Thread by @HoarseWisperer

I’m just going to use this an open thread for random comments about CNN’s town hall marathon tonight.

The order: Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg.

Here we go with Klobuchar.

(open thread)

Klobuchar gets three good questions right out of the gate.

Where does she stand on:
1) Pursuing impeachment
2) Criminal justice reform
3) College tuition and student loan debt forgiveness

Meandered on impeachment; gave a fairly vanilla answer on CJ; balked at free college.

Generally speaking, having now watched Klobuchar in public forums like this Town Hall a few times:

Even as a careful listener, I find it very hard to peg what her position is on overall issues.

Lots of details. No pithy, memorable lines. Becomes static for me quickly.

Question on Medicare for All, Klobuchar stakes out a position opposed to M4A - and like with the college loan question, offers up a smorgasbord of tactical policies as an alternative.

Klobuchar is nuanced and moderate in a race where sharp progressivism is where the energy is.

Surface-level but there’s an adage about crafting persuasive presentations:

1) Tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em
2) Tell ‘em
3) Tell ‘em what you told them

Summarize —> explain —> reprise the summary

Klobuchar is all *explain*. Takes a long road get to a point. Inductive.

Note: if notifications from this thread are annoying, just mute it anywhere along the way by clicking on the little v-thing in the upper right corner and clicking on “mute this conversation”.

Question about how to address the epidemic of veteran suicides and post-military svce mental health challenges:

“Being sick physically should be treated the same as being sick mentally.”

Strong position but hard to square with the less progressive stance on healthcare overall.

Question on infrastructure (which is arguably Klobuchar’s strongest issue). Her $1 trillion proposal stands alone and infra is an issue she can own and roll up to a level far higher than fixing bridges.

Her answer touches on transit, reducing reliance on cars, etc.

Ok. Not grt.

Klobuchar town hall wraps up.

Just a my opinion (and others are free to disagree) but my net on Klobuchar is that she is quite competent, good in the Senate and has depth but...

...the public speaking and communications roles of a candidate aren’t her strong suits vs others.

In the absurdly crowded DNC field, the presentation matters more than it should (and more than it would in any other election).

Hard to see Klobuchar gaining any momentum before the primaries and surviving past the first few (IA, NH, NV, SC).

Not seeing a viable path...

Now we’re on to Elizabeth Warren... and have swapped out Chris Cuomo for Anderson Cooper.

First question: a meaty pitch over the middle of the plate on college tuition/student loan reform.

Warren rolls through the ribs of her proposal.

Policy questions are easy when you’ve already crafted your policy.

Agree or disagree w her policy, she clearly has specifics.

I’ve now watched Warren in a whole bunch of these kinds of setups.

The one thing that strikes me every time:

She consistently looks comfortable; happy to be there; passionate about issues and completely at ease with substantive public conversations about her ideas.

One thing Warren does uniquely well (IMHO) is weave personal anecdotes into her storytelling as a seamless part of explaining her positions, where they come from, and who they would affect.

Others talk and then inorganically inject a “Bob, a builder in Ohio, said to me” story.

Warren on impeachment.

Responds to Cooper mentioning Pelosi’s signaled reluctance to pursue impeachment:

“There is no political inconvenience exception to the duties in the United States Constitution.”

Damn. Strong statement. Backs it up w an impassioned rationale.

Warren on impeachment: “This is not about politics. This is about principle. This is about what kind of a democracy we have. In a dictatorship everything in government revolves around protecting one person in the center but not in our democracy and not in our Constitution.”

Warren on impeachment (cont’d)

“I took an oath to protect the Constitution...

and so did everyone else in the House and in the Senate...

and I think we should have to vote.”

[to register on the record whether they are okay with Trump’s actions or are not]

Warren on forcing members of Congress to go on record as voting to impeach or endorse Trump’s conduct as president:

“[congresspeople] should have to live with their votes for the rest of their lives.”

In this ‘time of deciding’, Warren is hammering the treason of passivity.

One high-level point:

Much is made of how Warren’s time as a professor is responsible for her comfort and effectiveness in these kinds of public forums.

I’ve had a lot of professors. They were generally not as good a speaker as Warren.

Her effectiveness isn’t just technique.

Regardless of the subject, Warren (IMHO) comes across as having a substantive basis for her opinions and a passion about her answers in general.

Some candidates come off as reciting well-scripted positions rather than delivering well-explained views.

Warren is the latter.

Now we’re on to Bernie Sanders.

I’ll do my best to keep this from being an hour of snark and flamethrowing.

I offer no guarantees.

Reminder: if this thread is annoying, feel free to mute it whenever...

https://twitter.com/hoarsewisperer/status/1120474284156248064?s=21

First question to Bernie is on Medicare for All.

Hits the usual notes. High costs, poorer health outcomes than other comparable countries. Insurance and pharma fat cats getting rich.

Backs expansion of Medicare *and* replacing it entirely with a new single-payer.

That answer was interesting because Bernie has vacillated on the issue of “incremental improvements” to healthcare.

M4A would take 5+ years to roll out so opposing nearer term improvements is politically untenable IMHO.

Sounds like Sanders may be yielding to reason there.

Question on whether his tax returns undermine his authority as someone railing against millionaires.

“I plead guilty. I wrote an international best seller. [...] I suspect in a few years, my salary will go back down to $173,000 a year as a Senator.”

Pivots to railing on Amazon.

Cuomo follows up with “your charitable donations went up but not proportionately... I’m not going after you for what you have or didn’t.” and then asks if the money influenced his thinking about government, etc.

Sanders replays his humble roots and commitment to oppty for all.

*gave or didn’t.

Question: What is something you’ve changed your mind about recently?

Sanders: “Nothing... just kidding. (laughs)” and then delivers a pretty candid answer about paying more attention to foreign policy after being ‘rightfully criticized’ in 2016 on FP.(his words not mine)

I need to go eat some Dunkin Donuts munchkins.

Will return in about 10 donut holes.

Catching up...

Asked whether he agrees with Warren on the moral imperative of impeachment, Bernie dissembles, rambles abt the risk of expecting Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time by working on issues *and* impeachment.

Half sums up a direction he favors. Lost me.🤷‍♂️

Next question may have been the most important of the hour as a preview of a general election issue:

Paraphrasing: How does Bernie reconcile being a proponent of socialism given that it has failed in numerous other countries that have tried it?

Bernie bristles at the question and snarks about the asker presuming he favored authoritarian-led socialism (which he doesn’t) and then pivots to listing the flaws of American capitalism. Wealth concentration, etc.

The flaws in one system don’t prove another system cures them.

To me, this has always been where Bernie loses me.

I agree with him on the issues/problems he diagnoses. Vigorous head nods on what needs fixing.

The narrative gets thin there though. Solutions only slogan-deep. Sharp contrast to Warren who dives into substantive policy ideas.

Bernie has the most heart for railing against the things that are broken and who is to blame for them.

He has much less heart for meaningfully delving into the fixes; his basis for believing them to be sound; how they would be implemented; and what the trade-offs are.

I have a well-documented opinion of Bernie so bear that in mind.

However, I have heard almost nothing close to a specific policy thought or idea below the slogan level. Lots of 30,000-foot politics.

Lots of “admiring the problem”.

Seems even more so after Warren’s hour.

Coming up: Senator Harris

I already feel refreshed.

Harris opens with a direct answer about favoring pursuing impeachment... and then pivots to talking about the process and obstacles in getting to the finish line.

Clarity of answers on impeachment:

Klobuchar: C
Warren: A
Bernie: D-
Harris: B+

Harris asked about her position on free college, student loan forgiveness, etc.

Backs free college and then gives a specific policy answer on modifying loan terms.

As a matter of political strategy, the prepped answer wasn’t great after Warren’s proposal dropped IMHO.

Ugh. Harris caught flat-footed in an area that was predictably going to require a carefully thought out answer:

Medicare for All and the related issue of eliminating private insurance.

Harris signed onto the M4A bill - which calls for eliminating private insurance...

However, Harris recently signaled seeing room for private insurers to continue for supplemental coverage, etc.

That fundamentally conflicts with M4A.

The political reality is that M4A is a directional bill. Backers need to be able to explain directional backing.

Not solid.

This is the big unsaid on M4A:

Bernie Sanders’ eagerness to use M4A as a club to beat other candidates over the head with led many to sign on knowing it’s merely a frame rather than policy.

That requires artful explanation when pressed though.

Every candi better prep on HC.

Harris has gotten arguably the hardest questions of the night.

Asked about her position on reparations, legalization of sex work balanced against risks of sex trafficking, etc.

These are hard questions that require nuanced answers and aren’t answered well by prepped lines.

I’ve seen Harris interviewed a fair number of times and have seen her speak to an audience in a venue like tonight’s.

She seems less at ease and comfortable tonight than usual.

This is a pressure-filled setup. Like a night of five independent debates.

There’s pressure to deliver answers and the comparative of being judged against the evening’s four other town halls.

Klobuchar always strikes me as nervous until she settles in a bit. Warren always seems at ease. Bernie is Bernie.

Harris seems a bit tight for her.

Overall, this has struck me as a rare off night for Harris.

However, even in some less than crisp answers and some tough questions to message briefly, she still shows the oratorical foundation to be able to excel in debates.

I’d bet on her debating well.

Next up: Mayor Pete

Start without me. I’ll be back in a few.

Okay, first, full disclosure: I’ve worked with a fair number of ex-consultants and McKinsey alumni in particular.

Mayor Pete reminds me of a few of them. Guys I generally liked and enjoyed working with.

He’s familiar to me so I’m less dazzled by his intelligence than some.

Overall, he strikes me as similar in some ways to how most young consultants from top consultancies are: sharp, well-educated, articulate.

Loaded with intelligence but, as yet, unburdened by the wisdom of greater life experience.

So, take that as full disclosure of my lens here

Asked about whether he’d support making South Bend a sanctuary city.

Delivers an effective answer (IMHO) punctuated by the strong statement that undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes and get fewer benefits (I.e. Social Security) - which means *they* subsidize *citizens*.

Asked about position on trade and past criticism of NAFTA.

Articulates the reality that demands for manufacturing labor are declining due to automation and foreign competition. Points out the reality of that continuing to reshape the economy.

Offers nothing on how to address.

Asked about whether he backs Warren’s college proposal.

Answers with a sharp and sound response to an opponent’s brand new policy (far better than Bernie’s awkward ramble).

Agrees in principal. Questions subsidizing tuition for high incomes in advance of reforming taxes.

Stylistically and strategically that was impressive to me.

Demonstrated independent thought on an issue and positioned him as someone able to add to a conversation being led by an opponent.

Warren stole Bernie’s thunder and he seemed shushed by that. Mayor Pete nimbly managed.

On voting rights for incarcerated and post-incarceration persons:

Very crisply voices opposition to voting rights during incarceration coupled with rerun of voting rights upon release as part of “full restoration to society”.

Concise, clear, definitive. Better than some earlier

Question about an issue that is going to linger: his aggressive policy to tear down 1,000 houses in 1,000 days to combat urban blight

The subtext is that Pete rolled out a policy that showed a lack of insight into the impact on the lower end of a socioeconomically diverse city

More experience would have given him the insight to foresee the very foreseeable negative effects on some vulnerable residents.

Mayor Pete, to his credit, outlined the thinking, the mistakes and his learnings, and the adjustments he made to do better.

Going back to the opening disclaimer, the knock on many consultants and McKinsey types is that they can overestimate their ability to solve complicated problems on paper based on analysis despite a lack of firsthand experience.

Mayor Pete runs that risk but seems adaptive.

Meaning, he seems less committed to his first answer being right than he is to getting to the right answer quickly.

So, cup half full there. Some blind spots and outages unlikely to be there a decade from now but a disposition to learn and adjust quickly.

Rolled through questions on coming out, impeachment, personal faith.

Mayor Pete addresses each with articulate and thoughtful values statements.

He’s a skilled-to-gifted orator.

Granted, he’s getting values questions whereas Harris got some hard-as-shit policy fastballs.

Okay, we’ve reached the end of this five-hour marathon. More enjoyable than I would have expected.

Personally, I’d rank the strength of performance tonight as follows:

1) Warren
2) Mayor Pete*
3) Tie: Harris & Sanders
5) Klobuchar

*graded on a curve. Little policy in questions

More specifically, I think Warren and Mayor Pete likely helped themselves with their performances tonight.

I don’t think Harris, Sanders or Klobuchar got any benefit out of the evening.

Klobuchar can’t afford to miss opportunities. Harris and Sanders will be just fine.

One lasting impression after Sanders’ performance:

He has a new challenge in 2019-2020. He isn’t left of the field anymore and hasn’t pushed his offering much past his 2016 stump speech.

That feels like simplistic progressive talk compared to people rolling out real policy.