Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada Caucus by a comfortable margin. With 60 percent of the voting precincts reporting their results, Sanders has now obtained a whopping 46 percent. Joe Biden, who has been losing considerable approval in the polls across most states, including Nevada, managed to exceed the latest grim expectations and received 19.2 percent and second place. Pete Buttigieg comes in at third place with 15.4 percent ahead of Elizabeth Warren at 10.3 percent and Amy Klobuchar at 4.5 percent. The number two in the national polls, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, did not participate in the Nevada caucus.

‘Beat Trump and Transform the Country’

Sander’s election victory in Nevada did not come as a surprise. Already four hours after the start of the caucuses, the major networks were able to announce Sanders’ victory based on indicative forecasts. In his victory speech afterwards Sanders proclaimed the expected: “let us win the Democratic nomination together, beat Trump and transform the country.”

After Sanders was defeated in the Iowa Caucus, he has now won two consecutive states with New Hampshire and Nevada and thus will take over the lead as the clear Democratic front-runner. What was a resounding victory for Sanders was yet another blow to all moderate forces within the party. Klobuchar was a complete non-factor and was unable to utilize her recent momentum. A solid performance in Nevada was urgently needed, however, to keep her donors motivated.

The Democratic Moderate Wing is Collapsing — Time for Biden to Step Aside?

Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s second place was a significant improvement compared to his previous two showings. However, it cannot be emphasized enough that he had held the lead in Nevada ahead of Sanders in January — and comfortably with 28 to 21 percent, respectively. Since then, both campaigns have run in diametrically opposite directions: downhill for Biden and high up in the sky for Sanders. In essence, Biden now has to win the South Carolina primary in which he currently leads on Saturday to even realistically remain a contender in this nomination race. If he cannot prevail against Sanders there, Biden needs to do the moderate forces a favor by conceding and thus open up the moderate lane for the sake of the party and, indeed, the country.

Warren Has Apparently Become Sanders’ Lackey

Similar observations apply to Elizabeth Warren, who suffered another major defeat and, according to the polls, will not stand a chance in South Carolina, either. After Iowa’s projections had been made public, Warren did not even concern herself with addressing the subpar performance. Instead, she was eager to digress from it and shift focus towards her debate performance as well as onto Bloomberg, whom Warren did not only attack regarding his character but — in line with the crude Trumpian way and far from her sanctimonious pledge of uniting the party — for his height.

What is even more telling was that Warren once again did not attack Sanders, although he de facto occupies her lane. Instead, she continued to attack Bloomberg, by now Sanders’ main rival. While this cannot be a winning strategy for Warren, it may indicate a post general election agreement between Sanders and Warren. Warren’s speech was indeed a testimony of it, as it was not one of a campaign fighter who is here to stay, but of one who has now become the front-runner’s personal Doberman.

Buttigieg Seems to be the Only One Left Truly Challenging Sanders

Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg continued his quest for establishing himself as the only valid alternative to Sanders. Buttigieg criticized him and his vision for America harshly and did not get tired of emphasizing that his campaign has been the only one able to beat Sanders yet. However, Buttigieg has still not proven whether he can obtain the necessary amount of Latino and Black voters, and South Carolina will mark his first real test in this regard.

Although it appears Sanders is currently cementing the Democratic nomination, the next ten days will indicate where the candidates ultimately stand. The South Carolina primary on Saturday is followed by the most momentous day so far on March 3, Super Tuesday. Fourteen states will cast their vote on this day, and 33 percent of all delegates from the entire race will be allocated. Most importantly, Bloomberg will be on the ballot and demonstrate whether his recent surge has any staying power.

And while the moderate lane of Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg continues to consist of two too many, the next ten days and Bloomberg’s results are going to reshuffle the cards — and indeed the field — tremendously.

L'articolo Bernie Sanders Wins Nevada Caucus: is the Nomination Now Effectively His? proviene da InsideOver.

With the latest Democratic debate in the books, the favorites remain the same. Depending on the polling, either Joe Biden, Elisabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are likely to obtain the party’s nominee and run for President in 2020. However, is being in the lead at this early stage truly indicative of a successful bid?

There is a common misconception when it comes to observing early polling. While people with serious interest may or may not follow the race continuously, the common voter does not. Therefore, opinions on a candidate can fluctuate and will hardly ever be completely formed. Candidates drop out of the race based on low polls or insufficient campaign funds or show up out of nowhere (e.g. Tom Steyer).

Thus, the dynamics of an early race change constantly and not seldom leading dark horses winning big down the stretch. Only one rule remains the same: the race only starts with the first primary.

In modern electoral history, this has been witnessed on countless occasions. In seven open Republican contests since 1960, the early front-runners held on to win the party nod six times. By contrast, early Democratic poll leaders won four out of eight open contests between 1960 and 2004.

The latter was Senator John Kerry. In early 2003, Kerry was tied with Senator. Lieberman, but fell behind the candidates Wesley Clark and Vermont’s Governor Howard Dean at different times later in the year before eventually getting the final nod from Democrats.

Lieberman himself had been polling at 23%, making him the party’s early front runner. Once the primaries began, however, his campaign did not manage to win one single one of them, forcing the Senator to drop out of the race.

In 1999 Vice President Al Gore was the heavy favorite amongst Democrats, polling at 61%, only to lose against George W. Bush in the general election. Governor Bush himself had been polling at 54% in the GOP.

In September 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican field decisively at 33% and was said to be bound to enter the Oval Office. A few months later he dropped out after a lackluster result in the Florida primary.

On the Democrat’s side in 2007, Hillary Clinton was polling at 48% for the Democratic Party, nine months later she conceded the nomination to then-Senator Obama who went on to run for President.

In 2011 Rick Perry 15 months before the election was the Republican frontrunner, polling at 26% at the time. Five months later, he decided to exit the race, after disastrous debate appearances during which he famously forgot about an agency he sought to abandon in his plans.

All these individuals are were household names, arguably more so than some of the current front runners. However, the name recognition that can carry a candidate as a favorite to the first primary, can just as quickly be exposed, if the candidate continues to struggle in debates or with raising money.

All in all, early general election presidential trial heat polls have a subpar track record and history suggests the political climate is almost certain to change between now and November 2020. Only today (28 November), news broke that Elizabeth Warren’s polls are in a free fall. The addition of Mayor Bloomberg once again adds another element to the equation.

With that being said, Joe Biden, at this point, remains the most conceivable result. His debate appearances have been shaky, his fundraising has been suboptimal. However, his moderate stance and his amicable persona and experience, as well as an Obama endorsement down the road, make him the candidate, who could carry his polling number all the way to the Democratic National Convention.

L'articolo Does Early Polling Indicate Who Obtains the Nominee? proviene da InsideOver.

The Republicans have been able to depend upon the red southern states for a while under its Electoral College system, but changing demographics are threatening the GOP’s dominance in these states.

The Lone Star State of Texas provided George W. Bush and Donald Trump with winning margins in the 2004 and 2016 presidential elections respectively. In 2011, Hispanics, who traditionally vote for the Democrats, accounted for 38.1 per cent of Texas’s population. Worryingly for the President, a Gallup poll discovered only 39 per cent of Texans approve of the job Trump is doing. Certain electoral battles in this state have become more marginal, like Senator Ted Cruz defeating Beto O’Rourke in 2018 with a difference of 2.6 points.

Last Tuesday, the Republicans experienced setbacks in two states in off-year elections. A staunchly pro-Trump Kentucky Governor called Matt Bevin was deeply unpopular in the state, home to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Meanwhile, Virginia Republicans fighting to maintain their one-seat margin in each of their legislative chambers lost them to the Democrats, who gained full control of state government for the first time in 26 years. These elections were embraced by Trump and the GOP as key tests of the President’s popularity.

Trump’s 2020 performance in the red states depends upon who the Democrats select as their presidential candidate. With Elizabeth Warren’s popularity surging in the Democratic primary races, many in her party are wondering if her radical ideas may be what is needed to defeat Trump. But political commentator Charlie Cook told the Financial Times that many moderate Democrats are worried if they stray away from a moderate agenda, they will fail to defeat the Republicans.

Warren’s appeal as a single mother with radical policies like making college free, cancelling student debt and a host of other progressive ideas have appeal. At rallies in New Hampshire and Iowa, the Massachusetts Senator was introduced to crowds by young women whose experiences mirror those of Warren’s. In Iowa, she has 22 per cent support against 16 per cent for Joe Biden. In New Hampshire, she has a four per cent lead over the former Vice President. Polls show that many voters, including Republicans, are sympathetic to her ideas.

But the Massachusetts Senator faces hurdles. Cook says her healthcare proposals and wealth taxes would not be enough to fund her domestic policy programme. Her support among African Americans lags her popularity among white voters. In red states like South Carolina, where black voters are critical, Biden leads her by 30 points to 19. But among African-American electors, the gap increased to 39-12. A moderate Democrat like Biden can win in GOP states like South Carolina, which has voted Republican in every presidential election from 1964 to 2016, with the exception of 1976. This is why Trump should worry if the Democrats select the former Vice President as their 2020 candidate.

The President is trailing behind Democratic candidates like Biden in national polls and whilst his party can no longer take the red states for granted like it used to, in the swing states, he is performing better than expected. The New York Times conducted surveys in six states that Trump won most narrowly in the 2016 election- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina. The former Vice President beats Trump by just one percentage point. But the President beats Warren and Bernie Sanders in these battlegrounds by just one point. Therefore, the Republicans’ 2020 campaign is in good shape so far, but it does add credence to the argument only a moderate Democrat can defeat Trump.

The Republicans’ best hope in winning 2020 depends upon the Democrats selecting a radical like Warren or Sanders. Changing demographics and recent elections prove that the red states are gradually becoming more marginal. 2020 might prove to be the first year where the GOP has to treat every state as a potential battleground.

L'articolo Why the Red States Might Become 2020 Battlegrounds for Trump proviene da InsideOver.

There’s no nice way to say it – the Democratic Party as a whole is in disarray, and their message to voters is wildly incoherent. While some candidates try to steer a middle course, most are attempting to capitalize on the activist base where the party’s energy is focused. Although this may be a decent strategy during the primaries, the current field of Democrats are largely coming across as unhinged and unsure about what they want other than to beat President Donald Trump.

While disagreement is healthy and necessary during a primary, the Democrats have exposed the lack of a real, workable governing philosophy at the heart of their party. This incoherence is a problem when it comes to picking up swing voters and independents, not to mention politically passive Democrats who dislike Trump but are not very impressed with the Democrats either. Nonetheless, despite these criticisms, the second set of Democratic debates in Detroit on July 30 and 31 were an improvement over the embarrassing spectacle of the first set of debates in Miami earlier in the month. At least this time, the candidates marked clear ground on several issues of contention, and did not try to speak garbled Spanish.

Who Caught Voters’ Attention?

The standard horse-race analysis has it that former VP Joe Biden had an especially bad night, as did Mayor Bill de Blasio, while Cory Booker and Julian Castro did a surprisingly good job (the bar is low). Elizabeth Warren put in a solid performance, as did Marianne Williamson, with her denunciation of the Democratic party’s self-defeating and self-righteous approach to beating Trump.

In terms of speaking time, night one belonged to Warren, who got over 18 minutes, and Bernie Sanders, at over 17, while Marianne Williamson and John Hickenlooper clocked in at the bottom with just over eight; on night two, Joe Biden was gifted upwards of 21 minutes and Kamala Harris got over 17 (because, as she put it in a post-debate brag, she is one of the “top-tier” candidates). Andrew Yang and Bill de Blasio both spoke for around 9 minutes, with Beto O’Rourke somewhere in the same region of time with a forgettable showing, and Tulsi Gabbard also somewhere pretty close to being ignored. The rest of the candidates’ speaking time fell somewhere in the middle.

Despite already very high name recognition and a solid activist base, Bernie Sanders boosted himself even more with his strong performance. He came out swinging, and absolutely bulldozed several individuals onstage, such as Tim Ryan, who challenged Sanders about whether the Vermont Senator’s proposed Medicare For All bill would actually cover prescriptions, eyeglasses, hearing aids and dental care.

“You don’t know that,” Ryan quipped.

“I do know—I wrote the damn bill,” Sanders fired back.

Another punch-in-the-face moment came when Gabbard absolutely demolished Kamala Harris’ record on criminal justice, leaving the California Senator sputtering like a fish out of water.

Democrats Need To Get Their Heads in the Game

Booker’s bizarre statement that the debates were dividing Democrats too much against each other – which amounted to asking why people need to debate in a debate – was a good symbol of the woolliness of the party’s current mentality. As breakout star and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson put it, “political insider games” and “wonkiness” won’t win elections, and if Democrats keep hiding from their own complicity in the corruption and donor-run system affecting the current economic and foreign policy situation, “those who vote for Trump will continue to vote for Trump, and those who might not like Donald Trump will continue to stay home.” Williamson, who is attracting more and more positive and negative media attention alike, has a good point.

What’s Next?

The next debate is September 12th (and 13th if enough candidates qualify) at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. It is going to be much more difficult for candidates to qualify, so they will all be trying to make the absolute most of the opportunity if they do get a place onstage. The Democratic National Committee has announced that the third debate will be in September, but candidates will require at least two percent in four polls and 130,000 donors, with a minimum of 400 donors in at least 20 states, to get onstage. Although many lower-tier candidates polling at 0.5 and 1 percent will be shown the exit by September, it is quite possible that Gabbard, Yang and Williamson could make it by continuing to ride media controversy and attracting attention and support. Either way, the field in September will be much smaller, and the jabs will be much harder. If a Democrat really wants to beat President Trump, they will need to start clearly advancing a vision that can unify the party and attract voters, instead of pandering only to certain parts of the base or floating their own “woke” credentials at the expense of real policy.

L'articolo The Second US Democratic Debate Had Big Surprises proviene da InsideOver.

Tuesday night in Detroit, Michigan began the two night war of words and policies among the top 20 leading Democratic presidential candidates. It was pretty much politics as usual, as they did battle for what was destined to be the delineating moment for many of the hopefuls. It did not disappoint.

Night One

The first question of the night on Tuesday was directed to Bernie Sanders. Naturally, the question was about health care. After his response, the other candidates jumped on Sanders and the topic, like a pride of lions who hadn’t eaten in weeks. It was immediately clear the tone of this debate was going to be much less reserved than the last one in June.

Sanders and Warren quickly come together, rebutting the more moderate candidates’ attacks on their “Medicare for All” plans. By design or default, their shared passion and belief in “Medicare for All” kept them unified throughout the night.

This idea is so divisive and, inexplicably, it’s seen as a zero sum game. The two countries most referenced with universal health care, Canada and Britain, both have private plans. Sanders and Warren made a strong case for its necessity and its plausibility while keeping the fervid attack of the others at bay.

Placing Sanders and Warren in the middle of the stage enabled the other candidates to go at them from both sides. And they did. Whether by design or accident, they worked in tandem to defend their shared beliefs.

Sanders and Warren were the only two who kept reminding Americans of all the inequalities that their respective plans and policies can help correct. When it comes to insurance reform, Sanders took it so far as to remind viewers that big insurance companies were going to advertise during the debate’s commercial breaks.

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg played it cool. This seems to be his default setting. Given more than a few opportunities to go after Sanders and Warren, he wouldn’t take the bait. When prompted about the age difference between he (the youngest) and Bernie Sanders (the oldest), he simply said that age is not relevant when it comes to creating good policies. While he disagreed with Sanders and Warren, he didn’t attack or call their plans pointless, he simply stated his own.

After barely registering during the last debate, and still barely registering in the polls, former Representative John Delaney got a lot more time on Tuesday night. When not asked questions directly, he found ways to inject himself and remind everyone of his blue collar background and success as an entrepreneur. Delaney was the most dogged and determined to go after his more progressive colleagues – oddly, going so far as to reference Ronald Reagan.

Even though he was assertively, and repeatedly, rebutted by both Sanders and Warren, he persisted. John Delaney is nothing if not tenacious.

Making his debut Tuesday was Montana Governor Steve Bullock, a moderate. For a large part of the debate, he showed a fair amount of mettle. He was holding his own against the heavy hitters. He even showed evidence of being a younger (alternate) version of Joe Biden. And then, just like Biden, he fizzled out.

Both Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke needed stand out moments on Tuesday night. They didn’t get them. To be fair, it’s not that they didn’t get them, they just didn’t deliver them. Despite all of her efforts, Klobuchar just isn’t very likeable. She doesn’t galvanize people in a manner that a candidate on a national and international level needs to.

A few months ago, it seemed that Beto O’Rourke was the Democrats’ chosen one… for all of about two minutes. Beto O’Rourke is, in a word, vacuous. It’s also very clear he’s been studying the speaking rhythm of former President Barack Obama. He just doesn’t have the charm or substance to pull it off.

Marianne Williamson remains a breath of fresh air. Oh sure, she probably won’t win. But, if 2016 taught us one thing, it’s not to say that. She does continue to make some very relevant and cogent arguments, like her appeal for African American reparations. But yes, you can count on Williamson to derail into some sort of freeform hippy stylings.

In fact, it was Williamson who really crystallized what many were thinking about some of the candidates on stage. In particular, the testosterone trifecta of Ryan, Bullock and Delaney, she said, “I wonder why you’re Democrats. You think there’s something wrong about using the instruments of government to help people. That is what government should do.” She remains an original voice.

Ohio Senator Tim Ryan continues to look amazed that he’s still in the race. Unlike some of the other candidates, I have no recollection of him talking about his plans. Ryan spent a lot of time going after both Sanders and Warren, in the process proving he’s just not effective, and neither are his plans. I guess.

John Hickenlooper’s arm flailing battle with Bernie Sanders represents the exasperation felt watching Hickenlooper. He seems very low on substance, and doesn’t appear like he’s very good at articulating his message. Provided he has one. Frankly, you have to wonder how much longer he and Tim Ryan are going to stick around.

The top three candidates on Tuesday, Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders all had their one or two “sound bite” moments that stand out. Sanders with his “I wrote the damn bill” and arm throwing contest with former Colorado Governor John Hickenloper. Warren, after a solid one-two punch from Bullock and Delaney, quipped “Why would anyone go to the trouble of running for President just to talk about what can’t be done?” And Buttigeig with his heartfelt, and correct, address directly to Republicans:

“If you are watching at home and you are a Republican member of Congress, consider the fact that when the sun sets on your career, and they are writing your story, of all the good and bad things you did in your life, the thing you will be remembered for is whether in this moment, with this president, you found the courage to stand up to him or continued to put party over country.”

The moderators went to a lot of trouble to force the candidates against one another. They repeatedly pressured them by asking “Yes” or “No” questions. For example, on the question “Would you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for ‘Medicare for all? Yes or No?” asked to both Warren and Sanders, they correctly deflected. They said the middle class would save more money by not having to pay premiums and deductibles.

Reading between the lines, that’s a “yes.” Anyone with a basic education knows taxes would go up to pay for that. The moderators tactic was effective in that it did show that there are chasms within the party.

Much to many of the candidates credit, they noted that the differences in policies that exist between them are not as wide as they may seem.

The big winner on Tuesday night was really the American public watching. For the first time, the candidates actually discussed substantive issues. Once the Las Vegas style preamble ended and the candidates got into it, it became a spirited, and necessary, conversation.

With that said, the shared principles of Tuesday night’s progressive front runners Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were able to hold the others off. Most of the candidates got some good punches in, but the two held their own. Emerging from Tuesday night’s debate, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders remain where they were going into it, the progressive front runners. Following them is Pete Buttigieg… and then everyone else. In short, no seismic shift occurred.

Night Two

Once CNN finished their imperious preamble and the debate began, all eyes were on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Even Biden felt the heat as he condescendingly quipped to Harris, “Go easy on me kid.” While America’s eyes were on Biden and Harris, up on the stage, those two were in the cross-hairs of their fellow candidates.

The two words that could best describe Wednesday night’s debate are disunity and uneven. While Tuesday night’s debate was spirited and combative at times, there was a general esprit de corps among the candidates. This was not true on Wednesday. The tension from the candidates flew from the television.

No one candidate on Wednesday maintained a similar energy level to what we saw on Tuesday from Sanders and Warren. With the exception of Cory Booker, the others energy level vacillated from charged to tepid. In fact, on more than one occasion, Joe Biden simply stopped himself before his allotted time was up. Something no other candidate did on either night.

The debate was interrupted twice early on, which may explain the dark tone that followed. First by protesters calling for the termination of New York Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who was accused of fatally choking civilian Eric Garner. The Justice Department declined to file charges against the officer. When asked about this, NYC Mayor and candidate Bill de Blasio made a vow that within 30 days action would be taken by the city against Pantaleo.

A little later, Kamala Harris explained how the civil rights division of the Justice Department had their recommendation of prosecution usurped. Without naming him, she kept the running thread of Trump’s racism in play.

The second interruption took place when CNN moderator Don Lemon asked Joe Biden about the Obama administration’s deportation record. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly 800,000 immigrants were deported — far more than President Trump’s during the first two years.

As he began to answer, two women interrupted him from each side of the hall, shouting “three million deportations”.

Just as it was Tuesday, healthcare was the first topic. And also like Tuesday, it led to a lot of sparring between the candidates. However, it was Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard who got the best line in by saying that America doesn’t have a healthcare system but rather a sick care system.

Gabbard was the more decisive of the candidates on Wednesday night. When asked if her free college plan would include undocumented immigrants, she emphatically stated “no”. She delivered pointed attacks on Harris’ prosecutorial record. Gabbard, a veteran, was openly defiant, saying that Americans had been lied to about the war in Iraq and that “War mongering politicians in Washington have failed us.”

People are making a mistake by overlooking Tulsi Gabbard.

Former Vice President Joe Biden was uneven and, at times, it didn’t seem his heart was in it. It’s either that, or he’s loaded with confidence and thinks he’s got the nomination locked. Let me assure you, he does not.

Either way, the best thing that can be said was that he didn’t collapse. I don’t think “not bombing” can, or should, really be considered a success when you’re the front-runner. The Biden slide may have just begun.

Kamala Harris remained cool, calm and measured, but by the end of the debate, looked tired. Her performance on Wednesday wasn’t as strong as it was in June. While she was on her game when going after Biden, she seemed unprepared for the jabs by Gabbard. However, her performance wasn’t quite as bumpy as Biden’s.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, sporting business casual attire again, was around to remind Americans that his plan is all about universal basic income. Basically, giving everyone $1,000 a month. Yang’s focus is all about money and technology and that’s interesting. Wednesday, he was able to deliver marginally more of his vision. On universal health care, he pointed out that insurance is an enormous hassle and cost for business owners. Removing that burden would allow them to spend that money on employees and innovation.

On immigration, Yang’s background in technology came more into focus. When it came to manufacturing, and the future, Yang said that it wasn’t immigrants taking those jobs. In fact, it was artificial intelligence – robots. He was correct in pointing out that “immigrants are being held accountable for things they have no responsibility for.”

For most of the debate, Bill de Blasio made every attempt to be the voice for the working American. Unfortunately, no one really wanted to listen. Aside from his comment about Democrats fear mongering around health care, none of his messages resonated. He made a few charges at Biden, but was quickly rebuffed.

Senator Michael Bennett implored his colleagues on stage to pay closer attention to education. Again, I don’t think anyone was listening. When the issue of impeachment came up, he fumbled around for what to say. Basically landing on the opinion that unless Trump can be convicted of impeachment in the US Senate, it’s not worth it.

The Democrats seem to view far too many things as a zero sum game. Universal health care, free college and impeachment. None of those should be treated as such. It took Former HUD Secretary under President Obama, Julian Castro, to remind Bennett that some battles are worth fighting and losing in order to set the record straight. Bennett thanked Castro for saying what he had allegedly failed to articulate.

Castro delivered one of the more solid performances of the night. And much like Tulsi Gabbard, anyone underestimating Julian Castro is wrong to do so. He remains one of the stronger second tier candidates.

It was Castro and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker who were the most solid of the group. Booker’s preacher-like tendencies can be overwhelming, but this time it was less annoying. Especially when debating criminal justice reform, which was partially necessitated by Biden’s racially predatory drug and crime laws dating back to the 1980’s.

As Biden was calling into question the impact of Bookers record as Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Booker wasn’t having it. Booker sniped, “There’s a saying in my community that you’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor,” which drew audible gasps from the audience.

Booker also called out Biden for a comment he made during the immigration discussion. Biden had said that anyone with a PhD should be let right in. That’s just the type of elitism that many of the Democrats are running against. As Booker pointed out, the hard truth is that the majority of people coming into America right now are not PhD students or degree holders.

Kirsten Gillibrand was there. But she suffered from the same problem as John Hickelooper – they both appear earnest, but lack substance. However, Gillibrand did say that her first act as President would be to “Clorox the oval office.” Which got some hearty laughs.

The biggest surprise of the night was Washington Governor Jay Inslee. This time around, he looked and sounded less like a drunk sociology professor and more like an actual candidate. Inslee was more articulate and was on his A-game. He went to painful lengths to highlight his accomplishments in his home state of Washington. However, he did present the state as a sort of progressive Shangri-La.

Once again, CNN moderators Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Dana Bash appeared to go to great lengths to highlight the fissures within the party and the candidates. The difference between Tuesday and Wednesday night was that it had more impact on Wednesday. There was a noticeable change in the tenor from Tuesday to Wednesday. Again, perhaps it was the protesters early on or maybe it was the candidates’ response to the moderators. Regardless, it was darker on Wednesday.

If we consider these debates as a win/lose situation, it was CNN and the moderators who won both nights. WIth their ridiculous overblown beginning to the sharp charge of their moderators, the network helped pigeonhole the candidates into tired political tropes. The tropes that keep the American electorate divided, both from the inside and outside. Which is their job as a news and entertainment outlet. Even so, both the viewers and candidates would have been better served if they were less obvious and aggressive about it.

But as far as the candidates on Wednesday night? No one clear winner emerged like Tuesday night. Also like Tuesday night, there was no seismic shift.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, while both a little uneven, held their own and kept the enemies at bay. Corey Booker and Julian Castro rose to the challenge, while Tulsi Gabbard stealthily reminded everyone there is much more to her candidacy. Jay Inslee and Andrew Yang both stepped up their games. But as single issue candidates, it’s hard for them to speak outside of that. Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio and Michael Bennett were there but, at the end of the day, failed to deliver anything.

It’s worth noting that about 95%, maybe even 99%, of the policies and plans the candidates are braying about during these debates are not likely to ever come to fruition. Even if one of them does make it to the White House, what they’re pitching now will have morphed and ended up becoming watered down (at best) or simply ignored (at worst). Their talking points at this juncture serve only one purpose: to align and fire up the base of the party.

Conclusion

Of the two nights, there was more of that spark and fire on Tuesday with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren than there was on Wednesday with any of the candidates. As charged and spirited as Tuesday night was, there was less visible tension on the stage.

Wednesday night was full of tension. While the debating was equally as spirited, if a little more pointed, it did lack the esprit de corps of Tuesday night.

In the end, it’s evident that these debates haven’t changed anything. It’s politics as usual. They did help bring into focus some of the candidates’ plans and policies, but it’s still the top five of Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders and Warren leading the pack. And the second tier candidates will continue to jockey for position.

Now, it’s just a waiting game to see who leaves the race before the next round of debates. No one should be surprised to see it down to one night with ten candidates. America simply can’t handle another two day spread of this.

L'articolo Politics As Usual – Democratic Debate Recap proviene da InsideOver.

With the first round of Democratic debates over, it has become clear that the party has begun to slide to the left. Whether that’s been by design or by force is up for debate. There is even talk that, for the first time, the Democrats may find themselves with a true “progressive” leading the party, as opposed to a classical liberal Democrat.

But first, let’s differentiate between a liberal and progressive. While subtle, the difference exists. A liberal may believe that the government should collect taxes and use the money for the betterment of communities and society as a whole. A progressive believes that too, but has a keen interest in addressing the systemic rules that allow such societal discrepancies to happen in the first place.

Put another way, liberals believe that the capitalism-based status quo is important but it could use some work around the edges. Progressives believe that the status quo is the problem and the only solution is to eliminate the system perpetuating it. Take for example, body cameras on police. Liberals will want to pay for body cameras on police. Progressives won’t be opposed to that, but they’ll want to address the training the police get that necessitate the cameras in the first place.

The talk of the Democrats becoming more progressive isn’t false. The party is certainly more left than it was in 2015. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, even considers himself to be “Democratic Socialist”. While the word “socialist” is polarizing, the less alienating “progressive” does beg the question of exactly how progressive are the five leading Democratic presidential candidates?

As the dust continues to settle from the debates, expect the field of 24 Democratic candidates to shrink before the next round of debates scheduled for July 30 and 31. But, as of this writing, the current front runners are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Are these five front runners really that progressive?

Joe Biden

Make no mistake, he’s a classic liberal. Biden’s also a career politician, which means he’ll do what he needs to do to get a deal done. If that means working with men who built their career or racism and segregation, so be it. If that means standing in front of a room full of wealthy people and assuring them  “Elect me and nothing will change”, so be it. If it means having your first fund raising dinner populated with some of the largest Washington D.C. lobbyists, so be it.

But what does Joe Biden stand for? If you listen to his stump speech or look at his website, Joe Biden is a classic liberal. In fact, his views are so typically liberal, all you really need to know is that he favors helping the middle class, and peppers that with rhetoric about taxes and health care. It could be the same stump speech from either of the two other times he’s run for president.

Unlike his competitors, his website is short on specifics. Exactly how he’s going to accomplish this is a little nebulous.

Now Biden has taken some heat about race. When Kamala Harris called him out during the debate about his position on bussing and integration that he took early in his career, it was unfair and misleading to imply he didn’t support it. He did – what he didn’t support was federally mandated bussing. Harris came out supporting something almost identical to this a few days later.

Joe Biden has been in politics for so long that it would only make sense for his beliefs to have changed. For example, he co-sponsored legislation in 1986 that was designed to treat, and punish, crack cocaine differently than powder cocaine. At the time, crack was decimating black communities so, accordingly, black communities felt the wrath of this legislation.

Biden would eventually help engineer this legislation’s reversal in 2010.

As a classic liberal, the one thing Joe Biden is not is an apologist. Whether it was the odd “apology” about his odd tendency for touching people, which he would then go on to joke about, or Anita Hill, who immediately denounced his apology, or his defensive stance on the 1994 crime bill, his apologies have been met with much skepticism.

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg sounds like a rock-solid centrist liberal. He’s for a single payer health care system and is not against “Medicare for all”, but leans more towards a “Medicare for all who want it… on the road to Medicare for all”. This seems a tepid response to a signature hot button issue – the rapidly rising healthcare costs in the US. But he’s not alone – this is the approach Biden has, too.

As a native of Indiana, and mid-western values, he stands behind unions, and would pass a new Wagner Act which would support organized labor. The problem is, there are no jobs to organize labor behind. It’s no secret that manufacturing jobs have left the US… and organized labor was one of the reasons. Nowhere does he list a way that he would bring the jobs back to the US that would necessitate organized labor. The manufacturing jobs are not coming back, so while it’s a great talking point and simple to rally behind, without the jobs, it’s unclear why it’s needed.

Buttigieg is supportive of the Green New Deal, and has called for a withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. He has also defended Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70 percent effective marginal tax rate. However, he stopped just short of openly committing himself to a particular rate. Here again is a tepid response paired with a refusal to commit to a tax rate for another hot button issue – income inequality.

Buttigieg is light on context when considering his college plan. His goal is to make public tuition “affordable” and completely free to lower-income families. Judging from his stance during the debate, he’s opposed to free college for all. After acknowledging he and his husbands own student loan debt he said, “Why should a working class family pay for a rich family’s kid to go to college?” That’s a little reductive.

It would seem unlikely that a billionaire’s child would attend a free institution. The private colleges can still charge. Everyone has a strong desire to pitch free college education as a zero sum game. It doesn’t need to be. There is no reason a free public education can’t peacefully co-exist with a paid private one.

While Buttigieg has some interesting, and borderline progressive, ideas about both the Supreme Court and the elimination of the electoral college, as you scroll through his stance on other issues, you’re left with the belief that he stands right in the middle. Which seems almost counter-intuitive given that he is the youngest candidate and has grown up in a world of profound change. His views, like his supporters, are rather traditional.

Kamala Harris

Harris is an interesting contradiction. During the debate, Kamala Harris stepped up and hit a grand slam. While she may appear to have progressive ideas, put into practice, not so much. But that may be out of necessity. In the US, 90% of elected prosecutors are white and 80% are male; as a black woman, Harris, as the Attorney General of California, was somewhat of an anomaly. Whatever her inclinations may have been then, or are now as a presidential candidate, she inherently invites scrutiny because of her race and gender.

As the AG, she was forced to walk a fine line. For example, she refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but defended California’s death penalty system in court. She also implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

Despite her confrontation with Biden during the debate about bussing integration, she publicly seemed to agree with him just a few days later. Like Biden, Harris doesn’t think bussing should be federally mandated. While this confrontation was certainly a dramatic highlight in the debate, it seems to be at odds with what she actually believes. It makes you wonder what its purpose was.

In short, Kamala Harris is similar to Joe Biden. She seems malleable and can turn into what she needs to be at any particular moment. While that is a key characteristic for a career politician, it’s not one for a progressive.

Bernie Sanders

As a self proclaimed “Democratic socialist”, Sanders has been the driving force behind the party’s shift to the left since 2016. And it’s struck a chord with an unlikely group – millennials. It’s strange to think that a 77 year old man could have so much appeal to the younger demographic, but such is the case. The reasons are many, but two of them include student loan debt and the fact that salaries are not keeping up with day-to-day cost increases. These issues are important to the younger generation, and because salaries won’t keep up, it often means that two jobs are a reality for many millennials.

While healthcare is a primary focus of the Sanders stump speech and was his initial debate rallying cry, his platform is far more comprehensive. It addresses many of the issues, on a systemic level, that will help eliminate some of the concerns Americans are facing. For example, his “For the 99.8 Percent Act” establishes a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaire and billionaire inheritances. This alone would raise $315 billion dollars over a decade.

Another focus of the Sanders campaign is the issue of credit card interest rates. With the median credit card interest rate at 21.36%, the Sanders plan calls for a capped interest rate of 15%.

Along with healthcare for all, the other Sanders tentpole issue is free college and the elimination of student loan debt. The US carries about 1.6 trillion dollars in student debt (two-thirds of that held by women). Sanders’ plan of wiping out all student loan debt for the bottom 80% of Americans would not only free people from the shackles of student loan debt but create 1.5 million jobs a year. His plan also calls for investments in Historically Black Colleges and Minority-Serving Institutions and an end to the Equity Gap in higher education.

Sanders was very clear in his plan on how to pay for this: “If Wall Street can be bailed out for several trillion dollars, 45 million Americans can and will be bailed out of the $1.6 trillion burden of student loan debt and we can provide free college for all.”

Elizabeth Warren

For as long as she has been actively involved in politics, Warren has been calling for change. This happened first in 2008, when she was appointed chair of the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel that was created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (which helped correct the 2008 financial crisis). Then, she was special advisor to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In those two roles, she defined herself as the principal nemesis to big banks and Wall Street just prior to running for the US Senate in 2012.

Over the past couple years, she has been calling for the break up of big tech companies like Google and Facebook whose profits, she feels, are too large. Warren also calls for a taxing of the ultrarich as a class.

Her plan also includes a radical change in the way lobbying is handled in Washington D.C. by enacting the strongest corruption reforms in decades. Warren’s plan calls for an end to loopholes and bans foreign governments from hiring Washington lobbyists, and banning Senators and Congressman from becoming lobbyists for life (as well as from trading stocks in office).

Warren also has a free college plan and college debt elimination plan that is similar to Sanders’.

But don’t confuse Warren and Sanders. There are differences. Aside from their supporter demographics (Sanders- young, multi-racial; Warren – older, white), their approach to capitalism and Wall Street is different. According to Naomi Klein, “Warren is calling for New Deal levels of market intervention, and Sanders is leading a revival of democratic socialism at a time when the economic fundamentals are strong.” For big corporate Democrats, this makes Warren the more palatable candidate of the two.

While there are other candidates of varying beliefs, it seems most likely one of these five will secure the Democratic nomination for president and face President Donald Trump in 2020. If one is looking for the mirror inverse to what Donald Trump represents, it would be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If one is looking for a more restorative candidate, it would be either Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg. The one wild card is Kamala Harris, although many suspect that she would lean more towards Biden and Buttigieg than Sanders and Warren.

Pundits across the spectrum will have an opinion about who would do best against an incumbent president… and one like Trump. However, that isn’t the only difficulty the Democrats face. They will need to select, and unify behind, a candidate that best represents what their constituents want, not just one who is electable or that the Democratic machine wants. And if they learned anything from 2016, those two things are not always in synch.

It’s anybody’s guess who the Democrats will select and how they will handle it. One thing is certain, with the current top five front runners, the landscape goes from classic liberal to Democratic Socialist.

L'articolo The Top Five Democratic Nominees – Liberal or Progressive? proviene da InsideOver.