CNN's five-hour democratic 2020 City Hall Marathon, with hourly questions and answers sessions with five candidates, was a long night – and a speaker. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, as well as South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, took hourly questions of audience students and a rotating casting of CNN anchors. The 300 minute extravaganza covered a lot of land. It also provided an opportunity, before the debates begin this summer, to make some head-to-head comparisons on issues of both politics and style. It is difficult to say if any candidate came out a clear "winner" or what it could even mean by so many months before a single primary vote is played. But the five city halls, together, revealed some major truths about the Democratic Party as a whole ̵ 1; and some shortcomings in the broader campaign and policy conversations in the campaign so far. The following is a kind of guide to night, focused on great themes and revealing responses rather than individual achievements. Who or what came forward, and who or what was behind? Winner: the Progressive Movement Sanders likes to point out that the ideas called for extreme and radical in the presidential election 2016 – as free college, Medicare For All and serious economic reforms – are now commonplace. It was quite obvious Monday night and then some. The questions themselves and the candidate's response revealed that the candidate democrats will end up on a much stronger and more progressive…
CNN’s five-hour democratic 2020 City Hall Marathon, with hourly questions and answers sessions with five candidates, was a long night – and a speaker.
Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, as well as South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, took hourly questions of audience students and a rotating casting of CNN anchors. The 300 minute extravaganza covered a lot of land. It also provided an opportunity, before the debates begin this summer, to make some head-to-head comparisons on issues of both politics and style.
It is difficult to say if any candidate came out a clear “winner” or what it could even mean by so many months before a single primary vote is played. But the five city halls, together, revealed some major truths about the Democratic Party as a whole ̵
1; and some shortcomings in the broader campaign and policy conversations in the campaign so far.
The following is a kind of guide to night, focused on great themes and revealing responses rather than individual achievements. Who or what came forward, and who or what was behind?
Sanders likes to point out that the ideas called for extreme and radical in the presidential election 2016 – as free college, Medicare For All and serious economic reforms – are now commonplace.
It was quite obvious Monday night and then some. The questions themselves and the candidate’s response revealed that the candidate democrats will end up on a much stronger and more progressive agenda on both economic and social issues than seemed possible four years ago.
Graduates spoke for a single payer health care, Green New Deal – a bold progressive agenda on climate change – and free college. Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg all talked about breaking up large corporate monopolies.
“If we put the two cents wealth tax in place on the 75,000 largest fortunes in the country – two cents – we can make universal child care for every child zero to five, universal pre-K, universal college, and defeat the student loan debt burden for 95 percent of our students still have nearly a trillion dollars left, Warren says about her plan to tax the wealthy to pay for a package of progressive welfare policies.
The proposals are now seen as moderate, or those disputed among the candidates were Just as said, later Amy Klobuchar, who placed himself as the moderate option, approved a public alternative in health care, a policy that was to the left of the Democratic Party less than a decade ago.
Candidates discussed whether voting rights would be extended to people who currently imprisoned, Kamala Harris vowed to take enforcement action on weapons Arris and Sanders supported legislation that would study the consequences of repairs for the slaves. It was a clearer response from Sanders who has confused the question in the past and says he does not support just cutting a check.
It is obvious that the leading politicians and positions in the Democratic Party are defined by their progressive wing.
Hillary Clinton may have faded something from the public. Her failed 2016 campaign does not have: rather than a stone for a new green female candidate, it has become a word for the fate that they hope to avoid.
Warren was promptly asked, twice about how she would fight that kind of sexism Clinton faced in 2016. A student question was actually: “Some have said you get” Hillary-ed “in the election. So what lessons have you learned from 2016 that can help you navigate these situations when you can be criticized for something that is partly motivated by sexist? “
Another student asked Warren how she could measure Trump’s bullying:” In Special, you are afraid that he can caricature you ? “
Warren has been called” reserved “for her focus on politics and her misleading claims of native American heritage made some question whether she, as Clinton, would be too scandalous to win. Trump likes to call her “Pocahontas”. Warren brushed off the comparisons Monday night, turning to politics and saying that sexism in politics is not new.
But the term “Hillary-ed” – and its connotations to be a non-eligible woman politician, whether due to scandals or sexism or being in touch with each other, is probably not the legacy Clinton hoped for.
One of the strangest events in the event was that so many students asked questions were academics at Harvard University, perhaps the most visible symbol on the American elite exists. It was a clear and obvious explanation -Harvard’s political institute (IOP) coordinated the event, so the Harvard students had to ask many questions – but that didn’t make it so quiet.
Candidates who appealed to the leadership of the United States Left Party debated a variety of populist policy areas ranging from Medicare-to-All to Green New Deal to compensation for slavery, were questioned by undergraduate at a school where the average student’s Family does about three times the national average.
Give Harvard Students Privileged Access to Potential Presidents Because The Rich Political Institute (recently awarded scholarships to Corey Lewandowski and Sean Spicer) who collaborated with CNN was an example of power and social status buying political access.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, in his insightful book Elites Twilight developed the idea of an “iron law” for meritocracy: “Finally, inequality produced a meritocratic system will grow large enough to undermine the movement mechanisms … those who can climb the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them or selectively listen to it to let their friends, allies, and relatives pick up. “
College Assumptions – Prioritizing to privileged athletes, older students and children of great donors – is a clear example of this fundamental problem. Privilege buys access to places like Harvard and thus a gateway to wealth and power. The wealth and power allows your kids to attend places like Harvard. Elite higher education institutions have a lot of virtues, like doing top research, but they also play a role in maintaining US class and race hierarchies.
An important prerequisite for the entire City Hall, which Harvard can and should play an outsized role in the 2020 campaign and American public life, undoubtedly went all night. And that’s a shame.
Candidates raised three questions on foreign policy and global politics on Monday evening. One was about Israel, one was about US relations with countries practicing LGBTQ citizens, and one-third was about preparing for “cyberwar” in the United States.
These were important issues to be sure. But they are just three issues that covered the entire rest of the planet during a five-hour event.
Nothing about China’s growing influence globally. Nothing about the coherence of the NATO alliance introduces Trump’s attacks from and into Putin’s pressure from outside. Nothing the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, wave of radical right parties sweeping Europe or any of America’s several ongoing military conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Yemen.
These are huge problems that affect millions of lives and (in some cases) the basis of global peace. But CNN chose not to raise any students who would ask about any of it. In order to discuss Yemen, Sanders must bring up the non-existent. It just felt like the rest of the world wasn’t there.
The obvious problem with this attitude is that foreign policy is the area where the president has the maximum authority to act unilaterally.
The ambitious domestic policy initiatives that the candidates were turned over for the will of most of the night will have to go through the congress and perhaps even fail in the (seemingly unlikely) event that the Democrats are winning a House-Senate-White House trifecta. However, there are very few effective controls on the executive’s ability to start war or undermine international agreements – and post-trump times will pose massive questions about America’s basic attitude to the world that it has long claimed to lead. Not to force Democrats to exhibit positions on some of these major problems feels like a great unjustified error on CNN’s fault.
And in a related bit of weirdness: immigration, probably the politically prominent political issue in America and the West more broadly, received only one issue all night. What the hell?
One of the few questions each candidate had to address on Monday was what they would do about student debt – not just for future generations of students, but for those who have already left school and still pay their bills.
Most democratic proposals in the past to deal with student debt focused on tweaks to make life a little better for people with debt, such as refinancing or adjusting interest rates. The latest and more ambitious proposals for the university’s profitability, such as free or debt-free public college, would only help future students, not those who already borrowed. Any widespread forgiveness for existing debtors who had not come into public service or paid decades of interest seemed already past – and it did not suddenly happen.
Then. Elizabeth Warren released a proposal on Monday that would forgive up to $ 50,000 in student home loans up to $ 100,000 a year, with some forgiveness for households earning up to $ 250,000. The plan was one of the hottest things that were discussed Monday night: The students asked Sanders, Harris, Klobuchar and Buttigieg if they supported Warren’s plan or such. If they did not, in some cases, ask why these candidates deserved their votes.
Some of the candidates approved a more incremental strategy. Klobuchar and Harris both supported that people with debt could refinance at lower interest rates and said they were worried about the debt burden on some occupations, but did not stop demanding full forgiveness. Others spoke positively about the general concept of forgiveness without getting into the specifics: Sanders agreed to do something to “substantially reduce” the student debt but did not discuss the details in Warren’s plan.
It is not surprising that university students, who asked the vast majority of questions on Monday night, would weigh on this issue. It does not mean that it will be a crucial issue in the race. But Warren’s plan clearly set an expectation that the candidates must have something to offer to those who repay their loans – and focusing only on tuition bills for future students will not suffice.
Bad news for billionaire democratic activist Tom Steyer and his group “Need to Impeach” – a political organization that has dedicated the last two years to lobby the congress to Prevent Donald Trump.
Monday’s Town Hall reinforced what has been the growing story on Capitol Hill: Democrats cannot agree on impeachment.
The release of an edited version of Specialist Robert Mueller’s report in the conduct of his campaign resumed the persecution debate last week; The report did not establish a conspiracy between Trump’s camp and the Russian government in the 2016 election and chose not to reach a conclusion on obstacles to justice. But the report outlines a wide range of pieces of evidence and struck the congress to make a definitive determination.
The leading 2020 democratic presidential candidates did not fully agree on what Congress would do next. Here’s what they said:
Bernie Sanders: “First, it goes without saying that Congress must take a hard look at it and make a difficult investigation and question – prosecute the people mentioned in the report and come to the truth. But right here is my concern. At the end of the day, it’s important to me that Donald Trump is not a newly elected president and I’m going to do everything I can to make sure it doesn’t happen. “
Kamala Harris: “I think Congress should take steps towards impeachment,” says Harris, which may mean more congressional investigations first.
Elizabeth Warren: “If you actually read the Mueller report, it’s all out there … If there are people in the House or Senate who want to say that’s what a president can do when the president is investigated for his own mistakes or when foreign government attacks our country, then they should have to take that voice and live with it for the rest
Amy Klobuchar: “I think first of all we need to hear in both the House and the Senate and not just with the lawyer [Bill] Barr. … if the house gives us the persecution before us, we will deal with them. “
A candidate who approves impeachment (and one who supports” steps towards “what, whatever might mean) is more than a week ago, but it is far from the overall consensus that Steyer and other persecution breeders may want.