If I were the boss of this news group, the entire commentator pannel will be fired. If they are good at engineering or medicine, they should go to those schools and start a career that is more beneficial to the society. Here, they are wasting everyone's time!!! They are the barrier for the advancement of our society!!! Remove them!!!
6
There is not a one of these candidates I'd vote for. If the Democrats want Independent votes they better put someone forward who is deserving of such. Liberal buch of wannabes.
Pete Wehner, I have no idea who you are, but I think I love you. Hilariously on-point encapsulations all.
During the debate, O’Rourke said “We can mark the creation of this country not at the Fourth of July, 1776, but August 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country,” but America did not exist in 1619. And the Spanish brought the first African slaves to what later became the United States in 1526 when they established a colony in the Carolinas. Spanish conquistadors led by Don Juan de Onate brought African slaves with him in 1598 when he crossed the Rio Grande at El Paso del Norte, which later became O’Rourke’s hometown.
Hispanics imported the first African slave to the present day United States, a fact O’Rourke seems to want to downplay. The African slaves were not kidnapped, of course. Spaniards purchased then from slave markets operated by African tribes.
2
Biden is far sharper than the young and inexperienced NYT pundits who are foolishly trying to destroy Biden.
Warren, Bernie, and Harris, who are much scarier and more volatile than Trump, are not going to defeat Trump in the electoral college of the USA in 2020.
So the young pundits trashing Biden only helps Trump's prospects
of winning a 2nd term in 2020.
2
We already *have a President manifestly unfit for the magnitude of the job of POTUS.
Biden is getting to be so incoherent in his inability to say what he may, or may not mean, that the *only thing keeping him standing IS the willingness of people to GUESS what he REALLY means, because Biden himself can no longer *articulate what he really means.
One of the most significant aspects of the job of POTUS is to be able to communicate CLEARLY to foreign leaders. Biden cannot clearly communicate with the people who know and love him.
There is a time, as there was for Ali, to know when to get out of the ring. It was sad to see Ali fighting exhibition bouts in his fifties. Same goes for Joe. When it's over, know when to sit down.
Joe's "heyday" to the degree that he ever *had one, is definitely FAR in the rear view mirror by now. Just because Obama could easily defeat Trump, does not mean that Biden can. Biden is clearly no Obama. Obama was one of the *most effective orators ever to grace the Oval Office. Biden never HAS been.
Backing Biden is like putting Ali's cut man into the ring to fight in place of Ali. Pretty useless.
I heard Joe *exactly the way that Castro heard Joe. Joe DID say that people would have to BUY INTO his medical plan. I don't care what Joe *MEANT, I heard what he *SAID.
It is just silly sentimentality to pretend that Biden IS qualified for the top job, and I don't see any evidence that he ever WAS !
He lost it TWICE on his *own efforts.
5
About Yang, yes, it's sad how he didn't get a true chance to share his solutions ... I recommend this issue of New York Times' "The Daily".
You will see that's not about gimmicks. In one year, still in time for the election, he will harvest the results of his experiment of giving an UBI to 10 families. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/12/us/elections/debate-speaking-time.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
1
Did Miriam Powell describe Corey-exposing racism -Booker, as “articulate”?!
Julian Castro won the debate.
1
Ten candidates are five too many at a time.
I like Warren and Klobuchar,
but if Andrew Yang wants to make me one of the
ten families that gets extra money each month,
he has my vote.
By the way did Beto have a nose job sometime
after college, seems it was bigger when he was in the
Punk band.
3
Wait, you mean that NYT political writers in the political elite don't understand the appeal of an outsider like Andrew Yang...hmmmm, where have I seen this show before???
4
We see that you're lining up behind Warren, NYT. Might I request you make your bias more subtle than painting Bernie as a yelly, cranky uncle?
Because when so many of your people present like that, it just seems like you never got the memo on how it's 1) mildly anti-semitic and 2) arguably 10x more boring of a critique than the object of critique, aka Bernie's commitment to social justice, which now that I think of it, is an incredible virtue, and not a problem at all, unless of course you're in the business of commenting on horse races, which articles like this mostly are at core.
8
Maybe Julian Castro can take John Bolton's job since he seems able to fend off and offend Democrats.
1
Maureen Dowd 1/10
Snarky and clever as always, her "free stuff and "aunt bee" remarks betray the self-loathing and misogyny of her age group and the unchecked privilege of her race and class.
Gail Collins 5/10
As her comments were too succinct to be of much significance, we give her 5 points for humorous distillation.
Ross Douthat 3/10 meh
Mimi Schwartz 3/10 Wins for Best Synopsis for Bookies taking bets on "who won the debate"
Miriam Pawel 4/10 Has a good beat, you can dance to it
MG 10/10 Her comments were probably most relevant to what the performances mean for actual outcomes and were also the most human.
Melanye Price: 10/10 Insightful and informed with substantive analysis
Will Wilkinson 7/10 Best Writing for a Debate Review. Most Likely to be asked to eulogize.
Pete Whener 3/10 He sounds like a character from a JD Salinger novel.
Tanzina Vega 6/10 Good Cliff Notes
8
Maureen Dowd once again has nothing good to say about ANY of the Democrats. On the other hand, even Ross Douthat, avowed republican Catholic, had some words of praise for a candidate or two.
Dowd has run columns in the past where she channels her brother Kevin who is, according to her, a republican.
I quit reading her column several years ago when I realized that she is Kevin.
6
Wholly biased article!!!!! Warren gets too much credit!!!
5
I wish Buttigieg would gain traction. He is young, extremely intelligent, well traveled, relatable and likable. If he’s not Pres or VP he needs a cabinet post. Let’s not waste his talents.
Booker is like that friend you have but you can’t remember WHY you are friends, and you avoid his calls. He’s irritating.
Sorry, Biden. No. Same with Bernie and Beto. Fans of them all, but they won’t beat Trump.
Warren is growing on me. She may be able to eviscerate Trump in a debate.
They all have good if not great ideas for the most part. We need a ticket that will trounce Trump and clean up this global mess he made.
Warren/Buttigieg.
4
Warren and Sanders will give Trump 4 more years. Biden has the spotlight but Amy is a stronger candidate against Trump. The rest are auditioning for a cabinet position
2
To me the moderates won the debate. Klobuchar, Biden and Buttigeg made cogent arguments and based their pitches on rational thought. The so-called "progressives" came off as smarmy to me. Beto's "boldness" in saying we'll confiscate your guns, just made him completely unelectable. Sanders was yelling all the time, and refused to call one of the most brutal dictators, Maduro, a dictator. That gave the complete lie to his attempt to distinguish his socialism from other brands. He can't repudiate evil when it's socialist. And Warren couldn't be honest about her tax plan, and was damagingly attacked for not trusting the American people.
5
Once again, like Hillary, we see the corporate/establishment media falling over each other trying to protect their "chosen one"(Joe Biden), even though his was a debate of contradictions, confusion and few answers and all one has to do is read the transcripts of the debate to prove it.
He should have been "dead last" and they know it.
2
I think Yang did better than Castro. Castro shot himself in the foot, which is a shame for him, because he had been coming on strong. Regardless, any of them are a thousand times better than Trump.
4
Please, stop with the "winners/losers" language. I feel like we're reading about high school students running for student council. This language, the language of campaign managers, handlers, and spin doctors (who get paid to "win" at any cost), serves to propagate that "losers" have nothing to offer to anyone. They didn't "win" so get them off stage. Sounds like the logic of someone who said the American people would be winning so much, they'd get tired of winning. And we know the value and results of that thinking.
4
Bernie and Biden looked like the two old guys, Statler and Waldorf, on the Muppets. Yang is clearly smart but too gimmicky. I hope we can have a ticket that is gender / racially diverse with the best of the rest. Klobuchar/Booker, Harris/Bootigieg, Warren/Castro, Harris/Beto.
1
If Biden last night “was clearer and more energetic than in past debates” then he must have been godawful in past debates. Because he was muddled and confused last night, fumbling around, trying (unsuccessfully) to make sense. This is our front runner???
6
And the winner for best Times commentary goes, of course, to Maureen Dowd, the Dorothy Parker of the institution.
My take was Warren as the front runner, I give her an 8.5, and Yang and Castro at the back. The rest were solid 7s.
Kamala Harris in 2024 (if Trump is reelected) or 2032 (if not). That lady is a tiger.
Exceptionally poor, biased, unprofessional Opinion page coverage of Sanders and the debate in general. Zero for credible consideration of substance in favor of quips about his voice, tonal volume, and basically "go sit down already old man" ageism. Not surprising here on the Opinion page, but so played. Ugh.
5
Small point, but you listed all the commenters in alphabetical order EXCEPT Tanzina Vega, who you put at the end after the W's. Any reason why?
Maureen Dowd - you seem to have forgotten that Nancy Pelosi is not a candidate, you cannot vote for her ! It is either one of those candidates or Trump.
1
The world is losing if this is the best one party has to offer. Granted, the other side isn't offering a smooth polished con-mad like we just got rid of, but we are making progress to at least identify the problems we have after decades of insider corruption. You know, like the career politicians that were on the stage last night who contributed to the mess we are in!
The debate last night was just more of the same, many times unconstitutional, garbage. Nothing new, no creditable policy details, and lots of unsubstantiated claims. And even an illegal lottery, probably illegally using campaign funds!
It'd be humorous if the subject and impacts weren't so serious. And just more proof we NEED term limits!!!
When the campaign started, I thought highly of Castro, remembering his convention speech in 2008. But his attack last night had me screaming at the TV. He proved himself both an incompetent for misquoting Biden then attacking him for the misquote, but also a throughly unpleasant human being.
I don't every want to see him again in the Democratic party. Go away!
2
So then it's settled. Warren for Prez, Booker for VP. Everyone good? Good.
4
Dear Mr. Wilkinson,
Regarding your assessment of Pete Buttigieg:
Perhaps if you had grown up gay in Indiana, or served time in the military as a gay man, you might exhibit a bit of "studied gravity" yourself. As for your comment on his "teacher's favorite" persona, did you not realize his earliest role models are University professors? Give the guy a break! Cadet Bone Spurs is already going after his height, what more do we need?
PS Ross Douhat, your "meh" is a total cop out.
2
What Country Were They Representing to Debate For? Certainly NOT America. NO AMERICAN Flag Behind Them!! Again!!
3
Elizabeth Warren: Whatever her staff garners from focus groups is what Warren will PLAN to be: Smarmy
Kamala Harris: Knows she cannot win, struggling to make hay: Prosecutor-in-Chief who has no case.
Cory Booker: Knows he cannot win, struggling to make hay: Junior senator who is waiting for the Dem Machine to tell him what to do next.
Pete Buttigieg: No new material: Looking for a VP / Cabinet position.
Beto O’Rourke: Like AOC, will never hold another elected office of consequence: Insert fork.
Joe Biden: "...I guess he wins. Sigh."--Gail Collins, exactly: Will get nomination, launch a legion of surrogates to keep him from gaffs and conserve his energy, will crash and burn.
45 redux.
3
Mr. Yang, paying for votes is illegal.
2
I can't help but wonder if the The NY Times commentators aren't in high tax brackets and therefore think Yang's proposal of sharing the wealth of your country might take a tiny bite out of them somewhere along the way? They call his plan a "gimmick". I would call your current emperor the biggest gimmick ever!
2
It was sweet
When Castro was beating up on Biden, Biden turned to Bernie for some help figuring out what was going on, and Bernie was glad to help.
2
To hear about how Bernie plans on fixing things, I highly recommend you watch the interview he did with Joe Rogan last month. It has almost 10 million views. Then read the comments. You won’t regret it.
Video: Joe Rogan Experience #1330 Bernie Sanders
https://youtu.be/2O-iLk1G_ng
2
When it is all over in November 2020, Donald J. Trump will be the last man (and I do mean man) standing. Thank you.
1
Enough with the personal anecdotes! "I grew up harder than you did!" "No you didn't"!
2
Once you hear Andrew Yang speak (in long format interviews, not these shout fests), all the other candidates sound like Charlie Brown's teacher...
Every one of your commentators seriously underestimates Yang's broad appeal. He's the smartest candidate we've had in a very long time, and the most forward-thinking. Too bad you don't get it; we have a psychopath in the White House (thanks in no small part to you) and yet Yang is being asked if giving money to citizens to improve their lives is legal. Meanwhile, millions of dollars are spent on 30 second campaign ads, to what end? Making the media oligarchs richer, of course...
What's the point of having a Pentagon 'protect' us if we're committing suicide by the thousands because of financial concerns? Wake. Up.
4
" I know some people will say Castro was disrespectful. I disagree. He was a pugilist whose strategy was to go down fighting everybody." Not a pugilist, either a liar (that's NOT) what Biden said, or hard of hearing.
1
I have my favourite. We all do. But I’ll tell you what: ANY ONE of the democrats on stage last night is about ten million times better than the psychotic mess who currently occupies the Oval Office.
6
I can't believe that Biden is still the front-runner. Who decided that? The future is with Yang or Buttigieg. Both of them have character, honesty and innovative ideas. Both are smarter than the rest of the field combined. Either would stand up well against Trump. I've been giving money to each of them. Never considered sending one dollar to Biden.
4
Oh dear. Am I the only one who is getting a little uneasy about this lackluster field of Dems? We either need to impeach Trump or beat him, and I sure hope the energy, charisma (a la Obama, yes) and authority level of some of these candidates happens soon...I am increasingly concerned about how we will steer this ship into port!
It's time to cut the number of candidates on stage. Up the ante and let the people decide, but I would eliminate Yang, Castro, and a few others. Democrats should be down to fewer than six candidates in October. Some of these people my be raising their profile, but at what cost to the 2020 presidential election? I thoyght that was supposed to be what this process is all about.
2
As a liberal Democrat I will absolutely vote for the candidate who wins the Democratic Primary.
Frankly, I find the debates not very helpful. I turned it off after about an hour. Way too much time on the top three, not giving us more time with the others to get better acquainted.
Speaking for myself, the townhall format with one candidate really gives much more information about a candidate.
I'm not looking for a policy wonk (I do like Warren however), but someone with leadership qualities who can repair our broken country, and who will inspire the country.
The debates haven't changed my choice - it's Buttigieg.
5
Warren's problem is that her policies seem lifted from a political text that was long-ago disproven. Her proposals are feel-good, won't work, and will never be adopted. Sanders wins on all the points because he is a believer, while Warren seems to be a calculated newcomer.
I think Harris came off far better then these reviewers give her credit for. She appropriately and immediately placed the focus on who they all should be running against. Castro was pathetically trying to detach himself from what he hopes is a sinking ship and, voila, found that he himself is the one who (appropriately) sank.
Buttigieg once again came across as the only real adult in the room.
Klobuchar, whom I have never liked, managed to change my opinion. She is a keeper.
Biden: well, everyone has a slightly nutty uncle, but we all love him regardless.
Biden-Harris or Biden-Klobuchar would clean the Trump-Pence clock. Pence would not stand an intellectual chance against either of these women. It would be highly entertaining.
3
Wow, I am really appalled at the flippant and condescending attitude of these Times Opinion writers. Do they realize that 4 in 5 US workers live paycheck to paycheck? That is appalling, especially so for the richest country on Earth. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is not some "gimmick" as these opinion writers think...it is a tool that has been used for centuries to alleviate poverty. Why as a society are we ok with giving the fossil fuel industry over $600 billion a year (about $50 billion more than the Pentagon budget!), but react with derision to the idea of giving $1000 a year to working Americans?
13
@JK
Not disagreeing, but isn't it $1,000 a month?
4
I didn't see Warren winning at all. She went down in my estimation from this debate. Her obvious evasion tantamount to lying on whether she'd raise taxes and her failure to provide real numbers on how she would pay for things made me distrust her.
4
It was very disappointing that the debate moderators and organizers concentrated their questions on domestic policy and some petty issues that didn't deserve a mention. Meanwhile foreign policy and climate policy are the biggest issues we face. What will they do about Russian intervention and aggression? Similarly about North Korea. And how will they deal with Iran's support for terrorist organizations? I didnt get a clue as to how they would deal with these huge issues. And climate change policy got very short shrift and mostly virtue signaling.
5
I like Castro but he nows sounds like someone interviewing to deliver weather reports for Donald. Liz is smart and feels wider in scope and somehow more youthful than Bernie who I respect so very much. Can either make a wide enough nationally attractive case?
Joe doesn't have strong enough legs to carry so much distracting baggage that can get very heavy in the longer run. Kamala Harris feels a little superficial for one I previously held in higher regard.
Others may either not make a major impact or their time probably is not yet here. I continue to be so impressed that Pete B and Beto as project hints of so charismatic a short-circuited JFK, younger Bill Clinton or anytime Barack Obama.
Bernie Sanders knows 2 things: 1. He'll never grasp the nomination; 2. His supporters will eventually follow his lead and vote for Elizabeth Warren. By staying in the race, and representing the uncompromising left flank of the playing field, Bernie is helping Warren win-over the moderate suburban voters that allowed the Dems to annihilate the GOP in the 2018.
In other words, Bernie knows who the quarterback is, and he’s protecting her left flank, allowing her to aggressively gain momentum towards the center of the field.
That’s where Biden thought he would never lose ground, and that’s why he seems to have no strategy to move forward.
Corey Booker who knows that a Warren-Booker is his best ticket to the White House, picked the Warren-Sanders team later last night with his takedown of Joe Biden, effectively taking care of Warren's dirty work.
Warren and Bernie are playing a brilliant game, and I suspect that several other candidates who believe in its potential will quickly fall in line and support it.
It’s also hard to believe that the DNC is not silently endorsing this strategy: the future of the party hinges on not alienating our younger progressive voters, and - far from being a unifying figure - Joe Biden has become as indigestible to some democrats as Bernie is to others. With one major difference: Bernie and Warren together poll at 34% vs. Biden at 32% (Quinnipiac), and Warren is now wearing the mantle of party unifier. She has the big Mo: momentum.
3
@Donkey Spin
Interesting.
But Sanders brigade aren't sheep, as the last Dem. convention showed clearly. As Bernie's slogan of NotMeUs resounds true, it isn't about Sanders, it's the movement. Warren isn't the movement. Many of Sanders supporters view the senator from Mass. with a jaundiced eye and don't believe her fauxgressive bona fides. They've seen and heard this sheepdog act before. Another establishment Dem. who takes Wall Street secret meetings, and is funded by Big Money, then not, then will be again...No. not biting.
Another nose holding Democratic nomination.
Same as it ever was.
Interesting spin. Best of luck with it.
2
I think articles like this are kind of disgusting. Admittedly, I would look up who "won" after the first few debates. But honestly, we should be discussing the merits of each candidates' vision and policies. We shouldn't be treating this like a sporting even where we rate each player's performance and try to figure out who won. We don't need things like:
"Another solid performance overall, but she lost the opening exchange on health care and disappeared entirely for the first hour."
"He continues to be the most consistently eloquent and engaging figure on the stage. Maybe one of these days it will help his poll numbers."
(I quoted Ross Douthat twice as I found these particularly reprehensible. We not need to assess performance, who won an exchange, or poll numbers. However, I could have quoted nearly everything said in the article.)
Treating the campaigns like a sporting event or reality tv show is how we got a reality tv star president and how we failed to elect leaders who address our problems.
7
Strange how Yang is given low points solely for his freedom dividend, while other candidates are given high points solely for their character and for "enjoying" themself. And even though Kamala is noted as being avoidance of questions and turning them into attacks against Trump, she still received higher points than Yang.
2
Bernie and Biden are too old. I’m tired of getting shouted at by old men. Warren would serve us better as leader of the Senate - she has the understanding of the issues and the temperament to get a lot of legislation passed. Other candidates each have a good idea or two, but Michelle Goldberg sums it up - why Cory Booker is not at the head of this pack is baffling to me.
2
@Kathy D. Because Mitch McConnell just isn't that into Corey's giant love-fest.
Just can’t yet see any of these candidates winning the White House this cycle. I know the columnists are breathlessly hopeful. The one thing this will perhaps do is make the idea of healthcare-for-all a more palatable concept in this country.
1
Two things I got out of the debates. First Castro is toast. He will be out of it within a week or two. Biden was Biden at the debates. Let me tell you why we need Biden and his experience. He will be a transitional President. Maybe the first true transitional President in our history. His role will be to reverse all the destructive decisions made by trump and return the country back to the middle. If we have a problem with Russia or China, who but Biden can deal with that? He will not run for second term, but support this VP for the office. I hope that will be Harris.
2
Joe Biden has spoken about his having had a speech impediment (stammering) as a child and how he had to work to overcome that. I have wondered if his gaffes or mis-statements (which have long been a part of his public speaking) happen in part as the remnants of that issue, in that his thoughts may run ahead of his articulation and get him tangled up at times. It seems like they happen in higher stress situations. When he is in more relaxed one on one interviews he seems much more articulate, in command and communicates very well. I think he would make a fine President and an infinitely better one than the current occupant.
4
If I could hand pick the next President, it would be Elizabeth Warren. But I'd happily vote for any of those 10 candidates on the stage last night over the destructive narcissist currently occupying the White House.
Let's not forget the popular vote is irrelevant. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to become President, and I'm nervous that Warren may not be able to win those critical swing states that went for Trump in 2016. The last thing we need is 4 more years of DJT.
4
I agree with Steve. Some progressive democrats lose sight of the fact that the electoral college needs to be won and IMO that will not happen with a progressive candidate. I will the Democratic nominee. That said, to me, Warren is the “Trump of the left”. Lots of promises and little about how she’s actually going to accomplish them. I feel like she’s a snake oil salesman every time she says “I have a plan for that” and the “plan” has no substance.
In the U.K. 10% of people have supplemental or private health insurance policies.They do so to skip the long waits, especially for specialist appointments. I’m not sure people realize that socialized medicine has its drawbacks. I believe in a “Medicare for All” option but I want to keep my private insurance.
I feel Uncle Joe has his flaws but he best represents my views and his performance last night didn’t change my mind.
4
Warren knew how to keep out of the brawl that the others were fielding. She is solid and as she said in a previous debate: it's better to have ideas than not. Medicare (ie, single payer) healthcare is a reality for most western countries, so Biden's response, the "This is America". was absolutely off-putting. I wish the candidates who support universal healthcare would better explain how such systems work in other countries and why the US could also have such a system. And, obviously, it would not cost taxpayers more. We now pay premiums for health insurance, even if we have Medicare. Surely this is a "tax" even if it is not called one. Warren has the energy and the ideas to be a great President and the sense to pick a smart Vice President as a partner. I think many of the candidates would be good VPs, Castro, Buttigieg, or O'Rourke. We need this kind of energy.
1
Any one of these candidates, not to mention a large number of the general electorate. would make a better President than Donald Trump. Let's not lose sight of the fact that a President is only as good as those he or she chooses to work in their administration. Trump has greatly distorted this aspect of the Federal government, specifically the office of the presidency, since he is unwilling to hire independently minded individuals and he presides over the government just like an oppressive dictator, instilling fear and threatening retribution to anyone who would dare question him.
5
The only candidate worth supporting is Yang. His freedom dividend makes sense. It is a way to level the playing field, to make sure everyone has something to start with. It’s a way to redistribute wealth but can also attract conservatives. 1000 bucks to a rich person might not mean much but to struggling people, can be the difference between choosing medications, food or shelter.
Yang is also non interventionalist and is for single payer health care. He is the only one to acknowledge that automation is killing American jobs.
4
I am taking a second look at Steve Bullock. I realize that he seems to be out of the running, but there are miles yet to go. ...... To me his views are reasonable. His ego is normal. His age is good. He is not a zealot, and will have broad appeal in battleground states. He may not be the best in debates but he has real executive experience, is solid, and electable. I like this guy.
3
Biden seems to be our only viable hope for staying in the middle of the road which I believe most Americans want. Health care is too big an elephant to completely revise and while the goals articulated are laudable, the details on how to get there are sorely lacking. Warren and Sanders scare the hell out of moderate independents, so once again, it's back to Biden.
3
It’s a Warren win by half a point. Pair her with a Booker, Buttigieg, or Sanders and we are on our way to turning this giant mess of a government into an entity that works for the people! She hits the nail on the head. Corruption in government is at an all-time high!
91
I like Sanders, but, I can see Warren as the nominee with Booker as her running mate. I believe she would do well in the debates against the megalomaniac Trump. Unlike Trump and so many of the presidents we've had since FDR, she would work for the vanishing middle class and the poor. NOT, LIKE MOST OF OUR RECENT PRESIDENTS, WHO WORK FOR THE MEGA RICH (WITH TAX CUTS FOR THE MEGA RICH WHO DON'T CREATE GOOD PAYING JOBS, BUT KEEP THE MONEY TO BUY STOCKS TO ENRICH THEMSELVES EVEN MORE AND TO BRIBE POLITICIANS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT). I fear the democratic party will make sure that Biden, who is over the hill, gets the nomination. They fear Warren as much as they did Sanders in 2016, when they worked the primaries to give Hillary the nomination.
20
@GGram
Warren cannot win, period. As a centrist Democrat, she is last on my list of attractive candidates. She will turn off a lot of centrist voters, and Trump will shred her lack of business experience and she will wear the 'Pocahontas' mantle into a defeat.
12
@Carl Cox she has to get elected first, and she won't. She'd do great in debates against donald, but HRC did outstanding in the debates and still lost. Warren/Sanders/et al will not be able to win the swing states OH, WI, PA and FL and they would all lose to DJT.
Biden can win those states. Harris can win those states. Anybody not advocating Medicare for All can win those states. Just because the idea (e.g., Medicare for All) makes some sense does not make it a winning issue (quite the opposite). The electoral college elects presidents, not the popular vote. I'm not a huge Biden fan, but I'm not seeing Harris or Mayor Pete garnering support so I default to the other moderate in the field, Biden. Harris as VP would be a strong ticket, in my mind. MEDICARE FOR ALL will lose this election, full stop.
PS. Let's not forget that President Warren or Sanders needs to get Medicare for All through the legislature first, and last I checked the republicans control one side of that equation and even if not, the republicans will filibuster and Medicare for All bill, another full stop.
6
I more or less agree with the overall scoring averages here but I will never be sold on the notion that debate performance is any indicator of Presidential performance. Joe Biden has always sounded like Joe Biden, regardless of his age. There is no denying his vast political experience (unmatched by the other candidates and certainly Donald Trump) or his strong ethics and values (which Trump does not possess at all). Many Americans are just worn down by the nastiness and outrageousness of Trump. The last thing they want to see is any nastiness by these Democratic candidates. Too often, anger and rage is mistaken for some sort of strength and skill; it frequently is not. We don't need a Democratic candidate to take on Trump on Trump's terms, either. So many voters are more than a little nostalgic for "No Drama Obama" for good reason.
Even though Castro was most likely not going to rise in any polls or miraculously secure then Democratic nomination, he did some serious damage to his political future last evening which is a shame since he seemed to have a decent future leading up to this debate. What was he thinking?
4
@Jeff Agree... I've followed Biden since 88 and he's the most experienced and would be a terrific transitional President.
3
@Jeff
Answer: he wasn't thinking clearly, and demonstrated why he will not win anything beyond a narrow state office.
Adios Castro.
1
This debate was much better than the others. Inslee would have done far better with these moderators and questions. It's a shame that the first two debates were circuses that favored the loudest voices in the room, the arm wavers, the extremists, the glib and inexperienced.
3
Although I've always liked Joe Biden, his age does concern me. But Julian Castro made a mistake pointing it out. Better to let Biden's performance speak for itself.
2
I'd bet that a sampling of disinterested debate experts would not show the wide disparity of conclusions that we see here -- which suggests either that the pundits filtered candidate performance through the lens of who they liked coming into the debate, or that they are looking to shape the narrative to support their favored candidates.
4
Beto O'Rourke acknowledged during the debate that it is the high-velocity ammunition that make assault-type rifles exceptionally lethal, but he proposed outlawing assault rifles rather the high-velocity ammunition.
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2017 firearms were used to kill 7,692 Americans, but rifles—including rifles—were used in only 403, or 5.7 percent, of these murders.
If we outlawed assault rifles, killers would use the buyback money they get for turning in their assault rifles to purchase other semiautomatic rifles that fire high-velocity ammunition or handguns and shotguns and go on killing.
There are other homicidal alternatives. The 2017 UCR shows unarmed Americans kill more people than Americans armed with rifles. In 2017, 696 people were beaten, stomped or kicked to death by unarmed assailants.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
1
@William Case: Large magazines allow shooters to pin people down until they can be shot point blank.
So basically your 'experts' can't agree on these candidates anymore than the general public.
1
I'm not sure these qualify as legitimate debates - Q&A, sure.
Softball questions: A couple of times I mouthed the candidates answer in sync with the candidate. Very predictable.
Your group nailed it on Sanders and Yang. I would add that Klobuchar had the "presidentially hand gesture" down pat - short swipe down, swipe horizontally, additional short swipe down. She did it so often it was all I could focus on. Did she say something?
All of the candidates have their good points and their bad. Unfortunately this election isn't so much about policy as it is about getting Donald Trump out of the White House.
We don't need fire and ice. We need sure and steady, middle of the road. It is going to be the Independent voters who are going to determine the outcome of the 2020 election. They have to feel comfortable that the candidate that they will vote for will not be another DJT roller coaster ride.
We need some form of gun control, but declaring that you will take away every assault rifle, as sound an idea as it is, will not garner right of center votes.
As important and sensible as Medicare for all and single payer healthcare is, American's are not yet ready to take that step. It cost the Democrats both houses after pushing through the ACA. Now is not the time to try and force something that may alienate Independents.
The economy and the environment are issues that are important to all voters and they are the things the Trump administration is having a devastating on. It touches everyone. That should be the focus of the Democrats.
The issues of healthcare and gun control are important and we can work to fix them when we take back the White House and the Senate. If we give trump another four years, we can do nothing and Trump will get to appoint another 2 or three Supreme Court Justices and we can't let that happen.
That is what should be foremost in everyone's mind when they go to vote in 2020.
1
Too many on stage and not enough time to flesh out answers. Need to give equal time to all candidates. I am looking for smart, thoughtful articulate answers.
3
The debates were a sad effort to demolish each other it is the political hunger games their performances on the debates will become fodder for the trump tweets in the future presidential run
Doesn't help that the columnist rated the candidates as this ALSO then gives a visual to voters why not take away the scores and really focus on issues stop reporting mindless presidential tweets stop rating candidates and start looking at the long term issues that the heartland is facing
also investigate dig deep into the swamp in Washington and unearth what is hidden in the muck as that is the only way the present government will be removed
Has anyone linked announcements to the stock market activity
Has anyone linked under payment of staff at resorts and
What immigration status does staff have
Has anyone linked the sordid Epstein affair to anyone other than Epstein
Has anyone linked business deals that are being done to benefit private pockets over the good if the nation
THE press played a part in the last election that allowed for the current administration it can play a greater part this time around to perhaps champion a change based on a deeper look at the candidates and not relying on scores or tweets
4
The debates were a sad effort to demolish each other it is the political hunger games their performances on the debates will become fodder for the trump tweets in the future presidential run
Doesn't help that the columnist rated the candidates as this ALSO then gives a visual to voters why not take away the scores and really focus on issues stop reporting mindless presidential tweets stop rating candidates and start looking at the long term issues that the heartland is facing
also investigate dig deep into the swamp in Washington and unearth what is hidden in the muck as that is the only way the present government will be removed
Has anyone linked announcements to the stock market activity
Has anyone linked under payment of staff at resorts and
What immigration status does staff have
Has anyone linked the sordid Epstein affair to anyone other than Epstein
Has anyone linked business deals that are being done to benefit private pockets over the good if the nation
THE press played a part in the last election that allowed for the current administration it can play a greater part this time around to perhaps champion a change based on a deeper look at the candidates and not relying on scores or tweets
1
I felt the the NY Times commentators had no serious criticism of Yang. I have been watching him a lot and I don't find him gimmicky anymore than any of the candidates. I might have been impressed if even one of them had explained why this particular "gimmick" wouldn't work. We do a lot of income subsidizing in Canada and it seems to work as the money just goes round and round. I know, I know, you guys call it "socialism" which you equate with communism. I call it sharing the wealth and I suspect many of you are wishing you lived in my country right now. Not perfect but no one needs to go to bed hungry.
4
The remarks of the pundits about Andrew Yang's plan for a guaranteed income for all do not seem fair to me. I read a report on his plan and it does not seem to me to be a gimmick but a refreshing new idea buttressed by quite a lot of data which suggest it could work. It's probably true that he won't win but the criticism was off the mark.
I have a remark about Amy Klobuchar's position on health care. She emphasized again that she is for a public option in the ACA (Obamacare). But in 2009, when the debate about offering a public option was taking place as the bill was being drafted, she refused, publicly and repeatedly, to take a position on the public option. At that time her support was needed and its absence was significant. Klobuchar is my senator (and neighbor) and unfortunately that kind of opportunistic straddle and pivot has been seen frequently in her political career. Notice that she did it again last night when she said she had changed her mind about leaving prosecutions for police murders up to grand juries. I could cite several other examples. Someone, for example, should ask her about gun control. Right after Sandy Hook, when Obama was making a push for gun control, she waffled and refused to take a strong position. In my view, this is not
just a bland moderate, but a rather unprincipled one. And she joined the mob to politically assassinate her fellow Senator and Minnesotan Al Franken.
4
These rankings are meaningless. Maybe that's because the debates in their current forms produce nothing meaningful.
2
The FCC doesn't treat the internet as a broadcast medium.
For reasons that are a mystery to me, Biden is being forced on us, just as Clinton was. During last night's "debate" I kept imagining Biden on the debate stage with Trump. If people actually think Castro was "harsh" about Biden's capabilities, wait until the cruel, vicious, mean, ugly Trump arrives with a mincemeat machine in hand. I like all of the Democratic candidates for different reasons and wish we could elect them as a committee! It is only Warren who is talking about the absolute ROT that is consuming our country. I hope Biden drops out and soon. It is only because so many will vote for ANY Democrat over Trump that Biden can win, but that will only address ONE of America's problems, albeit a big, fat, nasty, destructive one!
I am not at all concerned about candidates' age, but I am very concerned about Biden's health and cognitive nimbleness. Both are surely at least as good as Trump's, but that's not the standard we want or need!
9
@D. Annie: The Democratic Party almost always plays too safe.
2
Please Dems...find someone before it is too late to beat Trump. Most of their ideas are unrealistic and won't fly. Biden is the only one who is not crazy left but it seems the country is tired of the same old same old, pun intended.
1
I agree 5 need to bow out now. For Democrats to get rid of Trump, the top 2 need to pair, with one agreeing to be Vice, but run together and save us. Anything to get rid of the demon. Our future depends on it.
2
The low point of the night was Julian Castro's shot at Joe Biden's age / memory. If he's trying to emulate the current POTUS with an uncalled for cheap shot, he's on his way, But I've had my fill of sarcastic personal comments directed at someone's gender, race, physical characteristics, or age for this lifetime. If that's your strategy for moving ahead, Julian, time to pack it in.
133
@Brad Harrington It came off as a cheap shot. Castro is a terrible messenger, and his campaign and VP slot are done.
But uncalled for? No, it isn’t. We have to be able to talk about what is right in front of our eyes when it impacts a candidate’s fitness for office. It simply can’t be off limits when it’s this important. Joe Biden should not be in this race. He should retire now with his considerable legacy intact.
17
Warren is the College professor with the proposals and the elementary school teacher with the voters. She's exciting people who like her smarts, clear policy descriptions, and her slightly radical attitude, but she has not got the common touch that makes a strong Presidential candidate. But she probably will be the nominee.
Biden is getting long in the tooth but he's still got the common touch and the knowledge about what Senators and Presidents must know to be effective. If he was eight years younger, he'd be the nominee for sure. He's probably not going to last.
Bernie is going to be everyone's favor candidate and last choice for the nomination. He will not likely be the nominee.
O'Rourke and Castro and Yang are sliding out of contention.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar both are smart and articulate and they will hang around for a little longer, but neither are going to rise to the top.
2
@Casual Observer
Do recall that Biden WAS a candidate - TWICE - when he was younger, and he was rejected soundly both times. He has a LOT of baggage which, inexplicably, media and pundits are glossing over, mentioning only what they invariably call "gaffes." Does anybody imagine for a second that the Trump Nasty Machine will gloss over anything? Do you think for a moment that Trump will not be calling Biden "loser?"
I do not understand why Biden is being pushed on us unless more people than will admit it are actually hoping for another Trump election, in which case, I would ask them why they would seek the final dismantling and destruction of our government, our environment, our nation ?
5
@Casual Observer
Harris is smart and articulate and will last about as long as Buttigieg and Booker.
1
Mayor Pete is the only centrist with the brains and compassion needed to run the country after the Trump disaster. As a resident of the country continuously quoted as the lode-star for Single Payer health care my assessment is that Americans are too uninformed to accept it in one fell swoop. If that is true then the two step process advocated by Buttegiege and Klobouchar is the only way coverage for all will be achieved.
The vast majority of Canadians would not want the American health system currently in place there given a choice. Perhaps you should do some research into how Tommy Douglas began the changeover here in the 1950's.
8
@654sea
Didn't Canadians achieve single-payer healthcare in one fell swoop. Whey can't Americans do this as well? The stupidity about it costing more neglects to mention the high cost that is now part of our system. Not only are the insurance companies getting a huge amount of the money paid, but so are high-priced doctors and hospitals. I would think companies who now subsidize healthcare for their employees would be able to supplement employees income with the savings that they would get from a single-payer system. The candidates need to talk more about the Canadian model and how it was achieved in your country.
1
The clear winner, best situated to beat Trump, is Bernie Sanders. My fear is that, once again, the DNC will figure out a way to block him
, as they would rather have Trump than upset the corporate status quo.
6
@Ellen
Bernie Sanders will be "blocked" because people won't vote for him... and it'll be his own fault (not that he'd actually admit it).
After screaming and yelling about how "unfair" the superdelegates were (despite the fact that the SD's never once, in their entire history, ever determined the outcome of the primary, Bernie pushed the effort to reduce the "power" of the SD's. However, as a compromise, the caucuses were also reduced from 19 states to 2 (Iowa and Nevada, both of which Bernie lost in 2016).
So, to recap...
To "fix" the historically powerless SuperDelegates, Bernie succeeded in eliminating every single Caucus that he won in 2016. Bernie is toast.
2
@James Constantino
And predictably, a member of the Clinton Cult, aka blame everybody but the Clintons, Chinese in.
In point of fact, much to the chagrin of Bernie supporters, Bernie raised Hillary's numbers back up when they were slumping by giving her a gigantic gift by declaring, "Enough with the damn emails!" She showed shock, surprise, then delight, nodded (always), said "yes,"thanked him (or did she?) - and she pulled out of the slump.
The DNC, the Clintons, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were abominable to Bernie.
We may be witnessing a recurrence.
I do wish Bernie could reduce his arm/finger gestures and vary his inflection because his content is important.
1
Moderators superior to the CNN moderators, asked good questions, let candidates spell out answers.
I loved Beto (9); was an opportunity finally for the nation to see why he has such a passionate following in Texas: he is not a dithering dilletante, but a good hearted, passionate human being, rare in politics. National media has cannibalized him, eliding he was the first out of the gate on immigration and climate change. But he has sacrificed his political career in Texas, where the right to be armed to the teeth is considered more sacred than Jesus.
Joe (7.5) likeable & I don't hold his political baggage against him. But the fellow is old and at times losing it. I do not see him living out two terms.
Bernie (7) never has gotten along with anyone in the Senate; a President must.
I like Warren (8), but don't think there's a chance she will get her plans enacted from the White House.
Booker (9.5) better and better, in many ways the most Presidential of the whole bunch, except for Klobuchar (8.5). If he were elected, the tenor of the nation would change, but Veep is the best he can do.
A Klobuchar/Booker ticket, completely unlikely, would be best. Imagine the actual office of the Presidency.My politics are to the left of her, but she might be able to get something done.I liked her point when guns came up:"let's not think about 2020 but right now." She talks about issues with the authority of already doing something, sometimes with already nuts/bolts results.
3
I just realized that the people who were unhappy with the debate because "free stuff," "weak ideas," and that sort of thing are most likely moderate Republicans who are looking for some sanity in the White House but can't bear the thought of government helping people, or want it severely limited.
Well unfortunately for them, this is the Democratic party and we believe in a government that works for the people, be it with public education, solid infrastructure, addressing climate change, or providing affordable heath care.
What moderate Republicans need to do is figure out how to get the lunatic out of the White House and run a candidate who shares their values.
And no, the Dem candidate is not doomed to lose because he or she cares about people. That is a myth. Warren is not a socialist, nor does she believe in giving to those who won't work to better their lives. She simply wants all of us to have a fair shake. That's all.
Once people (other than those of us who are addicted to politics) start paying closer attention, Warren is going to gain a lot of traction. And if not her, one of the others. Most of them have good ideas that will resonate with the American people.
5
I agree with most of your columnists. But none of them said about who could attract the Trump supporters in general elections. I put my money on Mayor Pete who could attract a wide range of voters.
4
@Jaque That's Yang among college students: https://collegepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Crosstabs_FifthDemocraticDebate.pdf
As I listened to these individuals talk about themselves and their 'accomplishments' I honestly thought I was watching a debate to become a mayor of a medium large city or the governor of a northeastern state. There was nothing presidential about it. Castro did seem to be running for the president of a snarky fraternity house and Warren as head of the CBO- and no one brought any vision or leadership qualities whatsoever. I miss Marianne Williamson.
1
Mr Biden may “Garble his words and stumble”, but attributing that to his age belies history. He’s been mistaking details (honestly) and stumbling over language since the 1980’s. Voters should consider him as a candidate based on his record and his campaign. Bud his age should not be an issue.
1
@fallen
If that is true, I would love to see some proof. He came across to me as someone who has trouble thinking clearly, especially under pressure.
2
@fallen No argument with you, but that’s why he never won as a Presidential candidate. He never had it.
3
Re: Yang. Y'all STILL don't get it. I've been skeptical about Yang too, but reserved judgement for the sake of my college age son who is a fan - along with a lot of his peers. What I saw last night, was a 21st C. candidate who seems to have tapped into the fatigue of politics-as-usual better than anyone: from Bernie, who's never had any other job than politics (with frankly, not a lot to show for 3 decades except for his purity-liberal oppositions), to Buttigieg, soldier-turned-mayor, who accidentally reinforced Yang's position by claiming that "we" need to trust the people to spend their own money. Yang's populism is clearly different from far right or left populism, as he does not claim to be the smartest, or "best" person in the room, and I'd trust him over ANY of the others to convene an effective and healthy cabinet of non-partisan experts. He could have pushed these points, but he really does seem to be committed to a positive campaign. Really? You're going to give weight to repetitive and generalized platitudes about struggling American families, and then call Yang's explicit talk about actual dollars, vulgar? Are you playing to NYT's readers only or are you really STILL that out of touch?
8
Interesting to see the variety. Here's mine.
Warren 9/10. I prefer Buttigieg/Castro on health care, but she answers questions directly (including when telling the questioner that what is being asked is the wrong question). The clear winner.
O'Rourke 8/10. The surprise of the night. His passion and intelligence shone. In the long run, though, he's better off beating Cornyn to become a TX senator to support Warren.
Buttigieg 8/10. Intelligent, transparent, passionate. With more experience, he could be a great president. But not quite yet.
Castro 7/10. Politics is not for the meek, and he was on target most of the night. He could be a good running mate.
Booker 7/10. Too much shouting at first, but as the night wore on, he got a lot better.
Harris 6/10. One liners do not substitute for substance.
Klobuchar 5/10. The bottom of the Grand Canyon is in the middle, and it is not a platform.
Yang 4/10. If he demonstrated any grasp of the job he wants, he could be better.
Biden 2/10. Tongue-tied, wanting the best of what others have done, and refusing to admit his big mistakes.
Sanders 1/10. Amazing that he can be so tone deaf when he only sings a single note. Maduro has nothing to do with Wall Street.
@beaujames
Pretty close to how I see it. Biggest difference is with Sanders...
All in all I thought there were a lot of good ideas last night. We need the 2 front runners to partner up as Pres and VP and offer the rest jobs in the administration. I truly feel that there are enough positions in the White House that they all can have major effects on climate change, health care, gun control, education, housing, international affairs etc
3
Not terribly informative. Warren needs to develop a response on health care that includes some estimate of costs. Castro shot himself in the foot and may want to consider dropping out. Beto may be positioning himself a VP material—he is quite a speaker. I wonder if Biden and Sanders have enough stamina. Harris redeemed herself by focusing on Trump. Booker may well be the best candidate out there, but I wonder if he is electable. Mayor Pete—I hope he is in the next administration. He is one articulate thoughtful dude, but is so young.
I am disappointed that the economy was not discussed. Economic data show growth deceleration. That does not mean decline or recession – yet. But, I do not have a clue how they will manage when the next recession rolls in. I don’t have a clue about dealing with the Trumpian deficit and Trumpian ballooning national debt. And, what of tax policy? Do we really need to have corporate rates so low? Remember, corporate profitability for the S&P 500 at at/very near historical highs, and since implementation, dividends & stock repurchases have increased.
3
Let's face it - money in a person's pocket and feeling that their work will lead them & their family to a better place IS THE ISSUE! Yes, it is time to 'bow out:' let's get down to moderate and progressive and have a real discussion - real facts - real figures: Klobichur, Buttigieg, Booker, Biden, Harris and Warren. Who will help take back the Senate and defeat trump? What they will do to fund health care & specifically, how will effect a family's bottom line (& I might add, how do they adjust an economy when health care is 17% of it now). What's the plan to rebuild our infrastructure, increase trade & provide a living wage across America. How and who will they rely upon to address voter suppression/criminal justice reform efforts etc, If they can't offer it up - BOOT THEM!
INFRASTRUCTURE!! Protecting America's most precious natural resource: clean, safe, abundant potable freshwater. The ENVIRONMENT!!
I liked Beto's ideas for using America's other precious resource: agricultural lands to combat climate change. Innovative and smart.
I'm ashamed that anybody cares what these folks think, and ashamed of myself for having read it. We are talking about countless people's lives, and not some kind of game show and snarky "analysis". Shame on us.
10
This just really shows how out of touch NYT opinion writers are with regular voting dems. (Though Maureen Dowd is always entertaining-thank you!) Sadly, the only opinions that really matter in this election are those of dem and independent voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. How about you ask those folks next time?
7
Harris comes off as extremely annoying; especially giggling and laughing the hardest at her jokes. Not presidential worthy. Booker has little depth - just a lot of passion and is a bit too much. Not sure I have found someone who is crisp and nonthreatening other than Mayo Pete but he seems not to have the battle scars and knowledge as Sanders and Warren. Not sure if the general electorate will buy Sanders. The candidates need to remind people that governing requires changing out #MoscowMitch. if anything is going to happen.
7
Where is Sarah Vowell? She gave these post-debate sum-ups a smart and particular voice, and a unique western, inland perspective.
3
@Robert Yup. Smartest and most incisive of all of them. Maybe that's why she's not been on the team for the last two "debates."
2
Just like everyone else, the editorial board - no Asian Americans - rated Yang very low because of race. Most women rated women candidates well (with few exceptions but consistent with prior beliefs about the candidates). The editorial board is not immune to bias and prior beliefs. Michelle Goldberg - I am yet to find one who thought like her! Hope your views aren't the real ones, because if they are, we may end up seeing the same nonsense next 5 years in the WH. That would be scary.
2
@Dave I meant 1k; the point's the same, for what it's worth.
@Dave I don't think it's about Yang being Asian American. More likely it's that they think his 10k per is a gimmick and not much more than that. The strange thing to me is that he is quite smart about lots of other things if he gets a chance to talk about them. But at times he is his own enemy at that because he seems unable to get off the 10k thing.
1
@Dave Because of race? REALLY!
Perhaps is because he used an American success story of LEGAL immigration which he used to support ILLEGAL immigration?
Perhaps it because he announced what is probably an ILLEGAL lottery which probably ILLEGALLY uses campaign money?
Perhaps because his presence is not presidential.
The man is an American success story because of hard work, but that does not make him presidential material. No matter what color his skin is.
2
Full disclosure: a Yang supporter here. Let's think harder.
To Tanzina Vega: Yang already qualified for Oct debate. You will see him again.
To all authors: In a country where 78% of people are living paycheck to paycheck, about half cannot afford a $500 unexpected bill, $1k/mo will be tremendous.
If Yang is correct in his diagnosis of Americans' problems and why Trump won (automation and economic distress), he should be receiving much more media attention than he's currently receiving now. Now that mainstream media's been giving him cold shoulders and likely will keep doing so (looking at you all, respectfully), this is the only way to get the word out to average Americans and so everyone can think and decide for themselves what $1k/mo will do for them and their families. Hint: freedom dividend's about everything but the money. Hence, the campaign slogan, "Make America Think Harder".
To all authors and readers: if you know people who $1k/mo might help. Please spread the word and encourage them to sign up.
2
@Naireip
I didn't watch the debate but I wonder if the $1k is tied into his points about automation. I think people who are calling it "ridiculous" haven't really thought about the idea, but actually basic income projects are being piloted around the world.
Here's primer for people who haven't heard about this idea:
https://www.investopedia.com/news/history-of-universal-basic-income/
"Started" to garble?
BIDEN: Well, they have to deal with the — look, there's institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Red-lining banks, making sure that we are in a position where — look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend from 15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise, the equal raise to getting out — the $60,000 level.
Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need — we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy.
The teachers are — I'm married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. We have — make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds go to school. School. Not daycare. School. We bring social workers in to homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.
It's not want they don't want to help. They don't — they don't know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the — the — make sure that kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school — a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.
1
Like the candidates, some of the commentators seem to be competing for the best one-liners, at the expense of genuine, in-depth analysis. As I watched, I saw ten people, all of whom would put Trump's reality TV improv approach to the presidency to shame. Yang in particular was spot on with immigration. The universal income thing isn't a pipe dream--it's been tried in Europe (and frankly it's similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is . . . money back for people stuck in low-wage employment traps--now there's a real issue for discussion).
The default narrative is that Biden 'won' because he didn't 'lose.' It's that kind of horse race logic, especially from the times, that builds on its own momentum. And that's what it's all about, right?? Which horse's odds improve, and where the bets get placed. And we're back to the money and the fact that corporate media have done well for themselves since Citizens United.
Please, do better yourselves. You're all intelligent and insightful. Provide some real commentary. Leave behind the snarky one-liners and the 10-point scoring system for dummies, and treat all of these people as serious candidates--they too are all smart, thoughtful, and infinitely better than the Clown-in-Chief (who apparently doesn't realize that any ratings bump he gets from an incoherent rant in his beloved Baltimore are probably the result of drinking games).
4
Loser: voters.
Winner: advertisers
These "debates" are nothing more than sound bite opportunities and advertisers salivating over the money this will rack in for them.
What did anyone learn from this debate? Any actual news? Any actual points? Anything new at all? None, zip.
This article reflects that perfectly. It is written like a fantasy sports review of Week 1 NFL. A breakdown of what the offense did well, what the defense was lacking and where the special teams could get a little better.
But, in the end, this is just bread and circus.
4
@kz
How are the advertisers the winners? I fast-forwarded through all of the commercials.
No one can complain that Trump is a “reality television” president and then announce the graded winners/losers of the Democratic debate as though last night’s event was The Gong Show.
9
All well and good.....
What we need to see is a poll that asks Republicans who they would vote for if they voted for a Democrat. The Democrats will need some cross over Republicans.
77
@steve Disagree with the premise that Dems need Repubs to cross over. If they turn out the base and win independents, they don’t need one single Republican vote based on demographics.
15
@steve
That did not work in 2016. Why do you think another Wall Steet Dem will get the job done in 2020?
The question is: who can bring out the Dem voters who wouldn't bother to vote for Hillary in 2016. And that answer is Bernie Sanders.
~
6
@steve
Agree - a beauty contest among Democrats doesn't tell us anything about how the non-Democrats (without whom a Democrat can't win) might vote. I doubt if many Republicans will vote for a Democrat though; it's independents who matter.
Also, forget nationwide polls - it's only the states that may affect the vote that matter. The rest have no say because of the Electoral College.
6
I’m consistently surprised at the positive reception Booker manages to get at these debates. He used Newark as his political launchpad and never looked back. Now, stranglely, on the campaign trail, Booker hardly references his record as a senator since 2013, but instead leans on Newark for folksy debate anecdotes. Meanwhile, crime is still terrible, the businesses that have moved in hardly help the communities there, and the schools still have a water crisis a la Flint, MI.
9
I will cheerfully vote for any of them against Trump.
That said, I am in favor of enforcing the nation's immigration laws, but I get the impression that some of the candidates are trying to avoid saying that. Immigration laws need to account for the current situation, probably with a guest worker program, enforcement at the employer level, citizenship for dreamers, compassion for refugees and deportation of illegal entrants. But I didn't hear that from any of the candidates.
There was insufficient attention paid to the reality that the idea of a massive shift in the health care system scares people. Obama care was a smaller shift, but the roll-out was botched. People are afraid of incomprehensible paperwork, long waits on hold, websites that don't work properly, trouble getting an appointment (what happens if you have more patients with the same number of doctors?) and, basically, being left without insurance for some unknown time period because they can't figure out how to get signed up.
We should have heard more about how to get to the goal of cost-effective universal health care without triggering those fears. But, we didn't hear much about that (somebody did mention it once).
I bring up these points because they are potential problems in the general election. Being too far left and scaring people will energize Trump's base and suppress the moderate Democratic vote.
It was Klobuchar who rose in my estimation last night, simply by being reasonable.
3
This was very helpful for those of us who were not able to watch the debate. Maybe consider not counting the highest and lowest scores in calculating the average.
I don't see how anyone can watch these debate and think Biden or Bernie are even remotely equip to be POTUS for 4 years into their 80s. Can we be real here and admit that's a ridiculous notion? How many of these debates can they flub before the media, and the VOTERS wake up to the fact that these should NOT be our front runners.
EW is the most consistent with the tightest message. Beto, Booker and Klobachar all had strong performances. The others were rather forgettable.
3
It was a mess.... a cringeworthy display of weak ideas, bad ideas and personal stories. Health care was trampled by the candidates picking at each other’s ideas; Pell grants for felons does not advance anything; and all the “freebies” played into the silliest stereotype of the Democratic Party. Ugh. Overall maybe a 3-4 out of 10 for the collective score?
109
@Joan
I agree. They got caught up in how competing on how much free stuff they were going to give away. That plays directly into the Republican arguments against Democrats. They are smarter than this, and need to show it.
19
@Joan
I'm going to take a gander and say that Pell grants for felons advances rehabilitation and reduces recidivism. Good idea!
And there are no "freebies" unless you consider roads, security and defense "free". Pretty sure we'll pay for Medicare for All with taxes but then we won't have to pay for health insurance.
57
@Khalid
" Pretty sure we'll pay for Medicare for All with taxes but then we won't have to pay for health insurance."
Exactly. I pay about $12000 a year to have my family on my employer health plan.
28
After watching these Dems try to outdo one another in lining up freebie$ for voters, based solely on raising taxes, I came away with the sorry realization that it's four more years.
74
@DaveD
If we're raising taxes it's not free, though you really don't have to. You can just reduce our bloated war budget.
36
@DaveD Is that an admission you'll take Trump over higher taxes?
21
Even these fine opinion writers give Biden a break when the rest of us know that he is too old and his ideas too stale to get people excited and to the polls. Just hating Trump will not do it this time around.
369
@Ed There are three candidates who are 70+ and the President is in his 70's---why is the focus of age only on Biden? People point out he has always been prone to gaffs. Age can be an issue to be sure, but why the focus mostly on Biden?
40
@DPS Maybe it’s because he acts so old...I’m 71 and would prefer Sanders or Warren rather than Biden. He’s just not as sharp as he needs to be to group against trump. He would concede too often, like he does now.
62
@DPS Absolutely, this ageist thing has to stop now. Biden's so-called gaffes have become pure groupthink. Other politicians and candidates are as prone to them as he but they don't get highlighted. Biden can win. He can pull us out of international quicksand. Our job now is to pick the best running mate.
34
Wow, I really like this idea of universal basic income, just let me know where to sign up for the free $1,000 per month.
I also want the extra $200 a month in Social Security, college loan forgiveness, free college for my grandkids, Medicare for all (including illegal immigrants), reparations for blacks and gays, Green New Deal and federal job guarantees—you know, all the free stuff the Democratic candidates have been promising recently and especially last night.
All of the fabulously wealthy individuals and corporations put together do not have enough money to pay the trillions of dollars required for all of these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class just to pay for free college, not to mention all of those other freebies. (For perspective, the annual US budget is about $4 trillion per year; by all means, let’s quadruple it or more to pay for all the free stuff.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Remember, folks, our goal is to elect a Democratic president in 2020, not to make Karl Marx smile in his grave. Free everything for everyone will get Trump re-elected.
124
@Mon Ray You guys are one of the wealthiest nations in the entire world. The big top corporations earn such a crazy amount and pay even a crazier amount of taxes (Crazy because it's barely anything). Also taxes are obviously going to get raised. Even for the middle class. That's how it works anywhere else for countries that are doing well. It's so simple it always surprises me how difficult it is for people to understand how it works.
I do understand there are difficulties with the US being as big of a country as it is. But the concept provided by the democrats have proven to work so many places in the world and it just takes time and effort. And trust me it is worth not having the anxiety of 'what if I get a heart attack and the ambulance comes and get me and I have to pay with much of my savings.'
234
@Mon Ray JUst an observation from afar . . . the idea of a guaranteed annual income isn't a socialist idea or even a communist one. It is supported by many Libertarians.
Labels are easy to apply but too often have no real meaning or else they mask ignorance of issues.
82
@Mon Ray: Could. Not. Agree. More.
5
Media is often criticized for not taking candidates seriously, influencing candidacies and elections because of it. This is an frequently quoted idea from past losing candidates and the American Public.
The writers here do nothing to change this commonly accepted viewpoint. To reaffirm, reread what the writers noted about Mr. Yang.
Mr. Yang idid not have a great performance last night, he will never be a front-runner and he is likely on the way out of the race. This is mostly due to the fervor of the current Democratic Caucus to swing from the hot-button issue to hot-button issue is at the time - gun control, then immigration, then abortion, then gun control, the impeachment, then health care, etc. while never sufficiently addressing a single real issue.
Whichever candidate deviates from this mold is chastised by the media. Mr. Yang is not a strong candidate. But his ideas deserve more merit than saying 'this is a not game show'. He brings new ideas and issues that many Americans have discussed before. Issues that are the root cause of many of the current problems America faces today.
They Democratic Caucus is playing a reactionary game and this worries me. Any good investor only plays a reactionary game if absolutely necessary. As a voter, I am an investor.
Unfortunately the Democratic Caucus is only being reactive, not proactive, and anyone who deviates from this is ruined by the Media.
3
As bad as Trump is, he is a shoe in for victory.
NY Times readers tend to be far left of the general public. I assure you most of the ideas being presented on these debate stages do not play well with average people.
2
@Dave
Assurances notwithstanding, you might want to check out the Pew site and its political polling. Fivethirtyeight.com as well. Public opinion has crept forward, apparently under your personal radar.
1
Why can't the Democratic establishment convince Joe Biden that he has served well and thank him for his service and to drop out of the race for president. His continued presence is not helping the party to come together to ultimately defeat Trump, which is priority one!
Why was there no conversation about women's reproductive rights being assailed? Why wasn't there more conversation about climate change? Why wasn't there more thought and conversation about eliminating guns, designed to kill people, and the simple notion of background checking!
These debates seem to try to cover too many issues in one sitting. Three hours is too long to keep everyone's interest at an optimal level. A suggestion for future debates is to publish the questions (3 or fewer) in advance and let the candidates study and prepare. This will provide a more comprehensive presentation by each candidate and thus point out their differences.
1
The all hands on deck debate format has been a laughable wreck from the beginning. It has exposed the weaknesses of many of the candidates as well as many of the journalists -- and the journalists' desperate need (and failure) to be in control. A friend suggested the RNC hire the DNC to run Trump's campaign because the DNC is already doing it so well.
1
The all hands on deck debate format has been a laughable wreck from the beginning. It has exposed the weaknesses of many of the candidates as well as many of the journalists -- and the journalists' desperate need (and failure) to be in control. A friend suggested the RNC hire the DNC to run Trump's campaign because the DNC is already doing it so well.
Everyone of last night's candidates would make a better president than the incumbent. Why must they tear each other down to build themselves up?
How about each of them acknowledging that they all represent a far better vision than Trump's (lack of one) and expound on what they can accomplish, rather than handing votes to the Republicans by touting each others' perceived deficiencies?
1
If I needed to trust someone to make a well-thought out and considerate decision, understand issues deeply and articulate them to intelligent people on both sides of the aisle, I would go with Pete. He may not have the charisma of Booker, the experience of Biden, the creativity of Yang but I would feel more secure with him managing things than any of these. As for Warren and Sanders, I worry they would try to skip steps along the way and swing to the extreme of Trump. Castro degraded himself, I found Harris tiresome, Beto was better but not there, Klobuchar was good and I'd want her in my corner but not the chief. Maybe Pete needs another 4 or 8 years but in my opinion he's the best. I would have no problem with a Biden - Buttigieg ticket.
David Leonhardt's ratings came closest to the average for the candidates. His comments were similarly cogent and pithy. He is the pundit to watch in this race
2
I'm glad Maureen Dowd explained her phrase going "all Brechtian" describing KHarris. I'm a Brecht fan and I wasn't sure what she was talking about in this context.
For Down alone, I guess, talking to the audience is uniquely "Brechtian".
But I guess the calculated word choice gave Dowd appearance of being cultured to the uncultured.
2
I can't watch political "debates" or any political speechifying. It's all a lot of hot air and policy promises. There's a certain manipulative emotionality that's intolerable and phony. I don't understand how anyone can listen to this stuff and take it seriously.
I will vote for Warren. Please, don't raise my income taxes.
2
@Old Hominid There is not a single candidate who will not raise your taxes. Dreaming otherwise is an escape from reality.
Should they not raise taxes to attempt to pay for a small portion of their giveaways, the bankruptcy will do far more worse damage. What happens when the world loses faith in us and stops lending us money?
Ever heard of the Weimar Republic? We are already on track to repeat their downfall.
Why does the NYT "score" the debate as if they were rating a movie? Why encourage the morphing of politics into entertainment? Haven't we seen enough of that with Trump's rise? And time for the Dems to stop self-flagellating! I'd argue TV debates- yes even between the eventual two nominees - will fade in importance as we move into 2020. I believe the Democrats will need a strategy for winning that is equivalent to a ground war: hundreds of thousands of block to block encounters/coffee klatches/small gatherings with the nominee and his/her surrogates in every small town, rural area and city block that could possibly be in play. Forget the big blitz dropping from the sky ads/social media distractions and distortions. Old style campaigning backed by tons of tech analysis of voter data. This is a must not lose election looming.
1
I'm surprised at the low opinion the NYT Picks had of the debates and/or the candidates. I liked comparing. More subjects will be addressed in the future.
To John D--after 3+ years of zero intelligence, mindfulness, cooperation, responsibility from this administration, I think voters are craving an intelligent candidate.
To Joan of Ohio--perhaps grants for higher education and social services do not appeal to you. If you have enough income from annuities and investments, I'm sure you will not need Social Security or Medicare. But the majority of Americans do, and are interested in these protections.
To RMB in Florida, just calling Biden "Uncle Joe" saps any sense of vitality from the guy. Your dad may be smarter. But Biden has difficulty with enunciation, he cannot seem to string a clear idea together, especially when he's cranky and defensive, and he has no plan for how to govern the U.S.
To David D. of Wisconsin -- if you never had to pay another healthcare deductible, premium, co-pay or other fee, that would put a considerable sum of money in your budget, yes?
If you had to pay 1/3 to 1/2 of that sum in extra tax, so everyone could have healthcare, you would still be ahead, yes?
If you do not want to pay taxes, you can move to Greece.
1
Why is Peter Wehner even included in this piece. He's a Republican and he basically dissed all the candidates.
Booker could lift a ticket as VP if he would relax, stop his wide-eyed fervor (usually when sort of preaching). He must try less hard.
Alas- this is now about TV persona & delivery. Trump has a grubby populist voice--unpretentious, crude, carrying mostly extreme emotion delivered with total conviction. This is the con mans secret sauce...confidence (i.e. Confidence man). It has worked so far, yet there is now cumulative exhaustion. Most hard-working folks, busy families, ambitious creative youth do not want to face daily tumult & squawk.
Harris tried to get down, but she must modify her nasality and add gravitas.
Of course, Biden must say less but speak with edge.No more dithering.
Sanders is too flushed & should clear his throat; shouting tends to indicate his personal indignation and not so much an exhortation to us.
All these candidates need a drama/voice coach- NOW. This has nothing to do with authenticity- it has to do with the reality that Trump has made this a theater of performance not cogent ideas. No good policies will come to life without a chief salesperson.
1
It really dismays me that most of the comments were about "moments". I still say that Amy Klobuchar is the best candidate the democrats can put forward. She can win where the other candidates can't, she has energy and has shown (Kavenaugh hearings) that she won't back down. I like it that she gives "mom" answers. After the last four years, we need a sensible, pragmatic person in office who won't push moderate voters away -- especially in the suburbs where DJT is most vulnerable. Bring boring back!
1
Pretty predictable comments and scores based on the bias of these columnists. I would like to know how they would score the candidates if they only read the remarks but didn't know who said them.
And I'm sorry Gail but Yang's "freedom" dividend makes a lot of sense when you actually understand it and do the math (although it works better at $2000 a month)
Step it up folks you are way to predictable in your scoring.
2
The debate was full of hollow promises and no calls to action of any kind.
O’Rourke is going to take the AK-47s and AR-15s away – how does he expect that to be done?
Saunders is going to give us “Medicare for all” – how is that going to work?
Biden promises to call Barack Obama on every critical decision – sort of the way the Medvedev - Putin presidency was run.
Warren has great plans, but no real route to get them accomplished. Nixon couldn’t get the WW2 Quonset huts off the White house lawn despite several temper tantrums. Do you think Warren has the personality and skills to do even that?
Let’s not talk about Harris, she can’t even deliver a humorous comment.
Trump has the attitude that he should get what he wants and his cabinet exists to make than happen. An executive action here, a Supreme Court nomination there, a couple of firings here and there to keep people on message and Trump is molding the U.S. to fit into “Trump Land” - daddy lets go to Trump Land and ride the spinning tea cups - were already there.
I don’t see a single Democratic candidate stating that his primary day one action will be to use ”Executive Privilege” to undo what Trump has done to climate change, gun control, etc.
Instead of going to a fancy ball, the Democratic President should immediately call a national emergency and
begin signing executive orders to restore order.
There’s no one in this crowd smart enough and tough enough to fix anything.
1
Somehow these observations are a mess. They seem to be comparing the candidates to polls and arbitrary measures and then miss what makes a person the POTUS. We all know facts, DETAILED PLANS don't survive. Especially since n the age of Trump! & Look at Trump, elected with no idea (or ability) how to govern. We know Clinton blew Trump out of the water in their debates...but look who is in WH! (even if Russua helped him, he was close enough to "win"). SO...let's start looking at the chemistry of the candidates. WHO is a leader!!! The details will come later. AND let's not fall for polls. Let's evaluate candidates on leadership...forget: one liners and "experience" look for the one who inspires, the one who you want to represent America.
Sanders/Warren all the way.
Decency at last.
2
After reading the article, as well as many of the comments here, I'm afraid the Dems will blow it again, this time by leaving themselves vulnerable to RepucliCONs' claims that "the socialists are going to give everything away, and then they're going to take your guns!"
That's why the more I listen, the more convinced I am that the candidates with the best chance of winning the general are those with moderate policies and ideas, and Middle America appeal.
Klobuchar/Buttigieg ticket, anyone?
1
Could some candidate roll up everyone’s good ideas into one package? Waiting
There were debates on TV? Who knew?
How is Biden still the front runner?! My guess is that corporations are the only ones propping him up. His garbled response to a response he had years ago about segregation in schools was Trumpesque. He never completed a single statement and went in 15 directions, never answering the question. He never won a run for the Presidency before, and it's too late. Desperado.
2
Anybody, but anybody, except Trump.
Anybody.
1
Some of the Times columnists are back at it with their characterization of Sanders as a "cranky old uncle," "shoutier" (not really a word, actually), "angry old uncle,"etc. They did it in 2016 when they were oh-so-hot for Clinton. They were wrong then; they're wrong now.
2
Commentators, very disappointed in your brushoff of Yang. It was not a gimmick;- it is *literally* his policy in action. You did an entire "Daily" episode about his UBI policy proposal and how it will be funded and his proposed safeguards, and still you give him no credit for speaking to the youth demographic and understanding our sense of urgency. Did you not hear the crowd cheering at him?
Anyway, Warren is the best qualified to be our president.
2
My suggestion for campaign slogan/bumper sticker if there's a Biden/Sanders ticket:
"Hey, You, Get Off My Lawn!"
Bernie is looking more “Old man yells at cloud”
Biden is looking more “Old man forgets to wear pants”
Beto is looking more coherent
Klobuchar and Castro are looking like they should drop out
Warren is looking more presidential
Yang should be in charge of the money
Cory and Kamala are looking at cabinet positions
Still thinking "Mr. EQ" Buttigeig is Veep material
3
Castro is too braggadocious and was downright rude attacking Biden on a personal level. Not good.
Bernie turned me off-- way to strident and came off like a crotchety old man. I can only take him in small doses, can't imagine listening to him every day as president. Also condescending and not particularly friendly.
Like Yang-- a lot-- but not for POTUS. I think he would be a good cabinet choice for HUD.
Booker is eloquent, very likable and smart. There is no doubt that he is a leader but I think he is too nice to take on Trump.
Klobuchar too safe. Obviously sweet and smart but dreadfully boring, would be eaten alive by Trump.
Love Buttegeig but lost some steam. Would be a great senator or chief of staff.
Not feeling it with Harris. More likable last night but I don't find her genuine, lacks humility and too canned.
Biden was steady and steadfast. Compared to Bernie, he was much more vibrant and energized. Clearly, no one matches Biden's experience.
Warren was a bit tamer but she is sharp and so relatable. She can go toe to toe with Trump and would make a very good POTUS. Her healthcare goals seem unrealistic and needs clarification as to costs. She could also use some preening, some fresh outfits, and a new hair-do so she doesn't look like she just got out of bed
Loved Beto and his passion -- not ready for president but a great leader to lead the charge on guns for sure.
@C Hernandez Warren needs new eyeglass frames. Lose the Frameless, Liz.
Warren won by a hair, beating out both Biden and Sanders. Actually, Biden lost to everyone on the stage! Phonograph? Really?
It's interesting to see that Maureen Dowd learned zero lessons from 2016. She had nothing particularly positive to say about any of our candidates but she saved her pettiest jabs for the female front runner. She pins the Republican flag on Elizabeth's chest with the free stuff jab and then disparages her intelligence by labeling her as a lecturer.
All of these little swats will resonate loudly with misogynists whom I assume are Maureen Dowd's base.
1
Castro needs to quit. It was pathetic to age-bait Biden like he did. He was completely wrong too. Doubly bad for a guy that no longer has any self-respect. Go back to irrelevance.
1
Reading the reviews? The writers come off as jaded as they certainly are. Democrats have perfected the circular firing squad. The media supports that model. Personally? I like the solid steadiness of Klobuchar, the innovative bluntness of Yang, and the from the gut take of Buttigieg. So do many of my friends. The rest can take a hike. I'm done with male (and female) 70 somethings making policy on things they will never personally experience. Who's time has zipped right past them. New blood wins for me.
1
"Joe Biden:
Mimi Swartz (5/10) — He started out with guns blazing, but by mid-debate he seemed to run out of ammunition."
SERIOUSLY? Still using this type of language? From an editor at Texas Monthly?
Pathetic.
2
Wow. One would think that the our world of identity politics would have resulted in Castro getting cleaved from the herd with his raging ageism. Nope. While only labeled as snarky by a couple of the Times opiners he scored an attaboy from at least one. I guess the "old white man" label is still A-okay with the kinda socially conscious paper of record.
3
Oh, for gosh sakes, get Maureen Dowd out of this lineup.
She is highly prejudiced, understands nothing, and is cynical beyond acceptability in political commentary.
3
If we go to Medicare for all, then companies that arranged and (partially) paid for health care for their employees will have a huge windfall. This windfall could be given to employees as higher wages (which they could use to pay for the higher Medicare-for-all taxes), or taxed directly to help pay for Medicare for all. Or it could go to investors through increased dividends and stock buybacks.
If we try to go to Medicare for all, there will be a giant fight to stick somebody else with the bill and to use sticking somebody with the bill for political advantage. Such fights are won by those who are best at scaring people rather than those with the best ideas, particularly because there is no agreement on how to decide what is best or whose idea of best to listen to.
Making our health care system come closer to those of other countries in terms of efficiency or cost-effectiveness will render companies less profitable and cost jobs. If we come close, we will eliminate three or four percent of our economy, and we resist government planning or intervention to smooth the transition.
We seem to be stuck with an overpriced health care system because we have no way to get to any of the better, more efficient ones that other countries have. This is how our present overpriced system defends itself and traps us.
1
As currently produced, debates are going the way of the record player. The debate forces each candidate to strategize how to rope in the most voters; what magic set of phrases will catch the most people’s ears. What is needed is to ask the exact same questions to each candidate, without them all being together, and let the voters decide.
You folks don’t seem to understand the Midwest. Amy Klobuchar is the candidate to deliver all the states in this region. As much as I dream about a Warren presidency, she is too far left for the independent voters. Klobuchar has an incredible record appealing to a broad spectrum of the electorate. The revolution will have to wait.
1
I think Bernie and Biden and Harris should exit the race. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are identical in terms of policy, but Elizabeth is a more effective messenger. She seems to want it more. Both Bernie and Biden appear to be running as a matter of course. They seem to be highly ambivalent, just going through the motions, and I don’t think either will be the nominee. Harris hasn’t thought through why she is running for President. She seems to have thrown her hat in the ring because she’s successful and ambitious and has a shot, but the other candidates come across as much more thoughtful, their agendas coherent.
I agree with all who lament the media coverage and debate format the privilege these front runners to the expense of other lower polling candidates. If Bernie and Biden will step aside, the race and it’s coverage will get more interesting. The moderate vs progressive, Warren and Bernie vs Biden narrative is tired, and meaningless to me because Biden, though likeable and far superior to Trump, doesn’t really have a shot at the nomination. If we nominate someone who doesn’t really want the job, we will lose.
Yang is a serious candidate and Klobuchar, Harris, and Buttgieg dropped in my estimation when they laughed at him. Are they unfamiliar with his platform? Klobuchar just finished saying how she wants to be a president for all Americans, and then laughs at a fellow candidate? True colors. I’d still vote for them, but it was unseemly.
Pete Wehner thinks that Amy Klobuchar "came across as thoroughly uncharismatic."
This is exactly what America needs: a worker, not a movie star. This is not Gilligan's Island.
4
Mandatory Medicare, gun confiscations and reparations are not going to play in Peoria.
Sensible gun legislation (limiting military features and high capacity magazines, expanded background checks and "red flag" legislation), public option "choice" health care insurance, and serious reform of criminal justice and education to attack systemic racism is the way to get Americans to vote Democrat in 2019.
Vision is great, but too radical is unelectable. Americans, sadly, are also not ready to elect a gay man who is married to another man as president. And Democrats are not saying, but are thinking, that it is too soon for another black president given the backlash over Obama that gave us a Trump presidency. If any candidate other than Booker, Buttigieg or Bernie can move toward the center, they have a shot. Except for Klobuchar, who seriously lacks charisma.
@Paul So Gabbard is your candidate, right? Oh, wait, she wasn't there.... Thanks to the DNC, which cannot get over that she left as VP over their treatment of Sanders in 2016.
I preferred the format of the CNN Climate discussions. We have real problems that need more than a 90 second answer.
But it was somewhat informative to watch the sparring and posturing. There are a couple of candidates I feel comfortable crossing off my list.
1
I wonder if any of these candidates could tell us what "establishment of religion" means, in the context of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Not a soul in media or politics will ask the question.
2
For the most part it wasn't a debate just a 3 hour long chance for the candidates to practice stump speeches. We don't elect Presidents based on their policies but much more on their presence. We want someone to lead, someone dynamic.
The fact that Beto stood out so much is a reminder that none of the other candidates are willing to say what they truly believe. Of course O'Rourke knows he won't win this thing and he has that luxury. But isn't it refreshing to hear a politican say something that's just plain true, without any "triangulation?"
The Democrat candidates are all pulling their punches, but Trump never does this.
2
The debate still left me on the fence with whom I will support in the VA primary. As a former moderate Never Trump Republican, I believe the Democrats need to nominate a moderate candidate. The popular vote has nothing to do with winning the White House. The Democrats must appeal to both Independents and moderate Republicans that are fed up with the Trump Administration. The Democrats must also gain control of the Senate, to wield any real power, especially with regards to the Courts. Otherwise our Country will be held in limbo for at least another four more years and maybe longer.
The only moderates I see are Biden, Klobuchar, Harris and Buttigeige. I thought Joe, held his ground well, as did Amy, Kamala and Pete. With that said I also find both Warren and Sanders to be appealing. I found Beto authentic and likeable. I found Booker inspireing. I found Wang out of his depth but interesting. I found Castro annoying. Regardless of who wins the Nomination, I will support him or her in November, 2020.
1
interesting how opinions vary. i wonder what the "scores" would have been had there been no polls, no predispositions.
we liked warren. she's a professional debater. but in addition to her, we also favored klobuchar and booker. wouldn't mind a klobuchar/booker ticket, in fact. they made the most sense, made it less like a competition or an entertainment.
the questioners should not be professional journalists. they interfered with, and seemed intent on substituting for, the candidates.
3
Given the past couple of years of the Trumpian barrage, the voters actually come out ahead whenever multiple views about democracy are aired and discussed by articulate and informed people. Candidates shouldn't be dismissed or demeaned in quick 'opinion polls' simply because every nuanced piece of info isn't discussed. That way leads to another term (or more) for Trumpworld.
1
These shouldn't be debates. There should be a predefined list of questions, so each candidate can clearly express what they stand for on each subject. The audience can tune in to what interests them. There should be one question for each at the end that is designed for them alone to answer a question about their past. These attack questions with one minute to answer serve no purpose.
2
It was less of a bar brawl this time around but it did little to change my opinions. What is beginning to show is the bias held by the pundits contributing to this article.
It's pretty clear some will not be voting for a white man regardless of policy and some may once again spend 4 years apologizing for helping to elect Trump to a second term.
The fact remains that the primaries are still months away and the general is more than a year out. The bumper sticker on my car says "The Democrat 2020" and that is exactly who I'll be voting for.
Political debates are a lot like the U.S. Open. Everyone there knows how to play tennis. The difference is in the mindset.
The NY Times writers are high-information voters with a large stake in maintaining the status quo. Can they predict the views of low-information voters with less at stake? Or how a candidate might neutralize the burn-it-all-down nihilism that animates so many of the stakeless?
The candidates know where their campaigns must ultimately fight and win. They aren’t on the stage to debate ideas, any more than a player in the U.S. Open is standing on the court to deliver serves.
In the first debate, Buttigieg was eloquent, and O'Rourke came off as a mannequin, an empty suit. This time around, they reversed roles. (That gives me no joy: I'm moderate and gay, and Mayor Pete's a sentimental favorite.)
I worry about Biden facing off with Trump. "Electability"? How's it gonna play when Biden says, "Now, here's the deal," and starts stammering incoherently in the face of Trump's heartless glare? Pity (and a slipshod performance) won't win the election, sad and scary as that may be.
Mean-spiritedness is Trump's brand, and no one is projecting a vision of decency and unity in a way that can make it stick. Sad and scary, indeed.
2
@Mitchell What makes you think Trump is going to debate anyone at all?
@GP He'll go for a debate with Biden, figuring he can whip him. I'm not all that sure he can. As stumbling and bumbling as Biden is, he's got ammunition to go after Trump, and could do it--maybe.
@GP
Theater of cruelty? It's Trump's chosen brand of reality TV.
One of the best responses of the night was from Andrew Yang regarding education. It's true that the majority of outcomes for children is based on what happens at home, not inside the classroom. Yet the way Americans and politicians talk about education places way too many unfair expectations just on teachers. To close the achievement gap with the most vulnerable kids we need to focus not just on raising educational standards and paying teachers more; we meed to address the effects of poverty and instability at home. Addressing social and emotional needs, and helping families more holistically is key. (Look at Le Bron's Promise School as an example.) It was refreshing to hear this truth on a political debate stage, as well as Beto's normalizing the idea that we should take away weapons of war from any American who's not actually fighting in a war.
I'm still welcoming the broader range of candidates if they can keep contributing to the conversation. There's still time to choose a "winner" and ultimately, these debates remind me that we're still a democracy, despite what's currently happening in the White House.
3
@DTTM As a former teacher and a parent who had kids in the Oakland public schools, I agree with Yang as well. Try teaching writing to students from households where there is not a single book and never has been.
2
Conformity does not make for lively debate. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson were sorely missed. All the predictable "me too" and "me too,but" statements and quibbles over confusing details were Sameness Overkill.
Where were the distinct and different voices? Where was the provocative soul-searching and the down-to-earth policy realism of the earlier debates? Gone with Tulsi and Marianne and John Delaney.
Thrown down the rabbit hole by the DNC?
3
Do you ever compare your male opinions to your female opinions on the male and female candidates (let's do it without correcting for the age and appearance of those candidates too) -- I see some interesting stats adding up here.
2
So, essentially, the editors' takeaways from a 3 hour debate are that nobody on stage is "woke" enough, engaging enough, or radical enough? You are all shamefully out of touch. Thankfully, the American people aren't having it. You will see Biden's poll numbers bolstered, your niche issue-of-the-week candidates plummet, and a plunge in your subscribers.
The circular firing squad continues! Only this time by ramblings and irresponsible pot-shots directed at lifelong public servants. Might I suggest the editors view the debates not through the lens of their Manhattan ivory towers, but through the eyes of the average American voter. Shame on you.
8
@Chris What makes you think that they can actually do that? I too marvel at how out of touch they are, as are many of the Democrats from the Northeast and the West Coast strip. Wait until the Iowa caucuses when (probably) Collins, et. al. complain about having to go there and how boring the people are, or something like that. It's not merely that they don't get it; it's that don't and disparage it.
2
David Leonhardt states "Extra credit for saying that, yes, he wants to take away guns that are designed to kill people." Are not all guns designed to kill people?
3
It's amazing how Andrew Yang's UBI is dismissed out of hand as a gimmick. When I consider the future of work as it relates to my children, I am terrified. Jobs are being automated away at an alarming rate. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the candidates cannot explain what AI is or anything about AI's current capabilities. These commentators, by all accounts, are equally as ignorant. Elon Musk has called AI, "humanities biggest existential threat." Bill Gates cannot understand why people are not more concerned about AI. The late Stephen Hawking said that AI could, "spell the end of the human race." China believes that whoever builds the best AI will control the world. The technology is being implemented now across America. It is automating drive thru's, it is the new call center voice, it is reading medical images, it will soon be driving trucks and cars. It is transforming military strategies and will undermine the traditional balance-of-power. It's real and happening and the only candidate talking about this at all is Andrew Yang. Yet our wonderful media brushes him under the rug in favor of Uncle Joe who probably can't operate his TV remote. I am sending out a request to all journalists covering this race to simply ask each candidate to explain what AI is, what are AI's current capabilties and why it is an important issue. This way, we'll understand how ignorant they really are.
11
@KC
You're absolutely on-point about artificial intelligence and UBI. Unfortunately, Yang's "instant cash" ploy came across as an election gimmick. Yang might have the goods, but that gimmick cheapened his brand.
3
@KC I agree wholeheartedly. Andrew Yang is the only one talking about this. It's like talking about climate change in 1985, though...the pundits don't want to listen, and look where we are now.
3
Amy Klobuchar may be a milquetoast candidate but she is rock solid and in line with an electable progressive agenda. More importantly, she could tear Trump limb from limb at any level of debate and remain standing because she doesn't have the kind of assailable qualities-- intense passion, charisma, "bold policies" -- that Trump goes for in his attempts to bully or belittle. After 3 years of Trump, I am weary of passion and boldness- I want stoic, staid mid-western progressivism with muscle that can get our liberal democracy back on track.
8
Is this like golf? Lowest score wins?
4
None of these candidates will win in 2020. I try to listen intently when Biden speaks but he’s hard to understand. His stuttering and stammering ramblings are disjointed and hard to follow. He seems to have a dementia problem and can only see him getting progressively worse over time. Warren has zero charisma and appears mean and her shrill voice is irritating. The rest are wannabe politicians except Yang is the most intelligent and and honest. Buttagrieg is gay and the US will not elect a gay president. 1% Beto is all you need to know. Oh yeah and then there is crazy Bernie. He’s like a broken communist record. Lenin would definitely have thought of him as a “useful idiot”. No one here will have an alternative to the the success created by President Trump. Immigration will be the issue and all of these candidates want open borders and the dissolution of American sovereignty. You cannot have the one without the other.
4
@Sven Gall I agree with you 100%. Great detailed and concise post.
1
All losers. Not a single strong candidate, one with charisma and good ideas. Trump is sitting in the oval office figuring out whether to flambe this one or bbq that one.
If Liz Warren is your winner, Houston, you've got a problem. So first she steals a Native American identity and now she's stolen Bernie's platform. And if you think Bernie's platform will win over most of America, you got another thought coming.
Anyway you cut it, Warren is annoying when she speaks, she comes across like your mean maiden aunt who wants to get even with the world for some perceived affront. Actually, she comes across like Carrie Nation or some other outraged advocate for temperance. And if you don't think Trump and the GOP won't destroy her over her stint as NA, then you've got another thought coming.
That leaves Biden who is both old and slow and so mainstream. Bernie, an avowed socialist who has never done an honest day's work in his life and never accomplished anything in congress except bray like a donkey (this may tell you how low the dems have fallen if he's still one of the leaders), Harris who I initially liked but can't hold it together, then the six losers. Can anyone really see Beto as prez? Or Sparcatus (sic) -- or mayor Pete who can't manage his own city. I kind of like Amy Klobuchar, but she isn't a member of the commie party she has no chance.
If I were the dems (thank goodness I'm not) I'd find a young, charismatic, middle of the road candidate.
3
@Ralphie you sound way too much like trump to be taken seriously. Try not to be so nasty next time.
1
@Ralphie
Wow! Fox News much?
I don't care for them all either and It's definitely going to be by a matter of degree but every last one of them would represent a major upgrade to the abject failure we have blustering about the Oval Office now.
1
@Ralphie You might want to check out Sanders' work on veterans' affairs. By "honest day's work," do you mean hard physical labor? If so, you might be right, but that doesn't mean he isn't right. Remember there were many Trump voters who picked him as their second choice, and vice-versa. That didn't surprise me at all, nor did it surprise me that Trump's pitch was a lie. Actually the pitch was more like the hidden ball trick. One las t thing: I do know about hard physical labor and long hours. I did it growing up on a farm and throughout my life, though not in my primary job.
1
Why is Andrew Yang still here?
@Tracy He's the only candidate talking about the societal and economic problems of AI and automation, and a lot of people understand the enormity of that.
3
America does not need a president named Castro. Thank you.
2
Booker sounds like he's scolding and/or preaching no matter the question. Harris sounds like she's had a few too many with the girls after work. Castro can't decide if he's Latino or not. Wang will have us all turned into human algorithms with AI brains and hydraulic fluid for blood. Beto comes off half-speed sleepy with the sedative dosing to make him look less manic-puppet, more presidential. Amy had a very good night. Joe knows Bo and Obama and remains solid. Liz and Bernie are so smart and so right but are they too transformative too quickly? Mayor Pete is the gold standard but maybe it's best to keep his personal life on hold and wait a couple of elections when his partner can be interviewed by his side early on. Biden-Klobuchar? That's a battle ground fighting machine. My spell check didn't kick in on her name yet but . . . there's time.
2
Omg, can't we just prorogue this thing and start the primary voting already?
2
Beto favors "reparations"? From whom? From this immigrant who arrived in the US a century after slavery was abolished, whose grandparents suffered persecution and confinement in the Pale, who marched in DC arm in arm with Blacks in the 60s?
From whom should I demand reparations? The Cossacks who attacked, raped, slaughtered my grandparent's friends a century ago?
Utter nonsense. That manchild needs to go get his teeth cleaned on camera again. They are clogged with his teen-age understanding of reality.
Not a chance.
4
@Austin Liberal
This how fights get started at my dinner table but I've got to agree with you.
I'm first generation on my Dad's side, second on my Mom's. My Grandfather got the daylights beaten out of him more than once for trying to organize dock workers in New York and Jersey. My Dad helped to integrate NJ's Public Service unions in Newark in the 60s. What exactly is my familie's debt?
3
@Austin Liberal How about the relatives of all those Jewish kids denied entrance to the US during WWII and who perished after they were sent back to Europe? I take your points.
"The middle lane is occupied."
I don't agree at all that there could only be one moderate candidate, because certainly there are multiple progressive candidates. Klobuchar is not a clone of Biden and they bring different strengths. I think Maureen Dowd's easy dismissal of Amy Klobuchar is a lazy contribution. Isn't that what you get paid to do, is for your insights?
3
Why is it that in each of the debate evaluations it seems as if Maureen Dowd either hasten't bothered to watch the debate. Short pithy statements are forgettable after the third, fourth, fifth...
3
Why do these pundits and the media constantly focus on taxes? I feel that's straight from the Corruplican playbook. At every debate they ask "Will taxes increase for the middle class?". These idiots don't even realize that its not about taxes but about cost. We need lower costs for healthcare not lower taxes for healthcare.
5
Here's the problem with this panel. In a party where Black and Latinx voters are going to be crucial you've got exactly one Black and one Latinx. The balance is all off. And why have so many Republicans commenting on a Democratic primary debate? Outta whack!
2
@art strimling
Harris? Does Jamaica not count? The problem--if it is one--is there is too much identity politics rather that policy that helps and lifts all Americans.
1
@Melanye Price ....You are 100% correct. Biden was incoherent and condescendingly racist: ‘send social workers into the homes to teach people how to raise their kids’? ‘Turn off the television and put on the record player’? Biden was struggling with cognition is behind the times, and offers simplistic solutions. Biden cannot be the nominee. Young African Americans do not want a third Obama and they will not vote for Joe. Biden oozes patronizing racism.
3
Why is Maureen Dowd’s opinion still being sought in this item? Her pithy comments add nothing to the analysis. She comes across as auditioning to host a late night talk show, but honestly, her lines aren’t funny enough. She is neither entertaining nor insightful.
3
They ALL lose. LOL!
2
Maybe you folks just shouldn't do these kinds of pieces, you come across like a high school gossip team.
Focus on the issues, will ya?
6
Instead of focusing on giving away things, they should of focused on American anxiety regarding job security, housing and school affordability and just plain living security. Trump is going to wipe these idiots out by talking to the rust belt about there concerns. Don't they get it?
3
Ross's rating of Amy Klobuchar on the graphic is different than the text.
1
Nowadays, to give the appearance of sagacity, all you need do is utter the words "free stuff'. Liberal and conservative alike. It constantly amazes me (having lived in a society where health care is a given) that people are terrified of TAXES, yet fail to take into account the enormous savings to be realized by cutting out the dollars wasted on...
administrative costs
insurance industry profits
adversarial "claims experts"--at insurance companies and doctors' offices alike, who suck up dollars and produce nothing of value
Eliminating these alone would reduce costs by a third or more, to say nothing of controls on drug prices and hospital billing. We could reduce our annual tab by half; which means we'd spend about as much as other countries. For universal coverage.
But really--what's better--the democratic socialist way, or muttering "free stuff" while paying more for less, living with the nightmare of denied coverage, medical bankruptcy, medication rationing, pre-existing conditions, the annual policy switch merry-go-round, the astronomical mystery billing, staying in the job you hate, and the constraint on entrepreneurship?
We don't have to put up with all that. In Australia, there's an extra tax devoted to health care. Yes, T-A-X. It's 2% of income. For the math challenged...if you earn 100K, you'd pay $2000 annually. Universal coverage. Dental, eye care. Low out-of-pocket cap. Sound good?--or would you rather "keep your insurance"?
4
Why do we Americans always like and gravitate toward people who are "energetic" or "charismatic"? Why are we obsessed with the performance, more than any other element?
Much of this opinion is not about which plans made sense, but which people made the strongest impression.
We pretend to be interested in substance, policies and positions. But at the end of the day people are only interested in how loud a person yelled a good soundbite.
"Light is fading..." or "Nice Gimmick".
And the people who performed in the most vociferous way - this is what is memorable to us? The loudest, biggest personality?
Gee, I wonder why we have who we have in office today...
4
When are we going to hear about foreign policy? I want to know how far these candidates are willing to follow Israel into war with Iran, absorption and settlement of the Golan and West Bank, and pussyfooting with Saudi Arabia. What's their Middle East peace plan? I want to know about our commitment to NATO and how we are going to compete with China in Africa. The question on withdrawing from Afghanistan should have been followed up with an acceptance of massacres and ISIS in the aftermath -- wars are easier to engage than responsibly withdraw from, unfortunately. What's their moral calculus on wrapping up these misguided foreign adventures?
9
I guess I watched a different debate. Joe is still the most electable, in my book. Your writers just don't seem to like him.
2
We are watching the descent of President Trump on a daily basis in front of the entire world, he could barely pronounce his own VP's name last night. Old age is tough and to remain sharp while you do it is nearly impossible, why are so many people willing to take a step backwards and stick with Vice President Biden when he clearly is not the best candidate? He is a good man but he also is very out of step, can we really expect to excite young people and bring in more donors and people to the party if we look backward? The failure to look forward or catch on to new ideas is something that both Trump and Biden suffer from. A simple lightbulb has Trump flummoxed. We took a chance with fresh new ideas with Barack Obama so why not again?
3
The most important question we should all be asking is who has the necessary qualities to trounce Trump in the general election. Who can parry the type of punches that Trump will no doubt throw. He'll say Joe is "sleepy" and "old". There is some truth to that. Bernie is a "socialist, grumpy old man". Also truth. Beto is "radical" with his "open borders" ideas and confiscation of guns. True. (IMO we NEED radical action to address the gun problem in the US.) Warren is too professorial and the "Pocahontas" punch has damaged her electability. It will not go away. Castro is mean and too short for TV debates (Sorry, just being honest.) Yang is not a serious candidate. (Goodbye.) Buttigeg has been mayor of a small city in the Midwest, and I am not convinced that the country is ready to elect a gay man with a husband to the White House. (Honesty.) So, who does that leave on the debate stage? Kamala would be a fierce opponent for Trump, and would eviscerate him on the debate stage. I worry that she plays identity politics too strongly, and can come across as a bit whiney and alternately giggly. This may be disqualifying for her. Cory Booker, senator and former mayor, is a man on fire. Amy Klobuchar is serious, strong, and compelling. They each have a fearsome ability to fight back and shine the bright kleig lights of Truth onto Trump, which is what we need if we ever intend to cleanse the highest office in the land.
2
A mere few years ago Democrats/liberals/progressives would tell you how great the country was. But because they had spent 8 years vilifying centrists and those to the right, Trump was elected. He is a purely and simply a reaction to that vilification effort. Now one person, Trump, has apparently "ruined" the country despite a stronger economy than the one he inherited. As a result the Democrats have one candidate after another calling for radical shifts in many sectors. To accomplish those shifts they would trample fundamental individual rights that are our bedrock - for our own good of course because government always knows better. I'd gladly consider an alternative to Trump but there's no good choice in this clown-car of a party.
1
@Bob you need to pay more attention - there are good candidates if you really pay attention and not just listen to the pundits
2
I will not miss the Times review if they skip the next debate. Cynical and petty would be the most accurate description of the Time analysis. Thanks for nothing, the debate was not bad, some progress was made.
4
As a 73 year old white man I can confidently say that the two old white guys can go. Biden started to get confused and mumble and Bernie seems to have a single track. The same one he's had all his life. I'm tired of his ranting.
Klobuchar can take her Midwest folksiness back there. She didn't impress me at all.
As much as I like Pete, he didn't impress. Castro made some good points but it's time for him and Yang to go.
Booker, Harris, O'Rourke and Warren are my favored four.
2
@Speedo Thanks so much! I think Booker is also calming - something we need after 4 years of manic insanity.
@Lillian Santiago So make him some position of official calmer or orator or something. That's not enough for a President, though it's an important human quality to have around.
This group of commentators all seem to think they have the magic key to the perfect campaign. Perhaps they should be running. What a collection of jaded generalities. Pete wins, but I guess the chattering class doesn't care what the candidates actually say. In 2004, we knew Obama would be POTUS. Dems shouldn't wait until 2024 to pick his obvious successor.
2
It would be fantastic if the NYTimes also had an interactive version of this sliding scale. Let NYTimes readers evaluate what they saw and see if it lines up with the pundits.
2
Too much attention given to Bernie, Joe, Elizabeth & Kamala. E & K were allowed to run over time & again without being docked. Some others who might have had valuable input weren't given the questions or the time to elaborate on their positions.
Comments from the NYT & other opionionists were sorry there weren't 'gotcha' moments and more infighting. How sad; must be the Trump affect that has permeated the media.
The debate was too long and mostly boring with little that's new brought out. I think I'll write in Michael Bloomberg on my preseidential ballot!
1
'One Bonaparte in the Family is enough!', a favorite ancestral anecdote of a relation of mine by marriage. 'One New York Times is enough!', for this subscriber of this favorite publication. And, yet in view of the times we are living, it might be of interest to take a look at some American Republican news insights on this recent Democratic presidential debate.
Brilliant, Warren has extraordinary energy and a fine mind, coupled with a viable agenda and matters of state that need to be addressed. She is the most powerful and vulnerable piece on the political chessboard, The Red Queen, and our Country hears her, much as Alice, while taking a step aside.
Alice, after setting the Knight back on his steed, and diverted by a lamenting wasp in a gold wig, does not understand what the trump he is talking about in rhymes, and leaves him, leaping across a small water bank to seize the crown.
Alas, a contemporary in age of Warren, this voter feels that The volatile Red Queen shows the mettle and strength of an energized and impatient starchy school instructor.
'Don't Fall', banters a kindly Republican neighbor with an element of truth in this direction, while he receives in return, 'Okay, Humpty-Dumpty', causing us to share a good laugh at the end of a sunny day.
We may not be as divided as we are being led to believe.
1
The columnists appear less informed than the average voter. Yang's $1000/month offer was not "gimmicky" or a "stunt". It was an effort to draw attention to the centerpiece of his campaign, a Universal Basic Income (UBI). My advice to the columnists, if you are going to opine on something spend a few minutes educating yourself first. Spencer Bokat-Lindell's review in this paper is a good place to start.
4
Can I just say to the New York Times that this is just such a beautiful way of displaying information.
Analysis or `Look How Clever I Am?' To borrow one of the author's observations about a candidate, `Meh.' This is embarrassing.
3
6 of your 11 commentators used the word "gimmick" to describe Andrew Yang's policy proposals. It felt like watching a montage of Fox News of CNN commentators all parroting the same phrase in order to pedal a specific narrative. I've enjoyed the perspectives of many of NYT's opinion columnists, but this left a gross feeling in my mouth. You all are deliberately writing Yang off if you feel he has used the Freedom Dividend as a gimmick.
I listened to "The Argument" with Ross, Michelle, and David. All three discussed their agreement with Yang's sentiment that automation is an important issue and that UBI is a potential solution, even if none of them felt it was the best solution. To see those three go from that nuanced discussion of Yang to ALL of them writing him off as "gimmicky" is unnerving. None of them called it a gimmick before. To see it now in this way screams that they coordinated a message like how partisan news agencies do. I am sad too see that.
3
Fortunately the nominee will be picked from actual voters (and caucuses of them), not from an expanded panel of Dancing With The Stars...and this is why many folks are sick of this infotainment. If the networks really want to make it made-for-TV, why not seed the candidates and let them go head-to-head, crowning an eventual Primary Princess/Prince just before Iowa? And let the viewers vote? And this is exactly why Buttigieg isn’t “performing”: he’s reflective, on point and frankly above this media bilge and it shows in how he’s doing in the Iowa/NH polls relative to the national ones. And I believe this is his strategy: keep to simple dance steps and wait until you can do the East and West Coast Swing.
1
Yang's statement: “Now, I am Asian, so I know a lot of doctors,” Please tell me how is this not racist?
Oh he was "only joking" about stereotypes so as a democrat that is all okay? What is wrong is wrong.
When is there ever going to equal accountability in the press.?
Every one of the white males who dropped out would have done better against Trump than this crew. The Democrats, led by their left wingers, are courting disaster. Cory Booker might be the only exception.
winners- Democrats
loser- Trump
They all looked better , sounded smarter and are less corrupt than the current president. Any of them will be a great improvement over what we have now.
3
This is truly unrepresentative of what I saw last night. With opinions like these you'd think this was Fox news. Flippant, rude, dismissive. What is the matter with these opinion writers? Wehner for instance should just be fired.
4
Please put all the non snarky commentators at the top so I don’t have to skip around trying to find them.
3
Castro deliberately misquoted Joe trying to mischaracterize him as a doddering fool; disgusting ploy. And how cynical. Those brief exchanges ruined his chances of winning the nomination. And he grates on my nerves; as annoying as Peck’s Bad Boy. A surefire loser.
Amy has a sharp wit and is cool. But her disposition is just too nice to prevail against a cruelly clever marketer (“Sleepy Joe”, “Low-Energy Jeb”, “Slutty Amy”?) like Trump during the 2020 presidential debates.
Yang has no business being on that stage. Period.
Sanders looks haggard and decrepit. During presidential debates Trump will repeatedly pound that fact into the very center of the Earth, humiliating him.
O’Rourke is jejune. That makes him incredulous; just like Trump.
I like brainy Mayor Pete. But too much of the nation still can’t, or won’t, accept a “First Husband” if it’s a same sex couple. Maybe when a younger, more open-minded generation holds the reins it won’t be an impediment.
Booker is simply intolerable. Intolerable.
Kamala would make a great secretary of state, otherwise ... .
Which leaves whom?
A Biden/Warren ticket?
Or, a Warren/Biden ticket?
My money is on Biden/Warren, if Democrats want to win.
Please stop pretending that Biden is anything other than a spent force. He can barely get the lies out anymore. He was a hawk on the Iraq War, and to pretend otherwise at this point is embarrassing.
6
This entire article is an embarrassment. Forget who you "like" or "don't like." Forget who these people up- or down-rank.
The mere existence of this one-line silliness for each candidate, which shows less thought and more spin by ten orders of magnitude than your average sportscast, to say nothing of its apparently enthusiastic welcome, is simply an insult to the dire situation we find ourselves in, as a country and a species.
Truly depressing if you step back and think for a picosecond. How can anyone's one-liner tell you anything of any value? The candidates', the pundits', yours, anyone's?
The very process itself reflects the deeply silly nature of PR-drenched, really-existing politics. A polity, a species this silly in the face of dire problems is not long for this world. Seriously.
3
The forerunners, Biden and Warren, march on. Sanders pulpit pounding seemed way out of place and almost scary on several fronts. He missed his chance in 2016. Biden has the poise and experience but I do think he would crumble in a debate with Trump and really look bad. Trump's needling could turn him into a babbling idiot (although he is not an idiot at all). Warren could best stand toe to toe with Trump but her progressive agenda is over the top and I do not think our society is ready for such a progressive agenda. Oh, what to do?
1
Amy Klobuchar needs to go back to wearing her glasses, preferably a pair with somewhat bold frames. She just sort of fades into the background.
The Times opinion writers don't strike me as any more insightful than anyone in the Boston phone book, as Buckley might have said.
4
I hate lazy "opinion" pieces like this. Most of these columnists have contributed the equivalent of gossip about the debate. Dowd's comments in particular show no thought at all. As other commenters have noted, this is a debate whose ultimate purpose is to choose the next president, and Dowd is composing cocktail-party chatter. Only the guest opinion writers seem focused on the issues. No wonder we have celebrities in office, when journalists are so enamoured of celebrity themselves.
7
Warren is the candidate, formula on healthcare will improve.
Booker for State
Buttigieg for VP
Harris for AG
Yang for Commerce
Beto for HHS
Klobuchar for Agriculture,
Castro for Housing and Urban
1
@Stephan don't take that many D senators out of the senate since the Dems will need them all to pass good legislation. But I do like Warren/Booker although I would prefer Warren/Klobuchar
@Stephan Gabbard for Defense
1
It's always interesting to get the inverted shadow pinhole box view from right-wingers like Peter Wehner (...and Ross). Is Cory Booker (in their minds apparently) the closest to a their view of the Republican meme? ....Subject matter not withsanding.
Where is the honesty and truth? Pete Buttigieg
DOES look like Alfred E. Neuman and that just
stops all rational thought about him not being
ready for prime time.
1
@ronni ashcroft Really? I think he is quite handsome.
One can't help but point out the NY Times inability to calculate an average correctly. Klobuchar's average score was a 5.2 not a 4.7.
That's still indicative of The Klob's mediocrity, but one should still demand that a newspaper that touts itself as the best in the business could do basic math.
1
Castro is the last person I want to see elected President of the USA; his name conjures images of Fidel. This might be OK for the wok crowd but not for me and millions of other Americans. Thank you.
1
After this debate,
Biden and Sanders , thanks for your services.
Yang, Warren, Buttigieg , you have new ideas and are intelligent. You may get my vote in the descending order.
The others, adios.
Melanye Price seems to practice a form of Professional Victimology geared towards POC in her viewpoints.
If Warren wins the nomination get ready to hear two hours of the Tomahawk Chop at every Trump rally.
Did anyone else notice that Andrew Yang wore a shirt that did not fit properly? It was too small and pulled at the buttons. If one chooses to not wear a tie, then the shirt should fit properly. He also wore his American flag lapel pin on the wrong side. Tradition has it on the left lapel. Now some may think this is nitpicking, but from my standpoint it is important when Yang is attempting to convince us he is the best presidential candidate on the stage. I've conducted many job interviews and these lapses would be disqualifying.
Why can't anyone explain very simply that with Medicare for all, you will pay somewhat more in taxes than you do now, but you will pay astronomically less in medical insurance and co-pays and deductibles and co-insurance than you do now. Or you might eventually pay just the taxes, and no medical expenses at all.
That's it.
And then, personally, I would add that if you want something better than that, you can go into the private market and buy it.
6
I feel more like I watched the same debates this time. Warren continues to show she would be the best candidate on the debate stage against DT. Commanding presence, knowledge, dexterous in response to questions. Klobuchar did better; she would be good VP, even with Warren. Castro came across as a hack inside fighter - again. Will no one out him for his own hypocrisy while serving in the Obama Administration? Probably don't see him as worth the time. Booker better than the rating in this column. I think he is every bit as smart as Warren, though she is more knowledgeable and speaks our story better with her going to community college, working, pregnant. I can't shake the image that she must become the candidate. Biden continues to give the feeling that he is always skating on thin ice. Buttigieg would be nice as VP running mate, if Klobuchar is ruled out from running with Warren -- a ticket I favor regardless of critics who say you can't have two women.
Gail gives Biden an 8 for not doing terrible, and Sanders a 6 for being too passionate about health care reform. Voters wonder how Biden stays on top of the media polls when no one really wants him - this is how.
2
The candidates who appeared most presidential were also the most elderly, and it showed. A tough choice for Democratic voters looking for a leader who can both weather a hard campaign and handle the Presidency if elected.
1
It would be really cool if you would let the public vote and rank each candidate and then publish the results of that. It would do allot for us voters to know who we like, who our fellow voters like, and where we should begin to back.
Just speaking of statistical significance 11 data points over 10 variables is pretty weak. I'm not a statistician so I might not be doing this correctly, but I recall Tom Andrews of West Chester University of PA telling me something about 30^n, so that would be 30^10th responses to really have a well formed graphic at the top of the article.
2
Ms Warren did well. On medicare
for all, she needs to quantify the increase in taxes to pay for it and compare to the premium+copay the families pay now. The cost savings could be the winner. I am on medicare and save lot of money. It is a good plan. However, Americans are easily scared if they are told to do something-wear seat belt or give up your guns or your private
insurance. The big problem with
private insurance is its cost. Americans
have difficulty in grasping $3.5TN health
care spending. They also don't understand how it increases business
cost and lead to outsourcing of jobs
to places like China, India and Vietnam
where they don't have onerous health
benefits. If Ms Warren can explain
the advantage of medicare for all with
data, it will put lot of doubts to rest.
She did well otherwise and embodies
for reforms in politics.
1
The Times and its punditocracy have gone from an anyone-but-Biden agenda to a pro-Warren agenda. Not surprising inasmuch as it makes people feel comfortable to support someone who speaks the same language they do.
The voters Democrats need to reach tend toward politicians who they feel can actually deliver on their immediate interests as they perceive them, not long-term abstractions. What those who want to oust Trump need to do is focus on what's actually relevant to the voters up for grabs, not a fantasy wish list, not what some Democrats think should be relevant to those people. Warren's "plans" may appeal to the (mostly white and college-educated) twitterati and punditocracy, but the people the Democrats need have heard big promises for decades, and they are looking for candidates who will deliver on a limited but realistic agenda, not a candidate who promises utopia with no indication that she or he actually knows how to accomplish anything in the Washington of 2020. That's why Biden is the large polling favorite of Blacks and Hispanics.
The 2020 election boils down to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and, perhaps, one other state. It is irrelevant if another million people vote for the Democrat in California and New York or another million people vote for Trump in Indiana and Alabama.
Amy Klobuchar would be an excellent choice for Vice-President with Joe Biden. Unlike Warren, she seems to know how to talk to, not at, people. As important, she knows how to listen.
3
The night seemed foggy-talky, excepting for Warren and Bernie. Still, when I imagined Trump there as participant eleven (in full cap and bells) then I must give the ten a double AA+ for the evening.
2
I don't know who won the debate, but I know who lost it: voters.
Why does the DNC hand over debate format and substance to a media/entertainment conglomerate with commercial interests?
Where was the discussion of impeachment? of the Taliban in Camp David? of Senate recumbency? of the economic forecast? of the obstruction at Justice?
We learned more about vegans than about the Supreme Court.
301
@Occupy Government-
Ask Nancy about impeachment. She refuses to permit it, just like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to advance bi-partisan sponsored legislation that protects election integrity to the floor for a vote. It's not to his advantage to secure our 2020 election, evidently. Trump needs Russia's help to be re-elected. Nancy is either holding fire, waiting for next year to roll around to uncork. Or she won't allow her political party to immolate itself on that issue.
Why does the DNC hand over "debate format and substance" to a media/entertainment conglomerate? Last time I looked, it owned the airwaves. I suppose the DNC could have held it in some barn in the middle of Idaho, the audience chickens and cows.
Did voters lose? It's so early in the cycle that I doubt many are paying close attention. It's an intramural event, after all. I skipped it, watched reruns later. Curious to know my impression? A lot of what I saw and heard made me wince.
6
@Occupy Government
Who would you like to host the debates that appear on national networks? As long as the debates appear on commercial television, they will be moderated by the hosts chosen and agreed upon by both the network and the DNC, with format and substance agreed upon in advance. Someone has to foot the bill for the airtime used, so there will be commercials. It's naïve to think that it could be otherwise.
7
@Occupy Government
Shows one how well run the Democratic party is....not. They seem to want to hand Trump the re-election.
7
Andrew Yang seems to be the only candidate truly grounded in the realities of the new economy, with sensible and practical ideas to pivot the country toward new levels of competitiveness and inclusion. He's an articulate and intelligent candidate who delivers an effective message to put democracy back into the hands of the people. He doesn't seem gimmicky at all.
1
As the pundits and other commenters analyze the Presidential prospects of all 10 candidates, some of us look to the combination of Candidates that make the team to beat Trump. Biden's appeal as front runner means he needs a vibrant younger VP. Castro kinda eliminated himself, Pete means 2 White men (nope), I think the best combo is the one who can work with the top of the ticket. Sanders has lost his luster bec he is competing with other progressives including Warren. So if change is needed, we see either a Warren/Buttgieg or Biden/Booker combo (reverse the Obama offensive of 2008). However, each of this candidate needs more than just what they offerred last night. Hope another debate sorts out our ftop candidate and one of these could be the on the bottom of the ticket. Yang has no appeal except to the Techies out there.
Before rating Beto, one should check out whether is gun confiscation proposal is legal.
1
Once again, Democrats are going to let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, we need improvements in health care among other things, but does anyone think it will be completely overhauled in the four years of the next administration? Not only do we have improvements to make in many areas, but there is a world of work to be done reassembling our government after the destruction of the Trump administration, in addition to repairing our relationships with our allies around the world. When are we going to start considering who will be the best candidate to handle those monstrous tasks? Health care and gun control are not our only issues and I just can't see Bernie, Beto, and some of the others tackling those tasks.
This is why Sanders is incredible, because it is hard to sound new and fresh when you have been saying the same thing since the 70's, when you have shown up for what you believe is right, when you have an unbelievable record, while everyone else is taking about learning and changing and seeing it in a different light now. Sanders have lived what he is hoarsely calling for.
"Ross Douthat (6/10) — I keep waiting for him to tweak his pitch a little and try to broaden his appeal, but he’s just running as Bernie Sanders — hoarsely but effectively."
4
Beta O'Rourke's line about coming for your assault weapons was music to my ears. I don't understand why removing weapons of war from our midst "scares" gun owners. We're not talking about hunting rifles. What about the American majority sickened by the daily carnage and seeing their children traumatized by school shooter drills? Scared they or their loved ones won't return from a simple trip to the mall or movie theater or a concert?
3
These debates do serve a purpose. It was re-energizing to finally hear something diametrically opposed to the outrageous and corrupt behavior of the current administration. It renewed in me some faith that there are still people fighting passionately for a better America for everyone, not just Wall Street.
1
Moving the debate to a Thursday was genius. Millions of people would tune in for opening statements then flip over to NFL football.
It is extremely difficult to imagine this moving the needle at all, other than exposing the Trumpian Democratic candidate as a clown by letting him give an opening statement.
1
@Alan How did they miss that? Or maybe they wanted people to do that--Republicans, anyway.
A reality show so bad that it would have been killed long before it ever aired.
A reality show narrowcasted to a specific cohort big enough to keep it on the air.
Democrats are 1.) turning the election into a reality show and 2.) finding ways to lose the election.
"Our Cartoon President"?
Our cartoon presidency.
Sadly the Warren I am rooting for sounded faded and awful. She had a chance to mention her epic gaffe with the whole Native American narrative. The latter would have become a sensation and propelled her forward as fearless. Instead she came up with a mom story. Appealing to only the mom in people is terrible. Folks want someone dynamic, intelligent and unafraid to admit mistakes and yet love apple pie. Biden the Bumbler is still leading? Why? I cannot believe the ratings, he has a questionable past, no stamina past a few questions and while Castro was horrid and not worthy of any platform, he brought out a valid point. Beto needs to donate his campaign money to another candidate....and this from a broken hearted supporter. Klobuchar, Harris, why? And why is Booker considered eloquent? He appealed to me on no fronts. Yang was slick and senseless. Pete is awesome, and he was in the end the only one to answer with a personal situation that had gravitas. He needs to lighten up and speak with inflection, else he comes off as a snob which is an unelectable quality.
In the end, I’d vote for any one of them, I don’t care, come 2020 it’s......GO BLUE!
1
Can we get Elizabeth to moderate her position on healthcare? Then we might have a shot at winning. PLEASE ELIZABETH!!
1
"This could be the last time we see Yang on the debate stage."
Why is someone who doesn't know how the debate system works commenting on this? Barring tragedy, he'll be in the next one.
1
This process is terrible. They should all be railing on Trump, not each other. They should definitely not be engaging in a process that so far has only succeeded in damaging the leader with voters. Biden is going to win because there is not a candidate who can beat him in this field, which says more about this field than Biden.
Moreover people have seen the system shaken to the breaking point. They don't want a first, they don't want someone to revolutionize Washington. They want someone who will behave like a normal person. They know for sure Joe Biden is such a person.
Warren is in the best position to challenge him, but unfortunately, the voters she has not won over who most ideologically identify with her, Bernie supporters, also contain the largest segment of sexists in the Democratic Party and therefore support Biden as a second choice. All of the other candidates (except Warren) voters also largely support Biden as a second choice. So, the left flank is divided and the moderates will win .
Anyone who disagrees should look at the polling and see that Biden is ahead or in second place within the MoE in every single state that has been polled including the other candidates home states. In most of the early states he is even father ahead. Unless they discover pictures of Biden having sex with children, he is going to win. Only TV and newspaper pundits who get paid money only if you pay attention to them are telling people differently.
Journalists ask many questions that are not stated correctly. One of the most glaring is the question about whether middle class taxes will go up with Medicare for All. This is obviously the wrong way of getting an answer to the larger issue. The question should be how will increased taxes for health insurance be offset by savings in the overall costs of healthcare? Bernie answers this question well.
However, the "Republican elephant in the room," is the Democratic Party and its voters considering "electability" a serious matter after what we have seen of Trump and his sycophants. Good grief, if the American people can't be trusted to reject another four years of this lying, criminal, wannabe dictator, we have far more serious matters to confront than partisan politics.
2
Say what you will... I like Biden; just like I like a worn, cozy blanket in a cold winter. Unless he starts babbling nonsense, after nonsense, after nonsense, my bet is that he will win the primaries because he makes us FEEL comfortable and safe. And when he will face Trump all he will have to do is be warm and compassionate and summon our better angels again and again and again.
3
I was thinking it may take 3 Democratic candidates to take on Donald Trump in our TV world of debased politics.
Kamala Harris has prosecutorial "style." Do not mess with her. She does it beautifully nonverbally with "a look" that many teachers and courtroom lawyers have mastered. I think she is the only one who would not be rattled by Trump, and would know how to just let him implode on his own. Not sure Kamala could bring us together as a president. But I like her.
Elizabeth Warren's demeanor has changed from challenging law professor to presidential. She is not only smart and well-prepared on the issues, she is now more in-the-moment, responsive, and enjoying herself with others. I like her and respect her a lot. She has the vision thing, and although she may get rattled by Trump's crass incivility, because she is so decent and civilized, I think most voters would come to her defense and it would backfire against Trump.
Pete Buttigieg is refreshingly honest, articulate (gets right to the point with some originality), and seems more connected to reality and other points of view than most. He is a good morale leader, and I love that he speaks several languages. He would be best at diplomacy and foreign relations. But at 37 years old, not as well-seasoned politically as he needs to be (Obama had the same problem). Good at the charm offensive. but Kamala can deliver the knock-out punch.
Biden is tired & deeply sad (understandably)
All 10 Dems far better than Trump
2
@PB does anybody not like Buttigieg? Every person I speak with has great respect for him...but they worry he’s too young, unknown, whatever. Seems like you and I would be OK with a Harris/Pete combo...for me, that would be a winner.
I just don’t feel in the end people want policy proposals this year. A good person, Carter, replaced Nixon. I think the policy proposal is we want a person of high character in the White House. If we get that, we will get policies backed by a person with a moral compass.
3
@Thinking And Reagan beat him like a drum. And the real "revolution" began, ultimately giving us (sort of) the Orange Whatever (or OW).
Cory Booker's post-debate comment about Biden on CNN put him in the tank. Not only was it a knee-capping, but it was inconsistent with his unifying shtick during the actual debate.
1
The press loves to bleat about the fact that polls show people don't like "Medicare for all." Then, viewers believe it and bleat it too. But let's wait until the argument is really heard. Warren has a great point when she counters Uncle Joe's comment that "most Americans like their health care" with "I know people who like their doctors, their pharmacist, their physical therapist...I don't know anyone who likes their insurance company." The fallacy consistently employed against MFA is that it will take away your doctor or your pharmacy or your therapist. Nope, it's just gonna take away the people who send you opaque bills and deny you coverage they promised you had when you signed up. Once that is fully understood, Warren's position won't seem a liability at all.
3
The candidate's performances were...varied.
Booker talks a lot, with little content. Castro's combativeness with Biden did him no favors, even though I am not a Biden fan.
Clobachar--scary face. She's rigid, which is not a strength in politics.
Mayor Pete--wants to trust the healthcare question to Americans--these would be the same folks who elected Trump.
Representatives are elected to act in Americans' best interest, because the Founding Fathers felt citizens would not always choose wisely.
It was great seeing Beto's eloquence re-appear. Now, if he just had a plan for how he would govern. Harris, cute remarks, little substance.
Biden comes across as cranky. He cannot enunciate well, says he has "plans", but doesn't articulate them, and claims he's Obama II, without any message of hope, or, "yes we can".
Bernie, the architect of Democratic progressivity, did well, despite his hoarse voice. His message never wavers, and he doesn't lie.
And Warren. She did not get to speak enough, but she's clear on taxes going up for the rich and corporations, and expenses going down for the middle class (because they will pay zero for healthcare, a little more in taxes, and still come out ahead).
She gave the most well-thought out plans, and doesn't have the defensiveness issue that Biden does.
She'll do well against Trump.
3
They really stayed away from the topic of immigration. Free health care for illegal immigrants, which they all agreed to at the last debate, must have polled badly.
3
@M anyone who is delusional enough to feel that was a winning issue doesn’t know America.
1
@Thinking
Agree.
1
I was surprised at how different Peter Wehner's opinion of Elizabeth Warren was from the others on this page. So I Googled his name. Turns out that a conservative think tank Republican doesn't like what Warren has to offer, what a shock!
3
Castro had already begun flirting with the obnoxious in some of his television interviews. He's now full-on odious. Count me out if he remains hanging around much longer.
1
Completely out of touch authors. Do you home work and read up on the policy proposals.
3
The candidate's performances were...varied.
Booker talks a lot, with little content. Castro's combativeness with Biden did him no favors, even though I am not a Biden fan.
Klobuchar--scary face. She's rigid, which is not a strength in politics.
Mayor Pete--wants to trust the healthcare question to Americans--these would be the same folks who elected Trump.
It was great seeing Beto's eloquence re-appear. Now, if he just had a plan for how he would govern. Harris, cute remarks, little substance.
Biden comes across as cranky. He cannot enunciate well, says he has "plans", but doesn't articulate them, and claims he's Obama II, without any message of hope, or, "yes we can".
Bernie, the architect of Democratic progressivity, did well, despite his hoarse voice. His message never wavers, and he doesn't lie.
And Warren. She did not get to speak enough, but she's clear on taxes going up for the rich and corporations, and expenses going down for the middle class (because they will pay zero for healthcare, a little more in taxes, and still come out ahead).
She gave the most well-thought out plans, has gumption and doesn't have the defensiveness issue that Biden does.
She'll do well against Trump.
Interesting scoring as if that matters at all. Such a stupid piece to begin with.
Perhaps more insulting than thinking that three hours of watching 10 public servants hammer each other on national TV.
If you middle down the debate stage of 10, you have some very interesting camps to choose from. In no particular order you have young and old. No real points scored there but Castro's assault on Biden makes him road kill. Only he ran over himself.
Warren and Sanders - the two are essentially riding the same voter horse and that horse would love to have one them get off their back. Here Warren is making strides and good for her.
On the younger side, Beto did great and so did Pete. But neither has enough pull so that in the event one of the two pulls out, the other will have enough critical mass, unlike the Sanders/Warren faction.
Biden is still the front runner even after Castro's terrible tirade. Why? Because Biden isn't losing it even though all nine others are hoping for that to happen. I give Castro points for giving it a shot for political purposes, but if Trump ads eventually use the Castro moment to take down Biden should he be the Democratic nominee, shame on him for four more years of Trump.
The rest of the pack are stuck in a rut because essentially they are not splitting their electorate in any significant manner with another. Should Klobuchar, Yang, Castro, Booker or Harris pull out, where would their supporters go?
The point is that the race was always narrow.
If the American people wouldn't vote for any one of the top Democratic candidates *against Donald Trump*, we are doomed.
(Actually, we got doomed in 2016, now we're trying to get undoomed.)
1
Are these people the best we can come up with?
Biden is too old and too weak.
Old Bernie is too old, too red-faced, too hoarse, too angry, and . . . still not a Democrat. Why would the Democratic Party nominate a non-Democrat?
Elizabeth is brilliant, but will never be president. (I wish she and Biden would work together now and announce that the other one will be the running mate.)
Amy is a snore. Castro, ditto. Kamala, ditto. Yang, ditto.
I like Cory, but I think he's gotten as close as he's gonna get. Pete, ditto. Beto, ditto.
What a sorry bunch. I hope one of them comes to life and announces who will be his/her running mate and who will be on his/her cabinet.
Start attacking Trump. Pick an issue or a lie for each day and attack him on it. Clean water would be a good starting point. No one wants to drink asbestos.
I don't think any of the columnists realize just how sick Americans and non-Americans of what's happening. Whether it's muscular liberalism- a la Sanders or Warren or feel good liberalism a la Biden or Klobuchar, people are going to climb through thickets to vote against the worst president in US history just as they did in the midterms. The perfectionists on the NYT editorial staff overestimate Trump and underestimate the opposition. Trump's support is based on fear, hold your nose voting, and cherry picking- it's shallow and people will jump ship at the first opportunity.
2
I think Collins' and Goldberg's analyses of Biden's debate portends 2016 history repeating itself. Sigh, indeed, Gail Collins.
WOW at these opinion writers' choice of words to describe Booker: "eloquent" and "articulate"... Yes, he is both, as one would expect of a presidential candidate. Why weren't any of the other eloquent and articulate candidates described as such? Are you amazed by this because he is black? Educate yourselves.
1
Note the sudden, thunderous applause when Beto said he’s gonna take the guns. We’re all just waiting for some candidate to have the guts to fight for real change. You want Trump to get four more years and trash our republic? Easy. Just run a milquetoast candidate.
2
If you're going to list the candidates you should do it alphabetically as it is the only fair and unbiased option. To do otherwise is manipulative. Why is Bernie Sanders so far down the list? Why is Warren at the top? I recently subscribed to the NYT so I could have more integrity in my journalistic sources but insidious tricks like these aren't inspiring confidence.
1
Am I the only one that noticed that Pete, the only gay candidate, is the only one that got single-word (“Meh”) or single phrase (“Petering out”) reviews, despite him being in the top half of the pack according to these ratings? What’s up with that?! Sounds to me like these reviewers need to go through some implicit bias training.
7
This is a hilarious exercise. Did we really think that whatever happened last night this group would have come up with any other rank than having Elizabeth Warren on top? This is much more a poll of the political views of the columnists than any debate performance. The press, especially the Times, is putting their fingers on the scale in favor of Warren. We get it. You want Warren to get the nomination.
The day The Times or the media in general swoons over any of the many proposals of Klobuchar or Harris or anyone else makes the way they swoon over anything Warren says, regardless of whether these policies can actually get enacted, will be a first.
1
Good review - especially on Sanders. Throat discs - that's all his platform needs!
1
These rankings illustrate that confirmation bias is as prevalent with the pundits as it is with the public.
2
Just remember who won the Clinton/Trump debates. And then remember who won the election. You won't beat Trump by being the smarty pants in the room.
144
@John D How exactly do you think we beat Trump?
5
@John D Maybe not smart enough. Yang seems like the only choice from the whole crowd.
3
@John D
Clinton’s lead grew substantially after the three debates — and she won by three million votes!
If not for James Comey, Russian interference, and social media fabrications, she would have won the three battleground states, too.
Debates matter greatly — and will be won by the most coherent, personable, kitchen table issues, and pro-democracy candidate.
We need to for someone articulate, who can prosecute the case against Trump.
You set up a strawman argument by invoking smarty pants!
16
Elizabeth Warren is right that our real enemy is the corruption and greed of monied special interests. Donald Trump epitomizes that corruption. If our politics were guided by the common good rather than monied greed and corruption, we would have sensible gun laws, affordable healthcare, educational opportunities for all, a cleaner environment, a healing of our deeply engrained racism, etc. So Warren is right there is an urgent need for major overhauls and a leader willing to fight fiercely to make them happen. She would put together a great cabinet, form productive international alliances, etc.
But Trump will say she wants to take away from ordinary citizens. He will aim to incite fear. So she needs to make clear that she is Robin Hood, taking from the exceedingly rich to help the rest of us. Trump, on the other hand, is Voldemort, who wants evil and chaos to win.
It was a relief to see the "About the authors" section at the end of this column. I kept gleaning tidbits about all the names I didn't know and didn't want to look up, and wondering why these people were invited to rate the candidates. Thanks, NYT, for not making us google them.
First, I endorse a Sanders / Warren ticket. Now, Maureen Dowd, says that Warren has stolen Bernie's act & count that as a negative for Bernie. I say that she is looking at it wrong. Bernie's plans, programs & proposals are WORTH STEALING, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BEST! Every candidate has adopted at least one of his ideas. Plus, only HE is the one who activated a whole new generation of voters.
5
The reason Warren won't talk about the potential tax increase that goes with Medicare-for-all is that it's the wrong question; it makes you fight on the conservatives' turf. Arguing about the funding is a sure way to kill the idea without fully examining it.
The proper way to frame the question is "what will be the effect on average Americans' health care costs". This puts the focus where it belongs, on families and their budgets.
When talking about Medicare-for-all, we should also keep in mind that nobody "likes" their insurance company; what they like is the extent of the coverage and the lack of hassle associated with getting it. And seniors overwhelmingly like their Medicare. So MFA could be sold, but it's a heavy lift.
5
@David D. If seniors "overwelmingly" like their medicare, why do a third of medicare eligible seniors opt for a private medicare advantage plan? Medicare has a 20% copay for most services, and no annual out of pocket maximum. Oh, but Bernie and Liz and company are going to fix that. And put all Americans on medicare, whether they want it or not, and keep it nice and cheap (or free), which is another way of saying it will be paid for by taxpayers. But we shouldn't ask the cost? This mentality of "the cost doesn't matter" is exactly what can put Trump back in the White House for 4 more years. I'm really tired of "progressives" accusing moderates of being "republican". We're not.
The wild differences in opinion on debate performance by professional political commentators all watching the same debate illustrates the near-uselessness of political commentary.
Warren scores a 5 and two 6's, but also three 9s.
Biden scores a 4 and three 5s, but also an 8.
Was Castro a 3, or an 8?
Olympic ice-dancing has more consistent scoring.
3
When Melanye Price judges Klobuchar and Buttigieg to be "out of step with the rest of the party", she may be projecting a personal preference or an impression received from ambient rhetoric. If so, she would not be alone among journalists.
However, others writing in the Times have warned us, with research to back them up, that political taste in the Democratic precincts of cyberspace is skewed towards doctrinaire progressive positions and divisive behavior compared with that of Democrats generally.
After voters start giving their own verdicts, we may quickly forget how the candidates were supposed to have fared in the debates.
Until candidates present a plan to preside through the bankruptcy we are sure to inherit (Mr. Trump’s historical exit plan) all policy positions are fantasy.
Presently, governance by accelerating spending, slashing tax collections and disabling basic structural supports of democracy with under staffing agencies, failing to nominate or appoint leaders and budget removal (funds for base schools moved to wall construction) will result in a predictable failure. The candidate who best addresses how they will repair the destruction legacy of Mr. Trump and institute reforms to serve the 99% will win the day.
Kamala Harris not only laughed repeatedly at her own jokes, she kept laughing directly into her microphone while another candidate was trying to answer the next question.
3
I've said it before and I'll say it again - my primary focus is to evict Donald Trump from the presidency. Which means that while I may not agree 100% with how they might go about implementing our agreed upon goals (universal healthcare for example), it's not enough to make me sit out the election or (gags) vote for Trump. So at the end of the day, there was no one one that stage that I would not vote in the general election for. If Biden wins the primary, I'll vote for him. If Harris wins, I'll vote for her. If Beto wins, I'll vote for him. If a freaking dung beetle wins, I will vote for the freaking dung beetle. Because any rational, reasonably intelligent human would be miles better than what we currently have.
4
@Ravnwing: I will vote Democratic because it is the only US political party that begins to understand that public sectors of mixed economies were invented to conduct socialism, which is coercive spending of a fraction of the nation's income on functions providing benefits to all.
@Steve Bolger
Also, the GOP is, in its current incarnation, a crime syndicate.
1
I was dissapointed that Tulsi Gabbard didn't make the cut, because she was one of the few in the field that could actually articulate why they should be President. I think there may have been as many as four others that did a credible job of explaining that to the public. People's opinions may differ on who they are, but I would speculate that even among people who would take any of them over Trump, I suspect anyone being honest would say that at least half the candidates didn't hit the mark. Too bad we couldn't have Sandman Sims come out on the stage with a hook at the end of the next debate and remove those that didn't come near it.
3
We're so screwed.
3
Talk is talk. Wishes are wishes. Which candidate in this recent “debate” convincingly told how exactly s/he would achieve the goals s/he stated, let alone justify these goals as being worthy of pursuit, including for priority? And this surely ought to include a plan for interaction with an independent Legislative Branch whose record has become evermore dismal for making even a dent into getting the nation’s most obvious problems solved ... say, gun violence, immigration policy, national civility, etc. The mechanism of Executive Order is clearly not the answer ... unless, of course, we want a monarch instead of presiding officer. And ... as seems so obsessively important to get to ... scoring these “debates” for winners” and “losers?” This amounts to judging a beauty contest that will forgotten because the “debate” was only a beauty contest and only for a moment. Because the talk was merely noise.
I'll start watching debates when the field is down to less than ... 5?
I'll be interested when intelligent questions can be discussed.
Don't much care who has the best one-liner.
4
Last night in Houston the debate the Democrats there was no sure signs of winners or losers all 10 of them have their differences, the thing to take out of this debate for Democrats is the road to the White House it will not be easy.
The adversary that Democrats have to win Pres. Donald Trump yes he was listening last night every move like a lion tracking is pray.
The things that the Democratic candidates brought to the table for American people. Was three things that stood out healthcare, gun control, prison reform. These are the things will win the Democrats to the White House to be unified and taking on the Republican establishment or the GOP. They think they have it in the bag. Yes the next year strategically they will pray on lies from the net words to the radio stations 550 throughout the country they will spread their lies. What they're counting on that the American people are not that smart.
Things they will bring to roost not able to bring it pass healthcare but the irony it was the Republicans stopping the bills to the Senate Moscow Mitch called the propaganda machine GOP will lie to the American people telling us that it was the Democrats fall but in reality it was the GOP Republicans Senate the stopped everything.
From gun control a failure from the Republican side paid off by the NRA.
I believe that Pres. Donald Trump will sign something from China anything to get him elected selling off Americans again.
2
Castro's attack on Biden - similar to his attacks on Beto and other candidates in earlier debates, but with a nastier, meaner turn - left us hoping that Castro's candidacy is over soon and that Castro does not qualify for any debates going forward. Yang was disappointing. We already have a gimmicky president now - don't need another one, even if Yang is far smarter. Paring the field down to 8 candidates, minus Castro and Yang, would improve the next debate.
Last night’s “debate” was a farce. Andrew Yang received barely any speaking time again. I don’t need to hear nonstop from Biden, Warren, and Sanders. This is my first time really following the primaries, and it’s opening my eyes to how rigged the system really is.
10
I liked this debate more than the previous two. It is clear why these ten are the ones who've garnered the most support.
I agree that Warren was the clear winner. Castro made a big mistake going after Biden for such a minor gaffe but other than that I liked what he had to say. Particularly, his acknowledgement that housing is the primary cause of racial segregation in our public schools, a fact that is accepted by scholars but that has not been touched upon by these candidates so far. I wouldn't mind seeing a Warren/Castro ticket.
On the other hand, Klobuchar put me to sleep. And Booker had some nerve going on about the environmental degradation of poor neighborhoods when his own neighbors in Newark are complaining that he has not visited his home town since the lead crisis became known. And Harris, too, trying to make it seem that she was a criminal justice reformer during her tenure as a DA and California's AG. Hypocrisy should be limited to the GOP.
The laughter about Wang's proposal to give ten citizens $1,000 a month if they can show his campaign how it would transform their lives was a real turn off for me. And I think I heard Klobuchar's voice the loudest. Wang is serious. If anyone thinks his idea is silly then confront him with a rational argument, not schoolyard disrespect.
I want Biden to just go home. Sanders needs to stay in the Senate. And O'Rourke needs to unseat Texas's Republican.
3
Beta O'Rourke said the words I've been longing to hear about "coming for your assault weapons." If his words "scare" gun owners, too bad. How about the majority of Americans scared they or their loved ones won't return alive from a concert or visit to the mall or movie theater? The parents seeing their traumatized children practicing shooter drills? Weapons of war have no place in civilized society.
4
Since we don't have a TV we watched the debates with the Democratic Party of Leadville, Colorado in the Eagles' Club on Hemlock Street. Leadville, an old mining town, is solidly Democratic, though I have met young men here who voted for Trump because Bernie didn't get the nomination. And our neighbor, a second generation Latino, is ALL in for Trump. (We have a $100 bet he will lose) We all thought the debate was riveting, and most of us were Warren fans going in. But we ALL agreed she needs to soften her Medicare for All plan, and that 1) This country is much larger, population wise than Canada 2) It is much larger than any place in Europe, so those comparators aren't good. And 3) You can't change a system that has been in place from the start so quickly. Biden got in a solid punch when he brought up the difference between how much Warren plans to raise to pay for the plan and its real cost. She had no answer for that. But we ended up really liking her anyway. Me: I'm from New Jersey and I'm torn between her and Booker, but maybe because we are so remote here in the mountains, I thought it was a fabulous show. All were spirited, intelligent, and interesting, even funny, and we all left saying there is the President and her cabinet. Your opinion writers are jaded
These experts who dismiss Yang aren’t really looking at the polls, are they? It’s not surprising that Yang gets poor media coverage. Besides Sanders and Warren, he’s the biggest threat to the snowballing corporatism that’s destroying our economy. His Freedom Dividend would create a “trickle up” economy. We’ve tried trickle down for decades, and look where it’s gotten us. Ever-increasing automation and artificial intelligence are going to put millions of Americans out of work in order to put ever-increasing wealth into the hands of the ultra wealthy.
10
The media's bar is set WAY too low for Biden. He was completely incoherent for most of last night. Speaking in half sentences, losing his train of thought on multiple occasions. I am not a conspiracy guy, but the fact that I have seen most pundits say he had a good night or even won the night makes me wonder why he is being shoved down our throat so much? I have no idea who I will vote for in the primary, but I know it won't be Biden. I also know it won't matter because the media has already determined that he will win the nomination.
23
The question as to where the money for universal health insurance comes from is simple: from your taxes. And if there isn't such a system, the money to get personal insurance also comes from you. So you pay either way, there is no escape. Even job related insurance is your money. Don't forget that insurance provided by employer started during WWII when companies were prohibited from paying more and to compensate for that, they offered benefits. It's like hotels giving free breakfast. It's not free, the cost is covered by the room rate. So the money for health insurance is there, but it comes from different directions. The issue then is not whether we should have health insurance for all but whether it is possible to husband the available resources more efficiently.
10
Why was Yang's sweepstakes considered a bad gimmick? He isn't allowed to speak much in the debates and his ideas are different and ignored by the press, of course he wants to get eyeballs on his web site, so offer something in return for a perusal, I love it.
4
In the best of all possible worlds the Democrats would have a candidate who combined the reassuring presence and experience of a Biden--minus the gaffes, the razor sharp intellect of Warren--without the offputting tendency to lecture, the passion and integrity of a Bernie Sanders--with a more modulated approach, the ability to weave personal experience into policy of a Kamela Harris--without the flip-flopping on policy, the articulateness of a Pete Buttiegeig--with more experience under his belt, the humor of a Cory Booker--without the showboating, the good looks and fire of Beto O'Rourke with more policy depth, the policy chops of a Julian Castro without the nastiness, the common sense of an Amy Klobuchar with more passion and the ability to think outside the box of an Andrew Yang with t least some experience in government.
Instead what we have are ten flawed individuals. The only consolation is that they will be running against an even more deeply flawed individual in Donald Trump.
I am deeply worried about Biden's ability to perform on a debate stage with the loose cannon that is Donald Trump. His worst moment in my opinion was when he was rambling on about his votes on Afghanistan and Iraq all the while glancing nervously at Bernie Sanders, knowing full well what about to come his way. Bernie being Bernie the hit came.
The problem is Bernie plays by the rules. Trump will not.
4
Democrats have no chance. I watched the debate last night and I couldn't relate to anyone on the stage. As a 40 something African American male I want universal healthcare, loan forgiveness, and elected officials who will create laws which force large corporations to pay their fair share. However, I don't want the border to be decriminalized, my guns confiscated, or faux Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will practice (Mayor Pete) running and representing the presidency. I guess four more years of Trump is inevitable. I'll vote for Trump again.
1
@Jonathan Something fishy here. If you sincerely want "universal healthcare, loan forgiveness, and elected officials who will force large corporations to pay their fair share," you could not vote for Trump.
3
@Susan... Sorry I don't fit in to your box. I believe the second amendment should never be infringed and I am pro-life. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Its called being nuanced. I agree with Trump that illegal immigration negatively affects African Americans, Trump's stance on overturning the right to have abortions which affect African American communities disproportionately. Many white people need to meet some African Americans who they do not get along with. It's shocking that many believe Biden has a chance. Masculinity plays well in the African American community. Trump will win on that trait alone.
I agree with this except for one thing; I think you're going to be surprised about Yang. His email list is going to grow considerably, this got people to know his name as well as go to his website. It may have been gimmicky, but I think it's going to play well and get him a lot of media attention which he has been sorely lacking.
3
@DJ
I got on his email list to get a chance at free money.
This does not change the fact that his campaign is only slightly less dangerous than Trump's.
1
Elizabeth Warren's response to the fear that American's might feel at having to give up their health care and instead take 'Medicare For All' should simply be, "Who, when they become eligible, turns down Medicare?" Not many people, I suspect.
That said, she should make room in her plan for a private insurance supplement for those who want more.
2
These so-called "debates" represent the ultimate triumph of reality-TV over reality.
This "grade the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10" article, suggestive of a figure-skating contest, demonstrates everything that is wrong with political journalism and the nominating process and how we ended up with Donald Trump as president.
Substitute Piers Morgan for Maureen Dowd and, voila, you have nothing more than American Idol. In substance, this made-for-TV "debate" was no different than Bert Parks asking questions of his bathing suit-clad contestants in the old Miss America beauty pageants. And this is how we nominate our presidents!
Anyone who doubts that the entertainment industry has taken over the American political system needs only to watch our made-for-TV nominating system.
Instead of smoke-filled rooms, we now have Hollywood studio sets with slick lighting and props. And instead of political bosses, we get the entertainment producers from Disney, Comcast, Warner, Viacom and Fox, acting through their cable "news" subsidiaries and on-air talent, calling all the shots.
Given all this artificial glitz and froth, is it any wonder that we ended up with a reality-tv star as President of the United States?
15
Glad I missed this. Much better reading about it. If the Democrats don't focus on trump's misdeeds instead of personal digs at each other, they might just weaken our chance to overwhelmingly defeat the electoral college president.
2
Biden and Sanders are just too old. Biden especially seems too flustered, lost and confused and unable to fight back. Make way, please, for those with far more energy and focus. We can do much better than Biden. We need a fighter, full of energy and smarts, eager to take trump down.
4
@moosemaps
A little ageism, yes? Judge them on their policies and serious performance. Some 90-year-old people make more sense and are more physically fit than some 40-year-old people. What really, does "too old" mean? Maybe Biden's ideas are too old, but just claiming that someone is "too old" is just another superficial, shallow judgment. And the Times's "critique panel" spent too much space voicing similarly shallow observations--reading most of them made me think I was back in middle school--which is where T. is. Ugh!
It makes me queasy to think that we are evaluating candidates on how well they are perfecting their one-liners, to paraphrase one of the comments.This whole debate, no-vote, pre-primary thing, including what qualifies one for the debate stage, is worrisome for democracy, but at least the party has been trying to get the multitude of faces out there. Dems (and I count myself as one) need to get behind a few contenders and focus on beating the incumbent ASAP.
7
We're not going to get a reliable, realistic assessment of these candidates until we get about half of them off the state. 10 is way too many to give voters an idea of how they will govern, how effective they will be debating Trump etc.
And while it was interesting reading, I'm not sure the opinion of insular, elitist pundits who are entirely divorced from what real people are thinking matters much. I'm sure if you asked all of them in early Nov. 2016 who would win, they would have pretty much predicted a President Clinton. (Though I do LOVE Gail Collins.) And they would have all said Hillary was much more electable than Bernie.
2
@Andy: Maybe the US should have single-issue debates on every major controversy. There is no formalized national process for educating the electorate about political candidates.
1
Good debate and frankly a surprise to hear all the nay-sayers about the format and proceedings. We don't have much in the way of getting people on a stage to talk, even in an artificial way, about some of the big ideas facing voters before the next election. The process is as good as any viewer/voter wants to make it. Beto came close to beating Cruz in the last senatorial election here, a very big first in a GOP-run state. Whether he's still got training wheels on, he's a fresh face in a slate w/many old dogs. Bernie and Biden are the old dogs, and their time is up. Trump must be out of office, but Democrats need new faces and ideas to continue the challenge and carry out the goals for another way for the country and our position in it to be led.
1
It's not so much what Joe Biden said ("record player"?), it's how that word-salad response indicates an innate unwillingness to talk about race at a time when we most need to be having this conversation. Democrats have plenty of other candidates to choose from and hopefully will do so before Biden becomes the inevitable nominee.
6
@Timothy Karr: What is there to say about race, other than it is distinguished by superficial environmental adaptations, not distinctions of senses and emotions?
This summary shows that new ideas, whether in science, business, politics, arts, literature, government policies, are often rejected by the establishments that want to maintain their control on opinion and status.
3
The Biden word salads, and his strange tic of interrupting himself, are getting worse. The record player/Maduro bit was the worst but far from the only example. This is not just about style. The president needs to be able to speak clearly to the American people and the rest of the world -- even about unpleasant or difficult topics. It's concerning that Biden is most prone to descend into gibberish when he feels challenged or called out about something. The president gets challenged A LOT. It's part of the job description.
I remain perplexed about the extent to which Biden gets a pass on his mixed record (and inability to explain himself) on race issues. He continues to poll far higher among black voters than Warren, Harris and Booker. I do think there is, for valid historical reasons, a level of skepticism among voters of color about white liberal politicians who focus on economic issues. Sanders hasn't done much better than his abysmal 2016 performance there. Warren is trying, but isn't able to pull enough black voters away from Biden yet. What will it take?
2
@FJP
Presidents get challenged, but they can usually defer an answer and stick to the most current topics.
Hard to imagine anyone looking good after gearing up to be a punching bag on national TV for 3 hours over a decades-long public record that features practical results and many compromises. It would trigger a massive fight-or-flight response that does not aid cognition or smooth communication, even if the harsh questions do not come.
Liberal senators from blue states, mayors and outsiders have approximately none of this to deal with. Judging everyone by the same measuring stick is wrong, and apparently most voters sense that given that they seem to ignore these debates.
I disagree with the pundits. I often do and then I wonder why I even read them. The media has it's own mea culpa for President Trump. They couldn't look away in 2016, and in their ever-increasing quest for eyeballs, they covered him more than all the other candidates combined, He was everywhere, and he, along with the media's cooperation, turned the last Presidential election into a circus.
And now, here we go again, asking the provocative questions, focusing on the "gotchas", and the candidate's "performances".
I am not sure who I will vote for in the primary yet, but I know I don't need another game show emcee in the White House. Instead of evaluating the 10 candidates based on their entertainment value, let's talk about their ideas and strategies.
Yes. I know. Holding up score cards like we are judging an Olympic event is more fun than evaluating new ideas and how we will pay for them, but let's not sink to the lowest common denominator this time. Let's demand more of the voters.
17
Overall, I would say that it was Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, O'Rourke, and Booker, in that order. I was not impressed by the rest, especially Harris. She comes across as wooden, robotic, and not original or genuine. Biden is leading and will stay that way because he has the experience and appeal across all types of democrats. He should consider a moderate Republican for the VP slot. I think it's time to think outside the box and consider all possibilities for winning the election.
2
My focus is still on "electability". I like nearly all the candidates as people and politicians, but who stands the best chance of humiliating Trump in a debate? I like what David Leonhardt states when referring to Kamala Harris: "We could imagine her on a stage debating Trump, and doing it well." Several of the candidates are tough and articulate speakers who would "win" a debate with Trump... but Kamala has that hard to define "charisma" that captures you. Let's not underestimate charisma. Barack Obama had it and it's one of reasons he won the Presidency, and was re-elected.
2
I'm not sure that all this analysis over a forum that has almost nothing to do with the way a president does his job is worth it. Was also stunned that in a 2.5 hour debate, the most important issue for many voters, the economy, was barely touched on. These debates are crying out for a moderator knowledgeable about economic issues.
While debates may yield little information about a candidate's ability to function as president, it does have more relevance in gauging their ability to communicate clearly, which can impact their effectiveness as campaigners. In this regard, Biden was a negative standout. Some of his responses were noticeably garbled. No one else gave responses that bordered on the unintelligible.
9
@David A: The US public has been so brainwashed, it doesn't even grasp that public sectors of mixed economies were created to conduct socialism, that is to tax everyone to pay for things to benefit everyone.
1
First of all, there was only one question about the climate crisis in the wake of the most devastating climate event in the Bahamas. Even if the there was only one question the candidates could have addressed it in a more direct and dramatic way. I wish more attention might be paid to who funds each candidate and how that funding affects policies the candidates support or don’t support. For example those who defend private insurance and are therefore against m4a are suspect. I want to know where their money comes from. I support Bernie and Elizabeth in part because of their transparency about financial support. This goes back to the absence of questions about climate. What corporate funds support the candidates and the American Broadcast Company that neglected to focus on the existential threat we all face.
2
@LoveNOtWar
As long as our election campaigns are privately financed, our candidates are vulnerable to corrupting influences. But if you suggest that campaigns should be publicly financed you're accused of stealing people's money and being a socialist which, as we all know, inevitably leads to genocidal communism.
The cost of health care is rooted in how healthy we are -- and how much healthcare we need to use. Exhorting the American people to better their own physical -- and mental -- health to the extent possible would be truly revolutionary.
You can't just "make" yourself healthier, and certainly not by yourself without the help of medical professionals, school communities, and a supportive social fabric -- but you can exercise what agency you have to make healthier choices for yourself, your family, your community, and this nation. The effects -- reduced gun violence, reduced preventable chronic disease, and increased hope for a brighter future -- will be world-changing.
...sorry, was I at the Marianne Williamson event?
2
It might sound good to say that we should trust Americans to choose what is best for their medical needs (Buttigieg, Klobuchar), but there are two glaring problems: one is that this erroneously treats insurers as medical providers; the second, ignores that the choice and the decision making (for those lucky enough to have coverage) is really done by employers and insurers for their own interests, not for the interests of the insured.
It fascinates me that most of these candidates want us to believe that they have been and will continue to be major change agents in the interest of the American people. Yet they don't believe change is necessary in one sector of our lives which is really broken, needs change, and already has plenty of real world examples of something better. In short, they are running away from being agents of change.
Only Senators Sanders and Warren are clearly showing that change in our medical insurance system is needed, explaining what needs to be done, and putting themselves out at agents of that change.
I trust that Americans will recognize this in the primaries and put one of these two into the general election. Polls indicate that either can be elected. Medicare for All is our future. Let's elect someone who says it is, and who says that it can be done.
9
Though Julian Castro could have used a little more tact, we really need an "emperor has no clothes" moment with Biden. He has looked terrible in every single public appearance, and terrifying as a general election candidate. Between the increasing verbal stumbles, his eye swelling with blood during a town hall appearance, and his charging-into-the-fog style rambling during the debates, why can't we have this discussion?
I understand that many older people - already battling ageism in our rapidly changing society - might find this a touchy issue. However, Bernie Sanders is even older and way more spry and alert - this debate should be about Biden the individual and not a blanket indictment of people his age.
28
It is clear to me that this is dragging on with too many people on the stage, selling the same old stump speech of telling everyone what the problem is instead of explaining (in plain terms and in detail) how their proposals will actually help people. Voters use the deep-dive capabilities of Google now to get information and make decisions about where they stand, where they need to go to achieve their goals and how best to solve their problems. The Democrats are losing sight of this fact and need to re-think how these debates come off..because they will lose to an ADD and low-information media master in Trump. The Democrats need to find a better way to be open and transparent in how they convey information, not just in making grand heart-tugging proclamations and wonky statistics in the hope of winning the soundbite for the night contest with the pundits.
As a US citizen who has lived in Canada and the UK, I do not understand how it is that people in US don't understand how a country can run a successful single-payer, comprehensive, not-for-profit, quality system.
Nothing conjectureal: the empirical evidence is there in a number of nations, showing invariance across variations, which is what scientific testing does. What's the problem?
11
@Patrick
There are two problems: (1) a significant portion of the U.S. doesn't believe in science and evidence; faith is more important than evidence and reason for this group (2) many of those who do not fall in category 1 are so fearful and traumatized about their own economic and medical uncertainty that they're unwilling to change anything that might improve their lives, because it could lead to something unknown, maybe worse than what they have now. It's easier to control a population that lives in a state of fear and uncertainty about their own survival.
3
@Patrick The real problem stems from the vestiges of slavery. We are unwilling in this country to pay for people who are unable to pay for themselves, or who are not "deserving" of health care, which is considered a privilege, not a right.
1
@Larry
#2 is why it is unwise to campaign on eliminating private insurance in favor of instituting Medicare for all. When polled a consistent 70+ percent of people who have employer-provided insurance want to keep it over any proposed Medicare for all plan. That's a lot of fear-based votes.
The smarter play is to campaign on some sort of Medicare for all who want it plan. Once the private sector realizes that their employees can get good, readily available health insurance through another source, they'll start dropping their healthcare coverage anyway. It then won't be long before healthcare in this country evolves into Medicare for all anyway.
So, stop scaring people by telling them you're going to take away one of their most treasured benefits. That's the kind of thing that can lead to a 2nd Trump term.
Someone suggested that it would be interesting to see the standard deviations for these ratings, so I threw the numbers into Excel.
Interestingly, Maureen Dowd had very little variance. Her mean rating was 4.9, her min was 4, and her max was 6. I guess she has very high standards. Personally, I think she is not a good rater. I saw a lot of differences that her ratings do not reflect.
Gail Collins had a mean of 6.1, a max of 9, and a min of 1.
The overall mean for all raters's rating of all candidates was 5.7 with a standard deviation of 0.6. Not a lot of variance and pretty tough standards. But we saw that with the highest rating being 7.5.
Personally I thought the trend in these ratings was to be too harsh.
6
I think that perhaps the most important moment of the debate happened off stage -- when the broadcast cut to the field reporter who asked two students who they support, and they said Bernie Sanders because of his push for Medicare for All.
A lot of these critics are criticizing Bernie on aesthetic grounds (he's loud, old, cranky) but when it comes to fundamentally reshaping this nation to prioritize working people does that matter?
2
I agree with your commentary picks. What these hopefuls need to take into consideration is the voters who are not impressed with gimmicks and attacks... we are looking for a brave soul with the ability to stand apart and hold her/his moral ground with good-sense, data backed answers and sensible strategy. I'm hopeful.
What the candidates say is important, but how a candidate does it is just as important. Are they confidant enough to be civil and respectful of others? Is it all about the candidate, or the country? How do they see those who are different from themselves? Are they know-it-all’s who have no time for others’ views?
If these factors are taken into consideration, Warren,Sanders, Harris and Castro are at the bottom of the barrel. Booker, Klobuchar, Biden and Mayor Pete are on top. Yang and Beto deserve kudos for saying some hard to hear truths (Beto’s gun Comment; Yang on education and that schools are only 30 percent of the problem - the rest being other societal deficits.
4
I am an old old centrist guy who will probably vote for Biden, I am a little surprised at the review of Yang's performance. He did start with a gimmick but he has some great ideas and his comments on healthcare and small business were spot on. Biden's focus on healthcare costs and the issue of choice of healthcare plans for union members etc is undermining the Warren/Sanders message. Sleepy Joe came out on top, even if he has never heard of Spotify.
6
Biden has the best presidential
voice
smile
demeanor
stature
moderate appeal
experience
electability
and health care plan with the most plausible chance of getting enacted. If a well planned public option becomes available, people will flock to it.
8
@Rob
Except for his record, his ongoing gafs and his promise to continue serving corporate interests and pushing the failed and unpopular neo-liberal economics which have eviscerated the rest o us to enrich a few.
Some people can't see greatness even if it pokes them in the eye.
72
@Fera
And others insist that what's poking them in the eye is great.
19
@Fera
All I see is a lot of great egos.
3
ABC News simply failed in their hosting of this Democratic debate. The questions asked by the moderators and format didn't work for me. The previous debates were all better than this one.
2
Uncle Joe wins. Yes, he is older but so is Trump and so is my dad; and my dad is still the smartest person I know. Biden knows politicians can't talk about health or infrastructure without talking about funding. If you can't explain how then just get off the stage.
127
@RMB Joe needs a rocking chair!!! We need new life as our leader. It's Time the older gentleman becomes advisors..
2
@RMB Joe needs a rocking chair!!! We need new life as our leader. It's Time the older gentleman becomes advisors..
2
@RMB Joe needs a rocking chair!!! We need new life as our leader. It's Time the older gentleman becomes advisors..
2
Pete Wehner's criticism of Elizabeth Warren "invoking Jay Inslee as a trailblazer" was the most ridiculous comment in this summary. I wasn't a supporter of his presidential bid, but because of his accomplishments, I'm considering a move to Washington state.
8
It was good to hear everyone's thoughts...all on one stage. Now is the time for five of those folks to bow out. Booker, Klobichur, Yang, Castro and O'Rourke - OUT. Let's hear more from: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg.
217
@Philip W
Pete B. should bow out and Beto stay in. Haven't we heard plenty from Bernie who bellows from the mountaintop. Warren doesn't bellow but is hyper and these two and their too-big plan on insurance for all will not play. Uncle Joe's right when he steps in and says who will pay for all that? The trillion dollar plus deficit is looming and did that get a mention? We must choose the person who can get Trump out.
20
@Katalina
I agree, but Harris should be out too. She's trailing and doesn't help how manipulative she comes across. Time to expand the agenda beyond race. The country has more serious issues than just race: economic inequality, good-paying jobs, displaced middle-age workers, education, healthcare for all, INFRASTRUCTURE, tax reform, immigration reform, energy, and environment...
57
@Philip W I hope Booker stays around for awhile. He is concise, brilliant and memorable. And he doesn't play the "gotcha" game which I thought was a horrible tactic for Castro.
69
Castro managed to be both rude and wrong. Let the weeding out begin.
8
An uninspiring bunch. Still Warren kept inching up.
Wished that Tulsi Gabbard was on stage. She would have shined.
3
Let’s be honest, everybody loves the “Old Joe” but genetics - standing next to Bernie - an old Bernie has been blessed with the alive genetic - he’s sharp and crisp. Joe Biden is obviously struggling. And frankly, while Warren might make an excellent Professor - she doesn’t exactly light your fire and can’t beat Trump. Amy Klobuchar, one, needs a stylist and two, needs to drop out of the race. Trump would crush her. So whose left?
Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris (maybe) and Bernie Sanders. Love Yang and Castro but not this time.
The Democrats, if it were my call should coalesce around O’Rourke and use this valuable time grooming him to run what is shaping up to be a presidential race of a lifetime where the stakes are too high and where a passing the baton is badly needed. I know the media wants to string this out but Democrats frankly don’t have the time if they want to win.
2
@KC thank you so much for your comment. I am so tired of all the opinions that the race should be limited to 'the top five'. I for one, and many others I know want more focus and coverage of Beto O'Rourke. I plan to vote for him in the primary. I am so tired of the pundits and the media being so superficial in the coverage and commentary.
2
Fine day-after analysis for those who couldn't watch. Balanced/diverse views, and a large-enough sample. 8/10.
4
@Midway
I liked how you alphabetized the candidates, instead of trying to judge their importance up there yourself.
Suggestion? Why not also alphabetize your panel here, in the credits? Collins, Douthat, Dowd, Goldberg, Leonhardt, Pawel, Price, Schwarz, Vega, Wehner, Wilkinson.
More of a lop sided debate, Mayor Pete was the most polite speaker but outspoken of all if given a chance, always speaks so eloquently and to the point.
But the interviewers, particulary George Stephanopoulos focussed mostly on Biden, Warren, and Sanders, sometimes Harris.
4
I’m having a hard time reconciling with anyone rating Biden as above 2/10. From his opening statement to his closing, it was a cringeworthy deer-in-the-headlights night. He cannot win this. How he is polling in first place is either a telling marker on the American electorate or that its just way too early and name recognition is floating him. Totally incoherent.
8
Amy Klobuchar is, in my opinion, is unsuitable for the office of the presidency because of the way she treats her staff, as exposed in this paper. Or maybe it was WaPo, I am as old as Biden and memory is less than perfect.
Any candidate 70+ should have a pledge to get their mental acuity checked if they seem to be presenting problems. But Biden's gaffes don't bother me. He always was a gaffe machine. In 2008 he talked about people watching FDR's fireside chats on their TVs.
7
Sorry, Beto but, you present yourself as someone mildly high and in search of the next pretensiously insightful phrase. Too bad the podiums are in the way because I want to l see if your feet are firmly planted on the ground - I'd swear they would be a few inches adrift.
4
Seeing this article after every debate is getting very tedious. Each "expert" -genuinely unsure what makes any of these people experts on politics or debate, let alone reading the minds of the viewing public- articulates his/her ideological position, gives the candidate he/she likes high marks, then says mixed to negative things about the rest. It's such a transparent exercise in confirmation bias; turns out, a group of affluent, center-left to far-right leaning people like center-left to right leaning candidates, who'd have thunk it!
A bunch of these columnists are conservatives who won't be voting for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Giving Boss Ross space to judge here just muddies the water since he will never, ever vote for any of these candidates, no matter what he might say publicly.
These debates are meaningless, and anyone who was sentient in 2016 and didn't learn that "winning a debate" means absolutely nothing for a candidate's prospects shouldn't be given a public forum.
8
Well done, NYT. This is a great way to present this type of content. Kudos to the visual information designers.
4
If Biden had remained a senator and never served as vice president, would anyone be giving him even a second thought as a plausible nominee?
6
@Jeffrey Waingrow
When Biden actually was a senator he was sharp, and spontaneously came up with a lot of very funny quips. I used to enjoy watching hearings of his committee on tv for that reason. That ability seems to have passed. But the "quips" I heard the younger candidates make in this debate seemed more like very practiced and frankly over-rehearsed one-liners. I miss Al Franken.
5
@Jeffrey Waingrow
No. But then what's the second thought for Klobuchar, Castro, Wang, O'Rourke, Buttigieg, or Harris? Being a successful VP is no small achievement as Pence shows us.
The race won't start until Bernie and Biden are out.
This election is about the future, not the past.
Biden is and never was a good candidate even at his prime.
Bernie is an angry, scolding, loner with no idea how to fund the revolution and no record of working with others.
7
@Brad Strange comment in that 3 days ago more than 10,000 people showed up to see Bernie speak here in Denver. I am doubtful that VP Biden could pull in even half that number. I am still undecided but I don't ignore what others are saying.
6
Looking at the Amy Klobuchar graph I see Ross' face at "1". Looking at the score in his comments I see a "6". Which is it, NYT.
I haven't bothered to listen to the debates live. As many have mentioned it's a maelstrom, a forum that favors certain people over others solely due to their personalities rather than their capabilities or plans for the country. Not a fair venue. But, sigh, necessary I guess to cull the herd.
And the other commenters are dead right. Giving away free stuff is a surefire way to get Trump re-elected. That, combined with promising to confiscate guns, will energize his voting base like nothing you can imagine. Get ready for the polls to be wildly wrong again, coasties.
What Democrats need is someone with the skill to explain in a very few words why better health coverage makes us all richer. Why infrastructure improvements are a rising tide that floats all boats. They need Bill Clinton's tongue in another head.
6
Beto and most of the Dems advocating gun confiscation reminds me of H.L. Mencken's acerbic observation:
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Other than alt-right types, and psychopaths, EVERYONE wants to reduce gun deaths from the 40,000/ year.
Nearly 24,000 suicides (51% of suicides)
15,600 accidents, manslaughter, and homicides
roughly 400 rifle murders, bolt-action, lever-action, single-shot, non-AR/AK semis-, & AR-15s & AK-47s.
So, to solve the problem of guns killing 40,000 Americans every year, Beto proposes a solution that will save, at MOST, less than 400, but affects 6.6 million owners.
Complex problems require complex, multi-faceted solutions, not simple, demonstrably ineffective ones.
Universal background checks at the national level are a start, but they need to be more comprehensive. Had the USAF reported Devin Kelley's violent history to N.I.C.S. he wouldn't have easily gotten any gun.
Red Flag laws need to be well-thought out, so when Trump says that Chris Cuomo is "Crazy" and should be barred for ownership, that cannot happen. It must require a judge's approval, like a warrant, & should be appeal-able, so an angry spouse in a divorce can't just claim it, but has to show cause, like a history of spousal violence.
Beto's plan will cost $6.6 bn. That could buy 4.4 MILLION bullet-proof doors to install in every classroom.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong!"
6
@Dadof2 Bullet-proof doors?????? "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong!"
2
I am tired of the pointy-headed political pundits misinforming the rather gullible and malleable electorate. Stop saying that Democrats want to give people "free stuff." It is simply not true. It is about reallocating the trillions of dollars in tax dollars that flow through the government. Does the militarty get "free stuff?" Do corporations receiving tax breaks?" Foreign investors?" Farmers" It's not free. Also stop with the misinformation on so-called "Medicare for All." It's not about how much middle-class taxes may rise (as if anyone could come close to answering that when the details need to be debated and agreed upon). If you buy a $20,000 car and pay $2,000 in taxes you are happy. If you pay $18,000 in taxes but get the car for free, are you better off than in the first scenario? This is what the debate needs to be about. Stop catering to what has become a more and more cowardly America. Boldness and change are both good and necessary. Would we have won Worrld Warr II or reached the moon if the country had the attitude about change that it dows now? The media needs to admit that it was, if not responsible, at least complicit, in making a naive electorate belive a woman who had devoted her life to public service was more evil and dishonest than a sociopathic, mentally-compromised liar. Don't do it again!
40
@qantas25
Best comment I have seen this morning!
3
@qantas25
Indeed.
2
The whole thing is silly ... the powers that were want Biden so we can go back to last decade cuz that worked so well for us. Trump is salivating over the prospects of running against Joe Biden. If Biden is the candidate, millennials will not turn out to vote, why would they. The problem is Trump’s base will turn out. This election may be over before it begins.
4
I really disagree with this debate review format. The various commentators rank the candidates not on substantive policy and performance issues, but on whether they’re going to remain viable candidates. Which aren’t the same thing at all. The comments they posted were snarky, and not based on analysis or thought, but on I’ll considered “gut” reactions which are mostly based in their partisan leanings. Why should I pay attention to the gut reactions of a bunch of journalists trying to outsnark each other? I can get that from my pals at work.
By the way, the Times journalists’ general dismissal of Yang is short-sighted and makes the publication seem old-fashioned and out of touch.
5
Mr. Wehner: I fault you for your deprecation of Jay Inslee. He wasn't a great candidate, but he's been well ahead of the curve on environmental policy. Apparently, you're behind it.
19
I'm amazed by the pundits' fondness for Booker; he came across as precisely the cliche spouting "fortune cookie candidate" so memorably mocked (in the guise of Tom Selleck) in The West Wing several years back. I suppose it was an improvement over the 'ticked off High School dean demeanor he brought to previous debates.
Also surprise by the hostility to Klobochar. I hold no brief for her, but she finally seemed to find her voice last night and had several good moments. For the first time she seemed to belong up there (which you can say even more emphatically about Beto O'Rourke). I never thought I'd say something like this, but the hostility toward her and the shockingly open distaste for Biden really demonstrate a strong bias by the NYT against candidates positioned as moderates in this race.
1
These constant "debates" and the following who is up and who is down drive anyone who is originally from another country - such as I - nuts.
The very minute one election is over, the campaigning begins, with gazillion of dollars spent.
The crux in this country is not only the antiquate electoral college that allows a candidate for the highest office to become president while not winning the popular vote, but the fact that he/she have to raise a certain amount of money just in order to be qualified to partake yet in another televised "debate".
All other OECD countries have publicly founded campaigns and the campaigning for PM, Chancellor, President and dog catcher are restricted to a few months before the the set date of an election.
All the candidates on stage yesterday knew that the present healthcare system in the US stinks to high heaven, as well as the guns-ueber-alles , and neither can be solved in a few years.
The constant refrain of the so-called moderators about "what would you do on you first day as president or first year" is as stale as a week old salad.
The three years of a manic crookedman in the White House have many of us exhausted. The infighting on stage yesterday, egged on by the moderators, made it even worse.
7
This was a disappointing collection of opinions from the NYT pundits, who so often in this article chose to focus on attributes of the debaters that just don't matter. Yes Yang's Publisher's Clearinghouse stunt was gimmicky, but his underlying idea is not. It's worth examining. Pete Buttigieg is described here as "meh," which is neither journalistic nor a fully-realized opinion. He had some of the clearest, most well-thought-out issue opinions of anyone on the debate stage, putting immediate problems in larger contexts. Flippantly dismissing any of these candidates for their surface characteristics--"tends to lecture," "petering out," cranky old uncle"--wastes space that could be filled with amazement over the new ideas coming through on stage: reparations? universal basic income? assault weapons bans that include "yes we're taking your guns if they're designed to kill a human being"? These are incredible moments with real substance to discuss. Like the ideas, hate the ideas, or feel something in between, but please treat the ideas and the candidates with gravity and intelligent analysis.
33
@Robbie Wilson. Thank you for putting this so well. Comments like this only help Trump.
4
Frankly, I'm worried. I like Joe Biden, but with each debate I'm increasingly persuaded that he is too far off his game to prevail over Donald Trump, who for all his personal faults remains a cunning adversary in the electoral arena.
Elizabeth Warren gives the most consistent performance and her wonkishness appeals to me. But she seems not to be aware that Medicare for all will be a tough sell to an electorate conditioned to reject "socialized medicine" by over half a century of Republican propaganda. Nor does she seem to realize that it will be a tough sell to moderate Democrats in Congress, who won't want to risk their seats by moving too far to the left of their constituents. Presidents can't just snap their fingers and change the way health care is delivered in the US.
Bernie Sanders seems even more oblivious than Warren to the political obstacles in the way of Medicare for all. Bernie is a character, the curmudgeon as political crusader. He's entertaining, but I don't think the general public will like his act well enough to put him in the White House. And if he can't carry Independents and moderate Republicans along with the traditional Democratic constituencies, Trump will get a second term.
As the Times' columnists point out, none of the others on stage last night had a stand out moment. For now, I can't see any one of them going toe to toe with Trump. And that's why I'm worried.
6
I think Bullock has a chance now.
1
What I find lacking in these evaluations is their lack of utility. So all of the candidates are not perfect, some very far from perfect. I agree that one misstep can ruin the entire race , as Castro showed in his brute attack on Biden.
But by the way this debate was set up, we are focusing entirely on these people--who are generally well-spoken and intelligent but not perfect (who is?).
We should focus on the purpose of the debate--it is to pick a person, a human with human failings and shortcomings, albeit with a good understanding of the world and its problems, who must enter the ring with the most incompetent and most corrupt and biggest liar we have ever had as president. This is a struggle for the survival of democracy. How do they rate compared to the demon?
I would have preferred a ratio rather than a digit showing competency. For Warren, e.g., I would have given her 1000: 1, with the 1 Trump's value. All the candidates similarly ranked would be meaningful. Even Yang, which you ranked the lowest, I would have given 800:1.
This would have made more sense to me.
120
@shimr Thank you, @shimr. I'm tired of all the cynicism and hubris people tend to display when discussing the future of our country. Thanks for bringing humanity into the discussion.
15
I think the way the NYT is covering Yang is absurd. Pete Wehner, maybe the reason you don't remember the other things he said during the debates, is because he didn't get an opportunity to say anything. The debates are inherently biased towards Yang. Speaking time is distributed toward the top of the pack, and while Yang is currently in the middle of the pack, he was dead last in amount of time allowed to speak.
To top this off, every time he was given time to speak he was rudely interrupted by other candidates. My favorite was when Elizabeth Warren stole his question, the mediator tried to return the question to Yang. Instead Warren interrupted again... Simply absurd -- also note that he was the ONLY candidate to not periodically go over their allocated speaking time.
I'm fine with the DNC pushing their front runners and giving them more speaking time, but if you're going to follow this format, you need to give more time for Yang.
Due to the limited amount of time given to Yang, many of his policies seem quirky and a gimmick. I challenge anyone that believes this to go watch / listen to one of his hour long interviews. He uses data, empirical research, and independent studies to explain how he will fund UBI and the affects the program will have on America.
28
@Joe
I really like Yang. I heard an interview with him on public radio but didn't know who it was until late in the program. Throughout the program I kept telling myself, "This guy makes a lot of sense."
I think that Yang is discriminated against because his idea of a universal income "feels" wrong to so many people. I believe it could work if you attached it to some kind of national service, but that would require an expensive bureaucracy. It's still worth considering seriously as the problem of unemployment and underemployment will continue to get worse.
7
@Joe Elizabeth thought the question was directed at her as a follow up, when Yang started to reply she interrupted again to clarify for whom the question was for, she then apologized for her mistake, no harm, no foul and Yang got his full time. Biden always stops when his time is up.
1
@DJM that might be true, but the question was not directed at her, and she interrupted after he had already spoken. If it was the other way around, and Yang had interrupted Warren twice, the media would've banished him. This strongly undermines his position. If you watched the entire debates, Yang was the only candidate that kept getting talked over. The mediators did a horrible job at facilitating the debates.
As per Biden, your statement is false. He went way overtime, and when the mediator tried to stop him, he quote 'they all went over so I will as well'.
6
I guess it's true that Americans vote primarily on their emotions and find it difficult to explain why their candidate would be able to serve them and lead the country, since that's mostly what I've read from the NYT reviewers. But then, perhaps all of the candidates' plans and policies are just so much hot air dependent on total Democratic control of the country. And even if that were to happen . . .
It would be better if the reviewers honed in specifically on the best and worst moment of each candidate's night so we can compare it with ours.
1
If the Democrats can turn out the poor and disenfranchised voters while still appealing to those struggling to make ends meet in the middle class, they win. Not sure that doing this necessitates talking about policies ad nauseam. Speak to the voters hearts, not minds. Let them know you really care and will lead the country in a way that truly puts their needs first. It's not necessary to invoke fear of "the other" like Trump. There are plenty of ordinary things that American voters fear. Spiraling health care costs. Jobs lost to automation and overseas workers. Inability to purchase a home. Consumer debt. The crushing cost of higher education. It seems that too often the candidates are speaking to the pundits and the press, who are keeping scorecards, instead of directly speaking to the all too real concerns of ordinary Americans.
3
Bernie HAS to yell because people aren't listening. We need change. We need to fight the system that steals from us every single day.
His message hasn't changed because we haven't changed.
It's time for Change.
18
Most candidates including Biden offered nothing but noise. Sanders and Warren have conviction and passion but their ideas are too far out to the edge. Most Americans I know are not so far out to the left. Warren seems to be naive and Sanders has no idea about international issues because he is so focused on health care, education and unions. Conclusion; Trump is a shoe in for 2020. One other comment; Any Presidential candidate who speaks Spanish to his audience automatically announces that he gave up on this country and already capitulated to the civilian invasion. They must not even be considered as a candidate.
1
@Arsan Wow. So you think the ability to speak a second language is an abdication of your country? Let's make sure all of our politicians refuse to acknowledge that some citizens may be bilingual or, God forbid, multi-lingual. Despite what Fox News tells you on a daily basis, the largest group of undocumented immigrants in America are from Asia,, not Central America. But don't let facts get in your way.
4
It's time to start saying, "This Party has decided to Elect Joe/Amy" . They can WIN. After all, that's the only thing that really matters.
2
The candidates spent too much time trying to win the primary and are setting themselves up to fail in the general. Unfortunately they are trying too hard to appeal to the marginal voter in the primary vs. the marginal voter in the general. And in doing so, they are really turning off the marginal voter in the general.
A lot of Americans are fine with programs to help those who are less fortunate, but at some point, they get tired of taking money away from me to give it to you. For instance, most voters support helping out the poor and having racial equality. However, highlighting programs to help HBCUs is too much playing to the crowd at the moment and not playing for the long game.
I really like Klobuchar and Mayor Pete and was hoping one of them would shine. They were both impressive but did not do enough to inspire people and overcome the deficit they face. I think Mayor Pete in particular would do really well in the general election but he is unlikely to have a chance.
6
While I enjoyed and tended to agree with these comments, it does remind me of speech classes I had in HS & college where it was about the speeches and a grade not anything about leadership or whats in store if that person had power.
Our society thrives on this stuff. Politics is the reality TV moment of the hour?
3
When I watched the debate the questions were almost all directed at just a few of the candidates. The moderators control who can speak and how much time they have. Unless each candidate is given equal time and asked the same questions the debate becomes nothing more than a series of attempts to get "gotcha" questions. The forum is not fair.
12
Any of them will do and I hope the ultimate ticket is a combination of two of them. Cory is amazing and has what it takes to begin to reconcile our damaged and divided nation. Yet from the beginning in Debate 1, the only one I can image overwhelmingly and impressively victorious over a debate with Trump is Kamala.
4
@Tbird57 The press has made up their mind to dismiss Cory Booker and I am not certain why, perhaps it is to avoid having the party two African American candidates so close together or something else. It also surprises me that all it took to bring down Kamala Harris in the eyes of the press was Tulsi Gabbard, I had no idea she was so powerful.
1
@Tbird57
Presidents are rarely chosen on debate points. Ms Harris's proclivity to cackle reduces her desirability.
I don't understand why Pete Buttigieg is repeatedly passed over. He was (by far) the best at actually answering the questions asked rather than segueing off onto a canned speech. Better yet, his answers were both forward thinking and pragmatic. His responses are nuanced. I am tired of hearing Warren and Sanders scream "Evil Big Corporations!" and "I will take on Wall Street!!" I'd much rather hear substance, and Buttigieg was excellent at providing just that.
89
@Steven
To me, Buttigieg and Yang are the two most sensible people on the stage. They seem to actually understand things that require some learning beyond a first introductory level. I'm sure that can be said of some of the others but ultimately you want someone with good judgment overall and too much passion can get in the way of good judgment. The reactions of most of the columnists suggests that theater is more important than substance and they may be correct when it comes to who can actually get elected.
To be sure, all the candidates up there are so much better human people than our current president that if any of them wins we should be better for it.
13
@Steven
I don't know. I think they are right about corporations and the wealthy. And I, for one, am sick and tired of hard working Americans getting ripped off.
How much would someone like Bezos be worth without all his warehouse workers? But he gets to pay them like they are worth next to nothing because the playing field is heavily slanted.
Something has to change.
8
@Renegator
I am not saying that they are wrong, per se, but rather that I want more substance and fewer slogans (and I don't really care for screaming either).
5
From JFK v Nixon to now debates in the end are less about policy and ideas as to who you like as a person. I thought all the democrats were better people than Trump. There is likability Trump is likable to some people but I think Biden and Booker were the most likable.
1
I wish people would pay more attention to Pete Buttigieg. So what if he's not sparkly and shiny. Haven't we had enough of that with Trump? This is the US President we're going for here, not what tv show to watch Saturday night. It is a position of seriousness and gravitas and intellect, all three of which Pete possesses in spades. what really surprises me about his stagnation is that, he reminds me so much of Barack Obama - "no drama", calm, very smart, good sense of humor, knowledgeable, philosophical, understands the bigger picture, etc. If Americans like and miss Obama as much as they claim, then Buttigieg is his natural successor. Buttigieg is also everything Donald Trump is not, and not one thing Donald Trump is.
201
@Virginia How the Times journalist's 'weigh-in'--missed this . . .I will never know; from where I was sitting--you are on point!
31
@Virginia I agree, as a subscriber to the NYT's I rate them when I choose to read their articles and by continuing to subscribe. This flippant review of the debates with everyone trying to outdo each other with snark is not helpful. I also gain every time I listen to the debates and to Buttigeig, not sure why I cluttered up my opinion by coming here.
18
@Virginia I agree... and the media will do their best to disqualify him because he isn't selling their products. We need someone with the knowledge, intellect, temperament, and stamina to right this ship; they need drama and controversy.
20
In general - too many offers of “free” stuff. Not sure if even taxing the top 1% will cover all the free stuff. It smacks of pandering. And I say that as a moderate Democrat who will ‘vote blue no matter who’.
10
I largely agree with the collective analysis, but would like to offer the thought that Pete Buttigieg, even though he won't be the nominee, is very well positioned to be the eventual candidate's pick for VP. His authenticity, tangible calm, comfort in his own skin, military service, and genuine Christianity would make him formidable.
The thought of a Warren/Buttigieg ticket is very attractive. I think Trump would simply refuse to debate, because if he shared a stage with Warren, he'd simply disappear.
111
@Vesuviano
Watching from Australia and an avid follower of US politics, a Warren-Buttigieg ticket was my conclusion too. Both are impressive, intelligent, committed and articulate.
25
@Vesuviano My exact take away of this third debate and definitely my choices for the most solid ticket across the board.
15
@Vesuviano This is a ticket that genuinely excites me and makes me want to organize, donate and vote.
11
I have watched all 3 debates. I read the NY Times the next morning with the same process, I first scroll down to find a comment that I agree with completely and then look for that person's comments for all the other candidates to see if they align, they never do. I try it over and over with whatever comments I agree with.
I have come to realize that if all the NY Times columnists can't agree on the same debate performance as shown by the scoring, how the heck can the voters?.
I find myself constantly saying, I wish there was another candidate who was a bit of all of these folks as everyone has some really good attributes.
By the end, the top 3 are the top 3 for a reason, but I wish Booker could crack the top tier.
22
@LT
It's like asking people to evaluate music or food. Some people hate spicy food. Some people hate jazz. If you're looking for some kind of objective measure, you won't find it here, because the evaluators attach different weights to different components.
1
Wish there was a better way to showcase the candidates; I'd sooner see them for a couple of nights in round table discussions instead of these high pressure debates. Giving people one or even two minutes to get their points across, especially on complicated or emotionally fraught issues doesn't satisfy my desire for clarity and detail.
Besides, I've never enjoyed watching people argue, or attack each other. A president ought to be persuasive, and able to stand on policy and principle, instead of behaving like a prize fighter in a ring. If we long for a more civilized and informed society, we're going to have to ask for it from our leaders; getting rid of these debates might be a good first step.
89
@woodswoman
"A president ought to be persuasive, and able to stand on policy and principle"
Buttigieg best fits this description. He is my choice, but may not be able to break out due to his youth and relative lack of experience.
17
@Sarah,
I like Mayor Pete very much, but he might have to wait a bit before the country is ready for him. I'd love to see him in the Senate for a couple of terms, then take another run.
Though I do wonder if people might accept him as a vice president this time around?
5
@woodswoman
Media driven circus with punditry as ringleaders needs to end. It promotes people like Trump and discriminates against the thoughtful, reasoned candidate.
5
I felt as if Klobuchar was at at terrible disadvantage -- far end, not much light on her, questions rarely going her way, ideas not outrageous -- and she isn't an interrupter, She needs to make herself more prominent -- she is so well qualified (in my opinion).
43
@Joan. Every time I look at her, I remember how awful she is to her staff. Frankly I’m surprised she is in the top ten. I put her with Gillibrand in that if she were the nominee I would vote for her in the general, but not happily.
When someone denigrates people who cannot respond for fear of losing a job, be it in the supermarket checkout line or the office of a senator, that person lacks a moral compass. I wouldn’t expect it of a Democrat, but there you go.
5
And the big, big winner was Trump. Not a single one of these people can beat trump. They are only talking to the far left base while they are alienating the middle.
2
@JR So you must think trump is appealing to the middle? Wow!
Elizabeth Warren is bright enough to realize that eliminating all employer based private health care is an idea that will not fly. She needs to moderate that view if she wants to win a contest with the Republicans and their candidate, who shall remain nameless. The most capable and effective Senator on the stage is Amy Kolobuchar.
27
@PETER EBENSTEIN MD
I agree with your first two statements, but not the third.
I think Warren will continue to rise.
11
No one can shine in this format. Those looking to the candidate who can best Trump in debate (assuming he shows up) might remember that Hillary Clinton trounced Trump (and Sanders) in all of her debates.
11
I am genuinely baffled to see the pro-Yang comments based on him offering "solutions." This seems entirely backwards. We want to fix the economy so it produces jobs that allow people to make choices and pay for what they want. That's the real solution. Not some pie in the sky "let's give away money" idea.
Warren, who actually thinks seriously about fixing the economy, was typically strong. But she needs to move to the Mayor Pete position on Medicare if she wants to win now & in November. I think she may do it.
And I am very surprised to see Melanye Price sticking up for Castro as a fighter in this piece. They guy mischaracterized Biden's position and made cracks offensive to older Americans. Amy Klobuchar was exactly right when she said post-debate that it made Castro sound like Trump. Pete was too when he said Democrats don't want to watch that type of thing. And Castro was 100% wrong when he answered that it was ok because "it's a debate." No, we Democrats can debate without the misleading and tasteless taunts. And we don't need candidates going negative just to draw attention to their flagging campaigns.
I have been impressed that neither Klobuchar nor Buttigieg have chosen the negative attack route even though they need some traction. Makes me think they have a sense of who they are and right and wrong that they are not going to violate for personal gain.
59
@David
I agree with you on Yang. I absolutely hate the idea that we’re supposed to throw in the towel and concede to ai. That’s advocating feudalism. So if we’rd all on UBI because 6 people are running all the business in the U.S. then what do the rest of us 320 million people do with all our free time? In a country with more guns than humans and a crazy amount of racial tension and social division, I don’t see this turning out well at all.
2
@David, You are underestimating the magnitude of the automation problem.
It is very likely that good jobs just will not exist in economy sustaining numbers in the near future.
Do you have a plan to "fix the economy so it produces jobs that allow people to make choices and pay for what they want"? Because none of the other plans I am reading come close to putting a dent in the problem like a UBI would.
With few exceptions, our economy has been hemorrhaging those types of jobs for the last two decades, mostly because of advances in efficiency (automation).
Also, working 40-60 hours a week is not natural or necessary. What is wrong with giving people the means to work less when this country can clearly afford it?
6
If you are interested in the debates, watch them yourself. The debates are for the voters to see and hear the candidates. The diverse impressions and opinions of pundits are no substitute for seeing/hearing it live. Many quips and one liners that look good on paper (writers have to write something, after all) fell flat in reality. Every viewer's own impressions will be unique.
8
@Joe Runciter
True, but its fun to see what the pundits say.
And more fun to see whether their predictions pan out.
Kamala Harris: I've long thought that prosecutorial prowess is exactly what we need -- at an impeachment hearing. Having said this I have also long thought that it might make her very good in a one-on-one debate against Trump.
But I support Warren.
8
The observations of your 11 pundit/scorers here - mostly women, with a few racial minorities and conservatives thrown in the mix - portray a deceptive consensus when averaged out. On an individual basis, however, these professional politics-watchers are all over the map. We are thus given a glimpse into the thinking of the average voter. We all have our reasons for supporting a given candidate. While perceived self-interest is likely at the top of the list, the comments of your panel of pundits suggest that “issues” don’t matter much.
4
There are candidates pundits love and candidates voters love. These groups do not generally overlap.
4
I don't know how you averaged those scores, but e.g., Klobuchar doesn't compute as below 5 given the 11 individual scores posted.
1
Yesterday's debate was boring, none of the candidates was inspiring. Kamala Harris did better this time with her jokes but nothing more. Elizabeth Warren reminds me of my grand mother, Biden has a lot of experience but too old and that shows up. Yang has nothing new.
In my opinion, none of these candidates can defeat Donald Trump. The Democratic party should come up with a much stronger candidate to defeat Trump.
9
@Padman
I disagree. The debate was informative and several of the candidates can beat Trump.
Polling is measuring a lot of unknowns right now. Once the public learns more about the front runners, things will get better for the dems.
Heck, several already poll better than Trump.
4
@Padman Trump is running against himself. If he keeps going the way he is, a monkey could beat him.
People need to see from either Sen. Warren or Sen. Sanders one or two charts (like late Mr. Ross Perot) that succinctly explains why 'Medicare for' all is good for an average voter's finances, good for the country's budget & rural/small town America.
20
When they finally got of health care an onto education Yang gave by far the best answer of the night . Invest in communities and families to give kids a headstart and improve their overall well being. While I wasn't crazy about his giveaway he seems to grasp the real issues better than the front runners.
9
When politics is promoted as sport we all lose. The format again left much to be desired but what matters most are the issues -- many like the climate catastrophe given short shrift --
and the records of those running for office. On both counts Warren and Sanders come out on top again.
3
I"m too lazy to calculate the standard deviation of your rankings, but it's telling to see so much range in perception.
I was extremely disappointed by how much time ABC spent on health care, which has been discussed ad nauseam and how little time (none) on the economy, the debt and taxes.
- Mayor Pete gave the sharpest answers... the few times he was actually allowed to speak. He actually sounded the most presidential to me.
- Biden was incoherent half the time. Pack it in.
- Bernie proved he was a catalyst for the party's turn left, but is no president. Enough with the rants.
- Warren is smart and folksy. I just don't think she has clue on the economics. She must buy into MMT. But we can't blame EVERYTHING on corporate greed.
- Booker is SO good in debates. He might be the only one that can take Trump on head to head.
- Yang is a niche candidate..interesting not compelling
- Castro is the real deal but I didn't like his attacks
- Klobuchar has great content but is just so charismatic that she'll never make it to the big leagues.
- O'Rourke - I just don't know what he brings vs the others.
12
@deedubs
I agree with Deedubs' assessment on Mayor Pete, always calm articulate and thinking his own thoughts. He never sounds like a pre-organized speech rehearsed in a practice room; I'd come to him in a crisis.
45
@deedubs
I have read through most of the comments and agree with your assessment the most. Booker is very good in debates and have felt from the start he would be the strongest up against Trump. Don't know why he hasn't risen in the polls.
2
@CXK the reason he isn't rising is summaries like this from the New York Times, they are not giving him the coverage or the ability to rise. He is just one of several candidates I like who are young enough and intelligent enough to do well that are being dismissed in favor of snark.
1
The comments on Biden are revealing: there's a different standard (aka a very low bar) for him. He sounds and acts like a person out of touch, one that would not only struggle in a debate with Trump but, more importantly, a candidate that doesn't inspire people to follow him and vote (i. e. the Obama effect). Biden may be the front runner in some polls now but, if Trump is going to be a one-term POTUS, the Democrats need to nominate someone with energy, vision, command of language and issues and the ability to inspire potential voters. That's not Joe.
172
@Jeff
Ok, number one, Barack Obama thought Joe Biden was in touch, that's why he picked him as his running mate, that's why he picked him as his vice president, under Barack Obama, that's number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, that he is more in touch with what ordinary Americans - he is in touch with ordinary Americans, and you know what, let me tell you something, we have to get in touch with people. Joe Biden knows ordinary Americans, he's been there since the beginning, he is the only one to beat the banks, and the sewer plants, et cedera. Look, the fact of the matter is, people go to - they went, they have problems and John Biden understands that, you know what, at that time, you who else understood that, named Barack Obama understood that, and several more things, and he, thank you.
More than any other issue, I think Medicare-for-All is likely to be the straw that leads to a Trump reelection (and I support both a universal health plan and Elizabeth Warren). I do hope that the eventual Democratic nominee (Warren) will move a little closer to the center on this one, perhaps by proposing a mix of private and universal coverage as a way to start.
17
@James Wilson Actually, all the candidates supporting this have a phase-in period. Sanders is the shortest and most aggressive at four years. We need to start with a bold goal and then hammer out the details along the way.
7
For center-left Democrats, the problem is that Biden was the least articulate center-left candidate on stage. Passion, yes. Good heart and good soul, yes. But he speaks so fast that at times he's jumbled and practically incoherent. He seems frantic and doesn't complete sentences. His fragments seem disconnected. I know it's too late to change Joe Biden, but a speech coach that gets him to slow down, be less pressured and more thoughtful might help Joe. The strongest part of the debate for him was his response to the "resiliency" question--not just because it lays bare Biden's personal story of loss, pain and recovery, but because he slowed down, took his time and didn't come across as pressured. There are many more debates to come.
10
Reading this article about this debate, I keep asking myself did I witness the same debate as these folks? Granted, my opinion as to who won or made a difference is just one opinion. Time to let big data to determine who won instead of the talking heads and spin artists.
9
@Progers9 Time to let Bid Data choose our next president for us (joke!)
The country is looking for someone to unite it and executive in character and judgment. I didn't see the person here. Biden is there by name recognition; Democratic voters rightly found him twice before not presidential material, nice though he may be. Warren would win on professional debating points, but lectures, not listens, and will be polarizing - wants 50+1 voting in the Senate - which is not a formula for lasting achievements. No one sees Sanders as a serious contender. He and Warren should stay in the Senate. I thought Amy Klobuchar had very good moments, and I missed Bullock, whom I thought was excellent last time around, as well as our Congresswoman Gabbard. Harris and Beto are there on the basis of name recognition in big states. I think the Democrats have a way to go before they coalesce around a candidate, and they don't have an Obama in this group. They need to choose someone who not only can defeat Trump, but also bring the country together in the post-Trump era. It may be a long primary season.
3
@MEC
I have to agree that the Democratic field sorely lacks an "Obama". A candidate with that much charisma, intelligence & confidence rarely comes along.
When you legislate the details are important. In debates the broad strokes are sufficient. The key is beating Trump. It will take a combination of Biden's name recognition and Warren's policy fire.
If you redirect the amount business is paying for healthcare and people pay in co-pays, deductibles and insurance premiums, single payer costs half as much. Canada pays much less for drugs, as does Europe, Asia and Africa.
Trump's election proved experience and knowledge and decency are not required to be elected President. Biden is decent and moral, if too old. He will do fine as President. The key will be winning the Senate if Democrats want to accomplish anything major including less "conservative" judges. Any Democrat will improve on Trump. My guess is Biden and Warren is a winning ticket given Trump's mean and corrupt chaos keeps getting worse. If the economy is falling in 2020 that nails the Trump coffin shut.
1
It was a moment in time. Many more to come, and I hope they will be offering more of them to candidates who weren't already well-known and artful in the party/big funders/media industrial game. At some point, the media must take seriously Marianne Williamson's call to address the causes before throwing money at "solutions" to symptoms. I know that's speaking truth to big advertisers, but the clients need the media every bit as much as media needs advertisers. Onward and upward, please.
Watching Biden fade as the evening wore on has me deeply concerned about his ability to debate one-on-one with Trump. That is what it will all come down to. Trump's policies and in general, his actions taken as president amount to one sham/mistake after another. Easy to criticize, but can Biden stand up to him?
Also, once again I see Sanders in the middle eroding support for other candidates. The appeal in draws will split our party and that could be very costly.
Pete and Beto were present and Beto has returned to become a meaningful candidate again. Pete not so much, but he remains a calming and logical voice.
Ultimately, we need to pare down the numbers and come up with a powerful candidate. Last night's contest didn't accomplish that.
6
@Steve Julian Castro brought nothing to the debate, and he should drop out. That would be a start in the weeding process. Like you, I thought Pete was logical and calm, while Beto was passionate. Both are good qualities.
Yang's - "I'm going to give you $1,000 a month" is characterized as gimmicky. Meanwhile the others are talking $30 trillion of free health care, trillions of student loan cancellations and trillions of free college, and that's not gimmicky? Anyway, it's interesting to watch the whitewashing of the debate versus the real time dynamics generated by some excellent questioning by the moderators of Kamala Harris and Klobuchar on their records. The recaps of the debate bear little resemblance to the real thing, and the "fact checking" is a lackluster exercise meant to generate some false equivalence to the unhinged scrutiny of Trump's every word. If you still haven't figured out which media outlets are propaganda arms of the DNC, be sure to compare and contrast the hot takes from the actual debate.
Oh - and I actually have a problem with Beto "El Baso" O'Rourke. He co-opts the Hispanic angle by trying to get us to forget his real name is Robert O'Rourke. But worse, he is singularly trying to capitalize on the tragedy in El Paso to become President. Such is the state of the Democratic primary.
5
@TL That is deeply unfair and mean. Beto is not mean, and his speaking of Spanish relates to the fact that over half his constituency, not to mention a ton of Americans, are Latinx. It would be more useful to point to the fact that he has taken a half million from oil companies for his campaign.
5
I am a middle of the road DEM so Amy Klobuchar is my pick. I like her approach on things and I believe she has policies that could actually become law. Sanders and Warren are too extreme with plans that will never amount to anything. Warren really turns me off with her constant tax the rich and kill corporate America. Neither one can beat trump. Biden is too old with too much history in tow. All that said I support whoever wins the nomination. Anyone on that stage is 1000% more qualified than trump and will do a far better job.
46
@Thomas Renner The only problem with being in the middle of the road is that Trump turns those candidates into roadkill.
1
Was it just me or did Bernie Sanders look like the crazy, bug eyed guy on the corner shouting "The end is near."? On the whole, I went from bored to angry at all the evasive answers to questions by all the candidates. We don't need the issues defined, we need them solved. Show me the money! Tell me what you will do (in the end I believe they all know there is little they can do without Congress' cooperation and we all know how that's going these days).
18
@Jimmy - So you want issues defined AND resolved in 75 seconds or less? Einstein himself wouldn’t be able to accomplish that in such a “debate” format.
3
@AJBF Right, if you chew up your time with anecdotes. How many times did we here "I think I'm the only one up here..." For the most part all we got was what we typically get from our politicians these days, "Trust me." and with our current president you can see where that goes, nowhere.
1
I enjoyed reading all the opinions. I agree with some & disagree with many especially Maureen Dowd & Ross Douthat's opinion regarding Senator Warren.
I don't think Senator Warren "tends to lecture." Also, I don't believe Senator Warren "disappeared entirely for the first hour" & "she lost the opening exchange on health care."
I agree entirely with Miriam Powell's opinion that Senator Warren: "Consistently strong across a range of issues, unruffled by Biden’s attacks on health care, she got stronger as the debate went on — with points for fortitude and versatility."
Miriam Powell's rating for Senator Warren is right on the mark = 9/10.
Regarding former Vice-President Biden - Mimi Swartz's opinion is on target = "He started out with guns blazing, but by mid-debate he seemed to run out of ammunition".
I think Maureen Dowd has a bulls-eye hit regarding Bernie:
"Face it, Elizabeth Warren has stolen your act".
I like Senator Warren for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Now for Vice-President - that's a tough decision.
18
@Michael Z
You could go all “technocrat” and take a Warren/Buttigieg ticket and have the brightest pair (although almost as “whitest” a pair as Trump & Pence) in the White House. Or all female with Warren/Harris, thus changing the degree of “whiteness”, while keeping the IQ high and getting a bicoastal ticket. (Warren/Booker would be too NE centered for the national race I fear, although it would solve the “whiteness” problem.)
Either of these pairs I would heartily endorse. Heck, I would support a Warren/zombie ticket...
@AS Pruyn Warren/Booker but there’s a real geography problem, Warren/Brown (Ohio) or, if this keeps working for Beto, Warren/O’Rourke. If it’s actually possible to put Texas in play... that would be huge. Texans do not seem to be huge fans of Trump on the whole.
Nobody will skirt this issue because they don’t want to be accused of ageism. However, I think it is crucial to have a candidate who can serve 2 terms, the country doesn’t need the next campaign to start in 2021, consistent steady leadership that has staying power not a transition to something else. I favor a candidate who can serve 8 years and not be in their mid 80s. I am same age as Warren and her energy impresses me. Biden, Sanders can not serve to 2028, they should step aside. However anyone with a pulse over the current psychopath.
69
@Dorothy G
You made the argument far more poignantly and convincingly with Castro. And the problem with what he did is that you can't say someone is senile but you should vote for them should they get the nomination. It's a far better play to discuss it in the context of concerns about 2024.
4
The format for TV network so called “debates” ensures the yelling, lecturing, and snarking that results. The important process of debating issues is degraded along with otherwise intelligent candidates who must somehow go for a “breakout moment” in order to be heard. The issues are complex but they are expected to explain a position in 90 seconds. Everyone is in a hurry to win the personality contest. What a game show spectacle. The medium is the message and the problem.
86
Democracy dollars is a great idea. Up here in Canuckistan I just gave $100 to a political party for the upcoming election. After the tax credit it ends up costing me $25 net. Yes a 75% tax credit. Flooding the election with cash given to the people (which will be spent and pumped back into the economy anyway) is a great way to overcome the power of money in politics by the rich and powerful. It would be a lot more expensive for them to buy reps.
4
"He came across as intensely unlikeable and self-satisfied. Apparently he felt like someone needed to pick up the baton from Bill de Blasio." - Peter Wehner
Exactly my thoughts. Castro is the one candidate on that stage I wouldn't vote for. I honestly like all of the rest (not sure about Yang).
Biden held his own and earned my vote. The one issue in this election is beating Trump and he is our best candidate in the general election. Warren is great, but her policies make her far less likely to win in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. That's where 2020, like 2016 will be won or lost.
16
@Joe Sweeney
That is where I have been all along. Welcome aboard.
6
@Joe Sweeney Totally agree. I liked him quite a bit until last night. He just came across as nasty. We have nasty. I want to move on from that - Dem or Republican.
3
@JF
LOL- Brooklyn, Philly and Boston!
Great minds think alike!!
This is about "winning" a debate judged by a group of knowledgeable and savvy, well educated, successful journalists. They are not representative of the average American voter. These debates have nothing to do with who is the best potential president or has the skills set needed to be successful or who can beat Trump. Wrong judges, wrong venue for such an important decision moment in history for American voters.
28
@Sarah
'This is about "winning" a debate judged by a group of knowledgeable and savvy, well educated, successful journalists.'
Except that it's not. Most of the columnists choose to express their personal opinion of the candidates and/or their ideology rather than a dispassionate analysis of the electoral effectiveness of their performance. That is what is so vexing about this feature this year in the NYT. I can tell you, for instance, what Michelle Goldberg or Will Wilkinson, is going to say about how a candidate did BEFORE the debate even begins.
7
I am sorry that Pete did not have more of a break out night. The more I see him, the better he looks as the perfect candidate for this point in history. Biden and Sanders are too old. Warren is too far left and Medicare for all is a sure loser. Booker had a good night, but he is pretty intense. Beto and Castro don't feel right. Pete is intelligent, progressive but practical, calm in demeanor, and compelling in his arguments. He can also handle Trump's insults with wry humor, making him look ridiculous. But the debate format doesn't showcase his talents to full advantage.
I hope people give him a second look but it seems that Warren has been anointed and she could easily lose with her taxes and give aways.
251
@ckdogs
I absolutely agree. Thank you!
17
@ckdogs Totally agree. Buttigieg comes off so well in interviews and town halls and strikes me as having the right temperament, skills and humility to be an excellent president. But he disappeared on the debate stage last night. I still think he is the best option of the bunch, and I was sad that he didn't come off better up there.
22
@ckdogs Pete is gay.
I would like to share an observation that will attract lots of negative feedback, along with a recommendation to make things better.
Many people, especially men, will not vote for Elizabeth Warren because of her preachy, sometimes almost whiny, voice and high pitch. Last night and on prior occasions it almost sounded as if she might cry. The thought of listening to that voice for four years will turn off a lot of potential voters for Warren, as it did with similarly-voiced Kirsten Gillibrand.
The problem will only become greater if Warren becomes the Democratic nominee and is subjected to 24/7 coverage by visual and audio media. What she says can be appealing; how she says it, not so much.
The solution? Lots of people, even including famous Hollywood actors and actresses, have hired voice coaches to improve their tone, diction and delivery.
There is no shame in doing this. After all, the candidates spend many hours in practice debates with staff and political coaches refining their presentations; why not add one more coach to focus on improving Warren’s voice and delivery?
Henry Higgins did it for Eliza Doolittle. Why not a bit of the same for Elizabeth Warren?
35
@Mon Ray Well, that whining voice got her a chair on the Harvard Law faculty, a seat in the U.S. Senate and now a top tier position in the Democratic Party's nomination process. Does one prefer Mr. Sociopath with his booming voice?
I trust the Democratic party's electorate will factor in her voice and overall stage presence when they actual vote next spring. As far as voice training for Elizabeth Warren, I don't think she will be interested. Her reputation is that she is tough as nails, a Sooner woman who grew up on the edge of poverty, who started as a rock ribbed Republican and has converted to a social democratic firebrand.
Will she turn off voters with her voice? I honestly don't see that. I think her energy, honesty, courage and intellect are far more important to voters.
124
@Mon Ray
I think her voice is fine and perfectly pleasant to listen to. Women have higher pitched voices than men. Maybe it is really just women in general that some men don't like listening to...
125
@Mon Ray
I hope the electorate can grow up and realize that a women, and woman often have higher pitched voices, are equal to men. Elizabeth Warren is more than equal to ALL the men in this race. Get over it already, dude. #timesup
27
The Democrat message in the last few years has gotten crazy. The government should not be in the healthcare business. Confiscating guns, open borders (which will allow more illegal guns into the country) abolish immigration and Customs enforcement so anyone can bring anything illegal or explosive into the country. Reparations, which is really a tax on white people. It's all just nuts.
6
@P McGrath
I respectfully disagree re healthcare - most advanced countries have some system for national health care and get better overall results for less money per person.
Re guns, control and regulation does not violate the 2nd amendment, look at the past - bazookas are not on the streets, machine guns are regulated strictly. I do not buy slippery slope arguments.
Open borders and abolishing ICE - these are wrongheaded and could bring down Democratic chances of a much needed victory IMO. There is a very strong pull to enter the US for economic reasons and the refugee law is being abused as much as tax loopholes for the wealthy are being abused.
My view on reparations is not fully formed. There are so many factors leading to wealth and opportunity inequality . . .
7
@P McGrath: The US is arms merchant to the whole planet.
1
The commentators and the ABC moderators need to watch the Netflix documentary "American Factory" and then ask themselves did their comments/questions really address the issues facing most Americans? The documentary shows why Trump one (he verbalized the pain) and why Trump is wrong in his solutions. The problem is the media does not focus on the key issues, and so the candidates can't even if they want to. Yang is really the only one talking about real solutions. Yes UBI seems weird ... but we will see if you say the same thing in 5-10 years. Change is moving at light speed, politics at glacial speed.
30
@Bill
The problem with Yang's proposal is that $12000/year is not nearly enough to move the dial on wealth inequality. So it ends up being a flat tax (a negative one), funded by another flat tax (VAT).
1
I gave Elizabeth Warren a 10, because I'm going to vote for her in the primaries. How's that for a built in bias?
And if Elizabeth doesn't get the nomination, any other other of the candidates on stage last night will be perfectly fine with me.
104
@cherrylog754
"How's that for a built in bias?"
Not much different than the pundits in the article, whose scoring also seems to be primarily based on their personal and ideological preferences rather than dispassionate analysis. Perhaps that is what they feel is expected of the--to maintain their "brand."
13
It’s the personality stupid. Every presidential election I’ve witnessed since Nixon/Kennedy has been won by the most likable candidate. NY Times pundits are the worst people for rating these candidates since they’re obsessed with policy. There’s surely a percentage that vote on policy but the percentage that makes the difference votes on likeability. Hillary Clinton was great on policy, they just didn’t like her. Warren, Sanders, and Castro will not pass the likeability test.
15
@Roscoe
I like Elizabeth Warren - a lot. She is a much different person than the general media narrative had me thinking she was prior to the start of the primary campaign. Her policy positions that the media labeled as radical left or extremely progressive start to sound like what someone who cares about people and wants to improve our society would come up with after a lot of thought on what the most practical and ethical way to achieve the outcome would be, when she is explaining them. Go figure.
9
@Roscoe I recently attended a Warren rally and was not only impressed with her energy, intellect and grasp of complex issues (and their potential solutions) but her charm and likeability. She'd also be formidable in going head-to-head with Trump.
10
@Roscoe
news flash: lots of folks don't 'like' Biden either...its not that some folks didn't like Hilary, its that lots of folks HATED her (with much thanks to Russia and other shadow media).
1
There was only one winner of the debate last night.
The winner was not on the stage but in the White House, President Donald J Trump.
8
The #1 Problem that needs to be solved is the fact that America is emotionally challenged and none of our debaters are even airing this problem let alone talking about the solutions to tackle this situation. I wish they were asked and they addressed the following questions:
1) How come infrastructure, incomes, inventions, education, sciences are all improving and yet drug addictions, suicides, divorce, sleeplessness, unhappiness, tiredness, wars, etc. are as bad as ever?
2) How come Black girls are thriving and their brothers are to a larger extent messed up?
3) Emotional Health is the foundation of health and so why is there no testing or manual for emotional health?
4) What is the mind?
5) There are 40,000 books on happiness and yet not one makes you happy?
6) The biggest attribute of wisdom is pure selfless love and how come there is no definition of love as one of wisdom's attribute?
I hope that in the next debate these questions will be asked.
I agree that Warren outshined all the others. She is hitting the home run on issues that matter with detailed solutions. She will bring genuine power of the people to the table!
This was Biden's best debate but still not good enough for a front runner.
Booker did well but he did not admit his biggest failure of having wasted the 200 million on failed education reform.
Bernie is sounding more and more like Kasich, like a tired old professor. Warren is articulating his thunder better.
2
@Sajidkhan: The US public does not even understand what the human "soul" is: our personal operating system software.
Stick a fork in Castro, he's done.
He had good support among older voters...and they just kicked him off of their ballot.
See Julian, we look a lot like Biden. And you insulted us.
You are done.
Castro came off like a teenager who got sent to bed without supper.
We already have rudeness and discrimination in the White House...no more please.
230
@Judy
Totally agree. Castro lost a whole generation of voters last night.
22
@Judy
I don't think Biden is the best candidate. But I think he is an amazing patriot who deserves respect. I think whether he gets the nomination or not, he is putting himself through hell for the good of the country. Castro's insulting manner was very disappointing. I hope no one else takes that route. I don't want to see trump's ugliness in my candidate. They can be outrageous, exaggerating, and partisan. But don't be ugly.
27
@Judy
I agree that Castro's remark about "forgetting what he said 2 minutes ago" was a big mistake. I wouldn't yell that at any old person whether it was Joe Biden or not.
However "we look a lot like Biden" and so therefore we have all been insulted is a stretch on a number of levels. I don't look anything like Joe Biden and I'm just as American as anybody in your county in Michigan. Speak for yourself.
5
Fire the moderators. The 'debate' was simply a series of gotcha questions.
63
The Bernie Sanders reviews re predictably out of touch and honestly sounds like people with an agenda. Everything is an act or about his age. Can you pick more objective people to review?
16
@Marcus
Yes, I was particularly taken with the fact that no one pointed out that his statements about what Democratic Socialism is were simply wrong. Sanders has invested a lot of time and money trying to repurpose the terms "Socialism" and "Democratic Socialism" to mean New Deal Liberalism" or Social Democracy, which as deeply dishonest and misleading as anything of the right-wing's Orwellian redefinitions through the years. It appears to be falling flat and wasn't challenged on stage last night because the otters candidates no longe see Sanders as having a path to the nomination. (Essentially capped, he is just locking up a share of votes without the ability to ever grow it to a majority.) But I am surprised there wasn't more pundit discussion of how historically novel and idiosyncratic Sanders description of "Democratic Socialism" was.
1
@Marcus
The corporate pundits and media exists to promote narratives and candidates which support corporate interests and to denigrate those who do not. They are doing their job. Informed citizens should realize it and take it or what it's worth. Sanders and Warren are the most authentic candidates on the stage. Anyone else is just more of the same.
4
@Marcus
and Bernie supporters are untethered to the truth. it's more like a religious cult.
1
The New York city liberals may like Beto's statement about taking guns but this up,up, up state liberal knows this is the kiss of death! MY friends will vote for anybody but him or anyone that threatens to confiscate their guns.
This writers should talk to my friends about taking their employment earned insurance and taxing them more to give free tuition now when they scraped to pay for their kids education, if able.
Wed learned there are no 'free lunches'1
6
@ncvvet. It would appear that the majority of Americans favor removing assault style weapons from the citizenry. Democrats would like to verbalize their wish but fear actual physical death if this were to be verbalized. I give Beto a lot of credit and pray he survives the barrage of death threats he is about to receive from all those God fearing patriotic American gun owners.
2
As a Democrat, I want a candidate who is intelligent, considerate, and capable. One who takes the time to reflect on data, advice, and inputs when making decisions.
The ability to belt out barroom-level one-liners like poor comedians at Open Mike Night and to win quibbles with quips doesn't interest me at all.
These debates serve no one.
544
@MikeJaquish, as a moderate, I couldn't agree with you more.
43
@MikeJaquish
As to your first paragraph, it don't mean a thing if the thoughtfulness is never codified in solid legislative or policy action. Quick tricks, like we sometimes see in lower-court actions that are eventually overturned, or executive actions with only the shelf-life of that particular administration don't cut it.
7
@MikeJaquish - you'll like Buttigieg. Check out his website for some thoughtful and intelligent planks (for the most part). Listen to interviews of him - he is reflective and is capable of taking inputs when making decisions.
73
It is amazing to see how divisive and polarising this topic really is in the US to provide health care as a universal right to everyone whereas in countries like Australia such system is extremely normal not at all socialist.
I live in Australia where a mixed public private healthcare system has been in place for many years. Anyone who cannot afford a private choice can always rely on the public choice as a safety net.
Despite its imperfections it does provide a peace of mind for those who cannot afford private health care. In nature it plays as an incentive for citizens to stay away from diseases, thus creating a healthier society.
On another note, it does seem that NYTimes is a bit out of touch on Andrew Yang - Twitter for sure is not the reality but you cannot ignore the fact that most internet polls have Yang ranking high on the list of who won the debate. Just a thought.
71
@Bruce
You are absolutely right.
Almost all other advanced countries do have a mixed healthcare system of public and private insurance, where everyone is insured from cradle to grave, while not one person or a whole family will go bankrupt should they come down with a serious illness.
The supposedly greatest nation on the planet pays twice and even more per GDP for healthcare, and that with worse outcome to boot.
22
@Bruce
"It is amazing to see how divisive and polarising this topic really is in the US to provide health care as a universal right to everyone"
In the US perhaps, but not among democrats. Everyone on the stage last night was for this. They just have different schemes for providing it--just as each country that has achieved this has different arrangements, laws, and programs based on what works for them.
One of the thing that has really stymied the conversation is that Sanders and some of his allies disparage any plan other than their own as being fake, despite the fact that they often more closely resemble the universal coverage regimes of the countries Sanders cites than his plan does.
6
@Bruce
We can't seem to get over the idea in this country that helping people will not inevitably cause the Earth to invert on its axis and lead to another Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.
4
Yes, Yang's giveaway of 1000 dollars per month for a year to ten Americans seemed gimmicky. And I signed up. Because I could use an extra 1000 a month. I can get a monthly pass at my yoga studio instead of just going occasionally. I can donate more to organizations working to address climate change. And I can put it away in my health savings account and for retirement. I'm middle aged and I have only a few hundred in my HSA and just a few thousand in my IRA.
The NY Times commentators seem out of touch if they all think it is only a gimmick. This is where we are as a country. People are struggling. People are hurting. UBI could help. The more people that know about it as an option, the better. And if this gimmick increases people's understanding, why not?
160
@the quiet one
I agree, Yang's plan has real merit. I also liked that he has given credit to his wife, who gave up her career to stay home with their son, who has autism. A universal income would help parents in same situation. It would place value on their unpaid labor. This kind of personal story shows that he understands real people's problems, even if he has a lot more resources than the average American. I would like to know more about where that number comes from. I think an extra 12K a year would be life changing for some, and for others a drop in the bucket.
60
@the quiet one Thanks for your comment. I've been a supporter of Yang since March, 2019 (not so much because of the UBI as the Democracy Dollars) but I couldn't help feeling last night that his opening statement was a mistake from which he never recovered throughout the debate. All he has to do is stick to the numbers and a few personal anecdotes to get the nomination, but last night he seemed to embrace his own version of a reality TV star that he so beautifully criticized in the last debate. Not a good approach in my opinion. Oh well, I still consider it a smashing success for him to have made it as far as he has.
16
@Jiva This is the only way to break away from the media cold shoulder he's been receiving. If he's correct in his diagnosis of the problems Americans are facing, then many more people will agree with @the quiet one.
7
Yang was quickly dismissed by the commentators because they have not listened to his plans carefully. The debate format is an awful format in which to discuss important ideas, and so a horrible format for Yang - hence the gimmicky approach to get some air time.
Watch any of his long one on one interviews and you see someone focused on the problems ahead (AI and climate change) and not just the problems of now.
In 5 years when AI has wiped out a ton more jobs what are the average workers going to live on? This stuff is coming at light speed - if you actually are looking forward - and Yang is he only candidate that seem to get this.
Instead you have silly discussions in the "debate" about issues that really are not relevant to tomorrow. Even health care is going to be upended by AI. It will not be long before an AI robot does a better job of diagnosis than a doctor. Lawyers too will see much of their work eliminated by AI.
Commentators need to learn a bit more about what is coming instead of focusing merely on style.
181
@Bill
I'd be more open if he had bothered to run for nay public office at all - say City Council perhaps. But of course he's too smart for that and should just start at the top.
I might also point out, electing someone that's never been elected to anything before has been tried recently.
How's that working out for you?
17
@Bill
Additionally, Yang is the only candidate with notable bi-partisan appeal. And that’s no small feat, in this climate of mutually polarized echo-chambers. Under each and every one of his long-format discussions on YouTube, you will find a slew of commenters who would be thrilled to transfer their support from Trump to Yang. Evidently there is even enthusiasm for his policies on 4chan, of all places.
So there goes my best hope for quelling populist rage and healing the rift that has (way too many) people talking and thinking about civil war.
How I wish he had just assumed we all know about UBI—which is not his primary appeal, if you ask anyone who listened to him for an hour or more—and painted in the rest of the picture, but he never got to the real meat of his message.
@Tracy
I'll worry about that after he has mopped the floor with Trump.
20
@Tracy There is a HUGE difference between Yang and Trump. What is needed from voters (if possible in the USA which I doubt) is discernment and critical thinking.
12
You guys are thinking way too small. Andrew Yang will prevail. Almost half of the candidate on the stage tonight will drop out the race while he'll be getting momentum.
14
@Keslo, Yang is far too intelliegent to be a good president. Remember Jimmy Carter, the last engineer we had as a president? How did that go?
@Pat McT- OMG what a sad thing to say! Too intelligent to be president? Maybe you actually mean "too decent"? even sadder.
"He is less angry and more knowledgeable than a lot of the other candidates."
This singular comment about Cory Booker from one of the evaluators in this article rings true. I found that the comments from the various scored opinions were very consistent. I could tell which commentator would score which way as a I read through this.
It shows to me a true democratic divide in philosophies. I think that the nature of President Trump's conduct makes candidates who promote " a fight" seem sensical and supportable. But when we take President Trump's divisive nature out of the equation, does that type of " fighting" campaign still sound like a good thing?
Apparently for half the democratic party yes, and for the other half no.
6
Well, I guess it's time to start seriously consider where I'm going to live after the 2020 elections.
I don't think people in the middle of the country will support Elizabeth Warren.
I think, as per usual, the Democratic Party is going to lose this sure thing.
I think Biden would be a horrible choice but he might win. Elizabeth Warren is a darling of the Left but the Left doesn't seem to remember it has to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Those states are not likely to vote for Senator Warren who is selling Kombatcha and tofu to people who want to hear about meat and potatoes.
52
@mj Anywhere I would want to move - Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, Europe - offers universal health care for all their citizens. They also offer quality higher education for very little cost. And they're all doing more than the United States is to address the most pressing issue of our day - the climate crisis. These are all things Warren wants to do.
Where exactly would you want to move?
25
@mj, you're completely right. The democrats are shooting themselves in the foot hyping up people like Warren. If they want to actually defeat Trump, and I would like to vote for that to happen, they need someone more centered to appeal to those who sit in the middle. Democrats will vote democrat in the next election, but there are plenty of people who you could swing to the left side, that don't want to swing THAT far.
4
@mj
She’s winning against Trump head to head in PA and MI. Wisconsin may be out of reach, but it’s early and she only improves in voter favorability the more they see her. Biden does the opposite. He might win but the evidence is not strong that he has the energy to go the distance. He skipped the spin room last night. Warren was on after the debate looking wide awake and making an optimistic and coherent case. Is that what beats Trump? Not taking advantage of every opportunity to take the case to the American people? Is that what we are comfortable with in the most important job in the world? Someone who was apparently too tired to take advantage of free press?
4
I think this recurring critique of the debates by ten very savvy and articulate journalists was a pleasure to read. What is most interesting is the degree that different observers have reached different conclusions about the same candidate's performance. Of course, there was some unity as well. Castro's attack on Biden was one. Yang's preposterous freedom dividend with his campaign as game host was another.
The issues to me look pretty clear. Biden seems to have a serious age problem. If he is still incoherent in the smaller fourth debate, I think voters need to move away from him, despite his evident appeal to moderates in a field now dominated by progressive candidates. Sanders was powerful but once again flawed by his screaming. I thought Harris was very strong. I loved her opening salvo against Trump, she really showed she has the mettle. Booker was impressive, though he looks like a potential VP than a president this time. O'Rourke did find his voice, but he remains unidimensional. Warren did fine, but she really needs to be challenged once again on her redistributionist proposals. Buttigieg was strong but as some of the journalists said, he didn't advance. Klochubar seemed deficient once again in performance. Castro had both good and very bad moments. Yang is kind of a weird guy. Smart and likeable but he should probably quit along with some others. The top tier is still the top tier. Beat Trump, that is all that matters.
9
@Yankelnevich
"Smart and likeable but he should probably quit along with some others."
That is what we call a non sequitur.
"Smart and likeable" is precisely why Yang should keep going.
His support is steadily growing--because his solutions to the latest economic revolution are compelling and refutable. Every time Yang speaks gears mesh together a little more smoothly in my consciousness, because he introduces perspectives most people do not routinely consider.
So you would rather have a doddering septuagenarian like Biden--yes, he showed a few flashes of his old fire early on--instead of a sharp and revolutionary thinker like Yang at the helm?
The polls are misleading on this one. Voters are going to bleed away from Biden over the next year, with every verbal miscue and memory lapse. Biden as the Democratic nominee will ensure four more years of Trump.
14
@Yankelnevich Yes. When he recommended that parents play "the record player" for their kids, that was a stunningly out of touch moment.
2
@Flaneur
Apologies--"irrefutable," not "refutable."
The needle was not the only thing that was unmoved after Thursday's verbal marathon. Pick one from the "old folks" column, and a veep from the "young folks" column. Anybody on stage could out-president Trump anytime, anywhere on any subject.
52
I don’t understand the D’s challenging each other on heath care. They all want to extend health benefits, as far as possible.
Trump and R’s want to eliminate health care, as much as they can.
For D’s this should be the debating focus and call to action.
185
@Thoughtful
Booker did communicate that message, saying all the candidates support universal health care. Only after saying that did he say he believed M4A was the best way to cover everyone. Many seem to forget how difficult it was to pass the ACA (without a public option even) and as we speak Trump and his justice department are trying to destroy it. And now we have candidates proposing M4A as if that will be possible to pass? M4A doesn't even have majority support in the House. Go nuclear and get rid of the fillibuster? Please NO!
9
@Thoughtful
You can thank the "debate" format for this oddity. The questioners love a battle and are mindful of how to stir up ratings.
8
@Thoughtful I agree - these debates are mainly giving fodder for Trump.
4
I thought the media spent to much time with Bernie, Warren, and Biden... We already KNOW what they will say... same ole tired political rhetoric... I enjoyed Yang, Booker, Beto, even Harris seemed refreshed... Yang is the ONLY person offering solutions with his answers, the rest have long political answers that sound like promises that will NOT be kept.
62
@Sevynn Leverette
Agree, 100%. Thanks for writing my answer for me. :)
7