LOL. I didn't even have to click on the story to know that the punditry was going to declare Klobuchar victorious. I mean, it happens after every debate, it's kinda hilarious.
Never mind that outside of political junkies and Minnesotans pretty much no one knows who she is. Never mind that she came in fifth in Iowa and polls in the single digits nationally. Never mind that her national constituency seems to be well-paid political commentators who live in NY and DC.
And you guys probably expect us to take your election predictions seriously, huh?
23
Every single debate Bernie Sanders dodges direct questions and retreats to the same half dozen talking points, and these collumnists give him high marks for it. At some point perhaps they should stop grading him on a curve.
15
The most important characteristic of any of these candidates is the ability to defeat Trump. Klobuchar and Warren are probably, the best candidates overall. However, the question remains, do they have the ability to defeat Trump.
Trump is a nasty divisive personality and will exploit any perceived weakness that he can and will seek to destroy anyone threatening his kingship. That explains why he continues in this effort to damage Biden. Trump is afraid of Biden, unlike he is afraid of anyone else, with perhaps, the exception of Bloomberg.
4
"Electability" is a mindless, baseless smokescreen for ideological opposition to Sanders. It is exactly the kind of gibberish that opens the door to Trump and the far-right.
6
I had been for Warren, with Buttigieg as my second.
The debate last night changed that for me.
I just donated $$ to Amy. Her and Bloomberg now seem like the most unbeatable ticket.
4
Still trying to make Klobuchar a thing.
9
I agree with your assessments of who won and who lost. I am a political junkie, so for me, there was nothing new to hear or see. I have heard the coffee can and FDR story a number of times. I do like Amy, so nothing malicious. I suggest all candidates mix up what they are saying, as much of what they are saying has become stale. I wish we could see the candidates in a different format. A format that allows slower, more deliberate responses. I really like Elizabeth Warren and it seems she has to be fast and almost breathless to try to make a point in a short span. Warren has been criticized for readjusting her position. This is not necessarily a bad thing to understand where compromises can be made. We need improved, rational policies. To meet up against Donald Trump, we need force against force and sharpness to bump against his lack of knowledge. The candidate has to be relevant and fast on their feet so they can draw him out and clearly make him look like the idiot he is. I think that Steyer, Yang and Biden are all nice people, but I don't think they fit the description. The candidate has to have a strong orbit to get the job done when elected. The DNC should support all candidates and may the best man/woman win.
5
I respect the Times editorial staff but I don't need or appreciate a score and a sound bite from each. I'm learning more about the staff's biases than about the actual candidates. This is junk. I prefer thoughtful analysis.
Cary Fleisher (4/10)
20
Warren for President, Klobuchar for Vice President. Now that is a powerful team.
1
Dear Sen. Klobuchar, I will choose another newcomer over another Presidential attack dog.
5
Klobuchar on top?!? Everything she says is pandering to someone... sometimes she even stops mid-sentences because she forgot to pander. I don't dislike her that much, but everything she says sounds focus-grouped and designed for soundbites.
8
Bret Stephens (8/10) — Buttigieg is never anything other than verbally fluent, emotionally composed and mostly persuasive — except when it came to criminal-justice issues in his hometown.
Buttiegieg -no surprise you gave him an 8/10. He's polling is less than 3% across the country with the black and brown community. If he couldn't pull it off in his hometown, his electability is severely overrated. Isn't that what this whole conservation is all about.
4
The little graphics with captions is unhelpful. First, the selection of quotes is as heavy handed as an old-time Pravda censor. Second, the reviews would need to be weighted as, for example, coming from an easy or hard "grader". Also, it's mathematically pretty foolish. The comparisons expressed along a line should be for a given reviewer - not a given candidate, since each reviewer presumably measures each candidate relative to the other candidates, not relative to the measures of other reviewers, i.e. the reviewers should be independent variables and candidates, the dependent variable. (But since it's categorical data, it should probably be ranked, but... don't we want to know more about the candidates than about the NYT reviewers? The whole thing is dumb.... )
5
It is interesting that those attacking Biden from the left echo the Trump/Putin trolls, and the media is now (un?)consciously doing the same thing. Did Trump succeed in assassinating the character of the one person he is most worried about facing this fall?
4
These ratings, based on who "shived" or went after" whom and how presumably "effective" these attacks were, are completely stupid - and they miss the point. Denigrating anyone but Trump and his allies is not in my view a positive contribution or indicative of a "good" candidate, because the only purpose here is to beat Trump. Democrats fighting serves the opposite purpose. I would rank them based on the perspicacity and inspiration they showed. Just a terrible way to look at these debates, which are really more like guided town halls.
7
Pi over ten in your ranking of Yang. Good job Bret. I needed the laugh about then.
1
All the top-tier candidates would be fine and are electable. It is not rocket science to go up against a sociopathic, insecure and weak bully like Trump. Sanders and Warren are the strongest candidates - pick one and look forward to fighting Trump and winning in November.
9
The scores and the comments from the judges made me think more of a beauty contest than a presidential race. None of the comments are substantive. All are superficial. Some flippant.
For example, "She managed to shred Buttigieg while coming off as funny and sensible. Her final riff on F.D.R. was masterful."
Simply silly.
9
Klobuchar: I...and I.... and I.... and I.... I, I, I! Not one of the other candidates was even close to being so self-referential and so self-congratulatory.
8
For 6 months the columnists and commenters of the NYT site have been tearing at Biden's vitals. Finally they've ben able to do real damage to the (former?) national frontrunner.
But wait, there's no second place beneficiary to step in! The democratic ship is heading for the rocks. Congrats to all during Trump's second term.
6
If Amy Klobuchar was male, she would be the leading candidate now.
6
I wish one had a chance.
2
Amy: Your favorite smart Aunt
Bernie: Fighter to the end
Joe: Needs some stronger java
Pete: Chastened when challenged.
Steyer: All over the place
Warren: Stop with the freebies that red staters despise
Yang: Futuristic but too much so
Bloomberg: If money talked, Jeb would have won
Trump: Can be beat with his own soundbites
4
Ah, the biased pundits way in. As for Buttigieg, there is no answer on race, I am convinced, that would assuage the left. And so what do you do when most of the drug-related street crimes are racially skewed . . . people I know who live in those communities want criminals arrested. And they want a police force that respects them.
1
Bret Stephens is typical of the media hatred of Joe Biden. Biden could come out juggling 6 statues of Liberty, while riding a unicycle reciting the Constitution and Stephens would give him 2/10.
Stephens has long disparaged Biden's chances; He does not want to look foolish if Biden wins the nomination.
4
Who won? Everybody who didn’t watch.
7
Watching the debate I felt like moderators favored some of the candidates while attempting to sabotage Buttigeig when they lied about him supposedly wanting all drugs legal. That was a complete lie and anyone could easily see the truth by going to his website. I feel having the “moderators” favoring candidates and lying about him threw Buttigeig off guard. As far as his response regarding an increase in black arrests, they asked a question that was difficult to answer in the short time allowed. He would have had to explain, the history, where the nation was at that time, why he decided to target violent gang members (nothing. To do with drugs besides drugs, violence and Gangs go hand in hand) explain that there typically are more black than whites in these gangs.. gangs tend to increase in poverty stricken areas.. south bend was a failing ghost town when he became mayor.. in order to start bring more people in, he needed to disrupt violent gangs...
His answer was not the greatest and did not help him gain any votes, but what he actually did, with the finances he had is quite impressive. Also, the people I know that live in or near South Bend (black and white) love him.
3
Everything about this, from the grades to the comments, reminds me of how realty tv shows contestants are covered.
The NYTimes gets the presidential contestants and Entertainment Weekly gets the Survivor contestants. Everything else is the same.
Maybe that's why there's a reality tv show host in the White House who'll probably win a second term despite all his destructive character flaws?
4
I find it interesting that other news organizations declared Buttigieg the winner. I get it the Times love Klobuchar, the problem is not too many like her. Iowa is practically her home state and she barely broke 10%. Her hostility toward Pete’s success just shows her short comings. Democratic's are figuring her out, she is not inspiring and her grumpy demeanor will ensue she will be gone soon.
2
Ms Warren could probably have the greatest impact on the 2020 election right now. By "suspending". & throwing her personal (here supporters not being robots) support to Bernie. After all, another 3rd, and facing a fast fade in NV & SC (then CA & TX) is not worth much.
Biden is still going to be in the game in NV & SC.
Dems' problem is Mayor B. His spinmasters have taught him to be vague, to wrap himself in pretty predictions and happy sentiments. But down to brass tacks he could not say he would not have used an assassin drone. He could not explain away black arrests. The Obama magic, of being a mirror that anyone could project upon to reflect that person's own desires for gov, will not work again. We have all become way more skeptical.
He needs to be pinned down on what he would actually do.
And he needs to admit that there will be no Kumbaya campaign, or aftermath. We ain't all gonna get along. We need to win a majority. That's it.
1
I can not disagree more with the Times bubble think analysis. Yang continues to be the only candidate I will support. The putdowns here here just display, stunning ignorance (Stevens on automation), or grotesque hypocritical partisanship (Goldberg on Trump "crimes" shtick). One of the most off-putting moments the debate for me is the blind support lent to Hunter Biden, and his dad. Now there is a crime for you. Whether or not it is "legal". Frankly, it is worse if it is legal. It just goes to show with the right connections and playbook you can get away with anything while without them you are a common criminal. I am so tired of the answer to every question being a long repetitive diatribe on Trump followed by five seconds of "I'll do it differently". The second most off-putting moment was Biden bullying the audience to give a standing ovation to Vindman. Pure megalomania on display.
5
Bret, since you mentioned it, it's only a FOOLISH consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds.. A WISE consistency is the strength of great minds. That's where Bernie left you behind
3
The gotcha question was one thing - but i understandable and his answer was at bottom true - more blacks got arrested because they were in violent situations or had weapons, which in former times were at least a justifiable basis for arrest on possession (a lesser offense) ) - but then the same moderator showed both her anti-Pete bias and her pro-Warren stance by throwing Liz the fattest, biggest, slowest, right-down Broadway leading softball opening ever - world record - ("Does Pete's answer satisfy you, Senator Warren?" )Come on - that person should never be allowed to moderate again, even though she and the others were quite good the rest of the way. Sad.
4
If the Democrats even think about nominating Klobuchar consider the election is over. She is a desperate, driven candidate, reminding me of Trump in 2016 interviewing endlessly with seemingly anybody who will have her. Of course I will vote for her if she is against Trump, but she will lose. She is very mundane, a dull "live" wire. It might get her a chance at the nomination, yet that in itself is throwing in the towel. All those pumping her tires today are being foolish.
6
Sadly, your commentators do little but endorse their favorite candidate with their comments. Debate after debate.
6
Last night's winners: The American people. Last night's loser: Donald J Trump.
Any/every one of the candidates onstage last night would be a vast improvement over the carnival barker that currently plagues the White House and our country.
3
I'm truly amazed that Steyer comes out of this with a 4.8. My head nearly started to explode after the nth episode of mansplaining, weirdly countenanced if not abetted by the feckless moderators. To give airtime to Steyer _over_ Warren, as they did at least several times, after she _beat Biden in Iowa_? Absolutely outrageous. We, the voters, deserve to hear more from Warren when _she is raising her hand to speak_--and instead are treated to arrogant bloviating from a man who's never held elected office and feels the need to lecture a field of (more or less) seasoned politicians about how the USA is "diverse?" The future of American democracy and the remainder of the Anthropocene Age is at stake. And these moderators instead waste everybody's time--_and cut out Warren when she is eagerly trying to speak to issues for which she has meaningful plans_--with a billionaire mansplainer? Inexcusable. Utterly, devastatingly pathetic.
4
who came up with the lame idea of giving numerical ratings for entirely subjective opinions? And numerically rated to fractions, no less. Next you'll be giving stars like the tire company, then thumbs up and down, all the while pretending that there is something objective and accurate about somebody's impression of somebody else. Nutz.
6
I love these comments. Dead on.
1
I hear that Pete Buttigieg's new campaign slogan is, "Billionaire Lives Matter".
4
"Solid, knowledgeable; still a mystery why she isn’t gaining more ground. No snotty one-liners, no cheap shots. She radiated sincerity and commitment."
One reason she might not be gaining ground is the very little publicity she gets on these pages. How about less or Bernie and Donald (kind of the same thing), less Mayor Pete, less Biden. Forget the pipe dream that Republicans will secretly pull a lever for a brave new lefty world. I don't want to float on that one myself. Tell Klobuchar's story and give her a chance. Do a feature on her -- less casserole, more experience, which is significant.
2
I’m waiting to hear from Bloomberg.
2
Hope Klobuchar rises in the polls but it's looking like it will either be the gay guy or the socialist.
So does anybody think a gay guy could beat Trump?
What about a socialist?
There is a reason Trump is going after Biden. He knows he's his only real competition. The Democrats are living in la la land if they think otherwise. Here we go again.
1
Klobuchar was 'confident and aggressive?' Klobuchar had some lines, but her voice always quivers like she is failing a job interview, which she kind of -is-. Biden was 'gaffeless' only because he was constantly stumbling, mumbling and shouting. Demanding that the crowd provide a standing ovation for Vindman had to have been a planned stunt. Yelling at people and poking them is hardly a command posture, as Joe the poseur would have have you believe.
Biden: "But let's get back to the basics here. If we don't set the rules of the road by going out to our partners, instead of poking our eye — excuse me, poking our finger in the eye of all of our friends and allies, we make up 25 percent of the world's economy. We've got to bring the other 25 percent of our allies along with us..."
More Biden: "Secondly, I would argue that the way you control drug prices is you limit what they can charge for those prices. You don't have to pay the price. Limit what they can charge. If, in fact, they charge more than we set the price for, they can — they can, in fact — we can — people can import from abroad, assuming that it is — it is — it is safe."
Finally Biden: "My time is up, I know, but I'm not going to go over like everybody."
Warren race-shaming Boot-edge-edge was rich, after several prominent (real) women of color quit her campaign yesterday for being marginalized. All of the candidates seem to be running for Vice President. Except for Joe Biden, who thinks he is still the Veep.
6
"Big on rhetoric about climate change and racism"
Bernie Sanders said, is “a racist society from top to bottom.”
This coming from someone who fled Chicago, where he was "an activist", and moved to white Vermont in the 1960s. Currently Vermont has about a 1.3% African-American population. It is currently 94% white.
From there he occasionally marched and has endlessly preached AT the folks in flyover country about what he perceives as their shortcomings on race in this country.
I know many liberals and progressives who, when called out on their own segregated environs respond with:
"What are you talking about? I just happen to live where I live. You're privileged and a racist!"
The race-hustling by the Democrats has no bounds.
2
Forgive me, but as concerned as I am for the future of the United States and, frankly, planet Earth - deeply concerned - I cannot bring myself to read this score sheet.
I live in Washington State so have essentially no voice in the Democratic primaries. All you howling, yapping media beasts will be thrashing the candidates through an ungodly tiresome and unnecessarily long campaign. Does anybody ever stop running for office anymore?
I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket. Vote Blue No Matter Who. Don't waste my time pitting me against other Democrats for a purl-clutching session over who is capable of beating Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a nightmare. Donald Trump is utterly unfit for office. You can't say that about any of the Democrats campaigning to become president. There is no need for me to join this circus.
5
You may hate Trump, but these Democrat POLICIES would destroy the US economy, take away freedoms, and involve much more government control over your life. Do you really want that just because you hate Trump?
2
Bernie and his debate performances haven't changed, but now we have 10 out of 10 positive reviews from NYT - after hundreds of terrible ones from these debates and those in 2016. Why do we let them pretend that they are objective? NYT is not a news organization - it's a political instrument of the establishment.
3
All of the Democrats did splendidly. Compared to the lunatic that we have in the White House today, any one of them is a refreshing cool breeze of insight, intelligence and progressive values.
Elizabeth is my gal but I’ll take any of the candidates.
Democrats! Let’s storm the WH gates in November. Let’s throw the bum out with the trash in January.
And let’s right this ship before it hits the rocks (world instability through inept leadership and conservatism bordering on lunacy)
6
Bloomberg or Bust!
1
Funny to read how the same debate is viewed by columnist entirely differently. If you see their past views and ratings, they are perfectly aligned! That is, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance reign among these columnists. Thank you for yet another waste of space.
7
Honestly, this makes y'all look really bad.
4
Tom Steyer: Please spend your money on voter registration. Please.
6
I know Buttigieg did well again because, once again, the East German skating judges gave him two points less than he deserved.
3
. . . and yet Mayor Pete has moved to first place with a small lead in the latest New Hampshire poll.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/08/new-hampshire-primary-pete-buttigieg-surged-ahead-new-hampshire-amid-big-post-iowa-bounce-new-poll-f/4700100002/
You guys can continue to promote Klobuchar and Warren all you like but you know they are both unelectable in a national race. But the bigger question is why in God's name are Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang still taking up space on the debate stage?
3
Really, Mimi Swartz? Ask Bernie about those mythical "sexist bros" during a presidential debate? Right, let's turn this into even more of a dumb media circus than it already is.
3
Any of them on their worst day are better than the absolute horror n the White House.
3
I'm seeing quite a bit of enthusiasm for Klobuchar on this commute board.
Slow way down folks! It was reported when she initially announced but now largely forgotten: she is a terrible boss who screams at her staff and routinely belittles them, resulting in the highest staff turnover on Capital Hill and being voted Worst Boss on Capital Hill.
She has not business being anywhere near the Oval Office
You have to go back a a full year to find all the reporting on this but there's plenty to read:
Vanity Fair - TERRIFIED AIDES SAY AMY KLOBUCHAR IS JUST LIKE TRUMP - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/senator-klobuchar-temper-rumors
New York Times - HOW KLOBUCHAR TREATS HER STAFF - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html
3
Klobuchar should have quite after Iowa and she was aggressive last night. She doesn't have the following NYT so stop pushing her.
3
Couldn't disagree more with this snarky losers game...sorry I clicked on this article. Love the NYT but your political judgments and movie reviews too often reflect a cynical worldview that doesn't reflect the thinking of many of us. I thought all the candidates were incredibly uplifting last night...during a week when so many of us needed some hope.
5
The winner of the debate was Mike Bloomberg.
As much as it pains me to say so, the next President of the United States wasn't standing on that stage.
Trump and his mafia army would eat any of them alive with their dirty tricks.
Poor Joe Biden, a decent, decent man, has already been rendered irreparably damaged by Trump's dirty tricks.
They'll make Bernie and Elizabeth the second comings of Stalin and Lenin.
Poor Pete will be Mayor of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The others are tracking in single digits and will be dispatched with rhetoric widgets.
Mike Bloomberg has the money and the hutzpah to give it right back to Trump.
The "I may be short, but you're fat and bald" is a perfect example of what it will take to beat the Soulless One.
Plus, he's right, at least now, on many of the issues that matter.
4
NYT - why did you allow the false claim that Sanders is winning in Nevada polls in your “Takeaways” article?
I suggest that investigative journalists start doing some vetting of Sanders - the kind that Republicans have already done. They’re holding their fire until Sanders is the nominee.
3
The winners and losers analysis follows the NYT preferences for the most part and fails to account for Buttigieg's appeal in Iowa.
I'm hoping for a Bloomberg/Buttigieg ticket.
It's funny Trump calls Bloomberg mini Mike when in fact Bloomberg is a giant.
1
Bloomberg/Klobuchar 2020.
These are two people who don't start every sentence with " So . . ." Or, "Look, . . ."
Then proceed to talk down to the people with some thin baked ideology wrapped in pedagogy. Have they looked at the economy ? All the middle working class knows is that their 401k has never done better. Shortsighted ? Yes . . . but it truly IS THE ECONOMY STUPID ! Wise up, unless it suddenly becomes 1930 this autumn, neither Sanders or Warren would have a chance against our fascist-in-chief. And 4 more years, it's game, set, match on democracy in America.
Bloomberg/Klobuchar . . . to get the job done.
1
Everyone keeps insisting Klobuchar is a moderate. I think she is a classic liberal: open to new ideas yet more pragmatic in her approach. (Stacy Abrams calls herself a pragmatic progressive. Interesting that they both went to Yale. Both are cum laude graduates. Now that would be a team!) Klobuchar's sense of humor, compassion, authenticity, and intelligence showed up big time last night. When she got bated to attack Sanders, she turned it into a win for both and pivoted the criticism back to Trump. Warren needs to refresh her talking points: they're getting stale even though her understanding of policy structure and how to reform government etc. is unparalleled (that's why Obama picked to to build the CFPB.) Warren ought to be channeling her "Imagine" speech she gave on New Years Eve, which was spectacular. It was her"Morning in America" speech, but for some reason, her communications team is failing to get her to substitute that for the "I'm in this fight." She lacked time too. Sanders was his usual self: same emphatic ideology. Biden is treading water. Buttigieg showed his empathy, and that he lacks the experience to occupy the presidency:run for a different office, Pete! I'd make Yang a Cabinet Member in a new post centered on Technology. The rest should drop out now. Bloomberg is the dark horse gaining traction on everybody. If the polls don't shift around after this debate as they should, then the prejudice against a woman becoming president will be even more glaring.
1
Klobuchar is rated highly by the same paper that has prematurely endorsed her. Self-justify much?
5
Moderators with another "gotcha" question for Buttigieg - Conservative Indiana surrounded by states that have made recreational weed legal leaving police forces across the state to deal with the issue haphazardly and on an ad hoc basis.
The more liberals and the media hate Pete Buttigieg, the better it is for America.
1
Over and over again, Buttigieg uses a President Obama imitation to liven up his delivery. It's so obvious the way he turns his head and uses that Obama style of emphasis. It comes across as inauthentic and annoying. I'm not sure I know who Mayor Pete is.
3
Give me the Sanders/Klobuchar ticket.
Bloomberg/Klobuchar.
3
Klobes has always been a rehearsed joke machine.
5
Liz Mair, Thank you for pointing out that Elizabeth Warren needs to “stop beginning sentences with “so” or “look.” !
4
Nearly half of the grades are given out by The Times panel are from conservatives. Since when are Democrats supposed to be graded by their opponents? Since when is that fair?
This is journalistic bias. Pure and simple.
4
Are we trying to beat this “virus” that is trump, or not? Do you understand that he just gave “The Medal of Freedom” to the loudest bigot in the room? To a standing ovation of sycophants, I might add. As much as I “feel the Bern”, and love “Mayor Pete”, and think “Liz” would make a fine President, we need to rid the land of this “Capone” wanna be NOW! Bloomberg, an actual billionaire, can face him down; tax return to tax return, and Kamala Harris as his running mate would make Pence materialize as the tiny human he is. The idea is to crush the lying sociopath immediately, where he lives.
5
The best candidate was not even on the stage. Steve Bullock. How an idiot like Bernie Sanders could have warped a party he is not even a member of is infuriating. My only choices now are Amy or Mike Bloomberg. No one Elsa has the chops. Bernie least of all. Under no circumstances will I even consider voting for that guy.
3
All the more reason people should vote for Mike Bloomberg in the primaries, and view his excellent speech in Tulsa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJAsx9fzOPw
3
Trump will mob the floor with these weaklings.
Brokered convention, anyone?
1
Almost everyone I talk to is eagerly awaiting Bloomberg's entrance into this maelstrom & say that's who they'll vote for. Me too.
2
Michael Bloomberg
2
The winner is Mike Bloomberg who has my vote. I love Bernie and would love to have my student loans forgiven but I will settle for a President who is a very competent professional instead of the racist rapist currently degraded the White House.
3
Many people lose their sight, their legs , their arms, their brains, their will to live.....yet they still go on. The mothers lead the way ! The disabled adapt and not only survive but thrive in a world that fails to even give them credit when credit is due. They find happiness in themselves, they understand that only when they love themselves can they love and benefit others. The blind see more than those of us that have been blessed with vision !! They know that through acceptance roads are formed !!
1 in 59 children have Autism, 1 in 6 children have some sort of developmental delay, and one in 3 children today have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder .....yet children are the future !!
Do we think all these children will not have a place in this world ? Do we think all their mothers will just give up on their kids and stop trying ? Do we not trust that they were born for a reason and possibly they will lead the way ? That they will teach us to adapt and evolve and LOVE , that many of these children will not only find a way but will eventually lead the way ?
Do we not understand that MOTHERS, WOMEN & GOD will ALWAYS make sure there is room for their babies ?!
In an ever changing world with CHILDREN that need the most support, love, compassion and acceptance, because children are the future.....WOMAN AND MOTHERS HAVE THE FAITH AND THE ANSWERS ;)
Let's start putting women in charge !!
Jeez, your "pundits" must have watched a different debate than the one I saw. Or else they saw the same debate through the neoliberal corporate establishment Democratic lens that the New York Times loves to use.
The two that did the best were Sanders and Steyer with the rest bringing up the rear.
Bernie was the best of the bunch, reliably steady with a message aimed at the 99%, not the 1% that the Times "pundits" are a part of. Keep on pounding Bernie just because he is going to raise you all's taxes, most of us in the 99% don't pay attention to you all anyway.
Steyer was aggressive and kept pushing on the importance of beating Donald Trump and of racial issues. Figures that a non-politician outsider would be the one to stress these issues.
Elizabeth Warren does OK when she is not lying. She lied about Bernie being a billionaire and/or having PAC support; the snakes are out in full force on Twitter tonight.
Amy Klobuchar was her typical annoying self, her voice reminds me of the muted trombone sounds that adults in the Peanuts cartoons have. No mention of the black teenager rotting in prison due to her ignoring police misconduct when she was a prosecutor.
Pete Buttigeig kept spouting word salads, empty phrases devoid of any meaning.
Joe Biden was angry but all over the place, not sure what his message was except "my buddy Barack".
Andrew Yang was off his game, he seemed to think UBI was a magic bullet.
The Times' "pundits" get a D- because F+ does not exist.
3
Put Klobuchar on the debate stage with Trump and you will see a smart, poised, credible leader fighting for all Americans juxtaposed to Misogyny the Narcissistic Clown.
3
The candidates are criticizing each other apart on race while they should be focused on Donald Trump's record in this area. Any black or Hispanic person who votes for Trump is just opening the door for more Neo-Nazi rallies, targeting of Hispanics and in general discrimination. Instead of concentrating on the negatives of the Democrats, ask them how they would improve race relations if they are made president versus a second Donald Trump term.
1
Klobuchar!
3
This contrivance of what you think matters over what was said, in great part helps fuel the winner takes all nature of today's politics.
The blow by blow of the boxing match metaphor does none of us any good except to fuel maybe your own sense of importance. What we need is a review of what was said by whom so that we can weigh the ideas, for merit, and relevance to meeting an urgent need for real governance.
Maybe you were paying too much attention to your scoring cards, but I heard a number of ideas that are worth exploring. I also saw more collaboration in sharing those ideas among those on the stage.
I rate this submission on the debate an F. Please review the debate and resubmit a real report that meets the real 'the world is on fire' needs or your readership and the population in general...
4
What a useless exercise. Looks like a People Magazine version of the debate. NYT. Be better than this.
4
I just watched the debate on youtube.I disagree completely with these opinions. Everyone on that stage was presidential, substantive and articulate. The debate made me proud to be lifelong Democrat.
29
I absolutely agree!
3
Sleepy Joe lived up to his billing. It was entertaining watching him and Steyer debate who owned the black vote in South Carolina. Nothing better than two old white men arguing over who owns the black vote. At least Steyer was up front about reparations. Joe's just hoping to avoid the topic.
4
Wow...when even the NYT pundits put Bernie up front...momentum is building.
We've got a frontrunner~!
8
For all those singing Amy's praises here in the comments, please google her seriously fatal political fall out back home.
There are over a dozen groups publicly calling for her to suspend her campaign immediately. One group is the state NAACP. They are demanding she quit the race.
Everyone keeps saying we need to pay attention to the black community. So why are all these non-black Democrats willfully ignoring the black communities demands that Amy terminate her campaign? If you really care about black people, please feel free to stop ignoring them. The hypocrisy of white Democrats is astonishing.
5
NYT: Spare us the personality contest rankings. Media: This debate format is puerile. Next time let's have questions from sociologists, economists, diplomats, military, and lifelong civil servants who really know what the issues are.
5
It's time for the candidates to stop talking about what THEY are going to do when in office.Firstly they have proven to be divisive,secondly alot of their ideas are absurd.It is now time to focus on what trump has done, is doing, is going to do.From the environment, to putting children in cages, to destroying the DOJ,State dept.IRS,NSA,Military,ACA..all of it.Hit the voter hard with facts about this cruel, illegitimate thug living in the WH.Insist upon a medical work up by a reputable doctor.It is our right to know about his health.Too many Americans are clueless about what trump has wrought and it is terrifying.
I Was Very DISAPPOINTED! If The Moderators Would Call On Tom Steyer More.Give Tom A Chance You Would See That. He is The Only One That Can Stand Toe To Toe With trump!! And Be Our New Commander and Cheif 2020! Apparently Most of America Has Not Read STEYER'S Plan To Bring The Morals Back, Better Stance on Climate Change,Jobs, Tax Çuts For The Working Class, Job Training For Those That Need It To Better Quality Of Life, etc. They Don't Give STEYER A CHANCE BECAUSE HE IS A BILLIONAIRE.BLOOMBERG Is Not Even In The Same Category As Tom Steyer Is! Tom Has A Giving Pledge And Tom Will Bring Us Back From trumps Trying to Destroy Our Country!!!!!!! And As far As The Other Ones Running Their Plans For AMERICA ARE WEAK AT BEST!!!!!!!!! I THOUGHT TOM STEYER WAS GREAT WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK!!!!!! TOM2020!!!!!!
1
A black woman should be on this panel, maybe two.
1
"If you judge candidates by their ability to mouth platitudes, then Buttigieg was the winner. If you judge them by the substance of their remarks, then Buttigieg clearly flailed when he couldn’t pivot to vaguely inspirational rhetoric."
Best evaluation of "mayor pete" yet. The guy is an empty suit.
6
Bret Stephens uses Emerson's quotation on "foolish consistencies" to attack Sanders, but to be fair, whatever flaws Sanders may carry, having a "small mind" is not one of them.
4
Several columnists mentioned that Warren had less speaking time than the other major candidates, as though that was somehow her responsibility. Perhaps review the performance of the moderator. And after that take a look back at the Times' Iowa caucus coverage, which turned other candidates into bit players in the Sanders/Buttigieg coverage.
1
At this point I don’t care what the candidates have to say about each other or themselves for that matter; they are Democrats - they are going to be on the side of normal people, we get that. I want to see them run against Trump, let them show us their stuff, then we can decide who’s got the “right stuff”.
“It’s about the danger, dummy.” We’re looking for a signature of leadership, not niceness.
1
What is wrong with America today? People have forgotten that end should not justify the means. Trump supporters are doing exactly that. His supporters are defending him because he got things done which were dear to them, no matter how corrupt his ways have been. Everyone wants to become rich, that does not mean you steal - that would be breaking the covenant you made with the society. One main quality the primary voters want is electability, which falls right in the "end justifies means" category. Right now, moderates have no place in Democratic primary. We have to right the things which Trump has wronged. If a moderate Democrat had to take up the presidency, the wrong will remain wrong for the fear of enraging the white supremacists. Let people vote without the burden of the fakery of "electability". Also, the last Presidential election has proved that electability is unreal.
1
I think the whole idea of "moderatism" as a viable, functional policy at this current juncture in America is far more of a pie in the sky fantasy than what Warren and Sanders are proposing. Moderates like Obama attempted to reach across the aisle only to be kicked in the face, and largely blocked from accomplishing anything regardless. The idea that Republicans like Devin Nunes and Mitch McConnell will work with Klobuchar or Buttigieg to get anything done is ludicrous. This country is in need of a radical change, not two aspirin washed down with moxie. Wallpapering over the void with fantasies of sweet reasonableness and forlorn, obsolete hopes of conciliation, given the toxic ideologies on the other side, is a deluded dream now.
3
To me, Sanders is not a viable candidate for Democratic Party to take down Trump.
For me taking down Trump is the only ultimate goal in 2020. Nothing else should intervene with it because stake is just extremely high. Thus, from the lens of this goal, Sanders is not a candidate for me.
Sanders has always appeared to me as an ideologue, sounding appealing to his base, but I have doubts what he has said or promised can really amount to reality. We don't like right-wing ideologue. So why should we like a left-wing?
I sincerely hope Democratic Party won’t fail its mission to rescue the country from Trump because of egotistic candidates (Why as old as Joe Biden and Sanders should join the race? And Andrew Young to me is an amateur candidate joining the race for his 15 minutes fame.) or because of purists in the party or in the base. Those purists have picked on some minor issues such as Pete's racial affair in South Bend or Mayor Bloomberg is overly rich.... How ridiculous this is! Republicans don't even give a dime WH is hijacked by Monster as long as it is their guy. Democratic Party doesn't need to be as corrupt but shouldn't we also be sensible knowing that we can never have a perfect candidate but we need a candidate who can surely take down Trump.)
In short, it is tragedy to see our chance to take back WH is doomed by egotistic candidates, purists and the divisions caused by those purists.
Democratic Party must be unified to win. This is the only way.
2
The moderates are fine, but pitching better sameness. That doesn't work in a world disrupted by pollution, climate change, trillion dollar deficits, fleecing of the American family and their shrinking dreams.
- McButtigieg doesn't stand for anything
- Biden is going through the motions
- One good night for Klobuchar...finally
- Sanders brand still resonates for the deeply resigned
- Yang is a one hit wonder
- Steyer is prescient, but he'd be better behind the scenes
Warren is the hardest working, smartest, and most results-to-date candidate. Has anyone else implemented anything that helps American families economically, the source of American dissonance? Not even close. She took a hit for getting specific with her plans (the only person who's remotely thinking this through.) She (and Dems) need to:
1) Dial back a bit on the non-economic stuff. Yes, we know kids in cages is evil, racism abounds, and the Constitution is threatened, American foreign policy is being perverted, etc, etc.
2) Expose the deeper fault lines in America's pocketbooks, what makes this recovery fragile. Our debt and deficits, ongoing attacks on healthcare are unsustainable. BTW, much of the wage gains are continued trendlines from Obama admin, plus min wage.
3) Big structural change is not about change for change sake. Yes, it's to eliminate "corruption", but it's really about a fair playing field.
"It's the kitchen table, stupid" may be the mantra.
This is nonsense. Biden had by far and away his best debate of the campaign (Bernie did well, too) but some of your columnists- a few of whom I've never even heard of- have apparently not recovered from some of his previous debate performances. He was assertive without gratuitously attacking any of his opponents and his responses were both forceful and thoughtful. He needs to lose the repetitive "Here's the deal" prefacing to his comments but he otherwise more than held his own with the other candidates and with the ABC correspondents. I'd have give him a solid "8" for the night.
2
Nonobjective evaluations of candidates that tells us more about the evaluators than the POTUS candidates.
3
So much for Amy Klobuchar. Punching like Mohammad Ali to Mayor Pete . There is an article in HuffPost of Feb.8,2019 ( exactly a year ago) “Harry Reid Rebuked Amy Klobuchar For Mistreatment Of Staff.” She acted last night as if she had nothing to be reminded of. Otherwise, yes. She was well prepared. Kudos to her. She might have what it takes to punch the Republican contender in November. That would be unprecedented considering her fifth place in Iowa.
1
Americans: Let's rally behind a candidate and cease the divisiveness. Truly, bickering until Trump runs off with the presidency is shooting ourselves in both feet, is it not?
So long as the media elite dismisses serious candidates, such as Warren, and critical issues such as climate change we will be ill-served by these "debates". Too busy trying to provoke a drama to please their advertisers and boards to do any journalism, I guess.
1
Before you toss the "ol'timers" overboard, just swing your gaze eastward to Europe and the "younger to middle age generation" leaders all leaning right to completely saturated right. Should that be a caution for us?
Mimi Swartz's issue, "...Solid, knowledgeable; still a mystery why she isn’t gaining more ground...."
She's not gaining more ground because she is in possession of the one thing that the electorate is terrified to put in the White House. A uterus.
1
I'm disappointed that Mayor Pete didn't receive a higher grade. The failure to address the race question was a negative for him, but the whole question seemed silly, yet representative of liberal outcome-oriented politics. Why should he be held responsible for having more people of color arrested during his administration (as I understood the question, it was limited to his first year in office)? Because liberal Dems and their enablers in the press want the outcomes of government efforts to reflect a strong connection to social results.
I don't think New Hampshire voters saw the same Mayor Pete that your (elitist?) journalists saw last nite.
About Bret Stephens' comment about Sanders: "Isn’t a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?"
The adjective "foolish" to modify consistency is the fulcrum of the meaning of that comment from Emerson. Consistency of message in a political campaign, like in a commercial ad campaign, is not foolish; It is wise, well-proven, and is the coin of the realm in political campaigning. Adopting clear messages and positions and repeat them over and over to make sure you're understood.
No surprise that’s Klobuchar’s scripted FDR riff finale was catnip for the punditocracy, all desperate to find some “moderate” alternative to those wild eyed radicals, Liz and Bernie, and stay basically safe with the status quo. Iowa, where she touted herself as the neighbor who knows the good white folks of the Midwest best — how did that go? What’s the fantasy that keeps fueling the MSM desire for a middle of the road candidate like this, whom the voters evidently don’t think is the one to bring change to our disappearing democracy or stand up to Trump?
1
Seriously? Klobuchar? Have we learned nothing from the performance artist who's currently terrorizing the country? Spare me the middle-class grandpa story and pandering to NH voters. I want real policy and her middle of the road schtick doesn't cut it.
4
Hopefully we'll have a brokered convention and instead of any of these fatally flawed and quasi-to-unelectables, we can nominate real Presidential material like Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
1
Why is Liz Mair part of this? As a strategist for Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry, good-faith assessments are not in the equation.
1
Steyer had one thing right: The Democrats had better find a way to take it to Trump on the economy and not just with the line that not everybody is prospering. It needs to be pointed out that with a very unstable genius in charge, the U.S. and the world are at risk of an unstable economy. Dems have got to find a way to articulate that better than I can. There are lots of Republicans who hate Trump as a person but are hanging with him because the economy is doing well and they think the Democrats would ruin it.
7
As a gay man of a certain age who survived the plague, I never thought I would see an openly gay, married man run on the Democratic ticket for president. I like Mayor Pete, but will throw my support over to someone like Elizabeth Warren who is much more progressive on issues. The thing that surprises me most is how the press ignores the fact that he is gay. There have certainly been enough discussions about the viability of a women or person of color becoming the next POTUS. Is the press afraid to be labeled homophobic for asking whether America is ready to accept an openly gay man, who if elected, would have a First Lady who is a man. I can only imagine the nicknames Trump will come up with if he gets the nomination. There seems to be a big elephant in the room, and it's not a Republican.
2
Amy Klobuchar worries me a little. Her tearjerker story about the Franklin Roosevelt mourner sounds fake to me. I'm still checking it out, but it looks to me like one of those stories that get made up years after the fact and become false folklore.
But I do know her comment that Donald Trump blames the king of Denmark for our problems is delusional. Denmark has no king, but (since 1972) a queen, Margrethe II. Was Amy Klobuchar talking about the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, and the dustup about the United States wanting to buy Greenland? Pretty odd to call a female prime minister a king.
Who knows. But rather odd to go on a riff about Donald Trump that makes less sense than he. Amy Klobuchar, quivering often in her excitement, seems at times, and more and more, to be (to use a technical term) a ditz.
5
Watched the debate and again was annoyed by the questions. I don't agree with Steyer much, but he was absolutely correct when he said that the debate was a retread of candidates jockeying between minor differences in progressiveness on the same issues.
All the candidates have health care policies that are miles away from Trump. Instead of litmus tests of progressive purity, it would have been better to hear about how the candidates will grow the economy. Don't forget, "it's the economy, stupid".
As a life long democrat, I understand that Trump is exaggerating about the great economy. But do I think that a response that tries to argue that ..." well it's not that great except for the rich..." will get the average voter fired up and on the democrats's side? Not a chance. That's a losing proposition. It's fine to say Trump is exaggerating, but then in the next breath you have to describe your vision for making the pie bigger for everyone. Once the economy is taken care of, you can push whichever social justice reforms you want, but my Republican/Independent friends laugh when they watch the debates and realize that so many of the questions are geared to forcing moderates to acknowledge their purity; that they too will be "fighting injustice", and they are more than happy to argue that the only solution is to redistribute wealth (with no plan to increase wealth for all). When Bloomberg starts rising in the polls, the reason is obvious.
4
I'm all in for Amy Klobuchar. She's smart, clear headed, experienced in ways that matter, charming, truthful, down to earth, and alternatively funny and hard-nosed as needed. She has proven she can win in places where Republicans usually romp.
Add to all that, she looks, speaks, and acts presidential. It's no stretch to imagine her going toe to toe with top foreign leaders. A President Klobuchar wouldn't make us cringe or hang our heads in shame.
Best of all, she's the "Goldilocks" candidate. Not too young. Not too old. Juuuuust right.
10
Stop trying to make Klobuchar happen. It's not going to happen.
6
I think Sanders/Klobuchar ticket is the way to go....Bernie has shown that he can bring out the crowds....I think he has the populist support....people want change....and 4 years of Amy as VP gets her ready to be President
Just STOP IT, with calling for winners and losers already. These PR moments/debates are to let the candidates get their ideas and programs out to us the voters. That is all they should be and let US the voters say what we like and don't like from it all.
Aren't you creating a bias, a selected candidate, an anointment of them all for who you see as viable? Present the facts, compare how their programs/ideas were different or alike to others. That is your job NOT to tell who won or lost.
7
Klobuchar has been running on one issue, and one issue alone ... ability to deliver the Midwest. Yet Iowa thoroughly dispelled that myth.
She's even trailing in her own (midwestern) home state of Minnesota.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/minnesota/
Bottom line, the emphasis the DNC and pundit class have placed on her are wholly disproportionate to her standing among the electorate.
It's time to start winnowing the field. Klobuchar, who's never even come close to the standing of Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, needs to do her bit and exit.
Her negative, constant attacks are only hurting Dems' chances of winning in 2020.
3
I loved Biden when he got emotional. I found his stutter endearing, but then, I'm a Democrat who actually cares about real people. Trump and the rabid-right bozos would have a field day with that.
Warren is OUT for me after her blanket dismissal of Bloomberg just because he became a billionaire through brilliant ideas and management. She couldn't even acknowledge his contributions to gun control and "green" cities.
Sanders - meh. Klobuchar - YES!
5
Everyday the NYT reports more distressing news about the global ecological crisis. This week it included the extinction of fireflies and bumblebees, new terrifying evidence that the oceans are rapidly warming and drastically changing, and our great leader's decision to auction mining and drilling permits for two magnificent national monuments. One can assume the Pebble mine will get the OK next, and the world's largest remaining salmon run will be destroyed. Clearly, there is no "moderate" solution to this crisis. You can't stop global warming just a little bit, and you can't restore species once they're extinct. To deal with these interconnected crises requires a candidate and a party committed to keeping the earth inhabitable, and that requires a candidate and a party wiling to recognize that the capitalist system has become increasingly parasitic and maladaptive.
5
Let’s go Amy! She has the experience, policies and drive to win. I am an Independent who is focused on defeating Trump and so is Amy, by appealing to the largest segment of voters who, while derided by the left, have the most say in who will win 2020.
Mayor Pete never answered the questions posed to him about decriminalizing all drugs according to his website nor why minority arrests dramatically increased in his administration. They were important questions and he failed miserably. Is he an empty suit?
I still like Biden but he will not escape Hunter. Sorry Joe.
S&W have become tiring. Two sides of the same coin. Bernie will not escape the socialist label no matter how he tries to spin it. Warren becomes less appealing as time goes on. Good. Both continue to demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise. Effective leadership is about compromise and both seem proud of their inability to do so. Huge red flag.
Yang, while correct about automation’s impact, is not presidential material. I think the Ted Talk comment by Daniel McCarthy is spot on.
Stayer will quickly fade as Bloomberg gets on stage and in the primaries. Mike will shred Trump in any debate or issue. Everyone’s argument about Bloomberg taking money from billionaires falls flat since the only money he’s taken from is his. Mike has also proven, time and again, to take up causes he believes in are right for America. He truly puts his money where his mouth is.
Amy or Mike, I’m happy with either or both together.
8
Doesn't the NY Times see that *this* is exactly what is wrong with our political system? It shouldn't be about who wins or who loses, it should be about something deeper. But our entire political system has become about winning and losing, rather than being about the areas between those two extremes where real, meaningful, decision making must exist. But that no longer exists because moving in any way towards what those on the other side think is losing, something that has become more and more germane due to articles like this.
10
I wish there was a combination of Warren’s policy positions and clear solutions to our nations problems with Klobuchar’s mid-West grit, toughness, fight and sense of humor. I agree with NYT’s endorsement of both Warren and Klobuchar.
But the sad truth remains that one wonders if either Warren or Klobuchar were a man with the same exact skills, experience, policy positions, passion, etc. if they would be winning Iowa (if Iowa can actually figure out who the winner is), New Hampshire, and be the front runner. If they would be seen as more capable to beating Trump in the general election, which seems to be most important criteria for the Democratic primary. Can a woman, any woman, even a smart, highly qualified one (remember Hillary Clinton - though I wish she would disappear) defeat Trump in the 5 or 6 states that will determine this election given the Electoral College? Picking a nominee who can win the general election is always a key criteria. But finding the person - which seems to be a white man - is one more way that Trump has distorted our world. I don’t think we would nominate Obama if he were running for the first time as Presidential candidate because we would say that a black man cannot beat Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
Democrats have the demographics to win in those states as long as we can fight Republican cheating/voter suppression and register and energize all urban and suburban white women voters, so Warren can win.
3
The Vice President had a strong night, but who can deny that Amy Klobuchar had the best performance of the night? I would argue that she's won the last five debates.
Amy is progressive where it counts and an ally where it matters. She's never let Dems down. Never has, never will.
6
@ExPatMX
Regarding the sources of wealth of FDR, JFK, RFK, and Bloomberg. Thank you for your comment. I am clarifying
a point I wrote poorly. Of these four wealthy individuals only
Bloomberg is the self made wealthy person. Still in spite of all their wealth, inherited or self-made, all four
had/have sensitivity and concern for the welfare of all Americans no matter what their race or status. Eleanor had
to instruct Franklin at times.
Wealth, power, intelligence, love of country and humanity
in combination I am sure exist among many Americans but
we've not had enough examples in the White House. Bloomberg could be the person we need at this critical
juncture in world history.
6
I don't understand why the Times collectively keeps trying to insist that Amy Klobuchar is a viable candidate. She's a comedy option who has never had any support, has no personality, stands no chance in the primary and would get torn apart in a general election. Honestly the entire Democratic field is exceptionally weak and it feels like we're doomed to another 4 years of Trump no matter who wins the primary.
14
I am trying not to be cynical in saying this, but I believe the big winner was Mike Bloomberg. Between the indecisiveness of the Iowa results, the unfortunate problems in tabulating things, and the intensifying backbiting the seven feel compelled to engage in, Mike is lucky to be above this fray.
I think anyone trying to follow this is already getting worn out, and this sets the stage for Mike to swoop in and save the day. And please don't tell me how unfair that is, that he's kind of like the woman who won the New York City marathon because she took the subway part of the way instead of actually running the race. Because I don't care about that. I only care about ending the Trump evil and getting our once-great country back on track again.
And I'm extremely biased in discussing this, because I feel Mike is by far the most able to do this. All the wonderful things the other commenters are saying about their favorite candidates are great, but this is survival stuff—we must get rid of Trump, and we must right our sinking ship.
16
@Jerry Schulz
We’ve had one primary, so let’s see how Mayor Mike does on the debate stage in Nevada.
5
Steyer gets a 10. He made it clear all candidates must focus on beating Trump on the economy. His campaign is all about climate change and green innovation and jobs. We need this focus, otherwise we’ll be spending all our money on climate emergencies, with nothing left over for health care or social security and all other democratic promises. He has consistently been gracious to all the candidates, however, this time he had to fight with great assertion in order to be heard.
5
@C. Wootton -- Steyer shouted his way through the debate. His aggressiveness made Bernie Sanders look mellow. And what exactly is he doing, trying to split off Biden's support among black voters in South Carolina and nationally? He's polling at around 1% and finished behind Yang in Iowa. Surely he can't think he can actually win. Is he just trying to eliminate Biden by eroding his black support? His constant harping on reparations won't help the Democratic party in the general election, no matter who the nominee is, and the downballot candidates as well. Or maybe he's testing the theory that the Democratic party base is now entirely black, particularly black women. Would the party like to gamble on four more years of Trump to test Steyer's electability on that?
6
I wish Warren would have been aggressive in bringing up the difference between the economy Trump brags about and the economy most of us live in.
Reagan had that great line that went something like "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
I keep wanting to questions as, "Are you sharing in this great economy Trump brags about?" "Is this economy working for all of us or just for the wealthy?" And Warren is exactly the candidate to use these questions to shoot up in the polls.
9
@citizen vox
Actually consistent recent polling finds that Americans overall have the highest confidence in the economy since, I believe, 2003. The progressive wing of the Democratic party flogs this issue, but it's just not the reality for most Americans.
That's partly why Trump's approval ratings are now the highest they've been since he's been in office. If Trump could keep from running his mouth and saying stupid things, he'd be a shoe-in for reelection. I give him a 75-80% as it is, and I'm a solid Democrat, just a realistic one.
Pete speaks well and makes sense. So does Amy. Biden, on the other hand is not coming across nearly as well as he needs to. Also, he didn't look well. He was pale.
15
While I agree that Amy Klobuchar's FDR story is "masterful," it kind of loses its punch after you have heard it a half-dozen times, word-for-word.
15
Rick, not to mention that the story is, I think, apocryphal. Or as we currently say, fake news.
3
So all of this would somehow assume this panel has some secret inside clairvoyance on performance. Who couldn’t see that Amy was the best . . . The rest of it is just opinion.
3
@Calvin And that,sir, is just your opinion.
I see Mimi Swartz is playing the Fantasy Cabinet game. I love it!
1
The Trump campaign has $200 million ready to spend on their campaign. I think the Dems need to stop focusing on who has or hasn't personal wealth and hone in on what they can do to defeat Trump, and then what they can do to fix all the stuff this administration has ruined. At this point, I'm actually leaning towards Bloomberg (but I would like to see him in at least one debate). I think he could really murder Trump in THAT debate, toe-to-toe. He probably has some usable old NY dirt on Trump as well!
15
@Lissa
Ask any New Yorker how much publicly known dirt any one of them would happily bury Bloomberg in.
And here in Maine, where gun ownership is high and gun safety is too, but as elsewhere a majority of gun owners favor common sense regulation and a surgical closure of the gun show loop hole, Bloomberg ran such a deceitful and disastrous astro turf gun initiative which was so poorly written and promoted that it played right into NRA hands and turned out one issue voters who once they were at the polls took the time to defeat Democratic candidates.
NYT opinions on these candidates are almost worthless, when no one mentions how obviously choreographed the whole debate was. Yang and Steyer the bottom-ranked by NYT, also the two candidates given the least speaking time? Hello, yes, when the DNC deliberately leaves two people out of the conversation, it will appear that they didn't make as much of an impression on the conversation. Little to no self-awareness among the NYT journalists 'rating' the contestants, that their impressions of the candidates were guided, in part, by the amount of time each was given. The debate moderators reading off the scripts had a list of candidates to address the questions to, and the forces that be had decided ahead of time, certain candidates would be given most of the airtime, and others would be ignored. This is why the field is such a mess, clear favorites have been chosen ahead of time. I question if Bloomberg would waste his time being the DNC's silent prop on the side of the stage, while the politician insiders keep getting all the questions, and then 'rated' afterwards as if it had been a fair debate with equal air time and opportunity. Trump could well win this if the DNC keeps promoting their favorites and making these debates such an obvious sham. I wish the NYT commentators had at least recognized the power of media to shape perspectives in this way. Very simplistic and rather shabby amateur-hour "who won" piece, no insightful analysis.
19
@Kara
Don't kid yourself that these "commentators" are not part of the game. Check out some non-mainstream sources for a more neutral take. The Hill, Useful Idiots, Jimmy Dore, ...
1
Biden is still the one ring to call them all.
He is the one Republicans most fear. Can there be any doubt about that? And give Republicans their due, they are better at strategizing because they are not limited by morality or compassion.
Biden, with the help of Obama and all the current and past Democratic candidates, united in a crusade to defeat Trump and his Republican enablers can win back the presidency, flip the senate and a couple more state legislatures.
But Biden should announce at the convention a pledge to be a one-term president to restore our democratic traditions, return our government to respectability and decency, and our political discourse to a lower decibel level.
He should also announce his picks for VP and several cabinet positions. Imagine the help Biden might receive from
Stacy Abrams as VP,
Pete Buttigieg as Sec. of Defense,
Kamala Harris as AG,
Susan Rice at State,
Andrew Yang at Commerce and
Julian Castro at Homeland Security.
These and others might serve at least for six months in the cabinet after campaigning hard to defeat Trump.
The result would be a caretaker presidency dedicated to healing the nation and our relationships abroad. Also, many of our brightest stars would have an opportunity to gain experience so they could provide better choices for president in 2024.
Biden said he wants to work with both sides. Let him first show his ability to work with his Democratic rivals to defeat Trump once and for all.
12
@Dennis I think Biden is the one who should be president this time around. He can rule by committee. He'll have a lot of people and advisers around him from the Senate and the House. He's smart and he knows how to take advice. He doesn't have to go running off to a resort/residence every weekend. He knows how to push for good judges and possibly a Supreme Court Justice. The stakes are very high in this election. That's an understatement. Biden isn't as energetic as he used to be. I don't think that really matters. He doesn't need the learning curve. And he does have a huge staff that he will work with . Smart cabinet. Fine ambassadors. For a lot of those voting (not the choir), he is safe.
7
@Dennis My thoughts exactly. The sooner we know who Candidates are considering for key roles, the sooner we can endorse with complete confidence. Voters will turn out if they believe, long before Nov. 3rd that the next President recognizes that she/he can't do it alone, and is willing to point to possible team members who could add their particular gifts and well-honed skills. WE willbetter pick the Top of the Ticket if we have a feeling of what the Bundle or Coalition might look like.
2
@Dennis. Announcing that you commit to being a one-term president makes you a lame duck from the get-go. If a candidate intends to serve only one term, he/she better keep those plans to himself/herself until late in the term of office.
I like Stacey Abrams and voted for her for governor in 2018 general election campaign here, but it's a huge game of leapfrog from being a minority leader in a state legislature to president of the U.S.--and we better scrutinize every running mate of an 70+ year old presidential candidate with the thought that the running mate may very well become president before the term is over.
1
No longer surprising that in the ABC post-debate analysis every candidate except Sanders was covered before a commercial break. Sanders’ ability to remain on top of the polls despite the MSM’s and DNC’s obvious bias against him speaks to his intense connection with voters.
22
@Truthtalk
One of the things that limits Sanders is the idea that he is prone to conspiracy theories and playing victim like Trump does. Bernie does not do well with fact check sites either.
When you combine all of this with his use of the word socialism to identify himself (an word that has been an effective and favorite attack word for the GOP for decades) as well as his tendency for a purity test and being unbending to progressive ideas that are less extreme that his own - it tends to be a turn off for a lot of folks -
Then he also has a tendency to lie about his opponents and use underhanded means to get ahead.
So, I would not blame the MSM, like Trump does, I would blame some of the shortcomings of Sander's own character.
Can you imagine how well he would be doing it not for the flaws I mention above?
He is an amazing motivational speaker.
9
@Truthtalk
Bernie can turn out the numbers - for Bernie. But his febrile voters prove too fickle to trust. Not Bernie's fault but gives folks pause in giving too much credence to his claims.
2
@Meg OK, some legit concerns, but I never heard him "lie" about opponents.
1
What is the proper role of government? What should it not be involved in? These are key questions that need to be discussed. Just because something is expensive does not mean government should provide it. Wanting to help someone doesn't mean government should forcefully take your money and give it to someone else. If I put a gun to your head, took your money, gave it to someone else, that's called robbery and is illegal. But when the government does it, it's not? We need to teach basic economics in this country and teach personal responsibility. Get government out of healthcare, out of mortgages/housing, from being the police of the world, eliminate subsidies, bailouts, welfare, get out of education, out of student loans, stop excessive regulations, and stop spending trillions more than what they take in. We are $23 TRILLION in debt. Some proper roles of government: To provide national defense, to protect individual freedoms, to prevent fraud, to prevent monopolies and promote competition. This does not mean no government, weak government, anarchy, or completely unregulated capitalism. Government does have a role to play.
3
@Joe
Businesses, need a healthy educated workforce, good infrastructure and a large middle class with a good level of disposable income to buy goods and services to keep the system going
Capitalism does not run like some perpetual motion machine. If good rules and systems are not put in place, it has a tendency to run off the rails and bubble and bust and to lead to a few winners and a lot of poor - a lot like the game of monopoly with "game largely over"
The gov does not act like a robin hood when it taxes - the wealthiest have obviously benefited the most from the system that the gov has created - including infrastructure an educated workforce, justice system that protects property rights, national & local security & healthcare that creates a healthy workforce
If gov did not pay for these things then businesses would have to, and believe me, paying taxes is a much better deal than building your own roads, airports, & teaching your workers math & reading skills and therefore they, & those who bene by investing in them, should pay the toll for the use of our system
Sure, they also have benefitted in some cases for innovation and they have done well, but even with paying more taxes they will still be well off. In addition, often people simply make money because they already have it -inherited it
It is our wonderful country that has provided the foundation for businesses and people to thrive - paying taxes is simply the dues -those who bene the most should pay more
14
@Joe , Just look at the countries around the world that have successful health care systems. Lower costs, better outcomes. Let me repeat: lower costs, better outcomes. That spells success in my book; how about yours? They all entail a high degree of government involvement. Not necessarily *running* health care, but certainly regulating. Our health care system is an expensive disaster. As long as you insist on treating health care as a commodity and not a public good, it will remain an expensive disaster. Every bit of the ton of evidence we have tells us that government must be heavily involved in health care if we want it to be less costly and more successful.
13
@Meg You seem to think I'm proposing to have no government. That's not true. But it's not the proper role of government to provide healthcare, just because businesses need healthy people. Nor is it the role of government to provide education.
Do you understand the concept of the invisible hand? Everyone acting in their own self interest actually benefits the entire society. Government needs to protect individual freedoms, prevent fraud, prevent monopolies, that sort of thing.
The policies of Bernie, Warren, and others would be devastating to the US economy. Do you really think all student loan debt should just be instantly forgiven? Should government run the entire healthcare system when they can't even run healthcare for the VA? Are higher taxes going to help people or hurt them? I'd rather keep my own money and spend/save it in a much more efficient and effective manner than have government spend it for me. These big government programs do NOTHING to address the root causes of why people are unhealthy or why healthcare is expensive to begin with. They don't address why colleges are expensive to begin with. In both cases, a big driver is the involvement of the US government! Even the NY Fed said that tuitions go up because the government gives out too much in student loans, supply of students goes up, demand goes up at colleges, and they are able to increase tuition because of it.
Why do we assume that a good debater will make a good president? It is not obvious to me that one follows from the other.
18
I have been fortunate to meet nearly everyone on the stage last night, including Amy Klobuchar. I wanted to understand how she has been able to remain so popular in Minnesota and attract so many Republican voters. I came to conclude that her secret is she is an evidence based leader. She does not start with exalted ideology. Instead she learns the needs of those who have or will put her in a position of trust and promotes practical solutions that address those needs, without taking undue advantage of the taxpayer’s money. It is difficult in practice but she has done a great job in her own state and now she is proposing for our country. A good example is that she noticed the upcoming shortage of solid middle class jobs like plumbers and electricians and that we should support community colleges to educate them. I am convinced that if she gets the Democratic nod, there will be a new president next January.
My other observation is more personal. I saw her in Concord last Tuesday. During her speech, she was spot on and even brilliant, working with only three hours of sleep. I was also about the next to the last person in a line of about one-hundred to get photos or have her book signed. When I came to about several steps from her, I could tell she looked exhausted. She took the book from me, wrote my name, then the date, then when she was writing “one week before the NH primary,” she said: “I want to be thorough.”
For me the decision is easy. She gets my vote.
22
Some people seem to be looking for a special and inspiring leader.
Inspiration is over rated.
I am happy with a good human being who is smart enough to choose good advisors and to listen to them.
Someone who cares about all Americans, and who is aware of the threats of climate change and of not having reliable allies abroad.
I am voting because it is important to vote, not because someone has energized me to vote. We are Americans and we get to vote and choose. People who are disenfranchised need support in order to vote. Let’s offer that and make it possible.
18
1) there’s an urgent need to understand what happened in Iowa. If the phones were jammed, preventing people from reporting the results for hrs., something was wrong. We have been reminded that the same thing happened in N.H. during a senate campaign.
2) Bloomberg is sabotaging the elections by pretending to run as a Democrat - as if he has a remote chance. Bloomberg has a political record, a bad record on race, economics and democratic principles. Let’s educate the country about it.
3) Klobuchar won’t make it, she lacks the temperament. Just ask her revolving staff. But, she’s being used to block Sen. Warren. She has no chance.
4) Elizabeth Warren is being sabotaged by the Bloomberg wing of the NY establishment - just ask Bret Stephens. They’re afraid the kleptocratic spigot will dry up.
11
@Ted
I was leaning strongly towards Warren eight months ago, but Warren's missteps have convinced me that her political instincts are as bad as Hillary Clinton's. Among other things, Warren (the candidate who had a plan for everything) took months to reveal her health insurance plan. When she finally produced it, it was essentially a copy of Sander's Medicare-for-All. Worse yet, she was less than honest about how it would be funded. At least Sanders is honest that the middle class would need to pay something. Then there's the 2% tax on wealth. I've read Piketty and I'm all for making the rich pay much more (and for limiting their ability to influence legislation and governance), but a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional. There are more readily available solutions such as raising the capital gains tax and increasing the top income tax rates. Then there was her belated attack on Sander's comment that a women can't get elected president. Even if he said it, why did she address this issue only when her campaign began to flounder? Warren is beginning to look like the second coming of Hillary Clinton in her political ineptitude. The important thing is the Democrats must defeat Trump, so we need someone with better political instincts than Warren. Pragmatism will count for much more than ideology because the Senate is likely to be narrowly Democratic at best and may remain Republican. For these reasons, I'm more inclined towards voting for Klobuchar in my state's primary.
13
@Ted
Warren is sabotaging herself. When holier than thou is your brand, truthiness is a bad look.
Seriously, she was at her best as a regulator testifying authoritatively before congressional committees. She was a fairly righteous senator. Sadly she's been beserko as a candidate; it's been painful to witness.
1
Sanders 10
Sanders has the heart of the party. He will be the nominee.
Klobuchar will be VP, if not Stacey Abrams.
12
@A. Simon - I would prefer it the other way around, Klobuchar president, Bernie VP, though I know it is hard to picture in our society due to age and gender stereotypes. And the only reason I would prefer Klobuchar for VP as opposed to Abrams is that I KNOW Klobuchar would make an excellent president and that she WANTS to be president. I don't know that about Abrams, great as she seems from what little I do know. One thing I know for sure is that Biden is at the bottom of the list for us and many people we know.
8
@A. Simon
Agreed. Stacey Abrams, please! There has to be at least some concern for the health and longevity of several of these candidates...a VP with a similar ideology to the candidate is more important than trying to win over some mythical swing voters with a VP nomination.
10
@A. Simon This may just be a rumor, but I read Sanders was looking into the possibility of having Warren as VP and Secretary of Treasury. Please fact check this, but I honestly did read this somewhere recently.
'Bret Stephens (π/10) — Hard to take seriously a guy who thinks automation is a serious threat to prosperity, the most economically illiterate idea of the last 500 years'.
That pi symbol is mighty thoughty.
In the area of fear mongering, I think Yang has found a most worthy fear. I'd really like to hear an expanded account of Stephens dismissal. It is hard to resist the notion that, while prominent Times columnists are not in danger, the continuation of automation seems poised to further erode the employment opportunities for many, including recent and soon to be college graduates.
Certainly, the prosperity of some will increase, to no discernible effect as far community life goes.
I can't guess why Mr. Yang is in the race, but his one note program seems worthwhile to me, both substantively and as a uniting rather than divisive issue.
That he opted out of other controversies probably gains him him as much credibility as it might cost him.
12
@William
Agreed. Stephens confirms only his own ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity.
The post-debate sentiments of listeners also reflect this analysis, in that Amy Klobuchar performed best. However, I saw the reason why she was polling low. She appeared a little too tense and not very confident.
As the NYT pundits' views varied widely, I did feel Bernie Sanders's responses were quite impressive, like by his disarming statement that Donald Trump was a liar. But I do worry, if Sanders continues to poll at the top, at least a third of his voters will not vote for the eventual nominee, if he's not the nominee. If he's the nominee, unless he picks the right VP candidate, he will lose to Trump. If he picks, Mayor Pete, or say, Mitch Landrieu or another impressive younger candidate, he has some chance. Yet another factor is his age. What if he had another heart attack? His age is a huge factor when the election comes.
Don't misunderstand me. I am also a "Democratic socialist." I wholeheartedly support all of his domestic plans. But I don't think it's that important. Joe Biden's plans are more than enough.
My candidate, Mayor Pete didn't do that well, except on a few instances. He was cornered about how African Americans' lives didn't get any better in South Bend. If it was another white mayor at a similar city, he/she couldn't do any better.
4
@A.G. "...at least a third of his (Sanders') voters will not vote for (him if he's the) eventual nominee..". This is just an opinion, one very much hyped by the MSM. I believe most of Sanders' supporters are intelligent, deeply caring & concerned about the state of affairs in the US. Many will consider the many, many factors that cause the 2016 results (i.e. how much can be "blamed" on Bernie voters staying home or voting 3rd party is any bodies guess...and just that, a guess).
Just stop with declaring you opinions as facts.
1
Goodness me, Pete Buttigieg didn't cure 400 years of racism and white supremacy in 8 years as mayor of a midwestern city. Fetch me my smelling salts.
Apparently racism no longer exists anywhere but Indiana, as no other candidates get this issue thrown in their face.
1
The one issue that they should focus on is this - Trump has to go! Actually even if any of wins he will still manage to stay in the spotlight. My concern is that he will not leave office if he looses, He will declare some sort of emergency of &
his toady Barr will invent some of "problem" with the election results. Of the candidates that were on stage I say enough with their pie in the sky ideas. Look they are all well meaning but quite frankly since Mitch packed the Appellate Courts any of these ideas if enacted will face stiff going in the courts. The fact is that most of them need to call it a day. I like Biden but his time has passed. It is best for him to be a party elder. His chance at being POTUS was 12 years ago. Bernie is way too strident & Elizabeth would be best in the Senate guiding progressive legislation through the process. The party needs to start firming up & taking the battle directly to Trump. Mayor Pete is not quite ready for prime time. That in my opinion leaves there, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Bennet. Before any Bernie supporters go nuts over Bloomberg & the amount he is spending they should look it from a different point of view. Bloomberg's ego is invested in sticking it to Trump.Is it any wonder that the 1% of NYC loath Trump? They know a con man when they see one. Klobuchar would hold her own with Trump & Bennet who {unfortunately} doesn't have a chance would do the same.
The handwriting is on the wall. Do we have a Trumpian monarchy or not?
5
All I have to read to know the Dems are doomed is the reaction to Pete's answer on drug arrests. Yeah, his city should have done better. But, if that is disqualifying to the party and to columnists, then they have zero chance of beating Trump. Ask Pete would he do better in criminal justice areas as president, that's fair and something voters want to know. If the Sanders people stay home when their guy isn't the nominee, they deserve the president they get.
4
@lion2019 if anyone stays home they deserve what they get and forfeit their right to complain about it.
1
Two things are very alarming about the polls that none of the campaigns answer
The majority of white haven’t voted for a democrat since LBJ. So is turning them out a winning strategy?
Second for all of the excitement surrounding Bernie the turnout in Iowa was extremely disappointing.
7
@Mal Stone I personally think that middle aged Trump voters could go for Bernie. He's down to earth and speaks directly to their most pressing issues.
5
@Suzanne Wheat
Perhaps but the numbers don’t support that conclusion
2
@Mal Stone. The reason dems have lost many whites is their embrace of corporatism over working class rural/industrial voters. Bernie can get some back from Trump (recall, those who voted for Obama).
1
This NY Times Opinion is a defense of one of the 2 women candidates, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Editorial board of NY Times endorsed. The Iowa democratic voters did not seem to consider the endorsement worth considering and I don't think the NH voters are going to care much. NH is much too close to Vermont and if I have to predict, it will be Bernie who will win the NH primary and not any one of the NY Times endorsed women. Just like mayor Butti, a midwesterner creeped out and front in the Iowa caucus, there is one another woman who is quietly working hard to get out of the pack of left behind democratic candidates and that is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
While the voters from NH would rather be in Hawaii in the middle of winter, I wonder whether they will give a cold reception to a spunky fit as a fiddle congresswoman Gabbard and a protege and tireless campaigner for Bernie during the 2016 Democratic primary. Gabbard is a Capt. in the army reserves and a woman who puts the nation first above partisan politics and a staunch opponent of the endless reckless costly regime change wars of this century. By overlooking a new generation of women who should snatch the torch along with men like mayor Butti from the hands of Biden, the NH voters will be doing harm to the future of the Democratic party.
3
@Girish Kotwal
I donated to Gabbard a while back because of her ties to Bernie. I would like my money back. Gabbard's unapologetic embrace of authoritarians such as India's Modi. And Her fan trolls.
I have a sense that she's in it to win for herself only and would not get out the vote for any one else. I think a president has to be a leader and a team player. Not seeing any of that in Gabbard.
1
Did anyone ever have a situation when as a kid, you really wanted item A, but your Mom or Dad insisted that if you went with item A, you'd be disappointed and regret the choice?
They recommended item B. It might not be all the rage and what the other kids chose, but you'd be better of in the long run. So you reluctantly go with B, and though you wouldn't admit it, your parents were right.
Amy Klobuchar reminds me of such a dilemma. My heart wants A, but my head knows B makes more sense and will serve my needs better.
I've liked her for some unexplainable reason since before trump, was pleasantly surprised when she entered the race and dared to think she could be the odds against dark horse. Last night she rounded the third turn.
17
Deb, so is Amy Klobuchar your B choice? If so, who was A? And why is Amy Klobuchar someone who either your head or heart doesn't want?
1
Look at the Democrat POLICIES. Are these really the proper role of government? No. And they will destroy the US economy, increase taxes, lead to even more debt and more government control over your life.
5
@Joe
Deficits actually decreased under Clinton and Obama and rose under Trump, Reagan, and Bush. So, what you say makes little sense.
The budget year begins the prior October 1, so the 2009 budget year began Oct 1 2008 under Bush.
Bush had already added several hundred billion to deficits before the economic collapse (due to tax cuts and other measures) and after the collapse of the economy, he added several hundred billion more in a combination of emergency spending and as a result of lost revenue from the collapse of the economy itself.
Before Obama ever took the oath of office in late Jan 2009, the CBO had already projected a deficit of 1.186 TRILLION for Bush's 2009 budget year before Obama was ever sworn in.
By the time Obama left office not only was the economy growing once again but deficits had been cut in half even with the ACA!
Now under Trump we once again have a trillion dollar deficit - and for what? It is to largely pay for tax cuts for the wealthy which actually has far less of any positive economic impact than tax cuts for the poor or middle class or for programs that help boost disposable income - like pell grants and other tuition assistance, food stamps, subsidies for health care and child care, etc.
Having a large deficit when we need to fight a recession is one thing, but this is simply money being put into stocks and real estate inflating those prices.
Go to the CBO and look up the Budget and Economic Outlook 2009-2019 & for other years
17
@Joe
"And they will destroy the US economy, increase taxes, lead to even more debt and more government control over your life."
Gosh Joe, that looks a lot like the effect Republican policies are having right now.
12
@Meg
And another thing - providing for a healthy educated workforce, national security, a justice system that protects personal property rights, and infrastructure are all things that businesses must have to thrive in a capitalist economy!
This is why 3rd world economies have such a tough go of it even if they have low taxes because they do not have what businesses need most to thrive. If the US gov did not provide these things then these businesses would have to pay for them themselves and few want to have to build their own airports and teach workers to read, etc. Simply paying taxes is a better deal.
In addition, businesses rely heavily on a large middle class with good disposable income to buy their goods and services.
The Democrats approach is far better for an economy than that of the GOP (their approach is eroding the middle class, eroding opportunities, and eroding the American dream) in favor of promoting an aristocracy type class with a wealthy few and many in poverty - that tends to eventually lead to 'game over' for capitalism.
7
As an ardent Bernie supporter, I pretty much agree with the evaluations here of the debate.
Amy did have a good night, but her embrace of moderation is just not going to win the nomination, and it certainly won't beat Trump. Hillary was the ultimate moderate candidate, pro-fracking, anti-carbon tax, anti-medicare for All, pro-war, happy to embrace big money. Amy is the same, while somehow less annoying.
I agree that Steyer might be good as Commerce Secretary. Yang might be a good at Treasury.
Buttigieg as president is ridiculous. Yes, he has youth and is articulate, but that's not enough to be an effective president as Obama made abundantly clear. Obama's real downfall was his lack of experience, his naivety about Republicans, and his need to rely on establishment, Clinton Democrats, Geithner and Holder, to name 2. Buttigieg has even less experience than Obama had. Buttigieg, too, would have to turn to Clintonians for his his advisors, and we'd be back to the kind of neoliberal politics that gave us Trump.
15
@Steve C I really appreciated how Steyer blurted out a great point: How are we going to beat Trump. I like Warren but I plan to vote for whomever is the nominee.
@Steve C
I don't think Hillary lost because of her 'moderate' position. I think she lost because people personally disliked her more than they disliked a Trump McConnell GOP strangle hold on government.
Watched the debate and agree that Klobuchar had a good performance. But then again the competition is pretty weak. Mayor Pete was stiff and not very likeable in my view.
9
I wish people would stop worrying about "electability"--not because it doesn't matter, but because the 2016 election showed pretty decisively that most people HAVE NO IDEA who is and isn't electable. You're the expert on yourself, not on the American people, so just think about who YOU want for president, and then there are either enough other people like you or there aren't.
12
@bess
Exactly right.
What does electability as a valid criterion mean? It means having the clairvoyance to read the minds of 100+ millions of American voters. Might as well rely on astrology.
People wonder why we don't get the government we want. Looking around thinking we can guess what other people want and then relying on that for our choice is why.
Vote for whomever best matches your values and issues, and maybe we'll get the government we want.
5
The candidates have yet to be realistically questioned on foreign policy. Besides the questioning of the killing of Suleiman, little was accomplished in the area. Most of the candidates, if not all, disapprove of regime change but stand and acclaim Guaido as Venezuela's president.
In the Middle East, US and Israel's continuous bombing campaigns in Syria seek to prevent Assad from reclaiming sovereign Syrian territory, using Iran retrenchment as an excuse. Are we using Israel to perpetuate a war with Syria that is politically unfavorable? The candidates own us this conversation.
6
This is going to be an issue this election: Do you vote with your heart or head? I tend to lean to being a liberal democrat, and I just love Elizabeth Warren and have been so excited about her campaign. I read somewhere that someone at the Iowa caucus said that Amy Klobuchar is the one, that she is like the sweet funny intelligent girl that you don't realize is the one until the very end of the movie. I could kind of see what that person was saying watching Amy at the debate last night. I thought she came off very strong, relatable, and presidential. Amy may be the person who can best bring the country together. I wish there wasn't so much riding on this election. We are lucky to have so many great candidates-I just wish we could have an amalgam of them all in one person.
17
@Pam
Both are great. If Warren doesn’t get to be the nominee, at least you get to keep her as your Senator.
8
@Pam I am for Elizabeth too. I don't think that the debate stage is a very good place to showcase her knowledge and talents. She is a deep thinker and she could undoubtedly spend hours carefully laying out her plans and working up the "how to pay for it" idiocy. She needs to add up the costs and profits of the health insurance and the pharmaceutical industries, executive pay and market capitalizations. Add the total out of pocket expenditures for the insured and the cost of premiums including employer contributions. Add to those the costs of Medicaid and Medicare and individual payments to those programs. These are big numbers and should be presented to the American public. I'm sure the insurance industry would not want these numbers in the hands of the public. That way it appears to be an issue for the individual rather than a system wide issue for all Americans.
6
@Vicki
Yes! I'm so glad she's our senator! Thanks!
Klobuchar is presidential in demeanor, but I found her protestation about how hard it was being in the Senate, voting on impeachment to be gratuitous. I wanted Warren to replay her comment in earlier debates about wanting to do difficult tasks. Steyer was uniquely focused on the economic message that Democrats need to hammer.
10
I predict turnout for democratic primaries, at least in the early primaries, will be low, not because of a lack of interest but because we want to see who other people will vote for and then we will go 1000% behind the candidate that emerges. You will see a very passionate Democratic electorate.
The choice is huge not because we have to choose the most worthy candidate, but rather we must choose the most electable one. Any of them as president would be welcomed with tears of joy and relief.
Steyer is absolutely correct. The focus should be on beating Trump. Steyer makes excellent points every time he talks. I like his ideas and actions (Beneficial State Bank). I wish he wasn't written off so quickly. I think he could give Trump an excellent run for his money.
Our best bet for beating Trump may be Klobuchar or Steyer. They are both good people with strong beliefs, who communicate well and have well respected past actions.
I am willing to compromise my progressive beliefs to protect our democracy. I love Warren. And though I like Sanders, I can't quite forgive him for 2016 lack of support for Clinton. He helped assure the Trump presidency.
It is imperative that when the Democratic convention turns to predicted chaos to choose our candidate that we emerge energized and united with a single candidate that we will work to elect. We have our work cut out. We must all open in-person conversations no matter the discomfort. And then,
ALL democrats MUST VOTE in November.
15
@Becky
"...but because we want to see who other people will vote for and then we will go 1000% behind the candidate that emerges." This is encouraging.
But I do support Pete Buttigieg. He's exceptionally gifted. He's polished, self-assured and articulate, about the opposite of pres. Trump. If he gets the nomination, I believe he can beat Trump. And he will capture several million more actual votes. But the eventual victor may or may not be Buttigieg.
We need to be apprehensive over it. Trump may refuse to debate Buttigieg/Mayor Pete. I hope to see Mayor Pete turns President Pete.
9
@Becky You say: "And though I like Sanders, I can't quite forgive him for 2016 lack of support for Clinton. He helped assure the Trump presidency." This is just not true. There is rumor and then there are facts. I thought that everyone knew these facts already, but I'll have to say them once again (as many people have been stating them over the past 4 years) 1) Sen. Sanders did 40 campaign events in support of H Clinton between the Convention and the General Election in 2016. In 2008, Hillary only did a dozen appearances in support of Obama. 2)More Hillary supporters refused to support Obama (remember the 'PUMA's?) than Sanders supporters that didn't vote for HRC in the general election. These are facts ladies and gentlemen, not rumors.
8
@Eric Schultz
You may have a point. Looking it up, it appears complicated. He did indeed campaign as you say. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-some-of-my-supporters-will-not-vote-for-hillary-clinton/
It appears that he was unable to convince some of his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some simply could not make the transition. What a terrible shame.
I hope that at least all Democrats recognize the critical importance of supporting our Democratic nominee whoever that is.
4
Here's what I'd like one of them to say about Trump:
"We need a President who will run this country as the most powerful nation on earth, and not a bad reality TV show"
"If President, the issue of climate change will be my first priority. The changes we as a nation will make, will guarantee a secure future for our economy, our children, and our nation."
"If President, I will make America America again. A nation build on diversity, where all can share in prosperity."
Any candidates need a speechwriter?
12
Didn't see the debates, but glad to finally see some positive spin on Bernie from the Times pundits. "The only one on the stage to put climate change first. "He's the clear front-runner." I hope he wins big in NH and beyond. Any of these candidates would be better than 4 more years of Trump, but Sanders is the best communicator with the policy, passion and momentum to win and reclaim our democracy. The country will not become socialist under a Sanders administration, but it will become more democratic. What's wrong with getting billionaires and a tax on Wall Street to pay for universal healthcare coverage and tuition-free college? Sounds good to most Americans, including those who are living paycheck to paycheck, as well as many who are doing very well but care about others.
17
@Leah Sirkin
Not too late to watch it was a good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JCTY6MxJ4I
Andrew Yang is my first choice, the first candidate I have ever supported financially, and it’s disheartening to see the “he’s not going to win, because he’s not going to win, because he’s not going to win” mentality gaining in strength. I hope he doesn’t give up too soon.
I am excited about all the candidates, including Steyer and Bloomberg and Bennett. The only one I don’t like is Buttigieg — he’s so smug! But of course I will vote for him if I have to.
6
NH voter here. I finally feel excited about my choice. After following the candidates for two years, I am voting for Amy Klobuchar. And I am thrilled to do so. I felt this way when I voted for Obama. While they are different, I feel she can begin to draw us together and get voters excited.
24
@Faith
I am hoping Amy stays in the race so I can vote for her at the end of April.
1
I've thought for a few weeks that Biden doesn't have the heart for this race. After I saw a video of his wife saying very enthusiastically, 'We're going to WIN!!" honestly I thought he's doing this for her. I know, I know, very presumptuous of me to say but still.... He does not seem to want to be running and it shows more and more. I'm feeling badly for him even though he was never close to my candidate.
11
@Alison
I think he really wants this, and that is why he does not want to get his hopes up too much. You have to remember he has been through the stress of may a campaign and what we may be witnessing is not that he does not want to win, but that he wishes he did not have to debate since language has never been his strongest asset, then you have to add the Trump Ukraine nonsense and it would be somewhat demoralizing.
However, he would make a wonderful president.
When I try to imagine each of them in that spot, I think, well at least with Biden I can go about my life with the assurance that I don't have to pay attention to the news 24/7 - that he has got this. What a relief that would be! A dignified pres.
I worry Bernie can't win and if he did that he would be so demanding that even good progress leg would not fit his standards as being far-left enough and the nothing would get done - and I doubt he will bring the Senate with him. If you are a far-left progressive I think Warren is a far better choice to actually get things done but Bernie has a bigger base.
Klobuchar would be a great president and it would nice to have a woman in the office as well.
5
@Alison I agree completely. I have said so many times, "It seems like his heart is not in this race." I believe part of him feels he "deserves" it, that it should be given to him after all he has done for our country. But he is truly past his prime, and it is not enough to hand this to him because of what he has done in the past. I am going for Amy - I know she can beat DT.
For Amy, this was clearly her best performance. But it came at the expense of showing her dark side. In previous debates she sounded shrill and uncomfortable as it the wrong thing would come out. This time she went for the jugular and I found that disconcerting. Being strong is one thing but when it boarders on a raw aggressive elitism, I lose interest.
7
@CARL E
" a raw aggressive elitism"
Could you please unpack that for me?
Seriously. What does that string of words even add up to? And how does they apply to Klobuchar?
@CARL E
Be careful Carl,....."shrill" really?!
In high school I called myself (with high-school humor) a "master debater". I won awards focusing on style more than substance. I knew little and cared less about the actual topics. Why should I, as I had to argue both sides. I just tried to sound polished and sincere (when you can fake sincerity, you've got it made).
We heard from master debaters last night. Take Andrew Yang (like me a high-school debater turned lawyer). His debater mentality shows. He comes across well enough to have picked up a Yang Gang of followers. But when you look closely, he has no business running for president. No track record of accomplishment. No sign of an ability to get things done.
Amy Klobuchar is the same. Her story about Franklin Roosevelt's dead body and the mourner is the sort of stock anecdote we used in our high-school debates. Almost certainly a fake, the story can be molded to answer almost any question, just as Amy Klobuchar did. When you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.
We voters need to better realize what debates tell us, and don't. These lists of winners and losers get attention, but they shouldn't. They're inane, not informative. Fatuous, not factual. Ignore them. Better yet, ignore the debates. Find out about the candidates and focus on that.
I'll tell you the best candidate for president. The current president. Not a master debater, but a master of the art of the deal. A master at getting things done. A quality, unlike sincerity, that cannot be faked.
2
@John Smithson You mean how made that deal with Mexico, the one which says that Mexico will pay for that big, beautiful wall? Or that company staying in the US to make its air conditioners?
15
@John Smithson Trump is a master of getting things done?? That comment would be hilarious if the whole Trump presidency weren't so sad. What has Trump gotten done? He's lowered taxes for the rich and he's let his buddies install a lot of conservative judges. Bills proposed by Democrats that would actually get things done sit in Mitch McConnell's wastebasket. Many years ago Roger Price, the inventor of droodles, wrote a book called "I'm for Me First - The Secret Handbook of the Me First Party." That's what the Republicans have become, and Trump is their perfect leader. The only things he gets done are things that benefit him and his friends. In our stock-market-driven economy, the gamblers are in charge, and if you can just make the rules and keep changing the rules, you win every time - until the whole thing comes crashing down. Trump, the best candidate for president? Absolutely NOT!
11
@John Smithson Donald Trump is a Jack of all trades and absolute master of none. I cannot wait to vote against him. Any of these candidates is better than trump.
1
Senator Amy Klobuchar has been my choice from the start. She has the experience, grit, record of achievements and the wit of FDR and JFK. She is a winner, having never lost an election even in the deepest red districts of her home state. And it is moderates that Americans elect and moderates who get the job done. Klobuchar's only issue is that she does not have the name recognition (yet) of the four candidates that are polling ahead of her. But she is better than all of them combined.
Senators Sanders and Warren are too far left to win -- all their talk about Medicare for All and raising taxes are losing positions; they are scaring voters and will be buried in a general election. And then there is Sanders's age and health to consider. Warren seems more open to moving to the center -- she already dialed back on MFA. But her 2% tax on the rich will likely stick.
Mayor Pete does not have the experience or maturity. Period. He is the talented jr. exec who wants to be CEO with no stops in between. And he'd rather watch cartoons than the Impeachment Trial. Pete needs to grow up a bit. But we can keep his resume on file for when he has the attention span.
VP Biden seems so tired and gives the impression that he feels he has to do this but really doesn't want this enough to beat Trump.
As for former Mayor Bloomberg (and a note for Mayor Pete), no mayor has ever been elected President in U.S. history.
20
@Jeanne "And it is moderates that Americans elect and moderates who get the job done." So you consider Trump a moderate?
4
@Jeanne
".., no mayor has ever been elected President in U.S. history."
Then again, no person who identified himself as African America had ever been elected president (well, he was actually mixed race, but let's not have that get in the way).
5
@Mark Shyres Apples and oranges. I was talking about positions held prior to running for the Presidency. Being African American or mixed-race has nothing to do with whether a candidate was a mayor, senator, etc. Two different things.
But speaking of first times, I am hoping for a woman in the White House. And it just happens that in my view Senator Amy Klobuchar is the most qualified of all the candidates.
1
Amy Klobuchar knocked it out of the park! Now
if Bloomberg would drop out and finance her campaign
she might have a chance to win the primary. She Is the best
hope for Democrats to defeat Trump. It’s way past the
time for a woman president. Let’s honor the 100th anniversary
of women’s suffrage by electing Amy in 2020.
22
@Amy Glynn
Amy was great, but Trump will eat her up. She often get's too nervous and in a tizzy, he'll ruffle her feathers for sure.
Trump is afraid of Bloomberg however, and I'm sure he'd be unflappable against Trump. But Amy on the ticket with Bloomberg and that would have much appeal.
14
@Amy Glynn
If Klobuchar needs a billionaire's support to win, then she's a poor representative of the poor and working class -- the vast majority of Americans.
1
@Fromjersey did you see the masterful way she
dealt with Kavanaugh?
Having many evaluators makes up for the obvious bias of some of them and a lack of a common standard to evaluate the candidates, but not enough. They should throw out the bottom and the top score as well, and it would be better. Despite my carping, I do read it to see what liberals on the coast are thinking.
7
@31today
They are all infected with their own biases. But I suppose we are all. Personally I am intolerant... of lactose.
1
Bernie is the front runner without any doubt. He won Iowa and if he wins New Hampshire he will have the momentum into Super Tuesday. This is after the media has ignored him or smeared him when they do mention his name. Bernie is the only candidate with a Not for Sale sign. He showed his integrity on Iowa caucus night with his speech before we knew the totals. He is the most popular politician in the country. He gets re-elected with nearly 80% of the vote. That shows he gets independents and Republican votes. He is the most electable candidate. He has proven that.
20
Bill Kelly, it is true that Bernie Sanders gets a lot of votes in Vermont. But Vermont has only 623,989 people. That's not voters, that's people.
Quirky politicians can win in small constituencies where they have run for many years. The United States as a whole is a very different voting population.
I don't think Bernie Sanders can win a national race for president. His fans are mostly fanatics. Those who haven't caught Bernie fever aren't going to find his quirks endearing. They'll want someone else.
15
@Bill Kelly
I do not think he can win the election though he may do well in New Hampshire. He is my last choice out of the Democrats and am not really interested in voting for him. Other candidates will draw the votes of disaffected Republicans and Independent voters. Also, he is too old to serve two terms effectively. Old age does have real consequences even for those who have managed to stay relatively healthy. I know that well.
7
@John Smithson
True - I live in a swing state and people tend to fear the unknown and huge gov programs ven more than they hate Trump. Trump maybe awful, but as long as the economy remains good he is considered a "known entity" at least and so, he can only be beaten by someone who is not as scary and who promises to restore dignity. This is why the moderates, people like Biden and Klobucar, etc are such good bets to win against Trump.
2
Steyer had the best redirects the whole night. While watching this debate people sitting nearby started cheering out loud. He appeared to be the only one willing to take control and lead the conversation, even as the moderators tried hard to stick to their prepared same-old questions. Everyone HAS heard the exact same thing over and over. Talk about race, talk about Trump's economy, have a real discussion about Yang's $1000/month which is a decent idea. Time for some new topics!
5
These debates are awful enough without the glib remarks of pundits who are on the side of the establishment. The same establishment that gave us Donald Trump. Klobuchar, really? If she mentions her father/grandfather one more time I am going to throw something at the screen. What has she done? Nothing. Same with Bernie, the other extreme. We need a new way forward. Yang is not a one-trick pony. Look at his policies you will find 1. Many other candidates are actually copying his talking points from the campaign trial about the economy and its impact on us; 2. His ideas for overcoming Citizen’s United are logical; 3. UBI is a sound policy if instituted properly and spans the political divide (except those in the establishment are fearful of it); and 4. He has a host of other policies that would help a broad swath of the underserved. He is on the stage because his policies resonate with those of us who get the crumbs from the economic pie and wants to help make the people of this country feel valued without turning the clock back to 1950 (Trump) or instituting policies that may have worked in 1990 but don’t hold today because we are divided as a nation (Sanders). I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is because Trump is a danger to our democracy but keep in mind so is the status quo; we need a radical rethinking of our economy, political systems, social contract, treatment of the environment, & the role of corporations, consumer culture and social media in our lives.
9
As an on-principle moderate, to me it's between Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar at this point. Pete needs to clear the air on race or it's going to sink him - which seems likely. So I have to give the odds to Bloomberg's money. But the moderate lane needs to get less congested soon, or we will have candidate Sanders and President Trump part 2. Even if Sanders were to win, it would further pull apart the country. We owe it to our conservative neighbors to -not- do to them what they did to us, electing someone that is traumatizing and renders the country unfit to be home to them.
17
I think the order of candidates in this article is one of the best I have seen
The only thing I would change is Biden's position. He has less to lose and more to gain in New Hampshire and I think he held his ground while I really felt neither Buttigeig nor Sanders were convinciing when they each came under attack for being either inexperienced or less electable. They did well, but certainly lost ground on that stage. Biden reminded us that he has the experience.
Warren reminded us what a great speaker she is and I feel she did not lose ground nor did she gain - maybe a little. She did not mention M4A and said she would defend the ACA.
Steyer was rather obnoxious in his aggressive attacks going after Biden, which seemed to make little sense since Biden is not a frontrunner. Yang, although an excellent speaker, seems rather silly with his 1,000 a month thing.
All - except - for Klobuchar and Biden were nauseatingly patronizing to minority groups. It was rather embarrassing.
You can vow to help with the issues of racism and inequality without being patronizing or pandering.
Bottom line:
Klobuchar knocked it out of the park - she always does!
However, people have been hyper-focused on the "big names" or cute, lovable and eloquent newcomers - yes I mean Pete
Biden is not a great debater, but he would make a great President and would sign all progressive leg the rest of them put on his desk
So, one simply needs to decide who they think has the best shot at beating Trump
11
@Meg couldn’t agree more. Hope they each last long enough to get that message across.
1
Agree, Biden blew it. None of them was impressive. Most Americans will not vote for a socialist and Bernie, while likely to win the nomination, will probably lose to Trump. Well, there's always 2024, I guess.
7
@Mike F. Mike rather than just labeling Sen. Sanders a "Socialist" and dismissing him out of hand, make a list of his policy proposals (he outlines them in virtually every speech - there are tons of them on youtube) write them down on paper and see if you agree with his policy proposals. You just might be surprised.
7
Amy is the moderate alternative to Sanders. Moderate Biden has never been a good campaigner at the national lever, can’t expect that to improve at his age. Moderate Pete, I love the guy, but he has baggage some of which everyone PCs by not talking about.
8
@MikeG I agree. The elephant in the room is that he's gay and this is a loosing quality in 2020. I just don't think America is ready for a gay president.
On Colbert's show an interviewer went to Iowa and talked to a woman who had just voted for Buttigieg. When she was told he way gay, she looked horrified and said she wouldn't have voted for him.
He's a likable guy and with more experience and a softening of the electorate's feelings about gays, he would be a viable candidate.
4
@Suzabella that's what a lot of people said about Obama. And that worked out rather well. Most people will come around if they think he can beat Trump on other issues.
Most of the people who will completely refuse to vote for a gay man won't vote democratic anyway.
And that woman, with all due respect to her, was nuts. As in literally. According to the locals. So she's not representative.
@Suzabella I think the bigger elephant in the room are him firing the black fire chief due to his contributors, firing the black woman whose job it was to monitor communications who first picked up the KKK level racist police to cover up someone who knew what was happening, to worsen race relations in his city, make the police more enabled to be more racist, and the stats supported it from the first year on.
He was just plain BAD on racial justice, and citing an old white woman who didn't like he was gay in Iowa is a red herring for why black voters wouldn't trust him. NO ONE should trust someone who supports racist cops and follows money over black lives who has taken an oath to represent. He fired the two biggest black people in the admin and let racism run amok. It's coming back to bite him. Straight or gay, no sane black person should want a president who would let donors set the agenda on racial justice. And he's already proven his record once. If he wanted a 2nd chance to be evaluated? He should've waited to run until he did something restorative.
Many Klobuchar supporters here.
Today's poll (Feb 8) by CNN(5% support for Klobuchar) and Boston Globe(6%) show otherwise. Traditional Democrat's approach "Being nice" is noble but it's not strong enough to gain support in this divisive political climate.
James Carville: Dems risk becoming an 'ideological cult,
I"m afraid I must agree.
9
@uji10jo She’s really not that nice. It’s a façade. She seems to be nice up but not down.
The Times editorial staff has endorsed her, and everyone falls in line. I’ve been reading the Times since high school, and I have never been more disappointed.
The more I consider it, a Klobuchar/Sanders ticket might just hit the mark. Klobachar is the ideal candidate, a woman who people can feel good voting for (versus HRC), and Bernie on the ticket will represent the progressive left wing. I could actually get excited about the election then!
10
@Winemaker Sanders is a maniac and a uselessly one-note Charlie. Oh, I guess that does make for a good VP! Right on, then.
Was really impressed with Amy last night and hope she gets a deserved boost in the polls. She is a smart lady and a straight talker with a well aimed sense of humor. Just donated to her campaign for the second time. Would love to see a Klobuchar/Booker ticket, go Amy!
27
Both Sanders and Warren have proposed outlandishly expensive spending programs without saying a word about how they would pay for them. Giving either would ensure the present occupant the White House a free rein to rain havoc four more years. I disqualify both Sanders and Biden because of age (I'm 77) and health concerns. For me, it's Blomberg and Klobuchar. Amy as VP would give Amy solid grounding and gravitas for a presidential run in '28.
10
@Hal Sanders Warren and Sanders are both very clear about how they will pay for their programs.
4
@Hal Sanders Bloomberg is 78 in case you weren’t aware.
1
@Hal Sanders
So you’re against 77 yr olds, but for Bloomberg????
If Sanders used the term "Social Democracy" (The correct word for his economic proposals which is used by Scandinavians) rather than "Democratic Socialism" he could focus more on the content of his message rather than having to defend the term "Socialism".
I suppose he could be trying to widen the "Overton Window" or widen American's vocabulary, both of which are fine. However, Americans don't like Socialism which is pushed from above to below. The New Deal was never called socialism by Roosevelt. He should take a hint.
Lastly, the Presidential candidate must focus on supporting senate candidates in addition to trying to win the Presidential election. In fact, it is probably more important. Given the economy I doubt anyone can win against Trump, but people can probably see that the Republican Senate enables him. Bernie is a one man show and will not be able to modulate himself to different senate elections.
9
Michael Bloomberg. If at some point Americans pay attention
to this man, his middle class background, his strong family
background of hard work, ethics, compassion, his sharp intellect, his strong vision for the welfare of the planet and people, his remarkable ability to organize many talented people, cut through the crud, and achieve success, they
will support him for president.
He's admitted some mistakes in the past like the stop and frisk, with sincerity, honesty and good reasons for doing what he did. He is a wealthy (self-made) man as was FDR and JFK and RFK but has the interests of all Americans. Nobody can buy Bloomberg. Trump would be no match for this man, in fact I would bet, in a debate with Bloomberg, Trump would not even go there. Trump and his bad-actor advisors knows he wouldn't stand a chance against Mike Bloomberg.
Check out Bloomberg. No donations required and you
can get the best person for the top job in the country and
as a additional result, for the Planet. I like Mike.
18
@Franska
"wealthy (self-made) man as was FDR and JFK and RFK". You need to do a little research. Joe Kennedy, papa of JFK and RFK, "During the Great Depression, Kennedy vastly increased his fortune by investing most of his money in real estate. In 1929, Kennedy's fortune was estimated to be $4 million (equivalent to $59.6 million today). By 1935, his wealth had increased to $180 million (equivalent to $3.36 billion today)." FDR "Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in 1882 to parents who were members of New York’s oldest and wealthiest families. " By no means were they self made men.
1
@Franska FDR, JFK and RFK were "self made men"?? Excuse me, they were all born super wealthy.
I thought Amy Klobuchar was the clear winner. I have watched her performance from the start and think she has exhibited rational arguments and solutions on both domestic and foreign issues throughout these debates. I like many of Sanders and Warren's ideas, but I think they will drive away the middle and that Trump will turn his vitriol on high toward either of them in his campaign. Not only that, I don't want to listen to someone else screaming at me for the next four years. I also think Biden is a national treasure, but he doesn't do well in debates, and he has already been damaged by Trump's vicious attacks and accusations. Buttigieg needs a few more years getting his hands dirty in politics before being ready for the big job, but could possibly be a contender for VP. Steyer and Yang should go home. And Bloomberg? Well, show up and talk to us instead of flooding us with TV ads. Amy is my top pick and I just hope she can gain momentum and raise enough money to stay in. Having said that, whoever becomes the nominee must be supported because removing Trump is the highest priority. He is destroying our democracy and must not remain in office.
24
There appears to be an underlying interest in using racial wokeness to undermine Mayor Pete. His answer on the arrest record disparity made perfect sense (targeting gang activity through misdemeanor arrests) but he wisely backed down when pressed by the 'moderator' on how reducing affiliated crime activity could supersede racially sensitive statistics. This complete lack of any pretense of prioritizing law and order and simply allowing outrage culture to run the show increasingly appears to the be issue that will ironically allow Trump another (hopefully no more than 4 year) term.
6
Isn't it interesting that ONLY Mayor Pete has to answer for why he hasn't solved white supremacy yet? Did we eradicate racism everywhere but South Bend, Indiana and no one told me?
@Ben He isn’t going to win over any black votes with that. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you or me. If he can’t get black support he has no chance.
If I were a Republican who sees Trump for what he is, I think I"d switch parties before the primaries and encourage others of like mind to do the same. Those votes are wasted in the Republican primary--even in states that will hold one--but they could go a long way in getting a more moderate, centrist president in November.
10
They were all terrific! My choice is "any of the above," although I think Liz would cut Trump down to size better than anyone else.
To the party: Choose very carefully, as the future of the US depends on defeating Trump.
16
Steyer may have been misunderstood by pundits here. Watching the debate one could come away with an entirely different feeling about what he was doing: he knows he is not going to win though he may make a good showing and he is turning his speaking time to critiquing the likely winners on the way they are responding to questions and getting trapped in the way questions are framed. This was very useful. He said they needed to focus most of all on the economy to win. He said answers to questions about use of the military had to be widened to view the US as part of an international community with shared concerns. He gets high marks for taking on this role.
20
@freyda
I actually saw the 'debate' as more of a Board Meeting of Concerned Citizens, and you are absolutely correct about Steyer's role, he functioned as Board Chair and did great.
6
@freyda
That is what saw also
I think Bernie won the debate and is generally winning the campaign. I realize, lacking a crystal ball, that this could change. But I think his confidence and toughness as well as his clear and convincing proposals stand out. I feel 100% confident that Trump will not be able to intimidate Bernie. Bernie has always had the kitchen sink thrown at him in his long political career. He gets stronger in such contentious situations, especially against rabid right wing forces. Sure they will throw all kinds of red-baiting attacks at him. As he said in the debate, Trump will launch insults and attacks at all of the potential democratic candidates. But Bernie's laser focus on the issues that the country faces and his convincing policy solutions will rise above the Trump/republican rantings and ravings.
16
@Claude
"He gets stronger in such contentious situations, especially against rabid right wing forces."
There are no rabid right wing forces in Vermont. The Republicans of Vermont would be moderate Democrats in most of America. Bernie has never been up against someone or something like Trump.
@Claude You do realize that Republicans are calling him a "communist" now, don't you? If he wins the nomination, Repubs will hammer him with that label thousands of times a day and it scares Trump's low-information supporters as well as undecideds. It will be so ugly that I worry about Bernie's ability to fight against the Trump messaging juggernaut to win votes.
I am not clear on who should be the Democratic front runner, but I am clear in my support for any one of those who are running. The contrast between Democrats and the Tyrannical vulgar Trump is huge. With that said, I am looking toward Sanders because I believe he has the most enthusiasm and is tough skinned enough to take on Trump, and he has a large supportive base. I don't think most of the others could stand up to Trump. I do admire Steyer, his heart and mind are in the right place, but I don't think he would be strong enough to defeat Trump. Maybe Bloomberg will emerge as a contender. Bottom line: the fight against Trump will be as if our lives depend on a Democrat winning.
11
Being objective Klobucher had a great debate but I think all of your are missing the point here. Are we choosing the next great debater? When she raised her hand about the socialist tag on Bernie, many pundits found that authentic and bold. I found it as the only one on stage who dismissed Bernie. A non-team player. Her swipes at Pete were shallow. He did NOT respond as well as I would have liked and he needs to spend more time honing that skill. Amy made her point. Exhausting impeachment hearing indeed and she had time to twiddle her thumbs and track Pete's cartoon show.
I also find it perplexing that racism and all the attendant problems associated with racism is now the sole responsibility of Mayor Pete. You can't have it both ways. Yes, his record was a work in progress but to highlight a stat based on 100K citizens and compare that to a city of 10 million is ludicrous at best. Just run the numbers i.e., 4 percent of 100 K or 2 percent of 10 million. Stats are misleading. A gotcha question. Those questions getcha Trump another 4 years. Why not ask the mayor about his Douglas Plan and why the Supreme Court numbers he proposes are bolder and more advantageous for minority groups.
And then the biggest double standard of all. Mayor Bloomberg. A self-made man who has the right to run. The same people claim they are a big inclusive tent now want to leave him out just because he is rich. Losing argument. Class warfare gets you Trump. Bloomberg may be the answer like it or not.
19
@Gary it’s not that’s Bloomberg is rich; it’s that he is literally trying to buy the nomination. The only step he could take further would be to actually pay people to vote for him. Is that a legitimate use of his wealth? I don’t think so.
5
"Why not ask the mayor about his Douglas Plan and why the Supreme Court numbers he proposes are bolder and more advantageous for minority groups."
Because they don't want POC to hear the answers.
3
@JM
Let’s say you own a candy store. Trump comes in and steals candy. Bloomberg comes in and pays for the candy. Who do you choose as your customer? The other Dems come in and want to buy candy but can’t afford it. So they ask MIke to buy it for them. Trump offers to steal for them. I take my chances with Bloomberg no matter how it looks to you. You get to keep your store and make a profit. You win too. The other candidates are merely playing with borrowed money. They either have to pay Bloomberg back or someone else. No matter who the nominee is, they will be beholden to someone. Bloomberg the lesser of all evils in my mind.
In the final analysis, I agree with you that money has corrupted our system.
1
I do actually like all of them, even Yang & Steyer but I can't really take those two seriously.
Senator Warren has some great ideas. Maybe those ideas are too radical for the American electorate but I think her biggest problem is her affect. She always sounds like she's on the verge of tears. I do believe there's a large swath of voters that will find her a total turn-off. It's too bad, I think she could do a great job.
There are also signs of her doubling down on Mrs. Clinton's strong focus on gender. In theory this could work given that women constitute a majority of the electorate.
But who do we need to attract: blue-collar Mid-Westerners or moderate Republican suburbanites? Who could appeal to both groups?
4
@Jack Toner
I understand what you mean about Elizabeth Warren’s vocal affect, it reminds me of Mary Richards “Oh Mr Grant” as spoken by Mary Tyler Moore to Ed Asner’s Lou Grant on THE MTM SHOW.
2
@Jack Toner
Amy Klobuchar.
First, I'd like to say that I appreciate this feature of the NYTimes. It helps me to process the experience and clarify my own beliefs.
Secondly: Elizabeth Warren didn't get enough speaking time. Who determines this?
11
@Christa
Amy only got 30 seconds more but it seemed like longer because she used her time more effectively. In prior debates, Elizabeth always got more time than Amy.
2
@Christa
The same people who gave her more time than anyone else in the autumn debates
Why even have the pretense of having Andrew Yang on stage when he receives 2/3 less time than anyone else? It’s so phony for the NYT to rate him so low when he was set up to fail with a tiny portion of time and then complain he doesn’t address other topics. I’m a Buttigieg supporter but would have liked to hear more from Yang. Patently unfair format
I thought Klobuchar had her best night yet. I have seen every debate and have watched her grow in confidence and stature. I was not a fan at first, but she has definitely gone up in my estimation. ( I was a Cory Booker fan until he dropped out) I am surprised she hasn't garnered more attention. I have not completely made up my mind between her and Buttigieg, but I don't get to vote until March. I thought "Pete's" performance last night was decent, and of course Sanders is consistent in both his message and his volume. Biden tried to adopt "the angry old guy" persona last night but it looked desperate to me. I think Warren faded a bit. I like Steyer and Yang as people, but not for president. Yang, especially, would be interesting to have a cup of coffee with.
4
A thought regarding Bret Stephens' comments on Bernie Sanders: I see Bernie's consistency not as a sign of foolishness but authenticity.
27
@Chris F But Stephens is not commenting on the debate. He has his anti-Sanders ax to grind and he pulls it out at any possible moment.
5
@Chris F It's obviously possible be too consistent, being unwilling to process new information. But then again we don't want a weather vane.
For my money Bernies is a bit too consistent. Insisting that everyone has to move to a new health plan may be good policy but I think it will politically disastrous.
He has successfully made it a litmus test for true progressives. How many voters are true progressives?
If insurance companies are, in fact, nothing but parasites then establishing a robust public option should soon lead to their demise. What's the rush?
@Chris F
Great... He will authentically lose in November....
Warren is too much like Hillary Clinton, knowledgeable but unable to inspire passion; Sanders is too much like Trump, angry and appealing to an extreme base.
29
@PoohBah2 Warren:
"I'm pleading with you, please, pretty please, make me president!"
If Bernie Sanders wants the Democratic Party's nomination, as far as I'm concerned the very first thing he must do is become a Democrat.
25
@Michael
To clarify: Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. Look it up.
5
@Michael But the "Democratic party" label is meaningless and there are many in the Democratic party who see it as such. Sen. Sanders gives them a voice. Rather than nit-picking arguments, make a list of his policy positions and then be open to see see where you stand. You might be surprised.
4
@Michael
Lol...they ALL had to sign the pledge.
The big tent loves all manner of D's, Republicans and somehow has an issue with one Indy; who's part of the largest voting block in America.
This Sanders character is closer to what true Dems. used to be, and what they should be again; representatives fighting for the working people of America. Remember when D's used to do that?
You want oligarchs and plutocrats running the Democratic Party for the Rich 'n connected, join the Republicans.
2
Repubs and Dems both love to play the class card, and the media plays the race card. Both are losing cards for a losing hand. Billionaire politics and the class card are all about who has it and who doesn't, money that is. It is difficult to understand how many Trump followers believe that because he is (b)millionaire so they can they, except Trump inherited his money and influence he didn’t earn it.
Dems, believe if you're a billionaire you're out of touch with the working man/woman, yet Tom Steyer, and his record of community contributions to struggling families remains at the bottom the pack. Steyer, most importantly, has the climate credentials absent from all other candidates (except Bloomberg).
Bloomberg, the top billionaire running for President this year, is not automatically assured election to office. He faces factors beyond the size of his bank account, including a national media that sees him as a competitor first, candidate second.
Bloomberg's governing accomplishments far exceed those of Trump and without the twisted journey Trump has taken the Country in his erratic and narcissistic behavior – now a political party whose one man journey down the rabbit hole has yet to find the bottom.
Clearly, the Country needs change, both in the Senate leadership and the White House -- leadership which puts Country ahead of self-interest. Will money and perception win over reality and issue substance – time will tell.
4
@BeyondKona So you think the House Democrats have been keeping the countries best interest at heart do you? Wow. I see nothing but 3 years of chasing vindication at all costs. Shameful behavior all around. Such a gargantuan waste of time, money and attention.
Anyone who wants to be taken seriously on race, poverty, immigration and other social issues must concede that the most progressive and effective president on those issues was the most experienced in DC. LBJ was in the House for 12 years, was the Senate minority and majority leader and was vice president for 3 years when he was thrust into his instant presidency. Perhaps any of the 7 could have delivered LBJ'S Great Society speech, but in my opinion only 3 could possibly have pulled off the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the fair housing act, Medicare, Medicaid, Headstart, Foodstamps and the immigration act of 1965 which prohibits discrimination in legal immigration based on race, religion or country of origin. Those 3 are Klobuchar, Warren and Biden. I do not believe anyone else, including Bloomberg, can do it. For me, the choice is between Klobuchar, Warren and Biden.
22
. . . and yet Mayor Pete has climbed too small lead in the most recent New Hampshire poll.
4
@Sam
Lol...in the 9 New Hampshire polls since Thurs., Pete has won... 1. By 1%.
Sanders beats him by an avg. of 6% in the other 8.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
1
Sanders and Warren are my favorites but I am giving a few dollars to Klobuchar to help keep her going for the long run. She's the strongest in the middle lane, much stronger than Buttigieg, and if I have to pick a second choice after Super Tuesday, if will be her.
19
democrats must decide if they want to nominate the sizzle or the steak. Many believe they need the sizzle to win, but I would go with the steak, and the steak is Amy Klobuchar.
36
Bret Stephens comment on Yang makes me think he has never listened to the guy. Yang does not think automation will be the death of economic prosperity, just that it will drive inequality even further than it already is.
Honestly Yang isn't my candidate of choice, but this is a frustrating misunderstanding of his position.
41
@Ryan That's a very good point. It does seem like greater inequality is where we're headed. So he came up with a very simple way to deal with that by giving everyone money. Is there no other way?
3
@Ryan Agreed. He hasn't listened to Yang, it's obvious.
Feel the Klobuchar! She was downright poetic!
Actually, I liked them all.
40
@Nancie After this horrible past week, Democrats again flailing and the Iowa nitwits scene, this debate show =wow - I loved them all and will work for Amy K.
I watched the debate for 45 min. and decided same old talking points. As for who won...Again President Trump. Why? The two main themes were for the Democratic Party is to beat Donald Trump, and to transform America into a Democratic Socialist Country. The answer to all domestic issues is bigger government no matter what the cost and for foreign issues to become a globalist country, policeman for the world and pay for the privilege.
Here are some questions that are never asked. The national debt is currently at $25 trillion and rising at a rate of $1 trillion per year. How do you intend to curb government spending and reduce the national debt? The current annual deficit is $1 trillion. The CBO is projecting that in less than 10 years that number will be closer to $2 trillion. Again, what is you plan to address this? Medicare and Social Security costs are currently running a shortfall of $440 billion annually and will rise to $1.9 trillion by 2030. Between now and 2050 these two programs combined are projected to pay out $63 trillion more than they take in. How will you as President deal with this issue and prevent these vital programs from becoming insolvent.?
This is why we shouldn't take any of this seriously. America has some looming issues that will need real leadership and solutions and so far neither party has any incentive to address them. Included in this shortfall of leadership is the press with soft ball questions and fawning over the Democratic Party.
2
@Fred You should ask your Republican friends in Congress when they will start reducing the federal deficit and national debt, since they don't seem to care and they were behind much of it, starting with George W's two wars placed on credit cards. And it continues with spending $20 billion or more on a border wall, multibillion-dollar tax cuts for the rich, building more weapons than even the Pentagon wants, creating an unnecessary U.S. Space Force. As a Democrat, I'm tired of Democratic presidents having to clean up the financial mess left behind by GOP presidents.
55
@Fred
There is only one critical issue....removing trump from office
and I'm waiting to hear someone describe in historical
parallels, past and present, why we are in danger.
The structure of our institutions is been systematically
weakened. They are there to protect the individual.
This process is not unfamiliar to students of History...
recent or past history.
A government must be healthy enough to function. Talk
about policy is fine only if there is a working Government to
put those policies in place. Our Constitutional way of life is under siege ....first things first.
We desperately need a National History teach-in.
This is not "a first" in History.
10
@Fred
The debt has risen considerably under Trump, the Bankruptcy King of the USA and the Republicans. It is our hard earned money he is spending on an unnecessary wall, expansion of the military and a huge tax break for the rich. I guess it goes all one way with this crowd, more benefits and breaks for the corporations and the rich and on the other end the administration's cuts to health care, education, food stamps, you name it. Wait until he cuts your social security benefits. We can save some money that way.
7
This is what David Brooks wrote in the Times on Thursday:
"Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump."
I watched the debate last night and no one questioned Sanders about his supporters electing Trump. Sanders is not a Democrat and his revolution must've been something he picked up when he honeymooned in Russia. It was deceitful of him to say everyone on the stage agreed to support the nominee when his supporters did not support Clinton and gave us Trump. The truth is Warren policies and political smarts are presidential. But the Dems hurt themselves when important voices like Deval Patrick and Corey Booker are not on the stage. And Sanders thug-like supporters cannot be dismissed by all of us helping them elect Trump for a 2nd time.
39
@Michael The people who supported Sanders in the Dem contest and the Trump in the general election wanted major change and not the politics of old and usual. That's what both Trump and Sanders represented as alternatives to Hillary Clinton. Clinton was a prime example of the old politics of insiders and party elites. Trump and and Sanders were the opposite of that, and their mutual supporters wanted the big change and shake-up of DC that both represented.
Candidates don't control what their former supporters do and who they vote for when their first choice--e.g., Sanders, aren't in the general election. Sanders himself did more than 3x as many events to campaign for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary did to help Obama after he beat her for the Dem nomination in 2008.
23
@Michael So, I lived in Michigan in 2016, and my handyman was one of the Sanders then Trump voters. As a Bernie then Clinton voter, this appalled me. Like @Another Citizen says, when I asked him why, his answer was simple: he felt marginalized, left out of the political system, and he wanted change. Bernie offered a hopeful change, and he would have voted for Bernie in the general had he won the nomination. Trump might have offered a message of change based off of hate, but he preferred that to another establishment candidate like Clinton. And there were many other voters like him. That's not Bernie's fault. His supporters did not give us Trump. Rather, it was Clinton's failure to make the marginalized feel seen (that, and the fact that the polls let a number of people be complacent and stay home, no doubt).
26
@Michael
Moscow (the honeymoon destination) is an historic city in its own right and certainly an interesting place to visit. Mostly wooden buildings in the early 1800's, it was burned to the ground -- by the Russians -- as Napoleon's army advanced. Then rebuilt. From all accounts it has an excellent subway system, among other major attractions.
I really fail to see why the 'Moscow Honeymoon' is a Thing. Having spent the Cuban Missile Crisis hiding under my first grade desk, but only learning recently that the Russians placed missiles in Cuba to counter the missiles the US had already positioned in Turkey (and which JFK quietly removed to resolve the standoff),
I am not in favor of this constant background noise of low-grade Russophobia. We do share the same planet, after all.
19
The main takeaway that I received from the debate is that all of the democrats are stating that they are united to whomever wins the primary. During the debate there were multiple signs of support between the candidates as well as good articulation among most of the candidates on how their policies differ. I give the democratic candidates as a whole a great grade at this debate. Maybe even a 9.5 out of 10 because if there is not some subjective number attached to it...does it mean anything?
That is what we should be focused as opposed to a rating system mostly looking at how 'leaderly' the candidates acted. This is an issue. People are influenced on how the media examines the candidates. We need a great president not someone who presents themselves as a great president.
8
For the life of me I can't figure out why Amy Klobuchar isn't getting more support. She consistently does well in these debates (the formats for which I think are unhelpful) and gets praise for such afterward. She has an appreciation of the vision and advocacy of Sanders and Warren, and the experience to know how to move legislation and policy in that direction given the political realities and diversity of the U.S. She's thoughtful, empathetic, and knows not to overhype herself. She can attract support from independents and the few Republicans who still retain their integrity. She's the one who can pull off uniting the party and attract sufficient support to win the Electoral College (which, in the end is what matters). Progressives who care about results need to get behind her, especially (now) those in New Hampshire.
60
@John Hannay
Looking at the other posts, I suspect part of the Senator's problem is that her picking on Mayor Pete confirms the reporting on her: she's mean -- you can hear it in her voice.
Also, she slips into her rehearsed campaign lines. Compare her speaking times, which look a little on the longer side when compared to other candidates (other than Bernie who just about always goes off on whatever the given topic).
13
@John Hannay
She doesn't connect.
She's unexciting to the avg. American who doesn't sit thru hours of debates, much less read past the headlines and or pay attention to politics.
She's also seen as business as usual.
People want change.
Again.
Being a woman apparently isn't change enough.
12
@John Hannay As one of her constituents in Minnesota, I see your view of her as too generous. She’s is over-hyping herself, plenty. Her main message is that she is electable, sprinkled w weird folksy condescension, and a meanness toward Buttigieg that makes her highest staff turnover rate in the Senate (and images of late-night rants and flying staplers) make sense. She’s hasn’t presented a vision that addresses the major problems in our country. And her legislative history is adequate, nothing new more.
14
Steyer, with his call for Democrats' unity, was the one who made sense. And Trump was the only winner.
5
As a longtime Democrat, I am still an undecided voter. What worries me is that none of the candidates on the debate stage impress me ... and I don't think I'm the only one, as the turnout in the Iowa caucuses was below that of 2016. I'm becoming increasingly concerned that Trump may actually win re-election, which would damage this country beyond repair. I will vote for whoever wins the nomination, but I think there is a dearth of inspiring leaders right now in the Democratic Party.
5
@RRM
I agree with your view and it isn't just a small group of people feeling the same. These debates are making them seem almost silly at times and people are bored with it. Just giving pointers to the Republicans in how to defeat them. Their analysts must be busy.
Doesn't seem like one of them is strong enough to beat Trump. The many debates have hurt since so many of these folks felt the need to get publicity when they knew the potential of them being the Democratic candidate was slim. It just made things more chaotic and obviously confusing for Democrats looking for a viable candidate Plus all those democratic donations spread out so thin and unfocused. Months ago when there was a lot of candidates, many of them unknown and without real political experience for the most part, they should have been directing their efforts at winning Senate seats. McConnell is worst than Trump. If McConnell is still the head of the Senate what good will a Democratic president do. All those egos wanting to be president. No strategy from the Democratic party equals defeat.
I will make an exception for Steyer who I guess knows by now he will not be president. He started on his message about Trump being unfit some time ago and put his money where his mouth is because he felt Trump was doing real damage to the country. My choice was Inslee due to his emphasis on climate change, Hardly hear about it from the current candidates. What a mess.
1
@RRM
I hear you. Gavin Newsom of California has the chops and charisma to prevail. Unfortunately he is not in the race.
Bloomberg-Klobuchar
Dump Trump 2020
26
@Lewis Ford
or Bloomberg - Abrams
@Lewis Ford I think that's the DNC's plan.
You guys keep tagging Buttigieg on race.
People, blacks are not voting for Trump.
6
@Joe I think it's a turnout issue. African Americans did not turn out for Hillary at the level they did for Bill and Obama and it did have some impact.
15
@Joe But a Dem nominee who doesn't appeal strongly to African-Americans or Latinx--or any particular group, might not get much turn-out from a given group.
Not voting for Trump isn't enough; you need to vote for the one viable candidate (i.e., whomever the Dem nominee is) with a chance to beat him, and if you can't motivate enough people to come out and vote for you, that's a problem.
If Butigieg is viewed unfavorably by Blacks, that could produce lower turnout for and votes for him than another Dem candidate would have received instead.
And ONLY tagging Buttigieg on race. I guess there's no racism in Massachusetts or Vermont anymore. Good to know!
Now is the time for responsible investigative journalists to bring out the money behind each of the candidates, weaknesses in governance, knowledge of people, government and the world, and her/his vision of America's position in it. We need someone who understands what makes for a happy , healthy and productive society for all so that our nation doesn't become another Rome.
5
What some admired in Klobuchar ("a wicked and cutting wy of dispatching Buttigieg") I find Trump-like and dishonest. Amy has a great record, but she runs on it only when she feels like. When she thinks it's not resounding the way it should, out comes her inner-sniper, and her target's always Buttigieg, and its always petty and condescending.
Considering he was the butt of everybody only because they're suddenly understanding he's far talented then most of them, I thought Pete handled himself quite well, thanks.
18
Yeah, Pete's gonna be just fine, no matter how many swipes Amy takes at him. We all saw the numbers out of Iowa. :)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBZx6wzXUAAKk6b.jpg
Bret Stephens is wrong about Andrew Yang. Yang does not claim that automation will harm us; he claims that it will harm us unless we accommodate ourselves to it. Automation has ALWAYS been a threat to prosperity, but we have always found a way to harness it. Today, the Freedom Dividend is that way. (I'm not saying AY should be president, only that BS doesn't understand him.)
15
Although I believe Trump will prove too afraid of making a fool of himself to debate an opponent who can cite facts and figures, I believe Amy Klobuchar, a strong, intelligent (valedictorian) Senator with street cred, could easily lead both the Midwest and the nation as a whole to Democratic victory.
26
The woman did the best ! I personally think Warren has a more feasible plan, Klobuchar has a better chance of beating Trump. Either way we need a WOMAN in office ;)
WOMAN have the ability to birth life into this world and WOMAN are the MOTHERS that raise the successful men that society attributes any success to!! Even the lost find their way because God creates a way and MOTHERS lead the way.
Do we not understand that WOMEN will and have always lead the way with God's help ? That woman don't need a title or a position to change the world , and that we are and have always been the ones changing it anyway ? lol
I say women have the strength, the love , the FAITH, the compassion, the empathy and sympathy, THE HEART to lead without needing a title ....but giving them the power and the title to do more can only be a good thing.
When the world trusts women and see their beauty, strength and heart they will benefit from the MOTHER that is in all of us.
The world needs more women in power lol, the world needs a MOTHER that cares.
5
@Samia I would not vote for either Warren or Klobuchar because she is a woman, but because I think both are the best candidates up there.
18
@Samia Identity politricks is a loosing strategy in the general election (ie: HRC proclaiming women should vote for her because she's a woman). If there was a strong female candidate - based on policy proposals - I would vote for her. But neither NYT endorsed candidate is that person.
@Christa well, Warren, at least.
Every one of the Democratic candidates had something to offer me. In the 2016 election when the Republicans had 7 or more vying for the nomination, they were a bunch of empty suits and didn't seem to offer me much. Trump was the worst. I would say we have an embarrassment of riches. Yes, Biden kind of stumbles but I don't doubt his values. Mayor Pete is young and inexperienced but he is smart and savvy. I thought Klobuchar was excellent and so was Warren. I'm ready for an all-female ticket. The Fates are with us as this is the 100th anniversary of Women's Suffrage. We've only had the vote for a century, a blink of an eye in our history. This is our time. Men make messes and women usually have to clean them up. We are more than enough to do this.
There are two Democratic women running for house and senate in my district. I will be working for both. Get out and canvass and help local candidates as well as the national race. We need the senate and we must hold the house.
7
Klobuchar looked the best she has last night, and I can see where she will appeal to many who prayed that Biden would be the "moderate", but she will lose to Trump.
To beat him, she will have to draw beyond the "moderates" who want her, which includes progressives, and while I would vote for her, and even the majority of Sanders supporters likely will, she won't get all of them. Moreover, she'll have to draw on some right-leaning "independents" and some non-Trump Republicans, but that's a demographic that has been resistant to wanting a women for President. In short, I see her as "Hilary-lite", and that's not going to be enough to unseat Trump with his inherent incumbent's edge, plus all the dirty/illegal tricks he'll employ.
Once Biden loses badly again in NH, I think he's going to fold his tent and that will enable Klobuchar and Buttigieg to pick up his assets. I think Amy will ultimately prevail over Mayor Pete, mainly due to her experience and track record. But both will struggle to win the black and non-white vote, and that will be their downfall.
Face it Establishment..your worst nightmare is going to be the nominee.
6
Seems increasingly more likely that Trump will win a second term in a landslide. I thought this debate exposed Pete for his lack of experience, and he would be completely overwhelmed in office if he ever got there. I think he would lose 42 states.
Sanders has his rabid following, but nothing he promises can be accomplished. It doesn’t even have the support of his own party. His nomination would lose the election as well as any hope at winning the senate.
Warren faded badly and shockingly avoided a question on why 6 of her staffers of color just quit in protest for her campaign culture. Surprised to see her comments on race get so much praise. Came across to me as damage control and pandering.
Yang is not a serious candidate and needs to go away. Great points on automation but being the leader of the free world requires more than that.
Steyer raises some good points but all of them point to why we should elect somebody else.
I think Biden did a great job and continues to prove his experience, track record, familiarity, and readiness, but the media decided a year ago they didn’t want him. So it’s just been nothing but character assassinations and trump talking points non stop.
Amy was great too and I think she would be a competent leader, but I don’t see her beating trump and appealing beyond the Midwest.
Bloomberg only feels like an option because he’s avoided the circular firing squad and media enmity reserves to the more visible candidates.
Trump 2020 it is. Ugh.
4
@Chris It seems like Trump is unbeatable now because of the acquittal and the strong economy - but remember, that anyone who votes for Trump has to overlook serious criminal and ethical violations, incitements to violence, internment camps, racism, etc. Not everyone is going to go there for the sake of more $12 an hour jobs or more money in their 401 K - not even all Republicans will go there..
@Chris The states we need to flip are in the Midwest :)
1
@Chris "Sanders has his rabid following" ... rabid worked for Trump - not that I'm buying into that statement.
Of course I will vote for Klobuchar if she gets the nomination.
But she is not first on my list.
Quite frankly, she is not in my top five.
12
It is clear that some candidates are still improving (e.g. Yang) while at least one is past his peak (Biden). We need a candidate at the top of his/her game, and this article has done a lot to clarify who that might be.
3
Thanks, Brett. You make me laugh. And you make me think. It's good to have some clear opinions on these candidates. They all seem to be talented and fine people, but one of them has to pull ahead.
@Max but why should he be asked for his opinion on who democrats should take seriously? He & Liz are far right Republicans & have an interest in the nominee being as right of center as possible.
For those praising Klobuchar’s performance as proof she can go toe to toe with Trump: Hillary *won* every debate with Trump. How’d that turn out. And how exactly is low-polling Klobuchar more electable than the infinitely more qualified Clinton was?
22
@Jolton
That's fairly simple. Klobuchar isn't on the receiving end of the dividends Republicans earned through an investment in 30 years of Clinton hate-trolling.
And Hillary was infinitely more qualified than
Trump. Arguable either way with Klobuchar (Hillery's stint as a competent Secretary of State offset by her original unearned election to the Senate).
3
@Jolton
Hillary won the people's vote, only to be cursed by the Electoral College. The College is destructive and should have no input from now on.
Klobuchar is easily the most electable candidate against Trump.
How can so many of my fellow democrats not see that?
33
@Sparky I'm a fellow Democrat from Minnesota, and I don't see it. She doesn't have a record of standing up for anything difficult; it's No, No, No. She hasn't put forth a vision, and her main message is that she believes herself electable. If she can't stand up against copper mining in the pristine Boundary Waters in the face of climate change and fresh water scarcity, I don't trust her to do any of the hard work to right the ship. I don't even know if she sees the problems.
38
@Donna Her progressive record definitely hasn't been vetted. But Trump campaign won't go after her for how un-progressive she is, will they? Voting for her is what progressive Democrats will have to do if we give up on getting what we want for another four years. I hope she stays in the primary until after Super Tuesday if Sanders and Warren don't survive. She will be my fallback pick. She's tough generally and I think might be more progressive once in office. I think Americans might be ready to try a (moderate) woman. They've tried everything else!
6
@Donna. Amy is a moderate who would be a fierce debater and do very well in the Midwest. Warren and Sanders are simply too far to the left to win over PA where I grew up, let alone WI or MI where I have extended family.
Biden has passed his sell by date, and Mayor Pete, brilliant as he is, is not ready yet. And it's also a fair question to ask if we're ready as a country to elect an openly gay President.
If we lose in 2020, I believe we will not have another election any time soon. We need to think carefully before we vote.
8
To Bohemian Sarah: I am really tired of the bias against women argument. I was a supporter of Senator Warren until the last presidential election when I saw her to be an opportunist. I was extremely disappointed when she would not support Bernie Sanders. She was a finger-to-the-wind type. I am old enough to remember Barbara Jordan of Texas. I firmly believe that, if she had lived long enough, she would have been more than a viable candidate for president. She would have been president.
10
@Moso
I've seen many of these types of comments, but they're always in retrospect or in view of the future. Wouldn't you know there is always something grievously wrong with women running at the moment. It's always "not THIS woman". You may be tired of the argument, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.
6
@Morgan Spot on. Amazing how there always just seems to something insurmountably disappointing about the real women who run, when of course in theory, so many people would *love* to vote for a woman.
Reminds me of the jam in Alice in Wonderland: ""The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
6
@Moso I remember Rep. Jordan as well. But, don't gloss over the reality of where we live. Barbara Jordan couldn't get elected president anymore than Stacey Abrahams could get elected governor of Georgia.
3
Oops—hit submit before finishing, dang touch screens...just some random thoughts on the candidates and debates:
I wish Yang and Steyer would drop out. They feel like distractions, unqualified and almost like spoilers.
I too would like to see Bloomberg in the debates.
I’m a progressive but I’m also a realist. I admire Warren’s and Sander’s passion, but I think they turn off a lot of voters. I do worry about their electability. However, as I said in another comment, no one believed Trump could win and he did, so nothing is impossible.
Pete reminds me of a lot of smooth talking young smart guys I’ve worked with in my life. I know people who think he sounds too smooth and inauthentic. I don’t necessarily feel that way, but I just can’t feel huge enthusiasm for the mayor of a small town in Indiana (though see line about nothing is impossible...).
As far as wishful thinking goes, I would love to see Biden get the nomination and beat Trump just to pay him back for this Ukraine nonsense. That’s just kind of a fantasy. Another fantasy is that Biden drops out and throws his support behind Klobuchar. I like her the best as far as having a very electable message, but I also fear her electability without a very strong running mate, like say, Sherrod Brown or Corey Booker.
Soooo—still watching and making up my mind. A lot left to come.
14
@Kally If Yang feels like a spoiler to you, it's because all the "what'-I've-done" and "what-I-said" bickering means long-term politicians get more time. Please don't confuse bickering coverage with election relevance. Yang singularly addressees a latent national crisis. If his glossing over by the press has cause the message loss, please visit Yang2020 or google "Andrew Yang" to learn what he IS saying. Unfortunately the lesson of 2016 has been squandered. In the meantime automation (and to my mind off-shoring) continues to put people in this country out of work by permanently shrinking the job market. Many of the displaced will not find full-time work again. This is an unavoidable but devastating side-effect of increased productivity due to automation and reduced cost productivity due to off-shoring. Neither will end, one is accelerating. We in society need to realize that the playing field has changed so dramatically that people can no longer be expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or reinvent themselves in a newer field. The job market (especially outside of major metropolitan areas) is PERPETUALLY shrinking. (Not just CHANGING, which job-retraining would solve, but SHRINKING. Instead of waiting for folks to spiral into despair and find themselves on disability for chronic depression, we need to give displaced folks a dignified landing,- one that might encourage more much-needed community participation, volunteerism, and/or entrepreneurship.
3
@Kally
Sherrod Brown would make a great VP (and an even better President than most of the candidates onstage last night!), but his senate seat would most certainly go to a Republican, so I think that's a non-starter.
4
@Kally, I can agree with you about Yang, but certainly not about Steyer, whom I praised in my comment above, and who is far from unqualified.
We first heard about her as the irate boss who went ballistic at the lunch gofer after the deli forgot to throw a plastic fork in with the order. Still fuming she ate her salad with a hair comb whe pulled out of her purse.
In the debate she defined Mayor Pete as a newcomer and remarked that we currently have a newcomer in office and look where that's gotten us.
Look out when she debates Trump. She may throw an oatmeal cookie into his trick or treat bag.
Please read the Times interview with Henry Louis Gates 5 days ago titled "Henry Louis Gates on What Really Happened at Obama's Beer Summit." It's his opinion about Michael Bloomberg as the strongest candidate to take on Trump.
8
Amy is the only one onstage who is ready to go the distance, but the problem is that America does see her at the top of the ticket. She’s still too much of an unknown unless you watch MSMBC. She has to attract a younger crowd and get them to vote. Mayor Pete has possibilities, but needs a little more experience before trying to take on the likes of tRump. Bernie, besides being a socialist, not a Democrat, is too old for the job, as is Biden and Warren.
All I see right now is Bloomberg, who would have no problem dealing with tRump, or if the stars were to align, Michelle Obama who would bring the younger voters; black, white or brown, out in groves and overwhelm the GOP.
4
@Philip Bloomberg age: 77 (78 on 2/14); only Sanders is older by 5 months (78); Biden is younger (also 77, 9 months younger) and Elizabeth is the youngest of the group (70 years). If you are going to use age as argument, please do your research (by the way, Trump is 73).
13
@LAP Yes, he is on his way over the hill, but with far more experience at managing (NYC) a government operation than Bernie, Biden and Warren. He also knows tRump better then the rest of the pack. And with the right VP (a woman), would be wise enough to step down after the first year in office.
@LAP Sanders and Biden appear older than Bloomberg, from the way they speak to their body language, especially Bernie. DJT is suffering from many things, from a lack of oxygen to some form of intellectual sclerosis.
Last night's debate finally moved me from Warren to Klobuchar for her humanity and humor, her experience and toughness, and her passion and readiness.
29
None of the Democratic candidates fits an image of Commander-in-Chief on horseback, a drawn sabre ih one hand, leading a bayonette charge to drums beating, trumpets blaring, canons thundering and spitting smoke.
As to Ms. Klobuchar, I always considered Minnesota the quintessence of "Unitedstatesism" or "Usanism", despite its tendency to Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. This view ended with the reelection in 2018 of Senator Klobuchar and election of Democratic judeophobic and Islamo-socialist US Representative Ilhon Omar, whose real goal is destruction of the the US mode of life and political structure.
3
@Tuvw Xyz
As a first term Congressperson elected for two years Ilhan Omar represents and had to get elected in only one very small Congressional District in Minneapolis that so happens to be populated by a whole lot of Somali refugees.
Klobuchar, a three term Senator, represents and has had to get elected three times to 6 year terms by the entire State of Minnesota.
1
@Tuvw Xyz Your image of Commander-in-chief is not one I believe many Democrats hold in their heads. We are trying to get out of wars, not charge into more militarism and invasions and male superiority.
I will do everything I can to get Klobuchar on the ticket. The notion that she has an anger problem is coming from those voters who think a woman who is assertive is uppity and aggressive. We have to keep the mantra going "who can go up against Trump and beat him?" It is time for a woman in that office. Men have had ample time to run the country - 200 years? Klobuchar is a seasoned Senator and greatly admired here in Minnesota. I think she could wipe the stage with Trump. I still remember him stalking around the stage behind Clinton as she was speaking. I could see how uncomfortable she was - and who wouldn't be with that predator breathing down their neck. I feel confident that Klobuchar would confront that behavior in the moment - she would turn around and tell him to back down. Polite women don't make history.
1
@Tuvw Xyz If what you're really looking for is a "commander in chief on horseback, " you're probably living in a previous century. And, needless to say, President Bonespurs wouldn't exactly fit that bill, except for the part about spitting smoke.
1
Klobuchar definitely took this debate, she's set herself up as the best possible running mate for Bloomberg.
Now the dems have the problem of moving all those caught up in Sanders demagoguery towards the middle. That's not going to happen overnight and unless Sanders puts his ego aside and persuades his followers to please support the selected candidate we've got four or more years of Trump.
15
@William
I share your sentiments - but I pessimistically feel that Sanders will never capitulate, as with his abysmal behavior re: Hillary Clinton's nomination.
2
Just some random thoughts on the candidates and the debates.
I wish Yang and Steyer would drop out. They feel like distractions, not qualified, and almost kind of like spoilers.
17
I regret that the consensus is that Warren comes in third again; I still believe she is the best person to represent the nation after the disaster of Trump, but if she cannot connect with enough other voters soon, it will be too late to recover. Biden may be finished altogether if he comes in fifth in the voting in NH as he comes in fifth in the estimation of these commentators. That leaves Bernie, Amy and Pete; who can beat the Donald? WE better get it right; the nation may not be able to survive five more years.
11
@ECR Sanders has been beating Trump in hypothetical head-to-head match ups for an entire year.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
Forget all the issues that unite Dems. Yang talks about the economy because that is how you beat Trump and he's the best shot. His message has been hitting the rust belt hard and will pick up the swing voters where it's most needed. Andrew and Amy are harder to be attacked and my ticket to win.
5
@Saints Fan Pretty easy to handle an economy that was in good shape when you took over (5% unemployment) and you don't mind inflating the national debt by a whole hell of a lot.
8
@Saints Fan You mean lies to counter his lies about the economy. Here's the truth. Manufacturing, since trump took office, is down (remember those Carrier jobs in Indiana - they are all now down in Mexico), farmers are on a $28B subsidy life support system, having lost their main buyer, with no new one in site, coal is officially all but dead, wages are only up about 2% on average (like the Obama economy - yet stock market was up 31% last year), and growth is no better - about 2% on avg. - than it was under Obama despite a massive corp. tax cut which forces us to run a $1T deficit in a slow growth economy. trump loves debt, which is the only reason the economy looks better than it is. DJT will leave you and me holding the debt bag. He does it to EVERYONE - think Taj Mahal, Deutsche Bank, etc. Don't say you have not be warned.
11
@Mark Sorry that I'm permitted to recommend your comment only once.
1
I wish that we would stop fretting about 'candidate electability'. It gets in the way of clear thinking. Electability has less to do with the candidate and everything to do with the electorate. If 2016 has taught us anything, it is that anyone is electable - when people unite to elect them.
A sufficient number of Republicans kept their eyes on the prize, held their nose, voted for Trump, and won big.
A sufficient number of Democrats sat on their hands rather than vote for Clinton. Evidently the Supreme Court, the federal bench, social, environmental, national, and foreign policy - the entire workings of government - meant nothing compared to their bad feelings about Hillary and the DNC. I guess they had their reasons. Evidently they still do.
It made a big difference to win the House in 2018. We here in Maine's conservative CD2, helped by replacing a Tea Party incumbent with a moderate Democrat. Already our local self styled left wing 'opposition' is turning up their nose. While nationally they are busy proclaiming who they won't vote for no matter what.
We scratch our heads at struggling Americans who vote GOP wedge issues rather than their own best interests. Maybe we should look closer to home - perhaps in the mirror - at the harm of ideological blinkers.
58
@pi I agree completely and could not have said it better!! Some people let the perfect get in the way of the good. My hope is that those people who didn't vote for HRC in 2016, now realize the terror that has been wrought on the country. Any of the candidates we saw last night would do a better job than Trump at addressing the issues that matter to us. Let's just remember that in November.
6
@pi
I beg to differ. Bernie's followers who stayed away from the polls in 2016 were --like Bernie-- NOT Democrats, they were self-centered, selfish wallowers of a cult of personality. Democrats would not allow petty juvenile pouts to prevent them from voting to deny a monster like Donald Trump the presidency.
1
Amy Klobuchar is impressive every time out — absent Bernie’s boilerplate and unbridled socialism.
No doubt she could slice and dice toe to toe with Trump and win on points in every encounter.
She is the consummate Democratic moderate alternative.
53
@G. Sears
And she can mix it up very effectively with any narcissist as evidenced by her interaction with Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing.
11
@Me It's true. She dealt with Kavanaugh's terrible comments with grace and grit. She has shown she can handle Pete, "the cool newomer." She would do very well with Trump.
As a life-long progressive Democrat, it's time to realize that none of those currently on the debate stage can defeat Trump. Biden seems just too old; Buttigieg just too young; Klobuchar lacks the passion to make hard choices while pinging others as well as her staff; Sanders is a Socialist, not a Democrat, who frightens too many with his extreme positions; Ditto for Warren who is Sanders-lite; Steyer and Yang are not serious candidates as their negligible poll numbers indicate. It's time to invite Mike Bloomberg and Deval Patrick onto the debate stage before its too late. After the debacle in Iowa, it's time for an "all hands on deck" SOS for the Democratic National Committee and the Party if we're to prevent the nation from slipping further into autocracy.
27
@Paul Wortman Your definition of "serious candidate" needs to be reconsidered- especially when there are actual voting results that show Yang ahead of Bloomberg. Too many Americans will vote against anyone who presumes to be able to buy the presidency, just as they rejected the candidate who presumed she was entitled to it.
11
@Paul Wortman I wish people would stop referencing the gossip about Klobuchar's "pinging" her staff: it's totally irrelevant to her candidacy, why focus on it? Just because you know it? She absolutely has the "passion" to make "hard choices:" her successful Senate career alone proves that she can think for herself and compromise with others. Also, candidates do not get "invited" to the debate stage as they do to a cocktail party, they must earn the right to be there. I agree with one thing you said tho, it is definitely time for an "all hands on deck" SOS. This is a National Emergency like no other.
11
@Paul Wortman I disagree with you. If anyone on that debate stage can not defeat Donald Trump, no one can. Period. And forget about Iowa; it is water under the bridge. The one thing we need to oust Trump and send him packing is passion with 100% support behind our nominee, whoever s/he may be. All the candidates are more than capable to take on both domestic and global challenges. This election is about us. If we are defeatists, our nation will be lost with another four years of Trump. You know that, we all know that, those of us who actually think. Let us not split-hairs over the candidates. We can not afford to do that; our democracy can not afford for us to do that.
9
Yang's idea of a national monthly minimum income (or maybe just income, forget the minimum part) for every U.S. adult is one that eventually we will have to implement out of necessity if for no other reason than to empower the workforce we need, but not yet. Steyer would make an excellent Secretary of Equalization with a mandate to ensure that all Americans of all ages receive equal access to and delivery of services at all levels. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development should all be under his authority. Joe Biden should be our ambassador to the United Nations and use his experience and international ties to rebuild our country’s reputation and bonds with our allies and other nations. Elizabeth Warren should return to the Senate and continue to represent Massachusetts. Bernie Sanders should just go away. Amy and Pete should decide which of them is going to lead the ticket.
10
@Michael I agree that Biden would make great UN ambassador.
I've supported Amy Klobuchar from day one. I think she would make a great president. That said , if her campaign reads this I would advise that while debates are important, I think most watching are over age 50, you had better find a platform to reaches the younger voters with subjects that are important to them. If you don't have a clue, find a teenager that will be at least 18 years old at election time and find out.
You are also going to have to reach minorities, better reach out to the leaders of the communities.
Also reach out to the military, I personally would like to see women generals highlighted, don't forget the men as well :-)
Good luck, I'll do my best to help out.
42
I worry that while the candidates say the right thing, that they will all support the nominee, the candidates' supporters will not. Bernie's supporters are the most problematic. They didn't support Hillary Clinton in 2016 and felt wronged by the process that didn't deliver the nomination to Sanders. (This cycle Blacks and Hispanics feel betrayed by the Democratic process, losing their super delegates.) In 2016, many Sanders supporters voted for unicorns or trump or anyone not named Clinton. They haven't changed. The candidates should do more than pledge their fealty to the Democratic nominee; they need to firmly tell their supporters to do the same. The alternative is too drastic to ponder.
25
@Bernard Bonn I think if the DNC goes out of their way to run a clean primary (which they did not do that time), people will get behind the winner. The reason this did not happen last time was not because Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination, but because he did not get a fair chance to win. The problem was the DNC did not want to elect the canidate, they wanted to crown one. If Hilary had been FAIRLY elected in the primary, she would have had alot more support in the general election. It felt like she had been promised the nomination when she stepped down to support Obama in 2008 - without consulting the voters.
7
@Bernard Bonn
Sanders' supporters haven't changed because most of them are self-described anarchists. Their enemy isn't Trump, it is the mainstream Democrats that resist their attempt to take over the party and have things exactly as they want it. Nothing else will do, so if we don't comply with their threats to vote for Trump--that's what they'll do and it's fine with them if the country implodes.
7
@Sarah If Bernie and his supporters want fair treatment by a party, you'd think they'd join it first before thinking they have a right to bemoan it's deficiencies, or changes it's rules. If you want to play in some else's game, you don't get to write the rules. Stakeholders, however flawed, matter. Clearly the DNC in '16 and today has both leadership and money issues.
5
I like Yang's emphasis on the impact of automation but trying to somehow halt the automation trend is more fruitless than Trump's support for the coal industry. Automation and an unprecedented increase in productivity is coming. Yang knows that and is clearly supporting answers to address the impact to address its impact. That part is good. But automation is not inherently evil and will deliver great advantages. Yang can't present automation itself as something to be fought.
@JohnFred Yang has NEVER advocated to "halt the automation trend" , nor called it evil. You have misunderstood the message. Please revisit Yang2020 or google "Andrew Yang" to learn what he IS saying.
Automation puts people out of work and permanently shrinks the job market. Many of the displaced will not find full-time work again. This is an unavoidable side-effect. We in society need to realize that the playing field has changed so dramatically that people can no longer be expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or reinvent themselves in a newer field. Thehe job market (especially outside of major metropolitan areas) is PERPETUALLY shrinking. You can't re-train someone into jobs that don't exist. Instead of waiting for folks to spiral into despair and find themselves on disability for depression, we need to give displaced folks a dignified landing, one that might encourage more much-needed community participation, volunteerism, and/or entrepreneurship.
1
Amy Klobuchar is inclusive rather than divisive, yet tough as nails, classy, smart.While Warren and Sanders didn't want Bloomberg onstage, Amy said, "Sure let him be here, let voters decide". When asked about Sanders likeability, she said Bernie was "just fine", that she had worked with him on many bills. She also spoke highly of Mitt Romney for taking a stance even though he knew he would be ostracized by his own party. She doesn't say she's inclusive, she IS inclusive. Not like Warren, who wants to open an investigation and pit the Democrats against the Republicans again. Although I do see Warrens point, the country has had enough of that already. Let's move on, and not continue to pit the parties against each other, which is precisely what would happen. Many former Republicans, and Independents, won't go for Bernie either. Hillary was right on that, he is unlikable to a large segment of the population.
As a South Carolina Independent, I catch grief from both Republicans and Democrats. I know swarms of Republicans who hate Trump, yet voted for him because they hated Hillary more. Like it or not, that is not SC specific. There was a piece in Politico recently in which Rachel Bitecofer (who predicted the midterms spot on) said that the next election will be about voters cancelling out who they hate more. She said there will be no "swing voters". Please, let's not let this play out the same way again.
Klobuchar would out-debate Trump, and win over voters in the process.
46
@Nancy
You can't win over voters that refuse to vote for a different party because the party they usually vote for is such a part of their identity. Some people do it, most do not. That much should be obvious by now.
4
@Morgan I agree with you that most voters will not be swayed out of their “blinders-on-stay-with-the-party” mentality. However not all voters are needed, just enough voters. Case in point - Trump hates Mark Sandford. Trump endorsed Katy Arrington who beat Sandford in the Republican primary for US Rep. She then lost lost to Joe Cunningham, the first Democrat to hold the SC 1st District seat in 40 years.
How did that happen in this very heavy Republican district of SC that voted for Trump over Hillary in the general election? Arrington is abrasive, nasty and polarizing. Voters are tired of that, and crossed over party lines to Cunningham, a moderate Democrat who is smart,nice, classy and works across the aisle to get things done. It just takes the right candidate going up against an unlikable foe.
1
Steyer needs to take a seat. He is crowding out viable candidates, adding nothing to the debate, and using critical air time. Please prove this is not an ego thing, and drop out next week.
I’d argue same for Yang, except I think Millenials are following the race because of him.
14
@Chuck Millennials are following the race because of Bernie.
5
@Chuck, maybe you did not notice that Steyer got less air time than most of the others because he was ignored much of the time when he had his hand raised. I wish you had heard him when he was interviewed of a whole hour on CNN two nights ago.
After trying to figure out how to hedge my bets and pick the most likely candidate others would be likely to vote for, I gave up on all that before the Iowa caucases, and decided I will vote for the person I would like to see as our next President, and that is Amy Klobuchar. She is tough, and cheerful about it. Though I will certainly vote for whoever is the eventual candidate, I would like it to be Amy.
31
Why do people keep valuing style over substance? It's not a beauty contest. They all have flaws. Who cares? Have you seen the current occupant of the White House? He won because voters didn't pay attention to all his warts; enough people liked what he said about immigration, jobs and trade (along with Supreme Court picks and pro-life stance).
Being president has nothing to do with being good in a debate. (Clinton was generally declared the "winner" in debates vs. Trump). It's about policy and who you surround yourself with. Obama had great style, but his defining legacy will be Obama Care (which didn't go far enough). Democrats focused on health care in 2018 and won big.
Bernie Sanders doesn't win over everyone on style, but you know what you're getting on policy. If after four years of a Sanders presidency, the only thing he has to show for it is that everyone in the U.S. has health care or that income inequality has been reduced, I'll take it!
34
@James I like your conclusion; but how does Bernie get his plans through a Republican Senate? We have to flip the Senate.
4
@James Sounds good, but I just don't think Sanders can get it done. Congressional Democrats will not see him as "their president" the way Congressional Republicans support Trump through thick and thin.
4
@JB You may be right, but stranger things have happened: abolishing slavery, worker's rights, New Deal, Civil Rights, gay marriage...to me Bernie's platform is worth fighting for even if it doesn't achieve 100% success.
Pres. Donald Trump has not learned to be a president he made a shamble out of the prayer breakfast and his news conference stating these were bad people know Mr. Pres. Donald Trump these are very loyal people to America which it stands you're out of your league I guess you forgot what Arthur Brooks said to forgive your neighbors as you have forgiven them yourself my other thing is don't let the hate go down with the sun which I was also sermon on the mound from Jesus Christ our Lord.
Pres. Donald Trump mentioned that he didn't like people praying for him that they were demon's let me back that up you need a lot of prayers to get you out a hell. And I'm also praying for you.
You can wait to get out of the impeachment hearing ad-lib. fire both of these State Department person that was working for the government what links can you go had the Republican party then put a leash on you bowwow, Mr. Pres.
your promise to fix the swamp to Washington DC let me state this Mr. Pres. you made an ocean of fiefs in the den been really hypocritical of your promises.
Have you told American people how much it costs for the Secret Service to be wine and dine in my Lago Florida your summer White House they didn't want to mention that but it's over millions of dollars courtesy of your hotel?
And when the 2 judges decided on your part on the monument clause shame on them. Amy got it on Debut.
3
Elizabeth Warren would be a welcome change but unelectable. What is the biggest short-term challenge facing the US today? How about the amount of personal debt and government debt? Or who pays for the Trump fancy spending-spree between now and the November election? What democrat really wants that job to balance the books? Or make sense of the Trump years?
2
I am scared of Bernie's ideas but last night I thought was his best debate by far. He wasn't the Usual Bernie. Anyone notice his statement right at the beginning about supporting any democrat who wins the nomination? That is HUGE, given 2016 and the stat that only 53% of his supporters say they'll definitely vote for the Dem nominee. He admitted a mistake. He was genuine and solemn on the discussion of impeachment. He was different in this debate. It doesn't make me any more comfortable with him, but it was a glimmer of hope in case he does win the nomination.
Pete B. seemed very natural and not practiced this time. And I thought he had good substantive answers on most issues.
Amy Klobuchar is uninspiring. She is obviously knowledgeable, but her demeanor will come off as hysteric against Trump. Not because she's a woman, but because of the way SHE is.
Tom Steyer seemed like he was on drugs -- usually he sounds coherent and has real answers to questions. This time he was meandering and all over the place and often didn't make sense at all.
Andrew Yang just seems tired and worn out.
All of the candidates were gracious to each other personally and focused on unity, which came off well.
3
@Lena S
Disagree about Amy v Trump. She would disarm him and then (nicely) go for the jugular. He wouldn't even know it.
Elizabeth Warren is the one who would come across as 'hysteric' against The Donald. He already has her number since she allowed him to pin the Pocahontas moniker on her, without pushing back. (She could have schooled him on who Pocahontas really was). Warren always has rather frantic, almost frail aspect to her demeanor. That would be a big disadvantage with The Donald hulking around the stage, he would treat her like he did Hillary. Amy could easily stand her ground.
18
@Lena S I have been an admirer and supporter so far of Pete - I'm surprised to read your comments about his debate: I felt he was 1/2 of himself, probably because he was the front runner for the first time, and he was braced for criticisms. The thing about Amy, whom I like just fine, is that she shakes and sometimes is on the verge of tears when she speaks with passion. We can't have a Commander in Chief like that. Sorry Amy - time to work on your anxiety. Personally, I'd vote for ANY of them - I'd vote for my cat over the Republican - but I prefer younger than older, I think we need someone without gaffes, who's genuine, but also quick and smart as a whip, but down to earth. When it all comes down to it, A: I want to see Bloomberg first, but B: I think it's gotta be Pete.
4
@Diana Roemer your point about surprise is interesting because I had originally started my previous comment with "I feel like I am watching a different debate than others". I felt that Pete was much less robotic and practiced than in the other debates. To me, he was confident and comfortable most of the time. What you said about Amy are exactly my thoughts. I think she would be fine as a Commander in Chief in private, but not in public. I would of course also vote for any of them or for your cat over Trump (I would consider Kasich over Bernie or Warren). I want someone smart and quick but also honest and empathetic. I think Pete is that person. I think we've only just seen the surface of his strengths.
1
Is it illiteracy that causes Bret Stephens COMPLETELY misses the point on Yang? Or myopic complacency?
(Bret Stephens (π/10) — Hard to take seriously a guy who thinks automation is a serious threat to prosperity, the most economically illiterate idea of the last 500 years.)
Automation IS ALREADY and INCREASINGLY CONTINUES to be a serious threat to middle America's ability to earn a living (and by extension their ability to : believe in the future, harbor hopes and dreams, have faith in their countries promise, get married and start a family ). If you measure prosperity by looking only at the stock market and corporate profits, you are ignoring the human toll.
Clearly you have been robbed of the true lesson of Trump, who was not elected by Russians and racists, but by desperate people who, by the way, continue to grow in numbers.
Step outside your bubble, Mr. Stephens, you will be shocked by what you see.
32
@Mizjwolf
Agreed. Andrew Yang's campaign is based on truth, vision, and science. He lacks in government experience but so does Trump. If he is not the primary choice, he should be seriously considered for Secretary of Commerce or Labor. I believe he would eventually be elected President.
11
@Mizjwolf : The middle class America that thrived in the Post War boom years is just about finished. Why this has occurred depends on who you ask. One groups says Reagan caused it all by firing the illegally striking workers. Another say tax cuts did it. Others will say the manufacturing sector which drove the boom years did it by losing its edge and not providing reliable products to the American consumer. Consumers made choices in what they purchased and that had/has a real impact on the employment picture in America. And others point to automation that lowered the need for semi-skilled workers in the manufacturing sector. Automation including AI is setting its sights on the next layers of American workers.
For a while the sights of the forward-thinkers were set on the 1 percenters however the target has grown to include the 10 or even 20 percenters Prosperity has increased in these groups - whining about real estate prices in SF or NYC notwithstanding.
One thing seems clear, Trump promised a re-birth of the American manufacturing sector and an increase in jobs it provides. The argument will be that he hasn't delivered on that. Now, what will his opponent(s) promise on the campaign trail? Trade, imports, exports, the balance of trade and the manufacturing sector employment will be front and center in the campaign.
Democrats could point to companies like Tesla (with not a union member in sight) as models to emulate.
It's going to interesting and fun.
1
The moderate democrats have lost again and again. What makes anyone think this time will work out for moderation, yet again? More of the same has caused voter disengagement to half of our population! It doesn't make ANY sense. Climate change is the greatest threat to every species on the planet. Vote for someone who will promise action on Climate change! That will bring out all of the young voters, who need action now to ensure them a future. We will get the huge voter turnout we need to defeat trump at the same time. #Bernie2020
10
@Sue M. I can't figure out why you say moderate democrats have lost again and again - ie can't win. Yes, Hilary and Al Gore were narrowly defeated (or had the elections stolen via Electoral College, Florida courts, etc). Bill Clinton + Barack Obama were both moderate Democrats, however, and won - 2 terms each.
7
@quinn Clinton won the first time, because Perot also ran and took votes away from Bush. Obama won because he ran as a Progressive, under the banner of "Hope and Change". Trump won because of those that felt disenfranchised by both political parties. We have to give some hope back to these voters, so they don't vote for trump again.
1
@Sue M. Moderates lose when im-moderates vote for someone with no chance to win. Nader took almost 3M votes in '00 - Gore lost by 500K, Nader, Badarnik, and Peltier took 1M in '04 - Kerry lost by 2.8M; Johnson, Castle, McMullin and Stein got 7.5M votes in '16 - HRC lost by 80K votes) Practicality matters more than rigid ideology. Winning matters even more. Stick together regardless, and you win. That's the one lesson we can learn from right wing American.
Bernie does not look well. Biden looks worse. Amy is insecure. Yang is super cool but not as president. Warren's schoolmarmish schtick does not inspire confidence. I can't forgive Bloomberg for stop and frisk and his tepid apologies. Buttigieg has the brains and energy. But I don’t understand why Tom Steyer is so attacked (because he realized the American dream?) and why he isn’t getting more traction. Watch his town hall on CNN. He has pledged to give most of his vast fortunes away and has put his money where his mouth is for the last ten years. He understands finances in a way that none of the other candidates do, and could cream Trump in a debate. Maybe because his mother volunteered as a teacher in prisons, he seems to have a clear understanding of the inequities and injustices of the criminal justice system. I just wish people (including these journalists) would stop trivializing his sincere attempt to help us get out from under the Trump regime. I would love to see Steyer debate Trump and Buttigieg debate Pence.
14
@Scarlett
I'd always admired Steyer, but his comment at the end of last night's debate re: reparations was a disaster. Not only was he pandering, but we will never get moderates to vote for him if he harps on that issue - and we have many other *much* more critical issues to contend with.
1
@Scarlett Bloomberg has done everything Steyer has done, but more and better, plus he's held elective office. If we are going to have a billionaire as our representative, let's pick the most qualified one.
After last night debate, I think Bernie Sanders stood out of the crowd, He's got the mass of the people behind him, he's got the answers. People say he's gonna raise taxes for his revolution- BUT CONSIDER THIS: we pay less taxes today but get nothing- no security, no equality, no education, no future. Bernie Sanders made his point clear an he is on demand of the American people. We need these three brilliant contenders:
Bernie Sanders- President (The favorite of the mass)
Andrew Yang- VP (innovative)
Tom Steyer- Secretary of the Treasury. (his millions)
10
@Michal If you want Bernie's 1980 utopian version of Denmark, vs. the one today that barred Syrian refugees, be prepared to pay double your taxes. I love Denmark, but all people (not just the 1%ers) need to know what they are paying (a lot more) for. Bernie never spells that out because Medicare as we know it is going broke. Strapping our healthcare future to a declining agency, which is why so many rural clinics are closing (as Medicare's payments don't cover their costs) seems like a very bad idea. Besides if subsequently, Don, Jr. were to become President, would you really want him as your healthcare CEO? Ney tak.
1
@Michal Once again lets have a bunch of men running the country. Sorry, after 200 years, it is time for a woman in the WH. I'm putting my energy behind Klobuchar.
Bret Stephens totally misses Yang’s points on automation. Yang never claims automation is a threat to prosperity, unless you stop “following GDP and the Dow off a cliff.” Increasing automation will benefit a smaller and smaller number of people in a winner-take-all economy. Most of us will end up worse off in terms of well-being, a phenomenon well under way despite record GDP. We also have record levels of drug abuse, depression, suicides, child poverty, poor health and decreasing life spans. Why is Yang the only one addressing this, and why is a columnist for The NY Times so ignorant about it? Disappointing.
21
I am glad that Klobuchar knows who I am because after watching all these debates I don't have a clue who she is. and what her goals are. This is what it means to her to be a centrist and a "uniter" In these troubled times we need more vision.
10
@DeeL You have point about Klobuchar's practicality--what might she give away to achieve compromise.
3
@DeeL Maybe if you really want to know who the best candidate is, you should go to their pages where they tell you their backgrounds, what they've done and what they stand for. Klobuchar made a list of over 100 things she will do in her first year -- and her credentials and accomplishments are a clear indication that she can and will get them done. She has proven that she is smart, tough, with ideas backed-up be achievements. And because she is smart and tough, she will make Trump look like the fool that he is -- and he won't even realize what hit him. Do your homework! You have to look below the surface. That's the only way we will pick the right candidate and be able to defeat Trump.
@Roy Quick By the way, Roy and Deet: Amy Klobuchar has gotten more legislation to help you and me than any other Senate. Did you know that about her?
Another Democrat debate debacle from the opening teetering to the podiums to the most embarrassing moment of the evening when Mr. Biden commanded the audience to stand and honor Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. How needless and absurd, but direct from the partisan swamp. This was another scream fest filled with empty Buttigieg platitudes and angry Sanders' rants about everything. No questions were answered directly and no vision for the future was illustrated. The debate did illuminate an endless quest for power and control.
All candidates are disconnected. None are authentic and genuine. Instead, they share a contempt for the electorate whom they see as easily manipulated and gullible, much like the sheep standing at command under the Biden directive.
3
@Grant Bothered by the stand-up ovation that Col. Vindman received? I would suggest that it is representative of a cross-section of the American people.
24
@Grant
Hey, at least they weren't arguing about the size of their "hands"
6
Grant - Irony?
I really appreciate so many of these mini-analyses; they’re cogent assessments of what the individuals observed, summarized in a way that illustrates how the candidates performed.
I wish Stephens would put away his ideological protests. At this point, a reader would have to be asleep to not know he isn’t a fan of progressives. Increasingly as I read him, I get the impression that he is simply afraid of paying more taxes if any progressive policy succeeds. I understand that concern, but so many of us are just looking for policy that will help us thrive. Some just want to survive.
19
I was a Cory Booker supporter and have been more and more impressed by Amy Klobuchar. She has such a keen intellect, a realistic, nuanced command of detail in every area of governance, a pragmatic sense of how to get things done, and deep empathy for the people she would govern. I’m leaning toward Klobuchar. It would be nice to see her team up with someone like Booker on the Dem. ticket. Buttigieg continues to impress with this thoughtful plans, earnestness and authenticity, and eloquence. Meanwhile, Sanders continues to run on egoism. For a socialist, Sanders seems pretty personally wealthy; what has he done with all that personal wealth? Has he redistibuted it? If not, why not, given his purported socialism? Aside from that potential personal hypocrisy, a Sanders nomination would be a sure-fire win for Trump and a ticket to the President’s re-election. All democrats need to listen to Tom Steyer: much as we desperately need new vision on healthcare and climate change, we also need pro-growth economic vision. Otherwise, Trump is going to ride to re-election on the so-called strength of the current economy.
17
@Ann A.
Klobuchar / Booker would be great ! Let's Make it So.
Klobuchar is the only one I can tolerate. Sanders and Warren are death stars, Biden belongs in a rocking chair on a front porch, and the others are novelties. I suspect that Klobuchar knows that she can't win the primary but hopes that no one takes a majority and she emerges as the sensible compromise from the convention. It's possible.
22
Tom Steyer provides great value: he reminds the candidates, and the voters, that 1) beating Trump is the #1 objective, 2) that the people on the Democratic stage are far more alike then they are unalike, and 3) that we the people are far better off with any of the people on that stage than with Trump. For all the nipping at the edges -- come on, everyone has thought through how to pay for their proposals -- let's remember Steyer's message.
Steyer and Sanders emphasize a point that every candidate should avow at the start of every event: they will actively, sincerely support the eventual nominee. They all hope to take an oath on behalf of the nation. They all can get an early start on that oath, even if they may not take it as president, to support the nominee.
And we, the voters, can do the same. The differences between Democratic candidates are irrelevant, compared to the existential importance of beating Trump.
Thank you, Mr. Steyer.
20
@MC -- I totally agree with you about Mr. Steyer. In fact, I agreed with him more than any of the others on stage. He brings up the uncomfortable topics that we need to hear and focus on, most especially, beating Trump and climate change--both existential threats to us all.
I thought the Times' reporters analysis was spot-on, and I agree with the rankings. Biden is fading; Steyer takes up space; Yang is fun; and none of these guys are going to make the final cut.
Then, I realized after last night's debate that Amy Klobuchar reminds me of so many smart, funny, can-do women I worked with at various universities, including 35 years at an academic medical university, where you really work with all kinds of wonderful women--and some men too.
This is not a slam against men. What I mean is: similar to what the relatively unknown Amy is experiencing in her run for president, it seems much more difficult for hard-working women to get credit and recognition for what they do. But I think this is because they are often more focused on getting the job done well than with advancing their careers--like a lot of wonderful nurses I know. Warren is good too, but Amy comes off as more pragmatic, realistic, and ideologically less threatening.
But, take your pick. That stage of Democratic presidential candidates makes you proud to be a Democrat, because they are what American politics is, or should be--smart, decent, passionate, and most important, eagerly supportive of our Constitution and government as a force to help improve people's lives.
Unlike we know who and which political party he has vindictively bent to his will!
28
Bret Stephens (π/10) — How do you mistake Yang's argument so badly? It's not that automation is a threat to prosperity; it's that automation is a threat to those who rely on jobs for pay. If automation increases wealth greatly, as Yang expects, but concentrates that wealth in the owners and the few who maintain or engineer automation advances (lets say this is 10% of current our workforce),then it's harmful to the 99% who were automated out of a livelihood. Unless UBI or some other solution is adopted... which is Yang's proposal. Of course you could just believe the rationalization of Econ professors that new and better paying jobs will be created, but that didn't really work out in the rust belt after the last 40 years after outsourcing, did it? Reading is fundamental, Bret.
22
@John Eve Reading is fundamental, as is a quick proofread. If 10% remain employed after automation, then 90% of the current workforce (not 99%) are harmed by the decreased number of jobs. Ultimately there will be 0.00000001% employed. The one guy who is slave master for big blue. I'm assuming IBM will go private after the last Chairman/CEO takes all profits private!
I loved Klobuchar last night. She was forceful and had so much substance to her answers and repartees. She is certainly a late bloomer, becoming more comfortable with the sizeable audience. She is also an exciting candidate to consider. Extensive deep knowledge and definitely believes in execution going by her record. Buttigieg, who is my favorite was more than a bit disappointing. He gave glib, evasive answers which I was uncomfortable to associate with him. Warren was very good, as was Sanders. Honestly folks going by record, Warren wins hands down. He is a talker and armchair theorist, she has at least authored and has stuff to show in Congress....this for the Bernie supporters. You might want to read past his fire and brimstone convictions. Yang is wasting money. Choose one person and campaign for them instead of squandering your moment in the light. Steyer needs to be governor of California. He is so passionate and caring. The intelligence in his arguments seem to be hiding behind that goofiness I am sure.
12
Amy Klobuchar impressed you people that much? Not me. Her story about Franklin Roosevelt appears to be one of those internet gems that someone made up. Her other good lines were part of her February 3 stump speech. (What's that joke about Trump blaming the King of Denmark?) She sounded quivery-voiced to me, and even with less than stellar style, style more than substance.
If Amy Klobuchar "won" the debate, then winning debates is meaningless. I don't think she wins the nomination. If she does, I don't think she wins the presidency. If she does, I don't think she is a good president. Nothing in her track record (and she's almost 60 years old) shows the ability to get things done.
That doesn't stop professional pundits from praising her. It should.
11
@John Smithson Agreed. She's polling at 2%, at her best, for a reason. Her record of accomplishments is thin, but boy is she getting praised for her insults. Odd given that her track record with employees shows this same mean-spiritedness--I thought we had enough of that with Trump?
11
us@John Smithson
True FDR story. And she used it beautifully.
4
@John Smithson Finally another reader who notices and comments on her "quivering," as you call it. Thank you for being observant! I like Amy too - she's not my #1 - but I like her. However, her flaw of trembling and whimpering when she gets passionate will come back to bite her. I've been that way at one time in my life - a time of enormous stress before my career took off in the right direction - and I know what it feels like to hold back tears when I want something bad and am lobbying for it, even when I know I'm the right one for the job - It's like "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me do this job - I REALLY REALLY REALLY can." She needs to fix that. It took me two decades to grow past it. Trump would humiliate her.
4
For what it’s worth, Amy’s hair looked better than it ever has - maybe that gave her extra added confidence and presidential presence. She definitely has my vote.
15
@DB She got highlights.
2
I don't get people rushing to fawn over any candidate based on some clever insults and the 'appearance' of being presidential. I don't want another "I play President on TV", I want policies that will change voters' lives for the better. Sign me up for that debate and analysis. Otherwise it's just more of the same sound and fury, style over substance. Maybe there was a clear 'winner' last night, but the voters continue to lose out.
12
It is 20/20 if America was a healthy country any of the candidates would make a fine commander and chief. There was enough talent on stage and enough talent already gone for a competent administration.
Donald Trump is not the problem.
The quest to get rid of Trump is Quixotic at best but seems to me suicidal.
America was meant to be a nation under man with liberty and justice for all will not be realized by my grandchildren and possibly not by their grandchildren.
The University of Sherbrooke provides my health, education and welfare and is less than an hour's drive from New Hampshire. Its research center in one of its hospitals and clinics is a world center in brain research.This week it was announced it would be sending 500 of its undergrads into the various communities to assist with the many sociological needs of our population and to work with professionals to suggest and implement remedies.
We are rich beyond our wildest dreams, we are suffering a shortage of workers from PhDs to brush clearers. We are a liberal democracy that regularly elects conservative , liberals, and democratic socialists and we have no fear for our democracy.
We are optimistic and we are trying to be green as much as possible. University of Sherbrooke allows its students and staff to choose their preferred name and gender assignment.
The opposition will never accept the 21st century realities will leave your country isolated just like Russia a failed democracy. There is no compromise.
10
@Montreal Moe
18% of your population controls 51% of your Senate. Ten million more voters voted for other than Trump. Your judiciary will be corrupt for the next two generations, There is no political solution for a country where almost 50% of the electorate will vote for those who will support liars, cheats and crooks rather than try to obtain a more perfect union.
The checks and balance of the late 18th century and your constitution will enable men like McConnell, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh , Jordan, Meadows , Gohmert and Cruz will prevent the 21st century from ever arriving at your door.
Where once all men are created equality gave birth to the first nation of the enlightenment archaic laws and 18th century beliefs will prevent your country from joining our 21st century and the evolution of a world where every man is King and every woman is also ruler of her world.
The only Democrat I would give a 10 is the one who understands there will never be a United States of America without fundamental changes and even Bernie Sanders is far too conservative.
1
@Montreal Moe I am afraid you are right. Will send my grandchildren asap.
Amy had a great night and was very impressive. Pete was able to rebound from most attacks. However, I think the moderators showed some bias when they were much harder on Pete's record on marijuana arrests as mayor versus Amy's record on arrests as prosecutor.
14
@N
I have seen Amy on every show cable show being interviewed and I have yet to understand why the NYT keeps pushing her. We will all be dead by the time she does anything to save this country. She's right I know her story but does she know the story of slavery in Aamerica, does she know the story of the children in cages at the border. What story moves her?
8
I once asked a journalism professor about his students. He told me that their high school guidance counselors ask them about their interests. When they say "sports," they are advised to major in journalism. Would anybody know that you're weighing in on the fate of the planet? Would anyone understand that we need to save our country from the criminal enterprise running the Senate and the White House? I don't care how these candidates "perform." There is no way in hell Trump is going to agree to a debate. I care who is funding the candidates. Buttigieg is being funded by a billionaire who's given a quarter of a million dollars to Kevin McCarthy. Isn't that worth reporting? Bloomberg, the "centrist," has given millions to Pat Toomey. I'm sure the enraged Democrats of Pennsylvania would like that information. When you stop treating this as a baseball game, you might start to understand why the guy running on $18 donations is winning this race.
20
The winning Democrat pitch is hurt by a phony 'debate' format that degrades candidates & real discourse.
A better format would be conversations between candidates on specific points of view- how they weigh evidence & decide strategy & policy.
A better focus should be directly against the Trumpian contempt for competent expert governance. Remind voters how much they count on safe water, medication, air, bridges, airplanes- how much we need disaster preparation/relief, reliable food, infectious control, etc. We're spoiled if assuming these foundations of a civilized society are automatic. We need wise regulation, oversight and areal protection by the EPA, FDA, FAA, FBI & CIA. Homeland security is a large network of protections in our daily life. Dish washers shouldn't be unable to get treatment for TB so our restaurants are safe. Bus drivers shouldn't have untreated substance abuse, mentally ill folks shouldn't have automatic weapons, school kids shouldn't need to practice hiding from slaughter.
It is self-interest that makes a coherent government valuable. People need to wake up to this- and as Trump refers with contempt to "government schools" instead of 'public education' - everyone should appreciate how much we benefit from public education. Jobs, prosperity and social stability depend on it.
Pragmatism is more compelling for turn out than humanitarian preaching. Expanding health insurance protects us all and will reduce costs- even starting with a public option.
25
@Sara - I wish I could give this comment 10 thumbs up. Thank you for stating so eloquently what I have thought for a long time. It's time to end debates as a way to select candidates. Debates tend to highlight and reward 'Jerry Springer' arguments and gotcha moments when we should be trying to bring people together to solve the big problems facing our country and the world. Democratic candidates are all opposed to the current administration and their aim to 'shrink & drown government in a bathtub'. It's way past time to explain how much benefit government is to every American and when it is not functioning well work together to make it better rather than throwing out the baby with the bath.
7
@Sara - Yours is an excellent reply. Thank you.
I thought Klobuchar dominated the debate. She was charming, pointed, knowledgable, and forceful. She looked and carried herself as presidential. Very impressive.
Surprising to see Bernie as the runner up. He seemed to have the same canned answers about the millionaires and billionaires. Nothing new or insightful.
Mayor Pete seemed out of his depth, at times.
24
I am getting increasingly concerned. I do not think Bernie has a very good chance and I will explain why I think this. We are up against a solid immovable bloc of about 40% of the electorate. Bernie will not garner a single vote there. So Bernie and his followers will be up against that as well as wall street, the healthcare industry and the pharmaceutical industry. He will also probably be up against some real big boys like facebook, the A.M.A. and maybe apple. And then all these opponents will try to calculate the true cost of free healthcare, free college, free daycare and throw in free long term care. Someone will fire up a Cray computer to calculate such an astronomical number. Four more years of what we have will lose the court for a generation and cause other huge problems. Bernies one payer -plan with no copay's, no deductibles is a hallucination. How many doctors would join and be required to accept the medicare fee schedule? I was a medicare provider for my entire 35 year career but what do I know?
8
@Mckeever
While I agree with you about Bernie’s viability for the General Election, I think you are wrong about the electorate behind it. Both Trump and Sanders have a kind of populous message—Trump’s total fake of course, but it’s still one of his main schticks. I knew people pre-convention in 2016 who said, I’ll vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, but if Clinton does, I’m voting for Trump. The electorate he will lose by are the moderate independents and there are a bunch of them. However, he does have the youth vote, so if he gets the nomination (though doubtful I think), maybe he could pull it off. Remember how nobody thought Trump could win?
4
@Kally I agree with your views. I was very disappointed with the Bernie supporters who did not support the ticket last election. Have a great weekend.
1
@Mckeever Don't forget that he also wants to criminally prosecute executives from the fossil fuel industry. Republican superpacs will need to open their own bank in order to process the donations from Exxon and Chevron.
2
What makes Bernie Sanders a true moderate is his impatience for superficial and peripheral matters the right wing radicals are using to keep people off balance and his keen focus on underlying causes.
It is a telling thing when people talk about the people first policies that made the democratic party what it was before 1980, as if it were something foreign to that party. That my friends is your first clue that you are a right wing radical.
Truth does not change, people do.
9
What makes Bernie Sanders a TRUE MODERATE is his impatience for superficial and peripheral matters the right wing radicals are using to keep people off balance and his keen focus on underlying causes.
It is a telling thing when people talk about the people first policies that made the democratic party what it was before 1980, as if it were something foreign to that party. That my friends is your first clue that you are a right wing radical.
Truth does not change, people do.
1
@magicisnotreal Bernie is a radiical socialist. Put all your money in a hat so it can pay for medical and education fg pr all whether they work and put any money in orr just plug their electricity into their neighbor's electrical outlet.
Bernie "skilled at taking any question and pivoting directly into his central pitch" No matter what the question he always ends with the same answer. He will seem more and more boring as time goes on. (and once again contribute to trump's election)
Unfortunately Warren seemed to get very little time (why?)
She would be a most effective president - and debater against trump (assuming he would debate)
4
@Elipm
Iam not looking to be entertained. I am looking for the best candidate who can save America with the help of the people. I am looking for answers based in facts not delusion. I am looking for everyone to pull together and stop this white noise about age, no one cares anymore it is important to have the best ideas, lead and get results.
Trump is the non stop cartoon character who never ends with the stupidity chatter. The task ahead for the next president is daunting but an opportunity to improve this country and the systems that built it.
The DNC better be careful how they want to manipulate the voters and the party
Bernie has to address the real contempt and viciousness that too many of his followers show for those who don't worship him, especially if they’re female. And the fact that he’s not a Democrat but only runs as one. If he wins, who is he then? I have no idea how he’ll govern. And I want equal speaking time for every candidate, or very close to it.
17
@Elaine First, we had an Independent President, George Washington. Second, These are NOT Bernie Sanders' followers, they are trolls. Third, because of hacking and trolls, there is a chance Trump will be elected if Bernie Sanders is tricked again by DNC. So, which one do you prefer, An advocate for life of women's rights, humans' rights, working people's rights or Trump. It is your choice. I support and vote for Bernie Sanders, the icon of true and just America. Full Stop.
After reading the opinions of the 'experts,' I have more conviction than ever not to pay heed to the experts. But the bottom line is this: the real losers were the American people, because of the mindboggingly blockheaded policies of the Democratic National Committee, which made it virtually impossible after the first debates for there to be a truly diverse and appealing field over the longer haul (Booker, Gabbard, Williamson), yet has bent over backwards to break its own rules to allow the billionaire Bloomberg now to appear on the debates (though it bent over backwards not to allow Gabbard, though she met all of their fundraising thresholds, while Bloomberg is self-funding). Just nauseating. Combine this with the Iowa fiasco, and unless the economy tanks between now and November, Trump will win again, because the Kafkaesque leaders of the political apparatus that is supposed to support and represent the working class now continues to shoot true hope for democratic change in the foot.
8
". . fumes of aggressive indignation" is just about the most exact description of Joe Biden's profile in politics today. He has never realized that his acceptance of the political void of the Vice Presidency was an incurably retarding decision, the political equivalent of lining his "sole surviving son's" pockets at Burisma.
5
Being from Minnesota, Klobuchar should be expected to over perform in New Hampshire.
...Both states are united in their longstanding history of badmouthing Iowa.
1
Ok democrats learn from history, don't shoot yourselves in the foot again.
Here are the key points if you want to beat Trump. Appeal to moderate progressive voters in key states and don't pull a Hillary ie an identity/social engineering obsessed Neo con, exactly what these voted did not want.
Mayor Pete-He would be an excellent choice. That is why he is rising in the polls but he has one factor that will be lethal to him. He is an out of the closet gay. Sadly to say middle America is not ready for that, just like they were not ready for Al Smith in the 1920s or if republicans nominated a back man for president in the 1870s.
Elizabeth Warren-She is trying to backtrack from her early identity obsession that was lethal to Hillary but too little too late.
Bernie-Socialist tag will be lethal to him although he is still running well against Trump but. barely.
Amy B hits all the right buttons. Don't know why she is low in the polls.
Bloomberg scores well against Trump. He is a wild card.
Biden-It still goes back to him, strongest against Trump in the polls especially in critical swing states. Vote for him unless one of the other candidates overtakes Trump in the polls. That should be thee most critical fact for you.
6
I've been supporting Warren and/or Biden, but Klobuchar was outstanding last night. She was the star of the show, with excellent answers. I thought Pete completely bombed and Bernie was, as usual, completely redundant. The rest were competent.
14
"Isn’t a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?" I'm pretty sure Mr Stephens does not understand Emerson here. If you think of politics as usual as the last 6 decades of over the top dog eat dog capitalism does not this quote reflect well on Sanders?
4
Smart folks but stand no chance of getting elected: Sanders and Warren. Biden feels like he is on an irreversible slide and a poor match for Trump. Klobuchar and Buttigieg seem to have the chutzpah to take him on, maybe successfully, and Bloomberg needs to get a shot in these debates so we can see if he’s got it. Four more years of Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for the environment, global relationships, our country (other than the 1%)... I would be elated to see Obama come back.
9
@Scott You're right about Michael Bloomberg. We want to see what he has got.
3
"A lifetime of rigid ideological consistency has its advantages when it comes to trotting out talking points. But the repetition can get tedious. Isn’t a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?"
OK, Bret Stephens, but... isn't this what you always say?
5
I'm scared that none of these candidates can succeed against Trump-inspired foreign interference, Fox propaganda, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the Electoral College to topple the Emperor. Democrats MUST in the House AND Senate in November!
4
I wish Bloomberg was on the stage with them.
Klobuchar was on her game. But I just don't think she can take down Trump.
Sanders appears more and more confident and assured now that he is the front runner.
Sad to see Warren's slipping. I think she is almost too smart for too many.
Buttigieg is smooth, but lacks some humility.
Yang is great, but Presidential material, come on now!
Steyers, I still don't know why he's on stage. Drop in Bloomberg instead. Definitely would make for a better debate.
And oh, my heart pangs for Biden. He just looks so darn old and may soon need some propping up. I have much respect for him, but he needs to step away. Trump would chew him up.
Glad I watched last night. But our debate forums stink. It feels like a game show, with way too much audience cheering.
Oh, and the hubris of a nearly all white stage talking about the needs of the black community was really too much ... and the fact that none of them was humble enough to acknowledge that was a shame.
13
One really need look no further than Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klochubar.
Whether you are center or center-left, there's a woman running that represents you.
Both are uniters, both are smart, experienced, and ELECTABLE.
11
@Myasara I agree - and I really do believe that Elizabeth Warren has the potential to unite the left (Sanders) and centrist (Buttigieg) wings of the party and get them both out to vote in force in November.
1
"What makes Sanders a true radical is his impatience for superficial and peripheral matters and his keen focus on underlying causes. "
Exactly. Which is why this wholly genuine and focused man will tell Individual 1 he is not interested in the mishegas that spews out of his mouth. I'd love to see Bernie tell trump to stop his bupkus and answer anything at all about actual policy.
And Bernie got more laughs than anyone on stage. I am tired of the media calling him a cranky, angry old man. Biden sounded much angrier last night.
I know this would never happen, but imagine Sanders/ Abrams.
Which divide should we pay most attention to—color, gender, age? Sanders/Yang would be something. And I am a sexegenerian female. Imagine that, though. Both ends of the age spectrum.
Biden is the past. Sanders and Warren are the present.
Yang is the future.
10
Mayor Pete parried beautifully the many criticisms from the the veterans onstage who feel threatened by him. His remarks on a commander-in-chief's conduct regarding deployment of military force and his resolute statements about his own readiness for the job demonstrate how well he does under fire.
10
I’m just curious, other than being elected to the Senate, which is an accomplishment, what has Amy Klobuchar accomplished? What legislative initiative has she led? What are her signature issues? I feel like her argument is, “I’ve been a politician for a long time, therefore I’ve got experience.”
9
@Lj I wonder the same. She's been getting such a pass, not sure why. And as someone living in the Midwest, I wish people would stop calling her "Midwest nice." That's not a real thing and a real turn-off. My other concern is watching all these Dem senators risk their senate seats to run, especially someone like Klobuchar who polls at 2%. Is there a plan at all to take the Senate??
7
@Lj
If you were listening, she mentioned a bill she authored with Bernie that got bi-partisan support. Why don’t you do some research on her rather than make assumptions. They don’t list their resumes when debating.
13
@Kally my question is not about what she said during the debate, it’s is a broader question. Can you tell me what is Amy’s message other than I’ve been in the Senate a long time so therefore I have experience. What does she stand for? Here is my sense of what the other candidates stand for:
Bernie: política revolution to change the system; socialism.
Biden: I’ve been around the block several times and I was Obama’s VP.
Warren: mildly technocratic, for the little guy, self-made and before becoming an academic turned politician led a normal life and therefore understands what it means to be part of the middle-class,
Mayor Pete: generational change; sane progressive (another way of saying moderate, but he really isn’t moderate in terms of his positions)
Yang: the world is changing faster than we are adjusting and therefore we need to come up with new solutions.
Steyer: the environment, and b/c I’ve made a lot of money I think I’m smarter than everyone but in reality I’m no, I’m just really good at making a lot of money.
Klobuchar: I’ve been in the Senate for a while and I’m from the Midwest.
Obviously, there are really only two candidates who have strongly articulated positions: Bernie and Warren. Buttigieg has a
Amy Klobuchar won my vote and donation last night. She rocked her closing statement.
17
@Fran AMy has some troubling reports from former staff that she is abusive. Her turnover rate is the highest for senate staff as she is said to demean them, verbally abuse them, and do things like throw staplers at interns. She comes off to me as a covert narcissist. I tend to trust what former staffers have to say.
I liked Sanders. His points were sensible, compassionate, and simple to understand. He doesn't have a detailed plan but clearly believes that putting forward aggressively the direction the country should take in the post Trump era is the most important thing. I agree with that. To those who believe he is a radical leftist, please realize that his views would be mainstream in many other developed countries. I don't really understand the hype about Klobuchar. She seems very self-centered to me. All she does is talk about herself.
20
@Kidcanuck
ALL of the candidates talk about themselves. That’s what candidates do.
4
@Kidcanuck Klobuchar has the worst environmental record of all running, graded a "D". We can do better than that to undo all the damage done to the environment in in the past 3 years.
Bernie is my favorite but any of the leaders would be so much better than the incumbent and would get my vote as long as they are not dismissive of the progressives. It is interesting how the anti-Bernie argument has evolved from unelectibility to down-ticket impacts since polls show him doing as well against you know who as any other candidate within margin for error.
10
we live in a country where 49% of the people approve of donald trump; also, the electoral college is slanted in his favor. if the goal is to beat him in the next election, we should immediately rule out logical, decent-minded, fluent, deep-thinking, and intelligent candidates. yes, it's time for the progressive president we deserve: flo from the progressive insurance commercials.
3
@orionoir
Too much despair, friend. The general election is 9 months off--an eternity is politics. Events may overtake this election.
Trump had a good week, but this might be peak. Things tend to balance out over time.
8
@orionoir In the poll of polls Trump has never been at 49 percent. He hovers in the mid to the low forties.
Klobuchar speaks with a tense, jittery voice that portrays discomfort and inconfidence. I just can't see her standing toe-to-toe against Trump.
Warren has the necessary fire, and good policy chops. But she is quicky exasperated when opponents go after her, so would be easily put on defensive by Trump.
Biden is done. We are grateful for his life long service and wish him well in retirement.
Bernie is Bernie. Maybe too familiar now, a la 1950s Adlai Stevenson...?
The rich pay-to-play guys (Yang and Steyer) add content to the debate but have 0.000001% chance of the nomination.
Bloomberg wasn't on stage.
Buttigieg has intelligence, poise and charisma. He speaks confidently and is not rattled by attacks.
Mayor Pete is clearly the best candidate.
10
@Celeste Mayor Pete is the mayor of a city of 100,000 who can't win statewide office in his own state.
7
@Celeste
The person who is poised and confident in the debates, or who is a passionate firebrand like Sanders, may make the "best candidate", but that doesn't mean they'll beat Trump. Nor does a good campaigner make for a good president. This gets completely overlooked in the winner-loser "horse race". Although my first priority is beating Trump, we should stop to ask, "Which of these candidates can actually govern or hold the office of president?" I may like Bernie personally, but I think he's be a horrible president. The same goes for Pete, who needs more seasoning in Congress. The irony is that the most qualified for the presidency is Biden, but everyone is more caught up in optics and ideology and "winning" than in who can actually turn this country around.
2
@Celeste, I have heard Klobuchar speak many times and I have never noticed anything like a "tense, jittery voice." Others have said something similar Where is that coming from?
If you guys are giving out grades why not give out grades to the moderators. In my book they would get a 2 of 10. They seem more interested in setting up gotcha moments and pitting one candidate against the other then having a thoughtful discussion about the issues. Why not broaden the discussion - Trump announced support for NASA's Artemis program (Mars). Why not ask the candidates about their vision for NASA and going to Mars? All the candidates say they want to address the climate crisis. That's too vague. Drill down. Should we ban plastic bags? Should households be required to recycle as they do in places like Seattle? Should we impose more stringent environmental standards on the construction of new office buildings. These would be better questions then asking the same ole same ole on universal healthcare (we already know the candidates views on that). The candidates knew what questions were coming and had their safe answers well rehearsed. The moderators need to do much better (and give out equal time to the candidates).
35
@mitch
Absolutely!
Appreciate your well thought out comment.
As some of you have suggested Amy Klobuchar's referring to FDR's administration is contrary to her position on some issues. However FDR took office under entirely different circumstances. The country was in deep depression with unemployed men forming long lines to receive a meager bowl of soup. The banks were near collapse and there really was no economy to bolster. What FDR accomplished was done of necessity with the acquiescence of the congress, something our next president may not have. Closing the banks to prevent a run on them was the only path to take. And fortunately FDR was adept in communicating with the public in the fireside chats and radio broadcasts explaining in simple yet eloquent words his actions. It took many years and programs and WWll to fully revive the economy, and that culminating event must not happen again.
Amy Klobuchar is practical and will do what the country needs if allowed by congress to perform her duties as FDR did. She is the best suited emotionally to take on this huge role, unflappable, resolute, and determined. The only question is can she beat Trump? She can expect immediate insults to stream from the White House in light of this story. I wish her well in the NH primary and beyond.
26
@Phyllis Melone
All I know is she totally put cryin’ Kav in his place during his confirmation hearing. She has the chutzpah to handle narcissistic men like cryin’ Kav and the toddler brat that has taken refuge in the WhiteHouse.
I am not watching these debates anymore. They ceased to be entertaining g long ago and I have already made my mind who to vote for in the primaries. I’m glad that Amy has done well. A woman, a centrist and has a sense of humor - what is not to like? But I am sure that the socialist cult that has taken over the Democratic Party will nominate Sanders and unleash a catastrophe on this country, whatever the result of the election in November. Incidentally, listening to the podcast of Bill Maher who I love, I was very impressed by him inviting Steve Bannon on his show. This is the kind of moral courage that is very rare today among liberals. But I was even more impressed hearing Bannon defend the prerogative of the future “President Sanders”. If this doesn’t give you a pause, nothing will.
2
@Mor Bernie is for himself. Talk about ego! He sees himself as some kind of Old Testament prophet but will leave the heavy lifting to someone else. Stale platitudes to win over "the masses" haven't worked in 100 years. A popular song I just heard carols that we are in some kind of Golden Age. We aren't.
3
No one mentioned -- and they should have over and over -- that Sanders made a clear statement about being "together" regardless of who the ultimate winner is. Maybe it was easy for him now as front runner but it is the first time I have heard it from him. Over the last week, I have been saying this online to his supporters and here in comments -- "if only" he would rein in his "crew" to be less aggressive and more open and show himself to be a team player. So I want to give him credit for that. Now "if only" his supporters get the message, a lot more of us might be more interested in voting for him. My main objections have been his trump-like "only me" - everything-is-a-disaster approach as well as lacking a broader leadership focus, harping only on essentially one or two issues/talking points. The priority has changed (for me always the same) -- overcoming trump-brand encroaching fascism -- that's it. I'm glad to see a him at least give a nod in that direction. I still like Klobuchar the best.
16
@Child of Babe He says that a lot but it's understandable you have not heard it. The narrative about him being divisive drowns that out. I have always admired how well he pivoted to supporting Clinton and doing dozens of rallies for her after being treated horribly by the DNC. He continues to be gaslit by the narrative that he didn't try to persuade people to unite. As for his supporters, they were about three times as likely to vote blue than Clinton's during 2008 after she lost to Obama. Sanders supporters are some of the kindest people I know.
9
@Child of Babe why would his supporters turn you off voting for him if you agree with his policies?
It seems a practical question which candidate would be able to confront Trump effectively, the strongest in standing up to him. On that alone, it is my opinion that Bernie Sanders leads. A Sanders-Klobuchar ticket would be ideal.
5
@Roy Quick
She doesn't strike me as the happy second fiddle type. I'm sure she is a good team player, but she's definitely an alpha.
10
@magicisnotreal Rbat is a good thing fir a POTUS to be. we are not talking about a local school board here. but a Bernie as VP would be disaster.
@Roy Quick Bernies approach is to fight fire with fire. The house will burn down. I wish his ego would let him retire.
With Joe Biden faltering, the debacle of the Iowa Caucus', the necessity for a breakout by someone in the field is needed. And, Klobuchar, I believe is that person. Full disclosure: My wife and I have been supporting Amy since the beginning last March. She has consistently held her ground, not promised the stars and is not afraid to get in people's faces which will be necessary when facing Trump. Also, she raised over a million dollars last night before the end of the debate which is indicative of her strong performance.
The party cannot afford to nominate anyone too far to the left like Bernie or Elizabeth as the Republicans will scream "Socialist". And, Mayor Pete, while very smart and knowledgeable is not qualified yet as he has no experience with dealing with an entire nation which, Klobuchar pointed out, is exactly the problem we have now with Trump and how that's gone.
Yep, Amy gets my vote and I only hope she breaks through in the New Hampshire primary next week.
20
@Dick Moran Good luck with that.
1
I have no idea how Klobuchar can be drawing such praise. Was I even watching the same debate? Her speaking style was garbled, forced and inauthentic. She seems notably unsure of herself and reliant on the unnatural, awkward delivery of preplanned lines. I've never been a huge Mayor Pete fan but he seemed to be the only one on the stage last night who was lucid, poised and confident.
8
@DB
Yes, Pete is a smoothie, but that isn’t high in my priorities. Amy has a kind of quivery voice that I think is just some physical thing, like Biden’s stutter (which becomes more apparent as I watch him debate. He sounds so much more articulate in other settings). While I don’t want to judge people strictly on speaking style, both Warren and Sanders, while sincere and passionate, have a big turn-off factor with a lot of people.
2
@DB Hyper-articulate, but paper-thin. Send him to the Senate.
By conventional metrics the U.S. economy is arguably the strongest it’s been in history. The argument Democrats must make is that the conventional metrics do not adequately report the health of our economy or the economic health of the average American family or worker. They merely signal to the small investor-class that dominates our economy the investment climate for the purpose of investing. The truth is that our government’s embrace of supply-side economics over roughly the past 40 years has led to the wealth and income inequality that has stolen the American Dream from the working middle-class. Yes, the supply-side economic philosophy has led to relatively low unemployment and the creation of millions of jobs. The problem is that the mere possession of a job does not sustain a living in this country if the job does not pay a sufficiently livable wage. The reality is that most of the jobs in our economy do not pay livable wages. So, the challenge is to create livable jobs and to make the jobs that are in our economy livable through wage increases or some other type of income support. There are only two top-tier candidates who could successfully make this argument in a national election, Sanders and Warren. There is no other way to beat Trump in this conventionally strong economy.
6
And now for the negatives- Pete Buttigieg is convincing many that 'clean cool' is good for the political environment. Amy Klobuchar wants us to know that the Iron Range was there long before the life affirming boundary waters. Joe Biden wants us to know that the nuclear football in his administration will be encased in styrofoam in case he gets mad & kicks it.
Tune in to the next debate for more exciting observations.
1
I hope NYT or any other media outlet, for that matter, will stop ranking these debates, if not discontinuing these dozens of televised debates. Stop this horserace coverage. The debates generate empty chatters and misleads, as well as misrepresenting and even weakening a perfectly sound candidate with character, reason, conscience, and reasonable amount of experience. After all, talk is cheap. Trained debaters and prosecutors like Klobuchar of course will perform better. Sanders with more televised debate experience on the stage as the presidential candidate, naturally, will perform better. What a waste of time and mental energy? Let the assigned investigative journalists, scholars, and analysts report on each candidate's platform, biography, and record. Let them talk and debate on the soapboxes of the campaign trail - streets, battlefields, hinterlands, suburbs, urban centers, college campuses, small towns and factories. Let them individually be interviewed by impartial journalists and citizens. When push comes to shove, presidential debates between the nominees of DEM and REP doesn't sway one's political preference one way or another, especially one who isn't already well informed of existing problems, policy flaws, or consequences, for he/she has already been seriously brainwashed or misinformed by the disinformation campaign and social networks on the local or familial level. In 2016, Clinton nailed each debate but cost her election. Go figure. Media can do better.
20
@Genevieve Agreed the heavy hand of the NYTimes is on the scale. Their blatant bashing of one candidate is becoming tiresome. What is more important than turning he debates into some vulgar game show, is that candidates get their ideas out there and may the best ideas win. I don’t care about “charming”. “Nice” and “electable”.
@Genevieve
Forget it. Biden is toast.
Elizabeth Warren speaks in the same platitudes again and again. She blasts the current POTUS a little and then back to platitudes. Between her responses and Joe Biden stumbling over every word I tired easily in listening the debate.
Amy Klobuchar and Bernie were standouts as well as Pete B. The tide is rising and these three will continue to float to the top.
3
It is odd that when one of the moderators has a gotcha question it is usually directed towards Pete .It may or may not be problematic for him if he can not draw support from African Americans,if as he proved in Iowa and increasingly it seems in polling nationally he can draw support from Independents and disenfranchised Republican. I am not sure that I totally buy into this narrative the media has created around Pete and race. I have yet to hear of anyone directly accusing him personally of racism. From what I have read the issue mostly stems from the Police department in South Bend .Granted that as Mayor the buck did stop with him however there are many Mayors of much larger cities across the US who have to deal with the exact same problem namely renegade police officers that the Police Chief makes little effort to rein in, running rampant over the rights of minorities.
In terms of his fund raising, I am not totally comfortable with millionaires or billionaires buying access in elections. But in this upcoming 2020 election it is frankly the least of my worries .
Trumps campaign is rolling in cash in order to beat him the eventual Democrat will need to be equally flush. In the end what is the difference between three hundred people donating twenty dollars each, and one donor giving six thousand dollars . All three hundred and one donors have an agenda of some sort which is why they donate.
In the end our goal is to beat Trump, however we get the money to do it.
22
One appealing quality of Klobuchar is her empathy. What I saw and heard last night was that there was one candidate -- Amy -- who is able to express her opinions and policy ideas in terms of how they impact real people. It's not that the others do not have good ideas, they do, and as a group, they are all stable, courageous and progressive.
But AK has the gift of being able to talk policy in real world terms; a perfect example is her often-stated goal of strengthening and expanding long term health care insurance, something that is woefully unaddressed in Washington. With an aging population that is also living longer, it is an issue of imperative social importance.
There is another quality not to be under-estimated. Klobuchar has a wonderful sense of humor. Much of it is self-effacing, and it can also be used as a softer way of making a pointed criticism. (Her quip about Trump attacking the Queen of Denmark -- who does that? -- was right on the mark, and funny).
You know who else had this personality trait? JFK.
I just hope she receives the support required to keep going.
48
@PaulB67
I agree, I like her too, she is able to express herself and provide her difference of opinion without being mean to those she differs with. Such a nice contrast to what we have been listening to from Trump. She's real, she's smart and she has experience.
12
@PaulB67
JFK never threw stuff at his staff in anger, like Klobuchar. Isn't it time we get a politician whose private standards are the same as their public standards?
8
@JohnBarleycorn
I’m surprised she doesn’t get asked about this. It seems like those might have been opposition-generated stories. There has to be more to it than what we heard (like, maybe she had some incompetent staffers? Like maybe she was exhausted and famished?). I do think she needs to put this behind her because it keeps cropping up.
3
Many of the NYT columnists continue to repeat that Yang is a “one issue candidate” and that hand wave misses the point of UBI.
UBI is an efficient method of addressing a host of issues. Instead of having a wide range of policies that require separate pieces of legislation that have to be negotiated, watered down, and passed. All the while political capital is being spent for each separate piece, targeting some segment of society. Very little gets accomplished and it is almost invisible to the country.
Instead of that fragmented, business as usual approach, UBI could address or mitigate:
Wealth inequality
Racial inequality
Erosion of the Middle Class
The welfare trap of means testing
Poverty
Minimum Wage
Living Wage
Heath care costs
Health care access
Child care cost
Child care access
School Choice
School Inequality
Food Deserts
Transportation
Single Parent Households
Abortion
Homelessness
Housing Costs
Housing Access
Main Street Business
Small Business
Stimulating micro and macro economies
Higher Education Costs
Higher Education Access
Campaign Finance
Drug Use
Crime
Weatherization
Job Relocation
Domestic Abuse
Political Polarization
Climate Change
Volunteerism
Depression
Civic Engagement
And on and on...
By making this central his platform if Yang were to win then he would have a popular mandate to spend his political capital to pass legislation that would make substantive change to all the above and more.
UBI isn’t a single issue, it’s almost all the issues!
14
@ Bret Stephens re Yang and automation. You need to read more, then you’d understand the relatively obvious point Yang is making.
19
I still like the basic, human decency and long range of experience that Biden shows.
He's not polished, slick or orchestrated. Call me odd, but I see that as a positive trait.
All of the people on the stage are very different than Trump....and I would gladly vote for any of them if they get the nomination.
But I'd really like to elect a person who is the polar opposite of the current arrogant, self-promoting misogynist. And no one on that stage is more opposite of Trump than Biden.
11
Bernie and his supporters are so much like trump and his it’s just awful. The difference is republicans got in line with trump while democrats will never get in line with Bernie.
17
@Brad This is getting tiresome. When you can’t quarrel with Sanders ideas you bash his supporters. As a 74 year old retired teacher in comfortable circumstances, I support and fund Sanders because I want better life chances for young people and struggling working families.
So how am I like a Trump supporter?
8
@Brad This trope is really old. And it also has the disadvantage of not being true. And -finally - if you can't pick a single hole in Sanders, you switch your fight to his supporters. Believe me, whoever you support - and I don't know who, except that it's clearly not Bernie - they will ALSO have a few undesirable supporters. Just not so many. Because: they won't have so many supporters. So... guess who should get the nomination? Correct. The one with the most supporters: Bernie Sanders!
6
I was unhappy with the moderators. They largely shut Elizabeth Warren out. She kept trying to speak and they wouldn't call on her and kept pitching their questions to other candidates. I notice that three different pundits here make reference to the fact that she didn't get enough air time. Exactly!
I like all the candidates. Each has something useful to say. Any one of them, even the weakest, would be light years better than what we have now. However, Elizabeth Warren remains my favorite and I am angry at the evident effort to shut her down.
13
@Cassandra
She spoke about 30 seconds less than Amy. Fairly equal in my reckoning. The Alpha Males got more time. I think Amy seemed to get considerably more time than Elizabeth because she was more focused and direct.
In past debates, Elizabeth has gotten a lot more time than Amy.
2
Yes, there are a lot of Democratic candidates this year, but what explains the proliferating numbers of pundits? On every channel, the numbers of stools around those ridiculous desks keeps growing, and the people occupying them get more & more shrill. Do we really need a dozen people telling us what we just saw?
19
@ths907 I could not agree more especially I question why ABC has Chris 'Governor Bridgegate 'Christie a Republican Operative commenting on Democrats.
Last night with a straight face and no sense of irony he questioned Pete Buttigieg's integrity.
8
Amy Klobuchar was the obvious winner, but I do wish she'd drop the cheesy melodrama about her "grampa's" coffee can. We get it. She didn't grow up rich.
Bernie and Warren did not disappoint, as ever. Mayor Pete was coasting along until he badly flubbed the question about the increase in marijuana arrests of African Americans during his tenure. His strength in the past was always a candor about his mistakes, but this time he let himself down with an amateurish attempt to deflect/evade. The rest ought to be thinking about folding their tents and going home.
7
@A. Cleary What would a good answer be? There is none.
Trump laid out his campaign in the State of the Union speech,
Middle American baby boomers are getting rich on their 401 K investments. American selfishness will prevail in the next election because Trump will remind citizens that new taxes will endanger the market. Plus he will lie about achievements and we already know most of the electorate don't fact check him.
Plus we have to realize at this point that too many citizens no longer care about militarism, poor people, and racism.
Too many of us fear the "other" and when fear is triggered all the high minded ideas of Pete, Amy, Bernie, and Joe sound like platitudes. Platitudes can be harmless but Trump will make the candidate sound like an existential threat.
We need someone who is sharp enough to be as nasty to Trump as he will be to our candidate. We need a miracle.
11
@Charles Roemer
We don't need a miracle. We need to stop hoping for miracles, accept reality, and work with what we have.
That means "vote blue no matter who" -- and remembering that Congress and Senate majorities are every bit as important as the presidency itself.
10
@Charles Roemer There would be alternative, but it would take a miracle: Adam Schiff.
1
@Charles Roemer We need senator Kamala Harris she is fearless and could chew Trump up.
Do we judge candidates for their policies or for, as many pundits seem to do, their quippy insults of other candidates based on distortions of fact. Aren’t we tired of this from Trump? Showy soundbytes only serve ratings. Once again, I’m left questioning if the debates serve any purpose for us voters in search of substance.
11
Amy is finally proving all the nay-sayers wrong.
She has come into her own demonstrating the pragmatic, tough, experienced voice we need right now.
She is a proven bipartisan who wins in red jurisdictions.
She will skewer the vulgar impeached man currently occupying the White House in the debates without ever having to lower herself to his level.
America is desperate to get beyond the hate and nasty rhetoric of the moment and she does not engage in it.
I predict a lot of Republicans will be backing her when the time comes.
26
I agree! We have to unify to defeat # 45! So please remember that to do so we have to bring along the independents and former Republicans who have a brain and a soul. I have to confess that no matter how much I like their proposed policies, I cannot vote for yet another yelling old, angry white man. We’ve already got that in the White House. I am 100 % behind Amy to win it. I wish people would stop nitpicking her past. We've got to stop requiring women to walk on water to be electable.
26
I have problems with this. None of the characterizations here are about the substance of the job, just gloss overs of likeability etc. I want the facts, M'am. What are they going to do and why. I don't want to hear anything else, except of course whether or not they'd "shred' Trump.
Actually, that's what I'd like to see, each of them going against a team acting like Trump. Scaring Trump who is coming out even more bold than before is not built on confidence. It's built of even more bluster.
I want to know who can knock that bluster down to the shameful drivel that it is.
3
Sanders understands what MOST of us are struggling with. How to pay for health care, university education, housing...? That's is exactly why the youth are behind him. They see no hope for solving these basic issues with a centrist. It is SHAMEFUL the lack of social services and the amount of down and out people living on the streets of America. If the baby boomers who are brainwashed with outdated cold old war rhetoric can think beyond the word "socialism", and the youth get out to vote, he has a strong chance of winning.
10
@Gina DeShera
Those are huge "ifs. ". ,
I am a late-boomer, very liberal Jew -- but I grew up in Texas, so I am also a realist. I love Bernie's ideas, but lesser-know details of his complicated 50+ year personal history will sink him in most of the country. It's noy just the politics.
His supporters may not care, but lots of America will, once Republicans splash it in the headlines. Trump gets away with it only because he has Fox, AM radio, Putin and GOP billionaires watching his back. All those resources will be arrayed *against* Bernie. Not hopeful.
3
@Gina DeShera You nailed it. Trump supporters use that "outdated cold old war" term "socialism" to label Sanders emotionally, diverting attention away from the very things for which Sanders stands. I suppose Trump opponents, responding in kind, could use Il Duce and Der Fuehrer to label Trump.
Klobuchar is the Democrats' JEB of 2016 - the candidate who sane people would have nominated if their party were actually functioning. She'd be a fine president, but we do not deserve a fine president. We deserve the one we've got, and we will confirm that by not nominating Klobuchar and then reelecting the incumbent abomination.
10
@Nemoknada, Amen.
I admit that I had previously given a thought or two to Steyer’s bid, but last night he came across as the guy who shows up in your rear view mirror if you turn him down for a date. Very scary. I hope he and Yang don’t get another chance to take valuable air time from serious candidates.
5
If the Democrats are looking for a female version of the abusive bully in the White House they would have to look no farther than Sen. Klobuchar.
Once again, the desperate Klobuchar, who placed 5th in Iowa, showed her viciousness toward Mayor Pete. Both being in the "moderate" lane, Sen. K apparently sees the Mayor as her number one obstacle in improving her standing in New Hampshire and beyond.
Rather than promoting her own positive achievements, Sen. K repeatedly shows who she really is: a negative attack dog against anybody who dares get in her way. Given the numerous accounts of K's abuse of her own staff, including having the highest staff turnover rate in the entire US Senate, it's unwise and quite ugly for her to keep spewing her venom against Mayor Pete.
Mayor Pete not only has every right to express his disdain for the entire sham "trial" in the Senate, he's expressing the view of the vast majority of Americans (yes, that includes Republicans who mostly love the outcome but are well aware that it's a sham.)
Sen. K does not like being called out for being a part of the failing Congress. But that's exactly what she is. And she's particularly disrespectful in trying to defend it as well.
10
Debate after debate we are told how well Sanders has done. He does not explain what he means by Democratic Socialism or the values thereof, he does not tell us how he will propose to pay to send every young person to university or provide health care for all, he does not account for his view that private health care be declared illegal, and he does not tell us where his Our Revolution gets it's funding from. He repeats his talking points and no one has the courage to actually vet him because the press is so committed to him. I didn't have to read this analysis I know this is the way he will be treated until he wins the nomination, and then Trump will destroy him.
9
@Greg Jones How often do you hear Trump explain that with his tax cuts favoring the upper echelon the national debt keeps rising. He is using the national charge card. For the moment it may seem the user is better off--for the moment.
3
@Greg Jones Defense spending has gone up $200 billion since 2015. Any questions?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/18/us-military-spending-set-increase-fifth-consecutive-year-nearing-levels-during-height-iraq-war/
I feel like reading the journalists opinions is like being in Seinfeld’s bizarro world. I was laughing out loud last night at how inept and annoying Amy Klobuchar was. I even said at one point, she’s done. She is a mess up there on stage. That said I’m beginning to think these debates are too often and not adding value anymore having watched all of them. It’s all sound bites and rhetoric.
7
"Still a Mystery why she (Amy) isn't gaining more ground."
Just might be because the press is NOT giving her a lot of attention.
13
I find it disingenuous for the commentators to criticize Yang when he was virtually ignored by ABC moderators. He had to inject himself in the conversation at one point. In the recap after the debate led by Martha Raddatz there was ZERO mention of his name. Also I don’t recall in any debate or in the NYT interviews with candidates that they asked him about his stance on health care, one of the main concerns among voters. I don’t know if I will support him but he made it to the debate stage and should have been given a fair shot and give voters a better idea of what he stands for.
12
I feel for Yang like I feel for climate change. Completely ignored by the general population, as if we are sheep being driven off a cliff. How is it we are so blind to our fate? It's so obvious that he understands what is happening. He just cannot push hard enough, he kind of backs off like Biden did earlier in the debates.
11
We're starting to see the contours of Buttigieg. For all his strengths, he's sounding more and more the same on every question, very polished but lighter on substance, and that annoying hint of vanity and smugness. Klobuchar delivered a powerhouse performance. I only wish more people who gravitate to her. She's the right age, not too old not too young, a sensible progressive, has a wicked sense of humor and improves every , single debate. She's still climbing as a candidate, the others have all hit top and are maintaining or declining. Go Amy! Biden finally got in the race. I for one am getting used to his delivery, knowing that he stuttered / stutters helps.
15
No Break Outs. No Break Downs. If there was a winner, it was Amy Klobuchar.
Joe took to yelling as a substitute for articulation or passion. Mayor Pete loses on the race trope. Lizzie Warren has an annoying voice. That's just the truth. Bernie was strong with the exception of his guns argument. Steyer made the best points about defeating Trump.
Mike Bloomberg looks better every day. Pragmatic. Centrist. Strong.
9
@Carol Colitti Levine Just what we need. Another 4 years of "staying the course".....
Why do news sources constantly have to tell us who won and who lost a debate? Why aren't we trusted to make up our own minds? In my opinion (yes! I have one! Maybe even more!), I'm capable of choosing among the candidates.
You do citizens a great disservice when you tell them how to think. No wonder people have become so intellectually lazy.
8
Amy’s got the goods, doesn’t scare off the moderates and brings no personal baggage.
You wanna’ beat Trump, common sense is his krypptonite and Senator Ks got it in spades. Her mid west sensibility makes her the obvious choice for swing voters.
Seneator K all the way...
16
I don't understand why so many of your commentators are making a big deal about Klobuchar's FDR riff in her closing -- she's been using it for months, including in at least one prior debate.
4
I thought Pete and Joe were the standouts. Bernie’s usual class warfare falls flat with me. Amy had a great night. Steyer and Yang just aren’t resonating with me. Warren looks like she knows the end is near. My gut tells me Pete wins in NH.
3
@Ijahru
Buttigieg's answer to that yes-or-no question about the drone strike on Suleimani was outstanding -- wise, sensible and clarifying. It made me think he has potential for the future. Right now, though, too many of his responses have been long on rhetoric and light on substance.
5
Throughout these debates there has never been any doubt whatsoever, confirmed by the Iowa caucuses, and soon to be confirmed by the New Hampshire vote, that Bernie Sanders is the peoples choice for President of the United States of America.
He will go on from New Hampshire to win next November, and everything and anything both corporate owned partys, and their mainstream media mouthpieces do, to stymie him, will have zero chance of success, and in fact will increase his following dramatically.
And, to the rapidly declining numbers of naysayers out there, I say this - join us, get onboard this national campaign with Bernie Sanders to take back our future from the abomination we call Trump and his Republican partners, and help us remake our own Democratic Party, end its corruption as well, send the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Biden democrats back into the wilderness of their own minds.
We have one more opportunity at redemption next November; please know that we stupidly threw that opportunity away November 2016; let's not make that awful mistake again.
5
@Mel Farrell You do not help Democratic unity by referring to Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden as Republican-Lite Democrats. I wonder whether Sanders would condone it.
1
How so, Roy ?
A major problem we have here in the United States, especially when we discuss our two political parties, is the unwillingness of adherents in either party, to speak truthfully about their policies.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Trump regime and its Republican partners focus solely on increasing the wealth of corporate America and the wealthiest Americans, as is the case with the Democratic Party these last 40 plus years; look at the level of inequality here in our badly divided nation, look at the devastation wrought on tens of millions of Americans during the so called Great Recession, actually a Depression, and accept that neither party did anything whatsoever to prevent corporate America, especially Big Banking, from literally beggaring millions, destroying their lives, and driving them from their homes.
The so called recovery was engineered to benefit those same corporations and banks, reaping even greater obscene profit while keeping the poor and the middle-class in the same perpetual state of economic slavery and near penury.
The Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Biden Democratic Party, will do everything imaginable to stop Bernie Sanders and reintroduce their status quo disenfranchisement policies.
Bernie Sanders is their recurring waking nightmare.
We all must develop the backbone to tell it like it is.
1
I found the debate incredibly boring. Klobuchar sounded better and the others sounded like same ol’ same ol’. No one had me rearing to go. To borrow a word from Warren....Listen, this campaign will be a full blown MGM war, dirtier than we’ve ever seen. We need someone who can actually beat Trump. And so after much internal debate I am going to put my energy on Bloomberg. As a NYC big wig he knows how Trump, Rudi, et al., tick. He can slice and dice Trump without batting an eye. Hi Mi,e!
7
The rating of candidates' debate performances coupled with relatively superficial comments contributes to the increasing shallowness of our political discourse.
7
When the question came up about whether it was troubling having a socialist label on the head of the ticket, it was five people looking for someone else to address that idea, and Amy Klobuchar's hand shooting unhesitatingly upward. She is focused on what will win in November.
13
So fascinating. Biden’s stunt to shout for an ovation was no different than the TV reality show antics in Trump’s Tuesday speech. Uncle Joe gets moved down further at the Thanksgiving table for his old timey rants, but gets asked to lead grace because of his patriotism. Home from college for the weekend are Pete and Amy bringing their sharp views and perspectives. Worth considering. But Warren has the brains, thoughtfulness, grace to restore lost American dignity and composure to serve the turkey in the WH on a platter.
4
Mayor Pete is smooth. Just don’t parse his answers too closely. If you do, you will start to realize there’s less there there than you first perceived. Or, as Walter Mondale once said, “where’s the beef?”
6
Not sure why there is such a cynical attitude about Steyer. His closing statement about Democratic values was much more eloquent than the typical red meat, angry rhetoric of Sanders or Warren.
4
Liz Mair nailed Warren’s problem with the lecturing/hectoring thing: So and Look. If she dropped those she’d seem less like a know-it-all. She also needs breath training, stat. She’s got that thing a lot of women have to work against—let me get it all in before I get cut off.
11
It's ironic (pathetic?) that Trump so thoroughly risked his presidency (ok, I was a hopeful liberal) over concerns about the threats Biden posed to his re-election. Biden is now and never was anything more than a mythological challenge.
It's the shots (Buttigieg, Sanders, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Warren) you don't hear coming that get you.
6
I have my favorites but what does it matter? Every one of these people are vastly superior in every way to the monster we currently have. We must support whoever the nominee is because our country truly depends on it.
18
This is all fine but I'm voting for Mike Bloomberg in my state's primary.
I want Trump OUT of our White House!
9
Amy Klobuchar is the Walter Mondale of 2020. Mondale only carried Minnesota in 1984 against Reagan...who by the way was the forerunner of Trump but with more class.
4
Once again, Trump won.
This is the worst bunch of candidates ever.
If you’re running to be the president of America, ya might want to be pro-American. Just a thought.
2
I am reading up more regarding Klobuchar and Bloomberg and I voted for Bernie in 2016!
The point is this:
ABt (Anyone But trump!)
15
Amy will be the first ever political candidate I will financially support.
15
To debate: discussing issues from at least two different perspectives with insight and demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of the topic. Therefore presenting the proposed policies of each candidate are essential for citizens. For example, an any of the candidates offer exceptionally smart policies for Americans such as job creation paired with health, education, or extreme weather events? When will the necessary debates on issues begin?
5
@Vicki Hallelujah!!!
1
The more I listen, the more certain I am that Bernie IS trump.
3
These opinion columns on the debates are a bigger joke than the debates. That takes some doing.
Pitchers and catchers report next week.
Why in the world must there be a winner and losers in one of the most important political events in our country? Why not have a round table with a moderator asking questions how would you handle or what is your policy on....then we could see how each candidate communicates, handles pressure and we still their ability to compromise and propose solutions? The only real winner is the one who gets elected, the rest is phooey and promotes attacks and aggression on other candidates and we the public are so tired of that and the whole winner loser mentality...
11
Three of these ten assessments have Steyer beating or on par with Mayor Pete. Seriously? Steyer is incredibly annoying, irrelevant, and his presence on the stage is a travesty, proof that you can buy your way into a crucial debate.
3
These debates, and the "analysis" you and others are providing, are such a waste of time. This is entertainment...a mix between reality TV and gladiator sports. Bating the candidates to attack each other, reporting on quips and "got'ya"s instead of substance, ranking the performances like a horse race....I'm sure now that the media is a big part of the downfall of democracy. Instead, you should be keeping the issues and the facts of what Republicans are currently doing and what Democrats are proposing to do front and center...so people will vote on what's important and not just personality.
4
"Bret Stephens (π/10) — Hard to take seriously a guy who thinks automation is a serious threat to prosperity, the most economically illiterate idea of the last 500 years."
Famous last words.
5
@CL Bret Stephens, once again failing to grasp what life is like for most people.
Standards and measures and why do we hold these individuals up as opinion analysts? Your points are petty and personal and disregard the large public’s mass reactions.
2
Klobuchar’s “final riff on F.D.R.” was neither spontaneous nor new: I’ve heard her give it in almost the exact same words before. It is becoming the equivalent of Kamala Harris’ story about the little girl being bussed to school, and “that little girl was me.” And what exactly is her big problem with Buttigieg? I though she was pouncing on him like a rabid raccoon.
Need I add that I don’t like her or her policies and find her unfit for the oval office?
6
Currently supporting Pete in hopes of having a clear front-runner who is broadly attractive and articulate. He really, really needs a better response to the black questions about his tenure. Amy actually made me wipe a tear... Bernie is always as advertised. Warren and Biden? As they say where my family's from "Bless their hearts"...
3
I hope Sen. Klobuchar can win Iowa. The number one rule of politics is to give the voters what they want. Consistently, the Democrats have said they want Trump out of office.
The second rule of politics is the same as for doctors: Do no harm. Sanders has the socialism albatross around his neck; Warren (who I used to support) has the big spender, take your private insurance away, albatross; And Biden, has the age/record/impulsiveness/news media ANCHOR around his neck.
So for me, it's either Amy or maybe, Mayor Pete (who may have a black voter albatross).
To everyone who wishes for someone else to get in race: Jesus Christ aint coming back a third time - of course, if he did, after his first debate, you'd want Buddha.
3
Bernie, who is by all accounts now himself a millionaire, has dropped “millionaires” from his repetitive and tedious critique of “millionaires and “billionaires” in his stump speeches showing not only how empty and rote the talking point is but how little he thinks of voters.
2
Klobuchar was indeed outstanding. But Pete was awful in the sense that he had no answer to the question of why the arrest rate for Blacks went up during his tenure as South Bend mayor. The fact that his average is higher than Biden’s—and that Biden is downgraded by Goldberg on the basis of an out of context distortion to his line about the politics of the past being not so bad—shows the built-in pundit bias against Biden that has been evident throughout this election season.it also shows how the pundit’s quest for the witty observation can overwhelm reality. Biden cites things like his anti-violenc-against -women act as evidence that the politics of the past were not that bad. To disagree, you almost have to support violence against women.
2
Klobuchar for president. Bernie for VP. Now that's a ticket!
5
Senator Klobuchar has found her campaign slogan. "I know you" will go a long way!
11
Thanks; I can do my own analysis. A.Kolch is as much like F.D.R. as Trump is to Truman. Just because A. Kolch can find compatibility with the voters of Minna., doesn't
she will be accepted by the Red State Trump fanatics; most likely not.
state
I meant to close with Go Mike! Hi Mike will do too.
3
I too see this as the correct order:
Amy Klobuchar (Best Chance POTUS)
Bernie Sanders (I believe in Him)
Elizabeth Warren (I believe in Her)
Pete Buttigieg (Future cycles)
Joe Biden
(Joe projects his soul)
Andrew Yang
(Artistry can benefit the mind)
Tom Steyer (Keep fighting four the environment brother. Thank you)
6
I do like them all; they are decent humans with good ideas and they mean well. Which means they are precisely the kinds of people America does not want to have in charge of anything; they are precisely the kinds of people who will be toast in the national elections.
We are in an America which twice elected Bush and Nosferatu (Cheney, who chortles every time someone is bombed) so they could blow up every good thing, then a Trump so we could have a truculent child who will destroy everything, and Rush is now a national hero. Not one of the dem candidates is woke to this reality of a coarse, cruel, self-destructive America, and thinks that they plans to save everyone will resonate. They resonate with absolutely no one.
While I am a big supporter of Warren, and will vote for her in the NY primary, I hope Bloomberg is on the eventual ticket. It takes a streetfighter.
7
Please don’t continue this “Winners & losers” format. A debate is such a tiny snapshot in time. Maybe “Debate Recap”...
So many prejudices, nuances & luck play into & skew the debate format, and the “loser” label is demeaning.
To state the obvious, how much airtime each candidate is given is key to any candidate’s ability to make their case. This fact is largely overlooked by so many pundits and commentators.
Warren was given much less airtime relative to her standing after Iowa. 50% less !? than Biden, for example.
Instead of analyzing spectacle, please focus on plans, policy, skill, experience & the curiosity needed to improve our nation, not on who delivered the best zinger in a given moment: there are seldom one-liner answers to most complex, important issues.
8
One other thought.....and I have to admit I did not watch the debate.....If Klobuchar does not get a bounce and the overwhelming consensus is she hit it out of the park last night, you have to ask why ? If she was that good and looks like she could beat Trump, why are people not supporting her? If last night wasn't enough for people, what does she have to do to convince people? Does she not check off all the boxes for people? Intelligent, broad support, track record of winning, willingness to reach across the aisle and get things done, moderate, lack of apparent baggage, from the midwest..... She checks off all my boxes. Open your eyes and your minds, Democrats. Do you want to win in November or not?
7
@Walking Man I have supported Senator Klobuchar since she announced, (actually before). She is as smart as a whip, she would serve Trump up on a platter, and she would be a fine president. She would also do wonders to restore America's reputation internationally. I think that she has largely been ignored by the media, and the party, until last night. I suspect that both are nervous about a woman in the top spot on the ticket. It is horrible to even say it, but I think that it is true. They beat Warren down, but not Sanders, over the same issues.
7
"Isn’t a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?" -Bret Stephens
Dear Bret,
You would know.
Sincerely,
Every thinking person in the US.
8
I find it disingenuous for the commentators to even rate Yang with much confidence because the abc moderators barely even acknowledged that he was there in the debate. In fact he had to force his way into the conversation at one point. Probably should have done it more. Then in the after-debate recap led by Martha Raddatz he was mentioned ZERO times. Maybe he would have more to say if news outlets would give him even the opportunity. Not once has he been questioned at any debate or even NYT interviews with each candidates about his stance on health care, probably the most important issue of dems. I don’t know if I will support Yang or not but would like to hear from him more.
4
Repetition of policy, sticking to talking points, making clear where one stands: Bernie scored well for this, Yang is excoriated. This is either racism, DNC indoctrination, or both. Yes, today's readers are expected to have the attention span of toddlers, but there's actually only a few inches of column between the double standards espoused here. You make it hard to take our "opinions," credibly when they are so...hmm...repetitive? Stuck to talking points? Singularly making clear of your perspective? Yes, you only have 30 or so words for each candidate, but stop using the same 30 words over and over. These are phoned in responses, and the columnists' disinterest in the debate is, of all of the opinions, the most obvious one.
3
As a voter in the Midwest, I continue to be confused as to why candidates and pundits think a candidate’s roots are a primary consideration for getting my vote. I don’t care if you’re from the Moon, what are your policies, what’s your plan? Enough with the Midwest pandering and stop with the “Midwest nice” — anyone who actually knows the Midwest knows this is a myth.
7
Biden looks like he missed the turn for the bingo room at the senior center. The Hunter thing as anything but a sinecure and nepotism in Ukraine will never go away. Bernie always "sounds" okay but decades of Rush, Fox "News" and the Tea Party is so ingrained now in the populace that Bernie sounds like a rainbow salesman. Mayor Pete is the mayor of platitudes. I think Mayor Mike is the only chance the democrats have to change the WH.
6
NONE impress. I'd be inclined to say Klochubar is the answer but she isn't strong, either. Bloomberg is out there in dark but can/will the Dem Party rally around a one-percenter...the very kind of person they have been hammering for years? What a mess.
3
Why, exactly, is Biden "on the ropes", etc.? Oh, because he's at 13%, which is one whole point below Warren's 14%? Which is six or eight points below Sanders? And there's a 4% margin of error in the particular poll of the day or week you "journalists" all let determine your words and thoughts (still don't remember all those 2016 polls for Hillary, huh?).
I'm so tired of hearing the biased nonsense and the internal bickering you foment in these articles and likewise on the air. It's simply counterproductive and feeds Republican re-election efforts--a real gift to Trump. And it doesn't do a thing for the Democrats or to educate readers/your public.
3
Oh Bret, how about your insistency on bashing Bernie being a sign of a little mind too then? At least Sanders could admit that he had changed his mind on gun control as the times had changed.
5
Is Liz Mair so out of touch that she didn't see Warren has already begun to address the situation in Nevada? Why should we be interested in these opinions if they are so poorly researched and so unequally aimed? Mair gave Warren a 5/10 and Biden a 7.5/10 because he was "animated." Does that mean that he did a good job of standing and smiling?
1
I’m afraid this presentation of NYT writers’ opinions of the debates is often more the writer’s opinion of the candidate, and not of their actual performance in the debate. Consider, for instance, Brett Stephens’ gratuitous swipe at Sanders about being routinely consistent. Irrelevant. Besides, didn’t he say he changed his thinking about gun control?
4
Klobuchar is not my candidate (I’m backing Warren and that’s not going to change) but the righteous anger and passion she brings to dismantling ‘Platitude Pete’ is truly a joy to behold... chef’s kiss.
I must confess when Klobuchar says that “I beat five men”, I’ve got to pause to debate whether she meant electorally... or physically!
2
This band of amateurs has absolutely no chance against Mr. Trump.
1
@Thomas Aquinas
This does not sound like the sort of thing St. Thomas would say.
The RNC must be ecstatic, the new red hats will be, TCFaB, (taking candy from a baby).
1
Be fair. The moderators hardly noted Tom Steyer's repeated requests to respond. Rude, Rude, Rude. He speaks well, and has put HIS own fortune into repressing our dictatorial president. His affect is not goofy; it's good-willed. This is not speed dating for heaven' sake.
8
For fun, let's grade the comments for wit cum incisiveness. I nominate these three, all by Stevens. Guy can turn a phrase.
Tom Steyer: "Why is this guy even onstage? He’s Mike Bloomberg with less money, less appeal and no lane."
Andrew Yang: "Hard to take seriously a guy who thinks automation is a serious threat to prosperity, the most economically illiterate idea of the last 500 years."
Joe Biden: :Watching Joe Biden perform is a bit like watching a high school play: You’re rooting for the players, you’re grading on a curve, and you’re grateful they remember their lines. But you also know it isn’t Broadway."
1
It's the corruption! Warren knows that if we don't fight corruption all other policies will not matter.
Unlimited money + Unlimited Power = Unlimited Corruption + Unlimited Injustice
1
It’s time to put fewer people on the stage......use polls to narrow the field with local polls getting more weight
1
Let's get Bloomberg on the stage, Yang and Steyer off. This isn't a DRESS REHEARSAL, folks!!
6
I can not disagree more with the Times bubble think analysis. Yang continues to be the only candidate I will support. The putdowns here here just display, stunning ignorance (Stevens on automation), or grotesque hypocritical partisanship (Goldberg on Trump "crimes" shtick). One of the most off-putting moments the debate for me is the blind support lent to Hunter Biden, and his dad. Now there is a crime for you. Whether or not it is "legal". Frankly, it is worse if it is legal. It just goes to show with the right connections and playbook you can get away with anything while without them you are a common criminal. I am so tired of the answer to every question being a long repetitive diatribe on Trump followed by five seconds of "I'll do it differently". The second most off-putting moment was Biden bullying the audience to give a standing ovation to Vindman. Pure megalomania on display.
1
Nor surprise: The Times staff is defending their two endorsements. As much as I believe America is overdue for a woman president, it's not going to be Klobuchar or Warren.
3
Amy K will be the first female POTUS. That is assuming that she accepts the VP offer made by Mike Bloomberg this Fall.
5
Why can't the opinion-makers here at the New York Times learn to see the candidates through the eyes of a broader range of Americans? A lot of the takes here are so five-boroughs. Talk about smugness, the New York Times is noted for it. It inflects every editorial decision on the paper, except in pieces that are breaking reporting. I support Pete. He speaks to my instincts in a good way. If the writers here were so accurate in their readings of people and the country's needs, the paper would have been signalling confidence in Pete before Iowa. So since a bunch of people in Iowa seem to believe as I do, what are you guys missing about Pete? That's where you need the broader viewpoint.
5
Instead of watching the debate watched “The Good Liar”.
1
Interesting how Sanders, despite his one-theme show (“Billionaires and millionaires are the cause of all your problems”), still cleaned up in the eyes of NYT pundits. Hmmm.
Bret cracks me up
Watch out for "group think".
1
I can not disagree more with the Times bubble think analysis. Yang continues to be the only candidate I will support. The putdowns here here just display, stunning ignorance (Stevens on automation), or grotesque hypocritical partisanship (Goldberg on Trump "crimes" shtick). One of the most off-putting moments the debate for me is the blind support lent to Hunter Biden, and his dad. Now there is a crime for you. Whether or not it is "legal". Frankly, it is worse if it is legal. It just goes to show with the right connections and playbook you can get away with anything while without them you are a common criminal. I am so tired of the answer to every question being a long repetitive diatribe on Trump followed by five seconds of "I'll do it differently". The second most off-putting moment was Biden bullying the audience to give a standing ovation to Vindman. Biden megalomania, which regularly exhibits, on display.
“No snotty one-liners” from Klobuchar?
Did Mimi Swartz actually watch the debate?
Klobes has always been a treasure trove of rehearsed jokes
1
You should use the median instead of the mean to average the candidates' scores, so it will be more reflective of the various opinions.
3
I've been saying all along that Sen Klobuchar is the best candidate the Dems have. She's smart and she has reasonable ideas. She can beat Trump in his own backyard.
13
Sanders is the only candidate with a strong, unimpeachable, lengthy record of accomplishments and is also the most firm, mature, and measured in his responses. He is the only one who will be able not only to stand up to Trump, but to do so in a way that will command the respect of those whom we need to attract if we are going to win. I don't think most Democrats understand how childish, snarky, smug, and privileged they look to non-Democrats in their incessant self-congratulatory attacks on Trump. Remember, those who supported Trump are the ones we now need to recruit if we are going to win. Sanders is the only lead candidate whose only real platform is attacking Trump. He is no Johnny-come-lately in his dedication to help the poor, working, and middle classes; and most important, he is not beholden to the rich. These profoundly distinguish him from the other candidates, and they play very well to the poor and working classes who have been burned by the wealth-backed Democrats and Republicans alike for years. They are suffering thanks to both parties' indifference to them. That's why they voted for Trump. Let's elect a candidate who can bring poor and working class voters back to the tent, as Sanders already showed in Iowa, with an impressive turnout of diverse voters.
8
@Valerie
Exactly what has he accomplished?
I am glad Senator Klobuchar is getting the attention I think she deserves from these commentators. This morning, it is snowing in my corner of Georgia—a reminder of the day she announced her candidacy in a snowstorm. Hatless and gloveless, she spoke for 22 minutes with passion and conviction. The more I see of her, the more impressed I am with her intelligence, her dedication to public service, her knowledge of good governance, and her ability to deliver for Minnesotans. The opposite of trump in every conceivable way, she is the President our republic needs.
17
These articles on candidate performance always feel like grooming sessions by corporate media lobbyists. If the night's big take away is that Amy Klobuchar is still the most qualified and viable candidate, I invite the columnists to revisit her Iowa performance. She doesn't poll well with the average citizen because she comes off like a snooty middle school librarian.
7
I am getting so sick and tired of the new trend that leans towards political pundits telling the voters how to think.
This article (and all the ones like it that are published this morning ) is the perfect example.
Show us the CANDIDATES. We can make up our own minds as to how they are doing. We don't need your tutorials, thank you.
I watch all day as cable television goes from panel to panel of "expert" politicos telling me how this or that candidates words and actions will sway this or that demographic one way or the other. We don't need this, thank you.
Instead, how about showing us the actual CANDIDATES on the campaign trail. We don't need to hear from the imbeds standing outside each campaign event ... we need to hear (at least snippets of) the event itself.
Voters are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
Leave the punditry to analyze why they think a particular caucus or primary went the way it did AFTER the fact.
Stop telling us what to think and feel as we decide for ourselves.
Please, just stop.
15
@Gary Waldman I love these analyses by some of the most astute observers. If you don't like this just don't read it.
3
It’s like being forced to go to an auto dealership showroom in the 70’s and being forced to choose between a Chevy Vega or an AMC Pacer. Or you could be forced to go to the used car lot outside and choose between a 1964 Plymouth Valiant with push button transmission or a 1972 Ford Maverick. There is nothing there. Nothing but heartache and high maintenance that always weighs on one’s mind when waiting for the next breakdown.
5
It was the first debate I’d seen in a long, long time. Perfect night to watch it. My initial, unadulterated thoughts in an email to friends follows:
Yang is the smartest guy on the stage.
Buttigieg is the most like Obama, but he will have trouble getting the black vote. He should work hard to get Booker’s endorsement.
Steyer and Bernie are the most correct.
Biden has the best chance of beating Trump if everything remains the same (i.e. the economy doesn’t collapse).
Warren is too excited. (I’d almost say “frantic.”)
Klobuchar has always struck me as “nervous,” but she had the strongest closing.
3
@Tell the Truth
Warren doesn't disguise her feelings. She was a corporate lawyer who recognized the wrongness of what she saw and had the courage to do something to change it.
Her intensity is her desire to make life better for people. She showed us how good a lawyer and skilled at government she is with the design of the CFPB.
4
@Tell the Truth Ugh, I hope you can see that your impression that the women were "nervous" and "frantic" reflects a bias about women. You only take the men seriously?
I’ve read several commentators who have taken to fawning over Amy Klobuchar’s invocation of FDR, and by extension the administration he led.
So how is it both she and the press have almost nothing for non-stop derision and criticism for the candidate (Sanders) whose platform best embodies the spirit and substance of the New Deal?
It’s almost like the Democratic “middle” and the press are giving lip service to the issues, while being perfectly fine with the status quo.
10
@Matt
Bernie should try smiling every few months. I’m tired of the scowls and angry demeanor. He doesn’t convince me of his proposals, they will never pass in Congress.
4
I like the way Joe sprung out of the gate with a real burst of energy. If the debates were all quarter miles instead of one and a half, Joe would still looks good. For me a part time respectable POTUS rather than a full time embarrassment of one is by far preferable.
5
@John Doe Joe’s history of bad judgment calls is troubling and he looked almost ghostly last night.
When the DNC in 2017 was considering among the five candidates for chairman I was hoping Pete Buttigieg would have been chosen. It's just possible he would have served his party better in that position. Of the five candidates for chairman the one I did NOT want was the one they chose.....
5
The DNC needs to take a hard look at its rules for debate participation. At least two of the candidates on state last night are polling in the very low single digits, at best, while another candidate, whose numbers are well above theirs and rising steadily, was not there?
4
Waiting for Bloomberg to get into the debates. I have followed his actions and spending on climate change and gun control. If he can lay out a plan for healthcare, that would just be the thing. Amy really helped herself in last nights debate. Biden seems like he should come to terms with his decline in energy. I love him but its time he takes a rest and use whats left of his energy to support others.
9
Amy Klobuchar is the uniter of boomers and millennials, Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban voters that Biden and Buttigieg merely aspire to be. She is a true public servant who is treated like a family member at the Minnesota State Fair because of her accomplishments in helping people disentangle their lives. As president, she would know all the right buttons to press in Congress and would be eager to trade on her relationships with GOP Senate stalwarts. As we saw in the debate, Amy knows how to cut people up with a phrase and a smile, and her prosecutorial skills serve her well. When minority voters realize she pays more than lip service to bridging divides, her candidacy will take off.
17
@Gary
Naw. Thanks no. She's got nothing. You love her, she's one of yours, I get that. But she ain't all that and she's gonna bore the rest of the country to tears. Let's see her debate Bloomberg and Sanders point blank. She'll get eaten alive, and that's before she has to slay the dragon....IF she survives next week.
Klobuchar and Buttigieg won the debate. But the real winner was the democratic party. What a group of thoughtful intelligent and kind people. Any of the candidates are worlds better than Trump. Bernie needs to press his followers into embracing the ideals he espouses and move beyond the cult of personality. That Bernie supporters could vote for Trump shows they embraced the rage without hearing the substance of his message.
17
The real loser in this debate, once again, was climate change, which, per usual, the moderators raised as an afterthought, though the candidates themselves were more than willing to discuss its urgency and offer their plans.
If anything exposes the insularity of the East Coast media elite, it is the world-threatening reality of climate change.
20
@David agree completely. They all gave the safe answer that they want to fight climate change. How about pressing them on specifics. How would they reapply the CAFE auto emissions standards that Trump is wrecking? Funding mass transit? High speed rail in America?
2
@David
Once Bloomberg is in the debates, that will change. Is anyone but me reading ‘Bloomberg Green?’ It’s a new initiative as part of Bloomberg News to bring climate change front and center. Further, he has funded a number of research labs doing work that will help us deal with climate change.
After reading his recent Times op-ed where he talks about raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations and closing loopholes in the tax code, I’m favoring Mike over the rest of the field. He’s going to get two things done that need to be done NOW—raise taxes on the wealthy and deal with climate change.
1
The primary process is badly broken. Endless debates that draw only the party faithful are predictable and tedious. I am guessing there are many people who have not yet tuned in, and won't. There are thoughtful proposals out there for reform, and the party should think hard about them. The voice of "the people" doesn't emerge from this mess. Ultimately, this is not a virtue contest but a political one, something of incredible importance at this moment in history, given the stakes.
3
Agree with most of the evaluations, but have to take issue with Bret Stephens. Andyu Yang is 100% right to be concerned for the future, his problem is that he's a decade or two ahead of his time. He is pointing out the fatal flaws in all of the heart-warming liberal/progressive ideas: they assume that education and "good union jobs" will reduce wealth and social inequality, when they can't do that. E.g.~ 1/4 of all American jobs depend on driving a vehicle (bus, truck, etc.). What happens to all of those jobs when we are all driver-less? Robots are becoming more sophisticated - where do the workers go? AI is improving at a rapid clip, meaning that even knowledge industry jobs are increasingly threatened. Check out the sports columns that are generated by computers. Look up "The Robot Scientist" if you want a glimpse of where even science is headed. Yang is saying that we need a fundamental rethink of how to reward everybody in society - otherwise concentration of wealth and power into smaller and smaller groups will increase.
Unfortunately, many people, including Mr. Stephens, don't get the dire seriousness of the problem. Like Bernie and most on stage last night, those folks are stuck in the past, thinking that yesterday's social panaceas will be enough. Face it, we can't all be dot.com entrepreneurs and what worked in the good old days won't work in the future. Andy Yang is unelectable in 2020, but he's right, and the sooner we catch up with him the better.
18
@TheOlPerfesser Couldn't agree more! It saddens me how people stop at their knee-jerk reactions of "cash giveaway" when talking about UBI. UBI is definitely difficult to truly appreciate, since it goes against everything most of us have grown to believe in about work and resources. But I would hope that as a respected news outlet, the NYC journalists could at least go to youtube and watch one of the great 5 minute introductions UBI.
Also, Yang is far from a single issue candidate, but a UBI+VAT is also the most progressive, equitable, simplest proposal that this society has ever witnessed. It's a fallacy to think that a "simple" policy can not be good, quite the opposite.
5
@TheOlPerfesser Bret Stephens finds platitudinous Pete "mostly persuasive." I wouldn't worry too much about what he thinks.
3
@nr - UBI is an idea that we may have to accept in the future, but it won't sell today. Maybe if it were turned into UJFBI, Universal Jobs for Basic Income, you could get more people on board. I think we should set up job training centers as we did in the 1930's and have people building housing for the homeless, repairing road/bridges, managing day care centers, health clinics, addiction treatment centers, etc. There are no end of needs in our community but no way for people to get the training & resources to help.
It seems to me that Sanders has pretty much the same answer to every question posed to him. He seems like a cranky old guy with a cult like following. I fear that 45 will have a hay day with the socialist thing. Also, remember, according to the Mueller report, Russian actors sought to boost his presidential primary campaign and sink Hillary Clinton's in 2016, therefore he has never had to face the full furry and wrath of the trump/Russian and trump base disinformation machine. I really hope that the eventual candidate will be a moderate, or even Elizabeth Warren as opposed to Sanders. The goal should be to get a candidate with the best chance of defeating 45. And, I hope that Sanders will be much quicker and assertive at supporting that candidate then he was in 2016.
21
@PK Perhaps Sanders and the others need to get into the “Despot” and “Stalinist” language mode by way of response to Trump the Lump?
Anyone with a sense of history should be appalled that Amy Klobuchar invoked FDR. She spends most of her debate time dismissing New Deal-style programs as pipe dreams.
25
@Max Robe - You must not understand that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, etc. are New Deal programs.
It's ironic that when a moderate like Amy Klobuchar expresses her deep admiration for FDR, the press swoons. Yet in FDR's time he was shredded by the press for being a "socialist". Even more ironic is that Bernie Sanders is by far the closest candidate to FDR, and yet he constantly maligned by the press for being a "socialist".
We need a much more rigorous discourse in our politics and a press that is true to history.
25
Well, Sanders is at least the closest candidate to FDR in age! Don't forget this phony "progessive's" endorsement of the arch-corporatist and U.S. Senate carpetbagger Hillary Clinton in 2016.
I sure haven't. And Sanders is not only too old, but also too ill to serve even one term as president (as is Biden). Not to mention, too spineless. If he couldn't stand up to the likes of Hillary, how could he be expected to stand up to some hostile foreign leader like Putin or Kim Jong Il?
There should be an age limit on running for president. Airline pilots are required to retire at 65, so why shouldn't professional politicians be required to do the same?
@Joan Klobachar mentioned FDR, but did not adopt his policies, that is the difference. It was just lip service.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
2
@Joan Not just a press true to history. But a public that knows and understands their history.
Hey, NY Times Editors: time for a recap of why we have Social Security and who is paying for it. (Hint: the workers themselves but also the future’s young workers.)
Amy Klobuchar is the best choice. She was great. While I like Sanders and Buttigieg, they will be easy for Trump to defeat. Women will turn out for Amy as she doesn't have the baggage that Hillary had and will be the first woman POTUS. It is time.
44
I mailed in my CA ballot before this debate. I'm pleased to see that my candidate, Klobuchar, was rated top by the NYT. I have always been impressed with her level-headed approach to politics and the articulate manner she uses to explain her positions. I hope we can see that she may not be the Italian Mama Pelosi but she's got what it takes to strike where it hurts.
26
@Zighi too bad... have you read what she supports on Minnesota waters? Horrific results... her really bad view on the continued war on Venezuela? She is a Republican basically
1
From Bret Stephens on Biden: "Watching Joe Biden perform is a bit like watching a high school play: You’re rooting for the players, you’re grading on a curve, and you’re grateful they remember their lines. But you also know it isn’t Broadway."
Pure genius!
13
I like Yang's Star Trekesque idea of a national monthly minimum income for every adult in the U.S. and thank Steyer for all he has done to fight Trump and spur on the effort to impeach him, but their candidacies are going nowhere.
I would vote for Biden but unfortunately, I believe his time has passed.
Elizabeth Warren just does not instill in me any confidence at all that she is capable of being commander in chief, the rest of the job, yes, but not that part and that is very, very important to me.
Bernie Sanders socialist leanings so not scare me, his seeming inability to bend does.
That brings me to Amy and Pete...or Pete and Amy. I can live with that ticket in either order.
10
"... still a mystery why she (Amy) isn't gaining more ground." Maybe I can help. My rational mind knows she is the smartest kid in the class, articulate, and well prepared. My emotional self finds her to be that smart kid everyone loves to hate. And although Mayor Pete, as front runner, deserved all incoming, when she slices into someone, that story about her berating her staff comes to mind. And I visualize her eating her salad with a comb while pulverizing the staffer for not bringing her a fork. Help me to blot it out of my mind!
(And I am also tired of her " I opened my campaign in a blizzard story. ")
8
@Peggy Sherman We need someone who can slice into Trump. Most important qualification.
How I wish Mike Bloomberg could have been part of this debate. Perhaps if all of us who support him could have chipped in $3 to show the broadness of his support etc. I clicked on his site and got a thank you with no request for money. As he says he is beholden to no one except perhaps the voters. No dark money here and he puts his money where his mouth is. When all these young people prove to me they will actually vote in great numbers I will not support the candidates they love. When they prove to me they know who George McGovern is, I might think better of them. I know what happened from direct experience. When anyone of them can name one significant thing Bernie has done during his long time as a Senator call me. Voting against going into Iraq is significant? Want to give President Corrupt and Venal another 4 years stick with Bernie to the bitter end but be careful what you wish for. (Bret nice shout out to Emerson.)
Don't pretend to know how African Americans will vote until they actually vote.
11
@amp If you don’t vote out of pique, you are turning your power over to the conservative voter whose hate of others motivates him to the polls to vote for the biggest hating bully of them all. Is that what you want to do?
Your choice.
I started this election year rooting for Warren, but this debate cemented my growing support for Klobuchar. As I've gotten to hear her in debates and interviews, I've become convinced she's a solid, practical, tough, and good-hearted person, exactly the right one to unify a large variety of democrats, win back those Midwestern states, and defeat Trump.
Sending her a contribution today.
35
I could, and absolutely WILL, Vote for ANY of these fine, qualified Candidates. United we Stand, Divided we’re Trumped.
It’s THAT Simple.
83
I was frustrated with Warren's lack of time. Every time she spoke, it resonated with me. But here they were, giving the men the questions. And when she was finally speaking, all the men were waving their hands wildly, even though she wasn't talking about them. Why was she slighted?
15
I can’t believe how many think Bernie is a winner. Same one trick pony over and over. Amy won hands down. But where is Bloomberg? This was a moment we needed to hear from him. Steyer nailed the point perfectly. We all believe in these things but how do we beat trump. He now has a huge political machine, and we don’t even have a candidate.
25
Your graphic showing Buttigieg and Warren in the middle may be portentous. Americans in the aggregate are middle of the roaders. They don't like extremes on either end, no matter how compelling the argument. While Sanders is a demagogue of the left who won't even live to see his policies emplaced, Klobuchar has a weird name, as does Buttigieg. Warren may be chosen to be the voice of America, even though a woman president is still unthinkable to many. The usual crapshoot against Trump, who just became God.
2
It's high time the Democratic candidates begin to spend half their time campaigning for the Democratic candidate, no matter who that turns out to be. Because, as Ben Franklin said: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
5
@polymath Your recommendation would be helped along if at least half of the candidates would give their ego a rest, drop out of the race, and support the candidate that would best represent their positions
5
@mjs79 Yeah, too bad Bernie the ego on steroids guy didn’t do that about 4 years ago. He really had no right at all to even enter that race, what with him not being a Democrat and all, and then spreading Russian propaganda. He did Trump’s job for him.
I think Bernie was the clear winner. He demonstrated why he is doing so well in this race, and why he receives almost 80% of the vote in his senate races (25% of republicans are voting for him). His clarity, sincerity, boldness of vision and down to earth common sense is refreshing to those who actually listen to him. What many pundits often miss in their analysis of his electability is his immense political talent. Something that transcends particulars of ideology and policy detail. He has some of the magic that Reagan, Obama, and Trump have used to win over even those who are not completely sold on their policy agenda. His authenticity and wisdom, in combination with his clear answers to the major problems facing the country have a powerful appeal.
23
I just feel as though the Senators who go after Mayor Pete have never been in his shoes. They have never tried to manage a failing community and tried to overcome systemic racism. They don't have to daily fight the everyday problems of a diverse group of people and try to overcome the anger that divides us all. Yes, he probably made mistakes, but I would take that effort (even failed) over a bunch of people trying to legislate the solutions on Capitol Hill while never spending more than a few days in the midst of chaos. They seem so smug about their laws and and ideas but has anyone noticed any real changes because of their actions? Pete is smart and I think he learns from his experience. Bernie hasn't changed in 40 years and where are we because of him. And if Warren proposes one more plan while living in her Ivory tower, I think my brian will melt. Pete is looking to the future, Most of the Senators are just listing their" I did this, I worked with so and so". I want to see them in the trenches and then talk to me.
26
@Concerned
You do know that Sen. Sanders was a mayor too who had to deal with the exact same problems as Buttigieg? Bernie has been warning us what this country is descending into, a stressed out oligarchy ripe for a demagogue to come along and hijack us, yes, the last forty years. In other words, he's been spot on, while the rest of the clueless politicians try to paper over the dysfunction in our systems. Buttigieg is a smart smooth talker who will try to string us along the same path.
19
@FXQ Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s is not South Bend, Indiana in the 2010s/2020s.
South Bend is a great scale model of the entire rust belt and any area of the country that experienced deindustrialization.
10
@Michael Berndtson You are correct. Burlington, VT is a thriving city that had a very small minority population in the 1980's.
3
Klobuchar seems ideal to someday be Senate Leader. She's a natural for dealing with the tangled spaghetti of legislation, and tough enough to herd the cats that are Senators.
We are bombarded here in California by Steyer commercials. Having to look at his face over and over and over, he seems like just a painfully lonely guy.
Butiigieg talks so well while managing to say nothing. He's all font and no content. His campaign was from the first designed merely to get him national recognition (and apparently, wealthy donor connections), and it has done that.
The battle is shaping up to be Sanders vs. Bloomberg. The DNC will put its thumb on the scales eventually.
24
Tom Steyer is not on my short list, but it's hard to understand why so many of the writers are so consistently and so strongly negative about him.
Despite his shortcomings, he makes some good points, and he makes them well.
What is the basis for completely rejecting him? It can't be because he's a billionaire who has bought his way into the race. If that were a such a serious offense in these writers' opinions, they'd be more critical of Mike Bloomberg than they've been.
17
Comments complain that Biden looks old and that he seems fixated on the past, but he is constantly being asked to explain his past, whereas Sanders is given a free pass on his shifting views on gun control by saying
people can change. If these debates were only on the radio, Biden's comments would seem as sensible as those of Sanders. I'm waiting for the Democratic convention to see if Obama will run again.
5
@Alan J. Shaw Would you rather have the guy who has to change one of his positions while being right about the other nine or the guy who has to change nine while having been right about one? The exact numbers are irrelevant, but the aggregate sense tells us all we need to know about the candidates.
5
@Alan J. Shaw
The NYT has spent so much ink telling people what to think about these candidates. the people will decide and I am tired of the hate about Biden and the coronation of Bloomberg who wasn't for minorities a very good mayor. Mayor Pete who cant even interact with minorities, Amy who has no positive track record with minorities and her constant Midwest math
People like Warren/Bernie, Yang, Tom those are the hot tickets. they care about this county and have plans that make sense.
Tom should debate Bloomberg and show the difference between a man who cares for this country and one who feels he can buy the nomination because he is so special.
1
@Max Robe
Explain what you mean by "positions" as opposed to actions; which ones you think are "right," which "wrong," and the relative weights you give to them. Is a changing view of gun control less significant than one on the Iraq war? How do you compare Biden's overall record of accomplishment with that of Sanders?
I seem not to find much charisma in any of the candidates, great debaters and politicians in their own right, but presidential material? Dems were only able to win when a candidate somehow stood out in some other way, e.g., Obama, Clinton. How can they beat Trump's showmanship?
3
@Lil' Old Me if showmanship is the only criterion God help this country.
4
@Julia - Evidently showmanship is enough for 42% of the country so don't discount it. Have you watched TV much?
A Mayor Pete Story: While waiting in line for a New Hampshire Town Hall in December, a staffer came out and announced, anyone who would like to ask a question, please write it down and it will be placed in this fishbowl and Pete will select questions from the bowl. About 1.5 hours later, once we were all settled inside (it was a long wait on a frigid day), Pete came out, did his campaign spiel, and then with the assistance of the "host" started taking questions from the bowl. Pete was up on a stage, not level w/the audience (as is most often the case in these events), with a few attendees on risers behind him. Very Presidential and frankly a turnoff. Anyway, he really did not engage w/the audience at all. He did ask that the person who wrote the question to raise their hand, but he did not ask for their name, where they lived, what they did for a living, etc. No interpersonal rapport. Anyway, he answered each question-and he only took about 4 or 5-and then was hurriedly on his way, trying not to linger at the rope line. The event stuck with my husband and I and we could not quite figure out why until the next morning. And, it occurred to us: he had seen the questions beforehand! Why the charade of placing them in a fishbowl? His staff culled through them and selected the ones for him to answer and reviewed them with him. This is the only logical conclusion to why questions were sought beforehand. We have been to many Town Halls; this is the only time the candidate did this.
31
@Rachel, probably any question that could be answered with, “dynamic, systemic, integrated structural change must immediately be implemented on all levels and I’m the only candidate running with the experience to do that because that’s all I know how to do,” were the ones they picked for Pete. The guy talks, tilts his head and smirks like a robot. Siri has more personality and depth.
7
@Rachel your anecdote is consistent with my take. I find him too polished, too slick, too well rehearsed. He's the master of the safe answer. Of course I would support him in the general election if it came to that but I believe we need someone more genuine.
1
Sanders and Warren don't appeal to moderates and independents. Their policies are too radical for many who are worried about their healthcare, and their retirement savings. Both seem to have cobbled together platforms designed to catch every liberal progressive, but that's not a winning strategy. I'm looking for someone who can bring the country together, and fix what's broken without demolishing the entire structure. We're not going to get anything done if we don't find common ground. Biden represents the old guard of the DNC. Klobuchar might have trouble staying in the race. That leaves Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Of those two, who has the better chance against Trump?
15
@NYTheaterGeek People so often make this mistake of assuming that independents choose to be unaffiliated because they're "between" the two major parties and thus more moderate than whatever the Dems put forward. Sanders has plenty appeal among independents.
6
@NYTheaterGeek
It leaves us with Amy Klobuchar an outstanding candidate who was outstanding last night.
2
@NYTheaterGeek Bloomberg, if he can keep from being perceived as another out of touch New York billionaire machine politician. The Breadbasket states have a long-standing grudge against Eastern bankers who foreclosed on farms not that long ago.
1
Why does sander get a free pass EVERY SINGLE TIME for not answering the question of how he'd pay for his pie-in-the-sky healthcare plan? He evades it every time he's asked.
Is it that it's so predictable that now it's normalized and just a part of the program?
If you're going to accuse other candidates of evading questions, bernie's evasion sticks out like a sore thumb and should be mentioned as well. It is huge, it is consistent, and he's had plenty of time to think about an answer. His unwillingness to give one suggests even he doesn't believe his own nonsense.
106
@DVargas The constant asking about how to pay for it is getting a bit silly in the face of sky high administrative waste of the current system while have the highest healthcare costs in the world. But of course it all could even be paid for by cutting just the unreasonable military spending and taxing the rich like the used to be taxed back in the day.
59
@DVargas
On healthcare, the candidates need to get in the same book, if not the same page. I think including a "public option" (Medicare), while allowing people to keep employer sponsored plans if they prefer, would combine the best of both worlds (ie. to the largest segment of the electorate). As far as paying for the public option, how about a sliding scale based upon ability to pay, as well as increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy? Since people don't want free services, paying affordable premiums for a public option may undercut the criticism that Democrats want to give us all "free stuff."
7
@DVargas
Right. How in the world can we afford a less expensive healthcare system. We now pay twice as much as the rest of the industrialized, capitalistic, democracies in the world and have drug prices ten times as high as what they pay in Canada. This pie-in-the-sky nonsense that Sanders is proposing has never been tried except in the entire rest of the world. Such recklessness. Not with my healthcare plan. I don't want some "socialist" touching my $10,000 deductible, co-pay- 20% plan, where I have the freedom to go into bankruptcy and possibly have my wages garnished and lose my home. No way. Hasn't Mr. Sanders heard of Go Fund Me? As long as I have a job, I'll have health insurance. What's the probability of losing ones job? This country is recession-proof.
47
I supported Bernie in 2016, but our country is in a different place now. What we need more than anything is unity and belonging, not division. It’s time for a candidate who inspires the best in all of us. It’s time for President Pete Buttigieg.
25
@EHE Buttigieg is not that person. Not for many of us. He's that person for a small percent of you. Sorry. I'll support him if he's the candidate, but he's the person on stage that least seems like he has any idea of what's going on with the people in this country that are slipping through the cracks.
7
@EHE
Isn't universal access to affordable healthcare a more dire issue in 2020 than in 2016 given recent Obamacare rollbacks?
Isn't the climate crisis a more dire issue in 2020 than in 2016? Look to Houston, Miami, etc. for evidence.
Isn't wealth inequality a more dire issue in 2020 than in 2016? Consider the impact of recent tax cuts for the wealthy.
So, yes, the country is in a different place. Arguably one that demands ever more urgently the policies of Bernie or Liz versus the "let's protect the billionaires" stance of Pete Buttigieg.
4
@Ann - Being "For" something doesn't mean getting it passed thru both houses of congress. Bernie would have a tough time getting even a majority of Democrats to vote for his Medicare for All and Free College for All proposals. We a person based in reality. How many Bills has Bernie sponsored that got turned into law?
Yes, Klobachur would demolish Trump in a debate. But Trump will likely eschew debates and tweet her to death. Yes, Warren and others have great policy proposals but policy details will play a small role as it always does in these elections.
This is all about our hard core versus their hard core. We may not like this reality but reality doesn't care what we like. This election will be about nothing but who can tap into those in their tribe who tend to stay home. The democrats have far more of those than the republicans. The red base is old and white and they always show up in large percentages. The democratic base has an enormous contingent of young and non-white members who chose to stay home in 2016. Fretting about the rust-belt states is self defeating. A candidate that brings out large numbers nationally will swing the senate to the blue side. That may be even more important than the presidency.
Love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders is the clear choice for the democrats given the dynamics of a 2020 presidential race.
20
@Nerraw Thank you for pointing out all the things the pundits in their deep fear of Sanders fail to see.
9
@Nerraw
Trump will tweet Sanders to death as well. And there will be plenty of ammunition. I would vote for Sanders if nominated. But I fear that the calculation that millions of people who don't usually vote will turn out to elect him is faulty. Considering what drove Democratic wins in 2018 (it was not the left), I am particularly skeptical that Sanders would turn the Senate blue. No way. He is a very risky path for an election that will likely deliver four more years of destruction and division.
8
@Sheila Blanchette
I am an independent voter. I am moderate. There is no way I want Bernie Sanders for a president. There are thousands of independents that feel as I do. If I have to vote for him, I will hold my nose and do so, solely to try to get Trump out of office.
14
Beyond all the exhausting minutia regarding candidates viability, lies the biggest vote getting trait - Riling the populace up with common complaints that appeal to our basest instincts. Trump did, won, and threatens to completely upend a long respected, if highly imperfect union. Unfortunately don't think any of these candidates can. But they could make for a healthy cabinet.
Maybe Bloomberg's got a right remedy at the right time and place, fight for your particular beliefs and biases with money, the American way.
7
@Restore Human Sanity What a horrible outlook for the future of our democracy. Sanders has the goods you first listed. I can't figure out how you pivoted to Bloomberg.
3
@Restore Human Sanity "Basest?" or "basic?" Trump already appeals to the former.
@Sheila Blanchette thank you. All I’m thinking about (fancifully) is how to beat trump.
Amy Klobuchar is my choice. She's smart, has grit, wants to be the president of all Americans, and has been very successful in the senate - which shows that she has the talent to propose good legislation and the interpersonal skills to get the bills passed. Critical skills. She is not a one-issue candidate but has well-thought-out positions on all the issues. She can get the job done. (The first year of that job may be undoing the mess that Trump is making.) I think she will make a great president. The notion that she is sometimes impatient with her staff is not relevant, it's just gossip that throws some negativity her way. Let's focus on why she will be a great president: She's very smart, has grit, has been very successful in the senate, wants to be the president of all Americans, and has a comprehensive view of the issues and problems we need to address. Any Klobuchar can get the job done. Vote for Amy!!
57
@judy She'd be a perfectly good president, indeed. But, I have to say, undoing the mess is going to be a lot more than a year's work. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, if they win, Trump isn't going to just go away (not even thinking about the dreadful possibility that he will refuse to accept the results). It seems certain that Trump will keep holding rallies, he'll be on the radio and the internet whipping his people up into frenzies... and the remaining Koch, and the Mercers and all the others won't be closing up their think tanks and PACs ... and so on and so on, everything that led to Trump the first time will stay active, into the foreseeable future.
8
@John Bergstrom Maybe he will also kick the bucket one day, he is not exactly a spring chicken himself.
4
@John Bergstrom Sure trump will hold all his grudges after defeat, but he will only carry on with rallies etc on if there is financial profit to himself and his business. That has been, and always will be his priority. I believe many who are loyal to him out of fear will drop him like a disease once he no longer holds power.
5
If I could build my ideal candidate it wouldn't be Bernie Sanders, but there he is. Again. Democrats will regret it in November if the party machine prevents the obvious front-runner from claiming the nomination he has earned. Twice.
19
@Johnny That myth that the "party machine" blocked Sanders... It was the party rank and file who went for HRC, for better or worse. Sanders did amazingly well for an outsider, and it was great how he moved the party direction to the left. But it was, and still is, a reality that a fair number of his people actually don't like Democrats, and their enthusiasm for Bernie doesn't win over a very significant number of the Democratic rank and file. Maybe it should, but realistically it doesn't.
It seems likely that he will be the nominee this time, and he'll have his work cut out for him, persuading his more enthusiastic followers that they are going to have to work with the old-school Biden Democrats, if they want to win.
6
@Johnny Bernie Sanders will not beat Trump. He may appeal to the media and get more votes than the other primary candidates because the more moderate vote is split among more candidates, but that does not bode well for the general election.
5
@Johnny how has he earned it pray tell? By getting the millennials and aging hippies out in droves with his pie in the sky promises, the lowhanging fruit of the political hack (which he is)?
I don't want a billionaire buying the candidacy, but if I had to pick one, I'd choose Steyer. The Times consistently slams his performances in a way I can't understand, and he did especially well in last night's debate. It takes a leader to bring up race the way he did. And though they share many similarities, Steyer and Bloomberg have one major difference: stop-and-frisk. I would guess that African Americans would choose Steyer over Bloomberg any day.
27
Nothing earth shattering at the debate. The status quo was maintained. That is good news for Bernie and Pete. It is bad news for the rest.
Biden is being backed into a corner where all his eggs are in the SC basket. He is still polling well there particularly with AAs, but can it hold if he loses IA, NH, NV? I’m skeptical. No one has been able to explain exactly why he is polling so well there and the support may be illusory. If his support in SC crumbles before the primary, he is finished.
Warren has a major problem. She seemed like the candidate who could bridge the gap between progressives and moderates. But what is happening is that the two candidates representing those constituencies (Bernie, Pete) are both running ahead of her and aren’t going anywhere. Status quo is not a good result for Warren. She needs to shake things up and last night was a missed opportunity.
Klobuchar is the new media darling. But not with voters. She needed to shock the world with a stronger IA finish. She didn’t. Yang is interesting and refreshing. But has no shot at the nomination. It is a joke that Steyer is still in this due to his resources while more viable candidates like Booker and Harris are gone. Steyer should drop out immediately.
10
@Friday Sullivan: Good analysis, except that I don't think Steyer is doing any harm at this point. He should definitely drop out at some point, along with the rest of the pack, but his people will probably be happy to support the candidate. The real question is when Warren (or Bernie) should drop out, and let the progressives start to get used to working together.
4
Why, in its infinite wisdom, did the DNC think it was a good idea to have a million debates? There are two more in February. There should, of course, be some debates, but over the course of all these debates most of the candidates are going to have bad nights. And, by design, the debate format is designed to have candidates go after each other. It is inevitable that the debates will provide fodder for the Trump campaign to hurt the eventual nominee.
28
@Ohio Reader I agree. Another issue is they so limit the field. I think it would have been better to let the candidates campaign and interact with the voters in the states and then hopefully someone would emerge who would inspire. I feel that I am being limited in my choices and I don't like it. Whose idea was this? To me it was a very, very bad idea.
7
@Ohio Reader - I agree, the primaries should all be Town Hall format in a wide number of cities across the states, in large & small towns. We need to know what the plans of each candidate are a what they will fight to get done during their administration. Debates are mostly one-liner zingers and gotchas, made for TV Jerry Springer fights, this gives the incumbent a big advantage. Also you can't have a debate with more than 2 or 3 people on the stage, we have proven that doesn't work.
1
Klobachur has been my pick for good while. Why? One reason: She's got an authentic and convincing PRESIDENTIAL MANNER.
24
@JiMcL
Agreed, liked her for a while, last night sealed the
deal.
5
Buttigieg showed what an honorable person he is with his answer to the question about the Bidens. He exhibits, better than anyone else on the stage, what a person with a presidential temperament looks and acts like. The breadth and depth of his knowledge continues to impress.
I just wish debate moderators would ask the other candidates as much about their past track records as they do Pete. They all have past actions that deserve examination.
56
@Gloria peter doesn’t have a track record, just platitudes
@Gloria Pete should expect more of the same. The last things Democrats need is for the Right to make hay with sexual orientation issues when so much more is at stake.
I like Sanders. He seems to be a decent and intelligent guy, and although I like his agenda, he won't be able to sell it to most baby boomers and beyond. They feel like they have worked long and hard for their money and don't want to share it with those who haven't. At least that is what I am hearing from those I know. I also like Amy Klobuchar but she hasn't received as much attention as the others and many people don't know who she is. Biden looks and acts old.
13
@Diana Heckert I’m a baby boomer who is all in favor of sharing, even though I worked hard for what I have. Bernie’s agenda is great.
16
@Diana Heckert : Contrary to the impression that one might get from media coverage in 2016, Bernie has a lot of support among boomers, especially those who have been harmed by the status quo. He also has raised his money almost entirely from small contributions.
That is significant and unusual.
18
@Diana Heckert I am a 62 year old baby boomer who voted for Bernie last time and fully support him once again. However, I do agree with your assessment of many of my fellow boomers. I avoided marriage for years so my daughters are millennials and they are for Bernie and so are their friends. At the beginning of this race I decided this election belonged to them so I was interested in Pete and Beto. But when I talked to my daughters and their friends I came home to Bernie. One request kiddos: You have to Vote.
11
Big winner was the one who wasn't there --- Bloomberg. But Klobuchar looked awful good, as usual. Amy or Pete for VEEP on the ticket might be a good bet.
20
@DMH
Bloomberg has alienated a lot of potential voters with his “novel” approach which also prevents him from having to do the things he doesn’t want to like debate! Why on earth relegate Klobuchar to VP status when she is so clearly the most viable and potentially broadly successful candidate in the field? Who wouldn’t vote for her against Trump other than his base?
7
I believe the debate showed us who the strong candidates are and for the most part I agree with the opinions voiced by the commentators but more so with the well thought out comments below. Ruby, hit the nail on the head, the Democrats need to get their heads together and present a united front, One that shows the ability and desire to work together to achieve some of the collective goals of the top 5 contenders. One of the major obstacles to this is the democratic party leadership itself. The problem being is that there is none! Especially when viewed against the republican party. There they are lead in lock step behind Donnie and MItch. If the democrats go into November as fractured as they did in 2016 it won't mean a hill of beans who won last nights debate, Iowa, New Hampshire, or Super Tuesday. Bottom line, those top 5 people have the ability to win in November but only if they can put aside their personal desires for the almighty POTUS position and do what's best for America.
4
@Dan in Ohio I agree. Red voters know how to work in community. They have learned since childhood. They belong to churches that actively weld together under a common faith. They conform to established norms, rightly or wrongly. Many have served in the armed services. They tend to be followers. The so-called left, on the other hand, prides itself in being freethinkers, mavericks, outliers, arguers, dreamers. They aren't coordinated, that would be too restricting.. Most of them don't know how to change a tire. They refuse to acknowledge or understand the Opposition. So they lose.
1
Klobuchar seems to get credit for being aggressive by making insubstantial remarks that are pretty much on the level of name calling. Given his lifestyle, I'm sure Pete has been called a lot of things, and seems to be able to shrug them off. He looks more presidential by not responding to taunts like Alfred E. Newman or cool new kid.
26
@Gary "Given his lifestyle..." Lifestyles are choices; sexuality is not.
3
@Gary But the taunts will continue from the Right and hamper his presidency with distraction after distraction. He will become another Hillary Clinton. Mark my words. The so-called left needs to emerge from its ideological bubble and get real.
2
I sensed a somewhat conciliatory approach from Bernie this time around. Elizabeth actually came across as more hard hitting. Again, Bernie would be wise to pick her as running mate. Only the empty suits look for 'balance' on the ticket.
Bernie is feeling the Bern himself, very strongly.
13
@Apple Jack Bernie is all ego. That, from a Vermonter.
At this point Yang and Steyer should be in the audience or on the trail in support of another candidate. Both made their contributions to the campaign - Yang with his sort of innovative cash give-away, and Steyer with his grassroots strengths on climate and impeachment - but now neither should be taking time away from the more viable candidates.
And speaking of viable, it makes no sense that Bloomberg is not part of the debate mess. We know he has money and New York loves him, but there's more to know - is he viable anywhere else? And while he seems to be weaving a masterful campaign as a first-rate Trump troll, where does he stand in the rest of the country, really.
As for Pete, notice how much he talks with actually saying anything?
14
@RKPT I think Steyer is viable and not being given a fair chance. As for "viable". I made that mistake in 2016 by not voting for Sanders in the primary. I thought he wasn't viable. I was wrong. And now it's too late for him. What I learned was to always vote for conviction and principle not the odds.
13
@Mark Steyer could win SC if Biden falters there. It sounds like the biggest issue there is winability, and if Biden gets 4th or 5th in NH he starts to look like a loser. Steyer has made a big push there and is doing well.
4
This needs to be the last debate for Steyer and Yang. They have no business being there and are just a distraction at this point. Also, I'm sorry but Joe Biden has never looked so old and clueless. It was painful to watch.
45
Pete Buttigieg said, “We cannot solve the problems before us by looking back.”
What does he even mean by that? That he doesn't believe in learning from our past? That he spends time reinventing the wheel? That he flunked history in school?
Buttigieg has always comes across as a phony to me. Something about him makes me skeptical about him. When he says things like these, he is not racking up any more trust points with people like me.
Bernie came across as the most sincere. Buttigieg the least.
26
@Bhaskar, Pete gives fresh meaning to “canned.”
5
@Bhaskar A powerful delivery complete with trademark scowl a d fist shaking does not sincerity make. U agree that Buttigieg seems plain vanilla but Bernie is basically another demagogue who won't even be around to sign his name before long. He got the public appearance thing down but others will have to do the heavy lifting against formidable and implacable odds.
1
@Bhaskar And he was caught out as a liar when it came to defending his racist policing record.
1
As a working middle class American only Bernie and Warren speak to my concerns and needs and those of my family and friends. Sure, I'll vote for any Dem over Trump but I'm not going to pretend that it makes no difference which candidate we choose. It does. When the post election compromises respecting health care, social security, taxation, climate change, justice reform and the other policies that affect me and those I love are made I trust Bernie, I trust Warren, to represent our interests. I certainly don't trust Biden or Bloomberg. Buttigieg and Klobuchar, maybe.
24
@KenC All valid points, but for the executive branch its not only domestic issues. Other than Biden, I don't see any of the other candidates taking on foreign affair issues. Any of these people we want in an foreign affair crisis, emergency? Its only Biden.
2
1) there’s an urgent need to understand what happened in Iowa. If the phones were jammed, preventing people from reporting the results for hrs., something is wrong. We were reminded that the same thing happened in N.H. during a senate campaign.
2) given that the press doesn’t hold Trump responsible for his crimes and behavior, Stayer and Bloomberg shouldn’t be, even remotely thinking that they can keep crashing our institutions - it’s just another Ponzi scheme. There’s “radio silence” about these guys. Bloomberg has a record, a bad record from the perspective of race, economics and democratic principles. Let’s het educated and educate the country about it.
3) Klobuchar won’t make, she lacks the temperament. Just ask her revolving staff. But, she’s being used to block Sen. Warren
4) Elizabeth Warren is being sabotaged by the Bloomberg wing of the country - just ask Bret Stephens.
16
How Sanders is judged the front-runner indicates how fragile are the chances for Democrats in the Fall. His substance hasn't changed since debate #1 but his demeanor is less coarse and for some, his manner may now be likeable, finally. A socialist in the White House who clings to opinions he's had for 50 years? It won't happen. I agree that Klobuchar topped the rest. She's smart and she's fun and knows how to connect with people. She's from the midwest and she's a woman, both not in her favor.
Democrats would benefit if Biden dropped out now. He really drags the debate down, making it seem less like one for presidential candidates. Indeed, he reminds me of a high schooler, very earnest but struggling to say his lines and evoking mostly sympathy.
The debate format deserves a low grade. All these debates feature "moderators" who aren't really moderating anything but playing "gottcha" as they try pinning down candidates for something they did or said and candidates showing their skill at squirming out of these traps.
I want to see Trump defeated decisively but after each debate I shake my head and feel unconvinced that will happen with this set of candidates. Bloomberg's arrival may not help. He's got infinitely more money than charisma and with Democrats preaching billionaire-hate and his stage presence being anemic, he's no savior.
11
I think Democrats and the media are focusing too much on the president and not enough on the Senate. I believe there is a big chance we will lose, no matter who wins the nomination. Once again, Trump has the deck heavily stacked in his favor; incumbency, the electoral college, half the population still fawning over his every move, the Senate acquittal, and a rock solid economy. We need to figure out how to take back the legislative branch and impeach and remove him if possible, or at least block his attempts to control the entire function of the country. I believe we have a much higher chance of doing that. of course we should try to grab both, but we shouldn't lose sight of the importance of the legislative, which is within our grasp.
37
@Kristin
Yes, the Senate is at least as important as the presidency for the Democrats. Unfortunately, however, the path to victory is just as hard in the Senate as it is in the Electoral College. Trump's approval ratings are up, the Democratic Party is divided, and most of the Republican Senators up for re-election are in safe seats. Even if the Democrats manage to eke out a one seat lead in the Senate, I'm not sure it will substantially change anything. The crisis of American democracy is more severe than most Americans realize, and I fear we're deluding ourselves to think elections will save us.
13
@617to416 I would add that all polls and surveys are unreliable. They are inherently biased or so narrow as to be irrelevant. The answers that I would give are never an option on polls. Another reason why making elections a sport is wrong.
4
@Mark Having worked in a polling center I can say that the sample never seems as random as claimed. Too many pills seem to reflect a suspiciously uniform set of responses. Also, it depends who is ordering the poll. if it is ideologically tinged, many of those called will refuse to participate. I am sure that "spin" is routinely practiced in the final analysis . Also, there should be a margin of error reported, which accounts for refusals and don't knows.
1
Losers all.
7
@Sang Ze that’s not helpful. Please share your analysis.
I know you have to do this. You're a newspaper and this is what newspapers do. But damn! This isn't a beauty contest. It isn't even a nitpicking contest, though you'd never know. Like the rest of us, you're going to have to find someone to vote for in the primary and the general elections. Is this how you're going to do it, by dazzling yourselves with a clever turn of phrase and rating them on smugness, tone of voice, and how they looked in a swimsuit? Not helpful. I'll be taking a pass on reading the rest of these.
76
@D Foley Amen. We are becoming a nation of ninnies.
Andrew Yang's questions seemed cherry picked by ABC, which sort of made it hard to watch the debate last night. He has good policies such as personalized guns, democracy dollars, throwing out the penny, and he's also just as qualified as Steyer when it comes to deserving questions.
I would have loved to hear about his plans on Global Warming, and would hope that it wasn't so evident the establishment was 'present' in the room. However, it seemed like they put up the Great Wall of China to block him from any questions beside his signature policies. Indeed, already from the start, they were planning on framing him as that freedom dividend candidate and that's what the times did after all was said and done. The main debacle going forward will be to see if there is any reasonable adjustment to try and cover Andrew Yang in a more humanitarian light. He's the stacked odds favorite against Trump, and damn it, he's likable when he doesn't get ripped off by the moderators.
6
@David Frenkel There have been myriad media biases throughout this campaign often showing up in the debate questions. Questions should never be tailored for one candidate. That is not a debate.
7
@David Frenkel Is there a subtle racial or cultural bias there? I heard him and think he is a strong, smart, articulate representative of his generation, which is now running the countey. Although I probably didn't need to hear so much about the mental illness issue.
Warren remains at the top for policy—and she's still my top choice—but I don't think she did well in this debate. She faded into the background too much and when she did speak, she seemed to hit just one note. She's absolutely right that our main problem is that money has so thoroughly corrupted our way of governing that laws and regulations are designed solely to advance the interests of big political donors, leaving most Americans without real representation in their "democracy." She's right, but she's not making her point in a way that really clarifies the issue. Part of the problem is her focus on "corruption" which most people associate with crime. The real corruption is not that monied interests are doing anything criminal—it's that the system has made it possible for them to control government for their own self-interested purposes perfectly legally. The system is corrupt, not necessarily the people working it. They're just self-interested and empowered to work the system by their money.
Bernie and Amy were both equally strong, I thought. I lean more to Bernie for policy, but I think Amy would be more presidential. Her biggest obstacle, though, may be Bloomberg whose got the money, an "alpha male" personality, and an effective combination of centrism and passion on gun control and climate change.
Biden seems old—mentally, not just physically—Pete is Mr. Platitude, Yang and Steyer sometimes interesting, but irrelevant. I want Warren, but I suspect we get Bloomberg.
11
@617to416 Very good analysis of Warren's performance. But everyone thinks they know all they need to know about Bloomberg...to his everlasting good luck. Maybe he should just skip all the debates.
1
To give Steyer a 1/10 on last night's debate performance (as Bret Stephens does here) is a clear indication that some of these columnists are going into this review process with knives drawn for certain candidates, regardless of what was done on the debate stage. Steyer may not be the best candidate, but a facade of objectivity on the part of the columnists would be nice.
17
@Mark GREENFIELD it's not only these columnists. Last night on MSNBC after the debate, Chris Matthews went on an unhinged, angry rant (I actually wondered if there was something wrong with him) on Bernie Sanders, whom he ended up repeatedly calling a communist. He would have continued his red-faced harangue but Chris Hayes, who actually seemed embarrassed, finally silenced him and moved to a commercial. I guess there's no reason to expect any helpful commentary on these debates, as the debates themselves aren't helpful.
5
Winning a debate doesn't mean you can govern. Our culture is mired in dichotomies to a fault, winners and losers, good and evil, republican or democrat. Life isn't like that. Current realities have been long in the making and the Democratic party is equally responsible for creating them. Health care and free college will not make them go away. Perhaps the democratic candidates are confused because the people themselves don't know what they want. Politicians do not have any answers. We seem to have created a culture where people don't believe in themselves.
15
Klobuchar's answer to the abortion question was not thoughtful. Arguing to defer to precedent might be fine for Roe not for Casey, though, and implies that Plessy and Dred Scott should be allowed to stand. Not smart.
5
I appreciate the kudos for Klobuchar, because I have wondered for some time why her practical, straightforward approach and obvious smarts were not getting more attention. Sometimes I think the media focuses more on backstory (see, e.g., the kooky Beto and the "Gay, Rhodes Scholar, Naval Officer" Buttigieg) than actual policy ideas, experience, smarts and political savvy.
I like Amy. She has me. We just need the rest of the unelectables (Sanders, Warren, Steyer, Yang) out of the way so we can get on with beating Trump.
43
@Jack Sonville I agree. I call Amy the Hermione Granger of the race...always prepared, head down, working hard, great record, and yet somehow people are still looking for Harry Potter to be the hero.
29
@Jack Sonville I never understand this fake narrative that Amy doesn't get attention. You're literally saying this on the website of a paper that endorsed her.
Per every MSM source, she's won or finished Top 3 in every debate. She doesn't get more attention because voters don't agree with her policies.
But she gets more than enough media attention and only a personal preference to her would leave someone saying otherwise.
7
As a lifelong Democrat, I am embarrassed to say that none of these candidates will beat trump. I hope I’m wrong.
9
@Unbelievable
Sometimes I feel the same pessimism. I want an Obama or FDR, but such exceptionalism is not in the cards this time round. Just the same, we the voters CAN beat Trump. It's in OUR hands. All we have to do is get out on election day and vote Democratic. Vote for whoever is the Democratic candidate -- even if He/She is not exactly (or even close to) who we wanted. He/She will be a million time better than Trump at leading and working hard for America, instead of jetting off to Mar-a-lago for endless rounds of golf when not tweeting the night away slinging mud in all directions.
5
@Unbelievable What do you base your analysis on?
There's honestly no metric other than feelings that make this a viable claim.
All opinions are exceptionally good. Wow - - I've watched every debate. Last night's was the best. Two of the candidates should lead the Democratic slate - - all the others on the stage & some that dropped out will make a perfect Cabinet in
a Democrat White House & Administration in January 2021.
I cannot wait for Super Tuesday on March 3, 2020.
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia will all hold their presidential primaries.
It'll be an exciting day - - glued to the TV for results.
5
Pete , is going to emerge from this scrum holding the ball, then spike it after touching it down after crossing the try line come November , it’s all good.
8
To the opinion writer(s) irritated by Bernie Sanders, when he talks over and over about the rights of every living human being to have a respectful life, it can be a little repetitive, can’t it?
Speaking of subjects like stopping endless wars can also be a little boring, too, for those not caring about a the lives of helpless children living in the midst of them.
Climate change and the wonders of the Green New Deal can be tedious to hear, over and over again, as well.
“You either love it or you hate it.”
Privileged people are so afraid of Bernie Sanders.
33
@CS I love your comment.
8
@CS The best comment of the day.
9
This article is all about how articulate the candidates were and how powerful their punchlines were.
How much do these relate to their positions on policies and electability? Near Zilch.
How much do any of this matter considering Bloomberg is going to saunter in, in the end and buy his way to the democratic nomination and Trump is going to win the election on the back of the strongest economy we have seen in many of our lifetimes? Near Zippo.
4
I think Klobuchar's problems originated with the NYT article that claimed she was mean to her staff. That was the first impression for many voters. My first reaction was if I support her and then get a job at the White House, she will be mean to me. My second reaction was no one good will work for her because she will be mean to them. Some news organization should follow up and quantify just how mean she was compared to the normal level of meanness in the workplace and in the federal government. Federal workers in general can be super mean, in my experience. They will hurt you, just because they are mean. It must be that meanness is acceptable in these organizations.
7
@Kay Sieverding mean? She has denigrated her staff repeatedly, in front of others, yelled at them, thrown things at them, and caused many of them to leave. If this is normal behavior for elected officials, why do none of them have her problems with turnover?
3
@Kay Sieverding
Or maybe that the article, which featured anonymous ex-staffers and was rolled out immediately after Amy announced her candidacy, was a hit piece. Clearly it had been in the works for a while. Someone suggested that it had been orchestrated by then-candidate Kirsten Gillebrand's camp, which makes sense. At the time, I really wondered why such a big negative article on an unknown candidate.
Since then, many of Amy's former and current staffers have gone on record refuting the allegations.
It is very telling that the comments seem to solidify the perceptions each one has about their choice of candidates. It seems everyone commenting about "their" choice is very much, -see and hear what you want to see and hear.
8
@Armo Agreed. And I find it interesting that their first pick, Klobuchar, just happens to be the NYT editorial board’s first pick too.
Personally I am torn between Pete and Amy. Amy totally rocked it! Meanwhile, Pete needs to address minority issues in a major speech. He can do this. He can own up to any mistakes he has made, and talk about moving forward with minority voters. His sincerity, candor, intelligence, and thoughtfulness will win the day. I am confident in that. Pete needs to turn the tables. Then Pete can be the nominee with Amy as VP. Bernie, who is not even a Democrat, may ruin the Democratic Party if he is nominated. Vote for Pete and Amy! Amy deserves a comeback kid moment!
33
@William I
Pete is playing off of white male privilege. He will not get the black vote, for this simple reason : there is absolutely no way that religious (and other) blacks would vote to put a black man, married to another man, in the white house. Pete is assuming that he
gets a pass because he is white. But he doesn't.
The media must stop writing about politics and world trade as if it's a sports game. Stop engendering politics. It is a male notion, started by men to view a debate or world trade and other subjects as having winners and losers. Why do you title a discussion and debate by a group of people as Winners and Losers? I can't wait for the day when politics, world trade etc. is not engendered with male notions of a football game or wrestling match. Yes, men are competitive but the media and it's reporters need to stop writing about politics and world events from the premise of winning at all costs. This world view is destroying us. Look what has happened to the GOP. They teamed up and decided to "win" at all costs but not to discuss or bring in witnesses during the impeachment. Sometimes winners vs. losers is not productive. I'm tired of it. Let's evolve please.
45
@Bo Lang For trade, I can agree. But politics definitely has winners and losers. Last presidential election trump won and Clinton lost. Predicting who is winning and losing is important in events where there is going to be a winner and at least one loser.
1
@Bo Lang amen.
I don't see anyone demonstrating strength in bringing together the big tent coalition that will be necessary to defeat Trump and the FOX controlled Congress. This is more a war of attrition provided by the primary/caucus process than rallying the masses. Whoever is left will have to count on millions willing to vote for a non-favorite, the "anyone but Trump." Sanders usually comes off the strongest and most persuasive. If his naysayers and the media would just shut up with their unelectable/socialist boogeymandering we could have a strong candidate. Klobuchar is strident and her self-promotion, self-endorsing, is a real hard sell. I understand her intellectually, but get minimal "likability" reaction. I find the others more personable.
7
I'm really tired of canned, rehearsed responses, which Warren and to some extent Sanders and Buttigieg use to respond to a question they don't directly answer. Klobuchar is the most natural debater and at least has some wit. Biden had a great moment when he asked for a standing ovation for Col. Vindman. Buttigieg had a nice moment when he expressed how awful it is for Trump and Republicans to attack Biden's son or anyone's family member. At this point, I know how they stand on the issues and they all have good ideas although Sanders is too socialist for me. What I am looking for are character traits and the ability to take on Trump. I would rather have seen Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Jay Inslee and Michael Bloomberg on stage than Yang and Steyer.
20
@P.A. I would rather have seen Bennett, Booker, and Inslee than all of the rest. I would also add Bullock who won in a red state. Not that I don't like the rest, but at this point defeating Trump is the only issue.
3
@Patrick Flynn I meant to mention Bullock, too. I would like the Democrats to pick someone with experience who is personable and has integrity and is from a state like Colorado, Montana. I liked Inslee. And Booker, too. Inslee conveyed the kind of strength that would be effective against Trump and they are all intelligent people with experience as governors or senators. Amy K. has it too but she may not be the right fit this year to take on Trump. Pairing her as vp with Inslee or Bennet would be a strong ticket.
1
The tyranny of numbers that rules the roost here is about as useless as a one wheeled tricycle.
In contrast, the discussion is revealing, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of candidates and, not infrequently, your writers.
I agree Klobuchar and Sanders did best though I expect it will come down to Bloomberg vs. Sanders. Too bad no one pushes for a common program that goes beyond "Beat Trump".
One thing nearly missing -- there was little discussion of a willingness to admit error except with respect to Biden who had difficulty explaining his stance on Iraq. It is important that Biden admitted error. So too with Sanders, who said early votes on gun control were a mistake. Contrast them with Mayor Pete whose word salad refused to recognize error (except "systemic racism", for which voters are to blame?) in South Bend's handling of drug cases. His lengthy effort to avoid the question was not ready for prime time. Can't see how admitting error would have damaged anything more than his pride.
Steyer isn't going anywhere in the race but he did better than you guys think in diagnosing our challenges. In practical terms, Steyer made an argument for voting for Sanders or Warren.
I just received an email survey from Bloomberg, designed to ferret out supporters. He apparently wants small donations, presumably to meet criteria that wound up kicking black and Hispanic candidates off the stage. Go figure.
5
Yang and steyer need to be gone. They take up time and space.
Never liked Bernie. What is infuriating is that the press has let him get away with never really explaining how he plans to pay for his plans while excoriating warren constantly on this issue. Sexism?
A winning ticket is Biden and klobuchar. Amy has been steady, consistent and on message from the start. Joe struggles in these settings. Watch his cnnn town hall from this last week. Excellent performance. Clear. Concise. Empathic.
Buttigieg is just too young and inexperienced. Make him secretary of housing and urban development and let him really run something large that impacts people’s lives on a daily basis.
5
There is a quality about Sanders that is very important and little mentioned. That is his stage presence and his ability to focus on the important issues. It is my hunch that he would be the best to take on Trump because they are both New Yorkers at heart. Bernie grew up knowing how to best the bullies like Trump which were not at all uncommon back when - the wise guys.
It is all very well and good to give a good answer to the moderator or challenge your opponents in the debate without looking too harsh.
Bernie is the lion of liberal causes and will not tolerate any of Trumps tom foolery which both the media and the Republican party are afraid of. As others have said: who wins the presidential debates will determine the election. There is precedent for that thought. Some thought Bush I lost the election when, in the middle of the debate, the camera caught him looking at his watch and looking bored. You can be sure that Bernie will rise up in righteous indignation and not pull any punches when looking Trump in the face.
23
Bernie puts me off, not because of socialism. I think many programs that are considered socialist are helpful to average citizens. That's probably why the rich and powerful work so hard to convince the average citizen that socialism is brought to you by the devil. I find h is needle stuck in the grove. But if he is the candidate I'll vote for him.
14
Klobuchar did well and seems to be much improved from the earlier debates. She seems more confident, more forceful and less rehearsed. She clearly has the intellect and experience, although I still worry about a woman at the top of the ticket in the current climate. Might be the perfect VP.
I worry that Bernie, Liz and now Joe Biden will be just too easy for the Republican smear machine to destroy in the general.
Let's get Steyer and Yang off the stage - neither one has any chance of being the nominee. Let's get Bloomberg on the stage - he has just as good a chance as the other 5 and we need to see him in contrast with the others.
69
@Frank Roseavelt I want Bloomberg on the stage, Steyer and Yang off. Let's get serious folks!
9
@Frank Roseavelt great points!
5
@Frank Roseavelt
As others have stated well, Klobuchar has taken no incoming to date because she's polling so terribly low -- far below even Kamala Harris or Cory Booker before their exits.
Nevertheless, her demeanor is plain for all to see. She bristles at so much as a hint of question of her record, positions, etc., much less genuine critique. A candidate as thin-skinned as Klobuchar would collapse under Trump's attacks.
Arguably, it's time for her to exit the field. Her calling card was that she ALONE could carry the Midwest. Iowa, despite its debacle, burst that bubble. Klobuchar couldn't even place among the top candidates despite concentrating her campaign on the state.
To think she has national bona fides is sheer folly.
10
Eventually, at the end of this process, we will have one democratic nominee. We need to support that candidate and vote blue no matter who. Any one of these of these candidates would be far superior to Trump and those who don’t make the cut would be excellent cabinet choices. Don’t forget how shocking it was, early in his presidency, how trump made sure to purge government agencies of of highly qualified federal workers. The next president will need all the help they can get restaffing the federal workforce that has been gutted under trump.
59
Hard to believe I watched the same debat as many of these readers or of the professional commentators. I thought Mayor Pete answered all the attacks on him very well, that Amy demonstrated why she should stay in the Senate and continue to do good work there, and that Joe performed decently after having rested from spending most of his time on the campaign trail. Time was, Warren's "I have a plan" stood out and appealed; time is, everyone now has a plan and hers raises enough questions to make me uncomfortable. The others, all decent folk, should retire with dignity now. I want to hear Mike debate Pete. Mike was elected mayor of big NYC 3 times--as diverse a place as we have. He's worth a listen.
47
@Bernie in Va , I don’t know that I can support a billionaire cutting in with and through his money. It’s a matter that goes beyond his shiny overkill on commercial blanketing of media or his skipping out on the battles and competition of ideas and personal ability. It’s a precedent for even more reliance on money for power. And once even the Democrats go that way, ours will be a nation where billionaires compete for power even more uncontested than they are now. Too much of the bully in it.
16
@Bernie in Va
What he said.
1
@Bernie in Va
Pete sounds like Obama. Full of feeling and "can't we just get along" fervor. But he will wither under the Trump insult machine. Trump will remind middle America that they are homophobes at heart, just like he reminded many of us that we are racists.
4
Voters on both the right and the left recognize that the politics of the United States has been captured by lobbyists, corporations, and zealous ideological purists, with evangelicals on the right, and secular humanists on the left.
The system is rigged and we are being gamed. Bernie Sanders will crush this rigged game.
Democratic centrists among the candidates don't recognize the desperation of the voters on the issues - except for Bernie Sanders. Sanders is not a Socialist in any real sense of the word, and he has learned over decades in politics to shrug off the accusations.
It will take a Democratic candidate from Brooklyn who is based in the flinty, Yankee, Conservative state of Vermont, to beat a president from Queens hiding in a mansion in Florida.
25
@UTBG vermon t is the most liberal state in the union.
@UTBG - If he is not a socialist he should quit saying he is, that's putting a anchor on your national campaign.
WOW! According to these folks, all the candidates won the debate. Another waste of time with no one showing any signs of viability or a reason for anyone to vote for them. It may be time to be looking forward to the next election after the 2020 run.
4
@Tommy2 , if you read the article, you’ll find less to be amazed about, and pretty clear reasons for the rankings of relative winners and losers.
2
All the candidates Win. Give them a trophy. I thought too that debates had winners and losers
In my comment - 3 recommends - I note that I could not see the debate but that did not matter because I will vote for any of those who appeared and even for Bloomberg.
A reader in Australia sent me a set of URLs that will get me around bans such as ABC's, no foreign viewers, thanks.
I have just read the evaluations and they were well worth reading even though they do not influence my preferences or my vote on November 3 (see above).
I was especially amused by this line from Bret Stephens:
"Isn’t a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?"
I believe that was about Sanders so I will turn about as fair play and suggest, Bret, isn't that your very own hobgoblin, you who told Gail Collins in your conversation that you would never vote for Sanders or Warren and would not vote for Trump either.
Thanks Bret for lightening what is already a great day here in Sweden.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
17
@Larry Lundgren Right on about Bret. I do also remember that," little mind comment"
4
@Larry Lundgren Bravo to your criticism of Bret. Bernie is consistent but not foolish. And Bret's "consistent" longing for the Dems to field a moderate Republican is getting boring. His time as a "sane Republican" is almost over.
3
@Larry Lundgren
Bret is incapable of introspection. His own mind is of the consistency of cured concrete. When he ought to adjust his own 'foolish consistencies' on topics such as, say, climate change, he just stops talking about the issue altogether.
He thinks he's clever with his zingers, but most of us just think: "there's that pot calling the kettle black again."
I resent his comment about Andrew Yang. Mr. Yang does not consider automation to be a threat to prosperity. He understands, actually, that the point of technological progress is to free people from the more mind-crushing aspects of physical labor, and he's very much in favor of that. He just wants the wealth and benefits of automation to accrue to society's members, not just the billionaires who gleefully use mechanical workers because they never need family leave or bathroom breaks.
6
Let's get real - the election will be about gut feelings. Republicans are movers/shakers/aggressors who will do anything to win and unafraid to make changes (especially those that are poorly thought out and help their donors). Democrats have been reactive, the ones who complain about things, or maintainers of the status quo.
The Democrats have a problem - their movers/shakers on stage don't fall in line with the militarist, corporatist folks like Clinton and Obama who did little for the folks in the Midwest (except for ACA which is a bureaucratic maze for them). The idea that the boring, standard political speak of Klobuchar wins is ludicrous, same for Biden.
The Democratic party needs to figure out how to get behind the candidates who are movers/shakers. And Sanders/Warren/Buttigieg need to work on how they tap into the folks who want entertainment, the ones who like MAGA hats and "lock her up" like it's the Rocky Horror Show.
13
I have watched all these debates and I have no better idea now at what Klobuchar stands than when we started. She has gotten better at delivering nothing. It is a good thing that she has moved beyond "I am from the mid-west therefor I am the only one who can unite the country." Now she is comparing her commitment to us to FDR. We are facing far too many crises. I want someone who has the courage to say what they are going to work towards. After all these debates, I stand with Elizabeth Warren
40
@DeeL I completely agree. The media has gone radio silent on Senator Warren. She came in a strong third in Iowa (she came in first in my county, the most liberal in the state) and in fact did better than her polling numbers. She beat out a former vice-president. She has a record of taking on the big guns and winning. None of this matters to the media--it's all about the 3 B's (and as of last night, Amy because she said what's she's always been saying except louder).
6
@DeeL For finding out what the candidates stand for, I've gone to their websites. We have to do our homework: that's our responsibility as voters. Klobuchar's list of "my first 100 days" impressed me.
6
@sherry Why doesn't she say these things in the debates. That is why they are for. I am for people that are up front.. coy doesn't do it