I watched three hours of torture so that I could bring you this libertarian analysis of the debate.

It was incredibly disappointing not having Tulsi Gabbard on the stage, but it was not surprising. Her anti interventionist positions, at least when it comes to foreign policy, could not be tolerated by the establishment.  It would have been surprising if the DNC had not found a way to keep her off the stage.

Here is an analysis of the 10 candidates who were on the stage.

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang said something about 10 American families winning $1,000 per month (sign up on his website) and what they could do with an extra $1,000 per month for a year.  I like Andrew Yang better than most of the rest of the candidates, but this is incredibly stupid.

Of course any family getting an extra $1,000 will be better off.  If it is only ten families getting this money, then it will be a huge benefit to those families.  But what happens when 120 million families get this?  Who pays?

We can approach this the same way as minimum wage laws.  If $15 per hour would be so good, then why not $50 per hour or $100 per hour? So my question to Yang is: Why not $10,000 per month?

Let’s do some math. If every single adult American – let’s say 250 million people – received a monthly check for $1,000, that would be $12,000 per year times 250 million.  That is $3 trillion per year.  The federal budget is currently just over $4.5 trillion. The annual deficit is near $1 trillion.

Is Yang going to cut $3 trillion elsewhere out of the federal budget?  No.  His proposal is to have a value added tax (VAT).  If he is going to collect $3 trillion per year with a VAT, that is going to be one high tax.  So you can get your $1,000 per month, but you will be paying $10 for a loaf of bread and $3,000 for a new iPhone.

But there is something really positive about Yang.  He brings the welfare state directly to the front and center.  The Democrats like to make fun of Republicans for believing in trickle-down economics (although this originally started with George H. W. Bush against Ronald Reagan with voodoo economics). The Democrats believe in trickle-down economics by going through government bureaucracy.  Andrew Yang is directly exposing the welfare state.  He is saying, “let’s just give the money directly to the people.”  But that might impact our system of lobbyists and bureaucracy. It would expose the administrative state.  This is why the Democratic establishment doesn’t really like Yang.

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris is still the scariest of all the candidates.  She is an authoritarian leftist.  Maybe this is somewhat redundant, but she is really the worst of all worlds.  She is bad on virtually every issue.  She favors the police state.  She favors the war state.  And she favors more welfare and bigger government in virtually everything.

I hope that Tulsi Gabbard saved us from this dangerous woman.  It was a secondary reason for the Democrats to get Gabbard off the debate stage.

Beto O’Rourke

Beto O’Rourke is an incredibly annoying gnat, although that may be an insult to gnats.  He is just annoying in almost everything he says.  It is surprising that he almost beat Ted Cruz for a senate seat.  It shows you how much Cruz went down in public opinion after running for president.

O’Rourke started out by saying that the racism of Donald Trump was welcomed with open arms when someone went on a shooting spree in Texas.  This is over-the-top hyperbole, and I hope that even Democrats can see right through it.

Most of what he says is dangerous.  I hope most everyone else finds him as annoying as I do.  Actually, everyone else can find him half as annoying as I do, and that will be good enough for him to get little traction.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders opened up talking about Medicare for all and a green agenda.  He says almost nothing about foreign policy unless he is directly asked.  When he does talk about foreign policy, he tends to be pretty good from a libertarian standpoint, at least as compared to the other candidates.

But I don’t trust Sanders at all.  He will be quickly taken over by the war faction if he becomes president.  He puts no emphasis on his foreign policy. The fact that he campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016 says it all.  She is as much of a war hawk as anyone.  Sanders may say some good things about non-intervention, but he has no strong principles on this most important issue, and the one significant issue where he sometimes makes sense.

I do not fear a Sanders presidency as much as others.  I believe he would be ineffective at getting most of his welfare state initiated.  It is already big, and there is a massive annual deficit during supposedly good times.

One amusing moment was when Sanders was asked about Venezuela and how that compares to his version of democratic socialism.  He said not to equate his democratic socialism to what is going on in Venezuela.  Then he went on to say we should be more like Canada and Scandinavian countries.  He said we need universal healthcare, a living wage, etc.

The point that is often missed is that Sanders supported the socialism of Venezuela a decade ago. He only repudiates it now because of the results.  Venezuela is just an example of bringing socialism and continuing it to its ends. When the market is not allowed to function, then the state is eventually left with a choice of easing back restrictions and allowing somewhat of a market economy, or bringing death and violence to anyone who opposes it and even to those who are too weak to do anything about it.

Socialism is violence, but Sanders won’t express it this way.

I expect Sanders to be one of the final three standing for the Democratic nomination.

Joe Biden

There isn’t much to say about Biden.  He is trying to win by default.  And with this field, it just may work.

He has to say some things that he wouldn’t have said in the past to satisfy the left.  But we know he is a true establishment candidate who will not rock the boat.

He said a few decent things regarding the criminal justice system, but this is hard to take seriously.  Where was Barack Obama for 8 years?  Obama could have pardoned everyone convicted on federal drug charges, but he didn’t.

At this point, Biden is just hoping not to mess up.  He has to minimize his gaffes.  He made a few minor ones during the debate.  He should be happy that Elizabeth Warren is now leading in some polls.  It takes some pressure off of him, and I think Warren has many issues that could be exposed.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has become the left’s alternative to Bernie Sanders.  She is a leftist, but a little bit more acceptable to the establishment.

I don’t fear a Warren presidency any more than the other establishment candidates.  I think she comes across as phony, but apparently some people have bought in to her rhetoric.

She has still not been asked on the debate stage about her lying to get into college by claiming she is a Native American.  Aren’t some celebrities on the verge of going to jail because they lied to get their kids into college?

If she ends up on the debate stage with Donald Trump, he may just continually call her Senator Pocahontas.  If the Democrats were smart, they would address this issue now to see if she can survive it.

Warren does not come across genuine as it is.  I think she will have a likeability problem in a general election.  She will look like a more incompetent version of Hillary Clinton, although less criminal.

Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete, as they call him, does come across as likeable.  It was interesting how he said he wants to have a Medicare option for all and to let each person make the choice.  He somehow tried to come across as being in favor of individual freedom (pro choice) while proposing something that would vastly increase government.

The problem with his proposal is that it does not give you a choice because you don’t have a choice to not help pay for it.  Under his healthcare plan, you can choose an expensive private health plan or a less expensive government plan.  Your taxes will be high either way.

Buttigieg is a second-tier candidate, but he has the potential to make it to first-tier status if any of the others slip.

Amy Klobuchar

She was incredibly boring and stands little chance at being the nominee, unless every other candidate implodes, which isn’t completely out of the question.  She was given favorable reviews in the post-debate polls because she came across as half sensible at times.  If Biden drops out, maybe she will get some traction from the so-called moderates.

Julian Castro

Castro is slightly less annoying than O’Rourke, but not by that much.  His big moment was going after Biden and challenging his memory.  The establishment media is saying he was making fun of Biden’s age.  I don’t think that was his intent, but I don’t care either. Castro is horrible and annoying.

Cory Booker

Booker does not stand out much.  He could be a compromise candidate as an establishment leftist, but Warren is beating him out for that right now.  Several of the other candidates would have to implode for him to have much of a chance.

Conclusion

As of right now, I would put Warren, Sanders, and Biden in the top tier of the candidates, meaning they have the best chance of getting the nomination.  I think our country can survive any of them, even it won’t be pleasant.

Harris is still a contender unfortunately, but I think her chances are slim.

We should also watch Buttigieg, who may make a run if the stars align for him.

Unfortunately, it is probably near the end for Tulsi Gabbard.  She needed to be on that debate stage.  Maybe she can make one last run to get her poll numbers higher.  She should be reaching out to libertarians who like her mostly anti-war message.

It may not matter anyway because we know the DNC likes to rig things to keep out anti-establishment voices.

It would have been more fun to have Gabbard on that stage challenging the other candidates on foreign policy.