Opinion piece on NYT's debate experts
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/us/politics/democratic-debate-review.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The New York Times had their debate experts analyze the debate performances of all the candidates. The NYT opinion pieces, based off my experience so far, usually seem to be inline with a corporate centrist vision. And, the team for this article seems to be full of centrists as well based off their credentials shown, to add to the evidence pool. I will critique some of their statements.
Joe Biden: Kelly described Biden as having a powerful performance. She claims that "he quickly and strongly dispelled with questions on his son Hunter Biden, which demonstrated how he’d handle such attacks in a debate with Trump." His defense was essentially "Hunter and I did nothing wrong. Don't talk about my corruptions, please just talk about Trumps.". Trump will absolutely abuse the fact that Joe, who he will probably call "Sleepy Joe", created policy for Ukraine while his son was on the board of a coal company to create the image of him being corrupt. "What about you" is an a poor defense and wont fly. Biden, while I believe he was more coherent than usual, was still his bumbling, platitude loving self, which is apparent to everyone that watched it I believe. He didn't talk much of how his policies and vision will help people. He seemed much more focused on creating his image as the wise man in the room with great experience, and being the reasonable guy.
Mayor Pete: O'Donnell said that Mayor Pete dunked on Warren over medicare for all. But, Pete doesn't understand the essence of medicare for all... at all. First, it has been made clear that medicare for all will be paid for through taxes, but the taxes will be lower than what people are paying for with private insurance (except for the wealthy). Pete is still using the "how are we going to pay for it" right wing attack on public services. Secondly, letting the wealthy evade taxes for it by keeping private insurance is against the interest of the middle and lower class. He see's this a good thing so people have more freedom, but medicare for all gives you complete coverage and freedom to choose your hospital, doctor, etc., so his idea is basically just a tax evasion. Third of all, having private insurance around reduces price control power of the government. Now drug companies have the option to sell just through private insurance, rather than being forced to accept the prices given to them, which is bad for the consumer. His plan seems to be a compromise between the ultra wealthy/big pharma and medicare for all, which has gained a lot of traction and is polling at 71% among democrats, under the guise of "more freedom guys!".
The New York Times had their debate experts analyze the debate performances of all the candidates. The NYT opinion pieces, based off my experience so far, usually seem to be inline with a corporate centrist vision. And, the team for this article seems to be full of centrists as well based off their credentials shown, to add to the evidence pool. I will critique some of their statements.
Joe Biden: Kelly described Biden as having a powerful performance. She claims that "he quickly and strongly dispelled with questions on his son Hunter Biden, which demonstrated how he’d handle such attacks in a debate with Trump." His defense was essentially "Hunter and I did nothing wrong. Don't talk about my corruptions, please just talk about Trumps.". Trump will absolutely abuse the fact that Joe, who he will probably call "Sleepy Joe", created policy for Ukraine while his son was on the board of a coal company to create the image of him being corrupt. "What about you" is an a poor defense and wont fly. Biden, while I believe he was more coherent than usual, was still his bumbling, platitude loving self, which is apparent to everyone that watched it I believe. He didn't talk much of how his policies and vision will help people. He seemed much more focused on creating his image as the wise man in the room with great experience, and being the reasonable guy.
Mayor Pete: O'Donnell said that Mayor Pete dunked on Warren over medicare for all. But, Pete doesn't understand the essence of medicare for all... at all. First, it has been made clear that medicare for all will be paid for through taxes, but the taxes will be lower than what people are paying for with private insurance (except for the wealthy). Pete is still using the "how are we going to pay for it" right wing attack on public services. Secondly, letting the wealthy evade taxes for it by keeping private insurance is against the interest of the middle and lower class. He see's this a good thing so people have more freedom, but medicare for all gives you complete coverage and freedom to choose your hospital, doctor, etc., so his idea is basically just a tax evasion. Third of all, having private insurance around reduces price control power of the government. Now drug companies have the option to sell just through private insurance, rather than being forced to accept the prices given to them, which is bad for the consumer. His plan seems to be a compromise between the ultra wealthy/big pharma and medicare for all, which has gained a lot of traction and is polling at 71% among democrats, under the guise of "more freedom guys!".
Comments
Post a Comment