I've got Democrat fatigue. Anybody but Biden. Some better choices probably weren't on stage
2
New York Times opinion writers represent the top 1% of elitist Americans, their evaluation of the performance of these candidates is merely an academic exercise !
3
Out of 14 people not one realized the importance of Klobuchar's decency check comment. Sad.
Trump is the most indecent President in the history of the US or have all of you forgotten that?
No worries as by the time this comment is approved Trump will do/say something to make all of you remember just how indecent Trump is.
3
I was too busy watching the Trump rally from Wisconson. MAGA!
3
Buttigieg tone and language usually comes across as know-it-all and condescending. Even on the simplest things. As someone who has often been mansplained, I could barely stand listening to him!
His very presence on that stage is indicative of the ubiquitous UNFAIR white patriarchal power that automatically grants legitimacy to baby white boys. Ugg! Seems like he has never worked for anything, just had it all handed to him.
Just guessing, but perhaps that is why he is not liked by the young, women, or blacks?
2
Warren should say goodnight.
1
I would vote for a potted plant over Trump.
4
Boring. Coma-inducing.
I hope Bloomberg/Swalwell are the candidates.
2
Shouldn't every article Michelle Goldberg writes include a disclaimer that her husband works for Warren?
2
Horse race!
One thing that is consistent with Dowd - she hated Hillary, and has transferred that hate to Warren.
1
Dowd always the steely eye and steady hand in cutting through the lard.
I disagree with the groupthink in this article and in the comments. A centrist Democrat will not win. The poor and hopeless who either voted for Trump or did not bother to vote in the last election will NOT vote for the same type of neo-liberals that have allowed the corporations to seize power in this nation. The poor and hopeless have been lied to by Clinton, Biden, Obama and those like them countless times. The poor and hopeless see them for what they are. Frauds. The only Democratic candidates who can beat Trump are Sanders and Warren. The poor and hopeless will give them a chance to prove their authenticity.
4
No surprise here.
No need to debate, the wouldn’t change the ‘results’ by the Times.
Of course Warren and Sanders ‘won’.
I must have watched a different debate.
1
Has the influence of law by unintelligible tweet taken us so low that esteemed journalist find fault the articulate responses of Pete Buttigeg. He answered the questions, while almost every other candidate ,once again, pulled out their stump speeces.
2
Are we Dems. so desperate that we have to make excuses for Biden to make him palatable? He is NOT at the top of his game. We cannot continue to dance around the obvious! Biden is just not up to the job regardless of how many Americans like him. Being a good ol’ boy just does NOT cut the mustard! He scares me when he speaks because I’m always afraid he’s going to lapse into word salad and just plain mess up! Let’s get real. Biden is not, not, not the best candidate!
8
Were you all watching the same debate as I was? Last night, right? CNN? Because it certainly does not sound like it. Jeezee.
And what's with the Tom Steyer hate fest? He is not "buying his way in" to the campaign any more or less than anyone else running - with their corporate donations. And he could be doing a lot of dumb/useless or even mean and dangerous things with all that money instead of putting himself on the line and running for President on a climate change agenda and having to listen to the likes of you all. And, hey, wasn't FDR also way rich? And, hey, didn't he establish some of the most progressive legislative to help those who were not?
5
The pundits should have rated CNN as well and could have just left out the last two "N"s or even just rated the moderators a "D".
The fake "beef" being propelled between Bernie and Sanders was dumb and not relevant. So, no outrage over 45,000 people dying per year from solvable medical problems but all this consternation between a private conversation between two grown adults about the possibility of a woman President? No context, no nuance. Given Bernie's record and his foresight in avoiding problematic matters, the comment doesn't seem plausible. Even if it were true, was his proclamation a reflection of his assessment of the electorate's progressiveness at a point in time in 2018 or what he believed because he is misogynist or what he was implying of the woman candidate in the room? Come on.
Worst still, why were the moderators constantly talking over the candidates when the comments were actually getting interesting? The next question(s) weren't even that interesting. How about fewer questions and longer time to respond.
CNN, really awful. Hopefully it is the last debate moderated by that network. Terrible.
8
Watching these candidates with articulate ideas and solutions compared to Trumps illiterate chaotic ramblings at rally's makes me realize the USA has become theatre of the absurd. One commentator here says Trump will eat them for lunch and send them the bill. Besides looking like he already literally ate somebody for lunch, the comment is probably right. Why? Because, as Trump, most people in the USA don't read anymore, are overweight, lack any knowledge of civics or politics, operate on fear mode, secretly would like to pummel any liberal who disagrees with their narrow thoughts, and react only to extreme stimulus of the frontal cortex. In our current state, the bill for lunch will be a war with Iran costing about 4 trillion, an offspring presidential dynasty resembling Nero and Caligula, and a mad scramble to build a pyramid for Trump's sarcophagus.
4
To me Steyer won, for no other reason than he put climate change first - and his strong statement on the issue drew enthusiastic applause. By the same token Biden's lackluster comments on climate change made him the loser.
5
When all of these columnists are so dismissive of Tom Steyer I would like their explanation of why he is rising so rapidly in states polls in a Nevada and South Carolina.Other than the obvious explanation that they are wrong and the lazy answer that he is buying support could they delve a little deeper and maybe his position on climate change resonates the electorate?
3
The only two things I got out of this are that it’s being run like “clever phrase” contest, and a reinforcement of my abiding respect and admiration for Maureen Dowd.
1
I heard a man has no chance to win against Trump.
The DNC needs to let Mike Bloomberg participate in these debates!
4
The "debate" format is getting old--reporters posing the same old questions and trying to stir up trouble. I'd like to see less time spent on short, scripted answers and more opportunity to see the heart and soul of the candidates, which a more free-wheeling and spontaneous debate might provide Why not have a shorter evening but have it be a real debate? Let the candidates talk to one another without interruption. Also, watching potential presidents raise their hands to get the attention of the moderator looked demeaning. And I missed Andrew Yang.
3
The democratic debates continue to expose that there's not one single inspiring candidate in the bunch. (At least Sanders maintains the courage of his convictions and is the same candidate today as he was in 2016). Add to this the NY Times rating system and I feel like I'm either watching an Olympics rerun or a slightly classed up version of Shark Tank. Depressing. Looking good once again for our CTO (Chief Tweeting Officer). Deeply depressing.
1
I enjoyed the debate.
The content of the debate was engaging, and it was helpful to compare the debaters' styles.
The two female candidates stood out as better prepared to be president than their male counterparts. I admired their various plans.
Biden's performance was like a tire that went flat during the course of the evening. Buttigieg is eloquent but lacks sufficient experience to be president. Steyer had some good moments. Bernie was Bernie.
The only problem I had with the debate were the moderators. One of them kept on talking over the candidates rather than let them finish their answers. I wasn't interested in hearing what she had to say but in hearing the debaters. Also, there were times when follow up questions should have been asked, but weren't.
But all in all it was a good debate.
3
Not that anyone asked, but here are my ratings.
Bernie came off as having vision and breadth of understanding. He was the only one who seemed like a professional rather than a good high school debater. But that doesn't make him electable. There's a reason Trump isn't going after Bernie.
Warren came off as manipulative. Does she have 9 brothers, or was she talking about the same three brothers, three times? I also doubt that Bernie made the comment Warren's staff attributed to him -- and Warren dodged the issue.
Buttigieg comes across as well-spoken and thoughtful. And young. He may seem younger because he's hanging around with a lot of old people. I don't buy his argument about having sufficient experience.
Klobuchar's positions and history are very appealing. But, her quavering voice and lack of forcefulness may do her in.
If you needed surgery and Biden was the doctor, you'd be worried. His speech fluency seems poor. He struggles to finish a sentence and has to keep correctly verbal parapraxes. He responds to questions by listing his involvement with each issue but substantially without clearly articulating the path forward.
That said, I'm comfortable with all of these candidates. Joe Biden needs to pick a particularly strong VP - I'm worried that he may not finish his term.
I think any of them can best Trump in a debate, if they're willing to exploit his weakness -- which is lack of an in-depth understanding of virtually any issue.
6
Outside of the discussion on foreign affairs not much was new. I was irritated by Warren's ambush of Sanders. It was a private conversation and should have stayed that way. It had no place in the debates. Debates are about policies and a candidates vision. When Warren refused to shake Bernie's hand at the end of the debates she lost my support in the primaries.
10
Exactly which "entitlements" are you suggesting we should means-test, Mr. McCarthy? If you are referring to Social Security, we worked and paid in to get that benefit, thank you very much.
6
How about next time we have an analysis rating the moderators. Are they asking the questions that are important to the American people.
Personally, I rate the candidates better than the moderators.
8
One of my favorite features of the NYTimes. Thanks for the insightful summaries, all! And I agree with those who've said trade Steyer for Yang.
4
Re Styer – I am appalled to read such discriminatory evaluations of a candidate because he is a billionaire?! Especially a self-made one?! You all forget what appealed to many Americans when they voted for Trump was that he was a billionaire, therefore he must be well qualified to run our economy. I say it takes fire to fight a fire and sometimes a billionaire (Trump-supposed) to fight a billionaire!
2
On the one hand, Interesting. It would have been nice if each commentator, from Castañeda to Wehner, had rated themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 or 10 on how politically 'left' or 'right' they are.
The NYTimes take is much different from Drudge's online poll. That might be worth analyzing sometime.
On the other hand, I didn't see that any of the commentators indicating that candidate x or y is certain to knock out Trump.
1
I think it is wrong to score the candidates. They are exposing their views in accordance to the rules. They have to answer questions that often are not well thought out. The only issue that matters is how will the democratic party will be able to defeat Trump. Anything else we do is not helpful. We still have Bloomberg on the sides which has the means to finance the entire party and bring us to success. No candidate is ideal but I now support Bloomberg.
4
Biden's continuing lead in national polls tells me that many Americans have already made up their minds about the Democratic nominee, and that the rest of the candidates are just arguing over who gets to take home the runner-up trophy.
The comments made elsewhere about voters not desiring drastic change right now is spot on and reinforces my theory. I suspect there is already a strong mix of moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Independents who will vote strong for Biden in November. That coalition will likely break apart if Warren or Sanders is the nominee.
From the FiveThirtyEight Web site yesterday:
"In a race without a clear favorite, former Vice President Joe Biden remains the front-runner, with a 39 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. He’s followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders with a 23 percent chance, Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a 13 percent chance and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a 10 percent chance."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-two-new-polls-show-bidens-upside-scenario/
1
@hdtvpete If polls were votes, we'd be celebrating Hillary's victory over Ted Cruz. They aren't the same thing at all.
5
I am an independent ( former long-time Republican) who will vote for any nominee the Democrats put up against the current resident of the White House. However, I am still looking deciding who the best choice would be.
My first choice was Cory Booker. Now I have been giving careful consideration to Warren, Buttiegieg, and Klobuchar. Biden's time has passed and Bernie would be just one more angry, loud guy in the White House. I've watched all the debates and been impressed at different times with each of the others, but last night left me confused and wanting more. Klobuchar and "Pete" were too rehearsed. Warren's comments about women being able to win was terrific, but I'm still leery about her plans for Health Care and the cost of all of the programs she wants to implement.
I wish that Yang and Booker had been on that stage. They deserved to be IMO. Steyer is earnest, but , why was he there?
2
I expected Pete Buttigieg would perform much better than he did. He wasn't given enough chances to speak either. In short, I was disappointed in his less than exemplary performance. Now wait for Iowa Caucus. If he doesn't win it, his chances to go any further may well be very much in doubt.
3
Whether Tom Steyer is a serious candidate or he is merely doing this because he can self-finance a presidential campaign is a valid question ! I actually like the guy and would like to see him assert himself and perhaps challenge the other candidates where they have differences. He seems too careful not to pick any fights with anyone, only making sure to emphasize points of agreement with the other candidates. I liked his defense of his background and success in business. We need more unashamed self-made billionaires in the Democratic party to defend the idea of Capitalism. Capitalism is as American as the democracy is!
The biggest loser is the American people, because Yang wasn't on stage.
79
@JP I agree! Yang's presence was sorely missed.
7
@JP
It cracks me up that his campaign stickers say "MATH" - apparently if you give everyone 1000 dollars a month, you don't have to take 1000 dollars per month away from anyone/everyone???
3
@JP I agree 100%.
2
It's not clear to me how a panel of political pros can provide insight into the responses and concerns of so-called "average Americans." In other words, this exercise in punditry tells us nothing about how the people in Iowa will actually vote.
6
@Steverw
And, in keeping with NY Times protocol, conservatives will outnumber progressives, and the majority will be made up of centrists.
Shockingly, the progressives came in #1 and #2 this time. Trying too hard to disprove a bias maybe?
These debates seem more about solidifying existing supporters for each candidate rather than flipping from one to another. If you went in a Bernie fan you're still a Bernie fan. Same goes for Warren, Biden, etc. Perhaps the small group of voters who were polling for Castro, Harris or Booker are looking for someone new but my guess is that they'll likely fall in line with the candidate that most closely resembles them no matter who they come out and endorse.
That leaves us pretty much where we started. Warren and Sanders are running very progressive socialist style campaigns and looking to flip the script and change just about everything. Biden, Pete and Amy are running closer to the center-left and basing their campaigns on more iterative change.
As a registered Independent, I find that I support many, but not all of the broad Democratic platform ideas. I agree, fundamentally, that we need change. Change the tax code. Change healthcare. Change environmental protections. Change money in politics. But what matters most to me is the PACE of that change. Why? Because America is tearing itself apart ideologically and in my opinion the most pressing challenge of the next President will be to seek out common ground among these warring factions. We need someone who can convince us that we have more in common and more shared values than disagreements.
So that leads me to support the moderates. Change, yes. Immediate and sharp? No.
49
@John You are right. Too much of the country - even Democrats, are not ready for the kinds of big sweeping changes that Bernie/Warren are proposing. Even the relatively moderate change Obama attempted to enact brought swift and uncompromising opposition--even if it was good for the country, even if it was to assist homeowners devastated by the financial collapse...the 2010 election brought in a Congress determined to make him fail at every turn, even with Dem majorities at the beginning of his presidency Mitch McConnell managed to foil much legislation passed by the House with procedural delays. The progressive change will come if we are patient, we elect more Dems in state legislatures and Congress, if we choose a more uniting and moderate President now that can usher in a more united country, a more moderate and less ideological judiciary, and prepare the country for changes yet to come. If we try to implement change too fast, too furiously--we may get backlash that will upend any hope for progress. And if the Bernie Bros stay home as they threaten to if a moderate wins the nomination, they will lose their cause forever...four more years of Trump will seal the courts for decades to overturn any progressive agenda that any conservative cares to upend. Democrats need to keep their eye on the judiciary as the prize as conservatives have for years and vote for whoever the nominee is in large numbers and enthusiastically no matter their personal agenda or ideology.
22
@John
One of the reasons Trump won in 2016 was that a lot of independent voters felt that the country was already moving too far left, even with Hillary.
Immigration is also still there...it's still a key issue (huge).
7
@John
Are you ready to address the climate crisis as the emergency it is or should wait until everyone is ready?
Moderation will kill us all.
12
Honestly I am a conservative and no fan of Trump. I am also in Iowa so I watched the debate hoping to see someone that could do better job than Trump. Trump has 4 years experience as President and the other candidates strike me as soft on the Middle East. Last night it was obvious that they will promise anything to become President. They will shy away from doing the right thing just because of some promise they made before they had "The Full Security Briefing". Trump saying Iran will never have a Nuke made me feel much safer than watching the crowd on that stage. These people have 0 experience knowing the full picture. Biden reminds us how close he was, but he was no Dick Cheney. Biden pulled no strings behind the scenes. It was a courtesy as it was to make Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. They are not qualified to make the hard choices that need to be made right now. Let them think we have an impulsive leader. Let them think Trump is a maniac. Look at Putin. Look at Xi. What does the world think of those guys? Do you think the world has great respect for the leaders of communist countries that are only in check by the US? No way. They know that we alone prevent the world falling to communism. If any of you think that that threat ended you are wrong. You just forgot about it and its not on the news every night.
11
@Mark These candidates are not qualified to make foreign policy decisions but somehow Trump is?!?! Honestly, what were Trump's foreign policy qualifications before taking office? Does he get credit for owning a golf course in Scotland, or is your point that Trump has created such a dire situation that we can only trust Trump to guide us through it? How convenient. Historically, there have been very few presidential candidates with foreign policy experience because mayors, governors, representatives, and senators don't create foreign policy. Presidents listen to foreign policy experts and then make decisions. If anything, your comment reads as a warning to any Democrat who thinks we can peel off Republican voters by nominating a moderate. Some Republicans might claim they don't like Trump, but they're going to vote for him anyway because they're too petrified to tell their own representatives and senators to stand up to Trump's behavior. You could have had a pragmatist like John Kasich, but you were too scared to support him. Now you will get what you deserve.
45
@Mark
Hi Mark : we are becoming a totalitarian country in real time. Far from fighting communism - Trump has invited Russia to decide our next election. And as far as Xi - try to find anything in your local Target or Ace Hardware that is not made in China. Your idea of “Fighting Communism” is so 1950’s.
19
@Mark
Lucky you! You have a choice. If you can't vote for the Democrat, no matter who, vote for Bill Weld. He is a moderate Republican.
7
Wistfully...had Barack Obama - just the 2008 version - been on that stage (or someone with close to his knowledge, oratorical skills, and sheer presence) all those candidates would be history.
2
In re the “line of the night,” per most MSM graders, could anyone check research and math for decontextualizing?
First, Warren should have said “in 29 years”; Bernie’s defeat of an incumbent Republican will be 30 yrs ago in November, not yet.
Second, picking out only losses leaves out number of wins: Warren, 2: Klobuchar 5, Sanders 15.
Warren defeated Scott Brown, who’d held the seat for 2 years, winning with 51% after Ted Kennedy’s death, then losing to Warren’s 53% victory to reclaim that long-held Democratic seat. Her re-election in 2018 was with 60%.
Klobuchar has won 3 Senate races - by 58%, 65% & 60% - and 2 county attorney races before that. Both women indeed undefeated, 7 elections between them.
Sanders won 4 elections as mayor, 8 elections to Vermont’s single House seat plus 3 Senate races, total 15 wins against 6 losses for statewide office in his early years as a 3rd party or independent with no party support. He's had no losses to a Republican in 32 years.
In his 2006 Senate race, Sanders was endorsed unanimously by the Vermont Democratic Party, because he’d served Vermont so “Democratically” for 16 years. Winning that 2006 Senate race, after Jim Jeffords retired, he became the first non-Republican in that seat in 144 years. Bernie won his Senate races with 65%, 71% & 67%.
It’s vital to see women as winners but: Is losing as an independent with no party support, then winning 15 times an indication of liability? or growth and resilience?
9
I'm seeing a lot of cross campaign bashing which only weakens ALL campaigns. I'm certain some it it is not coming from Democratic voters. If Joe, Elizabeth and Bernie can be friendly and direct on stage without the dividing ugliness- we ALL CAN BE!
3
We are all losers because non of the candidates really put the screws to trump. They let him off too, too easy.
1
Warren is smart, energetic, has the answers to difficult questions and truly can deal easily with Trump - if he even shows up to debate which I personally doubt. Why should he debate now that every person in America knows every two out of three sentences he spouts is a lie? And Warren is showing flexibility on the healthcare issue that Sanders cannot because "he wrote the damn bill." Sanders supporters are mirror images of Trump's supporters, they care less about reality than anyone with a smidgen of common sense takes into consideration when making an important decision. Presidents have to work with Congress and Sanders can barely work with other Senators to get any of his great ideas launched. And his withholding info about his heart attack makes him a liability for four, let alone eight years. So for me Warren is the real candidate and if she can get Booker or Castro on her ticket that should clinch a victory for the Dems. Sanders vs Trump is a slam dunk for the GOP who are praying for Sanders to be the candidate. They will nuke him in a way that will further destroy any semblance of our Democracy.
1
@Michael 2 out of every 3 Trump statements is a lie, but apparently 4 out of every 10 Americans believe them. That's the depressing part.
2
@Michael Warren's "flexibility" on Medicare is what started sinking her in the polls and it also showed a lack of commitment to a cause that Bernie has been resilient about, but you mistake Bernie if you think he can'at work with other Senators as he's been doing so with success that shows up in how many amendments he gets passed.
If the GOP are "praying" as you surmise, I say let them, wouldn't be the first time their prayers backfired on them except they are largely blind to just how much Trump has betrayed his very voters, not to mention the country as whole, democracy, the Constitution.
What American voters should a craving for in 2016 was authenticity and not being sold out to Wall St. Problem was given Trump v. Clinton, they bought snake oil who pretended to a reality-TV-thin fraud on authenticity and the biggest sellout to wealth and corruption in memory.
Bernie is Authenticity personified and tested over a lifetime - that's the only reason some Trump voters would have gone for Bernie, the ones who smelled authenticity and who knew Bernie had it but then deluded themselves when he was eliminated that Trump was next best. Heaven help us. Your catastrophizing and misreading of Bernie isn't helping either.
3
The Democratic candidates have to stop attacking one another . They have to turn as one and attack Trump, pointing out how their way of doing things will be better than Trump's. They must not be baited into attacking one another. Such attacks only give Trump more ammunition.
2
I am preparing for the worst as if Trump is elected again; US has survived some very bad presidents, and we will struggle to get back on our feet again.
So many of these comments are depressively pessimistic in accepting the democrat's defeat to Trump. This year has barely started. Keep your eyes on Warren; she will forge her way to the White House and we will cheer.
1
This opinion piece represents largely what each of the commentators believes, as in we see what we believe and conform our "facts" to those beliefs. Overall this is a waste of space.
6
"...a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else..."
Funny that the guy who claims to speak for "everyone else" has a totally different opinion from everyone else on the panel. It's heavy on the wishful thinking and light on reality.
2
Getting tired of hearing, from some of the Times' commentators here, how "radicalized" the Democratic Party's becoming. Is it radical to oppose of extreme inequality and environmental degradation? Is it radical to try and grapple with the country's unaffordable and dysfunctional healthcare system? Perhaps some of these folks haven't noticed that the GOP has become a xenophobic personality cult that's slowly teetering into fascism. Indeed, the Republicans are now a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy as we know it. Worry about that instead of putative "socialism."
6
If Joe pledged that he would serve one term only and that he would make Amy Klobuchar his running mate he could wrap it up.
Joe is the only person on the stage that has a strong emotional tie with African Americans. If Bernie, Elizabeth or anyone else on the stage is the nominee they will almost have to put an African American on the ticket top get the kind of turnout necessary in that community to assure a win.
1
@Tom Callaghan.....Don't kid yourself. Just because Al Sharpton and a guy with a kufi warmly greeted Biden after the debate does not mean Biden has the African American vote. Indeed, Biden is disliked by many in the African American community due to his smarmy touchy touchy behavior as well as his support of the 1994 crime bill which targeted African Americans males.
3
These are not debates. Look up the actual definition of the term.
These are simply fluff-job efforts by each candidate to try to turn the media narrative about them for the week.
In other words.. these are party sponsored publicity and spin fests.
Let's just move on to the primary voting and see what voters actually want and choose.
5
@Chuck absolutely correct. Not debates. Trailers at best, or promo films like you get at the Subaru/Honda/Toyota dealer while waiting for service.
Still Trump's to lose. But that's if he doesn't go any lower, his lies are just believable enough to fool the gullible, and the economy holds up. And above all, don't get caught! Extra points if he can restore his love affair with Kim Jong-il.
1
The biggest losers of the night: the CNN moderators. Worst ones yet. Interrupting. Rude.
The highlight, the coup de grâce, if you will, was the moment after Sen. Sanders delivered a passionate and credible response to the question of whether he said/believes that a woman cannot be elected President, when the moderator (I can't recall which one, only that it wasn't Blitzer) asked Sen. Warren, how did you respond when Bernie Sanders said a woman couldn't be elected President?
Thank goodness they (the moderators) are not going to be on the ballot.
13
It is sad to see that the top Democrats are leftist radical disseminators of Islamo-socialism and proponents of confidcatory wealth redistribution by taxation. Not a good counter weight to Trumpianism.
2
Anyone who hangs around elderly people knows they don't remember everything, particularly when they don't want to. And a heart attack is a warning signal on that one.
I think they're both telling the truth, but Warren remembers and Bernie doesn't. He doesn't want to admit he could have said that, but he probably did.
Old people don't always remember everything. This is important, because I'm quite sure it is the answer to this problem. Sad we're setting up a fight between the two best candidates instead of pulling together, innit?
4
Do the debates really matter? The election will come down to how many voters are displeased with Trump, and where they are. We know Trump will get ~40% of the vote.
What the Dems need to do is concentrate on the Electoral College states that HRC lost by ~100,000 votes. CA, NY, etc. will take care of themselves.
3
My full disclosure: wrote in Kasich in 2016, will vote for any DEM this 2020 Presidential BUT: a centrist / lean left nominee is needed, Klobuchar did "win the night" as Robt Leonard asserted, Mimi Schwartz good opine of Biden-Klobuchar ticket, Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump as America is not "left / progressive" according to Melanye Price, and interesting to perceive the strong rankings mostly with substantive comments, while low rankings are mostly for trite reasons.
2
Interesting to see the overall did better/worse. Folks in the middle speak like politicians. Folks who did better are supposedly "far left," in reality they are the only ones who can walk into a crowd anywhere in America and connect with people - Trump's "base" included. Steyer's "did worse" rating doesn't add up, he speaks with authority and emotion, I'm sure he could walk into a crowd anywhere and connect too. Can he "buy" an election? It's clear that if he doesn't start speaking standard pol speak columnists will rule him out - too bad.
7
There's a big difference between saying a woman could NEVER WIN the presidency, and a woman can't win THIS RACE.
Which did Sanders say, if either?
Since they were discussing this race when the comment occurred, it seems likely that he said something like the latter.
In either case, Bernie could be correct. Of the two females still in the race, Klobuchar seems more capable of capturing the oval office.
Warren's bug-eyed fanaticism may play well with the far left, but there are a lot of independents who usually vote Democrat, who will vote for Trump, again, if she is the nominee.
America is not ready to become a socialist state.
3
@Raz
I agree - my earlier post: My full disclosure: wrote in Kasich in 2016, will vote for any DEM this 2020 Presidential BUT: a centrist / lean left nominee is needed, Klobuchar did "win the night" as Robt Leonard asserted, Mimi Schwartz good opine of Biden-Klobuchar ticket, Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump as America is not "left / progressive" according to Melanye Price, and interesting to perceive the strong rankings mostly with substantive comments, while low rankings are mostly for trite reasons.
2
@RichQuips
Biden-Klobuchar sounds strong...or Klobuchar-Buttigieg (or B-K) also sounds strong.
A combination of Klobuchar and Buttigieg would certainly be a game changer!
2
Unfortunately, Warren's last-minute leak of her account of a two year old undocumented conversation with Bernie Sanders where the most leftist person on the stage allegedly said that a woman can't win, will be be her "I was that little girl" Kamala Harris forced bussing flame-out moment in this race. It got momentary attention, but when people consider Sanders' lifelong record and positions, they'll realize it's nonsense. Warren was being unfair, just as Harris was with Biden, and it's going to bite her in the butt. p.s. I am so far from being a Sanders supporter that I'm not even in his party.
8
Of course it's the same old canned answers. How could we expect different if they receive the same old canned questions. But how was it that no moderator asked about the real elephant in the room; i.e., the trove of documents that were handed over to the House, providing prima facie evidence of Trump's corruption? If Presidents have to react nimbly and think on their feet, wouldn't a response to this have been a reasonable test of the candidates?
They would have made a great Sunday School class at an all White Church. Are they going to raise their hands in a debate with Trump to be called on? I saw no one who could knee cap Trump in a debate.
I like Warren, she has plans for many issues. She's definitely doing her homework.
If she goes up against Trump in a debate, she will have to stay level headed when he comes at her with his downgrading lies trying to get her flustered.
2
I boycotted this debate due the glaring absence of sanity & strength was not on that stage last night. Andrew Yang brings a FRESH New perspective re the rabbit hole America is heading towards. Yang offers common sense solutions & wants to give control back to the American People. Yang2020.com
3
Of this group, only three now have a realistic chance of being nominated: Warren, Sanders, and Biden. From the beginning, it seems to me, Klobuchar has had a different objective...to be chosen by the eventual nominee as the vice presidential candidate. That can't happen if the choice is Warren. All her effort will have been pointless if Sanders is chosen because he cannot be elected. That leaves Biden. If she, and he can pull off this miracle, I'll be astonished. Meanwhile I'll pray for a divine intervention.
@Glenn My full disclosure: wrote in Kasich in 2016, will vote for any DEM this 2020 Presidential BUT: a centrist / lean left nominee is needed, Klobuchar did "win the night" as Robt Leonard asserted, Mimi Schwartz good opine of Biden-Klobuchar ticket, Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump as America is not "left / progressive" according to Melanye Price, and interesting to perceive the strong rankings mostly with substantive comments, while low rankings are mostly for trite reasons.
The ACA was an "incremental" attempt to improve the health care mess. As long as profit maximization is the primary goal of health insurance, pharmaceutical, medical equipment, and provider (hospitals, etc) companies, incrementalism will fail again and again. Yes, the rich need to have the freedom to buy private care, as long as they pay their share of Medicare for All. Know this: 90-95% of Americans are supporting a system whose primary task is to deny them access to health care - the less spent on care, the bigger the profit. Every incrementalist on stage last night is naive, wrong, and a danger to your health. I am just a physician, how would I know? FYI, the concierge physician may or may not be very competent. Many of the best physcians, and other health care providers work in public systems because they believe health care is a right. Did you know the ACA had a public option? To try to sell it again is ignorant, amnestic, and/or political cowardice.
5
I think Tom Steyer clearly crushed his competition in this debate, hands down. A state of emergency is what we need on climate change, and a Constitutional amendment needs to be passed that ONLY billionaires can be President, and they MUST completely self-finance their campaigns and cannot take a salary while in office. They will be allowed to paint the White House any color that they wish (peach preferably), and have hackey sack tournaments on the White House lawn on Easter instead of the Easter egg roll.
2
Andrew Yang.
2
In the opinion of many Americans, they are all losers who are ready, willing and able to reach their greedy little hands into your pocket to pay for their big government, big spending plans.
@paul Social Security and Medicare must really have you flustered. What will you do when the cost of higher education is brought down enough to be affordable to everyone? Or how about receiving health care, not just the right to choose an insurer? These are basic rights that American can, and should, provide.
What will you do in an America that benefits everyone, not just the billionaires? Why should America be the only western democracy to not offer these basics?
6
Remarkable. CNN said Biden lost big-time, and I suppose it's telling that I cannot even remember who they said won. The WA Post gave Biden the victory. And these folks here at the NY Times have given the victory to Warren. I've stopped looking for a winner at these things. They emphasize too many of the wrong things. We aren't looking for a reality TV president. We're looking for the real thing. Far better is, for instance, reading the candidates' interviews with the endorsement committee for this paper. I've read two so far, Booker and Sanders. Both did not go well for the candidates. Maybe Booker already knew he was planning to withdraw? I'm looking forward to reading the others as they appear.
2
Did your staff watch the same debate I watched last night?
Props to Sen. Warren to not taking the CNN bait wanting a catfight on stage with Bernie. She knows that the Neoliberals d.b.a. "Centrists" want to divide the Progressive base to create an opening for another horrible Democrat in Name Only (Biden, Klobuchar, Former Mayor Pete, etc.) or a draft Hillary movement later on. The yellow media likes horse race over policy and heat over light, shame on them- all of you.
I would believe that Bernie might - with emphasis on might- have said privately that he thinks in the context of 2020 that a woman cannot win, but do not buy the claim he said a woman cannot win the Presidency. Given the current state of our politics, this is going to be a difficult election for any candidate unless something earth-shattering happens between now and November.
Again, I wish those asking the questions would stop talking over the candidates- I tuned in to hear their answers- not scripted gotcha questions from supposed journalists. And the way that woman (yes I called her that woman) asked Ms. Warren that Bernie said right after he denied it was a blatant accusation of him being a liar. It was not appreciated and crosses the line from journalism to advocacy.
10
@Jorge Castañeda - By your definition, America has already elected socialists when we overwhelming approved social security, medicare and medicaid.
Will we elect a democratic-socialist? Possibly - if pundits like you stop using spin and truthfully identify what Sanders and others like him stand for.
8
Let's talk about Biden.
Joe Biden was President Obama's choice for vice-president.
Dan Quayle was the elder President Bush's choice for vice-president.
Would you have voted for Dan Quayle?
No need to answer the question, and no need to nominate Joe Biden either. A presidential election is not a joke.
3
I am one and know many veterans who have served in war. Does that make us better suited to run for president? Pete has played his seven month service in the rear too many times.I know if someone called me a liar to my face that those are fighting words. Warren and Saunders showed little passion in defending themselves . On a whole I thought everyone could have mailed in their performances.Trump decimated 15 upright Republicans in 2016. The six on stage last night unless they are playing Rope a Dope would be red meat for Trump.
2
Elizabeth Warren’s pharse, “The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women,” eerily reminded of Kamala Harris’ “that little girl was me,” shoot back at Joe Biden last June in another debate. Both spoke with with equal conviction. It was clearly not an espontaneous answer or idea. What was the intention?
How did all end?
6
Illegal immigration is STILL a huge issue that could determine the outcome of this election.
Control of our borders AND our population are paramount to a LOT of voters. If the Democrat candidates insist on leaving our borders uncontrolled and decriminalizing illegal immigration, they will probably lose.
A lot of independents who regularly vote Democrat, will vote for Trump, as they did last time, just on this issue.
6
Warren is an outstanding candidate. Maybe dial back the outrage, focus on Trump's numerous screw-ups, and how to right the ship. She must bury the hatchet with Bernie, and start connecting with younger voters.
2
The incredible range in scores among the same candidate shows the prevalence of confirmation bias. People like who they like and nothing can change that.
2
I'm really sorry that Klobuchar isn't making her two year college degree/job training a central feature to her campaign.
It would resonate in an enormous way with a large swathe of the electorate, including many in the Midwestern battleground states, and make her a star.
But more importantly, it's an excellent idea whose time is long overdue. Our current obsession with academic pedigrees is one of the biggest drivers of dying middle class. It shouldn't be an economic death sentence not to have a four year college degree.
6
The programs;
So if you’re married with, say, a couple of kids, you will get Medicare for All the family, a free college education for the kids and free childcare while you both go out to work.
Also, when you file your taxes, you will have a higher standard deduction and pay taxes at the lower married-filing-jointly rate.
That’s an awful lot of expense for a single person to take care of.
1
I'm with Judge Judy. Bloomberg is the man with the chops to:
1. Beat Trump
2. Get the country back to functionality.
4
I am so frustrated hearing the "debate" on "healthcare" brought up again and again in the same tedious questioning process. Mayor Bloomberg has it right: If I'm president, I'll fight to preserve pre-existing conditions."
Yes, Bernie wants a revolution by fighting for Single Payer. Sure, the public option is a terrific pathway to Universal and/ or Single Payer. Correct, the ACA was a hard fought battle and everyone is right to pay respects to Obama (and Pelosi) for it. But none of this is what the average citizen understands as essential.
They want pre-existing conditions to be covered; they want capped fees when an in-network hospital uses out of network doctors and services; they want expansion of services to include non-pharmaceutical options; they want reasonable deductibles; they don't want to go broke paying for healthcare raising a family, and so on.
I understand why moderators at all debates are trying to pinpoint how this and how that are going to get paid for and happen, but to me, this is all unfolding like a train wreck. It's like the Clinton email server.....all the moderators keep doing is making it seem like healthcare is a dark, basement-y corner that everyone needs access too if only the could find out the contents inside. Meanwhile, Trump gets to tear it all down, and that's all he has to answer for!
1
There has been a lot of discussion about Warren’s ‘refusal’ to shake hands with Sanders after the debate. I’ve watched the video, and I find it hard to determine what precipitated the hand movements. My reading was that after the debate, Warren had something to say to Bernie, and was so focused on that she didn’t observe the social convention of shaking hands. I’ve done the same thing myself, and that awkward moment is hard to recover from. I’m inclined to judge people on what they say, not by their hand gestures (except for a few obvious obscene ones).
3
@Ockham9
Every candidate on stage at the end were shaking hands.
Just as they all have done after each debate.
Just as we who play sports do after each game.
It shows "no hard feelings" "good game" "we leave the fighting/contest on the field, not taken to the parking lot."
When a competitor doesn't shake hands it is poor sportsmanship. She was shaking hands previously and after.
2
Why isn't Climate Change the number 1 issue? Who cares about healthcare, free college tuition, wealth redistribution, abortion rights, gun control or any other issue when we can't breathe the air?
2
I would like to see a round table format like the old Charlie Rose show and Martha Hoover's Firing Line, with one or two intelligent, well informed moderators leading a substantive discussion among a small number of candidates. But, I fear this would not be explosive or crazy enough for America's taste. Would anyone besides me actually tune in and watch it?
5
@Sydney
Great idea!
Sometimes I think the US citizenry becomes the low expectations.
Especially in the area of foreign policy, the Washington Establishment does not want to encourage the "great unwashed" to think for ourselves...
or we may see that the emperor, truly, is wearing no clothes
1
@Sydney I would.
4
As usual, the report card mostly reflects the personal preferences of the writers (see: Goldberg, Michelle).
Forget the left/right labels and vote and caucus for the one who gets you impassionated and hopeful for the future. My personal order of preference is Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Biden, Warren, Klobuchar but I'll happily vote for any of them.
If only all the well-intended and engaged commenters here could focus their vitriol on the other side instead of each other's favorite candidate!
4
There is no obligation for any candidate to shake hands with any other, Are we supposed to think the Democratic nominee should shake hands with the vile Trump, assuming the dubious possibility that he will appear on a debate stage?
@Alan J. Shaw
It comes under the heading of good sportsmanship, something that probably is no longer valued or taught, but it is courteous all the same.
7
@nora m
Not to mention civility and good optics.
People will remember that visual, (and
the clip can be replayed endlessly) much
longer than they remember the debate itself.
5
@nora m
Good sportsmanship might be construed as a gender biased term,. For fear of spreading disease,, the handshake has been replaced by fist pumps. Given Trump's stalking of Clinton on the debate stage, his alleged aversion to germs, his own spouse's avoidance of his hand, and his proclivity for grabbing women's private parts, it would be prudent to avoid a handshake with him.
1
Well, I watched till the Jeopardy GOAT started. Not one of these candidates has anything new to offer. Not one of them shows me anything but safe, politics. At this point, I will be voting for anyone to defeat the current administration. Right now, our current President is doing his best to turn the USA into a kingdom and it’s happening. The real test will be: What will they do to put this narcissist out of work when the campaign begins for real.
1
@MurphyJF Ken Jennings for President! 2020! Woo!
@Mark And Holzhauer as VP : )
Wow. Excellent debate last night.
As the debate showed in abundance, Amy Klobuchar has what it takes to take Trump on.
She's accomplished a lot in the Senate, more than almost all senators. She's represented folks in her state very well, and has a great sense of humor and ability to cut to the chase on all issues. She gets along well with others including folks from the other side of the aisle, and is balanced, reasonable, and doesn't propose out of this world projects that have zero chance of being passed by Congress. Her responses on foreign policy issues last night were out of the park.
Most of all, she's been an honest broker on her positions from the get go, and would be the best of all candidates in putting Trump on the defensive, all while she's got that midwestern grin and wit.
The majority of our nation's voters, and Iowans for that matter, know straightforward, honest to goodness leaders when they see one. Bottom line: Amy has the best chance of knocking Trump off.
5
@Ed
Buttigieg and Klobuchar share a common problem: they are short. Silly, agreed, but optics count more than we wish to acknowledge. Both will look like Yorkshire terriers next to Trump who is a big guy, height-wise.
@Ed
Well put. Sen. Klobuchar impressed me for the first time last night--I've skipped the last two debates.
1
@Ed Agree - my earlier post: My full disclosure: wrote in Kasich in 2016, will vote for any DEM this 2020 Presidential BUT: a centrist / lean left nominee is needed, Klobuchar did "win the night" as Robt Leonard asserted, Mimi Schwartz good opine of Biden-Klobuchar ticket, Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump as America is not "left / progressive" according to Melanye Price, and interesting to perceive the strong rankings mostly with substantive comments, while low rankings are mostly for trite reasons.
Yes, Peter Wehner, I'll take Andrew Yang over Steyer any day, and every Democrat should be deeply upset at the DNC barring his participation last night. He qualified, but clearly the DNC has made up their mind about him. The Democratic Party is starting to look more and more against the will of the people every day.
3
I notice Peter Wehner believes that Andrew Yang (anagrammatical code name: "Yawn Danger") should replace Tom Steyer at some "future debates" although I thought this was the last one, unless "Yawn Danger" either wins the nomination or is chosen as a running mate. Either way, it's an interesting viewpoint.
Liz is only one with plans, brilliance, and maturity to lead our Nation. She will attract experts and is committed to the middle class and those in need. Middling around will stop the economy, progress, and health care. Change is needed desperately. Bernie is all about his own ego, as he was in 2016. He is not telling the truth when he said, "I never said that". His past speeches are irrelevant. Warren rose above calling him a liar.
2
@Marylee
She was my second choice, but no longer. Warren is an attorney, a professor, and a senator; therefore, she is sophisticated enough to know that when you have a disagreement with a friend you talk to your friend about it. You don't act really, really friendly for a year and then it dump it publicly at an opportune time.
She wanted to bloody Bernie, but she demeaned herself. I would never want a "friend" like that. Do you? I no longer trust her. What else is in that sandbag she's carrying?
5
I don't think Biden should get any points for not messing up too bad. This is a ridiculous stance. The level of scrutiny, conflict, and ridicule the Democratic candidate is going to have to endure going against Trump is enormous. Americans are going to rightfully agree with Trump's characterization of Biden as "Sleepy Joe." It pains me to think about. It pains me to agree with any of Trump's childish insults. It pains me to think of putting Biden through it and our country through this. But, so many people are thinking he's some kind of safe choice. I just do not see it. Every time he opens his mouth I get ready to cringe. And, it is more painful in a way than when Trump opens his mouth because I can laugh at Trump. I really can't feel comfortable laughing at a feeble old man.
4
@JES
Agreed. I also can't stand how Buttigieg acts, with full support from the media, like six months at a desk job in Afghanistan makes him the second coming of General Eisenhower.
3
Gail Collins (2/10) (On Tom Steyer)— We have a better billionaire.
Thank you, Gail. Five dismissive words were all that were needed.
5
Masterful performance by Warren and Mayor Pete. I wish the angry old man would just disappear. Biden was showing his age and stumbling too much. Klobuchar is the most qualified and capable but had a mediocre performance. Tired of hearing about her father and that tin can.Mayor Pete and Biden will benefit from the Senate trial .
I could care less what voters in Iowa or New Hampshire do in their caucuses. Super Tuesday is what all the primaries should be.
"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man. In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people? Or are you on the side of big money and the corporations?"
Bernie Sanders, 1988
6
Last night's debate showcased five exemplary individuals, al of whom could serve well as president. Pete, however, is not only the brightest bulb on the tree, but has the gravitas to win friends home and abroad, the intelligence to see where we need to devote future time and resources, his urgency on climate, his equanimity which is unmatched.
Some found last night soporific--I was elated to hear the debate, and to see Pete best them all.
Let the races begin!
Trump has not only lowered our expectations, he has depressed our spirits--including those of our candidates. Nobody in this group seems able to give us true hope, paint a picture of the America we want to return to.
Yes, the journalists will keep asking for policy and other wonky details, but isn't a president supposed to be bigger than their administration? Win us over, somebody!
1
I liked everyone up on stage and will vote for whichever one becomes the candidate. But once again I came away from the Democratic debate with the horrifying realization: what an incredibly weak bunch of candidates!
63
@Livonian Who, outside of those on stage, would you like to see up there?
14
@Livonian And everyone laughed when we suggested Oprah. At least she'd be a force to be reckoned with.
In all seriousness though... I will be incredibly happy with a non-charismatic nerd in the White House.
12
@Livonian the dnc rules is to blame for that. Yang, Bennet, Gabbard. The DNC really needs some fresh thoughts on how to run things including who should be chosen to anchor their debates. Not CNN, MSNBC , how about a non profit organization.
13
Some of these assessments are screaming the personal biases and wished of the commentators rather than a decent and honest evaluation of candidate performance - Michelle Goldberg, Nicole Hemmer, Robert Leonard, Melanye Price... backing Warren much?
Really should have more diversity of expertise in the commentators, some of these are amateurish.
4
@SportsMedicine, With all due respect I was a stock broker for 11 years and agree that there is some connection between the economy (Main Street) and the equities markets (Wall Street). But it is not a robust one. A simple truth: Buying makes the averages rise. Selling makes the averages fall. Who is buying and selling? I invest. At my age (68) 25% of my 401k assets are in an S&P 500 Index fund and 75% are in a US Treasuries fund. High risk investors likely do things differently. But their EXPECTATIONS for the future are what drives their buying and selling decisions. There is a TON of cash in corporate savings. Some of it is buying back company stock. And then there's the hidden money. I won't make predictions because the markets move as they move. Liquidity + expectations account for rising or falling share prices. No room to go into a discussion about bonds and interest rate movements. But you get the idea.
I think we are getting over-exposed to the Democratic candidates and their ideas, and they surely must be sick of having to run this gauntlet repeatedly, while trying to sound "fresh" and "inspiring" every time.
I'd like to see us get more creative with our expectations of the debate format. Instead of debating each other ad infinitum, how about each candidate has to debate a Republican on the most important issues of our times? I really want to hear what Republicans in positions of power think, how they defend their policies, and how our Democratic candidates would counter and/or work with them. Each debate partner would get to write half of the questions that they will debate. Personal attacks would be forbidden and a panel would monitor civility. Media pundits would stay out of the process. I'm sick of the tired old media questions and perspectives, too.
If I could write the questions, I would first of all challenge all our assumptions about the sustainability of capitalism
and consumerism, and how materialism and "growth" relate to our Climate Crisis. It's not just about the oil.
4
@Back in the Woods excellent idea!!
If you want to begin to understand why we are not seeing any action on the existential threat to human existence that is anthropomorphic climate destruction just read the responses and the ratings of this 'expert' panel. The one candidate that places action on climate as the number one priority of their platform receives the lowest rating. Barely a mention in their comments about the other candidates on this subject.
3
Not that this should be a surprise - but after seeing four or five of these "who won the debates" I can pretty much predict every one of the commenters' marks before the first word is spoken.
I've seen every minute of these debates. I am increasingly convinced that they are a terrible way to illuminate much of anything. Maybe Bloomberg has it right. (note - he's not my candidate.)
OTOH - Steyer actually scored in presenting himself credibly, for the first time. And he does offer a different perspective, worth listening to.
3
Fear not and expect a huge groundswell for a compassionate billionaire who lifted himself out of relative poverty by his own efforts and brains. He's already given away $10 billion dollars to many worthy institutions and causes. People who think he's disqualified because he's rich are ridiculous with congested thinking and opinion. Currently he leads all Democrats as the best candidate in Michigan. Who needs reality show debates?
1
Joe, are you talking about Mike Bloomberg? The guy who is trying to buy the election for a billion dollars or two? That guy?
As of the moment, his polling nationwide is in single digits, and going down, not up. Who knows what will happen, but it looks like we American people are smart enough not to let a billionaire buy his way into the Oval Office.
4
@Joe
"Currently he leads all Democrats as the best candidate in Michigan." I assume your "he" happens to be Mike Bloomberg. I also assume that he really leads all Democrats in Michigan (according to polls probably).
I live in Michigan and I can assure you that I will never vote for Mike Bloomberg -- and I am probably not the only one to say that. Check your poll results, if you can; if not just keep waiting for your "groundswell".
P.S. A lot of millionaires and billionaires donate a lot of money to a lot of charities and good causes: that does not mean that they are "compassionate", just that they need or want the charitable-donation tax deduction. (You didn't know that? At your age? -- Unbelievable!)
3
Among many of her supporters, including my wife and several siblings, as well as inside multiple, multiple Warren-favoring Facebook groups, Elizabeth Warren lost catastrophically. She has lit a firestorm of disillusionment and devastation that, if she does not act fast to completely put out, will harm her political career for years. She turned into a bitter tool of Donald Trump on Monday, resorting to desperate, deliberately misleading, evasive dirty politics with no concern for the damage she might cause. It was awful.
The biggest loser still might have been CNN, which revealed itself to be a den of snakes.
5
Joe, what did Elizabeth Warren do on Monday? The debate was on Tuesday.
2
@Joe
Details, please.
1
@Joe Gosh I am relieved to read your comment. The progressives I follow have tried to be very careful when they talk about Warren, one head guy at TYT was flummoxed and said he thought it was just a misunderstanding. Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks went on the Cuomo show the night before the debates and said she thought the timing of the Warren leak was suspicious and that Warren's poll numbers began to dip when she backed off from M4all and was keeping Insurance companies involved till her third year blah blah. And that Bernie had the receipts for fighting for women his whole adult life. Then last night Warren said to the affordable care act, for a while and in her third year maybe, might... which means to progressives she will never do Medicare for all. Not that all the staff at TYT are giving her the benefit of the doubt, but...I am hot headed and there have been little things that bothered me before anyway, about her not answering questions directly at times, evading and tap dancing around issues. And as I watched her speak I realized I did no longer believed what she was saying and I cringed now at her saying " babies and Mamas and Daddies and no longer wanted to hear about her Republican military brothers. I am hot headed and Warren is dead to me now.
2
So many people criticize Buttigieg for being over-rehearsed and like a high-school debater (reverse ageism, anyone?). All I care about is the content of his responses, which show a better grasp of fundamentals (and math) than the others. His articulacy is a welcome bonus.
On health care, has anyone noticed how Warren has sidled over into the position that Buttigieg maintained from the beginning? She now concentrates on "the first step", which is adding the public option to the existing market -- precisely Buttigieg's over-rehearsed "glide path". This leaves only Bernie to insist quixotically that he'll abolish private health insurance from the get-go, and his math suffers from lack of internal consistency.
2
@Peter Czipott Really???? I find him well spoken and contrived and saying nothing. And I fell off my chair in amazement when he bragged about his popularity with the black community in South Bend. If you only knew, if you only knew how the opposite is true. Great article written with Roots online and TYT investigates about Mayor Pete's terrible relations with the black citizens and there , especially with the police department and how he tried to cover it up. Go to Roots online or TYT and see if you care about stopping racism in this country, And Pete poor fella is now owned by Wall Street and a host of insurance companies and the usual corporations. Yep he sold out, he sold out good. I am sure Biden will pick him for VP. For some unknown reason Pete reminds me of a strait backed Richard the third.
1
Hey there, Opinion editors! I very much like this format to summarize the debate performances. I hope the Times will continue using it. So, thank you for giving readers a clear and concise read.
2
In his first book, Social Statics (1851),Herbert Spencer, a man with no formal education, argued for the justified of the fittest (a phrase Darwin latter adopted) in human society. This led him to oppose such things as government help for the poor, public health, and public education. These views were the theoretical bases of the ultraindividualist and conservative ideology that later become known as social Darwinism, although Spencerism would have been a more appropriate designation. Trumpism is today´s Spencerism (Darwinism).
If we want to beat Trump, like I do, we have to be clear and to the point. Trump is not about "America First", he is all about Trump, and his business, first. See before meets after. On healthcare, he just doesn´t care. No ticket, no laundry. No money, no healtcare. America, with Trump, is no longer the land of the free, the home of the brave.
2
Wow. I have a friend who switched from the Republican party to the Democratic party and he told me he was shocked that Democrats were even nastier than Republicans. After reading these comments from readers, I agree. It's pretty shocking.
1
Now, let me get this straight, the candidate who can knock a noun and a verb together, speak in complete sentences, not engage in elementary school brawls, and have complete answers to questions being asked for the first time, is labeled as sounding "scripted"? Not sounding like an over energetic high school cheer leader is a problem?
Pete Buttigieg did what he always does, he came prepared, and somehow, it's never good enough. Bread and circus, people, bread and circus. Treat the electorate as if they are adults and watch the pundits put the adult in the room down for it. "Scripted," "smooth,...that's a problem", "canned...trouble coming up with the Vision Thing," "overly rehearsed answers" (it's a debate, the questions are not known!) and so it goes. Verbal food fights and put downs seem to be the order of the day.
Guess caring about the country and giving intelligent answers is trumped by the half-hearted school yard brawl.
What is wrong with this picture besides, what can only be described as envy and petulance mixed with a tinge of homophobia?
5
So many candidates with so many big ideas, so many plans. But none of them has shown they can do anything with those ideas, that they can put a plan into place. All hat. No cattle.
Remember the warning that boxer Mike Tyson gave about people's plans: "everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".
3
I am again frustrated that climate got one question - while many candidates suffused climate points into their answers for other questions, when are we going to substantively talk about how to address the most important threat mankind has ever known?
And, BTW, the question to get Bernie and Elizabeth to fight seemed like a complete setup designed to put the comfortable armchair of a candidate, Joe Biden, in the winning slot.
The after debate commentary was like schoolyard gossip - continually returning to whether Bernie lied, what he said, what they talked about in the shunned handshake - it was, quite frankly, boring. Honestly, I probably at some point over a beer expressed my doubt whether a woman could get elected president..we are so behind the curve of other countries. It's not like anyone ever questioned the ability of a woman to do the job!
Don't get me wrong - I love Warren. She might even be my top choice. But to allow the debate hosts to drive the drama that influences the top choice in Iowa, was just a little disgusting. Stick to the substance of what the candidates would like to accomplish!
7
I'm 70, and yet I've had only one President younger than I. I need another 'ere I 'go.'
Plus … lookin' at you Joe Biden … I'd really prefer a President who can walk, and think, and speak intelligently -- at once, if and as necessary.
(I'll give you this much, Joe: trump can't meet my 'preference standards' either … but at least your disability 'in these respects' is one revealed w/o the indecency and mendacity that trump brings to his every act and performance.)
3
I am surprised that the political pundits have not called Warren's maneuvering for what it is; lowball but very clever politics. Miraculously someone leaks an alleged statement by Sanders a few days before the debate to set up Warren's: 'I am a woman, hear me roar' evening. Desperate but successful maneuver.
To see Sander's look of consternation as he approached her after the debate. And then her; 'Sorry, but this is how I remember it.' Sanders turned away in disgust, betrayed by his old comrade who he now sees for what she is. An opportunist.
Someone later mentioned Warren spent her first 47 years as a Republican. She may have radically changed her philosophy but she certainly uses modern day Republican tactics... Wait, was Machiavelli Republican?
6
Seems that the scores are based on which candidates the scorers like.
5
Our current President Trump is clearly unfit for the office he holds. He lost the popular vote vote by over three million votes But thanks to the undemocratic electoral college was elected President.
1
There are good reasons Old Joe "let's go along, to get along" Biden hasn't won the nomination before. His record shows no long term vision, no passion or philosophy. His moderation is sleep inducing, but he is dull.
As for the rest I see lots of good cabinet members, Secretary of This or That.
If I'm left with Bloomberg so be it.
2
The debate format is terrible. I would rather see individual town halls. This shouldn't be a smackdown sport. Trump is going to annihilate anyone with his juvenile wwe punching. There has to be more to this than who can come out of a debate with the fewest bruises from Trump.
3
Yang's presence was sorely missed...
4
Since the debate was comprised exclusively of white faces, the big loser is the DNC.
After more than one million African American voters stayed
home in 2016, it’s unforgivable that not one person of color was on that stage. Whoever winds up the nominee, she or he better select a running mate who can induce those folks to get out and vote. Without them, with Russian interference, with Republican efforts to keep the vote low, with the electoral college and with gerrymandering, he can actually win a second term. With Barr still AG, with McConnell still leader of a Republican-controlled Senate, we can have a coronation, not a State of the Union address.
@Regards, LC they dropped out.
2
Anybody who believes that Warren's campaign just happened to leak this information days before a cnn debate in which she's clearly been losing ground to sanders is a coincidence is living a fairy world. Any rational person knows that is a lie. Bernie has supported women his entire career and trying to paint him as a sexist is the biggest smear campaign the media can try and run.
The reality is companies like NYT, CNN, and other large media corps do want a Sanders presidency. They will do anything to see him lose and this smear campaign is the next step. I feel terrible that Bernie was backstabbed by someone he considers a friend in Warren for her political gain. Progressives need to come together and not be divided. The establishment is pitting bernie and warren against each other so that a progressive will lose. I understand most warren supporters support her for a variety of reasons but please consider her and bernie are very similar and this little spat shouldn't be the reason to take bernie off your #2 list.
5
Warren's attack on Bernie (whom I don't support) was a calculated, political ambush immediately before the debate.
It was a callous, naked attempt to take down her biggest rival in the most mean-spirited way possible.
Her refusal to shake his hand was simply classless.
9
@Mark
Definitely Warren's iteration of Harris' "I was that little girl" ploy. And it may very well play out the same way.
2
The opinions of the NYT journalists do not inspire confidence in me regarding their "opinions". They aren't any smarter than the rest of us.
Several gave high marks to Warren for her clever remark about the "winning women" on the stage - does anyone believe she hadn't rehearsed that remark? And what does a clever remark have to do with being president?
I'm a loyal NYT reader, but honestly, their opinions don't influence me much. Too bad there is going to be an endorsement soon.
9
Jorge Castaneda, I doubt very much that you would criticize a male for talking too much about himself, yet you felt compelled to make exactly that statement about Sen. Klobuchar. I challenge you to re-examine your statement and your own thoughts about women in positions of authority.
3
Is it hilarious or just sad when someone acknowledged to be articulate has to be demeaned by instant critics as "scripted" or worse, "high school debater?" Has this country been so debased by Trump's inarticulate and incoherent rambles that a clear answer from Buttegieg is seen as a fail?
Someone in this crowd is going to take on the Trump megaphone of insults, lies and insanity? No one stepped up last night. Get mad, folks! May this be the last of these composite pundit rankings — the quips and clichés belie the gravity of the occasion.
And why were grandma and grandpa fighting again? I forget.
2
Tom Steyer can beat Trump.
4
@AWorldIntwined.com Perhaps, but so can the other 5 + most of the others still running. I'd rather not vote for a billionaire who bought his way on stage last night.
1
@AWorldIntwined.com any of them can beat Trump! They just need to play his game back at him. Trump's thin skin will implode on him at every debate, if he has the nerve after the first one to show up.
Personally, I don't think Trump will debate, he'll have a lawyer write in his answers, and say he's too busy making great things for America.
@AWorldIntwined.com any of them can beat Trump! They just need to play his game back at him. Trump's thin skin will implode on him at every debate, if he has the nerve after the first one to show up.
Personally, I don't think Trump will debate, he'll have a lawyer write in his answers, and say he's too busy making great things for America.
I just wanna say that I think the kids of millionaires and billionaires should totally get free public college. Maybe they'll meet some salt-of-the-earth community college grads there and learn that they're just as human as they are. That way the rich kids won't turn into out-of-touch sociopaths when they graduate and become executives and CEOs.
1
The debate was missing Andrew Yang last night. He's the only candidate who doesn't sound canned.
1
Mayor Pete can go back to his city after South Carolina votes. He needs some more experience. Now, he sounds like an IT tech on help line. Clear, well spoken, just not much intensity.
2
Tom Steyer makes milquetoast seem boring.
Last night probably provided the biggest win for the incumbency, much to the appeal of those who are actively working to destroy the American Republican, consciously or otherwise.
Nicht gut.
@ubique Which American Republican are you talking about??
1
Warren really worries me. I mean, she thinks government will take on all our problems. It’s like a very BIG brother institution. Her government will solve our healthcare problem, hold the key to generic drug manufacturing, free college education, day care for every happy parent, control industry by breaking it up and placing workers in the role of decision makers. Let’s take a look at all the government contractors today. How many of them are honest about their billing? Every natural catastrophe has contracts awarded to friends of senators. Needless to say the government at this point is bleeding money and no one cares to change it. So why would more government tackle this issue?
I really like Buttigieg, but his preferential free college lost me. Yes we can pay for our kids, but it is something that we as parents choose to do. No kid at that age is earning anything. They are all on an equal stage. If something is handed out, then hand it out equally, why presume parents know college is best for their kid? I really, really like Klobuchar. The more I see her, even though she lacks passion, she has much substance to add. At this point she is my top pick. Biden.....sigh.
Sanders is awesome. I may not jive with his radical, let’s rebuild the house philosophy when it involves 370 million folks under one roof, but he is one sharp dude. Steyer, nice chap, but seems to have lost his investment instinct. My money is not on him winning for sure.
I enjoyed the panel's observations and many of the comments. I agree with one paragraph of one commenter, that there should have been more focus on who could deliver the six red or purple swing states that allowed Trump to beat Hillary Clinton. Warren might be the most exciting senior, but she lost and Joe Biden won against Trump, in the last poll of these six states run by Nate Cohn, and analysed by David Leonhardt.
I suspect that Bernie did tell Warren that a woman can't win. He was telling her something that the polls and elections point to. I might have said that to her, not to diminish her brilliance and leadership, but to remind her of the weakness of our weird form of democracy, where small red states have more say than populous blue ones.
My ticket remain Joe Biden for President, Pete Buttigieg for VP. What a magnificent way for Pete to build bridges with the black voters. If Joe Biden doen't agree to give Elizabeth Warren any cabinet position she wants, I might have to reconsider my position, and let Trump boil our children to death. These are all such fine people, I would like to see a Team of Rivals in the government, who ever saves us all from certain damnation in the form literally of hellfire and high water. All subject to revision, base on the next polls on the critical 6 swing states.
Elizabeth Warren is clearly the winner even without her line on electability. I am glad she is transitioning from standing on ‘Medicare for all’ like mule to ‘Medicare for all’ as a goal to reach. She is absolutely correct to state that Medicare processing can be contracted out so that current health care industry can survive. The only thing the government does set the rates. It seems Elizabeth Warren or her campaign staff reading my comments in nyt, because I made similar comment in nyt. That would be nice!
Every time I here Bernie I like the guy better and beter!
4
EPA chief: Governor Jay Inslee of WA, he has more actual cred than Steyer.
2
All the energy in the party is coming from the progressives; these debates made that clear. Biden clearly just doesn't have it, and as much as the centrists want Klobachar to catch fire, she's not. Mayor Pete has peaked, and the Democrats simply are not going to nominate a billionaire, no matter how much Bloomberg spends or Steyer talks about climate change. Progressives nationally had already become disenchanted with Warren over her flip-flop on M4A; her accusing Bernie of sexism was the finishing blow as far as they are concerned, and CNN's very transparent and ham-handed attempt to paint Bernie as the liar will only boomerang the incident against her further, as Bernie's record donations during the telecast make plain. Without a solid base of progressive support, where does her campaign go? Bernie won this, big time.
8
@Boris Jones Yep!
2
@Boris Jones CNN managment should be disgusted with themselves. How pithy and banal.
1
I want to thank Dowd for her vote of no confidence on Warren. That should help Warren catapult herself back into the top position.
3
Winners: Nobody
Losers: Anyone who wasted two hours of their lives.
3
It's a disgrace that Tom Steyer is on stage and Cory Booker isn't.
2
Joe - come on man, this is not how you want to be remembered
Bernie - you’re a good man but it’s time to pass the torch
Elizabeth - we need you now more than ever
Pete - an unseasoned performer
Amy - we need you in the senate
Tom - empower & invest in others, put your money to work
4
I watched large portions of the debate. I thought Warren was brilliant: She knows the issues, has prescriptions for them--whether or not one totally agrees with them--and she's freaking tenacious. By listening to what she says, it is apparent that her positions, her values, her way of analyzing things, are the absolute antithesis of the President's position. It's not a reach to say that the Trump administration, in addition to being inept, is pervasively corrupt, and given Senator's Warren's position on regulating financial firms, revolving door lobbyists, among others, she is equipped to address them.
there will be no debate with President Trump, because he will not allow it.
1
My Prediction: Just as Nixon refused to debate Hubert Humphrey, Trump will refuse to debate whomever of these candidates becomes the Democratic nominee, because any of these candidates would run circles around him. (His stonewalling of the impeachment proceedings is a good indicator of how he would approach the idea of a debate.) Instead, Trump will conduct his "debate" on Twitter, grousing about another witch hunt and conspiracy by the mainstream media.
6
Insightful and thoughtful comments. One notable exception - “CADET BONE SPURS ??” Maureen, you're one of a kind.
1
@RMFisch We can only hope. Now I know that someone out there actually reads anything Dowd writes.
These commenters' remarks are pretty dreary.
3
Unfortunately, on that stage, I heard platitudes, petty jabs, and poll tested progressive group speak. No one offered a vision; no one demonstrated charisma; no one inspired me to want to work on their campaign or give money to their cause. I'm so disappointed and dispirited today. Can we start over?
4
Amusing how patently incapable of objectivity this group of so called pundits are and how transparent their personal preferences and biases. Michelle Goldberg, whose husband has close ties to Warren and her campaign, praising Warren to the skies? C’mon NYT, you can do better than this.
12
I was not happy to see Elizabeth Warren quarreling with Bernie Sanders, and her refusal to shake his hand really bothered me. I'll just say say it. Anger is not appealing in a presidential candidate. If she gets this angry at Bernie about a comment that was most likely misunderstood, given everything I know about him, how is she going to handle her real adversary, Trump and the ignorant and backwards sexists and bigots in his party? Indignant anger did not help Kamala Harris or Corey Booker on the debate stage, nor did it help Julian Castro, all of whom are bright stars and would have made excellent presidents. These are not ordinary times. We need to see candidates being even-keeled, and respectfully aware that they are all on the same side is this battle. This country has been torn apart enough. Seeing this unnecessary split between Bernie and Elizabeth breaks my heart, and it is not helpful to the party or to our country. Misspoken words are not the same as bigotry, and it is time for both Bernie and Elizabeth to apologize to each other, publicly, and move on with promises to stand by each other for the good of the American people. Otherwise I'm going to stop debating which one of them to vote for and vote for Biden, and that means something because I am impressed with Elizabeth Warren, and I am solidly within her demographic of supporters.
4
@Mary Pernal I agree. I not only want a candidate to be knowledgeable; I want them to be able to control their emotions. When in public put your ego in your pocket and act accordingly. Obama was good at that, partly because he had incredible self-confidence.
1
@Mary Pernal she's only human, give her a break.
1
Biggest loser....American public. Who want to stay up that late to hear 6 uninspiring people perseverating the same schtick. Not an Obama in the lot of them.
There's not an ounce of difference between them when compared to the holocaust that is Trump. Draw straws and lets all support the winner. Stop the circular firing squad
3
Just one question: is Elizabeth Warren going to become the new Hillary for Maureen Dowd?
9
This insistence on treating a debate between candidates for a major party's presidential nomination as if it's some kind of game is one of the most frustrating things about our modern media landscape. Criticize performances and policies, by all means, but please stop assigning point totals and using terms like "win" and "lose."
It just feeds into the mindset that politics is a sport and what matters is who's "scoring points," rather than whose qualifications and policy preferences are most aligned with voters' priorities and values.
Have we really learned so little from 2016?
4
Shirley0401, what do you think a debate is but a game? It's just reality television. No one gets any idea from a debate, or a series of debates, how good a president any of the candidates would be.
I've spent a career in Silicon Valley hearing pitches from people with big ideas. I've found that ideas are a dime a dozen. It's execution that counts. You have to look at what people have accomplished, their track record. Their successes and, yes, their failures.
By that metric, all of these candidates fail (except Tom Steyer, and his problem lies elsewhere). They don't have a single accomplishment of note between them. They look like pale imitations of a president. I'll take Donald Trump.
1
I don't understand why Steyer has the right to be up there, that's everything that's wrong with our political system in a nutshell. Andrew Yang would have been much more compelling, because none of these people are going to beat Trump.
3
Holden, Andrew Yang wasn't on the stage because even among Democrats he's polling only about 2%. And you think somehow he would beat Donald Trump?
@Jean
I contributed from my salary to Social Security and (after 1965) Medicare for my entire working life. I earned my SS benefits. I worked for a public agency, for which I contributed part of my salary so I could have a pension. I earned that pension. None of these are entitlements. I pay more than my fair share of taxes so the billionaires can pay less. The Republicans never wanted either Social Security nor Medicare, so that characterize them as entitlements, especially insulting when members of Congress get generous, funded by you and me
6
I'm not a big fan of Bernie, but I thought it was important that he said he would fully support anyone on the stage who gets the nomination. He got a lot of criticism, and continuing grudges, for not supporting Clinton well after she was nominated. But, I haven't heard any of the pundits mention this.
2
@Susan
Maybe they haven't mentioned it because it is an old and tired canard that simply is not true. Bernie endorsed Hillary immediately after she was nominated and held 39 rallies on her behalf that fall. She lost because she was a horrible candidate and because enough progressives and independents saw that the primaries and nominating process had been transparently rigged on her behalf to dampen their turnout. The grudges are all coming from die-hard Hillary supporters and it is not a good look, for them, for Hillary or the party.
5
I have tried to see authenticity in Elizabeth Warren, but I don't.
What a cheap transparent stunt she pulled. After all these months campaigning and two days before the final debate before the primary, she accuses Bernie of telling her a woman can't beat Dump. And instead of being lambasted for it, she's celebrated for delivering a calculated canned line about what a winner she is. Please.
And the moderator who went from questioning Bernie to her about the supposed incident? She should be suspended.
Oh, and Biden can not be the nominee. I don't want him behind the wheel of a car.
16
@zelda I like Elizabeth. And after reading this Vox article, I really like her. I recommend it before you make any final judgments: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/15/21054083/elizabeth-warren-2020-democratic-primary
1
@zelda
I think everyone in this country, at one time or another, has said a woman could not become the president.
1
I am not sure why we do this. Let the voters decide. It's not about winning or losing debate points. It's about clear policy choices.
4
Why the stupid question about a woman being president? Are not there more meaningful things to debate? Compared to Trump's sexual assaults, this is like a grain of sand on a beach.
BTW, I think both candidates handled the question well for the stupid one that it was.
9
Winner: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, all dictators
Loser: the entire free world
2
Hey guys, it appears the President and his Goon Squad were planning on whacking an American ambassador!
Where were the moderators to bring THAT up?
They all would have been winners on that one.
3
Seriously, NYT. One African-American among the reviewers?
@S. Deschutes Co. they’re 13 percent of the population of the United States.
2
@S. Deschutes Co. Its a shame they gave her that stupid female president question. It made me not want to hear from her again especially after she insisted Sanders actually said what ever. Such garbage.
1
The election will be decided by blue collar workers in several midwestern states.
They mean well, but sometimes stumble over their words and say the wrong thing...just like...Joe Biden. They’re lined up at the bar, giggling and nodding their heads when Biden once again screws up.
They don’t won’t to hear about Elizabeth Warren’s “plan”.
Elizabeth Warren was their third grade teacher who made them stand in the corner when they misbehaved...
6
Biggest losers? The American people. Actually the entire planet as the candidates best able to defeat Trump were not there, e.g. Bullock, Bennet, and Booker. I love the progressive agenda, or as the Foxies will call it: socialism. Big fan of Sanders and Warren, but I don't vote in Michigan. No agenda is more important than defeating President Bone Spurs. I'll vote for the socialist next time. The Democrat ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is damn scary.
3
If the best anyone can say about biden is " he didn't screw up thitime", that's clearly not sufficient to beat trump. Can you imagine the two of them Debating ? trump would chew him up and spit him across the debate stage and biden would still be standing there with a confused look on his face struggling for a comeback.
If biden is the democratic nominee, there will not be the confidence in his abilities, and certainly not the enthusiasm needed to elect. Him. Remember that 45 % of eligable voters didn't vote in 2016. There was little enthusiasm for hillary. Biden won't generate enthusiasm either, and energetic enthusiasm will be needed to win.
6
Since when is ‘uninspiring’ and ‘he didn’t screw up’ worthy of a 7 on a debate? Geez! Biden is the status quo, time to move on and be inspired, be ready for big changes and to be a part of being the change we want to see in the world. Elizabeth Warren, it’s time to up your game. You have all of the right ingredients to be our next president, it’s time to use them in right measure in order to tier up and win American hearts for the good of the country.
3
I would score it as follows
Warren 8.5: Sharp, focused and aggressive. Best line of the night with her defense of women's electability. Yes it was scripted and dredging up this whole he said she said thing smacks of a political stunt but she pulled it off. She should have shook his hand though.
Sanders 8: Bernie gave his usual strong performance, sharp, passionate and sometimes funny. He defended himself ably from Warren's attack but did not go after Biden as aggressively as he could have on foreign policy. I'm not sure if he was trying to shake Warren's hand or just talking with his own. At any rate he's been in politics long enough to know the old saying "If you want a friend in Washington get a dog."
Klobuchar 7: A good but not a stand out performance. The humor that has served her well in past debates seemed absent and she seemed more focused on what can't be done than on what she would do.
Buttigieg 6: Articulate as always but seemed somewhat robotic. His best moments have come when he's attacked and no one else seemed to bother with him.
Steyer 5.5: He's getting better at this. I liked his focus on Climate Change.
Biden 5: Did not screw up in any
CANDIDATES I MISS THE MOST: Andrew Yang and Cory Booker. Both have a way of cutting through the nonsense with humor.
4
I can't understand how Biden keeps getting passes for not screwing up and Buttigieg keeps getting clobbered for being articulate and well-prepared. I can't understand why Klobuchar keeps getting glowing marks when she's no more prepared and articulate than most of the others. I can't understand why the biggest takeaway of history's most consequential presidential election was Warren's failure to shake Sanders' hand.
I'm afraid Biden keeps showing his age, more and more, rambling, forgetful, unfocused. That might seem mean-spirited, but we're electing these people to be president. And fellow septuagenarians Warren and Sanders continued to be as razor sharp as Biden was not. Also, the lack of the previous Gang of Ten on stage allowed each candidate more time -- to explain, to inspire but also to be exposed. And it wasn't any favor to Biden.
Finally, why do all these debate hosts have to be so insulting and dismissive of the candidates who go beyond their precious seconds? Who decided that 75 seconds in a two-hour debate of only six people was the perfect amount of time to express fully developed thoughts? The columnist from Des Moines was particularly off-putting.
5
Missing in Action: Yang and Tulsi. Fresh, smart and different. They belonged. Tom Perez should simply go into a lobbying job and stop trying to play ringmaster.
4
Honestly Bernie won. I know how much the NY Times HATES Bernie Sanders or anyone who represents a platform that is not neo-liberal. I'm even shocked he ranked second. He has 100% more conviction than Warren. And I hate when people play "cards" like Warren did, bonding with Kobuchar. Ugh. Platforms matter, not sex, race, or age.
8
Why on earth would you think Liz Mair would have an informed, worthwhile opinion in these debates? Just read her responses and marvel at their banality.
4
Everyone seemed tired.
2
Here are Maureen Dowd and Liz Mair on Warren.
"Maureen Dowd (4/10) — Her slide continues. Sanders has gotten back the progressive high ground on health care and soaking the rich, even after the Warren forces tried to submarine him this week. She didn’t want to push it too hard and that let him off the hook."
"Liz Mair (5/10) — She’s lucky no one pressed her on whether Sanders said what her campaign is alleging — if she said he had, I’m not sure many people would have believed her."
Combined they gave Warren the lowest and next lowest score. I wonder if they doing political analysis or are just women stabbing another woman in the back.
Maureen Dowd (4/10)
Liz Mair (5/10)
Ross Douthat (6/10)
Daniel McCarthy (6/10)
Pete Wehner (6/10)
Mimi Swartz (7/10)
Jorge Castañeda (7.5/10)
Gail Collins (8/10)
Will Wilkinson (8/10)
Michelle Goldberg (9/10)
Nicole Hemmer (9/10)
Robert Leonard (9/10)
Melanye Price (9/10)
5
On Bernie:
Jorge Castañeda (8.5/10) — His best performance yet: authentic, eloquent and on-message. But will Americans elect a socialist?
How many times do we have to have this discussion? Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a socialist in the way you're trying to use as a pejorative. Come on NYT, do better.
11
AW, the point is that Bernie Sanders is not a democratic capitalist like the others on the stage. He's a socialist as opposed to a capitalist. And he's not even a Democrat!
I miss Yang. For one thing, the debates are one of the only places he's forced to discuss health care. It's not mentioned even once in the entire NYT interview with Yang: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/opinion/andrew-yang-nytimes-interview.html?action=click&module=MoreIn&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer.
1
I didn't see the debate. My comment is on the scoring and what it says about "pundits." It seems to me that all these people don't review the candidates' performances... they grind their axes. Maybe we all do, but if you are going to be put on a dais to give an opinion, doesn't some higher standard apply? Disappointed in these reviews... they smack of agenda and bias. Please NYT, don't follow Fox News into cheerleading school.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
5
It would be helpful if you sorted the scores for each candidate by order of descending score, not by the last name of the commentator. How Ross Douthat scored a candidate compared to Maureen Dowd (for example) is much less important than the ordered distribution of scores.
1
Maureen Dowd. We heard what Bloomberg had to "say" when he initiated Stop and Frisk. He was told it didn't move the needle on crime and violated Constitutional rights, but he supported it right up to the nanosecond he entered the presidential race. We already have one fascist in the Oval Office, we don't need another. Shame on you if you're not outraged that your minority brothers and sisters couldn't leave their homes without risking police detention and search. If you're beyond shame, then at least think about the rights he'll consider taking from YOU, next, if he's given half a chance. No on Bloomberg. The Constitution means nothing to him.
5
bring on BLOOMBERG I like MIKE
2
sboros, we may not have seen Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage, but you can't avoid him anywhere else. I've seen his commercials already five times, and I don't even watch television!
1
@sboros
He could have been up there, going through the same motions that are required of the others, but has opted out of the debates. Because he knows if he showed up, he'd be clobbered. And because he thinks he's above it all. Which he's not.
1
Biggest Loser-CNN for pouring flammable liquid on smoldering tinder--tinder CNN help set by overblown reporting on this. It's a non-story made front and center for ratings
Suspend CNN debates--go back to PBS
13
@TWShe Said CNN one hundred percent ran that conjecture laden piece about Sanders to push TV ratings and the NY Times bought it hook, line and sinker and didn’t hesitate to assist.
5
Pete reminds me of a ventriloquist's dummy
or one of those toys where you pull the string at the back and a speech comes out
5
Michelle Goldberg (7/10) — He was fine, but why is he there?
The same reason Obama was there at the rght time.
1
The big loser of the debate were the CNN questioners.
Asking candidates if they would block Iran from getting nuclear weapons hits a new low in stupid questions.
I mean, seriously...what person aspiring to be resident of the United States would EVER say they're OK with Iran getting nukes?
6
Request from the NYT columnists and contributors: please do not use the term, or a version of; "looked Presidential" as long as we have the dis-service of the corrupt and crooked Trump as our 'leader'.
2
Yes, Jorge Castañeda they will elect a social democracy leader. Just the way we elected a democratic socialist in Mexico.
3
Electability; well nowadays ...as it had been proven by JFK versus Richard Nixon....;: how do you perceive the TV look
and charisma of the candidate;
Clearly TV presence is primarily the reason that JFK won.
and now
Clearly TV presence is primarily the reason that Trump tries
to rev up his base....
and
Clearly TV presence is primarily why some candidates last
night did really well; and really not so well.
Elizabeth should win...but remember what the viewer remembers...her feisty attitude towards Bernie...NOT OK
Bernie could win: but he is not FDR ; does not have the
oratorical skills
Biden: just plain ...FLAT ; ….nice guy ...no FDR charisma
Buttigieg ; UGH dull same old ….boring guy...nice and boring
then
Klobachor ; no charisma....but has a great message.
and new guy
Steyer….never been any government office;
Hey Tom....you have to know whose the opponent ...not
out of office but in office.
I say Bernie and Warren/ or Biden and Warren...will beat
the bejezzus out of Trump...send these swamp denizens of
DC what out to the Sea of No Return
1
Usual left bias renders these ratings uninformative---from a left-moderate.
@31today Did you read the mini-bios of all of the authors?
1
The big loser: the press. The moderators with inane and repetitive questions, and this article with its “this is all a show for entertainment” attitude and idiocy are the root of many of our larger problems. Journalists, please do better. We need you.
9
Why didn't CNN or one of the candidates ask Joe Biden about the elephant in the room:
"Mr. Biden, please tell us how your son Hunter got a million dollar salary from the Ukraine gas company Burisma Holdings when Hunter did not have any previous experience in energy or the Ukraine."
"Mr. Biden, why did you say it would not happen again if you are elected president?"
"Mr. Biden, please explain your quid pro quo: you withheld a billion dollar aid package unless Ukraine prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired - while he was investigating corruption in Burisma."
VIDEO: Joe Biden brags about withholding the billion dollar aid package unless Victor Shokin is fired (but doesn't say anything about Hunter/Burisma)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
6
There can be no winners with this ridiculous "debate" format. It's farcical to even use that term to describe these media-scripted exchanges, that prevent the real substance of these candidates from being examined by the only people who matter: the voters.
That said, a few takeaways:
Sanders missed an opportunity to defend his No vote for the USMCA deal to Iowans and other farm belt voters by pointing out that it's the catastrophic environmental changes that are hurting them more than trade imbalances. The "incremental improvements"offered by the deal are dwarfed by the harm they're suffering due to climate change, and that isn't addressed at all in the deal.
He also missed a chance to catch Warren in an apparent contradiction when she asserted that MFA was much preferable than going after "incremental" health care reform, and yet she touted the benefits of "incremental change" in her support of the USMCA. So is "incremental change" better or worse? Odd stance coming from a strong fighter for big changes.
Joe Biden is really earning his "sleepy Joe" nickname, and confirming that he's well past his "sell by date". He can barely string 5 coherent words together! And his constant claiming of credit for things Obama did is really shameless and weak. He's the Establishment's hope.
Klobuchar still seems like the little kid jumping up and down behind all the taller kids, shouting "Look at me! Look at me!".
We need to dispense with this media-driven exercise altogether.
5
Why don't the candidates listen to what y'all are saying and start acting like they want to beat Trump? I honestly don't understand why Democrats aren't better at marketing, particularly because they are the party that actually cares about helping people.
1
So painful and concerning to watch Joe Biden struggle to finish a thought without stumbling to recall some part of a sentence.
Joe has done yeoman service to the country for decades, but it seems it’s time to back off and enjoy his sunset years.
6
Why so many Democrats are enamored of Mr. Buttegieg is a mystery to me. He impressed me when I first heard him but since then it becomes clear he's not saying anything. Just a standard (very young) politician. Thought Warren handled the manufactured woman kerfuffle fabulously by emphasizing women's electoral successes across the board, which should be obvious after the midterms. I don't consider Bernie sexist at all. Compare him to Trump, for crying out loud. I am still stuck choosing between the two of them. Bernie has the activist organization to support his agenda in office, which will essential.
1
This summer I was a Warren supporter. But every time I see her, I like her less and less. She is now my fifth choice.
Her refusal to shake Bernie's hand shows a regrettable thin-skin. It's also bad politics because Bernie's followers (I'm not one of them) hold grudges and will certainly harbor ill will over this.
Klobuchar is not exciting. But she is more coherent than Uncle Joe, more sensible than Bernie, and more experienced than Mayor Pete. I hope she overperforms in Iowa.
4
Please post the ratings after adjusting out Michele Goldberg’s, as we know from her own column this week that she has a conflict of interest.
And until Mike Bloomberg is included in the debates, none of this chatter is particularly meaningful. If the dems go hard left they will exclude all the independents (and Republicans) who really want a reason to vote for a candidate they can relate to. The election simply cannot be won with dem votes alone. Yes, the youth vote matters, but I believe Bloomberg can harness that demographic, too.
3
Unlike the NYT panel I felt Steyer when he was asked a question, which wasn't very often, he came across as intelligent, well informed, and has definite ideas on all areas that were discussed.
The criticism of him being a billionaire is not fair. The rules allowed him to be there . If they don't like the rules than they should have changed them from the start. He has spent his money on "Impeach Trump" ads from the beginning of the Trump presidency. A subject a lot of us can relate to. Like Sanders & Warren he feels that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. He is someone who puts his money where his mouth is. Unlike Trump he is a self made man, and also unlike Trump, a successful businessman who didn't get where he is by cheating other people and declaring numerous bankruptcies leaving other people to pick up the tab.
I hope other people are willing to give him a second look. I looked at his campaign website and was impressed. He considers education, universal healthcare, top issues not just the environment which he admits is his top concern..
5
@uras
I thought Steyer did very well considering how marginalized he was during the 'debate'. He also
had a good 'post-debate' interview, which showed
his sense of humor and his integrity in absolutely
refusing to relate anything he heard while standing
behind Warren and Sanders during the already infamous 'no-shake' moment. Despite being baited
along the lines of 'surely you heard what Bernie
was saying', Steyer deflected the inappropriate
questions with humor and gentility. In other words
he respected the privacy of that moment. Unlike
a certain candidate's lack of respect for a 'private
conversation'.
3
Sadly, I don't believe any of the declared Democratic candidates will generate the support necessary to defeat Trump. The Democratic Party should be focusing on winning the Senate (and retaining the House) in order to keep Trump in check during his second term.
I like Biden, but his debate performances have not been commanding or presidential. Democrats need someone that's going to smack Trump around in a debate. Go head to head. Trump in debates comes across very domineering and he is willing to say anything about his opponent to get the upper edge. I have not been a Bernie supporter, but he is a rough and tumble debater and could go head to head with the so called Republican President. The question still remains, will moderates, independents and disillusioned Republicans vote for him. Elizabeth Warren is a contender, but the rest of the candidates are lightweights. Pete Buttigieg is a mayor of a small midwestern city that should be running for senator or governor not president of the US. He is a smart guy, but again not presidential. The most important thing is that whoever becomes the nominee needs the support of the entire Democrat party and everyone should get behind him or her and vote.
2
@HRW I think Alec Baldwin might be the only person to debate Trump. The ratings would skyrocket. Then, Trump will win.
It was an honest, wholesome, and refreshing display of good old fashioned democracy in action. But it was a battle of the generations, and a battle for ideas, and the only one who has boots on the ground to take us out of the darkness is Pete!
I'm a boomer. My peers on the stage don't "get it." The world is not what it was 10 or 20 years ago. It's time to hand the mantle to the next generation, if the earth can sustain one!
The winners, in order.
1. Pete (Consistent from his first debate--brilliant, focused, a model of equanimity, empathetic, impassioned, visionary).
2. Bernie (Finally rose to the occasion, but still too angry, and he can't manage a campaign staff which means he would be more like Trump in running the government!).
3. Warren (The dust bowl speech?--she's a millionaire!!).
4. Klobuchar (Great soccer mom, but bereft of ideas in a dangerous world. Yes, a woman already won the election. Yes, a woman can win in any election. No, this doesn't make for the central reason to back a female candidate--just because a woman can win. If she were HRC, she would have my vote, but she isn't).
5. Steyer (Rich and out of touch).
6. Biden (Medically, not well. He had over a dozen lapses of memory on stage, which is sad and disqualifying. His responses were half baked as well).
2
There will be no presidential debates this year. Trump will refuse to participate.
Will voters care about that? TBD - but the Democrats should be preparing their aggressive message about that now.
2
Bernie and Liz are fighting it out for the progressive ideas of the Democratic party. Either would make a great president. The rest seem weak in comparison.
Trump can call them childish names, but the differences in intelligence and character in comparison to him will be obvious to any voter with half a brain.
There will be another Blue Wave in November.
3
Melanye Price's comment about Amy Klobuchar, that "someone should tell her the center is disappearing and the party has moved to the left" actually applies to the whole lot of them (except Sanders). Moderation and compromise, bread and butter issues, working-class centrism, Norman Rockwell idealism and traditional criterion-referenced family values have been deleted--and there is no back-up copy, no agreements on what should replace that which has been torn down, and indeed no intention to rebuild any of the foundations of the Roosevelt-Johnson Democratic party.
I feel as though we are two ships at sea that have collided and are sinking. The officers and captains are bickering, meanwhile the rest of us are treading water and looking for flotsam and jetsam to cling to and save us from drowning.
3
I genuinely like both Warren and Bernie. I hope they somehow find their way to join forces because together they would trounce Trump and then they would help remake and patch up this sinking ship of state.
4
About that free college for millionaires: The proposals are for free education at PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. I doubt very much that Richie Rich is going to apply to SUNY rather than Yale! (Unless, of course, he is paying his own way rather than depending on his parents -- which happens!)
2
Bright analysis by all, but in all focus is on details-said this, looked that way. Lots of this and that about healthcare, for example, when, in reality, the ultimate battle will be whether there is to be healthcare at all. The metaphysic of Presidency is so much more. The debates do not focus on that at all. The choices for Democratic nominee are bleak. For that reason, I also do not think the NYT should be having a hoedown on picking the candidate and broadcasting it. People need to feel their way to the best choice. I dread hearing a NYT choice.
2
Can we please fast forward to November? Like the known outcome of the Senate trial for Trump, I am voting a straight Democratic ticket. I just want Trump gone and as many Republicans as possible along with him. The end.
7
@Diana Agreed - but if you think Sanders (not a Democrat) or Buttigieg (almost zero African American support) can do it, you're in a parallel universe.
I question whether any of the 6 on the stage can do it - I know that Sanders and Buttigieg can't.
Why does network television get to define these debates? Obsolete, just like the democrats.
1
interesting..... comments on Biden boiled down to he didn't win but he didn't lose. some people may remember the great cyclist greg Lamond. he was well know for his tour de France victories.... in which he might or might not have won a single stage. what he did do is come in with the lowest overall time.
1
This was a useless read given that there is absolutely no consensus among you, and your own ratings are not at all consistent. You all seem to be grading each candidate on their own personal curve, which, when added to the fact that there are ten different pundits with totally different priorities doing the grading, makes the numbers totally arbitrary.
1
At the end of this all the Democratic contenders need to shake hands and work their tails off getting the Democratic candidate elected.
As a woman, seeing a such a qualified and appealing woman candidate "go low" is a huge disappointment.
5
No, we don’t have a “better billionaire” if he’s not on the debate stage. I’m not a fan of either of the billionaires, just sayin’.
2
Trump is terrified of a Bloomberg nomination. And hoping desperately for a Sanders or Warren to run against. He knows he will lose the never-Trump (but really, Trump over a Socialist) Republicans and the moderate to conservative Independents who detest him, if Bloomberg runs. Bloomberg has the gravitas to win over those voters and work well across the aisle.
I don't care what Michael Moore says about how ready the American worker, and therefore the public at large is, for extreme change and therefore ready for Sanders or the less extreme version, Warren. Yes, I respect Michael Moore greatly but many of the details he applied to predicting a Trump win is conveniently overlooked because of his passion for Sanders.
The only group who will not vote for Bloomberg ever, without question, are the Gun nut types who don't even really know what his Everytown For Gun Safety even stands for.
And if you detest someone for the amount of money they have and the amount they are willing to spend running for president than perhaps you are not understanding the Roosevelt years? Roosevelt was filthy rich and yet made one of it not our best president ever.
Trump is terrified of a Bloomberg run. And me personally would love to see a debate between them where Mike calls him out on his alleged billions and demands him to produce his tax returns.
7
Obviously, from each of these columns "rating" the debates the Times columnists are "all in" on the economic populists Warren and Sanders. Sorry pundits but you're wrong.
2
Last night at the Democrat debate in Iowa. Like a prizefighter going into the wing a knockout blow to all the candidates was Sen. Elizabeth Warren a perfect 10. Sleepy VP.Joe a 7. Amy 6.5 Second but forgetting the governor' Kansas. 6. Sen Bernie Sanders with egg on his face with Sen. Elizabeth Warren. 6. Mayor Pete and 6. Tom.
Their fight was each other with the debate stage not set so much Pres. Donald Trump opponent they have to beat November 2020.
Healthcare for Americans not beating down Pres. Donald Trump with no healthcare plan for Americans. A $2 trillion package but they forgot to say one thing Pres. Donald Trump raised the deficit by $4 trillion on tax's rates for the rich.
Second topic was childcare for some. Tom mention at $8000 tax adduction. But if you have a reality check for middle-class and low income
3rd topic was the impeachment put on the back burner. But should've been the first one of reckless Pres. Donald Trump the rallies he mentioned that Nancy Pelosi had, Muslim scarf, the Democrats had the flag at half staff, Democrats were traders. So many fascist things that this president was able to do without one peep from the Republicans and the Democrats about Pres. Donald Trump's actions words to do hurt.
Yang won the night. His honest, refreshing and unscripted take on issues was missed. Mayor Pete was too slick by half.
5
How can Liz Mair call Bernie a sexist when he was literally marching for Women's and minority rights since the beginning of his career? Was it all just showmanship? Maybe he is playing the long game his whole life to set up a good excuse for his alleged sexism. Just one more person buying into establishment lies that were created to keep Bernie from trying to break up the centralized power of those at the top.
5
@ Pete Wehner: Please be a responsible journalist and DON'T jump to conclusions! Sanders' being upset with Warren does not automatically 'accuse her of being a liar'! When you make statements like this, you just continue the sensationalistic cycle we all want to avoid! You can only GUESS what Sanders himself is feeling - you can't just point at your opinion as fact! Why is everyone employing the 'either you're with us or against us' blindspot on this? Can't it be a possibility that it happened as follows: Sanders expressed worry during their meeting that maybe OTHERS might think a woman can't win, Warren is misremembering, and now both long-time friends are hurt....Please just stop it with the jumping to conclusions!
1
Were the panelists listening to the same people?
1
With this much pickiness, could anybody make us happy?
1
The big "winner"?
CNN and the MSM, including the supposedly responsible, NYT.
Why? The got the cat fight they've been looking for ever since Sanders and Warren entered the race. They've been probing and prying into every nook and cranny, looking for a way to have the two progressives take each other down and ensure that no progressive will be President.
Their single most important issue, dwarfing all others, including the economy, health care, war in the M.E., the environment, crumbling infrastructure, affordable childcare, affordable higher education, all of these issues pale in comparison to the demand by the oligarchic Establishment that the system that works so well for the 1% will not change.
It's sad that Liz's campaign felt she had to spin Bernie's private assessment that she herself requested into a slur that he's sexist and against a woman running for President. It's going to backfire on her the way her reach to claim Native American heritage did. And it will no doubt hurt Bernie because her attack was simply a twist on the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet", snare - there's no way to answer that question without self incrimination.
So "kudos" to the MSM! You got what you were charged with achieving! But my hope is that the voters are even more sick of you and your games and they'll tune you out, so that in the long run, you will be the losers.
9
I agree with Bernie, it was a good debate.
My comment is directed at the panel of pundits; especially the so called conservative ones. How is it that a democrat campaigning on good old FDR Democratic ideals is radical, but your republican party going all in for a wanna be fascist dictator is just another day at the office?
8
@Bob Laughlin I heartily second the emotion ... I mean, this question.
2
Trump will eat every one of these people's lunch and leave them the bill.
64
@mike - he leaves *everyone* the bill, especially the small businesses he stiffs after they work for him.
But otherwise, thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!
123
@mike and Mexico will pay for the wall.
66
@mike
The credibility of the scamming huckster in chief is bolstered by such statements that inflate the impact of bravado over substance and truth.
Just because Trump won on lies in the past does not mean that disinformation will carry the day in the next election. I give voters a little bit of credit for knowing when they've been had. You gotta root for the home team even when they go up against cheaters. I don't think any Dem candidate comes across as dishonest, just overly optimistic that any plan will pass a Republican blockade whether they're majority or minority.
49
So now you're ranking them like figure skaters? It's bad enough that the other debate coverage would have us believe that Warren and Sanders were at each others throats about gender for three quarters of the debate, which wasn't even close to true, but I guess, just like for Trump, money beats truth. Your election coverage in 2016 was deplorable and dishonest, and it helped give us the most corrupt administration in our history. Keep it up, you're doing a great job for a repeat. Here's an idea: honest reporting.
4
There's a big difference between saying a woman could NEVER WIN the presidency, and a woman can't win THIS RACE.
Which did Sanders say, if either?
Since they were discussing this race when the comment occurred, it seems likely that he said something like the latter.
In either case, Bernie could be correct. Of the two females still in the race, Klobuchar seems more capable of capturing the oval office.
Warren's bug-eyed fanaticism may play well with the far left, but there are a lot of independents who usually vote Democrat, who will vote for Trump, again, if she is the nominee.
America is not ready to become a socialist state.
3
Interesting takes. But they revealed more about the columnists than the candidates. Columnists complain about canned answers, but I could easily guess their assessments of the candidates. Not good.
Talk of paying off college debt is enough to make me want to leave the Democratic party, if there was any alternative to it besides the GOP. I get absolutely outraged over that issue.
3
@Mark many worse ways to spend government, like the 5 trillion of so we have wasted on wars in the middle east. The debt structure of these loans is predatory. At least they should be negotiated down to today' s low interest rates. That much is just being fair.
4
I continue to think that the only reason Bernie appears plausible is Trump. If Trump can be president, why not Bernie? Both have fanatic bases, repeat their talking points endlessly, and have a slim hold on reality. Being better than Trump is about the lowest bar imaginable. I was upset when Kamala dropped out and don't understand why Yang, who brings fresh ideas, was not on the stage. The debate rules have only served to frustrate the search for someone who can make mincemeat of Trump.
2
On the last two debates, Biden got credit for just not being too weak. That's akin to Trump getting credit for being able to read his teleprompter. We should not be pleased with such low standards for yet another president.
Biden touts his closeness to Obama as a sign of his foreign policy smarts in the Middle East. While I wonder if a realistic policy for getting out of quick sand exists, there's no evidence the Obama administration found that policy. We are still stuck and the question now should be how do we get back to pre-Trump negotiations.
Biden boasting that he will negotiate lower drug prices can't be taken at face value. To get ACA passed, the Obama administration conceded to Big Pharma that drug prices could not be negotiated. Warren's drug plan (elizabethwarren.com) is to use legislative carrots, then sticks (e.g. controlling licensing requirements), then government contracted drug manufacturing in step wise fashion, as needed.
The problem with these debates is that neither hollow words nor good plans can be hashed out.
4
@citizen vox Not true citizen vox. Biden was the recognized expert on foreign policy long before he became VP.
None of the candidates stated plans for anything are at this point in anyway a given that if they are elected it will be done. All any of them can do is try. Remember, the president does not write legislation. Much of what Obama envisioned for ACA was traded off to congress in an attempt to get any health care reform at all. This was a congress determined to not allow Obama any victories.
I don't know if I support Steyer, but you folks seem to have watched a different debate than me. Having spent little time thinking of him as a viable candidate, I was impressed with his performance and thought he was the most consistently coherent and inspiring speaker on the debate stage last night. The media seems to have moved in herd like fashion in discounting his performance.
10
@Drew I completely agree. I felt the same way.
3
Assuming that Trump isn't ousted from office first via impeachment, there is one primary skill that the Democratic nominee will need: As much knowledge of what Trump has done as Adam Schiff has, with the ability to present that knowledge and its implications to the American people clearly and vividly and to wipe the floor with Trump in debate. On issues, Trump knows nothing and must be attacked, but his corruption is paramount. Of course this assume that Trump will have the courage to even show up.
3
I keep reading comments saying how so-and-so will eviscerate Trump on the debate stage. Trump isn't going to debate the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
He'll denounce any candidate as illegitimate, in preparation to contest the election if he loses. This will make his base cheer. But the real reason is that these past three years he's declined cognitively to the point that he's incapable of debating. He'll sound incoherent. He knows he won't be able to bluff his way through it this time.
2
I'd like to see how these pundits's comments compare to their comments in the 2016 Republican primaries. I'm sure they dismissed Donald Trump then as easily as they dismiss Tom Steyer now. Steyer may be wooden on the debate stage, but I've watched a couple of his town halls and have read many articles on him, and think he's worth considering.
If many NY-based pundits thought Bloomberg did okay as mayor having no political experience and his "buying" his election as mayor, why not at least consider Steyer? Obviously many Americans who voted for a failed rich grifter in 2016 proved the pundits wrong.
4
I don't understand anyone saying this was a good night for Biden, as I have read in debate reviews other than the NYT. Pledging to work with members of the GOP, like McConnell who promised to make Obama a one term president, can be seen as a betrayal of Democratic values and beside that, an impossibility. McConnell's GOP majority Senate has abandoned patriotism and integrity, to say nothing of their dereliction of Senatorial duty of judicial advise and consent, to pay homage to a crooked, lying commander in chief. If this is what we must do to win the election, we don't deserve to win it. Moderates may be necessary, but they will own the mess another Trump term will dump on this nation and in their hearts they know it. Longing for sanity in government and then voting against it are conflicting actions.
Also Biden comes across as too old, constantly struggling for words and context even if his intentions are good.
3
I just paid my health insurance monthly bill.$690 for a bronze plan that covers preventative care with a $4000 deductible.I'm 63 and retired.I am on no prescriptions and have no health issues, accept my horrible shoulder and back issues related to being a RN in my community hospital for 30 years,thus my early retirement. No I refused the pain meds.Had PT and now do those exercises at home.My husband is on Medicare.His plan is so much better than mine.Can't wait till I turn 65.Enough said.Bernie 2020
10
I like Pete and onboard with his proposal Medicare for all who want it. It could provide a ramp to medicare for all if done right.
However, the college stance and his argument that middle class shouldn't be paying for millionaires and billionaires rings illogical.
If the tax system is progressive, Billionaire and Millionaires should be paying the major chunk of taxes for this program. This means it will be their money subsidizing college for all.
5
@Ravi problem is, the current tax system is not at all progressive
1
@Ravi
Pete's "medicare for all who want it" is disingenuous because it automatically signs up the un(der)insured,
who are then billed for an entire year's worth of premiums at a time. My question is, who sets the
standards for being un / underinsured, resulting in
the automatic enrollment ?
1
Why do "moderators" always try to start a fight? It might be good TV but it's miserable for political dialogue.
And... why do the questions always presume the president can enact their vision of health care or taxes or military and infrastructure spending?
No matter who wins, they will have to work with Congress. Unless Donald wins, in which case, Congress better be Democratic.
7
The votes tell us more about the voters than the candidates. In that vein, here are mine:
Warren = 9.5 She remains progressive and pragmatic, and keeps her wits about her. This cannot be said for anybody else on the stage.
Steyer = 8 He showed that he knows how to listen and acknowledge good things when he hears them. He would have an excellent White House staff. But still, we've seen what happens when somebody takes the role of POTUS as an entry-level job.
Sanders = 7 His best night. His best statement was when he unequivocally stated that he will work hard for the nominee, even if it is not himself. Still, I'd like to see some of the dots connected between his vision and some sort of plan.
Buttigieg = 4 Superficial, and his vast amount of inexperience showed. He seems to believe that if he exposes Trump's infinite flaws, he'll win over the extinct species of moderate Republicans. Clue, Pete: they already know and don't care.
Klobuchar = 4 Her worst performance. She couldn't stop talking and disobeyed the injunction to make sure her mind is engaged when starting to speak. I tire of assuming that it's all about the Midwest, and therefore the candidate must be a Midwesterner.
Biden = 2 At times, the question was whether he was present. At other times, he talked about the past, conveniently taking credit for why we don't have any problems right now. Well past his sell-by date.
7
Ms. Dowd - thank you.
I trust your take on these debates by far the most.
And thank you for calling out the ex mayor.
For life of me, I can't understand how others give him such high marks.
As to him saying he is a veteran, another distinguished newspaper detailed what he did.
Well, first he got in thru a special program via reserves.
He spent a total of 5 months 150 days.
Since he was still a mayor, every evening , he went up to the top of his barracks and used WiFi to stay connected with his city hall.
Out of these 150 days - he ventured out if the camp just about every day driving others in a convoy.
By his own admission - he never fired a gun or even heard a gun fired.
So much for his war time experience.
So, I offered these details to what Ms. Dowd says in her take.
The sooner Democrats dump him - the better for the party.
4
Illegal immigration is STILL a huge issue that could determine the outcome of this election.
Control of our borders AND our population are paramount to a LOT of voters. If the Democrat candidates insist on leaving our borders uncontrolled and decriminalizing illegal immigration, they will probably lose.
A lot of independents who regularly vote Democrat, will vote for Trump, as they did last time, just on this issue.
8
I certainly will. As a life long independent, it is my number 1 reason to hold my nose and support Trump.
3
@BearBoy
A lot of Trump supporters do so because of the issues he addresses and his RESULTS, not because they think he's such a wonderful person.
By the way, he is doing what he promised, in terms of stirring the pot.
3
I did not give the debate my full attention, but I heard a lot of bits and pieces that will be parodied on Saturday Night Live. And that's what worries me. Democrats are going up against the darkest of lawless, well financed dark forces this fall. And even though people say anybody will be better than Trump, I think we really need someone exceptional to beat Trump. None of these folks seem to have "ability to rally the weary and bitterly divided masses" on their resumes.
1
It wasn't long before we got this comment , "...would Americans vote for a socialist?" How about learning the difference between socialism (and it's communist inference) and democratic socialsm? No wonder we think that there is no other viable alternative to predatory capitalism and the inequality that it's caused. Please refrain from using trigger words to fear monger your readers
8
So, the comments on Tom Steyer of the 2 most well-known Times female and feminist columnists reveal a reactionary impulse. And their slick response to Steyer ought to trouble the Democratic left:
Gail Collins believes “We have a better billionaire.
So Gail, could that be the former “law and order” New York mayor, none other than the “I’m truly very sorry for “stop and frisk y’all now that I want to be President” Mayor Michael Bloomberg?
Maureen Dowd thinks that if we have to listen to a rich guy (like Steyer) “let’s hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say,” as though the owner of Bloomberg News, Inc., doesn’t already have a way to do so. But he can’t change his documented record, news footage of his press conferences standing shoulder-to-shoulder with police, not residents complaining about choke-hold arrests, prison staff abuses, mistaken shootings of grandmothers, etc., or his ignoring the crisis in the city’s affordable housing for middle-income office and food industry workers, like journalists and editorial staff at city publishing and media companies.
6
Ms Dowd looks to have the same bad feed for the debate that I have.
My stream must have dropped all the moments that Senator Warren shone and knocked it out of the park - so I missed on Warren-mania - (and for people that don't understand sarcasm) Or maybe it never happened...
2
If you watched, you know that they all did well. It was a good debate. The "ranking" business is just plain silly.
4
I miss the crystal lady. At least she kept me awake.
3
This column says more about the columnists and contributors than it does about the candidates.
5
I watched intermittently. The debates bring diminishing returns. Perez was awful launching the event (happy talk), the moderators were no better, and the purity test imposed by Warren and/or her staff on Sanders (neither are my faves) as to whether or not he is a sexist - pathetic. Come on, people.
7
Michelle Goldberg said yesterday that her husband is a consultant for the Warren campaign, I'm sure she's discussed it in the past. How is it fair to have her commenting on these posts with a high score for Warren every time (without at least mentioning this)?
15
For me, the big loser last night was CNN's streaming service. It kept glitching and went down for Steyer and Klobuchar's entire closing arguments. If the Democratic Party wants to reach younger voters, how about better streaming for its debates?
5
The moderators make a big difference. Last night all were awful.
19
@RKPT
Yep, at times, when questioning Sanders, I didn't know whether or not I was watching moderators asking questions or were they really "shills" for the medical and fossil fuel industry, a disgrace.
CNN has a considerable amount of explaining to do on this one and in future they should be banned from doing any more, a stain on journalism.
1
@RKPT
Can anyone seriously say they like to watch Wolf Blitzer "show", let alone moderating a presidential nomination debate?
I mean the guy is really out of his dept.
1
Being familiar with the issues is not "over rehearsed." The candidates should all be ready to deliver a headline and a summery.
I find it really sad that our news media always goes for drama over policy.
The stupidity of the Warren jab at Bernie was, and is just that, stupid.
I'm going with the most electable next November but that is a ways off.
Having previously supported Warren before her (so obvious) blind spots became very discouraging. Besides Yang, she probably is the most informed and intelligent. Which includes being clear eyed when it comes to income disparity. By my lights our country needs Sanders or Warren desperately. Basically the moderates support the status quo, and those outlooks are why we are stuck in this sticky mess. Mayor Pete while the most articulate, he and Klobuchar have little chance of being elected president.
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Vote Blue no matter who.
And stop the bickering.
5
Amy and Pete offer relative youth and common sense. There might be a place for Tom in Commerce.
Joe is a fine man, but too old. Bernie, way too old/is the same guy now as he was in 1968......Everything is unfair, stick it to the man, fee stuff for all paid for by the very rich/ or pulled from everyone. Liz has a softer presentation, but still sticking it to the man...free stuff for all.
1
I can't figure out why Liz Mair and Daniel McCarthy are in this group. They are both very right wing. Fine if this was a forum on something less specifically Democratic, but the people commenting in this column should be of the same party as the candidates. I just don't know what Mair's and McCarthy's agendas are, and Ms. Mair is just plain mean. If this was a Republican debate and the Times put a far left leaning author on the panel, can you imagine what FOX news would say? The selection for the Democratic nominee should be by Democrats ONLY. It's our future on the line, not Mr. McCarthy's or Ms. Mair's. They can comment in separate articles, where the reader is aware of their political leanings.
3
How quickly we forget: Trump did miserably at his debates. BIDEN 2020!!
4
I feel NYT is not fair to Biden. Any extreme left or self declared socialist can not win general election. I am afraid that Trump will be reelected.
2
I think the TV "debates" are a pathetic dog and pony show and a sign of political decline. From Lincoln-Douglas, to Kennedy-Nixon, to what we have been seeing these past few months is a real comedown. And to have the columnists of what was for a while the greatest newspaper in the world rate those politicians in this manner is a sad exercise indeed.
5
Is it really necessary to have 14 pundits reviewing a debate with 6 people?
1
If we are going to critique Biden for "stumbling over his words" again.
Can we at least clarify, once again, that he is a life-long stutterer?
I mean... we don't critique folks for wearing glasses... now do we?
7
Does Liz Mair actually like anything? Anything at all?
2
@Ben
Liz Mair is a Republican consultant who has worked for Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, and Roy Blunt. 'nuff said, no?
She's not apt to rate any non-Republican very high.
i didn't watch the debate this time. Who is Barbara Lee?
Some candidates are just unqualified:
1. Joe Biden
2. The mayor
3. Tom Steyer
4. Bernie Sanders
"Héctor Tobar (4/10) — It’s shameful that a man can buy his way into the semi-finals of the Democratic primary. He’s a marketing phenomenon, and not a political one."
I sense that Steyer didn't himself buy this debate time this time, so much as Fox News-Entertainment whipped up their last-minute poll to troll the primary by getting him in.[1] I agree with Leonard and Wehner that Yang, not Steyer, should be on that stage (and even he, not for much longer).
Now bloomy, that's a guy who's trying to buy our election, by saying "impeachment talk is absurd" with one mouth and buying Google ads for "impeachment" searches with another. Combine that with his billion-dollar bet that he won't have to pay to advertise for an actual Democrat primary winner[2], and he's almost surely to be the one "Democrat" I won't vote for if he "wins" the primary.
I'd even vote for "It is over" Biden, clothespin FIRMLY on nose. He waved through the worst substitute for an actual president in the history of the United States, but at least he's not outright trying to buy a Bernie loss with the very Wall Street influence money Bernie hopes to stop.
[1] Why is an anti-Democrat, anti-Sane government, pro-nihilist, pro-white-supremacist media group allowed to influence *Democratic* debates with their polls again?
[2] We voters can finance campaigns too, thankyouverymuch. Save your hoard, bloomy—we good.
1
I guess the Time's columnists think Warren should be rewarded for telling lies to win political points. Seems everyone is learning from the Trump Style of debate. Shame on the moderators for not pressing her harder on the facts.
9
Excuse me for asking, but how is it appropriate for The Times to create a panel loaded with conservatives- Douthat, Wehner, Mair, Hemmer, Dowd- to tell us Democrats which candidates are doing well, and which we should vote for?
Isn't that the height of arrogance and simply wrong?
We Democrats can decide for ourselves which candidates represent our views, which are presidential-material, and which deserve our votes.
4
@Sean
Correction: corporate/establishment democrats, there is a big difference, they are of the "status quo" not change.
3
Bernie: Getting tired of being ranted at with the waving arms and pointed finger.
Warren: Also tired of being lectured by someone who clearly thinks I'm not up to snuff.
Pete: Sounds too smooth, political and rehearsed to imagine that he can have an original thought in a crisis.
Klobuchar: Another polished politico too enamored of herself to sound credible.
Steyer: Never had a chance last night; largely ignored by the questioners.
Biden: ZZZZzzzzzz. Say what? Huh? Now back in my day ...
Corey: Should have been on stage.
Bloomberg: Here's the "wealth tax"; he can't "qualify" because he won't take money and won't be beholden.
1
@J Boyce
I love a Bloomber/Booker ticket.
2
I’m absolutely gobsmacked to see the accolades these writers have heralded on Warren when she very likely stood on top of a lie to deliver a prepared speech last night. I honestly cannot believe I’m reading this utter nonsense. How are her lies somehow more morally acceptable than the lies Trump spews every day? What a severely embarrassing disappointment the relativism the voices of the NY Times are showing here...
11
I am so done with Bernie Sanders, the old-school circa 1930's socialist (NOT a democratic socialist until AOC showed up) who is only a Dem when running for Prez.
He was mildly entertaining in 2016 as a foil to Hill who was shoved down our throats as "pre-ordained" by the DNC. In 2020 he's an ancient, ailing, too old joke.
He's the Trump of the far left: ideologically rigid, uncompromising, yelling, belligerent, full of nonsensical promises of Free Stuff....with his own cult-like following.
He was basically a chronically unemployed deadbeat dad until he was almost 40 YO and decided to be a professional politician representing the smallest, whitest, lowest GDP state in the country. He's lived off the taxpayer for 40 years and has NOTHING to show for it!!! Look at his record.
He never gets pressed to explain the fuzzy, non-existent math behind his plans. Why does he get to skate???
Bernie's nothing but a lifelong ineffective professional activist with NO accomplishments but a nice 40 year taxpayer paid salary. He would be God's gift to Trump.
Enough of Bernie already!
9
I would point out to Mr. Tobar that if it's a shame that Tom Steyer can buy his way into the semi-finals then the same applies to Buttigieg. Mr. Steyer actually has more business cred than the middling mayor of a town smaller than the average Dallas suburb.
7
Once again, Trump wins.
Van Jones’ comments last night is going viral.
5
@MC agreed. Warren's fake outrage (wine caves and now a fake story about something bernie said to her in private) reeks of throwing anything against a wall hoping it will stick. And the winner of the debate???? Hardly. I rank it:
Sanders,
Buttigieg,
Warren,
Biden/Steyer
And sorry NYT, any group that ranked Biden's performance higher than buttigieg should be disqualified from further commentary.
4
@jaz. Klobucher?
Why the constant criticism of Pete as “too rehearsed,” “too perfect,” too much like a member of the high school debate team? Has the anti-intellectualism that got Trump elected affected the NYT pundits? I would love an articulate, thoughtful, and reasoned president.
5
I wonder if anybody has decided for whom to vote or changed a vote based on the opinion/analysis of a columnist or Opinion writer.
I am doubtful.
Fills up the "pages" of a newspaper, though.
2
Can we all just please agree to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is? Bernie has agreed to that, saying Trump is the biggest danger to our democracy. Any Democratic candidate on stage last night would be a huge step forward on the all the important issues like health care, climate change, income inequality, and gun control et al, not to mention restoring sanity to the office of the President. Please!
6
The debate was most critical to resurrection of "Able Amy" I disagree with the NY Times columnists on their grading. I think Sen. Warren did not respond to Bernie's denial of her allegations by reaffirming what Bernie said and that one could interpret as Sen. Warren making up stories to get ahead of Bernie. It also exposed the identity politics game of Warren to attract attention as a possible first woman president in history. There are currently many democrats who will will vote against Trump no matter who their candidate is. There are also many women and men who will vote for a woman for the sake of electing the first woman president. All Republicans and most independents will not vote for someone because of their religion, race, gender, national origin or ethnicity. Thats where Warren will have miscalculated just as Sec. Clinton did and if Warren expects to get elected on being a spunky feisty woman then she will meet the same fate as Hillary Clinton.
6
Yes please, any one of them will do.
178
@beatgirl99: Please vote then, even though you're safely in a blue state. We need to be sure the pretend president is overwhelmingly defeated, so there is no doubt about the outcome.
11
I’m not sire I saw Warren’s far from spontaneous comment on women winning elections the way she intended it. What about grit? She’s a liberal from a liberal state and defeated an underwear model dummy. Klobuchar might have a better argument in this. Obama lost too and it supercharged him. Empty statement
4
These shallow corporate networks concentrate on anything irrelevant and tabloid.
A debate should not feel humiliating. Debases the candidates. They have to behave like dogs at training school.
The loser is CNN. Hostile, rude attitude of dismissive, barkingly cut-off moderators. Utter lack of dignity to the entire process. Respectless.
16
Illegal immigration is STILL a huge issue that could determine the outcome of this election.
Control of our borders AND our population are paramount to a LOT of voters. If the Democrat candidates insist on leaving our borders uncontrolled and decriminalizing illegal immigration, they will probably lose.
A lot of independents who regularly vote Democrat, will vote for Trump, as they did last time, just on this issue.
4
It's not really a debate. The thing it most closely resembles is a high school popularity contest. "Debates" such as these will not deliver the most capable and qualified candidate. I have read that Abraham Lincoln had a screechy unpleasant voice. Yes,he debated but not on TV. And going back a few years according to the bible Moses had a speech impediment. He would never qualify for a leadership role today.
1
Michelle Goldberg's husband works for the Warren campaign. She is not capable of objectively evaluating the candidates' performance, and she should not have been included in this column.
19
I was surprised and impressed by Senator Warren's answer to the, "why should a billionaire's child get free college?" challenge.
She answered: "We need to ask people with fortunes above $50 million to pay more. And that means that the lowliest millionaire that I would tax under this wealth tax would be paying about $19 million in the first year in taxes.
If he wants to send his kid to public university, then I'm OK with that, because what we really need to talk about is the bigger economic picture here."
I thought it was a great answer. Nineteen million dollars in taxes is a huge number. It only seems fair that someone paying *that* much should receive the same benefits offered to less-wealthy Americans.
Senator Warren is learning what many Dems have yet to comprehend, that vilifying wealth is not the way to succeed in American politics. The insane level of wealth and income disparity in America must be addressed. I think this was a good rebuttal to the predictable squabble around her proposed wealth tax.
3
I think any of the Dem candidates has 100 times more substance than trump.
However, none of them have the powerful personality needed to beat him.
Dems would be wise to run a celebrity, like Tom Hanks, and no, I am not joking.
(Yes, I know he wouldn't run.)
But all Dems good talk about issues will be wasted if they lose.
The days when issues and experience win presidential races is gone, if it ever existed.
All over the world, the cult of personality reigns.
People all over still seem to think that ONE person is going to save them, save the world, which is nonsense.
Also, the money in politics has poisoned everything.
Until that goes away, nothing will change.
I say, run Bloomberg.
Why?
It would force voters to choose between two candidates with money (or who claim to have money).
It would expose the system for what it is, a game for the rich.
As for "can a woman win?", Clinton already won, by 3 million votes.
5
Warren and Sanders have the passion, the smarts, and the good of 'the people' at heart. Pete is slickly earnest and scripted. Biden is tired; harps on the family thing when it was his devotion to his son that got him in a pickle. I hope Amy is Warren's or Sanders' VP, and that Steyer gets a great Cabinet post.
2
I saw Mr Bloomberg on the Tonight show . I liked the fact he shut down 350 coal mines out of 500 and will go after the rest when President. He also wants to tax the rich. He is rich and when the corrupt rich see him being patriotic and paying they will lets hope start paying their fair share. A women would have a difficult time demanding taxes from rich men. Look how warren upset the Apple man bill gates.
2
Voters are the losers from the debate, because the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump - Michael Bloomberg - was not on the stage. The reason he's not on the stage? Because he is not spending other peoples' money to get our votes - which is what those candidates are doing - he's spending his own money to get our votes. The DNC has yet to put forward a cogent, compelling argument for why this matters. And the whining about the fact that he's a billionaire ignores the fact that the Party's greatest president (FDR) was also a billionaire. He's gone from nothing to 5th place in national polls without being allowed to participate in the debates and with the NYT and the DNC essentially acting as if he's not running, and he's probably more like first or second in the states we need to win. If you don't like what he did in NYC, or you don't like the fact he's rich, then don't vote for him in the primary. But don't presume to tell us whether or not he's worthy. The polls are answering that question.
4
@Michael Hogan concur with your analysis Mike. Ignoring arguably the candidate with the most effective executive experience (both in public & private sectors) seems absurd? Also not sure why being financially successful is viewed as an undesirable qualification?
2
This: "For future debates can we trade Steyer for Andrew Yang?"
Please and thanks!
6
The candidate most likely to win wasn't on the stage. Bloomberg can go toe to toe with Trump because they both have the same backstory, EXCEPT Mike's is 1,000 times more compelling and he's a genuine success story. He also has the political experience as a three term mayor of America's biggest and most diverse city, which also happens to be its financial hub. What could be a better qualification than that for President? Not to mention he's been at the front lines on the core issues of this campaign -- climate change, healthcare and gun control -- for decades. It's a crying shame he didn't jump in earlier so he could've taken part in these debates. Obviously, he shares the same concerns a lot of blue voters have: there is no one obvious choice in the field. Remember, Trump CANNOT attack Bloomberg as just another 'New York billionaire' trying to tell the common folk where to get off because he is one! Also, Mike could be the first Jewish President. Now that would be something. Go Mike go!
2
Gotta agree with this.. "He was Bernie: curmudgeonly, loud, deeply ideological, a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else." Bernie would lose against Trump.
5
I applaud your reporters for actually watching the debate. I would sooner cut my wrists than watch any more of these useless, self-aggrandizing and finally, utterly pointless debates.
The debate might have been useful for Iowa, since they hold their caucuses first on February 3rd. There are another 29 or so state primaries before April 28 when New York votes.
I expect the field will have narrowed to a more reasonable number of candidates, to whom I must pay attention -- but why bother until then?
Why does any of this bloviating matter? The only thing this docket of candidates proves is that there is genuine fear that Trump could win the 2020 election.
3
1) Why does College in the U.S. cost 2-3x that of equivalently good or better Canadian or UK schools? Put aside loans and the like, why is the COST so high?
2) How do other countries figure out heathcare system that does not lead to the bankruptcies that we have here? Again, I think there needs to be more transparency and standardization in costs
3) Retirement...sorry Americans need to learn to save...no we don't pay enough taxes to earn a goldplated retirement...that costs should be thrown back more to the American public
1
Paying "farmers" to sequester carbon? Sounds like welfare for wealthy large landholders to me.
2
I would have no problem voting for Bernie or Elizabeth.
Klobuchar needs to bow out and work on her personal issues so that next time she can come out more centered and less about herself. She is an ACOA and it comes out in her relationships with others and in her presentations. She can do something about that and should because she is a smart cookie but she trips herself up.
Biden needs to go home and hang with the great grand kids.
Buttigieg also has work to do. He needs to go home and fix the problems in his city so that he'll have a platform to stand on with people that aren't white and educated.
Steyer - Lead the climate change campaign just not from the White House.
Everyone else, find something to do to move the country forward in a sustainable and loving way.
2
Warren, Sanders, Biden, and even Steyer did just fine.
What troubles me is that Mayor Pete, whose policy vision I come closest to sharing, came across as this clever wind-up toy pre-programmed by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. It's like he cared less about the problems facing America today than about taking elaborate, out-of-context shots at strawmen stood up to distinguish him from his rivals. It sounds like, even though his whole deal is that he is not of Washington, he's been in Washington way too long.
And then there was Amy Klobuchar, who has her own special tone-deafness. It's like she can't get out of senator mode and into leader mode, or even just non-politician mode. All I heard from her was "I did this" and "I'm great at that" and "If you really want somebody who'll get such-and-such done"—it was all just Amy, Amy, Amy. And I'm sure she thinks she's so savvy for repeatedly, gratingly talking way over her allotted time. I'm afraid I'm going to have "Amy Klobuchar debate" nightmares now.
4
These events are not debates. At best, they provide declaratory statements. At worst, they allow the moderators to ask useless and provocative questions to make the "debate" more exciting. Everybody (candidates and moderators) in this event failed by not pointing to the high stakes of the coming election for preserving our constitution and democracy and getting rid of Trump. Everything else is in the noise and should stay there. As for the NYTimes opinion writers: they think too highly of their opinions.
3
Obama was elected because of hope and change and healthcare, Trump was elected for the same reason his healthcare plan was no plan just a sales pitch after elected Trump traded healthcare for the largest tax cut for the 1%.Hope and change is what the country wants and needs. The GOP hated Social Security try taking it away now, they hated Medicare try taking it away now, they know the public will feel the same way when we have national healthcare. Sanders and Warren are on the right track healthcare as it is today is to complicated to navigate, insurance company need out let us keep it as simple as we can.
2
The presidential debate format seems greatly flawed to me. The format doesn’t allow for any meaningful discussion of significant issues or any assessment of a candidate’s ability to demonstrate how they’ve succeeded in executing significant new policies. The quick Q & A format yields the same trite phrases/responses. A more useful approach might be to have a debate focusing on one or 2 key issues. Candidates would have to submit position papers ahead of time and then be assessed by independent experts in the specific areas. As the candidates are being interviewed for the most difficult executive/manager position in the world would be nice to be able to assess their experience/capabilities in this area. Curiously Bloomberg may not qualify for any debates. We’re not hiring the best Q&A debater, we need the most effective chief executive?
4
All of this analysis and opinion on a debate that didn't really bring any important new questions from the CNN panel for the candidates. The questions were more of a rehash of previous debates. All that while the dumpster fire is burning in the White House! Maybe the public should be the ones asking the questions of the candidates.
How about a pledge that the future president won't make personal attacks on people on Twitter? Is it proper to order the Attorney General to investigate political opponents or private citizens? Would you return reinstate the environmental protections that Trump has weakened or rolled back? What are your plans to strengthen cyber security in the federal government departments and around the country in state elections? I have a much longer list but you get the idea.
2
All this talk about free public college education is silly. To put all public colleges and universities is to be fundamentally ignorant about public higher education in America. At the very top tier, institutions such as Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, and Virginia compete with the very best private universities. It costs a whole lot of money to do this, and these institutions cannot be tuition-free and still maintain their academic excellence. So, unless you want to see the top 200 public universities to privatize so that they can pay their faculty competitive salaries and maintain competitive facilities, drop all this talk about making ALL public universities free.
There's a big difference between saying a woman could NEVER WIN the presidency, and a woman can't win THIS RACE.
Which did Sanders say, if either?
Since they were discussing this race when the comment occurred, it seems likely that he said something like the latter.
In either case, Bernie could be correct. Of the two females still in the race, Klobuchar seems more capable of capturing the oval office.
Warren's bug-eyed fanaticism may play well with the far left, but there are a lot of independents who usually vote Democrat, who will vote for Trump, again, if she is the nominee.
America is not ready to become a socialist state.
4
Why can't anybody run a coherent, substantive debate about the most pressing issues of the day, with follow up questions, interactions between candidates, etc.?
We don't need to hear these folks talk about the same things in every debate--for example, climate change, which we all know is a huge issue and needs to be addressed by the next president (incidentally, whoever it is will be much better than the current president).
There were some meaningful differences on stage last night, differences on policy issues that could play a major role in the general election, especially on foreign affairs and trade/economy. Pete wanted to make a big deal about Obama winning in 08 because of his opposition to the Iraq War (which is not why he won but okay), but then Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and the void led to the rise of ISIS, which I think we can all agree was a bad thing for the entire world and led directly to the greatest humanitarian crisis of the 21st century, the exodus of Syrian refugees to Europe.
It's telling that the best question of the night came from a voter who noted that Des Moines is an "insurance town" and asking Bernie what will happen to all the insurance workers if Medicare for All were adopted. I didn't think Bernie's answer--that he will throw "billions and billions of dollars" to give those people (unidentified) new jobs--will comfort anybody.
3
Am I the only one who laughed when Joe Biden talked of struggling financially as a single parent in 1973, to provide daycare on his US Senate salary of $44,000. $44,000 in 1973 was an extremely good salary.
5
@Jack Not when you are commuting, have a child who was badly injured in a car accident, and need full-time caregivers for traumatized children.
2
These debates are useless for NJ voters, so there's no reason to watch or care about what any candidate has to say. By the time our primary happens in June, the candidates will likely have been sorted out with very few if any choices. We deserve a National Primary Day, where we can winnow down choices like a nation.
4
@Emily There's plenty of reason to watch; to be an informed citizen.
1
Interesting to observe that members of the panel rated their favorites favorably. It should be possible greatly to prefer Candidate X while rating him and her poorly on "debate performance". I join several panelists in looking forward to seeing Bloomberg on stage, knowing full well that he won'r have "the best lines" or impress like a "maestro".
1
I hope all this talk, talk, talk from the media, pundits and candidates becomes irrelevant when Bloomberg gets the nomination and presidency. Everything the guy has touched in his life has turned to gold.
3
@Jack Learner
Yeah, stop & frisk was a wonderful, unconstitutional
(4th amendment), policy...utterly un-American.
2
Truth be told, the media, if I may generalize acknowledging their are many many brilliant and accurate journalists, are dealing with the candidates we have. They are a technically mediocre lot. What I see is that none of them are inspiring, say to the level of an Obama, or even a Hillary. It's as if, the horror of a destructive man running our country has debilitated our sense faculties. We can no longer see clearly what needs to be done.
1
Each of the candidates would prove a far better president than DJT. Each actually cares about America, Americans, and our place in a very dangerous world at risk of collapse due to climate change, overpopulation, and social tensions.
Interesting that many people think E Warren "won" by throwing a bomb at B Sanders -- without responding to his denial. Some "friend." Some uniter.
Also interesting that A Klobuchar is so often dismissed as "boring" for sounding like a grown up.
I'm always a bit skeptical when "journalists" claim to be objective while their bosses happily take in millions of dollars for running often dubious campaign ads . Or when pundits claim biased opinions are really "analysis." Also, recall how moderators in the Clinton-Trump debates so utterly failed to deal with DJT's lies and obnoxious behavior.
Hoping to see better media performances than what this NYT panel offered.
5
@LosRay each only cares about "their" americans
I didn't watch. I opted for "This is Us" instead. I'd imagine a lot of American's did the same.
I'm non plussed by what is unfolding with the Democratic Party.
And I'm concerned that money kicked articulate and vibrant candidates off the stage and out of the race. It's the main reason I'm tuning out at this point.
Sander and Warren are now going to duke it out, and it's going to be a side show spectacle that will legitimize the bias against their more progressive ideologies. Buttigieg is young, and frankly odd.
Klobuchar is a turn off, and gets to knotted up in a ball at times, Trump would tongue tie her like there is no tomorrow. Biden is ready for his rocking chair. And Steyer should be putting his time and great sums of money elsewhere to help the party and our countries future.
Laughably Bloomberg is campaigning on the Late Show with Colbert, because he knows better than anyone that our country and its seats of office are for sale to the highest bidder.
It's really quite surreal what's playing out in this nation.
And I'm sad, because the Democratic Party is blowing it.
Oddly I keep longing for Al Franken to step in and shift the tides completely.
He would have been a great candidate.
Humor, intelligence and kindness will eviscerate Trump.
That should be the focus.
American's are guided by emotion and appeal.
Get it together Dem's.
8
Can someone please explain to Liz Mair ("Let me keep telling you how I’m totally not sexist and make you think I’m totally sexist.") that assertion is not evidence. Just because she wants to believe Sanders is sexist (and/or wants others to believe this), doesn't make it so.
5
We teach young kids manners, to be polite and treat each person with respect but when it comes to economy, it is OK to use people and pay them $9 an hour and kick them out of a job before they are entitled for benefits. It is OK to allow mentally challenged carry weapon and pose a threat to young kids in Elementary Schools (toughts and prayers never helped). This mixed message and extremism must be stopped by another revolutionary discipline to bring this world to balance. Bernie Sanders is the answer and everybody else is a copy cat of Sanders. Before it is too late.
1
@Michal Trump and the right-wing media will win this again stoking fear of socialism. I think they have already won.
1
These columnist opinions in NYT and elsewhere continue to amaze me.
Warren is praised for her rehearsed and practiced "women's electability" moment, yet Buttigieg is criticized for being rehearsed and practiced.
Bernie is praised for being consistent and on message, yet the others are criticized for being repetitive and "tired."
Field is criticized for lack of diversity, yet everyone ignores Buttigieg's identity as LGBTQ, and refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room regarding his lack of black support.
Biden is a bumbling, stumbling, old white dinosaur, yet remains one of the most respected and beloved political leaders of the last 40 years and leads almost every national poll to date despite the repeated character assassinations by the ivory tower Manhattanites.
The media elite continue to alienate the American public and drive people closer to Trump. I hope and pray that the hypocrisy and purity-tests-du-jour cease and these "journalists" spend more time on substantive issues that actually affect the day-to-day lives of average Americans.
Believe it or not, most of us don't vote because of someone's race, gender, age, or whatever box you force us into. We vote for who we think will protect our families, put food on the table, and keep the lights on. Would be nice to see a few of these media types acknowledge that. God help us all.
10
@Chris I think any of these candidates would do better at the basics than Trump. Most of the comments here are so pessimistic, judgmental and outright hostile. With that kind of electorate, so soured on itself, let's just hand the election to Trump. Jeez, find a little kindness in yourselves, and perhaps a little tolerance for small mistakes. These are good candidates.
6
@Joanna Stelling
Trump has kept the economy rolling, jobs are plentiful...on foreign affairs, he keeps other nations off-balance and his unpredictability seems to elicit some fear in our adversaries ...which americans like....people dislike him personally but he has been good for them...
1
Television audiences expecting fireworks will come away disappointed, as the candidates seemed to be cautious about annoying Iowans who are said to dislike seeing personal attacks.
Who cares what Bernie said about a woman president? What difference does it make? This navel gazing misses the point: Our democratic system is under attack from djt and his minions. What are we going to do about that? All the arguments about healthcare, climate change, etc., pale in the face of the need to recognize that we have a steady move towards dictatorship by a man and a party that are only concerned with their re-election and their personal wealth and power.
This rating scale process is an exercise is diversion and self-absorption. Please pay attention to the gorilla in the White House.
4
I don't think people are realizing what they will be getting if they go the socialist route with Bernie or Elizabeth...Bernie says no deductible's or copay costs, and Warren says the cost will be paid by the wealthy... what could possibly go wrong with that picture?...for one, Canada's health system has long waiting times to see a specialist...6-8months, the same with the U.K. system...with no copay it means people will be making appointments with their primary doctor for every little cough or pain...driving up the cost of the system...what initially was thought to be 30 trillion over a period of a decade could easily turn into 50 trillion...what that means is the middle class will have to pay a lot more in taxes up to 40 - 50% of their income or more....then there is also all the other programs that need money...free college, free childcare, subsidized long term health care, higher social security payments...et cetera, et cetera the list can never be long enough for socialists...and don't forget paying the interest on all the national debt which will be at least double what it is now...is this the route that we really want to take as a nation...if so you can forget about the American dream...everyone will have the same cookie-cutter subsidized housing...and travel back and forth on free public transportation...this may be OK for all the millennial's and Gen Z that don't know any better about socialism...but I don't think that is what America is about for most people...
2
What was not talked enough about was our wasteful military spending: the trillions we‘ve thrown at unnecessary wars over decades could easily pay for medicare fo all and free public college, so people should stop asking Bernie how it can‘t be paid for. He als was the only to talk about this outrageous waste of taxpayer money, it seemed like a sacred cow to all others and one has to wonder why.
255
@heinryk wüste
Elizabeth Warren often speaks of reducing the military budget (even if it didn't come up last night). It's part of her plan on climate change, for one thing.
18
@heinryk wüste: I just watched it and there was plenty of talk about wasteful defense spending and the need to redirect into infrastructure and social programs.
23
@SRF
The military employs a lot of people and many of those jobs even at the private sector level are protected from foreign competition (because it is military related). Even within direct military spending, you are constrained by a lot of entitlement programs (e.g. Tricare, pension)....obsessively focusing on cutting military is not as easy as people think and does not save the money people hope
11
A mediocre debate without focus on Trump's outrageous and dangerous behavior over the past few weeks. In my opinion:
Biden - still the one who has the best chance of uniting/healing the country. He embodies a morality we sorely need in our government.
Sanders - would make a good president, but unless the Dems keep the House and win the Senate would not be able to push through his agenda and would further divide the country.
Buttigieg - Smart guy, but this country isn't ready for him.
Klobuchar - She's smart, she's charming, she's well-rehearsed. But I don't see her inspiring the masses.
Steyer - Good guy. I hope he focuses on climate change when this is all over.
Warren - Why go for Warren, when you can have Sanders without the strident mean streak?
I am not getting all excited over these debates. I will support wholeheartedly the Democratic nominee for president. All I know for sure is I cannot take four more years of Trump.
Joe Biden has been open about his lifelong stuttering issue, so the comments about him "stumbling" over words run hollow at best and come across as just plain nasty at worst. He's not my candidate, but the "stumbling" comments make me cringe.
Commenting on a candidate who forgets a name (as if everyone hasn't done that) or who "stumbles" over words says one thing to me: the debate was pretty boring. That's worrisome.
178
@JF True, but it's not just his stuttering. He brings nothing new to the table and he keeps recycling the fact that he was part of the Obama administration. Honestly, he seems to have no passion, just running through the routine.
21
@JF I strongly agree that he should not be criticized for stuttering, but I do believe people are picking up on a legitimate concern: Biden does not seem to have the stamina to remain strong and articulate throughout a two-hour debate, where he is required only to speak in short sound bites. In the general election, when he is tasked with speaking 50% of the time in a debate against trump, where he is being constantly attacked, how will he hold up? It's a fair question.
40
@JF I forget my own phone number. Glad no one's got the camera rolling for that.
15
All the candidates should go straight to Oakland and stand with the homeless moms and their families thrown out of the vacant building they had occupied and transformed. An armed to the teeth goon squad made Alameda County Sheriff's deputies evicted them. Once again showing the the police force at the end and beginning and the middle of the day is both the internal army of the state and a security force protecting corporate power and greed. This independent of how decent and courageous and idealistic independent police officers might be.
1
I do not understand how some of these opinion writers can safely say that Joe Biden did better than Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders (or anyone for that matter). The politcial bias of these "Winners and Losers" writers are laughable. Joe Biden will never be able to stand next to Trump on a debate stage and clearly articulate answers. Just because he has done "Slightly better than last time" does not mean he shoulder be considered a strong debater. Seems like some of these writers completely forget how the Clinton/Trump debates, and Clinton was a professional debater.
5
This is now about whether Sander can overcome Warren. If so, he goes into March as the progressive alternative to whoever emerges as the centrist and they duke it out. If not, it's hard to see any path to the nomination for him. Bernie and Liz may have been longtime friends, but I'm not sure they will remain so.
1
Biden has appeared tongue-tied his whole life...in fact, as most folks know by now, he was/has been a life-long stutterer. So get over it people. The guy in charge now has the vocabulary of a 10 year old and the social conscience of a 2 year old.
11
@Cowboy Marine
....that's unfair to two-year-olds.
1
I'd take any one of these candidates any day over any Republican and certainly over Trump -- impeached, corrupt, unfit and a hopeless liar. I was proud that besides the woman/win minute, which was handled with friendliness and grace by the two candidates, they did not engage in personal attacks. A little of your numbers don't add up, but generally they were respectful to one another and focused on the problem of Trump. I was proud of them for not shooting themselves in the foot.
3
I didn't notice anybody commenting on Mayor Pete's belief that he's the one who can bring white Christians back to the Democrats.
I don't know whether he meant to or not, and, considering how canned most of his debate performances have been I believe he probably meant to, it seemed a swipe at Sanders whom he seemed to imply, that as a Jew he couldn't attract those Christians.
As the panel was so interesting in whether or not Sanders said a woman could be elected, how come it didn't seem to care that Buttigieg was implying that a Jew couldn't.
3
@Steve I think that was an unfortunate declaration by Mayor Pete. We do separate religion from politics as it should be.
Kinda sad commentary on from the voters on why someone should elect ‘x’, because they said ‘only women won all elections’ or ‘he said, she said’. Wow, how profound. Bumper stickers for the ages.
2
It's like America has a broken arm and the doctors are arguing over what color bandaid they should put on it.
228
@Andrew Roberts excellent analogy. To take it further, not only are they arguing over bandaid colors, the patient keeps insisting that a cast is "too radical".
41
@Andrew Roberts I disagree. Any of the Democratic candidates (those who were on the debate stage and those who were not) would be a dramatic and desperately needed change from Donald Trump. Many are proposing to do things that have never been done before, even the moderates. None of the candidates is perfect and it's easy to complain about them. But simply complaining is going to fix nothing. If you have better ideas please share them.
15
@Andrew Roberts
A more fitting analogy would be that America has a broken arm and some Democrats want to put us in a body cast while others just want to fix the arm.
12
According to Daniel McCarthy, Pete Buttigieg is “right that millionaires’ and billionaires’ kids shouldn’t get ‘free’ college from taxpayers. So why not test all entitlements?” For the very same reason that FDR did not want to means test Social Security. Something given freely to some but not others is perceived as favoritism or a handout, which can be retracted (as indeed we have seen Republicans attempt since 1935). That which is the right of all Americans because they pay for it through taxes should not be withdrawn because it has been earned, not given freely. Free college or healthcare or childcare or other programs progressives are proposing must be accompanied with significant changes to the tax code, so that millionaires and billionaires pay much more, but middle-class and working class taxpayers must also pay for these benefits. Bernie is right: Americans will pay more, but they will also get college educations that do not economically hamstring the graduate or her family, healthcare that doesn’t force Americans into bankruptcy, childcare that allows women and men to be productive citizens but doesn’t extract half of one salary to care for one’s offspring. This requires a change in perspective that doesn’t focus on low taxes to the exclusion of everything else, but rather prioritizes the whole life and the assurance of all the basic necessities that make life rich and rewarding.
574
@Ockham9
Social Security and Medicare should not be called Entitlements. This is a Pension Plan, managed by the Government, that through a separate tax paid for by Employees and Employers to fund it. It is not a Government funded welfare program. I wish they would change the name to show what it is, how it is paid for and what the results have been so far. It means that those who were not fortunate enough to be employed by a company who offered a Pension Plan would not go hungry in their later years. It also provides benefits for widows and children, which helped me pay for child care when I was widowed and had to go to work to support my family.
All who paid into the system are eligible.
200
@Ockham9 Actually, they pay for it in Sanders approach as part of their higher tax rates. Bernie's "universality" is a good way to do things - much simpler to administer than try to have people complete forms so the government can means-test everything. Public college can be tuition free, but the higher earners are still effectively paying for it because that's how their increased tax dollars are being allocated. It is simple.
71
@Ockham9 This mindset of Buttigieg really turns me off him. I had parents that would not qualify under his proposal, but they would not have sent me to college anyway due to reckless spending and simply not caring whether I went to college. And I definitely was the type that should have gone to college. Thankfully I learned how to be a software engineer myself. Saying "we're going to ask you to pay your own way." Who? The kid is 18 years old and the parents are no longer legally obligated to pay, just as mine would not. Bernie is right that it would be an administrative nightmare trying to means test. Though I agree with Klobuchar.. not everyone needs a 4 year degree and that's not what we should be pushing. A higher education is a waste of money for many.
232
I, for one, am happy when they talk policy and don't go on the attack against each other. Warren won the night for me and I think the more people actually listen to her, the more they'll like her. (My husband, who often goes on sound bites and what he's heard on pundit shows, was impressed w/her: "I expected a crazed, angry screamer but she's not like that at all").
I just don't get the Mayor Pete love. Agree 100% w/Melayne Price - no matter how he performs, pundits will say he was excellent.
1
I know that many wanted to see a slug fest but I don't think that serves the party or candidates well, and certainly not the voters. The name calling and insults will come when the chosen candidate debates Trump. Of course, Trump doesn't debate an issue he just tries to insult and demean his opponent because he is incompetent and has no policy chops.
The media is obsessed with getting Warren and Sanders to fight and argue with each other. Why? In the end, the Dems need all of these candidates to work together against Trump and Trumpism. Bond together as a party to fight corruption and fight for truth and facts in government. That will be an accomplishment for the country.
6
One last thought - next debate lets have less questions and more time for answers! We are past the point of soundbytes. Ask a question and give real time for an answer. We all know their stump positions by now - I want to watch them explain and defend substantive answers. I want to hear the nuance of candidate positions. That doesn't happen in 45 second soundbytes. These debates are past redundant in part because they say most the same 45 second blips again and again. Less questions - more substance.
9
I like them as a team. The debate format is quite stilted so it's not going to enable them to do their best. But it's great to hear all those voices together. Every candidate, to the degree that they follow through with what they say, has a lot to contribute. Can't we have all of them? No, I guess we can't. I was quite dismayed by Elizabeth Warren's backstab at Sanders. And I missed Andrew Yang. I can see why Biden keeps his place in the polling. He, however haltingly at times, speaks in an authoritative, morally sound manner which reassures me that he would not take the country on another wild ride somewhere. They all have moral fiber- I like all of them.
3
This ranking got it right, mostly, where it counts. Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar were the stand-outs. Two women and a man! Troubling to me is that journalists across the media, including NYT, aren't showing more concern about Joe Biden. It's not just stuttering; it's more than that. He often says words he has to come back and correct. As a communicator at this point, I'd give him a barely passing grade. We need a president who can effectively communicate with us and, sad for him, he increasingly cannot.
6
The moderators are the main problem, constantly trying to pit one candidate against the other, posing the same questions about how each will pay for their medical insurance plans, wondering whether Medicare for all will "bankrupt" the country. Sanders' answer is always about being "sick and tired" of corporate greed. Biden wondered whether Sanders would ever support any trade agreement, which may be the case.
7
The losers in this debate were the moderators, in my opinion. I was hoping that with a smaller field, the questions would not continue to plow the health insurance field yet another time, eliciting the same answers and positions these candidates have held since day one. I would have been interested for more in-depth exploration of how any progressive programs would get passed given Senate deadlock, how a "wealth tax" could be enforced given the dismal track record of it working in other countries, how to address the slide of public education including its funding being dependent on the socioeconomic forces of individual communities, and any focus on issues faced by most large urban centers (you know, where most of the population actually lives). I do understand that given the location of the debate and the Iowa Caucus ahead, that focus on trade and farming was important (and it's important to my state, as well) but there would have been plenty of time for discussion of largely urban concerns if there hadn't been so much gas wasted idling at previously-discussed-to-death issue stops.
14
RE: Past electability is important.
Goodbye President Lincoln who had last won an election
14 years before he ran for president and had lost his only two races, both for the Senate, after that.
By 1968 Nixon had lost not only the presidency in 1960 but the California gubernatorial election in 1962.
2
OK Debating, but no dramatic issues to topple Trump, yet.
I suggest they focus on how Trump is destroying democracy.
If Trump is reelected he will turn the country into a dictatorship!
Trump's presidency will likely encourage global dictatorship.
I suggest idea contests to find the best ways to defeat Trump.
For example, they might use the "Democracy" song.
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
But all these democratic candidates can team up to beat Trump.
"United, we stand. Divided we fall." (Aesop)
2
@H Pearle
No, Trump did not turn this country into a dictatorship 4 years in, and won't in 4 more years.
No, other countries elect their own leaders, and we do not tell them who to choose.
'they might use the "Democracy" song' - yea, sitting in the corner singing kumbaya, holding hands and smoking pot together, that's your solution for our issues?
'But all these democratic candidates can team up to beat Trump.'
you are aware only one of them gets to run for president, right? it's not a committee, it's a president, and not the candidate cannot be a group of people.
Wow.
Seriously.
No wonder people point at Liberals and laugh.
2
Steyer is way under-rated by these journalists! He was the only candidate who spoke to the American public eye to eye. I thought politicians learned this simple trick in Politics 101.
Look at the camera!
6
I was very much missing Yang and Booker in this debate . . . and for that matter, Castro and Harris, too. Yang nailed it at the last debate when he said, basically, "You know what people need in order to donate to a campaign? Disposable income." And guess who are less likely to have that, thanks to centuries-old systemic racism in our country? People of color.
We have a problem with how our elections are financed -- obviously. It's simply not the case that the candidates still standing all white are absolutely superior politicians than the candidates of color. They are able to buy themselves higher name recognition.
Another thing that's bugged me about these debates -- the incentives of the networks that host them are not at all aligned with the incentives of the DNC. The former simply want ratings; the latter is trying to select a winning candidate. Let's stop having CNN, NBC, and the like host these things. I'm really tired of the republican-talking-point-questions from the moderators.
19
I have to say that it is frustrating for many Independents and swing voters to be scolded again and again by progressives for not wanting change at the pace being proposed by Warren and Sanders. The problem is not that we disagree. It's that I'm being told that my point of view is invalid, uninformed and morally wrong. This makes it impossible for me to even consider voting for Sanders or Warren, much the same way I can't vote for Trump. All or nothing politics only serves the fringes and does nothing to reconcile our differences. If progressives want to argue that we need to burn down the house to fix the plumbing, that's fine. Just don't come barking at me because I prefer to call a plumber.
9
@John remember that any change will be mediated by Congress. If you don't vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in November, even if they are far to your left, we truly will not have democracy and your children will not have a planet. Progressives need to vote for Biden if he's the nominee, and Independents/Centrists need to vote for Bernie or Warren. It's simple.
4
@Ellen
Sorry but this argument rings hollow and has been trotted out more times than I can remember. You don't vote for a President hoping that Congress will keep them in check. You vote for a President that you hope will achieve change that aligns with your personal point of view. I am ready to vote for Joe, Pete or Amy, but I cannot and will not vote for Bernie or Liz. If I have to choose between one of them and Trump, I'll vote 3rd party.
1
If Sanders made any allusions to a woman's viability as a presidential candidate, it was probably along this line. "You can't win the Presidency as a woman, identity politics is dead, you have to run as an American..."
4
What debate? Once again we heard the same answers to the same questions about Health Insurance and Climate Change, but not one question about the future of Social Security, Once again we learned that any of them would be better than Trump. And once again, due to the media format, we were denied the opportunity to hear details instead of soundbites.
If meaningful debate is to play a positive role in American political campaigns, then at the very least we need a more substantive format, and perhaps a more qualified cast of characters asking the questions, as well.
253
@Bob W
Agreed. A debate is a back and forth, where the parties stay on subject, listen as well as speak with intellectual honesty. This was like all the other political debates, a bunch of candidates lilting their sing-songs, ego stroking themselves and their little stories about the little man they met and some sob story.
23
@Bob W the times has done in depth interviews with the major candidates. Thank you for that !
It is what is lacking in these debates.
22
@carla janson
Yes. But unfortunately, for many voters if it isn't from the television, it isn't real.
9
As in prior debates, there were no real winners or losers. If anything, Trump was the winner as they are giving him lost of ammunition. With his billions, Steyer needs to invest in a new tie.
I thought the biggest losers were the moderators. The two women, particularly the one from Iowa, were not very good. They had a bad sense of when to let the candidates ramble and when to cut them off, and the questions were all over the place. Moderators in prior debates were much better.
6
“The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women.”
Because the party's last Presidential candidate, a woman, is not on the stage.
62
@RRBurgh I see your point, but if we're going to measure the sexes' competitiveness by how many elections they've lost, it's not even close.
12
@RRBurgh
She did win the popular vote and that counts, even if the arcane Electoral College denied her the Oval office.
39
@Myasara She didn't "win" the popular vote. She took a plurality - there's a difference. Had the election been fought in every state, not just "swing states," she wouldn't have had that. She had a 5 million super-majority from Ca., Manhattan and Brooklyn combined; which means she lost the rest of the country by 2 million.
14
Mostly agree with Maureen Dowd's rankings. What I don't understand is why people are so desperate to give Joe a pass. He was like totally out of it. Cannot imagine how he can go up against Trump.
The whole group was so weak that it makes Mike look better and better.
7
@Carol Colitti Levine Yup Joe was out of it!
Television audiences expecting fireworks will come away disappointed, as the candidates seemed to be cautious about annoying Iowans who are said to dislike seeing personal attacks.
2
Sanders clearly had the wind in his sails last evening even showing the old curmudgeon can be a gentleman. But what I would love to know is what are the zip codes of his lauded followers and contributors? Are they mostly east and west coast?
2
@h-from-missouri We are from MN. Strongly for Bernie. Not for Klobuchar in the least.
1
@h-from-missouri
'But what I would love to know is what are the zip codes of his lauded followers and contributors?'
11203 and 90210
Not happy with the he said/she said grenade Warren lobbed beforehand at Bernie. Bernie takes in stride- so she make him look more Presidential than herself. Warren had a good night-so did Bernie.
2
Warren backed off because everyone knows it was a lie—an embarrassing, but probably non-consequential, moment for her campaign.
3
@-brian
'Warren backed off because everyone knows it was a lie—an embarrassing, but probably non-consequential,'
The problem is that the accusation was said out loud and caused major waves.
If he said it and then denied it on TV, it tarnishes his entire image.
If he did not say it and she invented this story, then it is one more moment on a pattern of inventing lies to get ahead, and she has done this a lot.
She can be accused of lying and cheating her way up the totem pole. And that is an angle that the GOP will take and roast her for until she's done in politics.
it has huge consequences for whomever is lying. The GOP will never let them forget it, and they were the ones who handed this nuke gift wrapped to Trump and Co.
1
Oh gee. The commentators along with the debate audience, will likely not change their minds much as a result of last nights rerun of "same old thing"....People who like Biden, will still support Biden, people who like Bernie are still all in for him, etc. Here's my take:
Bernie - a waste of time for him to be on a debate stage, he has been saying the same thing about everything since 2015...there is nothing new to learn here.
Warren - so earnest and full of plans....with no plan about how she could get Congress to pass any of them. She has some great ideas, weak on implementation--until we change the nature and makeup of the Legislative branch, and slow down the ideological hard right conservatives being installed on the judicial bench, she will be dead in the water.
Former Mayor Pete - always articulate, calming in demeanor, well versed in many topics, not quite ready for the top job, but a voice that our government needs somewhere, someday.
Amy Klobuchar Smart very smart, a bit smug too. I'm really a bit tired of "I get things done" as she didn't get them done by herself--none of them have. But a voice of reason and common sense...good VP for Bernie to keep his feet on the ground.
Tom Steyer - has some good points, like some of what he says, just don't really like him.
Biden - has the relationships for a great cabinet, and with world leaders. Best transition candidate out of Trump exhaustion. We could use some boring, steady restoration of decency.
25
Amy Klobuchar was best, as usual. She would win with ease in the states we have to win.
The Republicans know they won't carry California, New York, or Massachusetts. Or Vermont. The presidency will be decided in states similar to Minnesota, where Amy has won by big margins three times. (Note: the Muller Report [page 202 in the edition published by the Washington Post] reveals that Paul Manafort, then Trump's campaign manager, laid out their 2016 strategy to a Russian intelligence operative [Kilimnik], including the plan to flip four previously Democratic states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. They succeeded in the first three, and came close in Minnesota. The GOP is investing big in these same states again.)
Melanye Price claims the center is disappearing. Actually no, that's on Twitter, not in real life. Polling consistently shows that more people identify as "moderate" than "liberal" or "progressive". But anyway, if you do your homework and read up on Klobuchar's website, you'll see she's plenty progressive.
16
@Baxter Jones
Great analysis - I agree - winning the battleground states is key & Klobuchar can do it.
3
Bloomberg should have been allowed to be onstage. These are good candidates running that have appeared at these debates but they aren't the entire picture and anything but that is confusing and not helping the Democratic strategy of getting the worst president ever out of this country's sacred office.
Also, I want to see and hear what Bloomberg is like being grilled, jibed and made to answer on his feet for a run at the biggest national office.
11
Glad you all got to watch the debate. I didn't because I don't subscribe to cable and even though it was streamed online you had to login with a provider that offers CNN which I could not do. How can a progressive political party abide a commercial mode for presidential debates that is not available to the entire U.S. population on broadcast TV? It makes Bloomberg's strategy to bypass the debate debacles while running concurrent commercials seem quite sporting and cunning. As well, it seemed fitting that the PBS News Hour last night covered Trump's Iowa rally at length and utterly ignored the Democratic debates.
16
@John Jay Absolutely! I could not agree more. What use is a debate that a large segment cannot see?
4
@John Jay Agreed. I don't have cable so could not watch. I rely on NYt for news and the occasional cable night somewhere for the large nights. We need to change up the format as these foolish questions and short return volleys from candidates do not provide much in the REI. Health care will surely become universal. The argument about education surrounds a larger issue, that of college for all as college education overall is undergoing vast changes in who attends, what do they take, what will the curricula include or throw out (German? Geo? Govt.English). Warren is a smart cookie, but she relies on her own life story for some of her more traditional views. I like Yang for all these reasons. These candidates, even the so-called progressive ones, look backward, not forward.
@John Jay Don't know in what part of New York you live. We don't have cable; we watched it on CNN.com, which clearly stated that no "login" was required.
One CNN commentator said there was a "banana peel" on the floor, with respect to the playing of the gender card by Warren's campaign, and "Bernie slid around all over". More like operatives, with an assist from friends in the MSM, slathered the floor with oil.
It is a bit of breathtaking chutzpah to claim to be a unifier when going all in on a cold calculated bit of "triangulated" wedge issue. With the whole we (always) gotta believe the woman. How dare he call her a liar!
But how likely was it Bernie said women can't ever win? How much more likely is it he said a "turn of a woman" reprise of the 2016 run would not be so great?
Given the December 2018 meeting was Warren trying to get Bernie to stay out.
That the "issue" comes up so late (along with GOTV talking points...please "obtain" such from all the campaigns...) & clearly just in time for the last debate before Iowa, shows that there is desperation in her campaign...that the contests past the 1st 2 do not augur well.
Biden's machine will wait for whatever damage is done to Sanders then point out the old school MO, the witting intent, the ditching of a common cause for personal (not just the candidate's) ambition. Currying the old Bernie supporters for Super Tuesday.
Well played...
5
if any of you out there want to know what sanders' america will be, just take a look at the peoples republic of vermont. high taxes, poorly delivered government services, a fleeing population, and daily condescension for those of us that disagree with a quasi-socialist agenda. and one more thing; the look on sanders' face when he realized 1990 actually WAS thirty years ago sums up his mental acuity. look, i'm 67 but can the democrats please give us something other than an over 75 year-old nominee? good grief boomer!
14
@pierre 1990 is within 30 years ago. He was correct. If Warren wanted to be accurate, she would have to say "31," but that wouldn't be as good of a soundbite, would it?
He was right. He knew he was right. I'm more concerned about Warren's compulsive untruthness.
1
The only person who could win and put trump in place was not on the debate stage. Michael Bloomberg is the only person who has what it takes to challenge and beat trump.
All of the people debating last night are good at what they have done in politics. But, for all the people on stage where is the zip? Where is the wow quality that would make them winnable against trump?
Hopefully a Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic candidate in 2020.
9
@EC Yes, we all need a New York billionaire vs. a purported New York billionaire. Might as well go all in on the plutocracy, eh?
1
@Max Robe Both of whom seem to feel that because of their extreme wealth they are entitled to write their own rules. The entitled....are the electorate going to fall for that again?
It was a strange debate because everyone agreed that beating Trump was the main goal but no one proved he/she could attack trump, giving glimpse of it, by viciously attacking Trump, like he is already doing it to them. They think there will be time enough to do it after the nomination. Sadly, by that time millions of independents and moderates would have listened to Trump's lies, created an image of a Democrat monster in the White House, and would be committed to Trump. You can't win with knives when the enemy has nuclear missiles.
1
@Jack Everyday Trump seems to lose supporters and make more enemies, and the Dems have candidates with more appeal than Hillary. Not saying it's not possible, didn't think he'd win in 2016, just saying the math doesn't add up for me.
1
Warren inserts a cancel culture factoid into the debate (which may not even be true) and the media supports her because, well, she IS a (progressive, non-progressive women are beyond the Pale) woman and such women must be believed.
Firstly, who cares whether Bernie said it or not? It was a professional opinion, based on perceived (and likely real to one degree or another) misogyny in the electorate. Only far left "feminists" really care whether he actually said it.
Secondly, why did Warren introduce this factoid into the political mix, other than to create division where none really exists? It's what we used to call a "dirty trick."
Thirdly, Warren' refusal to shake Bernie's proffered hand is simply contemptible, even if she believed he was lying (as opposed to forgetting or having meant something else) about the dirty trick she tried to play on him. It will not serve her well to appear arrogant and self-righteous.
And I think she is the less crazy of the two.
15
"He seemed sleepy and tripped over his words, at least until his riff on the economy."
Someone needs to remind Michelle Goldberg that Biden is a recovering stutterer, and it takes intense concentration and practice for him not to stutter. In virtually every debate it has slipped out. Criticize him for his policy stances, not his stutter!
Warren's refusal to shake Sander's was, perhaps, the key moment of the debate. Going back to Ronald Reagan's effective "There you go again!" 40 years ago, I learned that debate substance is MEANINGLESS (though they shouldn't be) and only "moments" count. Warren's "Only the 2 women have won every election!" was such a moment, and a real positive for her, but her refusal to shake Sander's hand undid all that.
Yeah, I wish substance and policy in debates was what counted and it's depressing that it doesn't, only "memorable moments" do.
BTW, all 3 moderators, especially Wolf Blitzer, should be banned from EVER moderating a debate ever again. All 3 were dreadful, and I've wondered for decades why Wolf Blitzer was ever, or is ever, considered at all competent.
Real issues of the economy, the opioid crisis, gun violence in America, even real meat&potatoes issues for Iowa voters were either ignored or skimmed over.
And the DNC's standards for making the debate stage? Ridiculous! Why was Tom Steyer there?
22
But no means up on this election process, but
seeing a Booker, a Castro, or Harris, i.e. person of colour in the race would appear to make the DP more representative of America.
4
The best performance at the debate was the local reporter who insisted on substantive answers.
6
The major losers of the night were the moderators. Again. Every debate, it's the very same questions! At best, there is a small tweak (e.g., we learned this week, Candidate X, that Candidate Y said ___ about you). Good grief!
The least they could do when relying on the very same questions is seek to extract more meaningful answers. Among the most egregious lapses is the continual focus on cost of candidate healthcare plans WITHOUT consideration of costs of the immediate system and its future value/cost projections. Likewise, no attempt by the moderators to drill into the substance of different plans (what's included, what's not and why).
This process needs moderators who do service to the job.
55
I find it odd that we were on the verge of an unnecessary war with Iran and yet no one seems to be talking about that in their comments on the debate. They all seem fixed in their views. I think Biden won on substance when they talked about foreign policy even if he grapples with a stuttering problem. Warren said she would withdraw all troops from the Middle East. Biden said we have to keep special forces there to fight ISIS. I also thought Biden gave a good answer on his Iraq vote by admitting it was a mistake. Amy Klobuchar also gave thoughtful answers on foreign policy. I'm looking for someone with experience who knows what they are talking about. What Biden said about healing the nation was also important.
7
Amy Klobucher was the most Presidential during last night’s debate. Steady, not flighty. She brought forth issues, not yet in the forefront but soon to be major concerns. Well spoken and not grating in tone.
The debate questions, I wish, would have focused on issues that hadn’t been discussed ad nauseum in other debates. Peripheral issues of importance may have led to greater insight among the candidates.
38
All this attention to Biden's "stumbles." Has anyone forgotten that Joe has a self-admitted stuttering problem that he works with constantly? Under stress, and mostly improvisational, these kinds of things seem to intensify. Stop with the "stumbling" critiques and listen to what the guy says.
I'm not saying I agree with all Biden does and says, I just want the American people to see what is sometimes an invisible "disability" for many many people and not judge character or mental ability based on some perceived "stumbles."
FDR was in a wheelchair, and I dare say he was not criticized for the way he arrived at a podium, to speak.
38
@mouseone It's just that the stutter didn't seem to be a problem for the vast majority of his political career...only now that he's gotten older.
6
@mouseone
The USA deserves a president who communicates fluently, thinks logically and practically, and understands the components of the US governments and society.
Joe however does not stutter his words as much as he stutters his thoughts. And he has a history of tone deafness, even to his own songs. Joe has a clear cognitive impairment. Not everybody deserves an A, this is not a Disney movie.
9
@LHP Well said. I think the pundits are afraid to say what we are all thinking: Biden is past it. We all age differently. I speak as a 60something who is more and more with my ability to articulate arguments at length. Biden is well past his sell-by date, unfortunately. Both Sanders and Warren are articulate, on-point, and coherent even.
3
I think there are many of us “progressives” who’ve been trying to decide between Sanders and Warren. It was time for them to try to draw out the distinctions. I think everything Bernie says is great, but I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw Mitch McConnell into his revolution. I liked how EW talked about what she would do with executive orders, because that’s probably all we can get unless we can flip the Senate. She would be able to unite the party. Her answer on women’s electability was great.
Biden once again gets a pass. He was awful, IMHO. He is just not cognitively up to what would be ahead in a general election campaign.There is just no way he will inspire the turnout we’re gonna need to win. I wish his good friend Barack could have told him to just enjoy his retirement.
9
The clip of Warren and Sanders sparring, as well as the way this past conversation was leaked, convinces me that Sanders is telling the truth, and that Warren is more disingenuous and desperate than I had thought.
16
@garibaldi And centrist Democrats and Republicans love this spat because they can use it to try to diminish the two most progressive candidates in the presidential race.
8
@garibaldi
You speak for moderates but you are not one. That is a little egotistical. I am a moderate and I don't like love seeing any of the candidates going after another. We need to unite not divide. I am NOT speaking for all moderates. I do not have that right but I do speak for myself.
5
@garibaldi As a centrist democrat (mostly), I clocked out on Warren and Sanders long before this. I find Sanders especially dishonest in his impossible promises and for moral posturing. But -- a small percentage of the country (the far-left progressives and/or the far-right conservatives) don't get to write the lives of all others. If the left doesn't wake up to that, we'll be forced to endure another 4 years of Trump's poison, if it can be endured.
3
There is something so inherently wrong about the way we showcase our Presidential candidates - bringing them out like Ms. America contestants to claw away for votes in the most inauthentic way, shamefully pandering to be "liked" - that it's no wonder that Trump, a master of this game, has risen to ultimate power in our country. We have indeed seen the enemy, and it is us.
98
@RMW
Indeed. The sets for these debates reminds me of a pinball arcade.
3
Bernie is the only one who speaks with conviction and come around as frank , the rest are typical politicians jaded and robotic who Trump will make mince meat out of them be them men or women .
Everyone is using trillions figures to scare Americans about universal healthcare but Canada and most European countries got universal free healthcare without crazy Tax rates because people pay insurance companies zero dollars but probably a little higher taxes , also people could always buy extra coverage if they choose to .
22
@Sindbad677
He does speak with conviction and he is frank.
Unfortunately, his policies would destroy the country. Otherwise, he is great.
@Sagi And the guy presently occupying the WH isn’t? Where were we before Social Security and Medicare? As a senior with a health issue, i’m forever grateful.
4
The simmering animosity between Sanders and Warren seemed to take all of the oxygen out of the room. An eminently forgettable debate. I'm hoping that Trump's impeachment trial will inject some life into voters.Hopefully it will enlighten those Trump supporters who haven't managed to penetrate the depth of Trump's shameful money grubbing and mendacious ways.
5
@Marion Francoz
The impeachment trial, which will be managed by Republicans, will be a six week infomercial for Trump paid for by the American tax payer.
4
Trump Wins Every Democratic Debate.
Lots of voters dislike the president but will be convinced to vote for him by seeing his opponents. Every time the Democratic presidential contenders gather together, it’s a contest between the merely delusional, the vaguely vindictive and the patently absurd.
6
@Brady
You forgot the the forgetful, confused, and meandering, but I get your point.
2
Are the opinion team reading the same news and polls that I can get? If so, why are they still counting Biden at the top of the heap? This is clearly a Sanders vs Warren contest now.
Sanders is consistently honest. Warren has been caught lying more than once.
That’s all I really need to know about them.
In my eyes, Sanders is the one to beat trump as he can bring out voters that will not easily vote for Warren now and will not vote for Biden or Klobuchar under any circumstances. The younger generations, the greens, the independents.
Us older folks make a grave mistake acting as if we can ignore this and arrogantly insist on running centrists who will, once again, lose to trump. Did you learn nothing from 2016?
12
@H. Savage No Democrat can win the white house without a large turnout of minority voters. The doctrinaire purists of the left are a much smaller group. If they want to take their marbles and go home, they will be in effect voting for Trump - as they did the last time. So far, because of his strong support in the African American community, Biden has the best chance to beat Trump.
I will support the Democrat who wins the primary regardless of whether he or she is "moderate" or "progressive".
Trump has got to go if even a sherd of democracy is to remain in the US.
@H. Savage
Biden is ahead nationally and by over 20 points in S Carolina.
1
I'm a bit surprised that nobody mentioned Amy Klobuchar's inability to stop talking. It seemed like every single time it was her turn to speak "Thank you Senator Klobuchar" was said over and over by the moderators. And even though her point had already been made, she consistently ignored the fact that her time was up just to keep talking.
That lack of respect for the other candidates' time and ignoring the moderators, candidates do it but in Klobuchar's case it just seemed to be so much less about driving home a point and so much more about hearing herself talk. That bothered me.
14
These debate performances are silly ways to determine who should be the President. A successful president can be a monstrous debater. Zinging opponents and getting laugh lines are not prerequisites for leadership.
Workable solutions current issues, plans to deal with foreign and domestic crises (and philosophy behind their stances) and some grander aspirational goals can be conveyed, reviewed and discussed in a better forum than 45 second sound bytes and gotchas.
We are in this mess now because we have someone who successfully zinged 12 Republicans in debates in 2016. Such an accomplishment! -- and held rallies lying and/or aggrandizing about himself and lying and/or smearing anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with him.
This is simply not a relevant venue for determining Presidential leadership or success (though apparently it is determining, wrongfully, electability).
32
@Matthew K Could not agree more. Shows the mediocrity of the Media and the superficiality of the Pundits.
4
@Matthew K
Is it too much to ask for both a skillful debater and an effective President?
My biggest losers are Warren and CNN. Warren has showed just how desperate she is to reverse her sliding polling numbers over the past few days, and the strategy for this was making a completely unverifiable claim about a candidate she supposedly calls a "friend" and hoping the media ran with it. The fact that Sanders offered a handshake post-debate and Warren refused it did not sit well with me. CNN is also a loser because of how they amplified this story and blatantly covered for Warren. When Sanders flatly denied ever saying that a woman cannot win the presidency, the moderators then asked Warren what she thought when he said that. What? CNN simply ignored what Sanders had to say on the matter and presented Warren's story as fact when it is actually the other side of the story. That's journalistic malpractice and it needs to be called out. And that's outside of the hideous questions that could have been concocted by lobbyists and CEOs.
Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Biden I would place in the "meh" category. I was not particularly animated by any one of these three. For Biden, that's okay. Nobody else successfully challenged Biden's electability, which is the entire argument he has been making for why he should be the nominee.
Sanders was one of my two winners, as he managed to get himself out of a precarious position pre-debate with the Warren debacle. Steyer was my other winner. His campaign might be a vanity project, but it certainly didn't come across that way on stage.
15
@Alden Henrie Totally agree with you.
This debate was horribly moderated with the poor questions and the direct pitting of the candidates against each other, and the strident tone of some of the moderators (the journalist from Iowa).
Sanders was for me the clear winner but I can now live with Joe Biden as the nominee.
The biggest surprise for me was Steyer. I don't think he has relevant experience, but what he had to say was very relevant and well-thought-out. He would be a valuable addition to the cabinet of the eventual winner.
2
Will Wilkerson: Steyer's billions undercut the credibility of his "left" message? Well then, when Hillary spent 2 million on Chelsea's wedding, that must have sunk her credibility as well. For all the Dems who think the rich folks are not presidential timber, might I suggest you look at FDR and JFK for guidance? I appreciate Steyer and Bloomberg getting in the arena and I'm glad they're putting their money where their mouth is. The notion that only money from the middle class or working class counts is preposterous. Why not just hand the election to Republicans?
9
Too many debates have created an echo chamber.
Why the focus on best one liner? We are not evaluating stand up comedians.
They were all fine, but their ideas are couched in different bodies, genders, voices, temperaments--the intangibles that will decide the nominee.
We all know they can't possibly keep all their campaign promises.
Elizabeth has probably hurt herself more than Bernie with the latest so-called leak. The timing is too cynical and will hurt her more than Bernie. She may have opened the door to Pocahontas again.
Joe and Bernie have experienced many more opportunities to lose elections. When was losing an election a source of shame?
Tom Steyer has consistently polled last in these NYT postmortems. He speaks well, without pretense, and inspires confidence. We shouldn't hold his billions against him.
Steyer would make a good President. Sometimes, you can tell.
7
A few good soundbites doesn't make a president. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren having their little tiffs doesn't exactly scream they are pros at working across the aisle. It's unfortunate all these candidates can't see they are now coming across as the tired ol leftovers in the fridge. All these opportunities to show passion, inspire, and show mettle. Meh. You would think they would pivot a bit and up their game.
2
Why does none of the moderators ever ask about management style? Isn't that important in an executive? Someone should ask a question about how these candidates manage people. What skills would they look for in hiring people to run a federal agency? What cabinet posts need re-vamping in a new administration to deal with huge issues like climate, racial wealth gap, etc? We need questions about competence!!! We are hiring a chief executive, not just a spokesperson for a political movement. Let's get in the weeds on some of this stuff. I'm tired of the re-hashed questions.
21
@Carol It is clear how Senator Warren manages, both from the quality of her campaign and her work setting up the CFPB: she is superb at drawing out the very best from her team and earns their loyalty as well. She listens to others (from all levels) and seeks consensus before acting. Thoughtful and strong leadership is her great skill, while she brings in diverse voices and ideas to create the best policy she can get through the Senate (at the moment).
1
It is interesting that Bernie Sanders often scores first or second in the New York Times' "Winners and Losers of the Debate" articles, but elsewhere, is often listed as a loser. Though I disagree with some of the pundits' takes, I appreciate the diversity of pundits, which allows for a fairer assessment of debate performances.
2
Its articles like this that make me think the American political system of getting elected is akin to a cattle auction. I don't understand why Andrew Yang was not on stage but Steyer was when according to the polls I viewed, Yang polled higher than Steyer. Be that as it may, bravo to Warren and Klobuchar who both would make great first-time female presidents. If this is the field, I'm throwing my support to Warren and Klobuchar. It's time for a female in the White House!
6
And Robert Leonard gets my vote for the most positive reviewer.
It's a tragic flaw that the DNC whittles down the candidates, not the voters.
3
CNN must have played a different debate for those of us here in New Jersey.
Because I don't recognize a lot of relationship between the comments here and what I saw with my own two eyes.
But that's OK.......I guess we all see what we want to see.
I already have my personal favorite and the debate did not change that. But I will vote for any of these people over Trump. Vote Blue No Matter Who.
9
@Nial McCabe
Reading these comments, Nial from NJ said the best description of Democrats strategy, “vote blue, no matter who”. As an Independent ‘vote blue, no matter who’ explains why Republicans won in ‘16’ and will again in 2020. Who matters, not blue. The ‘16’ Republican reply was, ‘anyone but Hillary’. As a nonpartisan, I’ll have no say ‘who’ matters to me and if you want to remove Trump it should to you. Only Klobuchar interests me....though Bloomberg might. A more experienced ‘Pete’ would also. But the Biden, Sanders, Warren train is an express to another Trump victory.
4
The best chance the Democrats have is to pick a young candidate. It will be a strong contrast to Trump and make Trump look old and silly. If Biden, Bernie, or Warren win, Trump will eat their lunch head to head. Dems need to wake up!! We don't want Trump for 4 more years!!
To put it differently, Warren and Biden are no different than Kerry, Gore, H. Clinton, McCain, Mondale... They are all the same candidate. They are all boring experienced candidates, who on paper look good, but in reality never resonate.
5
I’m shocked — shocked — that Peter Wehner gave Sen.Klobuhar her highest rating. These “critiques” seem more about personal politics than a considered assessment of the candidates’ performances.
6
This was a disappointing job by the moderators. Very little follow-up. Wolf, I expected better from you. (Example: Pete simply didn't answer some questions).
And, Ms. Phillip needs to explain why she didn't ask Warren for her side of the" can a woman win" dispute and instead chose to endorse Warren's version. This is breaking rule 1 for being a moderator. The DNC should never again let her near the stage.
Also, kudos to Ross and to Robert Leonard in this column who got that Klobuchar managed to forget the name of the Governor of Kansas. This is going to play a lot worse in Iowa than in NY which seems to think this is just a foot fault. She may say she's from the midwest but that made her seem like someone who has spent way too much time in DC.
7
People support Joe Biden because they think other people support Joe Biden. How many Dems think he'd be the strongest President or has the best ideas.? He's popular because he's popular because people think he's popular.
Warren? We weren't ready for a black President - until we elected one. We won't be ready for a woman President until we elect one.
Any top Dem can beat Trump if we get behind them.
16
I can't wait for Iowa to decide the future for the rest of the country.
2
Ms. Dowd, your claim that Sen. Warren's "slide continues" is empirically false. According to 538's polls tracker, Sen. Warren's slide reversed a month ago and continues to rebound, nationally and in Iowa.
10
"All the men on the stage have lost an election. All the women have won all their elections."
One man has never run for office before. WHY is he there? C'mon, spend your money backing another candidate, Mr. Steyer and get OUT of the race. (ditto, Mike.)
6
Warren/Klobuchar.
I like the sound of that.
4
I feel hopeless... we're being held hostage by a bully and the Keystone Cops have been sent to rescue us. If they don't get their act together, the first woman president of the United States will be Ivanka Trump.
3
@GH Keystone cops? Are you kidding me?! Every candidate on that stage is at the very least competent and fit to be president - something that can't be said about our current Toddler-in-Chief. And, in my opinion, all but one of the Democratic candidates are highly intelligent. Unlike our current pres, none of the Dem candidates is a pathological narcissist, who puts his self interest ahead of our national security. I'd vote for any of the Democratic candidates.
1
Can someone (maybe Mr. Bloomberg) pay Barack Obama enough money to "pull a Putin" and step back in for another term as POTUS, then we would have a viable candidate? Otherwise I think Ms. Klobuchar has it right: just award King Trump the Crown and the Scepter and get it it over with.
3
Time for Steyer, t to call it a day and step aside for those who can lead the nation with relevant experience.
4
"Night of the Living Dead" kinda of sums it up for me. Watching just an hour of this was more than enough - I went to bed. The Democratic Party needs to get their act together and FAST!
in other words, no one is up to the task.
Unfortunately this debate was not televised on ABC, CBS, NBC . or PBS. I do not watch cable stations and neither do an awful lot of people. It should be mandatory that both Parties have these debates on these stations as well. And it is not just my generation that does not have these stations. A lot more people are cutting their cable charges and use streaming services. Could this be the real reason that viewing of these debates have not been stellar?
All this said, I felt more like I was reading either support or non-support statements from the Journalists involved, not objectivity. I am hoping to get that in the comment section. Maureen Dowd stands out for this observation. She seem to push an agenda, rather than objectivity.
10
@Jean I watched the debate on CNN.com. They had advertised that anyone could watch it there, without any kind of special access. Good picture, good sound, and even the CNN discussion after the debate. You could also see it on Desmoinesregister.com, but you had to agree to accept ads or subscribe.
1
@Carol Tauer
Thank you. I went on line looking for that information and could not find any. However it is uncomfortable to sit at my desktop for that length of time. I did it in one of the last debates and the discomfort made it hard to concentrate. All of this said there are many people who also do not have a computer in this country. That is a problem.
4
Seems Democrats are determined to lose this election.
3
Performance. Performance. Performance.
No wonder Trump won. It is all about entertainment.
Warren got off a couple of canned lines. Declared Winner.
Except of course when she gets the nomination and tries to stuff Medicare for All downtime publics throat. Loser.
2
I'm ready for Warren, based on her progressive plans' thoroughness and workability, but I'm surprised you think she did best tonight - I think she is not her best in debates - partly because the questions are so dumb.
But the in-depth interviews the NYT is doing are much more revealing of each candidates strengths/weaknesses.
You can see the vast difference in thoughtfulness between the two progressives -
Warren's answers here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/14/opinion/elizabeth-warren-nytimes-interview.html
compared to Bernie's:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-nytimes-interview.html
These are much more informative than the ridiculous debates
5
You must very seriously reflect on the fact that some of the candidates raised their hands subservient to the Television questioners. It symbolized so much with their reflexive act.
I find it interesting that many don't like Mayor Pete because he's intelligent and is so well prepared for questions that he doesn't stumble. If only he were a little dumber and invigored his base with oversimplification and lies? Like,Trump?
6
This was the first debate I missed due to travel. This write up sounds eerily familiar to the last one.
Reading the opinions I was at once reminded of a quote by Spiro Agnew about “effete snobs”, for I must have been watching a different debate. What is wrong with steady, cogent, sane stances in this age of the “helter skelter” & Wild West approach of the current occupant of the White House? I believe what most Americans want is a return to those who understand the issues confronting us and respect that we can see through the haze of excitement to reality of the possibility that 45 could be re-elected. We want a person who can confront the issues and work with those of their party, those across the aisle as well as those around the globe, to solve the problems that plague us all. Fanfare is for peacocks, leadership is for moderate steady capable hands.
8
Socialism? In this country, (as opposed to western European countries) the most progressive of the candidates would run on a very mild form of Democratic Socialism, such as controlling the wealth of the richest 1/2 of 1%.
The entrenched parties who are full of old white men, are afraid of losing their power. They raise the flags of socialism and race to create fear of enlightened ideas that are necessary in this country.
10
@carolz
I have lived under European socialism. It is not nearly as quaint as the picture post cards of the place. When I hear Bernie Sanders, I get the innate impression that I am hearing Lenin II. The speaks and thinks like a Demagogue. The scariest thing for me is, he makes it sound like success is a sin and an immoral act.
4
@LHP Bernie Sanders's Democratic Socialism is not socialism. By definition, in a socialist system, the government owns the means of production. Sanders doesn't call for anything of the sort. Nor does he demonize success. He understands that climate change is a grave threat to our children's future. And he wants billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes.
2
@LHP
There is a big difference between "success" and insisting on the right to squirrel away billions of dollars while fighting to keep any share of wealth to middle class and the poor.
Anyway, Our country loves demagogues who are pro Russia. As shown by our current administration.
1
Last night, due to health issues, I untrimmed our Christmas tree, way too late in date and time. I decided to listen to the debate and got to work.
While I have heard them all speak, my reaction to the speakers was different. Most of the time I continued packing ornaments and Christmas decorations, and sometimes, I stopped, turned around and paid close attention.
I even clapped once or twice, what I do when something gets me excited. I have missed excitement in politics. Four years ago when I left the voting booth there was none, everybody went home quiet. I knew right away that Trump had won, I knew it in my gut. Twelve years ago, the first election for presidential candidate Barack Obama, I could feel static in the air after voting. People were cheerings, flags were waved. I saw hope in the eyes of people. I will never forget.
Last night I turned around when Sanders spoke numerous times because I get his message and I don't want to miss a thing. He is fighting for me. The middle-aged woman who doesn't know how to come up with the 5K deductible for her husband's open-heart surgery. He fights for me and I get it.
I turned around for Warren, when she had her best moment, speaking about women winning the elections. I loved it but shook my head in disapproval at the end of the debate when she did not shake Sander's hand.
And while I listen to Klobuchar, Biden and Steyer I didn't stop what was doing.
9
These people are professional political observers and their comments are proof positive that reality is more in the vision of the observer than the observed event.
6
The up votes are interesting - but so are the down votes. It tells you which candidate worries certain people the most.
Good.
4
I remain convinced that Klobuchar is far and away the most qualified person for this job. Clearly others are not seeing it, but nobody up there is more accomplished and is demonstrating a more realistic view of the work that awaits the next president. All of these people give the same generic vanilla political answers we've heard from candidates forever. She actually has legit realistic expectations, answers and plans.
I wish others would see that and recognize that we need to hire a great employee for this job, and that's Amy Klobuchar.
20
@M.A.A When I talk about Klobuchar to others, they complain about her lack of charisma. But I want someone in the office who will get stuff done, and she has an impressive record. Way too underrated.
9
Have strong negative emotions with Biden's past treatment of Anita Hill, and his all to common nepotism of opportunity, however not the time to be steadfast idealist if end game is to prevent another Trump term and further harm it will do to American credibility around the world.
5
I could have had a block party watching this debate and come up with the same varied conclusions as these professional writers.
Just because Buttigieg is young and obviously looks young, everyone picks on him as a high school debater. I thought his answers were articulate and had weight.
Vice President Biden May be great behind a presidential desk as commander in chief, but debate-wise stumbles, looking for the right word.
Warren is as smart as a whip. Fast to respond. But she was captain of her college debating team. With that in her back pocket she looks good. She’s good expressing her policies and does not stumble.
Sen. Klobuchar, is homogenized milk. What she says is good for you, but after a while boring.
Sen. Sanders is a strong candidate. He repeats his mantra about Medicare for all. Doesn’t flinch, calling trump a pathological liar. His strong points are domestic. Internationally, standard fair.
Tom Steyer, performed pretty well. His arguments were strong and he articulates well.
Yes, this format is insufficient. It’s like a speed read test. In 45 seconds highlight your DNA genome.
The format would be improved, if at this stage of six candidates, a conversational sit down with much more time to answer important issues. Something more adult like.
The only debate in the end, one on one with trump.
19
@DavidJ Donald Trump will never debate any of these people. He will avoid that like the plague. He will simply lie and slime his opponent on Twitter in the most juvenile way.
2
@DavidJ - Pretty good analysis, IMHO.
@DavidJ There are more than six candidates left the others simply didn't meet the criteria to appear on this debate stage. One of them could well be the best choice but they need to be heard. I am not counting Bloomberg among them. He is another billionaire who appears to feel that his wealth entitles him to write his own rules. He can afford to be heard without following the DNC rules.
1
Bernie and Pete did the typical Washington verbal dance of never giving a direct answer to a direct questions. They were tiresome in their indirection. I liked that Biden will look at whomever was speaking rather than in his head formulating a rebuttal that was more likely than not be on point. I decided Tom Steyer has an interesting background, worthy of gerater consideration and I feel the same way about Bloomburg who was not on the stage. I loved both Warren and Klobuchar's directness in their little talks and in answering direct questions. I have absolutely no qualms that Warren can't run circles around tRump and think a ticket shared with Biden, Bloomberg or Steyer would be very good for this countrya tthis point in time. Biden is right, this is an election about our national character.
And finally, thank you Elizabeth Warren for stating you will declare a climate emergency on day one so that all of America's esources are put to the climate crisis. It may change the economy but it won't kill it. Ignoring Mother Nature will kill our economy and eventually the human species.
20
Bloomberg was running a commercial last night during the debate claiming he is not on the debate stage but instead "meeting with voters'.
Talk about the audacity of how money can just let get off scot-free.
This is the same Bloomberg who for 12 years as mayor of NYC never once held a town hall to listen to constituent's concerns or issues.
12
@morGan: He’s a New Yorker in New York City. New Yorkers are vocal enough to let their concerns and issues known to their elected officials, town halls or not. Running for president of the whole country is a totally different situation. He needs to know what people outside NYC worry about and people outside NYC need to know him, so he’s doing the right thing visiting the states and holding town halls.
4
@Anna
You didn't deny he never held just one town hall with voters in a long 12 years.
Maybe if he just once met with constituents in B'klyn or BX he would have heard for them directly-instead of Ray kelly- how they felt about his racist shameful policy of "Stop & Frisk".
The debate was won by someone who wasn't even on the stage.
At this moment, Mike Bloomberg, the most popular NYC mayor since LaGuardia, is very busy fighting Trump on his own dime.
He has the very best people churning out ads that are airing all over the country to take down Trump and prepare for a Dem victory in November. He has worked tirelessly to help Dems be elected on all levels to insure our control of the Congress.
He has also stated recently that even if he is not the nominee, he will continue to pump in his money to support the nominee. This includes people like Bernie who aren't even willing to join our party but want us to support them.
We need to recognize that it will take billions to beat Trump.
Bloomberg is offering his money to do it.
98.2 million Americans watched the Super Bowl last year.
Mike has purchased 11 million dollars of ad time to air then. He will use it to attack Trump and prepare the nation for the Dem onslaught. Trump immediately announced they will buy 10 million of time, too.
10 million Americans tune in daily to Judge Judy, one of America's favorite figures in a league with Oprah.
She is actively campaigning across the land for Mike.
There will be a brokered convention. Superdelegates, whom Mike has long courted by supporting their candidacies for years, will put him over the top.
He will be our next and best president.
7
@Simon Sez
Smug billionaire introduces plan to stop and frisk young black men and confiscate large sodas...
He would have no chance against Trump
5
@Simon Sez As the saying goes, "Will it play in Peoria?" As a former Midwesterner, I don't think Bloomberg will develop traction outside of New York.
4
@Simon Sez Your points are ones I wish I had made. I have seen Bloomberg's ads here and they are far and away better and more to the point than anyone else's. Whether or not he will be our next president remains to be seen, but if we succeed in defeating tRump, it will be due to his support and participation.
1
I support Warren, and supported her more strongly before this run-in with Bernie. I think she showed a disturbing attitude to the truth. Whatever was said, her version of it is not complete, nor completely credible, and that is probably why she backed away from the attack. She was stronger before this.
I'd still like to see either Warren or Bernie win it all, with strong support from the other in a Democratic Senate, or a Bernie/Warren ticket with those two to work out who best would be on top. Warren has damaged that prospect, which is the most important part of what happened here.
22
@Mark Thomason: So now you have an excuse to sour on Warren and if Bernie is not winning, you’re going to vote for Trump again, right?
1
@Mark Thomason
We don't need two septuagenarians in the White House. If one is elected, they need someone younger and strong as VP in case their age catches up to them.
@Mark Thomason
Dear Mark Thomason,
If Bernie and Warren ran on the same ticket it would be like having Grandad and Gramma in the White House.
I happened to have really loved my grandparents so maybe it would not be too bad.
In the final analysis I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general. In the primaries I am still not decided.
2
Bernie and Warren need to make a deal, that if one is nominated, the other will be their VP. And shake hands.
12
@Mike C. Then we'll all be broke and homeless. Good thinking.
@JS Or have health care, not be waiting for trickle down to help us and have reasonably policies that work for most of us and a federal government that isn't run for polluters, the .01% and a bunch of welching Trump family members.
they were all ok. no one stood out. Voters probably had
little reason to change their preferences.
Time to move on, select candidates and campaign against
trump.
5
Whether or not Sanders told Warren in 2018 that a woman couldn't win the presidency seems like a media driven tempest in a teapot. She didn't accuse him of saying he is opposed to a woman, just that a woman couldn't win (i.e. American voters may not be prepared to vote for a woman). Each may have a different take or memory of the conversation. However you slice it, a woman has and will have a more difficult time getting elected. 2016 proves that. My candidate Hillary Clinton had 3 million more votes but men (e.g. Putin, Sanders and his late and lukewarm support, Comey, Matt Lauer, NYT and the email stories, etc.) kept her from winning. And if Warren gets the nomination, she's going to have to run the same gauntlet. Men don't appreciate smart, assertive women. It's a fact, and more's the shame.
90
@Bernard Bonn
I agree. It doesn't make any sense that a person saying, "I don't think America will vote for a woman," makes that person a sexist. I don't think America will vote for a black man again, I *definitely* don't think they'll vote for a gay man, and I am seriously doubtful they'll vote for a non-Christian. I say that as an anti-racist, an LGBTQIA+ ally, and an atheist.
8
@Bernard Bonn
Offering an opinion as to who can win against Trump is an intellectual exercise conducted by Michelle Goldberg, herself. It has been said by many in the press and in homes across the country. It isn't controversial or sexist. It is real.
Waiting a year to present it as sexist, is dishonest. If it bothered her, why didn't she tell him so at the time? No. It stinks of betrayal.
4
Tom Steyer should run as a Republican( as Bloomberg did).
He'd beat Trump in the primaries and have a fair chance of becoming president. His policies are on the mark and he'd be a good president.
4
@max friedman GOod idea except too bad the RNC is cancelling REpublican primaries https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126
1
Warren came over as confident, informed, and calmer than usual. She looked like a serious candidate—dare I say even presidential. Bernie was Bernie, but he's getting more charming, less grumpy, and his consistency suggests he actually believes in his positions. They were clearly the two winners, and by far.
I don't think Steyer has a chance in Hades—and I don't think he should be on stage with the real candidates—but if I forget that, I'd say he had the third best night. He didn't talk enough, but when he did he seemed like a reasonable man with his heart in the right place.
I find the three centrists, with their "we can't do that, it's too extreme and too expensive" mantra, increasingly annoying. Talk about America's growing "can't-do" attitude. Klobuchar was the best of the three—though her midwestern pragmatism is about as inspiring as the fare at a Wisconsin supper club. Buttigieg increasingly looks like he's vying for the last spot on the high school debate team. And someone wake Biden up—the debate's started and it's not 1986 anymore.
Warren would make a fine prime minister. But it's the United States. So y'all will probably get La Cosa Nostra for another four years.
10
Very disappointed with Warren's claim about Sanders apparently saying to her a woman couldn't win. I don't believe that for a minute, though he might have said that he had the best grass roots organization to beat any woman in the field.
Having said that, she was very good, as usual. Biden was not and I think it's over for "me, me, me" Klobuchar. The night belonged to Bernie though. He's remained consistent and, while he's not a detail person, he's communicated very clearly his big picture: the country must be moved onto another path, where healthcare, education, and the environment are given priority as opposed to the standard GOP fare of deregulation and tax cuts for corporations and the affluent. As to the specifics, well it's pretty clear he knows he'd only be able to do so much anyway, so why not go for it all?
11
@Kidcanuck
I can't agree with you that a pie in the sky big picture without the ability to verbalize how to pay for is a good path. Our country is in serious debt and it is getting worse. At some point, someone is going to have to start paying that off. I think it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get Independents and moderate Republicans to vote for a pig in a poke. The details are important.
@ExPatMX That's a GOP talking point. Ever since Ronald Reagan, Conservatives have been far more lax with public finances than the Democrats. And they spent the money in all the wrong places, trillions in tax breaks for the rich and more trillions for a bloated defense establishment which can blow up the world 10 times over. So much for the party of family values. At least the Democrats want to spend on those things that matter to ordinary folks. So I disagree with you. Your country needs a new vision and an aggressive set of policies to get you there. Sanders is the only candidate who'll go the longest distance getting you there. But he won't be able to go all the way. Hypocritical Republicans will talk about the sky falling from the big deficits and centrist Democrats won't have the courage to support him. That's why you shouldn't worry about the details and the money for now. They are not important for now, the vision is what matters.
@Kidcanuck If Biden had stumbled over the name of the governor of Kansas the way Klobucher did people would be all over it saying he should get out. Pressure gets to everybody, even those not in their 70s
These debates are purely about rehearsing answers to questions they assume will be asked about them. Every politician does this.
I’m now back to square one!
All I really want is Trump gone!!
29
I and I expect many others, sat this one out. From the followups and this column, it is obvious that not much has changed except for the narrowing of the debates to 5 candidates plus Tom Steyer. Waiting in the wings, I hope a powerful voice is yet to be heard. If not, Trump will be our re-elected president by default. Bloomberg is looking better each day.
6
@Rick Spanier I am really suspicious of comments like yours, which all fall into the "if Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar or some other moderate candidate isn't the nominee, Trump will be elected". It sounds threatening. Are you seriously saying that if Warren or Sanders were to get the nomination, you won't vote for them against Trump?
8
@Jack Lemay With under 3-point-something % unemployment and a roaring stock market, the great majority of the country is doing awesome. I loathe Trump, but I am not going to throw away my job and my future by flipping the economy on its ear with a brand-new socialist economy. Neither will most Americans.
Now is not the time for drastic change, people will not vote for it.
1
@Jack Lemay Quite the opposite. I will vote for any of the Democrats who are nominated - even Biden - as an antidote to Trumpublicanism. I am a supporter of Sanders unreservedly but frankly don't believe he can be elected and deliver on any of his promises. That said, I will continue to contribute to his campaign, $27 at a time as a salute to his last hurrah. At the end of the day, we, all of us, need a win against the horror show in the White House. I don't see that candidate in these debates.
2
My only quibble, though I clearly saw something different a couple of times, is over Buttigieg and education. There's a very Caplanesque, "education should be purely vocational", vibe in his campaign that makes me very nervous.
3
@Neal
Consider though, how many academics does the economy need? Europe and China manage to squeeze a doctorate out of 8 semesters university education. The US gets a Bachelors out of it, not enough to qualify for any academic job.
3
@LHP - -those who can do, those who can't teach.
@pierre Or they run for political office. Sometimes they even win.
The disparities among the raters only prove that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
17
The overall conclusion I reached as I watched last night is that we need a new Presidential debate format. With only six candidates on stage, more time should be allotted for responses; it is insane to ask candidates to lay out their health care reform ideas in 45 seconds. It would be much, much better to have them talking about how and why their various ideas can be achieved in this desperately divided time.
I also think the networks and cable networks are not the right entities to be sponsoring these events. Each has a vested interest in attracting and holding viewers, and it seems obvious that, as a result, the moderators spend's more time in the weeds trying to spark controversy and confrontation, rather than in eliciting responses that would reveal whether candidates actually have spent time fully understanding what needs to be done to get this nation back on track.
Mostly, however, these debates always seem to bury the lead, which in 2020 is what is the nation to do with Donald Trump. He has so upended normal practices attendant to leading the nation on behalf of its citizenry that every question posed to the Dem candidates must be framed by Trump's actions and behavior.
Ultimately, it comes down to voters in seven or eight swing states deciding whether to stick with Trump, sit out the election, or go with the Democratic ticket. That's the only issue, and responses to climate change, health care, et.al, flow from that starting point.
219
@PaulB67
Totally. The moderators should stop cutting off candidates, IF they are on point. Klobucar had a lot to say, and her salient points at the end were cut off. Joe and Bernie could be cut off at any time and the audience wouldn't miss a thing.
23
@PaulB67
Amen! And I'd add that the moderators have to stop asking silly questions like, "don't the American people deserve to know the price tag on Medicare for All?"
Yes or no? Who's going to say 'No?" And coughing up a number, likely a very large one, won't tell us much without context, like how much we'll be spending over 10 years without changing the system or breaking out expenditures between public and private insurance and individual family budgets. Or looking at percentage of GDP. Etc.
But the debate format, which is horrible, doesn't allow for the unpacking of complexities or making detailed comparisons. Therefore it doesn't serve to inform the voters on much more than who performs gracefully under pressure or manages to get off a good one-liner.
14
@PaulB67 - Totally agree with you. This whole debate scenario needs to be changed or eliminated. I got disgusted midway and turned it off.
6
Interesting how the most diverse candidates were eliminated first. Kamala was labeled a cop, Booker was over-the-top, Tulsi offended the establishment, but what about YANG? Andrew could have beat Trump, but the media and moderators never gave him a chance.
8
@Miquel I see Mr. Yang as Secretary of Commerce. I think his middling poll numbers are due to his being unfamiliar to much of the country.
3
The debates give voters a chance to see the candidates as they are; not as they portray themselves in commercials or photo ops...and not as they "were". Biden is not the same candidate he was decades ( or even four years) ago. He shows his age; maybe not physically, but mentally. He fumbles to find the right word, struggles to articulate his point. The press is quick to chalk it up to being "gaffe-prone", but I think it's safe to say that if any other candidate performed in this manner they would be forced to drop out. After watching the debates last night, my husband I will be supporting Elizabeth Warren. She is smart, experienced and articulate and would make a great president. And yes, she can win.
18
@ljn In case you missed it, Biden has a lifelong issue with stuttering. He has largely overcome it through force of will, but it's not so much fumbling to find the right word, as getting the right word past his lips. His mind is still fully engaged, but a little ahead of his speech (which is what causes stuttering issues)...this came out in the news several months ago and explains a lot, including the gaffe thing.
3
@ljn Klobucher made the biggest stumble when she couldn’t remember the name of the governor of Kansas. She couldn’t even find it in her notes. She is probably qualified e en though the pressure momentarily got to her. .
We want them all to be better at this format than they are. Glad it's the last one--becoming too routine. I do not want to hear anyone's "stump speeches," now. Let's get on to the next phase, with new pitches.
1
My college advisor once told me that every student should get a C at least once in their college career. It shows that they took a class that was outside their comfort zone.
I thought of my advisor's advice when Warren announced to the world that the men had lost elections but she and Klobuchar had not.
Bernie ran in 2016, not because he through he could necessarily win. But because he wanted to draw attention to the mass inequality in our country and the ensuing problems that has caused. And he did. And I thank him for it. Building a movement and transforming this country takes more than one election cycle as Bernie has proven.
Bernie says he was a long-distance runner in his youth. He is running a long-distance race. I'm voting for him.
(By the way, I'm a middle-aged, poorly paid woman and have experienced my share of sexism in this world. I'm not the cliched "Bernie Bro".)
58
@A Stor mo Chroi Thanks for sharing this. The fact that Warren is willing to draw away from the real issues in order to get in a low attack on Sanders just goes to show that she cares more about her individual campaign than the movement as a whole. Sanders is the real deal. He is the heart of this movement, and I can't wait to vote for him again.
I am also not a Bernie "Bro." Funny how so many of us turn out not to be men despite the stereotype!
11
The debates still seem to be akin to a high school student council race. They never seem to get to the matter of assessing potential presidential competency.
That being said, if either Bernie or Elizabeth is the nominee, we will have four more years of Trump.
20
@Ia Rd Hog Or for that matter, any of the others on the stage last night. The incredible shrinking candidate pool keeps getting more shallow as each week passes.
Kudos to Ross Douthat for calling out Pete Buttigieg's soporific tone. Buttigieg is undeniably intelligent and articulate, but no matter what issue he is discussing--Iran, race relations, factory jobs--he speaks in the same disengaged tone. Some of my liberal friends love listening to Mayor Pete, but his seeming lack of passion or even vocal intonation makes him seem like another technocrat. Hardly a recipe for beating Donald Trump.
39
Honestly, I’m making plans to leave the country. Good luck to all the candidates.
18
@Ben, Bon Voyage! I hope you've still got a place to hide, with all the disasters that occur from coast to coast, fires in Australia, earthquakes in Asia and sinkholes every where from over-drilling, famine in Africa. I only pity the little children who did not ask to be born but will suffer the consequences. Bernie Sanders 2020, we need you!
1
@Ben Going where?
The Center is not disappearing. The Center will win as always. The only question is who controls it, red or blue?
And, btw, it should win. Partisan whiplash is damaging and ineffective.
5
@T The center won with Trump? Exactly the opposite. Our country is currently a hornet's nest, A moderate is not what any one wants.
@T Well the "center" did not win in 2016!
What is the likelihood of bias by the raters playing a
strong part in their analysis of these candidates?
14
@R. Anderson The likelihood of bias is quite high.
1
Biden was disturbingly tongue tied and seemed occasionally lost in the verbal maze of his own answers. Bernie just seemed old. Buttigieg is impressive but too young. I think Elizabeth Warren was the most articulate and energetic and clearly the winner. She’s a scrappy fighter whose knowledge of the issues would let her run circles around Trump. I doubt he would agree to debate her. Trump likes to start fights but only if he’s sure he can win. He’s no match for Warren.
192
@W Pierce I strongly agree about Biden. He is a disaster waiting to happen. Both the Democratic Candidates and Trump are just waiting for it. Why else would President Obama not endorse him, and push him off in 2016.
As to Warren - to date, she has been the aggressor in these lame debates - the only time she was challenged - by Mayor Pete - she folded like a cheap suitcase.
In this field -no one can take a punch. They all look like a deer in the head lights - I miss Al Franken.
16
@W Pierce
I'll vote for Warren but I have concluded that if the economy remains stable with low unemployment and a strong stock market, Trump will be re-elected. It's too bad because the Democrats have a number of strong candidates.
5
@Tom Here we to again, cannibalizing each other, nitpicking, tearing down our candidates, and infighting over nothing. Trump will win a second term. His fanbase actually supports him, which is more than I can say about the Democratic base.
7
To each their own. The debates are still a jumble. Should we look to experience and youth?
2
There is much to be said about consistency and Bernie Sanders captures that characteristic. I can see him on a debate stage with Trump who will savage him as a socialist but Bernie will effectively counter punch with a barrage of Trump's failures and betrayals and then champion his plan that actually will have far more traction than expected. Keep in mind that socialism is what got us the Social Security and Medicare. It's not the red monster Republicans demean. Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders Lite. We may as well vote for the genuine article.
74
@nzierler And what I like is he doesn't back down, doesn't flinch, and isn't "woke" to be "woke." Those things really matter, authenticity still matters.
P.S. Jorge, he's not a socialist.
10
@Rose Anne
Dear Rose Anne,
If he is not a socialist, why does he call himself one? Is he just pulling our leg?
1
Biden struggled to combat his lifelong stuttering problem and all of the Times observers and other media should factor that into their analysis. Watch him in one on one interviews where this problem is more controlled.
Warren is flagging because she missed the chance two debates ago to be forthright about the costs of Medicare for all. Bernie is no better on this issue, but the press gives him a pass as do his supporters. This is blatant sexism at work. Warren is a better and more thoughtful candidate and would make a far better president. Bernie yells and waves his arms. And gets called authentic.
Klobuchar is consistent and has been for months. She may nit be exciting. But she is smart and competent. Vice President? Future attorney general?
22
@Rachel
"Yet even by a politician’s standard, she talks too much about herself."
That statement captures Klobuchar in a nutshell. Every debate performance, she's uniquely centered on herself (I, I, I, I, ...) and her past record. It is, in fairness, a great platform for someone running to serve as a legislator. But she's not. There is nothing in her tone or word choice that is inspirational, or for that matter, aspirational.
Separately, the flat-out, persistent refusal to stick to time limits is beyond tiresome. It's boorish. If Klobuchar wants to prevail in this process, she should do so by inspiring voters, not by bullying or stealing time away from rivals.
3
The pundits like candidates that use their time to saw off the floor from under the other candidates. Tom Steyer doesn't do that and the pundits don't like it.
Pundits also like candidates with political experience, even if that experience consists in having taken bad decisions, like approving the invasion of Irak, praising tyrants like Castro and Chávez or being "tough on crime" by sending minors to adult prisons for minor non violent offenses. Steyer doesn't have that experience and the pundits don't like it.
As a result after every debate Steyer gets low grades from the pundits but good grades from the voters and his poll numbers go up.
20
Enough already! It’s time for Sanders and Warren to fuse their progressive supporters into a cohesive and dominant force.
24
@Jeff Who gets top billing? Sanders or Warren?
@Sparky I doubt Sanders would agree to be VP for a woman president. It seems very unlikely. Warren is very valuable in the Senate so it would be a pity to ask her to be a VP.
Klobuchar, who opposes Medicare for All, spent a long time talking about the difficulties people have paying for long term care for their aging relatives without anyone pointing out that Medicare for All pays for long term care! Neither Elizabeth or Bernie called her out on that, nor did any of the NY Times pundits.
88
@Grandpa Bob
Current Medicare has premiums and co-pays and caps and even deductibles, and it is in financial trouble. I don't think Bernie explains how this will all work to eliminate all those for everyone. I'm not opposed but it's pie in the sky unless a huge blue wave and landslide happens.
10
@Grandpa Bob Sorry to disillusion you, but Medicare does not pay for much long term care. They pay only for medically-necessary care, while the majority of care needed by the elderly or disabled persons involves support for their "activities of daily living".
Medicare combined with Medicaid does pay for the care of impoverished elderly persons, but currently comes with strict limits on the assets the person can own, their income, and has a "look back" period of several years for asset transfers.
If the person owns and lives in a house or condo, upon their death the house must often be sold to fully or partially reimburse the cost of their care. Those "claw back" provisos are probably not going away under Medicare for All.
20
@Grandpa Bob Medicare DOES NOT pay for long-term care. You are confusing it with Medicaid, which will pay if you are indigent (less than $2000 in assets).
7
I really missed Yang on that stage. His answers are precise, speak to the reality of the technological and economic changes that are particularly pertinent now, and, maybe most of all, he doesn't engage in canned political rhetoric.
I get it, he's not a front runner. But neither is Klobuchar or Steyer. And I've got a feeling after this debate, we'll start to see Mayor Pete tank.
53
@dc - a $1000 per month for anyone over 18 plus existing government benefits. sounds like strong motivation to get out of bed in the morning to go and EARN a living.
@dc I sure hope not. He still has some huge, convicted support and I don't think one debate will alter that.
Pete has my vote. He does need to recite less and react more, however. He held back last night but he's far from done.
1
Opinion of who won, well, it's just an opinion. I am happy we finally get our first (of many) elections to see where the candidates fit in with voters. I got to say, I really feel the personal bias in the news commentators of who won and didn't win. I always thought spin was relegated to the candidates staffs and Fox news ("What the President really meant when he said..." etc.).
27
@Progers9 It is always important to know which section of the news site you are reading. This column is in the very clearly labeled "Opinion" section.
@Edward, True. However, the article was picking winners and losers of the debate. Where was the substance of their ratings? Was this truly evaluating performance or just speaking to their own "Idealogy" expectations of what the next candidate should be?
1
Why say that Warren refused to shake hands with Bernie? She was the one to walk over to him, passing Biden, and reach out with some words to him. She was more interested in speaking something that she considered important, than doing the hand shake Steyer was so eager to do. Perhaps she apologized? Women do that, even when they are right, as we have seen in the earlier debates.
49
@Maria Fitzgerald Well, people would say that because he reached out to shake her hand and she did not reciprocate. They're friends. They've been fighting the same fight for years. My guess is they sit down and agree on the future rules of engagement (including throwing support behind the leader of the two come convention-time) and issue statements or appear together to reassure everybody. That would be best for the progressive movement and best for both of them.
7
@Maria Fitzgerald
Well at least she didn't let him drape his arm around her like she's Olivia Newton John and he's Travolta.
@Maria Fitzgerald
I agree. Watching the body language of the two of them, it seems to me that she simply wanted to speak to him very much, to the point of not even noticing the proffered hand. It's impossible to know what they spoke about, and ridiculous to judge.
But, these campaigns are all about appearances and the media has to look for controversy, so...
17
Senator Warren won the debate. She has the ability to give comprehensive answers to difficult questions within the allotted time. It's easy to talk about problems but another to understand and have solutions. She repeatedly does this. Very few of these candidates have been pressed about their theories, she has. The New York Times, I feel, has been more discerning about Warren. Similarly to their behavior toward Hillary Clinton. She is more than qualified to be our next President, I hope the voters give her the chance.
83
@Peggy Capone I beg to disagree because by refusing to shake Bernie Hand at end of the debate and her failure to clarify their disputed conversation either way ( CNN blew it there by not asking directly Elisabeth Warren her version maybe on purpose ) she guaranteed the enemity of the Bernie voters whom most are independents not democrats and stay home election day .
21
@Sindbad677
Bernie already made the statement that with 500 volunteers, some were given a script that he new nothing about. I believe both of them . He did not say it and Warren was surprised They both need to speak to their Campaign Managers and let them know to cut it out.
7
@SportsMedicine
Consider who is left in this race. She is still here. She is beating the odds because her message is resonating with the voters. Have you read her policies? She recognizes the problems and offers solutions. Clearly she is not an isolationist. I challenge you to look at the debate again. Look at who's listening. I will vote blue no matter who, can you say the same? Any of the candidates is better than the criminal in the White House.
4
The fact that Steyer was on the debate stage illustrates Elizabeth Warren’s point perfectly: big money plays too big a role in elections, to the point where the rich can buy themselves in. It has to stop.
62
@L Steyer's money hasn't really bought him much of anything beyond a place on the debate stage. He remains at negligible poll levels and at this point it should be clear he is doomed to remain so, no matter how much money he spends. Bloomberg, on the other hand, has spent money INSTEAD of groveling to be on the debate stage, and he's right behind the front 4 in national polls and rising fast. And the people he's behind are also spending a ton of money, in case you haven't noticed, it's just other peoples' money, but there's no correlation between how much they've spent and where they are in the polls. Face it - Democratic voters can't be bought, what they care about overwhelmingly is defeating Donald Trump. And the vast majority of them either don't give a tinker's dam whether the candidate is spending his or her own money or not, or they are actually positively impressed by the fact he or she is not becoming beholden to anyone other than the American people, all of them, not just the ones who sent them a check.
1
Warren excelled. She was on target and came across sharp. Looking forward to casting my vote for her in NH.
108
@Clayton Marlow: Me, too, and canvassing for her as well.
5
I thought Biden did well. Yes, his first couple of answers started off rather muzzy but then he locked it in quite nicely. Said sensible things about health care and economic matters and has a strong understanding through experience in foreign affairs. He humorously turned Trump's vendetta against him and I thought he had the most presidential and inspiring closing. But really, no one to me stood out. Part of that is they are all in their own ways interesting candidates. I don't think we are going to have one of those Democrats that come along, like FDR, JFK and Barack Obama that have the ability to really inspire people with through speach. But what we have is a group of competent people, and that maybe what we need right now. I don't think Warren or Bernie can win, may be wrong. But I would vote for either of them, or any of the people on that stage tonight and some that weren't.
12
There was one debate in which Kamala Harris refused to shake the hand of Joe Biden and afterward she plummeted in the polls.
Warren has been sliding in the polls for two months. In an effort to revive her campaign, she most recently made two unsubstantiated charges against Sanders, neither of which is credible.
Despite the fact that he carefully avoided calling her a liar and said nothing but positive things about her, she refused to share his hands after the debate.
The Democratic Party needs to be united to defeat Trump in 2020. Her groundless accusations and lack of civility are no way to unite the Democratic Party. She was my second choice before this week. This is no longer true.
362
@Robert Scull My respect for Warren has completely tanked throughout the past five days. I was totally unaware that we as humans are supposed to treat our friends well by passive-aggressively lying about them and then claiming that we're still friends. If Warren was trying to win over Sanders voters, I guarantee she did nothing but alienate them.
155
@Alden Henrie
My second choice would now be Tulsi Gabbard. She has been more consistent in her support for Medicare for All and she is not afraid to speak the truth in matters of foreign policy. The press has been outrageously unfair to her, but no woman candidate could more effectively deal with Trump in a presidential debate.
24
@Robert Scull There will be plenty of time for Warren and Sanders to make nice - but if Bernie actually told her that she could not, as a woman, win, that's a deal-breaker. It fits with Sander's tendency to act as though his is the last word on everything.
Warren's life has been a story of overcoming the limits women are supposed to observe. That makes me all the more determined to see her go all the way.
73
What I don't think any of these pundits can wrap their head around is it doesn't matter who won last night's debate. The only thing that matters is Biden didn't lose. Because he didn't lose he probably will win Iowa. If he wins Iowa he will be a heavy favorite in New Hampshire. If he wins New Hampshire then it's over. He will win the nomination. Moderates are sensing a favorable shift towards reality. November's election results are in. You have to be blind to not be able to read these tea leaves. Voters especially swing voters are rejecting Trumpism but endorsing centrists. The Dems who won in red & purple states ran as moderates. We need to be realistic and abandon progressive initiatives they will lose us votes. There's no progressive majority in the U.S. & never will be. The numbers are not there. There certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in the U.S. that could get to the needed 270 votes. This point can't be emphasized enough: almost every progressive candidate in whom Dems invested tremendous time, money, & emotional energy in 2018—O’Rourke, Gillum, & Abrams— lost. Almost every progressive ballot initiative in this country was voted down. If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & affordable education there's no way we lose. If it's about Medicare for All & more illegal immigration there's no way we win. We can win with or without progressives. We can't win without swing & centrists voters. Biden can win in 2020. That's all that matters.
89
@Bill Brown
Democrats hear a version of this every election (Republicans apparently stopped worrying about attracting the support of moderates decades ago). If you would make the case for what you consider "moderate" positions, on the merits, it would mean something. But telling us that we can't have the debate benefits no one but the Republicans & the far right.
39
@Martin: "Republicans stopped worrying about attracting moderates decades". That's true and while many attribute that to Reagan, they are wrong. The phenomenon coincides with the repeal of the FCC fairness rule and the rise of Talk Radio and then Fox News. It wasn't the merits of conservatism that have prevailed, it was the propagandists. So much so that there really isn't anything conservative about the Republican party. But they sure know how to acquire and abuse power.
60
@Martin Definitely- it's not clear what "moderate" means- is a moderate a person who would never vote for a woman? Do they support a woman's right to choose? If they're afraid of socialism, there's a good chance they're afraid of Democrats
14
Most astute debate observation from Peter Wehner: "He was Bernie: curmudgeonly, loud, deeply ideological, a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else."
He's either the one to knock it out of the park, or end up like George McGovern. Unfortunately, I believe it's the latter, should he win the nomination.
Most droll comment from Melanye Price: "He [Tom Steyer] is paying a ton of money to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency."
I wish he's spend his money helping fund down-ballot Democratic races, particularly the in the Senate.
296
@ChristineMcM I’m not a Sanders supporter, but even so I don’t buy the comparison to McGovern, mainly because the makeup of the electorate has shifted dramatically since 1972. Then, being elected president was a matter of competing for the white vote, and a substantial number of voters saw their responsibility as choosing between a McGovern and Nixon.
Today, the lines are largely drawn, and the competition is more about turning out a constituency. The question for Sanders — and the other candidates — is whether he can expand his base to attract enough of the bases of the other candidates to defeat Trump. In other words, it’s keeping voters from staying home, not from voting Republican.
45
@ChristineMcM What is different between today and 1972: this looming climate crisis.
The youth get it. They're the ones who will have to live with our degraded earth the most. They're the ones faced with choosing not to bring children of their own into the world because the world is literally on fire.
The youth want systemic change. They want the Green New Deal. And they trust Bernie. They'll come out in force for him. And there are four more years of support for him than in 2016 because 2016's 14 years olds are now 18 and can vote. Bernie, of all the Democratic candidates, can win.
58
@ChristineMcM
Steyer--and Bloomberg--should be spending their moolah for the other down ballot elections in 2020--especially for the Senate.
Efforts to get turnout up and fight voter suppression might make a difference in Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, and Maine and might flip the Senate blue, which is REALLY important. ESPECIALLY if we wind up with another 4 years of Orange, which is quite possible (because I think we're going to have a brokered convention with no one coming in with a delegate majority, and in the compromising and horse trading that will then ensue to get a candidate, a lot of people are going to be peeved, and those people are likely to write in/vote third party/stay home; I have a hard time believing that Democrats will coalesce around one person, though of course they should).
So I would argue that the Senate and House elections might be even more important than the Presidential one, and that's where the big oligarch money should concentrate.
24
We might as well cancel the election.
None of these people have any chance of winning.
In a country this size, why can’t we find two outstanding candidates?
32
@Sagi There were some excellent candidates early on - the popular, successful governors with executive experience - they were ignored. Is Bullock still in? Great candidate.
Yes, I am uninspired too by the field on the stage. My sister and I text our opinions/impressions/reactions during the debates. Tonight she fell asleep before the 1st hour was up.
12
@Sagi I agree. Biden may be ahead of the pack, but I don't think he can win overall.
17
@Sagi
I still think Yang is outstanding, but it's hard to swim against the #YangMediaBlackout tsunami. (Just last week, CNBC posted a photo of another guy as Andrew Yang. Yes, that actually happened.)
12
I guess the jobs are to fit everything into an already existing conversation. A conversation that’s about style and “electability,” & tries to keep people from thinking about substance. Would be more interesting to hear the reactions of, say, unemployed coal miners, or poli-sci academics. Or anybody whose fortunes depend on who gets elected, rather than on the election business itself.
25
Thanks for the summary, I was too busy watching PBS Frontline on what is dividing us and a summary of how we arrived "here". So the can a woman beat Trump answer just isn't that important. Nor was can Bernie out Progressive Warren.
In reality none of these candidates really stand a chance. Bloomberg is not the answer either. The DNC and some of America is obsessed with identity politics and if this doesnt change we will have 4 more years of Trump. For.all those who think someone with 2 X-chromosomes will be the saviour, please refer to Candidate Obama and what happened in his presidency.
Warren is in the pocket of those she defended for decades, Bernie is a socialist, Biden has several issues as they all do. The GOP will be merciless. Dems need someone who will fight back. Sadly, that person was not on the stage last night. Bernie was the closet option.
10
@Sierra Morgan. Trump and the republicans also trade in identity politics. It's just their identity is mainly vilifying anyone who isn't white, straight and Christian.
Sadly I think the true reason for the division in this country has less to to with what "tribe" you identify with then where you get your news. Trump and the whole republican party have weaponized lying to such a degree that a good chunk of the country really believes demonstrably false conspiracy theories as the truth.
Our founding fathers never envisioned a lie promoting machine as effective as Facebook or that an entire political party would become compromised by a hostile foreign entity like Russia but here we are.
We are seeing the final days of the American experiment and I fear our republic will not be able to stand intact after another 4 years of a treasonous lying criminal like Donald J Trump. Somehow I always knew the republican party would end up destroying our democracy. Just didn't think it would be this fast.
4
The temptation to overemphasize style over substance when evaluating candidate performance casts a shadow over most commentator postmortems. In this case, an overarching theme is the intra-Democratic Party contest over theIr ideological and policy direction. Given the post 2016 changes within the DNC, the choice of direction resides with the voters rather than so-called Super Delegates. In this sense, the Democratic Party is the People’s Party.
12
@Stu Sutin That's for the first ballot at the convention, mind you. If no candidate reaches the threshold of delegates required to secure the nomination on the first ballot, superdelegates come into play on the second ballot.
2
@Stu Sutin
Considering how states still have caucuses, no, the choice does not reside with the voters.
Until every state has an actual primary where people can vote on their own schedule, this will never be the case.
Fun Fact: The 2008 primary was actually decided by the Super Delegates. The 2016 primary was not.
Get some new material. Not only is this incorrect, it's been disproven repeatedly.
4
Regarding the "billionaire" comments about Steyer, why does his success at making money disqualify him from the debate? As I recall, he had the guts and vision to start a national "Impeach Trump" campaign long before most of the people next to him were willing to support it. Would the commentators have more respect for his ideas if he flashed a Bridge card?
105
@Charlie Fleetham
I do not support Steyer, and I don't think that people should be able to buy a candidacy or an office. But the fact that none of the pundits here even noticed (or is willing to admit) that Steyer was strong last night, clear & direct, says more about them than about him.
90
@Charlie Fleetham. I really liked Steyer last night. Highly successful and smart people like him and Bloomberg are doing the right things that we all wish we could do if we had the same amount money and we Democrat’s snide at them them? Why? They are American citizens, they have the same right to run as likable mayor Pete does.
32
@Charlie Fleetham I'm especially mystified that his billions seem to matter more than Bloomberg's. All I can say is east coast people just like their own rich guys better.
8
Extra points for Bernie who went in knowing he was damaged by the Warren leak of frank political talk in a private meeting with a rival.
He's showing his strength in a situation where weakness would be fatal.
I hope he makes it through, he's got a credible vision of a better America.
215
@William He's showing "strength" by lying and denying he said it?
There's no way she would have brought that up if he hadn't said it (because she would have known he would just call her a liar.) But he denied it, so now Bernie's voters are all convincing themselves she's a liar. What will they do if Bernie loses? Or has a more serious heart issue?
I understand Bernie's position. I also understand why it would have irritated Warren that he said that to her in private, when he openly claims to be feminist.
What I think Bernie Sanders' voters miss is that their tone of "only Bernie is decent and honest" can be really grating to the other 80% of Democratic voters.
Case in point: when Booker dropped out recently, that was a perfect time for Sanders voters to reach out and say, "Hey, Booker cared about criminal justice reform! So do we! Join us!" Instead, all I heard from Sanders voters was, "Good riddance to that corporate stooge Booker." Not exactly a good way to build their tent. And Sanders voters wonder why his numbers have been largely flat (16-20%) for months. His voters are totally diehard but they have no idea how to draw in anyone else without being incredibly offensive. I don't see things improving for Sanders if they don't fix that messaging problem.
10
@RVC My understanding is that Elizabeth Warren requested that meeting with Bernie, widely reported as private. I don't know if it would be construing that too broadly to say private means: this is for our mutual understanding, what gets said here remains here'. I think, though, that is very likely the case.
To agree to that kind of confidentiality and then to betray it, I would call that, at minimum, bad faith.
I'm all for forgiving Senator Warren; likely some staffer that has her confidence thought leaking this now would be advantageous
to her in terms of their relative standing in the race. A move like that can have just the reverse effect.
If she can find it in her heart to shake Bernie's hand now, as she refused to do post debate, it might improve her image with some on the edge of supporting her.
3
@William Seriously? Bernie's the biggest loser and God's gift to Trump. 40 years living off the taxpayer, representing the smallest, whitest state with the smallest GDP in the nation and NOTHING to show for it. Sorry....I guess he got to name a Post Office.
Where's the math behind his M4All Plan? And all his other Free Stuff? And why is he always let off the hook on these important questions???
8
Bernie clearly won that debate.
Team Warren is getting desperate. It's not a good look.
Look at their history of lying -- you will find it with her, but not with Bernie.
209
@MC Why are Bernie supporters so vicious towards other candidates?
83
@MC
OK Debating, but no dramatic issues to topple Trump, yet.
I suggest they focus on how Trump destroyd democracy.
If Trump is reelected he will turn the country into a dictatorship! Trump's presidency will likely encourage global dictatorship.
I suggest idea contests to find good ways to defeat Trump.
For example, they might use the "Democracy" song.
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
All the democratic candidates can team up to beat Trump.
"United, we stand. Divided we fall." (Aesop)
3
@Matt H Maybe, because like bernie, they are not Democrats.
13
Without a progressive at the helm, our country will sink in the coming storms of climate and socioeconomic inequality. I hope this country can wake up and elect one. And since women have multiple sets of driving forces, my vote is still with Warren.
158
@Chris Jones We will do well to insist that women are equal to men. Suggesting that they are superior is the old pinnacle trap that the feminists of the 60s and 70s were so clear about.
It is difficult to let go of that view. We feel the care of Mother, the purity of the Virgin : ancient visceral impulses. In those depths we have also the Temptress and the Shrew, similar archetypes that we strenuously deny.
I would be delighted to see Warren win, but her sex has nothing to do with it, and I am disappointed by anyone who says it has.
5
@Chris Jones Warren was a close second choice to me, but after last night, no longer. She had a chance to put petty hearsay aside and confront the outright bias of the CNN in order to bring progressives together, but instead took the low road. Is this the hill she wants her campaign to die on? Apparently. I can say for a certain fact that she will not be getting my primary vote now.
10
@Chris Jones
Andrew Yang? He is progressive, fresh, smart, passionate, cheerful, and genuine. Works well for this, old, white, male who is fed up with the "system".
1
I wonder if the DNC will look at this election cycle and know this is not the formula for debates. However, there usually aren't 24 candidates that start and there are still 11 in the race.
Next time, have a "Ladies Night". An old, white, billionaire night. An under 50's night. No one can be in more than one debate. For example, a 48 year old transgender, billionaire, that identifies as a POC would have to pick one debate.
Some rules may include, no polling and no contribution goals for the first debate. Take a 1 month break and the top 50% of the first debates either repeat debate one, if there are still a lot of players or go to a regular debate format.
7
@Mike It's just too many candidates- there needs to be a method to pare it down to a more reasonable amount. At this point most of the candidates that dropped out have done if because they ran out of money- I'm not sure that we should elect someone just because they're the best at fundraising and so much money has been wasted that could have gone to the general election.
2
Excellent debate. Top notch group of candidates.
Hopefully voters look beyond the fluff and see that Klobuchar knocked it out of the park in her highlighting all the things she's accomplished while in the senate. Big dreams are just that - dreams, pipe dreams, until they get churned out into final, passed legislation. As she did during the debate, Klobuchar should tout her creds as the most prolific final-legislation writer among this stellar group of candidates. We need to get something done....and Klobuchar gets it done.
That said, Melanye Price has the best one liner on Tom Steyer - 'He is paying a ton of money to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency'. Couldn't stop laughing at that prescient sidebar note on what's really going on with his candidacy.
4
You chose well, as did I earlier following the debate. Our choices coincide. I refrained from watching, instead listened intently to fully grasp what was said, and it was enlightening. Only Warren and Sanders could possibly rival Trump, but they will have to get tougher and more blunt. This is no Tea Party.
17
America is in dire need to undergo a major change. It has to!
The very health of the nation is at risk. To not look at all other Western nations that provide health care to all their citizens at half the cost US currently has (minus 40 millions is irrational) is plain sick!
Medicare for all can be done and will result in lower over costs.
The system is indeed rigged, taxing the corporations and the rich is manifest to the highest degree. Corporations and the wealthy should not dictate politics, should not toy with democracy, should not buy political power, should not rig the judiciary.
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are the true enemies of the American democracy.
We need progressive leaders to unrig the currently rigged system.
We need Warren and we need Sanders. Can they share the office of the president?! If not any of these two will do a great job. And we the voters must believe one of them will!
237
@SportsMedicine
Would be interesting to see how much the pharmaceutical industry spends on R%D for drugs compared to advertising for drugs. Physicians should make decisions on the application of drugs, not the impulsive consumers in the market place.
64
@Robert Scull I agree that doctors should be in charge of selecting drugs for their patients. However, the pharmaceutical industry knows this, and spends 2-10 times as much on marketing their drugs to doctors as they do on advertising them to the general public. That holds all the way up until just before a drug is ready to come off patent, or become OTC.
17
@SportsMedicine "We have great healthcare in this country because of innovation."
But "we" have great healthcare only if "we" can afford it. Which millions of Americans cannot. That is the problem in this country. We have a money problem in healthcare, pure and simple. But you seem to be saying, on behalf of Big Pharma and insurance companies, "hey, don't look at us." Who else should we look at? Where else is all the money? I would love to hear your ideas for preserving all that innovation while solving the healthcare cost crisis.
48