Let's talk policy for a change

[nairiporter]

Among Democrats, I realise policy is not everything and some, like Pete Buttigieg, even started out openly hostile to discussing policy. But policy is what makes any administration tick.

Thus far, Elizabeth Warren seems to have the most detailed policy proposals that I have seen. Klobuchar is good on policy but not this good, and Klobuchar has a prickly personality that has made her as difficult to work with as Bernie Sanders. Like it or not, building coalitions is how policy gets enacted in a democratic nation.

If you think someone else has more detailed and realistic policy positions than Warren, please point me to them and explain why you think that. Even if it's just in one area. Of course we're early in the process so not having every duck lined up and ready to go is understandable.

Let's discuss policy positions of candidates. As an example, let's say I am definitely not fond of Pete Buttigieg, but I think his Medicare buy-in position (Cory Booker has expressed the same thing) is the most viable path forward. Many of Buttigieg's other policy positions seem very thin, but the Medicare buy-in seems to have some thought and research.

So for the other candidates, why do you like a specific policy proposal they have made? Not the candidate themselves but a specific policy, why you like it, and why you think it's well researched at this stage of the process.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/elizabeth-warren-policies-2020-presidential-campaign.html

Comments

[oportet]

While I'm not a Democrat, and he has pretty much no chance of winning the nomination - Yang has plenty of detailed policies worth taking a look at.

Some of his ideas seem crazy to me - voting over the phone, UBI...

Some of them I like - more skills education in high school, controlling wildfires...

Some I'm undecided on - controlling smartphone use with kids, getting rid of pennies...

He appears to be extremely smart, I find myself rolling my eyes less when he talks than with most candidates (from either party, from any election).

[porridgebird]

Andrew Yang is the only reason I'm still a Democrat (I intended to switch to Independent). I really appreciate how he lists off what he identifies as issues, what he proposes to do about them, and how it can be done. I agree with a lot of his policies, disagree with some, and some (as with you) I'm undecided on.

What gets on my last nerve is anyone working up an audience into an emotional frenzy, about, say, "____ IS A HUMAN RIGHT." Without a word about what they propose to DO, assuming it can be done at all. The most massive and dangerous drug epidemic right now is Outrage Adrenaline. Trump knew that last election, and every candidate knows it now, and Yang's the only one I can see who's NOT taking advantage of it. I love him for that, but it'll cost him.

[oportet]

He should do well in debates - he can start answering any question immediately without the politician filter stalling while coming up with the vaguest answer possible.

Then again, if the debates turn into half 'How bad is Trump? and half 'How much free shit will you give away?' - he'll have to decide whether adapting or setting himself apart is the best political move.

[kiaa]

Buttigieg is morphing in real time as he "learns to speak progressive" to primary voters. We've gone from "I don't want to talk about policy, just about philosophy" to some beginnings of policy statements. However, he's still super light there.

For an example, go to his website and listen to 6 minutes when he's asked about Palestine. He never ever answers the question and instead rambles on about "American Values" and "American national interests" without ever expressly telling us what he thinks those values are or what he thinks those interests are.

That, right there, and he does it on dozens of issues, is why I am literally pissed at Pete Buttigieg and call him a lightweight. He owes the public honest statements of where he stands and so far he keeps dodging like the best high school dodgeball player in gym class.