2020 First Democratic Presidential Debate Part I

After 24 candidates have announced their candidacy since the beginning of the year and multiple candidate forums we have finally gotten to the first primary debate. With so many candidates the Democratic party limited those on the stage to 20 candidates split over two nights. This blog is not a fact checking source, but one that focuses on analyzing policies, policy proposals, and the politics involved. I will leave the fact checking to media organizations with more capabilities than I do. Now let's get to what was actually discussed by the candidates.
The debate was allocated two hours including advertising breaks. If we assume one hour and a half of actual debate time divided by 10 candidates means we have limited opportunities for each candidate to pitch their policy proposals. The debate also is setup with a wide open variety of topics to be discussed limiting the amount of time on each. It also means that candidates are likely to try to get the one sound bite that resonates to break out from the pack. The results of this format showed up Wednesday night.
There was very little in the way of discussion of policies in regards to technology due to the limitations in the debate format previously mentioned. Technology policy also affects everyone in a more subtle way than most people perceive. This leads to other issues, healthcare, economy or jobs, and foreign policy, being more important to average voters. I happen to agree that these are important issues that are most pertinent, but a singular or limited topic debate would allow the viewer to better understand each contenders policies.
The one topic that did come up in the debate was climate change. Elizabeth Warren mentioned that her policy proposal includes a ten fold increase in research and development funding for green technology. This plan would fuel the 23 Trillion market for green products that she claimed. Several other candidates, in particular Tim Ryan, talked about the need to manufacture electric vehicles and other green technologies as part of the economic future they envision. This all sounds good to the average lay person, but the reality is more complicated. We have several companies that have developed technology for electric vehicles and other green technology but since the US is a capitalist economy if there is little consumer interest then the companies go out of business. Tesla has been building electric cars for several years and developed an extensive patent portfolio, but it is suffering from a slowdown in sales that could imperil its sustainability. China is making significant efforts to develop green technology, in particular electric vehicles, as part of its plan to be a dominant player in future technology. The U.S. applies patent protections and patent laws consistently and therefore the promise of the green technology to produce significant jobs and wealth may end up being a pipe dream.
Washington governor Jay Inslee was specifically asked about his climate change plan by the debate moderators. Other than the awkward smiling and hand motions prior to the question he mentioned the need to go to 100% clean electricity. 100% clean electricity is a great sound bite, but most likely will be very difficult to achieve. The idea is that the electric grid can be run without fossil fuel based electricity generation. Jay Inslee is basing his campaign on fighting climate change, or as he calls it the climate crisis, and he has done in depth interviews discussing the issue and his policy proposals. Unfortunately we had very little substance added that makes a true analysis impossible of the policy proposals of the candidates on the stage. To learn more about each candidates climate change policy proposals check out this amazing resume from Vox.
Overall there was very little of the debate that dealt with technology and the political implications of it. The debate did ask some questions about climate change, but there was little digging into the details of the plans proposed by the different candidates. Elizabeth Warren did mention breaking up big technology companies which is a fascinating proposal that should be looked at in a separate blog post in the future, but she mentioned this in her view of the economy that is corrupt and not working for the working class. I hope that night two of the debate will include more debate questions discussing and showing the candidates' knowledge of technology and the political implications related to technology. I am cautiously optimistic that this will occur due to the candidates on the stage tonight, including Andrew Yang.