We met in the sunshine in the park next to where we live across the river from Cambridge and the main Harvard campus. Meeting outdoors is safer in the times we’re in.
All the candidates think that they are the best equipped to beat Trump in November. But pointing out the stakes might concentrate Democratic voters’ (and Independents’ and moderate Republicans’) minds on the imperative of defeating Trump.
Bloomberg is shaping up to be exactly what I suspected him to be from the moment he got in: a divisive spoiler candidate who will destroy any chances of the moderate progressive wing of the party to unify behind a single candidate.
Mike Bloomberg showed what happens when you have so much money and power that people don’t talk back to you; you’ve lost the ability and the edge to debate.
We have a replay of the 2016 Republican primary, where one candidate with an unshakeable 25% of the party (Trump) is able to prevail against the crowded field of mainstream candidates, none of whom can dominate the field and few of whom are willing to bow out in time to fend off the putsch.
The only clarity to come out of the competition for the loudest voice in the room was that what is needed most for a Democratic victory in November – unity – is nowhere in sight.
Amazingly, there was no mention of Trump firing multiple public civil servants who he could no longer “trust” as being loyal to him.
Warren's failure to answer the medicare cost issue hurts her. Her wealth tax is likewise improbable and likely unconstitutional. Time to look at Amy and Pete.
Nancy Pelosi was smart. Focus on the issues where most Americans are already with he Democrats and keep it simple. So why don't some of the candidates get this?
And Joe? God bless him. He must be related to George W. Bush. The English language is not, apparently, his native tongue.