While the DNC’s strict criteria managed to eliminate the two-night debate structure, we still find ourselves facing a 10-candidate debate stage, where in-depth questions regarding the most complex challenges of the 21st century will be granted 30-second responses. However, as the first debate after Labor Day and the first to feature all 5 top candidates together, tonight is definitely worth watching. Here’s what I’m paying attention to…

When Bernie Sanders was a close second to Biden, and Warren was tied with Kamala Harris at 7-8%, the dream scenario for progressives was clear: a Sanders/Warren ticket. But now Elizabeth Warren has made it clear that she isn’t running to be anybody’s VP; she’s running to win. And as she almost cements her position in second place, she has a solid chance to do so. Will this damage the Sanders-Warren pact of friendship and unity? Will they finally realize that only one person gets to be the nominee, and despite the progressive wing’s overall success, neither of them are the frontrunner? I would be shocked if they suddenly went after each other tonight. What I’m looking for are the subtle digs or undercover contrasts they will pursue, which will foreshadow if and how they will ever attack one another. 

The biggest confrontation the mainstream media is highlighting is Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. After Kamala Harris so successfully attacked Biden in the first debate, and after irrelevant candidates like Swallwell and Gillibrand desperately tried to copy that tactic, the strategy of attacking the frontrunner to capture a viral moment has gotten a bit old. We need a candidate who will confidently challenge Biden on his record and proposals without seeming opportunistic and calculating. If anyone can do it, it’s Elizabeth Warren. I’m looking forward to it.

Finally, in my last article I said that I have narrowed down my favorites to Warren, Harris and Buttigieg. I will be watching those three especially carefully tonight. Harris and Buttigieg did well in the summer debates, but they have not yet conclusively proven that they are nominee material, in the same way that Warren has.

Overall, it’s an exciting night for politics. Happy debate watching, everyone!

I take the question of who I am going to support in the Democratic primary very seriously. Now I know that I have only one vote in the election, and I am also certain that I will be voting for the eventual Democratic nominee no matter what; yet, when I vote in the primaries next year, I will be voting as if I alone am choosing our nominee, and hopefully our next President. So here is how I’m making this decision.

First, the candidates who I take seriously. My criteria for this is consistently polling at at least 1% and collecting individual contributions worth multiple million dollars. Now this criteria in no way means that all candidates who reach it have a realistic chance; I believe that nobody outside of the top 5 is going to be the nominee (more on that in my previous post). But if a candidate demonstrates that he/she is a serious candidate, I can comfortably vote for him/her in the primary. The candidates I take seriously are Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, O’Rourke, Booker, Yang, Klobuchar, Castro and Gabbard.

If you read my post about the summer debates, you’ll know that while I don’t consider it a determinative factor, there are two candidates whos performances were disqualifying: O’Rourke and Yang. Biden and Klobuchar did okay, the rest were all very impressive.

Let’s also remember an old fashioned idea that a President must have a good record and be experienced. Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker and Klobuchar pass with flying colors. Biden, while incredibly experienced, has dozens of skeletons in his closet, so we’ll give him a C in this area. Their lack of experience put Buttigieg, Casto and Gabbard in this category as well.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly: the issues. I characterize myself as falling somewhere between the Sanders and the Clinton wings of the Democratic party. I support Medicare-for-All and free college, but think that breaking up the big banks and regulating Facebook are government overreach into the free market. I do agree that there are fundamental problems within the system, but argue that they can’t be solved with this vague idea of a “political revolution”; we must do what Obama was supposed to do, and fix the system from within. I can go on and on about every single policy proposal I agree and disagree with, but the result is that there are three candidates who perfectly match my ideology and vision: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. (Buttigieg has a red flag here; everything he has said so far I agree with, but he does eventually has to say more.)

So, after comparing the overall campaign performances, backgrounds and experiences, and ideologies and policy proposals of the candidates; my favorites in the race are Warren, Harris and Buttigieg. Now this doesn’t mean that a breakout debate performance or a completely revised policy platform can’t change my mind. But, after six to nine months that the campaigns have had, it seems very unlikely. 

Back in April, The New York Times published an article titled “The Many Reasons to Run for President When You Probably Don’t Stand a Chance”. It was what I thought was an article timed perfectly -just as two dozen candidates where getting in the race- and it explained how many of them were not running for President, but were in fact running for VP or a cabinet post or -as our current President did- just to build up their national profile. The sentence that stuck with me most from the article was: “The case for: Why not?”

The case of “Why not?” applied four months ago. When nobody knew exactly which candidates would get traction. When nobody could have predicted Kirsten Gillibrand dropping out in August while the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana was fifth in the polls. When conventional wisdom dictated that people like Steve Bullock, the Governor of Montana, would be strong candidates; even if they didn’t win, they would raise their name recognition and would ride the wave to a high-level government position or a lucrative book deal. 

We’re not in April anymore. We are four months away from the Iowa caucuses, and we have a pretty good sense -especially with the DNC’s brutal debate requirements- of which candidates are doing well, and which are on the path to being also-rans. I believe that there is no chance of anyone other than the top 5 becoming the nominee (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg). They are strong in the polls, they have built incredible ground operations, they all have a huge war chest and -with the exception of Biden- they have all done well in the summer debates. But I do get why Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar, or even Beto O’Rourke or Julian Castro are in the race. They can be holding out for that 0.0001% chance of becoming the eventual nominee, they can be jockeying for a top-notch position -which some of them are very likely to get- or they can be building momentum for either a future run or for higher office or, as stated above, a lucrative book deal. I do not understand, however, the thinking of Tim Ryan or Michael Bennet or Wayne Messam (yes, that is a real person). Are they really so stupid to think that they can still have their breakout moment? Or do they think that polling at 0% for a straight year is a good stepping stone to the Vice Presidency? (check out Martin O’Malley for the answer to that). 

There are two people I want to congratulate. Stacey Abrams, you would have been a strong candidate but would not have won. You knew that. So you positioned yourself perfectly to be on the ticket or to be in someone’s cabinet. Kirsten Gillibrand, you kept it realistic. I applaud that. And to all of those who are “still running”: I would tell you to get the fuck out and leave the money and staff and media attention to the people who have the slightest chance of winning, but I am quite enjoying your pathetic attempts of topping your polling record of 1%.

Kirsten Gillibrand ran a historic campaign. She was the only candidate to highlight the fight for abortion rights -well, except for Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. She burst into the spotlight by her tough yet measured attack against Joe Biden -oh wait that was Kamala, Gillibrand’s attack seemed overly convenient and didn’t land.  Well, still, for a woman to go from a moderate -if not slightly conservative- Senator from New York to a “progressive” candidate for President is unprecedented. We are talking about Hillary, right?

This hilarious first paragraph was designed to demonstrate just how pointless Gillibrand’s campaign was. So pointless that I struggled to write a single sentence for this post, even after reading dozens of articles on Gillibrand’s career and campaign. Now, Gillibrand was once considered a top-tier candidate for the nomination; she was a Congresswoman from a red district, and then a liberal Senator with a top notch voting record. I remember Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks placing her among his top 4 predictions (along with Bernie, Warren and Kamala -so he was ¾ right). And if you had told me that Kirsten Gillibrand would drop out four months before Iowa yet Pete fucking Buttigieg would be in fifth place out of twenty candidates, I would have laughed for about fifteen straight minutes. 

Gillibrand’s calling out of  Al Franken was characterized by the mainstream media as her fatal mistake. I think that it was part of the overall pattern of her campaign, which was blatantly designed to win over women. I can’t believe I have to point this out, but women are people too. Sure, a lot of them care about women’s rights -so do a lot of men, by the way- but they also care about healthcare, the economy, jobs, education, etc. So, especially when there were candidates in the race who also placed great importance on women’s issues, and especially when there were other women running, the strategy of winning by winning over women was the stupidest thing I have ever heard -and I’m someone who sat through the State of the Union, so my bar for stupidity is pretty high.

Hillary was blamed for using the women’s card, even though she was the only major candidate who was a woman and the only candidate who placed emphasis on women’s issues. Gillibrand tripled Hillary’s use of her gender, in a race where it didn’t even make her stand out. So, Senator Gillibrand, thank you for not dragging this out, and best of luck in your future endeavors… 

PS: Can you all stop releasing drop-out videos with passionate speeches and inspiring music? This is a drop-out video, not an ad for your Senate run, John Hickenlooper.

I watched the summer debates very carefully. And what I paid the most attention to wasn’t what the candidates were saying, but it was how they were saying it. To me, the candidates’ policy positions didn’t especially matter when it came to the debates; I could examine those positions at any time by listening to their speeches/interviews, going to their websites, reading analysis, etc. I saw the debates as a test of the skills of the candidates; of how they would handle a long election campaign and how they would eventually match up against Donald Trump in a debate. Here’s what I thought…

There were only two candidates who, in both debates, conclusively proved that they were nominee material: Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. I am shocked that I am placing Booker in the top two, since I’d always had an aversion to him trying to portray himself as the next Obama. He seemed fake and calculating (check out my previous post for the irony here). But credit where credit is due. They were both incredible.

Then there were the candidates who did well; candidates who I could very well see winning a debate against Trump but who have to solidify this thought in the September debates. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard are in this category. Gabbard, unfortunately, will not be in the September debates due to the DNC’s secret formula on deciding which polls to certify.

The third category are candidates who did okay. Now, in a field of 24 at the time (now it’s 21), doing okay may seem, well, okay. And for Joe Biden, it is. Biden performed poorly in the first debate but gave some solid answers in the second, and this was just enough to maintain his lead -which would later be weakened by his endless “gaffes”. However, for other candidates, doing okay was possibly worse than bombing, because they were unnoticed. When you have to check the list to remember that they were in the debate, it’s not a good sign. So, Amy Klobuchar, you have to stand out in September, or it’s over.

There were about eight candidates who I personally disqualified based on their debate performances. The two in this category who actually matter are Beto O’Rourke and Andrew Yang. Take O’Rourke in the first two debates, place him next to Trump, and Trump is a two-term President. I never liked Beto, and the debates showed me that I never will. The problem with Andrew Yang was that; if you’re going to have this crazy proposal of handing out trillions of dollars every month, you better explain the hell out of it. You can’t act like it’s a perfectly ordinary idea and spend a few minutes each debate talking about it. You have to convince me that it’s not ridiculous to suggest giving every American 12.000 dollars a year. I wasn’t convinced.

So in the fall debates, I’ll be open minded about eight of the ten candidates -Beto and Yang excluded. And I’ll be watching even more carefully, so they better fucking prepare.

We have this notion that most politicians are fake. That notion is mostly based on, well, facts. It is true that who we refer to as “mainstream” or “establishment” politicians mostly say what they have to say to get elected, and then do what they have to do to keep their donors happy. And the irony is, for a long time, that was called being a good politician. Manipulating your constituents and donors was the bedrock of our political system. It was as American as burgers or freedom or irresponsible gun ownership. For a long time, we took politicians at face value. Obama said that he was going to transform the entire system, and we believed him. George W. Bush said he was all about compassionate conservatism, and we believed him. Bill Clinton said that he would break the Washington stalemate by reforming campaign finance, and we believed him. We believed our politicians. We don’t anymore. 

Being a politician, especially running for President, was always difficult. Building a vision based on extremely detailed policy proposals, and then trying to explain those extremely detailed proposals in a simple yet inspiring way is no easy task. But the 2016 election added a new job description for politicians: being “real”. Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to run for the Presidency. Yet, but she seemed fake. She seemed corrupt. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that she was by far the better candidate. Donald Trump was the exact opposite. He was, in all means, a terrible nominee. But he seemed authentic. And look who got elected.

The emphasis on authenticity is even more significant in the 2020 election, with progressives setting countless litmus tests -check out The Young Turks’ pledge– and saying that anyone who isn’t pure in their progressivism,  anyone who bases their ideas on getting voters or donors, anyone who hires fancy consultants, anyone who has ever breathed the same air as a Wall Street executive is fake and should be disqualified. This typically means that more pragmatic candidates such as Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg should not be trusted, and the Democrats have to go with an ideology candidate like Bernie or Warren. 

Don’t get me wrong, authenticity is important. It signals that a candidate will not back down when he or she is President. But isn’t eliminating candidates simply because they’re trying to calculate a winning strategy a bit extreme? Can’t someone care both about accomplishing great things as President, but also building a successful campaign? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that we have to be way more open minded. 

I like Joe Biden. Wait, let me rephrase that; I fucking love Joe Biden. As someone who is incredibly prone to the nostalgia of a time when following politics didn’t leave you with a grueling pain in the stomach, the idea of an experienced and seasoned statesman taking charge and taking us back to a time of dignity and common sense is extremely comforting. I have an urge to ignore all the tireless policy debates, the constant battle between progressives and moderates, and this seemingly impossible objective of actually changing anything. I have an urge to follow the safe and the familiar. I have an urge to support Joe Biden for President of the United States.

That urge is stupid. But, no matter how much nuance pundits try to bring into the discussion, it is the single most important reason why Biden is the “frontrunner”. You know how politicians always say that politics can’t be something that we care about only every four years, that we should be always and constantly be involved in fighting for democracy, in fighting for freedom, in fighting for our rights? Well they’re right. But that is fucking exhausting. Many of us have day jobs to go to, have bills to pay, have kids to raise, have meetings to attend, have churches to fundraise for; we have shit that we have to do. Shit that leaves us so little time to ourselves that we can barely watch ten minutes of the evening news before falling asleep. Many of us don’t want politics to be a constant in our lives; we want to put a guy in charge who won’t be able to do much, but who we know won’t bring the entire place crumbling down. That’s the easy thing to do. That is Joe Biden.

But sometimes, we have to do the hard thing in life. You with me?