Dem Debate #4: Winners & Losers

All right. Let’s start today with democratic presidential
debate number four, which took place last night on CNN, a rough roughly three hour affair. I did stream commentary for about the first
45 minutes of it before CNN shut it down. Uh, Sam Cedar’s stream getting shut down about
90 minutes in or so according to the tweets that I got. Turns out CNN, uh, is much more aggressive
than anybody else when it comes to, uh, preventing any commentary streams about their debates. But we have time today to talk about it. And in general, one would expect that over
time you will have fewer participants in primary debates. Although the democratic debates so far sort
of going in the opposite direction after getting down from 20 to 10 or 11, we were back up
to 12 participants yesterday and it was a complete and total mess, which was one of
the things that I’ll talk about. I decided I’m not going to play any clips
from the debate in this segment. Two reasons, really. One, I want to have more time for commentary
in a three hour debate. You know, there weren’t really these short
moments that lend themselves to highlights per se. And in any case there are a whole bunch of,
you know, 1520 minute highlight videos online and CNN is being so punitive when it comes
to copyright. We will just be doing my thoughts on it and
uh, you know, check out the clips later. Widely available online. So let’s talk about that first thing I mentioned. Once again, debates with 12 people on the
stage aren’t good. That was again confirmed last night and I
don’t want to belabor this, but yet again as if we didn’t know, you don’t really get
a chance for much depth when you have 12 people on stage unless you just straight up ignore
some of them for long periods of time, which actually did also happen yesterday, which
is logical in a sense in that, you know, there’s a big conversation right now on healthcare
for example, between the Bernie Warren view and the Biden view, which is different but
then also within Bernie Warren because their positions are also different. And that was a topic we’ll talk about. And for awhile everybody else was just sort
of ignored. So it’s like I get why they’re doing that,
but at the same time, we should just have fewer people on the stage. That’s what would really make the most sense
now important going in, especially as we get this far into the primary, we’re, the positions
of the candidates are really mostly known. They may not be known to every voter, but
there aren’t really secrets where candidates have not yet told us their on certain issues. It’s important to understand the context is
one where debates rarely move polling in any significant way. And when they do, it’s often not permanent. If it’s up, unless you really mess up, in
which case you could do permanent damage to yourself. And that’s been the theme for the first three
debates. Example, first debate, the big kill shot that
got a ton of attention and play the next day was Camila Harris going after Joe Biden. Uh, that was either the first or second debate. It got her a spike in the polling immediately,
but then that are roaded over the 10 to 14 days that followed. And Kamala Harris went right back to where
she was. So the positive, you know, gotcha moments
only seem to work in the short term with debates and then things regularize. Another example, Joe Biden, Joe Biden has
had terrible debates, mostly his first and second, the third one. He was rather the first and third were not
very good in the second one, he actually did okay because he was just attacked even in
irrational ways that made him look like a martyr, quite frankly. And he ended up doing okay in that debate. Um, Joe Biden has generally performed poorly
and he has had a permanent decline in the polls. So again, case in point, the debates tend
not to permanently move polling very much unless you do poorly. So what I was interested in watching was going
to be number one, does Bernie Sanders go after Elizabeth Warren? We talked about the mathematical complexities
of how does Bernie get back into the running for being in first place. He’s now pretty significantly behind both
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden and the complexities mathematically are that the people that Bernie
could attack, both Biden and Warren, they’re supporters prefer. In other words, Biden’s supporters prefer
Warren over Bernie and Warren supporters prefer Biden over Bernie, so by attacking them, it’s
not clear that Bernie actually helps himself. So this was a question, does Bernie go after
Warren and we’ll talk about that. I tweeted yesterday that he likely wouldn’t. I said that the more likely scenario was that
Bernie would draw some mild distinctions from Warren, but that nothing would really change
and this is basically how it went and we’ll get more into that momentarily. Another element I was watching for, does Joe
Biden seem more energized, not an analysis of his policy, but does he seem this shrunken,
slowed down Biden or does he seem more energized? He was more energized to some degree last
night compared to his just terrible prior performances. Unclear that it will change very much. Elizabeth Warren, who now has almost [inaudible]
front runner status with Biden was definitely more of a target, a number of people on stage
going after her, the focus of more attacks and disagreements, which we’ll get to. She weathered some of them. Okay. Less well with others including questions
around healthcare. And I’ll get to that. We also wanted to pay attention to how do
other candidates go after or not go after Biden on the Hunter Biden stuff. Right. Even if you don’t believe the conspiracy theory
that is being parroted by Trump and the people around him regarding Joe Biden and Ukraine
and that’s all it is, a conspiracy theory without evidence, you can still be critical
of that $50,000 a month consulting position that Hunter Biden had with the Ukrainian gas
company. And there was a question as to how would the
other candidates go after Biden for that. The answer was not that much. There really wasn’t that much discussion about
it. Biden did get asked about it. His response was pretty pathetically wishy
washy and muddled and uninspiring basically changing the subject and not really addressing
it. Uh, and that was mostly that foreign policy. Foreign policy has been a weak point, not
just in the debates, but it’s a weak point for many of the candidates who don’t really
demonstrate, I don’t want to say they don’t have the knowledge because they may have it
somewhere in there, but they’ve not demonstrated deep knowledge on foreign policy. Does anyone actually propose prescriptions
on foreign policy instead of just criticizing Trump? There wasn’t that much. The most discussed foreign policy topic yesterday
with Syria and the Kurds, understandably, almost everybody on the stage was against
the haphazard withdrawal, or at least the way that Trump did it. They were opposed to Tulsi. Gabard sort of waffled on it. We know that this is her position. She took a position that the entire problem
is not Trump withdrawing. It’s regime change Wars and endless Wars,
which is a major problem with American foreign policy, but it’s myopic and simplistic when
it comes to this particular issue as well, but that’s been her talking point on most
foreign policy issues. She staked that out. There’s a slice of the left that likes it,
and right now it’s gotten her 0.8% support from democratic primary voters. But other than that, either disagreement with
the way the withdrawal was done or with the withdrawal, uh, a period the other candidates
did take the opportunity to distance themselves from Tulsi gabardine position. P booted. Judge Frisch, for example, said that she’s
just straight up wrong about it. Uh, but it was a relatively small part of
the debate of the first question. They made the right decision because there
were 12 people on stage to skip opening statements, which I loved. They made the wrong decision to open the debate
with a question about what do you think about impeachment, which was a complete waste of
time. Basically, everybody’s for impeachment, Tulsi
Gabard not really for it. Pete booted, judge a little worried about
what the consequences may be, but we knew that nothing useful was learned from that
question. It took up about 20 minutes or more. It provided an opportunity for some of the
candidates to grand stand and it was really, really lame. Speaking of lame and cringe-worthy billionaire
Tom Stier who effectively bought his way into the debate was totally cringe-worthy. His first opportunity to speak. He tried, he went directly to an applause
line where the audience of course has been told basically to shut the F up and not make
noise and very few people reacted and it was just downhill from there for Tom Stier contributing
nothing. His presence was totally superfluous in every
way and unfortunately I believe he’s qualified for the fifth debate. Elizabeth Warren had a particularly weak moment
last night and it was when she was answering the question, will taxes go up under your
healthcare plan? I don’t want to repeat myself again and again
and again, but I’ve already addressed many times a variety of ways in which candidates
could answer this question and she unfortunately repeated some of the same talking points multiple
times, including some version of, I will not sign a bill into law that doesn’t lower costs
for middle class families. Sort of a strange double negative. And really the answer is, I mean, listen,
we know what the answer is. You have total healthcare costs. Taxes are a component of a single payer plan,
but in total costs will go down. Bernie actually handled this pretty well yesterday. Bernie has also totally missed the Mark on
this question. Bernie said in clear terms, total costs will
go down. You get rid of copays, you get rid of premiums,
you get rid of co-insurance, all of that stuff. You add a payroll tax. It will be mostly, it will be disproportionately
increased for corporations and for the rich. Mostly everybody will pay a little bit, but
your total costs will go down. It’s the truth and it’s a perfectly reasonable
way to do it because people’s costs aren’t zero now. Now there’s some conflict about the math of
that statement in terms of some of the claims Bernie has made, and that’s okay. We’re figuring it out. But uh, in the end, Bernie messaged that way
better last night and Elizabeth Warren fell short and she was vulnerable as a result of
it and multiple candidates saying, why can’t you just answer the question, not her best
moment last night. And what was overall a pretty good performance? Andrew yangs, Andrew Yang’s performance, Andrew
Yang’s followers have been tweeting to me saying, Andrew Yang destroyed it. He’s about to break into the top three now. I didn’t really see it that way. Andrew Yang did go after Elizabeth Warren
for not adopting his thousand dollar a month universal basic income proposal. She said, well, I want to increase social
security payments. It was a nice attempt by Andrew Yang to, uh,
get some FaceTime with the presumptive co front runner at this point. Elizabeth Warren, I don’t think it’s going
to make much of an impression or impact polling. Bernie’s health came up, of course, having
a heart attack a couple of weeks ago. Bernie handled it as well as you can while
standing up on a stage and claiming that you’re fine. Uh, his voice and his energy seemed basically
back to normal. So that was good. I don’t think he did any damage to himself
when that topic came up. Uh, Covell Harris brought another one of her
gotcha attempts when she asked Elizabeth Warren, will you join me in calling for Trump to be
banned on Twitter? And Warren said, no. And it was sort of an anticlimactic gotcha
moment. Harris tried to be shocked. No you won’t, but it was a pretty weak gotcha
attempt. There’s way bigger fish to fry and Camila
Harris has effectively done, unless like in the next month she can double her support
from, you know, 5% to 10% the last question of the night was also a throwaway. Tell us about a surprising friendship that
you have with someone. Real waste of time, and I know some people
in my audience will say, no, no. Here’s why. That was actually an interesting question. It was a waste of time. I want to hear about policy overall takeaways. Another dog and pony show components. A big part of it, relatively few new policy
details were discussed. I don’t expect any big changes in polling
except Bernie looking generally healthy might help him recover a little bit of what he’s
lost in the last couple of weeks. Biden’s seeming slightly higher energy. Maybe we’ll help him recover a little bit
as well. No one really failed, but the people that
are polling, you know, Z one to 2%, I don’t see that they’re going to be doing any better
as a result of this debate. Uh, Bernie did pretty well with the questions. He was given Biden, again, given that Biden
is the sort of slowed down Biden, he did pretty well given the questions he was given. Although he fumbled when he was asked about
the Hunter Biden thing. Uh, obviously Biden supporters won’t like
the content of what Bernie said. Bernie supporters won’t like the content of
what Biden said, but they both did well enough to not do damage the candidates. I thought overall sounded more, um, rehearsed
and less genuine than in prior debates as if they’re now being guided more by polling
and calculated politics. Sadly, although very often that’s where it
gets to at this point in the race. Bottom line is that we can’t keep having 12
people on the stage. It’s just terrible. I mean, what does Amy Klobuchar think about
impeachment? What does Julio on Castro think about Syria? What, what, why is Tulsi Gabbert not fully
behind impeachment? I mean it’s like who cares? Right? They have no chance and I want to get into
depth with the people that do have a shot. A fifth debate is on November 20th the new
qualification requirements are 3% in four or more approved polls or 5% in two or more
early primary state polls and 165,000 donations. Now, as of right now, we are like a full month
out from that next debate. There are already eight people qualified for
that debate, so we may end up again with 10 people just not conducive to good conversation. Right now the people qualified for debate
number five are Biden, Sanders, Warren Harris, Buddha, judge Tom Stier. Again, Andrew Yang and Cory Booker, so we
already are going to have eight people on stage. Last thing, I continue to be generally concerned
about the idolatry of politicians. It’s not just Tulsi and yang. There are, you know, Bernie idolaters, Warren
idolaters from the tweets that I’m getting. When I asked for feedback about the Bates
or polling or whatever on Twitter, people just as a few Civ about some of these candidates
as if these are saviors or near deities and my position is politicians just aren’t the
best period. These aren’t, I would argue even the types
of people that we should be idolizing and without commenting on any specific politicians,
I would just want to see sort of more measured analysis than the gushing praise of pseudo
deities that I’m seeing on Twitter about certain candidates. That’s just me. I just don’t see politicians in the same light. Maybe it’s because I do this show and I’ve
met a lot of these people and it’s like these are just imperfect people with many flaws
and sometimes they have good ideas on a few issues, but I want to hear from you about
that. I want to hear from you about the debate. If you’re watching on YouTube, please leave
a response down below or send me a tweet at deep Pacman. I do want to hear from you. Make sure you’re following me on Twitter. We will take a quick break and be back with all the day’s news right after this

100 Replies to “Dem Debate #4: Winners & Losers

  1. Okay I hear you, but have you heard the good news?

    Andrew Yang loves you and he wants to give you $1000 dollars until you die

  2. it's been long enough for people to know the candidates positions. the bottom 8 have absolutely no chance. time to trim the fat and have a REAL debate.

  3. Haven't seen the video, but here is my guess: David will say that the winner is Warren and possibly Sanders, or nobody. The losers are CNN, the American people and Tulsi.

    Edit: ait.. Didn't really talk about winners and losers, but I guess that is expected from such a piss poor debate

  4. David, can you comment on Yang correcting Warren twice both on automation and wealth tax (in a loving/understanding way, even refusing to denigrate her after the fact and willing to provide her w/ data/studies post-debate)?

  5. Dude, you dont have to "idolize" Yang to acknowledge that he single handedly brought the problem of automation and the 4th industrial revolution to the national debate stage and got two other candidates to support his UBI proposal.
    Warren admitted to not knowing enough, and Bernie had no further response to the problens with his FJG, and Biden expressed similar concerns about tech. Yang supporter or not, thats what happened.
    You're confusing political idolatry with passionate support for real life changing policies.

  6. Shouldn’t these debates be more focused on progress and moving forward beyond “the trump years”. I mean let’s discuss real policies. Everyone sounds like a used car salesmen there is no unity in the party and that’s why the dems lose

  7. Yang shot down Warren's wealth tax. The wealth tax has been repealed in a dozen European countries since 1990. This was fact checked post debate by WAPO. VAT vs wealth tax, UBI vs FJG and automation got onto centre stage because of Yang. How did Yang not win the debate?

  8. I had been torn between Bernie and Warren for a while, with a soft spot for Yang as well, but this debate sealed the deal for me as a Bernie supporter. He’s authentic, he’s a progressive visionary, his appeal goes beyond the Democratic Party, and he’s not a phony politician like Warren who refuses to just be honest and give a straight answer about Medicare for All. Seeing that AOC endorsed him was icing on the cake.

  9. I'm a Bernie guy and the idolaters (including Bernie's) are killing me. Someone (a seeming Bernie idolater) the other day called me a "Warren troll" because I was defending her as a progressive (he insisted she was center right). It's pure nonsense time.

  10. Why would CNN (a cable news network completely dependent on having viewers) allow people to stream any aspect of it? Don't blame CNN for having the debates, that's on the political parties…

  11. I definitely agree with the God complex you talked about David. It's frustrating to see people vote on emotion and not facts.

  12. in what universe does it make any sense that a creepy, confused man without any political ideas, charisma and noticeable intelligence like Biden polls better than a gem like Sanders?!?

  13. I agree about not idolizing the candidates. I think people have a sense of urgency, the state of our country and our planet being what it is, and it makes them yearn for a rescuer. I also feel the same as you do about the debate questions not shedding much light on policy. How can you give a good answer in such short a time? I also feel that people tend to lump Bernie and Warren together and I would like to see more of the differences between them. I would also love to see some of Yang's ideas adopted, but I tend to align more with Bernie.

  14. The debate requirements should be going up much more steeply than they are. The polling requirement for next month should be at least 5%. It's time to start weeding out the weak, not keeping the bar low to give hopeless candidates pity points!

  15. I want to know if you think there's something fundamentally flawed about having a debate hosted by a media network that takes ad money from pharma companies and fossil fuel companies in a time when the most significant and dire issues of the day are climate change and reforming our healthcare system? Is this something we should consider focusing on as progressive as at the core of our political focus or just accept it as the unfortunate scaffolding of our media architecture and try to work within its framework? Thanks, David! Love the show!

  16. Yang fan here. I made the mistake of putting way too much faith in Barak Obama and was kind of heart broken when he didn't go in and bang some heads after the Republicans destroyed the economy. I wanted heads to roll, people to go to jail etc… and when that didn't happen I was pretty disillusioned. I agree, putting so much of our expectations on a candidate is not fair to the candidate. I see many Yang fans projecting their own ideas onto him, and I would hate to see them be disappointed after he gets into office. Or as Bernie fans just didn't vote or threw it away on Stein in 2016.

  17. David Pakman is purposely blind/deaf when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard…

    Seriously, every time I see his vids he sounds more and more like the corporate stooges at CNN and MSNBC.

  18. David Pakman is purposely blind/deaf when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard…

    Seriously, every time I see his vids he sounds more and more like the corporate stooges at CNN and MSNBC.

  19. I think we need a UBI & a FJP. A FJG has too many problems involved, but I support a jobs program for socially beneficial jobs in line with a New New Deal 💙 YangGangLove 💙

  20. David, you gotta stop writing off candidates. It's way too early to say that any of these people are "done." National polls are nonsense.

  21. Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris. She will never recover. And in the 4th debate Gabbard put Buttigieg in his place. Gabbard is consistently the candidate that brings everyone back to reality. You don't get Gabbard David. She didn't waffle on Syria, She's the only one that has the guts to say what's going on.

  22. Medicare pays 80% of the Official Medical Fee Schedule. Private insurance pays 120%. Where is that 40% of funding coming from under medicare for all? Work comp insurance pays an even higher % than personal private insurance. Medicare for all destroys an enormous industry.

  23. David Pakman is there anyway you can get together with others like you that use the U Tube as your format and have an old fashion real debate with the top 3 major progressive candidates? I really want to hear Bernie / Tulsi / Young discuss the differences on their ideas of fixing our infrastructure in a format where each can bring out what could be problems of the others if used. This B.S. that the so called debates and CNN are pulling is not informing us anything. It was a 3 hour debate and Tulsi got 6 minutes of air time which she was cut off on during her time. Bernie was more aggressive and got more time but still the time was given to Warren who I and others, already know we will not be voting for her. I understand she was attacked more so she needed more time to rebuttal, that doesn't help me and others like me that have eliminated her already. I could understand that if the DNC wanted to do more like a tier system and an elimination process. Those that are pulling at a certain point debate others like them. This would leave us to a top tier where only two candidates would be left. The DNC wants us all to vote for Biden so the debates are not even set up in a fair way to give us the voter a true opportunity to compare our favored candidate against another. If you are unable to do such a thing do you have any idea how I can go about starting such an idea. I personally have no experience in setting up the things you would need. I once made a small video of the Kingdom of Karmalot for my Virtual World and that took me all day and I posted it to U tube but now I do not even know how to find it to replay it or pass it along at times when I am talking about the Kingdom.

  24. Can someone explain to me why the progression of candidates in a democratic system, is dependent upon how much money they can gather?

    I know there is the general idea that "if they can gather money, that shows they have influence enough to be an important candidate and later a successful president".

    But that is the same idea that, among many ideas, got Trump elected.

    Or any other rich person in politics before the beginning of the 20th century, where only rich were allowed to vote or get into parliament because they, by their fortunes, had showed they were influential and "good" members of society.

    So why is this a thing?
    # Curious European

  25. David: Warren tax plan is already in failure in like 7 countries that Yang listed, confirm by the Washington Post. If you cannot collect tax, and you drive away some of the riche people…. How are you going to fund anything else? GAME OVER FOR WARREN, GAME OVER FOR BERNIE! Unless they follow in Yang's foot steps (VAT). Pete, and Joe sounds a lot like Yang already. SO CAN WE CROWN YANG THE WINNER ALREADY!!!!!!!!!?

    I don't understand the logic of brushing this issue aside!!!!!! LOGIC PEOPLE!!!! THIS IS FUCKING MAJOR!! If you cant collect the taxes, you cannot fund anything! Therefore you are fucking wasting time! If everybody is going to just copy Yang, let us take the Original!!!!

  26. The thing about these debates is that they are kind of like Comic Conventions. It’s more about presenting your views to as many people as possible. BERNIE 2020!!!

  27. It's us. Not me
    Bernie's work clearly will survive him. Still he is the candidate. Revolution is the way to create an America where CNN has a harder time shutting you down for views 'unaligned '

  28. Dude they had an extended discussion about UBI. That's proof Andrew Yang is moving the Overton window and changing our politics.

    Past that I liked his points against a wealth tax. Why fight for something that has failed everywhere it's tried?

  29. One of them will be sworn in as the 46th President in JAN 2021. All have some good ideas, and all are generally in agreement on the main issues. And ANY of these ideas and plans can and will always have to be adjusted and refined to fit a changing political reality. I'm voting blue no matter who. Anyone is 100% better than keeping that lying orange sack of elephant crap!

  30. What "debates"? These are not debates – they are sideshows. They exist to make money for media companies, and give unlikely candidates a national stage. PBS ought to be taking this over. And it should likely be (at this point) ONE candidate answering questions, and then when we get to two or three, let them have REAL debates.

  31. Way to GASLIGHT, David. Yang schooled Warren on the economy, automation, and taxes. This line that Warren peddles about automation being a "nice story" doesn't match up with the facts or with what we see every day. He also tore her wealth tax apart. He brought up that it is hard to implement, in other countries it has always fell short of the projected revenue, and, thus, it has been repealed. If we can't learn from other countries' mistakes then from what can we learn. But I get it, it's hard to shed your New England bias for the senator from Massachusetts.

  32. Sen Sanders basic numbers on his site of 7.5% corporate tax plus the 4% income tax needs to run by a third party to see if they are sufficient to cover projected negotiated costs or need adjustment. However Biden's idiotic gotcha about the military taxes not covering health taxes is a pointless question. Health care money is already being paid to insurance companies so a new system just shifts most of it to a single payer system while leaving the rest to corporations (who should make this over to employee pay since it is their benefit package) and net a decrease in household costs. I'm currently looking at monthly deduction versus out of pocket balances between programs the company offers. Single payer means I never have to do this or worry about getting my cancer back and paying for it again. Mine was detected in Dec so I had to pay that year's deductible on the surgery then another years deductible when chemo began after a few weeks recovery. That was my savings gone because the arbitrary break in Jan made me pay twice in that particular six months. I couldn't wait two weeks for the surgery because of the highly metastatic type of cancer risked spreading the disease. Single payer would have left me my savings with no deductibles.

  33. These are not debates. Nor do I understand the Mainstream News rational, as theirs is a for profit industry. Imagine a series of three or four way debates, limited to 60 minutes, on a set of specific base questions every few nights, for 6-months. Every week, a new topic, new candidates, who are specifically prepared on one or two related topics, so that they can lay out the best reasons why their idea is better or the other is worse. You could pull rating numbers like sporting games all the while educating the public. Hell you could even have red flag challenges where the other side can call bullshit and an agreed upon general reference source could be reviewed, right then and there, with the world watching. Have debates, with limited number of people twice a week until Iowa. Oh, wait. What am I saying. That will not work, they actually might talk about something; rather than looking for a sound bite or get over on the other candidate. It would make the debates about the issues which, lets face it is, is good for some and not so good for others.

  34. David, you missed an important thing : The part where jobs loss and automation was a serious subject, thanks to Andrew Yang. You really missed that, and I am surprised.

  35. This was Andrew Yang's best night. CNN finally had a conversation surrounding the discussion of UBI vs FJG. Bernie was winner as well even though they're starting to snub him.

  36. If we had more parties, that'd fix this bullshit. Or better yet, ranked choice by regional primary winners. How hard do people really think this shit is to do? Why do we continue to send people to Washington that won't do shit? Remember the "do nothing Congress"? Yeah. We destroyed that shit a while ago.

  37. When it comes H. Biden – no matter where goes, no matter what he does Biden name will be attached to him and people will make offers to him that would otherwise may not be made. What is he suppose to do ? Stop living ? He took a 50 thousand dollar a month position. He worked and got payed. That's the gist of the story. He did not steal it. Biden did not make concessions to anybody because of that. So where is the crime ?

  38. Currently corporations pay for private insurance for their employees. Instead they will that or lesser amount in taxes to contribute to single payer HC. Since single payer is more efficient, the same amount of money will cover more people. So in effect instead of subsidizing their employees only they will be subsidizing them and plus some for the same amount of money.

  39. "it's not just Yang and Gabbard idolaters"

    ummm… who ever said it was only Yang and Gabbard? are people stupidly oblivious? Bernie Bros and Trump Sycophants are rampant throughout the entire country.

  40. The fact that he was completely off on the Yang and Warren rebuttal spoke volumes. He must have been zeroed in on Bernie and him alone…

  41. If Tom Steyer actually cared about getting Trump out of office he would drop out and donate all of his campaign's money to voting rights organizations like Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight 2020

  42. I think you’re a bit biased against Andrew Yang. He changed the conversation and made UBI, VAT and automation mainstream talking points.

  43. Good video! I do want to say Andrew Yang got to engage with Sanders on FJG vs UBI and Warren on the wealth tax vs VAT. Also there was a WHOLE section on automation that mentioned UBI multiple times. That wouldn't have happened without Yang's campaign.

    As for the idolatry comments you make; I am 100% pushing Yang on social media and often in general conversation with people. To me that is part of campaigning. That said, I would be very excited to vote for Sanders or some others in the general election. There are places I disagree with Yang, but I think UBI and the fact that he is the only one bringing up automation is much bigger than him or my disagreements.

  44. The fact Andrew Yang doesn't support a wealth tax or making wealthy people pay more, but he supports a VAT says it all. I couldn't believe it when he said that shit. Even most republicans agree with wealthy paying more LOL. I guess that's why he's at 3 percent nationally, but still.

  45. I find it amusing people are consistently accusing Tom Steyer of trying to buy his way in, which is probably fair.. I don't find him terribly interesting, so I mostly ignore him… But Yang is LITERALLY trying to buy the presidency and no one mentions it.. "Vote for me and I'll give you a grand a month!"

  46. David, Where are you getting this crossover vote between Biden and Warren voters? My understanding was that most Biden voters prefer Bernie as a second choice..

  47. Insane someone as smart as you doesn’t see how Yang totally crushed it David don’t know if your in denial but he controlled much of the debate made automation one of the big issues

  48. A few overlooked thoughts on UBI if anyone is interested.
    UBI doesn't need to be about automation…

    40% of Americans receive some type of social welfare, but these programs create a strange incentive structure.. the reality is poor people are being paid as long as they stay poor, disabled people are paid if they stay disabled, people are incentivised to earn less to receive more.. All the people I know who receive welfare admit to feeling stuck and not able to progress in their lives because they don't want to lose their gov support, some even sell drugs or do things under the table to make extra money without having to report it. This creates a very depressing mindset to live in.

    UBI gives everyone the opportunity to opt in and make their own decisions without having to prove they are incapable, the mentality of being in control and looking toward self progress is where humans thrive, feeling stuck or stigmatized is terrible for well-being.

    The mindset of scarcity results in a loss of 12 IQ points on average. People who worry about paying bills use mental energy in the form of stress which takes away from mental capacity for rational thought, often resulting in poor life choices. Most Americans cant afford an unexpected 500$ bill.. We are the wealthiest country in the history of mankind, yet most live with the mindset of scarcity. 

    With UBI, small business will thrive and small towns will be revived. Workers who moved to the big cities for work and hate their jobs may go back to their hometowns and start a small business doing something they enjoy, their 1k$ will go much further in a small town anyway. New small businesses are likely to succeed with everyone in the town having an extra 1k$ to spend. People moving back to small cities will free up traffic and possibly lower rent prices in the big cities.

    A nationwide UBI would give allot of pride to being an American, and the idea of "taxes from my hard work is paying for my neighbors welfare" will mostly go away (the racist people I know, are racist because of this concept, and many conservatives hate liberals because of this).. and the idea of we are all Americans so we all get the same will help to unite us.

  49. I think the least you can say is that a totally random guy made it so far that his policies were the main discussion for about 20 mins. Yang definitely showed that he isnt the candidate who is at the sides. Outside of that, will see

  50. 8 people already qualifying for the next debate is so stupid. But it's exactly what they want. Only way to do the debates with Biden.

  51. It's a big feat how far Yang's message is spreading. It prompted CNN to devote a significant portion of the debate to talk about automation and job loss

  52. Don't waste your time on this video as it doesn't talk about Yang. Just a bunch of congratulations to the 90+ year old wannabee kings for holding their piss for so long.

  53. I can’t listen to David anymore because he obviously cherrypicks poll data knowing it’s already unreliable as it is.

  54. well, Andrew yang is a human who is trying to do good. as a yang gang , i made it clear i didn't like the jab from yang to Trump like two or three month ago. the thing i like about Andrew yang is he has plans, while others have ideals.

  55. Aside from the Tulsi stuff I agreed with the majority of this analysis. The format sucks, CNN sucks, Yang did great, Kamala is soooo done, Booker telling everyone to play nice was so annoying. Klobuchar needs to leave. Although Castro isnt going to win, I do like what hes been saying lately. Buttigieg and O'Rourke dissing each other is funny bc they're both shamless neolibs. Warren did decent but not her best, Biden needs to go, Bernie's looking better than ever! #Bernie2020

  56. Being Yang2020 myself and sorta stuck in the Yanggang bubble I can see how we over react to alot of things, granted yang is one of the only candidates slowly on the rise but eventhough my heart tells me he will win the nomination, my brain sees the whole picture and knows he doesnt have enough time till February, nor talking time at debates for him to grow enough

  57. I agree Warren had a weak moment regarding Healthcare. I get her reason for doing it: she doesn't want a snippet taken out of context used against her. It didn't help her this night though. One big thing I think you missed is Biden's attempt to take credit away from Warren for the CFPB. I think that exchange really hurt Biden, particularly against anyone with any feminist leanings, and probably helped boost Warren a bit, as I think her response to that was handled well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *