I have had it with the Dems, to be honest. They are self-destructing. Bernie and Liz may look good because they went progressive without attacking President Obama. Sure, being with Mr Obama for 8 years, it is hard to do. But as the Dem operatives have said post mortem, Mr Obama is still the most popular person of the party, never mind if Booker too is an African American. These guys think they can mimic Trump during his primary season with the GOP. They can't. It requires a self-possessed narcissist to do that. At this point, Yang may be a possibility because he has damaged himself the least by sticking to his narrative
2
Et tu, Gail Collins? All polls show Biden to be the choice of the majority of Democrats. But NYT and the rest of the media just cannot accept the truth.
8
After these 2 made-for-TV media event Democratic presidential debates, the debate is whether and why the media says we must have "drama" in our (not-really) debates to choose the next President of the United States?
I believe this is how we ended up with Trump as POTUS, rather than someone intelligent, experienced, and who actually has a conscience and cares about all the people of this country, the environment, as well as our allies and signed treaties to make the world safer.
2
re "We’re in a battle for the soul of America":
If Mr. Biden is correct, and this reader believes he is, then the most urgent priority is to find the most effective leader -- someone who can make a clear, convincing and consistently forceful case for America's future. Befuddlement won't cut it.
Once he and Elizabeth Warren share the same debate stage, it should be easier to get to the heart of the matter. Maybe as early as September and hopefully in a format that doesn't resemble a game show or WWE.
5
I notice quite a few comments mention the costly ideas of the Dems.
I would say, instead, to think of the over 1.5 Trillion tax break trump insisted on going mainly to the wealthy. Also, I would remind everyone of that other giveaway to the top tiers by George W which included the huge scaleback of inheritance taxes which would sunset after 10 years but which, in fact, was extended by Pres. Obama in a trade off deal with gop.
So, if you want more of this, vote for Putin's friend. Otherwise, vote for any Dems that come out on top.
11
Warren is in better shape, both physically and mentally, than any other candidate.
8
I don't even watch the debates. Whoever the Democrats nominate will get my vote. Any one of them is 10 times better than Trump. I would vote for Milania before I would vote for Trump.
7
Can we stop with the insipid PC commentary every time someone opens their mouth. Biden's calling Harris a "kid" was not a determination of age or status, but a term that is used often used with affection or a level of friendship. It seems journalism keeps looking for the least important information either as a set-up for a joke or to fill space. It demeans the journalist and disrespects the reader.
15
Totally agree. Maybe we can go back to critiquing his shoulder squeezes. Ridiculous!
2
I'm rather taken by a Biden-Buttigieg ticket.
It's heresy, I know. Two white males, but perhaps being gay takes Mayor Pete to a more complex level. He can take over after Joe's one term.
Really, Bernie belongs in some 1930s trade union hall, reading Clifford Odets.
Warren is admirable but she can't win. Too bad, but it's not going to happen.
Harris can dish it out, sort of, but she can't take it from Tulsi? How will she handle Trump?
I used to like Cory. But he was boorish with Biden, and borrowing the cheap trick playbook from Kamala. Stop already with the crime bill. Go after the criminal in the Oval Office.
I'll vote blue, no matter who.
Even if I have to dust off my copy of Odets' play "Waiting for Lefty"
while Sanders hectors us all from the Truman balcony.
54
@history lesson
While we love to talk about diversity in the lineup with two African Americans, one Samoan, one Latino, one Asian and one gay, somehow everyone forgets that Sanders is the first Jewish presidential candidate. That, too, is historic.
8
...That's our guy!
1
Yahoo for Gail. . . I find it mind numbing that Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd and now Frank Bruni are pontificating against young, more progressive and more aggressive candidates for president and seem more alarmed by 4 talented and charming female House members than the corrupt, racist, incompetent and morally bankrupt Trump Administration. Why not the revulsion at Moscow Mitch and the right wing kooks and religious nuts who are running the country now?
The squad is the future of America and the democratic party. 79 year old Nancy Pelosi, 80 year old Steny Hoyer, 78 year old Jim Clyburn, 86 year old Diane Feinstein, 80 year old Pat Leahy and 80 year old Maxine Waters are not. Retire, move on, do something else, clinging to power can only be explained by massive egos. Get out of the way and let the energy and enthusiasm of youth and new ideas take over. Can a left wing progressive movement be any worse than the mess this country is in now?
Like an aging athlete who continues to play after his career should have ended, Biden seems determined to make a fool out of himself. Biden is too old, out of touch and from another time and will not be the nominee no matter how hard the NYT opinion writers cheerlead for him.
I do not want anyone over 75 making major decisions that affect my life and neither should anyone one else. The line between wisdom and a doddering old fool is thin.
3
The "progressives" will give the election to Trump. It's that simple. Warren doesn't know the difference between "thinking big" and winning elections. Voters will not support her because she isn't moderate, fails to accept what most voters (who are moderate) want and has no likelihood of accomplishing her goals even if she could win, which she cannot.
Sanders is unelectable. His ego is bigger than his ideas, which are as dead on arrival as Warren's. Harris is making the mistake of trying to beat them with their "ideas", and that isn't going well.
Any of the moderate candidates could win over Trump, but these three are doomed. This election is the Democrats' to lose, and they seem ready to do so. The party executives are not intervening, and it will prove to be foolish.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
Defeating Trump has to be the number one priority of the democratic party and putting personal egos in check could help achieve that goal . Trump has the biggest megaphone in the world amplified by FOX STATE TV will be formidle to overcome as Trump rants and raves on twitter lying as he sees fit we need a strong rational voice to counter those rants. Trump will control the media with constant outrage and will continue to amuse the voters with his grotesque style of entertaining us.
3
Big, costly ideas will scare the electorate, but nobody seems to care. The Democrats are running a three-ring circus and
nobody can remember anything they say. Why not just
draw straws and go with it?
1
These debates aren't as valuable as they could be, largely because the media conducting them seem focused on spectacle and not substance. If NBC & CNN were focused on substance, they'd do less to ask others to "respond" to other Dem candidates and more to respond to the conditions and the candidate they'll likely face (barring a miracle, needed impeachment)--"The Great Divider" Trump. (Granted, responding to the elephant in the room might lead to a debate infantile in proportions.) If they wanted substance, they'd talk about the nebulous but constitutional job description of POTUS and ask candidates how they qualify to perform those duties.
It's not solely journalism's fault that its propagators venture too many of their opinions on how well candidates "performed", as if this spectacle they're conducting was for theirs and our entertainment and evaluation. It's not solely their fault that candidates feel pressured to produce sterile plans, as if any of them will ever have a chance to implement one of them. It's more our culture and its lack of vision and promotion of the superficial toward immediate gratification.
5
Totally agree - I thought CNN did a terrible job of moderating the debate and seemed more intent on generating fights between the candidates vs letting them explain their views and proposals. Very disappointing.
5
Gail Collins might have been able to offer some critical insight into the debates had she spend more time outside of New York where the people who vote actually work and live. To suggest that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker presented ideas during the debates this week that would qualify them to compete with Donald Trump is laughable.
5
I realize now that Jeff Zuckerman really WAS working to help Individual-1 win in 2016 with the endless free "advertising" CNN provided, and is intent on making it happen again in 2020. Hence, the appalling job done by the "moderators" during these past two nights.
2
I am disgusted with the CNN debate format, which is designed to pit each participant against the other in a way that reminds me of “American Gladiator”, not a presidential debate. Nocandidate is allowed to fully state their position on any issue without the moderators challenging one of the other participants to tear it apart. The way that Harris, Booker and Gellibrand went after Biden was disingenuous and shameful. Booker, who questioned Biden’s support for the flawed criminal justice reforms enacted in the 1990s, initiated zero tolerance policing and stop and frisk in Newark. When Harris was District Attorney of Oakland California, her office had a horrific record of prosecutorial misconduct. For Gillibrand, who is polling at less than 2%, to question Biden on gender issues when he raised two sons as a single parent after his wife and a third child were killed in an auto accident, was clearly an attempt to elevate herself by sliming a good person.
The Democratic Party should not have allowed over 20 participants to run for President, and should not have agreed to this circus-act debate format.
Since when is lack of experience a virtue for a Presidential candidate?
I could care less whether Biden’s answers were, at times, imperfect. Given the time limitations and “free for all” atmosphere of the debates, nobody’s answers are consistently cogent. Biden has the experience, knowledge, strength of character and humanity that we need in America today.
9
I find these debates hard to watch. Why? Because the candidates prep relentlessly for them and memorize a bunch of factoids (plus comeback zingers) that may or may not have anything to do with reality.
What, for instance, will Medicare for All cost us, once we're paying for our healthcare through payroll taxes instead of through employer deductions or insurance premiums? Or before we get ahead of ourselves, what's the likelihood that Mitch McConnell is going to hold a hearing on such a bill let alone bring it to the floor for an up or down vote? Or that, if Medicare for All were miraculously to pass into law, Republican state attorneys general wouldn't sue to have it overturned and found unconstitutional?
Indeed, isn't that the new normal with any ACA-sized bill the Democrats may seek to pass ... that it will automatically face a legal challenge that will inevitably wend its way to the more conservative than ever Supreme Court?
Sure, THE most important thing is getting Trump out of the White House. But the thrill of doing so will last only until a new Democratic president is inaugurated. After that we'll be back to the endless war of facing the Party of No.
2
@Ned Ludd
If you'll allow me to be a Ludd-ite in support of your comment, it's correct to criticize the Medicare-for-all proponents for their lack of foresight. None of us has enuf yet to see how this vision could become reality. Universal health care is a great vision, but the realities you describe should give all in this debate caution as to how much we can expect any candidate to push such a vision forward in one or even 2 terms as president--esp w/o a better, more consistent campaign against the "Party of No", whose moral and intellectual corruption hasn't been exposed as systematically as needed. (Hint: the epitome of its corruption in lodged in the highly impeachable present occupant of the White House--impeach both "The Great Divider and Republicanism with this one stone.)
Ms. Collins missed what I thought was the highlight last night. The look on Harris' face was priceless when Gabbard blindsided her. Now she knows what it feels like to be on the other end of an ambush. I really hope she's not the eventual nominee, or even in the final three.
8
The "debates" used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters. Can somebody remind me why this changed? The current arrangement is horrendous.
8
I find it revealing of Establishment media bias that a recent [7/19/19] Gallop poll showing Sanders, again, as being the most well liked candidate, has gotten very little coverage... https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx
Sanders had a great debate. I appreciated that Sanders and Warren worked together to promote their shared vision for medicare for all, and a better deal for working people.
I trust Sanders, with his fearless courage and what sadly are bold ideas for a foreign policy based on diplomacy, not military solutions, to stand strong against the Establishment Military Industrial Complex.
I simply don't think Warren has the knowledge to stand strong for a less militarized foreign policy.
President Bernie Sanders 2020!
with his courage, integrity, vision and bold ideas
A Future To Believe In and a more thriving society
I think the point I wanted to make in an earlier comment was that restricting the third and fourth debates to those with PAID access, either via cable or satellite, to the internet seems fundamentally undemocratic. Allowing a single commercial media entity to monopolize important political discourse simply should not be allowed.
7
Maybe if Warren and Sanders had been with Biden last evening they would have gone after Biden. But they weren't and they didn't. But the candidates desperate to swap places with Biden in the polls just couldn't resist going after him whenever they could. This was the circular firing squad I had feared but knew was inevitable. Instead of increasing their chances by attacking Biden's and by proxy Obama's record, they hurt the party's chances of capturing the White House whoever the candidate ends up being.
4
What has happened to the US that Donald Trump is a real threat to such good candidates? Where did we go wrong? It does not seem possible that Trump could win again but since it happened in '16 it could happen again. And that is the end of America as we know it and want to live here.
Please, please vote for whomever and get our country back again. Do you know anyone who looks like FDR? or popular past presidents? Anyone who can beat Trump?
4
@BKC Bring back Obama!! Michelle?
1
Some time you have to fight fire with fire. Joe is not fire. A moderate democratic would only stop this disaster but not deal with the underlying issues. These issues would continue to deteriorate setting up the stage for another republican demagogue to say only he can fix them. Warren has a well thought out plan that she articulates well. Maybe the electorate is not ready but that is not her fault.
3
Trump and 9/11: The only thing HE has been a first responder to is Bankruptcy Court. As for the Debates, I’m enjoying the spectacle, it’s a good preview for the most important election of our lifetime. Not hyperbole, just cold, hard truth. What are we, a Democracy or a bizarre conglomeration of Russian plutocracy and social media “ fame “, and endless TV propaganda ???
A prediction, just for you, Gail. The progressive Dem Ticket: Warren and Mayor Pete. The Moderate Ticket : Biden and Harris. And no, I’m not drunk. And I will Vote for the nominees, irregardless of the outcome of the process. Let it work, as intended. Trump will go down fighting, enraged and dangerous.
33
@Phyliss Dalmatian
What about a mixed ticket? The only thing I want is a ticket that can defeat Trump. A blend of both progressive and moderate could have a good chance, if they can get along. I tend to prefer a Warren/Booker ticket after these last two nights. It would have good diversity, good presentation of positions with some solid thought behind them. It would have someone with executive experience in it, and both seem to be able to communicate well. Warren can certainly think on her feet well enough to handle the Blowhard-in-Chief, and would be likely to listen to any ideas her running mate would put out there.
Just a thought...
14
@AS Pruyn
is this where we are - 2 Democrats are a " mixed ticket " ?
1
@thostageo
Warren and Booker are mixed in many ways. Their views on some subjects are different (he's a lot closer to Wall Street than she is) although not as far apart as compared to any Republican. Identity wise they are different (gender, race, omnivore/vegan). Experience wise they are different (her many years in Law and teaching vs. his in an executive role in NJ).
They both are adept at putting proposals out there that can be looked at (she better than him), and, key to my comment, both would do well in debates with Trump/Pence. I would LOVE to see Pence in a debate with Booker. I expect Pence's head to explode. And Warren has shown that Trump's attacks do not phase her, she keeps on punching.
3
Yes, Ms. Collins, any one of the 20 candidates on stage in Detroit would be better than the man who lost the popular vote in 2016. On night one of the debates, viewers at least were presented with the lessons of being an "Independent" when Sen. Sanders treated us to two hours of campaign slogans yelled at high volume; no one was going to sleep during his time to speak. After four years of Trump, I don't think 4 years of Sen Sanders yelling is what the voters of the USA are asking for.
I can't be the only viewer who disliked the weak--and obvious--attempts by the "moderators" to stir up trouble between candidates. Democrats don't do acting well and acting angry with each other over the mechanisms for getting to universal health care isn't in their tool boxes.
Passionate outreach from Democratic candidates seems to include a whole lot of sad stories of childhood experiences or climbing ladders to get a look at detention centers Trump was preventing Senators from seeing. And she probably climbed that ladder in a skirt! Stories take more than one minute so CNN's format did nothing to allow the Democrats to show fake anger with each other or to trade the stories from their connections with voters.
I wish so much that VP Biden would stop running. No Democrat wants to see him beaten and many Democrats know he must lose in the primaries rather than lose to Trump. USA voters do not need two presidential candidates stuck in the past only one of whom is sane.
17
Gail, I know in my heart whom I want to be our nominee. (Yes, she is a woman.) Meanwhile, these debates, well, I can not quite get into them, not yet. I need about 10 less candidates up on that stage during only one night before I can begin focusing and really start comparing notes. Right now, I find my angst level increasing with all this infighting and targeting of each other. Why? Because out of these folks, who truly are all qualified, we have to pick The One who will not only make us and our democracy whole again but s/he also has to oust Trump and send him back to his Golden Towers. That to me is The Must. Whether it be health care, immigration, equal rights, jobs, etc., I KNOW a Democrat will deliver and come to our rescue. I have full faith in that fact. What I do not have faith in is another four years under this corrupt, unhinged "president." He threatens our and our country's very existence.
43
Andrew Yang was right. CNN staged these debates like a game show. CNN should be ashamed of themselves. Was anyone's else's intelligence insulted? The format is unworthy of the high office to which these candidates aspire. The moderators didn't even know their material well enough to look the candidates in the eye when asking them questions. Instead, they read from their prepared scripts. Edward R. Morrow, Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw would be appalled.
11
Love ya, Gail. But if Biden didn't have a great night neither did you writing this column. You're usually hilarious but snark ain't funny.
3
>> you don’t call a female member of the U.S. Senate “kid.”
oh, Collins, not you too
it's Joe Biden, for heaven's sake
8
What I would really like is for all Democratic candidates and all Democratic voters to agree that they will support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. So what if you don't like Joe Biden's stance on busing from the 1970s or you think Elizabeth Warren is a socialist? They're a lot better than the current occupant of the white house...you know competent and statesmanlike. Let's wait until 2024 to focus on the progressive agenda. Everyone who identifies as a Democrat or an anti-Trumper needs to keep their eye on the prize--beating Trump.
I'm very concerned that 2020 is going to be a repeat of 2016 and all of the purists are either going to write in a candidate or stay home. Look what that got us.
7
@Jillian
Definitely with you on this. I wish there were some way of getting the candidates to stress the importance of supporting whoever is selected to be our standard bearer. Emphasize that they're all on the same side and have the same basic concerns (climate change, the economy, aiding the working and middle classes), and differ mostly in the manner of attaining their goals.
4
@Jillian. I would like all of the candidates to denounce Antifa.
I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, over age 70, and here are my observations.
These are not debates, they are reality tv.
The moderator tosses out an issue, and picks the people who are to respond. How silly is that? At least they did not do a "show of hands" question, which is nonsense.
Almost NOTHING was directed against our "Dear Leader" who is a clear and present danger to our country.
Most of the Democrats were arguing AGAINST many of the policies of President Obama. How dumb is THAT?
When the ACA passed, it was considered "radical." Today, most Americans love at least some of it, such as no pre-existing conditions can keep you from getting insurance, children are covered up to age 26 on their parents insurance, and there are no lifetime caps on the amount of insurance coverage you qualify for.
Even PRIVATE insurance has to comply with those requirements. (Bernie and Liz did not even mention THAT.)
Some states have increased MedicAid coverage for those who qualify.
But the Republicans have sued in Federal court to have the ACA declared unconstitutional. That would kill all of the above benefits in addition to wiping out coverage for millions of people. Why did all those Democrats not mention that every five minutes?
As Joe Biden would say: "C'mon, man! (and woman!)"
10
I didn’t watch the debate but listened to it on the radio last night. The opening few minutes when each candidate was introduced sounded like the beginning of a boxing fight. “And in this corner we have Joe, the scrapper from Scranton, Biden ...” I had images of them all wearing robes, ripping them off, sparring at the air and showing their muscles. Oh, my. Even debates are reality shows.
1
I suspect the Oval Office is already being regularly chloroxed by the hard-working staff of the White House. But somebody really ought to sage the entire building once the current prez is out of there.
I'm not kidding.
4
@Betsy Todd.
I highly recommend exorcism.
1
Right on, Gail, especially your last paragraph!
1
Jeez, we Democrats are such wimps!
These debates didn't have any nasty nicknames bandied about! No references to the size of any body parts! No stalking around, grimacing. And so many women on stage!
The best we can do is talk about one another's records and plans? What's up with that?
But seriously, when 40% of the country approves of this president and seems to just want to shout vitriolic slogans - how are we to engage?
I don't know, but candidates bringing one another down doesn't seem like a good start.
6
Gail, you've got to be kidding me!
Men of my generational cohort call everyone younger than 55 a kid! Cheap shot.
7
Bernie is enthusiastic and passionate; he really is not yelling. Just remember: God spews the luke warm out of his mouth. Go Bernie!
3
Well Gail, maybe after ALL of the debates some other candidate will appear & save us.
This is sorta' like 'Debating with the Stars', eh? Wonder who'll be left standing. But, Joe's not The One. Nice guy, but won't beat DJT. I don't know who will, but not Joe. (I do like the Clorox idea. Seriously. Fumigate intensely.)
1
More range war than debate with Harris, riding none too tall in her saddle, leading the charge of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight against front-runner Biden. The moderator encouraged potshots at Biden. Trump waxed orgiastic orange.
2
Is anyone else appalled at the ridiculous “”show “ of the entire thing? It’s completely absurd and demeaning to us and the candidates. I hadn’t watched the beginning of the first debate so was shocked to see this. To begin with, there is no value of having an audience there. The opening ceremony and ridiculous fanfare, graphics and COUNTDOWN were comical at best. Can’t help but think of the comparison to the last days of Rome.
4
@Deborah Re I bet pales in comparison to the show Don is going to put on in my hometown tonight--apparently, too many people prefer to be entertained than enlightened.
1
Your "vote is for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders"? Two candidates who can't win. People are tired of Bernie's cranky old man yelling. And people are not going to vote for an all-or-nothing Medicare for All -- which both of them are pushing. Add in Warren's strident tone and her insistence that every multi-national corporation is evil, and you have the prescription for re-electing the most awful president our country has ever had.
3
@Roger Paine
That's not possible. We're already afflicted with the worst.
1
Again it is the self-serving media who performed worst and the American electorate that was the "losers". The questions put forth by the "moderators" were intended to prompt a fight between the candidates, not to get them to respond to the meaningful concerns of voters.
It was a circus and the CNN hosts were the clowns.
Or maybe a sporting event. This morning watch Morning Joe for the box scores.
I struggle for a metaphor because it was anything but a debate.
How much money did CNN pay for this over-the-top production?
Did you know they own the footage from these "debates"? So if anyone else wants to use them, fork up.
Any figures on how many tuned out after about 30 minutes?
I'm told this was once done by PBS and the League of Women Voters. And that actual intellectuals asked questions instead of the Q rated, empty vessels that the networks employ.
We need real election reform. And sweeping this nonsense away should be part of it.
3
If the question were, who is the best debater of the lot, I would not pick Biden. But that ain't the question (unless you are selling ad space.)
If you want a person who can build a consensus, who can reach out to the people of many classes and colors, including white men (who still matter), then Biden looks great.
3
This debate was a disgrace.
Last night might not have been riveting TV, but it was a passionate debate about policy. Tonight was an opposition research fueled tirade: against a Vice-President who was and still is beloved by many, many Democrats and who stood loyally by the side of the only remaining Democratic President with credibility and influence AND against a superstar African-American senator who has been a fierce and fearless prosecutor of the Republicans in Congress and the President (and they both as guilty as the rest of field of feasting on bad blood). I watched in horror as they foamed at the mouth waiting for the right moment to attack, shook their heads at each other, disrespected each other.
By all means—let’s have a heated conversation about the best path forward. But if these candidates are not willing to act as if fellow members of their party are in this because their hearts are in the right place, if they can’t keep the anger directed at the President and his party, they are going to be very sorry when he uses their quotes from this debate to get re-elected.
3
As you mentioned the few that seem to have endurance, and the ideas to support it, we may be coming to the realization that the others, now with the advantage of name recognition, would be excellent candidates to regain the Senate...and send Moscow Mitch packing, and stopping his protracted toxic obstruction of any and all democratic proposals, however bipartisan in their appeal.
4
@JD
@Mary Leonhardt
I'm in a Philly suburb.
My district finally flipped in 2018.
I'm closer to Trump country than to Philly or the KOP mall.
Everyone likes Joe Biden--and he'll crush Trump in Pennsylvania.
6
If you want a president with no respect for political norms and realities, well, we already have one of those. A lot of us aren't excited by the prospect of just replacing him with a similar model of a different ideology. We know Joe has to make some concessions to the wingnuts for the primary, but don't force him so far into the camp of "woke" radicals that he's damaged for the general election.
2
Absurd format. Hopefully our recently reformed health care system won't be scuttled based on a few one liners and media "analysis" touting winners and losers. I've seen enough. Let's have some written explanations and defenses of these hair-brained multi-billion dollar schemes that will, if molded into the Democratic platform, assure Trump's re-election.
If people are going to lose it over "go easy on me kid" we've got no hope all. Lighten up people!! If you can't take some gentle ribbing, you don't deserve to be the democratic nominee.
3
Random thoughts for short attention spans like mine:
~ I had no problem with Biden's Hollywood quip to Harris: "Go easy on me, kid." (Worthy of Indiana Jones or Humphrey Bogart)
~ de Blasio seems to have some good stuff in there. (I'm not a New Yorker, so I'm ignorant of all he is.) But he's out soon anyway.
~ Harris is cornered. All she can do is stand and fight, no longer deny her past mistakes.
~ Warren is coming on stronger and stronger. She's not an intellectual milksop after all. I had undervalued her wherewithal. (We all hate whiners and naggers, eh?)
~ Bernie is right to be angry. Many Americans are struggling and appropriately worried; it's not a game to them. If things were good for all, Bernie could lighten up. But I understand we want our president to be all things to all people. Go, Bernie, shout, fight, gesticulate, turn red in the face, win!
Not one will survive the Trump machine. Middle America isn't looking for socialism and identity politics. Not one Dem gave a good reason for lower and middle class white men to vote for a party that disdains them. They may not be getting a better deal under Trump but at least they feel wanted, heard, and valued. Knock him all you want but Trump will win in a walk.
2
Bad night for a circular firing squad. The ''lets attack Biden & Obama strategy" was a big mistake. It writes ALL of the GOP attack ads for them. When the field narrows, Dems will look ridiculous when they go back to singing the praises of Obama's administration. Booker assailing Biden for locking up criminals is not going to play well with moderate or independent voters either. How is going after Obama & Biden for enforcing immigration laws a good strategy? We either have laws or we don't. Obama should not be faulted for humanely administering laws. What laws will these candidates selectively ignore? It's absurd to have 20 people up there tearing each other apart. It's time to make the debates matter. It's time to stop acting like the majority of voters doesn’t matter. Let us have a real discussion with just the top candidates - not people with one percent. The debate configuration was never intended for this many people. CNN’s arbitrary, rat-a-tat format didn’t permit us to hear anybody answer questions intelligently. All it did was force a candidate to trash someone for 30 seconds. They barely had time to finish a sentence, let alone a coherent thought. Complex issues require more than soundbite answers. Do we really care who zinged who the best? Or hearing who got in the best one-liner? What does this have to do with governing effectively? Shame on the media for turning the most serious decision voters will make into a mud wrestling spectacle. Embarrassing.
3
My Trump supporting, 75 year old Father loves Liz Warren. Why? Because she hates corporations. She is our best chance. Not Biden. The real issue in this campaign is how you view corporations. Corporate Don does not stand a chance against Liz. The media, including the Nytimes does not address this.
5
This citizen found it so moving and exciting to see 20 bright, decent human beings talking about thoughtful plan for positive change--they shone despite CNN's crass, simple-minded presentation. Perhaps there's hope.
3
So let's stop debating whether we should have a single payer health system or some hybrid. How about focusing on the people living in states that have not accepted the expansion of Medicaid in their states leaving millions without health insurance. How about means testing for all ACA shoppers with adjusted tables that result in health insurance costs that are 20% less across the board AND lets make medicare available to everyone in states that have not accepted the expansion of medicaid in their states. Oh and let's do this on day one!!!!
These two things would more than likely ensure a complete revolt by voters in those states in favor of the Democratic party. Remember it will not be enough just to elect a Democratic President if they don't take back the Senate!
2
I like Joe Biden and here's Joe Biden to explain why: No. 1, I'm not Trump. No. 2, I'm not extreme. No. 3, I'm not Trump and I'm not extreme. No. 4. I never repeat myself.
1
If you think Bernie Sanders is anything but deranged we are in a world of trouble.
Love Liz Warren but she seems to have some idea being President will turn her into SUPER SOCIAL CRUSADER! I don't see any acknowledgement of what the job actually entails which is being nice to people you don't actually like to try to get them to cooperate.
And as far as I can tell neither Warren, nor Sanders, nor Harris have a shred of leadership skills or any knowledge of foreign policy.
Forget about Joe Biden. He's too old, too slow, too lost in the past and too blah to do anything but hand the next election to the sentient turnip the GOP will undoubtedly run.
Okay, by my reckoning that leave Booker and Buttigieg. I'd happily for either of them or both of them.
1
if your only worry about Biden is that he may not be as quick on his feet as a 50 year old, don't worry. He will have the judgement and experience to surround himself with people of good judgement, experience, ethics, and skill.
5
People actually elect candidates because of policy. It's hard for pundits to believe. But if you don't know why someone gets chosen, you haven't looked hard enough at how people see their policies. And there's trouble with Med. 4 All, Sanders & Warren style. The more people understand it, it will unravel. Health care is key policy to Dems, and in time will shake out the field.
That said, I'd like to see Buttigieg debate Pence. I think Pete would skewer the evangelical hypocrite.
2
I watch the so-called debates and I shudder. I think to myself that we could possibly have another 4 years of this atrocious president in charge of our country. I think the Democrats need to get their act together. Fighting among themselves is not going to do it. Trump supporters are not watching the Dems fight with each other. There has got to be a better way to decide for whom to vote in 2020. There has to be someone who can save us from the loathsome lying individual who now occupies the highest office in our land.
1. CNN did a horrible job with this format. Rather than drawing out each candidate's qualifications and plans, they fomented arguments and conflict.
2. Cory did a lot to show that he is a person with a larger vision than just tearing down his rivals.
2-1/2. The best line of the night was Kirsten - let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.
3. The real debate should be a round table, no studio audience - Joe - Liz- Bernie - Pete - Cory.
4. The ticket that makes most sense to me is Liz for Pres, Cory for Veep. This would keep the Obama coalition on the reservation and would energize the progressive base of our party. Neither Dishonest Don nor Minister Pence would have a chance one on one against these two.
4
I thought Joe Biden did an excellent job in defending himself all night long. He was repeatedly attacked by virtually everyone on the stage. The two African American Senators to his sides blamed hm for every single ill affecting their communities. But why then do most African Americans still prefer Biden overwhelmingly to them?
Biden is not my top pick to lead the country, but he is honest, decent, capable and he has a good heart. After Trump that would be such an incredible breath of fresh air and utter relief from what we have been living with day in and day out now for years. I hope and pray that the media and other Democrats do not destroy this good man before he has a chance to destroy Trump once and for all.
3
I have valued your humor in the past, but when did "does standing erect count as winning?" become funny when speaking of whether Joe Biden deserves to remain in the race, because, according to you, he didn't pass out and fall down, or fall asleep and fall down, or drop dead during the debate?
It is impossible to find it at all funny as the lunatic who over 60 million Americans voted for, and who continue to support, gleefully confirms that he was always a vicious bigot.
You think Sanders won because he has ideas and never doubts himself, and Warren won because she's the best debater with presumably excellent ideas. Warren gave retorts only a very smart person and a skilled debater can summon like: "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." A great line, yet sadly worthless.
On July 12th Mother Jones (hardly a right-wing publication) analyzed Warren's immigration platform and found it de facto open borders in: "Are Democrats Now the Party of Open Borders?"
In the real world, Warren asserting that she's for "strong borders" becomes a nasty joke Trump buries her with just by pointing to her platform. That Trump can't understand it is irrelevant, as the host of lifelong Democrats I spoke to over the last week can, and are totally mystified by it. All stated that if Warren sticks with this "gift" to Trump, he'll win, no matter how "smart" she is.
3
I'm reading that folks believe Biden won't be able to stand up to Trump in a debate. Trying to reply to Trump in a debate is a fool's errand. Trump's debate performances and rallies have nothing to do with any kind of policy or rational dialog. Trump calls his opponent names; talks about how wonderful he (Trump) is; talks about how he knows the right thing to do about anything before anybody else knows it; and then brings out the hate speech to demonize people and gin up the racists in his audience to elicit cheers. There's no rational dialog. Policy wonks can't tarnish Trump's audience "appeal". Someone like Biden who has the inherent respect of many Americans; whose compassion and humanity are legend; who can talk to the voters Obama lost in the 2016 election; and whose supported policies are mainstream -- is the electable antidote to Trump.
2
One of the biggest issues facing this country, besides healthcare, is immigration. I heard Castro advocate for decriminalizing crossing the border, another check mark for open borders. I'm not hearing any ideas for border control, except for hearing about how we can open the border. Decriminalize border crossing, get rid of ICE, and let's give the undocumented immigrants health care. What a great plan for decontrolling the border, Definitely give health care to the undocumented, when many of our citizens can't afford it.
Europe is reeling from open borders. It brought down Angela Merkel, it will bring down the Dems who refuse to see that many, maybe a majority in this country want border control and not open borders. If the Dems fail to see the
prevailing sentiment, they may well be doomed. PS. Trump's rating has gone up after these debates.
1
I like 'em all. It's a 10 way tie. They are all great. Not a single one up there on that stage was Donald J Trump. I'd be happy to throw dice or spin a roulette wheel to pick the Democratic nominee. Debating their differences in this context is like asking "do you prefer a red, orange, yellow or purple life preserver when your ship has sunk and you are in danger of drowning?" I may have my preferences, but ANY life preserver is better than the sinking ship. Trump is a human torpedo who is sinking our ship of state. Any life preserver, please!
176
@Cal Prof
Well put!
12
In 2016 campaign, those that tried to go toe to toe with Trump and fight fire with fire, got knocked down pretty fast. Trump loves street fighting, and he is a master of it. He relished his role with WWR. Perhaps many Americans would very much like to see a comfortable, confident, gentleman “Uncle Joe” against a bully Trump. Might make a big difference.
I was so depressed after last night, I didn't think I could laugh again. Then along came Gail. Thanks!
29
In the second debate, none of the candidates seemed presidential. Instead, I was thinking about how some of them would fit into Liz or Bernie's cabinet: Gabbard--defense; Inslee--EPA; Castro HUD again; Yang--treasury.
1
The way the news media has judged these debates is seriously flawed. Speaking eloquently is a useful trait in a presidential candidate. I expect everyone, left and center, to defend their policies. But there seems to be no penalty in the judgment of the opinion writers for making bold policy promises that rely on unspecified funding mechanisms, have no realistic shot of passing Congress, and in many cases have *extremely* low support among the American electorate.
Americans simply do not support decriminalizing border crossings (27% support), slavery reparations (29% support), health care for illegal immigrants (33%), or eliminating private insurance (41%). A lot of this polling has been done since the debates started so there's no excuse for journalists not to know about it. How is it that the judgments of writers (and I don't mean to single out Gail Collins - it's a widespread failing) about who's "winning" are so at odds with the opinions of American voters? That is what a left wing bubble looks like. Failure to address it will lead to four more years of Trump.
2
The last paragraph says it all, which is why I do not waste my time watching the debates.
So we've had four nights of debates, and Elizabeth Warren has won all four.
3
Elizabeth Warren has the proverbial “fire in her belly” and as a voter who’s weighing all my options, for now at least, she’s my front runner. Sure, she may seem far left, but isn’t that the world we love in now? Let’s go from too far right to too far left and give the conservatives a chance to see what it feels like when your head is exploding every day. I, for one, need a rest from this current form of insanity.
2
Is age really the first thing to know about the candidates? Warren doesn't seem old and Buttigieg doesn't seem too young.
Donald, otoh, says things I haven't heard since the 1950s, so he really is old.
As for the "kid," I'm sure Biden meant it affectionately. We used to have Sweethearts sugar candies that said that and worse. Mush.
I think Andrew Yang is being DRAMATICALLY under-mentioned. Great job. Great original answers. Great original ideas. And great rejoinders to thorny questions and problems.
A real fresh voice that seemed capable of standing up to Trump as well as appearing strong enough/new enough/young enough to take on myriad (inherited) problems.
In short, Yang articulated a guiding principle (wealth distribution) that would immediately and inherently address a wide-range of ongoing problems.
Jake Tapper did a terrible job in general, and why did the moderators think they had to rile up dissent among the candidates. Instead of stating a candidates position then asking another why they are wrong, they should ask how their take of matter differs. At least Jake didn't do the "raise your hand" trick.
Also, at 72 years of age, I certainly don't want to have to vote for anyone older than me. I take pretty good care of myself and stay active, but there is not way I have the energies and abilities (my chess game reminds me) that I had twenty or thirty years ago.
With all due respect to Bernie and Joe, there are a number of candidates I would gladly consider voting for, including Warren nand Harris, but also Gabbard, Inslee, Booker and Andrew Yang, who is truly looking to the future. He might actually be the best pick. Not a bad idea to bring someone who reads and likes science and math into the White House.
My guess is the stable genius's IQ is at best, maybe half of Mr Yang's.
1
Biden is toast.
If the most that can be expected from him is that he is not medivacked then " ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City.", to quote the Music Man.
Big trouble.
Trump will eat him for breakfast.
We need to find someone who will make a good president and can take on Trump.
Last night I was really amazed by Corey Booker. Man, can he think on his feet. Young, vibrant, brilliant.
Pete Buttigieg is also outstanding.
Both of these powerhouses can take down Trump and bring America into a new era.
3
Hit the rewind. I'd like hearing more from Tulsi Gabbard.
3
The Dems continue their circular firing squad, while Trump and his minions increase their chances of getting another four years. The Democratic Party should stand for more than dumping Trump. Those who have met the low bar for the privilege to clutter up the "debate" stage are providing more grist for Trump to return fire.
We can no longer afford to base our early decisions for presidential candidacies on what has turned out to be just another reality show!
4
Just picked up on CBS News post debate analysis: Can Tulsi get beyond her one trick pony defense issue? (i.o.w., shall we just brush her aside and move on to more important issues like busing in the 80's?)
Oh, wait, you mean the defense department which spends $1 trillion annually which is more than 50% of our budget after you set aside mandatory social security, Medicaid and medicare?
Yeah, I guess that's just chump change. Nothing to see here, folks. Keep it moving.
2
I'm politically exhausted. Too many candidates. I'm too old to go to the circus. I really don't care. Do you?
@arp
Yes, I care most desperately. What is the best thing to do? We need an improved president.
2
I'm beginning to wonder when Joe Biden's acuity is compared to Bob Mueller's acuity as to his testimony last week. Seems like a lot of similarities in their respective performances.
This is why these “debates” are not helping anybody except Trump, the republicans, CNN and other sponsoring networks. “Biden is a disappointment”...Harris is too abrasive...His tie is too wide...blue on a debate stage, really.” We do not need this lame excuse for reality TV. Feel deprived? Watch the 365th season of Survivor. While Trump is raising cash and holding pep rallies, our team is eviscerating each other and being cheered on by the media. There is one issue in 2020, and with the willing support of the democrats, he’s eating our lunch. Can’t anybody here play this game?
3
Okay, I'm old. Not as old as Joe Biden, but old. So forgive me if I make a comment readers find quaint.
Can we please, please have the League of Women Voters run the debates again?
These cable networks are so depressing in their tent show hoopla. More important, they do not permit serious, civil discussion at a time when we are in desperate need of clarity, civility, and gravitas.
We have this dreadful show in which, first we watch singing and marching (what the heck?), then listen to candidates interrupt each other and take potshots (the potshots result from not having time to elucidate), then listen to about 8 tv personalities interrupt each other to make, frankly, jejune observations.
Is this any way to run a country?
8
I'm very disappointed in your preference for Warren. She began her political career by lying about her Native American heritage, which will come back to haunt her. She has a lot of "plans" but most of them are pie in the sky that would never get through Congress and are way too far to the left for the average moderate voter.
3
Helps to look for other opinions too. A piece in the WaPo today headlines, "Democrats Squabble for Two Hours; Offer No Message of Hope..." From the looks of it, Times readers may disagree. However, what's the wisdom of brawling with each other? Trump is the one to attack. GOP has huge enthusiasm for their candidate. That will make a difference in turnout. Meanwhile, Democrats are bruising each other. Some bruises don't heal. That will also affect turnout. No question that Democrats are an argumentative lot. They must offer something other than a fighting spectacle. They must be inspirational and offer hope. Yes, it's done falsely, I know, but Trump does that and benefits. Democrats must, honestly, do it too.
2
They already have had about debates too many.
The goal should be to win the election. The current Administration is destroying the environment, stacking the Supreme Court, ignoring deficits, waiting until after the election to come up with their make believe health insurance plan.
And these candidates talk about is health insurance what someone did in office 10-20 years ago.
It is not that tough, fix Obama Care, improve the environment by rejoining the Paris Accords. Appoint competent people to your cabinet. Eliminate loopholes for the wealthy and large corporations so they pay their fair share. Get a plan for infra-structure.
Bring honesty and integrity back to the office of President. No more lying press secretaries, chiefs of staff or anyone in your Administration.
Make elections secure.
Come up with sensible trade deal with China that somehow will work for both. Do some serious negotiating with North Korea and Iran with people who know how to negotiate and make a workable deal.
2
Gail, you know, and I know, that ANY one of those twenty candidates is superior to the current occupant of the Oval Office, and God willing, enough American citizens (especially the ones who live in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) also know that.
2
Biden held his own against numerous attacks unlike his performance in the first debate. Tulsi Gabbard showed that she is a future star in the Democratic Party.
1
‘“We’re in a battle for the soul of America, he said in one of his best moments, which just involved repeating something he tells his audiences all the time. If Donald Trump got re-elected Biden warned, “the America we know will no longer exist.”’
This may be repeated ad nauseum, but no matter how you slice it, it could not be more true. With the departure this week of Dan Coats and the imminent takeover of our intelligence services by one more Trump toady and “Moscow Mitch” virtually inviting Putin to “vote” in 2020 we’re one step closer to a criminal dictatorship, and it scares me to death. Democrats shouldn’t be at each others’ throats, but linking arms to remove the Trump kakistocracy once and for all.
3
This was a marathon, way too long. I got tired of two nights of over 2 1/2 hours of debates! Let's weed out the candidates! I'm already sick of hearing some of them proclaim they could be President, when No Way! CNN, get on with it. MSNBC did a better job.
We'll get a chance to see the matchup that Ms. Collins suggests as time goes on, as the field grows smaller. Every Democrat running for president would be better than the person who now occupies the much-in-need-of-Clorox Oval Office. We need someone who can both stand up to Trump in debates, making him look like the small, insignificant egotist he is, and someone who can combat climate change and the issues that attend it. As some said, everything else is subsumed under climate change. People will be migrating, needing new jobs and retrofitting homes for non-fossil fuels. Electric cars will help only insofar as electricity is not made by fossil fuels. Whoever can do both of these things should be the nominee.
1
"Warren vs Sanders"? Did Gail Collins actually follow the first night? Seems like this column was written on Monday then lightly edited and not in congruence with reality.
On night one, Warren and Sanders spent more time in concert than fighting one another.
On night two, Gabbard went after Harris a lot. Joe Biden went after everyone, often first.
It seems like the only candidates Gail Collins has eyes for is the old white men.
1
The debates are nothing but political scrums-they are made for TV events-They do not do justice to the candidates or to the voters.One on one town halls are a much better forumThere the candidates present themselves to the voters where they can explain their views without someone at their elbow barking a rebuttal..The voters and candidates deserve better than this TV version of the Roman Forum.
2
Harris is a Robespierre. After Trump the last thing we need is a Reign of Terror. A more calming presence is needed, and Biden fills the bill.
4
Is CNN a subsidiary of the Republican party? They certainly seem intent on destroying the reputation of ALL the Democrat candidates with their format.
From here on out I'll read the summaries. I can't stomach the game show format.
7
Isn't it far too early to hold Dem Party debates, Gail Collins? Both of the CNN 2 night Detroit Debates left us hoping someone electable against Trump will show up before next February. None of the 20 declared 2020 Democratic candidates can beat Donald Trump. Both the Democratic and Republican Primaries started on 1 February 2016.
Also, a cable news network practicing glitz isn't the place to pitch candidates in our most important election since 1960. Please, Gail, isn't it time to pass the torch to a younger generation? And replying to your question about "Debate Drama", NO, standing erect doesn't count as winning the day. Can't we wait till maybe 1 January 2020?
The moderator(s) last night drove me batty with their haphazard interventions, arbitrary "calling on" candidate A to respond to candidate B, and in general making sure that nobody had enough time to develop a coherent thought without being badgered or talked over before they could conclude it. I guess this is good practice for running against Trump. But I just shut it off.
2
Pete Buttigieg had the moment I will remember from the debates.
2
I fear that Donald Trump, whose very presence reminds us that we are probably more coarse and base, more prone to lying as a first response, and conceivably more racist than we previously understood, who might have been elected in part by nihilists voting for the guy who had no chance, could be reelected by voters we thought we understood but most certainly don't.
I sent money to Biden's campaign in 2008, but now he's more like a Mme. Tussaud wax figure that represents the US that aspired to improve itself, an era that feels long past. Trump's "Make America Great Again" appears to include no prescription for his followers to improve their own lives or their attitude toward the less fortunate. Rather, it is the cry of every demagogue who mollifies the majority by casting all of their sins on societal scapegoats.
To me, the most luminous moment in the last 10 years of debate between the defenders of bare-knuckle capitalism and those of social democracy was when Elizabeth Warren said in part, "You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for."
Warren clearly understands what's at stake, and she isn't afraid of a little ridicule from a man who pulled bodies from the rubble not only at the WTC but also in Dresden and Carthage. He is a ridiculous figure, and we need a fighting candidate like EW to point that out.
7
That Biden will get nomination is a foregone conclusion, so anyone watching these debates is wasting his time. Though seen purely as entertainment, the debates were a 6/10.
Give Kamala Harris a break. She's the one with the reasonable plan for improving healthcare in this country -- and phasing in a Medicare-for-all (or nearly all). It's difficult to develop any kind of position in the debate format, but her ideas are especially difficult to put into a 20-second sound byte.
And although Biden is not my preferred candidate (I like Harris and Warren), I'd be happy to vote for him. Let's not ridicule him.
Save that for the ranting crackpot, Bernie Sanders. Just go away, Bernie. You're not even a Democrat and you've done enough damage.
The debate's big winner: Donald Trump. Biggest contributor to that victory: CNN, with its garish game show set and format (although they did neglect to start proceedings by saying "This is...Jeopardy!"), all part of the network's never-ending search for conflict, drama, and sound bites. Heaven help the country. The networks and the Democrats sure won't.
3
"Who do you think will be the surviving contender (in September)?
Whoever the media think will be the survivor. They will pontificate their favorite in columns like this, which is not really helpful to the public.
Please, no more guessing before the debates and no more deciding after the debates.
Give us a chance to make up our own minds.
Thank you.
2
@esp This should have been a Times Pick.
This is some classic Gail Collins. Thanks for providing a bit of levity.
There is only 1 President on either of those stages, and her name is Elizabeth Warren.
1
'The next round is scheduled for September, in a week that begins with Grandparents Day and ends with a full moon.'
Absolutely brilliant, Gail.
2
It was a terrible job by the CNN moderators. Conflict, not information, appeared to be the goal for Wednesday night. So disappointing for the Democratic message!
5
Elizabeth Warren won this debate.
Joe Biden looked old and slow.
Kamala Harris lost something on her fastball.
Cory Booker was a pit bull, snarling and snapping.
None of the other candidates distinguished themselves tonight.
Rather disappointing, overall.
1
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Tulsi Gabbard impressed me, as always. She's got gravitas, a real public servant with smarts, guts, and experience. (So she doesn't stand a chance.)
1
Why does everyone insist on calling these shows debates? They are nothing but side-by-side news conferences.
5
Yeah, that Kool-Aid comment by Booker was pre-planned and still pretty lame, Ms. Collins.
What I want to know is how these political opportunists with little government experience who eviscerate Biden help the Democratic cause if he becomes the nominee? Seems like the party is headed for a split similar to Hillary and Bernie in 2016. In that case, Trump wins -- again.
1
I’m not cool enough to “get” the koolaid repost.
1
Democrats specialize in the circular firings squad. Doesn’t anyone remember that the person you’re running against is Trump?
If you go to the article just below this one, the problem for the Democrats is solved. "Warren and Buttigieg or Buttigieg and Warren."
I'm the same age as Joe, and I went to bed at 8:30 pm. Hint there.
These debates are nonsense. Each candidate has a plan for this and plan for that (which of course their staffs, not they themselves, developed), yet no president in history has ever fully implemented a plan that he touted during the campaign. And who cares who has the best plan, or is the best debater in a format where everyone has a minute or less to speak. The best president is the one who has the political skill, the credibility, the personality, and the experience to get good legislation supported by the country and passed by the Congress. It's who can lead the country and Congress to reach consensus on a good plan (regardless of who proposed it first) that matters. Who comes up with the plan doesn't matter, nor does who can score the most debating points in a silly superficial format.
"Democrats’ ‘Big Ideas’ May Re-Elect Trump
From Medicare for All to the Green New Deal, candidates work hard to repel swing voters."
2
"'Go easy on me, kid,' Biden told Harris when they shook hands."
All we need to know about Joe Biden. And what we need to say is, "Bye-bye, Joe."
4
I'll be glad when the field is smaller, way too much of the time is on people who will not be President.
1
"And 20 of whom would be a huge improvement on the status quo." Yes, Yes, Yes!
If voters cannot see that any one of these people are head and shoulders better than the so called man who squats in our White House then we don't deserve a democracy.
My favorites are still Elizabeth, Pete, Bennett, and Inslee; but looking at the entire stage I see a really great cabinet.
Many years ago when we were a sane Nation we had a National Goodwill Ambassador. For a lot of that time it was Louis Armstrong. I would give that job to Joe for as long as he wanted it.
Alas, he is past his prime for the office of president.
1
CNN presented the debates as just another TV reality show. Entertainment was the goal, rather than substantive debate.
IMHO Elizabeth Warren has the fire in the belly necessary to stay the course, and take on Trump. She has the intelligence and she has the chutzpah. I really do not think Biden is the "safe" choice, because I think he would have serious trouble with taking on Trump in a debate. Biden's time has come and gone.
My dream team would be Warren as Presidential nominee and Pete Buttigieg as Vice Presidential nominee. It would be a great balance of two very intelligent qualified, informed candidates, with appeal to both a younger and older generation. I do think Warren's agenda does need to be somewhat modified to have broader appeal. Her goal is universal health care, but it will take both Houses of Congress to achieve that. While I fervently hope that by some miracle the Democrats will win back the Senate, it does not appear that is likely. I wish Warren would speak of incrementally reaching the goal of Medicare for all, starting with shoring up the ACA. Win back power first, then introduce a progressive agenda that will gain traction.
I hope that the extensive field of Democratic presidential hopefuls will be winnowed down soon. The clock is ticking. If Trump is re-elected it will be the Doomsday clock ticking closer to midnight.
2
Ms. Collins: During the primary between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, a statistical survey conducted by MSN found that the vast majority of Sander's supporters did not know that Sander's plan to fund his social programs called for additional taxes that would not just fall on the wealthy:
i.e., For the math to work), Sander's plan called for a person making $50K a year to pay an additional $6K in taxes!
Fully 2/3s of Sander's voters responded to the MSN survey that THIS was unacceptable for their taxes to go up.
Since the "liberal" press was not covering this, you can be sure this was why Republicans wanted Sanders to win the Democratic nomination -- because they WOULD be ever so happy to advertise this...
Again … I am not seeing this addressed. To fully test candidates the "tax" word needs to be tested by the press on these candidates.
Remember liberals only make up 20-25% of the population.
Also most people now live beyond their means. In Europe where socialism works great, most live in small houses and take mass transit. This infrastructure is not in place here.
Ultimately it will be the Independents (neither Democrats nor Republicans) who swing the final vote on election day. Independents typically don't vote in high numbers during primaries.
So -- I am a liberal. But I recognize the FAR LEFT looks poised to sabotage the Democrats …. again. Started with Ralph Nader (getting Bush elected over Al Gore); and of course Sanders clearly helped elect Trump.
5
Unlike several Democratic candidates who appeared to be on Trump's payroll to knock the Democratic party out of the running entirely, I do know the kool-aid color:
IT'S BLUE.
Get it together, Dems, or the country will continue to fall apart!
3
As a #Nevertrump Republican, I’ve often said I’d vote for Mickey Mouse to get that man evicted. But the current pack of bomb throwers is bound to frighten swing voters like away and to stay home. Threatening to dismantle major industries like healthcare, auto and oil/gas without a solid and believable transition plan will give Trump another 4 years to destroy the country and my Party.
Democrats should be aware how many of their members are dependent on these industries for employment. Not just the primary businesses, but all of the support businesses, large and small. None of the so-called progressives appear to understand, or possibly care. Just “play to their base,” like Trump. This will leave the true “silent majority,” Democrats, Republicans and Independents, with no one to vote for.
Anybody who thinks the "Go easy on me, kid" statement is a net negative for Biden has a large poll up their nethers. Maybe 5% of the population found that offensive and it was specifically because they were trying *really* hard.
4
Booker had Biden on the ropes tonight. And Gabbard had Harris in a head lock. Contrast that to yesterday's match where Sanders and Warren employed a collegial tag team approach to successfully defend against all competitors’ attacks on their Medicare-for-all platform. Go Bernie! Go Liz! Go Progressives!
179
@Zareen -- That wasn't a headlock. Harris got called out fair and square after she wove majestic about her time as AG in California. And Gabbard girmly and with grace responded.
19
@Zareen
Gabbard was cool under fire.
15
A counter view on Booker: despite the catchy Kool Aid line, he was overly aggressive and, worse, far too full of himself. I thought that Biden effectively cut him down to size.
8
Sure, I like Joe. But, c’mon, Trump is going to wipe the floor with him. Biden was attacked tonight by 9 others. Trump defeated 14 others during those Republican debates, remember those?
I don’t think Biden can beat Trump. And that scares me.
179
@Ellie
i agree with u. Hillary was the safe choice in 16 and lost (even if it was by barely - altho the EC makes barely into landslide, our 'democracy'). I'm in favor of new(er) blood (is an expression, ja). If it's going to be lost, let it be by someone with TONS of energy and pursuasive (energetic!) language. The oldsters, god bless'em, need to stand down.
17
@Ellie
That's where you are wrong. Biden would relish going after Trump. He has to hold himself back during the Dem debates because he can't come off too mean. I think he wold absolutely take the gloves off with Trump and they are similar in age.
18
@Me
Respectfully, I don't think I'm wrong. A younger Biden would have been quick thinking enough to give it right back to Trump. But several times when he's been attacked during these two debates, he's stuttered and fumbled - almost unable to find the right words. It is not that he's not holding back - rather, he's unable to come up with a reply, almost as if he's stunned by the attacks. It isn't a matter of age - Trump has never been at a loss for words. Everyone ages differently, and I think Biden has unfortunately lost the ability to consistently react quickly enough to verbalize a cutting and succinct reply. Just my interpretation, of course.
34
Kamala Harris looked genuinely hurt and offended when her own record of criminal justice was criticized. She knows her own values.
But that’s the catch of having any kind of a professional record, especially in the political realm. There will be moments when one has to make a decision that won’t fully reflect their own wishes, or one that they will outright regret. The longer one’s CV, the more such uncomfortable incidents will appear.
So maybe that sting from tonight will make Ms. Harris less inclined to take any more cheap shots at Joe Biden because he has a decades-long history. Maybe the emphasis can be on every candidate’s vision for the future.
247
@NM
She did this before also. Threw out a vicious attack on Biden and then sulked when he had the temerity to try to defend his own record. She seems to be operating in a vacuum or an echo chamber. These are not one-way situations. Yes, she is impressive in many respects and I had initially had high hopes for her, such as a VP with Biden. I knew some of her bad history (criminalizing truancy, etc.) but I had forgotten or never knew some of Gabbard's points on hiding evidence, marijuana convictions, etc.
I would love the emphasis to be on the present and the future. Otherwise, it is just ammunition for Trump and the GOP.
60
@NM SMB and NM, please go easy on Kamala Harris. I lived in California all my life and know our politicians well. She was a good district attorney, Attorney General, and is now a senator to be proud of. I personally would have no problem with her as both our nominee and POTUS. I hope at the very least she will be on the ticket for Vice President.
10
@NM
Biden should be able to hold up and offers our best chance against Trump. Trump is on the wrong side of history. He promotes only himself, wholly abdicating responsibility to protect and defend his country and the people living in it. The reprehensible tax cut, really a pure theft of money from the working class, along with the tariff burden on workers for no good reason. Fomenting racism to his own ends. Trump is cruel and sadistic. He cannot last. Hopefully, the suffering will be minimized and it will end next year. The Dow is too high and interest rates too low; those may wind up being Trump's undoing.
8
A second evening (actually, four now) of disappointment. I can't really fault the candidates, who were not allowed enough time to discuss what are very complex issues in more than black and white fashion (Medicare for all good-private insurance bad-next question).
For the first time, I am beginning to sense the possibility of a Trump re-election. As someone who is much into scientific climate change projections, I truly fear the future my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., will be contending with.
2
The moderators personified the ratings driven ethos,of today's so called " broadcast journalists". Conflict boosts ratings, so Jake Tapper, in particular, phrased questions in such a way that required the candidates to answer the question by denigrating one of their opponents, as opposed to just expressing their views on the issue.The tawdry questioning cheapened the overall tone of the debate, and disingenuously magnified the divisions between the participants.
306
@Don Shipp. I expect conflict during debates and it helps me compare candidates. Speeches that are not challenged give you no sense of the weaknesses of the candidate’s programs.
11
@michjas
The conflicts should emanate naturally from the candidates themselves, not be artificially induced by a ratings craving "broadcast nournalist".
32
@Don Shipp.
It is eerily similar to the WWE.
The DNC has much to say about the format.
It sold it's candidates to CNN, for eyeballs.
9
I live in a 55 plus community in Pennsylvania. Trump only won PA by 44,000 votes. From what I hear, at bridge and around the swimming pool, Biden is the only Democrat who has a chance with the older population. A large number of my neighbors are sticking with Trump. The others? They don't like Elizabeth Warren's voice. Sanders is a grouchy old man. But they like Biden, remembering the good care he took of his sons after his wife died. In personal qualities he is so far ahead of Trump that he might even pick up some Republicans.
331
@Mary Leonhardt I'm not dismissing your point. It's valid. But in my circles of young, and usually liberal, people, the react to Joe is usually a sigh. No one thinks he's anything special, and we kinda just want him out of the way so someone with a vision can lead.
120
@Mary Leonhardt
I hear what you're saying and I appreciate the message wholeheartedly. My two kids and a niece are different. Two are talking about Warren, though. One wants to work on her campaign. The other kid wants "a moderate" and was excited to find out about Klobuchar--who seems boring, nice, and able to get stuff done--in other words like a Midwestern Mom. "Boring" here is a complement because who wants an exciting mom?
37
Here’s the problem: the younger demographics have lower voter participation rates, which blunts their influence.
Older demographics tend to show up and vote.
Millennials and Gen Z— get to the polls to increase your influence.
60
In my swing town in a swing state, Biden is the only Dem candidate that I hear people talking about favorably. A lot of people trust him and that matters more to them than specific positions, and certainly more than his positions or actions 30 or 40 years ago. Most people haven't even heard of two-thirds of these candidates. I also get the impression that few people here are watching these debates as they think they are giant circuses and wastes of time.
311
@JD
JD, please consider doing yourself and your people a favor and start considering Warren as a viable candidate. Trust can begin with taking a closer look at who she is and what she's talking about trying to do. She's worth the effort, I believe.
28
@JD At first it sounds like you're saying that of the candidates, only Biden is liked by people in your town. But then you mention that most people haven't heard of most candidates. I think that when the field gets winnowed more people will tune in and find other candidates they like besides Biden.
19
@JD.... do they give any reason why they trust Biden? And why they don't care about his specific positions? The Bidenites sound almost as irrational as the Trumpites.
4
How can it be that we still worry about "moderates" and "progressives" and workable solutions as opposed to working toward solutions? Why do we have to play nice and play fair and play to the center? Why do we argue over how to pay for things both beneficial and, in some cases, life-saving, when our counterparts have no such restrictions? This Kabuki theater that we call our politics still sticks to the old narratives when it comes to Democrats but give Republicans free rein to answer questions with nonsensical logic, irrational emotion and outright lies. Democrats are still held to much stricter rules of honesty, accuracy and broad appeal. Trump breaks all those rules and should be held in strict confinement. I'll vote for anyone on that stage tonight and that includes the guy who sweeps up after.
460
@Rick Gage
The Kabuki theater is the point, it is ordained by the corporate media, who will make these decisions for us.
The real old narrative is the red-meat antics of the gop and the seemingly total fecklessness of the Democrats.
The absurdity of holding Progressives to some arbitrary 'standard' while the other side runs rampant over, well, everything is a sight to behold, ...again.
Remember CNN as the entity that saw fit to broadcast an empty podium where trump might be coming in to speak.
They kept that empty podium on the screen for hours at a time. Even as Senator Sanders was speaking live at another event. Some difficult broadcast choice, right?
Since the current grotesque behavior of trump is the entertainment cash cow, it is in the interest of a lot of people to keep that show going. I see a lot of effort being put into the realization of that goal, a lot of that effort is lawless to say the least.
20
@Rick Gage
If you want the crucial states in the Rust Belt to swing Democratic you'd better start telling it whats in it for them. They won't just vote for you because they like your pretty blue donkey.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Once our team has won we can take the victory lap and start figuring out how to decorate the office with Healthcare, Immigration reform, CLIMATE SCIENCE...
8
@Rick Gage It's almost (almost) as if the candidate that turns up when you google "weirdo Democratic candidate" has it right. Spoiler alert, that's Williamson. God help us.
Hopefully, Warren and Sanders and maybe Buttigeg plus a touch of Harris and Biden and a little sprinkle of sanity will all smoosh together and create someone who can defeat the most defeateatable incumbent of all time.
6
I'm not sure this massive field and endless "debates" are the best way to vet a candidate. Just encourages targeted attacks and staged sound bites. I, for one, will be happy to see the field winnowed and the real campaigns begin. These election cycles are way too long.
599
@Will Rothfuss
If elections (and politics in general) weren't swimming in light and dark money, the election season would be 3-6 months and then we'd vote.
33
@Will Rothfuss
Exactly. The best example is how Kamala Harris was down in the polls and a non-factor, but then she took advantage of the debate format to throw controversial cheap sound bites. And now her campaign has been revived.
In other words, she did nothing to gain the confidence of the American people but she gave CNN, Fox News and MSNBC some good video to play over and over. That´s how Presidents get election now.
23
@Will Rothfuss Somehow the Brits and others do these elections with a few weeks of campaigning. We are 15 months out.
13
Yes Gail, standing erect does win. I will vote for anyone over Donald Trump who’s fiddling while the planet burns. He and his are a nightmare and I worry for our future and the future of this planet. Climate change is here and will cause a host of unimaginable and imaginable problems.... war over water perhaps... and we’re doomed and have a science denying monster at the helm.
7
Perhaps the Biden campaign is implying that a WHITE Democratic President might be able to get conservatives to compromise on some legislation...Based on the general bonhomie that exists between white men...Perhaps McConnell might compromise with a President Biden, because their whiteness lends a implicit “face saving” element ...
America CANNOT continue as a country where the two parties NEVER agree on major legislation...This situation cannot continue!
Do we think the ACA would have had zero GOP votes if Obama was a white man?
Presumably the next Dem President will need GOP support to pass sweeping bills like a Green New Deal...
Food for thought
Well, it certainly was the “field of nightmares”: if they torch it, , they won’t come. Apparently they didn’t get the memo: Trump is the problem, not VP Biden, not Obama, not the ACA.
1
"Go easy on me, kid" was a boxing metaphor joke, an acknowledgement that Harris had beat him up in the first round of debates. I thought they taught this stuff in journalism school.
6
@By George Yes, it was, to these old ears, a poignant and flattering thing to say. But no one seems to be looking for the possibilities of kindness still left in the world—except maybe Joe.
4
@By George
There are no more real journalists with any real knowledge anymore. They all have been replaced by talking opinion heads.
1
I think Biden proved his age is not a significant handicap. And he won't have to defend himself against attacks from Trump that he is a racist or too conservative.
3
Before the world went brown in 2016 I had looked at the republican field and shook my head at what I referred to as the clown bus.
It was a Clown bus with no one qualified to be president.
This time I am afraid we have the Clown bus.
The only difference is that there are at least sixteen in this Clown bus qualified to be in the running, and as you said, twenty of them better qualified than the sitting loud, lying blob in the White House.
3
The circular firing squad continues. If the Dems think they can beat Trump by acting like a bunch of bickering old ladies at a sewing bee they'd better think again.
4
It was pretty obvious that CNN wanted a prize fight and not a debate.
3
And God said, "Let there be microphones so people will no longer have to yell to be heard." Bernie Sanders said, "Nah, I'm O.K."
2
If these two debates are the best the democrats can offer, then Trump doesn't have a problem. You can hate Trump all you like, and in spite of your assurances otherwise Gail, you HATE, but hating Trump won't win the hearts and minds of the voters.
1
Zowie: After ten more Democratic debates, nobody - including the Democrats - is going to care anything about the Democrats. It's numbing...
First, Perez gets up there in the opening pep talk: "Oh honey, remember all that Obama nostalgia." The Kamala Harris - an African American woman? - calls the Obama administration "immoral" and "untenable." What about Senor Trump? Is he a little immoral and untenable?
This election is the Democrats' to lose. And so far, they're doing a pretty good job of it. (But, you can't tell them anything.)
Why is everyone so hard on Biden? As you get older, sure - you don't punch back or remember words as quickly as younger people. That's a fact. However, older people excel in abstract thinking, experience, life skills, patience etc., which are good qualities in a President. We are not hiring a prize fighter -- we already have one.
The next four years will require finesse, experience, life skills, and ability to call on old friends and reach across the aisle. Sound like anyone you know?
4
How on earth is Biden any better than Hilary? He is not in any way except that he is a man.
2
I like Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, Castro, Inslee and Yang best.
Adios Biden! We don’t need retreads or a guy whose political history lays him bare to Trump twitter attacks. If he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him, because we have to rid ourselves of Trump. How could we stand up or kneel down as proud Americans with this despicable human being defiling our presidency. We need someone that can fumigate the White House and Congress. So far there is no one.
1
Why does the media constantly fixate on the same people again and again? Let’s take a real hard look, with lots of coverage on the serious politicians with governing experience. They are the ones who can solve problems, especially those that are in Republican leaning states. How do they portray success and reason?
I am in for candidates like Jay Inslee, Michael Bennet, and Steve Bullock. Heck, Michael Bennet is related to someone important at the NYT, and he doesn’t get any attention, but the Times puts Marianne Williamson on the front page! Go figure.
Most of us could care less about the Biden/Harris/Booker melee. You will lose us pragmatic voters if you keep talking about open borders, healthcare coverage for non taxpayers, free college, and reparations. These aren’t things that moderates want. Get down to the problems we can fix easily with common sense solutions.
2
Warren and Biden couldn’t be farther apart the issues (on a short Democratic continuum — heck Warren didn’t like Obama most of the time for similar reasons!), but one thing I like about them both is that when they use their hands in speaking, they show us their palms and try to draw us in. Sanders (besides yelling) and Harris point & jab their fingers at me — which I experience as them hectoring me. They aren’t trying to engage with me, they are lecturing me. Bah! Don’t want it, don’t need it— just go away and leave me alone.
I tend to think that Biden is a bit too old for this, but want to remind folks that not all of his hesitancy in speaking (though surely some of it) is about age. He’s a stutterer, so extemporaneous speaking requires more effort and always has. FYI, it’s a form disability. And, he should just congratulate Booker on his bipartisan work on criminal justice reform and remind him that even the CBC backed the 94 crime bill. We know more now and understand that it didn’t work. Learn from where you went wrong, Joe. Believe that people can, Cory. Governing is hard and no issue is ever completely solved. We learn, times change, we improve— or at least I hope we do.
3
When are democrats going to realize that a bland, empty suit moderate like Biden is the WORST possible candidate to go against Trump. Trump feasts on the status quo, on the "spineless" complainers. The only candidate I can imagine winning in a debate against Trump is Bernie, Warren and maybe Buttigieg.
1
Who won the debates of the last two nights.
Clear winner, Donald J Trump.
She's half his age. He's entitled to call her "kid".
4
Where's a good Kennedy when we need one?
2
Biden showed he can stand and take arrows from all directions and on a variety of different issues and even shoot off some of his own. He was a winner tonight.
4
anyone who even vaguely
follows my comments
knows how much I admire
Collin's columns;but I can't
believe she took offense
at Biden's calling Harris "kid."clearly they know each other and apparently
respect each other as well.
we can't become so P.C.
that we take offense at
everything, no matter how
innocuous they are.Biden
is an older man who forgets he lives in a different time from that
in which he grew up.that
does not disqualify him
from being President.
lighten up a little, Gail.
7
I really like Harris but unless and until she can speak to her views without attacking other candidates, I can't vote for her. Focus on the issues and don't be stupid enough to let CNN pit you against one another!! THIS is exactly why I won't watch CNN or Fox.
Biden handled himself well against the entire panel and came out swinging.
4
I agree. This was the best-case outcome for Warren. Biden was attacked rather fecklessly by a bunch of incompetent foes. However, he did not give a single concise, firm and unstilted answer. He was everything but crisp. He had a hard time choosing the right words, fumbled countless times, and just looked kind of old and dumb.
If you think that he would be the best candidate to go up against Trump in a 1 v 1 bout where there is no respite or time to lick your wounds, you would be insane. He does not have the goods. No one knocked him out. Kamala took some hits, probably should have knocked him out.
However, Biden looked bad on his own merits. It's over. Warren won the nomination. There is no argument that can be made that could justify putting Biden on a debate stage with Trump when you have the option to put Warren on that stage.
Do we want coherence and competence or stiltedness and perennial confusion? Choice seems obvious to me.
2
@nickgregor
Warren is brilliant, but way too liberal to beat Trump.
Want four more years of Trump?
3
I’m ignoring debates, indeed, I’m ignoring all things electoral, until at least November. I’ll see how I feel a year out from the election.
Pre-debate prognostications, the “debates”, post-debate “analysis”; ignored. (Except for Gail Collins because jeez! It’s Gail Collins!)
Strident political emails with straw polls, pleas for money, etc.; deleted unread.
We need to stop encouraging the clown show our electoral process has become.
1
A Biden-Warren team may be just what Dems need to counter 45, unless Michelle chooses to run...
2
One of he top movie lines of all time is "Here's looking at you kid". Ms. Collins would brand Humphrey Bogart a misogynist, would black list Casablanca, and would require that the line be changed to "Here's looking at you Ms. Lund." Political correctness taken too far.
6
Your comments about Marianne Williamson are completely wrong. I hope you get it eventually.
I like the way Buttigieg is positioning himself. He’s smart, learning as he goes down this campaign path, staying above the fray and only hurling insults at Spanky... where they land smack in the bullseye. He doesn’t need to lob anything at his Dem opponents.
How about him as the candidate with Biden, once again, as Vice, as mentor, as elder. The Vice President position is not a good springboard for the presidency, anyway, so why not use it as a counselor position?
1
@Charles Lindsley
Oh right that solves the problem of diversity and age. Instead of a woman for VP, we get a guy who kisses his husband on the dais. That will go over huge in mid America.
1
Joe Biden can thank Donald Trump for setting the bar so low for the Office of the President (the bar is now so low that it's actually an underground pipe) that yes, standing erect counts as a win. But no Democrat has a chance of beating Trump if he/she panders to the progressive wing of the party by purporting to agree with every extreme proposal or criticism of past behavior adopted by the progressive wing (e.g. no support of any kind for fossil fuel, no private insurance, criticizing President Obama's deportations of illegal immigrants etc.).
1
Somewhere President Trump is laughing really loudly.
1
"you don’t call a female member of the U.S. Senate “kid.”
Why not? Do you genuinely believe that's a gendered word?
3
Clearly, Biden meant "kid" is a 'friendly Joe' way. Give the guy a break. Should Bogart have said something more enlightened than, "Here's looking at you at you kid."
5
I think the debates would be a lot more informative if the candidates were not allowed to mention one another. That means no attacks on another's policy or record. Candidates get to only talk about their own policies. We'd soon know what they had to offer.
2
With the exception of Biden, none of these candidates seem to be aware that Clinton lost to Trump in 2016.
I will only vote for a candidate who can 100% convince me that she/he can walk into any rural town in the Rust Belt and convince the underemployed workers that there is a practical, real plan to give them jobs. Maybe talk about infrastructure and explain how there are jobs to be had. How are we going to fund infrastructure? Where is the plan.
What is a short term fix for health care. Then add incremental Medicare for All. It won't fly if the Senate stays Republican.
Immigration didn't eliminate most of the jobs in America. Big Industry sent a lot of them to China and jobs in the rust belt were lost to automation and replacement of coal with cheaper natural gas. BUT *** many workers in the rust belt don't believe that. What are our candidates going to tell them.
Trump has got to go. He's destroying our country, and destroying democracy. Just ask former Secretary of State and Ambassador to the UN Madeline Albright and her recent book, "Fascism, a warning". I want to hear Democrats talk about policies that will dump Trump. I don't want to listen to a food fight about who is the most progressive.
6
A person who wanted Bernie or Warren to win also doesn't thinks Biden did too well.
Well!! This is news! Thank god for the NYTimes for keeping us up to date.
1
While I agree that any of the 20 would make a better president than the current occupant, I think you disregard the draw that Biden has. His approach is not "bold". We have tried "bold" for the last two and a half years. Look where that has gotten us - totally divided. Perhaps a "not so bold" approach will help bring the two (less extreme) sides together so something can actually be accomplished, rather than just trying to block the impulses of the current occupant.
2
Well said, and an accurate assessment of the two nights. I would like you to write about ways to improve this part of the selection process. For me, the second night was especially only about how the candidates attack and respond.
The focus on Biden was ridiculous, and the whole group looked fairly unpresidential playing this game, not that Biden came off looking good. I'm sure Obama was at home cringing.
Elizabeth and Bernie were thinking of higher goals, and they have clearly thought things through. This quality of looking at problems, considering alternatives, formulating a plan, and then explaining the plan is what I want to see. The past should be relevant only in how it shows your values and your ability to learn from your mistakes. Please, candidates, take this into consideration.
1
Most Americans don't read so they need debates as a way to hear candidates. That is a massive problem. These debates are ridiculous.
3
Here’s a happy thought.
Biden’s fumbling his URL on national television makes me pretty confident that if elected he wouldn’t be spending a lot of time on Twitter.
I can see the slogan now. “Vote for Joe. He doesn’t know a tweet from a text.”
5
There are multiple people who should be sent home after this two day event. Biden says "Trump for another 8 years," "15% of energy is from us nationally". #1to go home should be Delany who doesn't understand how Medicare Advantage works. We retirees pay! What is stupid about these debates is they are not realistic. No one is able to put forward actually achievable proposals for healthcare and income neutralization.
1
Interesting? trivia:
With Gail's "Warren, Biden and Sanders", I had to think of the third person. We deal with single names. "Elizabeth" means nothing. "Joe" maybe, and "Sanders", for me never. "Barack"? Go Bernie!
One word for you : Bernie!
@erwan
One word for YOU: Plastics.
The highlight of the evening came when Tulsi Gabbard -- and not Joe Biden -- confronted Kamala Harris with Lara Bazelon's accusations from her Jan. 17th NY Times piece ("Kamala Harris was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'") and Ms. Harris looked as if someone told her her goldfish had died!
1
I'm a little tired of most of these 20 candidates doing nothing but attack Biden. They are really stupid, ie. Harris, bc they won't win the nominee and will burn bridges w Biden. Eons ago I used to support a Biden ticket w Harris as VP....not anymore. As a matter of fact, she is my neighbor, but I will never ever vote for her again for anything.
3
"Do you think President Trump is doing a good job" asked an unknown caller last night. "Whaaat, I said, he's a disgrace to our Republican Party and so is my Florida Senator and Congressman who both permit his disgusting behavior!"
Out with them all!!
E. White
2
Dear Gail Collins,
Nice column!
“Go easy on me, kid” is proof that BIDEN is out of step - not the one!
I like WARREN and HARRIS.
1
So Biden needed to show grit tonight and he accomplished that.
Biden was dead on that Medicare for all is a big loser for the Democrats.
Why Ms. Collins do you continue to plunge the knife in the man who Obama himself call the best decision he made and the man who caste the deciding vote for Obama care.
Oh how gently you tip toe around Ms Harris' obvious flaws.
5
Someone should remind Biden of Molly Ivin's quip, " there's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos"
3
Who Won-DRAMA Who Lost-FACTS. You want the truth and facts. Watch PBS. All proposed funding for programming is subject to set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.
Dear Democrats,
Thank you.
Donald J Trump
1
The sooner this circular firing squad ends the better.
Warren as president with Buttigieg as her VP, she would re-engineer the economy to a more level playing field and he would be her military strength. It now cost the rich 6.5 Billion dollars to get there guys in office, on top of lobbyists which earn anywhere from 6 thousand a MONTH to 20 thousand a MONTH (2013 figures) to undermined the American public while the rest of us are cutting our medications in half, not eating so our kids can, schools underfunded. The gloves are off, we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore.
6
“And I was down there also, and I’m not considering myself a first responder,” he said modestly. “But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you.”
******
This is what his voters hear " I was down there" and the word "down" was repeated 3 times. Anything repeated 3 times is remember, even if it is a lie.
I'm afraid that the Democrats beating up on each other is about as unproductive as it gets. If each would simply state where THEY stand and for what and forget what those other guys are doing, we might be able to have a debate worth watching. Attacking each other plays into Trump's hands as he will take note of every negative and shove it down the throat of the Democrat candidate when the time to debate him arrives.
6
"My vote is for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Sure they were both on Day 1, but nobody on Day 2 came close."
My sentiments exactly. I heard no unifying or uplifting message from anyone last night. To me, last night's debate seemed like a bunch of ambitious wannabes rolling around in the mud. I'm fairly pragmatic and don't consider myself an extreme leftist. I would support a compelling moderate candidate who I thought could beat Trump in 2020. I didn't see one on stage last night.
Perhaps the election of Trump should be evidence that running with the least offensive, safest, most milquetoast candidate isn't always the surest path to victory. Warren is passionate. She is believable when she speaks and has integrity. She stands head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates simply because she seems to believe in something greater than herself and value something beyond furthering her own career. Her and Bernie both seem to understand that, while disputing ideas and policy is fine, attacking each other on the basis of character damages the Democratic brand. They don't have to roll around in the mud with the others because they actually have ideas they believe in. Whether you agree with them or not, they sound like idealists and make most of the other candidates sound like self-centered political opportunists.
5
I don't even like Tulsi Gabbard but I'm glad she flattened the increasingly ridiculous Kamala Harris.
7
There are 3 different Biden "top stories" this morning in the NYT. Why? It's infuriating how this guy, CLEARLY shakey, CLEARLY fragile, is being foisted on the Democratic party. There are women, black people and socialists running, whose policies need a look, and who are way more important than this delicate elderly man, who could barely keep up. The DNC CANNOT PICK FOR US this time. I wouldn't hire Joe to sort my mail at this point, why are we talking about him running for office?
6
The only things that keeps me sane is your column Gail!! Thank you
2
Circular firing squad.
Put away the knives and address the issues! There's nothing more childish than trying to prove someone is worse than you. Try proving you're better than them.
6
Tulsi has the right stuff!
5
Another lack-luster performance from the Dems especially Biden...I just flipped from a never-Trump to why-bother.
@Charli . Not to vote Democratic is to vote Republican as the current state of disaster shows. Please keep this in mind and vote Democratic even if your favorite flavor isn't on the menu.
1
He gave America Clarence Thomas and threw Anita Hill under the bus. No Joe. No Way.
4
It's very important as was referred to over and over last night in the debate: We must come together whoever the nominee is to get out the vote in such overwhelming numbers that Russian interference will be neutralized, Trump has to concede gracefully, the nation sees Democrats as putting party aside for the sake of the democracy.
That said, I disagree with the comment below -- every one of the 20 candidates would be better than Trump -- I have no doubt not only would civility return but even more importantly we would once again have an administration filled with people who read, understand complex issues, believe in science, and walk the path our founding fathers meant by "separation of church and state".
10
Thank you Ms. Collins for the unvarnished view of the debates. But I disagree with your view that any of the 20 candidates would make "pretty good" chief executives. If we look back at Obama's candidacy there is a high bar to meet. Most of the 20 do not come close, including the former vice president. I suspect Warren and Sanders will be howling at the moon, especially if they have a plan to run together as a team. Maybe the only question will be who is at the top of the ticket?
4
I fear we are going to have another 4 years of Trump. Democrats are bloodying each other but the last man/woman standing will have a harder time beating Trump after his or her fellow Democrats have finished their slugfest. Picking on alpha Biden is painful to watch coming from opponents who have no record to criticize. Don't people understand that policies don't matter - Trump offered nothing but promises he would roll out his plans after the election (he never did). He offered emotion, not rationality and that's what wins elections. Remember that Baby Bush won perhaps because he was considered the candidate people wanted to have a beer with? The rabidly interested who watch debates and compare policy plans are not representative of the vast voting population who is only vaguely aware - they just read the headlines and have a notion of soundbites and conclusions, e.g. Biden "lost" or Booker "scored." I will vote for whoever is the nominee but I wish the bottom 2/3 of these people would just go away and do something useful and the top 1/3 get in a room and figure out who is best suited to win. I favor a Biden/Warren ticket but I really wish they would all stop this fight-club atmosphere now. We laughed when it was the Republicans doing it - and look how that turned out.
12
@jp Thank you for writing this. The CNN debate seemed more like a gladiator competition to see who could destroy whom than an informative event. I am not sure who I would chose. The debates have not helped that at all. The focus in them was on making a tv moment not policies. The debates are useless. We have as President a very savvy media person. If that's what we want as President, why even bother with an election. Maybe former Senator Franken, a comedian and a bright guy who also really understands media, could have made the statements and media pleasing actions to be competitive in a media savvy is all world. Unfortunately, he may or may not have done something and was found guilty before any hearing took place. The current media savvy President, I am sure, would be glad to stay put in the White House without another election. Constitutional requirements, like judicial independence, are not important to him. As to last night's slug fest, I think it criminal that people pride themselves on bloodying Biden, who has always come across as a decent, moral person, trying to do the best he could for others, given the worldview and culture during different times in which he worked and lived. And, frankly, I am glad to see that the old over thirty is not good has gone by the wayside. If people are healthy and capable at 100 to be working in something they like, how very exciting and wonderful. It sounds better than sitting in a rocking chair waiting to die.
1
Fully agree. Elizabeth Warren won the two nights. She was on fire and she lit up the imaginations of a whole lot more people than just this white male eager, as countless women are (and other men) to see the first women president. If you want to capture an election you first have to capture the public imagination. Can't think of anyone more qualified at this time than the Senator from the great state of Massachusetts.
14
@East End So the answer for you is identity politics. Lizzie has never had a piece of legislation passed. Obviously she doesn't play well with others. She sounds angry all of the time, just like Bernie.
@Jackson If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. There's plenty to be angry about.
These made for TV candidate appearances are not debates-not by any definition of the word! They feature conflict and sniping and inflated claims of success.They do not showcase the candidates in their best light and they are an insult to the voters who are supposed to make sense of these TV productions.The winners are CNN and MSNBC!.If the networks want to be credible they should wait for a natural attrition in the number of candidates and then feature them singly in a Town Hall setting where actual voters ask the questions.
14
Biden did fine. Those of us who support him KNOW him. We know who he is. We are not worried that he stumbled over a website address. Most uf us don't even try to say them.
7 Candidates went after him last night. He is still standing. His support will not decrease. It may go up.
On the other hand, Tulsi Gabbard DESTROYED Kamala Harris last night. That was a Total Beatdown. Harris will fall out of the Top Tier. The real race is Biden vSanders v Warren.
72
@Lefthalfbach -- you KNOW him? I watched his stint in Congress, and as VP. I did not agree with some of his votes in Congress, e.g., the 3-strikes business (which others voted for, too -- I was not in favor), nor his attacks during the Anita Hill hearing.
He seemed to be amiable wingman in the Obama years, not really doing anything, but quite capable of inserting foot in mouth. He was probably good for Obama to talk to, but probably did not make the decisions.
I have sympathy for his family situation, the deaths of loved ones. But politically, moving from being pretty conservative to almost the center, without presenting one single plan or vision or budget should he be elected, is not enough for me to KNOW what kind of president he will be.
I believe he has the black vote because they, like most of us, loved Obama and he has that association. Biden drops Obama's name every chance he gets and it's a bit sickening -- he's not Obama, never will be.
He needs to create some plans and budgets for voters to evaluate. His vague mumbling and skill at not answering questions is simply not enough.
5
@Lilou doesn't seem to acknowledge that all the complicated plans and budgets these candidates create and espouse will not. survive. the first shot in Congress.
We need to know where their hearts are and what they will fight for, not knowing what fights they willl win for us.
Obama fought for lots of great things and lost every battle with a Republican controlled Congress. He's nonetheless a great former President.
6
@k2isnothome
That's exactly correct. And, even if we take the Senate, we will have to kill the Filibuster Rule to get anything done anyway. That may or may not happen.
If we lose the SEnate, then nothing happens in DC except what Moscow Mitch allows.
8
"The man was looking out a window from his luxury quarters uptown. And bragging on radio that with the World Trade Center gone, his building on Wall Street was the tallest building downtown. And even that wasn’t true!" And another thing that wasn't true: his assertion that New Jersey Muslims were on the other side of the river, cheering the fall of the towers. How quickly we forget all the garbage.
As for Biden against everyone else: I'm no fan of Joe, but I find the continual carping about his record tiresome. Everyone, politician or not, is a product of their time and their community. Part of me wants Biden to turn to Kamala and Cory and ask what legislation they were supporting in 1977. Of course, she was in junior high school and he was in grammar school. But more to the point, I'm sure that as 13- and 8-year-olds, they did some things they're not proud of and wouldn't repeat today. Rather than attack for decades-old actions, let's really debate the issues today and the programs each candidate proposes to deal with them.
24
CNN's moderation of these debates was uniformly awful. Rather than allowing a free flow of ideas, the moderators pit the candidates against each other in an endless series of one-on-one fistfights that were painful to watch. Last night, the candidates figured out that the easiest way to get maximum time was to attack one another personally, and Joe was the main target. As a result, marginal candidates like Yang, Inslee and de Blasio ended up with inordinate amounts of time, as did Biden who had to defend himself from one attack after another. I don't know if it was good for CNN's ratings, but it did little to clarify the candidate's positions.
20
@Mark I agree with you totally. The Media has yet to take responsibility of throwing their total support to Trump in the last election. Still they are chasing the ratings game, attempting to start fights between those who will have to be united to defeat the Republicans in the next election. CNN baited, MSNBC couldn't control, what will ABC do next? They have two examples to not follow.
3
Maybe next time, you should start with: Who can win back the Midwest states? Then segue into which Democratic candidate is most likely to do that. Keep the wisecracks coming, but with a little more focus on the endgame.
6
Dear Gail and journalists everywhere: Please, I beg you, stop talking about this in terms of winners and losers and fights and optics. That is Trump's narrative and you are just adding to it. We are way more interested at this point in what the candidates are saying, how they will address the various problems this country is facing right now, and, perhaps most importantly, how they might heal our divides. It is a critical time in our democracy - let's focus on that. Please?
26
@Zelda And just why is this a "critical time in our democracy"? I get tired of people saying this and having absolutely NO explanation. It's kind of like always using the term "existential threat".
One candidate stood head and shoulders above the rest, and that was Elizabeth Warren. She has strong, well-considered policy ideas, evident intelligence, and the ability to defend her positions when attacked. I know a lot of moderates are afraid of her, but she's exactly the kind of big-thinking yet pragmatic person the nation needs.
For her running mate, I have long liked Buttigieg. I think he continues to do well, but I also feel like he's plateaued a bit. And I worry that a Warren-Buttigieg ticket is too narrowly tailored for the tastes of educated white liberals. So I've switched my preference for VP. And that honour goes to Corey Booker. He's intelligent, projects kindness while still having a strong presence, and he seems likely to be able to reach non whites and maybe even less educated whites better than Buttigieg. Harris, who has been my other leading contender, is just too inconsistent, both in her policy positions and in her delivery. Castro has merit, and I think he will be strong candidate in a future race, but this year is just a practice run, I think. I'm glad Yang and Inslee are in the race because they have some very interesting ideas, but neither has a chance.
The rest don't matter. Even Klobuchar (whom I initially had high hopes for) has dropped into the indistinguishable mass.
So Warren-Booker it is. At least until the next debate.
22
@617to416 Very much agree. I live in NJ, and have not been overly impressed Booker over the course of his career. In last night's debate, however, he shined. He projected strength and kindness, and drew on some of his experiences as mayor of Newark. And although he is not so very young, he has an aura of youth and vitality. He'd be a great counter-weight to Warren.
8
As someone who lives in the middle of the country and hasn't stepped foot in NYC for over a decade, I am mystified how it is that Bill de Blasio is ignored by the media. I thought that his comments were directed squarely at the average person and were delivered with confidence. It recalls the dismissive attitude of the media towards Bernie Sanders, who was so persistent that he is finally being given his due. I've seen no coverage of de Blasio's positions in this paper, just comments that slam his style. For shame, I think he is on to something.
4
@Linda Moore de Blasio hasn't been effective in running NYC as a whole and NYCHA (NY Housing Authority) specifically. How will he ever run a country? He is not getting media attention because he doesn't have a chance in this contest. He knows it yet is on the stage prepping for his next step post - NYC mayor.
4
@Linda Moore
It' s because he took on what is possibly the 2nd hardest public job in the country - - and he doesn't show up for work - metaphorically, and to some extent, literally.
Image issue: He has his own limited version of the Trump helicoptering: he is driven in an official giant SUV from Manhattan to Brooklyn each morning to go to his gym. Estimated time ( his estimate) 3 hours. Like, most of us regular folks couldn't afford the time . .
He's not a leader. He doesn't play well with others, even when his city's interests are at heart.
He's a gasbag! Look at what he's done with the opportunities he's had, not what he says he'll do.
Yes: "At least a dozen or so seemed as if they’d be pretty good chief executives. And 20 of whom would be a huge improvement on the status quo."
So what was accomplished by the debates and what should be accomplished?
The moderators repeated the worst talking points of the candidates, who were asked to repeat them. They then tried to make something of the differences in 1 minute segments.
This showed how limited is the thinking, the creativity, and the wisdom of so many of these journalists. When they are not acting like stenographers they become either a crowd shouting "jump" to people standing on a roof or shouting "kill him" to observers of a street fight.
Why not provide some context, raise issues of definition/clarification (such as explaining how converting health care premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance into a single tax would only raise the real cost for real people if the total cost of health insurance increased in a Med4All system, which most agree it will not). Then discuss how employers would be taxed to make up for this transference of responsibility, and then explain how those employers who would come out ahead would be required/encouraged to pass on their saving to their employees, especially those whose coverage would be reduced under the Me4All plan. This would clarify issues and also require the candidates to learn more about their policy proposals.
On immigration -- "how to have border security while helping desperate people: Dscuss.
19
"Why not provide some context, raise issues of definition/clarification (such as explaining how converting health care premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance into a single tax would only raise the real cost for real people if the total cost of health insurance increased in a Med4All system, which most agree it will not). Then discuss how employers would be taxed to make up for this transference of responsibility, and then explain how those employers who would come out ahead would be required/encouraged to pass on their saving to their employees, especially those whose coverage would be reduced under the Me4All plan."
Hey JustThinking. . .wow . . radical thoughts there . . . just reading your quote (see above) had my eyes glazing over. .
Elizabeth Warren was the most dynamic candidate. But it wasn't just her dynamism, it was her plans, and the planned budgets for how to pay for them, that were impressive. She's a thinker, and quick on her feet. Bravo, her!
Sanders, the architect of the new progressive Democratic agenda, was also vigorous, clearly not showing his age. Buttigieg can make ageist remarks, but it only makes him look bad. Sanders voice may get a bit loud, but it's because he is passionate.
The night 2 candidates didn't hold a candle to Warren and Sanders, which was a shame, as I think at least Harris had some good points. She got tripped up explaining her healthcare plan, which is easy to understand, but difficult to explain quickly.
Biden, has never been a favorite of mine, because he lacks the fire to beat Trump, and any plans for the U.S. Flashing a winning smile and not being Trump isn't enough.
I really like Inslee for his emphasis on the environment ... the only candidate to make it a priority. Climate change is the number 1 national security threat, according to Dan Coats, and he is right to pay attention to it.
Looking forward to hearing actual plans and budgets from the candidates -- not them tearing into each other.
17
If you review the evening, there was one candidate that stayed above the fray. That candidate was Andrew Yang.
He is the only candidate that is putting forward policy that has a chance of making it through congress and getting to the root of instability of in the US.
6
These surface-skimming debates are how the Republicans ended up nominating Trump. Both parties owe us more. The media owe us more. We owe ourselves more.
34
@Steve Cornett - How do you feel about Yang? He actually called this out during the debate and in a way that made excellent points about how we can defeat Trump.
7
Yang’s best moment and the most accurate comment of the night.
Once again, Gail, I wish you weren't looking for entertainment in these debates as you seemed to be in Mueller's testimony, too.
I am so proud of most of the candidates who are putting themselves out there for all kinds of attacks and inspection because they are passionate about defeating a president and administration that are pernicious.
Most of the debaters seem extremely earnest and have ideas they feel can or should be implemented.
Such an incredible endeavor to run for office, especially for the top post.
The field needs to be winnowed quickly and people have to talk about what they will do and not what their fellow candidates have done that they shouldn't.
The circular firing squad really has to stop and many of these candidates who might win Senate seats in swing states have to do their duty to stop the hemorrhaging.
33
Mayor Pete gives the most consistently excellent performances with thoughtful progressive ideas and reasonable plans. This country needs somebody who can think on their feet and who is brilliant and young and energetic. In both debates Pete stands out for his skills. He needs to be on the ticket. He will energize the youth vote and older voters who care about the future of our civilization.
28
I continue to wonder what is so great about private health insurance. Due to a serious medical issue, by the middle of March 2018, I had met met my carrier’s out-of-pocket annual limit. On April 2, 2018, I was scheduled to begin a second round of treatment. Unfortunately, on April 1, my employer had switched to a new carrier with a much higher out-of-pocket limit, so I was never able to realize that small benefit. My employer has cycled through many carriers over the years—among them Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permamente, Aetna, and Cigna—with each transition bringing higher costs and woes such as finding that one’s doctors, urgent-care clinics, and hospitals are now out of network. I think the candidates who support Medicare for All simply need to do a better job of explaining why universal healthcare would work to everyone’s advantage.
32
Respectfully, Joe Biden is not up to the task. I'm a senior and can see he has too many "senior moments". I love Liz Warren, who has vision, intelligence and message. Any one of these candidates has more decency and moral fiber than what we now have in the oval Office.
32
I cannot vote for Joe Biden in the primary. He does not stand for the things that I think need to be changed the most in this country. But having said that, Joe Biden would be far and away, way far away, head and shoulders, better than Trump on Joe's worse day.
16
I’m discussed with CNN for staging these debates like some sort of game show. It reminds me of The Apprentice. It debases and is disrespectful of the high office to which these men and women aspire. CNN thinks we the people want to see squabbling and cat fighting. They should be ashamed of themselves. I’ve lost all respect for them as a network.
28
@David Forster "discussed" should be "disgusted".
Me too
I was impressed with Bernie and Warren supporting each other.They are the top winners. CNN the losers, maybe they can take over the World Wrestling Network or start broadcasting the Roller Derby.
20
A question about process, do you op-Ed people formulate your opinions alone or as a group? Because I wonder if the consistency on the poor Harris performance is because you all ate from the same bowl of popcorn. In my hearing, she shook her head a lot because her attackers were being illogical. Yes she was frustrated over healthcare, but because the “can’t keep current employer” scheme was in her mind redundant because her plan addresses that by enabling private insurance options with greater choice and freedom by allowing the person to choose, not the employer - and this innovation was beyond the briefing notes the others had been given. At least that is what I heard, but then I had no popcorn last night.
7
I admire a couple of them greatly but wouldn't vote for any of them for POTUS.
I am not sure any of them can beat Trump.
Wonder who the Greens will run?
1
@Fred So you will vote for Trump either directly or indirectly through the Green Party?
2
@Fred Voting for anyone but the Dem candidate is a protest vote, and a wasted one at them. Do you really want four more years of Trump?
2
@Fred But Fred, if you want Trump out of office, don't you have to vote for one of them? None of them will beat Trump if you and others like you don't vote for the other gal/guy.
2
Too many people make a real debate impossible so why do we watch them?
6
Ya. I just can't get into Biden. Sorry. Harris, Bernie, Warren are my favorites to date but also like Castro and Brooker. Lots of very good choices for different folks with different strokes to choose from. Suspect the winner will be someone with name recognition. That narrows it down to half dozen. Those states surrounded by land but not sea will determine the outcome even though the fringe states are where the majority hang; where high tech (bio or otherwise) is created not just utilized. I one wants a job that makes other then minimum wage you gotta work for it and passionate enough to find the fit that fits. Otherwise sorry but that bottom rung of the economy just doesn't pay well and probably never will from here to China and beyond. IF you got a brain just find a niche that works, "learn the trade" and va la you're making more then minimum. Go for it. Even if you think your too old. You're not.
3
The problem with Bernie Sanders is that he helped put Donald Trump in the Oval Office. With a little help from the Russians.
15
The second debate was a kamikaze spectacle. You would think that the ACA was poison ivy None can take Trump. Booker’s cozy relationship with WS and naked ambition without solid proposals makes him unappealing. He should retire from the contest as should most of them.
4
How was debate night one Sanders vs Warren? Debate night one was a similar pile-on like night two, except it was Sanders and Warren vs. the "No Can Do" Caucus
3
Usually, I'm with you, Gail Collins. But not this time. Biden obviously is the grownup in the room, decent, intelligent, experienced, sane. He could restore America's standing in the world, right the floundering ship of state. After the crazy Trumpworld, America does not need a progressive revolution; we need stability, dependability, and Biden is the one.
4
Tonight i thought that Kamala and Biden would show what they are made of and one would steal the show.
They both went down in flames.
Biden somehow has visibly aged since the last debate. Maybe it was poor makeup, the lighting, but he just looked more frail. He seemed upset that he was being attacked, that he should just have to repeat, ad nauseum, his talking points and that would suffice. It didn't.
And then there was Kamala, the star of the last debate.
She is a prosecutor and loves to attack. But when she is attacked it is a different matter. She became flustered, shook with irritation, lost it.
Tulsi Gabbard gave it to her good. Just a few choice skeletons were aired. Kamala as AG sent 1,300 to prison for smoking weed and afterwards laughed about it. She covered up evidence that could have saved a man's life. She has sent more black men to prison than anyone else on the stage.
She did what any competent prosecutor does.
She denied everything. No way. It's a lie. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't there. I didn't hear anything. I am innocent.
What a joke. She lost me totally at that point as the audience went wild with delight.
Bennet is actually a great man. Nice to hear him again.
Cory Booker is really impressive. Brilliant, quick on his feet, able to take on anyone with lightness of spirit and a beautiful smile.
So far, I like him and Pete Buttigieg. They can defeat Trump and make us proud to be Americans again.
7
@simon sez
Michael Bennet was the one on stage last night who impressed me the most. He was calm, intelligent focused on the future. He made the most sense, he spent no time defending himself and the most time being realistic about where we are and where we should/could be headed. He's got a presidential mien. I will be watching him.
10
The progressive media soldiers love the angriest and loudest power-seekers, but 160 million Americans kinda like having health insirance at work.
Ditching the American tradition of private health insurance marks the speaker as just running to enhance their speaking tou credentials.
It is the 2020 version of promising to shut down the coal industry.
2
@The Observer
Many times in my working life, my decisions on staying or moving on to something more entrepreneurial or challenging were decided by the need for solid health care that I could only afford through an employer. It was only when I had healthcare access through my spouse, that I was able to change positions. When we separated and my life moved in new directions, the only way that could happen was because we didn’t divorce (so I stayed on her plan) until I was well enough established in my new career that I was certain of health care.
Also, we need to keep in mind that too often in the past, employees gave up on asking for raises to keep the health care they were getting through their employer. That stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. Most major corporations have shown that they have as close to zero as possible loyalty to their employees, unlike how it was in my parents’ time. It is long past time to uncouple health care from employment. Too many people are one “I’m sorry, we’re closing this location down, good luck...” from personal financial disaster caused by lack of health care to keep the current situation.
6
These were not debates. They were a contrived TV show where the "moderators" used schoolyard constructions ("Cory/Kamala/Elizabeth/etc. said this about you, what do you have to say about that?") to force interpersonal confrontations rather than discussions about policy. This represents the shallowness of our politics but offers no solutions.
20
Oh, no---'We’ve still got 10 more debates to go?! How will we stand it? Maybe they'll get more informative when it's reduced to 2 candidates engaging each other.
The media is in high profit, reality tv show mode. It's ridiculous that they keep announcing when each candidate arrives at the debate theater. They hype everything.
Many comments here are fed up with the media now.
8
Um. There was an unusual and AT LAST moment when Sen Harris was finally confronted with her record. The press won't do it, so somebody had to. Special thanks to Tulsi Gabbard. Who'd a thought?
8
Kudos to Gail for watching the debates and then writing this article. I just wanted to go to bed.
Warren was head and shoulders above everyone. She's smart, articulate. thoughtful, prepared. and, yes, a fighter. She will not only take it to Trump, she'd be a great president.
Biden was terrible. It was painful watching him fumble. Trump will make mincemeat of him.
Corey Booker is too nice. It's sweet he wants to unite Americans. I wish he'd spend more time on his policies.
Andrew Yang is impressive. He needs to talk about more than universal income.
Kamala Harris disappointed. She has to do more than attack Biden and Trump.
Pete Buttigieg seems like he was created by AI. Would help to know what his policies are.
I wish Sanders would drop out and support Warren.
Inslee would be a good president. If a Dem wins he or she should make him Climate Czar and do what he says.
Once there are only 4 or so left, real debates can begin. At least they started at 8pm instead of 9.
11
Second night definitely had more energy. The first became rather expected and dull. Can't agree with your choice of Bernie. His yelling and constant arm waving obliterates any good argument he might have. Consistent new vision coupled with a planning mind have yet to make themselves a choice.
3
The moderation on Wednesday night was poor. It was trying to encourage fights, not debates. The format felt forced for making fireworks.
13
One of the more interesting facts is that the polls indicate extremely low support for Harris and Booker among African American voters. Booker's overall polling shows his support among all voters is, incredibly, just about zero.
Booker and Harris are simply not credible among African American and their polling among all voters is extraordinarily low.
In order to win 2020 the Dems would need a candidate who can win in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
And Biden still appears to be the most credible in those States.
4
The first night was "Warren v Sanders?" Were we watching the same debates?
3
Gail Collins you win!
No one can beat a Sanders/Warren ticket.
One of them would be the most important working VP ever.
Brilliant column, as usual.
3
Good News: Biden Survived
Bad News: Best Biden could do
Bottom Line: Biden Ticket will need Energy Boost--Young Minority
7
I still haven't gotten around Trump's referring to Elijah Cummings' electoral district as "rat and rodent infested." There are rodents who aren't rats but the only rat who isn't a rodent is The Donald himself. Anyway, there wasn't a single person on the stage tonite (or last night, with the possible exception of Marianne Williamson) who isn't more qualified to run this country than the guy who's been running it into the ground. I do, however, wish that the subject of reparations would come up at one of these debates. We might just as well get it over with before Trump makes an issue out of it.
7
@stu freeman
Reparations DID come up on Tuesday night. A few touched on it, and Williamson spoke about it.
2
Why are the Democrats afraid of competition?
I’m serious. I read all these comments about CNN wants them to “attack” each other and why is CNN doing this and doing that. These ladies and gentlemen better hope it gets a whole lot more brutal before it gets any easier. This thing isn’t even in spring training and you think it’s too tough?
Anyone alive here remember ‘16 ? The Republicans tore each other up in one of the most brutal nominating processes since Jefferson vs. Adams. The DNC on the other hand played it safe. How’d that work out?
I don’t know which metaphor is better, but it’s said that “you fight like you train” or “play like you practice”. But either way, it’s about winning when it counts. And these folks better keep putting in the reps before they go up against an incumbent president whose likely to have an economy that over 60 percent of the country will rate as very good or excellent.
A little competition will go a long, long, way for this lot
3
I can't fathom how anyone can still support Biden after that debate performance. He came off as forgetful, ineffectual, and confused. He repeatedly stumbled over his words and many of his points were vague and at times, incoherent. It's hard to imagine him going toe-to-toe with Trump. Please Joe, take a seat and pass the torch to the next generation.
12
The fact that Biden fumbled addressing Cory Booker, then corrected himself by referring to Booker as "the future president"...was stunning. It immediately made Booker look fully presidential - which he was doing anyway - and made Biden look like a thin, confused old man.
I'm surprised that that clip hasn't running all night.
9
@Kitt Richards
Biden *looked* great , anyone who is that dapper and " clean " at that age should be thrilled , but not President .
I watched both nights and I am extremely concerned that out of all of these (good) people, there is no sure fire winner. The two who have the most fire in the belly are Warren and Sanders, both too far left for the general population. My favorite, Mayor Pete, cannot bring along the African-American vote, Harris is so snarky and mean sounding I just can't listen to her, Gillibrand ain't got it, etc. None of them inspire me.
And then there's the front-runner, Joe Biden, who has the African-American vote seemingly locked up because of Obama. Without them supporting someone else, I see only old Joe. Sigh. In my view, he is just too old and he just does not inspire that he can stay awake until 11:00. He seems weak to me.
I know one thing. I am very, very worried that the Dems will fail and we will have Trump who will then be unleashed. All of these people and not one of them has 'it'. And all 'it' is is beating Trump.
10
Sorry, CNN's format was awful. This is our country and the future of the world on the line, not a Smackdown and its attendant hype. I want to see and hear a conversation in a room with a few candidates at a time explaining how they would handle issues and unafraid to say, "Yes, I agree with that. Next topic..." when they do.
And if that doesn't happen, at least get all 20+ in one room, no cameras and no posturing, and issue a joint statement like: "While we have different ideas of how to achieve them, these are the basic principles on which we are united." Then list them:
"We are for ALL Americans, poor, rich and in between; all races and religions without discrimination; all gender identifications. All are woven tightly into the complex fabric of our country.
"The climate is changing unnaturally. We agree to do what we can to protect it. We can discuss how to do it, but it must be done and quickly.
"Our political system is being undermined from outside and in. We are united in our goal to fix it, but first we have to win. Job One: beat Trump. Other Job One: reclaim the Senate. Third Job One: retain the House."
And so on, down the long list of major topics, including immigration, healthcare, overseas conflicts, infrastructure and more. Rather than a free-for-all, we must let Americans see our unity as we choose our charismatic and capable leader.
Time to get serious. Let the country know this is not a wrestling match; it's our country's and world's survival.
28
@CP
oh ! a platform ! how 20th century
1
@thostageo, hadn't you noticed? The 20th century was America's century. The 21st could be with enlightened leadership.
Whoever is behind having 20 candidates “debate” in a poorly structured free for all is not doing the country any favors. So far the debates have reminded me of watching 5 year old kids swarming the ball in soccer matches.
In normal times early debates like these might be kind of fun and a novelty. But Trump is an incredibly angry President who is sinking our country with his fear based imperial rule. Moscow Mitch deserves no sympathy just because he felt insulted for being called out for his unpatriotic acts (or lack of).
The fate of our country depends on getting Trump, McConnell, Barr, Kushner, Ivanka, Mulvaney, Devos, Pompeo, Bolton and others out of our government. I think the Democrats can and need to do better.
30
These debates are too much of a circus and closer to an episode of The Bachelor or a UFC fight than a political debate on policy matters. I agree with other commenters that Andrew Yang’s calling out of the debate format was the moment that rang truest with the silent majority. The US needs to turn around this fascination with striking personalities ASAP before another Trump-style politician is elected. How can we curb our desire for entertainment while engaging our population in caring about real politics? Not sure but this is definitely not it. Please kill the applause and laugh tracks, maybe it would be better to do these debates without a rowdy audience present.
12
@Joshua Slayton I remember the days when presidential debates were organized by the League of Women Voters.
They always did a MUCH better job of it than any particular network. CNN is the worst.
1
Gail, your opening paragraphs are so fine and so closely connected with a comment I just filed at another column that I am not even reading further before submitting these words.
Warren and Sanders, the champions, yes.
In order of age by number, not by medical measures Warren 70, Biden 76, Sanders 77 and soon 78.
I am a self-named expert on this age thing, having kept meticulous xls files and filled sequentially named notebooks starting at age 70, the first notebook titled My So-Called 10th Life, and now at age 87 So-Called 14th.
I know the hazards of the n = 1 anecdote but I also know quite a bit about age-related health risks. Conclusion:
Warren is just a kid, she should be the presidential or vice-presidential choice. Bernie is the exception that maybe proves the rule "kid". If he is the choice make sure the VP is Warren. Biden is,shall we say, culturally much older than his calendar age, and is not the man we need for pres.
Me? The paradox is that at 87 I have no doubt that I am much healthier than the President of the United States, but we look away from his health because ascendancy to the throne of his VP is beyond rapture.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
12
These debates are leaving me depressed. They should be talking about what their plans are to:
1. DEFEAT trump
2. repair the damage he has done to our country and our reputation on the world stage.
3. repair the damage trump has done to our reputation as a nation with a government that her allies can trust.
4. try to repair the tremendous damage trump has inflicted on the psyche of those seeking refuge from the brutal countries they have fled.
5. reinstate our environmental protections.
6. focus on working in the international community on dealing with the most important challenge facing the world- climate change.
7. focus on trump's attacks on a women's access to preventative health care, access to family planning and reproductive health concerns.
8. and the many more issues that are too many to count.
Instead they're using the way back machine attacking Biden for policies from 30-40 years ago. Attitudes evolve through time and culture. At one time many believed that inter-racial marriage should be opposed. Many opposed gay marriage years ago. Most now believe both are inalienable rights. Many who were once skeptical of the acceleration of global warming now agree with the science. When we don't learn and evolve our attitudes that is a problem. Many voted for the Iraq war because of misleading intelligence. If they could go back in time they would change their vote. But we don't have a way back machine. We grow if we admit our mistakes and learn the lessons they teach.
23
@sharon Your comment seems to suggest we can't walk and chew gum at the same time-- that we can't fight hard to defeat Trump and restore normalcy while also setting ourselves up for longer-term progressive policies such as a Green New Deal that are necessary to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030. The problem on this issue is nobody believes Biden would fight hard to do this-- he would fold under the Republican pressure to "be bipartisan" and support natural gas pipelines ("the bridge fuel") to "ensure America's energy dominance". But natural gas is a bridge fuel *to nowhere*. In order to make the IPCC requirement for 2030, we need to be making DEEP cuts in emissions, around 6 to 9% reductions year over year, whereas even during the Obama administration we were INCREASING emissions around 2.5% per year. Biden would simply take that 2.5% down to 0%, but the IPCC says our emissions need to drastically PLUMMET. We need an absolute revolution in thinking on environment, otherwise we're doomed. But Biden is more concerned with the ill-effects to his own approval rating among comfortable, liberal, older Americans. What we really need is the public ALARM more akin to what Sunrise Movement or Extinction Rebellion are doing. Our House Is On Fire!
6
@Richard Schultz
If we win the senate do you honestly believe that Biden would veto progressive legislation that moves our country forward? I seriously have my doubts.
The format of these debates isn't helping. Giving the candidates only 60 seconds to respond to a question compels them to rely on a list of talking points and rehearsed one-liners that they hope will become Internet memes. It also rewards those who are glib and talk fast. Anyone who dares take a moment to think about a question appears halting. Anyone who attempts a nuanced reply appears vague and will certainly run out of time before he or she gets to the point. This is no way to air policy differences, much less educate voters on the intricacies of Medicare for all or a guaranteed annual income. Finally, the format seems designed to encourage the candidates to go at one another, which might well be what the networks consider great TV but it hardly amounts to a real debate.
19
I was riveted. This was a discussion of some of the most critical problems we are facing, and included the sober reminder that if we don't start working on them after the upcoming election, we'll be lost. There was energy, elegant engagement of ideas, revelation of personal virtues and flaws, and a lively review of the condition of the nation of the sort never seen with Trump. It was refreshing to see candidates relish debate, disagreement, challenge, and take up the banner of intellectual honesty, profound experience, and a moral high ground not seen in years.
6
The fact is that any of the folks that took the stage for the Democratic debates would make a far, far better president than Donald Trump. That's the message to get across.
33
If the Democrats don't take back the Senate and the new Senate leader exploits the nuclear option (majority for all votes & no more "holds"), then there will be no progressive/democratic solutions for a Democratic president to sign into law. The DNC is lame and has been since they got rid of Howard Dean.
21
@jmc In order to take back the Senate, it is IMPERATIVE that young people be encouraged to vote to the highest possible extent- this is evident in analyzing the results from 2008, 2012, and this last midterm election in 2018. Selecting Joe Biden or a 'moderate' as the nominee does NOT, I repeat, does NOT, encourage young people to vote. Selecting a strong backer of the Green New Deal with a solid record on climate is the single best way to appeal to young voters, as climate change will disproportionately affect them as they will be struggling with it their *entire lives*.
4
@Richard Schultz Completely agree that young people need to vote. I am in the cohort of people that cast my first presidential vote when the voting age was reduced to 18. My main point is that the DNC has no boots on the ground in ALL 50 states. They should be encouraging (time & $$) to young people who wish to serve their constituencies at the local & state levels...not just purple congressional districts and for POTUS. Nothing ever built TOP-DOWN (as HRC tried to do with her DNC campaign $ deal) has staying power. Cheers.
1
@jmc
The DNC does not represent Democrats.
I watched both debates and was struck by the harshness of the debate format. It was a weird combination of a gladiator fight and speed dating. It was exhausting to watch. It is no wonder that some candidates stammered, faltered or were rendered somewhat speechless. Nonetheless, I agree that any candidate would have more heart and soul than Donald Trump.
55
@L Kuster it was not only exhausting, it was annoying. CNN did not provide us with a debate, I agree with @LKuster! I bailed on both nights after an hour or so. I’m hoping for better in September with no involvement by CNN!
Although they won't win the nomination, they deserve the "class act award" Mayor Pete and Tulsi Gabbard were what I want to hear more of. They are the voice of the future, calm, "we got this, folks", and reassuring. Realistically, at this point, I'll take Biden/Booker with some of the others in the cabinet to try to pull off a win.
12
I love Joe. While he performed better this time, Jay Inslee and Michael Bennet captured my heart. They don't have the name recognition, but they sing my song. Intelligent, non-combative and persuasive. Booker and Gillibrand were much better this time around. Harris unfortunately shot herself in the foot for deliberately focusing on Biden's past vs. making a pitch for our future. Tired of her style already. Yang is ok, but there's something about him that I just don't get.
Lastly, please, please, no more CNN debates. Just awful. The heath care section was painful to watch.
40
@Lisa Rogers
Agree about Bennet and Inslee- too bad this format doesn’t give them enough time. Also tired of Harris, who was my favorite originally. She seems to be trying to win by knocking down others - time to bring your own plans and ideas Kamala.
18
Given that Joe Biden was attacked non-stop for close to 3 hours, I think he did great. He wasn’t perfect, but who would be in that situation? Biden proved beyond doubt that he is up to the rigors of a presidential campaign.
Gillibrand had a close to flawless evening— her single misstep was her heavy-handed attack on an age-old Biden op ed. Her Clorox comment was priceless. Gillibrand was so good that I almost forgot her shoddy treatment of Al Franken. Almost.
Others who resonated with me: Gabbard (strong and honest), Inslee (all about substance), Bennet (plays well to the center), Yang (more than held his own), Castro (while he faded for long stretches, what he did say was sharp and on point.)
16
@ANetliner - Well, if Joe winds up the nominee, he'd better be able to stand more than 3 hours of attacks. Trump and Co. will be 24/7 of the lowest possible attacks for 6 months. Hope he's up for it. I hope anyone's up for it.
14
@ANetliner
Remember, when Joe debates Trump, he will not have access to a script!
Yes, the Democratic candidate will have to weather 24/7 Republican dirt.
I suspect, however, that s/he will have the rapid response war room needed to handle this well.
Do we have to choose now? OK, let's go with Warren-Sanders and promise high-level cabinet positions for all 18 of the others. One can almost see which of these candidates would be right for certain cabinet positions. How refreshing--we'd know in advance what we were going to get, and it would affirm the practice of assigning highly qualified people, a refreshing change from hiring the worst possible person, as Trump has always done.
29
@Will Jackson
Warren/Sanders- too similar ideologically and geographically PLUS they are both over 70.
My pick is Warren/Mayor Pete
11
@Maxi
Is anyone else noticing that the Democratic combo most appreciated by folks who really watched these debates is Elizabeth Warren for President, and Pete Buttigieg for Vice-President? I'm there, even before Maxi's comment.
Joe Biden is simply too frail, too old, for the job. And he cannot keep leaning on Barack Obama--what else you got, Joe?
Why are you shouting, Bernie? 'Nuf said.
Warren has the ideas, the energy, the ability to work with Congress (we're all forgetting that part of being President, because Trump doesn't even fathom what Congress is). And she has the spine, the determination.
Mayor Pete would be there for the younger voters, the Midwest, the sure-handed calm he projects. Intelligence and common sense, and the skill to always see the bigger picture. So superior to Pence that it takes your breath away.
3
@Will Jackson
Two septuagenarians? Better: Warren-Booker.
1
I appreciated that the crisis of climate change we face was given the attention it urgently deserves. If we don’t address this, none of the other issues will matter much.
53
@Dennis The debate wasn't long or detailed enough, and didn't draw in enough candidates. People around the country actually still think that merely having a carbon tax is going to solve climate change-- wrong. There is an incredible diversity of opinions about what we ought to do, but the debate format is preventing people from hearing about them or the logic behind them.
6
Barack Obama, as much as I admire him, probably set a bad precedent in that he was elected POTUS after being in the Senate less than a full term.
That precedent has encouraged others (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in 2016 Kamla Harris and Cory Booker in 2019) to think that they can run for POTUS--and maybe even win--after being in the Senate for a short time, Cruz's and Rubio's failures notwithstanding.
Joe Biden who was in the Senate for nearly four decades and was VP for 8 years has a long record of public service. It is a blessing and a curse in that he has many things to be proud of and some unpleasant things to defend.
So Harris and Booker have gone at Biden in the last two debates, except that Harris sputtered when she had to defend her own record in CA. I suspect Booker's turn to defend and sputter will come soon enough.
As much as I didn't want Biden to run, now that he is running, he may be the one, warts and all, to beat Trump, as none of the other candidates distinguished themselves much in the last two debates. Warren and Sanders may not so well against Trump.
Unfortunately, we have many more hours of debates ahead of us. Go easy on us, kids!
16
@RK You shouldn't get a special Good Job sticker for keeping your job for a long time.
2
@RK Trump would make mincemeat of Biden in a debate.
@RK
Just for the record, Cory Booker is serving his second term in the Senate.
2
These were no debates, they were reality TV political theater. They showed us little about real leadership on the ground and how any of the candidates would realistically govern, the character and quality of appointments, how they would engage with slim majorities or a divided Congress. Would they even attempt to engage with Red State people or simply presume that their coastal majorities are all that really matter as this is how they gained power?
18
@Hpower And how is that different than the Red State autocrat we’re dealing with now? One can hardly call Trump a president for everyone given his record.
26
@Hpower
Check out the candidates’ interviews- a lot of your questions are answered there. In any case on “real leadership on the ground and how any of the candidates would realistically govern, the character and quality of appointments” - any of them would be miles better than Trump.
As far as the people in the Red states, they are just people - many of them poor, either themselves or knowing someone suffering from opioid addiction, needing health care, worried about climate change, depending on SS, wanting good schools for their children and grandchildren. Trump hasn’t helped any of them - any of the Democratic candidates would be world’s better for them.
4
@Hope Springs. The point was not to advocate for Trump. The point was that the debate format does not really give voters much to go on. Unless they want entertainment, wishes, and empty promises. We need much more if we are serious about making progress and healing our very fractured nation.
1
I always feels like Joe Biden is just biding time. A Biding Biden is not what our increasingly diverse country needs at this perilous moment.
Great leaders know when to step aside for others to take their "chair at the table." That Biden did not realize his time is past makes it all the more uncomfortable to watch him try and contend in a campaign where he does not belong.
38
@JBC Joe Biden isn't trying to win simply to be President. He is the silver bullet the establishment Democrats hope will keep progressives like Bernie or Warren out of the White House, progressives who have the vision and most importantly the credibility to disrupt business as usual, Wall Street corruption that prevents our political system from noticeably and substantively improving the lives of the poor and middle class, the rent-seeking behavior of the elites that makes Americans feel trapped and not in control of their own lives. Joe Biden's whole argument is "if you don't like me for President, then you're a blasphemer against Obama". In general, the Democrats have had far too little honest intra-party debate about Obama, and this is coming from someone who voted for Obama both times and was among the first to donate to his campaign in February 2007.
6
@JBC
I kind of agree with what you are saying. I think Joe was a good Vice President and he's a good person, but it's a new day and he should help a newcomer to become President. We need to wipe out the scourge of Trump and eliminate the Trump Strain of the Hate Virus he is spreading around the World.
Look, at the risk of restating the obvious, let's wait for the polls. If African-American support holds with Biden, he's as good as in. It held with him after the first debate, where his performance was fairly muted, if it holds now, it's never going to crumble. If minority support chooses Biden it's, because he's the one they want to vote for, debate performance will be irrelevant from here on out.
8
@Richard McLaughlin
Oh, it doesn't matter who the candidate may be, African-Americans will not vote for Trump and they won't stay home either. I am certain Trump hasn't just infected his base with Hate, he's infected those who Hate him.
@Richard McLaughlin Biden isn't the *only* one African Americans would vote for. He is just currently their top choice. Do you really think that if Kamala Harris or Cory Booker were the nominees going up against racist TRUMP that African Americans would stay home and not vote?
Also, using more conservative African Americans in South Carolina as a stand-in for *all* African Americans is misleading.
@Richard McLaughlin Personally, I ma tired of the Dems catering to southern states that dont vote for them in the general. It's time to just write them off.
The first thing to say is these are not debates. What NBC, CNN and the DNC have produced are ugly pageants in which the contestants vie for the most air time by attacking each other and inserting clever soundbites prepared ahead of time.
Marshall Mcluhan was spot on, "the medium is the message," which explains why the content of this "debate" medium is devoid of value or meaning. The format is undermining the candidates, not informing the voters.
For instance, the health insurance situation in America is a disaster but the varied remedies are too complex to explain to people in 60 seconds. Instead, the time allotted to each person called upon is used to attack the previous person's views, positions or past.
America is at a crossroads. Two-faced Trump and Moscow Mitch want a 180 degree turn to the right, turning America into a white nationalist authoritarian state. Democrats want to turn left, not just to save our democratic republic, but to improve the lives of the people. The decision the people must make is too consequential to muck up, but these so called debates are doing just that.
219
@JABarry This also explains why the candidates keep attacking Bernie and Warren on "why do you insist on Medicare For All instead of merely allowing a Public Option?" The complete answer, because a Public Option would be completely undermined over time by private insurance companies who will cherrypick the healthiest patients who rarely make medical claims thereby concentrating the risk pool in the necessarily more sickly and chronically ill people in the Public Option pool, is TOO COMPLICATED AND TOO LONG to fit into the 15 SECONDS that CNN gives candidates to explain how they will solve universal healthcare. This fits directly into what Noam Chomsky always said- that the establishment intentionally uses the poverty of the medium to keep would-be reformers' answers short and prevent them from being able to tell the whole truth. CNN and its healthcare advertisers DO NOT WANT CHANGE.
16
@Richard Schultz
The complete answer, because a Public Option would be completely undermined over time by private insurance companies who will cherrypick the healthiest patients who rarely make medical claims thereby concentrating the risk pool in the necessarily more sickly and chronically ill people in the Public Option pool
Thank you. You're the first person to articulate the downside of a Public Option. It's given me pause to think.
5
Dare I admit it? I haven't had the energy to watch the Democratic debates. I am exhausted with politics.
Since the day after the 2016 election, I've been politically engaged. I have practiced a form of American citizenship I never knew was in me.
Before Trump, I could be rightfully accused of taking American democratic forms of government for granted. After Trump, I thought by being a good citizen, a believer in Democracy, a belief that insisted this American ideal of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all would cause the nightmare of an authoritarian, out of the box racist America go away. I didn't work.
Unbelievably, nearly three years after the election, Trump is still there. It seems no amount of attention or anger or fury will make him go away.
I'm not giving up. I am just waiting for the right time to enter the fray.
41
@Dave Thomas
Trumps has made it
1
@Dave Thomas: Trump is like a particularly stubborn tick. He has his teeth firmly in the wound now, is engorged with the country's blood, and will have to be carefully excised or things could get splattered, leaving pieces of Trump still firmly gripping the victim. And he LOVES “attention, anger and fury”. That and his talents for stirring the pot and distraction are the reasons he is still there. And the reasons he may still be there in 2020 and after. Brrrr. I hope that whatever form your new-found political activism is taking bears fruit and that there are millions more like you.
1
@Dave Thomas It matters who the nominee is.
1
Lots of awkwardness and squabbling in the debates, but also some great airing of views. Two things I appreciated about night 2:
DeBlasio, addressing the criticism of plans that would replace people’s health insurance, saying that most people don’t like their health insurance.
Corey Booker calling for a united front and cautioning against Dems being pitted against each other.
19
@midwesterner Everyone loves to hate on DeBlasio, but his insurance comments were right on. The only people who think their insurance is great are those in municipal unions, with little or no out of pocket expense. But those plans are dinosaurs and are slowly being chipped away as contracts are renegotiated. Ironically, in NYC at least, many of those uninformed, overwhelmingly male civil servants complain the loudest about NY's high taxes - you know, those taxes I pay to subsidize their benefits! Most private employers, mine included, are offering high deductible plans where premiums are reasonable but out of pocket costs (in our case, $8000 per year for my husband and myself, after which we pay nothing) are high. Not to mention the constant worry about whether a provider is out of network, or as happened to us recently, the provider who analyzed the results of tests (a provider we did not personally select) was out of network. We got a $1200 bill, which we then had to fight the insurance company for months before it was waived. Imagine having to do this repeatedly when you are really sick or disabled.
24
@Michele This is why we need Medicare For All. The Public Option was OK in 2010, but we're having a wholesale debate in 2019 about healthcare that we never would have had the democratic process to have publicly back in 2010. The Public Option is now seen as "settling".
9
@Michele
Amen
The process is working. Biden was fine but old. Harris was lost on health care. Gabbard and Gillibrand made sense. Bennett is a decent man. My favorite of last night was Inslee. I'd like to see him take the moderate mantle from Biden.
44
@Mad Moderate
agree , every sentence from Inslee had substance and focus , although he used valuable time telling how " proud " he was of Washington State
1
@Mad Moderate
Bennet is the guy I’m rooting for, but will be happy with Inslee.
Given his underdog status, for my money, Yang won the debate. No tie, funny lines, respectful, mellow, confident, relevant. I want to hear more form him.
49
Whatever you call this and the previous one, it was not a debate. So? It was a televised policy meeting in which we saw overlapping and/or repeated ideas. 20 people !
Let's not fall into the trap of false expectations from the networks, like after Mueller's testimony. Brian Williams indulged in a narrative that the dems didn't get the 'big explosion' they expected. Based on the gravity of the issue & Mueller's nature, I didn't expect fireworks. But Nadler and Schiff especially were successful in framing questions for Mueller so we heard important conclusions. Ratcliffe showed how low the repubs could go.
Tonight? Ultimately, after the ticket is decided, we unite to defeat Trump and erase his mess ... Among those 20 hopefuls are extremely well qualified candidates for cabinet posts to help realize the objective of repairing our country in terms of both inspiration and action.
Biden / Harris ? ... A safe bet tho I like Warren / Castro; better mix of gender/geography ... At first I thought Warren too wonky but she has done the research & quotes killer facts. Call me a dreamer, America needs to move from empty charisma to responsible focus & detail.
I did want to hear a warning; Trump is desperate for re election because of fed, state, local charges awaiting him as a private citizen & the belief that as president he cannot be prosecuted. He will do anything to be elected. We must insure he does not start a war in Iran. Nothing is beyond him.
81
@CD, Warren/Castro or perhaps Warren/Booker.
"I did want to hear a warning; Trump is desperate for re election because of fed, state, local charges awaiting him as a private citizen & the belief that as president he cannot be prosecuted. He will do anything to be elected. We must insure he does not start a war in Iran. Nothing is beyond him." - one of the most important things that we and our candidates need to remember. Thank you, CD!
5
@CD
Howsabout Warren/Stacey Abrams?
@WWW
thank you WWW -
one more little fact:
no incumbent president has lost re election
during a war ... none ... ever !
1
Tulsi Gabbard won 2nd debate with a forceful, well reasoned, articulate set of facts. When she labeled our current health system a "sick care system", she correctly reoriented our views and gave clear incite into what action needs to be taken to improve what we have for all citizens. That she will move current wasteful military spending to infrastucture re-construction makes her worthy of our vote and support.
27
@Frank Stone Marianne Williamson used that same term the night before.
1
@Frank Stone - I'm a big Fan of Yang but I thought Gabbard and he gave the best performances (when you factor in substance).
It's shame that the Times seems to be downplaying their success.
1
The real drama is this: The entire format is ...well...deplorable. My mother asked me to turn off the first round half-way through. Who can say anything meaningful in one-minute sound bites? And there are clear biases already shaping the agenda. Bernie and Biden both received many more minutes at the mic than the female contenders.
And yet...on Tuesday, the breakout contender was the woman (cannot even remember her name because there are so many candidates) who barely got any podium time but who made the crowd roar with approval when she talked about the systemic sickness of our entire system made manifest in the Flint water crisis.
The entire format needs to be scrapped and curses on those who decided it was great year to run because....well, I'm at an utter loss. Having seen how a crowded field brought us the Emperor Without Clothes, who thought it was a grand idea to keep piling on? How can any voices emerge? How can the public know anything meaningful about any of them?
Did anyone, anyone at all, hit pause and say, "Maybe this isn't my moment? Better for the country not to run this year?" There is now an enormous chance that we are going to have suffer, and I do mean suffer, four more years of the most spectacularly inept president in the history of the country.
On an overcrowded stage he stands out, exactly what we don't need or want. At this point, it's a patriotic duty for any candidate in the single digits to drop out so that a front-runner can emerge and run.
69
@AhBrightWings
Would the republicans had taken this advice in 2016 and united around a saner candidate instead of let the menace pick them off one at a time. We might have a president Jeb, but it would be far better than this.
3
It's hard for anybody to shine in a 10-person debate. The people who "win" are those who either are willing to be the most audacious in ideas (e.g., Warren) or sharp with their well-rehearsed, ad-libbed sound bites, which inevitably are repeated in the media.
But whether you like Biden or not, he's right about the objective: The election is about beating Trump and preserving what's left of the America we thought we knew. Trump's horrible enough, but the real danger lurking below the surface is his uber-committed minions like Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney, Andrew Wheeler (EPA) and Mike Pence, who are willing to work out of the spotlight to accomplish their policy goals, while being smart enough to publicly flatter and glorify Trump so he lets them continue unabated. Four more years of these kind of people controlling the levers of power would be devastating to our country and its institutions.
So I wonder whether ten more debates where multiple Democratic candidates take turns whacking at each other will help further the ultimate goal.
63
I was not impressed with what I was seeing and bailed out of the debate early.
I would like to see the front runners get together for rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors to settle the question of the nomination early and then get on with the fight against Trump.
The actual differences between the candidates don't amount to a
hill of beans, the only thing that matters is getting rid of Trump.
It's time now to get on with that.
117
Or alternately, the thing to do might just be to go ahead and nominate Michelle Obama.
3
@A. Stanton
Your second paragraph says it all, but I still like Gail Collins's wit and humor.
How can they use the argument about losing employer paid health insurance? In most advanced countries, your health care doesn't depend on your employment status, or if you work for a big or small company.
In the US millions of our jobs have been offshored to increase profits. Many corporate restructurings have lead to lay offs. Few people have life time jobs with benefits and pensions as in past eras. Many workers are in the gig economy and need protections.
Only a national health care plan not connected to employment can accomplish basic security for citizens, in in line with 20th century standards.
Some countries don't have single payer, but everyone gets basic HC. If use insurance mandates, their govts regulate costs of premiums and drugs for their citizens. There are also 2 tier systems, but basic HC is guaranteed.
I haven't heard that even discussed in any of the debates or in TV discussions. It's not just single payer vs our high profit system. Our media is not doing its duty to inform voters how the various alternatives have worked abroad, and could work here.
We still have medical bankruptcies. Other countries don't.
HC is the major life & death issue for 2020,
The Times is an intl paper. Compare tax rates here, vs those in countries with HC for all, at various income levels. Interview residents. Answer the objections of our anti Medicare for All politicians. Is that too much to ask for the NYTimes?
138
@Meredith: Actually, Yang spoke of that last night - getting rid of employer paid health care. It's insane! Why we ever tied employment with health care, I do not understand. If employers didn't have to provide health care they could put that money and time into their businesses and hiring more people. Entrepreneurs could leave jobs and build their own companies and hire people.
Health care should not be tied to employment and Yang has it right.
Yang and Williamson and Gabbard are 'second' tier candidates who actually are much more interesting than most of the others (except Pete and he cannot make it because of zero African-American support which is very sad). Who but Yang is talking about AI and what that is going to do to our society? Who but Williamson is bluntly describing our inequality ("Flint would never have happened in Grosse Point"), etc?
The media will never give these interesting candidates their due.
14
@Meredith - yes please! "The Times is an intl paper. Compare tax rates here, vs those in countries with HC for all, at various income levels. Interview residents. Answer the objections of our anti Medicare for All politicians. Is that too much to ask for the NYTimes?"
4
As Yang pointed out robots needing neither healthcare, nor social security, nor retirement plans have invaded factories. Your robot gets sick he goes into the recycling bin. Our recycler doesn’t yet accept body parts.
3
You really think any of this lot can beat Trump.
Hilary had 8 years as first lady, nearly beat Obama for nomination, then Senator, then Secretary of State, huge national & international profile, safe pair of hands with a few nice electoral giveaways, and a woman.
She lost.
Seems to me many people here simply anticipate Trump will lose regardless of the challenger. I guess it's possible but not likely. You need to have someone who can win.
41
@Paul
Any of these candidates could beat Trump.
We have 16 months during which we will see Trump sink further into mindless jabber.
This time 35% of the country will not pick the president.
17
good luck with that.
@Paul
Hilary and Bill Clinton were HATED by the Republicans. HATED! All the talk of Trump Derangement Syndrome is a pale reflection of how the Republicans felt about Hilary. And she never figured out how to deal with it either.
There are no lessons to learn from her loss beyond the basic one that is really hard to win when many, many people hate you so much that any lie becomes believable.
I voted for her, by the way, but I have friends who spread lies that were easy to disprove. They wouldn't even listen to the proof, or forgot it by the next day.
All of the top Democratic candidates are hated less. Ones that can connect with left and center all have a good chance. And connect doesn't mean that the voters have to agree with the policies. The voters just need to believe that the candidate is paying attention to what they care about.
The opening scenes of this debate looked like the intro of a WWE event. Which kind of went along with the whole CNN approach to the event.
To watch Biden fumble, to know he’s got the Democratic establishment behind him and either a fan club or sock puppets pushing him online, puts fear in my heart.
Cory Booker is right: a candidate is going to need the African American vote to win — particularly the women who tend to do the most campaigning. They will also need the progressive vote to win, a largely younger crowd. I doubt Biden will have either.
As for the Republicans in the swing states who hint they MIGHT vote for Biden? That’s a pretty heady gamble there. Republicans are far more likely to stay home than vote for a Democrat if they don’t like their own candidate.
23
My thought is that these candidates need to get behind closed doors and hash out their issues, make some compromises, then realistically decide among themselves the best way to WIN the presidential election. It would eliminate a lot of accusations and wasted time if they came up with a platform all could agree on. Otherwise we voters are not going to have a chance to change things in Washington.
30
@ChristineZC
So, what you're saying is, a group of elite individuals should hold exclusive, closed-door meetings to decide, among themselves, what's best for the entire country?
Isn't this exactly the type of corrupt system we vociferously condemn?!
I agree with you that these "debates" were insane, but that's because they weren't actually debates. The people who are paying attention to these "things" right now tend to be highly informed voters... who, for the most part, have already picked their desired candidate to back. Julia Azari from FiveThirtyEight has a recent piece that suggest—contrary to conventional wisdom—these inter-party squabbles/vigorous debates don't really dissuade voters.
10
The end result of all of this is going to be a Biden/Harris ticket, which is probably the only practical one that can beat Trump, whose minions are likely to turnout in great numbers.
The Biden/Harriss ticket, despite that II think neither is ideal, has the features needed to bring out the full range of constituencies needed to take on a Trump riding on good economic numbers.
Harris, by accepting the VP position, ultimately immunizes Biden from the very issues she's raising about him.
Biden's age offers the left the possibility of a President Harris: either because Old Joe dies in office, or she runs 4 years later.
While I'd prefer a country in which Warren and Buttigieg were driving, that's just not going to happen. The first thing to do, in fact, rather than focusing on the Presidential Race, is to go after the Senate.
Not many people have realized that its McConnell whose Darth Sidious/Palpatine to the weak-minded Darth Donald.
35
The 2020 election can't get here soon enough. Everybody wants to see the happy ending when Donald Trump loses in a landslide and finally finds himself speechless. Trump quiet? We can only hope.
As the 2018 elections showed, Democrats can take this if they don't destroy themselves in the process. Be patient and the withdrawals will be begin. I vote for Tulsi Gabbard and Bill DeBlasio as the first people voted off this island.
20
@Joseph Wilson Trump turned running for President into a digital self-promotion campaign for his real interests (none of which have anything to do with being President).
Now that that's been established, most of the people at the Democratic Debates are, like De Blasio, up on the podium to supercharge their LinkedIn profiles for attracting their next gigs.
The Presidency is now just a stepping stone to join thew plutocracy.
8
Gail is right. Any of these candidates would be infinitely better than Trump.
35
@William O. Beeman: That may be true, but such a mob scene is not encouraging.
1
@William O. Beeman
very pithy
One thing the process has not produced is a clear front runner. And the typical ways of producing a front runner — fund raising and the early primaries — are not likely to get us there. Too many are close to the top and none have the charisma and personality to dominate.
Without a clear first place or a first and second place, electoral votes are likely to be split and the nomination will likely be undecided at the time of the convention. That hasn’t happened in a long time. And where we go from there will likely be controversial.
9
Too many candidates too little time for them to speak adequately. 60 seconds? who can utter a full clear sentence in 60 minutes? Not to mention a thought policy. I also hate the gotcha questions thee so called "moderators" threw out. All in all, not a good way to get to know what the candidates' real vision is. THough I agree that Warren did the best job under the circumstance.
37
Instead of attacking each other - which is what CNN obviously wants them to do - they need to be attacking Trump relentlessly and showing how their ideas are so much better than his. They need to call out how he's failed to live up to his promises of 2016 to the working and middle class, and worse, how his policies are actually making things WORSE!
They also need to simplify their approach to universal health care, which all of them call for in various ways. Perhaps the elimination of private insurance is a good thing, IF the new plan covers all costs, that is no premiums, co-pays, deductibles, out of pocket. I can't think of a single reason why anyone would not give up their private plan - no matter how gold-plated it might be - for a plan like that. But if they're offering Medicare For All, as the existing Medicare works, where there are premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and out of pocket costs, then there are private plans that might be better, and those people are not going to want to give them up.
But with the ridiculous number of candidates allowed, and the "gladiator-style" format of the debates, there is no way to get these ideas across clearly and without confusion, not to mention without giving Trump lots of ammo.
The Dems need to find a way to allay moderates fear of "radical" change, with the progressives demand for that same change. It IS possible, but so far I haven't seen anyone come close to doing it.
27
I would like to have the debates conducted differently.
Let the moderator ask a question.
Then let each candidate in turn have one minute to respond.
The let each candidate in turn have 30 seconds rebuttal or response.
In the debates the moderator would ask a question and often some of the candidates did not have a chance to respond.
For questions that require a yes or no response if the candidate at the beginning of his response does not answer yes or no then shut off his /her microphone and end his /her response.
8
I doubt Biden would want either Harris or Warren as VP. They are too progressive for most voters and the idea that they are needed to excite progressives to vote does not apply when progressives are excited to ditch Trump.
Biden seems interested in delegating a lot to someone (as anyone should be no matter their age, the job is too big). I would expect this means any VP would have to be someone aligned with him more closely politically and that he thinks can run in four years in the likely event he is not up for a second term.
10
@Alan Anyone who thinks nominating a milquetoast, "centrist" candidate will excite progressives to vote clearly hasn't learned anything from 2016. They are expecting progressives to organize to vote *against* Trump; it was the same story in 2016. I have no interest in voting for an entitled, feeble, old man who has no original ideas. Furthermore, I don't trust anyone that old to be in charge of anything important, let alone the country. This is what, Biden's 3rd or 4th run for president? It's not going to happen. And if it does, it won't be because of me.
1
I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren get the nomination just to see her debate Trump before the election. Of course it would be nice if impeachment proceedings were televised at the same time with a split screen format. Oh the ratings for CNN!
68
I love Michael Bennett. He seems like a good man and he certainly is a smart man. I love his earnestness and authenticity. I wish more people saw what I see. I’d be so happy if one of the frontrunners asked him to run as their VP. He’s make Pence look so smarmy in comparison. Well, I guess next to any of them, Pence would look smarmy.
77
@Kathryn
Yes, I too think he seems like a sharp, likable, genuinely nice person. I'm planning on sending him a donation (I'm kind of sleeping around, moneywise, with the Democratic field, having also given to Klobuchar and Sanders). It seems his demeanor is what is holding him back. Jennifer Rubin just described his performance as sleepy. If Biden is already sleepy in Trump's estimation, I guess Bennett would have to be Narcoleptic Michael.
12
@Ted Except that Trump and many of his voters don't know that word. Maybe "Very sleepy" or "VERY VERY sleepy".
4
@Ted - it may be that he lives in Colorado and he’s just laid back. He wasn’t sleepy on the Senate floor when he slammed Ted Cruz! And, we NEED a calm hand at the tiller in Washington these days. Thanks for sending money to my guy.
4
The whole process of selecting presidential candidates is absurd. This is like being morphed into Junior High School listening to candidates for Student Council president.
Last go-round it was Republicans with a field of endless candidates. Now it's the Democrats fighting for pixels beamed to an increasingly skeptical viewer. in a useless format.
Now comes the endless stream of premature op-eds, analysis, graphs and projections.
There must be a better way.
34
The good old smoke filled room actually produced better candidates than our modern primaries do. Who knew? We are certainly getting lots of surprising lessons on the limits of democracy these days.
28
@Susan This is in no way a problem of democracy. This is ultimately a problem of corruption of our democracy by the financial elite. There are all kinds of ways The public Could be informed of the candidates positions. To Candlewick's complaint, If money weren't the issue our politician's campaigns would look radically different. This dog and pony show format is a joke. And the joke is on the public.
The (im)moderators' agenda appeared to have very little to do with informing the public beyond already known talking points. It might have been more productive in elucidating candidates positions and personalities if the immoderators had asked what policies they agreed with of the other candidates and what ideas they might adopt or borrow.
Smoke filled rooms didn't really do a better job. It was just a lot less hassle for the public to accept what was given to them. That is the antithesis of the anti-establishment zeitgeist today. It is in fact WHY we have Trump as president and not the man who would have beaten him.
11
@Susan...This is not the result of democracy, it is the result of a media-ocracy together with a producer-ocracy and an entertainment-ocracy. The opening was Oscar-esque and the post-coverage like the Oscar's red carpet preshow.
YUK.
27
The person who won the debates by articulating the purest vision of what the Democratic party stood for, in the most concise, heartfelt way was (I can't believe I'm about to type this) Marianne Williamson.
She spoke about Democrats' belief in helping people: "I almost wonder why you're Democrats. You seem to think there's something wrong about using the instruments of government to help people."
She articulated the Trump presidency's raison d'etre and exhorted Democrats to present a bigger picture than a set of disparate policies: "If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days."
And she touched on the need to stimulate the economy by helping the most indebted (students), which besides being Biblical (when you have given to the least of these you have given to me) was also FDR-esque. These are very classic Democratic ideas, that the candidates mainly failed to articulate because, especially on night 2, they were too busy attacking each other.
I don't intend to vote for her if miraculously she makes it to the primaries, but I would love to see a Democrat who could speak with her simplicity and directness.
60
I agree. In many ways she is becoming the soul of the party.
12
@Ted. The suggestion that none of the other candidates wanted to use government to help people is inane. What do you think single payer, school loan payoffs and fairer income taxes are about? Ms. Williamson specializes in heartfelt statements that make no sense.
18
@Ted
I agree. She spoke at a deeper level than politicians almost ever do. It was profound.
Yes, soul of the party, and impressively articulate.
6
Sounds as if instead of "What I can do for the country if you make me president" they all played another round of "Why You shouldn’t vote for (fill in name here).”
When we get to the next round I think we, the audience, will need to hear from each contender why we need that particular person as president.
Let the opposition play a game of He's/She's Picking on Us. We the voters have to find a viable candidate. We can't waste more time deciding what’s wrong with the most likely one. That should be the Republicans' job.
11
Let's stop talking about who "won" the debates, and start talking about who is making the best case for where we as a country need to go, and how we can get there.
On at least one issue, health care, our debate about what is possible and impossible is completely ridiculous. Why. Because virtually EVERY other country in the First World (Call it the OECD, etc., whatever.) effectively has a working universal healthcare program that costs from one-third to one-half LESS than healthcare in the US.
Most importantly, the populations of every one of these countries have health outcomes as good or better than do Americans.
Can ANYONE seriously argue that somehow the United States cannot at least match such performance, if we actually decide to do so, and defeat those forces that prevent us from doing so? We should be able to save at least one trillion dollars a year as a result. And that's the real problem - clawing back that one trillion dollars from the entities that bleed us for that one trillion dollars annually, the addicted parasites of the "health care industry."
We need to kill that "health care industry" and their enablers in government. Before they kill and financially destroy many more of us. As debaters discussed, and not one disputed, 500,000 of us go bankrupt every year from healthcare costs. If that's not the ultimate healthcare crisis, I don't know what is.
219
@Robert Henry Eller I firmly believe that it is impossible to go from where we are to where other OECD countries are overnight. It will be a gradual shift. Basically, an incremental build from the ACA over ten or twenty years to where we need to be.
Think about Europe for a moment. The French pay over $17/gallon of gasoline to foot their publicly financed health insurance. Taxes in France are significantly higher than in the US. The disruption to our economy to move quickly would be enormous and the outcomes not necessarily as envisioned.
Do the shareholders and workers in private insurance expire worthless or get thrown out of work under your scenario? 20% of our economy is in healthcare. Beware what ytou wish for my friend.
3
@Robert Henry Eller
I think the argument is that the ACA barely survived the attempts to unplug it by Trump. When another Trump-ish or even Flake-y president comes around, there's a good chance Medicare for All gets rolled back or subtly sabotaged so that it will soon fail.
Witnessing the Trump reign of graft and stupidity should make everyone question how much more we want to put on the federal government's plate. The administration that passes something is not among those that have to sustain it years down the road.
1
@Robert Henry Eller the “ultimate healthcare crisis” is people dying of corporate greed. But your point is taken.
2
Sounds as if instead of "What I can do for the country if you make me president" they all played another round of "Why You shouldn’t vote for (fill in name here).”
When we get to the next round I think we, the audience, will need to hear from each contender why we need that particular person as president.
Let the opposition play a game of He's/She's Picking on Us. We the voters have to find a viable candidate. We can't waste more time deciding what’s wrong with the most likely one. That should be the Republicans' job.
2
In our little bubble of politics junkies, it's easy to get caught up in the debates. But the reality is that most Americans aren't paying attention, can't name one Supreme Court Justice, and probably can't name any Democratic candidates except Bernie and Biden. The big question is how do we make people care? How do we motivate them to protect our democracy, our country?
16
@Cordelia28
With better education opportunities, a progressive vision for the future that provides jobs with a living wage, healthcare for all, sensible gun laws and corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes.
Normal modus operandi for most civilized nations but not for the wealthiest nation on earth. Hence our predicament.
12
@Cordelia28
Improve the K-12 public school system.
This inattention and ignorance are the result of decades of educational decline. My guess is that it is no accident but rather the goal of current power-holders.
Remember, Trump "I love the uneducated" - of course, they don't have the critical sense to THINK about what he tweets and says and does.
4
@Cordelia28
economy, economy, economy. People want $ecurity. Chances are you have it: "they" don't.
Biden turned in an extremely good performance tonight. He was under attack from just about everyone on the stage (except Bennet, really), each of whom was desperate to score points to keep themselves in the race. He was quick and knowledgeable in his answers - and he had to give a lot of them. Any reasonable doubts about him handling a debate with Trump should be gone.
Gillibrand's attack on him over something from a thousand years ago was perhaps the most painful fail of all the debates thus far.
It's too bad about the flub at the end, but after two hours of regurgitating numbers and policy positions, I won't hold it against him.
I really liked a couple of the other candidates, who'll unfortunately go down as also-rans. Andrew Yang surprised me. Tulsi Gabbard was great too - I found myself wishing she weren't just a Rep from a small, reliably blue state that's the ultimate electoral college afterthought - I particularly liked how she demolished Harris and left the former AG looking confused and completely off-balance.
These debates were better than the first ones, but still I'm glad we're about the see the field cut in half. Maybe when we get down to five or six candidates there can be a little more substance.
40
@Aiya.. well all I saw was an old, old man overdue for a deserved retirement. He has had a good run. But his performance tonight was embarassing to watch.
Bring back citizen Town Hall questions and not this reality show CNN ratings fodder. The candidates should band together any boycott any other debate format.
42
Let the League of Women Voters run the show . Then proper questions would be offered and time elements would be handled properly. Now it sounds like a bar room brawl.
6
I don't like the imbalance of speaking time given to the participants. Gabbard and Gillibrand were great but we barely got to hear from them. These are not debates and they do little to inform us about the breadth of what each candidate offers.
38
I don't know who won the debates, but I wish more time had been spent on the $1.5 trillion tax cut, money essentially stolen from the American people, and the only significant legislative "accomplishment" for Trump and his GOP since the 2016 election. That tax boon for the wealthy and corporations could instead have gone a long way toward helping to combat climate change and shoring up health care, as well as for job retraining programs, infrastructure and public education.
Democrats cannot allow themselves to be sidetracked by Trump's racist diversionary tactics and other distractions du jour. They need to remain focused on offering hope, with the election next year our best way forward.
58
@Blue Moon
I agree about the tax cut but would add slashing environmental regulations ... criminal
5
@Blue Moon
bravo
1
@Blue Moon Its difficult for rich Democrats to criticize rich Republicans.
1
He'll never win, and the one-note $1000/mnth fix-it plan is a dream, but everything that Andrew Yang points out about wha's wrong with the country is as accurate a diagnosis as anyone offered tonight.
And Jay Inslee won't win either, but he's 100% right about urgent climate action needing to be the organizing principle of the next administration.
240
Yang-Inslee 2020!
"We’ve still got 10 more debates to go."
That is simply too painful to contemplate. The amount of new information displayed in this format doesn't warrant more than, at most, one or two more performances. After two episodes, I'm already done with this show.
In the future, I'll read summaries here and elsewhere to learn what these candidates suggest they might do if they were to be elected.
30
@BayArea101 Meet you and raise you. I've seen several candidates (Pete, Elizabeth, Sanders) in so-called "town hall meetings". An hour of the candidate, host, and questions from the audience. Every single one of those events have given me way more information about what they think and HOW they think than WWW Debate Format that we've seen for years. Something like that for each candidate would really be a gift to voters.
Plus, since those events are always posted on YouTube, anyone can go back and view all or portions of it.
58
12 debates is a lot to slog through, but I find real value in seeing and hearing the candidates myself, rather than getting my impressions through media and pundits.
2
Yeah right. 2 nights of NOT answering questions. Look , i want Trump out of office but i also have to not ignore what my senses tell me against desperation. I felt as if the first night held more details relevant to policy versus tonight. It’s not even close to me and i am rooting for Kamala Harris. But she along with everyone else tonight did NOT answer questions specifically , they presented a vague “my plan is better than your plan” , and last but not least the most irritating “the current administration is bad for America” talking point was repeated over and over from each candidate tonight.
Again , the first night was more informative on policy but whenever someone asks Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren will taxes be raised for the middle class THEY REFUSE TO SAY YES OR NO. They do NOT answer the question. That does NOT sit well with me at all. Chris Mathews asked Elizabeth Warren last night would the middle class taxes increase and she repeated the overall cost of health insurance will decrease. That was NOT the question. But when i look through Twitter i saw many people bashing Chris Mathews for asking her the question repeatedly instead of bashing Elizabeth Warren for refusing to answer the question repeatedly.
I want Donald Trump out of office but that does not eliminate my ability to listen.
19
@Cameron
At first I reacted as you did to Warren not directly answering about the middle class taxes, but I then thought it was a wise move on her part.
Is "will this raise middle class taxes" the only important concern about our nation's healthcare policy? Of course not. But had Warren answered in a simple "yes", that 5 second question and answer would become all the public would know about healthcare.
The media would run with it, and it would be replayed and replayed in every GOP ad for the next year and a half. No nuance, no balancing benefits, just "More taxes!" would be all the public would hear.
While technically many of these questions are phrased for a simple "yes or no" answer, the question and debate format doesn't allow for any actual discussion of the subject matter, so that the simplistic answer, while technically true in fact, ends up being very misleading.
24
@Cameron Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren refused to say yes or no regarding whether taxes would be raised with Medicare for All? Not what I heard. What I heard was that yes, there would be an increase in taxes, but it would be more than offset by the elimination of co-pays, deductibles, employer costs, and the cost of insurance. People would not "lose" their private insurance. Medicare for All does not force you to see an "in-plan" doctor or go to an "in-plan" hospital...it just changes who pays for your medical care. Before it was you and your insurance company. Under MFA, it will be the US. And it will be funded by taxes, which will not be as costly to the consumer as the cost of using private insurance.
21
@Cameron
And they are right not to answer that question, because, obviously, that's a republican attack ad writing itself, no deep fake needed. This is also a meaningless question - the point is the total cost of care and not how much of it you pay through a tax, how much through the insurance premium, and how much your employer covers with the money taken out of your salary.
2
Overkill, just too many debates. We will get debate fatigue and tune out just when we really need to tune in.
The Dems goal (and many of us Americans) is to get trump out of office. Mud-slinging at each other doesn’t help. I want to hear the agendas and goals- realistic ones...but not in July over a year from the election.
This is just fodder for Trump’s tweets.
30
Ms. Collins, I think Biden calling Harris "kid" was like Pelosi referring to the Squad of angry left-wing congresswomen as "only four votes." It was a gentle (especially compared to Trump style) way of veteran politicians reminding rookies that they still haven't accomplished anything.
Separately, while I know it won't happen, I would pay money to watch a vice president debate for the general election between Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Pence.
30
Finally, the subject of impeachment came up (no thanks to the moderators.) And Booker and the others in favor of the I word said, plainly, that they could walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning they could pursue an impeachment inquiry and offer legislation that addresses substantive issues.
However, they all agreed that Moscow Mitch (or is it Mischa?) would do what he did to Merrick Garland and any effort to protect us from foreign cyber attacks - successfully.
17
@Nat Ehrlich
my take is that 'impeachment' is a waste of time and totally counterproductive to shooing the T out of office.
I have yet to see any comment on the fact that the opportunity to view the second and third debates seems to have been denied the millions of citizens lacking paid satellite or cable access. Seems rather undemocratic to me.
103
@Lee
One could watch online, including on a smart phone. I am jealous of those who were not aware of this.
4
@Alan - I could get the debate on my computer, but when I tried on the phone or laptop, nada. It also did not work on my Apple TV CNN Go link. I was asked to provide my cable/satellite ID.
1
@Lee
This week's debates were entirely accessible and free online at CNN. This was made clear, repeatedly, on their website up until the minute they started.
6
The one problem with Sanders, throughout his presidential-running career, is that he basically has one speech.
The last time around Sander's campaign for the Democratic nomination was largely based on attacking Hillary's character with the outrageous suggestion she'd sold out to Wall Street, an incessant refrain that, however untrue, finally turned off so many voters who'd voted for Obama it opened the door to putting Trump in office.
17
@Leigh Actually, a much higher fraction of Sanders primary supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton primary voters voted for Obama in 2008. The reason Clinton lost is that she was a terrible campaigner who failed to address any of the issues that Trump was speaking to. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c1de1cc355cc
15
@Leigh, it could be argued that Clinton lost because her team relied increasingly on her simply not being Trump (rather than articulating positions on issues Trump alone was left to speak to, no matter how repugnantly).
8
@Leigh
Don't you think that Hillary sold out to Wall Street? If she did not, then why did she refuse to disclose what she told them behind closed doors?
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I would had voted for her in 2008. I held my nose and voted for her in 2016 because ANY Democrat would be better than Trump and the snake-in-the-grass Pence. But let's be real, she did sell out to Wall Street, that is a well-known secret.
10
Before Biden entered the race, I thought he was vibrant and formidable.
Sadly, he now just seems old and tired, and maybe even a bit confused. He's not the Joe Biden that I remember.
If he wins, I honestly can't see him being sharp for an entire four-year term that wouldn't even begin for another 18 months.
96
@John
Biden just has to make it through about two years before a VP could take over and, iirc, still run twice. He did seem a bit off, but I suspect it is hard to deal with two hours of rapid-fire pummeling from several inquisitors questioning his progressive purity.
2
@John Unless you say compare him to the guy in the White House now, who has the vocabulary of a nine year old and the policies of whatever he saw ten minutes ago on Fox News. And of course remember Reagan....we were lucky if he stay awake through the appetizer course.
2
@John
You just echoed my thoughts!
Harris, as AG, was not making law but obligated to enforce it. Forgetting that, she is attacked without mercy in a way that ignores her very identity as well as her personal experience. She did quite well despite that.
19
@vrs
The problem with Harris is not that she had to enforce the law as a prosecutor. The problem is that she is trying to cover some of the bad decisions she made as prosecutor, and also now changing her position like a windmill anemometer when it comes to Medicare-For-All.
15
In a perfect world, either Cory Booker or Julian Castro would be the best Presidential candidates. But it's not a perfect world. We need a candidate who will defeat Trump, and that means winning Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Against Trump, neither Castro or Booker are quite there. Even Obama would have a tough time, if it were his first run at President. Face it. As a new candidate, Obama might lose against Trump.
As dynamic as she is, Elizabeth Warren cannot win. Not in the Midwest or South. And neither can Bernie Sanders (I was a staunch supporter in 2016, not for 2020). Kamala Harris is a little too West Coast (sorry for saying that). The rest of the field would make excellent future cabinet officials.
Unless he has a brain freeze in some future debate, or some kind of health emergency, Joe Biden is still the best choice for America. He proved it tonight.
60
@Logan Don't put Minnesota in that Midwest bundle. Our caucus went for Bernie in '16 (and the Republican caucus went for Rubio). Trump will not win Minnesota
17
I am so sorry, @Minnesota transplant. I meant to say Michigan. Hillary Clinton took Minnesota by a safe 46.08% vs. 44.57% margin. Probably any Democrat will take it again in 2020. Again, Minnesota is a great state!
14
@Logan
Did you watch the debate? Biden had a hard time putting a long sentence together. As much as I like him he did not perform well at all again. If he is the nominee, Trump will win again.
13
I don't want a variety of opinions and I don't want a candidate who changes what he talks about after four years. I don't want a candidate who is 'woke" or gives trigger warnings or looks at the world as a tapestry of competing identities. I want a candidate who is focused on the real problem and who has thought through ways to solve it. The real problem is a lack of jobs. All types jobs and especially good jobs. And a lack of educational opportunities (that people can afford). And the lack of security that having no job and no education brings. This is the one problem that America has had for the last 40 years and it gets worse every day. The indicator of how bad our society is performing is measured in the wealth inequality figures. I want to vote for the one candidate that has a laser focus on the real problem and who will not be distracted by the childish ideas that animate most Democratic candidates. I don't care about gun control, or abortion, or immigration, or race, or funny things the president says. I care only about economic security and there is only one candidate who shares my focus and he will get my vote.
Who do you think that is?
7
@Bobotheclown
The job situation is only going to get worse, no matter who is elected president, or what party they are from.
1) Economic globalization means that most manufacturing jobs will be in foreign countries. We just can't compete with the cheap labor available. Even our airlines are having their planes serviced in Taiwan and other countries, for that reason.
2) We are becoming more sophisticated and efficient in most pursuits. We simply don't need as many people as we used to, to accomplish the same tasks. The only exception that I can think of, off the top of my head, is Teachers. Computers are not a viable substitute in this field, for a competent, caring human.
3) Population explosion. As the number of workers required stagnates, the number of people goes up. We simply don't need so many people, and uncontrolled population growth will be the cause of our ultimate demise.
16
@Bobotheclown
Bob, thanks for that. Back to the mantra: It's the Economy . The wannabes are locked in their very close-fitting echo chamber and they are all chasing the dem 40% which is the reverse mirror extreme of Trump's 40. The person that can bridge that gap (mission impossible? hope not) can beat the incumbent. mabe.
2
@Bobotheclown Ross Perot.
Trump should be thanking CN, not vilifying them. The yes or no question designed to generate a sound bite that will doom a candidate, the pitting of one candidate against another, the questions that are geared to spark controversy not information. I was just waiting for Dana Bash or Tapper to ask if Biden had stopped beating his wife - yes or no.
37
Gail you missed Bernie's point about the kids of the 1% getting free tuition. He answered the question albeit inartfully. Bernie wants that 1% to pay their fair share of taxes f i r s t.
12
Ms. Collins,
Nine candidates out of ten in this second debate for winning the presidential nomination were united on one important issue that affects The Democratic Party, i.e., cast Biden out of the race. This brings to mind Christie's novel, as in Agatha and not by Chris, 'And Then There Were None'.
If you were to ask voters later in the day the names of the candidates in the Heartland of America, Joe Biden would come to the fore, followed by Warren, Bernie and 'that woman who shouts a lot'.
The baiting debate of 'Who will be the next President' already shows signs of taking place between Trump and Biden with or without a full moon, while thanking you as always, Kiddo, for keeping us updated on these latest brawls on 'Political Feud'.
10
It's NOT helpful to ask:
''You, of course, would want to hear why he’s including wealthy kids in the plan''.
As countries who have FREE education and payable Health Care without deductions - have to have it for EVERYBODY.
Otherwise such ''systems'' can't provide for poor and rich alike.
31
Tonite was landmark in that the Dem coalesced in a respectful unity over one another's alloted time (except for Harris who usurped and who the moderaters were most eager to sanction).
We saw a heartwarming bond between all candidates that surpassed any differences the moderators sought to amp.
Everyone was a winner here. Some personal aggressiveness and competitive striving were offensive in the following order: Harris, Booker, and even Gildebrand who utterly failed in the end.
Then we have Castro who was totally on top of these issues; the least anxious, and maybe the most confident aside from Biden. His was not an act.
Most "we the people" candidates looking out for the bottom tier were again Castro, Inslee, and Yang (big surprise).
Biden certainly did not appear to be nearly so age-impaired as I was concerned he might be. I saw the weary warrior whose savvy and experience could cut the rug under Trump. I'd been worried about that now I'm better.
So between them-few remain truly worthy, those being Biden, Castro, Inslee, Yang, and last but not least Booker.
All the others ought not make the cut for various reasons many having to do with style and personal presentation problems that persist.
I did not see personal acrimonious and hateful attacks, Anyone who did projected their bloodthirst onto the what they hoped to be "Thunderdome".
Sorry, it just didn't happen and we can be thankful. Our enemy is Donald Trump and these great souls are determined to take him out.
18
I agree with others that Elizabeth Warren is the most passionate and compelling candidate. However, he continual attacks on corporations misses the point that companies, all companies include all of the workers who are not evil.
The biggest problem that no one has addressed is that there are close to 2.5 million workers employed by health insurance companies according to the sources I have read. My state of Connecticut would be devastated if all private health insurance was eliminated. Connecticut has been a Democratic state, but many people I know have said that they could not vote for Warren because it would result in elimination of their jobs. There are many states that have a significant proportion of health insurance company jobs.
When is Warren or Sanders going to address how they will mitigate the negative impact to the economy and jobs if "Medicare for all" is implemented?
13
@Alison There will be hundreds of thousands of govt jobs to set up and administer the federal health programs and the state variants. We will also need to ramp up the # of NPs needed to see all these people, probably need to at least double their numbers. We will also need more dentists and NH workers to staff the rural hospital conversions to nursing homes. To say nothing of the impact on the economy of GND lite over 10-20 yrs.
24
@Alison
Not all jobs last forever, and we have to adjust. How many telephone operators are there these days? Remember them? :) How many steamboat crews, train conductors, merchant sailors (a few), and even farmers!
13
@Alison
Thank you!! I totally agree that insurance is a major industry and the jobs and lives of those employees needs to be considered.
1
Biden is the only hope for Democrats. Fortunately, is looks like he is probably up to the job. Most of the rest are clueless about a couple of things.
1/ The 47 Senator problem: None of these bold ambitious plans are going anywhere in a Mitch McConnell controlled Senate. The best Democrats can hope for is to get to 50 Senators in 2021. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are making a lot of promises they know they can't keep. Credit to Jay Inslee for being the only candidate who mentioned the filibuster as being problem.
2/ We can't afford to look after every Latin American migrant coming north. Democrats have spent far more time talking about what they want to do for Honduras that about what the want to do for troubled American cities like Flint, Baltimore, St Louis and San Francisco. We have 8000 homeless on the streets of San Francisco and I don't think any Presidential candidate has been to look at the conditions they live in.
3/Climate change is a global issue, and the US only accounts for 15% of emissions. A solution starts with going back into the Paris agreement. Only Biden and Yang mentioned this.
4/ Most progressive candidates are unpopular. Biden and Sanders are the only candidates who polls show are likely to beat Trump. Biden is the only candidate who wins in a landslide.
Democrats win when they back moderates like Carter, Clinton and Obama. They lose when they back progressives like Kerry, Dukakis and McGovern.
Submitted 11.33 EST Jul 31
113
@Schrodinger: I agree with you on Biden but if we can't afford to look after every Latin American migrant coming north then we HAVE to spend both time and money addressing conditions in Honduras (as well as Guatemala and El Salvador). They're our neighbors, after all, unlike the residents of the Middle East- Israel included- on whose governments we continue to spend billions each and every year.
34
@Schrodinger I might agree with your analysis that Carter was generally a moderate, but not Clinton or Obama.
Clinton and Obama were owned by their large donors, Wall Street and International Corporations.
Clinton and Obama rejected the traditional New Deal coalitions and policies of FDR and the Democratic party through 1976. Both hurt unions and working persons with their policies.
The Clintons mimicked many of the republican policies of the 1950s and left the poor, the working class and the middle class behind, while becoming close to billionaires.
Obama through single payer under the bus for the boon for insurers, the Affordable Care Act.
For the Republican party and the traditional leadership class of the Democrat party, it is all about the money, the office holders money.
This explains why many are interested in returning the Democrat party to its previous policies and coalitions, and reject Joe "Credit Card" Biden.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
13
@stu freeman
No, we don't have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to be squandering money on dysfunctional societies south of the border. And likewise for the Middle East. And the rest of the world.
America needs to stop trying to be the savior to the globe - including climate change. It's not working, it's not appreciated and we have enough issues at home we can be spending our hard earned tax dollars on.
2
I'm not voting for Andrew Yang for President.
But.
He did make the single most penetrating observation of the evening when he characterized the CNN-organized circus he was participating as a form of reality television, and noted the causal connection between that and our having a reality TV star in the White House.
The entire event was stamped by the forced gladiatorial structure which is the house style at CNN.
Always resorting to the cliche of the split screen, which conveys the subliminal message of conflict whether there is any or not.
Structuring questions specifically to play one candidate off against the other.
Allowing seemingly endless back and forth between the two designated combatants, until fatigue finally sets in and someone else is allowed to participate, usually with the invitation to continue the fight ("how do you respond?").
Artificially generated conflict is the meat and drink of reality TV, but I'll tell you something it is not: informative. It actively prevents candidates with something coherent to say from saying it, and what we Democrats need right now is an increasingly coherent message, not pandemonium.
897
@Bill Levine
Your comment should be a Times Pick.
I feel it's my responsibility as a citizen to watch the debates, and glean what few morsels of true information will help me make a reasoned decision, but the faux conflict is distressing, not only because it's manufactured but because some viewers don't recognize it for what it is. Yang was right to call that out.
The debates of old (I'm dating myself) were a fact-finding mission for the public. They're a whole 'nother thing now.
261
Excellent comment. And this same CNN style of pitting candidates against each other along with these silly gotcha questions is exactly what lead to a master of this format, Trump, prevailing in the 2016 Republican primaries and then the election.
81
@D Price
Maybe I have seen too many debates in my lifetime.
Maybe there are too many debates.
As I watch the clips with our starring
candidate, Biden, the questions, the answers seem a little too rehearsed. It was almost an argument with Warren and Sanders stand-ins, De Blasio and Bennet.
Biden could have been reading his script to blast his real opponents, Bernie and Liz.
Gildebrand wasn’t a member of the cast, she was a little out in left field with a good glove catching the flies. She was shining.
Kamala didn’t get a script, she was on her own and was totally confused about the entire performance.
I hope the DNC learned something in the last election, I wonder if the Russian reviews are out yet?
Most know if Bernie and Warren run together, with a few calculated changes in their platform on immigration, they are unbeatable because the vote ultimately hands out the trophy in the end.
3
Maybe because I expected less from him, the candidate I found surprisingly impressive is Andrew Yang. He has a very definite vision, innovative ideas, well-articulated smarts, and a sense of humor to boot.
I don't expect to vote for him (NJ's primary is late -- he probably won't even be around by then), but I confess to feeling a great sense of relief that if Democratic voters want an outsider on the ticket, it doesn't have to be Marianne Williamson.
88
What would be the consequence of Joe Biden winning the nomination, but losing the election? (like highly qualified, electable Hillary) He is Presidential in affect and speech: gravitas, touchy-feely, and likability, but can he bring in independents and new voters: the disaffected doomed by increasing income disparity and relegated to low paid service jobs, ethnic groups, and the young? Or is his following just the mainstream Democrats fearful of Trump?
Will he excite and inspire people to register and vote?
Is Trump looking forward to mixing it up with "Sleepy Joe"?
11
A crucial difference between Biden and Hilary is that she had the most negative approval of all the candidates except for trump. Joe, in contrast to both, is likable.
14
@Joel H - I find myself feeling nervous when Biden is speaking. I keep waiting for the gaff. He is surely showing his age. He’d have a long haul ahead of him if he became President.
3
@Anonymously, one big and worrisome similarity between Biden and Clinton is that both count heavily on simply not being Trump.
1
It was an all-out attack on Biden (because he remains atop the polls), & Joe did OK defending himself at times, but at others was as bad as he was in the last debate: stumbling through his talking points, stopping in mid-sentence, & did he say "Joe Biden 3030" in his closing statement?!!! Can a candidate not on top of his game defeat Trump?
As for the ideological battle, the progressives are morally (& pragmatically) right about the climate crisis, universal healthcare the federal government (more the Repubs than the Dems) selling out to the wealthy individuals & corporations. We need to & should operate more like other western countries.
However, there is the reality of the American voters. People in general don't like change. Change requires them to change. It requires them to modify their routines, to learn new terminology, to exert themselves more intellectually. They don't want to do that. So those who have decent health care now through employer-provided private insurance are going to be resistant to giving that up. Those who make a living from the fossil fuel industry are going to be reluctant to have to be retrained to do new jobs. If they worked for years to pay off their student loans, they're not going to be cheering when millions get their debt forgiven.
I'll support whomever the Dems nominate, but we have to think about electability. I fear Warren, Sanders, & others offering the most idealistic solutions will scare away independents & moderate Dems.
45
@JediProf
> People in general don't like change
And yet people have just elected Trump on his promises of "beautiful health care", coal mines reopening and all manufacturing jobs coming back.
8
I wonder how many workers still have good health plans from their employers? Most have changed dramatically for the worse.
12
@JediProf
We make a bad assumption when we assume that Americans will resist change. They do not mind going to Medicare when they turn 65, so why would they mind doing it earlier in life especially if it will provide them with less expensive, better quality health care?
Very few people in the US have better health care through employer-provided private insurance than Medicare (I speak from experience), and that would be the sort of insurance where all the cost is covered by the employer.
Medicare can and should be improved, and under the plans offered by Sanders and Warren it will. In addition, it will not be any costlier than what people pay now for coverage that is not that good anyway.
Remember, health care provided by private insurance companies is designed to make them money, to increase their profits so that they can give the big salaries and bonuses to their fat-cat executives.
To more accurately gauge how Americans feel and will react to a Medicare-For-All change, one of these polling companies should conduct a survey asking the following questions:
1. Do you currently have employer-based private insurance health care? If yes, then how much do you spend per year in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.
2. Would you be averse to having your private insurance health care plan replaced by a government provided health care plan that is less expensive and provides comprehensive health coverage?
9
Biden is the front runner and he was prepared tonight for every attack. That is all that was needed. A front runner who doesn't mess up under pressure, who doesn't get garbled or angry is likely to remain on top. At least that's what I hope.
64
What a travesty. Almost all of the questions were geared toward picking fights rather than bringing out programs, and Biden and Harris were allowed to completely dominate the first half hour, to the point where I had to mute both of them. Only later were the other candidates allowed time. These are clearly biased in favor of the front runners. Nonetheless, Inslee did impress. I just wish he had a speaking voice like Yang's. Again, Booker and deBlasio gave strong performances. Harris reminded me of those old posters of Richard Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" I think I would be reluctant to buy a used car from that woman. Biden looks like the next Gerald Ford. I don't know whether that's good or bad. I still like Tulsi, but I think she's four years away.
21
@laolaohu Agree. It seems the pack should be given more time or at least equal time. Biden is the front runner because people already know him. What's the point of giving him the most time? I liken it to how pro sports teams that finish last are entitled to the best draft picks. Evens the playing field.
8
It was a good night. Harris’ slick facade was utterly demolished by Tulsi Gabbard (who was very effective tonight). Mr. Yang was easily the most articulate, brightest person up there.
Gov Inslee is very compelling. His idea that climate change is interwoven with everything important was very well articulated. And impressive. He looks like a conservative Army General from Central Casting, but he’s actually a sensitive, brilliant, level-headed environmentalist who’s doing a good job in Washington State.
Julián Castro was impressive with great stage presence and he exuded confidence without arrogance.
Biden was ok but I’m shifting my allegiance to Elizabeth Warren at this point. I genuinely think Biden is cognitively compromised and that Trump will eat him alive. I’m ready to go bold. Warren with Inslee?
359
@Scottapottamus Love your user name. Yes, beginning to look like Kamala doesn't have as much to offer as I'd hoped. High gear is admirable but other gears are required to handle the office.
I'm leaning to Warren, now. She can reduce complicated issues to digestible soundbites. She is every bit the fighter Kamala is. It's about time we wean ourselves from the belief only white males can get the job done. At its core, I truly believe it is the white male factor that places Biden in the lead and Sanders up with the frontrunners.
57
@mercedes No question that Warren is the most passionate, the most articulate, and the best informed. Harris flounders when she has to get into policy. She's good on the attack but hasn't done the hard work on policy.
Still I very much fear that that middle America will not vote for Warren. Neither will most of the disaffected Republicans. Can Warren moderate her positions a little? I'm afraid she can't.
29
I am backing Elizabeth Warren. She is a strong woman and states she is not afraid of Trump. I really think with proper backing she can defeat Trump.
49
No one can be excluded from the public services that society offer, even the kids of rich families. Medicare for all means that...for all....In Europe free college are free for everybody, hospitals are free for everybody. Generally speaking wealthy people prefer to use their private ones but no one can deny them their right to use the public ones if they want... and some do.
43
I agree and am puzzled by the argument that children of the wealthy should not get free tuition at public universities along with everyone else. I get why they shouldn’t have their college loan debt forgiven - they can well afford to repay the loans. But going forward, if free tuition at public colleges and universities is offered and is paid for out of public funds, why shouldn’t the children of the wealthy get it too? They can get free public elementary and high school education, so why not college? Especially if they are paying taxes (yes, they should pay more) to help fund that free tuition.
17
@Tess Americans don’t seem to understand that “free” does not mean you can just waltz into Yale. It means that the only criterion for college acceptance is academic excellence. Not your athletic prowess, not you parents’ bank account, and not the color of your skin. All countries with free or low-cost college have extremely stringent academic requirements for acceptance. I taught in both European and American universities, and there is no question that most in my mind that most American students could not have qualified for European colleges. There is a reason why so many of our grad students come from Europe or Asia. I am all in favor of free college as long as you realize that it will result in fewer Americans getting higher educatiin.
17
Calm down everyone. There is no need to get into a lather over this. Wealthy children and their parents do not need tuition loan forgiveness. They don’t have any tuition loans to forgive. Nobody with any money takes out a college tuition loan. The interest rates are insane and the terms are onerous. Far better to just pay cash.
8
"the children of the top 1 percent ought to get free tuition."
I can say it's safe to say that the children of the 1% will not send them to public colleges.
67
"While Biden was demonstrating he could be less polite, Donald Trump was having a rather typical week of doing his best to ruin the country."
And that's the reason why this all was so depressing. We have too many candidates eating their own on a debate stage while the president has spent the last almost 3 years gobbling up all of us like he eats fast food: indiscriminately, noisily, mindlessly, crudely.
if Joe Biden did better, it was because he almost couldn't have done worse. As for the others, I think Booker probably came off as the most sincere, candid, and unscripted.
All of these candidates need to approach every debate from now on adding a sentence about why their position on X differs from Donald Trump.
If this election is as existential as they all say it is, they'd better let the American people know exactly why-- over and over and over.
170
@ChristineMcM
maybe why their position is not so much different as better. Which is to say, the same issues need to be addressed, wouldn't you agree?
@ozymandias: I don't know what you mean. Please clarify. Obviously a Democrat differ greatly from the president in approach and philosophy on every issue. It's hard to imagine otherwise.
@ChristineMcM Good comment, Christine. I share your thoughts.
4
Remember the old line? I went to a fight, and a hockey game broke out! Tonight, I was watching fight, and a presidential debate budded in!
I don't like the fact that certain candidates were given center stage. Warren-Sanders in round one. Biden-Harris in round two. They're not even centrists.
Don't tell me it doesn't set up a cognitive bias!
IMHO, Wang-Williamson would be an interesting ticket. Oh yea! It's politics and many folks don't think. Not as much fun as the theater we'll get from other Dems, and Donald "I deserve the Oscar" trump.
9
Joe Biden did well with the pile on he had to manage. He speaks from his heart, and life's lessons have provided him with the wisdom to handle the presidency. He has my support.
180
@James Landi
He has my support too. Tonight he handled himself with grace under pressure.
37
@James Landi Biden need to step aside for the next generation of Dem to come. He is in DC too long and I would never ever forgive him on his cowardly treatment of Anita Hill.
1
@James Landi
Biden will be a great President.
6
Ms. Collins,
"It’s about income inequality, which is certainly important. But it’s pretty much the same one he gave four years ago. There ought to be a little more variety."
Sometimes, you seem less than serious....maybe jaded but I ask you to reconsider your dismissiveness of Sen. Sanders. He brought this issue to the forefront in 2016 and he is to be thanked for getting the Dems to focus on ordinary people as they once did before they got into a contest with GOP on what
terrible policies they could pursue that would gut the middle class.
I would say that Sen. Sanders focus on income inequality is the right issue because it is the fulcrum from which all other ills flow. Its existence is the result of bad policies for decades and it spans the areas from privilege to destitution.
I do not see him as electable but he plays a very important role in this debate and he is to be appreciated as an ethical person who wants to get this country back on track.
77
@Blanche White - I think it's great to have Sanders, as party of one, caucus with the Democrats and keep banging the drum on inequality. But. You say the Democrats before Bernie 2016 was working on "terrible policies they could pursue that would gut the middle class"?
Name two. I'll counter with Obamacare and the tax on upper-income earners to help fund it, which provided health care access to about 20 million who lacked it earlier. Energy efficiency programs like EnergyStar and the increased fleet mph standards saved consumers a lot in energy costs.
The rate of increase of wealth to the top tier of America slowed during Obama's eight years, which is one reason the GOP's owners are so enraged by Obamacare.
So which policies were you thinking of?
19
@b Fagan
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree, ACA is a great accomplishment although a gift to the insurance companies.
I'm thinking of trade policies; allowing the hollowing out of unions; terrible immigration laws that brought massive immigration over the last few decades which impacted wages for so many as well as housing; failure to deal with huge drug costs, etc.
In other words polices pursued for Corporate America over workers that have brought about the inequality and desperation we see everywhere. The Dems and GOP did this together whether actively or by silent acquiescence.
I could go on ...but...that is why I speak up for Sanders because he understands why and how we got to this point and is not afraid to say so.
I'm a lifelong, liberal Democrat but I try to keep perspective and the Democrats need to regain theirs. They're beginning to...thanks to Sanders.
12
@Blanche White Very well said. Thank you. And we must not forget that Bernie was treated badly by the DNC during the 2016 primary election. He went on to campaign for Hillary. His perspective and his honesty and ethics add to the Democratic Party. We need politicians we can look up to; he belongs on that stage.
7
Listening to this debate made me depressed. The fierce competition and at times incivility among the prospective presidential candidates made me feel in some strange way the same divisiveness I feel everyday in this country. President Obama recently used a term I had never heard before in a talk he recently gave at the Obama Foundation in Berlin-- a “circular firing squad.” He was speaking about progressives in the Democratic party "where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues." His ending line is probably why I feel so disheartened: “And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.”
68
Biden is definitely the most conservative guy running, a Republican in Democrat's clothes. The price tag of $30tr for M4A cited by Biden is not on top of existing spending : it replaces the $32tr we are currently projected to spend! Why couldn't a single democrat point out the Mercatus Center study saying that our current health care system will cost $32tr over the next 10 years?! The fact is that most Democrats are pretty weak on health care, which is why the voters don't really trust them. They talk about public options and 10-yr transitions. We wonder what they'll bargain off in return for campaign donations. And no one talks about campaign financing anymore.
32
@Debra The only smart one on this is Bernie, though he hasn't been as clear on the issue since he set it out clearly at his Fox townhall: there's no free lunch, you get more taxes (progressive ones) but you lose those premiums, co-pays and deductibles. I do not understand why our "Medicare for All" proponents can't explain this clearly. $3 trillion a year for 10 years is $30 trillion - which is what they attack the progressives for being ready to spend. Ouch.
14
I'm still with Biden. His plan for the environment sounded good, and his points were made well. I am also glad that he brought up his support for Violence Against Women act, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and his personal story.
Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris which I am glad about. After Debate 1b, Harris is no longer someone I can even stand listening to. Gabbard called out her bad prosecutorial actions that harmed many people.
Bennett is still good and so are Castro and a few others.
The polls still are showing that Biden is the only Democratic candidate who can win including across different demographics. At the moment, I can see Gabbard as a VP candidate.
The country doesn't need anyone else as disruptive and insulting as Trump. Nor does it need someone who will drag in issues (or headlines) from decades ago. That is counterproductive and irrelevant.
Biden can stabilize and heal the country, and then one of these younger candidates will have gained the experience they need.
147
@SMB What is Biden's plan for the environment? I don't remember hear him says anything on this.
1
@Mary
It reads like Transitions.
Many of us don't believe we have time to continue dawdling.
Perhaps it isn't bad, but it is too slow.
1
@SMB
"Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris which I am glad about. After Debate 1b, Harris is no longer someone I can even stand listening to. Gabbard called out her bad prosecutorial actions that harmed many people."
You speak of "destroying". Why? Is this really your concept of what this is all about?
3
The DNC does not seem to have improved since they gave us HRC as the Democratic candidate.
These made for TV episodes are not debates; they are shouting matches.
Whoever decided that having two days of shouting with twenty, count them twenty candidates, 80% of whom whose chances of being the Democratic nominee are the sams as my becoming the Pope of Rome should be fired.
31
So, they're in Michigan - one of the key states the Dems lost - and not one question about how they plan to win back Michigan. Especially, the voters who voted for Trump.
65
@JoeG
They did specifically ask that towards the end. A couple of candidates gave very Michigan targeted mini-speeches.
22
@Lesley Ragsdale I stand corrected then though I'd like it if How do win was more of a priority.
2
@JoeG Which debate were you watching? Many of the candidates spoke abut winning Michigan back - Cory Booker comes to mind, I believe Gillibrand as well
3