IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Trump’s Big Distraction

6/10/2020

Trump walks to St. Johns Church with military leaders - Vanity Fair

Trump stood in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, held a Holy Bible in his hand, and raised it to the sky. His pose, dutifully captured by photographers, mimicked the iconography sought by other fascist and authoritarian leaders. Fascist leaders want to link their mortal being to a divine purpose. Their purpose is not to cleanse themselves of the sins they committed. Instead, they aim to bind their political ideology to a holy power.

Donald Trump ordered federal law enforcement officers to fire rubber bullets, use tear gas, and flash grenades to clear peaceful protestors from Lafayette Park. Once the federal officers had cleared the demonstrators, Trump walked to St. John’s Episcopal Church to sanctify those actions and others on behalf of a higher power. Like other fascist leaders, Trump’s indifference to religion does not stop him from offering his supporters the promise of the savior’s healing.

Many observers credited his walk, and the resulting iconography, to Trump’s effort to divert their attention. According to media reports, Trump had sheltered from demonstrations near the White House in its bunker. While Trump has undoubtedly used distraction, it is not his only tactic. Trump has used divide and conquer tactics to combat his opponents. Trump has met accusations against him by blaming political opponents. Accusing others allows Trump to avoid answering the charges. It helps Trump at the cost of intensifying political divisions in the country.

Trump looked like was pretesting a military takeover of this country.

Also, Trump has used pretesting to gauge the reaction of his audience to his numerous violations of norms and law. For example, Trump vilified progressive Congresswomen at one rally. But the audience reaction was restrained, and he dropped the attack in later rallies and tweets. Trump has also pretested his ability to ignore U.S. laws. He has ignored the Constitutional prohibition against receiving from payments foreigners and soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. election. The Republican Senate approved those actions.

Trump was not merely distracting MSM from his sojourn in the bunker. He was also pretesting our reaction to using sanctified violence to break the U.S constitutional law. While some observers may have missed the point of the violence preceding Trump’s walk, those familiar with fascists and authoritarians did not. For those familiar with “strong men,” Trump looked like was pretesting a military takeover of this country.

The Murder of George Floyd

6/2/2020

George Floyd

Derek Chauvin, Minneapolis Police Officer, murders unarmed George Floyd - hands in pockets, broad daylight. LA Times

George Floyd, a black man, was murdered by a white Minneapolis policeman, Derek Chauvin, while three of his fellow officers stood by. Excessive police violence, including murder, has had a long history in this country as a weapon of intimidation and social control.
More recently, police officers who have used excessive violence against blacks have cloaked their actions under the veil of “reasonable and necessary” force to ensure their safety. Juries have overwhelmingly found that lethal confrontations between law enforcement officers and blacks are justified if the officer claims that the black acted in such a way that deadly force was reasonable and necessary.
But even though law enforcement officers have this cloak available to them, they are usually reluctant to use excessive force in broad daylight where citizens can see and video their actions. And, citizens saw and videoed Chauvin casually kneeling on Floyd’s throat for almost nine minutes. Two of the other cops held Floyd’s legs to prevent him from struggling against Chauvin. These spectators heard Floyd repeatedly cry out, “I can’t breathe” and yelled at the cops, “he’s dying.” I know where, when, and how Chauvin committed the murder, but I have questions about why.
Why would Chauvin commit murder so openly? Why was he not afraid of being seen? And, if the other three officers were not plotting with him, why did the other cops not stop Chauvin? Why was Chauvin so sure they would not stop him? We know Chauvin was a Trump supporter. Was Chauvin mimicking Trump and doing his dirt openly so he could claim innocence?

I also have questions about Floyd’s relationship with Chauvin and the other cops. Chauvin and Floyd worked security at a nightclub for some time; they must have known each other. Did Floyd and the other cops know each other? Was there a quarrel between them, or did Floyd have something on them? Is that why they could not wait for a more secluded place to kill him?

Were the cops a part of some right-wing group hoping Floyd’s murder would start a race war? If there was a conspiracy, when and where did it start? Was Floyd’s murder a part of the plot or an unplanned event used in the conspiracy? It seems highly unlikely that anyone could have anticipated the nationwide response to the Floyd murder. But extremist groups were well prepared to take advantage of the murder. And their activities may have contributed to the intensity of the protests.

If there was a conspiracy, how far did it extend? Was the coroner involved? Is that why coroner’s report suggested hypertension and drug use rather than strangulation caused Floyd’s death? Michael Baden, the private coroner, hired by the Floyd family, found that strangulation, caused by neck and back compression, caused Floyd’s death. Baden did not find that any preexisting conditions contributed to his death.

If there was a conspiracy, were any members of the President’s campaign or his supporters involved? During the 2016 Presidential election, Russian military and cybercriminals supporting Trump boosted existing antagonisms and arranged for confrontations between opposing groups. Some observers have claimed that cybercriminals and white extremists are instigating clashes between police and protesters.

Georg Floyd’s murder is certainly a part of something bigger. It may be another in the long line of black deaths, or it may be a part of a conspiracy in which another black was killed.

Does Biden Need a Black Vice-President?

5/28/2020

There are two major misconceptions about Biden’s choice of a Vice-Presidential running mate. The first is that a running mate shows that Biden has the judgment to pick someone who can help him govern the country. Or, in the case of his premature incapacitation, serve as President. As a result of the “good sidekick” idea, people emphasize the compatibility of a running mate with the candidate. Bill Clinton’s selection of Al Gore typified a good sidekick to such a degree it raised questions about the wisdom of having a ticket with two young Southerners. These questions seemed fitting considering the rift that occurred between Clinton and Gore over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Missing from this conception of Biden’s choice as a backup is the idea of what a running mate can bring to the ticket. Some pundits pooh-pooh the suggestion that a vice-president adds anything to the ticket. They argue that a polarized electorate votes solely for or against the Presidential candidate. In previous elections, however, the choice of a running mate undoubtedly made a difference. Consider John Kennedy’s selections of Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. Many observers noted that without Johnson and his southern bona fides on the ticket, Kennedy would probably not have won the presidency, even with the shenanigans that occurred in Chicago.

The second misconception is that black voters must vote for Biden because Trump is so racist. This idea implies that Biden’s choice of a white or black running mate will not affect black voting. But the choice is not a pivotal issue. The primary concern is whether black voters will be mobilized to overcome the barriers to voting they will face. The Russians and others will try to dissuade blacks from voting. Also, Blacks will suffer long lines due to the lack of voting machines and personnel in predominantly black neighborhoods. In 2012, for example, a 102-year-old waited four hours to vote in North Miami, FL. Other black voters in recent elections report similar wait times. Will a Biden and Klobuchar ticket inspire black voters to stand in line for hours? Will a Biden and Warren ticket mobilize black voters to convince friends and neighbors to vote for Biden and other Democrats in down-ballot races? If Biden intends to select a white woman as his running mate, he needs to know, beyond any doubt, that she will able to mobilize black voters to the same extent that a black woman would.

Even with a polarized electorate, race and gender identification can overwhelm political identity. Trump, for example, selected Mike Pence for his running mate, in part, because of where Pence stood with Republican donors, establishment members, and white evangelicals. And, Obama selected Biden as his running mate, because Biden was widely seen as an older, white moderate, to provide comfort for older white moderates who were considering voting for him.

Biden needs to mobilize black voters to overcome the barriers they will face. Shoring up deficiencies with crucial voting blocs was good enough for Barack Obama; it should be good enough for Joe Biden. Biden must win – he does not need a sidekick; he needs a black woman.

Trump Has Made Us Helpless to Fight the Pandemic

5/24/2020

Donald Trump is colossally unfit to lead a response to the coronavirus pandemic, one of the most lethal and demanding situations to challenge the United States in 100 years. He is corrupt, unable to apply rigorous thinking to problems, selfish, and lacking in empathy for others. Not only is he incapable of managing an adequate response to this pandemic, he prevents other parts of both the federal and state government from mounting acceptable national response. Trump’s previous conduct, as a businessman, candidate, and President, show the intractability of his detrimental influence. Relieving the effects of pandemic must first start with removing Trump.

Trump’s Corruption
Trump’s corruption has been evident in both his business practices and his presidency. He has broken the law and engaged in unethical behavior while avoiding significant legal sanctions. But as President, his corruption has undermined the rule of law and threatens democracy.

Throughout Trump’s business career credible press reports linked him to organized crime, money laundering, and other illicit schemes. Trump’s association with Russian mobsters, most of whom had Russian government connections, was part of the impetus for the FBI investigation of his Presidential campaign. The details of these associations are detailed in the Mueller Report. In addition, Trump has been sanctioned or found legally liable for running a fraudulent real estate school and violating laws associated with running a charitable foundation. Also, an exhaustive investigation by the New York Times uncovered evidence of Trump’s federal and state tax fraud. The state of New York is currently investigating these allegations while the Congressional Democrats attempt to obtain Trump’s tax records.

One of Trump’s first acts as President was a florid example of Trump’s criminality. To stop two of his former girlfriends, a porn star and a Playboy bunny, from revealing these relationships, Trump had authorized payments to these women and then reimbursed his attorney with checks written in the Oval Office. The money for these payments, however, represented campaign contributions and were illegal. Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to two campaign finance charges and is currently serving a three-year sentence (now by house-arrest). Trump, as a sitting President, could not be indicted, but remains an unindicted co-conspirator.

In Memoriam
Mary Scott 1922- 2020
Richard L Scott 1923 - 2020

A lovely couple, married over 70 years. Proud parents and grandparents. COVID-19 overtook them in the same week.

Coronavirus

3/17/2020

All of us should expect to become infected with coronavirus. There are only two ways to avoid this disease. First, if scientists eventually develop an effective vaccine against coronavirus to which we have access, it could provide us with immunity. U.S. scientists estimate that the soonest they can develop a vaccine is a year. Second, if none of the people with whom we come into contact transmit the disease to us. This will happen if they are not yet infected, if they have recovered and are immune, or if they have been vaccinated. We can also escape infection through shear luck if we are exposed, but transmission just does not happen.

Most of us who contract the disease and are young and healthy will recover from coronavirus, perhaps with some over-the-counter symptom relief. Others of us may not be as fortunate as the young and healthy. We may have preexisting medical conditions, or be over the age of 65, or suffer from both preexisting conditions and are over the age of 65. If we have these risks and become infected withcoronavirus, we are more likely to die than those who are young and healthy. Nonetheless, a few of us who are young and healthy will also, quite mysteriously, do poorly or die.

Even if we are old and have health problems, we may recover from severe disease if we have access to the right medical treatment. As more and more people become ill from the coronavirus, the resources to treat them will become depleted. Hospitals may not be able to provide access to those sick with coronavirus because of shortages in intensive care units, ventilators, medical personnel, and personal protective equipment. In turn, hospitals may not be able to provide medical services for all of those suffering from heart attacks, strokes, overdoses, and other medical emergencies.

The authorities are calling for us to practice social distancing, limiting the number of people with whom we are in contact, to avoid this shortage of medical resources. Authorities are closing schools, limiting gatherings of over ten people, and closing nonessential businesses to enforce social distancing. But social distance maynot protect us from coronavirus. It will increase the time it takes for us to contract coronavirus. If the time it takes for all of us to become ill is increased, then perhaps our medical resources will not be swamped.

Flattening the curve refers to the process of prolonging the onset of thecoronavirus for as many people as possible so that health services will not be swamped. It is important to note that the flattening curve slows the rate of transmission. That is, it slows the number who have the disease at a given point in time; it does not affect the total number of people who contractcoronavirus. Flattening the curve is essential for helping to ensure that medical resources are not swamped. If the curve is not flattened, then access to medical care may have to be rationed or care quality compromised for all. (In Fig. 1, the number of people seeking help when it must be rationed is represented by C.)
Physicians need to test symptomatic patients to make a diagnosis, institute isolation, and report to public health for focused responses. Testing for the presence of coronavirus, like social distancing, is necessary but has been woefully inadequate. Testing, however, will not prevent us from contracting coronavirus. And adequate testing would help identify those who have the disease but are asymptomatic. Those who have coronavirus must be isolated in order to avoid its spread. Testing can also help identify those who are immune because they have been infected and recovered.
The prediction for the future is ominous. Because early testing was not done, it looks like more and more of us will be in the C part of the curve. And although testing has increased, we will never be able to catch the lost time and opportunity. At some point we should determine why we were so disadvantaged.

Is It What Bernie Said?

3/15/2020

Bernie Sanders - March 11, 2020. CNN

Four years ago, black voters definitively voted more for Hillary Clinton to crush Senator Bernie Sanders' quest for the Democratic nomination. In the intervening years, Senator Sanders made a concerted effort to increase his share of the black vote in key primary states like South Carolina. Yet, he failed.

The media and various observers floated four explanations for this failure. First, they argued that Bernie was too radical for South Carolina's pragmatic black voters. Second, they accused Bernie of downplaying the importance of race relative to relative to economics in his messaging. Third, they suggested that Bernie was not beloved by black voters as much as former Vice-President, Joe Biden. Fourth, the media did not think that the South Carolina black community believed Bernie was as electable as Biden.

These explanations assume that the black community is unanimous in its policy preferences. The black community exhibits diverse policy preferences. For example, many policies advocated by Senator Sanders, like Medicare for All and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage, would benefit the black community. Sanders' primary emphasis on economics rather than race may not sit well with the "woke" generation. But for older blacks, the focus on economics is consistent with the politics of the post-civil rights period. And, of course, some older blacks have long been attracted to the prosperity gospel movement. Thus, the backdrop against which many blacks must view Sanders' emphasis on economics is understandable.

Some pundits have stressed former Vice-President Joe Biden's loyalty and close relationship to Barack Obama as the reason black voters will not support Sanders. They cite House Whip James Clyburn's endorsement of Biden as a signal to South Carolina's black voters that Biden had earned their trust. Biden South Carolina victory resulted in a string of landslides victories for Biden on Super Tuesday. These victories are propelling Biden to the Democratic nomination.

Besides, pundits and Democratic moderates argue that Biden is the most likely candidate to defeat Donald Trump in November. They claim that Sanders' self-description as a social Democrat has set him up for such an onslaught of Republican attacks, he is unelectable as President. Bernie may or may not be less electable than Biden. And black voters certainly are united in their determination to defeat Trump.

Nonetheless, after a four-year effort to woo the black community, Sanders was unable to increase his margin of the black vote. Indeed, his margin dropped from 26 percent in 2016 to less than 20 percent in 2020. Another explanation for Sanders' poor performance with black voters is his tendency to rely on impersonal and indirect relationships. Relationships based on formal values and beliefs guided by economic self-interests may not be valued. Instead, black voters may value relationships centered on emotional ties, sentiments, and a sense of moral obligation to others. Sanders has not established an emotional bond with the black community in the four years he has been trying.

If this explanation is correct, it explains why Bernie could not increase his share of the black vote. Also, it acts as a warning to Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. If they intend to run for the Democratic nomination again, they should plan on spending a lot of time in South Carolina.

What Did We Learn from Trump’s Impeachment

2/13/2020

Lead House manager Adam Schiff speaks to the press at the US Capitol on January 22, 2020. (Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

Contrary to what some pundits say, Donald John Trump's acquittal did not unhinge him. He has been emboldened, at least, since William Barr became his Attorney General and "fixer." The decision by Nancy Pelosi and her caucus to impeach Trump was required by Trump's blatant corruption, even though there was never much chance of the Senate convicting him.

Nonetheless, the House Managers who prosecuted the case in the Senate were exceptionally effective, especially lead Manager, Adam Schiff. Although the Republicans prevented the presentation of witnesses or evidence, the Managers made a compelling case against Trump. Besides the satisfaction of fulfilling their duty, the Democrats did achieve some worthwhile objectives.

First, the truth about Trump's' behavior became clear to everyone, including some Senate Republicans despite the refusal of most Republicans to face the evidence against Trump. Except for two Republican Senators, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, the Republicans voted against hearing from any witnesses. According to press reports, one potential witness, former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, would have testified that Trump told him to hold military aid to the Ukraine until the Ukraine had agreed to announce an investigation of Trump’s key political opponent, former Vice President, Joe Biden.

After voting to acquit Trump, two Republican Senators, Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander admitted that the House Managers had proven that their case against Trump. They then claimed that extorting the Ukrainian government to investigate one of his political opponents did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Alexander went on to argue that he had voted against hearing witnesses because it clear that Trump had extorted the Ukrainians. But he did not explain why he did not want to hear evidence from witnesses that may have shown Trump’s conduct to be impeachable.

Second, everyone, including Democrats, realized how in thrall Republican politicians are to Trump. Many observers attribute their sycophancy to fear of losing their political offices. But some of these Republicans, like Senator Alexander, are retiring. While even retirees might lose some rewards if they antagonize Trump, another explanation must be considered. Some of these Republicans, like Attorney General Barr, have flirted with authoritarianism for years. They renamed their version of authoritarianism the unitary executive. Regardless of the name, its purpose was to reduce or eliminate the power held by other branches of the government because it was easier for them to capture the Presidency than the entirety of federal government.

Third, the only issue now is whether the Democrats can effectively use the corruption uncovered in the impeachment, as well as the Mueller Report, to convince the public that Trump is unfit to be President. Trump has been investigated and impeached. The evidence uncovered is proof that Trump is unfit to be President or even unconfined. With Fox News and Facebook providing lies and propaganda, it is not clear how many voters will be exposed to the truth. If the Democrats are unable to get the word out, then the investigations and impeachment may have been for nothing.

Democrats and Winning in 2020

1/20/2020

The Democratic nominee for President will have a difficult time defeating Donald Trump. Incumbent Presidents have several advantages seeking re-election, especially when the economy is strong. Voters almost always weigh their economic interests more than candidates’ policy positions. Nonetheless, voters do have general impressions of candidates and their parties. Trump cultivated an aura of a successful businessman, joined a party reputed to be patriotic, and inherited a good economy. Trump is helped because voters’ economic interests, candidate impressions, and party image are aligned.

Also, the Democrats may not be able to settle on their nominee until the summer. If none of the candidates garner a majority of the delegates before the summer, then the nominee may be chosen in July at the convention. Until Democrats select their nominee, Trump can attack Democrats without fear of focused retaliation from the nominee. And, except for the two billionaire contenders, Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, Trump, as the Republican nominee, is advantaged in his ability to raise money.
Besides these structural advantages incumbent Presidents enjoy, the four leading Democrats have deficiencies, like all candidates. Joe Biden is gaff-prone and does not seem to understand the polarization between Republicans and Democrats fully. His support is strong among moderates and older blacks but soft among the young and progressives.

Thoughts on Trump's Impeachment

12/26/2019

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, gavels Impeachment. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Impeaching Donald Trump was inevitable. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former political strategist, predicted that Trump had a one in three chance of completing his term without being impeached. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to avoid impeachment, fearing a voter backlash could erode the Democratic majority.
When the Democrats and the media discovered Trump’s scheme to extort a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 presidential election, they had no choice. Trump planned to withhold Congressionally earmarked funds from the Ukrainian unless it announced starting a corruption investigation of his anticipated opponent, Joe Biden.

Pelosi believes that the failure to curtail Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

Many progressives in the Democratic caucus had been calling for Trump’s impeachment since, at least, the Mueller Report was issued. But, newly elected Democrats from predominantly Republican districts were reluctant to risk their seats. But, the moderate Democrats, especially those with foreign policy expertise, joined the call for impeachment, Pelosi was then forced to lead her caucus to impeach Trump.

The Democrats’ impeachment of Trump was the principled response to Trump’s criminal behavior.   Trump’s invitation to a foreign government to intervene in an American election violated federal law. It is illegal to solicit something of value for a campaign. Moreover, one of the founding fathers’ leading fears was of a president who conspired with a foreign government. For the founding fathers, this example of Trump’s behavior would probably come closer to representing an original sin than any other.

Nevertheless, some of us feel disquiet about the Democrats’ decision to impeach. The House has impeached Trump, but that decision seems not to have been a part of a broader strategy. Some Congressional Democrats have argued that impeachment was necessary to inhibit Trump’s unlawful interference in the 2020 election. But it is nearly inconceivable that twenty Republicans -- along with the forty-seven Democrats, the number needed to convict Trump – will flip. Too many Senate, Republicans, believe that both their election and the survival of the Republican Party is at stake if they condemn Trump.

Is there anything Democrats can do to increase the likelihood of a conviction? Or, at least, to increase the number of Republican Senators who vote to convict Trump. If even one Republican Senator votes to remove Trump, he or she will undermine the charge of Democratic hostility.
If Trump is not convicted, he will claim exoneration. Democrats were thus reluctant to impeach Trump. According to some reports, Trump is already planning a celebration tour, after his Senate acquittal.

More important than the impact of Trump's “exoneration message,” however, is the potential for his further interference in the 2020 election. Trump solicited Russian intervention to help win in 2016. He seems to be continuing to pull dirty tricks in Ukraine. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who spearheaded the extortion in Ukraine, just returned from another trip to Ukraine last week. Giuliani boasted of having unearthed “more incriminating evidence against the Bidens.”

Although Democrats have limited power, they can try to shape the outcome Senate trial. Pelosi has already announced that she is withholding the impeachment referral from the Senate until Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees to hold a fair trial. McConnell and other Republican Senators have publicly announced that they have already decided to acquit Trump without calling additional witnesses or presenting further evidence.

Mitch McConnell claims that he is happy with Pelosi’s tactic of withholding the impeachment referral because he does not want to have the Senate vote on it. Thus, McConnell argues that Pelosi does have any bargaining power. But McConnell does not have as much control over this trial as he usually has over Senate proceedings.

If public opinion indicates that people expect a fair trial with witnesses and evidence, then Trump can only be exonerated by a “fair trial.” A trial without witnesses and other evidence, ending with a summary vote by Senators who have already announced their intention to acquit Trump cannot vindicate him. If Trump wants vindication, he must accede to Pelosi’s demand. And McConnell will have no choice other than to have a fair trial.

The pundits who see Trump’s impeachment as just another part of the Washington game may not recognize how important Pelosi considers the threat posed by Trump. Pelosi believes that the failure to curtail Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Pelosi could delay referring the impeachment to the Senate until after March when the tempo of primaries has slowed. Considering the significance Pelosi sees as the stakes riding on a fair impeachment trial, Pelosi may need to hold the referral to the Senate as an appropriate solution to match the extremely grave threat.

Democratic Presidential Debate - Take 5

11/30/2019

The fifth Democratic debate continued the decline in viewership that started begun with the second debate. Viewership of the fifth debate declined to 6.6 million from 15.3 million in the first debate (57 percent). These debates are not serving viewers. The networks that have hosted the debates tied the structure to the number of candidates. There were ten on the stage for the fifth debate. But the networks did not change their format to accommodate the number of candidates. With two hours and ten candidates, MSNBC could only allot each candidate no more than 12 minutes. MSNBC might have considered reducing the number of topics covered. Instead MSNBC decided to ask questions about 23 issues. Thus, MSNBC would have had to cut the time they allotted to each candidate to about 30 seconds for each topic. Rather than limiting the number of issues, MSNBC chose to ignore some of the candidates. Warren spoke for 13.4 minutes; Buttigieg and Biden spoke for 12.8 minutes and 12.6 minutes, respectively. Sanders, Booker, and Harris each spoke for about 11.5 minutes. Klobuchar spoke for more than 10 minutes while Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang each spoke for less than 10 minutes. (This added up to about 110 minutes due to commercial breaks and moderator comments.) This distribution of time-limited the number of topics each candidate had. And since the number of issues a candidate was asked roughly approximate at their standing in the polls, the debate did not change the ranking in the polls. More importantly, debate structured as these are do not provide the viewers with enough information to make a comparative decision about candidates.

Despite deficiencies in the debate structure, we did learn some things about the candidates.

Warren

Compared to the last debate, Warren escaped attacks for her advocacy of Medicare for All. The moderators asked a few questions about her paying for and transitioning to Medicare for All, but let Warren gracefully spin away from the topic. Warren’s release of her plan for implementing Medicare for All was either satisfactory or unanticipated enough to forego further questions.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that voters’ concerns about healthcare and Bernie Sanders’ emphasis on Medicare for All stampeded several candidates into endorsing Medicare for All. This endorsement did them a disservice because Medicare for All raises several thorny questions. Medicare for All has many advantages, including complete coverage at the lowest possible cost. But in the same way that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) had to be understood before it could grow on voters, Medicare for All will require voter education. And before voters understand it, Democrats can expect to suffer during several elections, just as they did with Obama Care.

Sanders

Bernie Sanders had a good night. He was forceful and had several memorable lines. Perhaps his best was his expression of agreement with Barack Obama’s quip. Obama had opined that voters “don’t want to tear down the system and remake it. Sanders first claimed to agree with Obama, but then went on to show why Obama was wrong.

Biden

Joe Biden, as expected, used his time to declare his electability. Following Donald Trump’s disastrous foreign policy ventures in Syria and Ukraine, Biden also pointed to his decades of foreign-policy experience. For Biden, a more meaningful indicator of his weakness was his failure to answer a moderator’s question about his son’s seat on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, Barismo. Biden should have been expecting the issue because of the Republican attacks on him and his son Hunter.

Biden’s failure to respond effectively to this question suggests that he does not fully understand the ferocity of the attacks that Trump and the Russian bots will mount against him should he become the nominee. Biden needs to prepare an answer to this question that will shut down questions about his son’s behavior in Ukraine. If not, Trump and the Russians will use the same tactics against him that he and the Russians used against Hillary Clinton.

Buttigieg and Klobuchar

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, having just moved up in the polls to the top four, seem comfortable with his rising numbers and thus refrained from launching any attacks as he did in the previous debate. Mayor Pete was, however, able to turn an attack by Tulsi Gabbard against him with rather devastating effects.

Amy Klobuchar had perhaps her best debate night. She was witty and able to get in several zingers to support her positions. Nonetheless, it seems that it may be too late for Sen. Klobuchar. It may be that she focuses too much on getting small pieces of legislation passed with the help of Republicans. Democratic voters may be wondering if Republicans would sign on any bill that made a difference in their lives.

Harris and Booker

Senators Harris and Booker, separately, but perhaps feeling the same frustration at not being able to break into the top tier of contenders, reminded everyone that the primary and general election winner would need black support. Biden rushed in to tell everyone of his black support and made the faux pas of the evening. He claimed that the only black female Senator supported him. Senator Harris quickly reminded him, and everyone else, that she did not help him. It seemed he was referring to Senator Carole Mosley Braun. Braun, a one-term Senator, was elected in 1993.

Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang

Representative Tulsi Gabbard stands out in this trio because primarily because of the persistent rumors that the Russians view her as an asset to divert votes from the Democrats. But no observer gives any of the three more than a slim chance of winning the nomination.

Conclusion
These debates, as structured, are not going to have a significant impact on the candidate rankings. Unless something happens other than the debates, there may be a contested convention. More importantly, it may be that none of the candidates will emerge to create and ignite the kind of coalition needed to defeat Trump.

Pop-up Window