Before considering the worthiness of Elizabeth Warren, it's important we stipulate that ANY Democratic candidate would make a better president than Trump. So far as I know, none of the have sexually assaulted nearly two dozen women (on the record) and probably raped two of them.
Also, no Democrat is actively seeking help from the Russians. No Democrat has had to pay hush money to hide affairs with a porn star or Playmate. None of them have committed major tax fraud (ask Trump's sis). And none of them have obstructed justice while in public office.
On the plus side, every Democratic candidate knows more about the constitution, the economy, healthcare, taxes, trade, foreign affairs, the military, nuclear weapons, arms control, immigration, and the census.
Every Democratic candidate probably has a more stable temperament, more empathy for regular people, better organizational skills, higher emotional intelligence, and is not a serial liar.
And none of the Democratic candidates is facing impeachment and removal from office. Even my dog would make a better candidate for president. She has never, to my knowledge, ever raped anyone.
13
Gabbard is not an “isolationist”. She is an anti imperialist.Shame on you for such deliberate bias.
4
I see the Times has made its picks based on the writers willingness to agree with Mr. Brunis presentation of the "electability" argument. I guess when you work for a paper that thinks rape doesn't relate to electability it's an easy argument. This maybe an election decided by passions, I'm hoping so, in which case we need not to depend on the Times favorite okie in distress but the young, the disenfranchised, all histories powerless peoples, the new majority. I am deeply surprised and disturbed that Mr. Bruni doesn't open the door to that possibility; others on the pages he shares have. Go speak to Ms Gay please.
Elizabeth Warren proved herself to be a formidable candidate, informed, smart. good stage presence and opposed to Trump she is not controlled by Putin. REFRESHING!
8
The specter of "electability" rings through every word of this column; it leaves me with the feeling that Mr. Bruni can't imagine leadership that doesn't fit the old model of old white men.
But choosing a candidate based on "electability" is like trying to tell the future by reading tea leaves. Electability is not an innate characteristic. It is determined by the voters. If enough of us are sufficiently sick of Trump and determined to vote him out, we can elect a candidate with a big, bold, quintessentially American vision -- even if she's a woman. That is not a utopian fantasy.
5
I would say Ryan had the worst night followed by Beto. Ryan just floundered in the second half.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about “electability.” Remember when Trump was absolutely unelectable? Until he wasn’t? The old rules do not apply.
8
A simplification for a simple man: I believe Trump won because of his contempt and his dumb insults. There needs to be a psychological think tank that can determine what personality qualities in a Democratic candidate, projected in words, mood and behavior, will over-power and transcend Trumpian contempt and dumb insults. That's the candidate who will win.
1
I can't even imagine someone like Warren being a head of any democratic State.
Extremely emotional, flailing her arms that totally distracts from what she is saying, hyperventilating constantly, self serving to a fault in her pretense to gain personal advantage from her alleged
connection to native Americans. And her DNA testing was off the
charts. Warren is close to a perfect example of a type we don't want to be president.
2
The Clone Fest was hilarious. Watching them agree with each other on most subjects, and watching the "moderators" act like advocates rather than skeptical journalists was a real hoot. All together it appeared more like a commercial for the DNC until Delaney stepped out of line, admitting that the results of a study of Hospital Administrators revealed that Hospitals would go bankrupt if Medicare For All was implemented. The silence was deafening, the crowd gasped, and the moderators were SO shocked that the subject was changed immediately.
Then the racial and gender pandering kicked in .It was hilarious to watch them try to out pander each other. After that they proceeded to let American Citizens know, without ANY doubt, that they are willing to work much harder to protect Illegal Immigrant's rights than to protect citizens from the effects, costs, and wage killing effects of Illegal Immigration.
The Democrats took several steps backward in their fight to retake the White House. It had to be one of the more inconsequential "debates" in modern times. They have nothing that will convince the country to allow them to reclaim the White House.
1
Capitalism, beyond a small business level, is essentially greed.
I met a small business person who said he didn't want to be a millionaire!
"Playing the Long Game, & What doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger"
In simplest terms, this is a moment to dial back Machiavellian "prudentia," strategic-pragmatic ethical compromise, & re-assert high principle. As Michelle Obama has famously quoted her parents, possibly supplying what could be an official or semi-official motto for this campaign, "When they go low, we go high."
Instead of strategically compromising Democratic principle, reassert it more strongly then ever, come what may. I see two basic reasons for this.
1. Trump is a grotesque, "existential" catastrophe. But, as bad as it is, we've survived. If, Heaven forbid, he wins again, a newly invigorated, solidly more liberal Democratic Party will build support through sheer unstoppable demographic transformation constantly strengthening its base. Trump's base's power is in its death throes. It's important that the Democratic Party re-commit to the left (social justice, safety net, anti-inequality) as Millennials mature & minorities, the disenfranchised, & economically dis-empowered & others the left speaks to/represents grow in numbers. This ascendant coalition must have a party representing its social justice aspirations.
2. We've learned that with Trump, we can be miserable & still survive, waiting for our moment. And with the i**mpeachment** card in our pocket, that moment need not wait till 2024 (what Pelosi probably has in mind). Think of a post-2020 impeachment as possible Trump termination insurance.
2
Frank are you so sure and negative about Warren and Bernie ?, why? Don’t you see that the young generation is much better and savvy than my generation, yours etc ... The old people’s reality is ending , Thanks God. Trump nightmare is obviously a punishment to America politics specially about the destructive foreign policies . For the last 50years. We created a big mess and still doing around the globe. We provoked wars, invasions and destruction. Many people don’t care, they’re living in the America bubble , I call the exceptionalism fantasy, Do they forget how much damage and human suffering we did to others? Until now. Trump is the destroyer. He’s doing everything that America hates, and only for greed, no different. Trump is the demon ,and the destruction is inside out. Now we have some politicians like Bernie and Warren that wants to offer a relief for the middle class and working people, yes we can change, The elite, the Corporations, the Financial Institutions owner the government for many decades . Trump stupidity is out of control. Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in the world ( Chomsky), they absolutely ignore human being.
we need to combat them in 2020.Bernie and Warren are the only one can bring this loathsome down. The DNC, destroyed Bernie, and Russia destroyed them. The young generation will Not vote for Biden. Their candidates are Bernie and Warren, this is fact. The DNC have to think twice.
The Democrat debate convinced me that Trump is a far better choice for president than any of the Democrats on stage last night.
1
To the doubters and that includes you Mr. Bruni ; she is the most capable nominee to run against Trump , the only thing that may (and probably will ) rear its' ugly head will be misogynistic muck that Trump banters about . Trump may call Pocahontas but she being native American probably knew how to defend herself as does Warren . She is not Hillary that the right wing beat on by bringing up old history such as Whitewater , etc. and managed to damage in so many ways. Watching last night's debate , she did not stoop to attack other candidates ( Castro's fierce chihuahua attack on Beto ) nor DeBlasio's attempt to be relevant ; there was much pandering and few genuine moments . So yes to Warren , our best bet . You go girl !
2
I live in Washington state and have personally met Inslee. That is my prejudice.
I live on an island. I do not want to be underwater in a few years.
I think climate change will in ten years be the WHY DIDN'T WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS WHILE WE HAD A CHANCE -- words on everybody's lips.
2
Yeah, well, Frank you must love the Problem Solvers Caucus, those fine folks who are okay hunky-dorky with the first 90 days of child abuse at the border ... but after that, well, look out! They'll hold a hearing!
The time for Moderation has past.
I think Mr Bruni nailed it... She is better than Bernie at being a liberal...The key will not just be a move up in the polls but to see if some of the 6M Obama supporters that voted for Trump start flipping back to the Dems... She did really well.. Bernie is the big loser from last night...
2
Much as I like many of Warren's policy positions....she "aced" nothing.
Reality, which means compromise will bring her more to the center. What she is advocating is politics of the sixties an seventies, which I call "controlled capitalism." ... https://lstrn.us/2CORkXF
I don't care who wins the debates or has the best platform. Unify behind one candidate and remove Trump from office. Nothing else matters. Well for the good of the country, defeat McConnell also.
4
The answer is a resounding Yes. And also Yes... she can beat tRump, no matter what her choice of running mate.
3
Elizabeth Warren is very thoughtful. She does not have any baggage that I am aware of. She has a sense of humor. She takes selfies with the public at campaign stops, which shows she is a politician in the good sense . The only political mistake she has made that I am aware of is stating that she has Native American heritage, which apparently is not significant.
3
It's very early in a nominating process that's way too crowded. No doubt there's been some focus group tested messaging, but all the candidates are trying to resonate in early debates. It's mostly about sheer survival into later debate rounds and then heading into the early primaries. Messaging and focus will sharpen as the field is winnowed.
Ultimately, the primary winner will need to have an agenda that broadly appeals to the Democratic base, but is also attractive to moderates and independents. And all this without unforced errors giving Trump ammunition for the general election. (Assuming Trump hasn't been impeached and removed from office by then, as he should.)
She's decisive. The "medicare for all" catchphrase is a trap laid by the corporate media and she is navigating it smartly. She'll make a great leader.
I want the American public to have a choice between Betsy Warren and Donald J. Trump. She has to keep honing the hot medium skills of television but I think she'll get there.
Ms Warren is a good candidate for 2020. America has had a president who has blundered in most of what he has done. He is uninformed, unprincipled and without a public policy. Warren is strongest where he is weakest. That said Democrats have chosen weak candidates in the contests they lost. Gore seemed insincere, Kerry was a northeastern snob. Though that did not bother me, his attitude was offensive to many. Clinton was perceived as corrupt, maybe not in the sense of being venal but in viewing the world through the prism of her financial supporters. Joe Biden is a replication of Clinton.
Democrats should not make the mistake of trying to decide who can beat Trump, but rather who would you have wanted to be president. Don't waste your vote, choosing who the pundits say can best beat the President. Biden and O'Rourke will be terrible presidents, Biden has proved he can't make the grade as a presidential candidate. Trump and other Republicans say he will be a tough candidate. The question is when have they told the truth?
One thing is more important than winning the race and that is choosing a candidate who will actually make America great again.
4
We’ll know when Warren’s candidacy is taken seriously because the stock market will drop by 80%
21
@Larry Good. The stock market represents corporate greed and has very little to do with the economy most people live in.
20
@Larry, I feel sorry for you, really am. If you part of lucky top 10% of the population that owns 84% of stocks, you might be dinged. The next 10% owns a little over 9 % of the stocks.
But for the rest of us it does not matter one bit. Only the richest people own stocks: https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/
http://money.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/
11
@Larry They said the same thing about Trump... "they" are wrong as are you.
10
The last two paragraphs in the opinion piece resonate me. When Warren fights for the weak and vulnerable against the power and money, she can be articulately impressive in sharpness. The word compassionate may come along in addition. I don’t know what feminists would say if I say this, but persuasive compassions in a maternal sense is an advantage which female candidates have over their counterparts. Now, my question to the progressives has two sides. As Bruni indicated (or implied), how much it, the starkly binary picture of villains and victimes, is true when the electoral appeal of it is subtracted from her fight? The human nature is too vague to be put into political debates, I understand. My other side of the question is whether the progressives would admit victimes can also corrupt when circumstances change. With such a consideration as concrete in them, I see Progressivism would become a real force against its opponents who are thoroughly aware of what the nature of vice is even on a level of governance.
1
The last two paragraphs in the opinion piece resonate me. When Warren fights for the weak and vulnerable against the power and money, she can be articulately impressive in sharpness. The word compassionate may come along in addition. I don’t know what feminists would say if I say this, but persuasive compassions in a maternal sense is an advantage which female candidates have over their counterparts. Now, my question to the progressives has two sides. As Bruni indicated (or implied), how much it, the starkly binary picture of villains and victimes, is true when the electoral appeal of it is subtracted from her fight? The human nature is too vague to be put into political debates, I understand. My other side of the question is whether the progressives would admit victimes can also corrupt when circumstances change. With such a consideration as concrete in them, I see Progressivism would become a real force against its opponents who are thoroughly aware of what the nature of vice is even on a level of governance.
"Too morally stark?" "Too potentially divisive?" Is the country not divided? And are the divisions not moral? How could anyone talking seriously about this country be otherwise?
3
Wasn’t there a point in 2015 when Ben Carson was the Republican front runner for a while? Warren’s moment in the sun will be just as fleeting,
1
The bottom line -- after all the Democrats debate, after the Iowa caucuses, after the primaries -- is that no matter who the Democratic candidate for president is, registered Democrats and any independents who care to join in, must support that nominee.
No voting for third party candidates, no staying home on election day because your favorite candidate did not get nominated. We cannot afford to do those things in 2020.
The country cannot survive four more years of Trump. He must be excised from the body politic, like a deadly, fast-growing cancer.
Donate money to the Democratic candidate for president, whoever he or she is. Volunteer for them by canvassing, phone banking, etc. Register people to vote and offer to drive people to the polls on election day.
All that nuts and bolts stuff matters so much more than it ever has.
5
Yes, Warren really is our party's best bet.
3
@Barbara Stanton what a sad commentary on the democrats
The restaurants of Chicago are filled to capacity, with folks dining at the sidewalk tables to boot.
In Des Moines, IA, if you show up on a Tuesday at 7 pm without reservations at Django, Centro or 801 Prime Steak, they will tell you to come back at 9:30 PM.
Everyone’s blue collar uncle loves to tell anyone who will listen about his “2019 Year to Date Return” on his pension stock fund.
Warren paints a picture of a 2% bourgeois eating cake, while 98% are eating from garbage cans. That is not the case.
Sure there are some issues that need to be addressed, housing and college costs too much these days, as do vehicles ($65,000 for a Chevy Silverado??!!). But those areas can be addressed without tearing the whole system down (and many aleady blame the left for our ailes such as the regulations being dumped on vehicle manufacturers.)
Warren has made a misdiagnosis and has prescribed the wrong treatment. The American economy has a broken arm, and the proper trestment is a cast and a plate and a few strategic screws. Warren has diagnosed us with a fatal melanoma, to be aggressively treated with chemicals that have been known to cause death.
Her assessment of the economy will not resonate with many. Her “plans” will be seen as a threat to our financial security, rather than an assurance of it.
No matter anyway. The ticket has been decided by the press. It will be Biden/Harris. And it will lose.
3
@Jerome. Now it’s Big Government’s job to determine the price of cars??
1
The third of Americans don't have any savings, how they benefit from the Year of Big Return? Even those who have 401K, how big is it to make the really difference, considering that the market can go down next week, and all their big returns will turn to dust. With all this wonderful economy salaries are barely growing. If so many people can not save now, what happens when recession strikes? And what about problems? They are still here. The healthcare is unaffordable, the housing becomes problem, education is on way to be unaffordable. So, how is Trump going to solve these problems? We are still waiting on his beautiful healthcare plan.
4
Frank, that was a perfectly reasoned analysis- for pre-Trump political campaigns. President Bone Spurs taught us that niceties like trying to differentiate candidates on the their position on issues and personal integrity is a fool’s errand.
Trump won the presidency because he found issues that resonated viscerally. He then offered simplistic “solutions” that grabbed just enough American voters in the gut to get him elected. Can’t get a job, or your job stinks? It’s because the Democrats let Mexicans swarm over our “open borders”. Our country isn’t what it once was? That’s due to our allies scamming us on NATO and trade, and due to Muslims, Mexicans, etc. etc. etc.
it didn’t matter, and it still doesn’t matter, to his supporters that he is a pathological liar, that he hasn’t a clue about how to run a country, that he is a ____ (fill in the blank). In 2016, the media kept writing Trump off
because he failed at all the criteria with which you analyzed the Democratic candidates in your piece. He is a heartless, soulless demagogue, and he is going to run on the same things and in the same way that he was elected on in 2016- hate, fear and resentment. He promised to be the antidote to what ailed his base, despite the fact that he was and is a massive dose of the poison.
So, Frank, wake up! And Democratic candidates, wake up! Trump will take Warren’s brilliant policy plans and skewer them with a sharp, simplistic lance of lies.
3
Please stop your concern trolling about "electability" and wake up! This is so early in the process. Things will work themselves out. But in the meanwhile, in 2008 how many of you would have ever thought a young black man with little to no national political experience and with the name Barack Hussein Obama would ever have had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination and then a well respected decorated war hero, and experienced Senator?
2
I was able to watch the debate on my firend's satellite connection. And, yes, Ms. Warren was very impressive. She has something that many North American politicians don't have: she's smart. That doesn't seem to be key ingredient anymore in political life in the States. More like party loyalty - and running with the pack.
But even I - who am pretty liberal - think her ideas about universal healthcare will be her undoing. She understands the current system where big, well-connected health insurance companies are like vampires, sucking the blood (and the money) out of patients, and out of the healthcare infrastructure in general. And she understands bankruptcy.
Hospitals say they would have to close if Medicare for All were implemented. The reimbursement rate who be too low. So, what about federal subsides directly to hospitals to bridge the gap? At least the money which is being sucked-up by your insurance companies now would go directly into healthcare services.
We have a public/private system that works well in Uruguay. But the majority of the people chose the private option which gives better coverage, Of course the public option is cheaper.
But why does North America have to reinvent the wheel? All over the world there are healthcare coverage systems that deliver quality care at reasonable prices (with better outcomes than in the United States).
But the government has to be involved - has to do something. Is that even possible up north?
42
Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, diligent and affable but not electable. With the American electorate moving further to the right- a progressive like Ms. Warren doesn't have a chance.
The leader usually leads, not follows electorate.
I thought the big loser was The New York Times. The ongoing comments were non-substantive, focusing largely on style points, and one-uppy. Bruni touched only lightly on the biggest moment of the night: when Warren said she wanted to abolish private health insurance. The costs, both financial and administrative, of this proposal will scare dozens of millions of people whom the Democrats need to vote blue.
My big winner was Julian Castro. Smart, serious, experienced, not threatening, and what a contrast to Trump on immigration.
Beto, go home. Please.
3
Hilary was a happy warrior, Mr. Bruni. Look where it got her, and look what it got us. Ugh. Senator Warren's view is that our society is structurally unsound. It is so because of immorality, because of corruption, politicians legislatively and administratively fashioning an economy and criminal justice system that supremely rewards the rich at the expense of the rest of us. A corrupt criminal justice system that lets major rich criminals serve little (Michael Cohen) to no time at all (walking free like high crime perpetrator Trump) while poorer persons who commit lesser crimes do much more and harder time. We suffer under an illegitimate president who called on a foreign adversary to corrupt, via sabotage, the cornerstone of our democracy, fair and free elections. We have more than enough reason to be morally outraged and it will take nothing less that the fiery fuel of a righteous anger to win the battle to put our country back on a fair and righteous course again. Give me realist warrior Warren any day over smiling, back-slapping Joe, who assures us nothing's wrong with Republicans, all we need is to get rid of Trump and everything will be okay again.
5
Biden is part of the leadership and establishment that created the morally corrupt system that exists today. Since he helped create it, he has blinders on to the problems, he just patronizes the electorate.
When someone would discuss wealth inequality with Clinton, she would get this bewildered look on her face and blow off the issue. Biden is the same, he seems to think everything is honkey dory..He claims to be pro-union, slap ‘em on the back and yuck it up with them.
However, he was part if the leadership which decimated unions, agreed to allow CEOs to steal retirement plans by instituting 401ks and allowed Wall Street greed shift the balance of economic power to them to appease their unending greed. Guess who he gave speeches to to ratchet up his income since leaving office?
"But the annoying nature of that was redeemed somewhat by the inspirational diversity on the stage. There was a black man (Booker), a Latino man (Castro) and three women, one of whom, Amy Klobuchar, deftly drew attention to their presence with what was probably the night’s best line.".
By saying that you avow (which we already knew) that your primary consideration with politics is to reduce it to "identity politics".
How about just looking for the MOST QUALIFIED person, irrespective of colour, gender, sexual preferences or any thing else ?
4
Warren is as close to right on the subject of villainous big corporations as possible. She is in favor of capitalism, which means she recognizes its strength. But also big corporate greed for profits and not innovation or jobs.
Yes, indeed, greed gone wild is indeed a major cause of US problems. Yet greed is a fundamental driver for human accomplishments. Fascist and Communist governments generally can't compete with capitalism when it comes to creativity and financial growth. Let a few individuals start calling the shots and waste, inefficiency and graft take hold.
Unfortunately, capitalism ONLY succeeds when there is fully developed competition. Huge corporations squash competition and creativity along with it. Money starts to flow to rich shareholders and management and not new better products.
America now worships the golden calf that says big is better because it is more efficient. Big is always worse. Look at airplane seats! Innovation in electronics is primarily coming from South Korea NOT the US. The US doesn't make any smart phones or televisions. If companies are American, they have Asia make them for us, because it isn't profitable enough.
If Liz recognizes that -- she apparently does -- she needs to be our next president.
3
@dpaqcluck. The only greed gone wild is Big Government with its confiscatory tax rates and grabs for unlimited power. And there is nothing capitalist about Warren. Her unhinged plans to nationalize every business and impose a Big Government monopoly on insulin production are hardcore communist
Castro's problem is his personality: He's not likable. He's not even likable enough.
Mr Bruni,
It appears to me, beginning at paragraph 3, you have an ax to grind, to wit:
"I didn’t always like what she said." Wow, that's one way to discount Sen. Warren's position.
"at least in her view:" As opposed to whose view?
"burn relatively bright." Shouldn't it have been "brightly"?
"Warren and Cory Booker" How about Warren and Booker?
"But is there ample hope for healing in her message?" Would you ask this question of a male candidate? One thing President Obama didn't do: Fight, fight through at least the last 6 years of his Presidency. I want a fighter with plans- that's Elizabeth Warren.
5
One thing to consider about the Democrat's presidential campaign is that the winning candidate must be as defensive about maintaining current progressive policies as well as remaining on the offense about pursuing new progressive programs.
1
@HapinOregon-since the country has swung to what many perceive as the extreme left, pursuing even more "progressive" policies seems like a pretty bad idea. Which is the reason the uninspiring Biden, at least a moderate, is probably the only electable Democrat.
There’s so much time until Iowa, NH, etc. Right now it’s about trends, not absolutes. To debate who is more electable right now is way premature. Keep your minds open. Pay attention to the trends. See where we are in early winter.
1
Frank,
An end to private insurance and a national health care system is perfectly rational, sane, and will lower the total amount of money spent on health care dramatically.
How do I know that?
Easy. Just look at the multitude of countries that have adopted national systems and compare their per capita spending versus ours.
Frank, I had a wall phone for decades. Satisfied with the service. Had no reason to change. Then I found out I could get a cell phone plan for less than half the price of what I was paying for my wall phone every month. What did I do? I switched even though I was satisfied with my home phone and I am way better off now with the cell phone.
It seems to me you want to stick with the wall phone no matter what.
4
You seem to be pretty certain that Warren cannot transform this country. I think you need to step.out the bubble you're in and realize our country is in crisis. We dont need to return to the status quo. The pendulum needs to swing far left and I have a feeling a majority of the country - when they realize how much that pendulum shift will benefit them and their children - will gladly vote for Warren.
So to answer your question - she is most definitely electable.
9
I don't agree with Warren on a lot of issues, but it is so obvious that she has done the research and has long standing convictions on many of them, that I believe that that they are worthy of further consideration. She has a mastery of the facts that may very well get people to make the rare decision to vote for someone who is closer to being a technocrat instead of the panderers often elected. I thought she did pretty well in the debate (as several others did), with the only disappointing aspect being time wasted on de Blasio instead of the time being used for further follow up questions put to the viable candidates. He has proven he has no competence or interest in the nuts and bolts of governing, giving him any consideration is like considering a Doctor with a slew of ethical and malpractice claims, for a position running the Mayo Clinic.
2
Electability is in the mind of the beholder, based on conventional wisdom and polling, both of which can be wrong. As in 2016, the conventional wisdom for 2020 is that the Democrats should woo the center, whatever that is. How did that work out in 2016? Democratic "centrism" starting with the Clinton administration has followed the Republicans to the right (albeit a few paces behind), even though the base remains more progressive.
The GOP which manages to win office by following its base. The Democratic Party should try this sometime, especially as it would be more in keeping with FDR's legacy. Two conservative parties is one too many. Elizabeth Warren is on the right track.
15:25 EDT, 6/27
2
Sen. Warren is compassionate where Trump is narcissistic, committed where he is opportunistic, well-researched where he is ignorant, and tough where he is thin-skinned. I can't think of a Democratic candidate that strikes a greater contrast to him, nor of one who has a better chance of taking him down. If she wins the party's nomination, however, and is still unable to convince the American people (or rather the Electoral College) that she will be the superior president, I will truly despair for the future of this country.
8
Lots of positives expressed here, but don't forget: Hillary DID win the popular vote in 2016. Trump DOES have Russia on his side, and a diverse devious group who WILL mess with our elections. McConnell WILL NOT allow meaningful election safeguards. No Republican congressperson will be attempting any election safeguards. And finally, the best minds for the preservation of our democracy are concentrated on beating Trump, which is the smaller goal. The major goal: winning this ever-so-imperiled election.
3
Tulsi Gabbard was not trumpeting for isolationism. She was trumpeting against endless wars of intervention and regime change.
8
Elisabeth Warren will make a good VP candidate if the Presidential Candidate is not too slimy. She should not accept a Secretarial Post.
1
@Peter Liljegren Warren isn't running for VP. A VP cannot transform the country the way she wants to. She is running to be President and she will.win
3
Regarding Warren and her wish to eliminate all private health insurance. I hope she learns a little more about how Medicare actually works for many of us.
I love being on Medicare. But then I am able to afford a so-called Medicare supplement plan from Aetna that, for a pretty low monthly fee, covers everything that Medicare doesn’t. Many supplement plans are available that cover more of this or less of that. I think the key to getting general buy in for a Medicare for all approach is making sure that it includes the ability to add supplemental coverage. Yes, this does create a two-tier system (or more properly a multi-tier system since these supplements offer varying degrees of extra coverage) but that’s still better than having vast swaths of the population totally without health insurance of any kind. And it allows those who like the plan they already have to be able or put together something that will be equal or better.
In my opinion a hybrid system is by far the best option.
6
@Susan Warren has no idea how the economy or insurance works. She is incapable of learning because she is closed-minded. Every idea that doesn’t involve total Big Government control is immediately rejected by Warren
2
More than anything, it's Elizabeth Warren's willingness to fight that has me increasingly in her camp. We already tried the grand bargain approach. Witness the results.
7
The Democratic candidate's problem is not just beating Trump, but also overcoming McConnell and gridlock. Four more years of a gridlocked Democratic president and constant Fox propaganda may set Republicans up for another victory that now seems improbable. The country has serious problems; four years of gridlock will demonstrate that Democrats cannot get their ideas turned into results and allow Republicans to argue that they should get another chance to try their way.
Trump, after all, has done a good deal of what he promised. He promised to get rid of regulations and an overbearing deep state, and is doing so by driving experienced bureaucrats out of the government and failing to appoint leaders for the Federal bureaucracy. He has been much more successful than Obama at imposing his vision on the country.
1
Her Achilles heel was exposed. When asked how she could deal with Mitch McConnell she resorted to obfuscation, not even mentioning him. McConnell is just a prototype: how could she get any of her `plans' enacted?
1
I'm for whoever can beat Trump I'm afraid Warren is too left to win vs Trump. We need to win those states that gave trump the electoral college vote and appealing to that base of white working class voters . Surprise candidate might be Castro a Latino with a clear head that could pull in a wide swatch of democrats and independents. By not being a fire brand raving leftie and appearing to be reasonable accepting the reality of dealing with republicans at least he could counter McConnell the grim reapers death grip on congress.
2
Warren will not be the president. She lacks the charisma necessary to win, and she is carrying a lot of baggage.
3
To all the 'she can't get elected' folks commenting:
There has only ever been one female candidate to run for president. Are we really going to assess the electability of all women presidential candidates using a sample size of one? That's one coin toss. Ever. The stats say that women win as often as men when they are on the ballot (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/us/politics/candidates-women-people-of-color-elections.html) And are we going to make the facile mistake of assuming that whatever happened last election will be repeated in the next one? We did that last time when we assumed states like Michigan would be steadfastly blue. Big mistake. But then again, maybe it's just that I have trust issues with old white men.
3
Great
Here we go again.
Warren is the NYT 2020 version of Hillary Clinton.
What next?
Is this newspaper going to claim she has a 99% chance of winning right up to 10PM on election night?
You are no good at picking winners. Remember?
4
@Pono Biden seems to be the most Hillary Clinton like candidate to me. The only thing that Warren and Clinton have in common is being female.
1
Please explain to me why letting people keep their private insurance while offering a public option for those who want it is bad policy?
And then explain to me why it’s not delusional to expect people satisfied with their private insurance- and many millions are - to vote for a candidate who promises to rip it away and replace it with a government plan. Imagine the attack ads the Republicans.
If Warren is the nominee - and I say this as someone who likes many of her policies - it will be a suicide mission in 2020.
7
@Octavia because Warren and the Democrats demand unlimited government power. To Warren and the Democrats Big Government must have limitless unquestioned power over the entire economy and all aspects of your life
Only the cheering squad for the Democratic party and job killing socialism, the NYT, could consider any part or anyone at that pathetic pandering, lets make everything free and destroy the economy, Democrat debate in anyway a success. Pathetic folks. I supposed the fact that fake Native American Warren didn't try and break into memorized Spanish like phony Latino White Man Beto, or Spartacus did give her one of the better showings of what was a dismal depressing debate. If even 10% of what these, basically communist incompetents, were to be done you can kiss our economy away. We'd look like Venezuela with no toilet paper and mass hunger in no time.
5
@John Brown
I have not heard one Democratic candidate propose a "State Sponsored Socialist Market Economy."
If any Democratic nominee has made such a proposal I would like to know who they are, so I could easily eliminate them from the endless list of nominees.
1
@Jim you need to pay attention. Every Democrat is demanding a socialist or even communist economy. Not one supports free market capitalism that has produced the highest standard of living in history
It appears that the NY Times watched a different debate than the rest of America.
All other polls and news organizations say that Gabbard of Hawaii came out as the winner.
Just saying...
3
She did. Warren went from a 5 to a 5.5. Gabbard went from 0 to 6.
1
Yawn. The ticket will be Biden/Harris. And it will lose.
3
@Jerome
I see the Left/MSM (but I repeat myself) throwing Biden to the wolves. They have decided that he is not "woke" enough for today's Leftist dems.
I see no superstar that can stand up to President Trump. I am a conservative, but when I first saw Obama, I knew the Republican's were in trouble. None of the current crop of dems have any charisma, and/or gravitas anywhere close to Obama. It is an incredibly weak field of candidates.
1
@Good-agree. I despise Trump but see nobody in the Democrat field I could vote for. Warren is smart but much too far left. Democrats just cannot understand that not everyone thinks the way they do and that people who think differently are not automatically wrong.
I know it's important for us Democrats to dissect our candidates with fervor, but when I read comments about Warren's weaker points, I get a bit frustrated. Look who's in the White House, for Pete's sake. We're at rock bottom. Warren is celestial, truly. She knows what she's talking about and she'll still have to work with Congress to get anything done.
7
It’s not about how any particular candidate is better than Trump. That is too low a bar. It’s about how much better she would be as a candidate to defeat Trump. Compared to Biden? No chance.
Yes, Warren has become a much better candidate in the last year. But she seems to be running to be nominee for the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It's not about the policy. It's about the politics. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020, perhaps 15 percent, after being watered down, of what was advocated last night stands a chance of being passed. And that's if the Democrats can take the Senate.
Will Warren, if nominated, kill Trump in a debate? Doubtful. I readily concede that Warren is an exceptionally skilled debater--but so was Princeton debate champion Ted Cruz. Sadly, our presidential debates today have little in common with the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. They are now crude reality-show presentations at which the incumbent, with few inhibitions or scruples, excels.
And ending private health-care insurance? Really. That position alone will cost her five battleground states.
3
@Richard
The format and moderators must systematically make the debate substance-focused, and punitive on any shenanigans (name-calling, self-aggrandizing, mendacious bluster etc.) that undermines this. Start planning/prepping now debate designers and moderators!
2
@Andrew-right on, Andrew. Give us better moderators and better formats.
Hasn't she learned that the American public does not want an end to private health insurance, including yours truly here.
If she keeps that as a priority on her agenda, she will fade fast, and by this time next year she will be an afterthought.
8
So far, my candidate has been Mayor Pete. But I have to say I really liked Warren last night. That fact is, that I will vote for whatever Democratic candidate wins the primary election. Because ANYONE on that stage last night, and will be on stage tonight, is better than this "Emperor Has No Clothes" president.
5
"framing just about every ill in American life as something caused or exacerbated by greed."
This is not so?
5
@The North-not so. Yes, greed is a factor. So are selfishness , cowardice, laziness, envy, untruthfulness, self-indulgence, unrighteous anger, etc.
Give me a break: the underlying premise of her run is taking on corrupted power and greed. Who more directly embodies corruption than Trump?
She is the perfect counterpoint to the myth of "swamp drainer" that Trump has cultivated. She would actually take on corruption and that's something that deeply resonates with the electorate.
4
@Eric W. “Who more directly embodies corruption than Trump?”
How about someone who lies about her ancestry to get a job?
I fear whom Warren would be forced to select as her veep choice, if she gets all the way down the primary pipeline to the nomination. We all know it'd have to be a dude. The fringe left pc or identity politics dude veep choice would derail her at the ballot box and not serve any Democrat administration.
I don't know, did Warren really seem like a "livid warrior" to anyone else last night? This characterization has the whiff of gender bias, especially since pundits deemed Booker, Castro, and Beto happy warriors after they continually and assertively interrupted.
3
She is a woman. Maybe the country is now ready for this, but that is still a negative for many.
She is left of center. If she makes it, the shouting of "socialist" will make your head spin. A big negative for many.
Warren may well be the best candidate, but what this country needs is someone who will beat Trump. Unfortunately, Warren is probably too great a risk.
3
Is she really her party's best bet?
Yes.
3
Judging by the comments I have read here and elsewhere, Warren was determined to be the winner by the Eastern "intellectual" establishment, i.e. those who learned to judge debates by the standards they learned on their high school and college debating teams. But that the rest of the country was more impressed by Castro, Gabbard, and Booker. Considering that this will be a national election, I'll go with rest of the country.
3
People use the word "unifying" in the most meaningless way possible. What's more unifying than rallying poor and working people to fight against the corporate interests that have corrupted our government?
In case you forget, plenty of poor Republicans use multiple government programs, which they like just fine. She can make an strong, unapologetic case for a well functioning government that actually prioritizes the needs of poor and working people.
4
Medicare for All has the potential to attract more voters when they know what's being offered, and exactly what services will be covered.
A few things we do know. You won't lose your coverage if you lose your job. You won't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, because there is no "pre-."
M for A is based on the principle of providing the best coverage at the lowest cost. Private insurance is most profitable when benefits are denied and charges are high. The motivations are exactly opposite.
Unlike a truly socialist system, M for A doesn't require that the government take over and operate the hospitals, as it does in Great Britain. Our current system based on private medical insurance is grossly inefficient and denies us the kind of medical care that other industrial nations have for their citizens.
Having said that, I'm less concerned about differences over how to provide universal medical coverage, than I am about having a candidate who's committed to doing it. Republicans have demonstrated that their objective is to take coverage and care away from people, not make it more available.
3
@writeon1
Most Americans - more than 60% - would lose their employer provided private health care. When it came down to actual quality medical care, my private individual and then family coverage was far superior to my govt. health plan.
3
@writeon1
Most of our European allies healthcare systems are run by private insurers, with the difference being the government through tax collections pays the insurance premiums.
I only raise this point, because opponents of universal healthcare always raise the exorbitant "high tax rates " of these "socialist" countries, compared to the much lower rate in the USA. I believe if we added insurance premiums back into the "tax" equation our "tax rate" would look similar, if not worse.
What? You mean Warren’s Medicare for all “plan” doesn’t address these issues? Amazing. I guess I’ll just have to rely on what the commenters on the NYT say the plan includes and doesn’t include or whether her interpretation of M for A is the same as Bernie’s or anyone else’s.
“…nothing matters more than limiting this president to one term by presenting him with the toughest foe.”
Warren is plenty tough — but.
She and Bernie are unflinching and mostly uncompromising on major issues in ways that many voters see as needing to be seriously and credibly addressed without recourse to radically, precipitously, and dogmatically swinging to the hard left.
Warren needs to find a way to keep the fire hot without leaving a sizable segment of America feeling like they will be burned in the process.
Toughest foe sure, but without driving a ten penny nail with a sledge hammer. Electability trumps tough.
1
Giant corporations. Right. She wants to replace giant private corporations for a single "public" even larger corporation that will have less accountability. She thinks she is so smart that she alone can replace the giant corporations and run the public ones. This "I alone" sounds familiar.
1
Is what Warren promises to fight for easily attainable? Of course not. But it is certainly not a "utopian fantasies." Many countries in the world, less rich than the U.S., have healthcare for all and free or low-cost high education. And yes, unregulated "giant corporations" are the sources of much if not all the evils from which average American suffer right now. Warren knows it because she has studied it and produced pathbreaking research on the topic. It is not just a sound bite for her.
"Smooth," moderate or simple "hopeful" words do NOT offer healing. Only creating a social reality that is different from the one that put Trump into office does.
3
She sings Bernie's song better than he does? Yes. I've favored Bernie's ideas, but the very thought of that voice of his singing any song--whether a good one or not-- is too much!
I love Liz, but her voice is also a bit too strident, at least for me, on and on---she should modulate more. But her intensity is apt for our serious problems.
I like the easy listening voice tones of Mayor Pete, and Castro, to name 2.
The others I just can't recall at the moment---just too many!
She is very good. The fact that the rest of the candidates did not challenge her just made her performance looked even better as if her ideas are reinforced by the rest of the candidates. She will win the debate against Biden and win the general election. As time goes by, people will start paying attention to what she has to say. The more they listen to her the more they like her.
6
Frank Bruni kept cheering Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.
Now he’s cheering Warren, Warren, Warren.
This is a news paper, it’s supposed to report news. Instead it is the cheerleader section of the DNC, thanks to guys like you.
Sorry to pop your balloon, but Warren lost yesterday. Badly. She should be rethinking her campaign today because she is done.
Why? Well, you’re a reporter, you should be able to figure this out. But since you’re being a cheerleader again, let me explain.
Last night it was her night to break out, to come out of this the unquestioned champion. This is because on tonite’s debate the actual lead (Biden) will easily make minced meat out of any one around him.
It was expected that she came out on top, undisputed, and then go head to head with Biden.
She did not.
In fact if it wasn’t for all the love the NYT is showing her today, you would see she did not move on polls, standing, fund raising or popularity. Her night to take it all, she missed the chance. Now Biden tonite takes a commanding lead over every one about him and she won’t be able to catch up.
Who won last night? Biden, because no one came out looking like they could take him. Specially your beloved Warren.
2
@AutumnLeaf
The ladies ruled last night. Klobuchar or Warren and maybe even Gabbard could rip the rug out from under phony lightweight creepy uncle Joe. They've been working in life and in government, while he's been spinning his entitled, questionable policies that amount to pushing the GOP, religious and corporate banking agenda for decades.
1
I don't like Elizabeth Warren's clothes. She needs a dresser and a hair stylist and a makeup artist.
Those ghastly jackets with the 3/4 sleeves and the garish colors are horrible. Let a Neiman Marcus wardrobe person get her organized. Someone to tell her to wear this today with this and this. Etc.
Elizabeth doesn't need to think about it, just do it. She looks like a Tulsa hick. Have a little respect for the office she's running for.
4
Like Hillary, she feels she needs to dress in as gender-neutral a way as she can. As if rejecting femininity will bestow more credibility.
@Cold Eye
You could be right. Hadn't thought of it that way.
(Nancy Pelosi dresses well, imho.)
Any party that would choose a candidate who's open to legalizing prostitution nationally is a part destined to lose. And they deserve to lose.
"Playing the Long Game, & What doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger"
In simplest terms, this is a moment to dial back Machiavellian "prudentia," strategic-pragmatic ethical compromise, & re-assert high principle. As Michelle Obama has famously quoted her parents, possibly supplying what could be an official or semi-official motto for this campaign, "When they go low, we go high."
Instead of strategically compromising Democratic principle, reassert it more strongly then ever, come what may. I see two basic reasons for this.
1. Trump is a grotesque, "existential" catastrophe. But, as bad as it is, we've survived. If, Heaven forbid, he wins again, a newly invigorated, solidly more liberal Democratic Party will build support through sheer unstoppable demographic transformation constantly strengthening its base. Trump's base's power is in its death throes. It's important that the Democratic Party re-commit to the left (social justice, safety net, anti-inequality) as Millennials mature & minorities, the disenfranchised, & economically dis-empowered & others the left speaks to/represents grow in numbers. This ascendant coalition must have a party representing its social justice aspirations.
2. We've learned that with Trump, we can be miserable & still survive, waiting for our moment. And with the **impeachment** card in our pocket, that moment need not wait till 2024 (what Pelosi probably has in mind). Think of a post-2020 impeachment as possible Trump termination insurance.
1
Which Dem candidate WASN"T espousing Socialism?
4
@Russian Bot
Klobuchar and Delaney.
She played it safe, which only suggests to me that she is taking herself very seriously as a candidate.
2
@Jeremiah Crotser
Exactly, she was quiet in the second half on purpose. She let the nobodies interrupt and yell over each other on issues like immigration that any smart person knows is poison to democrats in the general election. Everyone who cares about "social" issues like race, gender equality, knows that the democratic party is their home. The way dems can win with centrist voters is by talking about economic issues where republicans have nothing to offer the average person. Trump is praying that dems focus on diversity issues, since those make his base angry and energized, I think Warren's message could be a winning one even though she to to the left of many candidates.
1
If one more person uses football metaphors repeatedly, in their stump speeches or otherwise, I'll -- I'll --
*collapses, sobbing*
43
Damn right, Elizabeth.!!! You are the best, go for it, and never give up.
Those others who are always in the middle of everything, because they cannot commit to anything.
Socialism = Equality for all of us, not just the 1%.
Open your minds to what is the best for 99% of us.
USA folks are looking like narrow-minded outsiders, all trying to hide in the no-nothing middle of the road. Get WOKE!!!
3
Please stop. She can’t get elected. She’s the next Hillary. She’s smart and informed and has good policies in mind but she has zero charisma of the sort that a candidate needs to get elected. Something similar to this piece probably was published here in the NYT at about the same time in Hillary’s election cycle. Policy wonks are usually intelligent, even professorial, and their ideas may be fantastic, but they do not get elected. Especially female ones. We have to face facts to get rid of trump. Wish she would stay in the Senate.
45
@jkk
what? what?
trump has charisma?
we need a smart competent passionate empathetic candidate.
we have it.
we have LIZ!
33
@jkk I couldn't agree more. She has LOSE TO TRUMP all over her. I can hear the Pocahantes Socialist comments already (oh wait - we have heard them already). I get it that many Dems want a more progressive platform / agenda. I do. But it's not pragmatic. Look at the states we need to win and you'll see that we need a more moderate candidate that is more "likable." I hate that it's true... but it is! Get Trump out and win the Congress and THEN the debates on progressive policies can begin. But if Trump wins, you can kick and scream all that you want but we'll have policies pushing us further and further to the right. Wake up Dems!
8
@jkk
She's a lot more passionate than Hillary. Hillary was robotic, overly practiced, too centrist on everything to excite the base, and had a ton of baggage from her life in the public eye as first lady. Please don't conflate the two just because they're smart women.
81
What voters need to hear over the course of this campaign are different voices with different perspectives on fixing the rot that is currently passes for our government. Rot that is in the roots of the republican party.
Voters will hear these voices extolling some form of Universal health care and soon voters will begin to realize these ideas are not really Marxist ideas but a reinvigoration of FDR's New Deal and JFK's New Frontier and LBJ's Great Society.
The bosses who own the republican party have always known that if they can get the white working stiff to fear and hate the black workings stiff they will have an easier time stealing from everyone. And the republicans have been promoting that trope since Nixon's southern strategy. And they have been hugely successful at it.
I don't want to see the candidate be Bernie because, even though I agree with most of what he is preaching, he is preaching. We have been living the nightmare of one old crabby coot in the White House. I don't think we need to follow with another one, even if he is head and shoulders above the current squatter.
Right now I feel pretty good about the Democrats who are running and their ideas and their style.
If We the People cannot see that any one of them would be a yuge improvement over t rump then our future is indeed dark.
2
Did anyone else watch the debate last night and think to themself, "What would Al Franken have contributed to this discussion?" I really do miss that man.
4
If there is no triage in medicine, there is no cap on medical costs. If abortion is banned and spina bifeda must be surgically corrected in the womb, the costs could easily run to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first two years of life in every case.
3
No one really has a clue about “electability” - case in point, think about the idea of Trump being president in June of 2017.
Support the leader who best demonstrates your ideals and trust.
4
A lot of the author's handwringing strikes me as banal and blithely ignorant of the current situation.
"Like Sanders, she has welded herself to progressive ideals, such as an end to private insurance, that could be grave general-election liabilities. Like him, Warren divides the country neatly into villains and victims. Like him, she has sharp edges that she doesn’t worry about smoothing."
What makes anyone believe that the 2020 campaign is going to be dominated by policies and left-right labels? Need I remind anyone that this is Donald Trump we're talking about? He'll tar ANY Democrat as a socialist, open-borders, enemy of the people--regardless of the truth. So please, spare me the fake concern about how leftist Warren's policies are. Any Democrat will face the exact same attacks. We already know this.
And god forbid a Democrat candidate have "sharp edges". Again, need I remind you: Donald. Trump. Is. President.
2
Betsy is a better Bernie. And she can talk to kids better than Bernie. Since much of Trumplandia thinks like children, that will be an advantage.
2
Elizabeth Warren is today's shoo-in for Dem nominee.
She has it all: ground-breaking gender, dope rhetorical skills and policies that take your breath away.
She's also a native American and a Native American, who nonetheless lived her life of white privilege without ever having to use her genetically proven status to get a leg-up. I read that somewhere.
I admire her self-reliance, since I am quite certain I'm part Neanderthal, and you don't see me bragging about that.
1
I want someone like Warren to be elected. I've had enough of middle of the road white men. We need a woman who's not afraid of Trump or anyone else. Her plans are audacious and forward thinking. We need that now. We need someone who's actually worked her way up and knows what's what. And we need someone who scares Trump and the GOP to death.
2
the answer to your top question is: YES
1
Last night's debate left me with two clear realizations:
1. If she gets the nomination, Elizabeth Warren will absolutely mop the floor with Donald Trump during *those* debates.
2. For a terrifyingly large sector of the Trumpist electorate, this will not matter in the least.
For many of DJT's true supporters, i.e., the people at his creepy rallies whose faces are contorted with rage, and who may or may not be holding up "Q-anon" signs, Cheeto Messiah can do no wrong. They are not swayed by logic or demonstrated knowledge, but by a kind of aggrieved and accusatory vengeance. Trump confirms for them their darkest suspicions about the "deep state" and the "elites" (as if the would-be king who lives in a giant Manhattan tower in a faux-Versailles gold-plated apartment wasn't himself an elite). His thin learning doesn't extend much beyond the same hazy conspiracy theories that they themselves like to exchange on social media. He too believes that global warming is a hoax cooked up by the Chinese.
Warren, the former debate team captain, the Ivy League law school professor, will counter every moronic personal attack, every name-calling schoolyard taunt, every sweeping, entirely fictional claim of success, and it just won't matter.
For a great many voters, the debates are just another TV sport, and they want to see and hear a WWF-style entertainer and insult comic, not a policy wonk who's such a nerd that she actually came to class prepared to address the issues. Boring!
92
@Scottb Perfect analysis, and sadly, spot-on I'm afraid.
9
I was warming up to Warren, but her hand up to abolish private insurance is a game changer for me as it demonstrates her lack any real understanding of how things work in the real world, not just in her academic ivory tower where she has been for a very long time. Over 50% and perhaps over 60% of folks in this country get their health insurance either directly or through their employer. The dislocation alone of a change that monumental could cause a recession worse than what we saw in 2008-09. No executive and lets not forget that POTUS is an executuve position not a policy wonk position, would even consider such a rash approach. I can't think off hand of any western democracy that relies soley on a government mandated system banning private insurance. Drugs (Not Canada), Elective procedures, waiting time and accomodation upgrades (not UK), for anything beyonds basic care - most of continental Europe. There, most countries use a form of private insurance, mutuals with public option. This makes her unelectable to this Liberal Democrat and make anyone reconsider her fitness to the Chief Executive.
3
Mr. Bruni, now is not the time for healing. We are out on the thin ice. Now is the time for a brilliant, assertive visionary to guide us to solid ground, at which time we can all sit together in a healing circle, sing Kumbaya and thank our lucky stars.
3
Just to be clear, the Spanish spoken by O'Rourke and Booker were not correct in any way. To those of us in Latin America, it seemed like pandering. Remember, the next US president will have an oversized (deserved or not) effect on ALL the Americas.
2
Frank Bruni captures exactly my reaction to Warren.
She seems to believe that "fighting" is a real method of getting legislation passed and implementing a major health care overall.
Is "fighting" sufficient to convince the American people that she is fit to be President? To represent this nation on the world stage? To stand up to North Korea, Russia? To stand up to the giant corporations and banks?
"...she’s rolling out plans that serve more as windows into her values, or even utopian fantasies, than realistic possibilities in the near future."
That's a perfect description of her sound bite response when asked any question at a town hall meeting by an American who describes losing a job, not being able to afford a prescription med, or a farmer suffering from Trump's trade wars.
"I have a plan." No, you don't, Ms. Warren, you have ideas.
2
@Mimi: I remember Al Gore saying "I'll fight for you!" and then folding up like a cheap chair under the equal protection of law issues raised by Florida in the 2000 election.
1
Electability? Are we really going to let pollsters and pundits lead us to betray our hearts and minds yet again when they have been overwhelmingly wrong and are so far away from knowing what will actually go down in 2020? I can't imagine a surer path to moral defeat.
3
Mr. Bruni,
a good thought. yes, she has a long mountain to climb. but she can do it because she has shown enough materials so far. yes, she cannot win over 35% to 40% trump supporter but she can rift Mr. Trump apart in the debate with facts and rationales. Neither, anybody else of the democratic party can win those 35% to 40%. The biggest quality I see in her is to overturn the united citizen decision by the supreme court. in addition, she is a woman with substance. this is the time to elect a woman president and face a president who demeaned women of the country so much. it looks like GOP does not care. I liked her answer when she expalined even if both congresses are GOP she can fight for the people as president. I trust her because she is not part of the establishment to be rich.
4
Warren proved she is totally incapable of uttering a coherent thought
4
I thought Warren was articulate, intelligent, and well prepared.
5
Elizabeth Warren was lucky no one mentioned her claims to be of Cherokee descent, which included claiming to be Native American and seeking special minority consideration when she applied for a faculty position at Harvard Law School.
Also, there was no mention of her recent, infamous DNA test that showed she was not related to the Cherokees, as she claimed, but related at the 1/1024th level to indigenous American Indians in Central America. This is very different than her story about her ancestors, and is a genetic level found in many millions of us plain vanilla Caucasians who make no claims to special minority status. Indeed, Ms. Warren has specifically been described by Cherokee tribal representatives as not being a recognized Cherokee.
6
@Mon Ray, Warren never asked for special consideration for Harvard Law, and mentioned it as an applicant for working there, not attending. I am her age, and in our day, there was no affirmative action. Discrimination was practiced openly. She has said numerous times that it was family lore that she was part Cherokee. She also said she never claimed to be a recognized Cherokee. The tribal representative was defending her on that, not accusing her. In the end, it really doesn't matter, does it?
331
@DSW
But then why did she pursue the DNA test and publicize the result?!
1
@Mon Ray. Hi. Do you feel this Cherokee matter disqualifies her from the office of President? Why?
Do you have a general rule as to what kind/level of moral failings disqualifies a person from the office of President? If so, can you state it? How would it apply to the current office holder?
7
There's an old management cliché which says, "There are only two ways to motivate employees, either by greed or by fear." Fear and greed, both are basic human emotions. Educated, progressive management always aims to motivate by greed, only using fear when the former is unsuccessful.
Greed is not a problem. Trump and most of his loyal state and national Republican hordes are managing by fear. That is the problem.
If Warren equates all "greed" with "illegal greed," which is called "theft and corruption," then she likely has a losing strategy. Especially in a fine economy, business-minded Democrats won't buy her arguments, nor will she convert any small-business Republicans. Elizabeth Warren would be better off focusing on fear, rather than greed.
2
For decades, Democrats have usually worried about the "electability" of their candidates at the expense of their policies. This has left many liberals out in the cold as the party leadership drifted right-ward.
When we have gone with the candidates we like, based on personality, policy or a good mix of both, we have done better than when we went for the ones we second-guessed as "electable."
It's not just about grabbing moderates. There are millions of disaffected liberals who gave up on voting because the Republicans were anathema but Democrats seemed little better. There are millions of Republicans who wouldn't vote for a Democrat because of policy or the dreaded (D), but more than a few who will based on strength of character, which Senator Warren definitely has.
Elections are not just about taking the office. They are about moving the conversation. We have several good Democrats who are doing just that in the run for the White House. Now we need a couple dozen to run for the Senate too.
2
Beating Trump does not mean taking him on at his level.
Which prospective candidate can win over Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?
That prospective candidate can beat Trump.
2
Can Warren defeat Trump? Given the Electoral College, it will be a challenge, but it's far too early to dismiss her chances. Let's hear more. I believe you underestimated how well Castro did--he was right up there with Booker. The others are probably history, and the question is how long it will take for them to realize this.
As for Medicare for All, I personally have concerns about this, but an alternative is to demand that private insurance companies have ceilings on executive compensation and be not-for-profit, and that these demands be reflected in reduced premia, not reduced coverage. That plus a public option showing how it can be done (as Obama argued in 2009) might be the way to get us the affordable health care for all that is really what is needed. My guess is that Warren is capable of seeing that this would be an acceptable intermediate step, while Sanders would not.
3
Has anyone analyzed how the moderators favored certain candidates in the first 30 minutes? I saw Warren called more times in the beginning, almost a plug in its frequency. How was that determined? Also in the first half, there was a lot of interruptions and talking over each other, esp. Deblassio. Is that just acceptable in debates or even considered necessary if you are not being called on? The rules for the debate seemed to get out of hand like an unruly classroom in my opinion. Is that how a debate should go or be handles by the moderators? If time is favorable status, who got the most time? Once in a while I heard your time is up, you went over your time, but it felt and seemed like some had more time than others. Is that just my perception?
1
@Boston Born
I saw Booker and Castro catered to, again and again, as well as not called down for repeatedly interrupting others in order to spew a lot of nonsense.
1
Don't make me laugh. That debate could have been being managed by Warren's campaign team. First, she's booked at the kid's table and then given the center podium. She gets the first question. Time called on her once. Allowed to interrupt at will and never asked a single question on immigration.
That was a stage of angry people trying to be more outraged than anyone else. In that regard, it was a tie with Booker. Warren was set up to be the star in a lineup of unimpressive ranters. The day after the media lauds her performance. As usual, the fix is in.
@Kizar Sozay. Interesting, borderline paranoid summary. My thought is that banishing Ms. Warren to the kids' table denied her the bigger better audience and the opportunity to shine amongst her actual peers. In other words, I think it was very unfair to her.
4
Though the Buccaneer investor-money class who never met a regulation they didn't hate or bend loathe her, Sen. Warren is not Sen. Sanders. In two or more significant ways, she differs.
She is a Democrat raised in Oklahoma, and was employed in various red states and not just cobalt blue Harvard. She supports capitalism, albeit with necessary regulation and safeguards and a safety net. She has seen predatory practices in business and finance and wants to regulate not eliminate the free flow of business, and economic expansion.
Uncle Bernie is a proud socialist. His history is one of contempt/deep suspicion for any solution not brought to you by higher and broader reaching taxes and large government programs. He has more baggage than a Delta cargo hold.
She never reduces everything to a socialist class struggle nor would she ever think a honeymoon in Moscow with the Wall still up (and finding things to praise about parts of Soviet policy) was ever appropriate. So no Frank she is not just another Sanders with a different gender. She is her own woman.
6
An interesting debate, more vote buying (is that legal?), spreading the goodies around, but really. Remember all the jokes about the 7 dwarves for the republicans last election cycle? Well, democrats being the party of unions and big government apparently require three times the manpower to accomplish the same thing, having 22 folks standing up, ready and willing to tell us all how to live our lives, spend our money, and what we should be thinking. Pretty scary stuff.
She will need to pass some legislation and that involves Mitch McConnell and the Senate. What I see is more road blocks. Does the country, not the Democratic Party, want to go this far left? Most elections are won in the middle, and in this particular election the Democrats have a chance to pick a number of disenchanted Republicans. A successful President has a number of legislative victories., When asked, she said she had a plan to deal with McConnell. That is what I am waiting to hear.
3
I have read the NYT Opinion columns for the past 8 years or so. For many years now it has been clear to me that if he were not a gay man and if the Republicans had not gone off the deep end, Frank Bruni would be a moderate Republican. He lives a comfortable life in the nation's most expensive city, securely employed by a large corporation. He is not going to thrill to the chimes of Warren's call for pruning back the power of corporations. He is on the lucky side of the divide created by our New Gilded Age. But things being what they are, Frank is what is now called a "centrist Democrat." So I am not surprised nor am I offended by what he writes here. There's room in the Democratic Party for him too. I suggest readers focus on his admission that Ms. Warren outshone the others here.
What I AM surprised and offended by is the delusional chutzpa of all of these time-wasting "candidates" who are gumming up the situation and endangering the prospects for replacing the current occupant of the White House. Speaking generously, fully three-quarters of the people on stage with Elizabeth Warren have no business in this electoral cycle at all. They are harming us and we need them to vanish now.
8
@Flaminia
Bruni is what a centrist Democrat with some center left leanings has always looked like. And that has been the backbone of the Democratic Party since the 1960s. Bruni is only a couple years younger than Obama, close enough to be considered a baby boomer - most of whom on the Democratic Party spectrum are centrist.
It is the centrist/center right Republicans that morphed into shapeshifters and Voldemort, beginning in 1979/1980.
Moderates? Where were the Moderates on election night in November 2016? Where were the Moderates in the Midterms of 2010 that gave the RePubs control of the Census and redistricting which has distorted our politics these last ten years? Moderates? By all means Moderates. I rather fight and risk losing than being politely Moderate and politely losing another election to the tRumpinistas while the Moderates politely cringe.
4
Add my voice to those who have pointed out the ridiculous language used in labeling Tulsi Gabbard an isolationist. Wanting to end the incessant dropping of bombs on third world countries isn't isolationist--its intelligent and moral, which are rare and decent qualities in America in the last 70 years. I was quite turned off by that language used in the column. Sorry, Mr. Bruni, but you're flirting with the war-wing of the party with this language. You revealed too much about your attitudes with your choice of word.
8
Guaranteed affordable healthcare will free up our country’s creativity.
A Green Economy with endless energy will put us on the road to the future with plenty of employment that can only be fulfilled by Americans.
Increasing marginal tax rates on the super wealthy to pay for our country’s bright future will not impact their lifestyles.
Elizabeth Warren has got the keys for a new America.
6
@Phyllis Mazik
That's not what is in question. The issue is which model car gets America to the HOV lane of affordable health care. And that affordable thing means for the individual and for taxpayers, who'll foot the bill, as they do now for more than 40% of the country that receives government health care.
ACA didn't do that, neither will Medicare for All. Take away 60% of the nation's private health care and watch the chaos rain down. I've had private h.c. and govt. h.c. Hands down, I prefer my private plan.
Anyone wish for some answers that trump wouldn’t have found boring?
Re Mitch McConnell I would have love to hear someone say that if Mitch wants to hold the entire country hostage and act like a king I would bring the full weight of ALL presidential powers to bear against him.
Re trying trump after he leaves office how about I beleive in the rule of law. I don’t beleive we should lock someone up because they lose an election and I will not tell the justice department who to investigate. I also don’t believe anyone is above the law and if their is evidence that trump broke the law I wouldn’t interfere to stop an investigation.
@Dg Trump found it boring because the candidates were mostly ignoring him!
I'm on Medicare and the idea of eliminating private insurance worries me. I have supplemental insurance like most people I know on Medicare. Without the private supplement, Medicare leaves you on the hook for 20% of the cost of treatment. That's a lot.
2
Yeah lets have another women run against Trump. It’s gonna go great just like last time...
2
Wish the NYT article titles would match the content. Seems Bruni had to scrape the bottom to come up with doubt about Warren. Here’s another question to consider. Why doubt Warren as the party’s top pick? That question might lead to the varying expectations we have for women and men.
3
Frank, you disappoint me. They are utopian fantasies only because of people like you.
3
A tangential comment here -- Those who seek to frame the healthcare debate stating that it would mean either Medicare for all, eliminating private health insurance as currently enjoyed by employees, are being disingenuous at best. Like other nations, if we implemented a Medicare for all policy this would very likely only provide universal coverage for a portion of overall medical costs, perhaps 60%, still leaving a large gap to be filled. This would still leave significant opportunity for private health insurers to continue to ply their trade. The truth is that it would just eliminate their virtual monopolization of it.
5
Several weeks ago, a TMZ reporter was chasing Elizabeth Warren who was running at a nice clip to catch a train in Penn Station.
When the TMZ reporter finally caught up to Mrs. Warren, what the reporter found was a non out of breath, thoughtful presidential candidate answering the questions that were posed.
Elizabeth Warren is energetic, smart, thoughtful, and fighting for America and it's values.
Warren/Mayor Pete 2020!
3
There are many things to comment on in this article, but that closing line is the real point of this whole election "They’re big ones, because nothing matters more than limiting this president to one term by presenting him with the toughest foe."
This was my problem last election. When Trump was not even a possibility I was torn between Sanders and Clinton, when it became obvious Trump was going to be the candidate I pivoted to Clinton b/c it was important for Trump not to win. At first I'd thought how could anyone vote for him, but when obviously many people had, I wanted a ruthless well oiled machine. I was worried that too many people would not vote for an old white male Jew - can you see how that would play in the square states in the middle? So I left my heart for my head. Would he have won? who knows, but at least we would've gone down in the blaze of glory. And that's why I'm sticking to Warren. Even though Trump is scarier this time around - b/c he can only get crazier and there are so many of our fellow citizen for whom there is no bottom ... I'll go w/my heart
4
If you go into battle worrying how to heal and bring together before you are sure that you are going to survive much less win, you have already lost. When dealing with as dangerous and corrupt a creatures as the Republican's have become under the leadership of the Trump you have to be focused on the job at hand and strike. Eisenhower did not send his troops on to the beaches of Normandy with the Marshal Plan in his back pocket. If you are going to kill the King the first and only thing you have to do is make sure you kill him. The rest is just icing on the cake. Elizabeth is just the Woman for the job, and anyone who has followed her and watched her serve knows she has the compassion and brains to clean up the mess and make the big changes we now need to help form our More Perfect Union.
4
Frank, I'm sorely disappointed in you. There's a touch of sexism showing, and that's not like you. You worry about her "sharp edges" and her frequent use of the word "fight" and wonder if she's too "potentially divisive". You didn't quite accuse her of being shrill or unladylike, but darn close. Bernie Sanders gets called passionate, uncompromising, even abrasive at times, but it's with an air of approval and admiration. You see the difference? Women who display strength, confidence & intelligence are a source of concern. Are they "electable"? Men are applauded for the same qualities. I keep hoping we'll get past that. But I guess we aren't there yet.
2
The number one obstacle that Trump has for reelection is the rational expectation that one of these candidates will get elected.
It is already depressing economic growth.
The paradox of time travel come to life.
The only candidate addressing the elephant in the room, foreign policy, was Tulsi Gabbard. One of the observers from the Times front page last night wondered why no one asked her about Al Assad. Too bad they didn't as she would have brought up the presence of ISIS & that group that happened to be behind 9/11 as well represented in the "freedom fighters" attempting to oust Syria's president. Remember the photo of those around McCain? No jewel, Assad, but infinitely better than what has transpired since the conflict began.
Yes, he killed some of his own people. It seems that many think that's something the USA should be doing.
1
I was offended by the three candidates who pandered to Hispanic citizens by speaking Spanish. English is the official language of the US. The bald bid for their vote alienates and does nothing to promote citizen cohesiveness in my opinion.
2
There is no federal law dictating national language.
1
@Jacob That is correct, however, Only 13.8 million Americans speak a different language other than English at home. All Limited English Proficient (LEP) Americans need to learn English, the language of laws and commerce in the US.
I am worried. I agree with everything here. Warren is far more impressive than I had given her credit for, and she would obviously make a historic president.
I did not know she was so physically tiny.
That should not matter.
But on a stage with the Monstrosity.
The Monstrosity would physically eat her alive. I don't want to see it.
And then it hit me. Rome.
Elections are now blood sport. And Americans want blood and guts spilling as they scream for more. Politicians give them what they want, and give them what they want, and give them what they want.
The Monstrosity is in his corner, and he's hungry. The audience loves him because he gives them what they want. Viscera at every turn. Death to children who do not look like your children or his children. Death to the sick. Death for the treason of disloyalty. Death to the planet. He will bring you your own head on a stick.
Who are we is the question. What do we really care about. Who do we walk in the world with. What are our values. What do we really believe in. How do we manage a culture that has been squeezed dry as a desert of bones.
How do we wash this blood from the Monstrosity splattered on our face.
This election is not about the Monstrosity. It's about us. Who are we. Have you ever heard an empire crumble. Rome did not burn itself to the ground. It endured and it was not sustainable. It dwindled slowly. It bled out. We ignore a bigger history than ourselves. All roads lead ourselves to us.
Who are we.
@Tim Barrus
You're to pessimistic. In a debate he'd throw few jabs at her, call her Pocahontas a few times, and then melt before her cogent, incisive argument. His bluster and bullying can take him only so far against a candidate with substance (more substance than opportunism, as in Hillary's case).
I'm not good at name-calling, or the strategies for neutralizing it, but it might start with something like "Yes, I may have a certain vulnerability there, Mr. Trump, but the election should not turn on this one point, because the stakes are too high. Time to move beyond this. Virtually every other word since you entered politics, and even way before, has been a lie, which you euphemize as "truthful hyperbole." If you call me Pocahontas one more time, thence forward you will be referred to as Donald Dump, or perhaps Donald Rump. I don't believe in name-calling, we're not 8-year-olds. "When they go low, we go high" is ho I want our politics to operate, the principle I run by and want to govern by. But if the name-calling persists, you will be Donald Dump, or Dumpy Trumpy.
2
@Tim Barrus
You're too pessimistic. In a debate he'd throw a few jabs at her, call her Pocahontas a few times, and then melt before her cogent, incisive argument. His bluster and bullying can take him only so far against a candidate with substance (more substance than opportunism, as in Hillary's case).
I'm not good at name-calling, or the strategies for neutralizing it, but it might start with something like "Yes, I may have a certain vulnerability there, Mr. Trump, but the election should not turn on this one point, because the stakes are too high. Time to move beyond this. Virtually every other word since you entered politics, and even way before, has been a lie, which you euphemize as "truthful hyperbole." If you call me Pocahontas one more time, thence forward you will be referred to as Donald Dump, or perhaps Donald Rump. I don't believe in name-calling, we're not 8-year-olds. "When they go low, we go high" is ho I want our politics to operate, the principle I run by and want to govern by. But if the name-calling persists, you will be Donald Dump, or Dumpy Trumpy.
2
@Andrew
I wrote "which you euphemize as" but I should have written "as you and your ghostwriter, because you're too dumb to write a book, euphemize as..."
BTW, like I said,I'm no expert at name-calling; that's Donald's specialty.
But it shouldn't be that hard to counter if/when Trump starts in with this tactic. "dupin' Don" might work. Or "Donald Dope."
Where the Trump's Republican rivals and Hillary (and Sanders) failed on this was they just let Trump get away with this assuming they couldn't out-joust him on this level, fighting fire with fire. It's important not to cede any ground by letting Trump build his "brand" by cutting yours down in the demeaning insult and sobriquet.
Dem strategists now must learn this game as assuredly as any would-be Jeopardy champ must now study and emulate Holzhauer strategy. The game has changed and one must adjust by being prepared to counter with a good comeback.
When Trump called Sen. Rubio "Little Marco" and Rubio, unprepared, could only counter with "Big Donald," Mr. Rubio's chances were dashed.
Be prepared. Being prepared, you (Elizabeth Warren or whoever gets the nomination) wll prevail.
1
I don't think the article addresses the sub-title (and it's implications) at all.
Warren seemed totally programmed. Also, the moderators were clearly biased in her favor. At best, she merely held serve. Castro and Gabbard were the most impressive, with Booker not far behind. Even de Blasio did better than Warren. Only losers were Ryan, who wants to keep us in Afghanistan forever, and airhead Beto.
1
To all those Dems who are uncomfortable with dividing the country simplistically into "villains and victims": if you're not for Liz or Bernie you are against them and you will be castigated for it. Welcome to the world of deplorables! You have a home here anytime.
1
"They’re big ones, because nothing matters more than limiting this president to one term by presenting him with the toughest foe."
So you think someone other than Sen. Sanders or Sen. Warren would be a tougher foe to Mr. Trump? They might be sharp-edged, but they do seem to represent the position of the majority of American citizens, and even amajority or Republican American citizens.
1
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President would do well to use the remaining candidates [so far] as cabinet members. Inslee for Energy Secy? Castro for Homeland Security? Lots of good options.
1
Really, what’s hovering over the Democrats’ presidential primary contest(s), these warm-up debates, everything now, is who will beat Trump, and handily. Policy ideas and discussion matter, but only in the sense they expose—for more than the already-converted—how dangerous Trump is, how disastrous he’s been, for all the country. Everything is just a walk-up to the moment we see Trump confronted, face to face, by an alternative, a Democrat, who doesn’t wilt or leave those ever-in-doubt “undecideds” undecided, finally.
2
One remedy for the betterment of the middle class is reparations for the millions of American workers who lost their jobs and incomes because of outsourcing by greedy American corporations. In twenty years the situation of no wages and stagnation of wages have never been remedied. The funds for the payment of these reparations will come from the trillions of dollars of corporate money kept and hidden overseas to avoid taxation. And the cities and towns that lost the manufacturing facilities should be compensated.
2
I think that the only obstacle to Warrens enormous agenda is people who have a fear of change. Don't be afraid Frank, this is the time for big ideas, redefining the Democratic Party, a rebooting of our government. We have had nearly 50 years of Republican conservatism and look where we are, in trumps swamp. Strong leaders think big, not safe.
8
It was refreshing to see a stage packed with candidates, and not one personal jab or insult. No comments about body parts, name calling, etc. Policies prevailed. They raised the level of discourse. They are all winners.
5
Elizabeth Warren would tax the uber-rich to provide services and subsidies for the poor and middle class. Factcheck’s 6/25/19 article titled "Facts on Warren’s Wealth Tax Plan” said there are 2 Berkeley economists who estimate her tax would raise $2.75 trillion over a decade. Warren said this amount would fund most of her proposals, and make down payments on the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-All.
Economists, who are more familiar with how tax laws operate, are pointing out several reasons to expect Warren’s tax to raise considerably less than what the Berkeley economists are predicting - perhaps 60% less.
Warren’s tax plan may raise only enough to fund programs for the poor - not the working or middle classes.
In addition, she wants to offer illegal migrants a path to citizenship ( a Yale MIT study estimates that there were over 22 million migrants living here, without authorization, in 2016) and to decriminalize illegal entry to our country. This will make millions of poor migrants eligible for her programs and will encourage millions more to move to our country without authorization. Warren will have to use much of what her tax raises on supporting them.
1
I would have liked to see Warren and Bernie on stage together.
Their message is the future of the Democratic Party, whether it is they who say it, or the next person. I'd like to compare them directly, and to look for space for future development of those things.
I think it is unfair to label Gabbard as isolationist. She is our most specific antiwar candidate, and bases that in part on her personal knowledge from her own service in our wars, a service which continues today.
I see her as one point of the future not fully developed by Warren or Bernie. Neither is taking on the DC Bubble establishment of War, Inc. the way she is. I'd like to see both of them pick up on what she is saying. And it isn't isolationist to oppose losing foolish wars like the Iraq fiasco.
3
Yeah Brunei, we can’t have a woman saying she wants to “fight” for us. Better to have an old white man promising to “work with” the extremists in the GOP.
4
Calling Tulsi Gabbard an “isolationist” because she advocates diplomacy over military interventions is a total falsification of her record.
7
“ striking the poses he’d committed to beforehand “ - Beto. Utter perfection, Frank. He’s a poseur. He REALLY should have ran for the Senate, again. His act plays in Texas, otherwise not so much. And you, Sir, are a wordsmith.
Seriously.
2
"Like [Sanders], Warren divides the country neatly into villains and victims."
Both Sanders, Warren and the rest of the overcrowded field of Democratic candidates should scream from the podium that the real victims of a villain, namely the one sitting in the Oval Office, are none others than his base, a base that hardly reads but gets their opinion thrice pre-chewed 24/7 by the official Ministry of Propaganda, aka Faux Noise, Rush-the-pill-popper, and others with a fascist America Uber Alles leaning agenda.
1
Warren is a liar at some core level, and we do not need another one of those in the White House. Claiming that she was Native American to gain advantage when she has only traces of Native American ancestry and no cultural affiliation is an abomination and one that would destroy her in a general election. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, she will guarantee 8 more years of yet another liar.
1
So, universal healthcare is a "utopian fantasy," eh? This will come as a surprise to Germans, Canadians, Rwandans...[edited for length]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care
2
The winner? Elizabeth Warren.
The lewzers? Tulsi Gabbard and Chuck Todd.
I like her premise of “systemic change”.
That’s what we need at this point. Too many areas of our government are not working well - or at all.
But is this too much to handle for more conservative voters who we need to win?
1
@Barbara Vilaseca...I prefer Bernie's "political and economic revolution". It's a lot more honest that smearing a communist revolution with carbon-based petrochemical lipstick and telling us how wonderful it will be living in a progressive gulag. Not only will Lizzie be serving up free lunches, but everything else will be free, as long as the billionaires' money holds out. Then, of course, millionaires will have to pay for lunch. Then thousandaires. Pork out America. Y'all will be the bacon and ham hocks soon enough. Of course, Warren and friends will be dining in the ruler's mess.
I don't find Elizabeth Warren "morally stark", fantastical, neatly dividing people into victims and villains. She's quite practical in her delivery and has a fairly even demeanor. She is quite factual and comes off as kind and patient if anything. She is remarkable because she doesn't react to insults or snarky questions either. (Kamala Harris is more the warrior- and I love that as well). Looking and listening to all of the candidates on the podium, I was musing on which would make a great pair in the election. All agree that a woman needs to be part of that pairing.
1
Warren and Sanders both just voted no on the bipartisan healthcare bill - how cynical and manipulative is that? The so-called candidates who care most about working people? Klobichar isn't getting her due, because her poll numbers aren't really high. Warren hogged her time, by the way, and the moderators allowed it. But Klobichar could really beat Trump - maybe not in the nastiness of his language, but in the election. Where, if people remember, the polls didn't tell the full story.
1
Climate change is by far the most important issue in this time in human history, much less a political debate.
When the candidates were asked to identify the biggest threat to the U.S., Warren appropriately and succinctly said "Climate change." This shows she has her priorities in line even when most of her identifiable arguments are fighting against the outsized power of corporations.
I believe she has the vision to approach he problem of climate change with the intelligence to help the middle class by encouraging the solutions to reverse climate change and creating good jobs here at the same time.
My support for her grew stronger because of last night.
4
Its occasionally interesting to see what a conservative democrat like Frank thinks. The fact that he noticed Elizabeth at all is remarkable. I would have expected him to be promoting the bald guy who was the most far right of the other conservatives on the panel. Whatever his name was.
2
@Bobby...Maybe Frank was watching the broadcast with the sound turned on. Warren was in the middle of the screen, had the first question and a disproportionate amount of air time. It was almost like watching an old Soviet or Maoist state television re-education session. Replete with Orwellian phraseology. Like "systemic change" for overthrow of the decadent bourgeois running dogs. No wonder Frank didn't notice the bald guy stuck off camera.
Elizabeth is great, but she also had great advantage- 6 questions in 1st 40 minutes,
I thought Tim Ryan and Amy Klobuchar were most relevant in terms of being center left, with the correct take on issues most Democrats can endorse and 2020 electable viability.
1
These early “debates” are more like a beauty pageant, delivering 30-60 second impressions in a crowd of faces, the dynamics more about the judges or the format and questions. The luck of the draw. It can, though, confirm how the fringe candidates are not long for the show, fair or not. Perhaps it’s our reality-show acumen, now sharp enough to spot weakness more than anything.
At least Democrats treated it like a show of strength—plenty of qualified potential winners, no sharp knives for fellow Democrats. (As compared to the scrum of 2016’s GOP debates, with Trump stomping on all comers like a red-state amazon on steroids.)
1
Warren has a great many plans, but can she lead them into practice? I don't strongly agree or disagree with them at this point. They really are only half cooked. With any candidate the real question is - Can they lead the Democratic Party to get ANY plan done? Will they follow? If she concentrated on "Quality of Leadership" she could win. She has a lot of experience. She has too many plans! Lose about "most of them" and focus. With so many plans anyone will seriously hate some of them even if they like her. No one will really understand most off them. I think she could sound better and would have credibility - aka Great Electability. She could win.
The format-1 minute to respond to a question, 30 seconds to supplement ain’t no way to judge a presidential nominee. It reminded one of a lightening round on a tv quiz show.
It’s obviously difficult to assemble 10 or 11 politicians in a room and allow them to expound under any reasonable format.
Perhaps the DNC could have reduced the number by half, allowing for 4 one hour debates and five the potential candidates and, as importantly, their voting audience to see and hear them actually think and ponder good questions. Isn’t that approach closer to what we want a President to do when in office?
"And is the best adversary for Trump a livid warrior or a happy one?"
An excellent question and probably THE most important question. My opinion is that the latter is the best. Right now we already have a livid warrior in the White House, and the best way to show the fault of that is to show a more balanced personality.
Shopping lists of policy are good, but at least anyone over 30 years old should understand, by experience, shopping lists don't always translate into real policy. (Just ask Trump or Obama.)
What we need is a feeling of stability and reassurance that we don't have an impulsive leader, let alone one that's on the take. Warren has a wonderful shopping list, but she treads a dangerous path to being an ideologue.
I want flexibility. I want give and take. I want to end this madness of constant end games. I want sanity (or at least the appearance of it). The person who can show me that they are the best opportunity for THAT shopping list has my vote.
“But is she really her party’s best bet?”
No. A female will not get elected on this cycle. She also looked her age at 70.
1
"But is there ample hope for healing in her message? Is it too potentially divisive, too morally stark?"
My intuition is, we are so far behind the eight ball right now as Democrats (and even decent human beings) that we need to clearly state where we stand, knowing things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get better. Because to get better, we need all branches of government to be in anti-Republican hands for an extended period of time, to reverse the disgusting racist theocratic sexist pro-super-wealthy policies that right now are becoming MORE, not less, cemented into our futures.
1
"... framing just about every ill in American life as something caused or exacerbated by greed."
Name three that aren't. (No Googling.)
3
It's patently unfair that Gabbard, who to me would have been the breakout candidate if only given a fair allotment of time to make her case, was ignored by the moderators, while men like DeBlasio were allowed to scream and bluster and interrupt their way into the melee. She gets my vote, even so (Castro a fairly close second). It's also patently absurd to say that Warren aced this. She cannot and will not win a national election, and I hope her Democratic disciples look beyond their noses and somehow recognize this while there is time.
3
From the early returns, it would appear that The Times is ready to declare Warren the heir inherent. Biden got a pretty good beat down the other day. Sanders got his comeuppance back in 2016. Harris received some early glow, but she is not an East Coaster...Warren also appears to be getting some backing from the inside of the Party - rather like the push Hillary got from the DNC. Maybe #44 will declare that she is the mostest qualified candidate ever to run for President, or at least the most qualified since the last most qualified candidate lost in 2016...It will be interesting to see how Krugman handles Death to Capitalism programs of Warren. He sure didn't like Bernie's stuff last time. Maybe he has come around this time.
1
Same as last time, the NY Times has their favorites (Warren, Booker, Harris, Biden) all of whom might well lose to Trump. The one that impressed me most last night was Tulsi Gabbard. We need someone with military experience who can actually win against Trump.
2
Elizabeth Warren is GOING to be President.
7
Warren should be your next president.
I sense America will blunder, and regret it.
4
The sub headline “Is she really her party’s best bet?” illustrates the essential phoniness of US bourgeois democracy. The question is not, “Is she the best candidate?”, but can she win, given Amerca’s bizarre, Byzantine, presidential electoral system, which was explicitly designed to prevent the election of anyone other than a rich white man. The answer? Probably not.
2
Warren is the one. She and other candidates need to dump the word "Socialism" and instead use "Controlled Capitalism". That is what we had in the '60's and '70's. ... https://lstrn.us/2CORkXF
Healing? Bruni worries that President Warren may not be the right president to heal the nation. The healing I want is called ACCUNTABILITY.
I want Trump, McConnell and every Republican depraved sycophant held accountable for their treasonous acts of trashing the Constitution, trashing truth, trashing democracy, trashing America's security and future.
7
Anyone notice how de Blasio seems to have that John Lindsay problem: The farther from New York he gets, the better he looks.
1
My big takeaway from the debate was twofold: No one committed a political disaster and two, I think that Warren, Klobuchar, Booker and Castro had the most credible performances of the evening. Klobuchar had a couple of good zingers and stuck pretty much to her script and was not willing to get on the Medicare for all bandwagon.
Tonight, I think will be far more confrontational primarily between Biden and Sanders. Should be interesting.
After the decision legitimizing gerrymandering by the Supreme Court, Elizabeth Warren's campaign positions will seem moderate compared to the future leftward tilt that the Democrats and the majority of the electorate will take in response to the reactionary control of a shrinking and increasingly extreme and corrupt Republican minority.
Barring the overturning of state-level gerrymandering through initiative and referendum--which I'm sure existing gerrymandered legislatures will rush to prohibit--look for the advent of confiscatory taxation, socialism, the ruination of capitalism, and the death of majority centrist politics, to be replaced by incrementally extreme and self-aggrandizing left and right-wing demagoguery.
I fear we're about one generation away from something like present-day Venezuela.
4
If Warren somehow steals the election and even tries to implement her failed communist ideas the entire world would be plunged into a never-ending depression
3
@Larry
Communism is more closely aligned with the totalitarian tendencies of Trump. I think perhaps you should just completely leave the country. Chicago’s taxes were to high, the Democrats were too democratic, the police state wasn’t terrifying enough; your never going to be happy until your living in Putin’s Russian Paradise.
1
As this play goes on there are a lot of us very interested in what lies behind the costumes. Op-ed writers such as Mr. Bruni will do us all a favor if the focus is less on show and more on substance.
2
Well, at least we found out they want open borders.
4
Did Mr. Bruni just say Ms. Warren is a fantasist; too aggressive and too far to the left of her own leftist party? Are all intelligent Democrat centrists waiting to cheer Mr. Buttigieg? Is he electable, either?
1
There is so much talk about who can beat the current president. There are any number of Democratic candidates, according to polling, who can beat him.
We don't have to settle for another old white man.
4
@Linda...Context is everything. In a different venue, "old white men' would be ageist, racist and sexist/genderist/adnrophobic. But, in the woke New York Times, it is inclusive and progressive.
"During the first hour, (Ms.) Warren was crisper than most of her peers," indeed and I thought that I had misjudged her.
However, over the rest of the time, she dodged some questions and sometimes never gave a straight answer.
She "simply couldn’t claim enough space in this thicket," or ticket.
The battleground is being staged by Trump by using his blatant lies-the Democrats are for open borders, the Democrats will take your health care away, the Democrats will blow up the deficit with entitlement programs, the Democrats blah, blah, blah.
And the gullible and adoring fans of Trump cheer in delight when Trump calls Warren "Pocahontas" while ignoring that he is "Grifta hontas".
It is sad and troubling that for each lie Trump spews he gains popularity and the perpetuation of his lies on this and other social forums is stark.
It would do little good for the prevailing candidate to attempt to use charts or other means of proving Trump is a liar.
So, how will Warren or Biden, assuming one rises to the top, counter the "liar, liar pants on fire" effect of Trump?
To prevail in a debate among peers is one minor piece of the puzzle. The other is yet to be faced.
Even the most progressive males can't seem to shed the misogyny that is clearly built right into their DNA. What a shame.
5
@KFree...Genetically speaking, many progressive females seem to have a lot of misandrogyny built right into the DandA of their extra chromosome.
Americans liked Obama because of his message. And now here is another one. Clear beam. Bright light. God speed Elizabeth.
7
No – but not uniquely no...
If any Dem Senator were to win in 2020, two possible overall outcomes...
1. The GOP holds the Senate, taking us back to another couple of years of absolute gridlock – nothing but past-due budget-related bills would make it through. An absolute desert on policy legislation and judicial appointment
2. The Dems gain control of the Senate – and they go crazy socialist like they just now did in NYS – without regard to the damage they're doing to the economic fabric of the state
In fairness to all the wannabe crazy socialist blue states, the red-state controlled Senate basically stood on your throats with the elimination of the SALT deduction – and has been jumping up and down on them, ever since...
While your Dem Senators either stood around like potted plants – or were too busy running for president to care...
PS
Don’t think any Dem governor even has a chance...
Call it the “John Huntsman” effect – a qualified candidate shows up, but doesn’t excite the moderate wing of the party (if one’s even still there)...
And the extremists run their usual plays...
Including bashing any candidate trying to move even modestly to the center...
Think Clinton or Cuomo, and the NYT tut-tut bashing of each, during their last races
Recently, the NYT was uncharacteristically kind to our governor...
That’s when I realized just how crazy-bad things had gotten in Albany...
3
@W in the Middle
That social security thing is pretty crazy! Hope we don’t get anymore “crazy socialist” programs like that!
2
After watching the debate I had a sinking feeling...
The progressives have casted a large net but I doubt they caught any “newbies” with their promises of “freebies.”
3
@Charlie
So we just make it and you take it? I’m sick of all the freebies the wealthiest get. Where’s our slice?
2
Every time I read a Bruni column I think of the fawning book he wrote about George W Bush and remember not to listen to word he says.
6
Just like four years ago, I wonder if the Times Editors sits you opinion writers down to mandate the anti-Sanders talking points that taint your election coverage. His democratic socialism is a threat to large corporations from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Media and the Times.
Warren raises her fist and yells “fight” to make the point she will work to regulate our current predatory and elitist brand of capitalism. That’s good of course. But not sufficient. Better to go for systemic change and a Democratic Socialism approach.
1
So, you are tearing down Elizabeth. Tulsi was kicked to the curb last night and Bernie will be marginalized if they can tonight. You (the N Y Times) apparently already have.
3
@Ken Sayers...Elizabeth Warren Aced the First Democratic Debate...If The Times tears down your dear Elizabeth much more, they'll have to back the moving van up to the White House and unload her furniture themselves.
With adversaries like Russia & China, Warren just doesn’t have what it takes to be Commander In Chief.
2
Government Is Solution To Everything
Lipstick Socialism
Higher Taxes
"Free" Stuff
Ban Guns While Supporting The 2a?
Save The Economy by Destroying The Economy
Trump Bad
Yo Hablo Español
Gov't Destroyed Manufacturing But Corps To Blame
Abolish ICE
Open Borders, But Not...
Yadda-Yadda.
This is new? Seems like all the same reasons I stopped supporting Dems in the first place.
3
How do you "ace" a debate among a dozen candidates with a few minutes of speaking? Phooey, the author has his horse and is going to ride it until it drops.
3
@Kent Kraus...Bruni doesn't write his own headlines.
Ah...They all seem to revel in the spectacle...
They would have done real well in Nero's Rome!
2
This piece comes very close to saying that Senator Warren is both "too potentially divisive" and "too morally stark" because she has the audacity to point out that restoring democracy in our country will require downsizing the influence that corporations wield over every facet of our lives.
So the author -- Mr. Bruni -- is playing the "electability" card as if pro-corporate centrism had triumphed decisively in the 2016 general election.
"Too morally stark" for a party that above all else stands for social and economic justice?
7
@Alces Hill, after her trip here in 2018, Oklahomans elected our first democratic woman from the 5th District ever. First democrat since 1977. When people hear her, and have dialogue with her, they find she is down-to-earth, caring, and ready to explain person-to-person how we can help each other in these dire times. She's the least divisive of the progressive candidates. In fact, she simply seems a candidate of the people, and when they hear her, they know. Too bad Bruni is so eager to lay on labels without knowledge; he has already decided who he's for, I get the sense. Likely Biden. A small man when we need a star. She's it.
2
When I read the transcript of the debate I get an impression that is almost the inverse of how the media is scoring candidates "performance." O'Rourke, for example, justifiably wouldn't commit to a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent, but did suggest that the corporate tax rate be brought up to 28 percent and that capital should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Good tax answer, Beto.
Tulsi Gabbard, once she was done stating her resume, was refreshingly sensible and direct on a number of questions. She embraced Medicare for All, but also said: "when you look at other countries around the world that have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role of private insurance, so I think that's what we've got to look at, taking the best of these ideas..." Her answers on Iran were also right on the mark.
My favorite answer was from John Delaney, on health care: "I mean, we should give everyone in this country health care as a basic human right for free, full stop. But we should also give them the option to buy private insurance. Why do we have to stand for taking something away from people?" He then noted that the Sanders-Warren MFA bill would keep payments to hospitals at their current Medicare rates, and bankrupt nearly every hospital in the country.
Maybe the next debate should be carried only on radio.
6
Henry Clay famously declared he "would rather be right than president." I agree with her reservations about its inefficiency and susceptibility to profiteering but when Elizabeth Warren raised her hand to affirm her resolve to kill private health insurance I wonder if she effectively declared that she would rather be left than president.
4
"But is she really her party’s best bet?"
I am more than willing to give her a chance to prove she is. Her central message is that the wealthiest Americans, a small minority, have hijacked political power and economic power while the rest of us are either treading water or going under slowly. We are not going to have much success at solving other issues until we take care of that one.
Also, I find her very smart, personable, and with precisely the right resume to do the job. I think she'd make a terrific first woman president of the U.S.
3
Gosh what refreshing political debate last night. All the candidates stayed on message, spoke in realistic terms. No reality TV acting. Simply good to know some politicians act civilized.
Leader. Senator Warren's authentic leadership style shined last night. She was thoughtful, factual, passionate, understanding and open minded.
5
Elizabeth Warren for President. She knows how to make change happen and she has a heart to keep policies people-oriented. Nobody else matches her.
4
Although her passion is applaudable, I find it hard to warm to Elizabeth Warren's stridently tense body language. I worry about her ability to draw in voters -- especially the fence sitters. The No. 1 goal is to remove Trump from office. Inevitably, more progressive policies will result from a win of the presidency and both houses of congress. I found that Booker, Castro and Klobuchar presented their cases in more "likeable" ways and also came off as articulate and passionate. Unfortunately, "likeability" counts for a lot right now, because the most important thing is to dump Trump.
1
Once more, I appreciate the breadth of the comments from NYT readers. Various viewpoints enlighten and challenge my own thinking, which is a good thing.
Donald Trump must think he is the luckiest guy on the face of the earth. After stealing an election he should have never won (and only did so because Hillary turned out to be one of the most incompetent candidates to run for President) Trump is now lucky enough to maybe face Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is basically dishonest. She is not an America native and only said she was for her personal gain. She holds herself out to be an individual who wants to help the poor and downtrodden but she spent her legal career representing large corporations in bankruptcy as debtors.
She has an electability problem. She is strident and seems uncompromising in her opinions, hardly the stuff of leaders and not likable. None of the Reagan, Bill Clinton charm. She also is a one trick pony. Someone should tell her that the financial crisis is over and people are employed again. Enough with beating up the bad boy banks, its passe and easy.
Her proposals are extreme. We cannot afford Medicare for all or total student debt forgiveness. We cannot afford the entitlement programs which we have today, no less another couple of trillion in student debt. I paid for my kid's college tuition, now I get to pay for everyone's tuition in my taxes.
I understand the apparent attraction, smart, extreme liberal, woman, educated, someone that goes over well in the people's republic of Cambridge or Berkley. But in the toss-up states Warren and her policies will be hard to sell.
4
It is not surprising that she had Native American blood. Many Americans do, they just don't acknowledge that and she did. Why is it dishonest? It much more dishonest to exaggerate the size of crowd, or deny his own words as Trump does all the time. She has ideas, contrary to Trump who has none, except one: to lower taxes. for himself and his buddies. She worked for corporation? Trump is a corporation that cheated taxpayers and customers alike. You paid for college for your kids? Well, her plan will make sure that your kids don't need to pay for theirs. Don't you want that your kids have more money than you? Don't you want your kids to be happier than you and don't need to sacrifice for education of your grandchildren. And if we can afford most expensive mediocre health system in world, we definitely could afford to make this system more efficient.
2
I don't think she "aced it" at all. I think her response to the question about McConnell still be the Senate leader how would she handle him was the worst of the night. Let's face it, the Democrats have got to get a majority in Congress before anything can change.
3
Trump's "Pocahontas" sends him home in '20. Sweet.
3
After electing the dumbest person in the room, we owe it to the world to elect the smartest in 2020.
6
@Josh
Yes, we clearly need to keep looking for that person...
1
Warren articulated her policies while all the other candidates wove their personal stories into their presentations. She does tell about growing up in Oklahoma in her town halls, so the most plans-per-minute was strategy. America is in crisis and voters want solutions first. It’s no accident that O’Rourke, with the vaguest policies, is the one relying most on personality and charisma, which abandoned him last night. Voters do want to learn a candidate is genuine, moral, and has depth of character, and Warren’s campaign is paced for that marathon.
3
Defeating Trump is What Matters Most. Anyone not drinking the MAGA Kool-aid and wants to prevent the death spiral of American Democracy knows this nation can afford a second Trump term. While I support many of the positions of Elizabeth Warren, she will not be able to deliver a victory in 2020 against Trump. I am hopeful her efforts will result in policy changes once Trump is defeated by a successful and more moderate candidate who can attract the swing votes to win the crucial states that Trump won in 2016. That candidate was not the stage last night and we will have to see if she or he is on the stage tonight.
1
"She has sharp edges".
Hogwash. Warren has no sharp edges".
What kind of edges do the men in the debate have? The sharp edges on the debate stage were the men who couldn't stop interrupting.
6
Yeah...too many sharp edges though I love her spirit and general ideas.
Joe Biden is the nominee.
"But is there ample hope for healing in her message? Is it too potentially divisive, too morally stark? And is the best adversary for Trump a livid warrior or a happy one? Even as Warren impressed me, she left me with these questions. They’re big ones, because nothing matters more than limiting this president to one term by presenting him with the toughest foe."
This right here is key, and has been my biggest concern. I love Warren, but whom I or any other Dem or Progressive loves cannot matter. We must come together and figure out who is the candidate that can most likely get some Trump supporters to vote for them instead?
While her anti-corporation angle may appeal to Trump supporters (....we need to take care of workers, not over-paid company executives and their shareholders, etc.), I too fear that her being an older, outspoken female may not sit well with those who seek to demonize everything Dem.
This is why I'm thinking someone like Biden may be our best bet. Older white guy who has charm, experience, is well-known to most voters, and who has nothing really 'objectionable' about himself. Maybe he's wishy-washy at times, or says or does something a bit dumb, but....look at what we have in the White House now. Anyone would be an improvement, and in this vein I think Biden is our best chance. But that begs the question...what would be Biden's anti-Trump message, or his 'Why I'm Better than Trump' message, that could realistically win over Trump supporters?
Last time many people thought Trump could not win. He was too divisive, to abrasive, he won't attract the swing voters, he offended Latinos, African-Americans and women. And yet he won. Apparently traditional logic is not working any more
1
"But is she really her party's best bet?"
Yes.
5
Elizabeth Warren is no doubt an impressive woman - she is educated, well-spoken, and ambitious. As Bruni notes, however, her progressive policies are more idealistic than plausible. This leaves her susceptible to criticism and aligns her with the new wave of far-left politicians who have already alienated many centrist and independent voters. Donald Trump will be licking his chops if Warren is the democratic candidate.
Someday soon this country will elect its first female President. It will not be Elizabeth Warren.
2
of course, the independents and centrists love to have the bulling liar with no ideas in the office.
1
So for you, if a candidate doesn't want to go in shooting everyone in sight, because we disapprove of their leaders is 'isolationist'? Tulsi Gabbard isn't an isolationist, she's just not a war-monger, like -apparantly- most Americans. She also realizes that it was the Saudis, not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, who were responsible for the deaths of almost 3,00 Americans on 9/11. I mean, if we're going to attack anyone, let's at least make sure we know who we should be retaliating against.
7
If gerrymandering and the Electoral College are taken into account, something many forget to do, the future of the US is absolutely clear - this country will inevitably continue in its path towards tyranny. This is welcome news to the majority of ignorant whites and religious fanatics, but it should alert the minority of educated and decent Americans that the time to move has come. If you are an educated and decent person, the time for you to leave is now. There are far better places still left in the world where reason, knowledge and dignity are valued over fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred.
You know Frank, I do not, all of us Democrats really don't need your opinion or the opinion of all you pundits to decide who should be, will be our candidate.
I know very well which 2 or 3 candidates I like and whether I think they can win a year from November.
Unlike the media that keeps telling me Joe Biden is the guy who can win I say wrong, he is not going to win the nomination and, if he does, he will blow the election.
And, yes Elizabeth Warren is one of three I like right now but then so is Amy Klobuchar.
I know that you would say, well you can't favor the one if you favor the other, they are miles apart.
But I have my reasons, different for each and would just as soon you and your media ilk stop telling me what I should think when in fact I think about this a lot, actually know more about this than you, I do, and wish you (individually and collectively) would focus on why a Democrat needs to win, not which one you think can.
We each have an opinion as valuable as any or all of you in the media, we just don't have the megaphone of a column or being on Cable TV panels.
Stick to the reasons why, not the who.
3
Bruni evaluates the "debate" as television, which simply adds to the problem. The main player last night was the format itself, and the format made all the players seem weak. Warren was the "star" of the TV show in today's NYT because she was nervous and loud and clearly Prog-Dem. She hates corporations and loves giving away free stuff. She checks all the prog cultural boxes. You can turn on the pink lights, but you can't win a national election with this, though you can--possibly--win a primary.
The rest of the crew was distinctly unimpressive. Only Klobuchar seemed realistic, sane, and capable--even though the DNC progs have been trying to chase her out for a long time. But I'm a centrist, so Amy makes sense to me.
Tonight's show should be better--if the format doesn't defeat reasonable debate completely. Andrew Wang has by far the most interesting ideas in this large group. I'm not sure that he can squeeze them into the toothpaste tube limitations of the format, though. And I'm positive that he can't explain the rationale within the time limits.
On with the show!
2
Amen and sing it again, Frank!
2
Elizabeth Warren is the truth.
4
Senator Warren has several big problems. She has not been truthful about herself and how she gained a leg up on others by posing as Native American. Second, Warren's personality is flat. When she get excited or passionate, her voice shrieks, just like Hillary Clinton i.e. nails on a chalk board.
2
yeah, Native Americans are thriving in this country, that is why everybody is so eager to find the drop of Native American blood in their family tree. And voice? I could not stand voice of Trump, but I guess some people find it appealing. Although I would not vote for Trump even if he has the voice of an angel. guess it is matter of preferences: what is more important: voice or personality.
1
I see the NYT is up to its old tricks. Every headline about Elizabeth Warren is either negative to start (Will Warren’s Ideas Hurt the Economy?) or, as here, end up as a backhanded criticism. This reminds me of Times coverage of Hillary Clinton where every negative scrap of stolen e-mail was trumpeted and every minor misstep amplified while the far less qualified and problematic males were given a virtual free pass in the primary and the general.
If I have to read one more comment about Warren’s talking style being characterized as “strident” or “shrill”I will puke. (Is Bernie Sanders strident? Trump? Has any male anywhere ever been called shrill?) In last night’s debate men merrily interrupted, talked over each other, and jumped in whether a question was lobbed their way or not, but complaint after complaint says Warren talked too much. Even the fact that she came in third in overall timing does not placate those indignant that a woman dared to be placed at center stage and is actually polling enough to justify that placement.
I can’t tell you the number of people who have said to me, I like Warren, but she can’t win, so I’ll vote for Biden. Talk about self fulfilling prophecy! It is frustrating to see the low standard random males are held to, while women’s very competence is seen as worthy of criticism.
This is how you end up with someone as president who can’t figure out, until the last minute, that a military strike might kill people!
5
As usual, you've given some perceptive views.
Unfortunately, Warren's mantras about "giant corporations" will get us nowhere. There are of two types: private and public. The public ones are motivated to raise the value of stocks held by citizens who live next door to neighbors they couldn't care less about relative to the damage their corporate bosses can cause. NO candidate has begun to discuss THAT devil in the mechanism.
As for who is going to "fight" for us, for whatever reason, this is not a boxing match. If you want a metaphor to latch onto . . . what we need is for an experienced, well-trained pilot to seize control of the cockpit and kick out the idiot who has NO idea how to fly a plane, but wants it to land anyplace that will make him money. And not a single moderator has asked one question of any candidate that will reveal how they plan to throw Trump's insults back in his face with all the power and humor of a Don Rickles. So, since you're as smart as I know you are, Mr. Bruni, why don't YOU come up with the question to be asked of each candidate that will reveal whether or not he or she has that talent for repartee.
She is so angry! She has fire coming out of every opening on her face. It is scary to watch her!
No matter how hard NYT promotes Warren, Uncle Joe has the best chance to beat Trump. I know many middle to right people who can’t stand Trump but have said they would still vote for him over someone like Warren because she is too much a Socialist and a radical. You don’t want a situation again like 2016 where your candidate is just too hard to vote for. The result will be the same.....
2
EW did what? Aced the debate? Really? Unfortunately when she was on the campaign trail with Hillary she was a “constant screamer” (literally), and unfortunately can not get those images out of my head.
1
The smart kids in class last night were Warren, Klobuchar and surprisingly, Gabbard. Delaney had his moments.
The rest - dudes all - were a big mouth entitled annoyance, except to serve as whom to straight up eliminate. Some - Castro, Booker, DeBlasio and Ryan - were unsettling they were so loud and combative. One word, boys: Decaf.
An inescapable factor of this weaning down of the busload is whom do you want to have to *listen to* on a range of issues on the news every day for 4 or 8 years? This was one of Obama's strengths; he spoke like a normal person and did not YELL or rudely talk over others. Pay attention male candidates and watch your giant XY egos.
This pack of 24 thing is no way to run a party or a serious presidential primary. It didn't work well for the GOP clown car of 16 in 2016.
1
Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate of this group. And it will be the best thing of all to watch Donald Trump get shredded in debates by a woman, instead of watching Hillary stand there, thinking that she has it in the bag and saying nothing.
2
Winning a debate has nothing to do with who has the best shot in the general election. Yes, Warren shone, but, they gave her "center square" and highlighted her at first. Too angry, and no, not b/c she's a woman. No other candidate comes across like that, man or woman.
Some thoughts:
Klobuchar is going to throw something at whichever subordinate recommended that haircut. Too mommy.
Tulsi Gabbard should have screamed out - "Hey, Chuck, over here."
Delaney - Who's Delaney? He probably did okay for those viewers who weren't socialists.
Beto - looked like he was the winner of Jeopardy's teen tournament. Did poorly.
Castro- they probably shouldn't have put him so close to de Blasio.
Ryan - Did he kind of suggest that the nominee should be a middle class person from the mid-West and then frantically try to suggest - I don't mean white?
De Blasio - makes NYers look bad, but when you are as tall as him, you kind of dominate anyway.
Inslee - We know, climate change.
Booker's eyes are penetrating, but also a little disturbing.
Is it fair to everyone when a moderator uses Spanish?
No direct questions - Who is for open borders? Who is for ending ICE? Who's a Dem. Socialist? Is America's success due to capitalism? Does Biden's fondling rule him out? If not, do intentions matter again?
This was a climate change audience, but nothing is more boring to talk about at a debate.
Personally, none would get my vote. The D party has swung far from the center. No real moderates.
4
It's unfortunate you pay no attention to Tim Ryan from Ohio. I've paid a lot of attention to him and I like him and his thinking. He doesn't stand a chance with everybody glorifying the other candidates. He has what it takes to get this country on the right track...... It's a sorry thing, what the Democrats are doing, and equally, what the media is doing. Democracy?
1
What we need if we are going to start solving the nation's problems is someone who can beat Trump, who knows how to work congress and who is a lion and and a fox.
We need a modern Lincoln, TR or FDR.
Warren is right that most -not all - of this country’s issues and problems are caused or exacerbated by greed. We are witnessing the culmination of Reaganomics, decades of bipartisan disdain for the antitrust laws and technology evolving frightening vehicles for accelerating totalitarian instincts around the globe - in addition to concentrating huge amounts of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Warren may not be electable, although she is gaining on Sanders’ stagnant support - and after all Sanders was the second choice of many Trump voters in 2016. But she is the candidate focused on the issues that most impact most Americans and she bases her views on facts and her solutions on evidence. Does any other candidate? Haven’t we had enough of Presidential instinct and impulse?
1
Medicare doesn't get rid of private insurance. Medicare doesn't cover completely, you have to buy supplemental coverage (i.e. private insurance) to cover some of the gaps in Medicare.
2
The people's scorecard has not played out. Even tonight will not tell the tale since the campaigning season has just begun. Mr. Bruni has presented his choice, but it appears that happened before this debate.
Because my beliefs don't gel with this columnist's and with others picking different candidates, last night's flow of consciousness debate did not fully give anyone a chance to display the leadership this country wants.
I believe it was Chuck Todd, as he had done before, called MFA "government run healthcare". It is not. It is national health insurance, allowing patients their choice in selecting providers and hospitals without restrictions. It is private insurers who impose deductibles, networks, and more restrictive treatment they will pay for.
Ads are running on TV that falsely claiming hospitals will close(they will be more fiscally sound, not less), and healthcare will be limited(the opposite is true). There is no effective truth in advertising. Caveat emptor!
3
Like her or not, Warren's attention to detail shows that she knows the difference between goals and plans, which most political campaigns do not. "Goals" are where we'd like to end up. "Plans" are how we think we can get there, step by step.
The president articulates all sorts of lofty goals (wonderful health care for all at less cost than ACA, for example). His only "plans" are, "You're going to love it. You'll see."
Talk is cheap. Warren seems to understand that simply mouthing platitudes is not satisfactory.
2
When the Country forgot how to stay civil to each other with trump as the President, these ten Democrats showed the World what civility meant.
May the best one win and seems like trump is already forgotten , his name was never even mentioned.
4
Elizabeth Warren is a fine candidate, but please don't anoint her! If she is not elected because of her Medicare for All stance think about what is lost. Polls show that voters are concerned about the COST of health care coverage, whereas Democrats are obsessed with expanding coverage. This I think is political suicide. Democrats need to get focused on the issues that matter to people who are personally affected by these issues.
I don't think that Amy Klobuchar should be written off. She was the most articulate speaker last night with 20% less minutes than Beto or Julian. She wasn't strident either- just persuasive. Also she mentioned winning counties that Trump won by 20% in 2016. That is no small feat, and must be duplicated in key states in 2020.
Elizabeth Warren is no match for President Trump. Remember he won every debate that he participated in during the 2016 campaign and was matched with candidates tougher than Elizabeth Warren. He can surely beat her as he did Hillary Clinton. He just has a knack for debating and is skill is top notch. He will devour her as he has others before. He will come out the winner.
2
The writer claims his first priority is a candidate with the best chance of beating Trump. Most Americans would say, “Let’s elect the best person for the job.” Get the best president. Not the best community organizer. It’s been 20 years. Put someone in who knows what she’s doing. Someone who thinks for herself. Who doesn’t need Geitner around to explain what to do.
3
Elizabeth is starting to scare me, and I'm an admirer. Can someone remind me what Bill de Blaséo was doing at this event? He's still technically mayor of New York, right? Good night for Amy Klobuchar. Hang in there Amy.
3
Her aura of righteousness will be a real turn-off to voters...she sounds like she is lecturing down to everyone every time she speaks...given she has been in an ivory tower so many years and is a multi-millionaire herself, one could understand why.
5
I disagree, in fact I think Warren looked a little unhinged at times. I believe her stance is too far to the left on everything for all of America to get behind her or get any support from the GOP. Unless we get the House, Senate and WH she will get nothing done. I really thing Amy Klobuchar is on the right track, she seems to have a plan to move America to the left that even some GOP might support, she can beat trump!! Warren cant!! A person foaming at the moth shouting Medicare for all down with private insurance can not win 2020.
2
Women, for all of history, it's the mothers ......the grandmothers that have kept their families and their communities together. Isn't it time that we take back that power nationally and TOGETHER we create the country that is good for everyone.......not just the rich and influential, but for every mother and child.
We are better than voting for the GUY who is most electable....we get to decide who is most electable by our voice and by our vote.
This is the year of the woman. Let's take back our Power Now!
4
I know this is from the opinion page but am as usual very irritated by the "slant" of the headline and subhead. I happen to favor her, but I think it's too early to tell who will be "electable."
3
She is definitely the better bet than Joe Biden.
3
Mr. Bruni, your bias is showing. You give a twisted view of Senator Warren and her positions, dismissing them as unrealistic. You are wrong: They are indeed ready for prime time.
I am disappointed that you have chosen to play negative spinmeister.
6
Liz Warren has my vote. Make it an election where this country has to choose between good and evil.
4
She did okay, but I don't think she had any stand out moments as this wasn't the sort of format where she can be expected to excel. She's better with more pointed questions and time to expand on them and set up her answer, like a town hall. As the field pares down she's do better.
What I do know is that Beto came across like a block of wood... he's basically the human version of Autocomplete on your phone. I find him seriously unimpressive. Booker did well and showed passion, I can see his stock rising because of this debate, same with Klobushar. The rest of the field, either not ready or ill suited. One final observation: We get it Tulsi. You really don't need to mention that you served in the armed forces every single time you speak.
1
I’m surprised that Mr Bruni barely mentions Julian Castro, who just about every pundit says performed well, especially so regarding immigration.
1
Sadly, I don't agree. I thought Warren faded into the background. Booker and Castro were terrific. Beto O'Rourke...he was terrible.
3
To answer you question, Frank: YES.
2
So we ended up with the grotesque and incompetent Trump because he was effective at tapping into ignorance and resentment with a bunch of myths and nonsensical simple solutions to complex problems and so the best answer is to promote a Democrat rival who sells a bunch of myths and simple solutions to complex problems?
Democrats need a fighter. For too long we’ve been bringing knives to gun fights with the GOP. Someone needs to get in trumps face and call him out as the spoiled, entitled, hypocritical contradiction he is. Warren will do that, as will Harris. I’m not sure about the rest yet.
3
Trump claimed immigrants were criminals and he would throw 11 million out, that a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be thrown out and there would be a new and far better health system for all. So where exactly did he smooth the edges. You win by being for something. By being forceful. By being visionary. Not by saying you will ask the health care insurers to please pay for claims, or lower premiums. Fight and win!!!!
1
Warren's call to eliminate private insurance will play brutally bad in a general election. All those suburban moms who swung in the midterms will be scared to death they will be forced taking their kids to an overcrowded clinic. This is absolute poison in suburban America.
2
No Mr. Bruni. She did not. The entire field looked like a bunch of shrieking loons. I kept expecting their eyes to roll round in different directions and pea soup to come shooting out of their mouths.
Calm. Steady. Clear eyed. The antithesis of what we have now. Not more of the same.
It's not just about policy. It's about electability. It's about being presidential. It's about reaching everyone not just your barking mad personal base.
This was a really poor showing. I hope tonight is better.
What has Donald Trump done to us that we think this is grand?
2
How could you not like what she said? What exactly did you dislike?
2
This is funny coming from Bruni. Meaning it's kind of equal parts fun and equal parts the ongoing drag of many thinking women's lives to watch another white guy with a huge 'microphone' write this kind of earnest piece in regard to a women candidate without nary a mention of how he never had this kind impulse in the past, how, rather, he actually wrote columns about how rough white guys were having it with all this backlash (pre metoo!), setting aside whole columns to enumerated the exceptional contributions of this demographic, without irony or even wink to to the concept of access and privilege. The blanketing ignorance of these men. Anyway, yeah, Warren did win.
3
A.B.T.: Anyone but Trump. And Warren has improved tremendously -- less head shaking, less shrill, a wonk with plans for everything. We could do worse. We HAVE worse. In fact, we have the worst.
3
Basically, we need to pick a decent candidate who can beat Donald Trump.
2
Frank, Tulsi Gabbard's calling for bringing the troops home is "trumpeting her isolationism"? How absurd. Unless you're okay with having military bases everywhere and you love endless war and the lives and money it wastes.
4
Good Grief—16 more months of this? Did MSNBC get “bombshell” ratings for Wednesday nite’s performance? I am a news junkie but I switched off after 15 minutes and switched back on for the last 15 minutes. Somehow I feel I missed only tedium.
1
Also may I say kudos to all the candidates on stage not to mention the name of the liar in chief as if the man does not exist.
That is the biggest insult for the accidental president who might have to be dragged out of his office by someone worthy of Presidency.
3
Wow, we barely got beyond the headline before the "but".
"But" is easy, its obvious, its expected. Isn't it what we do? She aced it, but.
To the independents, moderates and swing voters out there here is the TL:DR, she is a capitalist who has meaningful plans to get everyone in the game. You could investigate that, or you could stop below the headline and go with "but".
She is brave, qualified, and capable, full stop. No buts.
2
Why does everybody presume there must be something wrong with women candidates? Something less than...?
Warren is competent and creative and she understands details not many pols can fathom.
She's not my first choice, but I can get behind her if she's the nominee.
2
What Frank Bruni totally misses is the fact that unlike Bernie, who wants some sort of revolution and is more of a moralizer than an actual policy provider, Warren is about doing things in the most practical manner. Unlike Bernie, she understands that the goal is not to take an axe to capitalism but to reform it by making it compatible with democracy. There is nothing divisive about that. She is indeed following the same economic policies as FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. Indeed, I believe she is our FDR and that is why i will vote forher.
3
Warren gained many fans a few years back when holding town hall meetings to explain Obamacare to Republicans and Democrats alike. If she can use those skills again--explaining without getting in the weeds to do so--she has a real chance.
Trump won over swing voters boasting brash promises with little substance or well-thought out plans to execute them. Those problems still exist for those voters and new ones have emerged.
Time, again, like with Obama, to vote for the smartest person in the room who doesn't look like the 44 other white males who have held this office. And Warren, unlike Trump, sounds like she honestly cares about voters as people, not potential customers.
2
Unfortunately, elections in this country, and perhaps elsewhere, too, have become little more than popularity contests and I don't think the brainy nerd-lady is going to win one of those, no matter how qualified.
2
Liz and Pete, in that order. Two geniuses, against one moron.
Seriously.
2
One problem not mentioned last night was the polls themselves, which can sway, influence, even change elections. Unfortunately many people take them as final approvals/disapprovals, and then vote accordingly. The first sentence mentions her in terms of polls. The media talks about them incessantly instead of the core problems available to discuss. I would like to see numbers on amounts of money spent by lobbyists, since they are as much a problem to the elections as the polls.
Why do Elizabeth Warren's "sharp edges" matter if Trump's "bull-in-a-China shop" swagger do not? Warren is compassionate and smart. Trump is cruel, indifferent and marginally competent. Warren is an achiever. Trump is a trust-fund baby.
6
Liz did quite well whereas most of the others seemed to be auditioning for the VP slot. Too bad Julian Castro isn't a woman- he checks off so many other boxes as a potential running-mate for Joe Biden.
3
Warren wasn't dividing us into villains and victims. She WAS telling the truth. What she said about insurance companies is true. Her support for single payer is admirable. True, her ideas won't all fully happen if she's President, even with a democratic sweep. But one can't compromise by starting with the opposite position. With her, compromise will be better than starting with compromise and compromising on that--up to now the Democratic Party's mode.
You say nothing is more important than defeating Trump. Actually, that's not true. Trump is the emblem of the Republican Party since Reagan; Trump's rudeness just brings their ruthlessness to the fore. Here's what they do: make lying and deceiving as common as breathing, getting the public used to it, so they will accept it; fool working people into blaming each other, across racial divides; destroy workers' bargaining power; rig elections--through gerrymandering and voter identification laws, if not foreign interference; pretend help the poor and middle class while throwing money at the wealthy; get people to work harder for less by threatening their lives via denial of health care and housing; promote fossil fuels at the expense of future generations; blame government, the only defense of those without massive inheritance or unbelievable luck, destroying government from within.
They are all Trump; the difference is that they can be polite about it. Nothing is more important than defeating today's Republicanism.
6
The problem the Dems have, is that an ardent anti- Trumper like me (did not vote for him in 2016).. will vote for him in 2020.
The economy is much better, and the Democrats destroyed the health care system. As a senior citizen and having to deal with Medicare.. I most certainly will vote against 'Medicare for all'. Or funding health care for immigrants, when I can't even get 1 blood test per year. Most of the 'good' doctors.. won't even take Medicare patients.
3
@Chris Lewis
This is incredibly shortsighted. Democrats didn't destroy health care. Republicans poisoned the well. The party you intend to vote does not have your best interests at heart--AT ALL. The Democratic party from 1980-2016 didn't either; but now they're finally righting the ship. They're finally shifting left, where they belong.
1
I am on Medicare and it is every bit as good as the gold plated health insurance that I enjoyed while working for a major corporation.
I first got cancer at age 58. Ten years later my cancer is back along with a constellation of associated blood and neurological ailments.
I pay $3,000 per year for supplemental coverage and that's it - no deductibles, co-pays, or other charges. I continue to receive 1st rate care from multiple specialists at some of the top medical institutions in the US - UCSF, Stanford, and Mayo Clinic.
All tests, scans, and procedures - including regular, extensive blood tests are covered in full. I have not been refused treatment anywhere.
I am sorry to hear that you're having difficulty obtaining even 1 blood test per year. This is unique in the experience of everyone I know who is on Medicare. You need to figure this out.
No one, neither you nor I, no mother or child, nor any person, be they young or old, rich or poor, should ever suffer for lack of comprehensive, compassionate, and timely health care. This should never happen.
And yet it does. And yet it does.
You may vote for Trump but do not hide behind this misbegotten notion that in doing so you are furthering the cause of compassionate health care. Your vote will work to destroy it.
1
It's like the meme: I'd vote for a woman for President, just not that woman.
Time to stop hamstringing candidates because they don't act as you think women should.
3
Elizabeth Warren is a fantastic debater. She is an experienced lecturer as well. But which candidate will most appeal to the moderate, non-college educated independents from PA, OH, WI, and MI? The anti-Trump Democratic candidate must be an authentic populist, non-elitist and comfortable at a non-denominational Christian church service or small town Friday fish fry. I just don't see Senator Warren, despite growing up in Oklahoma and Texas, filling that role.
1
“Even if a blue wave led not just to a Democratic president but also to Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, many Democrats in the House and Senate would be representing purple or even reddish states and districts that would most likely punish them if they drifted significantly to the left. So they won’t.”
The representatives of those same purple districts had no trouble endorsing draconian attempts to gut healthcare in 2017. They were fine when Trump, Pruitt, Wheeler, and Zinke sold the American resources to big oil and rolled back environmental regulations that protect our health. They are complicit in rollbacks of financial regulations that protect Americans. They don’t raise objections when horrific abuses occur in our name at the southern border. They gleefully supported a tax cut that gave bundles of money to the ultra rich and peanuts to the rest of us.
If those purple districts don’t punish representatives when they work against their interests, why should Democratic representatives worry that they will be punished for working in their interest? Why must Democrat’s always worry about the wrath of voters, but radical Republicans are immune to the same accountability?
3
I would love to eliminate private health insurance but Labor Unions who primarily vote Democrat will not allow it! So our own party [NOT THE GOP] is standing in the way of true healthcare reform.
1
I hate to say this but I know a number of voters, including female voters, who will not support a woman. This is absurd but a fact in some parts of the country. My college educated sister who is a teacher is among them. I don't know why...but perhaps it's envy of accomplished women.
2
@WInegirl2019. you certainly got the reason why. Women are so jealous of other women. That's a problem I don't hear many feminists talk about.
Democrats need to stay center and left to beat the GOP. I think Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris can do this and bring the democratic voters together and to the polls. For the party policies, The Green New Deal and Nancy Pelosi type traditional liberalism is probably the best way forward.
really!? so we're going down the, ' oh geez, I just want THE BEST candidate and I'm not sure about her.. ' route again this season?
the media elected Trump by being too lazy to do their jobs. Everyone wants to be a star!
just the facts man, just the facts.
2
Warre went out of her way to be sure everybody knew she has no clue about how the economy works. But that doesn’t stop her from demanding total unquestioned control over every facet of the economy
3
Bruni writes:
"But is there ample hope for healing in her message? Is it too potentially divisive, too morally stark? And is the best adversary for Trump a livid warrior or a happy one?"
As any student of WWII can tell you, Mr. Bruni: The best time to find "healing" with Fascists is after you've defeated them. Unconditionally.
Whoever the Democrats nominate, he or she is not in a "debate" with Republicans. The Democratic nominee will be fighting against the existential enemies of our Constitutional democracy.
So, thanks, Frank. But I'm going with the 21st Century's Dwight David Eisenhower: Elizabeth Warren.
The "healing" can come after our domestic Nuremberg Trials.
5
Warren is excellent, but is a long shot against Trump Due to the number of voters biased against a woman president, even disillusioned Trump supporters wouldn't vote for a woman. This bias even carries over to some Democrats. Wall Street banksters hate her too, she knows too much about their scams.
There's just too much to lose with four more years of Trump, president of the oligarchy.
Bruni, Warren aced it? Her answer about guns was evasive. Doing research? What kind of an answer is that?
And to quote a prominent NY tabloid this morning:
At one point, the mostly silent Warren declared that we “must make this Congress reflect the will of the people” — as though Congress can’t possibly have been doing so because the policies it enacted or refused to enact did not comport with her views.
1
Unquestionably, Senator Warren was coherent and clear in her position. As for her proposals being more “utopian” than practical, consider this: While at a Home Depot store, chitchatting with a sales person, she shared that having completed a 9 hr. shift, she was now on her second job for a 5 hr. shift. Simple math tells us she’s working 14 hr. days, 70 hr. work weeks, and barely making it. Not sure you can appeal to this significant segment of the American working electorate with cute “centrist” policies, would you? The story is the same across the country. That being the case, the country needs a significant overhaul.
Capitalism with rules, is how Sen. Warren labels her platform. Who can argue with that? Corporations have been forced by “shareholder activists” to consider higher and higher quarterly returns as it’s bottom line, first and last. We have to outlaw “shareholder activists”, aka, blackmailers, since they only serve themselves, not the economy. Other equally egregious acts of thievery must be eliminated as well.
1
Unless one of the candidates tonight totally blows me away, Warren has my vote and financial support.
I think her winning hinges on two things.
1. Secure voting machines/elections.
2. Americans actually turning out to participate in their “democracy” and cast a vote.
Without a doubt she would win if these two critical pieces of a healthy political system could be replied upon.
But....In Florida the FBI classified the names of the two counties Russians hacked into and in the 2018 midterms we saw a record high of a whopping 47% of eligible voters cast a vote. Not looking good.
Cynicism aside, she’s got my vote!
1
Elizabeth Warren comes across as an angry ineffectual whiner. I think Donny Deutsch is absolutely correct. If she is the nominee, Trump will win 48 states and it will be the end of America as we know it.
1
It was Tulsi Gabbard's debate.
Gabbard was smart, tough and strong. She repeatedly contradicted Rep. Ryan's laughably incorrect remarks about 9/11 and the Taliban attacking the U.S. on 9/11. But we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, as Rep. Gabbard knows from first hand experience.
Gabbard's strong condemnation of "chickenhawks" John Bolton and George Pompeo, who are trying to push Trump into a 'regime change' war in Iran, is exactly what I want to hear from a president. Gabbard is trying to protect our standing in the world by speaking out against unnecessary 'pre-emptive war' and prevent the future deaths of thousands of our troops.
Gabbard easily had the biggest presidential moments in that debate.
2
Senator Warren has ideas about what is to be done, beyond getting Trump out of the White House. She has a big picture. How many others do? I cannot imagine her tolerating obnoxious behavior from Trump in a debate, like crossing the glower behind her as she speaks, as he did to Clinton. I think she is the one to take him on.
1
In the first hour, did NBC realize there were other candidates on the podium? Must camera time be so Darwinian?
3
Please, please stop questioning women at every turn, at every time that they succeed. You're deepening the problem of skepticism people already bring to all female candidates who dare to take a position or fight for anything at all.
2
Coded into this whole column is the sentiment that women are not "presidential." Maybe Frank Bruni doesn't find them so, but lots of other people do. So, I guess we'll see.
4
With friends like Frank Bruni, Warren won't need enemies. He thinks her plans are "utopian fantasies, [rather] than realistic possibilities."
Warren's ideas are not fantasies. Her plans are quite easily realized if we just get our priorities right and get out from under corporate influence and the corruption of the GOP in Congress.
Instead of putting all our treasure on defense, tax breaks for corporations and the rich, and fantasy space programs, in trade for a dismemberment of the middle class and complete wreckage of the poor, she has plans to put things right and make our lives better.
Bruni says people in purple or even reddish states would punish their representatives if they drift to the left. Why? When lefty policies invariably help those people, why would they vote against self interest if it weren't for GOP fear tactics, nightmare scenarios by corporate interests and outright lies and propaganda.
Bruni says Warren has sharp edges. Maybe she's shrill? Strident? She should be pink and soft? What's wrong with fighting for what you believe in?
Warren is a breath of positive, fresh air. So, therefore, she and we are doomed. She can never be elected when the opposition is a bloated loony, a negative, destructive know-nothing. With nothing sharp about him.
2
Trump himself is not the one to beat. You could totally win every single debate with him. You could expose him for what he is, and we all know what that is by now. None of it will matter because it isn't Trump, or even Trump's vaunted base, that you need to convince, it's everyone else.
Forget Trump. Let him do his thing and stop giving him air. Focus on winning the election. Do the hard and unglamorous work that never sees the light of day until the results are in. Eschew mudslinging that feels so good and does so little. Answer questions honestly in a forthright manner instead of plunking in favorite talking points. Ignore the elephant in the room. Pay attention to the people who helped put him there and are ready to change their minds, and remember what made them choose such a person in the first place. You aren't going to win the next election by attacking that person.
3
I had trouble with Elizabeth Warren's high pitched voice. She simply did not project as well as the other candidates. At this point, she is my choice for President with Buttagieg as vice-president.
Biden and Sanders are too old. I am also old and I have dealt with too many aging men who did not realize their mental facilities were also aging.
1
Here's the thing Frank, I have no interest in men explaining to me why women leading in the polls might not be the party's best bet. Elizabeth Warren is not singing Bernie's song, and that fact that you found it appropriate to describe her that way is a perfect example of white male privilege. She is singing her own song, loud and clearly, the result of a lifetime of learning and work. She may or may not win, and I may or may not vote for her, but don't reduce her to a parrot.
1
Warren could be Trump’s worst nightmare. Tall,strong outspoken and fearless. This elegant thoughtful and bold woman is definitely not Trump’s type.Hopefully he will find that out politically.
3
If she is the frontrunner that will only guarantee a Trump win.
1
Cory Booker is the one candidate I would never vote for.
In 2009 he supported Bloomberg for reelection as mayor of NYC even though he was running against a well qualified African American candidate who not only had the Democratic nomination but also that of the progressive Working Families Party. Booker did this for selfish motives as he wanted Bloomberg's financial support in future elections or at least Bloomberg not donating to one of his opponents.
I am a white, upper middle class, straight male, who is going to be dead before climate change is really going to change our lives so many of the issues have little personal relevance to me. Many of my friends think that my being a Sanders supporter is idiotic as it is against my personal self interests but I do so because I believe in doing right even if it doesn't help me. Booker sees a different world where the first and foremost thing is what's best for Cory.
NBC gave Elizabeth Warren a preferential treatment.
2
Mr. Bruni, you are my favorite Times columnist. But after that debate, Senator Warren is my favorite presidential candidate.
3
Indeed. The list of goodies being made available to all Americans—and unlimited immigration (maybe even a free zone from US to Central America)—will break the bank. While ideas of build on “what’s working” or unleash market forces to lower health costs—may not make the stage right now, they’re likely the only route to the White House.
2
Well Frank,
Moderates & centrists have brought US to this point !
American Democracy is Weaker Now than Ever Before and chuck & nancy are continually Enabling republicKlans and 45 !
Only a Hard Left Turn will bring Justice to the Working Class !
Warren is Bright and Shiny and she is a much Cleaner candidate than a Clinton could Ever be !
2
Mr. Bruno, is Elizabeth Warren The Times’s take-down candidate for 2020? Last election, the paper skewered Bernie Sanders, the only viable choice against Trump. And the only mainstage candidate willing to take on our nation’s foundational crisis: vast inequality, aided by the extreme shift of both parties to maintain corporate hegemony. Please, do not veil your propaganda for the status quo under the guise of analysis: “utopian fantasies”? “the end to private insurance”? Neither labels are accurate. They distort an urgently needed discussion and smear a candidate who is addressing the desperation of millions of people being ignored and marginalized in the richest nation in the world.
1
The NY Times, 1996/01/24
STATE OF THE UNION: THE OVERVIEW;CLINTON OFFERS CHALLENGE TO NATION, DECLARING, 'ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER'
1996/01/24
With Warren it will be back in force.
To win while moving left of center, the Democrats need an likable candidate, someone like Bill Clinton, who was a master of disguising how exceptionally smart he was - unlike Ms Warren
A classic, "she's great, but is she great enough," analysis. The same worry (can he or she beat Trump) could be applied to any of the twenty candidates and yet it is always the woman who has to jump through the good enough hoop. We are watching our democracy being trampled daily and you take issue with her happiness level? How much worse do things need to get in our country before someone who calls out the moral depravity of the current administration becomes palatable to you?
1
Tulsi Gabbard was the most impressive. Elizabeth Warren as always the said the easy obvious. She's the media's darling. That should be a big disqualification. A red flag. Besides, like IT robot she uttered the same. The same old, automated, memorized stuff; sticking to her old and fraying polemics. We've heard it all. It's a bore who tells all. Clearly, Ms. Gabbard seems to the best bet for the Democrats. I liked Cory Booker's grimacing. He could make a good comic.
Warren has no chance of winning. She is too intellectual and school-marmish. It is off-putting. Many seniors with retirement accounts are afraid she will tank the markets and decimate their hard-earned savings. You have to be a happy, upbeat candidate. Someone who believes that America is special and good. She only appeals to New York elites and academics. Hillary was more likeable.
1
@Asher I think it has far less to do with style and much more to do with creating financial instability and unforeseen market disturbances which would, as you say, threaten the savings of older folks especially.
"Like him, she has sharp edges that she doesn’t worry about smoothing." All I can say is, Good for her. Win the election, then worry about healing. until this cancer of a presidency is surgically removed, the patient, our country, will remain gravely ill.
2
It's early of course, but every passing day adds to my conviction that Elizabeth Warren is the person who can defeat Trump, help the nation find its moral compass again and lead the march to a country that all of its citizens can be proud of.
Having said that, it's unfortunate that you branded Representative Tulsi Gabbard as an isolationist for observing that our time of useful engagement in Afghanistan may have run out. I would have highlighted the fact that she was the only candidate who focused at all on the threat of nuclear war. The atomic scientist's so called "Doomsday Clock" is set at two minutes to midnight! It does seem like a situation worth mentioning. Apart from the days of the Cuban missile crisis, Representative Gabbard's statement that we've never been closer to a nuclear war has a lot of evidence behind it. We have fewer nuclear weapons now, but they are vastly more powerful, and we now have the knowledge that the detonation of even a small fraction of the world's nuclear arsenal would render our planet uninhabitable. This is the one event that could make global warming irrelevant, at least to homo sapiens, We will of course all be safer with Mr. Trump out of the White House, but the risk of a large scale nuclear exchange remain and I'm thankful that someone is highlighting this inconvenient fact.
1
To answer the question of the sub headline, yes she is. Not only is she incredibly clear on her positions, but she will match up against Trump very well. Ask a question, she answers it immediately. Then she backs up her logic for the answer with rational explanations. She will destroy Trump on policy questions, and will lead the party forward to a new place and away from the old, tired, Clinton/Biden corporate-focused party that has become the dems.
6
I agree with the assessment that the debate was essentially worthless as a tool for deciding which candidate to support. In fact I quit watching it early on.
That said, I think we have to remember two things as we prepare to vote in the upcoming primaries.
First, who can beat Trump. This is paramount because he must go.
But while that issues is primary, we have to also remember to consider which candidate can actually govern effectively. I can’t imagine Sanders, for example, as a chief executive who could organize a West Wing to accomplish the objectives he so earnestly espouses. Moreover, he isn’t even a Democrat, and his capacity for organizing a staff to work the halls of Congress and whip up support for policy proposals seem to me to be minimal or non-existent.
There is no room here to do an analysis of each candidate, so I’m only using Sanders as an example of how we need to evaluate these contenders. Electability is important, of course: you can’t govern if you can’t win. But the ability to govern, or not, has been dragged into the sunlight during the Trump Presidency and our job as voters is to consider it.
What little I saw of the “debate” did not answer my concerns about governance. What I heard was mostly sound bites. My first impression is that Warren and Biden have the best credentials for governance, but the rest of the campaign needs to bring more clarity on that issue for the rest of the candidates.
2
She aced it because she was asked the most questions and others were literally ignored. Her policies leave alot to be desired.
2
I don't understand why Warren, and other supporters for Medicare for All, fail to point out that everyone will end up paying less for their health insurance. The US pays twice as much for health insurance as Germany, so even those who have good private health insurance will end up paying substantially less. Medicare for All is not just about providing health insurance for all, it's also about bringing down the cost of health insurance for all.
5
And the cost of health care. The free market is not working in health care. Just as it doesn’t work for the cost of water
4
In this Age of Trump having sharp edges and going silent because she wasn't called on by a spotty group of moderators seems patronizing and weird. The only way Ms. Warren won't be elected is if Trump's Russian allies hack every voting booth Mitch McConnell chooses not to protect.
2
Elizabeth Warren's very organized explanations of how things work and could work may overcome any objections or obstacles people have about her "electability."
4
I've read a number of opinion pieces of last night's debate. And I've come to the conclusion that each opinion piece has a favorite candidate for whom they place their finger on the scale to push forward. It's like handicapping a horse race where each handicapper touts his or her selection. None of the journalists or handicappers know the true outcome of the event, but wax glowingly of their selection trying to influence others' choices. That's ok for a horse race; not so much where democracy is in the balance. Perhaps reporting the facts is the best course for this country and to dispense with the touting. People can make their own judgments.
1
I hate making decisions on what I think will sell.
I can only work for what I truly believe in.
And that is that all of us suffer from a government dominated by corporations and wealthy people (but I repeat myself). And yes, there is not one aspect of our lives that has not been exploited for someone's profit.
With that in mind, Warren is the only person in politics who sees this problem clearly and has a realistic plan (or two) to give us citizens some relief.
Watching her town halls, watching her surge in the polls, I do believe she is being heard by middle America. If this is left leaning, it just demonstrates how we've come to accept the power of corporations as normal. I am of Warren's generation. I too remember a time when government worked for us more than for business. What seems left now was only mainstream America just a generation ago.
5
Every Democrat now is voicing what Bernie Sanders cried loudly about in 2016 and claiming this as their own defining moment. One single issue will not change the corruption of corporate welfare to many Congressional so called representatives of the people and they will just change colors for the moment to keep their stronghold over Congress. The Recent Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering just proved that, even they are in the hands of corrupt money and power.
All these issue are Social issues from economic servitutude to slavery in the form of corporate prisons and laws that send low income persons who can't fight the system to continue filling up beds that the federal government pays for through grants and appropriations.
Elizabeth Warren supported Hillary Clinton last time when Bernie was advocating what she is now advocating loudly, but he wasn't good enough.
All these Senators should be back in Washington pounding on the doors of Mitch McConnell and making their voices known and being the watchdogs we elected them for now and protecting their own seats in Congress because some of them now will be lost.
We need a progressive movement, the People want their government back and no poll will ever voice that in their tally and the best leader is the one who voices that this is about "we" the People" have to make things right in Congress first by pushing back on corruption and undemocratic ideas and regulations.
I do like her, based on the pittance of information I have read. That noted, I don't think she has a chance at winning a presidential election here in 2020. I can't name a successor to Trump; even knowing the average eprson on the street would be better than him. This is a dire situation; however, it will improve as months go by, and we get past the primaries and closer to the election.
1
Elizabeth Warren has the clearest, most thought through
message, including causes and solutions to many problems. Like her or not, without addressing the most basic problems such as huge amounts of money in politics [buying power to advance one's own.. or corporate interest] this country's wealth disparity
is eating at the roots of what was originally conceived as a democracy. I hope people wil come to realize that she has done more than her homework...she wants government for the people.
6
The big winner of last night's debate is Donald Trump. The pandering, showboating, leftward swing on immigration and health care is a disaster for Democrats. Hopefully tonight's debate will save them.
2
Remember that in the last congressional elections of the 40 seats that were flipped only two were progressives the rest were moderates. Let's make sure Trump is not reelected!!
Warren didn't get asked about immigration after she braved the trip to the border minutes before, witnessing for herself, placing the welfare of the children above winning the debate. That is Presidential.
All and all, it was one of the best debates I have seen. A few of the pundits on MSNBC were a little too opinionated.
The moderators were perfect.
Good going Dems'.
Going to the White House!
This piece described Elizabeth Warren in the debates as evidencing clarity, crispness, and having a map. Is it possible we are actually seeing someone who could be a leader?
CS Lewis said to get where you want to go, you need a vehicle, a map, and a destination. It’s been pointed out that if you don’t have a destination, any map will get you there. Trump’s destination seems to be his ratings, not our country’s welfare. We are in serious need of an alternative.
6
Electability is in the eye of the beholder. After 2016, I do not accept the judgement of the media in this regard to steer the discussion away from issues that matter. Where in this column is discussion of the existential issue of climate change or of health care, pollution or gerrymandering and electronic election fraud and interference? Lets get real.
1
There was a lot I couldn't watch and why Warren did not speak during the second half puzzles me. I did enjoy the question on "would you five up your insurance for Medicare -- when as I remember it only one or two people besides Warren raised their hands.) I liked the guy from Ohio. I did not like Warren's closing statement at all. It's not about her bio-- which could have been shortened into two quick sentences or fighting for her family -- huh? - she was the striver -- it's about fighting for the people of the United States to provide not only the four freedoms defined by Roosevelt and the opportunity for the pursuit preferably of happiness and for peace and prosperity and global cooling throughout the planet. BTW did anyone mention the need for population control?? (thought not!)
Warren struck me mostly as well old-- we oldsters often become self-referential I liked her answers to the questions very much but IMO a very weak closing. Who is advising her?? (One of Hillary's minions? similar mistakes. We know you made it-- so what's next?)
1
There wasn't one candidate on that stage last night, including Warren, who could withstand a debate against Trump. Their positions are so far to the left the country will vote for Trump by default, just like it did last time with Hillary. At times that debate stage appeared to be filled with children announcing their "wish lists." But instead of lollipops and cotton candy (no and no, they're bad for your teeth, etc) we get free health care for all (no, nearly 200 million people with private health care will revolt). So it was a night of pipe dreams, and a reminder why the Dems are so out of tune with the rest of the country.
5
@Mattbk
What a joke. Warren will shred Trump in a debate. She has already been the brunt of many, many Trump attacks, and hasn't missed a beat. She is smart, prepared, and fearless. And needless to say, the poetic justice of a woman dethroning Trump is irresistable.
1
@Mattbk
Two trillion dollars in tax cuts to the .01% can buy a lot of lollipops and cotton candy - or even healthcare.
1
Warren is not destroying the insurance industry. They will need to adjust, and they will. They have billions of profit with which to innovate and change in ways that will make them stronger than ever. The Rich, the Corporations, and those who make at least part of their fortunes by investments - in addition to high incomes - will be fine, thank you. Let's worry about the little guy, for a change. That is what Warren is "fighting" for and she is right. Trump has provide a huge cushion for the rich and powerful. They can use it for "good" as well as profit and quit trying to make money off the pain and suffering of those who are unlucky enough to have to TRY t use the insurance they have paid for. Worry about them. Worry about us. That is what the Medicare for All folks are saying. I think they are right.
6
The picture at the top of this column framed something for me. It showed Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker entering the debate stage.
Warren & Booker 2020. Looks like a winning ticket to me.
3
I like Elizabeth Warren. I think most intelligent people like Elizabeth Warren.The problem is the American voting public is not entirely made up of intelligent people. Those people out there in Trumpland are terrified and non critical thinking. They react emotionally not rationally. Their emotional reaction is based most of the time on a lack of information compounded by an elementary understanding of the little bit of information they think they have.
So does this translate into votes for a petite female Harvard professor? I think only if the country is in desperate economic straits. At least on the surface, this is not the case right now. I wonder how much chance she would have winning a general election.
9
The moderators of the first hour of the debate treated Elizabeth Warren as if she were the only candidate on the stage. Repeatedly, questions were directed to her. The moderators' bias was equally apparent when they asked other nominees to comment on Warren's proposals/comments/viewpoints, rather than give them an opportunity to present their own ideas. The moderators clearly had chosen their Democratic nominee, and were determined to force their choice down the throats of the Democratic primary voters, just as their fellow journalists in both print and broadcast media do daily. The imbalance was clear when the candidates' times were tallied at the end of the first hour.
It is not the role of journalists to shape a party's ticket to suit their preferences. The 2016 election was the exception. One candidate posed a threat both clear and existential (cheapened by misuse/overuse, much like awesome). All the brilliant investigative journalism has been post hoc.
The moderators of the second hour did not repeat the biased questioning of the first hour. When the candidates' times were tallied for the second hour, they reflected the freedom with which some candidates interrupted and took over the narrative. The fact that it was allowed to go on for extended periods was the fault of the narrators, but it was an understandable reaction to the first hour when some candidates had barely a minute to speak, the moderators' having so drastically skewed the hour in Ms. Warren's favor.
5
Who is more dangerous to American democracy and even moderate legislative action to reduce income gap, deal with climate change, enforce voting rights, and make of the judiciary, Trump or McConnell? I believe McConnell is as dangerous as Trump and Democratic Party doses not centrist such Biden, Klobuchar, or Delaney to face Trump. Despite all issues that been outlined about electability of Warren she is best hope for defeating Trump and fighting McConnell.
I viewed the Democrat "debate" last night with nothing other than the exposure of the revelation that the party could be in serious trouble next year if they don't get their act together on common forward principles. Speaking Spanish or offering "wonderful" plans that don't have a chance to be funded will not motivate voters, in my opinion.
The bottom line problem with all the Democrat promises is the important issue that nothing can be accomplished if Mitch McConnell and his anti-legislative gang remain in control of the Senate. A question was asked on how to deal with McConnell if the Democrats do not win the Senate, and no one on the stage suggested that the best way to handle him is to work on defeating him for re-election next year.
Trillions of dollars do not grow on trees in America to fund student loan forgiveness, dealing with immigration and border security, Medicare for All, or some other bold expensive program, cannot be sustainable if they don't have the path to funding without much higher taxation for all citizens. Such a prospect doesn't motivate voters to change leadership.
Tonight we have a wave of progressives and wannabes. The number of Democrat candidates is absurd given the fact that over two-thirds of the candidates don't have a prayers chance of winning. It's time for the words, words but no viable plans minor candidates to vacate the race rather than allow more confusion to distract voters necessary for Democrats to win in 2020.
4
The question right now for 2020 is which is the best woman for the job. Warren certainly appears to be the best prepared but she could scare the pants off the farmers and other workers across middle America. She's bold but is she bold in the right way?
Kamala Harris has extensive experience at the state level and is a US senator. We need to see if she can take the heat, take a beating and keep on ticking.
Having worked on Capitol Hill as a reporter, Amy Klobuchar's widely reported mistreatment of her staff appears to be a disqualification. There are legendary stories of senators who yelled and otherwise treated their staffs like cur dogs but very few of them tried for the presidency and none, to my knowledge, made it. (Lyndon Johnson, hard on everyone around him, might be the exception.)
Tulsi Gabbard appeared to be auditioning for some future role on the national stage.
This leaves us with Warren and Harris. Could we have an all female ticket for the Democrats in 2020? Why not?
California, meet Harvard by way of Oklahoma.
1
@Doug Terry
I don't trust prosecutors in general to serve ably as politicians but maybe that's just my prejudice as a New Yorker. Cuomo, Giuliani, and Christie all demonstrated that once in office, the prosecutorial zeal that once served them so well curdled into a toxic mix of vindictiveness, spite, and paranoia.
Warren got a pass and more time from the moderators. I did not get an impression that Warren will create a business friendly environment. She is more likely to drive businesses and jobs away. Maybe also she will expand government and employ more attorneys at tax payers cost. She will make more laws that may or may not be enforceable. Congress passes laws by the president has to enforce them and if the some government agencies pass laws enforced by congress then they get blamed for enforcing the laws. Currently Washington does not make sense in the ways some senators and Congresspersons think and talk.
3
@Girish Kotwal Just to clarify, both Booker and O'Rourke had more air time than Warren. While she certainly had her fair share, I think it was warranted considering she is the most standout candidate in the polls among all of the candidates on the stage, by a long shot. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/us/elections/debate-speaking-time.html
1
Iiz Warren seems to be the most prepared and tested for the deathmatch with Trump. I'm also very impressed with Booker. I'm suffering Beto fatigue now and think he needs to wait a while.
Joe Biden reminds me of Bob Dole - great guy but no thanks.
8
Neither Elizabeth, nor any of the other candidates, nor the moderators mentioned the word "cybersecurity" one time. Is this a critical national security issue or not? Any candidate running for national political office should be able to clearly articulate the cybersecurity threat and their policy statements associated with the subject matter.
7
I don't want yet another Democratic president who will accommodate and defer to an extremist Republican party in the name of "unity" and "bipartisanship." This strategy has been tried time and again by the Democrats and has only served to shore up the far right at the expense of the common good. This time around, I want a fighter and reformer, someone armed with a battery of bold policies to take on climate change, health care, inequality, money in politics, endless wars, etc. In view of the problems facing the country, isn't it time we tried something different?
8
Promises are meaningless without the political skill to translate them into actual programs. Obama was a brilliant candidate, but he did not have the political acumen and experience to deal with the realities of Washington. Biden's vision may be less aspirational than that of Warren and others, but he has the political understanding and experience to actually get some things done. At the moment, repairing the damage is a necessary prelude to developing the ability to enact the vision.
"Elizabeth Warren was unswervingly true to Elizabeth Warren, which is precisely why she has caught fire and why she’ll continue to burn relatively bright. Her passion and confidence should petrify Bernie Sanders...."
You could replace "Warren" with "Trump" and "Sanders" with "Clinton" and say the same thing about the 2016 debates. And what did that result in for America?
3
Healing is a big deal? Getting the country right is a big deal. How do you heal the rich? Give them more money and a bigger deficit?
2
The us vs them approach of some of the Democrats mirrors Trump just a different set of groups. Who is going to benefit all Americans including those doing less well is the key question. Not, who is going to punish those who are doing well. What will quickly happen is that many in the middle will side with the rich and in order to get enough money for the grand plans many who are not in the .01% will be asked to pay.
3
"Even if a blue wave led not just to a Democratic president but also to Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, many Democrats in the House and Senate would be representing purple or even reddish states and districts that would most likely punish them if they drifted significantly to the left. So they won’t. And that’s an enormous obstacle to Warren’s agenda."
Sounds like it came right from Trump.
If your logic, Mr. Bruni, had applied to FDR's ideas during his campaign for the presidency in 1932, the United States never would've seen the New Deal go into law in 1933. Jackson Pollock is still rocking in 2019 because he was immensely helped by the WPA program during the New Deal---it sustained him and many other artists, including a few in New York City. Do you really think that Pollock would've struck gold in the 1940s if he had not been able to survive in the 1930s? Pollock thrived in the 1940s in Concrete National Park because he first survived the 1930s, thanks to the New Deal. Yes, it was FDR's ideas that made that happen.
Senator Warren's common-sense, brilliant ideas to make real change happen in America are catching fire because she understands that real change is not only possible but necessary. She is fearless, savvy, whip-smart and tough as nails. Plenty of folks told FDR he couldn't make his ideas real on the street, also. How'd that work out?
10
I have some concerns about Warren’s electability. Warren had one of the weakest senate election results for a Democrat in 2018, relative to partisan lean. Warren’s margin was even smaller than Hillary Clinton’s margin in Massachusetts in 2016, a much worse year overall for the Democrats. If Warren did worse than Clinton in one state, it’s quite possible she’d do worse in all the others too.
4
Sen. Warren has some great ideas, some not-so-great ideas, ideas that may be great but will never fly, and some ideas that could, through debate and compromise, be refined into great ideas. The question is why she thinks that she could better advance her ideas from the White House than from a Democratic-controlled Senate. The President does not get into the thick of debates, committee hearings or drafting legislation.
I actively supported Sen. Warren's first campaign, and would have done so for her second if she had any real opposition. I think she's doing a great job where she is.
And by the way... we have a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Should she resign, I doubt that he'd appoint a Democrat in her place. This could tip the balance of the Senate.
2
Purple and red states will only be an “obstacle” for a while. In a very short time, the problems of climate change, environmental desecration and increasing income inequality will plague even the reddest voter. As the Republican Party has no solutions, all states will begin to tilt left.
3
@Lisa Calef. When the world ends in 2016, and the science is settled that it will, those red staters will wish they destroyed the economy to save the planet!
@Lisa Calef Well said Lisa!
I support Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020 and just bought a sign for my yard and buttons for my shirt.
If she wins the nomination I can't wait to see her in a debate with Trump! I bet she will have him flustered like he never has been before.
6
@Richard Phelps and the reasons I support her are the emphasis she puts on topics I also consider very important:
- taxing the very wealthy more than the average working American
- emphasis on supporting green energy and reducing carbon emissions
- elimination of assault rifles and large magazines
- taxpayer paid healthcare coverage for all
- reigning in the greed of many large corporations and their efforts to fund political candidates that in turn support the large corporations.
1
I think hearing a passionate call for "fighting" for you from a woman still unsettles some folks, including Frank Bruni. Elizabeth Warren's plans resonate because many of us know in our bones we have been ripped off by rich and powerful individuals, corporations and lobbyists. To me, Warren speaks adult and in full sentences with real plans. How refreshing. She's building a road to economic equality and challenging us to join her. And yes, to fight for this. Power never cedes power without a fight. We all know that well.
6
Elizabeth Warren is not electible and neither are Biden or Sanders. Julian Castro is: he is good- looking, articulate and has charisma. I believe he would be the right candidate to beat trump (purposely spelled with a lower-case "t"), or any other republican (lower-case "r" intended) candidate.
1
@BJM
Castro's a lightweight and yet another candidate in the Obama mold, who touts his humble origins but whose true loyalties are with his Harvard cronies. His record as Housing Secretary was about as illustrious as Ben Carson's.
1
I’m a Democrat from Warren’s home state, but I did not come away impressed. Maybe I saw the weaker part of her debate, but she avoided answering certain tough questions, such as dealing with guns currently in possession.
Whether senator Warren aced the debate is perhaps so, depending on the eyes and mind of the beholder. In my view -disclosure: I am a Legal permanent resident from Europe, and would welcome a US President who pursues policies like FDR did, and which have been undone since the very moment he died- Senator Warren makes most valid points and delivers strong arguments for each of them.
Yet, it's a long way to go until November 2020, and a second Trump term -the result of the same effective fear mongering campaign which he cultivated since his inauguration- cannot be ruled out.
One of two first Democratic debates is much too early for drawing conclusions.
Remember Hillary and Barack in 2008?
3
I love Warren and her positions but she'd better serve progressives by emulating Tip ONeill and Ted Kennedy -- long terms of leadership in Congress -- than by following in the footsteps of Mike Dukakis and John Kerry. Dems need to nominate someone who can carry the mid-west, not anyone from MA, CA or NY. As a policy wonk she's better suited to Congress than the Executive branch anyhow.
8
I am not sold on Warren at this point but I do think she has a plausible chance of being a good candidate to run against a Trump character. I am more attracted to her inspirations even though they seem far fetched in this environment, in this time, in this country. In some ways I find her a better fit for the times than Biden who comes off as a choice based on fear. I could see a way for her if she continued to deliver her ideas clearly and passionately and I could see her doing well in a debate with Trump. Solid ideas versus plain old insults may come back into vogue after all of this insanity but I'm from CA so what do I know.
2
Spot on.
Warren was first, was asked a question and she answered it succinctly in her allotted 60 seconds. (and seemed to grin as if she though, nailed it!)
Then, after Beta bespoke in a foreign language, It quickly descended into a 10-ring Circus.
Of the 10 on Day One, within a year Warren will be the only standing.
3
The presidential race is part popularity contest and part reality show. It has nothing to do with logic or real ideas. It is definitely about 'likability' and charisma. The two Dem presidents in the past 30 years have been charismatic individuals [Clinton and Obama]. Both centrists but who cared ? They were loved. Trump played to his base with comical ideas and bumper sticker solutions. They were all wrong but then who in his base knew or cared ? The enemy was the other guy and we [Trumpsters] were the victims. I like Warren and Mayor Pete and Biden but none of them beat Trump. Sorry.. nothing there for someone that doesn't follow or listen or stay informed and the Dems need those folks. Nominate Oprah and stand back and watch her obliterate Trump. You want to win ? Play the GOP way. Cheat.
4
Right. If black voters stay home as they did in 2016, Trump wins a second term. The only Democrats who could really beat Trump are probably Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama, and they are not running.
1
Assuming she does not get elected to the top spot, Elizabeth Warren needs a cabinet position where she will able to actually get something done - Treasury / Labor / Commerce??
3
I find Warren both livid AND happy. I like her a lot and she is my first pick at this point. I do think she needs to tone down the villainy and speak more to how greater economic equality ultimately benefits all of us, not just the middle class on down.
7
I watched the entire debate and agree with most of what you say. Elizabeth Warren did stand out but not necessarily in a good way. Repeating herself constantly about big business reminds me of “build the wall” and it gives me no real insight into her values. I live around the corner from her and she has been a good Senator for Massachusetts but when I have attempted to communicate with her, each time she eventually answers but does not answer the question. Instead she rants. “Having a plan for that” is too similar to the Trump methodology of “I will just do what I want because I know best”. Booker answered the questions asked but you had to really listen and pull it out. I think Amy Klobuchar is underrated by the media in today’s summary “she came prepared” as if there is something wrong with that. Lastly, there was little humor and certainly not a lot of hope.
4
The United States of America was founded as a nation of ideas, ideas born in The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and championed by our Founders.
What our Founders didn't state clearly enough, was that America would have to be not only led by those who embraced Enlightenment and Reason, but also populated by those who did the same.
Elizabeth Warren meets those standards, in fact, would have held her own among the Founders. This is why she is not only qualified to be President, but also stands at the top of the candidate pool for that office.
It is with no small irony that the would be storm troopers now too present among us, in both the government and in the electorate, who cry out that we do not enough celebrate our European (Caucasian) heritage, are also the very people who disown The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, the crown jewels of European achievement.
Instead, the stormtroopers praise the "virtues" of fascism. Which came close to destroying Europe. Which was rejected by Europeans (despite fascism's current "fashionable romantic revival" among those with short memories, and deliberate and proud ignorance of their own histories).
2
As to Warren's electability, lets not forget the lessons of the last presidential election. 60% of Americans feel (rightly) that they have been left behind by the new economy, and they will vote for anyone who promises change, even a womanizing narcissist. The left wont vote for Trump (and will hopefully show up on election day. The key is grab enough of the center with the promise of real change so they have an alternative to Trump's brand of change, and without identifying as a socialist. Elizabeth is that candidate.
5
Health insurance premiums and medical costs are the first or second largest expenses for most Americans. Consider the employer paid portion of insurance premiums as hidden income. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies exploit this condition. Their number one motivation is to maximize their stock price.
From the Marketplace website:
Tying health insurance to your job was an incidental consequence of WWII. In 1942, the National War Labor Board forbade employers from raising their workers’ salaries — a wage cap. If our employer-sponsored insurance system has an origin story, it is this.
Beyond the wage cap, the labor board also ruled health insurance was exempt from the cap, so employers began to dangle health insurance as a benefit to attract the best and brightest.
The cherry on top: The IRS decided employer contributions to health insurance premiums were tax free, which meant workers paid less out of their pocket.
All this concern over "electability" Trump was the most unelectable candidate in the last election.
9
Warren comes across as smart enough to adjust her rhetoric for the general election. By seeking to appeal to the voters who liked Bernie last time out, remember that some of them ended up voting for Trump. She knows she needs some of those voters to win.
Perhaps her embrace of single payer is rooted in the realization of two powerful trends: that even private employer plans are becoming unaffordable, and that US employers are abandoning "regular" employees and hiring no-benefit temps and "gig" workers.
A prime example is Google swimming in billions of profits, yet hiring more and more temps.
Beto and the other candidates speaking in Spanish was red meat for Trump's anti-immigrant base. He'll be tweeting for months about Dem candidates wanting to make Spanish the official national language. Wish the Dems had more sense about giving Trump ammo.
2
I have two disputes with your critiques: (1) I thought the candidates collectively showed great intelligence, passion, and care for ordinary Americans. This is an extraordinary group of people. All are smart, some are brilliant, and they seem dedicated to making our lives better. I was also very pleased that they didn't waste time attacking the Terrible T, but told us what they meant to do if elected. (2) I do not agree that Booker came off well. He was one of the loudest, most interrupting speakers, and we don't need that kind of behavior, however well it serves the Republican base.
4
My biggest disappointment of the night was Warren's unequivocal statement that she WOULD take away private health insurance. I much preferred the softer and more realistic stance she has taken at times: there are many paths to Medicare for All. I agree that Medicare for all is the best way to get profit and profligate waste out of the healthcare industry, but the political reality is that the most likely path runs through a way station called Single Payer Option.
That statement branded her as another hardliner like Bernie - it played to her current base, but hardened the border between the faithful and the unconvinced - the millions who are satisfied with their current plans and are unconvinced the government can do better. They have legitimate concerns. Medicare is not a perfect system, why do so many pay for Supplemental and Advantage plans? One 20% payment on a hospital stay can break a family's finances. If you are going to say we all HAVE to accept that system then acknowledge current shortcomings and detail how they will be fixed. In a 60-second response she had time to at least acknowledge legitimate fears. She came across as a tin-eared ideologue, possibly confirming the prejudgement of some that she is an elitist.
Putting myself in the position of a first-time viewer I was not so impressed.
3
Re: your conclusion. I thought Elizabeth Warren came across as BOTH a livid warrior AND a happy one. The clear victor.
6
John Delaney pointed out something re the Medicare reimbursement rates that everyone else ignored. Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals are significantly lower than those paid by private insurers.
The "Medicare for All" proposal does nothing to change that disparity (current reimbursement rates are baked into the bill's language). "Medicare for All" will cause hospitals that are currently financially struggling (often rural) to close their doors. This has already happened with Obamacare and will accelerate with "Medicare for All."
A note of substance in last night's debate that was ignored by Warren and others (Sanders).
Jasper
2
"Throughout the night, O’Rourke seemed less concerned with answering the questions put to him than with striking the poses he’d committed to beforehand.He used his first minute to speak in Spanish, at surprising and showy length."
I was annoyed by O'Rourke's choice to speak in Spanish. I have no idea what he said, given that I was born in the Unites States to parents who were born in the U.S, and grandfathers who were born in the U.S.,and grandmothers who immigrated from Eastern Europe as teenagers who spoke English without a trace of an accent. I can speak, read and write Hebrew ,and French.
To the best of my knowledge ,English is the official language of the United States . O'Rourke was pandering to one group of potential supporters.
A democratic candidate who annoyed Warren, Booker, myself and a moderator who fired off a question to him in Spanish, is unlikely to win a general election.
3
@DJS The US does not have an official language.
1
Warren didn't get asked about immigration after she braved the trip to the border minutes before, witnessing for herself, placing the welfare of the children above winning the debate. That is Presidential.
All and all, it was one of the best debates I have seen. A few of the pundits on MSNBC were a little too opinionated, the moderators were perfect.
Good going Dems'.
Going to the White House!
2
Warren is brilliant and courageous. She really does have a plan as opposed to the rest of the crowd. She really is about the neglected middle class. Amy Klobuchar was effective, although I prefer a more courageous approach. Castro was impressive.Half of the ten need to get out of the way, put down their egos and support the potential winners.
4
I know "like-ability" is dismissed by many as too superficial a criterion to be applied to important positions within government. But it is certainly what gets people elected and makes them effective at governing. "I like Ike!" was probably the most effective slogan ever, and Ike was a rather successful president (although in less difficult times).
Warren, however, is more like Hillary, intense, hot (not cool), abrasive, and Trump would capitalize on her unlike-ability (and already has). Warren may have some good ideas, but she doesn't have the knack for making them (or herself) appealing.
Please, let's be careful about choosing a candidate that has already been suckered by Trump and would be an easy target. A woman like Harris however, seems to combine what a lot of the characteristics that would make her more electable -- and more effective in maintaining the support needed to govern effectively.
You can argue with Warrens policies, because she has them and you know them. Disagree all you want but at least she brings a perspective with experience to the table. I’m against her student loan forgiveness and single payer healthcare but think she’s still the strongest candidate. She needs to win the nomination, then can pivot to the middle for the general election to bring in middle America.
2
The President is constantly chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Surprisingly enough, thumbing his nose at the rule of law has worked very well; one restraint after another has crumbled and allowed him to plow through.
Waiting until 2020 to rid ourselves of this man may be too late.
2
That line about Elizabeth Warren "singing Bernie Sanders' song" was unfortunate, Mr. Bruni. There are, in fact, considerable differences between them. Warren is far more pragmatic and specific. It's just that she realizes that the economy, and so its effect on society, has been remade over the last decades, and it's been remade by people who want to remake society, and have gotten off to a measurable start. If we want to make life better for most people in the country, we have no choice but to set goals that may seem radical to people who've gotten used to avoiding the big picture, without which the details don't add up. Yes, the big goals may have to be reached by many steps, but those goals are what we have to aim for. After which, we won't be some crazy failing utopia, but just a developed country that's less skewed far to the right than we are now.
5
I think Trump is beatable, but I worry about the immigration issue. We have a bunch of democrats that offer no solution to the crisis at the border. They hem and haw about how people are being mistreated and dying, but do not address how we get around the concundrum of treating people humanely without the consequence of encouraging more to come and make the problem bigger. Trump does not hem and haw and that is to his credit. There are close to 600 million people down south. The current problem could get a lot bigger - could get to be overwhelming. The democrats need to mix appropriate treatment of those crossing illegally with a toughness that will discourage more from coming. This is a huge issue and only going to grow - the election could be won or lost on this issue.
3
Elizabeth Warren has a huge shopping list that she hasn’t figured out how to pay for. I want to candidate who is reasoned and can promise things that actually can be delivered. A president can only accomplish so much by executive order. People seem to forget that you need 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass legislation and almost all of her proposals would never make it through the Senate. I think Joe Biden is a much more reasonable choice and I hope and I hope he does not make any gaffes on the debate tonight.
@LAM America has figured out how to fund every single senseless war- she will figure out how to pay for her plans.
3
As much as I always respect Mr. Bruni's opinions and his talent in expressing them, I feel the bigger issue he missed or avoided is that last night's (and hopefully tonight's) performances give me a renewed sense of confidence in the Democrats based on the strength of their visions, their passions and their ability to preserve and enhance what's left of our democracy before it's too late. Regardless of who's on the ticket, the greater task they'll face is how to move forward united against the incumbent instead of divided by him and his corrupt mob of co-conspirators.
Vote.
4
I am a US citizen living in Germany. Elizabeth Warren's messaging and policies would likely be accepted here, but I doubt she could get the Dems over the line in 2020 once the GOP hate grinder is engaged. Nancy Pelosi is correct – own the middle ground and communicate how far right and corrupt the Republicans have become.
7
@Realworld
The Democrats have "owned the middle ground" for over 30 years with the only pitiful effect that the 'middle ground' has now been redefined as far to the Right. That supposed middle ground has allowed the Republicans to claim their natural territory in the Extreme Right of near-totalitarianism and single party rule.
You may be correct that Warren's message and policies can't survive the hatred of 21st Century America, but if that message is silenced and/or not given a chance for popular vote, then history tells us what we will face as nation. Living in modern Germany among the remnants of its past, you must know what that will mean.
3
"Even if a blue wave led not just to a Democratic president but also to Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, many Democrats in the House and Senate would be representing purple or even reddish states and districts that would most likely punish them if they drifted significantly to the left. So they won’t. And that’s an enormous obstacle to Warren’s agenda."
This is the most important part of Mr Bruni's column, because it highlights the danger of diverging from electability by clinging to marginally popular policy positions. We can all nod in agreement with Warren's assertions about fighting for health coverage for everyone, and having the courage to (again) fight for Medicare For All. But this election is not about health care or the environment or the economy or immigrants or China.
This election is about one thing and one thing only: Defeating Donald Trump. The quality and possibility of any policy proposal must, at this point, take second chair to the overriding importance of getting Trump out of the White House. Failure to understand this will result in a passionate Democratic candidate, intractably wedded to a single issue, who will go down to defeat.
Call it a political calculation, or an abandoning of principle, but Trump will be bringing a gun to this knife fight. If the Dems show up with a knife, out of principle, they will lose.
7
Warren is 100% right on giant corporations. There is no reason for there to only be two and sometimes only one choice for any product in the USA.
Warren is wrong on health care. Most people don’t want single payer once they learn what it is. They do, however, like the public option. She’d be better off talking about ways to strengthen ACA and better it, both in the courts and in the actual medical arena.
I love my insurance company and my doctor. I have a preexisting condition and the idea of having to navigate a new system on top of having to manage my care and make time for doctors appointments does not appeal to me.
Also, Dems need union or former union Dems. They fought long and hard and made monetary concessions to negotiate some of the best health care plans in the country. They have gone on strike for those benefits and even risked being fired for those benefits. They aren’t going to like seeing decades of hard work go to waste. And they especially won’t like having the exact same plan as those who did not.
1
@Lynne You love your insurance company? Holy cow. Which one do you have, if you don't mind my asking?
1
Voters pick up grand themes. Unfortunately, Ms. Warren's main theme and Donald Trump's main theme are the same: it's THEIR fault. Like Trump (and Sanders and DiBlasio), Warren is all about whom she is against. But scapegoating is scapegoating, and it makes no difference whether one blames "immigrants" or "big corporations." There's always too much baby in that bathwater, too much hatred for the leader of ALL the people.
2
This is a very good column, but I do not know how Mr. Bruni ignores the excellent performance of Julian Castro. He was superb last night. While I know he has been polling in the single digits, he cannot be overlooked. He might not be President (this time), but he would be an exceptional VP or cabinet person (SoS?). He GETS it. He was brilliant. Most of the political commentators noticed. How did you miss this, Mr. Bruni?
3
Warren is the closest thing to FDR since, well, FDR. After 40 years of GOP efforts to replace the New Deal with trickle down nonsense, we need another FDR. Warren has my vote.
8
I generally like your column. I often agree with you. May I observe that this one makes an error that seems absolutely ubiquitous in the press? Most of your observations are about the "horse-race." Who is ahead? Who positioned themselves better or worse by striking this or that pose?
In essence, this is not important at all. We are not rooting for individuals on a sporting basis, or we should not be. (Most of us treat it that way, to everyone's detriment.) Positions. What do they mean? What is their value? How does it accord with their records? What the the nature and level of the threats we face? (Trump, global warming, both condition Defcon Extreme Danger.) I believe we need to alert the average person to the difference between "who scored points rhetorically" and "what is the value and import of their positions, and what problems are they addressing." Even the excellent Times is weak in this area. Strongest of our analyzing journalistic entities, sure, but the US lacks substance in its politics. Thus we sometimes get malevolent clowns, like Trump, and we have a non-functioning party of 98% lies in the GOP.
In the end, even the New York Times is afraid to make choices in analysis. This seems to hold even as the country and the planet is lead to murder and ruin. Rich white men. (I'm one, though average by American standards.) Profits. Corruption in the service of protecting suburban lawns from the slightest encroachment of remedy for the damage they do. We may be sissies.
2
We need Oprah, just like Bill Maher recently said. It is her patriotic duty to announce her candidacy, get one of these amazing people to be her VP, promise to use many of them in her administration--- and then hit the trail in places like KY-- to help a dem beat the dangerous McConnell, and campaign endlessly in the states that cost us the election the last time. She doesn't have to run for re-election unless she wants to. But we need someone who can skunk trump. That's Oprah. Smart, compassionate, tough-- and a good listener-- ready with a zinger when needed. Oh I will vote for whomever is on the ticket-- but my CA vote doesn't matter one tiny bit.
1
Warren has sucessfully morphed into Bernie for the primaries, and she will move back to the center (which in the good ol' USA is the moderate right) if she makes it to the general election. Sorry, I'll take the original, and I don't care if he's old, grumpy, and has crazy hair.
4
If Elizabeth Warren is the party's "best bet," as some say, then we will get Trump for another 4 years. I think she can be too strident in tone and unrealistic in some of her views, particularly in doing away with employer health insurance plans that workers often like and getting Congress to impose a special tax on the wealthy. Don't get me start on free college tuition and who pays for it.
2
If I never hear woman and strident in the same sentence again, it’ll be too soon.
3
I am beginning to like Elizabeth Warren. She is more rational than Bernie, and as a woman will annoy the Republicans even more.
And her plan to save the world makes some economic sense, especially since rich Republicans will have to pay their share for all the benefits they receive from living on the planet.
They will squeal about that. They think the government exists only so that they can gamble on the financial system.
5
Just a few comments: Sen. Warren isn't singing from Sen. Sanders' playbook: she has been working on economic issues for working families for a long time (and has a publication record to prove it) -- as she mentioned in her remarks about health care. All candidates had a kind of expertise -- Rep Gabbard as part of the military; Gov. Inslee on climate change policy; Mr. Castro on immigration; Rep. Ryan and Mr. Delany on workers whose jobs are disappearing. Whoever becomes the nominee has a wealth of experience to draw on. Any of the candidates on that stage would be far better than Trump: a better communicator, able to think on one's feet, conversant in policy issues.
4
Frank: I disagree completely with your take on Liz Warren. She was masterly, and I heard no "fantasies" coming from the woman who single-handedly, against great opposition, formulated the new and now-alas-gutted-by-Trump Consumer Protection Agency. The Bruni version of Warren simply does not square with the reality and legitimacy of her presentation. Sorry.
7
Bruni could and should be more progressive. His characterizations of Elizabeth Warren are sexist and he is much too tentative in his support of significant changes in healthcare and climate policy.
4
The thing the pundits miss and the candidates forget to mention about health care is that keeping our own insurance might address the demand side, but it does nothing to restrain prices and cost fixing on the supply side. Single payer is cheaper, and has better outcomes, all over the world because it removes the profit that goes to insurance and makes it imperative for drug companies and other medical suppliers to sell at lower prices. The European countries that still have employee-based insurance (all with a public option that brings those not working to the same level) did it by making the insurance companies into nonprofits and forcing both the public and private plans to carry the exact same policy--a fully comprehensive one without high co-pays and deductibles.
2
People should be given the public option. Since Medicare is run much more efficiently than private insurance, it will provide a cheaper alternative than private insurance. According to market forces, many people will switch to Medicare insurance because of that. Over time, the private insurance companies will have to react and I suspect they will dwindle and provide Medicare supplements rather than primary insurance. It is wrong to take away private insurance from people if they want it.
1
Warren may have been the most articulate and prepared person on stage but, like Hillary, she just doesn't seem quite presidential. And I say that not because both are women -- Klobuchar does have that air about her, in my view. Warren just comes across as a lecturing technocrat, and that's not terribly inspiring.
Most voters aren't paying any attention at all just yet and many who are are forming only superficial impressions of the candidates. So I think the "presidential" question is vitally important at this stage.
4
SHe started good and then just faded in the background when the gloves came off, which is exactly why I cant vote for her. Yes, she has all the policy ideas but is not tough enough.
1
E Warren is an advocate for us all in the struggles we all have due to corporate control of so many venues of our everyday life. I care for her a lot.
That being said, I don't think she would be a good President because the corporate class would push back on her in a thousand different ways. As Frank suggested, even with a totally Democratic government, we still would not have a totally progressive government, which is what it would take for a Warren presidency to be successful. We Dems need to realize that the 2020 Senatorial races are every bit as precious to us as taking the White House from Trump; McConnell needs to be out as Senate majority leader. Mitch needs to be out of the Senate, period.
Sigh, I do like E Warren, but her progressivism just really won't work overall here in the Midwest... it will take a certain pragmatism to move the ball out here. I know this isn't what the coastal urban types want to hear, but you have to win to govern, and 2016 tells that states like PA, MI, Ohio and WI hold the keys to the electoral kingdom.
5
It's all fine and good to talk about "But is there ample hope for healing in her message? Is it too potentially divisive, too morally stark?" but here we go again.
The Democrats are somehow required to play nice. They say take the high road. Don't be divisive. While the Republicans do anything they think they need to win. It's why a minority party like them clings to the power they have.
I agree that our politicians should work together. The two party system should result in our Country's policies being representative of both party's views. But this election is too vital to our Country's future to worry about taking the high moral pathway. We have to fight the Republicans and Trump. We need to do what is necessary to save our democracy. We are in a period where the concern of Trump not leaving if he loses is actually expressed in the news and I for one think it's possible.
The Republicans and Trump are doing everything they can to hold us back from where our future is taking us. They have shown themselves as oath breakers and people who are only concerned with their power and wealth.
I, for one, will support the candidate who will fight hard, if not dirty, to get these people out of our government and lives. I will vote for whoever shows me the grit to get it done and defeat Trump and in their wake, make a giant wave that will carry the Senate too..
6
I admire Warren tremendously but she would be *so* wrong for president. The problem as I see it is that she thinks in black & white terms & not good with nuance. That may not sound like much but I think it would be devastating in the Trump era. We already have plenty of people thinking like that working for the dark side.
5
I liked Gabbard because she did not advocate isolation but instead advocated getting out of the countries longest war. Basically she said the crazies were there when we got involved, are there now, and will be there after we leave. In other words, the military industrial complex benefits but the American people are allowing the loss of blood and treasure. This needs to stop. She can get me fully on her side if she also advocates for a real war on climate change as per Inslee. I like Warren and if there were not more pressing problems such as our overly involvement throughout the world, wars that are a waste of treasure and blood, and the number one thing that threatens our future--climate change.
5
Mr. Bruni, your closing questions are too naive to be serious: hope for healing? Does a wound heal as the knife is turned over for greater purchase to do harm?
We in the middle class are being trampled upon by a system that places all power and advantage with corporations and the wealthy; you ask about hope for healing--when we reap systematic changes to the system of taxes and laws, and place a new priority on protecting America's citizens, its workers, its families; NOT its affluent boards of directors and foreign shareholders, on THAT day actual healing begins. Not a moment sooner.
You seem to mistake the priorities of this moment and ask for emotional closure to problems that need to first be solved. Warren has plans, which we desperately need to right the ship of our democracy.
5
Has anyone noticed that any effort to erase student loan debt by the federal government must be regressive taxation by definition?
People with student loan debt must by definition have attended college. The more education the larger the debt. So who has the largest student loan debt? Lawyers and doctors, who make more money than the average citizen.
The segment of the population with no student loan debt is the segment of the population most likely to be poor, have no accumulated wealth, never qualify for a home mortgage, and have no retirement savings-those who have not attended college. If this segment of the population ends up paying off 1% of the outstanding 1.6 trillion $ student loan it is a transfer from the poorest to the wealthiest and is therefore regressive taxation. This is true if it's 0.1% of the debt.
Apparently no one can challenge candidates like Warren or Sanders on this very basic economic truth. But that doesn't change the facts or the premise that the government shouldn't provide solutions to problems the government created. First, the government made it impossible to declare bankruptcy to absolve student debt then they lent money irresponsibly without any attention to the rise in tuition which accompanied government money.
The solution to student debt is to allow debtors to declare bankruptcy. Those truly insolvent could get relief. The rest would have to be responsible and pay their debts.
Warren, once again, is being disingenuous.
4
@jkemp
"People with student loan debt must by definition have attended college. The more education the larger the debt."
I didn't incur a dime in student debt, nor did many of those whom I know. Some of us had parents who parents paid for our college and graduate educations. Others attended City colleges and state medical schools.
"
So who has the largest student loan debt? Lawyers and doctors, who make more money than the average citizen"
It's exactly the opposite. Those lawyers and doctors who have incurred student loan debt are more likely to have paid off their debt than are those who took on debt which they can not afford to repay.
"The segment of the population with no student loan debt is the segment of the population most likely to be poor, have no accumulated wealth, never qualify for a home mortgage, and have no retirement savings."
Untrue.I know many people who never assumed student debt or who have repayed . They are not poor, have accumulated wealth, own homes and have retirement savings.
1
Yes, Warren sang Bernie's song better than he does. Of course, age is a huge factor. But it was clear that the spirit of Bernie was alive and well on stage last night. He lit a fire in 2016 that burns (no pun intended) brightly today. It seems most of the democratic candidates have refined the details of his vision and now we have a choice about how to accomplish some goals.
3
After having Trump and Republicans dominate politics for so long, it was great to hear Democrats debate the issues. They are all articulate and thoughtful. They all reflect my feelings to some degree.
Warren showed why she is gaining support. She answers questions. It's clear where she stands and what she would do as president. She is all in on her progressive agenda.
Of the lesser known candidates, Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard were especially impressive.
If Warren is the nominee, she will have a lot of highly qualified candidates from which to choose a VP and fill positions in her presidency. And we haven't even seen the other half yet!
10
Tend to agree with Mr. Bruni. If taking away private insurance is the best plan then Ms. Warren will have to do an ace job proving it. Something more incremental like Mayor Pete's "Medicair for all who want it" is so much more palatable.
I like Warren and I look forward to seeing her flush out her plans in more detail. I will say while her plans do have a bit of utopianism to them she does seem entirely pragmatic regarding the situation she would be walking into. Its an interesting balance she has struck.
6
When I saw Senator Warren in person in Ohio some of her attempts to sound both loud and passionate at the same time come across as phony. Her "emotional pro-union" plea (which is in itself extremely problematic) seemed like something she had planned to say at a certain point and blurted it out regardless of her own or the crowd's level of emotion in the moment.
This is not that surprising or uncommon in a very intellectual person, nor is it a fault in most professions. I do wonder if enough voters will hold it against her to matter. The opposite, such as the outrage expressed by some candidates at the "crime" against Jussie Smollett, is far worse.
Being intellectual is a great benefit, but connecting with people is also part of the job. Bernie was so successful in 2016 partly because of his contrasts with Clinton, not because people really want many of his policies (a $15 minimum wage is simply nuts in most places, which did not stop Clinton from copying it later in the campaign). The candidates who think copying his policies will fully replicate his success are making a kind of mistake intellectual people can be prone to making.
2
Words used to describe Warren: fighter, focused, smart, clear, driven, compassionate, informed, analytical, personable... all positive attributes I want in a President after this pit-of-despair we have now. Warren's plans have proven that she can handle multiple issues with well thought out ideas without melting down into a twitter tirade. She has earned my vote for her values, consistency, and ability to deliver leadership on any topic.
10
I mostly concur with Frank. Though I heartily supported Beto in his run for the senate (over $500 in cash and in-kind donations), in this outing he is in over head. In fact, his whole lead-up to jumping into the presidential race was too staged, calculated...hokey, if you will. But I was aware of Elizabeth Warren's work even before she won her seat in the Senate and have been a fan of her work and her positions since the days of Obama.
If she made any significant mistake in her political career so far, it was by not responding to Trump's pejorative use of the name "Pocahontas" to label her. She should have directly responded to Trump that her ancestry as passed down to her in her family's oral history included Cherokee origins, not Powhatan, which was the name of the Pocahontas's tribal nation. That said, she should have embraced the name, telling the Orange One that Pocahontas, both by legend and historically, had worked to great benefit for the settlers of Jamestown. (And, as Frank's colleague, Nick Kristof, has pointed out, the charge that Warren claimed Cherokee lineage for the purpose of personal gain was yugely distorted, to say the least.) Liz Warren is a force to be reckoned with, even if she does not win the nomination.
I was impressed, too, with Booker and with Tulsi Gabbard. Ms. Gabbard for her unruffled demeanor and equanimity when things tended to get raucous, Sen. Booker for the cogency and ardor he put into his responses.
I look forward to Detroit.
8
beating trump is the most important thing about the coming election. Policies and agendas are important but not if they swing the party so far to the left that they alienate moderates and independents the democrats need to win this election. Forget Warren, none of the candidates up there seemed to have a sense of this; and Donnie was not confronted as he should have been. DJT will swing into full red baiting mode if the candidate is too far to the left and it will help him win again which is why he focuses on Biden who occupies the center. And btw take the gloves off; if you're not ready to do some street fighting don't waste anyone's time; go home.
3
If a blue wave leads to a Warren presidency and Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, it will be the impacts of climate change on US citizens that will determine whether or not there will still be obstacles to Warren's agenda. Why wouldn't purple or reddish states and districts get in line with blue ones for cooling centers, flood control infrastructure, equitable distribution of food and clean water, guaranteed healthcare to offset the effects of our degraded environment? Warren has obviously done her research on the climate crisis, knows more impacts are coming to the U.S. sooner than we think and greater than we've experienced up to now, which is why she said it was our No. 1 threat. My 18-year-old tells me that it could go either way: that the coming climate impacts will either finally shake us all awake and bring us all together as we suffer the impacts hand in hand or it will compel many people do drastic, illegal, inhumane things so they might maintain their creature comforts for just a little longer. There is no better measure of character than how we respond in the face of looming disaster. Having a leader who demonstrates strong character will be comforting and will point the way forward.
7
“Progressive” policy typically polls over 60% nationally and is dead center internationally in first world nations. So the idea that such policy won’t happen is nonsense. It may not be the exact policy but it likely will be on the agenda and potentially actually debated over details instead of dismissive republican lies.
9
What does it mean to "ace" a debate?
Trump proved
1)acing means one thing for the commentariat class and quite another for the electorate that counts
2) one did not have to ace any debate (however defined) to win the nomination and the election
Indeed, the whole idea of "debating" as a meaningful exercise is a creation of the educated elite to distinguish themselves from each other.
Middle America doesn't care about debates. Middle America's world revolves about wrestling, football, basketball.
I recall the NYT doing a series of breathless, cheeky, admiring articles about Ted Cruz and his Princeton debating days, his Harvard legal training, his Supreme Court arguments, all to show how he was going to demolish the rest of the field once the debating season began.
Then Trump arrived and introduced WWWF rules into debating.
4
I certainly heard a lot of polished politicians speaking a lot smooth political talk in two different languages. Warren was among the most professional and prepared.
No debate, no blood, and no charisma.
I call that a failure to launch, a real thud!
3
Short answer is no she isn't. Any candidate that says they would get rid of private insurance is a loser in the general election. As most people are happy with there insurance. Even if they say they want some public options medicare for all.
3
If you have insurance through your employer, you will lose it. First, you aren’t going to be working there forever. Second, employers have been systematically shifting the burden to employees for well over a decade. They’ve even done it to union employees. What makes you think that trend will turn around?
10
Warren’s determination to destroy big corporations will be a disaster for the stock market. That will hurt billionaires, but it will also destroy the jobs and pensions of working class people across the country.
6
You mean trust busting won’t create more competition? Historically it’s consolidation that eliminates jobs.
9
People are choosing to use Amazon. Facebook is free and the market can only support two or three aircraft makers.
I think we are inventing foils. The core issue is a skills mismatch and a terrible K-12 system.
@Judith Putterman
Not a good time to threaten the economy, when people are just starting to go back to work and wages starting to rise.
1
Calling her isolationist, Bruni's part of the smear campaign against Tulsi. The end of regime change wars that drain the treasury and fail in their objectives isn't isolationism. It's prudent policy that Warren lacks the courage to address.
2
@bradd graves - when you say "lacks the courage to address", I notice the same thing, but I'd refer to it more as "doesn't care much for foreign policy". I for one welcome some more focus on domestic policy, we've had enough W. Maybe Tulsi should be secretary of state under pres. Warren (or Warren AG under pres. Tulsi)?
@R Warren is a warmonger, just like the rest of the Democratic field, but she's smart enough to divert. Tulsi is the only Democrat with the stature and street cred to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex and redirect funding. Warren intends to do no such thing.
Ah...the pro Warren spin machine is out in full force. I watched the second half and she barely had a presence. I thought Castro, Booker and Klobuchar were far more effective.
3
Politics, like medicine, should seek first to do no harm. Warren is a wonk, like the professor who drove you crazy because they thought they knew it all, and ran over a grad student driving home from their office.
President Obama made the ACA his big item, and what he wanted to put in place came out as a significantly underwhelming piece of legislation, why? Because of reality. The CFPB that Warren had much to do with the design under Dodd Frank, was well-intentioned. But it was overkill, and so hated because it was a regulator that answered to no one, including Congress.
The democratic candidate cannot scare middle of the road and swing voters in the general election. The first priority is dump Trump-without that no other good intentions will mean anything. Biden entered because they needed a safe moderate, but he is dangerous because he is Biden. Someone who is the non-Biden Biden will be able to beat Trump.
3
Ran over a grad student? This is how we discuss policy?
The CFPB is “hated” by only one group: those it regulates. If you think it’s too powerful, tell that to the people whose money it recovered from the bilkers.
In the 2016 election, Sec. Clinton and her "supporters" had the nomination wrapped up before the actual primary voting took place. Or so they thought.
Sen. Sanders (not the well-known colonel) showed her up for being a false note, and although the successful nominee, thanks to the unelected establishment delegates, she ran a terrible campaign and managed to lose to perhaps the worst opponent in US history.
What is the moral to this story? Why in the name of Heaven is it necessary to run opinion pieces at this point as to who is the "best" candidate? Maybe the scouts of the Mets sign a hitter after one swing at the plate, but the choice of a nominee for POTUS is serious business. To continue the baseball analogy, the pennant is not decided at the time of the All-Star Game.
Bernie, Liz and Joe all have reasons to be taken seriously and several so far have shown charm and "likability, but with little substance. Serious consideration has yet to be given to a number of potential nominees from the Mid-West who are not "hot" properties from the standpoint of the coastal media.
Why not take the half year prior to the first set of primaries to try to make a serious and honest appraisal of the many candidates.? One hopes that the NYT is not already making a choice by means of subtle opinions and decisions about which candidates are "worth" covering at this time. Have they learned nothing from the 2016 election cycle?
Carter and Bill Clinton were former small state governors.
3
Clinton lost to the second worst candidate. That’s why she lost.
@San Ta: That vapid fool Sanders still doesn't get that he's the Republican's choice of loser Democratic candidate to back with dark money in primaries.
Failure to understand that a public sector of mixed economy is inherently socialistic has abrogated control of the government to arms merchants and worse.
2
First of all, that song does not belong to Bernie Sanders, who has been hiding out as a senator from a tiny, remote, all- white New England state and has never had to concern himself with the real problems the rest of us need to solve.
1
When it comes in stump speeches, Warren’s saying that she’ll make the economy work for the rest of us is a lot better than you know who’s chant of ‘build the wall!’
6
Playing nice with corporations and investment giants like Goldman Sachs simply won't cut it any more. This is the one thing Obama and Trump had in common- deferring to the financial elite. Warren's hero is TR- trust buster- and do we ever need his toughness and his moral compass. Warren has this moral clarity and I think it will be a selling point not just with lefties on the coasts but with the working class and the ever dwindling middle class from all over.
8
"Giant Corporations" in pushing for GATT from wich they benefited got us in this mess and now everything is manufactured in China. The politicians as always were clueless. GATT is the most significant failure of the Clinton administration. We can trace mass migrations to it too.
All I can say is N O T J O E B I D E N ! At least, in this ridiculous situation, compliments of the Democratic Party and the very corrupt DCCC, Elizabeth Warren shone. Nobody can figure out WHY most of these people are running, or think they can possibly win. I don't know why Joe Biden is running, unless it's that he wants to finally cash in, with the rich donors he so obsequiously wants to serve. Mr. Credit Card. The exact opposite of Elizabeth Warren. Can't wait to watch him step in it, again.
3
But will Warren be able to fight Donald Trump when he Pocahontases her to death and she can't shut him up? This is sexist and I am sorry for that but women are wired to have an emotional response to insults and insults are Donald Trump's (only) stock in trade. Make no mistake I love Elizabeth Warren but there is simply to much at stake in this election to risk a repeat of the Hillary Clinton fiasco when she vanished into her safe space and allowed Donald Trump to bash her night after night on national TV. That said, Tulsi Gabbard would have a very effective counter to Donald Trump's abuse with her military service while Donald Trump's feet hurt
2
@IGUANA
Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of Defense!
Ms. Warren and her friends would punish those rapacious billionaires (Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg) - who merely created the way we all manage our lives, businesses, shopping, banking and on and on - and redistribute their wealth (while destroying their evil incentive to earn it) to those poor, suffering millions they stole it from, using criteria that their superior morality and intelligence would determine for all of us
welcome to the New Mediocracy
1
@bigoil
Considering the Jobs is dead ,how is it that you believe that Warren seeks to punish Jobs ?!
Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Like impeach the president or nominate the best person to be president. Unfortunately there are lots of people who would rather play politics and thus show that the democrats are weak and incapable of doing what is right. They show themselves to be just like the GOP, disingenuous and manipulative. Sure, they pay more lip service to the poor, but they really just want to be in power, where they will pass mediocre policy that doesn't upset the wealthy overlords. You know, to make it look like they care.
Unfortunately that is what you get from the supposed moderates who in fact are really conservatives.
1
Don't be so dismissive of Warren's policy prescriptions as too far left to get her elected. If Donald Trump can win the presidency, despite generating disgust and fear among a huge percentage of the electorate, then so can Warren. I suspect the American people are more ready for systemic change than you realize. Half measures will only hasten the nation's negative drift.
5
We would be lucky to have Senator Warren as our commander in chief. Can you imagine what a great country this could be under her watch?
4
In next year’s election, I wonder how much a politician’s “looks” will cause either men or women to vote for them. This new bunch of Democrats look different. I wonder if voters can look past their looks.
Oh, I know, one’s appearance isn’t supposed to count, yet, in 1960, didn’t may voters swoon over JFK’s “looks” and vote for him because of his youthful suntanned look? And, in 2019, don’t anti-Trump Americans give Hope Hicks the benefit of the doubt for her allegiance to Trump for the way she “looks?”
A Presidential candidate’s looks are not supposed to count but they do count. We all know this to be true but we are afraid admit it.
During the last election cycle, my eighty-seven year old mother, a life-long Montana Democrat, a daughter of a homesteader who went broke, a mother who raised three children and, late in life, as a divorcee, attended the University of Montana to become a school teacher, didn't "like" Hillary. I shuttered when this bright, hard-working woman without a hair of political zealotry or racism in her, a woman, who, in an unspoken way, was a feminist, told me she leaned toward Trump.
Aghast, I asked her how she could go against Hillary, a woman? She told me she didn’t like the way Hillary "looked." I’m unsure what she meant by this. I guessed, to my mom, Hillary didn’t look like the Montana women she knew.
Mark Twain said it best—"Strip the human race, absolutely naked, and it would be a real democracy.” Until then, looks will count.
3
If it was up to Warren ...the Pharmaceutical giants that have headquarters in my area would close up.
Thanks to those headquarters we have new schools, roads, homes, shopping centers, cars, and a general feeling of optimism in our area.
Most of the kids go on to college-all good for our future.
Imagine these places boarded up when Warren or other Democrats take over!
Is this really what Liberals and Socialist in the Democratic party want?
That is going backwards and not progressive !
3
@Joe Paper. Don’t worry, she’ll take your entire paycheck and savings to fund welfare for you and your community
If Hillary was running again, that's where Mr. Bruni's sympathies would lie. He was with her 2016 and he's obviously learned nothing from the experience. Booker is another black man cut from the same cloth as Obama, someone who's ultimate allegiance is to his Wall Street buddies; the fact that he can hear gunshots in his neighborhood does not lend him any street cred.
Warren is right about corporations being the malefactors they are. When polled about income inequality, not only are most Americans abysmally ignorant as to its degree, when asked about what level they would find acceptable, they end up describing some version of Scandinavia. Bernie made inroads on getting this message across in 2016 but was hamstrung by the DNC, This time, between himself and Warren, the word can finally get out, with enough time for it to be fully processed and accepted by the majority of voters.
As a New Yorker, I find myself obliged to point out what a fraud de Blasio is. Even his overly earnest delivery reminds me of that other New York nonentity George Pataki. De Blasio ran on the platform of "A tale of two cities", but his two terms have basically been an extension of Michael Bloomberg's illegal third term. All one has to do is walk through Manhattan and examine the skyline to see who's winning, who's losing, and who's pulling de Blasio's strings.
5
Finger pointing Elizabeth Warren points towards an unfortunate political memory - George McGovern.
2
Question-
"but is she really her party's best bet?"
Answer-
No.
1
Senator Warren is a breath of fresh air, much more than a potential first woman in the White House. She is quite convincing regarding the factual basis of her analysis of issues and her policies. She will control the tone of the Democratic campaign and that's beneficial. Others will have to do their homework.
Beto looked like he had been on a bender. Another didn't know the difference between the Taliban and Al Quada. One was an old-fashioned windbag. But, several were quite impressive and looked the part of warriors who would not buckle under Trump's insults and vulgarities.
7
When Trump stalks the Democratic candidate at the presidential debates like he did to Hillary, who will be the person with the personality and chutzpah to tell him to back off? Who will be the person who will be able to maturely and calmly deflect Trump's juvenile put downs and name calling? Who will be able to explain in non-condescending and simplest terms that Trump is a know nothing lying con man, torturer of children, who is bent on being a dictator by destroying Democracy and justice. Above all, who will be the Democrat candidate who is able to explain their policies in an easy to understand and in a non-patronizing manner? That's a lot to ask for.
2
Democrats don't need untrustworthy advice from Republicans, or even a blow-by-blow commentary. What would actually be helpful would be for Mr. Bruni to tell his readers who he would vote for if presented with a choice between Warren and Trump and why he would do so.
3
@Joe. President Trump has my vote over any democrat. MAGA!
@Larry I didn't ask you, Larry, but thanks...
It was painful for me to watch Warren.
Though I agree with many ( though not all) of what comes out of her mouth, the spectacle of someone who was jabbing her index finger in my face, just too worked up to leave me feeling OK, really in my face made the messenger impossible to watch.
I just don't like people who wear their emotions on their sleeve, who are obviously angry ( aren't we all with Trump?), and who cannot moderate their feelings ( she goes from 0 to 100 in a skipped heart beat).
At the end of the day, people vote for whom they are most comfortable. It is a visceral, gut thing and I don't believe that most voters ( who don't read the NY Times or leave comments) would rush to embrace a 70 year old professor from New England who reminds them of every threatening authority figure in their life.
I'll pass on this one.
2
"But is she really her party’s best bet?"
She's hundreds of times better than the Republicans' best bet.
6
Great insights and reporting, Frank.
In a perfect world Elizabeth Warren would be the nominee. She has solutions for many of the problems that face us - not just pie-in-sky ones (although there are a few of those, too). She’s serious and she has smart people in her campaign.
The problem is that the Republican Party has done an excellent job of making our country dumb again over the last 30-40 years. Many of the people most susceptible to and affected by this dumbing-down aren’t going anywhere. There will be no great “Dummy Die-off” and when those dummies do die, they have dumb children that love them and will carry a dutiful torch of dumbness for their dumb elders. As citizens, we are bound to them too.
So practicality counts for something. Appealing to all smart and reasonable people, even if they are moderate Republicans, will be significant in this election. Can Warren modulate her message a bit to reach those people? I really hope so.
3
The answer to your question is yes, we need a fighter. Whoever wins the nomination will be going into competition with the most ruthless, most hateful, most dishonest incumbent this country has ever known. My money (literally) is with Warren/Booker.
1
Elizabeth Warren is an opportunist and her character defects will be her undoing.She endorsed HRC in 2016 in the Democratic Primary against Sanders.I wish we had less income inequality but taxing the rich and corporations will result in universal poverty like Cuba .If we stop the flood of illegals keeping the wages low the bottom 10% will see their wages grow.
2
Bobby Kennedy's slogan in 1968 was "Others say why? I say why not?" Perhaps you'd prefer an Obama, master of the art of negotiating against himself. If you set your sights high, you can always negotiate. If you set them low, you have no where to go but down.
How's this? Elect Warren then let her worry about popular support (something Obama squandered away the first six months of his presidency), the Dems in Congress, the Republicans in Congress.
Perhaps the antithesis of Dirty Don -- a woman intellectual, someone who not only knows "a lot of words," but how and, especially when to use those three- and four-syllable words -- will bring out the worst in Dirty Don, and help middle America see things more clearly.
Right now her task is to distinguish herself from the others (first-term and one-term members of Congress: puhLEEZ, talk about ego), and get herself nominated.
2
The only point on which I disagree with E Warren is health care. What I think would go down fine with the American public is this: Medicare for all, and if you want something else you're free to go pay for it.
Also she needs to tighten up her gun language into something like: There are two gun worlds in this country, one which causes problems and one which doesn't. We need to do the research to figure out the best way to fix the one that causes problems without bothering the one that doesn't.
Wow, I should be a political messaging consultant!
2
An interesting opening salvo on the upcoming election campaign but much of it is wrong. Bruni and most people who comment here feel that the most important issue is making Trump a one-term president. But that view doesn't take into account how we got here. Democrats will only win if they have a vision for the future of our country. Nearly everyone is reluctant to admit that our country is not in good shape, and some responsibility rests with our past two Democratic presidents. There was a reason that Trump was elected beyond Russian interference and Hillary Clinton's poor campaign. We are at a time like 1932 and 1960 -- we need a candidate who has a vision for the future of the country. Look at the mid-term elections and the electoral success of a remarkable group of women candidates who won elections across the political spectrum, but their success depended on their advocacy for change. This is a lesson that neither Clinton in 2016 nor Biden in 2019-20 understand.
5
Electabiltiy is real and too quickly dismissed by those who bristle at the idea that their preferred candidate would be challenged in a national election. Electability is real (NBC news ran an enlightening article on it a few days ago) and it is something that all registered Democrats should be taking into account when considering the nomination. Unfortunately, Warren and Sanders do not poll well among moderates, independents and swing voters who could be pulled away from Trump. That is just a fact (see recent Quinnipiac and Harvard polls). Acceptance of this is key if you want Trump out of the White House. And castigating everyone who doesn't support Warren or Sanders as bigots, racists, classists or any other kind of bad person is short sighted and wrong.
242
@John
After 2016 I can't believe anybody puts any stock in the results of polls. As an article in NYT Sunday magazine proved during the 2016 campaign the results of any poll all depend on who you are asking and who is actually taking the time to respond.
44
@John: Electability is an important quality in a candidate but we are still in the early stages of the campaign and polls change. In other words, we still don't have a good sense of who, ultimately, the most electable candidates will be. It's still way too early to dismiss any candidate as unelectable. Many of the candidates still have something to offer to the Democratic Party and to the country.
54
@John
If we each focus on the qualities of the candidate most likely to do a good job for the country as a whole, won't that eventually become clear and won't that candidate then have the greatest chance of being elected? To start by trying to assign electability is a formula for picking the most anodyne rather than the most dynamically competent.
60
She could be the right candidate as long as she doesn't identity obsess and social engineering like Hillary or be a bigot like Trump albeit on the other side, the problem in America are white men.
Americans wants a moderate progressive candidate that can united America.
Right now it is Biden but it could be her or anybody white, black, young, old, male, female.
The two candidates who practiced identity politics by speaking Spanish put 2 1/2 nails in their political coffins. It could be lethal to them,
2
you obviously did not see the debate I saw. she came across as a scold (remember Hillary) we cannot afford to lose. give klobachar some credit. Castro was a surprising great. Delaney cant win but he is one of the few who understands medicare for all is a slogan but not a solution to the problem of universal health care that is a core issue. the faux spanish of everyone but Castro was irritating and probably off putting to the majority of US citizens who prefer English as our nation’s language: that may be sad, but it is a fact.
1
Elizabeth Warren for President!
Cory Booker for Vice President in 2020 !
An unbeatable combination !
Take our country back from the Wealthy and Big Business !
Ride the Blue Wave !
4
When it comes to guns she needs to acknowledge that the cat is out of the bag on this one. You can't get 300,000,000 guns back.
What you CAN do is track and control the ammunition, from the moment it rolls off the factory floor to the moment it hits (or misses) it's target.
Guns last forever but if they have no bullets they are no problem.
Control the ammo and you control the weapon. Can you hear this Elizabeth?
227
@ivanogre
I doubt she can hear it. She doesn't seem to be at all focused on execution. It's all pie-in-the-sky with her. They're lovely ideas, but completely unrealistic, almost across the board.
4
@ivanogre - What about the tens of millions of rounds of ammo already sold with the 15,000,000 AR-15s that are out there?
That’s a lot of potential deaths before you get to your “traceable” ammo supply.
I’m afraid the situation is out of control and we are simply going to have to endure mass murders, increased suicides and unjustified “stand your ground murders.” I have no idea how many innocents will have to die before we have the collective wisdom to move toward the responsible control of guns.
17
There are millions of Americans that reload their own ammo. The tools and dies have been available for decades. While it is true, you could also control the sale of gunpowder and primer caps, don't underestimate American ingenuity in securing their liberties.
7
Of the many Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Warren might make the best President of all. But is she the best candidate to beat Trump, or will he demolish her by relentless attack on her progressive positions? Her merits as potential President don't matter if she can't win.
@Robert Watson the best way to beat Trump is to nominate the best candidate. I have come to believe that Warren is that candidate. People are tired of government by whim. They want experience, competence and rationality. Warren is the best prepared to deliver those things.
4
This logic is screwed up (nothing personal; you are like many). It is impossible to come up with a foolproof formula for win-ability vs. Trump. If it were, it would be applied and there would be no discussion, nothing to debate. A “safe bet” candidate is very risky, b/c what makes a person safe in this context is up for grabs. You have to go with the best, and if that’s EW, so be it. She comes with some risk, well, there is uncertainty in this game — live with it!! A candidate with momentum, who appeals with passion to common sense can win people over. A “safe bet” is likely to turn more people off through that very safeness. Being bold and accepting risk is clearly the way to go. Go, go go, Elizabeth Warren!!!
Warren has totally lost me. Her anti-corporation rhetoric is empty propaganda: US President is not the ruler of the world and can’t do anything about multinationals. Breaking up tech companies will only create chaos, inefficiency and division. And is she thinks that the social democracies of Europe have no big corporations, she has never shopped in IKEA and Zara or used medicines developed by Roche. Her notion that in order to have universal health coverage, private insurance has to be outlawed is terrifying in its ignorance. Every country with universal healthcare (whether single-payer or not) also has private insurance for those who want it or can afford it. She came through as strident, uninformed, and demagogic. I really wanted a qualified female candidate. But it’s not her.
4
@Mory that's what people said when we broke up Ma Bell. It's worked out pretty well. I do t know enough specifics about the issues related to these tech Giants, but it's not unprecedented
3
With minimal competition there are inefficiencies and outsized political influence. The question really comes down to do you care about liberty and justice for all or corporations running things.
Unless you offer another solution you really are just complaining.
@Mathias tech companies cannot compete in the same way grocery chains do because they don’t deliver the same product. They are platforms, not commodities. Do you really want to have a conservative FB, liberal FB, Muslim FB, all whipping up these ideological constituencies into frenzy of disinformation? Google and FB are blocked in China; do you think it makes the country a paragon of liberty and justice for all? Tech companies need to be regulated (not censored) but in order to do this, you have to know how they work, which Warren clearly does not.
Elizabeth Warren is terrific but is unelectable and would be ripped apart in a debate by Trump and we would be hearing nothing but “Pocahontas “ until we couldn’t stand it. On the other hand on the stage last night was Bill Di Blasio, someone no one up to now has taken seriously. He interrupted, was obviously obnoxious in seeking attention, and claimed the mantle of progressives. He is tall, a New Yorker, has an elite background while claiming not to be elite and would seem to be the perfect foil to combat Trump.
4
Warren's heartfelt passion is palpable. And, she's 'wonky' as well, in the weeds with her policy positions. That passion and wonky combination is powerful.
But with her positions so far to the left...she'll struggle to pull the center swing voter her way. That brings the spotlight back to Biden as the only realistic option to dispatch Trump.
It'll be interesting to see how he commands the stage tonight.
Thank you, Uncle Echo Chamber! I don’t disagree that she had a good night, but we need contrast to beat the Bully. She, too, is high energy; we are worn out and need calm and steady, in my opinion. Also, and this might sound like fighting the last war, but we know he can beat a smart female senator who grew up in middle America and now represents a northeastern state, is heavy on policy and wants to “fight for you.” Looking at your awesome video interviews last week the biggest contrast and surprise was a candidate I had never heard of: Bullock. We need to see him tested, but something tells me his genuineness and laid-back come-across would drive Trump crazy. This time around, being “low energy” would be welcomed by voters.
I'm not a fan of Warren's policies. I'm a fan of her outrage over the corruption and theft of our country. I'm outraged by Citizen's United. I'm outraged that monopolies are able to buy off our politicians and weaken regulations designed to keep our democracy from being rigged. I'm outraged about the sale of our military, prison system, schools and other public institutions to Corporations. I'm outraged that the Attorney General is the Presidents personal lawyer.
Trump has made his grievances his basses grievances. While I'm a centrist and believe strongly in capitalism and a combination of private and public health care, I have grievances that are real about our crony capitalism and sale of our public institutions.
Warren for all of her wonky policy ideas that are meant to control markets, something I'm highly distrustful of, her basic instinct about corruption is spot on.
7
As someone who understands insurance and who views the insurance industry positively, I still find myself agreeing with Warren that the best solution is single payer, with everyone included in the same government-run insurance program. (The provision of care should still be left to the private sector, it's just the funding of that care that should be the government's responsibility.)
I can still see a role for private insurers—offering supplemental coverage for nice-to-have extras and maybe having some role in the management or funding of the government plan. But for private insurance to really satisfy the needs of all Americans, the private insurance market would need to be heavily regulated and the government would still need to provide extensive coverage itself. So you end up with multiple government bureaucracies (to regulate private insurance and to manage the government plan) and a complicated system where Americans move back and forth between government and private plans. Complexity is expensive and confusing. Single payer makes it simple and more efficient. It also gives the government significant negotiating power with the health care providers.
The biggest challenge with going to single payer is the transition out of the insurance industry. That will be painful for the insurers and their many employees. I think Warren has the right goal. But we need a plan to protect insurance industry workers and investors as we transition away from private insurance.
12
@617to416
"Single payer makes it simple and more efficient. It also gives the government significant negotiating power with the health care providers."
How could you feel if the government decided to negotiate YOUR salary ?!
It seems that it hasn't occurred to you that health providers do not have to participate in Medicare. Medicare is reimbursing providers at an unfairly low rate . Many providers have opted out due to ridiculously low reimbursement rates. Doctors are discouraging their children from attending medical school. Bright young people who would have liked to become M.Ds. are going into other fields because becoming an M.D. is impractical financially. After incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt in order to pay for their education, then working as residents and fellows at ridiculously low compensation rates into their late 20s or early thirties, they are expected to accept compensation which is lower than that of many who have not expending 7+ years of post collegiate studies , residencies and fellowships, and which does not enable them to pay off their loans for decades, or to earn a decent living.
The best and the brightest are opting out of becoming physicians, just as the top doctors are opting out of accepting Medicare and private insurance.
"Medicare for all'' will be a worthless benefit.
2
@DJS
I live in Canada. I'm am perfectly fine with single payer. It paid the entire cost of my wife's cancer cure. I never filed an insurance claim, never had to seek approval from insurers for service, never paid a single cent out of pocket—and my wife never had to wait for care. In fact, everything ran smoothly and quickly. We even had choice of providers.
As I said elsewhere, American Medicare as it exists today is not a good single-payer system in part because it does reimburse providers too little—and also because it requires too many copays and has too many gaps in coverage. But the fact that American Medicare is not well designed does not mean single payer has to be poorly designed. It is a very workable solution. Despite what you hear on Fox News, it works very well in Canada.
@617to416 it’s a scientifically proven fact that single payer will cost more and deliver an inferior product compared to our current system. This cannot be denied!
“By dint of a draw that randomly scattered 20 Democrats across two consecutive nights, Warren was the only one onstage on the first night whose poll numbers place her among the top five overall.”
This was the first debate. So you had to listen to people that aren’t as popular yet? Other people might want to hear what they have to say. People who don’t live in Iowa. I am currently supporting Warren, but I was happy to hear from the other candidates.
As much as this debate is being covered in terms of the horse race, I think the Democratic Party won this round. I watched a stage full of highly competent people present hopeful, ambitious, and reasonable plans for tackling the toughest issues in America.
Meanwhile, the Republicans demonstrate a concern for a few single issues that are red meat for their base, while devoting most of their energy to getting handouts for and regulations to protect their wealthy and large corporate donors.
This entire article was frustrating. Many others have better articulated the sexism against Warren. A female clone of Bernie Sanders she is not as this article is making it seem. No woman could act like Senator Sanders and get hired, let alone elected.
5
They may not have damaged themselves with progressives, but their open border positions were not a help to the Democratic Party among the wider electorate.
This was a debate by and for progressives.
3
@AACNY
I don't know why Democrats don't realize that supporting open border positions will result in the re-election of Donald Trump.
1
@DJS
Progressives are an interesting group. Highly emotionally. More interested in ideological validation than actual performance/delivery. It is easy to win their votes by validating their ideas.
They are highly resistant to compromise, using morality to justify their intransigence, and often seem like they would rather lose an election than compromise their ideals.
@DJS Please, both of you, provide empirical evidence the Democrats support open borders.
The 2020 election is a battle not the war. Just as Reagan asserted that government was the problem not the solution 40 years ago (and then the Republicans spent those 40 years making him correct), it may well take us that long to get our country back on track. Let’s focus on ideas, ideals and values not guessing who is most likely to beat Trump.
If Trump’s election proved anything it is that we have no idea who can win. Elizabeth Warren’s positions and plans have real merit. I don’t know who I will vote for yet, but I am not going to worry about electability or our ability to pay for the proposals. The Republicans conjure up trillions for harmful tax cuts and decades of war. Why should we discount someone who wants to focus on the needs of the people of this country and planet?
16
It’s always the excuse until it’s red and then money magically appears. Any republicans on here question the cost of a potential Iran war? They only use cost as an excuse but never actually practice fiscal responsibility.
I was so relieved that, for the most part, the candidates didn't rip into each other.
They absolutely cannot do that!
They must be positive, firm, have concrete solutions.
Most had good and passionate things to say.
Yes, with so many, it's hard to get one's point across but I believe there was some clarity to be had from last night and looking forward to the next batch which will undoubtedly be quite different .
They must go after Trump policies and his administration hacks but never mention him by name which will drive him crazy!
Please, please, tonight's group, don't form the circular firing squad! Remember what the goal is.
The Dem's have all these great people to speak for them and should be proud!
9
Warren would make a great Cabinet Secretary - pick the post. She is focused, passionate and full of many great ideas. And she also has specific plans that she is capable of articulating better than Sanders.
I don't for a moment believe that Warren could win the general election. The country (Electoral College) is simply not ready for her. But she should have a seat at the table and help guide policy. But in order to do so, Trump must be removed from the table.
Warren did very well last night and like other commenters here, while for some Warren may have come off as angry, but she showed patience and poise. She didn't come across as begging or needing time or attention (the first hour gifting her more time than the second so perhaps that took the edge off if there even was one).
Secretary Warren. That rings as a strong possibility.
President Warren? I just don't see it.
5
@It Is Time!, Agree 100%. You and I are the "coastal elites" that Ryan bashed along with trump, and with the blessing of the people who actually live in those places. I will vote for any democrat on the presidential ticket, becasue we must get rid of trump. I would vote for the local dog catcher should that be the name. If it was Sanders I would have to hold my nose--- I despise him for the contribution he made in getting us here and I so wish he had just faded off into history.
But our votes don't count. We need someone who can win a handful of voters in a handful of states, and I don't think that is the passionate, even brilliant Ms. Warren.
2
@It Is Time!
Warren would make a great consumer advocate. The country won't elect someone based on her possession of "plans". The very word connotes that they are theoretical works and haven't been implemented.
Having multiple plans that support their ideology may titillate progressives, but most Americans are results oriented. This is why Trump has such a strong base. He delivers.
3
@It Is Time!
Elizabeth Warren gets things done (google the Consumer Protection Bureau) and does it by explaining in detail to people why and how. She does not condescend to people by speaking in generalities.
Elizabeth Warren also understands exactly why these things have not been done already. The global billionaires use their global corporations to manipulate public opinion and government. If We the People do not push back together they will finish making their fictitious entities into citizens with all of the rights of a human, while they degrade human rights.
Warren understands that this is not a fight against Trump, but a fight against the corruption of markets, governments, and our Constitution by the few thousand people on the planet that control, LITERALLY, half of the world's wealth. A few thousand people "did not build" half of the world's wealth, but they are using it to buy all media and most politicians.
Warren said she had a plan to fight McConnell and that plan is to mobilize the American People to fight from both the outside and the inside of the power structure to force the government to work for We the People not just shareholders.
It is time. It is time to stop cowering and explaining to workers what they can't have (because Republicans slashed taxes on shareholders) and start explaining exactly how to recover our stolen productivity and reinvest in the families of America, because that is how you grow the economy.
Warren's strategy is sound.
2
I watched in a room filled with fellow Democrats. Wow we’re we depressed. The format was awful. There were painfully few answers to direct questions. Let’s immediately get rid of nine of those candidates and keep Ms. Warren. Sadly she was lost in the chaos, but she is the only one of the group of ten at the kiddie table who deserves to move on.
4
@ThirdWay
I don't blame the candidates for the problems. I blame the establishment "center" media company and its pundits for not being able to figure out how to make the debate work. Facilitating conversations is what the producer and staff of a debate are supposed to be experts on.
They tried to go through too many detailed topics with not enough time for candidates to talk in detail.
Some candidates were not able to talk about certain issues.
They seemed to favor some candidates over others.
The designers of this debate should have known that forcing candidates to interrupt each other to get heard would make candidates look bad. Why would you do that? A debate is not supposed to be a free for all, especially with that many candidates on stage.
"What are you going to do on the first day?" is a stupid question, especially if you are going to keep interrupting the candidates with "first day?" while they try to explain what is actually important to them.
They forced the lesser known candidates to try to get heard, and then right after the show, the MSNBC pundits criticized them for trying to be heard. Set-up, much?
I was happy that the candidates mostly did not attack each other and did not attack Trump, but tried to lay out their own visions and policies in a positive way.
If the candidates were asked appropriate questions for the amount of time available to answer, and all got equal time answering every question, this debate would have been far better.
1
@Martin, we don't get to the long run until we first do the short run successfully, that is, electing a Democratic president in 2020. Existential is a big word, but it describes this moment precisely: a Trump re-election will result in the end of American democracy as we knew it, replaced by something much more awful, hateful, divisive, etc.
Warren came across as a populist who could get elected, unlike Bernie. And she is smart and has actual, heartfelt policy positions. Will they all get enacted, even by a solidly Democratic Congress? Of course not, but you have to push for a lot to get a little in the end, and she is a pusher, a fighter. And let's balance the ticket with a more conventional legislator with domestic and foreign policy experience, like Klobuchar. And Minnesotan VP candidates are successful!
5
A lot of the coverage I've seen implies that Warren somehow faded out in the second hour. But the moderators clearly targeted more questions to her in hour one than they did to anyone else on stage, by a wide margin. Perhaps there was a conscious correction of that in hour two, as Warren had gotten at least 5 minutes and some of the others had barely spoken. But it was all the result of how the moderators handled questions.
6
Sad but true what Mr. Bruni says in his closing sentence that nothing is more important than making Trump a one term president. What is also true is that the next president's biggest burden will be to repair the damage to this country and our relationship with the rest of the world. Right now, I'm not sure who is best up to that daunting task.
4
@Impermanence
If you concentrate on Trump, you lose.
You have to concentrate on the things that the 60% of the population that works for a wage and their families need.
If the Democrats just say bad things about Trump and explain why nothing can be done for the American People, while Trump promises all things to all people, Trump wins.
Let Trump self-destruct by picking fights with everyone (even farmers), while Democrats explain how a country is really run for all of We the People, not just the mega-rich.
Warren is really good at that by the way.
@Impermanence
After tonight, I hope you'll see that Eric Swalwell is up to the daunting task.
Warren's brainchild, the Consumer Protection Bureau is up and running, and has returned billions of dollars to consumers from "giant corporations" that took their money through fraud. It is still trying to do its job, even as Trump appointees try to dismantle it from the top down, which is against the law.
The Consumer Protection Bureau discovered that Wells Fargo, was opening new accounts for customers without permission and returned $9 billion.
That is how you "get things done." That is not "Utopian fantasies."
When asked if she had a plan to deal with Mitch McConnell, she said Yes, and the plan is to keep the American People motivated, even if we lose in 2020 to fight both from the inside and the outside to make government do what citizens want to do, not what giant global corporations want to do.
Ryan is correct. Mobilizing the political power of the 60% of the population that works for a wage plus their families, by promising to get them what they need is the only way to win this election. Workers and their families IS the historic base of the Democratic Party. The natural base of the Republican Party is the mega-rich, "the haves and have mores." (GWB) Workers outnumber the natural base of the Republican Party plus the elites they pay to protect them by at least 3 to 1.
The centrists and the left need to compromise with each other, not the Party of Trump. Helping workers is what they agree on.
Elizabeth Warren is promising workers what they need, in detail.
28
@McGloin This is the best argument here. This will play in Peoria. I have grown weary of all of this talk of "unelectability". People respond to competence, good will and sincerity. They see that there has been great economic unfairness and want that stopped. Warren has actually done something significant to further their economic well-being and decrease corruption. This note needs to be hit repeatedly.
1
"Giant compensation is necessary to get the very best people at the top!" My response is, "Nonsense." Certainly a handsome wage is a given but super giant compensation is never necessary. When the salary reaches astronomical levels what you get is not the most talented it's the greediest. Running a large corporation is more challenging and more fun than most other corporate jobs and that alone will bring out the needed talent. Corporate leaders should not be living apart from the rest of humanity. Their kids should be going to school along with the kids of the workers and playing on the same teams.
9
@Bunbury
Yes.
Actually many studies are showing that once a person has enough to take care of their basic needs, it is not money that motivates people. More money beyond that actually reduces performance!
What really motivates a person, beyond getting their basic needs met, are a sense of Mastery over their work, a sense of Autonomy in their work, and a sense of Purpose in their work.
If you feel like an expert, that you have input in decisions, and that you are doing some actual good in the world, you are going to work harder. If you get paid a lot of money, but don't feel those things, you start trying to get away with stuff.
In a perfect market, you cannot raise the price enough to make a profit, because you will price yourself out of the market. Yes some people distinguish themselves by providing a superior product and that should be encouraged, but most of the ways to make a larger profit have to do with manipulating markets and government to get get an artificial advantage. Adam Smith, the father of economics, called this rents, and was against it.
No markets are perfect and so there will always be some profit, but obscene profits are a sign that something is broken, and they should not be mistaken for a reward for superior behavior. That is how you get people like Trump, who lies and cheats his way to wealth and power, while hurting everyone around him, instead of contributing to society.
Break up the big corporations, health care for all, higher taxes on the rich-these are not going to turn off anybody except the rich.
10
Is there hope for healing with Elizabeth Warren? I think so. Absolutely. If she gets her policies enacted, that will heal a lot of problems. I want a fighter, but a clean fighter. That's Elizabeth Warren. And I agree with her about greed. I used to admire doctors. Now I know that a lot of them take graft from Big Pharma and they sit on phramaceutical company boards and over prescribe medicines to up the price of their portfolios. I used to admire Harvard and Stanford. Now I wouldn't send my child to one of those grifter schools if you paid me. Healing can't start until greed ends. I also love that Elizabeth Warren is an older woman and the segment of the population she represents is the most derided segment of all of us, the most invisible, the most vulnerable. All my friends were telling me she could never be the nominee for exactly those reasons. Well, she might fool them all. Plus I love her new hairdo.
15
I appreciate Warren's gusto and promise to fight. The working class has been steamrolled over the past 20 years - even by union leaders promising to represent their interests. Clearly the era of "politeness" is over. It's the Democrats turn to elect a populist hero that will work on behalf of people she represents. Economic justice begets social justice.
10
I believe that whomever ends up the nominee, and currently I am assuming it will be Biden, the Democrats need to revive Reagan's old line: "There he goes again", and just say it every time Trump says or tweets anything. It certainly worked for Reagan.
11
In recent years the US population has chosen its past Presidents on the basis of height. Look at the stats. The debates need to have the candidates SEATED.
7
Elizabeth Warren is not Hillary Clinton. Hillary (left of left pre-Bill) tried to overcome the Ivory Towers, but got willed by the will to power instead.
Elizabeth, on the other hand has been protected by data and the American stories in that data. I believe Elizabeth to be (not a wonk, maybe wonky) an impassioned Listener turned Fighter, a fighter for all Americans!
22
Seniors will never go for Medicare for all. We didn't pay into it all those years to take a number and wait in line for care. Not to mention doctors and hospitals couldn't survive on the reimbursements. Oh, and they'll want illegal immigrants covered too, like they do in California now. No, thanks.
4
@M You're missing the point. Right now hospitals and big insurance and physicians, too, are all in or run by people in the 1 percent -- our health care system isn't about helping people, it's about making money for those folks -- with far too Americans getting the care they need at a price they can afford. It's broken. We need something better.
35
@Nancy
M has not missed the point. M realizes that doctors and hospitals can not survive on Medicare reimbursements.
"Medicare for all " will not reduce compensation for the 1 per centers. It will reduce compensation of doctors ,who will be forced to opt out of participating in Medicare.
I agree with Frank Bruni in that Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren stole the evening. Booker is my Senator, and up to now I haven't been impressed with him. He shone last night, and I only hope he meant what he said. I agree with him on winning back the Senate--a tough road ahead what with gerrymandering and voter suppression from the GOP. McConnell has to go if we can ever hope to move forward for future generations.
I supported Bernie in 2016 and felt he was cheated out of the nomination. I think he could have won--and still do. If it were not for him, the Democrats would not be talking about Medicare for All, eliminating student debt, taxing corporations and Wall Street big shots and so on. This time around, I feel Senator Warren can bring these things to the table. In addition, it will give this old grandma the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to see Liz hand Trump his lunch.
16
Warren stood out: Analysis, Vision, Plans, and a true commitment to a New America!
23
Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg should pair up now w Warren as president. Individually they’ll both fall short but together they make up each other’s shortfall and would crush the polls in 2020.
13
@Brooklyn Dog Geek, I think that a Warren-Buttigieg ticket would be a winner. It is hard to imagine a sharper contrast to the current WH occupant.
1
I am an independent (I detest our private political parties).
I have usually avoided these mega debates.
I knew in advance that some of the debaters were considered leading candidates and others were long shots.
But I wanted to hear them speak, without experts first telling me who was best, who was electable etc.
My takeaways -
There were a number of interesting insights offered as “zingers” by several of the candidates. These encouraged us to rethink the way we define campaign issues (and strategy). Kudos!
However, overall most seemed primarily eager to get the most words in on stage. I felt they lacked (or failed to project) a sense of connection and comfort with the audience they were talking to.
I liked best the candidates who showed restraint and said their piece “directly” without a lot of verbiage.
I appreciated the presentations of Senators Warren, Booker Klobuchar made, but actually gain away liking Senator Gabbard the most.
I am looking forward to the second half.
5
This debate once again highlighted the painful ignorance on the part of journalists who can switch from seemingly intelligent questions to stories about celebrities and crimes on other shows. They also misinform the public. The candidates seemed to have forgotten about the constitution. The show of hands about “would you abolish private insurance” perpetuates the fallacy that a president can abolish and make laws. It’s what Trump has tried to do and no candidate had the audacity to remind us that presidents don’t abolish things on a whim. They are supposed to lead the people, set a tone and facilitate compromises while standing their ground as owner of the people’s decision to elect him or her.
7
While you correct in the sense that congress passes laws, the president with his veto power, does set an agenda of his own.
7
Thanks Jon. My point is that abolishing existing laws is not what presidents do, yet Trump has normalized this behavior and people may actually believe so. The journalist perpetuated this idea by the wording of the question and the candidates did not remind us of the separation of powers, which in many ways is the essence of the upcoming election.
2
I agree with you! Warren commanded, but Castro was the one to break through. I am sure he’ll be receiving good donations to make the second debate. Cory Booker was ok, passionate, but I don’t think he break through.
2
If you want Donald, you will vote for Donald. Whomever the Democrats choose won't be Donald. I agree that some are better than others, but that won't make the difference.
4
Let's let "electability" questions answer themselves over then next 11 months. She who gets the most votes--particularly if they are in places like Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona--is the most electable. Pundits and prognosticators should stop filling air time and column space guessing around and let candidates and voters lead the way.
6
I wish the talk would be complimenting each other, to do the greatest good which is change the administration that is in now. Once again the media will divide the country with it's headlines instead of promoting the greater good. If tRump wins again I will quit all media plain and simple.
3
Loved, loved, loved the debate and most of the debaters. But then, I consider myself an educated progressive from the "third coast." Even though they spoke on principles that should appeal to all Americans, they did not speak to the uneducated, the opoid-addicted, and the impoverished rural parts of America that seek nothing much more from its leader than a good show and celebrity appeal. These are the voters, prepped by the propoganda of Fox, that will make or break the country. The candidate that can reach this crowd will win. Will it be Biden? If so, I hope he has the good sense to make good use of this field of sterling candidates.
4
You are not going to "nice" DOnald Trump out of office. It will take a fight and he will ensure that it is an ugly one so a Happy Warrior isn't going to do the trick. Elizabeth Warren has the tenacity, vision and - dare I say - persistence to do the job. In last night's debate she was actually at a big disadvantage; she was the front runner on stage which raised her "expectation quotient" and she actually followed proper debate procedure and didn't interrupt others just to get more face time.
Also, though she can express her ideas and plan succinctly, 50 seconds still isn't enough time to do the justice. As the field winnows and the candidates time as well as their opportunity to interact expands she should only do better.
Gail may be uncertain as to whether Warren is the Democrats' best right now, but, like more and more of America, that opinion will be changing soon and come January 2021 we can all call her #46.
21
Warren is a fighter, and I, for one, like that. She's a positive person who is tired of seeing people exploited. She and the other smart people she'll have in her cabinet will work for all Americans.
29
An arch conservative asked me who I would vote for if I had to vote today and I answered Joe Biden not because he's the best candidate but because he might help our nation return to a sense of normalcy and stability and introduce realistic incremental improvements. HE said he'd vote for Trump because he's (the arch conservative) a republican. It might be as simple as that?
3
"leaving no doubt about the direction in which she’d pull the country"
That she did... into the direction of failed economic experiments like USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela.
She is out of touch with the economic growth that has improved the lives of most everyone and created an optimism that hasn't existed since the mid 1980's.
Her whole principle is immoral: Take money from those who earned it and hand it over to those who did not. That is an affront to freedom and will lead to economic catastrophe. Sure, some people will get free stuff, but they won't have a job.
8
@Son of the American Revolution
The economy has NOT "improved the lives of most everyone" since real wages for over half of Americans have not kept pace with inflation over the past twenty-five years. Stop with this already! This economy works best for the top 15% (and almost perfectly for the top .5%), pretty well for the next 30%, and barely or not at all for the rest.
15
An affront to freedom? It’s called “taxes”. We already do it and it’s time to increase it and it isn’t even adjacent to a communist economic system to do so.
1
Jason,
Americans standard of living is amongst the highest in the world. A remarkable achievement given we are the third largest country in the world.
Some adjustments can be made to fix imbalances, but I would disagree with scrapping our economic system for a socialist one. And by socialism, I mean an economy where a high level of GDP is directed by the government.
Hillary won the debates with Trump and lost the election.
Trump wins at a visceral level as he projects strength and tribalism. None of the Democratic candidates have a visceral appeal yet - like Obama. Warren can shine amongst midling Democratic rivals but may not be able to dent Trump's winning coalition.
3
Frank, before we get to your questions about whether Warren is the best candidate, let's first ask if her supporters really care that much about whether she is the best, or whether they're more interested in whether her heart's in the left place. My guess is they do care more about the heart in the left place, so much so that they've confused that with being the strongest candidate.
Elizabeth Warren can keep her campaign promises only if her proposed “wealth tax” produces sufficient revenue. She plans to impose an annual “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” on the assets of the richest Americans. However, such a tax would probably require a constitutional amendment.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that the Constitution prohibited federal income taxes, the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 to grant the federal government authority to levy an income tax, but the amendment does not grant the federal government authority to tax assets. It states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The proposed wealth tax is essentially a property tax, the major source of revenue for states. Journalists should inquire at state capitol buildings to see if three-fours of states legislatures would vote to ratify an amendment granting the federal government power to tax property.
4
There were no real winners. These candidates need to come clean on cost. They then need to come clean on tax increases and spending cut amounts in other areas, probably military.
They need to be pressed on execution/implementation of programs and account for possible setbacks.
Anyone can promise things.
1
Meanwhile it’s fine for Trump to promise amazing cheap healthcare and a return to a time when a factory worker can support a family...with policies that achieve the opposite...
10
@Practical Thoughts, Trump's tariffs, most of which are paid by American consumers, are some of the biggest and craziest tax increases ever made. Republicans need to come clean that they don't really care about tax increases and they don't really care about deficits or limited government. The triumph of the white race has become the only consistent Republican policy.
Mike,
My criticism of Democrats on cost and implementation should not be seen as an enforcement of the sheer stupidity of Donald Trump.
These are big programs and significant shifts in economic philosophy being proposed. To not have a command on cost and implementation challenges is not going to help anyone. And if they don’t know the answer to those questions, they shouldn’t be advocating for them.
A mediocre strategy well executed will be more effective than a great strategy poorly executed.
Warren was wonderful last night. Spot on. Played by the rules. Stood by her beliefs and clearly well thought out and articulated vision and plans for our country. Plus she seems genuinely nice. How refreshing. She and Booker, I believe had the most conviction and appeal. Beto paled, he's out of his league, not ready or even enthused for a presidential candidacy and while DeBlasio loved grabbing the spotlight and getting his progressive views out there, but he's an arrogant bloviator at heart, never, ever could he go up against a Republican Senate lead by Mitch McConnell, they'd squash him. Gabbard, Castro, Klobuchar, were strong. Inslee so compelling, but can't see him going toe to toe with Trump. And the other two, sorry their personality styles were put upon, defensive, and off putting, it took away from the what they had to say.
12
@Fromjresey: Elizabeth Warren came off like a teacher I had back in grade school; strict, shrill, and not especially likable. I was waiting for her to keep Castro and O'Rourke after school.
@Ponsobny Britt, Beto needs to be kept-- not after school-- but off the stage, off the ticket, out of the spotlight. He is an egotist with not much to offer in the way of thought or intellect. Game over for him-- I hope.
1
@karen No argument from me on that.
I like Warren myself, (even if I disagree with many of her finer policy points). It's her intelligence that I trust in terms of being a good leader.
Having said that, this election is about beating Trump - period.
The Independents will determine who wins in 2020. Independents lean right. That's a fact. They won't vote for a Warren over Trump, especially if the economy is still strong into 2020.
Also, let's not forget about the affluent suburban districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat in 2018. These are mostly educated, socially liberal, fiscally conservative districts. If Democrats continue to use their current rhetoric of disparaging educated "elites" as the Republicans have, you can expect these districts to flip back.
7
@Jason Vanrell
I am an independent and will NOT vote for Trump.
@Jason Vanrell, I agree. I am upper middle class life-long dem. My friends are the same. All of us are committed dems, we despise trump. But we do not need the likes of Tim Ryan to insult us, to tell us we don't count-- when the truth is the USA economy is dependent upon us, and democratic politicians need us as much as they need the mythical white guy people like Ryan think are the american heros.
1