As of now, there are 18 Democrats running (or thinking of running) for the Presidency. Care to an (at least attempted) non-partisan review?
Before we get started, there are also 3 Republicans currently running: President Trump, Conservative Talk Show Host Joe Walsh, and former MA Governor Bill Weld. It certainly doesn't matter that there's a race at the moment, but in the extremely unlikely scenario that Trump is removed from office, that race
could become something, as I don't believe Pence enjoys the base support that Trump does... though he certainly fits the profile better than either Walsh or Weld. That said, I expect Trump to be the candidate on the Republican side.
Alright, Democrats, let's see who we've got... but let's reduce the field to those that either made it to the debate stage in December, shall we? (Let me know if you'd like to see information on the two new candidates who weren't interested in getting in the race soon enough to matter in Iowa and New Hanpshire: Bloomberg and Patrick; or if you are interested in one of the many candidates who didn't make it to December's debate)
By last name, the list flows like this:
- Former Vice President Biden
- South Bend, IL Mayor Buttigieg
- Senator Klobuchar (of Minnesota)
- Senator Sanders (of Vermont)
- Businessman Steyer
- Senator Warren (of Massachusetts)
- Tech Executive Yang
Another before we get started moment, if you don't mind... there are certain things that all, or most, of the candidates agree on.
They all support same-sex marriage and at least claim to be in favor of some form of universal healthcare, whether it be through expanding Medicare to be an option for anyone or by removing the current private insurance based system and replacing it with a Medicare-For-All option (they differ greatly in the span of those two options). They also all agree that any one of them would be a significant improvement over Trump. Alright, so, let's go through them and discuss some of the main points of their campaigns.
Former Vice President Biden
What more needs to be said about him that you don't already know? He's a well known entity, from his moderate-ness to his tendency to commit gafs to his explanation that he's running because we have to defeat Trump. He's essentially this year's 2016 Clinton except that he's not a woman and isn't as polished. He's not as much a hawk as Clinton is (not saying much) but he's also not as liberal as Clinton is (which is saying something given that Clinton is a centrist). He's liberal enough to support increased public transportation (both short distance and longer distance), support of renewable fuels, strong unions, and gun control. That said, liberal credentials have not always been up to par with regards to women, wars, gay rights, internet privacy, and law enforcement. While he has come around to believe in gay rights and says that the culture has changed in regards to how men treat women, these changes in his stated beliefs have come quite a while after the tide turned publicly. He wrote the Violence Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which increased prison sentences, built more prisons, and significantly helps to create the current situation of for-profit prisons.
South Bend, IL Mayor Buttigieg
Mayor Pete has been Mayor of South Bend for 7 years. He fires back at opponents who question his level of experience saying that experience in DC should not be the only experience that counts. I would fire back with, "that's fair to say but let's look at the experience you have then." So... he's got 8 years as mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana... 306th largest in the US overall, though it's the 103rd most densely populated city as of 2016. He also has 8 years of experience in the armed forces, which overlap with his time as Mayor. Are you kidding me with this crap? There's a reason why nominees tend to be a little older than Buttigieg is (at the old old age of 37). I agree that experience outside of DC matters... but I also think EXPERIENCE MATTERS... and Mayor Pete doesn't have it yet.
Ok, so, experience aside... let's look at what he's got in terms of values and persona:
What he has going for him: he's from the mid-West, which he claims gives him more electability than others that are from more liberal areas of the country... though he wasn't able to win a state-wide race for Treasurer in 2010. He's gay, which gives him credentials as a repressed minority group. And he's young (though his support mostly comes from older white people, younger people tend to support other candidates).
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Senator Klobuchar (of Minnesota)
Funny that I mention someone who didn't win a mid-Western state... let's turn to our next candidate on the list: Senator Amy Klobuchar who
has won a state-wide election in a mid-Western state and has pointed this out on the debate stage when countering Buttigieg's claim to being the appropriate choice. Klobuchar is solidly a moderate... and I really honestly didn't see much that was interesting enough to note as I went through notes on her.
Senator Sanders (of Vermont)
Ok, seriously, do you not know who he is and what he stands for? Sanders has been around forever and has had the same stance on everything for the same amount of time. He is solidly liberal. He believes in healthcare for all by handing it over to the federal government and removing the for-profit insurance industry. He believes we should raise taxes on the wealthy and help the lower and middle classes. He understands that, as a white man, he needs to listen to those with different experiences than his. His international policies are very isolationist and believes we have had history of making errors overseas. Do I really need to go further into this?
Businessman Steyer
~sigh~ If you live in Massachusetts (probably because of New Hampshire), you've no doubt gotten tired of seeing Steyer on TV. He's a businessman who got rich as a hedge fund capitalist. He then, in 2012, moved on to advocate for alternative energy. Steyer has made his main pledge as a Presidential candidate to make fighting climate change his number one issue. He supports a "wealth tax" on the super rich and has suggested that he's in favor of increasing the count of judges on the Supreme Court.
Senator Warren (of Massachusetts)
Ok, but back to serious candidates. Senator Warren holds many of the same stances as Sanders. She's super interested in making the wealthiest americans pay more in taxes somehow. She suggests that taxing wealth, rather than taxing income, is the more appropriate way to balance the playing field a bit. She famously has a plan for everything. She has made it a point to try to raise funds for her campaign from as many people as possible and without asking for money from millionaires and billionaires. Buttigieg pointed out that Warren, herself, is fairly rich and so her campaign funding idea is, in his eyes, a faulty litmus test. She is in favor of the Federal government funding more housing to try to deal with the affordable housing issues our cities across the nation are facing. She's in favor of free public college (similar to how we have free public high schools).
Tech Executive Yang
Yang's big thing is that we need to transition to an economy where fewer people are working. His thinking is that automation in the form of robots and software will reduce the need for workers throughout the economy and we shouldn't expect to be able to make up that difference with new employment opportunities. Additionally, he feels that providing a bit of additional income above the income you earn from your job(s) will allow flexibility enough to allow for you to be more productive in your personal life and donate to causes you care about. And finally, the stability that comes from having a basic income would allow people security and reduce stress. I'm not confident this would all work. It's a nice idea, but I have a variety of concerns... but let's assume that he's right that we should look at providing a Freedom Dividend for a moment. His method for paying for it can tell you something about who he is and what he supports. There are 4 ways he plans to pay for it, a regressive way, another regressive way, a hopeful way, a progressive way, and another progressive way. He says there are 4, but there are really 5 because the last one is really 2 different methods.
- Some of it is paid for by the recipients already receiving a benefit that this would either replace or they would keep in place of the Freedom Dividend. This is somewhat regressive in so far as it says that we're going to give money to everybody who doesn't currently require assistance from the government and everybody that currently relies on assistance will either receive nothing or, at best, less increased assistance. So, people on food stamps get to choose between the Dividend and food stamps while people in the upper-middle class and upper class just get the Dividend? *sigh* Great plan.
- Some of it is paid for by a Value Added Tax (VAT). If you're unfamiliar with a VAT, think of a sales tax. It's meant to be a tax at every step of creating a product, but it comes down to this: you're taxing things that people are purchasing. Anytime you tax things people purchase roughly equivalently (instead of, say, taxing things like yachts or luxury cars differently from pre-packaged sandwiches) it's a regressive tax, costing lower income families more than it does higher income families as a percentage of their income.
- He believes that his Freedom Dividend would drive up demand because people would have more disposable income and therefore people would spend that disposable income. This is likely to work to a degree but whether it works as well as he's hoping is another question. This is a common plan whenever we provide money to the rich or middle class... it's the entirety of the idea behind trickle down economics. In this case, though, you're giving money to the lower-middle class as well, so it may actually work to a degree... then again, those families may just stick it in their savings because they don't have enough going into their savings in the first place. For the upper-middle class and upper class, it likely won't influence their spending habits too much as it pertains the general economy and therefore won't spur on as much growth as Yang is hoping for.
- He wants to tax the wealthy through "removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest"
- He also wants to create a carbon tax. I'm not sure if this is socio-economically progressive but it certainly is environmentally progressive.
A couple other things stand out about Yang: He's very aware that nobody knows him (he appeared in a comedy clip where people were stopped in the street with him right there and asked if they would vote for an Asian American for President and all of them said yes but indicated they didn't know any were running). He also very much plays into stereotypes (he loves to say he's an Asian who likes Math). But really, what you need to know is he doesn't have much support in general (in November and December, he mostly has polled 3 or 5% among the Democratic field, never getting more than 6%) and his main topic of the Freedom Dividend.
My summary position:
- Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are my top picks as they are the strongest and most liberal among the crowd.
- Biden annoys me with his constant making of lists of 3 things. Second, he's really not liberal. Third, he's got some serious issues in his past.
- Buttigieg is too young and should go get some experience instead of complaining that we don't count his enough.
- Steyer sounds good on paper some of the time but he doesn't stand a chance. He also seems to think that pointing out that Trump is not a successful businessman will actually turn people away from Trump, which is just simply not true.
- Yang also talks a good talk but also doesn't stand a chance... and, while I appreciate the idea of giving people a financial buffer, I don't like the VAT approach to financing it and worry about not including a portion that is means tested. Other politicians have complained about the idea of paying for college for any that choose to go to public college... this is a far bigger deal than that.
- Klobuchar is. Really, she just is. She's far too bland to win against Trump and she's far too moderate to be of any interest to me.
If you're interested in more information on any of the candidates...
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/
