff that someone doesn’t feel on the wrong side of the line?)
Now it is Seth Moulton, who did not make the debates. I may be seeing why. He has a good military background, but anyone who says that the current insurance-based approach to healthcare, especially for those of us with employer-based plans, gets good results from competition, doesn’t understand how it all really works (or doesn’t work). That may be a deal buster for me, but it presumably doesn’t matter since I doubt he will even be on the ballot by the time it gets to my state in the primary.
Trying to go back with the link. The sound is terrible for some of them, frustrating. Warren’s sound has just improved.
I had to increase the volume, but it has generally been better on the main link than the one I provided. (I did not notice at first that you can go back by sliding the tab there as well.)
Edit: I forgot to put quote marks around you post in copying it, so the system dropped it again. (I really hate that feature.)
Interested to watch the Warren part on replay. Warren was my #2 but she slipped down my charts after embracing Bernie single payer and abandoning her prior stance of being open to medicare for America or other plans which build on the ACA model to expand coverage, and her trade/foreign policy positions which she recently unveiled.
I suspect the questioning she got on HC was based in part on that notion that she had previously indicated to unions that she’d be open to ACA-build/bridge programs and now she’s not.
Some of the Warren-stans on Twitter got a bit upset with me when I pointed out that Senator ‘I have a plan for that’ didn’t have a plan for health care other than to adopt Bernie’s plan. I’m wondering how she navigates that. I do like Warren. I was hoping she’d be that bridge between the Berner wing and the broader Dem party, but I feel that her agenda has actually gone further hard left despite a demeanor and message that is more uniting and appealing than Bernie’s at times. I find her to be a bit of an enigma.
On laptop, max volume. Sound has dramatically improved part way into Warren.
I am enjoying this debate better than CNN’s debate aired earlier this week!
Much more substance is being covered on what the candidates are offering to the American People!!
Much kudos goes out to AFSCME for sponsoring a classic debate.
Trump wouldn’t survive this. So perhaps the Unions should collectively think about sponsoring the same type of debates for the general election for 2020!!!
I’m for Warren, but her evasiveness on the question of how she will get MFA through the senate is really annoying.
Every candidate is a mixture of good and bad (or at least less good). Overall, I still like Warren best, although I am feeling as if that won’t much matter and we are going to end up with Biden. Again, I will note that I am voting for my preferred candidate in the primary and the nominee in the general . . . pretty much no matter what. (The only exception I can offer is if Trump somehow manages to appoint himself the Democratic nominee as well as the Republican one.)
Probably because she knows she won’t, even with a Democratic majority.
I think the reason she has slipped down my chart is these policy changes (imho) make her matchup with Trump worse than it was the day before she made these changes. I’d vote for her in the General, but I don’t think the matchup is as favorable as it could’ve been. That said, I have become more convinced after the recent economic data that we are in a slow down period and that the economy will not be as strong in 2020 which enhances the chances of any Dem nominee, center, center-left or far left, to beat Trump.
Bernie is somehow grouchy and apparently enjoying himself at the same time. I like the idea of a transaction tax on speculation, but more to help stabilize the market than raise money. (I wonder how much this kind of micro-trading will continue once the margins are tapped out of existence.)
He was about as jovial as his grouchy, shouty manner will allow. He’s pretty clear on what he will do and what he won’t. Issue is always cost which he’s also adept at side-stepping.
I assume that some of the shouting is due to hearing loss. My father, as his hearing deteriorated, began to shout a lot.
I think the bigger problem is that the more effective he is at leveling the playing field, the more those powerful forces will push back against him, and they do own pretty much all of the levers of power and must not be underestimated.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think the biggest problem with improving health care coverage is going to be finding limits that can be set. Government isn’t good at saying no, and the demand could easily outstrip any amount of money. (It is an easy decision to support wellness visits and vaccinations, within recommendations. But should we, for example, cover artificial insemination? Multiple attempts? Do we offer expensive chemotherapy to terminal cancer patients, maybe buying them a few months of misery, or just try to keep them as comfortable as possible?)
Edit: I think Bernie answered the question about a union leader for Department of Labor badly, although I appreciate that he doesn’t want to lock himself in (and the question is rather self-serving of the moderators). He recognized his audience, and was unusually wishy washy. I think he should have said something like: I will do the opposite of Donald Trump. Instead of putting people who opposed the mission of a department at the head of that department, for labor I will only pick a strong supporter of labor. It is very likely that the person I would pick has a union background, but I won’t necessarily limit myself to picking an administrator who is currently at a union.
Oooo. Very lukewarm applause for Bill De Blasio. (Not much enthusiasm there.)