I have avoided viewing every debate. Reading the “Reader Picks” it confirms my beliefs that these debates are an exercise in futility. I’ve done my homework researching each candidate, their views, and political insights. Why on earth should I waste time observing the horrible sideshows where everyone is looking for the “gotcha” moment? It’s utterly blows who’s mind that we have a blowhard huckster in the White House committing treason, undermining national security, and all things crooked....... and the Dems are on the cusp of blowing it. WOW!!!!!!!
1
The Times had its left wing commentariat tell us how badly Biden did. However, Nate Silver at 538 had Ipsos poll Democrats about the debate. For each candidate, the question was— did “favorability” increase and “unfavorability” decrease from before the debate to after it.
Only Biden and Sanders both increased favorability and decreased unfavorability. And Bernie’s numbers were undoubtedly the result of his bravery in participating so soon after his heart attack.
What about Warren; her favorability increased, but so did her unfavorability number. Ditto for all the other aspirants, except for Beto and Gabbard, who pretty much everyone hated.
How could Democrat’s be so wrong when the Times’ commentariat is so right?
1
Warren has zero minority support. Buttegih has zero minoreity support.
They are the candidates of reasonably well-to-do, reasonably well-educated white people of progressive views.
Neither of them could be elected at the top of the ticket.
However, Warren is an articulate woman of unimpeachable progressive views and Pete is a gay guy who went to Iraq- so the media is all in for them.
Nevertheless, Joe Biden will get the nomination. It is going to be hard to argue once the race gets Down South and black people people can make their voices heard.
It is beyond comprehension why NYT, CNN et al ignore this issue. IN a nutshell, the Pprogressive wing of the Party just wants everybody else to accept whomever they pick from their own ranks. And NYT et all just ignore that.
4
@charlesmblow you speak truth a.l.l.t.h.e.t.i.m.e It is a breath of fresh air. More please!
Note to Elizabeth Warren: Make a visual aid for the cost-savings/tax problem. I suggest a simple arithmetic format (a grade-school subtraction problem). You might use a piece of cardboard. Or use an image projection attachment on a cell phone. (Keep the cardboard as a backup if you opt for high-tech. Ross Perot did ok in the debates with his cardboard visual aid.)
Example:
1st line: plus sign "+ all taxes (rich, corp's, UMC)". [UMC = upper middle class]
2nd line: minus sign "- premiums, co-pays, out-of-p". [out-of-pocket = deductibles, etc]
3rd line: minus sign "- Ins. Co. imposed costs". [on medical care suppliers]
4th line: a solid line "———". [pretend dashes are solid]
5th line: "Net Savings (Refund)"
You can include labeled real number estimates on an image projection and/or your website (maybe the cardboard). You will have to "focus group" the cardboard vs projection, numbers vs labels to see what works best.
But keep the simple grade-school arithmetic format! That should force the media to discuss all the variables at the same time especially the NET SAVINGS for the average person. This should make the 'cheap shots' about tax increases by your opponents look cheaper. Just pull out the cardboard again and ask: "What is it that you don't understand about simple arithmetic?!"
And don't leave out the word 'net' on the bottom line label.
(See "The ‘Public Option’ on Health Care Is a Poison Pill" By David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, The Nation, October 7, 2019.)
3
I have avoided viewing every debate. Reading the “Reader Picks” it confirms my beliefs that these debates are an exercise in futility. I’ve done my homework researching each candidate, their views, and political insights. Why on earth should I waste time observing the horrible sideshows where everyone is looking for the “gotcha” moment? It’s utterly blows who’s mind that we have a blowhard huckster in the White House committing treason, undermining national security, and all things crooked....... and the Dems are on the cusp of blowing it. WOW!!!!!!!
Houston we have a problem.
I disagree with the experts from The New York Times. Amy Klobuchar was better than Bernie Sanders and Pete...
Amy has good manners and she never act with hysteria like Sanders or Warren!
2
Warren and Sanders mentioned half million or so personal bankruptcies caused by catastrophic healthcare costs. But there wasn't time to say how ironic medical bankruptcies are. Catastrophic loss is the main reason why we buy insurance for anything! And yet the available private health insurance still didn't protect almost half a million or more families from the loss of everything they own.
Note to Elizabeth Warren: Make a visual aid for the cost-savings/tax problem. Ross Perot did ok in the debates with his cardboard visual aid.
Example:
1st line: plus sign "+ all taxes (rich, corp's, UMC)". [UMC = upper middle class]
2nd line: minus sign "- premiums, co-pays, out-of-p". [out-of-pocket = deductibles, etc]
3rd line: minus sign "- Ins. Co. imposed costs". [on medical care suppliers]
4th line: a solid line "———". [pretend dashes are solid]
5th line: "Net Savings (Refund)"
You will have to "focus group" the cardboard vs cell phone projection attachment, numbers vs labels to see what works best. You have to frame it as a big picture concept—not just a taxes up or down question, so that media can't 'sound-bite' it.
A visual aid should make the 'cheap shots' about tax increases by your opponents look cheaper. Just pull out the cardboard again and ask: "What is it that you don't understand about simple arithmetic?!"
(See "The ‘Public Option’ on Health Care Is a Poison Pill" By David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, The Nation, October 7, 2019 for the big picture details.)
2
No Winners: No Losers: All of them...they are wonderful
public servants...
And so I think there were no winners or losers; only dedicated
candidates who would be trusted public servants in our next
Executive: Legislative: and Judicial Branches after to 2020
Election.
We also need a REAL Republican Party...not a corrupted
GOP...Trickle Down nonsense of Reagan...
So...take a look at the Repbublican Party Reformers now:
Bill Weld: Joe Walsh: and Mark Sanford.
This is what the New York Times needs to focus on...
No More Trump Circus...because we need...Editors of The NYT TO SEE ONCE MORE...ALL...YES ALL THE NEWS THAT IS
FIT TO PRINT...once more ...thank you..from one who remembered the true journalists like Morrow and Clonkite..
Get Cracking !!!
The fact Kamala Harris isn't wiping the floor with the rest of the field indicates her staff needs to be replaced. She's brilliant, tough like a beat cop, and magnetic, yet she's polling miserably, the true tragedy of the Democratic campaign so far. The question is, why? She should be lapping the other candidates by now, all of whom seem either too old, too boring, too vapid, or too one-trick-pony-ish. Warren is a great wonk but Harris has the glowing charisma, brains, and toughness to be both commander-in-chief and chief executive. I see Warren being weaker in the former; making policy is not the same as leading, and America needs a smart, strong, and inspiring leader after Trump has destroyed all that in the world's eyes. Kamala has the stuff of true leadership. That she's not polling well is a failure of her campaign--but it's not too late to turn that around. The other candidates, meh. All wrong on many levels. Senator Harris, it's time to show your true quality. I see it; make America see what I see.
Ms Pryce,
Klobuchar is not losing this Dem, and I know I’m not alone. We need to win back the Middle. Warren seems to want to follow HRCs example and condescend and demean working people , and even to suggest that her fellow candidates “support billionaires “.
Klobuchar can win the Middle, and win back the rust belt and working people. Not so clear Warren can win either.
2
Last nights debate was mostly political fratricide.. rather then a debate. That is the Republican play book under Trump.
Apparently some of the candidate have attended the Trump School of political aggression for aggression sake.
To the candidates: you will not sway voters by trying to destroy each other on stage. Stand firm and credible on your policies, and leave each other alone... OR... go home.
I would love to know why the powers that be at the NY Times think this format is helpful to readers. How does having a bunch of opinion writers - not news reporters - toss off one-liners and numerical ratings about 12 candidates help anyone understand anything at all about the candidates' points of view on policy, or how they differ from each other? This isn't sports or the Oscars - it's politics and it deserves serious reporting, not cuteness for cuteness' sake. This didn't do anything to help the readers' understanding of the field.
2
Time to reshuffle the NYT lineup of debate reviewers. I have no idea what debate half these folks were watching. Several of the candidates they disparage, such as Steyer and Castro, sounded quite cogent gvie the limit speaking tme they were given. Warren and Biden were at the center of things, but neither sounded like someone the American people would embrace. And yes folks, Warren sounds punitive, at least to my ears though I want to see a single-payer system someday.
1
Since I live in Sweden I only saw the final hour - by waking up at 04:00 h here in Sweden. On the basis of that hour, I agree completely with the numerical ranking shown here.
I see Warren and Sanders as both the most able - they were my favorites from the very beginning. Suggestions for Warren based on my familiarity with Swedish Universal Health Care (SE UHC) and with USA Medicare (age 87 23 years of SE UHC) and for Sanders based on my experience being diagnosed with Stunned Myocardium (Fletcher Allen cardiology, Burlington) and getting 3 stents (Linköping University Hospital) 10 years ago.
Warren must work out a clear statement on her plan for UHC. To do that she needs to learn about non USA UHC. SE UHC allows private insurance, even employer provided. She needs to learn about the economics including how non USA UHC is paid for. She needs to have examples of what it costs a patient like me in SE and US.
Since I got my stents 1st with 2 in LADA and 1 month later 1 in Circumflex I am impressed with Sanders bouncing back. But we need to know more about that heart attack. What was the damage and how can the post insertion phase be monitored? Maybe a visit to Cleveland Clinic in a month? What was the cost?
I guess they cannot run together so would love to see suggestions for VPs for one or the other.
No more than 6 next time, preferably fewer.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
These kind of glib, snarky "hot-takes" might've been enjoyable in a pre-Trump era, but with democracy on the line it feels awfully tone-deaf and thoroughly useless to compile a bunch of one-liners that tell us little about the candidates and serve mainly as a forum for your opinion writers to demonstrate their wit (and possibly to create fodder for more Dem in-fighting).
Meanwhile the Republican Party is busy making it literally impossible for any wanna-be GOP presidential candidate to launch a primary campaign against Trump, thereby letting him dodge a similar snarking-squad from your writers.
An article about the debate and some cogent political analysis of its possible ramifications are all that's needed. This kind of fluff piece does more harm than good right now.
2
I would deeply like to see a Democrat challenge and defeat Mr Trump. However this Dem field is "eating its own". Once a nominee emerges s/he will be so tainted from the criticsm & slurs from within that I can just see Mr Trump smiling like the Chershire cat armed with the ammunition the Dem hopefuls have provided to him.
The process is poor.
Pursuing the often-raised question of which Democrat can gather enthusiastic support from black voters, I looked at the ratings of these twelve NYT evaluators, treating four of them as non-white (Blow, Bouie, Price, and Brooks) and the other eight as white. Even this tiny sample shows some interesting racial differences. The most striking difference is that the two midwestern moderates, Buttigieg and Klobucher, did significantly more poorly evaluated by the non-white than by the white group. Buttigieg got the top score among whites but scored third among non-whites (behind Warren and Sanders). The contrast for Klobucher is greater. She came in third from the top among whites, behind only Buttigieg and Warren, but among the non-whites, she was ranked third from the bottom (tenth), ahead of only Gabbard and Steyer. Even in this tiny sample of observers, there are striking racial contrasts in perception.
2
The only one that gets me out of my seat, raising my right fist and shouting “Right On!” is Sanders.
1
Winners and losers of Dem Debate 4! I disagree with the analysts from The New York Times. Elizabeth Warren is No. 1 because she is always in the attack. However, she is not precise about the famous "Medicare for All". For me, Amy Klobuchar was better that Bernie and Peter. She is not hysteric!
1
@MalanyePrice. I’m curious why you feel Pete Buttigieg is no longer the “Democratic wunderkind” based on his sense performance. I would present a counter argument but I’m unclear as to what your argument is.
With far left candidates in command, Trump wins easily.
1
It’s possible you’ll bury this comment, but it does deserve attention. Look at the stats for Amy Klobuchar:
Ross Douthat (7/10),Michelle Goldberg (8/10), Nick Kristof (9/10), Daniel McCarthy (5/10), Mimi Swartz (7/10), Tanzina Vega (6/10), Pete Wehner (8/10), Will Wilkinson (7/10)
— Avg 7.5
Melanye Price (1/10), Charles Blow (4/10), Jamelle Bouie (5/10), Bianca Vivion Brooks (4/10)
— Avg. 3.5
I think it is pretty clear that Amy Klobuchar desperately needs to focus on issues of racism, poverty and criminal justice. She needs to tell America that she will serve all Americans, regardless of race, and establish that that is how she has acted in the past, without being offensive in the process ( a tricky thing to do).
Her life is her message, but she needs to say it as well. My sense is that she is fair-minded. She needs to show it.
2
This was merely the Democrats' version of The Apprentice, with the punditocracy, twitterati, and commentariat, getting to feel powerful, important, and relevant by saying. "You're fired!" or "You're hired!"This was just another highly-teased TV show, in no sense a debate, with "moderators" promoting anything but moderation. I doubt that anyone whose mind is actually not made up (as opposed to trolls who will write claiming they had an open mind before the show) was actually watching.
Meanwhile, the trolls and bots of the Republicans and various Democrats, as well as corporations and countries, who stand to gain from four more years of Trump (not to mention special-interest agenda organizations), will be busily denouncing and pumping up the "popularity" (recommends, likes, etc.) of whoever denounces the candidate most likely to beat Trump which, at the moment, is clearly Biden (perhaps with Klobuchar as Veep.)
It's worse than sad that this paper has descended to the level of conflating entertainment with news, not to mention its anyone-but-Biden agenda which, in the past month, has morphed into a let's-nominate-Warren agenda.
I really object to media personalities who inject their opinions, or those of their employers, into "questions" during the debates. Anderson Cooper was way out of line last night by prefacing his "question" to Biden about his son's employment with a reportedly corrupt Ukraine energy firm by saying Biden had done nothing wrong. Cooper appeared to be repeating the talking points of the NYT on this issue, which includes in every so-called "news" story that references (but does not cover the story) that there is no "evidence" that either Biden did anything wrong and any claims to the contrary are "baseless." Well, some of us are much better informed on this issue than the "reporters" appear to be. We know, for example, from reading real investigative news stories that cite sources about the Bidens' connections to the Atlantic Council, the Obama administration's role in supporting a coup that replaced a democratically-elected, if corrupt, president with an unelected president, with the help of neo-Nazi thugs, and we know what conflicts of interest, self-dealing and corruption look like, regardless of which side of the aisle. Some of us are tired of corruption regardless of the source and will vote accordingly. There is plenty of in-depth reporting on the Bidens and Ukraine. One can start by looking for it in the Nation, Harper's, Politico, the Hill and The Guardian (and the NYT, before it started to try to influence an election).
1
Tulsi Gabbard is a fourth term Congresswoman who sits on the Armed Services Committee and has sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Homeland Security, etc. She is a combat veteran and currently serves as a Major in the Army National Guard. She was twice deployed to the Middle East. She has the highest security clearance possible. She no doubt knows more about what is going on in Syria than President Trump does. The weekend before this debate the NY Times published a hit article on Congresswoman Gabbard that was malicious at best. The night of the debate a CNN commentator (the debate was a partnership of CNN and the Times) characterized her on national television as a Russian Asset. She called out these smears by you and by CNN at the debates and without disclosing that here, you rate her performance for your readers as "weak". This failure to disclose is unethical. Meanwhile, Congresswoman Gabbard was the most googled candidate globally (yes globally) during and after the debate. The world and its citizenry want to end these foreign wars and bring our soldiers home. US voters want to end these wars and bring our soldiers home. She will do that. For this reason alone, she has a right to be heard and the voters have a right to hear her. And the Times has an obligation to disclose its biases.
2
It is ridiculous to have twelve candidates on the same stage. It is like speed dating for president.
Historically speaking, Gabbard's stance on foreign policy is very traditionally American. Our country was founded as militarily isolationist due to the belief that entangling in foreign affairs would result in a Pandora's box of disarray. Gabbard's claim that Assad is not our enemy because he does not present a direct threat to the US comes straight out of this playbook: for most politicians during the first century of our nation's history (and beyond), this was a no-brainer.
Presidents have brokered peace deals on behalf of other countries before; Teddy Roosevelt even won a a Nobel Peace Prize for it. FDR threw our lot in with Joseph Stalin, the single most murderous despot in human history (and whether we want to admit it or not, we would not have been able to defeat Hitler without those cursed Russians). The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved by negotiation, not by shooting at each other.
Gabbard has insisted time and again that she went to Syria in 2017 to investigate whether the claims of Assad's brutality were true. How many lives could have been spared had someone bothered to properly investigate the Gulf of Tonkin?
We have the incredible privilege of living in a country without a draft. To turn a blind eye to the cost of war for those who volunteer in our place is an especially sinister act of selfishness.
1
Re Jamelle Bouie's comment about Buttigieg, I've got some advice for him: the next time someone calls him "Mayor Pete" during a debate, he should quip, "President Pete has a better ring to it."
I've heard that apparently Steve Bannon speaks fondly of Tulsi Gabbard.
What I don't understand is how there can be a Hawaiian House district conservative enough to stomach her.
1
This opinion piece is stuffed with snarky ad hominem commentary and a surprising amount of gendered commentary -- coming not just from the men. It represents the Twitterization of our discourse, and it's NOT what we come to The Times to read. Leave it on the Twitter feed where it belongs.
2
Holy cow that’s a lot go inter-rater variation between the NYT experts. A lot of these have a range that spans 60+% of the scale. That’s got to be the most interesting finding!
Today on PBS--
A three-hour debate involving 12 candidates, and we didn’t get a single question on the climate crisis, which threatens our future on this planet. We didn’t get a single question on racist voter suppression, which threatens democracy in this country. We didn’t get a single question on kids being abused and caged at the border, which is perhaps the single biggest human rights crisis in this country right now. We didn’t get a single question on the war in Yemen, where the U.S. is directly involved in the killing of children, not indirectly as it is in Syria, which was talked about a lot. But we did get a question about Ellen and George W. Bush. So, there was a lot missing from the debate.
Alot missing--let PBS do Debates to expand audience and the truth--Please--------
Please--
1
Biblically, he who is last is first. The Times’s opinion thinkers put Tom Steyer last, ignorantly ignoring the fact that he was the first to tackle, long before other candidates on the stage, the major negatives affecting not only America but also the planet, namely climate change and Trump. What a shame that Tom is being cruelly subjected to disinformation and propaganda and, frankly, cynical jealousy. Tom is a very smart man; he cares deeply about his family and by extension the American people. That’s why he has put solving the global climate change crisis at the top of his agenda. For the cynical and snide pundits to willfully ignore that the world has no more that a decade to address climate change is deathly irresponsible. Wealth inequality, health care, job creation, racism, gun violence—all problems caused by bought-and-sold politicians—bear little, if any, comparison to the global threat of climate change. Shame on the pundits for willfully burying Tom’s brilliant idea of making addressing climate change the center piece of US foreign policy. Equally shameful was how all of the candidates and the CNN and Times moderators dishonestly failed to acknowledge Tom’s monumental role in bring this country to the point where we are about to see that unabashed criminal sitting in the White House impeached. The corporate stranglehold is not only choking the life out of the politicians to the detriment of the American people, but also out of the corporate-owned pundits.
2
Bernie is the clear winner of the night. It is his ideas that Warren is espousing, yet she can’t eloquently articulate how she will pay for her plans the way Bernie does. Her history as recent as 2012 shows she was not the least bit concerned about Medicare 4 all. Her Daughter Amanda was a co founder of United Healthcare. She will never vote against the interest of her daughter. She is a fauxgressive. She claims she was fired from teaching for a baby bump when the board minutes proved she was offered a contract and she turned it down. She used affirmative action to advance her education and career. I don't trust her she has lied too much. Bernie is the real deal and his history shows that.
1
Senator Warren was on target and came out unscathed. Agree with Michelle Goldberg that the demand to come up with talking points for the right is the bait she didn’t take. Also agree that Mayor Pete was in fine form. VP Biden is rerunning Hilary Clinton’s campaign, complete with a whiff of non-scandal for the right to lacerate him. In addition, like Sec. Clinton, he’s so slow and inept at replying and changing the message. It’s not age, just his isolation from real people for too long - think back when George Bush (father) didn’t know what a supermarket scanner was.
Apologies for the example, but it seems that Ukraine was/ is for friend and foe like dung to flies; Hunter Biden’s business, while not illegal, seems swampy.
Senator Klobuchar’s pithy statements will remain etched on her pedestal. She won’t gain traction because she lacks a solid, strong platform and communication skills - selling herself, as opposed to litigating an issue.
Again, speaking as a right winger, one rap on Mayor Pete is that he hasn't accomplished much, beyond being mayor, and even there his record is questionable.
But what had Bill Clinton accomplished? More to the point, what had John F. Kennedy accomplished? Prior to becoming President, JFK was an inconspicuous backbencher.
And, frankly speaking, what had Trump accomplished?
Yet they all became President.
8
Time for Biden to pack it in!! The more he stays in the more confused he looks! And, as much as I like Sanders, he really is too old. So, we are really down to three people: Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Question is: of these three people who ha s the best chance to beat Trump? Probably Klobuchar. But, the very progressive pundits on your panel seem to really dislike her. Welcome to four more years of Trump.
1
I am not seeing Warren like the front runner as this article says. Bernie Sanders is really strong...and with AOC endorsing him...I think he will be unstoppable.
Gabbard, one of the strongest and most thoughtful candidates was given no opportunity to discuss her views. The loaded questions ("apologist for Assad", really?) from the moderators were to distract and obfuscate.
2
Warren did the best? I like her, but she came across as evasive, and kept robotically repeating the same lines. Every Democrat I know thought Klobuchar and Buttigieg were head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Which debate were these pundits watching?
1
Time to cut the lower tier candidates out of the debates. We need to here longer answers to difficult questions that need answering. No more sound bytes .
We need a candidate who can run over Trump and get back to fixing America.
I understand the frustration with the crowded debate stage. But we must remember that we are early to the process and we have to allow all voices. What people should be upset about is the presentation of these debates as what is essentially a nationwide reality TV show.
Sit candidates down and speak to them for a half an hour or more and then see who makes the most sense and who is just good at marketable slogans.
We have to learn to respect everyone's opinion, offering a candidate like Yang "free dinner" if he drops out, or saying he doesn't deserve to be on stage despite raising millions from over 300,000 small donors, is not only insulting, its incredibly off putting to his supporters. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm certainly not going to be motivated to vote for someone who sees my candidate in such a demeaning light, how do you think we got Trump?
The surest way to a democratic party defeat will be to alienate the so called "fringe candidates" and as a result the disaffected voters that support them.
3
@Ben
I left the Democratic Party after the 2016 election for the very reasons you expressed. They have no respect for fellow citizens and although the Republicans aren’t exactly laudable, the Democrats frighten me with their hate.
In the remarks made by the panel regarding Beto O'Rourke, two of the authors seemed to misunderstand Beto's position on the taxing of churches. Jamelle Bouie and Pete Wehner both said Beto wanted to tax churches that didn't agree with his views. That is not correct, but his original statement didn't explain his position clearly. His campaign issued an immediate clarification to explain that he was referring to discrimination in hiring practices or in providing services. If a church or charitable organization is providing a service such as a food bank or counselling, it must be available to everyone, not just people with the same beliefs. When hiring general staff such as cleaning and clerical staff, they cannot discriminate against people whose sexual preference or religious beliefs don't conform to the beliefs of the church or organization. If they're not willing to do that, Beto believes they should lose their tax exemption, as it is intended to serve as compensation for their service to the community. He believes in freedom of religion, and the tax exemption is not related to their beliefs.
Yang is clearly the smartest of the candidates and we need to pay more attention to what he's saying.
2
@Core he’s smart (smartest? I’m not sure how we’re measuring intellect but I could make arguments for a handful of other brainiacs on a that stage Monday night), but his campaign is valuable for its constructive creativity, foresight and its defining policy proposal, which has plenty of virtue despite it being a pipe dream in America, the land of selt-determination. I like Yang (it’s hard not to) but he’s a single cause candidate with more interest in promoting a good but unrealistic idea than he does in actually being President. (And that’s fine for now but sooner or later, it would behoove the party for him to call it a day with his head held high, and allow the field of candidates to narrow down to those who are in it to win it; not just to espouse a novelty platform.
I say this as someone who likes Yang, acknowledges his intellect, admires the virtues of his vision but sees no viable path to victory.
1
Bernie & Warren, #1 & #2? That analysis says a lot more about the politics of the opinion writers than what took place on stage. Warren got schooled by the moderates. its about time and good for the party.
2
The CNN/Times questions on health care were odd. All on the tax increases -- yes or no.
Why not ask all the candidates if they'll forgo corporate money so that the electorate can trust them to put their interests before that of Pharma, Insurance and the Hospitals. Isn't that the real problem? Why is it NEVER asked?
2
I often agree with many of these editorialists- but not this time. They seem so biased towards status quo. What Americans do they actually represent with all these opinions? Warren was not impressive but nervous and uncertain, Sanders is too old, Biden too entrenched. These are not the best choices. Buttigieg? Different. Refreshing. Clear. Come on people! Those ‘top three’? None of them will get a Trump out of office or will be able to accomplish much once there.
1
Does no one remember that: yes, EW got her CFPB passed, but neither O’B, nor anyone else, wanted her at the helm. Hmm.
What does “clipping coupons in the stock market” mean?
A coupon bond, also referred to as a bearer bond or bond coupon, is a debt obligation with coupons attached that represent semiannual interest payments. With coupon bonds, there are no records of the purchaser kept by the issuer; the purchaser's name is also not printed on any kind of certificate. Bondholders receive these coupons during the period between the issuance of the bond and the maturity of the bond.
This is why trump talks like a 6th grader. The average voter as 8th grade literacy rate. so basically reading an eighth grade level is like a lawyer reading legal briefs. They need to learn not to talk with $10 words and break it down for the average country folk
It's too bad this was a Democratic Debate instead of a Democratic Forum. With each candidate picking a DIFFERENT subject to discuss (forget the moderators), we all could have learned a great deal about how to renovate and renew the USA, raise our quality of life for as many of us as possible, improve international relations, and get the "see-oh-two" out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. Quibbling over healthcare (AGAIN?!) from people who don't have any experience working in the field is as funny to moi (who has) as it is tragic. A.O.C. smartly suggested a couple of debates ago that people are primarily concerned about keeping the same doctor they know and trust, NOT necessarily the specific system in place. Sure, costs are important, but the math is also extremely complex. You won't resolve these concerns on a debate stage. As I recall, passing and then instituting the ACA was difficult enough. Foreign policy never gets the attention it deserves. What about Central and South America?
Ukraine IS important, and so is Syria (even more important IMHO). But there are countries on our doorstep that are in severe straits politically, socially, and economically. And Dorian missed Alabama, but it sure caused a lot of pain and suffering where it did n't miss. Democrats have to be "problem solvers" when we can, where we can. If the debates can't clear the air about who's going to do this, then there's little point in seeing who can deliver a clever line, and who didn't.
The pundits can’t agree as we have just seen . We should all stop trying to guess whom everyone else prefers and focus on whom we ourselves prefer. Then it will all sort out. But we need to have no more than 3 or 4 on a stage for these debates, so the DNC should divide the group up again. Maybe we could have a playoff format— Tulsi debates Steyer and Beto, then Harris debates Pete and Booker and Amy, then Warren debates Bernie and Biden. Then we can see how the polls go from there, and pick the “winner” from each subset. The candidates need to be able to speak for more than 30 sec at a time, this current format is crazy.
I'm voting for Tulsi, even if I have to write her name in. I'm conservative and have never voted for a Democrat for president before. I sat out the last election because I didn't want to vote for either candidate; that's how bad both candidates were, and how terrible is the current president.
6
Warren = Warrior. She will send Trump and his gang back home. I am voting for her not only because, as our U.S. Senator, she's done a great job but because she understands the issues surrounding people who live in poverty, need good jobs, better and affordable healthcare and education better than the other candidates do. I believe that she cares about those in need of a better life, like the other candidates, but she's more prepared to do the best job.
1
Tulsi Gabbard was just barely given a chance to speak. And Marianne Williamson was silenced completely. The debate winners were polished and friendly but not worth staying up for.
3
The level to which commentators -- such as those making the 'ratings' here, and the moderators of the debate -- are shaping the race for the Democratic candidate is scary.
Steyer had the fewest minutes speaking and also the lowest rating. Hmmm. This was the first time many had seen him, but he was given 4+ minutes to speak. It was obvious that the question about income inequality would be given to him. Did he handle it well? No one seems to care.
Most of those rating Steyer don't mention what he says, but rate his background. Is this a fair approach? He is a self-made billionaire, yes. Has he made this money unethically, or illegally? Does he have real business and management acumen? You may as well say a doctor can't run for President because all doctors overcharge and prescribe medicines and procedures that are unnecessary.
How many of the candidates have a net worth that place them in the top 10%? For how many was this fueled by government (taxpayer-funded) salaries? Where is the anger that there are still almost a billion people starving or malnourished in the world, and still a couple billion making less than $2 a day? But the party line seems to be that we want to tax the rich to make incomes more equal in the US, with no mention of the rest of the world. Wow, what vision!
Be warned, commentators. Steyer is the one that the electorate wanted in 2016, and he may surprise in 2020, just as Trump did in 2016.
3
Plenty of political talent onstage, but to win Democrats need more than just their own voters to beat Trump (or Pence). So who showed that wider appeal? Heartbreaking that none of the younger candidates is doing better—but the three old dogs demonstrated why they’re on top. I favor universal health care, but I’m convinced Medicare-for-All will sink any ticket that espouses it. So Biden, who did all right, even if he’s past his prime, and radiated decency and experience—and wisely advocated for the public option—is who I’m giving another look.
@Steven M.
Perhaps direct your vision towards the ends of the stage; many Democrats aren’t using their peripheral vision; look at Amy Klobuchar; a better alternative to the center of the stage.
The problem with Democrats is that they follow the Hurd and do not think Independent of what others think; it’s your vote, don’t let the pundits take it from you.
Wouldn't be something is the opinion pool was diverse: meaning actually had an Asian perspective and a possibly another Hispanic voice. Its 2019, the US in not Black and White. Black voices do NOT speak for POC. This "diverse" pool is convenient for Black and White people but does not reflect our population nor does it honor the actual definition and spirit of Diversity. As a progressive institution I would hope that honoring true principles would override the prevailing identity politics du jour.
2
The debate made me proud to be a Democrat. All of the candidates said something that spoke to me. The truth is often a pie with many slices. I heard many very intelligent paths to the truth last night, and I couldn’t help but think that we are going to need them all. We are lucky that these fine candidates are traveling around the United States listening, learning, spreading ideas with integrity, and offering hope.
I saw unity. I saw the common desire to save American, and to save the planet.
Why did you have to title this article Winners and Losers…? It is so predictable and so much a part of too many articles. Make the world a better place by trying harder to find a more mature line beyond the oversimplified 180 degrees of opposition. What we think, we become.
4
Warren / Buttigieg was my dreads ticket BUT Warren needs to explain to the country just exactly why it must be Medicare for All instead of Medicare for all who want it.
I’m sick of hearing how much it will cost. As a nation, we pay more than double what every other country does, and if we cut out insurance administrative fees and profits, that’s a savings of at least 30% over the current system. So why not just explain this?
4
Gabbard is not a Democrat. She claims to be, but she is in reality much more like a RHINO in the republican party.
She needs to drop from the race and in fact.. she will be lucky to even hold her house seat as she is being primaried in Hawaii by a more progressive candidate.
2
The Debates? You mean the Circus. Twenty people up there?
Other countries election period is 90 days. We should do the same.
I'm for Biden. He may not be the best at spontaneous public speaking, but how often will he need to do that while sitting in the Oval Office? He has the back ground and experience to do the job. And i believe he is tops for beating Trump. That is the most important job ahead of us. Nothing else matters at this point.
@Nightwood Biden excites precisely no one. He is too old not only in his age but in his ideas. Nominate Biden and you will guarantee four more years of Trump.
I don't understand everyone in the media is seeing the confrontation of Warren as confirmation she's the frontrunner.
The attacks reflect our fears that Warren will be the nom and she will be destroyed on the alter of "socialism" propaganda from the right. We get stuck with Trump.
Our fears she will eventually ANSWER the question about raising middle class taxes after she gets the nom. We get stuck with Trump.
Our fears that Twitter and other SM platforms have emboldened progressives to reach further left, while the populous leans much more centrist. We get stuck with Trump.
These fears are valid and the US cannot get stuck with Trump again. That would be an epic loss. Not just for Democrats, but the world at large.
1
@Barbara
Warren is smart.... if she wins the primary and becomes candidate... she will take back to the center (Bill Clinton style.. also a very smart person regardless of what you may feel about him personally), which will largely undermine the republican attempts to paint her as the latest socialist in the democratic party. They will still try that tactic.. but with short attention span voters who only get their facts from twitter... it won't really sway anyone in this partisan political climate we live in today.
Early in in the time of young Bush's presidency, Newt Gingrich came out and said, lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes, conservatives are going to take over, and keep control of this country.
The Democratic Party is not just fighting Trump, it's fighting a massive multi-faceted conservative conspiracy. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the world of private enterprise is going to allow a 1.2 trillion dollar industry, insurance, to be set aside to make room for a government run Medicare for All program is truly naive.
If ever there was a time when the Democratic Party needed to pick a tough moderate pragmatist for their presidential candidate, it's now. I like both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but unfortunately, if either one of them get the nod in the Democratic primary, the conservative element will tear them to pieces come November.
I winced a few times when Biden spoke, but he has always made those kinds of verbal blunders, they don't come as a result of his age, that's just Biden speak when spontaneity is required. But like it or not, the Democrats need the wisdom of Biden and, let's say, the smart scrappiness of Buttigieg, to make up a tough pragmatic team that's capable of taking on, and winning, against the Republicans this next November.
1
Actually, those of us who watched the whole debate can think for ourselves.
We do not need to be told what we saw and heard. Thank you very much.
8
Tuesday’s debate was a showcase for the cabinet secretaries for the next (democratic) president. I will vote for the democratic nominee but none of these candidates inspire hope or are generating the energy necessary to inspire young or minority voters.
1
Didn't your staff even hear how third term abortions should be limited to instances when there is a serious health issue? That is how Rep. Gabbard said Roe v Wade should be codified. Does the NYT staff believe in all these wars to change governments. Look at how well Lybia is doing after Secretary Clinton led from behind. Europe benefited from her leadership by getting millions of immigrants go through the country. Of course, we can't really talk about any of this. Name recognition in the early stages of a campaign is all that matters.
5
@Bored The NY times will never give any credit to Tulsi even when she rarely agrees with Hillary on women's health. Yea Libya has gone so well another failed Obama , Hillary NATO war. I am with Tulsi she did an excellent job in calling out Trump ,and both parties for the war on Syria.
2
Look at how the New York Times smears Tulsi as an Assad apologist. Everyone in the media has been trying to do that from day one because she is honest about the U.S.' clandestine and unconstitutional role in trying to topple the legal government of Syria in 2011, and giving funds and weapons to groups like Al-Nusra and the FSA. That is all the MSM has to say about her, that she is an Assad apologist simply for not wanting to topple a government, where in fact an eight year multi-faceted war has been created in the wake of yet another example of US adventurism. So everyone asks Tulsi if she is an Assad apologist, and when she says no and pushes back on the MSM's intentions for wanting to overthrow the Syrian government, she is labeled an Assad apologist. And of course that is what all these writers in the NYTimes thought going into the debate and nothing Tulsi could have said would have satisfied them.
10
@Samuel Excellent points and no one will stand up in her defense except Warren who agreed with Tulsi that we should get out of Syria.
1
@Samuel
She made some good points and I wish she had been given more time. And yes, the press has been conducting a shameful smear that is painful to watch.
3
Let's not forget that many of them are running for VP now.
4
@Eileen Hays
I think Kamala Harris is running for A.G.
1
This may be the most constructive analysis in four debates. Clever format, hopefully to be repeated following the fifth debate. Lots of diversity in opinion, but I think overall the ranking reflects the consensus of the general population - certainly the Democrats - keyed into the contest right now.
Seems to me your panel is grading the participants on how they compare to your own policy biases rather than how they actually did in the debate.
5
This offering is the QED of the old saw: You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.
But the size of the Democratic field has been ridiculous since the outset and remains so. I am glad that some, particularly Bernie Sanders, are still in it as "influencers" because they actually can and do. There are lots who know that they cannot and will not have any impact. They need to behave like adults who actually have real experience in politics and bow out.
2
It's interesting to me how folks believe that somebody like Andrew Yang is drawing so much hire. He is promoting a positive message (end poverty, empower consumers), and he totally avoids the type of personal attacks that Harris and Mayor Pete are engaging in. Yang debated Warren about the wealth tax, whereas Harris...scolded her about Twitter? Would Yang be a good president? Hard to say, but he is clearly touching on something that voters care about and that a segment of the Democratic base is ignoring (or was ignoring until this debate!). I hope he sticks around and people continue to give him a chance. At least he isn't trying to take down our probable nominee (Warren) like Harris and Mayor Pete.
5
The media is obsessed with getting Warren to say she will raise middle class taxes to help pay for Medicare for All.
I wish the same obsessiveness existed when the GOP/Trump tax bill was passed, or when the Pentagon budget is put forth. 'How, oh, how will it be paid for?" doesn't create a blip.
The media seems to share to obsessions of powerful vested interests not what most people care about.
5
The candidates understand - and we should as well - that the process of enacting any of their plans will necessitate collaboration, compromise and change .
What I want is for every candidate to tell me , "This is my ideal. This is where I believe should go. Here is how I recommend that we get there and this is how it would play out in the next 4 years"
Then, rather than nailing down the details of all the different plans, what I want to know are specific qualities and the competencies of these candidates such as:
What are their areas of expertise?
What is their philosophy of government and what evidence is there that they operate according to those stated beliefs ?
What evidence is there that they can bring plans to fruition?
How do they deal with opposing views?
Can they compromise? Can they stand firm?
3
The NYT postmortems--with your numerical ratings--turn the debates into a political beauty pageant. The degree of snark on display is appalling.
Intelligent readers are not interested in your opinions about the candidates, but we worry you may influence the less discerning.
The debate format--in which candidates are to respond in 30 seconds to the same question--promotes canned slogans and repetition rather than originality.
Anderson Cooper was so interruptive he appeared to be competing for most air time.
Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar were easily the strongest performers.
Bernie looked remarkably healthy and cheerful. I just hope he does not overdo it. Bernie exudes a sincerity that Warren occasionally lacks.
Amy cannot help it if she has the charisma of a baked potato--without the sour cream. Her attempts at humor are pure corn. She could use elocution lessons and incorporate more syncopation in her delivery, but her responses were sharp and substantive.
Buttigieg and Gabbard are young but Presidential. Booker can win on charm and energy alone. Steyer was competent.
Yang does not come across as a game show host. He focuses on a transformative intervention for a rapidly transforming society. Every major retailer is expanding its online operations in order to survive against Amazon. Every grocery store and chain retailer has implemented self-service kiosks. He is not wrong about automation.
Hats off to all the candidates. It takes guts.
10
The media have been handling Elizabeth Warren with kid gloves (and, by the way, ignoring the fact that she is polling at near 0% with POC). I'm glad that the other candidates used this debate to challenge not only her plans but also her divisive tone that's not going to sit well with voters in swing states and the middle of the country who are tired of partisan politics, because I don't see the news media doing it.
6
@BD
I keep making the same point that Warren has zero minority support. The Press just will not cover that issue.
The candidates of choice for the MSM- Yes, Virginia, there is an MSM- are Warren and Buttegig. Progressive Female/moderate-ish gaaay male.
Just the ticket for a massive defeat and the re-election of Trump. Then we can 4 more years of Impeachment stories.
2
How did the qualifying rules get relaxed to the point where 12 candidates made it onstage? Just an absurd spectacle that is keeping primary voters from focusing on the handful of true contenders on that stage. Clearly Gabbard, Steyer, O'Rourke and Yang have no business being there, and even Booker and Harris are starting to look like distractions. Hopeful that there are no more than six candidates onstage next month, because time is slipping by.
83
@Cheeseman Forever Who gets to decide who "true" contenders are? For you, it is those that the media tell you they are.
11
@Jason You are right. The "top three" have very slim chance of beating Trump. They are too old, both their ages and their minds. And two of them are "ultra-left", almost left extremists. Democrats need a W. Clinton kind candidate to beat Trump.
5
@Jason Sure, let the DNC decide who the candidate will be. Don't let any dissenters get any air time. Name recognition is all that counts.
11
The biggest loser? The American public.
Why?
Because Marianne Williamson was not included.
Because the questions were much too narrow and the candidates ate that up, talking about their endless plans for this and plans for that.
Because no one is looking at the big picture.
Because no one truly understands how to beat Trump, should he not be removed before the election.
Because--I can only assume, not being able to stomach the whole thing so I turned it off--no one talked about voter suppression, especially given what recently happened right there in Ohio.
Because no one talked about the unreliability of voter machines. And the closing of polling places in black and brown neighborhoods. And gerrymandering.
Because no one had anything to offer the Trumpers who only care about saving the whiteness of America.
Because Bernie, as much as I loved him in 2016, is too old.
Because Biden is too old and inarticulate.
Because no one was honest enough to say that if Trump if not removed from office before the election and he wins again, we will be a dictatorship before you can blink.
Because the DNC is as corrupt an organization as the multinational corporations they all rail against.
Another display of how good Democrats are at shooting themselves in the foot.
52
@Christopher Ross
Williamson definitely brings a "special sauce" and an emotional intelligence that is sorely lacking in politics. Her ability and willingness to stir the pot amongst the other candidates makes even her most progressive challengers look a little staid. I'm not sure where she will fit into the larger political scheme in the future, but I sincerely hope she keeps speaking up.
9
@Christopher Ross It would have been preferable to listen to Williamson rather than Tulsi, no doubt.
18
@Alex I don't want to listen to either one; or Yang or Steyer.
7
I don't know how to graph it, but with a good look at the statistics it appears as if there was a direct relationship between how much time a candidate was given to speak and how they scored in the debate. One notable exception was Pete B. It just seems very unfair that the seemingly preferred candidates to date get nearly triple the time to speak than the seemingly non-preferred candidate. This left-moderate Democrat is not happy about the lack of balance here by the New York Times and CNN. It's hard for me not to see that "the fix is in". Nor am I happy in how many NYT writers are grouping my type of thinking voter (As in one who thinks.) with loons and bafoons. Very disappointing for me to see. Anti-kudos.
3
I appreciated some of the comments.
None of the Democrat candidates can beat president trump. Open borders, gun confiscation, reparations, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, abolish ICE. None of these issues resonate with the American people. CNN and the NYTs never asked the candidates important questions that matter to Americans like illegal immigration, jobs, the economy, trade etc.
6
Congrats, NYT, for doing your part to torpedo Biden, the one and only moderate candidate in that whole howling bunch. At this point, if it's not Biden or Klobuchar, I will abstain from voting altogether for the first time since I was 18 years old. I cannot vote for Sanders because I do not favor socialism. There should be some middle ground between unrestrained capitalism and socialism; Sanders is completely clueless about anything east of NYC. As a Native American, I've lost all respect for Warren, who's a flat-out liar -- and yet you never fact-check her.
I subscribed to this paper because as a moderate, I wanted quality journalism. From veganism to politics, the Times has just shown itself to be so far left as to be out of touch with reality -- which is why I canceled my subscription and I'm sending the money to NPR instead. They lean left, which is fine, but they at least TRY to be unbiased.
9
@Alexis Most of what you say is well taken.
But there are candidates better than Biden and Klobuchar.
Sounds like you have been brainwashed into treating socialism as a great evil in and of itself. Those that are making the money are in cahoots with the media, who brainwash us into giving them our money AND feeling good about it ("hey, I overpaid for health care, but, at lest, it was not socialism!)
But it is not hard to see that Medicare For All makes sense...why should medical care be denied to you by someone who makes money by denying you coverage?
Also, veganism has nothing to do with being "far left".
1
@Alexis
The dislike of Biden from NYT talking heads has been apparent from the outset, and glowers through every "analysis". He may give a superb performance (as at this last debate) and will be nitpicked and ignored. The chance of Warren getting elected is virtually zero. Biden might win. So go figure.
I'm blown away by the trite treatment of Tulsi Gabbard, filled with dishonest tropes that she somehow works for Assad. Her stance in opposition to regime change wars is authentic and ethical. For goodness sake, she served! How many people on your staff can say the same? I'm an independent voter who is strongly opposed to our invasions and meddling in other countries' affairs. Such a foreign policy is bad for the world, the environment, our economy (unless you're part of the military-industrial complex), our souls. Amazingly, now there is literally nobody left in the Democratic party for me to support. The editorial board's treatment of Tulsi, furthermore, proves her point that she is being unfairly treated. Unreal!
12
@LV I agree with you.
2
I don't care what Bianca Vivion Brooks, Mimi Swartz, Tanzina Vega or Ross Douthat think or say. IMO, the opinions of most talking heads are over rated and irrelevant. This piece is like the debates, with too many 'opinionators' trying to convince others that they're relevant. If the media would quit spending their time over-analyzing every tweet by Trump, and got back to journalism, they could do more in-depth interviews with all of the candidates, which would inform voters more on their positions on issues.
5
While I am left of center politically, this is why I'm NOT a Democrat, the peanut gallery section of the candidates and the moderators yammering on with the Republican talking point that Medicare for All only means higher taxes.
Yes, Senator Warren should have given Senator Sanders answer, Medicare for All means, first and foremost, no more bloated medical insurance premiums, no more deductibles, no more coinsurance, no more co-pays.
The relative lower cost of the Medicare for All "tax increase" vs. the bloated for-profit medical insurance premiums will substantial.
For those who can only think of it as a tax increase, it's a negative tax increase, which is to say it will be a substantial decrease in our cost for medical insurance.
As someone who spent 30 years working on my unions negotiating teams I know the true cost of buying medical insurance through an employer and I would take Medicare for All in a heartbeat.
4
I'm reminded of a story Nicholas Johnson told me about when he was an FCC commissioner. LBJ was President then, and he called a meeting of a lot of the key figures in his administration. He asked them to tell them what he ought to do, and he said, "Don't worry about how we'll make it happen. That's my job. You just tell me what we ought to do."
So far, Elizabeth Warren has done two exciting things. First, she has articulated positions about what we ought to do. For most of them, she has plans. At some point, however, it goes beyond plans into the kind of politics that LBJ took on.
The second thing that Warren has done is to run a campaign that has made her the front-runner. This shows a lot of political acumen. "I've got a plan for that" has been immense. Calling the control of government by special interests "corruption" is also moving into the mainstream, thanks to her.
There is plenty of time to compromise, but the nature and timing of the compromise is critical. A lot of bright people know the right thing to do but never know when. Let's have some faith that she will do the right thing at the right time and that we'll finally get what we want.
3
This is nice and all that, but why do we need to listen to these political commentators? Their rude dismissal of candidates who make an effort to improve this country by running for president is just that, rude. It does not make me want to change my opinion of each candidate, all of whom I support. Each has good ideas, and all would be a better president than any Republican.
1
I like Warren a lot. But as Michelle Goldberg says, she can't even handle a softball tax question from a supportive Anderson Cooper.
How could she ever handle Trump?
4
No surprise on Gabbard score. She called out the NYT for calling her a Russian agent, so I did not expect much from the NYT (never do). Media does not cover her because she is not left enough. A true shame.
11
This is Junk. Your experts have less predictive capability than a groundhog. Just think of all the experts pre the current president.
7
Wow, if only Charles Blow wrote like this in his op-eds! He's at his best when he skips the contrived outrage. His comments here are witty and pithy and fresh.
4
I feel ANY one of the Democratic candidates would be a hundred fold improvement over the corrupt, immoral, pathological lying, racist pea brain, Donald Trump.
1
The NY Times/CNN Democratic Presidential debate last night of the 12 most highly popular candidates was heavily slanted toward the candidates with the greatest popularity: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. At a 4-way tie with Sanders also were Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and O'Rourke:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/15/us/elections/debate-speaking-time.html
In contrast, Gabbard, Yang, Steyer, and Castro earned only about 1/2 of the television time of Biden and the other 2nd-place candidates, and only 1/3 of the time of Warren.
This was unfair and undemocratic. Gabbard was appropriately thrown questions on military policy, and that was it; she was otherwise ignored. Similar concerns with the candidates of the lower-end of the popularity scale.
I am ashamed of the NY Times and CNN for favoring their preferred candidates, to boost ratings and their own agenda.
11
Pretty simple. Leaders answer the questions, lay out their plans and convince us that this is the way to go. Poltiicans avoid direct answers and spin. Lay out the healthcare plans! Tell us why we have to give up our current plan and how much it will cost me. My employer currently pays 75% of my plan costs. Show me how this is better or worse! Until this happens I rate all of the current dems as a D at best. Less style discussion and zinger awards from the journalists. How about some real analysis? I will vote for a leader everytime!
1
The candidates who had the least standard deviation in their scoring for this panel? Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders. It says a lot about their ability to get people in agreement.
@Allen See Dred's post and my reply to him about the statistical issues here. Trying to use a standard deviation here is inappropriate with this kind of data--it's not the right kind of data for serious statistical analysis. The simple thing to observe about the data to make your point is about the range of ratings for each candidate.
1
Whatever anyone's criticism of Hillary Clinton, she served admirably in the Senate and as Secretary of State. She pioneered a path for women in public services that invited so many women to this year's debate stages. But Tulsi seized two gratuitous opportunities to slam Secretary Clinton. Really? You find value in knocking a candidate who ran and lost and hasn't been actively involved in politics since 2016? A strategy right out of Mr. Pumpkin Head's continuous attacks on John McCain. Wearing white does not make you a champion of women. Please consider offering some respect to a pioneer, speaking of her with a bit of deference, and expressing gratitude for her contributions. Otherwise, don't say anything at all.
2
@Kay
Hillary is waiting in the wings to be the super delegate choice at the DNC.
Tanzina Vega's justification for giving Elizabeth Warren a 6/10 writes that "She came across as an academic mired in her usual talking points." I get that it's tiresome to hear politicians rehearse the same old talking points, but why is it necessarily a bad thing to "come across as an academic"? I am absolutely starved for a president who is informed, articulate, and intellectual -- in short, a president who "comes across as an academic." And I am absolutely fed up with the notion that we should criticize those with the gall to display even an iota of intellect. Intelligent doesn't have to mean pretentious.
2
Fuzzy math used here, as is the case with all such surveys. Here's the problem. The scores are averaged as if they are real numbers using a ratio scale; but they're not. They're ordinal.
The distance between these numbers is not proportional. For example, a score of 10 can not be assumed to be 10x greater than a score of 1.
Ratio analysis skews the results towards outliers (scores of 1 and 10).
Surveys like this require the use of non-parametric statistics, the simplest of which is the median. Comparing medians provides greater clarity here as well.
Median scores show Warren ahead (median = 8) of Sanders and Buttigieg (both at 7) and Klubacher (6.5) and a mass of folks Biden, Booker, Harris, Castro and Yang at (5), Beto at 4.5 and Gabbard and Steyer clearly trailing at (2)
A more comprehensive analysis would use individual rankings (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) and then analyze the differences between them. That's more time consuming, so I just provided the medians for clarity.
2
@Dred Technically you're right, but no one really cares except maybe some other political scientists.
In practical terms, your comment is irrelevant. The same general order results, the same general story is told. No one takes the actual figures seriously, i.e., no one really treats them like they're measurements of objective and precise value.
People average pseudo-numbers all the time (like ordinal rankings with numerical values attached to them) in the media and even in academic work.
There is a bigger, serious issue with the misuse of statistics and using what I call pseudo-numbers in a great deal of data journalism, but this article here is a simple exercise and not presenting itself as serious data analysis.
3
Analysis of candidate behavior at this point needs to take into account who is positioning themselves for being a good running mate pick and for what potential nominees.
Examples:
Castro adjusting his strategy to be less confrontational and in-your-face like in the last debate, as mentioned by one Times staffer in the article, fits that model. He knows he's not getting the nomination, so he wants to look like a good running mate choice, thus not being aggressive.
Gabbard has always taken this approach. She'll attack the female candidates because she knows there's no way a female nominee is going to pick a female running mate. She went after Harris previously and tried to go after Warren last night. Posturing as a VP pick is also why she's emphasizing her military service.
Klobuchar might think she can become the moderate choice if Biden falls away, but Buttigeig is ahead of her on that. Klobuchar did and will continue to go after Warren because Amy knows Warren will never pick her as a VP.
Booker is trying to stay above the fray as a way to remain viable as a running mate for everyone.
4
I like Warren a lot, but she needs to move away from the sweeping Medicare for all overnight stance. Public option? Yes. Lower the age of eligibility to 50 or 55? Yes. But there is a time to take big steps, and a time to take littl'uns.
3
The columnists are evaluating the candidates according to the positions on the issues important to the base of left leaning Democrats and to the stage personas of the candidates. They seem to be doing this because they are viewing this as a sports contest. They want to predict who will win the Democratic nomination more than who will win the election and be able to govern effectively.
2
I watched the whole debate. And, as in the previous debates, Biden seemed a little confused, halting in his cadence, etc.
But today I watched him give a news conference - answering all questions in a fluent, flowing, confident, focused manner, just like the Senator Biden of old! The difference was astounding. It was night and day. And I wonder if it actually is the time of day that makes the difference? Whatever it is, it is quite a dramatic and very encouraging difference.
@Joe Runciter Biden has always been awful in debate, even in his younger years. He's an old time, one-on-one politician. That's when he shines. A news conference is so much more comfortable for him than standing at a podium among a group facing rapid fire questions.
4
@Joe Runciter
The debates are held past his bed time so it is understandable why he performs better after a good nights rest
Since private healthcare costs are mostly paid by corporations, I don't understand why taxes on individuals would have to go up that much to pay for Medicare for all. Make most of the tax burden fall on corporation through business taxes, to replace the savings most corporations will make by no longer needing to pay for health insurance for their workers.
If this were perhaps 70% of the total tax cost (graduated tax rates based on employee wages so low wage industries wouldn't be hit as hard, while well paid industries, like the tech industry, would pay more), combined with special wealth taxes for another 10%, only about 20% would need to be paid for by across the board tax increases on the middle class. My guess is most people would be glad to pay this just to know they'll never have to worry about being denied coverage or being bankrupted by health costs ever again.
1
Isn't it time there were fewer Democratic candidates. The sheer amount of them is bewildering.
1
The costs of Medicare for seniors, with no private option, works for all incomes and comes out of taxes. It keeps costs down and minimizes the complex bureaucracy of insurance. Those under 65 who would benefit from the For All version would have the same satisfaction. There could be payroll taxes or lower VA costs or loophole removal to pay for a lot of it. Employers could save considerably and workers would benefit. In Canada, the taxes for our universal healthcare are not an issue, Sanders said as much. Why does Warren not say so too? Surely, the total bill will be reduced considerably and service will be improved as it is for Medicare.
I don't understand how Biden consistently ranks as high as he does with the "experts." As the front runner he has the most to lose and, in debate after debate, he comes across as disorganized, ill-prepared and confused. He had to know that Hunter Biden was going to come up and he did...during the first question...and asked in the most polite way possible. And Biden still flubbed it. The Trump campaign isn't going to be half as nice about it. Biden is basically done.
6
@SJG Why on earth is Joe Biden expected to answer for his son? Hunter Biden is an adult. He and only he was offered the job and he and only he accepted it. Yes, the offer was probably made because his name was Biden but he has acknowledged that. I have adult children and I do not control their employment decisions. I raised them but as adults I do not control every aspect of their lives. Joe Biden is an honorable man and no candidate on that stage is better positioned to reinstate our position with our previous allies that Trump has destroyed. Joe Biden is liked and respected worldwide.
@Bonnie
Well, Biden has said that as President, his relatives won't take these types of positions. The question was along the lines of this: 'If you won't let him do this type of job when you're President, why was it OK when you were Vice President?' This is entirely reasonable.
3
@Bonnie
Pelosi's impeachment inquiry into Trump based on his call to the Ukraine has doomed Biden's chances of the Democrat nomination. If it goes to trial in the Senate expect Hunter and Joe Biden be required to testify under oath about the Ukraine and China dealings. If they take to 5th or say they don't remember it is all over. Biden can thank Pelosi for this happening to him.
I only have one question for the Democratic presidential candidates that I really hope someone will ask them at the next debate:
If congress brought before you a bill making it legal and enforceable to indict a sitting president for felony charges going forward, would you sign it into law?
2
@Tony It is legal and enforceable now. There is no statute or article of the US Constitution that makes it otherwise. It is just an accepted guideline as written by a Justice Department memo, nothing more.
3
My personal takeaways:
Joe Biden: For sake of accuracy, I would change Melanye Price's comment: "He casts himself as an old-school prize fighter, but he comes off as just old-school (change "old-school" to "old").
Elizabeth Warren (and others): You're not going to enact "Medicare for all;" it will just lose the Democratic ticket a bunch of votes and help re-elect He Who Shall Not be Named. I would like to see a public option for Obamacare, and then, if it is successful, you can consider where to go from there.
I'm still looking for the candidate who can win.
6
Do these elite journalists ever stop and wonder why Yang is doing so well despite their invective? In part, it is because of the narrow perspectives of mainstream media members. Yang will win and then you will need to rethink your assumptions, the very thing you should have done after the previous election. It gets tiring, guys. Update your formula, just a bit, and normal people will hate you less.
I don't get CNN so listened on the radio. Thus, I did not observe body language. My support for Warren is sinking, left the Biden boat a long time ago. Mayor Pete looking better every day.
3
My final thought is that Sanders drops out to yield the full progressive-leaning vote to Warren, though it may not be necessary at this point. Knowing Sanders, his stubbornness may stick it out to the end, but who knows — maybe he’ll cede and secure the nomination for Warren. :) <3
What all of these soundbites miss (and what an unfortunate format this is...it simply compounds this nation's tendency to reduce serious issues to ridiculous one-liners and silly memes) is that every single person on that stage has something concrete, engaging, and helpful to offer this country.
The field is crowded in ways that may undo us, but can we pause for a moment to recognize how much range, insight, creativity and patriotism--you know...that dying entity--was represented on that stage? The good news is that liberals have a vision for this country that just might rescue us from this current death spiral.
Instead of the incessant sniping--barely one of the journalists here could manage a sentence that didn't make a snide swipe at someone or roil with a nasty undercurrent (Pete Wehner is the clear front runner here)--perhaps we could promote coverage that encouraged new narratives and debates that promote more critical thinking and less bashing for the sake of bashing.
I've grown weary of the canned narratives and little boxes each candidate has already been consigned to. Yes. Harris was a prosecutor. Get over it. Since when does service to your community count as a negative? Yes. Bernie and Biden are old, but there are deeper issues about both that transcend their ages, both positive and negative. Expand the conversation!
It's a dangerous game to rip apart everyone when one of this crowd will end up being our only hope in ending our current reign of tyranny.
6
Statistics of small numbers can be problematic, but Mayor Pete's scores are a microcosm of his candidacy - He is simply NOT an appealing candidate to the black community.
1
On healthcare... The Democrats need clearly state the truth that, when one sums up the premiums that we pay for private health insurance and the cost to the tax payer for Medicare and Medicaid... The country is paying more per capita for healthcare than any other advanced country even though millions of Americans have no healthcare coverage and our healthcare outcomes compare unfavorably with other advance countries.
And they should stop using sound-bytes to describe any proposed universal healthcare coverage. "Medicare for All" is just that, a silly sound-byte. What does it actually mean. Medicare currently covers people over 65, who have paid into the system their entire adult life... who will probably die within the next 15 years. Universal coverage means covering somebody from cradle to grave... That's about 70 years, not 15.
The Democrats should be talking about their goals for universal coverage... Not the details of how it will be implemented. Design and implementation is going to be very complicated and will take some time. The Democrats should say they will move towards a universal healthcare where no one has to worry about losing coverage when they lose their job, no one has to worry about a pre-existing condition, etc. And then come come up with a plan to study how to best achieve this.. Without ruling any approach... Public, Private, or a mix.
2
The goal of television is drama. The goal of voters is not. So why does the DNC give these sound-bite rounds to a media-entertainment company to reduce to the lowest commonest denominator?
Why don't voters get to ask questions? Why don't candidates get a few minutes to explain their position?
The way TV runs these things is insulting.
2
The US pays more than twice as much as any other industrialized Nation and has Health outcomes very very much worse. So our current fragmented system is not working, and is not safe for patients. Healthcare needs to be viewed as a human right, and supplied as though it were an electric utility.
Warren needs to create a simple explanation to justify her "costs will go down for middle class families ". Something like a balance sheet of savings versus costs.
NO ONE SHOULD PROFIT OFF SICK PEOPLE She should explain how in the current system, all the MANY DOLLARS (she should quote some justifiable total) paid by employees and employers to the UNNECESSARY MIDDLEMAN insurance companies will now be available to cover ACTUAL CARE.
Employers SAVINGS: NO COSTS
Employees SAVINGS: no premium/ care cost
Healthcare Providers SAVINGS: less administrative cost
PREVENTATIVE CARE SAVINGS:
When individuals go to the doctor for preventative care because it is covered, their need for expensive last ditch Healthcare will go down.
HOSPITALS SAVINGS:
For-profit hospitals will become regulated like a public utility. They will be allowed a reasonable but not extravagant profit.
2
Charles Blow gives Warren a 10/10, but Mayor Pete only a 6/10? Not sure Charles actually watched the debate.
5
Gotta be that some of y’all’s analysis is off. I’m a huge Buttigieg supporter I admit, and he was his usual brilliant self. But my real beef is the overall score for Amy Klobuchar. 5.9? Her pushback on Warren was strong, especially her essential argument that being a good Democrat doesn’t mean that you have to adopt Warren’s perspective on everything. Her ending remarks were lovely and sincere. Golly, I would have given her a 9 at least.
130
@Carol
Right now Klobuchar would get my primary vote. I think she has what it takes.
25
@Carol The Boston Globe gave the 2 of them high grades for last night so they agree. They gave Pete an A and Amy a B+. That was a tie with Warren who also was given a B+. Those 3 were the picks from the BG and it has a bit of a crush on EW so that grade might be a bit inflated.
18
I thought she and Warren were the stand-outs, but I'm just one person, and the press as a whole seems to think a lot like the average of all these opinions. Given my druthers, one of them - or Harris, or Booker, who didn't debate as well - would be the nominee. But in the 12 presidential elections I've voted in, I got my druthers 6 times. And nobody I've voted for in a primary has ever gone on to become the nominee. We may be outliers.
8
The real winners of this so-called debate were the two candidates that were not there. Colorado senator Michael Bennet and Montana Governor Steve Bullock.
Democrats only want to win primaries and the nomination. Heck with the general election. Policies like student loan forgiveness (I have one for $75,000 still) and others that will not pass hold no interest to the farmer in North Dakota or the unemployed steel worker in Pennsylvania.
Get a moderate in there!
@Michael McLaughlin, there are moderates there The only thing that Bennett and Bullock have demonstrated are that very few people are at all interested in them as president.
1
Michelle Goldberg, today, and Bret Baier, last night, are too picky!
All bonds used to be "bearer bonds" issued with detachable interest coupons. Also "coupon stripping" is currently a commonly-used financial term, used to refer to the creation of a "zero coupon" bond and separate stream of "coupons." Although Biden made a small slip, most folks who read the Times financial pages know what he meant.
4
I feel like my brain has been permanently taken over by the mantra "regime change wars." Help!
TAnzina Vega seems unaware ot the realities of healthcare reform and winning elections Klobuchar and Buttigieg understand that telling the entire American electorate that they will have no choice whatsoever other than medicare for all is a great way to lose. The fact is that young folk(twenties and thirties) typically don't need much healthcare. Medicare for all would mean that a third plus of their paycheck woult be taken out before they get that pay check, even if they never need healthcare.Klobuchar/Buttigieg get it that options, including a public option are smarter,less scary, and more effective.Dear Tanzina...there is no free lunch. Amy/Pete 2020 for the win.
3
At the end of the day, all these democrats are “Tax and Spend” liberals. They all want to shift wealth with government giveaway programs “a la Venezuela, Cuba, and the old Soviet Union”. What ever happened to the JFK democrats who supported “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.
1
I'm not really sure why NYT lets Melanye Price vote in these columns.
It seems like everyone else is voting on who they think had the best night - she is rating them by how much they appealed to her personally.
Klobushar 1 and Buttigieg 3. Really? She did the same thing last month and will do the same thing next month, regardless of what actually happens in the debate.
2
I really enjoyed reading this.
Why did the moderators never mention the issue of Climate Change? I find that shocking, given the urgency of the problem.
1
Perhaps it's the pundits who need to get their heads out of the clouds. Millions of Americans share Harris's view that DJT's abuse of twitter is endangering this country.
He should never have been allowed to use it and we ought to frame new rules about it. Insane foreign policy is being tweeted out in ways the imperil other nations and us. That's not a sidebar issue.
1
If only a debate stage with judges assigning style and substance scores were the real world of being leader of the free world...
In the real world, Biden is still the logical choice to beat Trump AND actually have some of his policy initiatives turned into actual legislation. The Warren and Sanders push for free everything will be a non-starter for most independents and moderates while Trump and his evil but loony conspiracy mongering faithful will have voters thinking "Apocalypse" if he runs against either Warren or Sanders. Furthermore, both Warren and Sanders cannot win without more robust support from African Americans. Washington no longer does earth shaking legislation for the past several decades and Republicans aren't magically going to disappear and roll over.
2
Let's talk about paying for medicare for all.
Trump, people that have or will vote for Trump and the Republican owned media simply want a sound bite to use in campaign ads where Elizabeth Warren says that taxes will increase in order to pay for medicare for all.
Warren should SAY that taxes will go DOWN for the middle class and lower income people when medicare for all is implemented regardless of what the truth MAY eventually turn out to be.
Whoever doesn't like that statement can simply go to ----.
She should say something to the effect that she's going to soak rich people and large corporations as much as necessary to make medicare for all work.
The NET cost of medicare for all is LESS than what we have now, and anyone that tries to dispute that is working for Trump and the Republicans whether their brain works well enough to get that or not.
2
This report grading the candidates shows the truth: not a single one of them is qualified for the office of president. Of course neither were most of our presidents in the past and certainly the one we suffer with now.
It astounds me that regarding paying for M4A, Warren does not focus on the employer end at all. As it is, most employers are paying a lot of money toward employees' health care. If we were to go toward a single payer system, one of the ways to finance it would be to impose a payroll tax similar to FICA in addition to Warren's proposed "wealth tax". The Dems need to come up with an understandable way to ensure that much of the amount currently being spent on health insurance does not turn into higher profits for employers and higher taxes for employees. If we went to single payer right now, my non-profit employer would probably just put the 80% of premiums they've been paying to an insurance company into my paycheck to cover the taxes, but many for profit employers would not do so voluntarily.
3
Elizabeth Warren proved herself worthy of her front-runner position, and she was wise to not take the bait on potential tax increases, since even if a modest number of middle class citizens were to see an increase, the overall costs to the middle class are likely to be much lower and benefits much greater.
(I do think, based on my own research, that it is possible to finance healthcare without increasing taxes on the middle class at all. Warren probably didn't want to be nailed down on that.)
Bernie Sanders deserves a lot of credit for inspiring so many candidates to support many of his progressive ideas that seemed radical just a few years back. He gave a solid performance and looked vibrant after his heart attack.
As for Biden, he is charismatic and he has sold some people on the idea that he's most electable vs Trump, but I don't feel that way. I thought his attempt to take credit for Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Finance Protection Bureau initiative was pathetic and smacks of the dated notion that it takes a man to get things done. Would he have acted this way if Warren were male?
Andrew Yang's idea of VAT is a good one, in which the burden of tax is paid by the greatest consumers. Amy Kobluchar came across to me as bitter and angry with Warren.
Also, I think Kobluchar's and Buttigieg's embrace of "Medicare for All Who Want It" would in effect cancel any savings yielded by a single payer system and drive up costs. How much would their plans cost?
1
Mayor Pete's schtick is his promise to be a unifier and heal America's divisions. But that didn't stop him from giving the ugliest and most divisive performance of the night. His pompous pot-shots at Beto, laced with bitter condescension, were hardly "unifying." And who is Pete Buttigieg to condescend anyone? He's the mayor of a town of 200,000 with little interest or the chops for local government. South Bend may be a cut above Mayberry, but it's smaller than a Dallas suburb. Beto was a U.S. Congressman - bit more heft to his resume. Let's not forget that Barack Obama made the same promise in 2008 - didn't turn out so well.
6
What I find really amusing is that deficit spending is never mentioned in the context of Democratic proposals.
Republicans want to inflate the deficit by starting wars? Fine. Lowering taxes on the wealthy? Fine. Enriching the president by using his properties? Fine.
Democrats never get that option. Forget the male/female double-standard, forget the white/non-white double-standard, or the Christian/Non-Christian. The real double standard is that Republicans are allowed to be awful at government, and Democrats aren't.
5
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders dominate the debates, over and over again. What a ticket they would make! Considering all the smarts and hard work needed to get America working for all its citizenry, these are the two!
(But if what you want is today's version of a matinee idol and high school gym rallies for the fans, maybe these two candidates are not for you.)
3
I think you can learn as much about the Times opinion writers as the candidates in this piece. I'm a life-long reader of the Times and ever so thankful for its reporting. But you have to see the bias on the opinion page for the far left. Perhaps most daily journalists are attracted to shiny news objects - like big campaign promises - rather than pragmatism. They make easier stories to tell. But here there also seems to be something else at work.
2
I'm in the working class, and I spend about 5-10% of my yearly income on health insurance. My employer pays more. Now, I know that at a minimum 1/5 of the money we spend on private insurance is either wasted or goes to a CEO's pocket.
Why not replace that with a tax? Let's just take that money and send it to the government. I'm tired of paying corporations; they have been dominant throughout my life. I want to try living with the government I hear about from the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
4
Please. Stop. These endless debates remind me of a national dog show. It is time to winnow the field. All those who are Congress material please now run for Congress or get back to work in Congress. Unless you are in the Senate and we don't know what anyone does there anymore.
The DNC needs to have a plan here. Where is all this going other than to scratch out other candidate eyeballs? Let's have a unified message and get it out there now. Let's inspire people to vote for ideas.
All these voices from the coasts telling us what "won't play in Peoria" -- think again, more carefully. I'm IN the middle of the county and have been very involved since 2016. The person with the most support out here is Bernie: union members, teachers, people of color of all ages, the cashier at Nordstrom Rack I spoke to yesterday. His authenticity and support for the middle and working classes makes him one of us. He buys his suits at Kohl's. Do you all even know what Kohl's is? It's not Fred Segal and it's not Bergdorf. Bernie won a lot of primiaries here in 2016 -- MI, WV, etc. He has the most donors and the most grassroots supporters. He and Warren would cover the entire country.
4
@Parapraxis
Bernie's heart attack is an automatic disqualifier.
He is campaigning on borrowed time.
First and foremost, it's beyond disappointing that there wasn't one question about climate change during last night's debate. It's a dereliction of duty by the New York Times.
A few candidates stood out for particular reasons last night, but in general, I do not understand why journalists put candidates into "winners" and "losers" categories. The electorate got to hear from candidates and the candidates got to express their views: that's a win win. At the end of the day, it's up to the voters to decide who they would rather see in the office. The question of who "won' and who "lost" doesn't help democracy or journalism.
The Ellen question should have been left to the tabloids. The age question wasn't necessary either (it smacked of agism). I think the voters can decide whether a candidate is fit for office based on their actions, not their 20 second answer to a question during one debate.
5
It was an interesting debate, but candidates--not debate winners--win elections.
Elizabeth Warren is the frontrunner if you're looking for someone who can win a debate and beat Trump.
Joe Biden is the frontrunner if you're looking for someone who can beat Trump.
1
Right now, Warren is the one with well-thought out ideas. As for Buttigieg, I liked him more before this debate. Bernie was Bernie. But in terms of possible VP nominees, I think Julian Castro would be a good choice. Out of everyone on that stage, he was the only one to bring up the 'kidnapped children at our southern border'. The media and rank & file Americans may have forgotten what's going on down there, but Castro remembered and tried to get the rest of us to do so, as well.
It would have been good to ask each candidate: “ it is better than a 50/50 chance that the Senate will stay in GOP hands not to mention the filibuster. How do you expect to govern beyond the occasional executive order?”
In my view, this goes to the heart of the challenge for the top four or five candidates to explain the various levels of their health care plans and other policies requiring Congressional approval.
2
I disagree with pretty much everyone.
Sanders, Beto, Styer and Yang came across as the most passionate and sincere. They are all outsiders and I believe this is what the democrats need to win. Am I the only one who got Styer's point about fighting fire with fire?
Warren, Biden and Klobuchar are too much on the inside to convince America they can make drastic changes. Warren kept repeating herself and promoting herself, while not answering certain questions directly. I seriously have no idea why anyone would think she "won" the debate.
The rest didn't impress me enough and I didn't like it when those that could not answer the question resorted to just bashing Trump. Proved how divisive and unprepared for the job they were.
5
Thanks, ladies and gents. Each of your analyses validated my thoughts during the debate last night. And I am no longer wondering if I was reading each candidate correctly. To date, I favor Elizabeth Warren. But Michelle, you expressed well my fear also: That, as of now, she is unable to "finesse" her way around the criticisms thrown her way re Medicare-for-All. Yet, Will feels that what may have hurt her during the debate may not do likewise for Democrats at large. It all remains to be seen. I will add, however, that l look forward to the time, and soon, when this group on stage is half of what it was. It is a disservice to them that they are required to say too much of importance in too short of time.
2
We can't afford single payer healthcare is nonsense. Some simple math exposes the myth. The critics are ADDING the total cost of health care on top of premiums people pay for insurance and co-payments and drug costs etc. Those costs as well as the enormous profits the health care industry makes, balloon the cost of health care in this country to double what every other major country in the world pay as a percentage of GDP. If someone is paying $5000 a year in premiums now and those premiums and co-pays etc are eliminated why would anyone complain if their taxes go up by $2500?!
7
I really really like Steyer's TV ads.
I was irked to the max when he entered, but every time I see one of those smart focused ads, that start with the issues, I ignore the guy and appreciate his valuable fact-based presentations.
The Democratic party is not using advertisements as well as he does. If he doesn't mind getting rid of his excess wealth that way, I'm for it (though TV world profits big time from our elections, and that is disgusting).
3
I love this feature ... in part because the assembled "experts" are so "all over the place" in their votes.
SOMEBODY should really enforce just a little discipline, however. Several (many ?) of the "voters" the Times gives this enormous power to are clearly lost in the social media syndrome (and it's very, very ill!) of grading the participants on the basis of how closely they echo beliefs and positions held by those voting.
THAT does the readers of the NYT - and this column - an enormous dis-service.
In addition, the Times probably has the wherewithal and expertise to poll either a carefully chosen group of likely voters and/or [and this is probably a lot tougher] a few million non-trolls on the internet.
When one of your panel says, "He was great, but the Democrats probably aren't smart enough to go with him" it's clear that there's way more going on here than there is in a non-fixed fight where things like blows landed ARE counted.
In short, this column probably matters almost as much as the debate itself - so much too long that "real grading" should probably be limited to the first 45 minutes - and it would be good if there was some oversight. Otherwise - and not for the first time - the Times dumbs down something that truly matters as to what this country & planet are like between 2020 & 2024!
The disagreements between the Times Opinion writers on whether a candidate did "great" or "awful" underscore how subjective this is. If your opinions aren't reliable, then what's the point?
2
Most irritating comment from these reviewers, was...lacked the wow factor! Intelligence, experience, and being able to actually do the job for our country should be the main factor in considering our Democratic candidate. Trump won in 2016 because he had that "wow" factor, which was being an ex-TV reality star who boasted, lied, and said dispicable things about everyone, and ran on being the outside candidate. He acted and still acts like a clown and appeals to the racists, bigots, and misinformed minority of America that was always there, but was kept down at heel, as they should have been, who never really cared about America's dignity as the world's leader in freedom. The candidates last night didn't speak enough about how desperately important it is to impeach this dangerous, off the rails President and his administration. 12 candidates are ridiculous at this point, get down to top 4 or 5....the younger and older.
1
To those who are shouting the praises of Bernie and Elizabeth your failure to understand where the country is shows an amazing lack of national understanding and a progressive east and west coast bias.
As Sen. Sherod Brown has so eloquently said if the Democratic Party wants to lose then they should go with Medicare for all and play right into Trumps hands. Although we all want universal health care for people we cannot do that by telling 150 million people we are going to do away with your private health care. Mayor Pete, Senator K, VP Biden , Sen. Booker have it right. The Medicare for all take my private health care away message is not only no practical , it is destructive to the party. That message is not going to play in Ohio, MI, WI, IL IN, MN!
5
I agree with the overall concensus of the contributors for the most part. Jamelle Bouie has intrigued me since I started reading his columns maybe a year ago. He nailed it with Amy Klobuchar. I'm a Never Trump Republican (although I will change registration to unaffiliated) and my first choice of this group is Klobuchar. Good assessment Jamelle. Tom Steyer needs to go away like Howard Schultz. Today, Tom. Half these people are far from potential presidents, but I said that about Trump too. Trump's electoral success is probably why most of them have yet to withdraw; "If that incompetent jerk can get elected, why not me?"
2
Many dismiss Yang simply because they don't understand the problem he's trying to fix. You can tell who those people are by asking them: how do you propose to solve the automation problem? The clueless ones can't answer.
After last night ready for Tulsi, Tom (Steyer), and Beto (sorry Beto!) to wrap it up. Castro was just good enough to get another ticket.
Kamala probably should be thinking about what she is doing here. Her campaign has always been shaky and her one purported strength, debates, seems rather dubious. That pretty good ambush on Biden was nice 4 debates ago but Trump's twitter account isn't exactly moving the needle. It would have been bad for anyone but her candidacy is much more dependent on these debates.
If Michelle Obama would come out in support of a Buttigieg/Michelle team it would end it.
@alrago
Michelle should announce as a candidate. That would also end it and she would demolish Trump.
Nothing to say on the Debates, but I think this is the first
commentary section I've seen printed in the Times in about
a week. Is the Times doing away with printing their readers' opinions, or is there just something wrong with my internet access?
Most telling is the across the board panning of Tulsi Gabbard. While at the same time dismissing Gabbard's stance against regime change wars as "robotically repeated talking points", nearly all these pundits regurgitate the "Assad apologist" trope like good little Neo-cons. So regime change wars are good? This reaction not only proves Gabbard's point that the Times unfairly has it out for her but reveals the reason why, her anti war stance. Let us not forget the NY Times helped to lie the US into the Iraq war. Particular shame on Nick Kristof who like Ellen Degeneris shows loyalty to class over conscience, Gabbard's the candidate most aligned with Kristof's view of the negative affects of US foreign policy that Kristof makes a comfortable living highlighting in the NY Times, yet he piles on Gabbard just like the rest. He also went after Sanders the one most sympathetic to the suffering of the poor in this country, Kristof knows well where his bread is buttered.
9
This would be a way cooler article, if your reviewers weren’t so the same. You should employ some real conservatives. How else are we to get at a more balanced truth?
3
Idea NYT. Let these commenters (JQP) rate (5/10) one candidate and write their supporting comments. Include their narrative in each segment.
I read these pieces to check which columnists/"experts" are the winners and losers in the race to fill the limited time I have to spend reading the new york times...
*for example, look who makes up the group who gave Buttigieg more than 6!!!!
Melanye Price rated every candidate lowly who wasn't Elizabeth Warren. Talk about picking your race horse...
2
Seriously you would vote for any of them to be our president. Good grief.
4
Dear NYT Panel,
Please write a separate column - "Who can beat Trump in 2020?" Winning a Debate and winning a general election are not the same.
4
Climate change/global warming is real, and it's not getting a hearing.
Can we please please have a substantive debate from no more than six candidates? Soon? This was a largely meaningless (and very expensive) performance. Classic running all the way to the bank for TV and marketing.
Warren/Inslee is my dream team.
1
So many condescending, cynical and petty social-media-like comments from these so called experts on here. We are supposed to be talking about how to improve people's lives and this reads like high school popularity contest notes. A very discouraging performance by the NYT when so much more is required. Stick to the issues please.
8
We need to seriously thin out this field. I'd honestly be fine with Biden, Pete, Sanders, and Warren at this point. Include a Harris or a Booker if you'd like. The rest come off as pointless navel-gazers (Beto), closet jerks (Klobuchar), or a mix of incomprehensible and sinister (Gabbard).
Losers are NYT and CNN. Horrible job, skipping by the kitchen table economic issues. Get some working class people to help you frame your election coverage, people vote their pocketbooks, not the things you all asked about yesterday. Your responsibility to the nation goes beyond staging an event that is good for your business plan.
7
I confess to ignorance about this whole process, but at what point are they going to to whittle down the numbers of people participating in these debates and focus on the two or three who actually have a chance of beating Trump? They are wasting time, and not showing a united front. Someone needs to focus on the undecided voters and those who may be disillusioned with Trump yet driven by fear of more radical changes, such as free medicare for all and free university, etc. Get elected first then gradually put more progressive policies in place. The thought of another four years of Trump appalls me, and I don't even live there. I have some friends who in the U.S. who are truly afraid of what that may bring. Personally, I like Bernie Sanders, but have to admit his age concerns me. A very hypocritical thing to write here, considering I am 72 and concerned about the amount of ageism I see these days, but not an unreasonable concern, given the stress of the position and the obstruction and undermining that any democratic victor will likely be subjected to by the Republicans. Time moves quickly and 2020 will be here before we know it. Democrats need to come up with a better strategy to relieve the U.S. of the corruption and destruction of democracy that is currently occurring.
I don't know where you find these people, but they are so out of touch with so much of America that it's incredible.
3
Is NO ONE going to acknowledge the elephant in the room? Mayor Pete is a gay man.
Are we liberals blind to that issue? My only brother was gay, and I can tell you that it has not been resolved in this country. Just because we no longer remark on it with regard to public figures does not mean it has faded away or is a settled issue.
American voters have only recently accepted the idea of a female president—and we know how that turned out. There are millions...millions of women who wouldn’t and didn’t vote for her, many because of her gender.
Mayor Pete is young. He has many years to serve this country in important ways while the electorate has time to further evolve.
There has never, ever been an election with such serious consequences for this country as the next one. That Mayor Pete has become a top-tier candidate is a major step in the right direction.
We can keep our eye on both prizes without risking the future of our republic.
2
@Weshallovercome
If Mayor Pete wasn't gay he would never have made it this far. He is the mayor of a city of 101,000 people, how does that qualify him as ready to run the country? It does not. A mayor of any US city has never won the Presidency. Hollywood money is fueling his run for the Presidency.
Why can't Warren just lie and say "You're going to have incredbily fantastic healthcare and it won't cost a cent." It worked for Trump.
2
I'm asking myself not about performance but who would make the better president. But first let me say I've been enjoying hearing the views of all these intelligent, caring people. It's at least as much a forum as a debate. I hope whoever wins hires from among them.
On the other hand the selection process supposed to be going on is a muddle. It's like we face a display case of cakes, tantalized by each in turn, with no "leading candidates" particularly earning that status - and therefore vulnerable.
Specifically, Ms. stump speech "you can have it all" Elizabeth Warren is in the lead not by qualification but because she thinks she's still on the debating team and people can't look away. Glad she's my Senator but lacks the vision & perspective of an executive.
To combat shear inertia as selection criteria (been there, failed us) we need some serious "country before ego" stepping out of the race.
I love Pete and Kamala for their desperately needed folksy wit, wisdom and common sense, Booker for being real. Are they born executives?
Don't be strangers but good night Castro, Yang & Gabbard. The Billionaire? Impressed, but get yourself elected to something else first. Nobody promised you the top. Love yah Beto, really.
Joe, serve again by helping whichever of these kids gets the job. Ah Bernie, how about your own slot after the debate? I so love to hear you talk, do not turn down the volume, but American's think Marx is the anti-Christ & there's your ticker.
1
"Pete Wehner (4/10) — In an era when politicians are despised she’s showing us that she’s a quintessential politician: evasive, canned, rehearsed. She feigned shock at the charge that she’s “punitive” toward billionaires and corporations. I’m not sure why."
Her shock wasn't feigned. I'm continually shocked by people who are unaware that that billionaires and mega-corps have been underpaying taxes for a half-century now.
I'm also shocked if the penultimate sentence in the review of Warren means that Mr. Wehner thinks Warren IS being punitive, unless he doesn't read the paper he writes for.
Indeed, one doesn't have to read David Leonhardt or Emmanuel Saez to know how the obscenely wealthy have acquired their obscene wealth by underpaying their taxes. The statistics have been available for decades. Years ago Warren Buffet offered to donate $1 million to the charity of their choice to any of his fellow Fortune 500 CEOS who could prove that they paid a higher tax rate than the secretaries. He had no takers.
Is it "punitive" to demand that they pay their fair share? I think not.
5
I give Sleepy Joe 7 points for staying awake until the end of that Democratic debate trainwreck. I am not sure why Warren isn't steamrolling this field. Maybe she only looks good because the other options are so lousy.
3
@TL
They are all going to drop out by the time of the convention, leaving up to Hillary again.
I'm surprised how much I disagree with these opinion writers and their conclusions. Is that just me? I very much worry that the unrepresentative voters of the early primary states will do us all harm by unrepresentatively winnowing out the field. I felt that all of them were brilliant. (The moderators, too. The Times should always host a debate.) The exceptions were Booker who did not do as well as he should have and O'Rourke who still hasn't shown us that he is ready to be on the stage. In short I would have grouped the top n candidates together toward the top of the scores. The debate had some big holes: a discussion based on real firearm fatality statistics; human caused climate change; the attack on women's rights; getting anything at all done unless we take the Senate.
4
And the train of Willful Oblivion barrels onward. Panel rankings based solely on wokeability. How tiresome. Folks who don't care if Trump wins again as long as they can claim ideological purity.
Is this how you win? Fighting and demonizing moderates and republicans? Writing off Yang as a clown show? Is this how Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania turn blue? Nominating Warren without taking even one minute to ponder whether folks in those states see her as Hillary 2.0? Yikes.
I hope I'm wrong.
5
Amy Klobuchar is a winning candidate that Democrats ignore at their peril; I am an Independent who would vote for her, even with a side kick like Mayor Pete, Tulsi or Booker riding shotgun.
1
@JRS
Don't think we could survive her truly bad jokes and her reputation for trashing her staff doesn't bode well for her governing style.
3
@RAC,
Can you survive Trump for 4 more years because that’s where I am going, if not Klobuchar.
Joe as usual defended his stance that his nepotism is good and ethical because there is no law against it. His son did him no favors saying that this time if daddy is elected he won’t do this again. Of course that begs the question, if there is nothing wrong about it, then why say you won’t do it again? You know why? Because it’s wrong and unethical, but legal for the Bidens. Talk about privilege.
Warren as usual will gift all these wonderful gifts, but will not tell you that it will be paid by your taxes. She keeps saying ‘it worked elsewhere, so why not here’. It works elsewhere because they pay 65% in income tax. Is that how it will work here? She has not answered that.
I know that guns are a favorite go-to issue for Liberals voters and Democrat politicoss, although they will not to do a thing about them.
But I think that O’Rourke jumped the shark last night and can kiss his campaign good bye now when he up and came out saying he would send the police to get your guns.
From now on everywhere you go he will see signs that read ‘molon labe’ – come and get them, and every single legal gun owner will use that at Thanksgiving Dinner to prove to their family that the Democrats are out to get them.
Pete saw the chance and came out swinging against that, which can be that he actually has an idea, or saw the chance to bump O’Rourke out and took it.
The questions becomes, will this be used as a ‘basket of deplorables’ moment for the entire Democrat and Liberal field as well?
1
Amy Klobuchar stole the stage last night ... if you are of the persuasion that "Oh goodness, that 's too hard for us to do - let's aspire to mediocrity!"
1
Isn't it fascinating that the only openly gay candidate in the field is, in the words of Daniel McCarthy, "the strongest Republican onstage"?
1
These comments are snarky and pretentious. Rather than desperately trying to push the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren, no matter how badly she answers questions or fails to convey any sense of presidential authority, these "pundits" should talk to the voters of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Florida to learn who they think looks and sounds like a president. That's when the snarky-class will hear the answer they dread the most ... JOE BIDEN!!!
3
Do the Democrats really want to pick a Trump rival, someone who is basically unqualified to be President but who can sound good to tone deaf ears. Hears my list in no particular order;
Mayor Pete. An inexperienced executive, not liked by blacks, who as a Rhoads Scholar has studiously built a CV. Charmless and a great Never Trumper candidate.
2. Julian Castro. A thoughtful guy for a cabinet secretary. A scary last name.
3. Beto O'Rourke A somewhat loquacious version of 2. above
4. Tom Steyer. He should distribute some of his wealth to his favorite candidate.
5. Tulsi Gabbard. Would make a great Fox News anchor. Or a Trump ambassador to Syria.
6. Andrew Yang. Give me the $1000 and I'll shut up!
7. If the Democrats don't get down to 5 or six on stage I'll watch Netflix until January.
1
It is going to come down to Biden/Bernie/Warren. Biden is going to win because neither Warren nor Bernie have any black support whatsoever. Nor any Hispanic support.
Nobody else matters at all.
IF the Party ignores the minority voters and picks the very peachiect, keeb nest white Progressive outthere, then we will lose and -even worse- we will have deserved to lose.
We have a coalition Party- everybody has to get a say.
2
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat
1
@Ijahru
He is when it's advantageous.
There is far too much importance placed on debates in choosing a candidate, especially when crowded by 12 people trying to get a word in edgewise. Trump won the Republican debate and look where that got us. I still believe Biden is the best person for the job and he won't have to come to a decision in 5 seconds or less when he is President. That's just the ticket, we need a more thoughtful caring person to lead our nation, not one who is best at coming up with a good cutting sound bite in a few seconds.
2
Compare the 2019 Democratic debates to the 2015 Republican primary debates in which there were also a large number of candidates on stage. The difference in quality of the candidates is striking. The Democratic candidates were much smarter, articulate, energetic, decent, and truthful, and much less combative and divisive. Any one of them can describe the nuclear triad, name all the major departments of the federal government, and speak authoritatively about economics, foreign policy, health care, or the environment.
Bottom line: I would vote for any of the Democratic candidates enthusiastically instead of trump.
5
I, apparently for one, appreciated having every one of those voices included in the conversation. Call it a forum instead of a debate if you like, but even if not every candidate is a strong contender, I want to hear their ideas. The creativity and diversity of thought, not to mention the diversity of backgrounds, is a strong statement on the Democrats' connection with real-world people and issues. Our problems are dire, and we need to hear bold ideas.
2
Tulsi was very articulate. Her point is well taken. We don’t have to involve ourselves in the Syrian conflict which predates is. We don’t have to try and setup “favorable” governments around the world. All of our prior attempts have failed - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, korea, Vietnam. We do not understand the regional politics and we end up supporting factions who end up damaging US interests - al qaeda, saddam hussein being ready examples.
She received the least talking time and she was branded and smeared much before the debate. The media clearly has picked their winners and are using their platform to force it on us.
I did not see any good ideas to get out of these wars from any of the other candidates including Mayor Pete. He just appealed to our emotion and has no plan whatsoever.
15
I wish Mr. Bernie Sanders to the next US President. He is energised by invigorating treatment - he will complete #46 job energetically and bring us prosperity and UNITY and respect in the world. His plan for America is what majority of we the Americans endorse wholeheartedly.
Please help Mr.Sanders.
5
Please let us keep our eye on the ball. All of these people are SANE, not in love with Putin, are capable of empathy and would not risk the very existence of this country for personal gain. The real winnowing down of this too large group will start after the first of the year. Yes, I have my preferences and the ones at the top of my list are those who I think are the most capable of staring down a madman and not flinching, smart enough to play with Trump's deranged mind and expose him for what he is in case there are still "undecideds" out there. I happen to think Buttigeige and Klobachar are tough as nails and up to the task. But make no mistake, the Democratic nominee will have my vote, even if it's your cousin Fred.
5
What are Buttigieg's solutions? He has not discussed how he will make healthcare or the economy more dynamic and accessible. So far, he has made his presence known by cross-examining other candidates. What is a Republican doing in a debate for Democrats? He comes across as cold and detached (in an office setting, he is the condescending office instigator and stickler. When it comes to [finding] solutions and solving problems, he stands back and only knows how to criticize everyone). We do not have to re-invent the healthcare system (whatever Germany, Switzerland, U.K, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Canada are doing, regarding healthcare, we can improve upon). We are American's, Not Americant's.
4
One of the few reassuring aspects of the broad candidate field is the diversity of the candidates themselves--various ages, races, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender--representative of America--and all getting a voice.
However, I'm still worn out and we have a year to go....
77
Critics faulting Buttigieg and Klobuchar as too centrist are themselves completely out of touch with the middle of the country.
270
@Blair Klobuchar in particular hasn't a clue what the majority of Americans living on the coasts are concerned about. Her strategy if she were to win, is to just have faith that non-Midwesterners will jump on her bandwagon, of incrementalism. That didn't work in 2016, so why would it work now?
And Buttigieg had done better before this debate. It remains to be seen if playing as "alternate-Biden" will get him very far, in the end.
14
@Blair I agree with you completely.
16
@Blair "Critics faulting Buttigieg and Klobuchar as too centrist are themselves completely out of touch with the middle of the country"
Oh, that explains why Sanders gets three times the # of donations as Buttigieg in Obama-to-Trump counties in "the middle of the country."
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-out-raises-joe-biden-in-obama-trump-swing-counties]
11
Sanders effectively put to rest concerns about his health. Biden appears to have lost a couple of steps and it was a little sad to see that, he could have been a contender if his mind and speech had remained sharp. Sanders took Biden to the woodshed by pointing out all of the huge policy mistakes that Biden was responsible for. Biden sounded confused and unable to deflect criticisms regarding his son's opportunism.
The only viable candidates left are Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, outside shot goes to Booker.
125
@tony It's worthwhile to recall that Joe Biden was always sloppy as a speaker and debater. His infamous "gaffes" were a function of that. It's why he never made it to the nomination in his past Presidential runs. And it's why he shouldn't be considered for a Presidential run now.
43
@tony All Sanders showed about his health is that he felt well last night. He's 78, he's just had a heart attack, he has a grueling and stressful campaign ahead for the most stressful job in the world.
He's not the horse I'm willing to bet on to go the distance.
43
@tony
I disagree that Sanders put to rest concerns about his health. He is a 78 year old man with a bad heart. Maybe he would survive the Presidency and maybe he wouldn't. Statistically, he probably won't (even though he appears strong). A President dyeing in office is a horrifying experience. I've lived through it once and am not in a hurry for a repeat performance.
33
Bernie was great but he won't be elected. And before you mention the polls last time, let's remember what else they revealed.
Klobuchar was pretty good but all her moderation means she won't get the nomination.
I love Warren but her inability to be intellectually honest about the taxes for Medicare for all make her suspect for the general election. Bernie's honesty is one reason he won't win.
Biden, bless his heart, who wants to eliminate the taxes for investments but he doesn't but George W may want to. Yes, this is a confusing sentence on purpose.
Booker had his best performance.
Loved Warren waving away Harris with her weird demand t close Trump's Twitter account
Steyer, go away with Tulsi
Beto is still cute but your time has already passed (or it never really arrived)
Castro was dull. Is mean Castro better?
Tulsi, go away
Pete was a little too big for his britches last night and his anger was palpable while he lectured others about moderation.
69
@Mal Stone
TULSI STAY! Don't boycott despite unfair treatment. Glad that full of grit Tulsi has come back, although given little airtime. Unfair of media and some pundits to characterize her position as Assad apologist. If Warren and Kamala are the quintessential politicians--rehearsed, evasive, canned answers--Tulsi is one of the most authentic and unflinching, along with Bernie Sanders. She courageously brought up fact that regime change was one of dual motives for our participation in Syria, just as it was in Iraq. This deserves more in depth commentary, with Marco Rubio, etc. endorsing more regime change in Venezuela and Cuba. What do Democrats think about this? I want to know.Regarding unlikely friendship with Trey Gowdy==she answered the question in her characteristically forthright manner, which makes Mimi Swartz's attack on this basis unwarranted. Deeply admire this bold, deep voiced, deep thinking, unflinching combat veteran, who speaks outside conventional box, from her heart rather than like a politician. Democrats who fail to see potential in this one will lose out in long run if winning an election is important to them. I will do what I can to make sure she does not go away so I may remain engaged despite platitudes, evasiveness, canned answers and self-important braggadocio am otherwise subjected to listening to onstage performances. (exception Bernie)
10
@Mal Stone: Agreed. It says something that Tulsi's loudest support comes from alt-right figures, mostly men. Impeachment can hardly be dismissed as "hyper-partisan" when a growing number of alarmed Republicans (and recent GOP refugees) believe that Trump MUST be removed. Tulsi complains that she was smeared by NYT; she wasn't. Given her own behavior and supporters (including the RT), it's not unreasonable to wonder whether she is an agent of mischief.
I think it's entirely possible that Tulsi means well. But accusing the party and "mainstream media" of bias while she appears on FoxNews and is championed by white supremacists? I wish we could dismantle the two-party system and I think reforms such as ranked choice voting can help us open up elections. But Bernie is not a Democrat and wasn't one in 2016. He caucuses with the Dems but is a Socialist. That label doesn't bother me at all--I'd be happy in Copenhagen--but it's entirely disingenuous to claim that a system is rigged against you when you're an outsider. I always use this analogy: It's like running for an officer position in a country club when you're not a member. Challenge the system that gives the club any social currency, but yeah, the club is going to favor its members.
9
@Heather - The last thing we need worry about is Warren's intellectual honesty. She can figure it out just fine.
12
The experts are dismissing Andrew Yang off hand.
It's distressing because the same bunch were blindsided by Donald Trump's election in 2016. There was some feeble attempt at soul-searching back then, but now it's all going back to the same old Democratic orthodoxies again.
Warren/Sanders are saying that business is evil, and we just have to legislate away their greed. Yang is saying that business follows the incentives set up by the system; it's a matter of changing the incentives and it's not necessarily a morale issue.
The problem with the legislation is that the business has already taken over Congress. Most will not work against its own interests, a point Yang argues from the start.
Who's shallow?
1
@Kirk Agree, Trump was a joke until 2am morning after the election. Yang's rise has same trajectory, but brings with it a far more stable, moral and positive candidate. Yang didn't have to answer any questions last night, his policy stances drove the entire night.
1
Interesting to see the hate toward Tom Steyer. He's been publicly fighting for liberal causes for a long time, which is true for only a couple of other candidates. He's been using his own money, in that fight (and raising money from others), making it easy to buy that his beliefs are authentic, unlike a number of the other candidates.
"Why is he running for president?" - likely for the same reasons as the other candidates, except for maybe Gabbard. She seems to be a 2020 version of Jill Stein.
1
If democrats chose a candidate so far to the left, they will lose again to Donald Trump.
The NYTimes is doing the same mistake as 3 years ago: They were blind to what the country wanted and though Hilary was a savior; this time they think a far left candidate is the solution, when it really isn't.
We need a candidate that is on the left center. If we get a warren/Sander candidacy it will be very tough for me to actually vote for them as much as I do not like the current president.
I do not like any of the current candidates myself, but it amazes me the hate from the NYTimes "experts" towards the more moderate candidates.
If the party isn't smart, we are looking at another 4 years of terror.
5
“Worth remembering that “debates” don’t test any ability necessary in the actual work of the president who never has to explain anything important in 75 seconds.” Lawrence O’Donnell
3
Michelle Goldberg: Biden used "clipping coupons" appropriately. It means collecting income on financial investments, specifically bonds (which once had actual detachable coupons for this purpose) but also, by extension sometimes, equities, limited partnerships, or other instruments.
7
@Bethlehem That comment by Goldberg stood out to me also. Being left of center does not mean being ignorant of basic business and economic terms. If you don't know what "clipping coupons" means, you need to keep your columns in the Style section. I can guarantee you that Warren and Sanders know what the the term means.
Gabbard specifically mentioned CNN and the NYT for the biased reporting on her. Not a word in this opinion on that, just a total panning of Gabbard.
Another hilarious proof that the NYT can dish it out on a daily basis but when criticized, tends to roll up into a little ball.
9
Warren-Castro. Winning ticket for 2020. Warren's Medicare-for-all will lose, but pro+sing it will score points for her.
Why do I feel like I'm being scolded when Liz Warren is speaking? It's exhausting. "Fix" and "fight" are two words that I am tired of hearing from her. We need leadership and someone with a vision of America. Inspiration flowed from Booker, Buttigieg, and even Klobuchar and Steyer. Most of the candidates would make excellent Cabinet choices.
Quick note to Michelle Goldberg of the Times: Biden was referencing the recent past with his "clipping coupons in the stock market" statement.
Just a few decades ago, before the internet, when people kept paper bonds they would redeem the interest payments by clipping coupons on the document. Scissors were actually used and wealthy people would do it themselves. Today, this is all done electronically.
To others who have weighed in: It probably wasn't the best image to cite for him, as it's a dated term, but he wasn't speaking incoherently as some may have suggested.
5
As he has throughout these debates, Bernie Sanders mentioned Climate Crisis close to every time he spoke. And each time my confidence in his baseline honesty and morality grows.
I have a feeling that the many, many young people inheriting the ecological destruction that unfettered, anything-but-moderate greed has wrought have also noticed Bernie's consistent foregrounding of the planet's viability.
Maybe instead of writing off a Green New Deal as just another far-left nonstarter, we could focus our work on healing the common spaces that always, already unite us. Bernie is the leader I trust to respect and support our youth's generational aspirations to survive, and maybe even thrive.
5
Kamala Harris wasn't the only candidate on stage with a problem convincing voters to vote "against their own collective interests," as Bianca Vivian Brooks put it.
Elizabeth Warren has a lot of work to do convincing upper-middle class and wealthy Democrats -- particularly those who get their income from wages -- to vote against what seems to be their own collective economic interest. It would help if she would explain who she considers "middle class" and who she just views as a ATM that should just fund her ideas.
4
Sen. Warren's emphasis on no higher costs for the middle class helps to shift the inadequate Republican "dog whistle" framing of taxes = all tax increases are bad (and, by implication, Democrats are the party of taxes). As she so astutely points out, taxes are not the key indicator for quality of life, but rather costs, that is how much disposible income someone has after necessary expenses.
Is she ducking the tax question? No, rather, she's avoiding the Republican trap (which sadly, so many mainstream commentators blindly fall into) and taking the conversation about medical care and quality of life to a more sophisticated level.
Simple thought experiment:
Person A has income of $1,000,000 and pays 30% in taxes ($300,000), leaving $700,000 "to keep"
Person B has income of $50,000 and pays $20% in taxes ($10,000), leaving $40,000 "to keep"
Which person would you rather be, A who has higher taxes but more after-tax income, or B who has lower taxes but less after-tax income?
Sen. Warren should be applauded for elevating the conversation beyond the gut level in search of a working policy on a critical national issue.
2
I hope this ends soon. Any of the candidates is preferable to the ongoing disaster of Donald Trump, although it will probably be necessary to reach 'across the aisle' to win the election. I also hope that all these commentators realize the urgent need to unite and fight for the survival of American democracy and the planet.
3
When you only allow Steyer 7 minutes in three hours how can he do well. The debate is rigged to help the front runners. Warren got almost 10 minutes more air time than Biden or Sanders. Not fair !
4
Tulsi is, to all intents and purposes, a Republican wolf in sheep's clothing. I suspect she is being funded mostly by Republicans, just to mess with the debates. She is 100% in the wrong party. She will drop out soon and run for president as an independent, which is the last thing anyone needs. Her ego gets nowhere near where she thinks it is.
2
Is it always necessary to "grade" people and have "winners and losers." The winners are the American people who managed to make it thru all three hours of the so-called debate. Frankly, 180 minutes what ever no of actual minutes 160? Fair to me would be to give each candidate 16 minutes to make hir policy statement sans interruption... meantime. some ideas are coming forward that are very interesting.. but less about medical stuff.. more about immigration. In fact, it would have been best to have each of these debates chose three/four topics for discussion. I have no idea but then I can never make myself watch the entire thing as to the policy on immigration. Reviewing US immigration laws is a fascinating study, esp. the 1924 law.. overturned by the 1965 law overturned last by Trump.
1
Pete and Amy (in that order) had the best night. Buttigieg's foreign policy comments were outstanding, better than anything from any of the other candidates. Biden could be strong here as well but is so rambling and incoherent his points are lost on the audience. This debate may be the beginning of the end for him.
Both Pete and Amy made points on Warren/Sanders plan to force some 155 million people to give up their health plans (plus 25 million uninsured and 90 million in private non employee plans) and join a program (Medicare) that to date only serves 53 million people. Giving people an option to see how that works makes a lot of sense and also gives the US Government a chance to build systems to handle what would be the largest health care system in the world. Blowing up private insurance day one, on reflection, seems irresponsible.
6
I hadn't thought of it until Daniel McCarthy mentioned it, but Klobuchar for veep makes sense. Worth slogging through this post-game roundtable to stumble onto this.
Ultimately my primary concern is seeing a real path to victory for any of these candidates. Sure, energizing the base is important, but we also need to make a pitch to suburban/exurban voters in states like Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc to make this thing competitive. Trust in government and in public institutions was already eroding before Trump, and it's hard to see how these grand ideas will resonate against a tremendously fractured and uncertain voting public.
The Democrats had to move heaven and earth to get a moderate Republican healthcare plan through Congress. All it took was ten years and Donald's assault on the ACA for it to garner 50 plus percent of support by the public. Now the New York branch of the party thinks that Medicare for All will be a slam dunk. The polling I've seen does not indicate wide support for that proposal out there in fly-over land.
Neither the United States nor the planet can survive another four years of Trump. Defeating him has to be THE priority.
If support for a program that takes away private health insurance from 140 million Americans endangers that goal, it may have to wait for another day.
5
There’s Bernie and then there’s the rest of the stage crafted wannabe Bernie’s !
Sorry that authenticity/credibility will take them 40 years of being right on issues facing down the wrong on issues and persevering against daunting odds. The only person who can beat trump not like a drum keeping the rhythm but like a clock with never ending reliable consistency a useful tool for the future of America.
Right on time.
10
The most common quotes I see from the 2016 Republican primaries are the multiple takedowns Lindsay Graham had of Trump. Some great stuff, like "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed . . . . and we will deserve it."
The bulk of the electorate is not going to care about some circular firing squad behavior from this early in the Primary process. Challenge, debate, and get all the vulnerabilities out there so they don't sting as much when raised by the GOP.
Of course when the Dems have their nominee, then it's all hands on deck to get her/him elected regardless of the marks left by the Primary.
1
To Ms. Goldberg- "clipping coupons" is an expression in the financial industry, it means receiving regular, predictable cash flow from an investment. Think of a bond. Not usually associated with the stock market but what would a Joe Biden comment be without some hard-to-follow jumbling?
3
Until Elizabeth Warren answers truthfully how she will pay for all her grand plans she will never do as well in the eyes of the voters as she does in the pundits that make up these scores. Those of us who are long term liberals are fearful that her many grand plans will not play well in rural America or with blue-collar voters.
7
As a moderate but straight ticket Democrat, it feels to me that the NYT staff was watching an entirely different debate than the one I saw. Warren stumbled repeatedly, coming off as condescending while repeating falsehoods again and again. When you think about the issues that will define the election, they are bread and butter ones like taxes and the economy. And she fails on both. Her answer on Medicare for All is an evasive, non-answer at best and deeply misleading at worst. If she is the Democratic nominee, get ready for 4 more years of Trump.
17
Take away Melanye Price's numbers as she looks to be in the tank for Wqarren and this assessment changes. Warren had a horrible night and I really thought she looked scared at times when she was called out. She refused to say she is raqising your taxes. In my opinion Pete and Amy were the clear winners last night. I know the far left doesn't want to hear that but the fact is the majority of Americans (all Americans) do not support the Green New Deal or Democratic Socialism.
6
This is the first debate that provided me with some hope for this country. While I like Klobuchar and Buttigieg I was most impressed with Tom Steyer.
Tom Steyer was the most appealing candidate of the debate
1. Smart and pragmatic: He graduated from Yale University summa cum laude in economics and political science. Steyer received his MBA from Stanford Business School, where he was an Arjay Miller Scholar. He would rip Trump apart in any debate and Trump knows that.
2. Very focused on addressing global warming and renewable energy
3.Steyer opposes Medicare for All, but supports expanding coverage. He does not support pipe dreams but pragmatic solution's to our many problems.
4.Regarding gun control, Steyer supports a ban on assault weapons and universal background checks.
5. He said that upper-income people in the United States had done "disproportionately well" at the expense of working families. Steyer called one version of a 2017 Republican tax reform proposal a "thinly veiled reverse Robin Hood". Supports an additional 1 percent annual wealth tax on the top 0.1 percent of American families
6. Pro choice
2
I don't support Steyer in any way, but you've got to give the man some credit. He was clear, coherent, strong, and all of his ideas made sense. His background as a billionaire is not helpful, but if his words came out of the mouth of one of the other candidates on stage, these critics would be saying something different.
Also, as much as I like Warren, saying she outperformed Bernie is ridiculous
5
I like Elizabeth Warren, but her snarky comment to Biden as she thanked Obama played poorly in the same way the Castro "how are you man, can't you remember anything" comment. Let's get this down to 4 candidates.
6
I cringed at Biden's "coupon clipping" comment. My father, who would be about 102 years old now, used that phrase to refer to people who clipped stock market coupons rather than going out into the workplace. It dated Biden in my eyes. Significantly so.
3
The NYT is SO irresponsible about our election and future.
This is not a horse race! Stop treating it as one. What the NYT is reporting is not fit to print or show on the Web to anyone but Las Vegas bookies.
We heed reporting to help us judge who SHOULD win.
Sadly, the answer is NONE of those 12.
The Big Issue that towers above all others is our destruction of conditions for human (and other) life on Earth.
Thanks in major part to irresponsible media coverage and debate moderation, that matter was not even addressed.
These 12, and the NYT, were all mis-focused on rearranging deck chairs as our ship of human life on Earth goes down.
Get rid of the entire crew of featherweights covering this election. Reporters, and columnists too. Bring in some responsible adults, who care about the future of our grandchildren and generations that follow.
Start with Greta.
13
How long would any of these "experts" last in one of the endless wars that Tulsi Gabbard actually fought in but now opposes?
Especially disheartening are the snide comments from the African-American pundits, since young Black men are represented in the combat ranks of our military at a higher rate than other demographics.
8
This isn't a scorecard from the debate, this is your commentators voting on how much they personally like the candidates. I bet the votes would be completely unchanged had none of them even watched the debate. Pretty disappointing from the Times.
11
The contest is now clearly between Sanders, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg. The other candidates would do The Cause a huge favor by gracefully withdrawing at this point. It's time for the dems as a group to sharpen their sabres against the common enemy.
3
I gave money to Warren before she announced, but she needs to move on from the canned talking points. She sounds evasive. People like the Mayor because he comes closer to telling the truth when he speaks. Warren should take a lesson from that.
4
Tom Steyer's greatest sin is he is one of the top 0.01% percent on income and wants to take on his own class.
I find it hilarious, that Senator Warren is still seen as the front runner. Her debate skills are seriously lacking with friendly rivals. In the general she will need to seriously improve her presence. Her calm demeanor came across as lifeless to people who live outside the beltway.
VP Biden still wins if he fades into the background. Only the most ardent Democratic supporters and the opposition tune into these debates at this time.
The less VP Biden makes waves now translates into a win from moderate Democrats, actual moderates and Moderate Republicans. VP Biden deserves credit for playing the long game in this spectator sport primary season.
2
It's time for Steyer, Gabbard, Castro, and Klobuchar to drop out of the race.
4
Wow. What debate were you guys watching? Warren got hammered and Klobuchar and Mayor Pete excelled.
25
Why did the add Peter Wehner to this panel? He is a Republican plant doing his best to undermine the democrats with a chance of winning.
Stop asking Republicans for their opinions. We have heard their opinions and only their opinions for the last 40 years.
4
My wife and I thought Warren was surprisingly weak last night and were surprised that she is anointed here as coming out on top. Really surprised. We had to laugh this morning when Buttigieg was quoted this morning by CNN: "Warren more specific about selfies than health care plan."
This is the first time we heard Tom Steyer and we thought he did fine with his limited time.
Bernie Sanders was strong. Super clear. Even likable.
Klobuchar was great with her comments that addressed "Elizabeth" and earned a small donation from us to help keep her in. Klobuchar was very strong on CNN's post debate interview, the line up of commentators seemed to want to continue their conversation with her when the producers cut them short. Whereas Elizabeth Warren appeared in the same venue, she pulled out the "taking selfies" trope and spent her ten minutes once again not explaining her funding of the Medicare for All proposals.
I do agree that Biden shouldn't be in this thing. His presence and the crazy idea that anyone could run to lead the ticket pushed out Governor Jay Inslee who I thought would have easily beaten Trump as a left-moderate with strong governing experience.
I hope the NY Times will keep the editorial biases in check when reporting on this years nominating process. They were no friend to the Sanders campaign when he was up against Clinton. I am hoping that the Democrats out there will watch the debates and make up their own minds.
16
Before these primaries started, I had no idea who Tulsi Gabbard was. Then I saw some bashing in the news here and there, and wholly by accident stumbled on an interview with her and Glen Greenwald. She seemed intelligent, well balanced, authentic and wholly in accord with many progressive viewpoints. Then I checked up more on her, and learned she has won 3 elections in her very blue state by huge margins (77-82%!), and I listened more to her speeches. What on earth is everyone's problem with this person? She got 8 minutes to Warren's 22 - well, thats how debates go in the US. Are you all in favor of bombing countries and starting unending wars? I don't think so. Do any of you truly believe for one second that she is a Russian stooge or Assad apologist or any of this nonsense I have been reading? OK, she has no chance to be president, but you could say that about 80% of the candidates from the beginning. Give this woman a break, please.
10
@Steven Weiss Tulsi was once a DNC darling but endorsed Bernie over Hillary in 2016 and has since been disinvited to any and all reindeer games. More over she is vocally anti war and anti Military Industrial Complex which is the ultimate sin. As a result Tulsi will receive no positive much less fair coverage from mainstream outlets regardless of what she says or does.
9
It would be great for those who agree with those positions to have an ultra liberal or ultra conservative. Unfortunately, most Americans are neither, and this life-long Democrat and believer in social justice can't quite buy into Warren.
Also, why is no one selling Medicare for all as business friendly? Imagine how much large companies would save if they didn't have to not only pay for insurance premiums, but staffs to sort it all out? I know what Warren was trying to say, but unlike Bernie, the great explainer couldn't quite explain it. No matter what she says, Trump is going to brand her as a socialist and call her Pocahontas.
The only reason I would vote for Warren (though I like her immensely and think she's really smart) is that my neighbor's rooster would make a better president than Trump and has a better cockscomb to boot. I am on that bandwagon as soon as she's got the reins.
But it's Booker who has my heart and Klobochar, and Buttigieg who show the kind of intelligence to adapt their arguments rather than simply sticking to the same talking points. Warren is starting to remind me of John Edwards. Klobochar was right: other people might have some good ideas, too.
9
I respectfully disagree with the panel regarding Congressman O'Rourke. In a weird moment when Mayor Pete felt compelled to take a shot at him, Pete looked desperate for his 'moment', while Beto's message remains fiercely left.
Calling Warren "punitive" was a calculated move, but not off base, either. Sure, his mandatory buy-back program needs to be meted out, but so does everyone else's policies. It's disingenuous to say he's too idealistic when all that's presented from the Establishment Democrats running is pessimism to dream big.
2
This article reeks of the kind of Beltway-media-insider attitude that completely misread the 2016 Presidential election. Your 'experts' seem chiefly interested in dropping piquant zingers and one-liners, presenting the 'winners' and 'losers' based only on the context of these echo chamber debates.
I do not think any of these writers can accurately gauge any national consensus about any of these candidates, mainly because I do not think such a consensus actually exists. I also believe these smug opinionators have little contact with or interest in the ordinary voters who will determine the nation's future next year.
[I'm a lifelong New York Democrat who fears that my party is going to fumble away what ought to be a sure thing in 2020.]
22
@Mike S. I agree that most of the panelists in this article seem to be auditioning as stand-up comedians, but Nick Kristof's comments were on-topic.
3
Go Tulsi Go. Finally someone in the centre who has a real opinion - and is not afraid of expressing it. Join the Radical Centrist Movement - well done Tulsi.
7
This NYT debate chatter is the best so far - thanks.
I'd give Klobuchar and Buttigieg somewhat higher marks and Warren (my candidate) somewhat lower marks (I thought she really dissembled on the costs of Medicare for All), but overall on the mark.
Won't it be great when the field winnows down to 5 or 6?
3
And now, time to rate the raters:
Overall, on a sale of 1-10: One. Inconsequential nonsensical quips from people we've never heard about -- for a good reason! -- with the exception of a couple of Times columnists. Next time, maybe we can hear from the 2nd grade Aspiring Journalists Club at Haywire Elementary.
The "debate" also demonstrated, again, another truth, by now well known based on empirical evidence: the format of these events (a dozen or so candidates answering different questions, occasionally 'allowed' a few seconds to counter criticism) is irrelevant to the task at hand: identifying differing positions of issues of importance (even climate change! Yes, even that!). Not to ignore The Real Test: Can you stand up for 3 hours (unlike the moderators, who all seemed to be sitting)? On the same scale of 1-10, the "debate" scored a shaky 1.
10
Bernie is the candidate we need. He shows that every single day. Supporting the Green New Deal, creating Medicare For All, ending private prisons for state sanctioned destruction of minorities and lower class for nonsensical drug charges, holding Wall Street accountable for the crash, breaking apart monopolies that destroy the middle class, and ending the tax free status of the upper elites.
Bernie is accurate, demanding, and prescient. This debate showed he will continue to rail on the issues that plague America.
6
@Drew I would love to support Bernie this time around, but age is a factor that should be considered *very* seriously. I think that Bernie, Biden, and Trump are too old, all other considerations aside. Warren has the physical energy and mental acuity to convince me that she is up to the job of four years of grueling work. ( I'm assuming that she would not spend those four years watching television and golfing). I would love to see a Warren-Buttigieg ticket.
They all are wearing thin under this “crowd” debate format. None of them has more than a shallow acquaintance with the voters. I will not watch anymore until the number of candidates is 2or 3.
1
1. Buttigieg may be a veteran but he displayed terrible cowardice on the stage, with his entreaties of "how we look to red-staters." People only get worried about what the neighbors will think when they don't have courage of conviction.
2. @Pete Werner: Donald Trump is not a billionaire.
1
When one "Expert" gives a candidate a 10 while another gives a 1, it is hard to think either has anything of value to add.
I've been voting Dem forever and some of these candidates make me want to hold my wallet.
2
I guess I was the lucky one that missed the debate to see Sedaris at the Kennedy Center last evening. Anything you can do to get him as Bloomberg's VP would be appreciated.
Anderson Cooper's question about Hunter Biden was pathetic.
Not one question about China during the debate? How about some discussion of foreign policy?
The moderation of this debate was a disaster.
1
Re/Tulsi Gabbard and reproductive choice--
I've volunteered for NARAL in the past and am a fierce defender of women's rights to safe, legal abortion--making it unavailable will kill women as it did before Roe v Wade when people sought to abort no matter how dangerous the method. A child at the moment of conception? That is absurd, as is prohibition at 6 weeks when many women don't yet know they are pregnant. Re/fanaticism and abortion: Carly Fiorino lied and was no doubt paid handsomely for her grotesque claims. The woman in Florida who was kept on life supports for a couple of months so that she could "deliver" a viable fetus which was declared dead within a minute after birth-- All these lies and contradictions play into the hands of GOP as many still vote for a "culture of life" rather than a "culture of death" which is absurd given that most GOP policies favor few controls over guns and overwhelmingly support destruction of the environment.
Still...I think Tulsi has a good point when she says there should be limits to 3rd trimester abortions--the reasons should be compelling. Abortion should not be considered a simple topic, one dismissed by one or two sentences, because for some people it's agonizing and I think all the Democratic candidates need to expand discussion on the topic. I think Gabbard earned points when she said what she said though I strongly oppose her candidacy otherwise.
1
@Beverly Yes, the question of abortion is fraught, but it should be addressed by the pregnant woman, not the state.
1
I don't know if there is a reliable voting demographic that consists of "men who feel threatened by strong smart women" but whoever that is is going to dislike Warren immensely. I watched the whole thing and the most surprising thing to me was how inarticulate Biden was. (PS: In the Andrew Yang section technocart should be technocrat unless Mr Yang is also an electric vehicle.)
4
Sanders was impressive. He didn't fumble and given his recent history -could've easily. He was near perfect-only thing missing was one armed pushups like Jack Palance when pressed on health issues
5
Pete Wehner, from that debate you found Warren to look like a "quintessential politician", but Mayor Pete came across as the real deal?! The
1
Clipping coupons? He’s (Biden) seriously out of date. He needs to hit the rocking chair. No ageist comment; I’m 69 myself!
4
Your Ratings are Right ON. Biden has become bait for SNL skit. Opening shot -He's ordering breakfast, starts ranting about Trump and his hideousness, then merges into claiming everything Obama has done, and ends-What was your question?
2
Great analysis! I really liked this article!
Love NYT
IMHO, the candidates ought to get a chance to rate the raters. Haven’t seen as many snarky, cruel, downright hateful comments since Trump’s rally last week.
Seems this lineup of smart people could have come up with a few constructive comments instead of trying to get in the most insulting zinger. Hoping for a SNL gig much? (I’m looking at you, worst offenders Mimi and Ross.)
If I were Tom, I’d take my billions and support Weld.
5
This is quite useful. It’s fascinating how the Republican/“independent " cohort leans. Why are they so insistent on Buttigieg?
1
CNN gets 3/10 for denying climate questions. No more CNN debates--undemocratic because not everyone has access. PBS Please!
4
Favorite comment from this piece:
Charles Blow on Biden:
"Bless his heart. It feels like he’s just hanging on for dear life."
2
I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. At my age, I've seen far too many Democratic presidential candidates check all my ideological boxes and get hammered in a general election. Getting what I want has taken a back seat to how can we win. In a perfect world (or in a country that isn't festooned with brain-dead voters) I'd be 100% on board with Sanders or Warren. But we aren't. And I'm not. Warren's maddening refusal to answer yes or no to yes or no questions is how you lose the narrow slice of voters Democrats will need to swing back the states that could hand Caligula another electoral victory. I'm not interested in the "moral victory" of a Democrat getting 10MM more votes and still losing. However, the depressing reality is that the "center-left" brigade is headed up by a Joe Biden who is decidedly NOT the same guy who schooled Ryan in the veep debates 8 years ago and a small handful of also-rans who can't generate any traction. I am not brimming with optimism.
16
The question should not be "Who can defeat President Trump?"
It's all about who can defeat William Weld or John Kasich. I'm not sure that any of them can.
1
Andrew Yang presents a bold and progressive vision of America and is slowly beginning to drive the narrative of the 2020 campaign. If you believe he is a one issue candidate, I recommend research of the broad spectrum of his stance. Yang beats Trump, the other 'leading' candidates can't compete with the Donald on a stage. Why? Yang is common sense and effortlessly stays above the mud. Every other candidate will get pulled into Trump's negativity vortex.Yang's performance last night serves to build his message. Like it or not Yang is a force to the elderly candidates and corrupt DNC must reckon with.
119
@Veteran He bangs on about one single idea. I wearied of the "4th Industrial Revolution" line. He was not a "force." He was just another minor candidate in everybody's way, like half the others.
31
@Veteran
Would Yang have to drop out of the race is Trump were removed from office? Yang says he's the best to beat Trump, well, what if Trump is not the candidate?
6
@Veteran
I wrote this is response to another commenter here, but it applies to yours as well ...
Yang comes across as a gameshow host. And it is appealing to many, which is troubling. I think his novel ideas are very interesting, but I am annoyed that he and those that support him feel that that entitles him to run for President?! Why doesn't he run for another political office and get an idea how governance works (or doesn't) from the inside. It's a form of entitlement, he's rich and has ideas so he can run? For President!? There are so many other creative ways he could bring his ideas to life. Do people really think he could get our congress to support his ideas. Such hubris. If people don't like how our government is working then get involved and run for office, but geez start lower from the inside, like many of the other candidates have done. They've put in their time. This is what Trump has blown the doors off, now anyone who has money can run for the big shiny prize of President of the US. Whatever that is.
41
Everyone who asks how to pay for "Medicare for All" here is a simple answer.
In the height of depression President Roosevelt implemented Social Security and no one asked how to pay for it.
Devastated by WWII, Britain right after the war implemented National Health Insurance and no one asked how to pay for it.
We are the richest nation on Earth and flush with wealth and you ask how to pay for it?
Do we need to be down trodden, in depression, to implement "Medicare for All" without questioning how to pay for it?
21
Pretty much agree with these ratings in general. I'd put Kamala Harris much lower. Affected and annoyed as Daniel McCarthy said. I'd say inauthentic and annoying. Warren took incoming with clarity and aplomb. And Bernie was remarkably strong.
Amy & Pete are the clear moderates-in-waiting when weak Joe falls even further. They are the two who can maybe take some Independents and Republicans in the midwestern states.
149
@Carol Colitti Levine
Harris comes off to me like a hawk in sheep's clothing (bad metaphor, I know). She knows she's running against some very progressive candidates, and while she's obviously pivoted far from her earlier positions on certain law enforcement issues, she still has that prosecutor's demeanor, which, I don't think will play well for many demographics.
25
After last night's debate, the 3rd quarter fundraising numbers and the AOC endorsement, I find myself asking - why not Bernie? I have never been on the Sanders train, but I find myself connecting with him more now than ever.
Sanders has been beating the same drum for as long as I have been alive, and his consistency and honestly are more than enough to overcome the "radical" tag that will be placed on him in a general election. He's got Biden's experience, Warren's ideas, and a grassroots following that cannot be ignored.
And perhaps most importantly, Sanders has been dead-right about the horrors of a Donald Trump presidency since the beginning.
A Sanders/Klobuchar ticket would be formidable.
169
@Doug
Well said! His grassroots support base is HUGE and these are people who will actually turn out and VOTE! for a blue wave in 2020.
He is genuine and compassionate and his ideals are in the right place. I see nothing more I could ask for in a candidate.
44
@Doug All except the Klobuchar part at the end. Harris' polling numbers will decline from here on out, so she's a better VP choice, not only for her ideas, but also for optics.
13
@Doug His problem, as usual, is that he is not interested in governing: he does not want to join the Democratic Party, so how does he expect to get anything through Congress? The next President needs to embrace the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in order to save the republic after Trump--Bernie is not the person to do this. Warren is.
24
Why does this panel not understand Warren? I am not in favor of Medicare for All, for a variety of reasons, but the cost is not one of them. The moderators all want Warren to separate taxes from everything else out of pocket for healthcare, and that means that they are asking the wrong question. Warren's only fault is that she is too polite to say directly, "That's the wrong question." Instead, she answers the right question. I can understand why Douthat wants her to say, "Yes, taxes would go up but that would be more than compensated for by reductions in other healthcare-related costs" because his GOP friends would have her on video saying only the first five words of the quote. The rest of you are either with Douthat or uninformed. Warren is very savvy, and it behooves you to understand that.
321
@beaujames People fear that taxes will go up on everyone in order to cover the catastrophic illnesses of somewhat less than everyone. It behooves us to understand that particular psychology of the electorate, too.
To that end, Klobuchar's emphasis on longterm senior care resonates. Many, many more people will need help with their aging than will have a toddler with cancer.
20
@Blair
Aging needs discussion and PS many people do NOT need help with their aging beyond a place to live and food to eat, the basic means of life. Laws or practices do need to be put in place regarding unnecessary surgery, procedures on people who are failing rapidly (a half hour's of consciousness before lapsing into final coma after a surgery -- who got that money? -- the hospice was beautiful -- and frankly not much care required.
MDs can also be BAD in terms of referrals (too many.) Payments might well be capped.
BTW M4A -- does this mean Single Payer -- does not mean one can't pay to go to a totally private MD. It just means that others in the risk pool won't pay for that person's choice. (A friend of mine has concierge coverage for a large annual payment.)
7
@beaujames
One of the problems with MFA is that it raises taxes across the board, but NOT everyone experiences savings. I am almost 60, and for most of my life (knock on wood), my family and i have been extremely healthy. We are not the only ones.
So yes, SOME will experience a net savings under MFA--especially those with high health care needs--but others would experience increases. Warren and Sanders don't seem to understand this, but millions of American voters do.
8
I agree with all of Michele Goldberg's takeaways. Especially on Cory Booker. I think he's aces, and am mystified why he is not catching on.
Sadly I think it's reflection of where we are as a society, what we deem as acceptable in our twitter feed, soundbite world ... we are increasingly drawn to accepting zingers and fighting as a sign of strength, and an appropriate way to communicate. It's not.
It's demoralizing, and self serving. And gets us nowhere.
It's delivers showmen (or women) like Trump.
Most thoughtful, intelligent, well spoken individuals would not shine or succeed in this environment. It's ridiculous.
It's bringing out awkwardness and false narrative with a few of these candidates, Harris comes to mind.
Meanwhile it's just a ratings grab for CNN or whoever is hosting the debate.
I found last night sincerely disheartening, the format served no one. Not the candidates. Of which there were way too many. Not the American people.
It did serve Trump and his followers though.
And also, let's stop calling this a debate. When so many people are on the stage, it's more like a forum. Or a takedown;)
A debate is when you narrow it down to two, or maybe 3 or 4, and you have some level of substantive communication.
I'm really sad for our country, and what the spectacle of TV has done to politics and elections.
110
@Fromjersey Thoughtful and caring. The medium is the message.
3
@Fromjersey I too am on the same page as Michelle Goldberg generally but I don't understand Cory Booker's appeal, other than his smooth delivery and Kumbaya approach to the debate. I did not hear anything memorable from Booker. He seems to enjoy his status as a US senator so let's hope he remains one. He is smart, likable and seems remarkably fair but also a bit smug and inauthentic.
14
@Alex
If given a direct question, he has substantive things to say. I think he as perceived as smug because he is bemused by the spectacle that is on display with these gladiator style "debates". He's realistic enough to know he's a good senator and likes it, and that he's not in the top billing, but he's hanging in there. My hope for him, VP on a Warren ticket.
16
Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump. The great middle of the country is far apart from them on healthcare, Green New Deal, and gun control. Their ideological purity sounds wonderful in Mass. or Calif., but those are not the states that will swing the election. Remember, these pivotal states voted down a much more centrist Hillary.
Pete may not be progressive enough for most coastal Democrats, but keep your eye on the prize. He can win it all.
190
@Barrel Rider
Aside from his military service, what has Pete accomplished? What did he accomplish as Mayor?
Why doesn't he run for Congress, Senator, Governor of his state and show he can lead and accomplish before tying to get elected to the highest-office in the land.
I'm a moderate and I won't vote for him. Not yet. Talk to me in 10 years after he has something.
120
@Hope That's all true hope but our current president has so lowered the bar that now anyone can be president. What did Trump accomplish before being president?
37
@Barrel Rider Which is why Bernie Sanders nearly destroyed Hillary Clinton in the Rust Belt and other rural areas during the 2016 primary as a candidate who, before 2015/16, had next to no name recognition? Which is why Bernie Sanders was consistently polling with double digit margins above Donald Trump in 2016 and continues to do so now? Sanders has even been polling ahead of Trump in Texas, something which only Joe Biden has matched thus far (to a lesser extent). Please, continue to flatter me with conventional wisdom arguments because we obviously live in an era where conventional wisdom dominates American politics.
70
I had this feeling watching Bernie Sanders that if he doesn't win the nomination in 2020 that he will run again in 2024.
@William Jefferson Sanders is a WINNER, now.
Interesting: a couple of hours ago, with the same persons voting, Bernie was at the top, slightly ahead of Elizabeth Warren. But then somebody adjusted a vote, and Bernie is now second. How does the average of all the evaluators lead one of them to change his or her evaluation?
9
I like Beto’s assault rifle plan. Whatever the cost of an AR, we can afford to buy it back for five or ten times the purchase price. It would be hard to resist selling a $1,000 item for $5,000.
We spend that in fear and heartache on every mass shooting. Cancel an order for another war machine or two and put it in a buy-back fund. Slowly but surely....
7
Twelve candidates, one debate night.
Shame on us America that we can't afford to have two or three nights of debates among 12 candidates given the magnitude of the various crises America faces domestically and geopolitically. The result, some candidates had less than 10 minutes speaking time over a three hour period, ensuring they will remain at the bottom of the pile until they drop out or are eliminated.
As for spending precious debate time on policy specifics, anyone that thinks Medicare for All, or Medicare for All Who Want it, will resemble so closely, in policy and practice, anything that was described by any candidate on stage hasn't been living in the US or following US politics for very long. After going through the requisite endless compromises and arm twisting that would accompany anything as large and monumentally unprecedented as either of these plans and their ramifications, what comes out in the end will certainly be different than anything that is being discussed. Add to that the possibility of a Republican controlled senate and the conversation is next to meaningless.
3
Primary elections with this many candidates are much more complex than athletic events. I wish we would stop treating them as such. I loathe seeing things reduced to who had the best short sound bites, or who got the best zingers in.
4
The real loser is the country. No other nation in history has had a political campaign that lasts TWO YEARS and costs billions. What's more there's a lot of talk about the race for a year before that, and the talk starts six months before that.
The only thing worse is our gun laws, or lack thereof. Instead of continually crowing that we're the best country on earth, perhaps we should start emulating other countries.
15
The writers gave Bernie and Elizabeth the highest marks. If that evolves into a ticket, we're doomed next November.
27
@Lawrence Siegel
Trumps DOOM is enough.
SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT #46.
4
Agree with others that it is baffling as to why Cory Booker isn’t catching on. My best guess is that because of the lies and corruption of the Trump years (and the cheating of the Republicans before that; see Garland, Merrick), his message of love doesn’t answer their pent-up anger. Could it play well in the general? Or at least be good in a VP slot with a more fiery candidate like Warren?
3
Please, please, please get the numbers down. This debate, if you even wish to call it one, bombed. Questions: does Biden still want to run? Does Buttigieg have enough votes to make it to the top? At this point, I favor him.
With all the debates so far, I am still seeking a "sure fire winner." None have emerged.
3
This is fascinating to me. These debate “report cards” say much more about the reviewers politics and preferences than they really do about the candidates performances.
48
@Jeffrey723
Spot on, Jeffrey!
1
Thank you Mr. Blow for giving Warren a 10! I already have a very high opinion of the expertise your wit, knowledge, and intelligence bring to the staff of the NY Times and it just got a notch higher
2
44 casts a long dark shadow over these candidates. Honestly, I was more interested in watching MSNBC because they have that cool binge-worthy show called "Impeachment". It's riveting.
1
Corey Booker for guidance counselor. I love it. Mr. Booker has to remember that whoever wins the nomination will be going up against the nastiest of men who never absorbed those lessons he was supposed to learn in kindergarten. And I am enough of a cynic to believe that deep down this collection of massive egos would rip each others' eyes out to get to the White House. Let the games begin.
3
For Sanders "the AOC endorsement as the capper". It's the lid on his political coffin for most Americans.
15
@Mark Shyres
Couldn't agree more.
Now if Hillary also endorsed him, his soul would face eternal damnation.
4
@Mark Shyres
Sanders is a WINNER in all respects.
These Congresswomen are wise.
I endorse Sanders.
2
@Norville T. Johnstone
You've nailed it.
1
Biden sold me last night. When he says that on day one he will be able to take control to right our ship of state, I believe it. He knows the world leaders, he knows how our institutions function,and he will hire good, honest, experienced people to help him. The short answer debate formats have not been good to Biden; he goes too fast, and as a result, gets tongue and brain tied. He may not be as sharp as he once was. But the combination of experience, knowledge, and character put him way ahead of the rest of the field, a group which I, actually, mostly like
10
If the Democrats select anyone other than Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar as the nominee they better be sure Trump is impeached. Otherwise, he will be a two-term president.
11
@dbl06 I wish this was not the case but I believe it is. Amy is hitting her stride. We have to take the presidency back then work on the rest.
1
And the real winner is Exxon Mobil etal.
Last night’s “debate” was but another corporate media farce, which unsurprisingly failed to address the most urgent life threatening issue of out time. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this issue is climate destruction brought to you by an amoral fossil fuel industry and its lackeys in Washington.
11
I really enjoy this Times format for analyzing the debates. I know it must be very journalist-work-intensive, but it is enlightening (and often very funny!). Less is more. Thanks. Michael Reed in Kalamazoo, Mich.
1
Transparency 1/10. You want the truth with widest audience-Invoke PBS. There is no Commercial Bend. The People lose out as well as Democracy.
5
Here's what's wrong with the debate, (and our political system generally). The candidates have to respond to stupid questions with one-line zingers for complex problems that may have no realistic solutions. For example, How will you eliminate assault rifles? Well, there really is no simple answer. It's an invalid question. We have so many of them in circulation and so many fanatical owners, they will never be "eliminated".
But we can start moving in the right direction, and take one step at a time. First, outlaw their sale to civilians so the situation doesn't get any worse. Then take the next step, perhaps a buy-back. Maybe registration, licensing, or something else, in whatever order congress will agree to, if they will actually do anything. (Probably not.)
But who is going to take the first step obvious step and outlaw their sale, and thereby hurt the gun industry? Probably not one of the candidates. They would rather spend time criticizing each other for not having the ultimate solution, and talk about how sad it is that their neighbor just got shot. I guess we can all agree on that... So sad.
8
After listening to the gang at MSNBC gush about Mayor Pete, it's obvious that they desperately want him to jump into Biden's place. Aside from his insufferable superciliousness, his lie about "Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It" is the worst thing about him. We can't provide health care for all while paying for private insurance bureaucracy and profits. He knows that but is willing to lie to have his cake and eat it too.
4
I think that the people commenting here, as well as the columnists, have missed the main issue. It is not to give points, as in an athletic competition, to each of the candidates based on how they handled themselves in the debate. Nor is it to predict who would make the best President. It is simply to guess who would do best in the competitive Democratic-leaning States that Clinton lost. But we will not know that until we see how these candidates do in the primaries and begin collecting delegates. I believe that Warren would make the best President but is unelectable and that Biden, even with all his fumbling, will still do best in middle America. It is not up to The NY Times readers or columnists to choose the President. Stay calm; Trump will yet self-destroy.
7
This ranking system makes little sense. Several authors give the same ranking to more than one candidate. A better system would be for each author to rank each candidate 1 through 12 (with 12 at the top), then tally how many votes each candidate got. No average needed.
3
"Elizabeth Warren is now the clear front-runner, even if the polls are not there."
Exactly. Who cares what voters think? What do they have to do with an election?
23
Warren is climbing in the polls, but her goal to "create a revolution" won't win the clear majority of voters in Nov 2020. Her plans are all about more and more taxes. Everyone notices she's avoiding being specific. George HW Bush didn't win a second term when he said "no new taxes", and then raised them, but avoiding that tough question in 2019-2020 won't win an election either. Buttigieg and Klobuchar was much more on point (and appealing to all Americans on that hot topic).
No candidate mentions the fact that creating a wealth tax is a big deal. It took a two-party agreement to add the 16th Amendment to establish an income tax. It probably won't really be a separate tax, but a rate change.
3
I was disappointed by Buttigieg last night. He had an excellent response to the first question, but as the night went on I found him grating with his puffed up anger and chastizing tone. One minute he is needlessly lecturing about negative attacks and the next he's needlessly attacking Beto. The "look, let's not demonize each other" retort worked the last time because it was in response to a negative attack. But I think that card has limited appeal in a debate - especially when the winner will be up against the dirtiest fighter there is. I love Pete, but he needs more policy and less rhetoric in trying to distinguish himself.
3
If one of these candidates is winning never trumpers and independents they are not losing democrats at the polls. Please, just cannot believe Dems will not vote for any candidate up there
against trump ... and they are not staying home.
4
The key question facing the country and the Democrats is this: is socialism the answer to unregulated capitalism? That is the core of the progressive agenda, and not necessarily unappealing to downtrodden middle-class Americans in stagnant jobs with stagnant wages in stagnant counties and states.
The millennials are all-in on this and those of us who are still standing back and cautious, see the moderate ground slipping away. The debates seem to dance around this defining issue, like the proverbial elephant in the room.
At this point, I am uneasy, still, that the big-dollar progressive agenda will be a bridge-too-far in being able to bring everyone we need on board in order to defeat Trump.
6
Many of these candidates hopefully aren't going to qualify for the next debate. There are too many people on stage. It's hard to stay focused.
Although pro-choice to a point, I was worn down by candidates' strident remarks on how women have the right to manage their bodies.
Also, taxing the rich sounds great to a point, but they aren't an endless money pit either.
We already have a patchwork of private and public insurance, including Medicare supplement policies. Private insurance isn't going away--why scare some voters?
The tired but true cliche, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" comes to mind. Somebody has to pay for all these proposed programs. If it's the middle class, it's been burned enough.
2
@KS
The wealthy did not used to be an endless money pit, but there are so many multi-millionaires and billionaires now, and the wealth gap is so huge because they gamed the system, that I think they could be taxed well above what they are paying now.
11
@KS
'Also, taxing the rich sounds great to a point, but they aren't an endless money pit either.'
To do this, a law would have to pass that determines that after x wealth your tax rate goes up.
I can see that fight lasting at least four years and by then the GOP can show the Liberals did not produce all these free goodies nor found a way to pay them and it has been four more years of 'make believe change that never came', and retake the WH.
They are putting all their chips on that horse, but that horse is already dead on arrival.
Looking at how the judges voted in relation to each other told me more about the judges' leanings than the candidates' performances.
52
@Brion Brooks hence why it's in the OPINION section.
2
It is a pleasure to see that, other than Andrew Yang, the bulk of those with the average or poor marks like Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden and others have now been relegated to the "alsorans" because they are part of the corporate/establishment who wish to maintain the "status quo", realistically have no ideas of any consequence and who long for a time before Donald Trump that no longer exists. I am still at a loss to explain why the media loves "Mayor Pete" so much?
It is now actually ideas and policies that are registering with the voter, not,more of the same. Most democratic voters, especially those under 45, aren't interested in the "status quo" and they won't vote for it.
Tulsi Gabbard is at the bottom of the approval list because the media does not like her.
10
@Deus Tulsi Gabbard is at the bottom of the approval list because she's running as a less vulgar version of Trump.
Her love affair with the brutal dictator Assad is off putting, to say the least.
4
I'm fine with Warren's refusal to say yes/ right off the top on the question of raising taxes on the middle class; it's a gotcha question that she nevertheless answered, albeit with a few more words. We all need to grow a longer attention span.
11
@edo She has never answered the question, she just continues her attempts to avoid the issue. I am a supporter of Medicare For All, but I would appreciate some honesty when it comes to how we are going to pay for it.
3
@edo Most of us mainly saw she could not answer.
4
@TrumpsGOPsucks and @Dart:
In her answer to the question, asked by Anderson Cooper, she did say that there would be no new taxes on the middle class. Said it a couple of times. But, I think it's fair to ask for more details. Most if not all politicians on a national level seem to falter on the specifics.
As an aside, I recently read" The Woman Behind the New Deal" on the life and legacy of Frances Perkins, who in the 1930's was clearly the driving force behind many of the social programs we have in our country today, including the 40 hour work week, social security, the elimination of child labor, etc. I was struck with how the obstacles back then were the same as we have now: entrenched interests, "gonna bankrupt the country", misogyny, etc.etc. But yet, things got done.
4
Did I see the same debate? Klobuchar clearly out performed Warren who had two major stumbles--on Medicare-for-All and the Middle East. Pete Buttigieg effectively demolished her on the Medicare-for-All proposal and demonstrated how it could turn the Democrats strongest policy--health care--that carried to victory in 2018 in the House into a loser in 2020. With the health insurance industry running attacks ads during the debate's commercial breaks, viewers were given a taste of what Amy Klobuchar claimed was a political "pipe dream." As a progressive, I was persuaded by them that Medicare-for-All is not politically feasible and really unnecessary when the goal should be universal coverage. Joe Biden gave his strongest performance to date and with his answers on his legislative accomplishment in passing gun regulation banning assault weapons, his deep knowledge on foreign policy, and his deft handling of the age issue as giving him the "wisdom" and White House experience to be President on Day 1. What that said in so many words was that he still is the most electable and should remain the front runner.
30
@Paul Wortman You saw the right debate. Too many of the voters want Sanders or Warren.
10
@JoeG That's because too many of the voters are looking for a fight, and payback against the Republicans. We need to think about ridding ourselves of the chaos that is currently strangling the country and we can't do it with a class war.
6
@Paul Wortman
So insurance industry attacks are a reason to support Amy and Mayor Pete's do-nothing proposals? You might be one of the few people out there who would attach the word to deft to Joe Biden.
3
Why is Peter Wehner even allowed to have his say here? He was an early cheerleader for Sarah Palin, the candidate who helped lay the groundwork for Trump's takeover of what used to be the Republican party. Michelle Goldberg is right: why should Warren give the Republicans a talking point for the general election? Thirty years of relentless Republican anti-tax rhetoric (Wehner again) has left a good portion of the American electorate unable to focus on the real overall costs of any tax.
24
Andrew Yang was the only person on that stage who actually brought interesting ideas and didn't rest on the laurels of identity politics or class warfare that turns off so many moderates. You know, the people who are actually going to matter in the next election.
11
I don't see how you ranked Warren so high - she got bludgeoned on many issues, especially her having no funding plan for Medicare for All, for which she was continuously evasive in her answers.
It's obvious that the progressive taxes needed to create a single payer health insurance system will affect more than just the millionaires and reach into the middle class. If based on payroll taxes, could be especially unattractive to the middle class self-employed, which is probably one reason Warren is avoiding outlining the tax program.
It is correct for her competitors to call her out on this, and it is only fair that the voters understand the implications of her policies.
35
@Link
It would seem every other country in in the world understands the implications of single payer health care and they understood it decades ago. In those countries, the results are EVERYONE is covered, 45,000 people don't die every year because they have no health coverage at all and 530,000 people a year don't have to declare bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills. Also, they no longer have to pay insurance premiums, co-pays or deductibles and small businesses no longer have to worry about spending money on health coverage for their employees, often exhorbitant premiums they cannot afford.
I suggest you ask those in countries with universal healthcare whether or not they would want to pay the extra "income" tax, or resort to the "U.S Style" of healthcare?
I know for sure what the answer will be.
31
@Link The implications of Warren's proposal for Medicare For All is that middle-class will have their costs reduced. That taxes will go up is not relevant. The important thing is always the bottom line. What does it matter if taxes rise if one becomes richer as a result?
11
@Deus I am not judging whether the policy is good or bad. I stated that it is only fair that Warren outlines where the money is going to come from. This would be a program spending tens of trillions of dollars over a decade, Warren should be able to tell Democrats like me how it is going to be funded. This issue is better to be vetted in the primaries than in the general election, if Warren is to be the nominee.
4
Something is profoundly wrong with the leadership of Democratic party when a 78 year old who just came back from hospital after a heart attack looks like the best option. I vote Democrat, but I am quite aware that this is going to be a hard sell for the country, despite the fact that an incompetent, dishonest narcissist may be the opponent in 2020.
30
@zumzar
Nah -- Bernie is just a one-in-a-million candidate. And more supporters (judging by number of donors) want him than anyone else.
5
Pete Wehner's recaps are the highlight of any Dem-debate morning-after.
1
The Times was party to a shocking omission in the debate questioning. Climate and the environment were totally excluded from the topics dictated by the moderators, who seemed most intent on provoking ad hominem exchanges. This despite many of the candidates attempting to address the issue.
Climate and environment is one area where the Dems stand in stark opposition to Trump and to Republicans in general. It is a top issue among younger voters and progressives. How did it get left out?
133
@Ian MacDonald
I agree. Trump calls climate change a "niche" issue, which is madness since it affects just about every major topic covered last night.
Jay Inslee is right. We should raise a stink about what is being omitted.
12
@Ian MacDonald
Please -- don't expect wholly corporate owned mass media to side with progressives and those who'll be forced to live on a (corporate-controlled) dying Planet.
8
@Ian MacDonald
How to tackle climate change is the main issue in the electoral campaign going on in Canada right now. It's on the mind of the majority of voters in Europe and elsewhere. The omission of the topic last night sounded very strange and disturbing to non-american ears.
10
Excellent reporting/analyzing. 10/10 to all of the commentators and the nyt. A good read!
Excellent reporting/analyzing. 10/10 to all of the commentators and the nyt. A good read!
Klobuchar is an unlikable, self-promoter, Yang needs to look up Finland's UBI track record, Biden needs blinders on for focus. Warren and Sanders could've won by default, but they won because they are focused, they deliver, and aren't prone to fumbles.
28
@TWShe Said Finland UBI experiment focused on unemployed, Yang's UBI is fundamentally different. The goal is not to stimulate unemployed to get jobs but rather for employed to grow the economy from grass roots.
10
@TWShe Said I for one am offended by the "unlikable" when describing a female candidate. Have you watched her in committee meetings. She is smart, goes on the offensive without being offensive. She is realist and could.appeal to the middle.of the c country which we desperately need. Pay more attention to her.
17
@Jo Female Candidates aren't exempt from the "unlikable" tag. She is unlikable. She's easily annoyed and that is unlikable...........
3
Well, here we go again. The media trying to reinterpret the campaign for us. Each week they need a new story line and new people to talk about. This week's story line is to count out Biden and Sanders, crown Warren as the new front runner, and try to acknowledge someone else as coming on hard. The trouble with that story is that it is not what is actually happening. As Nate Silver rightly observed, the current reality is much simpler than that. Biden's level of support is basically unchanged. Warren is taking support away from Sanders. And no one else has gained any significant traction. There it is. And it is time to start pruning off the also rans. These large, confusing debate stages help no one - except maybe provide some fodder for analysts who want to spin up a story of the week.
54
@Dooglas
Biden is still coasting on his "history," only that history is looking more and more like, well, history and not like a vision for the future. Combine that with obvious lapses of acuity, and my anxiety level goes up, especially when I imagine him on a debate stage with Trump, where he'll surely lapse into playground pushing.
15
@Dooglas Here we go again, in a column that specifically asks a number of writers with different ideological lodestars to rate the candidates on their performances, the media is... doing exactly as advertised. Did someone force you to read an article that is exactly as advertised?
5
@Dooglas Exactly. I thought Warren was weak. Bernie can never win! and the rest of them so so. Biden did fine and that's all he needs. He can beat Trump.
5
To be perfectly honest, I don't see any of the 12 candidates as being a loser because they have succeeded and survived thus far.
What the intel and stats reflect are those individuals who had a larger margin of success than their opponents.
There are no losers in the Democratic Party. Some just shiner brighter and longer than others.
7
@Marge Keller
This reminds me of the horrible school games where "Everyone deserves (and gets) an award" if for nothing else, for just showing up.
2
@Marge Keller
'There are no losers in the Democratic Party. Some just shiner brighter and longer than others.'
wow.
Give them all a juice box and a trophy for showing up.
You do realize this is a 'race', and one of them will 'win', and the rest go home.
Once the 'winner' is named then that person will have another 'race' with Trump this time for the big price, a residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC. The 'looser' goes home to write books about how it was unfair and how they were sabotaged and so on.
In an election you choose one. The rest stop shinning and go home.
I mean, it's a simple concept, a 'race'. It is clear to you right?
Beto’s assault rifle buy back plan is not confiscation. As he explained, it will be mandatory but based on voluntary compliance, kind of like speed limits. The comments here about confiscation and how he would even find all the gun owners—he’s interested not in guns and gun owners but rather a particular type on gun—make me wonder how carefully the panel listened to the debate.
4
Ms Warren needs to have someone
do the math for her "medicare for all"
funding. Quantify the money raised
from higher taxes on the wealthy
and the corporations to fund the
medicare without raising the cost
for middle class and saving them on co-pay and the premium. Corporations
will be enthusiastic about paying tax
and get rid of insurance premium now
they pay to cover their employees.
Wealthy are not likely to skip a heartbeat. They would have plenty
to live in luxury. They may not be
able to buy influence if democrats
win majority in congress and pass
election financing legislation to
eliminate donations and PACs.
Being vague doesn't help Ms Warren.
She has to be specific, present
data to silence her doubters. Medicare is good. I am on medicare and doing great.
2
@s.khan
Warren (nor anyone else) can do the math (to make it come out right). and she's smart enough not to try and hopes that the rest of the country won't notice.
1
The cost of providing good healthcare to 320 million Americans is fixed and cannot be changed much by the different approaches explained by all the candidates. The only question is who is going to pay more, the middle or the upper class.
3
@Marcello
Warren wants the extremely wealthy to pay the most.
I'm OK with that. They have gamed the system long enough. It's time for a new referee.
3
It is extremely unsettling to see how dismissive so many of the “experts” were in mentioning many of the Democratic candidates. If we do not stop the “ circular firing squad “, we do not have a hope in November.
Any one of the Citizens on that stage would be infinitely better in the White House than its current occupant, or anyone the Republicans would be likely to nominate. The format itself was more like Twitter, than a reasoned debate. Come on people, the stakes are too high!
22
@Dr. Zen This is called a primary election for a reason. If the Democrats don't vet themselves well enough in their primary, then the Republicans will do that vetting for us in the general election. Is that the game we really want to play, holding our hands in a circle and singing Kumbaya?
9
Melanye Price gives Amy Klobuchar a rating of 1 out of 10? I saw a different debate where Klobuchar made a compelling case for a moderate. Similar ratings for the other moderates from this professor of political science leave me concerned about the state of higher education.
87
@Alex
Klobuchar is not appealing. And she is trying way, way to hard to sell herself. I like her. She's honest, smart and has conviction. But she is just not at all appealing, and I think she knows it.
5
@Fromjersey "But she is just not at all appealing" I would have to disagree with that. It's sad that much of the US has descended to needing "big" personalities in the television mold for their leaders instead of grounded human beings.
18
@Fromjersey Really, you don't think they're ALL up there to sell themselves?
4
Bernie was by far the best which surprised me, not because he was good (and he was) but because the rest of the field were all disappointing. Biden is losing the battle as the best moderate candidate which makes me believe that a moderate replacement such as Mike Bloomberg should consider re-entering the race.
14
@Buddy Badinski
Klobuchar and Buttigieg are both potential "moderate replacements" and neither of them has the baggage of being extremely elderly (Bloomberg is 77 right now) or a Republican billionaire.
Spare me further talk of Bloomberg.
8
There is a difference between how people "performed" and how their ideas will play in Peoria.
62
Trump and his Russian-Republicans have declared all-out war against Constitutional rule of law and American democracy.
Make-nice Democrats in the muddled middle who think they can unite Democratic Party democrats and G.O.P. fascists by appeasing white wing Republicans are living in denial of realities.
Also, recent studies show that although a plurality of voters label themselves "independents," only about 2.5% of the electorate actually swing their votes back and forth between parties. Democrats plus Democratic leaning voters constitute a majority without capturing even a single swing vote.
Candidates who urge the Party to swing to the right to capture at most 2.5% of the votes are arithmetic-challenged fools who have forgotten (again) that they need the enthusiastic support of the 40% or more of voters who prefer positive progressives to timid incrementalists.
American voters always gravitate toward leaders who appear to be strong; weakness, vacillation and timidity always repel the electorate.
Warren and Sanders are inspirational, vigorous candidates of firm convictions who have all the personal virtues needed to be great presidents.
Pete Buttigieg has everything except experience (and the last three presidents all demonstrated the high price the nation pays for inexperience in the Oval Office. However, there is no doubt Buttigieg should be on the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee regardless of who the Democrats nominate for president.
70
@Been There whether or not Buttigieg is on the ticket, he should definitely have an important role in any Democratic administration. He’s genius level smart and a good communicator, a rare combination. Secretary of State is my personal selection for Buttigieg.
11
I agree with these rankings ... but thought Tom Steyer was ok. If you are going to have a billionaire in the mix, he's not a bad one.
Kept thinking who would be the most effective when it comes to the debates against Trump/whoever, and while Sanders would be the most entertaining, Warren seems to have the best defense and chance of landing knockout blows IMO.
33
@mic Agree. His strength is in tackling Climate Change. He is passionate and has deep experience there. This debate did not bring that out, unfortunately. The DNC seems to be shy about featuring the most urgent issue of them all. But why?
23
@mic
It's getting to the point where we have no choice but to tolerate the billionaire pushing their way onto the stage. Does Steyer really think he's needed amidst this already crowded field of well-spoken candidates? What does he really offer other than the attitude of someone who truly despises Trump, and who can parrot the proper progressive talking points? It sometimes seems that billionaires believe us regular folk truly want a rich person to stride into the room to save the day.
9
@mic -- Sanders is 'entertaining'?
He's a Lion, been fighting for the Working Class for FORTY YEARS, and trump'd be wise to keep as far away from Bernie as his bonespurs will allow.
11
Twelve candidates on stage, many of whose sole focus is now to poll the 2% they need to qualify for the next event, is neither informative or inspiring. When this narrows down to the top 3-4 candidates, the real debates can start.
39
Warren can easily deliver Medicare for All without raising costs for the middle class. A RAND report on a single-payer proposal for New York State found that health costs would only go up for individuals making $134,000 or more a year. If Warren taxes wealth and corporations, that threshold would go up even higher.
So why were the other candidates acting as if she's trying to pull one over on us? She's not. She simply knows that if she uses the "t" word, the Republicans will hammer her with it during the general election. She's thinking ahead.
189
@Netwit, Forcing 150M VOTERS to give up their health insurance will get Warren or anyone else beat in the general. Even if it were possible McMconnell would never allow it to pass the Senate. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
18
@Netwit - my concern about Warren desperately NOT wanting to answer that question is maybe, just maybe, she's seen the analysis showing all of the money hovered up by her wealth tax gets spent on the OTHER 'free things for everybody' she's proposed. It's possible there just aren't going to be enough trillions left for medicare ...unless the taxation level drops into the middle class. Or lower.
Should that come to pass, we all know the politician will express shock! SHOCK! that it didn't work out exactly as her policy paper said it should.
7
@Netwit, Until she comes "clean" on the taxes for MFA, and on every other one of her Plans, it's going to appear to many, if not most of us, that she's trying to spend every dollar 3 or 4 or 5 times. And maybe, she is.
5
I think the tarnish is already starting to come off of Warren. She seems alert and smart but also slips questions with a facility that is a little troubling. She is always "prepared" and has a quick answer for everything, but still comes across as a very bright professor and not someone likely to endear herself to union members or others in what we vaguely call the "working class." She also continues to poll low with black voters, and I cannot see someone postponed so far to the left as being a viable general election candidate. I saw nothing last night that changed my mind about her being very flawed front-runner.
43
@Mark
Would it not be a good thing if tarnish came off her?
5
@Mark -- Good points.
I have no fear of Bernie going toe-to-toe with our current, illegitimate so-called president; with Senator Warren, I have hesitations (but I'd love for Elizabeth to prove me wrong).
6
Excellent points all around, but I am always blown away by how similarly Michelle Goldberg and I think.
5
Goldberg's assessments have her usual surgical skill.
9
Pretty much agree with Charles Blow on his ratings. Bernie stood out for me. Enjoyed listening to Beto.
7
Tired of the hammering Warren takes for "details" on funding her healthcare solutions.
Remember how the media pressed Trump and the GOP at every step of the way for the details of their replacement for the ACA ( which remains an unsolved mystery)?
Or the details of their "middle class" tax cut?
Or Trump's details for balancing our budget?
Stop bending over backwards to appear nonpartisan and trying to appease the GOP, while at the same time giving them a bye on the same scrutiny
Lots of talk about Biden and his son, repeating the President's accusations
Where are the media's current non partisan demands for similar investigations into Ivanka, Don Jr, Eric and Jareds's unseemly business deals?
I'm reading Hunter Biden's name on the front page every day, while we have yet to see Trump's tax returns.
Where are the calls for Ivanka and Jared's tax returns, and investigations of her Chinese patent approvals?
Why isn't Barr traveling to China to look into that corruption?
(Not covered under executive privilege, btw)
301
@Gary Williams -- Different rules for different sides. Republicans don't actually play by The Rules, so they (obviously) get a pass.
13
@Willy P And remember, IARIYAR: It's All Right If You Are A Republican. A law of contemporary politics, I much regret to say.
6
@Gary Williams I don't know why the other Dems seem so insistent on trying to squeeze a republican attack point out of Warren. Her saying it will lower the overall healthcare costs for the middle class is the right answer.
7
I understand that the process should play out and Americans should vote in the Primary, however there are too many candidates, too many debates, too much grandstanding, too much nonsense and too much fighting among themselves.
Kamala wants to take away Trump's twitter account. Yang, a millionaire, wants his wife to paid for choosing to stay home, Biden wants his son, Hunter, to get a pass because he says so...how is any of this going to get Trump out of the White House and take the country back?
Democrats are divided too many ways and weakening by the day. Candidates that aren't getting traction have to drop out now because they are a distraction and are wasting millions of dollars in donation that could be going to the overall fight.
36
@Hope
Yang comes across as a gameshow host. And it is appealing to many, which is troubling. I think his novel ideas are very interesting, but I am annoyed that he and those that support him feel that that entitles him to run for President?! Why doesn't he run for another political office and get an idea how governance works (or doesn't) from the inside. It's a form of entitlement, he's rich and has ideas so he can run? For President!? There are so many other creative ways he could bring his ideas to life. Do people really think he could get our congress to support his ideas. Such hubris. If people don't like how our government is working then get involved and run for office, but geez start lower from the inside, like many of the other candidates have done. They've put in their time. This is what Trump has blown the doors off, now anyone who has money can run for the big shiny prize of President of the US. Whatever that is.
10
@Fromjersey
Yang is running because there are problems in America that aren't being addressed or even talked about by any of the other candidates. You won't get a good sense how serious they are by watching the debates. I'm certainly not qualified to explain these things on his behalf, however I can direct you to resources so you can determine this for yourself. He's been interviewed all over, so most of those would suffice. I personally would recommend the Joe Rogan podcast though, but it is lengthy.
2
@Hope Yangs wife stays home to care for their autistic son. He certainly has more money than most, but his net worth is estimated to be between 800k-2.4m. Even sanders has more money than him.
There are many people caring for relatives rather than working and UBI values that. Why would I hire a stranger to care for my special needs child when the mother or father has the option to stay home and care for them? UBI allows this flexibility for everyone that the current economy does not.
1
I understand that the process should play out and Americans should vote in the Primary, however there are too many candidates, too many debates, too much grandstanding, too much nonsense and too much fighting among themselves.
Kamala wants to take away Trump's twitter account. Yang, a millionaire, wants his wife to paid for choosing to stay home, Biden wants his son, Hunter, to get a pass because he says so...how is any of this going to get Trump out of the White House and take the country back?
Democrats are divided too many ways and weakening by the day. Candidates that aren't getting traction have to drop out now because they are a distraction and are wasting millions of dollars in donation that could be going to the overall fight.
5