I have a few hot takes to offer on last night’s debate:
Tulsi Gabbard is not, in fact, the breakout star of the primary, despite what this garbage article from The Hill would have you believe.
Julián Castro’s policy chops on immigration may well generate a polling bump, but the media has been focusing on his interruptions and incivility, which probably cancels out some gains that would otherwise be realized.
de Blasio did well on the economic inequality front, and he’s in Miami today rallying with airport workers in a way that really reminds me of 1930s urban socialists. Heavy on workers rights, etc. But anyone who thought he was going to lose because he’s a bad debater was misguided; he’s going to lose because he’s a bad and awkward campaigner, as his low favorability ratings show.
Poor Beto O’Rourke. Last night was his chance to really prove critics wrong; that he is not all style and no substance. I’m not so sure he accomplished that.
Do you have expectations for tonight’s tussle? Anticipations? Share them below. I’m probably not going to be staying up until 2 AM London time to blog about it. I long to be back in America.
Diss a pointed Beto did not do well. I don't get his position on 1325. We must be able to still apprehend smugglers without it, right?
If he does not believe in a 70 percent marginal rate then say so. Do not act scared of standing up for your positions. I also dont like his preferences for higher corporate taxes vs income taxes.
Doesn't it seem like a general election liability to pledge to actively get rid of private insurance, regardless of how well one can argue for the policy? The idea is at best unpopular and at worst credible ammo for any Republican (Trump) who wants to argue that "Democrats want to take away your health care and raise your taxes". Given the general election liability, and that Democratic primary voters are so hyped up questions of electability, I feel like this could have negative effects in the nominating contest, too. I will add that many of my British colleagues have private insurance even in a market with public coverage.
I agree. I was surprised she took that position. Was she trying to out-Sanders Sanders? I don't know. If I were running for the Dem nomination (which I would be *terrible* at doing, but never mind), I'd say something like this: "We have all the elements for universal coverage and cost control already in place: Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and employer-sponsored health insurance. We need to knit them together, strengthen protections for pre-existing conditions, and use the purchasing power of the government to better control costs, including drug costs. Multi-component systems work well in other countries and they could work well here. There's no need to start from scratch many people are generally happy with what they have, and claiming we *can* start from scratch is unrealistic."
It baffles me that no one will take that position.
Diss a pointed Beto did not do well. I don't get his position on 1325. We must be able to still apprehend smugglers without it, right?
If he does not believe in a 70 percent marginal rate then say so. Do not act scared of standing up for your positions. I also dont like his preferences for higher corporate taxes vs income taxes.
Curious to know your take on Warren's (unexpected) stance on private health insurance. How might that affect her GE chances (if she's nominee)?
Doesn't it seem like a general election liability to pledge to actively get rid of private insurance, regardless of how well one can argue for the policy? The idea is at best unpopular and at worst credible ammo for any Republican (Trump) who wants to argue that "Democrats want to take away your health care and raise your taxes". Given the general election liability, and that Democratic primary voters are so hyped up questions of electability, I feel like this could have negative effects in the nominating contest, too. I will add that many of my British colleagues have private insurance even in a market with public coverage.
I agree. I was surprised she took that position. Was she trying to out-Sanders Sanders? I don't know. If I were running for the Dem nomination (which I would be *terrible* at doing, but never mind), I'd say something like this: "We have all the elements for universal coverage and cost control already in place: Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and employer-sponsored health insurance. We need to knit them together, strengthen protections for pre-existing conditions, and use the purchasing power of the government to better control costs, including drug costs. Multi-component systems work well in other countries and they could work well here. There's no need to start from scratch many people are generally happy with what they have, and claiming we *can* start from scratch is unrealistic."
It baffles me that no one will take that position.