I mean, the DNC comes up with a new game plan for the debates every presidential primary season.

You might have to tweak your idea a bit to make it more palatable to the DNC, though.

Thank you for your kind words. I have floated the basic idea around on The Web for a number years, but it's only been readily Google-able since around 2015. It's a fairly hot topic now, try searching and you'll get dozens of hits. Now that I think about it, CW may have given me the idea of using a bracket system.

Every now and them I come up with what seems to me a novel wrinkle in the scheme (say wagering), and I'll shoot the idea off somewhere. That said, I'm comfortably retired, I have enough money to live in gentile poverty until I'm roughly 110 yrs or so and wish I were dead. I do what I want without much concern for making more retirement income - although I don't turn down any morally acceptable checks that might arrive in my mail box or direct deposit.

The idea that Presidential debates are an American Tradition is hogwash. The Lincoln Douglas debates weren't remotely like the TV debates that have sometimes occurred since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960. There is a lot of room for innovation.

I always see it.

Heh!

Reading his account literally made me sick to my stomach. A young country that has fought so hard to free itself from their own internal sources of corruption...only to get a face full of our corruption when they look to an ally they have long looked to for support.

Yep.

I think 68 might be too many.

I think you should send your proposal to the DNC and all of your representatives.

It won't change this election cycle, of course, but it should be .. how shall I say … debated! before the next presidential election.

You'll have to be persistent and keep trying, multiple times throughout the next couple or three years.

Send it to all the media outlets, etc. etc. etc …

I think it could be very successful because it really is a great idea!

I first broached this idea on this very website during the Obama Years, and CW sort of liked the idea, as I recall it. Not that I claim it's MY IDEA, I don't believe there are any new ideas on a planet approaching 8 billion thinkers (and that's not counting dolphins, non-human primate species, octopi and some the better sorts of birds).

Note the seeding system, which I think is very important.

I would keep debates very short, (easy when it's one a on one debate) especially in the early rounds. Forty minutes works for collegiate basketball...why not Presidential Aspirants? Half time break (with cheering squads & bands)...oh my yes, for beer and bathroom breaks (older audience and candidates require these).

I could see the Democrats running bracketed debates between promising candidates throughout 4 year Pres. Election Cycles. Go for a full field of 68 candidates. Managing these events would actually give Party Officials something more to do besides fundraising. The field could even be broken into 4 regions...say, East and West Coasts, Dixie and Mid America?

Do not rely on networks for broadcast. The Democratic Part should live stream on the internet. I know of high schools with the tech savvy to do this. My son could do this. He needs the work. We could limit wagers to $200 bucks and possibly still beat or come close to beating dark money.

Could online wagering provide a revenue source for campaigns drawing in small donors. Don't scoff at this, many state educational systems use lotteries to cover some of their budgets.

The hard part of all this is how you choose the winners. Experts using a well defined rubric? Audience votes? Either could work, but not everybody would agree on which was best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-statement-of-ambassador-william-b-taylor/6b3a6edf-f976-4081-ba7f-bce45468a3ff/

I cannot believe how much damage Trump has done in destroying the faith that other countries used to have for us! Reading his account literally made me sick to my stomach. A young country that has fought so hard to free itself from their own internal sources of corruption...only to get a face full of our corruption when they look to an ally they have long looked to for support.

Putin must be ecstatic with how well Trump has served Russia’s interests since they put him in the White House. He has accomplished far more than Putin could have ever hoped for!

Funny how all the newspapers that made Hillary’s emails their front page headlines daily during the election chose to bury the results of the investigation on page 16; under an article about someone seeing the face of Jesus in their latte and an advertisement for discount teeth cleaning.

I would have thought it had earned front page coverage in big bold lettering announcing the findings for such an important investigation!

Trump has only Barr to blame for this! His DOJ refused to consider opening investigations even after the DNI inspector general and the CIA’s lawyer both entered criminal referrals. Barr’s DOJ simply refused to interview any witnesses making allegations against the White House — this alone is enough to secure articles of impeachment for Barr’s removal.. Barr knew that even he couldn’t spin the allegations enough to hide the truth of Trump’s crimes, so he chose instead to bury his head in the sand.

I also thought it was telling that Trump’s appointment to head the DOJ’s criminal prosecutions division claimed he would not have coordinated on some projects with the president’s personal attorney had he been aware that Giuliani was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation! How is it that the #3 person and the head of the CRIMINAL division was not aware of that? Personally, I hope he is telling the truth and that he was completely unaware of it....that means Barr isn’t controlling all of the DOJ with an iron fist. It sounds like the Southern District has lived up to its reputation of being independent and ignoring the political motivations that the AG attempts to force the DOJ to act on.

Like we could ever hope to be so lucky!

I feel lucky!

It would be perfect if they were able to release their book right as the impeachment trial begins.

How's about November 19?

Surely the NYTimes could never work that sort of a deal out! Nor could they already be planning a book tour for this person! But we can dream....

Of course, a book tour would mean never having to refer to yourself as "Anonymous" again. :)

Like we could ever hope to be so lucky!

It would be perfect if they were able to release their book right as the impeachment trial begins. It would allow Kellyanne.... errr, I mean, it would allow the resistances’ secret agent to tell us all of the things we need to know about just how much of a train wreck Trump has truly been. It will also allow this person to save their good name and hopefully avoid being brought down like everyone who chose to be involved in this disastrous presidency will be.

Surely the NYTimes could never work that sort of a deal out! Nor could they already be planning a book tour for this person! But we can dream....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWditrKW43o

Actually, I was quoting the inestimable Don Henley.

What acknowledgement are you looking for?

Aside from the fact that it's extraordinarily offensive, it's also why the same problems occur again. "Getting over it" is a nasty way of saying "forward not backwards". There has to be acknowledgment and accountability or bad actors just replay their bad acts cos there's nothing to stop them.

Besides, FBI Director Comey already cleared her of any deliberate wrongdoing before the last election and it got a lot of coverage, as I recall.

Kevin Drum comments:

Lest you think it’s unfair to hold the Times accountable for a conclusion reached three years after their Hillary jihad took place, they could have reached the same conclusion themselves if they’d actually read the entire FBI report, which was released in early September of 2016. I read it, and it flipped my view of Emailgate completely from “sloppy bad judgment but not illegal” to “Hillary did nothing wrong, period.” Of course, the FBI report was 58 pages long, so who can blame anyone for just skimming it? Clinton was obviously sleazy and had been her whole life, so what were the odds that the email affair was just another Republican hit job?

Pretty high, actually, but the Times still hadn’t figured that out in 2016. Bygones, I suppose. Still, you’d think there might at least be an apology in the works or something.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/10/try-asking-hillary-clinton-about-that/

Well, TS, maybe it's because … it's all so new to me. Heh.

As often as you like.

I knew that. :)

I just read that brackets piece you linked to.

Fantastic idea! Certainly better than what you have now.

Here, only party leaders (6 of them this time) can campaign, for 40 days, to win the right to form a government.

Relatively speaking, our debates were pretty good. And, the moderators actually operated as real debate moderators.

I agree, essentially. But, while we are building these last pipelines, it would be nice if we were building the same infrastructure for green energy and at least try to catch up to China, no?

As for the strict 40 days thing, I think it has something to do with the law or our constitution or both. :)

Something else we do differently here in Canada - no pharmaceutical advertising. Imagine that ...

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/24/hooper-10-on-a-stage-no-lets-have-a-democratic-presidential-tournament/

Forty days seems about right to me.

Liz - 24

Michael?

Doing research watching Star Trek, Marvel films and Fox Network? The deep stuff.

"A strong debater does not necessarily translate into an effective POTUS, you know."

I agree completely. I think there may well be a loose negative correlation between pure rhetorical dexterity and political honesty and good governance...think "too clever by half" or just plain "glib."

I especially believe this is true when the number of debaters exceeds two and the refereeing is poorly executed...as I believe is the case now.

"How many times must I point that out?"

As often as you like."

For somebody with a Laconic writing style you don't seem to appreciate it others very much.:)

Would it be possible to stage a transition, moving sections of the population into Medicare or Medicare eligibility at different times? That would give the system more time to adapt. Or perhaps an optional phase?

I hope we will hear more about how this could work out, bearing in mind that even a perfect plan is likely to be a bit battered by the time it gets through legislation and implementation.

How do you keep people from electioneering earlier than that?

Just a little FYI, if I may … :)

A strong debater does not necessarily translate into an effective POTUS, you know.

I have zero influence with CW.

Biden is up-wing alright, just not nearly as up-wing as I would like him to be.

The election in Canada tonight resulted in a minority Liberal government. Which is a win for the environment - let's see how big a win ...

Good points and do need to be addressed.

Even if Medicare for All is by rights a better program, Medicare for All Who Want It is inherently more respectful, and I think I speak for many voters when I say, Respect!

Why do you think it is “more respectful”? Giving people the choice to choose plans that do not offer adequate coverage or that they could have canceled at any point without warning does not sound like we are being “more respectful”!

If choosing to keep their coverage means that everyone else gets a Medicare for All Who Want It where the coverage is not nearly as good/comprehensive and costs people way more than if we ALL switched to Medicare of All... shouldn’t we be willing to do what is best for the most people? Honestly, it’s going to result in universal care for EVERYONE, how could any plan you are on currently be that much better?

At least one article I've read has noted that the transition from private insurance through the employer to a public plan for all has a very sticky point: much of the employee's premium is paid by the employer, invisible to the employee as part of the 'benefits', but very visible to the employers as part of the 'cost of employing someone'.

If Warren or Sanders expect to make this thing work without substantially raising taxes (i.e., premiums) to replace the hidden premiums now paid by employers, they are going to have to pry the employer premium out of the employer's hand and force it into the employee's hands as a substantial pay raise - which can then be applied to paying the higher taxes/premiums of Medicare for All. If the famous efficiencies actually kick in, perhaps the pay raises will outweigh the new taxes, and employees will actually experience a rise in their take-home pay.

But the key, as I understand it, is getting the corporations to cough up when they are no longer withholding pay to cover the benefits, and give the pay explicitly to their workers. Otherwise Medicare for All is a massive wealth transfer to the large employers. A large number of the common people thus get screwed, and notice they're getting screwed because the Democrats "took their health insurance away", i.e. made them actually pay for it with higher taxes when they didn't have to pay for it (as much, anyway) before.

Even if Medicare for All is by rights a better program, Medicare for All Who Want It is inherently more respectful, and I think I speak for many voters when I say, Respect!

The problem there is that by continuing to have private insurers involved costs go up for everyone. It is ultimately a selfish position. Private insurers exist purely to COST money - they offer absolutely no healthcare value. But people conflate the notion that you pay money to insurers and get, in return, "better care" with the fact that you pay money to insurers and they pass it on to care-providers - if they don't refuse coverage.

The FEAR of M4A is that it would automatically be like the stereotypes of bad government services. But there's a number of differences. When you go to get your driver's license, the people there provide the service (well or badly). Under Medicare (our already existing socialized med program) you go to the doctor, hospital, etc. for your service. The difference lies in how you are - or aren't - billed for service, not how well you are served by the providers.

What we really need is one of those CNN Town Halls where every candidate gets 30-60 minutes to present their healthcare plans and take questions. (I watched the Climate Change and LBGTQ events and thought they were some of the best stuff CNN has done.) This would be more valuable after the field is reduced - 6-8 candidates, say. Let the candidates make their pitches with some time for complexity instead of them having to jam everything into 1-2 minutes.

So, there will be no private health insurance in a Medicare-For-All scenario.

But, that's a pretty big deal and a huge step from where the country is now. It's that 'transition period' that scares a lot of people, I'm guessing. Because, government efficiency doesn't exactly have a stellar record, does it …

That's why I think Sanders and Warren have got to explain so much more than just how they'll pay for it.

I always see it.

(Clapping) I see what you did there! I got a kick out that!

I think many voters felt, rightly or wrongly, that Secretary Clinton didn't respect them enough, and I'd like that not to happen to Senator Warren.

You raise some good points about how to counter the Medicare-For-All critics.

I also think Bernie Sanders could do a better job of explaining in detail why while taxes will go up that will be more than offset by much lower healthcare costs, right?

But, I think Sanders and Warren also need to explain more about how the healthcare system will actually work, down to the minutia and not just about costs.

Do healthcare professionals mostly support Medicare-For-All?

REALLY GOOD.