the reality is that the flint water crisis is an entirely local issue. there's a half-dozen levels of government between the ground and the white house: municipal, state, two houses of congress, various agencies around the executive, etc. so, this is all demagoguery, all around. it's arguably even a giant distraction from meaningful issues at the proper level of government that is being run for. but, i guess they have two hours - hopefully it's not the entire focus.
i'll post a new comment for each question.
opening statement.
- sanders' opening statement was nothing much.
- amen to that: the first thing clinton does is remind the audience that she's a christian, and thereby sneakily point out that her opponent is not. slimy tactic. it always makes me very uncomfortable when elected officials cite religion in any haphazard way. i thought this was supposed to be the liberal party? how can she get away with that without a voter revolt? but, see, this might be a canada/america thing. you'd never see that up here - not even the conservatives would be able to get away with something like that! the reverse is probably true in the united states. it's probably a necessary tactic. and i again need to point out that sanders' ethnicity (if not his religious adherence) is an important, if understated, aspect of this race.
clinton immediately set the tone poorly, for me.
sanders 1, clinton 0.
question one
- somebody asks her what can be done to restore trust in government. she basically points out that it's not a presidential issue, and she's right about that, and then panders to her a little. but, she literally points out that she feels her pain. doesn't even stop for it to sink in. just casually states it, like it's nothing. remarkable. then she says she supports obama (because the questioner, and much of the audience, is black).
- sanders also points out that it's a local issue, but argues that the federal government should be able to come in and intervene. interesting. not an advocate of states' rights.
their answers were similar, although sanders draws attention to his infrastructure plan and clinton was a bit more vague.
clinton did not answer this poorly, but sanders came off better on this by referring more to something concrete.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question two
the question was to promise to remove all lead from pipes.
- sanders said he'll promise to test to see what's safe.
- clinton said she'll promise to move towards removing lead from absolutely everything (pipes, paints, etc)
sanders' response was probably more realistic, and it's likely designed with a certain level of fiscal conservatism in mind - it's meant to seem moderate. but, you have to have a certain faith in science to accept it as valid. clinton's response was probably a lie (removing all lead from the united states is pretty lofty), but it was also the right answer if the person you're asking is concerned about public safety and has a high school education.
while the responses are functionally interchangeable, i would suspect that clinton won that question with the intended audience by focusing more on safety and less on finance. it's hard to see what fiscal conservative is going to be relieved by sanders' decision not to splurge on water safety, in the face of free tuition - but maybe that person is out there, you never know.
sanders 2, clinton 1.
question three
should people go to jail for the flint water crisis?
- comparable answers. no win awarded.
question four
is the focus on flint just opportunism?
- they both draw attention to their histories, but clinton's response comes off as phony and sanders' comes off as legit. clinton seems to suggest that she focused on flint because it was a good opportunity to attack a sitting republican governor.
sanders 3, clinton 1.
question five
what are you going to do to prevent offshoring?
- clinton talks about "carrots" and "sticks". she wants to set up "exit fees".
- sanders responds by pointing out that clinton supported the agreements that caused the offshoring. he's going to "force investment". outside of opposing the tpp, no details are given.
clinton then changes the topic by pointing out that sanders opposed the auto bailout, which is a red herring built on top of a strawman - but the crowd seemed to like it.
one of the things i disagree with sanders on (it's unrealistic to think i'd agree with him on everything) is the necessity of the bailouts. sanders surely knows that the bailouts are not bailouts, but loans. he surely knows that the creation of a lender-of-last-resort was a part of the new deal. it's broadly contradictory for him to attack the bailout system, and it makes little sense to think he'll carry through with any of it. it's just some populist rhetoric - again, designed to appeal to the kind of fiscal conservative that may support a ron paul. this is a part of sanders that i don't like, but i take it for what it is. it is not any more likely that sanders will stop the bailouts than it is that clinton will stop the tpp.
but, did the auto companies require the bailouts? well, i think you might want to look into that. all evidence i've seen suggests that they took advantage of the situation.
the discussion spirals out to nowhere, from there. sanders might be less wrong, but i'm not awarding a point here - they're both deflecting, obfuscating and lying.
in fact, i'm going to take away a point from both.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question six
gun control - background checks don't work, skip it.
- clinton repeated the democratic party line on background checks, appealing immunity for gun sellers, cultural discussion...
- sanders suggested you can't stop it, and repeated the same party line.
no points awarded.
question seven
should gun sellers be held liable for the behaviour of their customers?
- sanders: no.
- clinton: yes.
the crowd seemed almost shocked. but, sanders is absolutely correct from the perspective of any theory of legal liberalism. the court would have to set some kind of "reasonable person" test. would it be reasonably foreseeable for a gun store owner to know what a customer will do? in limited, specific cases. but, that's the point of the system of legal checks - to transfer responsibility to a system that can handle it. how would a gun seller be able to determine this? again: in some specific, limited circumstances, maybe. not generally....
i'm a canadian. i'd be happy if they banned the sale of guns altogether. i don't care much for the american constitution. i'm not taking sanders' side out of any love for guns. i hate guns.
the reality is simply that he's legally correct.
the crowd might protest, but i'm giving this point to sanders.
sanders 3, clinton 0.
question eight
the crime bill
- clinton: solved some problems, created others.
- sanders: same answer, although there's a difference - sanders was vocally opposed to parts of it, and wasn't involved with writing it.
it's less that sanders won points on the force of his response, and more that he won points based on the phrasing of the question.
sanders 4, clinton 0.
question nine
you're both old and white - how can you understand people that aren't old and white?
- sanders: explained his history as a civil rights activist, and breaking school-->prison pipeline.
- clinton: something about faith.
bringing up religion in any context is an instant fail, and it wasn't really placed in context. it just came off as an attempt to show the black guy that she's the more christian of the two.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question ten
what racial blindspots do you have?
clinton: used it as an excuse to throw around some buzz words and drop some endorsements.
sanders: provided some anecdotes
no points awarded.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question eleven
q for sanders:
things to do to be more effective in racial issues
- sanders: standard laundry list
q for clinton:
superpredator?!?!?
- clinton: taken out of context. right.
sanders 6, clinton 0.
question twelve
schools.
sanders: change priorities.
clinton: more specific answers.
functionally the same, but clinton was more specific and gets the point on that.
sanders 6, clinton 1.
question thirteen
infrastructure
clinton: start a bank, leverage more
sanders: tax & spend
see, now it's flipped over. clinton is trying to appeal to the fiscal conservatives.
i think the experiences we've had over the last several decades suggest that these wonky market schemes tend not to work. the moderator prefaced the question with the idea that sanders' plan is less realistic. i see it the other way: sanders is presenting a method that has been used in the past and will work (so long as the congress allows for it).
i have to wonder where clinton is getting her idea, though. if it was canada, an infrastructure bank could produce interest-free stimulus. that is, we could just print the money. i don't think that's possible in the united states. i think it's just another wonky scheme.
so, i'm rejecting the framing of the question and giving the point to sanders on the premise that it is more realistic to tax & spend then set up some kind of wonky bank scheme.
sanders 7, clinton 1.
question fourteen
do you support fracking?
clinton: claims to oppose fracking.
sanders: no, and credibly.
sanders gets the point on the terseness of his responses.
sanders 8, clinton 1.
question fifteen
q for sanders: is god relevant?
(asked matter-of-factly)
a: twisted to a question about morals.
he handled that well.
anderson drew explicit attention to it. holy shit.
he handled it well, again.
q for clinton: who do you pray for?
(asked sarcastically.)
a: she struggled to get the right talking points.
again: clinton came off very phony. sanders being an atheist jew is a hurdle. but, clinton is maybe not convincing many christians?
even if clinton was being honest, i would have disliked her answer.
sanders 9, clinton 1.
no points awarded for the closing statement.
so, that's my final score and my reasoning for it. sanders 9, clinton 1. i think he smoked her. if i lived across the river, i'd think it was a no-brainer.
but, remember: i'm a liberal from canada and not an american democrat. hopefully my reasoning is clear, and perhaps some of the cultural differences that exist between canadian liberals and american democrats are also apparent.