What a huge disappointment. I have been watching presidential debates for 60 years and I cannot ever remember being ashamed of the Democratic party, but that changed last night. Whatever happened to civility, to fundamental courtesy? We are not going to defeat Trump by trying to behave as badly as he does. You don't sell your candidacy to the public by critiquing your Democratic colleagues, you do so by explaining why you are best equipped to defeat Trump. I caucused for Buttigieg, but I certainly would not do so after last night. His treatment of Klobuchar was shameful. Of course, all of the candidates with the possible exception of Biden behaved rudely. All I can hope for at this stage is that we get a brokered convention so that all delegates can vote for the person who appears most electable after we have the results of all the primaries and other events that occur between now and Late July. Perhaps we'll get real lucky and a Darkhorse candidate whom we can all respect will emerge
4
Some of you media talking heads at least three of you opining here, you know who you are, ar deliberately misusing the "socialist" label. Bernie keeps insisting he's a democratic socialist in the vein of Western Europeans and you are painting him as a commie wannabe. Why this deliberate misdirection?
You should quit resting your hopes on Biden, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Their frantic performance last night showed desperation. I don't think they have a shot at the nomination this time unless helped along by the DNC machinations at the convention. I'll vote for any of them if they survive even though it means another GOP lite Presidency.
5
My brain is seared with the image of Elizabeth Warren raising her hand.
2
Bloomberg's worst moment was when he referred to an article "I think ... " (I wrote), but couldn't quite remember where it was published. Couldn't tell if he was sure he wrote something or just imagined it. It seems to me that he should have looked it up, or not mention it. Does he not think he needs to prepare?
"Are you calling me stupid?" was not a good look for Klobuchar.
On the other hand, she was right about Buttigieg memorizing things rather than have lived through them. He's got some smooth, to the point of being oily, answers regarding his lack of experience, but her comment was penetrating.
Biden can't even number his arguments properly. I think people sense age-related cognitive decline.
The questioner said Bernie didn't produce his full medical record. He says he did. I came away thinking he probably didn't. I'm not bothered by that, except for the hint that he was lying about it. We know he's 78, had a heart attack and looks pretty good, considering. What else is important?
Warren looked like Ali in his prime. Her punches connected and nobody laid a glove on her.
3
How come I saw an ad about Hilary's documentary on Hulu?
Good grief.
Please, just go away! Your corrupt self and sleazy husband are the main reasons why so many moderates dislike, even hate, the Democratic party. Chelsea is a great example of the left's version of Trump when it comes to inheriting money and family business contacts. She's rich!
7
These debates are weird. Does anyone watching actually learn anything except things like Warren doesn't like Bloomberg.
So a 78 year old white guy, back in the day, may not have the right 2020 approach to women. What a surprise.
So far as I can tell each candidate is promising to tax and spend trillions of $ to change America to their own image. Yet the whole debate is basically about character attack with one target. Certainly plays to the Democrat activists.
Though based on the NYT journos responses I'd say it's a shoo in Bloomberg will get the nomination and actually have a chance of winning the election - unlike the others.
Watching Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump debate on stage is alone worth the price of my vote! To heck with mansplaining, Elizabeth Warren for President!!!!
5
I was proud of AMY Klobachar for putting that smug entitled little white boy Petey in the corner! His attacks on AMY cost him the Suburban mom vote ( yes, he may still may get my gay neighbors, but they are only two out of 30 households in my neighborhood. But even then all Gay women may not like his condescending no it all attitude towards AMY! )
Pete, keeps forgetting AMY didn’t grow up the child of University Professors ( my college roommate and her siblings were all the children of a Department Chair and Professor at another Catholic University. Pete grew up in a gilded academic bubble, in an Academic bubble).
AMY was a true midwestern public school teachers kid. Who became the girl Valedictorian, in 1978, then won a scholarship to Yale in 1978. Which Pete, was only a few years after Yale went co-Ed. She then went on to Univ. Of Chicago Law School. Then was the DA in Minnesota, followed by Senator who gets her bills passed.
Pete can not win the state of Indiana! He could not win the DNC chair, Tom Perez beat him!
I went to a June fundraiser in Atlanta, where he was rude and arrogant, he came early when most of the crowd was in the age demographic of AMY.
The New York Times and all these Newspapers are selecting AMY and or Elizabeth!
3
Did Maureen Dowd watch the same debate as everyone else? Michael Bloomberg was tied for her top pick? Really?
4
We've got to ask Maureen Dowd: Is there any possible Dem, outside of the present aspirants, who might get an 8 or 9 card from her? She's a tough grader!
1
Queen Elizabeth!!! Masel Tov!!!
1
Maureen Dowd rated Bloomberg higher than Warren.
That's hilarious.
3
Honestly curious if there is a typo in Maureen Dowd's scores. Did she honestly rate Bloomberg better than Warren? And the text with her description of Warren didn't seem that negative.
2
I give Maureen Dowd a 10.0 for giving nobody higher than a six.
Why is Maureen Dowd consistently in the minority of opinions of performance
Debating is only a small part of running a country. Where everybody seems down on Bloomberg, I find his record and behavior calm and confident. Guess I am out of line with just about everybody. So it goes, as Vonnegut might have said.
What most people are not seeing was how empathetic Warren was. She was empathetic to the needs of marginalized communities she was empathetic to Amy, she showed sensitivity to women who have been silenced. I liked Warren for those amazing examples. Watch the debate again. You folks missed a leader. You can’t recognize leadership anymore I suppose.
2
Elizabeth Warren was terrific. I never realized how tough she could be.
I'm guessing that she would not be afraid of Trump on the debate stage. I don't think that I could say that about most of the other Dems.
3
I sure wish we recoup the many hundreds of millions raised and spent by these and previous candidates for campaigning. The gains we could have achieved for public schools, trade schools, medical research facilities and environmental cleanup and protection! Certainly more useful than the insights or entertainment value of these debates.
1
Per Bret Stephens: " Every answer contained a pander to a left-wing constituency. What about the rest of the country?"
Excuse me, but last time I checked, female U.S. voters comprise over 55% of the voting population. Do you consider it only a left-wing policy to be respectful to women?
5
It was a spirited debate, but overall an ugly evening. Too bad most folks seem to be celebrating angry responses and take down culture over tolerance, good factual based policy and demonstrated results. In this respect Trump won as many of the candidates 'my way or the highway diatribes' were not much better than his, just far less crooked, which, of course, matters a lot. However, keep your eyes on the prize people. We don't want to live through 4 more years of the madness of king Don.
4
The democratic party has been fighting how every person in this country should have equal share of "voice" in the political process, that a "billionaire" shouldn't have more voice than the others simply because they are rich.
I agree.
However, what about the the political elites with obvious political bias? Should their voice also warrant accountability? Should they have a greater share of voice just because they are elite?
People expressing their opinion in this piece, for example, are so biased that the person awarding Warren 10 points awarded 4 Points to Pete. Is that an honest review of the debate performances without driven by the political bias?
For everyone who thought Warren won. Is that based on the substances in her answers, or simply because she showed "fighting spirit"? She is an awesome debater, but neither she elaborated her policies better than the others, nor she was truthful in her criticism. "a post-it note", really? and Pete does have a out of pocket cap in his healthcare plans ($200/month).
The democratic party has been crying about how Trump is a bully and isn't transparent. Sanders is doing precisely the same thing. But the political elite and the democratic party concluded that he had a great debate because he got away dogging questions about his health, and deflected questions about his supporters apparent bullying.
Political elites should be held as much accountable as the billionaires, because they yield as much,if not more political power
I'm sorry, but it seems that some people who don't like Sanders thinks he did badly and those who don't like him and like Buttigieg did better (Gail Collins). The real indicator will be the polls and voting patterns.
2
Elizabeth Warren made my night. Heck, she made my week. From the opening minutes when she jumped right in -- no invitation, just took that running leap and God bless her -- she sheared the head off Michael Bloomberg. She in top form all night and I hope she keeps it up for the rest of the race. It's a winning ticket for her. I still like and respect Bernie. Despite al the resentful attacks and from Buttigieg, nasty resentful little boy attacks, Bernie stays on point and is never at a loss for words. I can't believe Bloomberg ranked as high as he did -- he got a taste of what it was like facing the music and not in a controlled studio. Whoever rated Buttigieg higher than Amy Klobuchar must have watched a different debate. When this race hits the south, Mayor Pete is going down for the count. He hasn't connected with anyone other than what they call white liberal elites. I hope Bloomberg takes the hint and gets out of the race, because it's going to be tough enough for the Democrats against Trump and a humming economy. They need to focus on the message for the election, and not hammering away at each other or dealing with a guy who is determined to buy what he wants.
6
It's a sad matter of fact that regardless of the quality (and quantity) of candidates, none are likely to debate Donald Trump. He has always been a coward, whose presentation and debate skills are better suited to a fourth grader, and he will come up with one excuse after the other to not take the stage against the democratic candidate. You'd probably have a more vigorous debate against an empty chair.
3
I thought this was an absolute circus, and kinda pathetic to be honest. Nobody covered themselves in glory in my opinion. Just vicious and petty attacks on one another. I'm starting to feel really gloomy about November.
1
Elizabeth Warren made my night. Heck, she made my week. From the opening minutes when she jumped right in -- no invitation, just took that running leap and God bless her -- she sheared the head off Michael Bloomberg. She in top form all night and I hope she keeps it up for the rest of the race. It's a winning ticket for her. I still like and respect Bernie. Despite al the resentful attacks and from Buttigieg, nasty resentful little boy attacks, Bernie stays on point and is never at a loss for words. I can't believe Bloomberg ranked as high as he did -- he got a taste of what it was like facing the music and not in a controlled studio. Whoever rated Buttigieg higher than Amy Klobuchar must have watched a different debate. When this race hits the south, Mayor Pete is going down for the count. He hasn't connected with anyone other than what they call white liberal elites. I hope Bloomberg takes the hint and gets out of the race, because it's going to be tough enough for the Democrats against Trump and a humming economy. They need to focus on the message for the election, and not hammering away at each other or dealing with a guy who is determined to buy what he wants.
2
With the exception of Bloomberg, they might as well have been the cheering section at a Trump rally.
1
Mega-loser: the Democratic party. What a disgrace that all that time and the biggest TV audience for a primary debate had to be wasted on gotcha fighting about why this or that candidate shouldn't be President. Trump got a gift as Democrats eviscerated each other. Give us something more to know about your qualifications, not a consultant-researched list of what the other guy/gal did wrong back in the 1990s.
1
I was completely disgusted with the debate. Instead of a debate, it was a competition of discrediting their opponent. They spent more time tearing each other apart than they did talking about what they were bringing to the table or what their plans were. I had to quit watching. It looked like teenagers arguing over something ridiculously petty! I'll vote for whoever becomes the candidate, but in the meantime please does debase the country by acting like Donald Trump and screaming about everybody else!
1
Personally, i thought Mr. Bloomberg did just fine and was clear wether you like him or not. Non-disclosure is non disclosure. He has done more good for women, Democrat's and many other causes that help humanity. He is human and has made huge mistake's, unlike the rest of us perfect and pure folk's. Nevertheless, he has an awful lot of support from the African American community......something i do find hard to understand. He was the best man for the job last night in my book. A pragmatist and the best most qualified candidate to run our county. Is he my fav? No. Can he win. Yes. This is all about beating Trump and McConnell while still pushing democratic party values.....not a popularity contest. And yes, Bernie is a loser. He won't even listen to AOC whose intelligent observations he has brushed aside like the authoritarian he is. My way or the highway does not work for anyone. I would like to vote for Klobuchar who can also win. they are the only 2 in my book.
3
@Hal Paris I completely agree with you, so much so that a plain Recommend was not enough.
One can picture the centrists heads all bowed together as they try and plot what and who they can toss at the wall next.
The bloom's off Bloomy for sure. We'll have to wait 'n see what the best marketing/propaganda money can buy comes up with next. Hope it's not nuclear ugly.
Senator Warren put on a good showing(?). One wonders if it was a plus (donations) or a minus in voters; a push?!
Senator Sanders retains his head at the table for now.
3
The entire debate was a fiasco. If party cannot work together, forgetaboutit! Bloomberg has the necessary stuff to beat Trump--that is all we need! We must ignore Warren's yelling (sheiking) and Amy's pouting (unnecessary.) Our goal is to defeat Trump! Period! Let's keep our eye on the ball.
2
@Kristine
Then why don't we just run an avowed Republican rather than a Republican (or Republicans) posing as Democrats?
1
The big disappointment in this debate was Klobuchar, who really looked like she couldn’t take a blow. I would be terrified to see her on stage against Trump. I think we need either the calm of a Buttigieg or the healthy rage of a Sanders or Warren.
1
The Democrats are standing in a circle and shooting at each other...and I am certain trump is loving it...as well as gathering ammunition provided by the candidates themselves.
It is upsetting and frightening to observe trump becoming more like a dictator each day and realize the cowardly republicans will do nothing.
Europe is watching and already fears dealing with trump for 4 more years... and if he continues as he has been, he will not relinquish the presidency even after another term! He can cheat, as he has always cheated and now has free rein to get away with it , while acting like the wounded party. Many of his followers believe he was a successful businessman and have no idea of his true history of failures and misdeeds.
I have never been so scared for my country. Congrats putin!
1
This whole debate business is a national embarrassment. How one behaves at such a venue is no indication whatsoever as to how they would govern. It's all "gotcha" and dredging up old dirt. As for this group of Times people they are behaving like judges on one of those awful "talent" shows. I say away with it all. Good riddance. Back to the smoke-filled rooms, which gave us our great presidents.
2
Maureen Dowd - here you go again! Taking down a strong, intelligent, accomplished, experienced woman (think Hilary) and giving EW a 4/10 for her performance. How is that possible?
"She won’t be the nominee and she won’t be in a Bloomberg or Sanders cabinet, but she set the tone for the gloves-off debate."
3
Warren is my first choice. My only fear is Trump using the Pocahontas smear. That may sway undecideds.
3
@Terry That inevitability can be easily neutralized....”when do you graduate kindergarten? May we see the transcript?” Is the operative question here. Sen. Warren does diminutive very very well. All we need to do is get her to the nomination, which means taking down the Bernie-bro’s, and that's not the easiest thing in the world. I don't see Bernie behaving any differently than he did towards Sec. Clinton in 2016 should he lose the nomination, evidenced by his tolerance for their bad behaviors in this cycle this far.
It's at the Democratic Convention, July 13–16, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin at the Fiserv Forum that the Democratic nominee will be decided on, chosen and named.
It's like we Democrats are a sports league like:
Major League Baseball.
Duration March 26 – October 28, 2020.
Number of games 162. Number of teams 30
These individual state caucuses are the 30 teams playing/battling to win the nomination for the world series.
MLB WS is Oct. 20, a potential Game 7 would be played on October 28. The Dem convention is like the World Series.
Vote in your State Primary then,
vote for your POTUS/VPOTUS team on
Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
It will be the 59th quadrennial presidential election.
Vice Presidents matter too.
1
one other thing- once Mike said "we've tried that, it doesn't work, it's called communism" I waited for the TV folk to ask- WHEN? WHICH ADMINISTRATION was communist? JFK? Maybe, like so many 1%ers have always alleged, FDR?
But no, no one called that out, even in the afterviews...
4
Thank you New York Times, for giving us all the columnists' perspectives on the debate. I was frankly surprised - some in a good way, some in a perplexed way - by some of the columnists' perspective. Boy, my thinking on Maureen has changed, that's for sure.
3
The NY Times had it right. A Warren/Kub ticket could send Trump packing. They would tear him apart. Time to stop the debates. We know where everyone stands.
6
Looking at each candidates' performances, and at NYTimes' staff grading, Warren has proven to be The Great Neutralizer in the race. Warren appears the candidate that can invalidate (record, knowledge, ethics, temperament) and defeat Trump in a debate - look how she handled Bloomberg!
2
Al of the candidates had good points to make. Not sure it is a good idea to name one a winner. Bloomberg did OK for being putting on the spot relentlessly. Here's the thing, what it is important is for them to stop tearing each other apart. How about instead pointing out each other's good points, the ones that can help beat Trump. That is all that matters isn't it? And about Bernie being a socialist, well considering where the donald's policies have left this country, this might not be a bad thing right now. And he is a democratic socialist, far different from a socialist like donald supports in defending oligarchy
Elizabeth Warren was on fire last night, dispelling any suspicions that she has been fading. While I did not always appreciate her constantly bringing up race into her answers, which came uncomfortably close to patronizing, nor the notes of sarcasm, she put on her former teacher persona and voice and offered strong, well thought-out responses. I applauded her standing up to Buttigieg's behaving badly towards Amy Klobuchar, acknowledging that human beings, even those running for president, can forget things. This was a high moment during a debate that was unrelentingly combative, and this viewer was glad for that.
3
I had a great time watching the Dem debate last night. I particularly enjoyed it when Warren tore Bloomberg "a new one" and she displayed remarkable talent in making him look like the total sleaze he is. What got me particularly incensed was his statement on non-disclosures. They are always one-sided and protect the company, not the individual. When he was asked if he would let the employees off the hook if they wanted off the hook, his answer was no, that it protects the individuals which is baloney and says it all about his character. The one thing that's certain for me is that I could easily vote for any of the other Dem nominees, but if it's Bloomberg, I will vote for Trump to show my displeasure.
2
I was very depressed after watching this debate. Warren’s behavior last evening was frankly terrible. She came across as a nasty you know what throwing out unsubstantiated charges against Bloomberg that frankly are libelous. As a former law-professor she should know better. She certainly did not look or act presidential. Moreover, what is this obsession against being a billionaire. Bloomberg has given billions of dollars to support universities. Law School professors like Warren have been paid salaries and receive research grants from Bloomberg and other major donors. She has never worked in the private sector, has not been terribly effective as a US Senator probably because her counterparts don’t like her. She has been eating from the public sector and non-profit trough for years. Frankly other than a short stint at a startup Federal agency she has never run anything!
I think the reason for Warren’s attack was to curry favor from Sanders and his supporters to obtain a #2 spot on the ticket. There is no logical explanation as she has zero chance of being the nominee. I was hoping that Bloomberg would offer some hope to have a competitive race in November now that Biden has collapsed. Now, I am not so sure so much so that I am drinking heavily today hoping I wake up from a bad dream.
4
Elizabeth Warren didn't have the good night that commentators (other than me) seem to think.
Nothing seems to have been learned from 2016. There seems to be an inherent misunderstanding of the electorate, and what they will respond to, compared to what some people think they should respond to. Donald Trump understands that very well.
Warren came across as the angry woman, a self appointed defender of women she doesn't know, assumed because she too is a woman. Gender politics doesn't work and isn't popular. People (and that also means women) don't care.
Sanders will be the nominee, something stolen from him in 2016 by the super delegates.
I am a former state legislative staffer. I think that Team Amy needs to do a better job of explaining why her record of sponsoring and passing legislation is impressive. Surely there are stats out on other highly respected members of Congress and their records on sponsoring and passing legislation. How does she compare to: Everett Dirkson, Frank Church, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Paul Wellstone, take your pick? It takes a lot of hard work to put together well-crafted legislation and a lot of moxie and respect from your colleagues to get legislation passed. The sponsoring and passage of legislation is the metric of effectiveness in office. Unfortunately, the average voter may not realize this.
3
As a student in Madison, back in the 1970s, there was one thing that would make you an outcast; that thing was seeing any good in the establishment. For reporters in Reno last night; failing to recall each candidates Achilles, even the minuscule, was a similar sin. So the reporters succeeded in verifying their Anger-credentials; but did nothing to help America get past this destructive president.
2
Poor Bernie. He's nothing if not consistent, yet a bit ill-informed. He keeps talking about the "democratic socialist" country of Denmark. Bernie doesn't understand that Denmark has a market economy. Just because a country has high taxes and a single-payer health system doesn't make it socialist. The definition of socialism is that the government owns all the means of production -- banks, factories, businesses, etc. The accumulation of private capital and/or wealth is strictly forbidden in a socialist government. Bloomberg correctly pointed out that Bernie is a multi-millionaire who owns three houses. This could not happen in the socialist paradise he espouses. I wonder if he even understands what he's promoting? He had a good outing last night though. If you're the front-runner (which he is) all you need to do is not mess up. Mission accomplished for Sanders.
@KBigg
From the DSA website:
" Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods."
2
@KBigg
Sorry, you have apparently no idea how the Nordic countries are organised. Large areas of the economy are owned by local or central government and as such are exempt from the market economy. What areas? Most of public transport, kindergarten, education, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Moreover, non-profit cooperatives have a massive influence in food production and distribution. So saying these countries are market economies are likely to mislead Americans. besides "accumulation of private capital and or wealth is strictly forbidden in a socialist government" is nonsense. Norway and Sweden had majority sosialist rule from approx 1935-1970 but accumulation of wealth and capital was still allowed (of course). The aim of socialist government is the socialization of the market, not its abolition.
2
I must admit, I’m surprised at all the negativity about Mayor Bloomberg, who rated more like at least a 6 out of 10. He remained dignified when attacked and had reasonable answers - amazing how his wealth is held against him when a considerable amount of it has been spent in promoting causes the other candidates favor, including gun control, Planned Parenthood, and getting rid of Donald Trump! Bloomberg hasn’t had the debate practice the others have had, so it seems unfair to judge him as if he’s been there from the beginning, which he would have been had it not been for Biden’s flagging performance.
8
Bloomberg was like an orphan meeting his adoptive family for the first time, and finding that they eat their young.
Typical Democratic circular firing squad — producing not much more than sound bites for Republican national campaign commercials and again demonstrating their unerring knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
We need a strong Democratic candidate with coattails long enough to carry the down-ticket candidates, especially for Senate, along with him / her. After the NV debate I am starting to worry, though, that said Democratic candidate is not in the race.
6
This debate reminded me just how much I like Elizabeth Warren. I'd love to see her campaign regain some momentum. I think she is Brilliant.
11
The DNC -- along with all corporations, including, it seems, the NYT -- is afraid of Bernie Sanders, and are trying to destroy him. The prospect of paying their so-called Fair Share of taxes is their problem with Bernie. They might accept, otherwise, healthcare for all (birth to grave as in Europe), a living wage, a home of some kind for every family, no starving individuals, and a vast reduction in fossil fuels -- IF did not mean they might have to help finance all this. Biden doesn't look like the corporate hero he was a few months ago, so we may well get Bloomberg. Like others here, I also like Warren, a slightly less sinister contender than Bernie Sanders, perhaps, for the DNC and the big money it typically supports.
4
@Martha Stephens How is his 2nd place in the debate performance indicative of the NYT "trying to destroy" Sen. Sanders?
Reading the score cards, I can't help but think of 'America's Got Talent.' Is this what it comes down to? Points out of ten? This looks like the lowest common denominator in American television - the reality show. The debates are already a circus. Don't demean them further.
7
Between Klobuchar's defensiveness, Buttigieg's glaring inexperience and Bloomberg's hideous display, this could be the debate where a bunch of voters remember that Joe is a little past his prime but not so bad after all.
The most important thing for the others, even Warren, was to smother Bloomberg before he took all the oxygen out of room over the next two weeks. They can go after Bernie and his smaller peak vote share later. On this critical task, mission accomplished.
2
Bernie Sanders seems like the candidate to beat for the Democratic nomination. If the debates last night are any indication Mr. Sanders is likely to be our nominee.
But I am very pessimistic about him in the general. None of his opponents have dared challenge his socialism.
But Trump and the Republican war machine are keeping their power dry until he is named. Then Katy bar the door.
I can imagine ads in re Bernie's past. USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. The old videos of him insisting he is a double barreled socialist, not just a Democratic Socialist.
Some of his younger more controversial positions that will not have aged that well since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Socialist millionaire with three homes, etc.
It is going to be very bloody.
I will vote for him but it will likely not matter.
5
@gpickard
Socialist scare is way overused.
It's lost it's Lions 'n Tigers and Bears! Oh My!
Here comes the Russians!!!!
Especially when the clown spouting the nonsense is a puppet of Putin. An actual toady to corruption and lies.
A little research into these "oh noes" brings about...nothing. The points Sanders made about each country and pol were and are true. (shrug) It's a meh.
If the only thing Trump et al can throw at the self declared Dem. Socialist is that he's a...socialist....Duh! We all already know this. We elected him anyway because he's not a serial liar, not a crook, not a sexist racist goon.
Oh no! He's a socialist!
Yeah...so what?! What else do you have?
That he's rated as the most trusted pol? That he's consistently considered honest to a fault?
That he's fought for the working wo/man his whole public service career (and even before then)?!
This pessimism is overblown. Stand up straight, smile and look the bully in the eye. Trumps got nothing but scary name calls. He's all paper and no tiger. Don't give him more power than he deserves.
Sanders beats Trump.
2
@gpickard
And let's not forget the rape fantasy essay, and his wife Jane's shady college dealings. All of this is in the past and I don't hold it against him anymore than I do Biden's misguided votes of 30 years ago. But you can be sure the Republicans will. And for all the Bernie supporters' whining about how the media is against him, they haven't vetted him at all.
@gpickard
My hometown in Norway is run by a socialist party. No need to invoke the USSR or Cuba. These countries were not socialist. Socialists want to socialise the economy and expand democracy, not restrict or abolish it.
3
The debate is showing some strengths in style; one being managerial of one of the top three biggest economic cities in America, Bloomberg from NY and Amy K for being able to communicate her grounds during the debate. The one challenge for connecting to Bloomberg is his constant connection to Obama. That was some tough years and didn’t really see any foresight to an exit strategy from Afphagan. and Iraq. At the time 6 years ago he campaigned on troops coming home and ending needless work that did not benefit the US -- work in Syria that tail spun. He got us in the biggest debt ever, kept on with his programs and would had been great to have someone that is not so far left and more towards the middle. And, having created more problems overseas while having Germany do the war spin work.
Everyone who wants Trump removed from the White House has to understand this: It does not matter AT ALL — if the democratic candidate will win an additional 10 Million votes in California or New York. It will make no difference.
What matters are Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisonsin.
And it is a sad fact that Elizabeth Warren will not be able to win those three states.
7
Bernie has made two fatal mistakes that he never needed to make.
1) Scrapping private insurance and only allowing a government plan
2) Labeling himself as a socialist.
If he had come out saying that people could still keep their private health insurance (which will always be the case given congress) and did not focus being a socialist he would have had a shot. Not now.
2
@M Murray
You are mistaken sir. Private insur. is allowed under M4A. It just can't cover what is covered.
Labeling himself as a socialist is a truthful moniker for himself. He didn't and doesn't lie about this. That takes away a lot of the scare or power of name calling someone as such. He's got a huge history of doing and being in the right, for the right reasons, fighting for We the People. Most of us don't care WHAT he calls himself. We know who and what he is.
SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.
—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, including additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1129/BILLS-116s1129is.pdf
Vegas disagrees with you. They think he's got a shot; so do tens of millions of us.
2
I'm in Colorado. Have always preferred Elizabeth Warren, but was starting to feel I should vote for someone more electable in our upcoming primary. Forget that. The debate reminded me that she's the best candidate by far. I'm voting for her.
10
Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar are spitting out acerbic criticisms of Bloomberg hoping this will knock him out of the running at the out set.
They are totally overlooking the important new subset of US society - the billionaires who are stepping in to fill important basic needs of the population that government should probably be handling, but is rendered paralyzed by argumentative politicians, both Democrats and Republicans.
The Buffetts, the Gates, the Bezos, Apple, to name a few - and Bloomberg is one of these. They are spending gazillions of all their money - and let's be grateful they have lots of it and want to give it - of fine programs to help EVERYBODY.
5
@Marilyn Mackey Charity masks injustice. We must not grovel at the feet of the wealthy.
5
@Steve
Who's grovelling? I think the point is that demonizing a segment of the society with sweepingly inaccurate labels, whether it be billionaires or anyone else, is dangerous and simplistic. It's the biggest problem I have with Sanders.
1
@Bunbury:Your observation was succinct.The future Mr.Sanders envisions is a generation of two away.
2
Sorry Bret, Democrat primary debates aren't for Republicans. Why should she pander to you?
2
It is too bad. Bloomberg is the only candidate who can beat the current Man in Office. He has the right view on the only issue that matters, climate change. All his other faults are nothing, in the context of the urgency of the environmental catastrophe we face, and of whom we need to replace in this Presidential election.
The Man will utterly destroy any of the others.
And then the earth will cry.
6
I share Amy's disdain for Buttigieg. I have disliked his overly rehearsed lines from the start. I suspect he has fifteen minutes of spontaneity scheduled twice a month. He is smug and his worse play came after his second-place in NH when he "congratulated" the "good showings" of Sanders and Klobuchar as if he were the winner when he clearly wasn't.
While the other campaign watch parties were noisy, excited and engaged, Buttigieg stood on a stage with flags behind him to look presidential mimicking Obama's cadence and gestures (practiced in front of a mirror?) while his crowd - if there was one - was silent except for the Greek chorus who did synchronized placard raising singing "President Pete". His is pompous and out of his league.
Go get him, Amy and Elizabeth!
5
@nora m I think it comes down to this: Klobuchar and Buttigieg are the natural rivals for the "younger centrist" position, she was attacking him in the last debate and he was getting back at her this time.
While I think both Warren and Sanders are too rigid and uncompromising in their positions, I think Klobuchar as well as Buttigieg would make very fine presidents. It makes me a little sad to have to watch them fight each other.
2
@nora m
Amy lied about Pete's statement in the previous debate:
(William Saletan, Slate, 2/12/2020 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/klobuchar-saved-campaign-new-hampshire-buttigieg-attack.html).
Warren belittled Pete's healthplan as powerpoint, when in fact, Pete's plan was well developed and has been analyzed by Progressive Policy Institute and Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget:
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/projects/how-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-would-fund-americas-future/
http://www.crfb.org/papers/primary-care-estimating-leading-democratic-candidates-health-plans.
Pete's rallies have been recorded in publicly accessible video clips. A recent one in CO with 4500 in attendance, noisy, exciting and engaging.
I am surprised that you think only winner should congratulate opponents. I was taught to always to congratulate my opponents. Pete is professional and respectful. If you ever doubt his sincerity, perhaps you will find the following helpful:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/reading-buttigieg
3
Can the NYT please do a story on why the Democratic debate is nearly impossible to find on YouTube? (I've found one, little-visited link, this after 5-10 minutes of searching.) And why a Google search, "Why is the Democratic debate not on YouTube?" which appears to be a question others are asking, too, turns up not a single story or comment?
@Anatoly Pinsky
There's nothing sinister about it. You have access to YouTube Finland, not YouTube U.S. Different countries have different video access laws, and it may take longer to get there. The same thing applies to Google. One trick: sign out of your country's Google site and go to Google U.S. You may be able to see it from there, although you may also get a message that the video is blocked in your area.
We need a street smart, high IQ, a fighter like Sen. Warren to gore the con man. Someone like Warren to champion and advocate to address the economic insecurity faced by millions of working class voters. Down with off-shoring, outsourcing and importation of H1B workers by the corporations.
Take no prisoners; mercilessly expose the dangerously corrupt swamp monster. Nail down the Wizard of Oz.
5
Mike not a practiced debater. But, my take. He is in the ring with the specific intent of keeping Cadet "Sharpie"Bone Spurs venality and stupidity in the public eye. Lot's of ammo to work with. Also, well aware that Bernie on track to once again be a spoiler. Socialism label a huge detriment. But, most of all, Mike has found a way to work around the huge adverse effects of the Supreme Court Citizens United Decision. A candidate can spend as much of his own money as he or she chooses. For that I give him credit and my sincere thanks. Me - crave a Biden/Warren ticket. Joe as a calming influence for 4 years. Elizabeth to do the nuts and bolts work of undoing the tremendous damage done by Cadet "Sharpie" Bone Spurs and the phony "Tea Party" non patriots. Then, break the glass ceiling and serve two terms. Republican Party sent to the desert for 12 years to meditate and read the Constitution. Proud of the diversity and capabilities of the large field of Democratic candidates. We have a strong bench to reach out to going forward.
4
This commentary happens after every debate, and it's always useless. Know why? Because every columnist here almost always says the candidate they back did well, and the ones they dislike did poorly. It's possible to objectively evaluate these performances, but a little too difficult for this group of people -- and for most people watching.
9
Can I just say, this piece is a really fun read for NYT’s subscribers!
1
I usually skip ahead to Maureen Dowd's remarks because she always nails it.
1
I love the Times columnists, but I have been perplexed by their reviews every debate. Elizabeth Warren was aggressive , desperate, and unprofessional. Last night Warren appealed to angry viewers. Bernie didn't stoop to name calling (Warrens accusations of arrogant, misogynist ). He called out the injustice of stop and frisk and the fact that Bloomberg is a billionaire, which is more than adequate. She lied about Klobuchar's website and healthcare plan. She lied about Bloomberg's behavior(how does she know he said the exact things Trump has said). Warren may have had to do what she did last night, but it reeked of insincerity.
Klobuchar may have been tentative at times, but the content of her answers was clear and meaningful. Her humble answer to Mayor Pete's attack on remembering Mexico's President's name, was touching and humanizing. Criticism of her response to Buttigieg's infantile comments misses the mark.
On the other hand, when Buttigieg insults Amy about failing to recall a name, when he criticizes Bernie for "my way or the highway" approach (which means Sander's has conviction, and doesnt want to compromise with congress before he is elected), when he flounders with his plan of Medicare for all who want it, he comes across as dishonest and unlikable .
I believe the voters will view the candidates this way. In fact, I think it is wrong to even have NYT columnists review the performances.
7
NY Times will once again endorse candidates unlikely to win ie Sen Warren and Se. Klobuchar. The Democrats during the debate certainly dug a hole and buried mayor Bloomberg with dirt in the debates and watered the dirt for now. But super Tuesday still a couple of weeks away, the temporary set back for Bloomberg will make little difference. He will resurrect himself like a phoenix and win big time on super Tuesday. One point he made in the debates is he only he as a NY street fighter can stand up to DJT. If that is the goal of the Democrats then he is your man.
Wait to see his new ads directed not at DJT anymore but at Bernie, Biden and Warren.
3
@Girish Kotwal
BUT, he failed as a "street fighter" in the debate. The rest of them toasted him like a marshmallow. Rolling your eyes is not very intimidating. Trump won't even notice it.
We really don't need to have a contest of ads and tweets.
3
And Maureen Dowd needs no introduction
She gave Liz a 4 and Mike a 5?
1
Looks like Bloomberg’s paid commenters are too demoralized to say anything today.
5
I notice that Maureen Down seems to like no one.
4
Tom Perez still has his job after Iowa. Neera Tanden still has her job after Bloomberg funding spiked a CAP report. And Chuck Todd still has his job after repeating a "brownshirts" slur about the Jewish candidate's supporters on national TV and is moderated last nights debate.
4
@gene
Well, they do tout themselves as "the less evil party".
1
Watching Bloomberg may have been the fastest that anyone in history has flushed $500 million down the toilet. What a disaster.
6
I would gladly support either of the NYT's picks: Amy or Elizabeth.
3
Maureen Dowd coming through with some class solidarity
1
NY Times will once again endorse candidates unlikely to win ie Sen Warren and Se. Klobuchar. The Democrats during the debate certainly dug a hole and buried mayor Bloomberg with dirt in the debates and watered the dirt for now. But super Tuesday still a couple of weeks away, the temporary set back for Bloomberg will make little difference. He will resurrect himself like a phoenix and win big time on super Tuesday. One point he made in the debates is he only he as a NY street fighter can stand up to DJT. If that is the goal of the Democrats then he is your man.
Wait to see his new ads directed not at DJT anymore but at Bernie, Biden and Warren.
1
@Girish Kotwal
Why does this feel like watching a bully get a bloody nose and now he's running away saying over his shoulder...
"I'll get you...next time, just you wait"
3
Klobuchar was WAY too easily rattled - if Pete Buttigieg can get under her skin, I shudder to think how she would react in a debate with Trump....
I had been supporting Klobuchar because I thought she was more electable than Warren come November, but after this debate, I am firmly back in Elizabeth Warren's camp.
Whoever wins the nomination has my support in the general election, but I have every confidence that Elizabeth Warren will be able to take on Donald Trump.
My second choice after this debate is Pete Buttigieg. I also have confidence in his ability to take on Donald Trump - but Elizabeth Warren is still the better candidate.
The debate last night was very helpful in helping me decide who to vote for in the Wisconsin primary - fingers crossed that Elizabeth Warren will be on the ballot for our primary -
4
I give them all a 1 out of 10 in this circus clown car event.
They need to be debating policies and attacking the guy in the Oval Office on topics like a trillion dollar deficit, climate change, health care, our declining standing and leadership in the world, the president's integrity - having taxpayers paying his resorts for his "official business", and his disregard for the constitution including the judiciary fiasco. Instead we get the verbal version of a food fight in Animal House.
This internal mudslinging is playing into the hands of Trump and his Republican Minions, along with Fox News.
No one showed why their policies and ideas will turn this country around and allay all fears, instead they displayed to America's voters a party in disarray and lost at sea, where is the DNC in all of this? Probably still focused on counting votes in Iowa.
This group is grasping defeat from the jaws of victory
4
Bernie is the only one who really understands the health care industry (although Warren has a clue). The others probably all get campaign contributions from health insurance industry lobbyists. If we elect anyone but Bernie or Warren, not much will change for so many of us that hate our plans, including people with employer-based plans and those with small group or individual plans-we see our plans costing more and more each year and delivering less and less. Insurers must go. They really don't care about anything but profits.
5
Everyone lost including the public not only because of the internal fights from the candidates but because the boxing match fervor - a metaphor announced at the event- was encouraged by the incendiary questions they received and handlers and aides. More gasoline on a fire of tweets, social media, and name calling. More sound bite responses all telegraphed beforehand.Instead of looking at the real adversary in the white house, the event stopped to that level some more. Just like 2016.
4
I love how Maureen Dowd consistently loathes Warren...what up with that?
1
When, if ever, are they actually going to debate as opposed to looking like a bunch of overachievers in a middle school, raising their hands so they can say either why they deserve an "A" or why everyone else should get an "F"? When will we see some serious discussions? This is so flat out silly,
2
@Michael Kennedy
Blame the moderators who ask vacuous questions about the same things every moderator before them asked.
The moderators need to ask about foreign affairs, the limits of power, the judiciary, and checks and balances and forget about re-hashing health care. That one has been beaten into the ground.
8
So here is my take. I understand the attraction to Bernie, I really do. The promise of free health care, 100 percent student load forgiveness, free college, free child care, free ... whatever. But, it is not a realistic policy agenda.
First, there are Republicans still in Congress and you can count on zero of them to vote for any of that. Second, there are centrist Democrats who also wouldn't vote for any of that in Bernie form. This means there has to be compromise and debate on all of these issues and none of this will come to pass in the form that Bernie or Warren for that matter is promising.
They both depend on a super majority of Americans to rise up and elect people who think like them, a revolution. The problem is, that won't happen either.
So Bernie and to some extent Warren are running on things they have no conceivable way of making happen. Not to mention Trump is gonna hammer them on tax increases to the middle class. Therefore, though better than Trump, they will easily lose Congress in the mid-terms and won't be re-elected after. Do you know what I think? Don Jr. and Ivanka/ Jared are as terrible as the old man. Do you really think they aren't going to run in the next non-Donald Trump election?
We need a strong centrist Democratic Candidate who can not only defeat Trump, but a Trump Challenge in the future. I sincerely cannot believe that the DNC could not find a stronger candidate but this is what we have, lets not screw this up.
1
I' m surprised that some gave Bloomberg higher marks than Klobuchar. Not her best performance, but she was still quite good. We need fewer attacks on each other and more information on what policy they would pursue on immigration, pollution/climate change, etc. We already know how they feel about Trump. To beat Trump, we must stick together.
2
Warren took a hammer of research and beat Bloomberg speechless with it. There was blood, there was pain, and there was no response. That is exactly wehat it takes to beat Trump...cold, hard, razor sharp facts.
5
How is it that there are no black women in this group?????
That ain't it.
@cleverclue
Ask Perez who refused to change the debate qualification rules for Harris, Booker or Castro last fall. When Bloomberg jumped in, well that's different! We can change the rules for him and his ample donations.
4
This overly female biased panel of judges is looking for certain criteria in a candidate and of course Warren ticks every box. In a year when it would seem like it's almost impossible for the Democrats to loose they are trying very hard to find a way. Instead of just going for the win and picking a candidate who is at least palatable to the voters in the middle, they are going for a full blown left wing liberal. If Bernie, Pete or Warren are the candidates the Dems will be in tears on election night wondering how things could have gone so terribly wrong. I say to Dems pick someone who can just beat Trump and be satisfied with that for the next four years. Don't let your need for candidate who lines up with your personal ideology blind you. That person will lose.
3
@DreadLK "Overly female biased panel," huh? Go back and count the male/female composition of the panel. And in what worldview is Pete B. a "full-blown left wing liberal"? Speaking of a "personal ideology" makes me wonder what yours is and how that affects your political ideology. That doesn't occur to me in reading most of the other comments.
4
@NicoleHemmer How could anyone think Bernie Sanders to be "tense and humorless"? The guy is sincere, witty, and energetic. Tens and humorless would be terms to describe the other candidates for sure. No wonder most of his supporters are young.
4
I find it sad that what seems to matter to people watching these so called debate is that the candidates need to be talking policy and how they intend on trying to get their agenda into practice rather than picking on one another for what was said or done 20 years ago. I am not defending Bloomberg at all but we live in woke times and what people fail to consider is that although he did "bad" things, these things were done when life was different and our society had different standards. Again not defending these old norms but this is the way it was and judging people on what was, rather than what will be, is silly.
6
Yikes, I wouldn’t call this a debate. What kept flashing in my head was four more years with a moron. Sanders does it again.
5
@Dave Brown
No. Hillary lost on her own last time despite the sour grapes she puts out blaming everything and everyone for her failure.
1
Maureen Dowd only gave a bunch of 3/4/5 /10 scores. I wonder if she thinks she would be the best President of the United States.
3
Maureen Dowd always gives women the lowest vote. Houston, we have a problem.
5
Did Mo give anyone a score above 5?
4
Funny how Gail Collins considers Sanders' passion "yelling" and columnists not in Warren's camp dislike her "yelling". These scores are merely projection.
6
I'm sorry..... I'm still laughing.....
That "debate" was a clustermess.....
Saint Pete was the only one who sounded sane....
...and Mr Limbaugh was right..... America ain't ready for that......
1
@wacky I wonder what he's ready for? Doesn't act like he's preparing to meet his maker.
3
She stayed? Look it up. What kind of journalism is this? I wouldn't let my mother read this. Disgraceful.
Does Maureen Dowd like anyone? Outlier on all but Bloomberg
1
Circular firing squad for the Dems.
"She ground her heel into Bloomberg’s trachea from the first minute."
"...she brought her brass knuckles, nunchucks, chainsaw, multiple shivs and a big honking baseball bat...only Bernie escaped a serious beatdown."
"She came bloodthirsty and walked away sated, having repeatedly laid waste to Bloomberg and Buttigieg."
Yuck. Do writers at the NYT need to talk about politics like this? These are all quotes from women, BTW.
9
"Gail Collins (4/10) — Everything’s a yell."
How much was she paid for such insightful commentary on the performance of the Democratic front-runner? Astounding.
9
I read many comments bewailing the sheer number of options and expressing fear that none of them will be able to unify the party. This seems to me an insular point of view. Diehard Democrats alone cannot beat Trump. Only a broader coalition--one including Independents, Unaffiliateds, swing voters, former Republicans, third-party voters, first-time voters--can work, and I see little appreciation of that fact.
Democrats urge us to "Vote Blue, No Matter Who." But I wonder how well this way of thinking will go over with minorities, former Republicans (far more people left the GOP over Trump than is realized), the young (who rightly have concerns about the "who"), or even older Democrats who have seen their own party remade in their own lifetime. Who would appeal to such a diverse crowd? Not an establishment Democrat; many Democrats had to hold their nose to vote for such in 2016, and the party cannot continue to count on them. The young want big change, not just a change in administrations, and they are not alone in this. Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by an amoral criminal enterprise want change, but many don't want someone with "Democrat" stamped on the forehead. Minorities want a fair deal. And a sizable number of older Democrats think Bernie looks more recognizably "Democrat" than do the current party loyalists.
It's time to set aside the view that Democrats alone are going to oust Trump. It will require teamwork, which always requires compromise..
4
I think all of these pundits are wrong about who won with the voters. I think Bloomberg won, even though he didn't perform at the same level as the establishment Democrats did. He's the threat to them from within, and they attacked him all night. I think that's how voters will see it. I'm voting for Sanders on Super Tuesday, but I think Bloomberg will get a big boost from this truly godawful shouting match.
1
The art of debating is one in which style invariably prevails over substance. Occasionally, in the history of presidential debates, but only rarely, have style points in a debate been decisive in an election (Kennedy vs. Nixon and Reagan vs. Carter come to mind). And, so I fear, will it turn out to be this year. Thus, the ablest debater, Elisabeth Warren, is unlikely to receive the nomination, and if nominated, is unlikely to defeat Donald Trump. The substance of her policies and her political convictions, however eloquently expressed, are simply not in accord with those of a majority of American voters. Both she and Bernie Sanders are ahead of their time.
1
To my mind that was the worst debate of all of them. The lack of civility among most of them was anything but presidential. I'm writing it off as a total loss. Good grief. Nobody even mentioned Senate coattails. A socialist nominee would be on every line of every ballot in November. Nobody gave the frontrunner any heat about doing like Trump and hiding his health records. Nobody held him to account for the appallingly vicious and misogynistic behavior of his supporters this week in Nevada. Some of the moderators were apparently dead set on causing gratuitous and fatal damage to the campaigns of Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Warren won the debate but lost the race. I say that though she is one of my several favorites. Her tactical error is still the same one, namely, making as if she is a Sanders minion--even as Sanders was doing what Sanders does last night and brutally hacking away at her strengths which he is altogether lacking. She is everything Sanders as and a whole lot more. Only Buttigieg and Bloomberg behaved presidentially. And Biden when he had the good sense not to pile on.
2
This debate was a disaster for the Democratic Party.
I lost my coverage when Obama kicked in and it was a nightmare. Believe me, no one wants to go through that again.
I just started Medicare and, frankly, it’s not the bargain that Bernie claims it is.
Bloomberg has put his money where his mouth is and it shows.
Bernie has been playing this same song for decades. It’s not what we need at this point in time.
Moderation has its benefits.
How about going after Trump and his incredibly damaging actions to this country (and others) instead of continuing this circular firing squad.
4
@Andrea
I meant when Obamacare first kicked in. I loved Obama.
1
Just early voted here in TX. Count one for Sanders 2020!
4
i was surprised to find myself in agreement with bret stephens most of the time, except for his downgrading of warren's performance (which i thought was quite good).
klobuchar, biden and warren, i think, did the most to help themselves.
sanders held his own but needs to inject a bit of humor to balance his righteous rants.
buttigieg's mckinsey mask slipped. he's too young. period.
bloomberg? i hope he keeps his promise to spend money on other dem candidates: he revealed who he is--had people forgotten? good grief. bloomberg would undermine turnout up and down the line.
it would be nice if, henceforth, bloomberg and buttigieg were off the stage. we want to hear more from klobuchar, warren and biden (we've heard what bernie has to say).
1
Not really sure how one could possibly rank Bloomberg's performance last night as better than Warren's, but to each their own I suppose. Warren I thought had a better night than her previous debates, and was sharp and direct with her critique. Klobuchar I felt, on the other hand, had a considerably weaker night than she had in New Hampshire.
As an aside, there might be some truth in the idea that some vicious Bernie supporters or "Bernie Bros" may be Russian bots, as per an article the NYT ran in 2017 title "The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election". Not sure if I can link the article here, but the idea did not seem that farfetched then apparently.
3
How is Maureen Dowd a columnist for this esteemed newspaper. I can't fathom who actually finds her particularly insightful or even entertaining. Her forever pessimistic attitude about everything coupled with the way every piece is just a middle school style book report of weekly events filtered through her usual politics as soap opera lens has grown tired. I can't stand to read more than a sentence or two of any piece before I'm thoroughly annoyed.
3
@Tiago
The original mean girl act is very old.
Seriously.
3
Klobuchar: Petulant and small. "Are you calling me dumb?" She came unglued and singularly focused on vindictive retaliation with Buttigieg. She was desperate and panicked. At one point I wondered if she was going to actually cry. Past complaints about her wicked treatment of staff became immediately plausible--no, not plausible, LIKELY.
2
After last night I would find it difficult to vote for any Dem. Sanders and Warren are hard to take. They are both strident and violent. Biden and Bloomberg seemed older than their years and stumbled around the issues. There's something mean and stupid about Klobuchar. And Pete just comes off as inexperienced(he needs better advisors). All in all I will vote Dem and hope for the best.
Right now the best possible Dem ticket - faults and all - would be Buttigieg and Bloomberg.
4
@Lupito
Verbal violence . They were out to harm.
1
...that is to say nothing of Tom and Tulsi?! Who?!
Is there a Brokered Convention strategy being calculated by any if not all candidates? If you Op-Ed touts keep writing about this horse race, why not try your augury on the potential Brokered Convention debacle?
1
These "town halls" are not demolition derbies, nor are they circular firing squads, despite the "Monday football" pundits in the news media seeing them this way. Democracy is messy sometimes, but it's not at all like a spectator sport.
America is very fortunate that the different candidates (at least in one of the parties) are willing to talk about policy alternatives.
Many other countries do not have as transparent a system for picking their leaders.
On the other hand, in Canada we generally make the choice (of a federal leader) in one weekend, with multiple ballots. The delegates, in most cases, need to have been party members for at least a year.
Campaign spending, and donations, are capped, very strictly supervised and audited.
The U.S.A. system, for all its strengths, likely needs to be reformed. To allow each state to run its own caucus process, and to employ a wide range of election technologies in November, sounds a lot like 1820, not 2020.
3
I am a long-time (since the 2016 primaries) supporter of Bernie Sanders for President. I am not a socialist, I voted for Hilary, and I am not a "bro". As a Sanders supporter who is, I believe, more similar to than different from other Sanders supporters, I am tired of, and offended by, being characterized as a "bro." I am a reasonable, middle-aged woman who has thrived under capitalism. We're here. We're for Bernie. We're not bros.
5
Takeaway from last night:
If Elizabeth Warren is the party's nominee, no way will Trump step onto a debate stage with her. Not one.
If it's Bloomberg, Trump will ask for as many debates as can be scheduled by Election Day.
6
Trump will probably not debate this time. His supporters will buy the excuses he makes and many will admire him to have the courage to refuse to play the other side's game (as he did by stonewalling the House impeachment process). They prefer the Trump they get in rallies and are impressed when he stretches the debate rules and format by hovering Hillary or inviting her husband's affairs to the debate.
2
I am going to keep saying this. The only way Sanders can win the ELECTION (not the nomination) is for a majority of the middle and lower classes combined to embrace Democratic Socialism and to come out in droves to vote. I think this is an ambitious and *risky* strategy. More people than the Democrats realize -- people not in the top 1% or 5% or even 10% of the economy -- are repelled by the word "socialism." It's a word that appeals to the adventurous without historical perspective, and possibly those too old to be likely to earn much more money during their lives, but the idea that those aged 35-55 and doing moderately well are willing to pay huge taxes to fund those not doing as well is not promising.
I love Obamacare. It's working beautifully in my State. What's not working beautifully in my and many other states is the HOUSING CRISIS, which no candidate is talking about enough. That crisis is far more potentially unifying and energizing than the constant harping about healthcare from Sanders and Warren.
That said, I'm glad Bloomberg lost. He appeals to amoral and pragmatic social liberals with money to invest.
4
Watching Bloomberg's face as he realized he had no idea what he was doing was simply wonderful. Maybe I'll watch the next debate too.
4
If you put actors or people with TV performance chops on stage against a subject matter expert, the subject matter expert is very likely going to look bad to awful ... pausing, reflective, perhaps wonkish, considerate, etc.
Warren and others put a magnifying glass and gasped in outrage on small potatoes things. If you sum up what Bloomberg brings and his record, it's massively positive on all counts. He's put his money where his mouth is. He didn't have to serve as major of NYC and he did admirably. As major of NYC, he contended with realities that are very uncomfortable for democrats to accept.
Bloomberg would go a very long ways to balancing the budget and he has the experience of building from nothing.
6
My only question is, Did the race and gender attacks on Bloomberg really hurt him with blacks, browns and women? My sense is that we're tired of those particular critiques, important as the issues are. They were two easy hits on Bloomberg just as they are on Trump. Bloomberg IS Trump in background and attitude. He thinks because he made a big business success "I alone can fix it." He doesn't have to listen to "losers." He can just give orders.
1
@abigail49
The thing about Trump voters is that Trump's racism is a feature, not a bug, and one that is greatly admired many of his supporters. The others don't necessarily find his racism or sexism objectionable, as long he keeps the economy humming along and their investment and 401K portfolios keep gaining value.
Running for the Democratic Party is an entirely different story. It's simply not possible for a Democratic Party candidate to win the presidency without high black and Latino voter turnout and at least 90% of the black vote and at least 65% to 70% of the Latino vote. There is no way that Michael Bloomberg, a former republican that has done fundraisers for the likes of Rick Snyder and Lindsey Graham, is every going to hit those numbers.
The more of his past that becomes known to the general public the worse he's going to look. No, not even his constant TV ads can prevent that.
3
Why did Maureen Dowd rate Senator Warren as a 4 and Michael Bloomberg a 5? That makes no sense to me. I thought Senator Warren demonstrated a strong performance and deserves at least a 9 or 10 in my book, while Mr. Bloomberg came across as off balance and unable to respond to tough questions. No wonder Ms. Dowd's columns don't resonate with me.
6
@JM I agree. I can't read Maureen Dowd anymore. Actually not for a long time. She appears to have a problem with strong women.
6
the comments about Warren debating Trump are hilarious - no way in heck he shows up to a debate her (or likely anyone else). He's already arguing that the debates will unfair, rigged, a hoax etc - he is a coward to the core and his supporters will find some way to justify it.
5
I mostly agree with the commentary, with this exception from Maureen Dowd:
"She [Warren] won’t be the nominee and she won’t be in a Bloomberg or Sanders cabinet, but she set the tone for the gloves-off debate."
She won't be in a Bloomberg cabinet, but don't write her out of Bernie's. The Sanders campaign recently leaked that they were researching whether it was legal to have the same person be both VP and Treasury Sec (spoiler alert: the answer is yes). They didn't mention names - huh, who could they have meant?
And since this was leaked during the recent pointless spats, it seems as though it was meant to signal a continuing willingness to work with Warren. I would be absolutely over the moon to see President Sanders, VP Warren, and Treasury Sec Warren.
3
My wish: that all of the Democratic candidates and their supporters coalesce around Elizabeth... that she shows greater openness and flexibility regarding her policy positions for the general election... that Bloomberg assists her campaign with a billion dollars to get rid of Trump and that she gladly accepts it... and that Bloomberg assists Democratic candidates for US Senate with an additional billion dollars, and they all gladly accept it.
Joe is a good guy, but not a sharp enough campaigner.
Pete gets canned and mean when on the offensive.
Amy got rattled, and should not have engaged with Pete. Sigh.
Bernie needs to do two essential things: 1) state simply and clearly that by "socialism" he is only referring to the supportive social programs like those available in Canada and Western Europe... and 2) acknowledging that his Medicare For All plan is an essential goal, but sadly unrealistic without a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.
3
It was hard to watch the debate; it seemed self-defeating. All I know is that these candidates need to hold a meeting to strategize and reach an agreement on how they will beat Trump. Right now, all they are managing to accomplish is to destroy each other and help Trump. They are also giving him lots of ammunition to use in his presidential campaign.
9
Last night's debate was won by Trump. His brand of school yard taunts and look at me diatribes have been adopted by the Democrats. The tone of the debate was hard to stomach and ultimately plays to Trump's favor. Let's hope the next debate will be a step up. We are in serious trouble otherwise.
7
As I watched the warm up to the debate last night; the fancy graphics on the backdrop; the dramatic music; the pre-debate punditry; the bright lights of a Broadway stage I came to the conclusion that we do circuses a lot better than we do governing. And we know what happened to the last empire/republican that invested more into its circuses than it did into governing. Cross the Rubicon yet?
I keep seeing two different Amy Kobuchars; the one in interviews where she is warm, but strong. And the one in the debates where she just keeps saying "I... I...I..." (Theodore Roosevelt once spoke for over an hour without once using the word "I".)
Liz and Bernie are still a bit too strident in their attempts to convince US all to join the revolution.
I don't know how Bloomberg ever built an empire without being able to channel his inner "coach" to inspire his people.
Joe looked at times like the kid in the back row, waving his arms futilely trying to get the teacher to call on him.
Mayor Pete started to remind me of John Kennedy, a candidate not quite as seasoned to the ways of Washington as others on the stage, but intent on uniting people under the common thread of being an American.
The biggest problem with the debates are the moderators.
6
I WAS a Pete and Klobuchar fan before the debate. However, Pete came across as too mean in his fight with Klobuchar. Klobuchar seemed too rattled and defensive. Now who should I support instead?
- Warren did well last night, but I don't like her position on mining - "I think we should stop drilling and mining on public lands." I can't imagine that stance would go over well in Nevada.
- Biden seems too out of it.
- Sanders never was an option for me. Too polarizing.
- Bloomberg seems too much like Trump.
Can we get Cory Booker back in the race?
3
@Sarah
If Klobuchar couldn't take a little bit of needling, she is not ready for Trump. I think Pete was professional, respectful, and he focused entirely on Klobuchar's records.
Just FYI, Klobuchar lied and twisted Pete's statements in the previous debate (William Saletan, Slate, 2/12/2020 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/klobuchar-saved-campaign-new-hampshire-buttigieg-attack.html).
I think Pete is a keeper. Both Warren and Bernie (through surrogates such as AOC, Ryan Grim, etc.) have come to Pete's side on M4A. Pete will bring progressive changes without breaking the bank:
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/projects/how-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-would-fund-americas-future/
http://www.crfb.org/papers/primary-care-estimating-leading-democratic-candidates-health-plans
Warren and Bernie should pass the torch to Pete. Pete won the red districts in IA and NH. Pete will get it done.
6
@Progressive Dem
Pete is a dead candidate walking among non-white voters and he can't fix this.
In fact a recent news article details a recent meeting Buttigieg had with black political donors. One of the donors specifically stated "He has an amazing inability to connect to black people."
4
Bloodsport. Absolute bloodsport. And we needed to hear it, spoken as someone who will back the eventually nominee.
2
Maureen Dowd gets a zero. She rated Bloomberg higher than any other candidate, but equal to Mayor Pete. How much did Bloomberg pay for that?
8
Um, Maureen had Warren below Bloomberg.
5
“Bret Stephens (8/10) — His riff on socialism for the rich versus socialism for the poor was demagogic — but effective.” Bret, it is true. Please read the conservative CATO Institute on corporate welfare.
“ Senator Sanders, are you suggesting that some of your belligerent Bernie Bros are bots?” Yes Gail. Russian bots used the FB, Cambridge Analytica weaponized profiles to encourage Bernie supporters to stay home or vote for Jill Stein and Trump.
“ Buttigieg certainly seemed to relish laying into Klobuchar, Warren and Sanders — without making much of a case for his own worldview.” Smiley, self satisfied but deeply un prepared for office, he is losing Blacks and just threw women under the bus by his cheap shots at Klobuchar.”Smug”
5
So what did we learn from this analytical exercise? That Maureen Dowd seems to be basically unhappy with everyone.
2
Sanders/Warren 2020
1
Some of these comments are pure vanity:
Gail Collins on Bernie:
(4/10) — Everything’s a yell.
Gail Collins on Pete:
(8/10) — Good one-liners and policy riffs.
Gail Collins on Biden:
(6/10) — First to use the word “existential”!
I enjoy reading these the day after because there's so much ego-stroking in these writer's comments. You seriously can't come up with more than one short sentence to explain your arbitrary assigned score?
3
Looks like Maureen Dowd would rather have been at a Republican debate. Nobody impressed her.
5
What is up with Maureen Dowd? She thinks Bloomberg did as well as Buttiigieg, and better than Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar. What she watching a different debate?
4
@Jerry Sheldon
Yes. She was watching the Men. Those that Matter.
4
@Phyliss Dalmatian Exactly. She dislikes strong women.
3
Yeah, Elizabeth!
2
How about we rate the columnists themselves:
Gail Collins--as predictable and one-dimensional as Sanders, will pick a woman her age every time no matter what.
Stephens--as self-enamored and prickly as Klobuchar.
Kristof--as good-hearted and noble as Cory Booker and therefore ignored every time.
Bouille--as self-righteous and off-putting as Warren,
Douthat--outdoes Klobuchar in his visceral blind hate for Buttigieg.
The rest almost all John Delaneys.
Only Maureen Dowd has the finger on the pulse of the average voter and that's why she was the only one who saw Donald Trump coming in 2016.
As far as I'm concerned, only two people on the stage were not yelling or shaking like a fig leaf: Bloomberg and Buttigieg. Those are the only candidates I'm looking at.
3
@Lupito Nonsense. This is the false equivalency Sander and Warren supporters traffic in. The Republican Party has never cared about gun control, climate change, or a woman’s right to choose. This is why I can’t stand Sanders, Warren and their supporters—thoroughly dishonest and self-righteous at the same time.
NO NYT your people have their heads in the sand...
Trump was the winner last night. Trump won without even being there. These candidates are murdering the democratic party and torturing all "thinking" democrats. While NYT's Cnn and MSNBC rearrange those chairs on the Titanic...and we are all watching it happen before our very eyes. It is sad and pathetic.
President Sanders??? God help America.
3
So I guess Maureen Dowd (who is left off the "About the Authors" section) doesn't like anyone...
1
Maureen Dowd ranked Bloomberg higher than Warren. Very odd.
3
What exactly are sustainable mining practices? Warren said that.
2
I mostly agree, but Pete did not seem to do so well as that.
Apparently being in a Democratic Party debate means never having to say your sorry.....The real loser here IS the Democratic party. They continue to cannibalize themselves and hand over to the TNP (trump new party) all of the talking points they will need during the general election. It is a slam dunk that we will see clips from last night's debate running on trump ads. While it makes good theatre, an apology by a drop out will be second page news.
FYI I never capitalize trump as it is not a Proper name or noun.
3
I too, have been concerned about Warren's ability to capture critical votes from independents, moderates and Trump dissidents.
However, I have started to rethink this as I believe it may be possible that the traits for which she is criticized, such as vulnerability, lack of charisma, and that schoolmarmish thing (are we really so brainwashed by TV that it is imperative our leaders look and sound like a leading man?) are actually attributes that might make her less threatening to many voters who are becoming increasingly intolerant of Trump.
It seems like a lot of people (yeah, men) were put off by the seemingly smug and possibly tainted ways of Hillary Clinton. But Warren, in addition to possessing a fierce sense of integrity and brilliant policy making skills, is as pure and unassuming as they come. And for women, the latter two qualities are traditionally admired and rewarded.
1
For me, Bernie didn't do himself any favors by arguing to redistribute wealth - I agree with Bloomberg there that that's not going to get a democrat elected. And Bernie's suggestion that Russia is behind what appears to be his strident supporters? I know many of these supporters - they are true believers, and seem generally unwilling to grant that not everyone else feels the same way. And I was sceptical about Bloomberg, and am now certain - I will not vote for him in the upcoming primary. Ugly baggage and he seems unwilling to own it. Elizabeth came out swinging and aimed well-placed blows on Bloomberg. I still like Pete and Amy...for VP. And ultimately, Joe redeemed himself for me. I think he had a very good night, and seeing him communicate in other venues, it's clear that debate is not his strongest skill. He has experience, he has vision, he's not perfect, but he appeals to moderates - in MHO, he's the best hope for the democrats to take back the White House. I'm uncertain where my support will go no longer.
This is the first NYT debate ranking I’ve agreed with. Clearly Gail Collins is protesting this assignment. For the next debate, replace her with someone that actually has an opinion.
Also, the winning comment goes to Nicole Hemmer: “Bloomberg was the piñata at the Democratic debate party: Every time someone whacked him — and everyone whacked him — another Republican talking point fell out.”
3
The columnists certainly opined consistent with their positions on the Op-Ed page. Bret Stephens, the Republican anti-Trumper, wants a moderate. Gail Collins, like me, loves Elizabeth Warren. But Maureen Dowd doesn't like anybody. Her highest ranking was for Bloomberg. Why? Is she a Republican like her brother?
5
I think people need to understand that much in the same way that Trump has an army of online supporters ready to get into Facebook arguments and wear their silly red hats Bernie has an army ready to march and bang on every door in every county of America for him. He is not a socialist, and anyone who has google can see that. He just wants to elevate this country to wear we see the Nordic countries at. Lower health care costs, childcare, education and an increase in overall well being of the American people.
3
Maureen Dowd reminds me of those old East-bloc figure skating judges who always rank skaters from the West lower. Did she not like anybody last night, or has she just sneakily found a way to make her picture stand out on the ratings graphs?
3
What is it with Stephens. Was there another debate on last night that he was watching. His scores for Warren, too low, Klobuchar/Biden, much too high. And Dowd, really has problems with strong women. Get some more objective people on this panel.
3
Why do so many young people love Bernie - a haranguing, complaining, angry old man who repeats himself every time he opens his mouth to tell stories he's already told - when they won't listen to their relatives who do the same thing?
My daughter tells me every time she's already heard a story, piles on with eye rolls and worse.
Yet, here comes Bernie the "get off my lawn" candidate of the left - I always imagine him rattling a rake and telling the "kids" how the neighborhood is going to heck in a handbasket - and somehow the "kids' circle around this old man like he's the bomb.
His repetitive street corner-preacher rant about the "millionahs and billionahs" is about as inspiring as those "the end is near" bible thumpers. And yet, the young 'uns think he's the Second Coming.
I guess I'm getting old.
5
I just want the dems to listen me. I am an independent and will not vote for anyone who is too left. It will be impossible to win against trump with a left wing agenda. unless the economy tanks then trump will win and our democracy is down the tubes.
so who is left. Biden, Klobacher and MAYOR Pete and Bloomberg and we are done.
The best candidate for me is Bloomberg. He may not have done well last night but his record stands.
Yes warren was a finger shaking winner but I will not vote for her. Bernie is a joke and so is Pete.
Amy is good but does not have the support.
Biden is next for me but he does not have the fire.
So I have written Bloomberg in my vote and hope he wins. otherwise the USof A is toast. AND we will have done it to ourselves. At this rate all the dems will be DOA from their fellow dems.
3
I loved Warren's support for Public Lands! The only candidate to talk about it. The Trump administration is allowing industry and oil to destroy pristine and historic public lands in Alaska, Utah, Minnesota, and elsewhere.
http://www.patagoniaworks.com/press/2020/2/7/public-trust-to-premiere-at-big-sky-documentary-film-festival-in-missoula-montana-on-presidents-day
3
In the "About the authors" at the end of this article, please add who Maureen Dowd is.
Wow. Just wow. Maureen Dowd gives Bloomberg a higher grade than Warren for performance in this debate. Please do not invite her again.
5
Maureen Dowd really believes that Bloomberg did better than Warren or Klobuchar?
What does she have against women?
4
@Carden
Ask HRC about that.
Seriously.
1
Finally someone 'Pete Buttigieg' took the bull by the horns and addressed the issue of Bernie Sanders not been a Democrat. On the next go round Pete or better yet Elisabeth Warren since she apparently is now brings a gun and other armory to the debate stage can expand on this.
Pointing out Bernie's tenacity to attack the party machine but at the same time be quite content to run under its name and use its resources. They might also ask if he believes his always angry persona my perhaps be contributing to his Bernie Bros running rogue on him. You know he is angry so angry we will be too.
As for Mike Bloomberg the ex Republican at least he has paid his Party dues in more ways than one having partially bankrolled the Democrats big win in the Mid Terms. He is now a committed Democrat something I am still not sure that Bernie can claim to be.
I feel Klobachar also gave us a glimpse of her famous bedside manner last night, it was not pretty. Maybe Amy and Bernie should take a chill pill before stepping out on the stage again. As for Biden ' do they have a pill for that'?
3
Many comments here wreak of sexism and misogyny. "Warren may be inspirational to angry women"? Come on, you might as well go for the cliche "she's too shrill". One comment literally said that she was TOO sharp. We're gonna subtract points from Warren because she's intelligent? This is upsetting for a NYT comment section.
5
This article has 16 pundits.
Will Wilkinson
Nicholas Kristof
Jamelle Bouie
Elizabeth Bruenig
Gail Collins
Michelle Cottle
Daniel McCarthy
Wajahat Ali
Brittany Bronson
Nicole Hemmer
Gil Duran
Liz Mair
Ross Douthat
Peter Wehner
Bret Stephens
Maureen Dowd
Does the NYT really NEED 16 pundits on its staff writing about a subjective issue like who did better at the debates?
All that salary could have been spent on actually reporting "All the News That's Fit to Print".
Please:
1. Less pundits and less opinions.
2. More real journalism and real analysis.
Please just report the facts. We can make up our own minds if properly informed.
I don't want to pay to read/hear/see other people's smarmy opinions. I can get that for free on social media or at work.
What I want for my subscription dollar is genuine information, not smarmy coastal elitism.
More objective analysis like science and math.
Less (in)humanities like punditry from pundits who really aren't.
6
So the little nerd knows the names of all the world leaders AND what their favorite sandwiches are.
Is that relative?
Sure.
Would it make him a better president?
Trump called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.
He is president. His base doesn't know a Mexican from a Columbian. Either does he.
Amy," What's the name of the President of Mexico and what's his favorite torta?"
Aide, "Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who took office on 1 December 2018., Andy to his friends, jamon y queso."
Amy, "Got it."
Was that so hard?
Does the election of a president ride on so little?
Go Amy.
2
Bloomberg Is a manager
Biden is unintelligible
Sanders is outraged
Buttigieg is an algorithm
Klobuchar is a senator
Warren is a warrior
4
@Gus
"Bloomberg Is a manager"
It's easy to be a "manager" when you own the company and everybody is walking around on intimidated by your wealth and power.
But he's not a leader and he showed that last night. He said nothing and did nothing that could motivate or inspire the American people.
As the folks in Texas say "Michael Bloomberg is all cattle and no hat."
4
@Carl Amen !
The fact that Maureen Dowd ranked Bloomberg better than Warren, means that I can never believe anything she says in the future. If she writes that the sky is blue, I'll assume I'm colorblind.
4
I'm just waiting for Lizzy and Joe to drop out
2
The circular firing squad continues, Putin’s lap dog wins. Whoever thought attacking each other was a good format is an idiot. Warren shined, Bernie is Bernie, I still like Mike and who cares about his performance in this nonsense. All of these candidates would make a better president than the treasonous buffoon, people have to choose one. If Mike announces his VP as a female minority than he has my vote. Perhaps Stacey Abrams.
1
Re Gail on Bernie:
“Everything’s a yell”..and a lecture.
3
What's with Maureen Dowd? She gives Warren a 4 and Bloomberg a 5?! What debate was she watching??
1
@Anthony
The Man Show.
Obviously.
2
Let m get this straight: Maureen Dowd thinks Bloomberg had a better night than Warren?!
@ARH I think he did, hands down.
Maureen Dowd clearly got up on the wrong side of bed this morning, marking almost everyone lower than everyone else. But on what planet did Bloomberg (5!) have a better debate than Warren?! That debate!! Also, she had Bloomberg tied for second ahead of Warren, Biden and Amy!!
1
Despite Bloomberg's liabilities, they are still not a reason to vote for either Warren, Sanders or anyone else. For the life of me I never will understand negative campaigning.
2
There is no doubt Bernie believes his rhetoric as do his supporters. Problem is they are about 30% of the Dem electorate and will likely not grow beyond that. He, and his supporters, have no flexibility regarding their hard core ideology and launch attacks on anyone with a different view. Not a winning strategy. He can spout all the unfounded statistics about how elimination of premiums and co-pays along with elimination of insurer and drug company profits will pay for the higher taxes to fund Medicare for all but people do not believe that. Union members and employees of companies who provide good health coverage see hard won benefits being taken away and replaced with pie in the sky promises. Voters will not think through the process and realize the Bernie pipe dreams have zero chance of getting through Congress so for a second time Bernie will give us tRump.
1
@DCN
Warren altered her health care proposal to allow for more of a transition period and folks freaked out accusing her of not being committed to universal health care. But, here is a clear example of willingness to compromise.
Here is the thing about insurance: It does not offer the freedom of choice reps claim it does. Our employer chooses which plan and the plan chooses which doctors, then often the doctors choose which patients. This is all subject to change upon their convenience - no guarantees of anything. We have no control over copays - they rise without even notice. Wanna understand how your plan or even just the billing works? Sit on the phone for ever or consult your 1,000 page manual. But, take heed, most of the information you get will be incorrect. Freedom?
We are often stuck in jobs that make us miserable because the alternative is to live without healthcare - or die, as the case may be. Freedom?
There was an advertisement during the debate last night that spewed all sorts of lies about how Americans want to be free not to be covered or afford good care. I looked it up - the folks running the add claimed to be some citizen run organization of patriots against government coercion.
I looked it up; They were insurance and pharmaceutical companies standing up for their freedom to prioritize profits over the lives of Americans. Freedom, indeed.
3
@m.r.f.. Much of what you say is correct but the fact is most people will perceive a “MFA” plan as a government takeover of health care that will result in them losing a valuable benefit and they will perceive it as “socialist”. I was fortunate to work for a company that provided an excellent health care plan at a very low cost and as a retiree they continue to support a Medicare advantage plan. I understand this is not the case for many or even most people. However, the answer is not to take away existing coverage from 160 million people for a government plan. We need to get to universal coverage which can be accomplished by improving Obama care. Other countries provide universal coverage through hybrid private/government coverage. The USA should evaluate other systems, take the best aspects of each and provide something that works for this country. The unyielding ideology of Sanders is not the answer and has zero chance of becoming reality. Any plan has to get through Congress.
There is no way around it, Bloomberg will be the nominee.
Bernie will not have the majority of delegates needed entering the convention, and after the first ballot the superdelegates will emerge from their swamp to crown Bloomberg.
Of course they will do so with the full knowledge that coronation will result in Bernie’s supporters voting for Trump, which was their threat.
Lack of unity will give Trump a second term and cause progressives to destroy their party. At that point there will be no stopping AOC from being the 2024 nominee.
At this stage, it’s probably the smart move to get behind Bernie and nominate him to get the socialism bug out of their system now, otherwise.... AOC in 2024.
2
I am sure Elizabeth Warren is a good person and a dedicated public servant...but she can't be president. She is accomplished in a way that many who have served in Congress for many years cannot claim, getting the Consumer Protection Agency approved during the Obama years before she ever ran for the Senate. She has great attributes...but...
People are elected to the nation's highest office, for better or worse, in part because of their appearance. Sorry to say, Warren's high arching eyebrows and her speaking style make it seem like she is always castigating someone. Sexist? Men are judged harshly by their appearance, too, and Bernie Sanders white hair, half bald scalp and old guy speaking style make him a difficult choice too. Historically, millions of women voted for John Kennedy because of his good looks and mountains of hair atop his 43 year old head. It's not fair. It's life.
Before anyone writes to criticize these comments, please come up with a way to change human nature and socially inculcated attitudes. Okay?
3
@Doug Terry I can't come up with a way to change human nature and socially inculcated attitudes, but - yes, you are being sexist.
2
@Chester McCheese
And you are being judgmental without fully considering what I was saying.
These kinds of charges, such as sexist, are attempts to punish thinking about the actual human condition so that certain matters cannot even be discussed. I refuse.
2
@Chester McCheese
It is not unfair, or sexist, to discuss the realities of human existence in our society. Most of these terminologies are, in fact, intended to punish people for...you know...thinking.
Some years ago I was walking across the campus of Yale University. I noticed repeated handbills protesting the existence of "lookism" and insisting the massive change was required. I agree. It would be great if we could respond to people based on what is in their hearts, their actions and their fine qualities rather than whether they were overweight, offensive in appearance to some eyes and so forth. I don't see lookism disappearing any time soon. Furthermore, it has some valid basis in the 200,000+ years of human life on earth.
Those who know how to bring about change should step forward and present their wisdom rather than condemning a fulsome discussion of who and what we really are as human beings. One cannot mandate change by simply saying X or Y are wrong. It takes thought and work.
2
I wouldn't discard the possibility of Bloomberg being the nominee just yet. The other candidates have been at it for six months or more...and they've stumbled a few times. It all boils down to this: who can beat Trump in a national election in November? Trump's wealthy backers will provide him with all of the funding he needs to win the "key" states.
The candidate who can beat Trump is the one who can 1) energize the DEM base, 2) win the suburban voters DEM & REP, and 3) win in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida...
2
The debate brought me back to Warren as my first choice, after I had previously been worried we needed someone more moderate.
What I believe is that people should cast their vote for the person they like best and stop trying to figure out who will best beat Trump.
Remember, much of Trump's support came from workers (his populist vs. elite) that he has since let down shamefully. I think each candidate has his/her advantages, but I do think that a more "liberal" candidate could sincerely connect with independents and some republicans with their programs for Medicare for All, forgiving student debt, and making public college free. More centrist candidates have their more obvious reasons to influence moderates.
So long as every person disgusted with Trump Votes Blue, No Matter Who, the democrats will take the election.
3
What accomplishments has Bernie done in all the years in congress? It doesn't sound like much. Warren came out not as a "winner" but just downright nasty to me. I thought she was smart and a potential but last night, she was the biggest turnoff. She was just furious and spitting words out and I found that off-putting. Her campaign once texted me and it seemed just because I was more moderate, her supporter began to berate me on text of all things about not winning if we don't think big (we won't win if we can't get enough people to like our ideas either). Well, I am not going to support you as the nominee during the primaries if you are going to do that to me. I will vote for the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election, however.
Frankly, Mike Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg are the only ones interesting to me. I like Amy Klobucher but she, like the others, has been in congress for too long and I want somebody who not only can beat trump but also have real-world experiences.
4
Many seem to think Warren's candidacy will be revived because she effectively sliced and diced an easy target like Bloomberg. But to me she comes across as an angry, humorless and self-righteous policy wonk that is unlikely to get the nomination, and even in the unlikely event she pulls that off, she will be defeated even more easily than Sanders would be. Right now the choices facing the Democrats are all severely flawed, and none seem capable of unifying the party.
2
We need fewer candidates, less bickering and they do need to focus on Trump and his cronies, the nepotism, the corruption, the policies that are destroying our democracy, our Environment, the judges they are appointing (that will be in places for decades) the Supreme Court! and democrats are bickering amongst each other, it is a terrible sight.
3
Why why why are folks still confused about where Warren will get funding for her proposals, fearful that she'll increase taxes for the middle class?
She has ceaselessly repeated her plan to tax accumulated wealth over $50 million at a rate of a mere 2% - especially mere when one considers this will have zippo impact on any aspect of their standard of living.
Americans seem to be either in total denial about just how much $ that would be or in a state of baffling acceptance that a few Americans should enjoy such a disgusting rate of excess while the nearly all the rest do without adequate (or any) health care and fair wages.
4
Wow. I would flip this chart.
The last thing I wanted was a battle last night, so I award no points to Warren (don't yell and point at me anymore), Sanders (stop promising what you know you can deliver), Buttigieg (actually, he was awful, smug and too "cute"; the choice to smile all of the time and do the Mr. Rogers thing while spinning left to attack Amy did not go unnoticed by me). They wasted the entire evening slinging mud at the other candidates. I thought Bloomberg was stiff but in the end did no damage, and Klobuchar keeps showing us what she knows in clear language.
3
@PS
Pointing out a candidate's history of sexual harassment and racism isn't really "slinging mud."
It's of extreme relevance given who makes up our population.
4
Bloomberg's entire campaign is that he is a rough and tough NYC guy and who knows how to handle Trump. Really?
Well, last night he showed that he couldn't even handle Elizabeth Warren as she completely dismantled Bloomberg over the NDA issue. In a 30 second exchange over nondisclosure agreements in regards to sexual harassment Warren miniaturized Bloomberg's stature as the one to take down Trump. Bloomberg couldn't handle a Democratic debate stage, so how is he going to go up against Trump.
And Warren, last night she looked like the best one on stage to take on Trump, just look what she did to Mike.
4
I was unable to follow the debate due to the 6 hours difference with central European time zones. But after reading the various accounts on the latest debate in Las Vegas I am just simply appalled that the Democratic candidates spent practically the whole time attacking each other, and especially the newcomer Michael Bloomberg. Have they lost their mind? Don't they realize that this petty squabbling among themselves gives a terrible image to the American nation and the rest of the world? Trump must be rejoicing watching this shameful spectacle.
We in Europe are exasperated by this puerile behaviour. Can't the Democrats get their act together and find THE candidate who can rally around him a majority of Americans (and not just the liberals) to get rid of Trump and show to the rest of the world that America has once again a responsible leader who brings respect?
5
i am libertarian. plenty of good people on the stage. it going to be micheal. maybe with one of females on stage as vp. this is a proven leader for heaven's. nyc. bernie???
1
To all presidential candidates. These debates are NOT high school or college debates. There is no "point" system.You do not have to answer the moderators inane "gotcha" questions. Tell America what you are going to do for us. For example: Question..."Mike about those NDAs....Answer....I will stand on my record with women, and THIS is what I am going to do for every woman (and man ) in America today & tomorrow...Do not defend yourself, tell us how you are going to make our lives better.
Jeesh!...this not hard, c'mon wake up!
Forget comparing and fleshing out policy ideas, or displaying character. This felt like a fight between the moderators and candidates, the former asking gotcha questions and heatseeking conflict like reality show producers looking for a ratings bump. Does being able to exploit an awkward moment, like Pete did with Amy's Mexico faux pas, really you'll make a good president? I'm a Bernie supporter, and the way everyone used "socialist" as a scare tactic was Trumpian, with Bloomberg's invocation of communism especially obnoxious.
3
@John Ryan Horse And Bernie's attacks on Bloomberg's wealth was obnoxious. Bernie is a millionaire with three houses and yet he bangs the spoon on poor people's pots. That's what is actually obnoxious.
Democrats love to demonize success. Witness their treatment of Bloomberg last night. This may play well with the Democrat's base but will not win over the majority of independents who continue to value the hard work and sacrifice required to create a successful business from scratch, one that gainfully employs thousands. Their politics of envy require and justify policies that ultimately impoverish Society and halt progress by denying a core human trait: ambition. Note to Sanders and Warren: the French Revolution failed to achieve its goals and despite almost 3 centuries of ongoing efforts to the contrary, France continues to pay for their Socialist tendencies with a lackluster economy.
2
Elizabeth Warren - my senator - won the debate on points. She got the most air time and skewered Bloomberg and others. But I don't see her as the President. She's a skilled legislator and would also make a fine Justice Department head or Attorney General. Has nothing to do with her background.
Bernie Sanders is a continuously-replaying message. He stays on message. Don't see him as President either. Medicare for All is a complete non-starter for 60%+ of the country. His ceiling is about 35% in the Dem party.
I know that Bloomberg had a poor performance, and there are certainly concerns about potential treatment of women in his past that bear scrutiy...but I still believe he would make the best President of the remaining Dems. Hoping he'll get better prepared and better coaching next time. He doesn't rattle and is the only accomplished Chief Executive on the stage.
4
Warren didnt pick up any votes.
Ultimately she will succeed to Sanders.
Sanders is the original left.
I like Warren but I gave up on thinking she could be President and thats what the numbers show.
Warren and Sanders are the same and Sanders came first.
I think Amy did better than the scores given to her too.
2
Have a nickname for Sanders -- Bernie 3 Houses. Now I don't care how you slice and dice it, you can't run on the green new deal while owning three houses. I don't care if he's a millionaire -- although I'd like to see how he accumulated his wealth -- but if you promote the GND you better walk the talk -- and that means no private jets, no multiple abodes, etc.
3
Folks worried that Warren wouldn’t be able to deal with Trump should consider how she dealt with the smug billionaire from New York that she faced on the stage last night.
8
I like Elizabeth Warren. Having contributed to her campaign last night. She's very smart, she does her homework and
she knows what she is talking about. Warren cares about
the PEOPLE.
7
AP and Democracy Now! are reporting that Klobuchar sent a teenaged African American male to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. She had ZERO physical evidence. The only evidence was jail house testimony which was PAID for ($500) by Klobuchar's investigators. This bogus "evidence" has now been recanted!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0nqkmL-ZI&t=97s
He refused multiple plea offers saying he would never plead guilty to something he did not do no matter how reduced the sentence.
Many here are criticizing Mayor Pete for attacking Sen. K.
But these were counter punches because Sen. K has been attacking Mayor Pete for the last 3 debates and he's been pretty tame about responding. I say it's about time this abusive senator who reportedly throws binders at her employees, got a taste of her own medicine. And as usual, the bully can dish it out but she can't take it. She stormed off the debate stage without shaking hands with anyone. Her debate performance was poor.
Sen. K ranked No. 1 out of 100 US Senators in staff turnover. There are many reports from former employees about her abusing and demeaning them. It's consistent with how she attacked Mayor Pete over several debates, once for nothing more than not being a woman! Ridiculous and pathetic!
4
@Maggie
"The evidence Burrell's defense now hangs onto was not even introduced or contested by HIS own lawyers in the 2003 1st trial. "
Poor people often have grossly inadequate legal representation. Any prosecutor, especially an AG should know that and proceed accordingly. Prosecutors are not supposed to play "Get 'em!" with people's lives just so they can rack up more convictions. They are supposed to pursue justice!
Also, Sen. Klobuchar definitely took credit for sending this "killer" to prison when she was bragging about it on the debate stage!
Now it's "Oh! I wasn't there and I didn't know, and I'm not responsible!" Well she can't have it both ways.
I've watched her interviewed on this and have not heard her express the slightest bit of remorse. It's just like Trump -- all about advancing herself and no empathy for the victims left in her wake. Now she just insists that it's being reviewed as it needs to be. Yeah, but no thanks to her!
I'm not a lawyer but I would think that before you send a teenage African American boy to prison for life for murder that you'd have some evidence -- something more than PAID jailhouse testimony. Personal ambition won out over the fair administration of justice in this case it seems to me. And it's consistent with the bigger, negative picture of Sen. K.
1
Welcome to Who Gets to McGovernate. You all know the rules. Mr. Sanders, you may begin.
Who lost?
America.
1
Looking at all the comments here saying Bernie can't win, I have to wonder how many of them come from people who once said Hillary can't lose.
Old rules no longer apply. No one knows who can beat Trump.
255
@Chris Also note that lots of Bernie People voted for Trump. Bernie has the most potential to peel off Trump voters.
13
@Maggie
The more you call us a "cult" the harder we're going to hit back.
12
@Chris Of course, when the media select which "bites" they use to represent a candidate, they have tended to drop Bernie's best lines- like the one last night where, in answer to Bloomberg on how hard he works, Bernie pointed out that maybe Bloomberg's EMPLOYEES had a lot to do with it.
Dems have 2 big worries. 1) Bloomberg keeps running regardless the Convention; & 2) there is another flimflam to ace out Bernie (in which case the "bros" may start calling for sabotage, as the only way to revolution- don't stay home-vote straight ticket GOP...)
5
Have you ever come home ravenous, like could-eat-a-horse hungry, only to spend a full hour or two reviewing Grubhub or Seamless or a drawerful of paper takeout menus as if they contained the answer to the Meaning of Life? And then, burnt out from trying to settle on something, just slink to the pantry and pull out a can of whatever?
A silly metaphor, perhaps, but I think at this point we're in the midst of that politically speaking. I know that everyone up there has put so much effort and money into their campaigns, but for the greater good, for G's sake, start conceding gracefully so we can throw in behind one person. Every week is a week lost to further splintering behind a full menu of boutique candidates. We need someone responsible and sane that can win. Enough.
142
@Lella Those of us in the progressive wing have found our guy. It's the moderates who arent thrilled with your choices. The problem is, moderates won't ever be thrilling.
You all fell in love with Obama, but managed to ignore that his campaign was pretty progressive and even more risky. A black man with minimal experience who wanted overhaul the healthcare system and warned that the economy was about to collapse? He wasn't the safe candidate, but his speeches and historical hope of a racial reconciliation from a black president let moderates ignore that.
10
@Matt Semrad, I'm more than fine with Bernie, personally. In fact, I'm most likely voting for him in the primary. But I would prefer there be fewer distractions re: candidates who don't really have a shot at this point still hanging on because there's just enough support to thinly justify their ongoing presence. Leave it to the top two, let us focus, and let us choose. That's my wish.
6
@Lella
I think yours is a wonderful metaphor. But I would say it's a bit too early for any of the leaders on that stage to concede yet. Immediately after SC is the time we should demanding the also-rans get out.
9
Bloomberg and Biden need to disappear from further consideration, for different reasons: Bloomberg, because he just seems to want to waltz into the White House out of boredom (and self-interest), and Biden because he just doesn't seem to have any heart for this fight and wants to rely on his affiliation with Barack Obama. (We get it, Joe: you were there too.) I liked Buttigieg early on, months ago, but his continued lofty, but ultimately empty, rhetoric (and recent cozying up to wealthy donors) just makes me think he's an opportunist. And look at the almost ZERO support he gets from African Americans in his own community. Without energizing that constituency in November, Democrats can forget about taking down Trump.
That leaves Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I liked Warren's fight last night. She's got plenty of rigor behind her policies, and she showed herself to be a leader last night, particularly when stepping in to defend Amy Klobuchar against Mayor Pete's really off-putting attack on her knowledge of US-Mexico relations on the basis of the equivalent of a trivia question.
Bernie inspires me, not because of who he is, but because of what he says and the vision of the world that he's been promoting for decades. And look how much he's energizing young people, a long-neglected demographic that deserves to have their voices heard and their concerns and values reflected in our government.
I'd love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket; I don't care who is Pres/VP.
1
Mike showed that he is not a viable option. Only the Democratic Party can steal this nomination away from Bernie.
1
@Richard By "Democratic Party," do you mean the DNC and the possibility of its pulling the same dirty tricks we celebrated in the leaks that led to the ostensible shakeup of its leadership?? Right now, I am a member of the Democratic Party. If the DNC steals the nomination again, I'm out, and the party will never get me back. And I'm not unique in that regard.
So, Maureen Dowd's hugest score is Blooomberg at 5.
Hmmm.....
3
Can I be the first to congratulate Donald Trump on winning re-election? The entire debate was an embarrassment. One hour of beating up on Bloomberg achieved nothing. Likewise, it took over one hour to ask any substantive questions about policy. As someone that lived in the NY area since the early 1970's, let me assure you that not ALL New Yorkers were upset with Bloomberg's policy on stop and search. When I was young, families moved out of NY, now you see small children playing in parks. The city was a a dump and criminals ran the street. Port Authority was bad that women were told not to wear jewelry and prostitutes roamed the fecal smelling hallways. I realize these polices profiled many people, but the reality is that today NYC is A LOT safer and better to live in than it was before Bloomberg for ALL people. Liberal need to get a grip. Being tough on crime is not a bad thing and we need to stop apologizing for it. The debates were further proof that the Dems have lost touch with reality.
3
Mr. Bloomberg comes across as Mr. Potter from 'It's a Wonderful Life' Not that he intend to do so. He won't defeat Mr. Trump. Too often Mr. Trump comes across as a very loud empty suit and America knows it. Bernie Sanders is gradually convincing a lot of people that he would fight like hell for change and a better life for wage earners and old folks. Elizabeth Warren is wonderful, but this is not her year. The country wants to be rid of Trump, and wants a serious leader who can make America successful again.
5
So M. Dowd gives her highest score, a mere 5, to Bloomberg. She must have been that student in every class who thought her own grade should have been higher...The Times won't print this comment. I've noticed they never print any of my comments about politics.
2
@billy pullen
Well they did print it, Billy, but exactly what were you trying to say ?
1
Perhaps the losers are the American people and the winner Trump?
By attacking each other are they creating fissures in the electorate that will be difficult, if not impossible to close in the general election? How do candidates who lose the nomination effectively campaign for someone they have just implied is the scum of the earth? And will they?
From Dan McCarthy's review "And if you don’t like any of the Democrats, you’d have to say she made a compelling case against them."
Probably not the best way to defeat Trump.
1
I give the whole debate an F. We learned nothing new. It was all about combativeness. They spent the first 40 minutes on health care, and said nothing. Just bickering.
The moderators should get a low score too. Too much valuable time wasted on minutia, like ability to remember a name.
Sadly, the winner is Trump.
7
@Jfitz
"We learned nothing new."
I beg to differ, we learned that Donald Trump will eviscerate "Little Michael" on a debate stage.
2
I cringed my way through this debate. It seemed to bring out the worst in every single candidate on the stage. Not only were the attacks on each other damning, but every one of them added self-inflicted wounds under pressure. While Elizabeth Warren seems to be getting accolades for her dominatrix performance, I was especially appalled by her sanctimonious, mean girl diatribes. I’m very worried that I didn’t see a future president onstage last night. Please, candidates, find your leadership chops and give us a demonstration of strength, grace and readiness to lead a fractured nation in the next debate ... not another ugly food fight.
4
The big winner is Trump (9.9/10).
The Democrats tore each other up.
Trump's dream opponent is on track to win the nomination, or at least undermine whoever else may win the nomination.
If you're Trump, what's not to like?
3
These are merely TV reviews, nothing more. The Times should stop pretending these are debates. They are simply the Democrats version of "The Apprentice", with the punditocracy, commentariat, and twitterati getting to feel good saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!"
The "moderators" are picadors. [bullfighters on horseback who prick the bull with a lance to weaken it and goad it.] TV likes advertisers, advertisers like ratings, and ratings like blood, not intelligent, substantive discussion.
Meanwhile, Pete has a future in the future. Klobuchar has a future, preferably as Vice Presidential candidate this year and then as the Presidential candidate in 2024. Bernie would be the perfect person to hold the non-existent position of The Conscience Of The Democratic Party. Biden, sadly, has let Iowa, New Hampshire, and the polls divert him from his winning strategy of positivity. Warren appears to be auditioning for a senior role in the Trump reelection campaign. Bloomberg is the only one who demonstrates that defeating Trump is what the election is about, that if you don't win, you lose, that if you do not defeat Trump and deal with the reality of Congress in 2021, you will get nowhere, not even one step on the road to all the noble, aspirational fantasies coming from other candidates.
As to being a billionaire: it takes billions to run for President. I rather have a President whose source of money is 100% transparent than one with a lot of dark money from unknown sources.
8
The big winner last night was the Clown who resides in the White House. The candidates that did the best are the same ones that espouse socialist ideas and will get shellacked in the general election if they obtain the nomination. I am not disappointed that Bloomberg took a beating but I am that the candidates who could win the election are splitting each other's votes and making it more likely that Sanders will be the nominee. I can picture the ads showing Nicolas Maduro and Bernie side by side now.
2
Knowing Bloomberg blew money, getting coached to say “I never harassed anyone, it’s these damn women who can’t take a joke!” I get schadenfreude so delicious… who knew life could be so good?
Thank you, Senator Warren! This is the happiest I’ve been in years!
5
Debate? It was more like debase each other. The circular firing squad continues to generate 'sound bites' for GOP attack ads this fall.
4
The biggest problem with the “debates” starts with the networks making this a sports event that will net big ratings. The moderators incite controversy rather than clarifying candidate positions that would be useful to voters. The future of the U.S. is NOT a game.
The “debates” should be about the candidates’ experience in governing and their knowledge of the wide breadth of topics that Presidents face. Past issues should either be placed in today’s context: “What would you do as President to combat rising gun murders?”; or, when it occurred: “Versions of stop and frisk were being used around the country to combat gun murders, why was NYC’s version worse than others?” “What American city is using a version of Medicare for All?” “What are the costs for individuals, government and businesses? All candidates answer each topic. The U.S. needs real solutions to our real problems, not just theories.
I'm choosing a candidate based on the November ballot. The candidate can draw together Democrats, Republicans and Independents to win the election and restore America to a functioning country that focuses on dealing with the human effects of the Technical Revolution of the 21st Century, a Congress that passes legislation based on merits, and the U.S. resuming our role on the World stage to combat climate change, forever wars, immigration, etc.
Right now, my choice is Michael Bloomberg. Ultimately, it will be the candidate running against the Killer Clown of Conflict.
7
I believe it was Warren who talked about "scientists" who needed funding. This echoes an observation by Bill Gates that Wall Street could not tackle the climate problems alone (by carbon credits and such.) He also observed that no additional funding was going into alternate energy sources. As a one-time scientist in a climate lab, I also wonder about that. We have a scarcity of technologies to generate electricity. Solar and wind will not do it. If fracking and nuclear are shut down, there is not much left. I would hope people would realize that the sun doesn't shine 24/7 and windmills tend to operate best when electricity is least needed, like at night. That methane is being emitted more than previously thought has just been reported. Reducing methane emissions at gas wells is relatively cheap, but its influence of the climate is not so clear. Reducing carbon dioxide is massively expensive. Even proponents of the green new deal estimate those costs at $9.3 trillion a year, double the federal budget. Costs could be vastly higher and as noted there aren't workable alternatives to fossil fuels at the current state of technology.
1
@Arch Davis There are these things called batteries. Quite a few of them drive by you every day. They often charge at night in secret collusion with windmills...
1
If Bernie is nominated, you can bet that any Russian interference would be in favor of Bernie.
Bernie's policies align beautifully with Russia's wishes for the US:
- A weakened/slower growth economy from his agenda of higher taxes and weakth redistribution
- A weakened military from his desire to whittle down the defense budget
- A weakened presence worldwide from his desire to back off from all foreign entanglements
- A stronger Iranian (and therefore Syrian) regime, from his desire to re-enter the Iranian nuclear deal
- A weaker Israeli ally, from his desire to give billions to Hamas and their ilk
If I were Putin, I'd be overjoyed by the prospect of a Sanders Presidency
7
@them
Yes, Putin would much rather have a highly principled individual who values all human beings be president than an ignoramus who will do his will because he is easily swayed by flattery and offers of money.
Not.
@them Todays lesson is as follows: Socialism and Communism are not the same. They're different. Next lesson Dick and Jane. Stay tuned.
The debate last night was a blood brawl. Everyone took shots and all took their hits. None more than Bloomberg who looked stunned and punch drunk at times. Often, I felt uncomfortable watching everyone attack each other. Wondering if whomever comes out of this battle and wins the nomination will have enough fight left to win the actual war and become our next President. In the end, I think Bernie held his ground. Bloomberg lost his footing but still has time to recover. Biden makes me cringe as he fumbles through another debate. Warren was fierce and she clearly won the night with her sharp wit and fearless attacks towards everyone on the stage. Klobuchar lost her cool with Pete and he took some cheap shots that lowered my once high opinion of him. I look forward to next week’s debate in Charleston, SC. This is really getting interesting now.
3
I love reading these NYT assessments at the end of the debates. While we get a fine insight into the candidates performances...you also get more than a hint at some of the biases, insights and character of the critics as well.
1
Michael Bloomberg won the debate last night. He appeared human while everyone else on stage, those politicians with little real world experience and who never had to make a payroll, pretended to be perfect and to have better, untested solutions to all our problems and complaints, essentially pandering to their base. Mike did not have a facile, glib answer to silly questions about his past and the absurd demand that he release women from their NDA. And this from a woman who claimed Native American heritage to game a job application at Harvard. Ridiculous. Bloomberg was the only one on that can go the distance and win the prize.
6
@Toni
Did you see the same debate the rest of us did?
Bloomberg seemed aloof and distant -- as if he were above it all. He came across as arrogant as the present occupant of the White House.
2
This format helped me get a feel for what transpired, when I didn't have the time or patience to watch, for which my thanks.
The panel's comments wound up telling us more about them than about the candidates. Nothing new there.
But let me get to my two cents. It is about NDAs -- non-disclosure agreements -- and Kristof's framing Bloomberg's refusal to waive NDAs as the iconic moment of Bloomberg's candidacy.
No matter what else you think about NDAs, the A stands for "Agreement." It's like the bumper sticker says about abortion: If you are against abortion, don't have one.
Kristof thinks it is self-evident that women should not be required to keep the promises they agree to under NDAs. Worse he flatters himself that he is championing women's rights, when instead his well-meaning paternalism would turn the clock back to the Europe of the Middle Ages. Then women -- and “likewise children, fooles and Mad-men that have no reason" -- were not legally capable of making any binding contract.
It's not just Kristof, of course, who patronizes women. So too do many women's activists. They are willing to tolerate the infantilization of their sex in return for political handouts and gender-based double standards.
Such bribes are tempting, but there is no more insidious a threat to the cause of true gender equality.
5
I am contemplating going out in back of my house and slitting my wrists as the only apparent alternative to four more years of Trump. The "debate" was terrible, a disgraceful performance by every person on the stage, a rendition of an adolescent fueled middle school cafeteria food fight. Trump should be and is the only target that matters. Enough of this exhausting divisive debating about different health care plans and other details about costs and coverage issues. i am afraid we are doomed to a continuation of life in a banana republic.
2
It's a real shame that our mentality in everything is reduced down to a fight. It's like we are 12 year olds. Why not have each candidate present his or her policies and then talk about why one is better then another? That might actually inform the public, Instead we see here "analysis" of who punched the hardest. It's not boxing, folks, it's an election.
These election "debates" make lots of money for the networks. They do not want boring discussion between rational adults, they want fighting amongst kids on the playground. Jerry Springer debates. This is why Donald Trump is POTUS. He had a TV show and people saw him on it, looking (falsely) like someone who was rich and powerful. Of course, it was scripted enough that Trump didn't decide when to get rid of people -- the producers did. More fake Trumped up stuff, pun intended,
I am so sorry for the Democratic party that it agrees to do this -- that the candidates attack each other when they should all be attacking Trump. Can you imagine if they actually listed all the awful stuff that Trump has done in that amount of airtime. Maybe people who only watch FOX would actually find out how awful he is, since they don't get any info if that's the only station they watch.
Who cares who "won?" The country itself is at stake and we have to complain that the rich people running are rich? Or that the youngest person is young? Oh, please.
3
@Jeanie LoVetri Well said, couldn’t agree more
1
The trouble with the Bernie's Socialism is that it means many things to many people. Tony Blair of the British Labour Party is a socialist but so was Stalin. Both Bernie and his surrogates have done a woeful job in defining "socialism' in an American context. The last well known socialist to run for president was Norman Thomas, an ordained Presbyterian minister and a staunch anti-Communist. Have never heard this name from Bernie. Better yet a name we should hear from Bernie more is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the founder of the New Deal. Roosevelt had plans for universal health care but could not get it through. Say his name and his program a lot. You are running to lead the Democratic Party not the Socialist Party.
I bet you can find most if not all of the origins of your proposals in past Democratic positions. You know when Trump and his toadies attack "socialism" they will make believe you are the second coming of Pol Pot. See how they do attacking your identifying with Roosevelt.
2
Elizabeth Warren comes out of every debate consistently having made her points well, being graceful with a truthful edge, and being earnest and empathetic. She was a Harvard professor, she understands economics, she's morally sound and healthy and robust physically and mentally.
Bernie Sanders is deeply supported by a minority base, similar to Trump, but greatly disliked by a majority of Democrats. I would be very concerned if he received the nomination as it would feel like we're voting for a Democrat with too many similarities (sexism, divisiveness, anger, lack of common sense, extreme thinking, no plan) to Trump's base.
I will vote for him if I absolutely have to, but it would be heartbreaking and this would be the second time in a row; this is why politics is so disappointing particularly for many women.
2
Were it not for Reagan's influence and the right-wing slanted media, Bernie's views would be regarded as large D Democratic and not Socialist.
2
Maureen is really showing her bias to rate Bloomberg's performance higher than that of Warren!
And, by the way, I'm positive that Elizabeth never expected nor wanted to be in MB's hypothetical cabinet, but I would argue she still has a chance to be a part of a Sanders admin. I mean, he really only has a few govt allies besides AOC.
1
Bloomberg's poor performance is actually an indictment of the obsequious MEDIA, especially at this so-called newspaper of record that has treated Bloomberg with the awe and fawning he expects whenever he is interviewed.
For the first time in forever, Bloomberg didn't have a toadying media writing dutifully about how absolutely fabulous the emperor's new clothes were whenever the emperor described them.
Bloomberg had real people -- the other candidates on that stage -- asking the questions the "adult" media never asked. Pointing out how the clothes the emperor claimed were so beautiful that the media wrote so glowingly about were not actually there at all.
Bloomberg knew no one at this newspaper would ever challenge him and no one he paid to work for him would challenge him and he expected the same from all the "little people", too. Turned out the "little people" showed not only that Bloomberg had no clothes, but also indicted the media.
The fact that no journalist has ever done anything but dutiful print whatever answer Bloomberg gives to excuse his reprehensible actions is an indictment on this newspaper. But it did blow back on him when someone finally pointed out the OBVIOUS. Where was this newspaper all those years?
1
@RJ
I see you don’t read this newspaper. For days, opinion pieces here have been criticizing Bloomberg mercilessly.
@Buddydog
Opinion pieces?
I am talking about the reporters whose job it is to report on what Bloomberg is doing and follow up when Bloomberg gave the kind of self-serving nonsensical reply to questions that he has always given.
If Elizabeth Warren had not listened to Bloomberg's reply and pointed out how self-serving it was and how he didn't answer the question, this debate would have been reported by this newspaper as "Bloomberg successfully defending himself from hard questions!"
I disagree on one point.
Klobuchar seemed on the defense and did not do as well because she was not once allowed to completely answer any question posed by moderators, nor was there one time she was not cut off by them - not one!
Her poor treatment by moderators was very obvious and bizarre
Had she been allowed to even answer the tough questions - and then did not do well - I might agree with the analysis - but that did not ever happen - not once - and I am not exaggerating
I know the NYT does not want to attack other journalists but based on comments I have read - her treatment - which was far different than all the other candidates - did not go unnoticed - far from it
Yes, she was put on the defense - but then was not allowed to defend herself
She has very good answers to the questions posed and has been asked them before. She was was not cut-off because she went over her time - she was barely allowed to speak and was cut off long before that could even be an issue. Other candidates were allowed to engage in mud slinging for extended periods and not cut off mid sentence
So, it is disturbing that NYT refuses to acknowledge the obvious - believe me - we all noticed - even if you pretend nothing happened - that is also very bizarre
It reminds me of the saying:
"Nothing to see here folks - move along"
The news should speak the truth
Another reason I find it disturbing is that Klobuchar is one of the few - if not the only one - who could win my swing state
3
@Meg
I absolutely agree. The moderators allowed others to go on and on beyond the allotted time, but they cut her off repeatedly. And when Elizabeth Warren called her health care plan a memo -- just two paragraphs long -- surely something Klobuchar should have been allowed to respond to --they ignored her raised hand and went on to something else. The journalists' blatantly unfair treatment of her made me wonder what the heck was going on.
4
@Elizabeth Fuller
Yes - way too obvious!
1
What an ugly spectacle. I watched the whole thing, but after a while wanted to yell out, "A pox on all your houses."
I thought one of the lessons learned from the Trump presidency was that character does matter. No one, not even Pete, exhibited the reasoned and kindly character we need right now. Enough with the attacks. Surely there is a way to highlight your own character without tearing down others.
And stop providing the Republicans with talking points they will use against whoever the ultimate candidate is. Try something new. Try, for instance, not having the same argument about health care over and over again. Try instead to underline how all of you recognize what an important issue it is, and instead of attacking the other plans, spend more time highlighting your own.
Cynicism is what will keep people away from the polls. Candidates, please make sure that in your desire to win you don't behave in ways that make us want to wash our hands of all of you.
6
It is kind of shocking how little your pundits seem to know about the people of our country. True that Liz Warren destroyed Mike Bloomberg, but not one of your group seems to know that she took herself down in the process. She was Donald Trump, mean, nasty and bully. If you think Democrats are looking to replace Donald Trump with Donald Trump, then she won. But I think she’s toast. Hopefully, before Super Tuesday, but definitely after.
Pete was by far the smartest candidate on the stage; unfortunately, that will not get him elected.
As for Bloomberg, it truly was unbelievable how bad he was (for a mostly good Mayor). Here is guy who is giving millions to fight the gun lobby, millions to elect Democrats and literally millions to help save our environment, and he got clobbered. He could have said, “yeah I admit I have made mistakes in my life, perhaps many of them, but actions speak and look what I am doing in the face of Newton, Parkland and Las Vegas; and look what I am doing for the Democratic Party; so yes, I have had so warts, but I’ll release the NDAs because now is what matters! Let’s beat Donald Trump!”
So we will end up with Bernie, and get absolutely clobbered by Trump in November!! We have seen this train wreak before and now we get to see it again. It’s truly a nightmare and party that will run a guy who will is not even a Democrat.
6
No surprise, the NYT gang loved Warren. I will admit, the last debate was feisty and she was on fire. BUT...
Bret Stephens (5/10) — Every answer contained a pander to a left-wing constituency. What about the rest of the country?
Bret noticed this. I'm a PhD. My parents are. We all noticed it. Every other line out of her mouth was a pander, and one or two - okay, that's normal - but 7 or 8 times? That's too much. It comes across as desperate, like a progressive version of "notice me, senpai."
Honestly, I think Sanders came out on top, but that was just me.
2
I wish someone would ask Bernie how life changing drugs and healthcare advancements against disease will be funded when he guts the evil Pharma industry. Will the folks that built the ACA website be in charge of new drug development?
2
This was not a real debate. It was a juvenile food fight. There were no winners - only losers. My thought afterwards was "none of the above". NBC and MSNBC should never again be allowed to host another "debate".
6
@Phyll I feel the same about CNN. Terrible!
Bloomberg brought a wallet to a gun fight.
1
@gene ... and he won, if not this battle, but better for all of us, the war.
2
It appears the most important attribute for a candidate is the ability to slay opponents, slice an Achilles heel, skewer rivals, and slate bloodthirsty inclinations. Isn't this the President we have now?
What a night—for journalists, critics, punsters, and Republicans. Drama! On boy!
Thanks for your contributions to maintaining the soap opera that passes for a debate.
3
The biggest thing this infographic showed me is how many of the NYT columnists and political writers are white. Would love to see what coverage looks like with journalists who better reflect the diversity of our country.
3
Regardless of your opinion about Warren's policies, there is no question who was the best debater...wasn't that the question? Interesting that Maureen Dowd (seems to opposed women frequently) and Bret Stephens (conservative) formed their opinion otherwise. She won.
1
What would the Founding Fathers make of these imbecilic debates? What would they make of the con man in the White House? How did they come together, a lawyer- farmer, a southern slave owner, a lawyer, etc and got rid of an Empire? Certainly not by destroying each other in front of their adversaries. Democratic Party and all these egomaniac candidates, all of them need to come together soon and have one leader. This bickering is trying whatever is left of American electorate patience, our goodwill and even our desire be part of the dialogue.
3
Wow. Will Wilkinson’s hatred of Sanders and the majority of Democrats reads like fake news. He knows perfectly well that Sanders is not a socialist but spreads the lie anyway. Either that, or he doesn’t understand what socialist means. Nah, he’s just lying.
2
Bloomberg blew it. If he expected to come to stage and choke on his attitude towards women expecting people to look at his business skills, he has chosen his campaign managers rather poorly. A better Trump, no way.
Sanders, lord have mercy. Such vitriol, such anger. I ask this question of what makes America the land of every immigrant legal and illegal, a dream country? The fact that anyone can aspire to make billions. If you take that dream away, then there is no America. He is a poor, poor choice.
Klobuchar, honest mistake. Who does that Telemundo reporter think she is? Why does Mexico have to be so important to the election? It’s a clear shout to illegal immigrants and the reporter should blacklisted. But Klobuchar was flustered and her faux pas on not labeling cartels as terrorists will not go down well.
Biden, go away now.
Buttigieg, my favorite, came out like a mean chihuahua. Horrible such vicious little bites.
Warren, awesome. Rightly scarred Bloomberg and gloriously came to Klobuchar’s defense. She has just pulled the sword out of the stone. If she keeps up, she has my vote.
2
Mike needs to get amped up. He’s closing comments were also awful- sounded like he was applying for the managers job at an underwear factory. He’ll do better next time. Still voting for hoping him and that he picks Amy K as his veep!
2
Michael Bloomberg has nothing to be ashamed of! He made it himself, he lived the American Dream, and he didn't start on 3rd base like our current guy! No business of his size will not have complaints of one sort or another from staff. That is just a fact. It is time to stop bashing successful people and think about beating the heck out of our current guy, who is a thoughtless, debased individual, who lies, cheats and believes in nothing but himself. Mike Bloomberg is our best hope besides Biden of unseating the worst president ever!
3
Stephens liked Klobuchar because she knows the number of Knesset members. (who cares? even Israelis don't anymore)
3
Proud of Buttigieg, the only adult in that debate.
Take away the video and applause and just read what they all said. Pete stands out. He would be a good president, maybe even a great one.
1
Warren had an exceptional night - articulate, inspiring, and distinguished. She made the case that she is THE progressive candidate. The perfect medium between Sen. Sanders and the Pete, Amy, Biden crop.
Pete appeared to be smarmy and borderline cruel. If a man had a momentary slip and forgotten the name of a leader, would they have been subject to the same line of questions? Pete attempted to disqualify Senator Klobuchar for this slip. If we operate on this principle, than he and Joe Biden would certainly not be up on that stage. This was an unnecessary question to start with.
3
@Claire Watch Klobuchar's interview on Telemundo. It wasn't a slip, she didn't know the name of the president of Mexico and also couldn't say anything about his policies. The next day on a CNN town hall she said she was too tired from traveling to remember.
Bernie has labeled himself as a socialist a term that is loaded with unfortunate meaning here in the U.S. I think he should rightly be proud of his efforts to legitimatize the term but he must also accept the simple fact that his crusade will make him unelectable as president here in the USA. Perhaps in another 50 years or so the term will be acceptable to virtually all U.S. citizens but that is not the world we live in today. He has chosen his cross to bear and he must accept the consequences.
Bernie must accept the fact that his crusade was going to limit his career and his supporters must also accept it. His political martyrdom will be his reward but if we want to defeat Trump we must not allow Bernie to make martyrs of us all.
320
@Bunbury Sanders should call himself a social democrat, rather than a democratic socialist. Then he could align himself with many of the highly prosperous European countries, who strongly support a capitalist economy while providing enviable benefits to their citizens. Unfortunately, Sanders has stuck with his socialist label which is somewhat inaccurate and clearly untenable for a majority of US voters, despite recent poll results. Once Trump hammers Sanders on his socialist idealogy, Sanders poll numbers will drop and Trump would win in 2020.
36
@Bunbury
If you ask voters whether they would hesitate to vote for a socialist they say yes, but if you ask them if they would vote for Bernie Sanders, they also say yes. The reason for this is simple: Most US voters are not deeply consciously ideological in their voting behavior. Its why the second choice of most Biden supporters is Bernie. The term "socialism" is still distasteful to many weaned on Cold War red baiting, but even they know that Bernie bears a much closer resemblance to FDR than to Fidel.
Voters trust Bernie because he is trustworthy. People know that he is going to fight for the things he says he is going to fight for. Something they really don't believe about any of the other candidates and with good reason. The argument that some of his proposals are not realistic carries little sting because most people know that they will likely be pared down by Congress and appreciate that he doesn't start making concessions before the fight has even been waged.
Bernie is clearly teh Dems best prospect for beating Trump. He is the unambiguous frontrunner in this race and it is time for the party establishment to make its peace and get behind him.
56
@Bunbury You're asking Bernie and his supporters to think practically, and that's just not who they are. They're about the soaring rhetoric. Your point is exactly the one I've made to his supporters over and over, and they can't actually address the point at all. It's maddening.
19
What exactly is the main problem people have with getting behind Elizabeth Warren?! She's super smart, incredibly experienced, shes personable when she speaks, tremendously accomplished and has actual thoughtful ideas on how to move forward on big issues. So whats the problem?! Why the hesitancy to connect?!
526
@Scott She is most often people's 2nd choice. I believe Americans fear a woman not being electable in the USA as president and fear more than anything DJT being re-elected. It is not that they don't want Warren. It is that more than anything they want DJT out of office. I will be voting for Warren but then no matter who wins will be voting Democratic.
54
@Scott
One problem is that some progressive ideas are impractical, and people sense this. Yes, she's smart, experienced, and would make a vociferous opponent for Trump, but many of us, even if we are not wealthy, see the perils of becoming a socialist country. Venezuela?
20
@Daphne Get a hold of yourself. No one is suggesting we follow Venezuela's path--which I'll add is impossible, as the historical conditions of this country are far different from those of a South American petro-state. There's a rich tradition of social democracy *in this country* that has been abandoned. Working people want it back.
124
Warren is the only candidate that consistently talks about lifting American families not just individuals (like Bernie who obviously caters his message to millenials). Warren is the smartest one - quite obviously - it is unfortunate that American voters want the tallest candidate with whom to have a beer, not the smartest and most qualified one. I'd vote for her in a NY second.
2
What about China? Again, what about China?? The battle for the 21st Century will have nothing to do with non-disclosure agreements but everything to do with exposing and countering the myriad issues our rival to the East poses for America's health and sovereignty.
2
Last night I posted that Warren was the runaway winner, so it's good to see that that was not just my view but clear to others.
Like many Americans, I'm tired of arrogant candidates who assume it's all about them all the time. Only one candidate last night sacrificed time to stand up for another (and when time is allotted in 45 second increments, it's a sacrifice). Last night's story was not about Bloomberg, about how he spoke or others attacked him. It was about Elizabeth's grace-note in standing up for Amy when Pete decided a boorish attack on a momentary lapse of memory was a good strategy.
I have no clear horse in this race. Like everyone I know, I've pledged to vote for the last man or woman standing, so these debates are profoundly important to me. In different moments, I've made the case for most of the contenders . I see Biden and Bloomberg as our weakest options; all of the others share exciting ideas that have the potential to transform this nation and pull us out of the Slough of Despond. We're at the point, though, where critical shifts and allegiances are happening and they are based on subtle, finely calibrated yet important differences.
I want a candidate who hasn't lost his or her humanity and compassion, someone who gets that it's about the other people in the room/nation. One unafraid to call colleagues on unbecoming behavior. One who can in one easy, compelling moment reach out to another person and offer a helping hand.
Warren owned the night.
674
@AhBrightWings The "momentary lapse of memory" is a bit of an excuse if she still had to go back to read the name on her notes. For someone in her position attempting to push her experience as qualifying for the job, it's a legitimate attack that shows lack of interest and/or depth.
27
@Carlos
Warren and Buttigieg are the two candidates I'm deciding between (not that it matters, given when the Indiana primary is), but I have to agree with AhBright that Pete crossed the smartypants line. It's the biggest debate misstep he's made so far. OK to have made the point for the reasons you state, but belaboring it made him come across (for the first time in my eyes) as petty. He can't pursue a petty fixation like that ever again, because his strength lies in making us feel optimistic about the big picture.
25
@AhBrightWings And Pete was the big loser. All he did was snipe at others. No vision. No issues put forward and defended by him. He sounded like a Republican plant.
30
Did anyone else catch that Bernie started talking about worker-owned businesses and flat-out stated that billionaires don't deserve their wealth?
That ain't democratic socialism. That's plain old socialism.
Not saying that's bad one way or another, I just think it's interesting that he put out what were perhaps his most radical lines and they were passed over amidst all the Bloomberg-bashing.
4
@T. Warren 20% worker ownership and not having billionaires is a very far cry from socialism. Socialism is 100% worker ownership and no millionaires even. And, no, Sanders is not a socialist, because he is not suggesting to replace capitalism with socialism, only to make capitalism a little bit more bearable. Therein lies the difference.
It is sad to see this kind of ranking of candidates as if the debate were a reality TV show where there are winners and losers. Unfortunately, the debate format itself encouraged just such a response. It was an undignified battle royale, with the moderators inviting the candidates to attack each other--and sometimes with the moderators attacking the candidates themselves. This is the way the Democratic Party wants to choose a nominee?
2
If Sanders comes out and makes strong statement against illegal immigration he has a chance to win against Trump. Immigration is the cutting edge issue and way more important than health care reform to many voters. Bernie also needs some kind of transition plan for climate change so he doesn't appear to being throwing more people out of work like the health insurers he will devastate.
2
@G. Harris What do you call one health insurer out of work? A good start.
1
This was the first good debate so far. I came away with a clearer sense of the candidates and their positions. Bloomberg seemed like a Republican who snuck in the back door, and increasingly sounded that way right up to his closing argument, which left me totally cold. Moderators were excellent, giving the candidates space to interject themselves and be heard.
1
These are live “performances:” The best actor is not necessarily the best candidate choice. Critiquing makes us all feel included. What was missing from the debate was American defense policy and the blatant corruption, including expansive lobbying which has infiltrated democracy eroding the morality of each politician that steps up to a podium.
2
I was firmly on Biden's side (with Warren as a very close second). She is now my firm favourite . . . I always admired her acumen during the Obama presidency (sigh, how I miss those days), and still admire her. President Warren - now, that sounds about right . . .
3
No one knows the way Wall St. and the banks abuse the financial system better than Elizabeth Warren. No one has a more powerful track record than Warren at addressing these abuses and given average people a fighting chance. More than her debate skills what was on display was her ability to be a fighter when necessary. I trust her more than anyone else to actually get the ball moving in the right direction in Washington DC.
6
Thank god NYT give a rational assessment of this debate. I was half expecting a total victory to be declared for Bloomberg because he's the corporate class Hail Mary against Sanders populism. We have to fair about the process and eschew billionaire's money and corruption of our party; no time to abandon our principles as the Republicans have. Happy to see I'm not alone in my views.
Agree with the columnists that Warren was the standout and that Bloomberg’s debut was a flop. Very disappointed with Klobuchar’s performance—especially after her stellar turn in the previous debate. She was visibly shaken when confronted by Ms. Hauc (of Telemundo) and allowed her obvious disdain for Buttigieg to take the wind out of most of her rebuttals (maybe it’s time for her to table the notion that only congresspersons and Washington insiders are “in the thick of it”?). Also disappointed that attention to gun violence was practically zilch.
3
The scores say more about the scorers than the candidates, but I had to google Wajahat Ali and Arya Stark. Very funny, eventually.
What Sanders needs to do riposte Buttigieg GOP "Insurance Choice" is to remind Americans:
It is Doctors We Need To Choose, Not the Middleman Insurance Company.
We already know the cheapest plan: Medicare. Now expand it for All.
The Larger the pool of the insured, the lower the cost is on average for everyone, and we get the largest pool by insuring everyone.
5
Isn't it interesting how much more Stephens like Sanders than Warren. What could it be?
4
After watching a contentious mean and angry debate I wanted to go meditate. Listening to an angry scowling Bernie, a strident combative Warren and a defensive Klobuchar made me turn the TV onto mute. The moderate wing of the debaters were a whole easier to listen to without all the sniping at each other. As for Bloomberg he seemed to have some form of stage fright. He let everyone attack him for some of his past issues and didn't seem to have very good responses. For someone who is as successful as he is you would think he would not pass up an opportunity to advance himself. I almost wished I had changed the channel.
2
Sorry, but there were no winners on stage in last night’s debate. They all lost, thanks to a destructively designed format (thanks NBC!) that Vladimir Putin would have been proud of. The visceral image of the candidates constantly raising their hands reminded me of a bunch of first graders clamoring for attention, and their antics on stage were reminiscent of a food fight in the cafeteria.
Elizabeth Warren fans may think she “won” the debate because she was able to throw the most food on her competitors. But she did not look and sound presidential in the process. Moreover, it made me question how she would actually govern and work with other world leaders.
No, the only winner last night was Putin’s pal, our First-Grader-in-Chief, who was 300 miles to the south, selling more snake oil to his mesmerized followers at another MAGA-gaggle. I’m sure Putin was delighted with his performance.
7
I'm interested, and would be delighted to see the Times do this very same kind of 1-10 pt analysis of all these columnists themselves, as well perhaps of the quality of the questions from the news anchors. The whole process, and in this moment when we face truly grave issues for our democracy and also to our planet's ability to continue supporting us, still feels all too much like a reality TV celebrity panel game show. Meanwhile, our own unrestrained golden Nero and Trojan Horse plays the fiddle in the Oval Office, while setting the entire place ablaze.
3
The democratic debate was a dog fight. Although the candidates were in top form for the fight with one and other Mr. Bloomberg however remained cool and distanced himself from the pack. He showed that he is a different animal and that his strength and leadership skills are the necessary tools to dethrone Trump and his administration. None of the other candidates exhibit that confidence for my vote.
5
@Richard Klynn He remained cool by not giving real answers to any of the serious questions put to him. You seem to be in the minority in thinking that was a good start .
1
@Balcony Bill I think that the debate is not a comfortable platform for a man like Mike Bloomberg. I believe that his strategic planning will be forthcoming and will change the present mindset of many democrats. Patience is the name of the game.
1
I wasn't sure Bloomberg, should be allowed on the stage, but so delighted he was there after all. Now we know more about him than his slick, controlled ads. He was aloof, condescending, defensive, unprepared, and totally outmatched by Warren, who blew the entire field away! Biden was a non-factor, Buttigieg came across as earnest but too rehearsed, Klobuchar was annoyed and petulant, and Bernie was classic Bernie-loud and on message. It was good to see how the candidates handled themselves when they found themselves the object of more direct criticism. Composure matters.
And as an aside, Warren is the smartest person on that stage, hands down. I think she would be a very competent president, which is what I'm looking for.
7
I'm completely baffled about why Warren chose to eviscerate Bloomberg instead of Sanders. It actually lowers my opinion of her performance. Bloomberg was an easier target? Otherwise, I don't get letting the front runner off the hook.
2
@Susie
"I'm completely baffled about why Warren chose to eviscerate Bloomberg instead of Sanders. "
Why shouldn't she attack Bloomberg? He is a republican masquerading as a democrat, with a questionable record on his Stop-Frisk policy, the treatment of women at Bloomberg L.P. and his comments about people in the LBGT community.
If he can't take the heat he should get out the kitchen. He won't be able to win the nomination by simply carpet-bombing the American people with TV ads. He had a chance to show people what kind of leader he could be and he failed.
If Elizabeth Warren can tear into him like she did, imagine what Trump will do to "Little Michael?"
@Carl I'm pretty sure I didn't say she couldn't. She was welcome to question Bloomberg. That is not mutually exclusive with going after her main opponent--Sanders. And while we're at it, Sanders is an independent masquerading as a Democrat. I don't particularly like either Sanders or Bloomberg.
Elizabeth Warren did a number of Bloomberg and presumably would do a number on Trump. You know who else was good at ripping into Trump on the debate stage? Clinton. And we know how that turned out. The democrats need something more than someone good at attacking a bad candidate.
3
@Scott McElroy
Rump will not ever be on a debate stage again. Why do so many commenters here talk about their candidate debating Rump ? He will never debate; he doesn’t have to.
After last night, I propose Democrats do something truly revolutionary, put the two women on the ticket. The men are all pretty boring, particularly Sanders who is a Johnny-one-note. I don't think he has had a new idea in seventy years, which indicates to me a inflexible intellect. Biden is some what less boring because he at least seems to have some heart and experience behind his sometimes hesitant responses. Warren and Klobuchar both have a passion to lead and the intellect to do it well.
4
@gerri I guess Amy is an "intellect" who can't name the President of Mexico. If a US senator can't name the president, it's no wonder so many high school graduates are out there who couldn't find Mexico or Canada on a map.
1
@Balcony Bill I guess you have never forgotten a name. Rght? I've noticed that the only people who have been snarky about this are men. I suppose that's because they are lees than honest about their own mistakes.
Interesting spread of takes by the pundits. Although Dowd was a breath of stale air, except for raising the issue that perhaps many of those offensive "Bernie Bros" and indeed sabotage bots. Some of us who have been on various message and discussion boards certainly think it is more than possible.
4
Eliminated two candidates for me. Bloomberg is the "break in case of emergency" candidate for all of us who want Trump out. Sadly, to extend the metaphor, it turns out he's the fire extinguisher that hasn't been serviced since 1971.
The second was Klobuchar, who I admit I'd only started to reconsider after New Hampshire. Her visibly enraged sense of senatorial entitlement at being questioned -- fairly or not -- by an unflappable Buttigieg, was difficult to watch. Trump would absolutely eat her alive.
6
I would suggest that the Times add another category to its debate rankings. Let’s rank the moderators also, because last night they were simply appalling. Faced with a pile of kindling, they just lit a match and let the conflagration happen. No attempt to control the mayhem. No attempt to create any sense of fairness. And not an intelligent question in the bunch, just more gasoline to pour on the fire. Where were the questions about the dismantling of our justice system and the imminent peril our democracy faces?Where were the questions on foreign affairs or our preparedness for coronavirus or something evenly mildly intelligent about climate? This debate was not designed to inform the citizenry. It was designed to spike ratings and it’s time Holt, Todd, et al were called out on it.
4
It's wonderful, how Times' pundits and columnists reveal themselves,when they award grades to the candidates.
Nothing like a regular megaphone, to blind our betters to how completely they put their biases on display.
In this respect, many of them have a lot in common with Michael Bloomberg.
1
I'm amazed Elizabeth Warren garners top honors considering she concentrated her fire on everyone EXCEPT the person who stands in her way: Bernie Sanders. Flaying all the moderates accomplished nothing for her candidacy and only served to make her look vicious, even sadistic. Yes, she dispatched Bloomberg -- the great hope of many moderates -- but she offers a politics just a smidgeon less wild-eyed leftist than Bernie, and will never steal his True Believers. Incredibly enough Trump came off almost entirely untouched and unscathed. This was nothing other than a circular firing squad and each of these candidates left that stage looking diminished and less presidential. It was a disaster for the Democrats.
7
@Dr. Svetistephen
The game Elizabeth Warren is playing to pick off the top moderate candidate, Bloomberg, and show that she is a viable option, and then try to pick up more moderate voters. She already knows she can't make a dent in Sanders supporters.
It's a smart move given that Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar all have vulnerabilities and none of those candidates is appealing to a large percentage black and Latino voters . She doesn't have anywhere near the baggage these other candidates have on the issue of race, and she speaks passionately about the issue of racial justice in America. If she can get some momentum she can present herself as the "sensible" choice to people that feel that Bernie Sanders it too extreme.
It's a smart play.
3
@Carl I agree with Carl. After Bloomberg is reduced to inconsequence, the next target is Biden. Then she can be the likable and intelligent alternative to Bernie for those like me who are off-put by his rigid tone. I am worried about Sanders' ability to actually do any of the things on his platform.
1
re: Bloomberg: "Too often, he seemed sour and snippy."
Isn't that really JUST how he is? All the time?
@Love the Movie
It's that smart aleck New York, attitude. :)
It probably won't pay off real well in the South, Midwest, and Great Plains states.
In the president's office Bloomberg would be the best by far.
On the debate podium against a field of skilled fault-finders he didn't fare so well.
7
@Joe
You don't get to be president unless you can show the American public you can inspire and lead them with a vision for the country.
TV ads, won't do it, people want to see somebody authentic. Say what you will about Trump, but he has presented his supporters with a vision of America that he believes in, and he has inspired them to give him their support.
Last night Bloomberg failed to do that.
1
One thing's for certain. I will be putting St. Bernie on mute during the next debate. He's a droning, one trick pony and I no longer support the trick.
8
Can we all just agree that America is a socialist country?
Medicare. Check. Socialist.
Public Schools. Check. Socialist.
The Interstate Highway system. Check. Socialist.
Free National Park Service. Check. Socialist.
Social Security. Check. Socialist.
Public schools used to be one of our great socialist endeavors. They could be, again, if:
1. Every state revokes private charter schools. Public money should NOT be invested in "private" entities. Today's "charter" schools are the equivalent of "academies" that Southern Whites created because they didn't want to integrate schools with Blacks.
2. Took public education more seriously. As a mission for good that helps strengthen the country.
3. Viewed (and paid) and treated public education teachers like the professionals they are. We need to view them in the manner we view university professors. That is how Scandinavian countries view their public school teachers.
Everything Sanders said about Corporate welfare, last night, is correct.
@jbouie @CharlesBlow
6
Whatever about the candidates, the astonishing levels of incompetence and misplaced self confidence of the shot callers in the DNC got a full airing last night. Parachuting Bloomberg in after having fixed the rules again blew up in their hands. This is probably an even bigger car crash than the Biden electability fiasco. But it does reveal one important thing. Bloomberg tossing in the wind during the debate allowed America to see clearly that this guy shares very few ideas with even the most modest of democratic platforms and he would be more comfortable and a better fit in a Republican primary. He is utterly hopeless, yet he's the latest big idea form the DNC!
And let's make no mistake, Bloomberg is not running against Trump, he's running against Sanders. Once he crashes and burns we will see whether he lives up to his promise to spend a fortune on whomever is the candidate. He will more than likely support Trump over Sanders, or even Warren.
2
Why do we assume Trump will participate in debating the nominee when he's under no obligation and can simply have his rallies televised live on Fox?
2
Circular firing squad. How about beating up Trump. Isn’t defeating Donald the prime objective? The Trump campaign must spend the evening jotting down notes to use against whoever is the Democratic nominee.
3
"Shaun Narine - Fredericton, Canada1h ago
Times Pick
I just want to point out here that everything Bernie Sanders believes that these columnists are describing as "radical" is perfectly ordinary and acceptable in the rest of the Western world. "
Thats the exact problem. who wants to be like the rest of the wretched west. We like freedom and small government.
1
@Fred Hope you also enjoy the thousands of dollars you spend ever year for medical insurance that will also skyrocket if you have the bad judgment to become actually seriously ill. But enjoy your small government.
1
Bernie lost my vote completely last night, when he implied that "Russians" were responsible for negative comments about Pete B.
3
I'll leave it to others to discuss who did better then others, etc. But one thing that kept running through my mind is, who is for our country first and foremost?
My largest complaint about the Republicans is that they, almost exclusively, are more interested in their own political survival than what is best for the Country as a whole. I think, if we could be a fly on the wall in the offices or homes of many Republican legislators and party members, we'd find that they loathe President Trump. Yet they will not come forward, even those who privately call him a moron or worse.
As I look at the Democrat candidates, I see something similar too - each one of them seems more interested in themselves winning than in what is best for the Country. At times, I think the one I would admire the most would be the one who would back out of the race, and throw their support behind another candidate. It would be a sign of collaboration and healing rather than divisiveness, something the country sorely needs.
3
This is a great campaign for the Dem Pres nomination. Real rivalries and a thorough examination of the issues. It's the way a Democracy is supposed to work. Contrast that with the lying dictatorship of the Trump crime syndicate and the quaking Republican Senate all supported by the hegemony of the super rich.
1
Bernie has become the caricature of the crazy old uncle in the attic: ranting, yelling, unyielding in his positions. Free tuition at public universities for all, including the children of billionaires that he so despises? I don't think so. Nor do those who are satisfied with their private health insurance wanted it taken away. And we don't hear anything about how he proposes to pay for his "revolution". All this from a 78 year-old man who has had a heart attack. While I will vote for any sentient human being over the wannabee dictator in the White House, I believe that Bernie's presidential run will end in utter disaster.
8
Why wasn't Sanders attacked on his record (or lack thereof)? He's been spouting (yelling) the same message for 30 years and hasn't yet been able to do anything about it. Some people call that consistency and praise him for it. Others might think he's some old guy standing on a corner in NYC screaming into the air.
Less important, but notable: The person on his right (at every debate) deserves commendation for not swatting away the arm, hand, and the finger that consistently intruded on his/her space.
Dems would be bonkers to nominate this guy. The Trumpsters will shred him, and not just on his politics. Bernie has a past, just like everyone else. For one thing: They will hammer him for every creepy/weird thing he has ever written.
6
Best critique of the article:
"Bloomberg’s not a leading candidate — he just plays one in TV ads. "
But sadly, in these times, that may be enough.
@K Shields
No, it won't.
@K Shields
I certainly hope it will. No one ese has a gnat’s chance of winning the presidency.
1
I am disappointed in all of them. What happened to debating the issues and presenting their platforms? Personal mud-slinging has sunken the Democratic party to a new low. It was like 'Trump' all over the place.
2
I am disappointed in all of them. What happened to debating the issues and presenting their platforms? Personal mud-slinging has sunken the Democratic party to a new low. It was like 'Trump' all over the place.
2
@Susan D
It disappeared as soon as the highly-paid MSNBC & NBC folks began their blathering malarkey so-called questions.
1
8—Buttigieg
The most decent person in the race. Great job showing neither Sanders nor Bloomberg are Democrats and both are unwinnable arrogant extremists. Won Iowa, tied in New Hampshire, momentum at the right time. The right man for this moment and this generation.
7—Biden, Warren
Joe did best connecting to the experience of disaffected white America. Warren by articulating right out of the gate and better than any the striking similarities between Bloomberg & Trump.
4—Sanders, Klobuchar
Bernie's Bernie, got him 25% of the vote. If Klobuchar and Bloomberg weren't there, Joe, Pete and Elizabeth all beat Sanders. Bloomberg & Klobuchar must step aside and support Democrats up and down the ballot.
Klobuchar shows every time that Pete gets under her skin even about things he didn't bring to the stage. She takes his very being as a personal attack against her. We don't need that egotistical flying-off-the-handle in the White House.
Warren had a long cordial conversation with Bloomberg during a commercial. Shows class and strength. Klobuchar wouldn't shake Buttigieg's hand or acknowledge him as she stalked offstage. Shows brittleness and weak over emotionalism. Sad, loved her after Iowa.
3—Bloomberg
I had a week of ignorant bliss that maybe it takes an imperious NYC rich guy to beat one, actually imagined him the nominee. His performance tonight disabused me of that. Did love his defense of capitalism that even Socialist Bernie Sanders is a millionaire with three homes.
3
I watched the debates off and on last night. It was a bunch of kids fighting in the schoolyard, while the big bully inside destroyed the desks, smashed the teachers in the faces and set the place on fire. After a week in which Trump pardoned felons, disparaged judges and even set himself up as the only sheriff in town, he was hardly even mentioned. It was painful to see.
3
I am disappointed in all of them. What happened to debating the issues and presenting their platforms? Personal mud-slinging has sunken the Democratic party to a new low. It was like 'Trump' all over the place.
1
President Warren sounds like a good follow-up to President Trump.
2
Bloomberg described his company's NDA agreements with women was "consensual."
That is a Freudian slip of epic proportions, because defenders of sexual accusations often plead that the act was "consensual."
His other major faux pas was to claim that he "worked hard" for his billions. What about everyone else who works hard but can barely get through the month?
What this shows is that arrogance is Bloomberg's biggest single problem, and arrogant was the expression on his face most of the evening.
But it was not just arrogance, it was also perplexity why he was not getting more respect from his rivals.
3
All of the bickering and the shoddy job the moderators did made me want to turn the tv off. I didn't--I suffered through all of them talking over each other and ignoring trump, mostly.
Bloomberg came onto the debate stage for the first time and when he did speak he clearly stated his qualifications and his goal to beat Donald Trump. He is the one candidate that stepped up and focused on Donald Trump.
No one brought up the Republican party and the policies they presently support and that the President is impeached!
I fault the interviewer for even bringing up the issue but......Mayor Pete being worried about another candidate forgetting the name of Mexico's president and to blah, blah on about it is a waste of time.
Time to focus like Bloomberg.
2
@Creek
Saying "I can beat Trump" will not win the election. You need to give, people more than that. Bloomberg didn't do that last night.
@Carl
Read his platform. Read his philanthropic history. The other “debaters” didn’t give us a thing, by the way.
1
Good entertainment and great night for Trump. Five of the players bullied each other and ganged up against the new kid in the block while the goal of the game got lost in the midst.
3
Amy Klobuchar. What a meltdown. Worth the price of admission, I'd say.
One reason people who vote early in the "early voting" might live to regret it.
1
I have watched every debate start to finish. While watching each of them, I also follow along with the NYT live commentary.
Last night was disappointing as a few NYT correspondents would say 'is this what Democrats want to see?' 'I just got a text from one Democrat in California who is watching this and is increasingly anxious'. 'This is a mess'.
I understand these NYT folks are expressing opinions, or the opinions of their mother (!), but surely they must understand democracy is messy. They will, on occasion, complain it's not fiery enough; or too mild. Then when things get 'messy', they talk about how it's devolving. That would be a reflection of the moderators, not necessarily the candidates.
I think going forward, I'd like less commentary and more fact-checking. Less anonymous texts from an 'anxious California democrat' and maybe open up the section to all of us to text how it doesn't make me anxious to see candidates challenge each other; get messy; forget names; etc.
Democrats have an abundance of intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated candidates from which to choose. Settle down and listen to them...and maybe don't watch the NYT live commentary.
Where were the questions on the rule of law being demolished by the current president and republicans in Congress? The existential threat is a presidency controlling the justice department for his vendettas, having an inexperienced loyalist to head the CIA, constant disparagement of the FBI, and the freedom of the press. There will be no progress on the climate threat either with 4 more years of this scientifically ignorant and temperamentally unfit man.
3
Bloomberg is never, ever, going to release those women from their NDAs. It's his equivalent of Trump's taxes -- speculation and innuendo are probably far less damaging to him than the details of why the women had to be shut up. Too bad he also doesn't have an equivalent to Trump's audit excuse.
1
@Mark
Do you honestly want to “out” these women ? Why ?
"Bloomberg might have bled out onstage if he hadn’t been so bloodless." -- Nice!
1
Why are the Democrats, egged on by those framing the questions, letting themselves get taken into this back-backing frenzy? Only Bernie and Amy seem to understand that it's about the issues, not the guys -- or girls .... Elizabeth, please come back from the dark side!
Maureen Dowd seems to be the best at specifying how the general public will rate the debate performances of these candidates. And that is what matters.
1
I really dislike this being framed as "winners" and "losers" as if it's a game show. If the NYT can't frame this as a serious exercise in democracy, then we can't expect anyone to take it as seriously as we should. This is not entertainment, it's not a horse race or a tennis match. This country is at a crossroads between autocracy and democracy. Please cool it with the entertainment references, and get some gravitas.
2
I was so looking forward to this debate to help me make up my mind on who to support. Would Bloomberg make a strong candidate and be The One to take on Trump? Would Klobuchar show strength? And, what about screaming Bernie? Would Biden suddenly become presidential? Would Warren & Buttigieg step up and quit squabbling?
Sadly, no. I screamed back at the TV when they were yelling over each other. This was no debate, it was a bloodthirsty bunch attacking Bloomie, and in turns, each other.
Help us all.
2
Mr. Gil Duran's comments are especially helpful and insightful: thank you, Mr. Duran and NYTimes for including him in your pages.
Bloomberg's billions don't bother me; I don't think we should punish success, if it's earned and managed with decency. And he's not "buying" the election any more than anyone else; he's just using his own money instead of other people's. But his apparent attitudes toward women and minorities are a deal breaker. I don't care if he's cuddly or charismatic but we already have a misogynist white supremacist in the Oval Office and don't need another regardless of his other qualities. As a small "L" libertarian who can't/won't vote GOP, I'm still shopping. And does anyone in the race care about foreign policy and seeing that we avoid blowing up the world? That would be nice. I care more about that than more entitlements I don't need or want.
2
Best comment yet..."Oy. Vey," from Bret Stephens re Bloomberg. Thank you, Bret. You took the words right out of my mouth!
1
1/10 for the Times realtime commenting team, who seemed to revel in the drama of the circular firing squad. If there was a comparison to the Hunger Games, as one of them mentioned, it was in the kibbitzers themselves, who come off as the jaded, unprincipled bleacher crowd at a blood sport event. Journalism as a whole is responsible in large part for the trivialization of the debates and politics in general, as though it should be a made-for-TV reality spectacle.
3
I can’t stand Bernie. (Please stop yelling.) I will, however, vote blue no matter who.
2
Many NY Times readers - and the editorial board and columnists - seem unaware of how out of touch they are with the rest of America. The NY Times editorial board lives in a progressive bubble.
Fact: Warren and Sanders have zero chance of winning the Presidency. It will be a slaughter like 1984 Reagan/Mondale or 1972 Nixon/McGovern.
3
Progressives win as the establishment squabbles to make right-wing talking points in an attempt to appeal to no one but the elite white donor class. Shame. All of them except Bernie basically said your primary vote doesn't matter and the Super-delegates should decide the nominee. Double Shame.
3
@Jeffrey K A change from Bernie's view the last time around. I wonder why?
2
The NYT, NBC, and MSNBC need to re-think what a presidential debate is supposed to be. Not a clown show designed to generate ratings or subscriptions, but a serious discussion of the issues facing the country. Whether someone called someone else a fat pig or another knew the name of the president of Mexico do not qualify. Neither are got-you moments that journalists seem to love.
This debate was ridiculous. The issues debated were, for the most part, irrelevant. There were no winners. Only losers who believe that purity tests will need them votes. There were no adults in that room except Bloomberg.
Democrats will manage to lose one more state than McGovern did if they nominate anyone but Bloomberg.
1
Warren, obviously big winner, showing how well she can fight and take down Trump. Bloomberg the loser, one of the worst takedowns outside professional wrestling ever seen on TV. Bernie held his place, Biden and Amy (ugh!) are out of it.
1
This was the first debate I actually watched, mainly because I was curious about Mike Bloomberg.
It must be difficult for any thinking person to submit themselves to such a circus. Vacuous and ignorant questioners. Opponents twisting your words and seizing on trivia. Empty posturing. It tells us almost nothing about how well a candidate would actually govern.
It was useful, though, in helping us assess how well a person might keep their calm in the face of absurdity.
From that perspective, I thought that Mike did reasonably well. On the other hand, the American voter has a definite taste for absurdity and excess. So it’s hard to say what lies ahead.
4
Bernie always seems angry and Warren gave Bloomberg too many unneccesary shots.Trump must be chuckling knowing his opposition.
3
I could only watch for 30 minutes. Then I had to contemplate another 4 years of Trump
1
Liz Mair's comment about Bernie having an aneurysm in the first half was insensitive and uncalled for.
4
Pete was too strident, arrogant and mean. He turned this woman voter off. Joe Biden's mind is not as nimble as the others. I think he has the intelligence--his age shows when he tries to think and speak quickly. Yes, to Warren and Sanders! After the NDA outing by Warren, he's done.
2
@Bea
Look up what NDA A
Usually, after a debate, the tares comes to the surface; this time everything is on the surface.
1
Why did I know before I saw the responses that Maureen Dowd would give Senator Warren the lowest marks of any of the Times analysts? When does she ever have anything really good to say about another strong woman? Nice to see Brittany Bronson included, presumably because the Nevada caucuses are almost here. But I think her outside the beltway, outside the comfortable chattering classes viewpoint would be valuable to have on an ongoing basis.
1
Given that our national policy is an inferno of contrasting policies and parties that brutalize each other into inaction, I wonder if it's a good thing the Dems are so combative with each other: my gut is take someone who sees both (all) sides of a story and leads to the best available consensus
1
I can generally agree that Bloomberg got smacked around a lot, that Pete Buttigieg looked just as thin as he actually is, that Joe Biden is evaporating for no intelligent reason, and with a few other bells and whistles.
But the screaming match I heard last night is NOT going to beat Trump. And Bernie screamed a lot, repeating the same old talking points and claims, ducking around specifics on health plans, environment, and pretty much everything else.
Nor did Warren impress me. She’ll impress me when she uses that brain and education and experience to get beyond cheap slogans and tapdancing; when she looks us in the eye and says, “Oh, grow up.”
Klobuchar...well, what I heard was that there’s something fundamentally off about her being President. And I’d started leaning her way, too.
But if you think that last night was the kind of “fighting,” that’ll dump Trump, you’re out of your skull.
That was screaming chaos. Guess who loves screaming chaos, where his idiocy and ignorance work great?
2
I guess it's helpful to compare rankings across different commentators and to dress this up with quantification and averages. It also invites additional analysis. So let's just do some:
Null Hypothesis: No difference among commentators (i.e. All commentators judged the performances with a similar range of positive to negative.)
Alternative Hypothesis: Maurine Dowd was consistently more negative than her peers.
Here are the numbers:
Mean score by all commentators: 6.3 (stdev 2.22)
Mean score by Dowd: 4.5 (stdev 0.96)
T-Test comparison of means: 0.028 (single tail--lower scores are statistically unlikely by chance)
What about other conservatives on the panel?
Mean score by Douthat: 5.7 (stdev 1.89)
T-Test comparison of means: 0.261
Result: There is a better than 95% expectation that Dowd would rank candidates more negatively than her peers--even a conservative.
Discussion: Dowd is an outlier who should not be asked to render an objective opinion on the Democratic candidates.
1
@Ian MacDonald
Thanks. That was a gorgeous example of why we don’t slap fancy statistical tools on top of subjective scores from a tiny sample size.
See also every “we cured cancer,” study on cable TV, which always turn out to be based on something like giant doses of olive oil and Vitamin C to seven rats and a gerbil.
@Robert T-test was designed for small sample sizes. I stand by my analysis. Same results from ranked comparison BTW.
Maureen Dowd scores Bloomberg (5) over Warren (4) in this debate? I'll have whatever she's having.
5
Frankly, the so-called debate was a disaster. There were no winners, just losers and the big loser was the Democratic Party. They need to focus on the tyrant in the White House and the Senate and not each other. No one wants Warren with her nasty remarks or the screamer Bernie. Even Mayor Pete was nasty to Amy K. Bloomberg needs to get his act together; he was unprepared for the nasty remarks he received. Democrats: get your act together or our country will be toast!
2
As is often the case, the opinions of these NYT employees on the performances of the Dem presidential candidates say more about the NYT employees than the candidates. It’s very clear that the NYT likes the status quo and does not want a paradigm shift.
3
Maureen Dowd - wow, well, I guess I didn't know you until now. You know the future apparently. Warren won't be the nominee and won't be in Sanders or a Bloomberg cabinet. Ah, and Trump will never be president. We remember that prediction.
I've decided that Dowd is getting pruney from sitting in her witticism warm bath. Get out of the bath and dry off kid! Don't make predictions or assumptions without at least a few words backing them up.
3
All in all a good summary of the reality show last night.
But one observation missing in the piece and comments:
Bloomberg was a bumbling, stumbling, unappealing train wreck. This was in response to questions he should have anticipated. And he's supposed to be the one to stand up to Trump? Trump is stupid and crude, but he would reduce Bloomberg to a sniveling mass of entitled merino wool. Any one among the others would do far better on a "debate" stage against the orange one.
As someone who’s voted Democrat her entire life, I can honestly say, they just handed 2020 to Trump. Nice job, you bunch of angry screaming me-me’s! I’m going back to bed and throw the covers over my head. Someone please wake me up in 2024.
2
Warren’s my woman!
3
Bloomberg was attacked for his sexist, pro-police and possibly racist history, characteristics that voters seem to favor. and that certainly apply to Trump. Are we making a deal with the devil if we nominate Bloomberg to defeat a stupid, evil megalomaniac, traits that do not apply to Bloomberg?
1
@Disillusioned
No, a deal with the future. Bloomberg has the ability to learn & change. His last ten years have shown that. Look it up.
1
This was the first debate that I watched. My goal is to eliminate, not to cheer on at this point. So much at state. Although we are saying, "I'll vote for the D no matter what", I take my primary vote seriously. It can't get Trump worse, but the country could dive even further if we don't have strong leadership, wisdom, conscience and COMMON SENSE in the WH. And.... think.... which one of these gems could get even a single Trumper to vote for them??? Even Bernie with his angry pointed finger could not. Still sleepless here in Florida.
1
@RV
Bloomberg will get the votes of many Republicans & independents. No worries. Night night.
1
It's seems like the op-ed writers at the times watched another debate, especially Brett Stephens.
Watching the Dems debate is like watching a family fight. It is never pleasant. A Rep/Dem debate is a true fight and I know who I am going to cheer. So I skipped this debates. Reading the analysis, gives me some sense of what went on and I value the NYT columnist a lot. Warren was always my first choice followed by Pete. I will see how super Tuesday goes and then make my decision. Irrespective I will always go against Trump!
@TheniD
There will not ever be a Rep/Dem debate with this person in the White House. He is not intellectually able to any longer and he won’t want to.
1
Yes as the ship sinks Warren will be the last one to go under but in the meantime Bloomberg rolled his eyes and hired a drone to fly him away.
@jg
Eye-rolling is less obnoxious than squawking & screaming. He didn’t fly away; he brought his girlfriend back to meet folks.
Sorry gang.. Trump won.
You are missing bios here for two of the authors, I think.
Bloomberg seemed a little reluctant to get his feet wet in the debate...I think this election will come down to who the independant's vote for not who does the best in the debates...I think independants tend to be more centris voters than far left or right...
Maureen Dowd's highest grade was a 6 to Bernie Sanders. She actually gave a higher grade to Bloomberg (5) than to Elizabeth Warren (4). What was she watching?
1
From early on, I've said Warren was the smartest of all of them and she's a masterful debater. Further if she drove a stake through Bloomberg, that in and of itself is laudable. She should be on the ticket, and/or Treasury Secretary or SCOTUS. An inspiring performance.
2
Did people see the interview on Telemundo where Klobuchar did not know the name of the Mexican President? It did not seem at the time that she forgot as she showed none of the affectations that one does when something simply evades them nor did she say at the time, the name escapes me. She said she did not know. It seems she created this fantasy of forgetting for the debate stage to soften the blow against her. If this had been a random interview with an American publication or news outlet, I think it could be more forgivable, but given that she knew the interview would be with Telemundo and recorded, she should have better prepared and made sure to know the name of the Mexican President. It is basic 101 preparation for an interview with Telemundo. This is what concerns me, not that she may or may not have forgotten a name, but that she was not prepared. It portends poorly for her possible future as President where she would have to know the names of lots of foreign leaders. We need a studious, well-prepared President to reclaim honor for the USA.
1
@Matt Levine Who cares , the questions asked are somewhat petty and tabloid nonsense ; yes she should have known the name of the president of Mexico (Fox) just kidding , it is their record that matters , not their dress or suit , hair , or google eyes . The debates are not debates anymore but attacks on each other full of disinformation , spleen and sadly that is what people expect , a reality show .
Klobuchar came across as fingernails on a chalk board. Just because she's from a less polarized state doesn't mean she can bring the rest of the country together. Her constant attacks on Mayor Pete make her look like she doesn't respect somewhat younger people or perhaps she is deep-down homophobic. Or, maybe she doesn't respect people who have served in the military. His decorum was exceptional. I would love a female president, but I'd take Elizabeth over Amy any day.
1
A friend of mine who loves football always says "Every year that the Coach of the Year award doesn't go to Bill Belichick is another year the award is a sham." The league always picks some up-and-coming hot new coach because it would be boring to give it to the same guy every year, even though no one would seriously dispute that Belichick has been the best every year, because he obviously is.
Watching these debates, I get the same sense with Elizabeth Warren. Commenters, pollsters, and columnists approach the issue from different angles each debate to create new content, but Warren is head-and-shoulders above everyone in terms of actual debate skill. Buttigieg is second, but there is significant ground between them.
And that's not a statement from a Warren supporter. I still don't know who I will support. But a suggestion that any of the other candidates is anywhere near Warren's league as a debater is nothing more than wishful thinking. She has been the best debater from the start, and her reaching new rhetorical highs last night only underscored what should be obvious to any objective viewer: the debate stage belongs to her.
3
Human race continues to put way to much emphasis on speech delivery as a metric of intelligence. This is why so many unqualified managers or leaders are just talkers.
The Democratic primary is starting to look like the Republican one in 2016. Trump was written off by media an the party but still won. Bloomberg will come out unaffected and probably go up in polls. Just read the comment section.
Warren in my view did terrible last night. Yes, she yelled and spoke, but about the same things, that Sanders articulates better. She comes out as begging to be believed. I can't reconcile with the need to lie about her ancestry. This disqualifies her 100%.
Klobuchar showed a person's that she hid successfully got a while. She lost points.
Biden may have a resurgence just because he didn't stumble.
Sanders was Sanders pushing for his social experiment. So far we haven't seen Denmark launching satellites, or creating cutting edge electric car technology.
Race is still open.
@Euxinus "She comes out as begging to be believed. I can't reconcile with the need to lie about her ancestry. This disqualifies her 100%."
It's a minor point, and it may not matter to you, but she did not lie about her ancestry. She may have misstated it based upon what she had been told by her family, but perhaps she had no reason to think what she had been told was wrong. I grant that the DNA test was a misstep, but it confirmed that she did have some native ancestry. I think you're looking for reasons not to take her seriously.
New York Times, please tell us why you think it is appropriate for conservative Republicans to sit in judgment of Democratic presidential candidates, handing out ratings as if we Democrats care what conservatives think of our candidates?
We Democrats will decide for ourselves, and we will not be told how to think or vote by The Times' lineup of conservative pundits.
1
This debate couldn't have gone better for Trump, and worse for the Democratic party, and that depresses me to no end. Instead of the candidates talking in positive tones about what they themselves are about, and what they'd do if elected President, last night's debate reminded me of the negative mudslinging political ads I see on TV way too often.
I am resigned more than ever that Trump will get re-elected. I have a bad feeling that last night's debate turned off many people so much that they will end up not voting in November because of not liking the Democratic candidate, which will give Trump the election, just like in 2016.
2
What’s the point of including non-Democrats in an analysis like this? They care about different things so judge using a different measure. It’s like asking a vegan to judge hot dogs.
1
Two thoughts:
1. These debates are for the nomination of the eventual candidate for the Democratic Party. Why, then, would we care about the opinions of Douthat, Stephens, McCarthy, Mair, & Wehner - all of whom are partisans of the GOP, if not of Trump - although several partially qualify as 'never Trumpers'.
2. Judging 'performance', handicapping as though it was a sporting event - holding up points cards, as it were - is inappropriate when we see so little discussion of the substance of policy differences. Policy - [not goals, on which pretty much all the candidates for the nomination - agree (with the exception of one: shall we return to the 'status quo' of dysfunctional non-democratic governance where wealth dominates or shall we institute equalizing reforms)] differences and explications should be of greater moment than, for example, Ms Collins comment that with Senator Sanders "everything's a yell" (holding up her low card of "4"), while Senator Warren "comeback kid" received a 9 is a particularly egregious example of the promary fault of this exercise. Holding upi my own card: NYTimes "2".
51
@D. Yohalem "Why, then, would we care about the opinions of Douthat, Stephens,..."
_what, now we only listen to what we want to hear?
@D. Yohalem My card for your comment: 10/10!
Bernie needs to take his ego and go home. We don't need another older white male for president. And we really don't need another aggressive president if we are to bring this country together.
5
There is no question that Elizabeth Warren would make an ideal president. Bernie should join progressive forces with Elizabeth Warren. Biden may be a moderate but he transmits the impression that he is not all that that convincing as a candidate. Bloomberg is a Republican at heart and is trying to take advantage of the Democratic Party's lack of unity.
At the end of the day, the key message to all Americans who care about the future of this nation, including the Bernie bros that sat out the 2016 election, is Vote Blue, No Matter Who. Vote Blue...or its game over!
4
The Winner: Television networks and their sponsors.
The Loser: The American citizens.
The debate format is no way to choose a leader.
Yes, we do learn how well the candidates can battle with one
another but far less about how they plan to go about dealing
with the range of issues dividing the country.
It is a "reality tv" series masquerading as politic discourse.
It's no wonder that a reality tv host resides in the White House.
We must do better.
1
It's usually a mistake to long for the olden days, but I surely miss the debates the League of Women Voters used to run. No garish, over-bright, overwrought stage sets or swooping pin-balling camera shots. Just plain minimalist sets and graphics, and a panel of earnest seeming journalists asking well-focused questions. I'm sure my memories are more rosy than the reality was. But I do long for those sober exercises in civic engagement, where you might sometimes get a really revealing response to a sharp, unexpected question.
5
It's usually a mistake to long for the olden days, but I surely miss the debates the League of Women Voters used to run. No garish, over-bright, overwrought stage sets or swooping pin-balling camera shots. Just plain minimalist sets and graphics, and a panel of earnest seeming journalists asking well-focused questions. I'm sure my memories are more rosy than the reality was. But I do long for those sober exercises in civic engagement, where you might sometimes get a really revealing response to a sharp, unexpected question.
1
"Bloomberg has been the target of ire for his spending on campaign ads. You can’t blame his opponents." (Gail Collins, NYTimes, 19Feb2020) As an Independent, I find the attitude of the Democratic candidates self-defeating. Mr. Bloomberg has promised to support whoever the Democratic nominee is, and has made removing Mr. Trump a primary goal. Also, he is not devouring campaign donations that can go to others. One might think the Democrats would welcome such a man, especially when all his policy positions are appealing - health care, the environment, taxation, etc. Yes, there have been controversies, but nothing remotely close to Mr. Trump's fiascoes. E.g.: "I Was the Judge in the Stop-and-Frisk Case. I Don’t Think Bloomberg Is Racist." (NYTimes, 19Feb2020)
The "winner" of the Nevada debate is clearly Mr. Trump, who is undoubtedly greatly enjoying the Democrat's circular firing squad.
6
I don't give the opinions of experts much credence when it comes to how voters will react. This wasn't a high school debate contest. If it had been sure, Warren would have won.
That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans reject most of Warren's policy ideas.
Bloomberg needs to do a lot better than he did last night, but he is still the dark horse candidate. He is the only one on that stage last night I would vote for.
And he is right - Sanders is a communist.
4
Hands down...Bernie won. He never had to answer:
1. How much would his healthcare plan cost?
2. Where would the money come from?
3. How would it work?
All we have been promised so far is that we would have no premiums, no deductibles and no-pays.
And Mexico will pay for the wall.
4
"Ross Douthat (6/10) — Points for being the only candidate, apart from Bloomberg, who consistently treated Sanders as a front-runner and attacked him from the center."
We mustn't forget that Douthat's "center" thinks the Pope isn't Catholic enough, and is somewhere well off to his right.
That isn't my idea of "center." That is not the Western idea of the center of politics. This would be the center somewhere in Eastern Europe, a place on the edge of things far worse.
3
Would love to see Biden, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar drop out and have Bloomberg back Warren, if she'd have him. Only 2 have a chance against Trump: Bloomberg and Warren--Sanders will lose.
4
I already mailed my Super Tuesday ballot and my candidate, Warren, did not disappoint. She showed her toughness last night and her take down of that smug billionaire was worth watching.
Bloomberg's stop and frisk policy was racist. He had no problem instituting a policy that targeted specific groups of people. His redlining comments simply confirm this all the more for me. Stopping redlining had no part in the 2008 mortgage crisis. If anything as per the usual the poor and minorities were targeted even more with high interest loans on houses some were close to paid off etc. Bloomberg was given an opportunity to show some humility when asked about being a billionaire and he couldn't. Top all of this off with his treatment of women, "I made jokes", if that's all you did then release the women to talk. As a woman who has signed an NDA against a former boss -- I would be happy to talk all about it. If he is ever running for political office I will gladly pay back the $1000 and speak about how he chased me around a desk. If Bloomberg is the Democratic nominee I will not vote for him.
I believe in Capitalism but none of these systems work on their own. I love Bernie and agree with him on so much but a real socialist would not have 3 homes. He is embracing what he earned and that is capitalism.
No one system is perfect - capitalism works when those who try corrupt it are punished and when the playing field is fair and open to all. Warren gets it!
4
What Pete could have done and may yet do going forward, is point out that Mayors, even from a smallish town of 100K, make hundreds of decisions every single day which directly affect the health and well being of all citizens of every age, stage, socioeconomic status, sex, citizenship status, housing situation, quality of life and more. Mayors though with power to make those decisions have to work collaboratively with the City Council and local Congress members and state reps. Military service members also have to work in a collaborative way and come to depend on others to be as able as they. Pete needs to point this out in addition to his ability to think on his feet and be circumspect about his decisions. The only experience that Biden, Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar have is on voting and raising money for themselves and having a large amount of office staff handle "people" for them. Mayors have boots on the ground and the fact that Pete did not work in Washington is the best anti swamp we can see. He will be sure to appoint Cabinet Chair who will do a job that needs to get done as in Education, Infrastructure, Housing and Healthcare. As far as Healthcare, the model should be NYC's Medicaid Program. Medicare does not cover, what the aging really need like Rehab and Nursing Home and Home Health care and does not cover at all what the aging bodies need which is dental, glasses and hearing aids. None of the candidates talked about collaboration. Not part of the plan.
4
@This just in Nail on the head. Besides all of this, Mayor Pete is a very nice person.
Lets be clear -these are not “debates”, they are media driven slug fests. In a debate candidates would make arguments about ISSUES, not personalities. And there would not be a panel of media flacks asking loaded questions to try to provoke attacks. After several of these sessions, we have. Very limited information about how the candidate would deal with important issues if elected. A big thumbs down to all the TV channels abetting this effort.
9
@ColoradoBob Well observed and well stated.
Leadership builds a community of purpose, management builds a community capable of purpose. Of all these candidates, who has shown the experience and expertise to do that?
I guess all in varying degrees, to one extent or the other, all of the candidates have, but none come close to Bloomberg.
Love him or hate him, and again all can say the same, again in varying degrees, but Bloomberg is an example of an extreme American success story. I don't think anyone should denigrate him for that.
He has done some bad, but he has done a lot of good with his money and voice with his contributions to good causes. He has walked the talk, in a big way.
Too bad he laid a giant egg last night.
And I wish Buttigieg and Klobuchar would stop sniping at each other. They need to focus on who they are, what is their vision for the country, and how they can lead. Snipe at Trump if they will, not at each other. It brought them both down last night.
6
@sssilberstein
Credit to Amy for calling out "mayor pete" for what he is - an empty suit with memorized platitudes.
@Dave That "empty suit" was a Rhodes Scholar who served the US forces and speaks several languages. If that makes him an "empty suit" how exactly would would you describe the current president?
1
@sssilberstein "And I wish Buttigieg and Klobuchar would stop sniping at each other. They need to focus on who they are,"
Perhaps that is who they are, and it took very little pressure to bring it out.
"Bloomberg is an example of an extreme American success story. I don't think anyone should denigrate him for that."
I don't denigrate him, I just don't think he should be president. Along with his good works, he has some very bad ideas.
As an advocate of some experience, I see something particular in Warren's performance.
She had permission of her audience. It was time. It was called for.
You can't just do this all the time, every time, walk on stage and lay waste to everyone as standard practice. The time must be right.
The time was right.
She rose to the occasion. Magnificently.
But she had waited for the occasion before she did this. It isn't that she couldn't do it every time. It was that she'd known better than to do this every time. Well, now she knew this was the time.
Lordy, she was good.
6
The real winner in last nights debate was the debate itself. It included all of the key candidates and accomplished exactly what it needed to.
The debate broadcast that I watched (in California) was interlaced with political ads during the breaks. I saw a few for Bloomberg, Steyer and at least one for Sanders. Don't watch TV very much, but the placement of these advertisements struck me as inappropriate. I realize the networks have to make money, but the debates should not be the platform for this type of propagandizing.
If nothing else (and it was pretty much nothing else), last night's cage fight was a good warm up for whoever ends up onstage with Trump. Like Trump, the candidates en masse mostly assaulted each other with "zingers", sensationalistic facts. There was a pitiful absence of substance on policies. The candidates let the click-bait reporters keep it a food-fight.
The most important fact about the Medicare for All debate that has emerged recently is the Lancet article that Sen. Sanders mentioned - it was pretty clear the reporters likely had no idea what he was talking about, and, if they did, did not care. They were loving the blood. Sen Warren has tried to debate civilly, and with substance in the past. It doesn't work in the "arena", which in the US is akin to a Roman coliseum gladiator fight - for the entertainment of the masses, so they continue to forget they can't make their 10 overdue credit card payments. She has the best policies, but that was irrelevant, so she did what she had to do - show she could knock her opponents to the mat, and rip their tongues out, like any good cagefighter.
3
My own naïveté is hopeful for a Sanders/Warren 2020 ticket. Warren is intellectually gifted (it would a terrible shame to have her intellect dismissed). Her passion and fiery soul would help.
4
I thought it was particularly telling when only Sanders said that the person going into the convention with the most delegates should be the nominee. That moment told me that the other candidates have resigned themselves to defeat and are simply hoping for a brokered convention to win the nomination. I would like to kindly advise the Democratic Party that, if they want to be taken seriously as a party that wants to see the Electoral College eliminated, they should probably consider practicing what they preach with their own primary election.
3
It is passed the time that Bloomberg needs to apologize to each and every individual of color who was stopped and frisked? In addition, he ought to take the time and effort to restore those folks' records to enable what is left of their futures. I'm sure that ain't happening because Bloomberg is an attorney who will never admit to his bad behavior or policies. I wonder where one has seen that type of behavior before? DJT and the Republican enablers comes to mind.
1
@Rita
Not that it really matters, but for the record, Bloomberg isn't an attorney. : John Hopkins B.S.E.E., Harvard MBA.
1
The debate highlighted what a travesty our electoral process has become. We choose our presidents based on their charisma and stage presence, not on their wisdom and managerial ability.
No wonder that a television-savvy con man is currently sitting in the White House and is likely to keep sitting there for another four years. Among the democrats, Bernie is the most charismatic and strident, so he leads the pack, even though his record and policy ideas are not representative of the majority of his party.
And, BTW, in 2016 all pundits declared Hillary the winner over Trump in all their debates. Those pundits, of course, missed the whole point, as they are missing it now. The words and policy ideas the debaters spew matters very little. What sticks in people's minds is only this: who is the alpha-primate on the stage? Among the current crop of democrats, that is clearly Bernie. Warren, despite her attacks, is just shrill and agitated. Biden is unsteady, Bloomberg is whiny and meek, Pete is too rehearsed, and Amy is not forceful enough. Sanders, however, has a deep booming voice and forceful hand motions that signal his dominance in this part of the forest. The voter primates will undoubtedly end up picking him.
3
So Bret Stephens thinks Warren lost the debate and Klobuchar won? What time dimension is he living in because he clearly didn't watch the same debate as the rest of us.
7
Buttigieg coes across as a kid dressed up in his dad's suit. Wants to look like the adult in the room, studiously serious in this pursuit but still doesn't pull it off in any authentic way. He must know he won't be the nominee so I guess he wants to be the VP. Not enough 'chops' yet.
2
In Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg has out-performed his polls. He leads in the minuscule delegate count. Last night, I believe he effectively ended Klobuchar's path. He is the only candidate willing to take on Sanders, and his challenge on Sanders ability to inspire the worst in many of his acolytes drew bruises, if not blood.
Tonight made is clear to me who could provide the strongest, most effective challenge to Trump.
Mayor Pete stood tall.
2
@JWC
I thought Pete had his worst outing so far out of the last 3 debates. Pete colored glasses I guess.
3
It was certainly not fun to watch. At one time, I had a bit of a soft spot for Bernie but the problem is he is not electable. Debates mean little when the country is going up in flames. We just need someone to beat trump and worry about the other stuff later.
2
@Max T
Max, I beg to differ with your evaluation of Sanders' "electability," and I'm beginning to wonder, in the event he is elected, some people will still be saying, "Huh? But he is not electable!"
Allow me to take a stab at explaining why he is electable. First, people who want big change (and not just Trump ousted) will vote for him. Second, minorities do want big change, and it is high time that changes in our government take them into account; Sanders will likely be their favored candidate. Third, many more Republicans than mainstream news media seem to understand left the party over Trump. But few of these people are going to vote for an Establishment Democrat. Many of those people voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary but voted for a third party in the election: they would not vote for Clinton under any circumstance. Fourth, more than a few lifelong Democrats (myself among them) are utterly disenchanted with the late-20th century remaking of the Democratic Party, which now seems unrecognizable to us. Sanders would be readily recognizable to my parents and grandparents, all "yellow-dog Democrats." But the exclusionary haughty-arrogant-elitist remaking of the party has lost a lot of people, and that will soon (after our anti-Trump vote in November) become obvious.
We badly need a viable third party in this country, and I predict we'll get it.
2
I was glad to see that the Democratic candidates were tough enough to rumble. The eventual nominee is going to need to stand up to the bully in the White House fearlessly and be a clarion call for ethical, competent, and compassionate leadership. Warren continues to meet the bar. I have always said I would vote for a spoiled avocado if that was running against Trump and Bloomberg met that bar for me ... I hope hope hope that our party sees through his shiny I-love-Obama-and-Obama-loves-me ads and boots his billionaire self to the role of supporting player.
4
Bernie has always polled among the leaders since the race for the Democratic nomination started. He’s now close to being the leader in South Carolina; long heralded as the state where Joe Biden’s campaign would kick into high gear as he connected with Black and Latino voters.
But Bernie is still at around 30%. What happens to the remaining 70% should Bernie secure the nomination? It only takes about 10% of them to defect to Trump and he wins.
Bernie is weak in the EC battleground states, where many Dems were counting on Joe Biden to win.
Bernie as spoiler? It’s beginning to look like we're heading for a rerun of 2016.
2
As Bernie Sanders is leading in national polls, his supporters are more determined than ever to get him nominated. What’s so scary is that they had passed a resolution last August, vowing they would not officially endorse anyone else. For them it is all about “Bernie or Bust.”
Some of them were so frustrated in 2016 with the
Democratic Party's nomination that they voted for Trump, and they might do the same in November.
In some ways Bernie's supporters reason like Trump – if he goes down, he takes everyone with him. For them, if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, they will take the Democratic Party down with them.
2
I don't see the Klobuchar shine from those that like her, nor do I get the Warren hate from those that despise her.
Klobuchar seems, mean, shaky, and appears to anger easily. She is not Presidential at all IMHO.
I think Warren would make a fine President who would fight for all of us. She has tons of energy, great ideas, plans for her ideas, and she can most certainly take on Trump in a debate.
It's Warren/Pete 2020 for me, but I of course will not cut my nose to spite my face. I will vote for any winner in the democratic primary who goes up against the biggest threat to our country and to our planet, Donald Trump.
11
Easier to imagine Pete taking on Trump and winning, over the rest of the field, who are not up to,acting like adults.
4
@Roy Clausen
So attacking another candidate for a mistake is presidential? You must love trump then.
I was disappointed with the performances of the candidates and more disgusted by the moderators. The moderators' questions were designed to create 'gotcha' moments and cause infighting between the candidates rather than illuminate legitimate policy positions and differences with Trump. Where were discussions of gun reform, foreign policy, recent abuses by the president and the AG? When candidates did try to discuss actual policy differences, e.g. how to fund expanded healthcare coverage, the moderators tried to hush them and get them to return to salacious personal attacks of one another. The candidates all behaved badly and talked over each other. They were unable to resist taking the bate of the shallow moderators' questions aimed at picking internecine fights and pivot to attacking the real opponent - Trump. It was a disaster for the voters that truly want to assess the ability of these candidates to lead our country and restore the rule of law!
7
@Absurd You are spot on! This was a food fight with a message that none were electable or presidential. All of the holdovers and the moderators were trying to hurt Bloomberg and it was ugly. Also I noted that Bloomberg was rarely called and when he was they cut him off quickly. It was a set up intended to make him look bad. I have been a democrat my entire life, but I would not vote if the nominee is Bernie as I think he would be a worse disaster than Trump, but from the extreme left instead of the right, and that would be a feat. Bernie would lose ala McGovern and take down all down ticket dems with him and afterwards Trump will be king.
1
I am fascinated by America's fascination with successful businessmen. Putting aside my perspective that a CEO, top executives and MAJOR shareholders of any corporation benefit primarily from the stolen time of all who work at their companies, corporations are inherently undemocratic institutions based on command and control. This last phrase is another whitewashing of what we call dictatorship in political lingo. Having worked in higher echelons of corporate America for years and being familiar with corporate structure and governance, I have learned that a CEO of a successful enterprise neither believes in democracy at their corporations nor acts that way (the notion of shareholder meetings being democratic is a joke considering how often it happens and who actually participates). Those who expect a billionaire who had it their way most of their career to have a Eureka moment and become a democratic minded politician are doomed to be disappointment. You don't need to look far, just watch the guy in the White House. Michael Bloomberg's arrogance and ignorance at the last night debate was exactly what I expected.
7
@Active Love
Thoughtful comment.
Thanks.
This commentary is rather silly. Maybe it's entertaining for some, but I find it really superficial. It's like they don't know what the name of the game is. They are not reliable prognosticators individually or as a group. The NYT ENDORSED Warren and Klobuchar weeks ago. Just weird. ...and disappointing.
The American people on both (all) sides do know what the game is. They are not going to care about anyone that doesn't have a realistic path to victory. They also clearly have a high tolerance for politicians that are not squeaky clean. Getting the job done is what people care about. In their own version of reality, that is how Trump's supporters think, and ultimately it should be the same as the Democratic race focuses in on the real contenders.
Therefore, take Bloomberg very seriously. He's executing a meticulously designed plan. He obviously has the best team that money can buy, and they are prepared for anything that gets thrown at him. It's a long game that they understand to a T.
The real story last night is not about how successfully Warren and others attacked Bloomberg; it's about how did he take it. How did he seem on stage? I think that he got some very strong messages out, while appearing calm and confident. A good first outing.
9
@Joe "How did he seem on stage? "
He seemed rational while the rest of them looked angry and unhinged. He also called out Bernie on several points. Notable - Bernie railing against the tax code, and Bloomberg pointing out that Bernie helped write it. Also pointing out that despite praising socialism Bernie owns three houses.
1
@Joe I thought he appeared to alternate between boredom and barely suppressed condescention, exactly what I would expect from a man who is surrounded by people who are afraid of his displeasure. Never has the "elitist" label seemed so apt.
I had been leaning toward Klobuchar for a while because although I am more progressive than she is, I felt that she is more electable than Bernie or Elizabeth. However, when I heard her say that she will use fracking as a "transitional" fuel, I was done! She just doesn't understand the urgency of the climate crisis. There is no time to "transition"--it's now or never or we will all be cooked!
I am back with Elizabeth and will contribute to her campaign. I truly doubt that she has any serious skeletons in her closet!
6
Mayor Mike failed where you might least expect it: on boasting of his accomplishments. He was a two term mayor of America's most diverse city and oversaw decreases in crime as well as improvement of public spaces. The only scandal was stop and frisk but the mayor doesn't bear one hundred percent blame for a policy noted in retrospect to be heavy handed. Warren on the other hand despite accolades for her performance savaged sure but her moral indignation comes off as hypocritical given her box-ticking "Native American" on school and job applications before it was exposed. Finally does anyone really see her as our next president? Fight scores aren't everything. The attacks in Bloomberg are exactly the things Republican voters don't care about (wealth, political correctness, aggressive policing). Have the Democrat s forgotten that to win the Presidency they will need more than Democratic votes? Sad to see them going down the wrong path yet again
5
Bloomberg is tempting as the others struggle for a foothold by offering platitudes more and more loudly.
Should he be the candidate, however, the Democrats forfeit the ability to attack Trump's ethics and humanity, as Bloomberg lacks even a semblance of warmth.
1
Bloomberg's NDAs should be a huge red flag.
You just know Republicans will dig up women willing to speak out about what he did to them. They're probably already on the case.
If a lot of women can't bring themselves to vote in a Trump-Bloomberg election, it's game over for us.
1
The Opinionites join the debaters for lack of substance and civility. These debates become more chaotic each time, with each candidate less Presidential than before. The format is terrible; the moderators send the same, overused, petty set-up questions, then fail to control the response segment. What a Democratic Party mess! I wish for Trump to be soundly defeated in November, though I'm currently skeptical of that happening from any of these Democratic candidates. The only true possibility of his defeat, is for Trump, in the months ahead, to undo himself---the one, great American ironic happening, to which many of us are clinging.
1
Elizabeth Warren is clearly the best candidate. Last night, my conservative-leaning friend texted me and said "Liz killed it last night. I'm in."
People need to stop underestimating Warren's ability to unite Americans. She is Democrats' best hope for beating Trump.
9
Amy Klobuchar did get rattled by Peter Buttigieg over not knowing the president of Mexico and trying to accuse Buttigieg of calling her "dumb." Sounded like an appeal to women everywhere (oddly) and she got one on the debate stage to defend her. I think Ms. Klobuchar is better than that. She has a hot core of passion and compassion and a record of hard, bipartisan work. And I think she was right when she said Buttigieg is best at memorizing talking points. He is pure style over substance. And now we know he is petty and mean. Sanders and Warren stick best to their knitting and they have the millennials who are solid but worrisome as trump-killers if their guy or gal does not win. Bloomberg should stick to donating to the causes like he said he would and Biden without a bump from here to Super Tuesday is probably going to contribute to a brokered convention. Leaving Las Vegas, the Democrats broke even and everything is up in the air. I still think Amy Klobuchar is the Democratic candidate that independents and the moderate Republicans can feel comfortable voting for instead of you know who.
2
Maureen Dowd wrote:
"Senator Sanders, are you suggesting that some of your belligerent Bernie Bros are bots?"
If Ms. Dowd doubts that, she hasn't been reading the NY Times all that closely. Such false flag operations are exactly where you can expect to see such an effort raise its ugly head.
The Russians engage in such behavior because they know it will create maximum distraction from efforts to choose a candidate that has wide popular support. It plays right into the "never Bernie" camp's belief that certain elites, rather than the voters, should choose candidates. If you really want to beat Trump, D supporters need to focus on the candidate with the greatest potential to motivate voters to get to the polls.
The likelihood that Bernie's democratic socialism is under attack by the Russians should be seen as setting it clearly apart from the ill-founded doubts about the origin of this threat to American values. The Russians love socialism for the rich, so real democratic socialism for all represents a threat to the way they - and Trump - does business.
I'm sure that among Bernie's supporters are a few that indulge in such chicanery. Every candidate has supporters that are, umm, unhelpful. But the pumping up of the Bernie-bro meme is largely without foundation once you look past the easily faked online expressions of it. Those pushing it realize they're found a theme that can leverage division and hostility to achieve their goals. Many of them are certainly Russian.
3
interesting that both Biden and Klobuchar visibly struggled to understand the Telemundo accent while Buttigieg slipped in some excellent Spanish that unfortunately was lost in the shouting. Given Biden wraps himself in minorities and Amy was trying to recover from not recalling Mexican President name, not the best look
@NJproud006
The accent was thick, and that's their fault? Guess it's lucky she was speaking English.
Democrats have their backs to the wall with the majority of the country, surrounded by the bulk of the most corrupt and vile president in its history.
It's come down to that, and give Bloomberg his due. He saw it coming and prepared for this moment by spending a half-billion dollars before he was even on a single state's ballot.
That was the greatest bet a politician has ever made, at least in terms of dollars, of which Bloomberg has no end.
There is now, after his first debate, only one big reason he should be the nominee--Bernie can't beat Trump.
Bernie's supporters are well-meaning I'm sure, but the idea they can push through his socialist agenda in a Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell is beyond ludicrous. Do they understand that a close victory over Trump is not enough? A historic landslide is needed to flip the senate to Democratic control.
That's the only way to bury Trump for good. With Democratic control of Congress we can pass the legislation required to put our democratic traditions, the ones all presidents before Trump have followed dutifully, up on a pedestal out of reach of a president like Trump.
Without a big win, we are stuck in Groundhog Day, with a Republican insurgency in 2022 and perhaps a Don Jr. challenge in 2024.
Yes, it looks like it has to be Bloomberg. I couldn't see it until last night. Watch the debate again people. Bloomberg was the only adult in the room with a bunch of yelling and screaming children.
4
If high school and college debate teams performed as poorly as the Democrats did last night it would be impossible to find a winner among them. If moderators asked questions that demonstrated a clear bias for their preferred point of view they’d surely be replaced. If the topics were selected to demean an opponent rather than to articulate a well-reasoned argument in support of a position, debates would most likely not be held.
With all the personal attacks on the character, qualifications, abilities and intentions of each the contenders for the Democratic party’s nomination, the candidates savaged each other last night. I fail to see how, when it comes down to the final selection, those on the stage can rally around their party’s choice without sounding disingenuous. They all made clear what they really think of each other. There are some things you just cannot take back and any support will be suspect. If the best you can do is hurl charges of racism, sexism, misogyny, lying, incompetence and inexperience at one another then the Democratic Party is no longer what it once was... and you’re in deep trouble.
Given that we’ve been told we really have no good choices it appears we’ll have to look at policy alone and make our decision based on flawed candidates and the lesser of two evils... and that’s not giving me much hope.
2
Over time, I've learned to read the "winners and losers" at the Times by taking into consideration the significant biases with the opinion writers.
I see... Bloomberg will do exceedingly well in national polls after this debate.
3
Warren had a strong night in a lot of ways and Bloomberg (thankfully) was the big loser but here's where my 2 cents differs from the NYT pundits and most of the commenters here.
1. Warren, who in Iowa and NH decided she was the great party unifier, is now back to being the unabashed fighter. (Remember when some of her media champions said calling her this was somehow misogyny? It wasn't. It is who she is.) And she did the much needed job attacking Bloomberg, who really deserved it. Except now she is belittling the other candidates in ways that are both dishonest and demeaning (the power point/postage stamp line, Biden & Amy at least have ideals but Pete ... (I know I don't have her language exactly right here but this was the thrust)). This works well with her base but I don't know that it will help her more broadly and most of the party is not her base.
2. Not sure why the NYT pundits have reservations about Pete attacking Amy. She inserted herself into the race largely on the basis of her attacks on him. And when he laid off her in the NH debate, it probably cost him the win. In the same way that Warren helped expose Bloomberg, Pete helped expose Amy's glass jaw. She's strong when dishing it out but is visibly rattled when on the defensive. It's not my favorite part of the process but you have to be able to take a punch and in this case she had more than earned it with her sniping and not knowing the President of Mexico. She can't take one.
3
The debate was ugly and more like what Trump does. People said it was a fierce debate, but it looked like bulling to me. We do not need that at this primary level. I liked Warren before, but very disappointed at her.
Where is Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" ??
5
I found Warren shrill and angst driven. I didn't hear much regarding her policy, just the barking of an attack dog. This independent voter gives Klobuchar the highest grades.
2
The Times Opinion Writers’ comments represent all of the reasons that Trump will end up being elected to a second term. At the debate, the circular firing squad mentality prevailed among the candidates who were using extreme #MeToo positions to cripple highly qualified individuals, showing sensitivities that middle America finds absurd, denigrating capitalism, denigrating the fair accumulation of wealth, and showing condescension for anyone who disagrees with the imposition of huge governmental social programs. The Democrats remain so hopelessly tone deaf that they’ll succeed in subjecting the nation to another term of chaos with a narcissist commander in chief who will continue to harm our institutions, our norms, and the rule of law.
4
Medical records are personal information. If anyone wants Bernie to release all his medical records, they should do the same. After all, how am I to know how crazy you may really be if I don't know what meds you may be taking?
Good times.
"Do you deserve to be a billionaire?"
"Yes, I worked hard for that money."
"Give your workers some credit."
4
But Thomas L. Friedman said that Mike Bloomberg is the man to save the Democratic Party and the Nation.
I don't understand.
2
Maureen Dowd marked Bloomberg higher than Warren in that debate. Not sure how that’s possible. I mean it his first debate as an introduction and he was basically weak and unlikeable, whereas Warren was strong and showed that she could throw an elbow
3
Warren was so vehement, preachy and nasty that I hardly could look at her. Why is she praised for self-righteous belittling of everyone in stage? Can’t imagine looking at and hearing her for four years.
2
Debate? More like a fifth grade cat fight. What’s with the hand raising. Terrible questions and poor moderating. Mayor Pete may have a degree from Harvard but has yet to graduate from kindergarten. At one time Sen. Warren would have been my choice. Apparently unable to sell her policy choices, its just trash your opponents. I suppose it is too late for an adult to enter the race.
2
"But he’s still doing that thing where, a few sentences into his answer, he gets tangled up in his thoughts."
I wouldn't vote for Joe Biden...but the guy is a lifelong stutterer. That should be well known by now. When he stumbles on his words, hesitates and closes his eyes, he's stopping himself and searching for a word he can say more easily.
1
Maureen Dowd!
You gave Bernie and Pete each a 6 and Elizabeth a 4.
Did you see the same debate as the rest of America?
5
@Jerice Bergstrom
Isn’t it interesting? Just ask HRC. Even some Women are misogynistic.
Seriously.
4
Michael Bloomberg: please drop out of the race immediately. Stop trying to buy the presidency - it's going to fail. Instead, why not help the Dems retain the House and capture the Senate. That would be a much better use of your money.
4
How could Mike not have been more prepared? When he used the word "consensual" to describe NDA contracts, oh boy. That was a doozy. So disappointed. Agree with Maureen's assessments in general. Amy looked more than angry and was shakin' all over.
2
Interesting to see Dowd so sour on Warren. It surprises me. And also so sure she won’t be the nominee. I feel like with that performance, she could mount an Obama-like surge in the primaries.
5
This race is like dating, wading through a lot of confusion, hope, infatuation, and misery to find the right one. Will the rich one without a personality bring me happiness? The super-smart, thoughtful one? The passionate one? Dating is so very painful.
In the end you pick one, and hope all over again. Blue no matter who.
1
Warren will never be the nominee? What do Peter Wehner and Maureen Dowd know about the future that the rest of us don't? Not sure about Wehner, but wasn't Dowd wrong last time, too?
Warren for President, 2020, and Warren Buttigieg would be even better.
4
What came out of the Democratic debate were poor Democrat candidates whining over Michael Bloomberg it was a sad state of affairs the only winner that night was Michael Bloomberg. The worst one was Elizabeth Warren she is waving her hand like a mad person, then do was Bernie Sanders and then Joe Biden all got together.
The only winner that night was Michael Bloomberg he can on top victoriously took the slings of arrows from the candidates and will well behaviors under any circumstances.
All the Democratic candidates whining not Michael Bloomberg.
The Democrats let me point out all the have a better program than Pres. Donald Trump if you believe in misguided thoughts it always things he's going to do is make his billionaire friends richer in the middle-class pay for you can't be so stupid let this happen any of those Democrats candidates better than Pres. Donald Trump.
It would be better for all Americans to wake up and smell the roses already in his budgets the Democrats had to go back because of pres. Donald Trump butchered social security, Medicare by cutting $80 billion your Joke believing that can't do is make it tougher for all middle-class American he's sick and needs to be removed from his Presidency d Donald Trump nobody should vote for him Nov. because what comes out is my mouth is not the truth he'll tell you he's not cutting entitlement programs what a lie's.
Disgraceful performance by all of them. This whole Democratic selection process is sooo distructive and no way to beat Trump. The whole debate turned my stomach. There was not a single adult in the room.
4
It appeared that Warren, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have decided that we shall all hang separately.
1
Could the columnists maybe dial back the entertainment-oriented, HBO-driven points of reference? "came bloodthirsty", "brass knuckles, nunchucks...", "Arya Stark of the debate"? Not every aspect of life and politics is usefully clarified by analogies to Game of Thrones.
2
The people that are supporting Bloomberg won't care about his poor, unprepared debate performance, they are mostly tax dodgers that want to protect their fortunes with "one of their own."
Some of those people voted for Trump, who is also one of their own, and they do not mind Trump's overt racism or misogyny, so why would Bloomberg's racist or misogynist past bother them?
Bloomberg has no federal or foreign policy experience and who wants him to glide into White House meetings entitled and unprepared?
2
These commentators are the same people who think Hillary did great in the debates and are blind to the fact of how Warren really comes off: a shrill, zealous, condescending know-it-all
1
Too little about Trump. That having been said, Liz is even more "my girl" now than before. YOU GO, GIRL!"
2
Do you guys actually pay people for comments on an important debate like "Everything’s a yell." and "Oy. Vey."? Reading the NYT commentary on debates should maybe be more illuminating than twitter and not less so.
5
Go ahead and tear down, or try to, Bloomberg as much as you want. I think his moments of weakness in the debate actually, counterintuitively, made him appear more human and sympathetic. The NDA moment was bad, yes, but NDAs in a huge company where people sue you all the time are far different than misbehavior in a small Congressional office.
He's still more impressive than any of the professional pols, though he does have less charisma than some of the others -- not that any of the others can really claim a lot of it.
Biden on his best night still looks a bit fumbly. Warren and Sanders were strong, but will only lead the Dems to defeat being "too leftist." Buttigieg, too young and inexperienced (running for VP to get out of Indiana?); Klobuchar's performance was ok, despite what the NYT panel says, and she's probably still the strongest of the moderate politicians.
My vote for Bloomberg won't change based on last night's debate. He's a guy who's earned his arrogance. He built a huge company, has given millions (billions?) to charity, ran a big Democratic city in a successful manner and understands other major issues like climate change.
He's got the best "record;" I just hope he can sell it.
5
Mayor Pete may be the obvious winner of every debate and a reasonable compromise candidate between left and right, but the millstone around his neck will drown him in the end.
Next best is Warren for a wider appeal. Bernie is nasty, shouts a lot and doesn't have many solid policy ideas. Klobuchar obviously comes apart under pressure and Good 'Ole Joe might backstop Warren.
Warren won't be in anyone's Cabinet!
She's just so snarky and rude. Obviously, Obama was right - she's not a team player.
2
And the Elizabeth Warren puff pieces are in full effect. Could have seen this coming a mile away given the innuendoes all last week from various articles about her fading etc.
1
From the beginning I have liked Warren---my fear--is males cannot tolerate smart women---especially ones who make them look dumb--which as we watched last night--she is gifted at.
4
but in the end...who can beat trump..that is all we need to know...
bloomberg is unlikable, arrogant, and aloof.....he looked bored most of time...he seemed to resent being asked q's.....he lives on another planet ...
BUT he can stand up to trump and can beat him.
what else matters ?
2
"Maureen Dowd (4/10) — [...] She won’t be the nominee and she won’t be in a [bloomy] or Sanders cabinet"
Well...not in bloomy's, obviously; but not in a Sanders cabinet? Yes, VP Warren probably won't happen—the quotes rift tested their trust JUST a bit more than any President can allow a partner and likely successor—but they remain friends, if now cautiously, and (e.g. Treasury) Sec. Warren can still be a thing.
1
Maureen Dowds mean score was less than five. Could she please give a score for the incumbent?
The debate was passionate. They all care about changing the direction of the country!
3
While online bullies supporting Bernie might be a real thing (as one of the millions of Americans not on social media, I have to take others' word for it); I am sick of the potshots from the mainstream media that unfairly tar and mischaracterize Bernie on an almost daily basis on MSNBC (Chris Matthews?!?) and in the NYT and WaPo. The intellectual dishonesty, Red Scaring, ageism and thinly veiled anti-Semitism in these potshots is obvious and tiring. I wonder why some of his supporters might feel angry?
1
"Nobody knows anything"
- William Goldman
Stevens gives Klobuchar a 10, deeply impressed by such rhetorical flourishes as "When you see troubled waters, you don't blow up a bridge." And "You don't put your money on a number that's not on the wheel." In the previous debate, she went with "You don't put your number on a number on the wheel that's not on the wheel." Oy the eloquence.
4
Michael Bloomberg is now political roadkill. Elizabeth Warren not only struck him, she backed up over him, and scraped him into a deep political ditch. Her righteous indignation and scalpel like command of of the facts eviscerated Bloomberg. His " weaseling responses to Warren's challenges about " stop and frisk " and releasing his NDA' s were pathetic.
4
The Debates are nothing more that sharp retorts and comic one liners, with stupid questions along the line of " you were mean when you pulled the pigtails of the black girl in 6th grade". It all comes down to what a candidate is capable of over a period of 4 years. It was clear and Trump out debated Hillary in the debates and look what we got!
Amy Klobuchar's refusal to shakw Pete's hand seemed petty. She should have held her composure.
2
Hey NYT. To clue you in, this format, the play by play as it is referred to in baseball, is not helpful. The "debates" themselves aren't much help either. The old Roman Coliseum formula, throwing them (the pols) to the lions (us).
In a world where the only agenda was to clue us in, to teach us something about these people, to learn something, none of this would occur. I watched about 90 seconds last night, which was about 91 too many. I feel embarrased that I live in a place where discourse has degenerated into a mob brawl.
3
Disagree with Warren as the winner. All attack and just annoying. Good though attacking Bloomberg about the NDAs.
Buttigieg was my winner. Overall, the steadiest candidate on stage.
1
The Dems should do away with the debates ; an arena of blood letting or a cure for insomnia . This does not present any candidate in their best light , very fakey fakey . The only debate needed is Dem vs Rep . there they can dismember each other . Not impressed with any of the candidates showing their teeth ; at this stage of the game we all know who they are and what they are by their records .
1
Michelle Cottle: Regarding your comment about Biden. I guess you don’t understand the after effects of stuttering when younger. I recognize it because my brother stuttered until his late teens. He’s still a little halting when under pressure, and he’s 60. You’re comment was less enlightening than cruel. Stick to the issues.
1
It its irresponsible for Maureen Dowd to spread the myth that Sanders' supporters are an "an angry digital mob". Considering the widespread disinformation on social media in 2016, it's quite possible the Bernie Bro phenomenon is a stratagem to discredit Sanders' progressive agenda.
1
Bloomberg's explanation of his sexual misconduct as
"They didn't like my jokes"
Was pure comedy---a line Michael from The Office might say
1
For once your averages have it pegged correctly.
I thought, however, that Mayor Pete did worse, because of his mean spirited attack on Amy Klobuchar. Human beings routinely blow names but Mayor Pete tried to make it into a federal case. Kudos to Elizabeth Warren for defending Klobuchar, too angry to put Buttigieg in his place.
3
You miss completely NYT. Trump again won the debate hands down. Who, just exactly WHO can beat Donald Trump?
He can get 10's of thousands of people to camp outside to see him. This field all together can barely fill a High School gym.
Bloomberg didn't do well because he is neither a politician like Sanders and Warren, nor a shameless crook like Trump. He is too nice to survive loud and vindictive progressives. Democrats doomed to lose.
Every time I read one of these winners-and-losers articles, I can't help noticing that Maureen Dowd is more negative that every other journalist. Then today, I see that she's at the positive end of the pack on Michael Bloomberg, although still not a shining review.
What is going on here? Is this a case of someone allowing their political preferences to shape their opinion? Is she just jaded with the whole process? This is an opinion piece, so it's not unacceptable. I'm just trying to understand why her opinions are so predictable.
2
That Mo Dowd and Bret Stephens dis Senator Warren means she was ultra effective in her debate performance.
5
Can we get one thing clear about Sanders--and its the most important.
It is time to ignore all the questions about Sanders age,heart attacks,medical records and health etc
None of this matters
It does not even matter if Sanders drops stone cold dead three months after being elected President
What matters is that in electing a Socialist determined to see the mass of Americans are brought out of their ceaselessly stress filled shadow filled lives the entire structure of American life and politics cleverly designed to be^ By the richfor the rich,of the rich ^will have been transformed.
And forget the fear of not having someone with a ^finger on the button^ ready to launch those pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the Russians or now the Chinese etc when the whole ^defence industry ^is merely a way to get ordinary Americans to fill the pockets of the rich shareholders of the military and defence industry complex as President Eisenhower said in his last warning speech as he left office (watch it).
The election of Sanders means the old mold will been broken..
The die will have been cast and many others will soon follow Sanders lead
The American people MUST vote for Sanders even if he was dying on his feet
It will bring at long last a new wonderful age to America,and a new uplifting hope to the entire world
2
This Democrat thinks the only “ winner” in that cage match was Donald Trump. The so-called moderators let Warren speak whenever she wanted, others not so much. The hand raising format ( pick me ! Teacher, look at me! ) was degrading. What came out of their mouths was gobbledygook ( except Sanders who spouted the Party Line. Make that shouted.) And that nonsense about forgetting the Mexican President’s name? Is this Jeopardy? Latin American leaders for 20, Alex.
I came away with a deep dislike for Elizabeth Warren. She is a phony. Spare me her folksy Oklahoma stories from a Massachusetts professor. Ugh!
I thought Elizabeth Warren impressive, Sanders steady as a rock, Klobuchar fangs dug into Buttigieg, Biden actually seemed alive and awake, Buttigieg was his usual eloquent fluff, Bloomberg should have stayed home.
5
I am so relieved that Bloomberg bombed.
3
the big winner at the debate "Donald Trump" Biden is done, Bloomberg was a disaster and there's no way this country elects a socialist! Thank you MSNBC, Trump has to be thrilled this morning!
Why are even NYT so simplistic and why do people have such TV mentality? In this culture every thing becomes a game. There no winners and losers, in my opinion.
If Bloomberg can buy the election, how many others will he buy? Stop and frisk your skills, Mike.
Warren was a 'winner" like a bully elbowing others at a buffet and then grabbing all the shrimp and desserts for herself and sloppily spilling her whiskey on others while shouting "I am the greatest".
1
The creepy-looking Bloomberg will be gone soon enough. At least he spent hundreds of millions of his money. He was a perfect punching bag.
2
I would like to thank Nicholas Kristof for his very insightful commentary, particularly about Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. With just one or two words he gets right to the heart. “Graceful, disproportionally angry, and mean.” Thank you for not calling Warren “abrasive.” I reserve that term for Sanders, in Gail Collins’ words, “everything’s a yell.”
Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate? The NY Times forgot to list Trump in this review. His fortunes seem to rise with each Democratic debate.
"Senator Sanders, are you suggesting that some of your belligerent Bernie Bros are bots?"
Some of them almost certainly are.
Once again, the winner was Donald Trump.
1
Once again the Dems eat there own...
Trump will get four more years...
So, so depressing...
1
Changing the rules to let DNC darling Bloomberg into the debate is definitely the DNC’s greatest success story since the Iowa caucus vote count. Great job guys, your political competence is astounding.
1
All the candidates and moderators did was give the republicans more to go after whoever is the nominee. As of now I have no idea if any of them are worth it. My wife and I were totally disgusted with the childless and idiotic attacks they leveled at each others.
All this because of these polls that for the most part are stupid. In my 75 years I have yet to meet anyone that is in these polls. And these advisors in each campaign are idiots for the advice they give as are most pundits on TV.
1
So, Maureen Dowd shows her true colors by giving Bloomberg (clearly not the night's winner) her highest marks.
2
And the winner is Trump and the GOP. What was this debate? A parody of an SNL cold open? A casting call for Celebrity Apprentice? What a disaster, absolutely pathetic representation. We are doomed.
Interesting that Maureen Dowd gave Bloomberg (5) a higher score than Warren (4). I wonder what this is about.
1
You don't include Dowd in the bio section. Perhaps you shouldn't ask her opinion. Did she even watch the same debate the rest of us watched?
1
Amy . . . I hate to say it, sounded like somebody’s wife with her retorts, ‘Are you saying I’m stupid’, ‘I wish I was as perfect as you’. Those type of comebacks may be used, perhaps work, in a domestic environment, not on the world stage. The only thing she left out was . . . ‘Ok, I just won’t say anything anymore’.
2
Where is Randy Rainbow when you need him?
The DNC must be getting desperate by now and begging Michelle Obama to run in a brokered convention.
I’m a liberal and I’ve always defended the media against conservative rants but after last nights debate and reading this rating of it all I can say is you’re handing the election to Trump. Mike Bloomberg, your loser was the only adult on the stage. Identity politics and political correctness has taken over the Democratic Party and the NY Times. There was no red lining, bad loans were definitely part of the problem. Stop and frisk was a bad policing effort not a return to slavery. And yes, all companies have sexual discrimination lawsuits locked up with NDAs...Mike Bloomberg is not a Harvey Weinstein.
1
@Roscoe As I have stated elsewhere, there is a vast difference between political correctness, and just plain correctness. Let's not confuse them.
Treating primary debates like they're sporting events with "winners" and "losers," while handy as a concrete example of most of the things wrong with the media in 2020, is grossly irresponsible and also just gross. The NYT has either learned nothing from 2016 or is simply committed to behaving as if they learned nothing from 2016.
The goal of the Democratic party is to free America from Trump
Eating your young is not a way to reach your goal
Hey Bret, so Warren communicated "left wing pander," huh? Did you know that this was a debate for Democrats, not troglodytes? "What about the rest of the country?" You can eat bedbugs, better than feasting on our children and their collective future. It's amazing that people like you and Marc Thiessen even have space in flagship print outlets.
3
Hey Bret Stephens — you were asked to rate the debate performances, not tell us who you plan to vote for. Giving Amy Klobuchar a perfect 10 score despite her many gaffes last night in Nevada makes you look like a clown. I give your assessment 1/10.
5
If the panelist can throw themsleves back five years would any of them, my guess is there are only a couple, have brought up any of the most serious issues that Bernie Sanders and to a significant degree Warren Sanders have.
Just taking one off the top of my head. Who would have even thought of calling forr a $15 minimum wage (certainly still much less than it should be). I bet for the most part they might have called for a dollar at the most two dollar increase.
1
Watching this “debate” was downright painful. Is this the “best” Democrats can offer America. I thought back to all those who served our nation over so many decades and those who gave lives so we may live in freedom and prosper. None of these candidates comes even remotely close to the character, intellect and fundamental good nature of former President Obama. How did the Democratic Party transform itself into a band of disrespectful,, shouting, interrupting, discourteous candidates demonstrating their basic lack of good manners ? I’m afraid we’re in more trouble than we can image.
2
@Peter I Berman I think you need to go back and watch the debates between Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary. Last night was an English tea by comparison. Even so, you can gaze lovingly at Obama's photo through your rose-colored glasses (apparently foggy enough to obscure the drones and deportations behind him) for as long as you like, but time moves forward and things change. If you like Trump, vote for him. If you don't, pick someone else, but singing "Those Were the Days" with Edith ain't going to make this country better.
2
Brett Stephens predictably calls Warren's answers "pandering to the left" and wonders "what about the rest of the country"? Brett, can you wrap your mind around the possibility that she's not "pandering" but making honest policy proposals? Or (shudders) that "the rest of the country" might benefit from them, even if they have yet to figure that out? Try this on for size: Warren likes to talk about policies and ideas (which may be her weakness - voters apparently like a dose of patriotic platitudes on the side); polititical pundits often sound like they are more suited to covering sporting events. Go take in a ball game, Brett.
8
@tony zito Perfectly stated. Good thing she didn't mention that her housing plan will work to eradicate bedbugs, or Bret would've lost it.
4
I was really disappointed in how poorly the moderators managed the debate. Any candidate that exceeds his/her allotted answer/rebuttal period should have their next response reduced by that same amount. Then everyone would be equally represented by the time allotted. Prior moderators did the same to Yang, Delaney, et al in prior debates. Candidates who act like school-aged children, should be managed in a like manner.
Bloomberg should have been given rebuttal time to the attacks but he was not afforded that time. It seemed that the moderators were intent on supporting the Bloomberg bashing. Then the NY Times debate evaluators condoned these disparities with criticism.
I cannot grasp why Bloomberg, who honestly built an empire from the ground up with well-paid employees who is a well-known Philanthropist was attacked with such disdain and compared to Trump as just another billionaire.
I wish Bloomberg responded that he was on stage only to discuss policy differences rather than fend off these petty attacks. To make an analogous petty argument, will Elizabeth Warren return any financial benefit by representing herself of American Indian descent. Many people have skeletons in the closet, including JFK but that doesn't necessarily reflect how they evolved or their leadership ability.
Unfortunately, centrists don't necessarily evoke the same emotions brought by the extremists. If we counter Trump with nominating a left-wing extremist, Trump could win to whose benefit?
6
Nope: It was a win for Bernie, comeback for Warren and another solid fighter performance by Klobuchar.
The rest fell behind.
6
Pity the poor Democratic Party, lost in their own maelstrom of identity politics, and unable to actually specify what qualities a President needs to have. Who cares if a candidate doesn't have the name of a neighboring country's President on the tip of their tongue? When a President needs to know that, there are thousands of people in their administration that can tell them. What does a non-disclosure agreement have to do with being an effective President? Absolutely nothing. How will policing policies, a municipal and state-level concern, be decided at a federal level? Not at all. How much influence will these debates have when the electoral crunch-time arrives in the fall? None.
1
@David Godinez The NDAs relate to Bloomberg's settlement of sexual harassment claims. If you think that has nothing to do with "what qualities a President needs to have" then perhaps the democratic party indeed is not for you, as the other side plainly agrees with that sentiment.
1
@David Godinez "How will policing policies, a municipal and state-level concern, be decided at a federal level? "
The administration sets the tonefor the way policing policies are handled. For example, the chaotic situation at the border is surely a reflection of the Trump presidency. The pardoning of Joe Arpaio was a green light for racial profiling, and let's not even mention the Trump admonition to police not to be "too gentle."
It seemed like Elizabeth Warren decided that if she’s going down, everyone else is going down with her. Don’t understand why she’s getting so many favorable reviews. She didn’t do the Democrats any favors last night, least of all herself.
4
@L.A. Observer
But the shrewish shrillness set women in politics back about 250 years or so.
After those histrionics who would risk working for her, let alone voting for her ?
For the first time, I am ready to say - with conviction - it's time for a woman president. Both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar have shown themselves to be at the top of the list in the knowledge, experience and passion that are the sine qua non for a president. I had hesitated about a woman becoming president because job number one was picking the best person for the job and I had, heretofore, not seen that "best person" in a female candidate. Now I see, not one, but two. My choice is Elizabeth Warren. When Warren did not choose to run in 2016, I thought it was for the best because she was doing such a good job as a lawmaker in the Senate. Fast forward to President Trump putting Mike Mulvaney in charge of Warren's signature achievement, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the resulting "neutering" of the agency - and it was clear why she decided to run for president. I can envision Mike Bloomberg contributing his talents as a cabinet member in a Warren administration. I think they'd get along just fine.
7
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio...these states accounted for 60 electoral votes and Trump won them all giving him the Presidency...ask yourself this these states are filled with moderate, centrist voters...do you really think they are going to vote for a far left progressive candidate...Bernie Sanders. Democrats nominate Sanders they lose these four states again and you have Trump for what will likely be the most destructive 2nd term in modern history.
6
@doug mac donald I think (at least I hope) that these and other "flyover" staes will not be ignored in this year's campaign. It would be good if we learned a lesson from 2016. If we lose there it shouldn't be because we took them for granted.
Elect Bloomberg at your own peril.
Republicans will find a woman prepared to speak out.
The centrist strategy depends heavily on suburban support. If the women stay home in a Bloomberg-Trump contest, we're done.
5
I just want to point out here that everything Bernie Sanders believes that these columnists are describing as "radical" is perfectly ordinary and acceptable in the rest of the Western world. As Paul Krugman pointed out in a recent column, Sanders isn't even really a "socialist." Yes, I realize this does not change the reality of US politics. But Americans should get their heads around the fact that they are the outliers and it is their politics that are "radical" in that they are so, so very far to the political right. And consider that almost every other country in the West is a far better place to live than the US. Obviously, lots of other places are doing most of the most important things far better than the US. Americans could stand to learn a lot from the rest of the world.
712
@Shaun Narine No. We are in an emergency, and it is Sanders supporters who have to get their heads around the fact that Sanders not only couldn't get his agenda through even if he was president, but that he cannot beat Trump. So what is the point? Also, between his supporters and their trump-like vile attacks on union leaders and his becoming a Democrat only when he wants to run for president, and then attacking the DNC while on the stump, makes him loathsome. I've had enough of the whole cult thing, too. I cannot believe the leading nominees right now are an ex-Republican oligarch and an ex-Independent who attacks the Democratic Party and tell the biggest lie of all by leading his supporters to believe he can even get his extreme (yes, for America) agenda passed.
85
@Shaun Narine I lived in Spain for a few years and was left in awe at how much stress dropped away from life with having real health care, the ease of doing taxes and the removal of the consumer culture.
It was the first time in my over 60 years that I had real health care. If I needed to see a doctor for non-emergency care I would make an appointment in the morning and see them that afternoon with no waiting. I had standing appointments every six months to deal with a skin problem. Again, no waiting. My husband damage his knee, was taken to the hospital, treated and left with no paper work and no bill.
Though it took a bit to get used to NOT being able to shop 24/7 and actually needing the think ahead to when something could be purchased, once that happened it was a new and wonderful freedom. This alone improved our quality of life. We took long walks and enjoyed each other's company rather than diverting our attention with 'shopping'.
We seriously worried about how we would do taxes there but when it came time, we walked into the government office with no waiting, spent a very short time with a very pleasant English speaking man who did our taxes for us and gave us back more than we had expected. At that point I wanted to say, "Please, take more. I so much value what you give us!".
Our country now rates at the bottom of most measures. We are not the 'greatest' country in the world on any measure, even consuming which is what we are best at.
215
@Pallas No, this country was designed from the top down. The rich guys on this side of the Atlantic didn't want where they lived to be controlled by the rich guys on the other side of the Atlantic. You want to see how things went for "the ground up" folks? Revisit Shays' Rebellion.
43
Warren is a national treasure. I hope that she wins the nomination but if she doesn't the nominee had better find a position for her in his/her administration to allow her to continue to fight for the American people.
8
I watched all the debates. Warren and Buttigieg have performed consistently well. Pete especially appears to never ever fumble or lose his calm. Biden appears uneven but sincere. Klobuchar appears repetitive but not as much as Bernie who makes literally the same points over and over again. A question I have always had is - why does Bernie appear so angry all the time?
Regardless however, the results from Iowa and New Hampshire clearly indicate that nobody seems to care about debate performance. If they did, Warren would be winning this in a landslide. So I’m not expecting this debate to make an iota of difference to the votes.
Post script - remember the 2016 Trump-Clinton debates when Trump bombed over and over and loomed over Hillary in a most odd and sinister manner and we all laughed at him. Did that debate debacle of trump make a difference to the outcome? Not in the least.
357
@jen
How do you know that Trump's bad debate performance against Clinton didn't make a difference? For all we know, Trump could have won even more decisively...
17
@Active Germ-line Replicator - he didn't win decisively, he won by a technicality. 3,000,000 more people voted for Hillary, they just didn't do it in the right states.
It was the craziness and outdated-ness of the electoral college system that elected Trump, not the American people.
Trump said it should be abolished. What do you suppose he thinks now?
54
@jen
Pete especially appears to never ever fumble or lose his calm.
That very quality is part of the reason he comes across as smarmy and false. The other part is that he speaks in empty platitudes.
47
Elizabeth Warren: a few say she cannot win. Sure she can, and should. She is a strong advocate for the people, solid in character, clear on the issues of most import today, with a vision for our shared future. People who can't or won't support her because she's got a strong voice and attitude need to get over their sexism in a hurry. IN A HURRY: our future as a nation is hanging in the balance this election. Trump out, Warren in!
15
Warren did an excellent job of articulating her policies and making others defend their own. There needed to be some firery exchanges. Too often (and sadly) the public tunes out from the too polite debates and, besides, we are going full steam into the primaries. I hope Warren has been able to paint herself as the moderate that she truly is (the center isn't where it used to be) and not the extremist the media would like to portray her as. She has spent her career talking with those who have been left out and her policies are geared to helping them. Warren/Abrams 2020 -- that's the real ticket!
337
@MadrePaz Except Stacey Abrams has already said she would refuse a VP nod in 2020 .Also, she took a swipe at Warren in an interview, disdainfully referring to Candidates who use their pats to pander to voters. (Not the exact quote, but that was the gist of it.)
3
@MadrePaz Or Biden/Abrams. Or Biden/Harris.
@MadrePaz I agree on the Warren/Abrams ticket. Add Kamala Harris as AG (move Adam Schiff to senator) and it’s game on. The beginnings of my dream team.
4
I am not at all sure that I will vote for any of these people whose main concern seems to be attacking each other. The Democratic Party clearly has no-one who stands out and captures the attention and admiration of the public.
5
@aging hippie
"I am not at all sure that I will vote for any of these people whose main concern seems to be attacking each other. The Democratic Party clearly has no-one who stands out and captures the attention and admiration of the public."
Your comment perfectly illustrates the phrase, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
Your implicit suggestion of sitting out this very consequential election is a prime example of how Donald Trump stands a very good chance of being re-elected.
7
@aging hippie
Understand your reaction 100%, but then I think of the other side of the coin - Trump. Blah! I'm voting against him for I don't care who.
2
At this point in 2008 I was 1000% behind my candidate of choice, Barack Obama. Now I’m still undecided and have to cast my vote in less than two weeks. All of the mud slinging last night made me not want any of them. I do know it won’t be Sanders or Warren. I don’t think there’s ever been a more important election in the history of this country which is why it’s making it so hard to decide.
6
@Duncan D I’m sorry to hear you haven’t been able to isolate the candidate that is best for the country and will be able to govern when in office.
Maybe no one will be able to with the shape we are in but if you look with an honest clear view I believe Warren is where your mind will settle.
Intelligent and pragmatic but with her heart in the right place I think the majority of Americans will vote for her when the rubber hits the road.
1
The average score columnist gave E. Warren (8.4) is less than the stuff she showed on stage. She was quick on her feet and 'confronted Bloomberg' as a professional. She is passionate about preserving 'due process'; I pray her passion will be an asset to her.
15