Knowing this board leans left, I'm curious about an impression I had watching the debate.
Now, disclaimer: I am a political/social/fiscal conservative who is appalled by the Dem Party's current lurch to the left, but I'm also very unhappy with the GOP, and I did not and will not vote for Trump. So don't stereotype me, bro.
But you'll know where I'm coming from.
That said, I have no delusions that Delaney has any chance of winning. But I actually liked the guy, and one of his talking points really resonated with me - the idea that Dems need to find a way to propose feasible, even bipartisan if possible, solutions, rather than grandiose promises. I feel the same way about GOP candidates. We aren't electing an emperor with supreme power, after all, but a chief executive who has to rely on Congress to do ANYTHING legally.
This is a point that seems lost on the average American and renders much of these debates a fruitless exercise, because the candidates aren't proposing things they can actually get DONE.
I want to hear a candidate tell me what they will DO as president, not what they think ought to happen - which is irrelevant in too many cases, particularly with the more ideologue candidates.
So, am I just showing an affinity for Delaney because I'm conservative and he's a moderate Dem? Or does he have a legitimate point?