December debate

[Kraken]

Anybody watch tonight?

The smaller cohort made for better interaction. Sparks flew more than once, especially between Warren and Buttigieg. I thought she wiped the floor with him; others will surely disagree. Overall, though, Klobuchar had the best night (and I say that as someone who doesn't like her).

[El Guapo]

I watched the debate. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit - wonder if getting the debate size down to a more manageable number helped. I enjoyed the Buttigieg - Warren back and forth on fundraisers pretty interesting, as I can see the merits of both sides of the debate. I will say Buttigieg is growing on me overall, though I kind of wish he was ~ 10 years older and a governor or Senator or something.

Didn't hate anyone at the debate. Klobuchar is kind of annoying as she's basically an electability sound-bite person at these debates and not much else. Yang in some ways I want to like, as a data-driven candidate, but he's kind of a one-issue guy (the 'freedom dividend'), and any answers on other topics either tie it back to the dividend or are generic / non-sensical.

[Kraken]

Here's a video of that exchange. Upon rewatching it, I'll call it a draw. It does reveal that these two people do not like one another.

[El Guapo]

There are a few things that annoy me as Klobuchar, but her acting like she's some sort of whisperer of red state voters when she's representing Minnesota is inching towards the top of the list. Sure, there are way more blue states than Minnesota, but it's not like she's getting repeatedly reelected in Alabama or something. Joe Manchin would have a WAY better case if that's a key criteria.

[El Guapo]

I will say this in Klobuchar's defense, mulling over the debate last night / this morning. If there's any election to run a generic electable seeming / non-radical Democrat with no indications of a sordid / scandal past, it's this one. So Klobuchar running as a "generic electable mid-western Democrat who emphases beating Trump" makes some sense, I suppose.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Pete's reply to Warren that he has the least amount of money of anyone on stage is pretty disingenuous. For one, he is much younger than anyone on stage so they have 30+ more years of earning than he does. Secondly, he came from one of the, if not the, more well-off families on stage (parents were both professors, so likely decidedly middle to upper-middle class). Warren in particular came from a low socio-economic family; she even started working at 13 to help provide for the family. So using current wealth as a measure of credibility doesn't exactly fly, at least IMO.

[Zarathud]

Pete was cautioning the other Democrats against decrying millionaire support while being in the same category. He’s right, but the whole issue is bogus. Any Democrat on stage is less “compromised” than Trump.

[El Guapo]

Pete's reply to Warren that he has the least amount of money of anyone on stage is pretty disingenuous. For one, he is much younger than anyone on stage so they have 30+ more years of earning than he does. Secondly, he came from one of the, if not the, more well-off families on stage (parents were both professors, so likely decidedly middle to upper-middle class). Warren in particular came from a low socio-economic family; she even started working at 13 to help provide for the family. So using current wealth as a measure of credibility doesn't exactly fly, at least IMO.

I take his point to be that the way Warren and Sanders (and sometimes others) tend to posture gives one the impression that contact with millionaires is inherently corrupting. But if that's the case, shouldn't one vote for a non-millionaire candidate? If the answer is that Warren and Sanders and others are ok because they started poor, or because they are old and accumulated wealth over time, or what have you, that undermines at least partially the notion that candidates being in contact with millionaires is inherently a bad thing. Which in turn undermines the argument that high-wealth fundraisers are politically bad. Like, would it be problematic for Buttigieg to have a fundraiser where Warren and Sanders paid to be in attendance?

I don't take Buttigieg's answer to be some kind of silver bullet refutation of Warren and Sanders's argument. But as part of his overall argument defending high-wealth fundraisers, I think it's reasonable.

[Defiant]

I, for one, assume a Wine Cave is the wine equivalent of the Bat Cave, where a billionaire superhero named Wine Man uses it in his crime fighting efforts.

[El Guapo]

It's depressing after a debate how much of the coverage is rankings of "winners" and "losers". It's part of the problematic media dynamic that Trump takes advantage of - so much political coverage is not about the truth or about any aspect of policy, it's about how something will "play" with voters.

[Lagom Lite]

Like, would it be problematic for Buttigieg to have a fundraiser where Warren and Sanders paid to be in attendance?

Yes, of course it would. How could you trust Pete not to adopt Warren's or Sanders positions once he's sworn in?

The issue of money in politics is about undue influence and corruption, not wealthy people per se. It is problematic when a candidate says he will do one thing, but later turns around and does another thing because he needs to honor supposed promises made to his donors.

[Lagom Lite]

I, for one, assume a Wine Cave is the wine equivalent of the Bat Cave, where a billionaire superhero named Wine Man uses it in his crime fighting efforts.

"Wine man and the Boy Drunkard!"

[Holman]

Pete's reply to Warren that he has the least amount of money of anyone on stage is pretty disingenuous. For one, he is much younger than anyone on stage so they have 30+ more years of earning than he does. Secondly, he came from one of the, if not the, more well-off families on stage (parents were both professors, so likely decidedly middle to upper-middle class). Warren in particular came from a low socio-economic family; she even started working at 13 to help provide for the family. So using current wealth as a measure of credibility doesn't exactly fly, at least IMO.

I take his point to be that the way Warren and Sanders (and sometimes others) tend to posture gives one the impression that contact with millionaires is inherently corrupting. But if that's the case, shouldn't one vote for a non-millionaire candidate? If the answer is that Warren and Sanders and others are ok because they started poor, or because they are old and accumulated wealth over time, or what have you, that undermines at least partially the notion that candidates being in contact with millionaires is inherently a bad thing. Which in turn undermines the argument that high-wealth fundraisers are politically bad. Like, would it be problematic for Buttigieg to have a fundraiser where Warren and Sanders paid to be in attendance?

I don't take Buttigieg's answer to be some kind of silver bullet refutation of Warren and Sanders's argument. But as part of his overall argument defending high-wealth fundraisers, I think it's reasonable.

That's the straw man right there, though. Neither Warren nor Sanders has declared that millionaires are by definition evil, and the presumption that they think so is based on a caricature of economic progressivism.

What they *do* say is that mega-wealthy donors have a perniciously outsized influence on American politics. This is so true as to be almost beyond dispute, at least among Democrats and at least until one or another of their chosen candidates gets the temporary benefit of it.

[El Guapo]

Pete's reply to Warren that he has the least amount of money of anyone on stage is pretty disingenuous. For one, he is much younger than anyone on stage so they have 30+ more years of earning than he does. Secondly, he came from one of the, if not the, more well-off families on stage (parents were both professors, so likely decidedly middle to upper-middle class). Warren in particular came from a low socio-economic family; she even started working at 13 to help provide for the family. So using current wealth as a measure of credibility doesn't exactly fly, at least IMO.

I take his point to be that the way Warren and Sanders (and sometimes others) tend to posture gives one the impression that contact with millionaires is inherently corrupting. But if that's the case, shouldn't one vote for a non-millionaire candidate? If the answer is that Warren and Sanders and others are ok because they started poor, or because they are old and accumulated wealth over time, or what have you, that undermines at least partially the notion that candidates being in contact with millionaires is inherently a bad thing. Which in turn undermines the argument that high-wealth fundraisers are politically bad. Like, would it be problematic for Buttigieg to have a fundraiser where Warren and Sanders paid to be in attendance?

I don't take Buttigieg's answer to be some kind of silver bullet refutation of Warren and Sanders's argument. But as part of his overall argument defending high-wealth fundraisers, I think it's reasonable.

That's the straw man right there, though. Neither Warren nor Sanders has declared that millionaires are by definition evil, and the presumption that they think so is based on a caricature of economic progressivism.

What they *do* say is that mega-wealthy donors have a perniciously outsized influence on American politics. This is so true as to be almost beyond dispute, at least among Democrats and at least until one or another of their chosen candidates gets the temporary benefit of it.

But Warren and Sanders never really (that I saw) articulated a specific reason why it was bad that Buttigieg had / attended this fundraiser, other than tying it to a broader systemic issue. And isn't it the contact with millionaires and billionaires that's the perceived problem - that it leads the candidate to make promises to rich people and to cater to them instead of to less wealthy people? And I thought Buttigieg's counter-point that Warren accepted this type of fundraising money in her Senate races and was still relying on that money in her presidential campaign (via transferring it over) seemed reasonable as well.

[Lagom Lite]

But Warren and Sanders never really (that I saw) articulated a specific reason why it was bad that Buttigieg had / attended this fundraiser, other than tying it to a broader systemic issue.

Yes - although one could argue that we can't be sure which promises were made by Pete to attendants at this fundraiser. I suppose it's possible that these campaign donors are altruistic and don't expect certain policy proposals in return. Color me cynical to assume this isn't the case.

And isn't it the contact with millionaires and billionaires that's the perceived problem - that it leads the candidate to make promises to rich people and to cater to them instead of to less wealthy people?

If a candidate is pretending to be a champion of "less wealthy" people but instead running errands for the wealthy and powerful, that is the problem, yes.

And I thought Buttigieg's counter-point that Warren accepted this type of fundraising money in her Senate races and was still relying on that money in her presidential campaign (via transferring it over) seemed reasonable as well.

It certainly is! However, it doesn't free Pete from suspicion either.

[Unagi]

We have a guy in office right now who is actively trying to take the car off a cliff.

I feel like you guys are debating the integrity of the next person to take the wheel, by discussing their source of gas money.

The debate may be perfectly valid, but it seems comical given the situation this great ‘road trip’ finds itself in.

[Lagom Lite]

We have a guy in office right now who is actively trying to take the car off a cliff.

I feel like you guys are debating the integrity of the next person to take the wheel, by discussing their source of gas money.

The debate may be perfectly valid, but it seems comical given the situation this great ‘road trip’ finds itself in.

It sure seems like the other guys operate by a whole other yardstick. We're up against a cult of bullies. They don't care about policy, they don't care about posterity, they don't care about anything other than supporting their team against the evil do-gooders of the world so they can feel like winners.

They've yet to take the reigns in my country but they are growing (far right populists are at about 25% support over here - significant enough that right-wing moderates are starting to align with them politically to build a coalition after the election in 2022).