PyramidHead
Contributor
Kamala definitely came out guns blazing and Biden wasn't ready for it. Say what you will about her, but she would hold her own in a debate with Trump. Still, it's so early and there are so many candidates that saying something memorable is enough to "win" a debate at this point. Whoever was the first one to attack Biden for his shitty policies over the years would have been crowned by the media, and that trend will probably continue in subsequent debates. Of course, Kamala really isn't in any position to criticize Biden for supporting policies that harm minorities, as she has made a career of doing just that (sometimes quite mercilessly).
Biden's downfall won't be any one issue, but more of a "death by a thousand cuts" that he won't be able to withstand by his current strategy of being 100% unapologetic for every regressive stance he has held and awful bill he has helped pass.
In both debates, there was a lot of talk about Medicare for "all", with only one or two candidates actually meaning that without qualification. Sanders was lackluster during the debate itself, but had far and away the best closing speech, which demonstrated why he is the only choice for President in my book: (1) he is the only candidate with a theory of political change that he constantly and consistently highlights, and (2) he is the only candidate who identifies the malefactors in our society and why they must be opposed. None of these candidates, if elected, will accomplish much of anything during their terms. They will all be failures, in my prediction. But the difference between voting for what you want and not getting it, versus voting for what you don't want and getting it (to steal a phrase from Eugene V. Debs), is that the first scenario lays the groundwork for the kind of popular movement that has been responsible for every meaningful social change in history, here or anywhere.
Warren and Sanders are similar in their policy ideas but drastically different in their theories of how fundamental change happens in politics, or even whether such a thing is desirable. Warren has indicated that she intends to simply present her amazing plans, and everyone will be so gobsmacked by how amazing they are that they'll have to vote for them. That's not enough. Without the threat of electoral failure, nobody in power will give an inch to anything that upsets their largest donors. A mobilized voting and working populace is necessary to achieve any of the goals shared by Sanders and Warren (and anyone else in the field who has adopted them in whole or part), and only Sanders seems to realize this.
Biden's downfall won't be any one issue, but more of a "death by a thousand cuts" that he won't be able to withstand by his current strategy of being 100% unapologetic for every regressive stance he has held and awful bill he has helped pass.
In both debates, there was a lot of talk about Medicare for "all", with only one or two candidates actually meaning that without qualification. Sanders was lackluster during the debate itself, but had far and away the best closing speech, which demonstrated why he is the only choice for President in my book: (1) he is the only candidate with a theory of political change that he constantly and consistently highlights, and (2) he is the only candidate who identifies the malefactors in our society and why they must be opposed. None of these candidates, if elected, will accomplish much of anything during their terms. They will all be failures, in my prediction. But the difference between voting for what you want and not getting it, versus voting for what you don't want and getting it (to steal a phrase from Eugene V. Debs), is that the first scenario lays the groundwork for the kind of popular movement that has been responsible for every meaningful social change in history, here or anywhere.
Warren and Sanders are similar in their policy ideas but drastically different in their theories of how fundamental change happens in politics, or even whether such a thing is desirable. Warren has indicated that she intends to simply present her amazing plans, and everyone will be so gobsmacked by how amazing they are that they'll have to vote for them. That's not enough. Without the threat of electoral failure, nobody in power will give an inch to anything that upsets their largest donors. A mobilized voting and working populace is necessary to achieve any of the goals shared by Sanders and Warren (and anyone else in the field who has adopted them in whole or part), and only Sanders seems to realize this.
