Kid gloves and letting your guy or gal slide by and win is a for sure way to set them up to loose.
A win by participation, is only a win on a baby baseball game.
In real life, you can't even challenge Trump when you believe toy won based on your deep seated principals.
Enjoy reelection night.
1
Here is another thought that we as the electorate ought to consider. We elect people to represent us in various political positions, in the Senate, in the House, or as Mayors of our cities, etc. During there terms they decide to run for another office like President of the United States. Now we have a part time congress person or mayor representing us. They still draw their full time pay while traveling nation wide making their pitch to get elected to what is their preferred position. They use their elected position as a back-up plan in case it doesn't work out. At that point we should ask , are you going to work for the district, city, town, or state or is this just considered second rate now?
You see, I believe that if a person wants to run for office while still elected to another office they should resign the original office and not use it as a back-up. It is not fair to the tax payers to elect some one and wind up with a part timer or worse yet with some one who has lost interest.
So part of the answer is do not vote for someone who already is in an elected elected position. Period. Maybe this will stop the practice.
2
I think the debates will make pro wrestling look like tea with the Queen.
Hello NYTimes:
How is it that Beto O'Rourke is not even mentioned in this, or so many other NYTimes articles I read about the Democratic 2020 candidates?
This is not a rhetorical question. He is polling ahead of several candidates you cover here. I'd like an answer, please.
1
I would imagine that Gillebrand is prettying herself up because that's all she's got going for herself. Name a piece of legislation that she initiated.
3
Too many candidates, too few good workable ideas
2
I seriously hope that they will be asked about their plans to fix the social-security funding issue. To-date I have not seen a single question from a moderator or questioner on this issue.
1
@MNair The moderators don't care about social security. They have 6-7 digit incomes and other perks so they don't need to depend on social security. Hence, it is a moot issue.
I will avoid watching these "debates." Here's an example, of how every one has decided on the persona, the identity that is optimal and joining the chorus, with a pathetic attempt to stand out among the others.
Each has expressed opposition to the death penalty, yet with there being scores of crimes that under federal law (IE: major distributor of marijuana that includes this punishment) many have voted for this if they've been around for a while. Each candidate is vying for being the most flagrant antithesis of the current president, and if the proposal veers towards insanity (opening the doors wider to a socialist nirvana to the billions of desperate in the world, they will all sound the same welcoming note.
If the first question is "do you all agree to support the winner of the Democratic nomination?" I expect every one will agree to do so. Remember, there was only one candidate at this stage among Republicans who refused to take such a pledge.
And that one was Donald J. Trump
I do wish the political reporters from the NYT on down were as fascinated with the actual details of most candidates’ policies, financials, campaign contributors, personal and professional ties going back decades as they are with the pageant of national politics and consultants behind it all. Because the truth is, had this been so in the run up to 2016, we may well have had a different result. And that would have changed the crisis ridden history in the making today. Pulitzers for investigations into Trump this year? Oh what might have been!
I would like progressive candidates to answer how they expect to create a wealth tax and taxes on the ultra rich under a Republican controlled Senate. I don't see any of these expensive promises from Medicare for all to canceling student debt can be made without Republican support which doesn't exist.
1
@Michael And then how are these promises going to be paid when the rich move.
1
Who can offer the most free things (including 'rights' without responsibilities)....and ....find new ways to be a victim?
9
Sharp contrast to the 2016 GOP debates when the contest was to see who could deny minorities rights more.
The Democratic field looks like America while the GOP field in 2016 (with the lone exception of Ben Carson) looked like a Woolworth’s lunch counter in the Jim Crown south.
Then again the Southern and Midwestern Evangelical racists of the GOP base see the era of Jim Crow and segregation as a time when America was great. That’s why they picked a racist to lead their party.
2
I am still trying to figure out how the complete loser, Bill De Blasio, got a place on the debate stage. Hopefully the debate questioners are sufficiently conversant on the many failures of his administration (housing, education, etc) and will hold him accountable, exposing that he is simply a tool of corporate interests without a moment of leadership or vision and just how unfit he is. Other than pre-kindergarten De Blasio after 6 years has no accomplishments.
What other primary candidate has been the subject of a serious federal corruption probe? A probe, like the Mueller report, left many questions unanswered, but definitely left his pay-to-play schemes as relevant as Trump's "no collusion" whine.
De Blasio singlehandedly defiled the meaning of "political progressiveness." Being the tallest person on stage is his only notable quality.
Like Trump, De Blasio is using his bid for president to put his "brand" out there. He's a fool and hugely unpopular. His potential candidacy is laughable but then again so was Trump's . Like Trump, you can bet De Blasio will embellish his faux accomplishments to the point of fiction. And like Trump's claim of being a successful businessman, De Basio's mayorship has suffered at least as many bankruptcies.
When he worked for Cuomo, when he was head HUD, De Blasio's region came up $27 million short and he was fired as Hillary's senatorial campaign manger for being lazy and ineffective.
4
Preparation is simple. i can give away more than you!
7
@clarity007 Yeah, I thought the Big D - ;^) - was in the negative percentile.
This is a complete circus.. Most of the candidates in the running already know they'll never receive the nomination but they press on to advance their political careers. They'll drop out- support the nominee and hope for a cabinet position. This is all political theater and quite frankly a waste of time. California is a blue state so I will not be voting in 2020 - I don't like any of the candidates anyway. Career hacks selling the same empty promises.
6
Ms. Gillibrand, FYI, there are hardly no Democrats who will vote for you in the upper Midwest after your vicious attack job on Sen. Franken. You showed then and your are showing now your vainglory.
6
Maybe they'll get the questions ahead of the debate, like last time, LOL.
4
A Dem candidate would score well with me if he/she would recommend cutting aid to Israel and ending our $720 billion military budget and stopping foreign weapons sales, ending our reign as the world’s largest arms dealer. But, the fact is that the Dems are as owned by Israel and the military industrial complex as the GOP except the Dems “act” a little bit like they believe in a two state solution for example.
3
Doesn't matter who Dem candidate is. There will be no free and fair election in '20. There will be meddling and cheating everywhere by every malign element imaginable. And Trump will do anything to retain power. Anything. So, happy debating Dems. It really won't matter anyway.
There will be ten candidates on the stage in each debate all strong opponents of white supremacy, the cornerstone of the Trump agenda.
Any Democrat/Independent from Rep. Sestak's district or elsewhere care to comment on him? I read and listened to his announcement and am curious to hear assessments/opinions from those who know him better.
@Diogenes
He was an Admiral. He commanded at sea in the Afghan War in 2001 and 2002.
He ecame back to PA at a point when Delaware County was turning Blue-so much so that the GOP had to create the most gerrymandered district in the country to protect Pat Meehan. Sestak won the District left behind.
When he was a Congressman he irritated the PA Dem Pooh-bahs on a variety of issues. I trhink primarily because he did not want to "...wait-his-turn...".
He lost two statewide races-one for the Senate and the other for the Democratic nomination.
Why he thinks he can run for President is basically a complete mystery to everybody.
1
I wonder how the world would view the GOP if they pushed for super extreme policies as the Dems are racing into a left turn circus. Lets see, the Republicans could run on let's tax the poor more because they are in worse health and require more services. Tax the middle class more because their cars are older and leak oil onto our roads and into our environment. Tax the unemployed because they require more of the government freebies. Keep dumb kids out of colleges as to not encumber debt in the first place. How about a tax for households that don't possess a firearms, they will more likely need police protection that cost money so we can tax them as well.
See how crazy this is. The Democrats are guaranteeing a Republican victory for cycles to come. PLEASE LET THAT SINK IN!
10
497 days...stay angry my friends!
2
@JRB Anger is part of the problem here. If you want to be angry with something how about checking out your Jackson County property tax increases. That should do it.
2
Perhaps she's just more responsive to requests for interviews than other candidates, but I find it odd that the Times keeps posting articles about Gillibrand when there seems to be so little interest in her campaign among voters.
13
" How the 2020 Candidates Are Preparing for the Debates"
I'm guessing it involves crayons and coloring books.
9
I am in such anticipation how NYT will shaft Bernie, no matter how great he is in the debate, and he will be great because he will just be honest and lay out his honest policies that most of America wants, if anyone reads the fair and honest polls. Yes the majority of Americans are radical and left leaning according to the current mainstream media and oh how they hate that. Why? Because they will have to give up a bit of the money they get from Big spenders. So do your best NYT and know that you are also bashing most Americans. Does it not strike the readers here that simple humane and practical policies to benefit all citizens not just the ones who pay off the politicians are to be so maligned. Hmmm.
5
For someone who consistently polls near the very bottom of the pack, Gillibrand sure does get a lot of press. She’s shown prominently on the WaPo today as well. Why is this? Who are Gillibrand’s big-money lever-pullers? Do they pay to run these front-page articles?
Whatever. It’s wasted money. Wasted column space. Wasted ink. Gillibrand has zero chance of winning the nomination after what she did to Franken.
20
@Kurt
Sen. Gillibrand is an NYT home-stater. And a woman. And talks like a liberal. Need more?
Democrats are already blowing the 2020 election. They might as well hand it to Trump. This will not be a debate. The candidates and the party and the media do not know what a real debate is. On top of that there is no way you can realistically put that many candidates on a stage and have any serious discussion. This is a joke and makes the Democratic Party look ridiculous. It is very depressing to see and I fear that Trump and his minions will once again win. Already you have Booker criticizing Biden. Before long they will all be criticizing each other. This is a joke. They look like fools.
5
I'm looking forward to the debates. However, regarding my Jr. Senator from my state (NY), I'm not willing to give her a first (or second) look after what she did to Al Franken.
12
While these cattle call debates will probably do little to advance the candidates policies and prescriptions not to mention their experience and knowledge they should show whether or not they have the showmanship moves that will be essential to defeating Donald Trump who is, whatever else he might be, a brilliant TV performer.
I’ll be looking to see whether or not they can think on their feet. Whether or not they can command the stage, whether they are comfortable in front of the camera and above all whether they can disarm an opponent or if need be a moderator effectively, preferably with humor but with a sharp rhetorical chop to the solar plexus if need be.
Above all I want to see strength and confidence leavened with humanity and conviction. America doesn’t elect wimps.
1
When it comes to the abortion debate, there are profound misunderstandings of what this country even is; the Constitution contains what it does not because someone descended a shining hilltop with divine inscriptions, but because of the Enlightenment thinking that informed it.
Principally, that personal liberty is sacrosanct, and reason being the only fair-handed approach for how matters of law and society be resolved. If taking a birth to term is a considerable demand on a woman’s personal liberty, the justification for assuming that freedom and choice must be substantial.
But no such reason is provided, rather emotional appeals, what God “would want”, and conflating senseless clumps of fetal cells with fully formed and birthed children. The anti-abortion movement attempt to baselessly conflate our powerful desires to protect our young with protecting every measure of semen, eggs and womb tissue while providing no substantive reasoning for justifying such a huge demand on liberty. As Alexander Burns well notes, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It is no basis for law.
If the dems continue to be obsessed with identity politics and racial grievances, then they will lose. If the only issue the media talks about is racial slights and demanded apologies, they will lose. I hope they don't even utter the word reparations, as that would turn off independents and moderates from the states we lost and need for 270 electoral votes.
I don't even want to hear about Meuller and the investigations. Enough of that noise. The country has moved on, like it or not. I wish the House would stop wasting time with the investigations and instead hold hearings on the Trump policies and the harm they are actually inflicting. That's what would get the voters' attention and stop giving the media shiny objects to distract from the real detrimental policies implemented by Trump. And furthermore, figure out an immigration policy. The republicans have succeeded in painting the dems as anti-border security. Remind the voters that Trump said he'd sign any deal and take the heat but reneged on a deal for 25 billion in exchange for DACA and other security because Miller etal. opposed it. Run the televised meeting as an ad: Mr. President, you melted.
There's so much more they can do, but they keep scratching the same old wound of identity politics and perceived slights. Finally, Biden worked with those who controlled the committees. That's the way it is. Booker and Harris completely mischaracterized what he said. I've lost respect for both of them.
8
They talked about financial reform and watched Obama transfer more wealth to the top percent than anyone else in history.
If you believe in the geological record, all species are on a march to extinction. You could argue that humanity is actually racing to extinction with the shortest path being another World War.
This is why I'm supporting Andrew Yang. He is looking at providing away forward and pushing hard to make it happen.
For example, if people had to weigh the cost of war in personal terms they might decide that peace is the better option. So, if a war in Iran means no Freedom Dividend or no Medicare For All, which would the American people choose?
And someone who has consistently fought for rights, whether civil, human rights and more. Getting arrested for them and continuously fighting for and with non-rich. Bernie Sanders fits that profile. Someone who has the strength to keep to his principles in the face of the Democrats slandering and bullying.
This will be where Democrats find out if they have a candidate that can take on Trump. Someone will need to rise to the occasion. If no one sticks out and they just start infighting trying to prove who is more progressive, Trump will eat them alive. Buttigieg couldn’t handle the incident in his own city, and Biden is flip flopping and making gaffe’s. It doesn’t look good. Really not a solid presidential candidate among them.
5
These debates will be a real joke. How do 20 candidates debate when they basically favor the same things? No nuance will be allowed, there won't be any time for thoughtful discussion of policy details. And why are there so many moderators??
The debate these candidates should be having is with themselves- why really are they running? I am really tired of them all right now and certainly won't waste my time watching this silly sound-bite festival. It's a year and 133 days until the election (not that I'm counting), and there are so many other things they should be out there doing besides campaigning (esp. those in current offices). The whole thing will just serve to tee up the attacks to come from Trump.
5
I intend to give them all a listen. Then vote my favorite in the primary.
Then the important part.
Even if my favorite is not the nominee, I won’t sulk, stay home or vote third party. I will vote for the Dem nominee. I won’t disqualify by gender, race or age. I won’t say “ this one us too progressive or too centrist, too old or white or dark-skinned or (whatever) so I am not voting. “ That would be bigoted and also foolish.
I am most skeptical of Gillibrand, who worked for Big Tobacco when they were lying to us about lung cancer. She also was pro-gun when it was expedient and is now anti-gun since that has become expedient. Finally, of course, she grandstanded over Franken, but was happy to share her campaign stage with an accused rapist.
I have come to distrust everything she says. But I will still listen to what she has to say in the debates.
9
Yeah, that's how Trump did it.
Good luck to the circular firing squad of DNC hopefuls, and all the training and personnel required for same.
Here's a clue that might help, though--it's innate and can't be taught, or faked, and it's always the extempo that matters most.
1
There are some really good Democratic candidates running.
I really like Elizabeth Warren, and she is the one who knows what needs to be done to get control of our 1% economy and build back a strong middle class. A recent New Yorker article about her presents her as very likable also--smart, funny, energetic, interested in people. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/can-elizabeth-warren-win-it-all.
But she did not handle Trump's ridiculous Pocahontas smear well.
What I am looking for in the debates is the Democratic candidate who
(1) can pull the people of this country together again to march forward in a constructive direction to fix what is broken. This means drop the identity politics for now; it plays right into the Republican racist, divisive campaign strategy.
The message is: There is a lot of work to be done to get this country back on track, and we need to work together to do it.
(2) move this country back to truth, human decency, constructive foreign relations, and getting long overdue projects done for society (infrastructure, decent health care, addressing climate change, fair tax structure, etc.)
(3) effectively take on and beat Mitch McConnell and the stonewalling Republicans who refuse to vote for any and all much needed legislation that the Democrats propose.
#3 is the key to the Democrats getting anything done, and the debates may help show who is really quick and effective in the bully pulpit to get the obstructionists out of the way
1
I know these candidates will be trying to distinguish themselves from the crowd, but I sincerely hope the tenor of these debates is civil and calm (in contrast to the circus of the 2016 Rep. debates), that they come across as sane adults, and that they make it obvious that any one of them would be a vast improvement over what we now have. Also, they should all have to commit to fully supporting whoever the nominee winds up being.
9
@djb nice thought. no chance. all will throw the others under the bus first chance the get. human politics 101.
4
And now dems have a bill to cancel student debt. Utopia has arrived folks! Free free free. And you all will be slaves to the regulatory state. Bye-bye Capitalism, Bill of Rights, etc. We are on the road to perdition if we follow the free lunch crowd.
9
@ricocatx
If the banks and the auto industry can have bail outs, why shouldn't student loan borrowers? Capitalism survived just fine after those bail outs.
2
O'Rourke's "war tax" is completely nuts.
Let's hope he's not prepping to lead with that for his first debate.
3
@JM
If Beto gets the nomination, he should select another loser/whiner as his running mate: Stacy Abrams.
4
Not going to watch the circus. Warren is an even less likable HRC.
5
The first issue in these first debates is whether Joe Biden is still functional from a cognitive pov.
The second issue is whether he can reasonably explain his idiotic statement from last week that Talmadge and Eastland called him "....son..." instead of "...boy...". That was actually a pretty big faux pas.
If black voters forgive him for that, then it is still Biden's race to lose. If they walk away from him over it, then Uncle Joe is done and the race is wide open.
3
Let’s be clear.
There are not really 24 (don’t forget Joe Sestak) people now running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.
There are:
1. 4-6 people running for the presidential nomination
2. 10-15 people running for the vice presidential nomination or a potential cabinet position
3. 5-10 people running for the Democratic nomination in 2024
4. 3-4 people running because they are bored and don't know what else do to with their livers
The debates may help clarify who is really running for what.
13
As a NH voter I am doing my best to stay informed, watch the "Conversation with a Candidate" series on our local news, and understand the issues. The situation has become truly aggravating, with some of these candidates being so clearly unprepared (Messam), so unqualified (Williamson, Yang) as to offend me because they are wasting time for voters, space on the airwaves and in print, and money across the board. Anybody jumping into the race now (Sestak) or who is only now making a first visit to an early primary state (Bullock) is likely doing it in order to run for a cabinet position and cannot be considered a legitimate candidate.
4
Sen. Gllibrand, polling at no better than 1%. apparently let the Times into her debate preparation to get this story.
But really, she doesn't know or claims with a straight face that she doesn't know what are the platforms of Buittigieg and Andrew Yang?
Well, Buttigieg's platform is himself, the erudte, thorughtful Millenial mayor promising careful, if somewhat sterile analysis at the head of government, something akin perhaps to President Macron of France.
But, surely, the senator has seen and read enough about "Mayor Peter" to say something more than that she doesn't know much about him.
As to Mr. Yang, the oft-described business investor whose candidacy is a mystery to me and to millions of others -- why do some people we know nothing about, who stand no chance of being elected president, run for president and clutter the contest, debates, all the rest? T
hey do though, don't they. At least the Deocrats' versions are not as intelletually vapid, hopeless and helpless as those of the Republican Party like Ben Carson.
About Yang this is what we know. his campaign is based on a screwball variation of the 1930s "Townsend Plan" or what Huey Long called "a chicken in every pot". senator, if you don't know what those are, take time away from the campaing to look them up.
In any case, Mr. Yang's chicen in every pot promise of a guarnateed income floor is not new and remains public policy silliness tho not as nefariously suspect as those from 80 years ago.
3
I find it disheartening that these “ debates” play such a pivotal role in Presidential elections. A person who has the best sound bite or is a more forceful debater doesn’t mean that candidate would necessarily make the best Chief Executive. A contender could have poor debating skills, be averse to grandstanding, or just be methodical and thoughtful rather than quick to parry, and not come off well during these dog and pony shows. Personally, I’d rather read position papers and listen to candidates make their cases uninterrupted to arrive at a decision. But, now more than ever, a good show is what voters seem to require.
5
The best way for all the candidates to prepare would be to jointly issue a statement that they will not speak ill of each other (as Reagan demanded of Republicans), promise to endorse and fully support the nominee, and urge their followers to do the same. Once the nominee is chosen, that person should offer rivals key positions in the new administration. Dems cannot tolerate another circular firing squad among the candidates. The goal is win back the White House.
7
I hope someone in the field relentlessly hammers Joe Biden about his encomium to the virtues of civility in Congress during the days of virulent racism The guy is clueless that are times when you throw civility out the window when it comes to having colleagues who are white supremacists and look at those with different color of skin as 'less than' they are if not subhuman. This inane notion that civility is always a virtue has to be done away with once and for all. Sometimes you get in people's faces and stand up for what is good and right and decent and humane. My vote goes to the person who best presses that case, not for purposes of political expediency but for reasons of statesmanship and just basic human decency.
5
@ChristopherP
What about Robert Byrd? Democrat stalwart with a lot of power in the Senate, friends on both sides but a virulent racist, Ku Klux Klansman.
I have no problem with what Biden said. He told the truth. In the Senate if you aren't civil to your fellow Senators from the other party nothing happens. Get it? Take a look at the Senate now. Nothing happens! Except Mitch McConnell has his agenda and since the Republicans have a majority they have stacked the Courts.
The Media and some other Democrats who are running made a big deal out of what he said but failed to interpret what he meant. He worked with them to get agendas through.
That is what the Senate is supposed to do.
Does anyone else here think that most of these candidates are wasting time? Most people truly hate the average politicians. So many people were fooled by Obama into thinking WE WON that Change and Hope were something real that could translate in to better lives and futures for the people here in this country. Nothing changed. It was politics as usual and Obama did not deliver the dream into reality. We spoke last time when Hillary said we are going to keep on doing what we are doing because it works...That was so out of touch. People will give anyone a shot now as long as they say they will do something different. Its like saying I will read you a story but not in a language you can understand. You cant be a strong force unless you are going with the flow. Good luck to all. Trump may just have to serve a 2nd and 3rd term. Maybe the Democrats will wait until DJT dies from old age.
5
Gillibrand comes across as an 18 year old high school debater, too much of a socialist and assuming the money so badly needed by the couch potatoes of this country is readily available.
4
Elizabeth Warren seems to me a lot like Eleanor Roosevelt in intelligence,vision, and compassion plus a personal history of overcoming hard knocks and the benefit of government experience . Like Mrs Roosevelt she also has a problem of presentation that hampers her, and she must in addition overcome facile dismissiveness. Is she the brightest , most dedicated, person for office...maybe, but in American politics that is often not enough.
3
@Dave
Lying about her heritage made it easier for Warren to overcome this "hard knocks".
3
@AZPurdue
Warren met many challenges in her life long before the Indian issue ever became part of her history. Your ignorance of them is understandable as it helps better fit the diminishing scenario you prefer. In point of fact Warren was brought up in a barely middle-class home which became more challenged due to her father having a heart attack. There was no insurance and the family was burdened with medical bills. Her mother went to work for Sears catalog and at the age of 13 Warren helped out waitressing. Her admission to college, law school, and employment was never a consideration of her Indian heritage which she claimed as a tradition of family history. The landmark Consumer Finance Protection Act she developed was not a part of|Indian heritage claims either.So not only are you wrong on many counts but you are more wrong because you have not bothered to make the least effort to learn the facts. Suggest you try wikileaks for an easy reference.
1
Can the moderators agree to requiring civil debate standards as set forth by the National Institute for Civll Discourse at
https://www.change.org/p/debate-moderators-revive-civility-for-the-presidential-debates
1
The cackling, hissing, crowing barking meowing, mooing. quacking, clucking and oinking herd of 2020 Democratic Party Presidential candidates need to watch tapes of the 2016 Republican Party primary debates in order to understand that all of their ' preparation' is and will be in vain in The United States of Trump.
You can't beat a somebody with an amorphous blend of nobody commodity generic liberal progressive atomized products.
Besides what really matters is which candidate smiling and smirking Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin will be supporting aided and abetted by the useful idiots at Facebook , Twitter, Google, YouTube, Amazon, Apple etc.
No collusion! MAGA! KGA! No obstruction! Fake News!
My all time favorite liberal white progressive was John Brown. Followed by Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.
5
23 Democrat presidential wannabes trying to outdo each other and win votes by promising free stuff to every special interest group under the sun. Where will all the money come from?
7
Are there any adults helping with debate prep or just millennials? With Ds scrambling to the left and trying to be relevant to young voters, they keep forgetting that 18-34 year olds are the group that is least likely to actually show up at the polls. I just don't get it.
6
@Hooper you are correct. the generation that doesn’t know how to brush its teeth or use deodorant or shave or put tats on hidden parts will be sleeping in then ensconced on the basement couch playing video games on Election Day. The republicans will win again. Same old song.
2
Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't know Andrew Yang's platform?
It's easy. Three big signature policies of Freedom Dividend, Medicare for All, and human centered capitalism, plus 104 other policy items on his website.
I struggle to name Gillibrand's platform or policies other than the trivial fact that she probably speaks better Mandarin than Yang.
12
The most interesting debate contrast for me will one that transits time. In 2016 Bernie Sanders waited until after Elizabeth Warren decided not to run in the Democratic primary to enter the fray. He then took up the outsider mantle and has held it for the past 3 years, but now they are speaking to largely the same base. While Sanders starts with the advantage of greater name recognition, Warren is catching up and her approach of reining in rather than overthrowing capitalism is gaining ground not only with his base, but with those outside of it, even some in so-called Trump country.
Of the two, I believe that Warren better captures the zeitgeist and is reminding (or teaching) everyone why she, not Sanders, was the Progressives' first love back in 2016. It's still very early,however, more and more this primary and perhaps even the general, is looking like it may be hers to lose. We will know a good bit more if this is so by Friday.
5
@Barry F. She seems more considered in her policy and notably less abrasive that Bernie Sanders. I'd consider her perhaps, but certainly not voting for him.
1
“I have read that most of the candidates support taxpayer funded health care for undocumented immigrants. Shouldn’t that benefit be offered to American taxpayers first?”
7
The only takeaway I have from this is that the one candidate who tells the truth doesn't need to create a truth-y package. That's Sanders. I do like Warren but I fear she is not adept in confronting Trump. Then Inslee, then no one.
2
Bernie Sanders just proposed forgiving all student debt, and paying for it with a small tax on trades of stocks, bonds, and derivatives.
3
Then I want my kids’ “debt” to me forgiven. We saved and sent our kids to school. We did our jobs. We want our money back to.
5
@Becky
Me too. I want on the gravy train and a refund of my tuition for two.
2
@Becky
Back in the day we paid for our two kids' college expenses. And they started their careers debt-free. Today with the astronomical tuition my grandkids will start out loaded with debt.
Bernie's solution will help so many young people, and paying for it with a very small tax on stock, bond and derivative trades seems fair.
1
It’s gonna be a circus better than the 2016 Republican imbroglio by far! When the candidates see an opening, expect name calling and accusations of racial prejudices and even homophobia thrown in for the effect on the sheep in the peanut galleries. The ones who promise the most “ free-stuff” with “ change we all need” will be the front runners. Taxes? Well, tax the rich, of course! Meaning anyone with a full-time job...
10
It is abundantly clear that 65,000 donor limit is too low to qualify for presidential primary race. It should be higher and the deadline should be later. Holding a debate so early benefits only the network hosting it.
6
Senator Sanders has been on the correct side of history for 40 years, from active involvement in the Chicago civil rights and fair housing moment - to his vote against the invasion of Iraq and his adamant condemnation of for-profit prisons and detention centers, and our very race-biased criminal justice system. He has been sounding the alarm about global corporations taking over the US government since long before the Republicans pushed through "Citizens United" to give global corporations the ability basically to buy elections! Meanwhile both Republicans and these so called "New Democrats" of the Clinton era have been moving forward with legislation that has now allowed global corporations to pay ZERO taxes, while buying politicians, writing their own tax laws and regulations that are pushed through Congress by both Democrats and Republicans (who of course call Senator Sanders "radical" because he's been one of the few pushing back against them!) He believes that raising the "defense budget" from $600 billion to $700 billion and a proposed $750 billion is robbing we the people of adequate education, health, infrastructure and retirement funding. His campaign is a MOVEMENT not a moment.. We need REFORM across every faction of government!
2
It's way to early in the process to give this debate more than a passing glance. I will read the summary the next day in the NYT (and probably just skim that). Now, if they could get Trump to be the moderator I might reconsider.
5
Setting my sarcasm aside.
After watching Hillary in 2016 and all the female 2020 candidates today that think they can run based on their anatomy alone and not their policies is very scary.
Realization time. Everyone knows that the incumbent has better odds of winning and we know the desire in America to have a first "anything" including a female president.
Prediction. Trump will win in 2020 due to the lousy policies put forth by the Dems and in 2024 (much like the Bush and Clinton dynasties) Ivanka Trump will be on the GOP ticket.
Let this sink in for a moment for all those who just want a female president and loathe President Trump. If the left doesn't get its act together and figure out sensible compromises with the current administration the before mentioned moves from plausible to probable.
5
Debates or not, anyone who doesn't support a single-payer Medicare4All, doesn't get my vote!
8
Who pays for that?
Hi there,
We are all already paying a surcharge for not having Medicare for all. By letting the private insurance companies roll in money.
@Becky
Brilliant question, though has been answered long ago: Everyone, with rich paying proportionate more tax. Want details? Here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384
I know there’s a couple dozen of them but it’s roughly sixteen interminable months until the 2020 election and I can’t even......is there a short term cryogenic facility where I could just freeze myself until, say, next Labor Day?
61
@Cboy I thought I had nothing to learn from those who are polling under 1 percent until I saw an interview with Tim Ryan on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. I was watching it because it was the Daily Show not because it was Tim Ryan.
Anyway, he mentioned how he thinks that we need to change our educational system to be much more trauma informed. His wife is a first-grade teacher and so she sees children who are hungry and parents who are addicted to opioids and who are homeless etc. I see the same thing working in a grade school library. But the average American probably doesn't think about traumatized children much.
My mind was blown. Here was a fringe candidate bringing a very important topic to the table. Thank you Tim Ryan. You're probably not going to make it to the White House. But thank you for talking about trauma in schools, which does need to be addressed if learning is going to happen.
17
@Sio
Didn't see the interview but I see the importance of the topic. This would tell me Ryan would make great Secretary of Education, but not necessarily a president.
3
@Cboy -- Senator Sanders has been on the correct side of history for 40 years, from active involvement in the Chicago civil rights and fair housing moment - to his vote against the invasion of Iraq and his adamant condemnation of for-profit prisons and detention centers, and our very race-biased criminal justice system. He has been sounding the alarm about global corporations taking over the US government since long before the Republicans pushed through "Citizens United" to give global corporations the ability basically to buy elections! Meanwhile both Republicans and these so called "New Democrats" of the Clinton era have been moving forward with legislation that has now allowed global corporations to pay ZERO taxes, while buying politicians, writing their own tax laws and regulations that are pushed through Congress by both Democrats and Republicans (who of course call Senator Sanders "radical" because he's been one of the few pushing back against them!) He believes that raising the "defense budget" from $600 billion to $700 billion and a proposed $750 billion is robbing we the people of adequate education, health, infrastructure and retirement funding. His campaign is a MOVEMENT not a moment.. We need REFORM across every faction of government!
3
Biden can separate himself from all the others with this simple point:
What each of us on this stage must deliver to voters next year is a realistic plan to reduce the massive federal budget deficits that Trump has made worse. None of the new ideas that we are debating will be sustainable if we fail to fix the ongoing deficit. I call on all of us to deliver a plan to the American people when we convene as a party in Milwaukee next year, to include permanent sustainable funding for Social Security and Medicare. We cannot possibly have Medicare for All if the current system depletes its trust fund in 2026.
4
By allowing 23 people to run for president, the Democrats are sending out mixed messages, attacking each other, confusing voters, and are coming off like that each of these Democrats are ":entitled" to be the next president.
After the upcoming "debates" this week, the field should be pared down to no more than five candidates. Or, at least to candidates that have double digits in pools. If not, this muddled message will continue through the primaries, with wounds inflicted from within. These debates will turn into carnival sideshows. What will emerge will be a damaged candidate that can easily lose to Trump.
46
The Democratic Party does not decide or authorize who or how many will enter as a presidential primary candidate. Anyone can do so by registering with the Federal Election Commission. After that, it is off to races in terms of donors, polling, appearances and ultimately getting enough attention to be invited to the so-called “debates”.
11
@Suburban Cowboy
10 people at a "debate" is not a debate; it is a free for all. Two "debates" of 10, over two nights, is a rugby scrum.
13
@Nick Metrowsky
As of this morning, there are now 24 people running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. That is enough to field a major league baseball team, or NBA team, with substitutes.
2
To a large degree, the purpose of these preparations is to come up with answers to avoid really answering difficult questions and with zingers against their opponents.
Perhaps the reason why Sanders doesn't feel the need to prepare that much is that he is willing to directly answer questions and has less of a need to attack his opponents rather than simply explain himself. Also his positions have been pretty consistent throughout the years unlike someone like Gillibrand or Biden and some of the others who have been like chameleons who switch to whatever positions are most likely to get them elected at the time.
118
@Steve
On the contrary, Sanders will simply accuse everyone of sexism, racism, homophobes, etc. and be done with it.
8
@Steve Steve making voting manditory to live in usa would vote out stupid in government. Case in point the war we sent our kids to manditory draft . Also shuld be manditory service to american way life in trade free health care for all.
2
@Steve
yeah....dont need zingers - need policies!
6
I want to see candidates have to think on their feet, faced with unscripted and unexpected questions whose answers demand a sound grasp of the facts. Take away the safety nets. I want to see this process happen over a matter of hours rather than minutes, moderated by intellectuals rather than TV personalities. All broadcasters should be required as part of their licensing to set aside substantial amounts of airtime as public service. Otherwise it’s just thin theater with its simplistic “gotchas” and cute answers. These are not “debates” in any real sense of the word and we should acknowledge that. We continue to sell short the great experiment our founding debaters set in motion.
89
@Gerald No zingers please. That would reflect the mind set of the moderator and not the interest of the public. Reading this article it would seem to me that the "debate" could easily turn into a slug fest which would serve the purpose of no one. If anyone does their best impression of Trump, I would think that would send them out the door.
3
@Gerald - that's all well and good, but in order to arrive at questions that no one has been preparing for...you'd have to ask some pretty off-the-wall questions that nobody's interested in the answers to, right? I mean, you can't prevent these candidates from preparing, can you? From brainstorming and war-gaming the possible scenarios and lines of questioning, right? How would you do that?
1
Absolutely. I believe something like 4 million subscribers tune in to Joe Rogan’s podcast, which runs about two to three hours, taking deep dives into controversial subjects. The appetite for long form discussion does exist.
1
For me, it's Sen. Harris and nobody else. I could watch "Kamala TV" all day long. Everyone else, please just get out of the way and allow Sen. Harris to eviscerate Trump in the general election just as she has done with anybody unfortunate enough to come under her scrutiny in Senate Judiciary hearings.
2
@Beth
No, other candidates shouldn't just "get out of her way". It's not her way, she has to earn it.
Every candidate has to earn it. A debate shouldn't be about who screams the loudest and bullies others into silence. That's what Kamala has shown herself to be, when she's not making stuff up about her past.
6
Kamala wins. She’s always underestimated.
I think the Democrats are real chumps for not having a debate on FOX news. I am no fan of the station but I think why not & also because Chris Wallace was by far the best moderator last time around. He is also one of the best interviewers on TV, questioning Republican or Democrat.
15
I wonder how and what they practice to be POTUS.
1
I hope Democrats will focus on Trump's threat to democracy.
Every day, Trump attacks democratic ways, more and more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest we need more democracy, not less, in 2020.
They can say Trump's attacks can create a new democratic wave.
They can suggest an inverted US distress flag, to fight Trump.
For example, candidates might mention the "Democracy" song.
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA" (1992).
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
-------------------------------------------
I hope the panel questions to the first Democratic Debate candidates covers the generic ones to Hillary Clinton in 2016:
“Have you ever lied, not just on a job application but to the public?” What? When? Where? Why?
4
I hope one of them bring up their plan for immigrants seeking asylum. DJT and company do not have a plan for anything, just gliding along. The situation with 1,400 migrant children being dropped off in Sill Oklahoma is a national disgrace. How many children are being held in interment camps in the states?
6
Since most of the asylum claims are denied, the question should be, “how do we bring this issue to an end before any more damage is done to our country?”
4
Healthcare, the border, Iran, trade, climate, relations with allies, all in worse shape since Trump took over with no solutions in sight.
Voting for Trump in 2020 would be the definition of doing the same thing over again expecting a different result.
If I was a Dem candidate I'd be highlighting Trump's failures and explaining how I'd fix it. Seems to me that would be better than a circular firing squad.
4
@JimmySerious
I'm tired of the focus on Trump. I already know I won't vote for him. I want multiple reasons to vote for someone, not just someone with the "ability" to tell us what we already know, that Trump is a terrible president. I will be looking for someone who has good policy proposals and plans for achieving them: getting money out of politics; getting laws passed to curb corruption; reforming the tax code and otherwise addressing a rigged system that benefits the richest among us and corporations with no loyalty to the U.S. i.e., those that don't pay taxes or hire U.S. workers; an affordable health care system with the goal of improving health, not profits; ending wars and reducing the obscene "defense" budget meant to enrich war profiteers; standing up for U.S. workers. I want plans, not rhetoric.
2
@N
I think I said all that. But included a candidate has to combine policy with an ability take on Trump or they won't win the election.
Right now we have some candidates who can beat Trump but their policy is decades old. And others with good policy but don't have the toughness to beat Trump.
The key to a Democratic victory in 2020 is getting everybody everywhere out to vote. To do that they'll need both up to date policy and not wilt under the barrage of attacks that will surely come from Trump.
Why is Gillbrand being featured in this story? She is a non-entity, who is trailing in the polls.
As a New York State candidate, she could, at best, deliver a state which is sure to go Democratic no-matter-what, while chasing away voters in the interior of our country, where the real challenge for the Democratic Party is.
Biden is in a position to deliver Pennsylvania, Gillibrand is in a position to deliver defeat. To people in the interior, she smells like Schumer.
The New York Times has bolstered its viewership by savagely attacking Trump, which is OK - but now it's time to get serious about getting Trump out of the White House; the Times owes that, not only to the readers who have supported it, but to the entire civilized world.
8
If Democrats get bogged down in policy details, they risk voters glazing over. What is going to be their "big idea"? I don't mean the big policy idea such as "Medicare for all" but the big ideological idea.
Right now we know Trump's big idea is going to be a variation on his original "MAGA" theme along the lines of "Keep AG" (the first was backwards looking - and bigoted- while the current one is keeping the backward look and by extension continued bigotry). In contrast, Obama's were forward looking, while Hillary's were somewhat muddled.
We know the Trump strategy will be to paint the Democratic candidate a Socialist regardless of who that candidate is. To many voters the word Socialism is more or less synonymous with communist.
Trying to distinguish the difference to the vast majority of lazy ignorant voters is all but impossible. The fact we already practice many social type policies that most people want, such as social security and Medicare just underscores the problem.
Democrats need to focus less on detailed policies and more on the big picture and grand idea. In very clear and concise terms - the one liner - they need to say where they want to lead us while in equally concise terms describe where Trump and the Republicans have taken us.
If the last elections showed anything its that one simple stupid bigoted line by a liar trumped actual competence and experience.
4
This is not a debate. Just call it a media thingy.
7
It's too bad the Democratic candidates have to spend all this time and effort on crafting policy proposals, reading briefings and developing responses to tough questions they might face. Trump does none of that. He just makes stuff up and says the first lie that pops into his head. Maybe the Democrats should just fabricate some successes and then brag about how great they are. It works for Trump.
4
If we learned anything from this president, shouldn’t it be that when you stoop to his level of discourse, everybody loses? We have to beat him fairly or else we are no better.
3
Too bad there is absolutely no discussion of eliminating the Iowa caucus madness and no longer allowing the rural, elderly and white demographic of that state to continue having an unearned and undeserved out-size role in choosing nominees. The primary season should kick off in a state like Illinois or Washington state that has a population much more representative of the US as a whole and stop relying on small, rural and predominately white states to have such enormous influence. Please stop the insanity.
15
@mpound
If you want to stop the insanity, and have an actual democratic process, then no state should go first.
Everyone should vote at the same time, and have the same method of counting the vote. No more caucus/primary divide.
One member, one vote, one day. Results kept secret until the end of the night and polling stations have closed for everyone.
7
@mpound
The problem is that these rural states determine who gets 270 electoral votes.
All of this preparation makes me wonder why Trump won. Hillary had many advantages over Trump including a vast amount of political experience. She also must have prepared. But everyone knows that the debates are where candidates make big promises, most of which are to be paid for by someone else. Democrats need to be vague rather than specific. Trump should be easy to attack. He doesn’t play by the political rules but instead has been following his plan to deliver on his campaign promises.
1
@Richard Bourne
Being vague was her problem. Trump, for all his lunacy, had very specific promises.
Build wall. Enforce immigration. Cut taxes. Repeal Obamacare. Repatriate money. Those short, specific things.
What did Hillary commit? Stronger togetherness? She couldn't even stick to $15 minimum wage - something that was seen as ludicrous at the time, yet as Bernie showed is becoming a reality through social pressure and protests.
1
Amazing that the Democratic Party allowed Donald Trump to capture the support of the working class. (I can use that term ‘cause I was once a wage slave). We blue collar workers and union members had been one of the Democrats’ great strength of support. I blame the obtuseness of the Clinton machine (and I can use that term because I voted for Hillary) for never having worked with Gore or Kerry, but instead putting all its power behind an assumption that in time she would be the first woman in the highest office. (I voted as a person born and raised in so-called flyover country and now a New Yorker having watched the appalling Trump show for decades.) The Democrats simply stopped listening to working people, and Trump, albeit often in very ugly ways, did act as someone sympathetic to people who feel ignored and abandoned. Those of us who consider ourselves well-educated, well-read, observant, and most important, compassionate towards our fellow citizens are ready for both parties to establish standard nominating committees to stop the obvious campaign fundraising rackets, and to give us more qualified, experienced candidates.
4
The GOP talk to the electorate. The Dems talk to each other. What could the outcome possibly be?
6
I look forward to those candidates with bold and new ideas for this stagnant country with a drained middle class and engorged 1% e.g. Warren, Sanders, Yang, etc.
Would Biden have won in 2016 against Trump? Did the Democrats lose that election because their nominee was a Corporate-friendly status quo centrist, because of who they were, or both? Russia's attack on our election could only hurt the Dems because their candidate was so weak and vulnerable.
They lost 2016 because the the majority of Americans in the Electoral College (especially the Rust Belt) wanted a charismatic and bold leader, who addressed income and wealth inequality. "More of the same" is a bad thing to these people.
7
The same commentators attacking Joe Biden because they want new candidates with fresh ideas are the same ones who pilloried Nancy Pelosi late last year.
In the eye teeth of such attacks, Nancy courageously led the Dems to one of their biggest victories in electoral history by taking back the House and restoring some balance in Washington.
Segue back to Joe Biden and the 2012 debates. Mr. all youth and fresh ideas was soundly defeated by Mitt Romney in the first debate. Joe then lined up against the far more youthful, Paul Ryan and took him to the woodshed. He single highhandedly righted a ship that was heading for an electoral defeat.
I sure hope these candidates get some prep for acting and looking charismatic and energetic. That is a lot of what sells on TV.
People are much less involved intellectually than they realize, but they will find themselves drawn to and feeling positively about the energetic and charismatic person. CHARISMA, CANDIDATES —- YOU ALL NEED SOME!
2
While these characters have been play acting, the real progressive has been holding real town hall meetings numerous times a week, answering real questions from real Americans concerned about the country:
https://www.youtube.com/channel
/UCH1dpzjCEiGAt8CXkryhkZg/videos
This paper, devoted to keeping Sanders out of the White House, has been avoiding reporting on them
7
@CK Correction - For some reason my link is broken, this works: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH1dpzjCEiGAt8CXkryhkZg/videos?disable_polymer=1
Bernie channels tired bromides from FDR. Warren has a plan for every ill, imagined and real. And it only goes down hill from there with the exception of former Rep. John Delaney. But he's a self-made millionaire. He's white. He's heterosexual. He's bald. He's bright. All the qualities progressives (oxymoron) hate and despise. From now to November 2020 when my choices will boil down to an ugly caricature of Sesame Street's Waldorf and Statler I will enter the voting booth with an anxiety level never felt by me before. I have to vote. It's my duty, but like 2016 when my choices were between awful and truly awful, I'll be in virtually apoplectic with angst. Sheez. Are these 25 people (Trump plus the 24 Dems) the best we have to offer up? Heck, I could do a better job and I've never been President of anything other than mh civic association.
2
@ricocatx
I don't understand this attitude. Warren is a good candidate and has workable, intelligent ideas. Sanders has completely changed the dialogue of this country and has opened the doors to putting limits on corporate spending, and hopefully ending Citizens United. Everybody is a mixed bag, and it is, most certainly, the privileged who get to run for president. But expecting that we put up the "best and brightest" to run for president is naive. It has NEVER worked that way. Sometimes, rarely, it has worked out where we get a good leader. But those are exceptions. What we need is somebody who has the right ideas and directions--and some of the Democratic candidates actually do. That's not too shabby if you ask me. The problem is not the candidates. Instead its that we have an antiquated electoral college system, voter suppression and gerrymandering, voter apathy, a corporatized media, and an ignorant population.
13
I would very much like to see a woman president. As a country, we need to “Cross the Rubicon” so to speak by electing a woman leader. Regrettably, we have a highly ingrained and institutionalized social and political patriarchal structure in our country - we need to upend that.
As an young man in 1991, I watched the Anita Hill hearings and I was aghast by the display of unfiltered chauvinism. After 27 years in 2018, I was just as much upset during the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and the ensuing theatrics of Brett Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham.
The tragic part is that as a country, we have NOT made many significant strides about women’s RIGHTS and DIGNITY. The recent flurry of anti abortion legislative activities by the GOP represent the “Ne plus ultra” of rampant chauvinism in our country.
Additionally, Joe Biden should drop out as he personifies political anachronism as exemplified by these examples: his inept and callous handling of the Anita Hill hearing, his hesitation as a DE senator for the school bus program and desegregation, his long term support to the Hyde Amendment, his propensity to touch women without their permission under the guise of conviviality and last but not the least, his close ties to the segregationist former senators. He also ran underwhelming prior campaigns, was accused of plagiarism and once described Obama as a “very mainstream guy for an African-American”.
We have a very talented slate of women candidates - let’s move on.
5
@Raj Sinha
And remember, he also described Obama as "clean" in the context of discussing his race, as if in contrast to other African-Americans. Another reason not to vote for him: he started out his campaign by targeting "big" donors for contributions. Harris and Buttigieg have also done that. That says a lot more about them that their facile rhetoric. I won't vote for any of the three.
1
Debates? The exchange of well-tested sound-bytes is not a debate. At best these are media events that the media hopes will become word based food-fights where the audience will be entertained (and pay attention to the commercials).
The moderators don't ask substantive questions that would educate the potential voter like: "...and how would you be able to get this policy through congress given that the nation is almost equally divided and so is congress."
How about asking them to tell a story about how they managed to bring disparate factions together and form a compromise solution that all can live with.
Perhaps questions about their understanding of the constitution and the various powers of all three branches of government. Tell us all how it really works and how you (the aspirant) can bring the factions together.
Or perhaps explain the difference between a Law and an Executive Order, what is a treaty and how does it work, and what are the responsibilities of We-the-People beyond sending money to a candidate and voting.
Practicing ways to "zing" the other candidates isn't debate prep, it is just preparing for a national TV food-fight.
Unfortunately, the aspirants will go along with the media's desire for a food-fight that will entertain the viewers without making them think (and purchase the products of their sponsors).
9
Who cares.
No one except Warren supporters will watch night one. The ratings will be through the floor.
Day two lots of people will watch.
So what.
Most of those watching will have already made up their minds. That leaves the vast majority of the nation which, shocking to NY Times commenters, don't even know who is running and will not pay any attention until we get closer to the state voting.
I am daily being kind of but not really surprised to talk to well educated people who couldn't care less.
We are living in a bubble here with all of this.
Frankly, most Americans are not at all interested in following these things.
That may come later.
6
@simon sez
"Most of those watching will have already made up their minds."
Respectfully, I disagree. I don't know a single person who has made up his/her mind yet about a Democratic candidate, and virtually everybody I know is invested in the process. We all have a handful of people we like, more on this issue than that, and a handful of people we are more-or-less indifferent about, but I think the number of ride-or-die supporters for anybody at this point (except for maybe Sanders) is pretty limited.
4
@simon sez: You say that most of the people watching will have already made up their minds. You are half right. I have in fact already made up my mind. I will vote in the general election for the Democratic candidate, whoever is finally chosen. We should all resolve to do the same. Between now and then I'll try to figure out who I would prefer that to be, about which I have not yet made up my mind. The "debates" won't help me make that decision, though.
Can not wait for the debate as it will finally narrow down the candidate pool. Personally believe a couple of really good candidates have not received enough media exposure and good PR talk but will be very good on the debate floor and move to the front of the pack.
1
@Pandora "Can not wait for the debate as it will finally narrow down the candidate pool."
This debate won't "narrow down the candidate pool". Why would it? The only thing that narrows down the pool is when the campaign contributions dry up and these egomaniacs have no choice but to give up their chartered airplanes and stop paying the professional courtiers that they travel around with. Until then, a candidate with miserable poll numbers has no incentive to wake up and accept the cold reality that he or she has no chance of becoming president.
4
@mpound, would think if the current leaders with donor money pots make idiots out of themselves the donors will start shifting their cash no? Not to mention new donors and new corporate donors that will emerge for a few of the current under dogs if they do well. Dunno, just my hope. Not impressed with the tops at this point.
1
For some of the candidates, a re-reading of Das Kapital would be excellent preparation. For the rest, read what Americans say they want. We are not Bolsheviks.
5
I will be listening for several things: first among them is the use of "I" or "we." Also some abstract vision of the future of America beyond policy plans such as fixing student debt, health care or infrastructure.
2
In other words, how many freebies can I offer with a straight face?
9
There was nothing wrong with the way the debates were run in 2016---one debate of top of the tier candidates, in terms of polls and number of supporters, and a second debate of the less popular candidates. There was a whole lot wrong with the way the DNC decided, very early on, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate.
I, like many other Democrats, are skeptical of a DNC that gives a place at the debate table to a would-be candidate who has no intention of joining the Democratic Party.
I am also skeptical of a DNC that "at random" sets up one debate with the only woman leader in the pack, and another debate with all the other man leaders.
Why doesn't DNC just tell us whom it has decided to support as a candidate, so the rest of us can, sheeplike, vote for him as directed, and win another term for Trump.
1
I agree about Sanders. He didn't stay Dem long, and said he ran in 2016 for the "free publicity." He is up there with Putin and Comey in bringing the world Trump. I heard the DNC had no choice because he'd get more free publicity by not being allowed to run as a Democratic candidate and would run Third Party to Trump's advantage. The two major national parties should have basic standards for Presidential candidates, such as having won at least one elected office as a member of that party and having been a member for five years. That would have disqualified Trump and Sanders. Free riders are free riders, and that is a trait of personality that the country doesn't need at the top.
5
Some Democratic candidates are proposing bold changes in federal spending priorities and the tax code that could finance the kind of real change needed if our country is to survive as a democracy rather than sink into a feudal system benefiting only the 1 percent.
Today, for example, Sander will propose "a tax on Wall Street that will raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years." The money would be used to cancel the $1.7 million amount of student debt now crippling millions of people financially.
Sanders is proposing to pay for this debt relief with a new tax on financial transactions, including a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds. "Such a levy would curb Wall Street speculation while reducing income inequality, according to a report by the Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank."
(By the way, thanks to Congress's pandering to the lending industry years ago, student debt is the only debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.)
Already some, including Democrats whose campaigns are financed by the ultra-rich, Wall Street and giant corporations,
are calling such proposals like Medicare for All and free college tuition "idiotic" and unrealistic without even studying the details of careful and sensible plans for real change by candidates like Elizabeth Warren.
It will not be enough to listen to the candidates debate. It is equally essential to check out their voting records and look hard at who their big contributors are.
6
I paid for my college education with a lot of hard work and sacrifice, as did many other people. Why should I now pay to wipe out other people’s school debt?
4
@MyjobisinIndianow
The debt should be reduced, not eliminated. When I started law school in the early eighties, I took out federal loans at a 7% interest rate. Before I finished school, Reagan retroactively raised the rate to 9%. Like you, I paid off my loans with hard work and sacrifice. I also based my choice of school on what I could afford. (I also knew students who were buying fancy cars and otherwise living the good life instead of paying back their loans, but they were in the minority). The difference between then and now, however, is that the cost of higher education, loans aside, is much too high, and the job market has become more competitive. I would support reductions in the cost of public education to make it affordable for the majority and a reduction of federal support to "private" institutions that necessarily cater to the top 10% because their tuition is unaffordable for most. We shouldn't be subsidizing the wealthy.
1
The Hunger Games!
4
I am sooo looking forward to the Democratic debates, meeting all of the candidates and hearing fresh ideas and perspectives on bringing Americans up and together. It's past time we double-time it and move past this temporary one-step back and take the next two steps forward, together, in living up to the ideals spelled out in our Constitution. I know we have it in US (U.S.)!!
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
25
@DC "fresh ideas and perspectives" ??? ;-)
5
@DC...I too am looking forward to fresh ideas but looking forward with minimal hope, based on what I've heard thus far. Bashing Trump and offering a bunch of freebies seem to be the dominate topics of most of these candidates. How about some specific plans to fuel the ideologies?
@DC
This debate will probably thin out the crowd by at least one half.
Biden is a dead candidate walking. Sorry Third Way, but it is true. If I, roughly his contemporary, find him sounding tired, detached, and out of step with the times, what must he sound like to twenty somethings? “Sure, okay grandpa.” “Isn’t it time for his nap?”
Age distills our essence. Some gain wisdom; others just accrue baggage. That is just one of the differences between Bernie and Biden. Examples? Bernie’s earlier campaign had complaints of sexual harassment, so he instituted staff training and other safeguards to correct it. Biden was accused of both the soft sexism of unwanted touch - not to mention racism - so he doubled down and dug in his heels. Isn’t being a white man never having to say “sorry”?
23
Did trump ever prepare for one of those things?
1
Imagine the damage to the climate with all that hot air.
3
Warning Will Robinson, AKA potential voters, the debates do offer candidates an opportunity to stand out. However after reading responses to the New Times questionnaires I suspect there will be more negative than positive results. Rehearsing for presentations and related Q&A's doesn't work well if a person is deft to the actual question they are asked to respond to. If they can not or will not move from the rehearsed question and response to the actual question they are being asked the candidate will be judged negatively by many. Three months ago, I began identifying what I saw as policy priorities for the next President, I continue to refine my list and expect to do for several months to come. I wanted to move past the emotion of anyone but Trump and look for areas we, as a country, need to focus on to provide growth and stability in a world spinning perilously out of control. So yes please watch the debates, read candidate responses to questions, choose a candidate to support then do just that, support them. Remember if you are not part of the solution you are????
1
Here's to hoping the circus of 24 candidates quickly evolves into 4 or 5 or 6 credible, viable candidates that could win a national election. Too many "vanity candidates" on stage will certainly detract from the required seriousness of debates on the policies the Dems need to promote if we are to beat back this Faux-populist wave.
WE need to get real - reparations, free college tuition, universal basic income are simply pipe dreams that will feed right into GOP marketing that the Dems are out of touch with American voters.
Focus on strengthening the ACA and social safety net; rewriting the tax codes so all taxpayers are treated equitably and pay their share of the cost of democracy; embracing renewable energy solutions and the good-paying jobs they create; and restoring Amerca's reputation as a leader who is trusted and acts in the best interests of all.
WE can do this!
8
An interesting aspect of campaign finance law provides a good reason why anyone would want to join the fray. Even Trump in 2015. First of all, the money must be used for legitimate purposes, but nonetheless the discretion within that definition is the candidate’s to mandate. The upshot for the bulk of the losers is: ALL the money that is unspent may be disposed of in a myriad of manners including charitable donations or passing it along to local, state, national political party. The kicker is: If the candidate chooses, she can keep the money as she ‘designates’ it to be preserved for her NEXT campaign albeit undetermined. So, every donor dollar that is leftover to an existing politician or non-politician alike is capital for them to use for their own political purposes later.
4
The democrats had better lift the entire party, rather turn into a rumble match. We need a strong, well supported, broad appealing candidate. Don't do Trump any favors by destroying each other.
8
Here's hoping the moderators are preparing as well. It was obvious in 2016 that moderator-preparation was not a high priority.
Why not ave real journalists pose the questions. The NYT, AP and Washington Post all have journalists who are infinitely more qualified and considerably less ego-driven than the TV personalities who will inevitably botch the job.
Real journalists ask real questions for a living. TV gab artists spend more time in makeup than they do doing research.
28
They should take the Donald Trump approach and stalk their opponent, and be like ridiculously honest, like saying that paying no taxes makes him "smart". Hey, it worked for the Stable Genius.
1
Minorities are justifiably angry at the state of racism in this country, but it’s Republicans who perpetuate the problem. Not Democrats. Hopefully African Americans, Hispanics, LGBTQ and others will channel their anger at Donald Trump and the Republicans. Lashing out at modern day Democrats, many of whom are minorities themselves, accomplishes nothing.
@GCAustin, people of many differing political views perpetuate racism including those who claim to be victims. Many, perhaps the majority, fall under the Republican banner but I suspect a similar number call themselves Democrats or at least favor Democratic candidates. When we label people we risk being labeled!
4
Ah, yes, Democrats preparing for the debates.
Any reporters slipping their preferred candidate the town hall debate questions as was done by Donna Brazile and CNN for Hillary Clinton?
Or is it too soon and that’ll be saved for the ‘debate’ against Trump?
2
Poor democrat party. The best thing they can offer America is a horse race. Trump is bad enough but at least America knows what it doesn’t like and it’s highly visible. That’s the problem. trump’s daily broadcasts of fear and tweets are omnipresence, and familiar.
The democrat party is pulling harder in the first turn with more positions than a feathered helicopter rotor. People don’t know what they don’t like exactly. There’s to many notes, for votes. We have baseline issues of age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and experience as wedge topics already for starters. The GOP will have a field day with these in first furlong.
Fortunately 2 senior democratic hopefuls have a chance at the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Both are relentless and don’t give up. More importantly they are the message. Does America have the will to critically THINK this time around.
I blame the Democratic Party for allowing these debates to become a kind of elimination game show series featuring almost two dozen "candidates." Parties set the rules for the primary season, not the Constitution. When your approved cast includes a "self-help author" but ignores the Democratic governor of a state Trump won, something's wrong with your process.
That's how the Republicans and America got hijacked by an unfit, amoral, racist, misogynist game show star three years ago.
3
I look forward to these first debates for several reasons: first, it will be interesting to see just how far left the candidates will be willing to go. Secondly, to see if any of the almost unknown candidates will move up into the upper tier by expressing interesting, thoughtful ideas. And third, so the biggest phony (and intellectual lightweight) in the field, Kirsten Gillibrand, will drop out of contention.
16
Biden is not electable because of:
1. all the seniors who are angry that Biden tried to undermine Social Security three times.
2. anyone concerned with climate change - Joe was a big promoter of fracking worldwide.
3. the many working people driven to desperation through his vigorous support of NAFTA and the vile TPP.
4. many of the students who are now carrying crushing debt loads and look forward to a life of servitude because Biden, MBNA’s man, made sure they would not be able to declare bankruptcy.
5. all the sons and daughters killed or maimed in Iraq, after Biden held – per Scott Ritter UN arms inspector – sham hearings promoting such war. When Biden publicly mourns the untimely death of his son, he never mourns the deaths of millions of innocent men and women he helped cause.
6. many African-American men and women whose lives he helped ruin via draconian penalties with his dog-whistle support of the infamous Crime Act of 1994. Joe was so proud of his support for this bill and his friendship with segregationist Helms as they fought against busing for desegregation.
7. many will stay home because of all the women he has disrespected with his unwanted touching, and still won’t admit it is not innocent – it’s how he fakes being a “friend” to people - and his past efforts to reduce insurance coverage of contraception.
Please go away, Joe Biden, media invention, job and people killer, cruel smiling fake.
49
@Timshel
Nonsense. Biden is electable because:
1) Democratic voters are tired of the identity police and have grown weary of all these perceived "identity" infractions. They are no longe listening.
2) Biden has the support of Blacks because of his relationship with Obama. Consider it a "Seal of Approval".
3) A majority of democratic voters don't support the massive structural changes being proposed by the democratic candidates.
4) Biden occupies the middle ground, and he has it entirely to himself.
10
@Timshel
Thank you for clarifying, and with specifics, how very wrong Biden is for the the Democratic nomination.
As POTUS, "Good ole Joe" would try to "reach across the aisle" to his former republican buddies and Mitch
McConnell would take great pleasure in toying with Joe for awhile, then kick him in the teeth over and over.
Not only has Biden been on the wrong side of issues, he is a pathetic gaffe machine, with no new ideas and just too old.
Trump is salivating to have Biden as his "opponent".
His oppo research is more than complete.
12
@AACNY. Thanks to the burned ground tactics of the Republicans there is no middle ground any longer and there will continue to not be a middle ground as long as Republicans hold a majority in either part of the Congress. Their strategy is to oppose and obstruct by whatever tactic necessary. Like a marriage in which only one partner is willing to cooperate, unless you control the money the marriage goes nowhere and fighting is continual.
2
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/01/us/politics/nicholas-testimony.html
Are any of these candidates responsible for the above?
No?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-pdf-takeaways.html
Are they responsible for the above here?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/trump-putin-meetings.html
And this? Are they responsible for this item, above?
No?
Then guess what - whoever the opponent to Trump is,that's who has my vote.
13
During the televised debates this week, all the Democratic candidates will seem to be standing in a straight line. It will really be a circular firing squad.
This weekend, all the candidates should agree to gather at a mountain retreat to have an honest assessment of the chaos created by the debates. Then they should shock the world and come up with an All Star roster of cabinet positions, the potential nominees assigned to a post that gives them the opportunity to affect the policy they're most passionate about. E.g.: Bernie Sanders--Health and Human Services; Kamala Harris--Attorney General; Jay Inslee--EPA, and so on.
I say "shock" because voters will be amazed that the candidates would be willing to override their own powerful egos and instead commit to doing what's best for the country.
Trump wouldn't stand a chance.
9
The Democrats need no practicing. They do need a list of the farthest lefty ideas ran up a flag pole and they can have blind sprints towards these unforeseen ideologies. The pure craziness of it gives the Democratic party of past a soiled reputation and is certainly not doing it any favors now. Republicans used to accuse democrats that maintained they had a "centrist" position of being a sheep in wolfs clothing just waiting to install policies that this party now races towards.
5
@RS
The most immediate crisis in America is the despicable inhumane treatment of these innocent children at Trump's concentration camps.
Remember, the same camps that "Be Best" Melania visited and so publicly offered her help to these traumatized young children crying for their mothers?
Every single Dem candidate better have taken some action to rectify, not just condemn, this major Trump catastrophe or they won't get my vote.
2
@JM I will agree with you on the point that this is a crisis however, as a "Legal Resident" if I break the law I go to prison where there is razor wire and I get separated from my family. Some of the more mainstream media outlets neglect to accurately report on percentage of these children that are smuggled in by someone other than their own parents. I agree that the majority are family units but until the Dems and Repubs can agree on a total border security package then we must protect the rights of Legal Citizens before those here illegally. If we pick and choose what laws we want to abide by or reject then we have no laws at all. I would choose not to pay tax if someone promised me they would not throw me in a cage and separate me from my family.
2
ill watch both night but they shouldve broke them up more evenly. Night 1 is a meh for me.
Just not Gillibrand. Better that we lose than see her rewarded for her back-stabbing of Al Franken.
4
She stands on the carcass of Al Franken. I will never support her after the hatchet job she did on him. Franken would have made an excellent candidate for President.
42
After Trump's access Hollywood tape came out, many begged Ms. Clinton not to boycott the remaining debates and publicly state that appearing on the same stage with Donald Trump is an insult to all women. She did not listen and we know the result. Now this is another situation where Democrats are getting busy to shoot themselves in the foot.
I sincerely think this is the wrong strategy. Democratic candidates should not focus on how to elbow each other out of the race. They all need to focus on how to knock Trump out of the ring. After all, the voters are not trying to get rid of Biden, Sanders, Mayor Pete, Gillibrand, etc. They want to get rid of Trump. By attacking each other, Democrats only weaken each other, create sharp divisions in the party, and provide munition for Trump after the primaries.
Before he manages to start a bloody war, for lord sake keep your eyes on the prize!
2
@Eddie B.
Has it occurred to you that anyone who cannot handle being on stage with Trump doesn't deserve to be president? Ditto for Warren and FoxNews.
The world is full of terrible people. A US leader must be able to handle them.
7
@AACNY Warren isn't avoiding Fox because she "can't handle" them. SHe is doing it because she believes it's a mistake to confer a veneer of legitimacy on a oligarch propaganda outfit. In this she is being consistent with her philosophy and behavior. She has been in Ohio, Iowa and West Virginia meeting with Trump supporters directly. Warren is easily the most fearless of candidates in EITHER party and one who has demonstrably led (CFPB among other issues). Don't fall for, or parrot, empty talking points
I’m a bit sad that this is the headline story in the online version of the NYT this morning. There is too much focus on the horse racing of politics. NPR has the same problem.
3
@Dennis
So true. We don't care how carefully they "prepare".
The American people are looking for TRUTH and AUTHENTICITY, not well rehearsed canned responses.
Democrat 'candidates' can't fit in a clown car. They need a clown bus. If people would just throw in behind inevitable nominee Joe Biden he could build some momentum, save money for the election and concentrate on the handful of swing states that will decide the election.
2
Here's my conspiracy theory:
The DNC does not expect Biden to win the nomination. The DNC pressured him to run in an effort to minimize intra-party fighting. By serving as the universal punching bag or boogy man, Biden provides a proxy for the more progressive candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, to take shots at the DNC and status quo. Once a particular candidate gains momentum - and appears capable of defeating Trump - Biden will drop out.
2
Affordable health care another pozie scheme . Because true purpose was to drive profits for health care providers.Doing so it created health care for profit an our government reaped benfits from revenue of capital gains from present value of stock market. Calling out an standing for what works an right would be good start.
1
"And Ms. Gillibrand, a politically agile former corporate lawyer...,"
Politically agile? How about duplicitously opportunistic? You could have mentioned that her corporate lawyering was mostly representing and defending big tobacco. Or that her win in a 2-to-1 upstate republican district was not due to her health care proposals but her despicable support for the absurd interpretation of the second amendment.
Happy to see her go. Bye-bye.
49
Kirsten Gillibrand.
Wow, what a duplicitous, shambolic self-opportunist. The fact that she's even highlighting these feeble "debate prep" attempts of hers, shows how desperate she is for any form of press coverage. It looks like the other candidates are doing much more serious preparatory work, actually focusing on reading the other candidates' policy directives. If Mrs. Gillibrand had any self-awareness, she would realize how snide and juvenile she is making herself appear with her lame attempt at "throwing shade" at Andrew Yang. She could've had any of her minions print out the list of 100+ policy initiatives Yang has posted on his campaign website. But of course, she doesn't have the diligence to do that. Instead, she uses the microphone of the New York Times to brush aside Mr. Yang in one of the most unsubtle and condescending ways she can. She's basically saying, "Pff, Yang? Are you serious? You think I'm worried about THAT guy?". It's a perfect representation of how she's used self-dealing, arrogance, and back-stabbing to propel herself from a back-bencher US Representative, to a two-timing, backstabbing (Al Franken) Senator, to now - a less than 1% polling, pretentious, out-of-touch corporate apologist who has nothing in common with the average voter.
24
Just say no Gillibrand. Just NO!!
12
Suggested question: Are these private detention centers fairly described as concentration camps? Or, is that a bit harsh? Should they be referred to as retreats, spa vacations or sabbaticals? What would you do if you were president to rid America of this stain and do you plan to visit any of them during your campaign? Hint: there's one in Georgia, privately-owned Stewart Detention Center. You can fly into Atlanta, motorcade down to Fort Benning and you're almost there. Great optics with children, adults, guards, razor wire, etc.
2
@Doc
It's all about optics....
Yeah, optics....just like Melania Trump's "I really don't care, do you?" message as she "toured" one detention center and even offered to help.
But when the cameras shut down and the "optics" removed, she of course never uttered another word of concern about these children ever again.
Yep, that's our "Be Best" First Lady.
2
Why is Gillibrand practicing?
She has no chance after what she did to Al.
And now is just living off donor money as she “plays candidate”
63
@Jane
The debates will clarify the viable candidates.
How they prepare is nonsense.
No one cares.
1
The only thing these people need do to prepare themselves for their leftist political debates is re-read and inwardly digest Eugene Lyons's work, "The Red Decade, Redux."
"In 'The Red Decade,' Lyons was describing the Communist-dominated American Left of the Depression-wracked 1930s and 1940s. The celebration of feelings over reason. The certainty of moral virtue. The disdain for tradition and the revising of history for ideological ends. The embrace of the latest definition of correct thought.
"The acquiescence of Hollywood celebrities, leading academics, religious leaders, media heavies—would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so eerily familiar to today's leftist political debate."*
* Source: https://www.city-journal.org/eugene-lyons-the-red-decade
1
Uh ... isn't it a bit early for a primary debate? It should wait until at least after Christmas, shouldn't it?
American Politics: Loud, Fast, & Out Of Control.
1
Ratings. These events get more ratings than Rachel and Cooper on the night they are telecast. This is a reality show industry now.
5
So we are advised that we can expect "less than substantive repartee." Gee, do you think so? There must be a better way to settle on a candidate, but I haven't been able to think of one. At least as one step in the right direction, we should quit calling these events " debates. " They really are much more like an "elevator pitch," where you have a very short time to make some kind of impression and get across just one thing that might make someone think you could have something worth looking into. The most powerful sorting mechanism in these " debates" seems to be the dreaded "gaffe" that can send a candidate quickly to his/her doom.
2
Progressives should have their own debate. They, alone, support progressive policies. Let the winner of that debate face a runoff with the rest of the party's candidate.
4
@AACNY
Ha! A ‘debate’ between so-called ‘progressives’ would just end up a shouting match between the various factions in the audience as to who is more woke and who is the most intersectional victim.
1
@EGD
The identity infractions would be too many to list.
3
God forfend that these candidates should simply go into the debates knowing their material and prepared to be honest in their responses.
1
I found it interesting in the recount of the simulation how the reporter states: Andrew Yang was shut down by Gillibrand’s parry. For all the good the staff is trying to do, I wonder if they are not just soft sparring partners who don’t actually dare to skewer the true vulnerabilities of their senatorial bosses. If I am in a debate, no other debater is going to run over me with rebuttal, I will only obey the agreed format rules and follow the moderator as he tries to conduct it fairly.
3
@Suburban Cowboy I’ve heard Andrew Yang in several interviews, and I don’t think he is one to be summarily dismissed. They probably should count on him firing back.
1
These preps are directed more towards the Democratic party debates. In the presidential debates, the winner will have to practice against s lying, cursing and threatening opponent, Trumpy. The fabled 'swing' voter isn't likely to be swayed by intellectual discourse (as with Secretary Clinton). So one will have to be the master of repartee and do the verbal equivalent of several body-slams. Laugh at him. Humiliate him with repeated zingers.
3
Is it any wonder why Sen. Gillibrand has less than 1% support from Democrats in her run for the White House?
She is a snake, and no amount of debate prep will change that in my opinion. A snake and a blatant opportunist. She saw Al Franken as a potential rival on that upcoming debate stage and did her best to lead the Democratic charge to remove him from the Senate.
What goes around, comes around Senator. And now it's time for you to be removed from the slate of candidates seeking to remove Donald Trump. You are not to be trusted, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
60
@Len
I'm thinking she had more history with Franken than we may ever know...
Her reaction was so swift and adamant.
And, he left without much of a fight.
@JM
You are right that she was swift to condemn his behavior and that he left without much of a fight. Her opportunism, always just below the surface with her, and his sense of doing the right thing accounts for both the former and latter sentences.
I have always thought he should have put up more of a fight and had the Senate investigation play out, or at the very least, begin, before he stepped down. Likewise, she should have waited for those outcomes before leading the charge to remove him.
1
It is a great thing. When these debates come to town more money will be spent in retail stores, on travel, and in restaurants. The event will make everyone in the local area better off economically. Too bad it won't last.
Who cares if it lasts ? Once is better than never once. So enjoy the free flow for the week it centers on your town. Or, of course, take the case of Iowa. Consider how much money pours into Iowa in the 18-24 months preceding each Presidential election. Over and over and over again, the motels, the restaurants, the transportation companies et al who operate in that sphere.
1
The TV showcase for the 2020 Democratic candidates are not really debates in the classic sense.If they were there would be one resolution-perhaps health care, and the group would debate it pro and con.The debates which involve multiple candidates and several questioners can devolve into gotcha questions and snippy answers-neither of which enlighten the voters.The networks carrying the debates should not put on a show-their advertising suggests that- they should allow candidates to state their platform.Most of us do not live in Iowa and New Hampshire- we deserve to hear from the candidates even though they will not be in our town halls or at the state fair.
4
These are not debates in any true form. Debates require an intellectual equivalence among two persons who argue the opposite sides of a topic at length.
3
Unlike the Republican debates, this will be a normal debate over policy and record---what voters should be listening to---albeit an overcrowded policy/record debate. The problem, of course, is debating Trump is, as his Republican challengers found out, is an asymmetrical battle. Policies, records, ideas, even ideology, matters little--it is all about debating a middle school bully, who, has normalized name calling and lying---the wacky the name and the bigger the lie the better. It really is going to fall upon the moderators to moderate Trump ---he needs to be called out immediately---"Mr. President, I would ask that you dispense with name calling and we will ring a buzzer every time you offer up a lie."
11
@Amanda Jones that buzzer would have a busy evening.
1
Gillibrand, who threw Al Franken under the bus, is now rehearsing for a debate.
Oh, I get it. Maybe she pictured herself on the debate stage with Frankenstein someday and couldn’t stand to imagine he’d beat her.
And what if he had been just the person we need right now?
93
@MIMA There were 8 credible accusations and 2 from congressional staffers. How many do you need for a Senator on our side? Everyone liked Franken but we must have higher standards for our political leaders. Plus he’s the one who decided to step down. Why you people keep saying it’s Gillibrand, when a lot of other senators also recommended he resign, is beyond comprehension. She was brave enough to lead in the effort, as she has done so for sexual assault in the military. Millennial women don’t agree with older voters on this. Bye 👋🏼
3
I am as upset about what Gillibrand did to Franken as you are, but after stepping back from it a little, I realized that she may have done us a favor:
Franken folded like a wet doll under the flimsiest attacks.
If he couldn’t stand up to his own “friends” on such a ridiculous matter, he would be be run over by Trump without as much as a squish.
What she did, however, was show me who I will definitely NOT vote for.
11
@Chris
Age has nothing to do with us. Our country needs a Democratic leader. I have paid to see Gillibrand in person in NYC. I have watched her for years. I have her book in my library. I would have leaned her way.
There are many more candidates. Age has no bearing on this, it is common sense. She dug a ditch too deep. She will not be a viable candidate for me.
Speaking to barriers such as Millennial vs Older is one example of the sad divisiveness in this country. If anyone has supported millennials in many ways, it would be me. I would have hoped we would use common sense in identifying ourselves, not age.
3
Meanwhile Trump is doing debate prep telling any of them what phonies they are. The Gillibrand pic is a perfect lead.
6
@HENRY Trump is predictable, if nothing else. Someone had the idea that Trump's comments should run in tandem with the debate. That must have been FOX news.
1
Despite the situation Mayor Pete Buttigieg is dealing with at home in South Bend (the shooting of a black man by a white police officer), I believe he will shine in the debate on Thursday. His calm, reassuring manner, his ability to think on his feet and answer any question thrown at him with clarity and confidence, and his intelligence and experience as mayor and military veteran will stand him in good stead amongst his competitors. Most importantly, Mayor Pete will shine as the candidate who represents a younger, energetic, engaged generation of voters and who is a leader pointing to the road ahead, while Biden, Sanders and others are looking in the rear view mirror.
Peteforamerica.com
30
@Murray Corren Pete more than any of the candidates has done a great many interviews and has garnered much from the experience. Time after time I have watched interviewers try to make point on him only to fail.
4
@Murray Corren Biden, yes but how exactly is Sanders looking in the rear view mirror? In my opinion, he is the most forward-looking candidate and has been for many years. Others are imitations.
5
@Sio If Sanders thinks he can rehash his nomination bid from the last time around and still get Democrats excited, he is deluding himself. He had his day then and this is four years later. The Democratic Party has moved on and now represents a much more diverse and younger constituency. The 2018 mid-term elections is clear testament to that.
3
The Democrats' best chance of beating Trump is by moving to the center with moderate programs that will appeal to middle America, not just the urban centers -- much as Bill Clinton did in 1992 to wrest the election from GHW Bush. Some candidates are intoxicated with pie-in-the-sky programs supposedly advancing social justice while seeking to buy votes of the naive and the uninformed.
20
“Pie in the sky” = what every other advanced nation has. Universal healthcare.
Apparently the safe route to get re-elected is to not have any plans to make drugs affordable, hospitals affordable, insurance affordable, and halt the epidemic of personal bankruptcies and ugly profiteering.
6
@Dr. Reality
The problem with moderate programs is that they don't work. Single payer health care works. Corporate health care doesn't work.
Canada, the country most like ours, has a single payer health care system that costs about half as much as ours. It works. Ours doesn't. That's reality.
Obama rejected a single payer system from the start. (It was popular in the polls -- but not among his billionaire campaign contributors from the insurance, drug, etc. industries.)
As a result, he got a health insurance system that was unaffordable. It was also easy for the Republicans to sabotage, which they did.
Yes, I know Paul Krugman says it's better than nothing. But we still have a health care system in which suffering people still can't get care. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-clinic-of-last-resort/2019/06/22/2833c8a0-92cc-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html
If the Democrats could have delivered a simple, affordable health care system under Obama, that might have made them popular enough to win the next election.
Even with Hillary.
5
@Dr. Reality
Yes, Bill Clinton tacked to the center to appeal more broadly to the electorate but the greatest impact on his success in 1992 was due to one H. Ross Perot, the selfish man who ultimately allowed the Clintons to soil this nation’s body politic.
1
This analysis of what the candidates need to do is facile.
Warren has a very different task before her. With binders full of fleshed-pout policies, she needs to avoid coming off as a wonky intellectual (Americans hate them) and instead show her Oklahoma folksy side as she puts forward some of the ideas on how to de-rig the system that have played well across the ideological spectrum and even earned praise from Fox News commentators. This is where she will beat Trump in PA, WI, MI and FL as she wins back the 9-12 Million voters who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump. She can show why she is the most electable option.
Biden needs to avoid another big gaffe, and show he more of a straight-up liberal than his reputation allows. That may be difficult, but he could explain why he sought to end busing as a means to fight segregation and why he was for the crime bill without sounding like a racist. If he fails on these, he's done and done.
If Bernie is thinking Biden and not Elizabeth Warren is his competition, he is facing the wrong way as she sneaks up behind him, and carves off a good bit of his support while continuing to make herself at least acceptable to moderate Democrats, thus taking a chunk out of Biden. By the time Biden implodes, and he will, it will be too late, and Bernie will be down to single-digit support, Warren will be at 35% and climbing and it will be over.
5
@G. James
Your analysis is spot on, in my opinion. A Warren-Booker ticket, by the way, would resonate with a lot of constituent interests and may prove unstoppable in the general election.
1
It’s very telling that Sanders is not interested in debate practice. That kind of arrogant attitude is on full display whenever he speaks. To me and many people I know he comes off as lecturing and hectoring. He’s a lightweight when it comes to giving speeches or debating. He needs all the practice he can get!
24
@Stefan When he ran in 2016 and had rallies with tens of thousands of people in his audience, I never once heard anyone say that about him. Stefan, you need to get out more.
4
@CARL E a rally of infatuated followers is not a good place to take the opinion of people on a politician. Like him or dislike him, it is obvious the he’s style is to yell and hector from the podium. For many, it is a turnoff. He’s not the most polished at this so it’s fair to say he needs practice.
6
Yang is mentioned but there’s no mention of Beto O’Rourke? The media ignores him at the peril of their coverage looking ridiculous in a few months when his grassroots momentum materializes in a polling bump from undecided voters. Beto has put out nearly as many policies as Warren has, and he’s created maybe the largest online buzz behind Sanders lingering 2016 operation. For many attentive voters, the draw on Wednesday isn’t Warren; it’s Beto. I hope to see more coverage reflect that reality.
1
All I know is that Elizabeth Warren will be more prepared than any of the rest. She has never rested on her laurels.
80
@Cousy
Until that moment when Warren is challenged on how she will actually get her policies implemented in the real world.
Do democrats want another president who becomes helpless in the fact of the intransigence of the other party? We elected Trump because we didn't, but, by all means, go for it, progressives.
3
@Eyes Wide Open. And how are those tariffs working out? When was the last time we had to pay off our own citizens for screw ups in foreign policy? Remember, we are paying off our farmers ($16 billion) for the losses incurred by tariffs against China that Trump said the Chinese would pay. . . . Yeah, sure.
2
@AACNY You might be (but shouldn't be) surprised that Warren already Has A Plan For That. She has articulated what she could do with executive action if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and, if that is the case will have a plan for how to recapture that body in 2022. Leave the pie-in-the-sky ideas for the others, Warren got the CFPB implemented before she was even in Congress. And, ironically, thanks to Trump the scope of unilateral Executive action has been broadened dramatically.
2
This game of ripping apart your competitors based upon inconsequential nuance (when ideologically very similar) only leads to greater chance of the current administration remaining in power.
13
@Chris Only if all 20 candidates are on the the ticket come the election. Not likely to happen.
1
The debates will accomplish little; save for a more shameless distillation of the Democratic party into one of socialism, grievances, get-stuff-for-free pandering, open borders, and loathing for President Trump. The party is firmly in the hands of the hard left. It remains to be seen whether this will play in Peoria.
10
@Zugzwang
And you know all this already, how? Why bother reading an article like this or watching the debates. Sounds like the person with grievances is . . . YOU!
By the way:
grievances - Trumps followers are the champs, right?
stuff-for-free pandering - like tax cuts for the richest?
open borders - complete Republican control for two years and . . . problem made worse!
9
@Zugzwang
So if you don't like it, vote Republican. Somehow I'm sure you already do. And hard left? Please.
5
Sometimes identifying a problem isn’t met with identifying the right solution.
My sister and I grew up in a paycheck to paycheck working class family in Jamaica, Queens that emphasized nothing more than our education. I took the same exam and got into Stuyvesant. But at the time the idea of spending over 2 hours a day commuting by train just to go to HS seemed insane so I opted to go to my local HS in the honors program. I did well and went on to be blessed with great post HS and professional opportunities.
Most of my friends who did go to the specialized high schools did well in life - but not really any better than the kids who went to local high school honors programs.
The bottom line is education is a local issue. It starts in the home. And if you want to help kids who don’t have any socioeconomic advantages, do the hard work of strengthening their local high schools with honors programs that help launch these kids up the socioeconomic ladder.
Leave the entrance exams alone.
6
Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are the only ones unequivocal in their support for true Medicare for All, not a watered down corporate version. They also are the only ones not taking corporate money in the primary and general election. Warren has transferred $10 million of her Senate run corporate Pac money to her primary campaign and would take corporate money in the general. Warren and the others taking Wall Street money will be influenced to tac to a corporate friendly health insurance system, as well as other policies if they win.
Corporate money in campaigns DOES have influence on the candidates policies.
10
I think this a tad unfair to Senator Warren, who is behind taxing wealth, ending foreign wars, a Green Marshall Plan, universal child care, return to JCPAO, etc.
5
@steve: I agree that it would be good to eliminate corporate influence in politics. But not accepting corporate money doesn't guarantee that a candidate is the most qualified, will be the best campaigner, is most likely to win election, or will be the most effective leader. Those are the things that I really want to understand about a candidate. Arguments based on ideological purity turn me off. There are too many ideologies in the world and appealing to one of them is an easy way to dodge the real questions.
Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the clear leader and ride its crest to the nomination.
54
I sure hope so. Senator Warren is by far the best person for the job.
9
@JONWINDY
Ugh. She's like a mother-in-law that comes to visit and stays too long. And wags her finger at you.
The debates will help viewers to get a glimpse of the candidates styles and how they perform "under the lights". But find that articles written about them in papers like this, and one on one interviews on programs like PBS Newshour, provides much
more detail. Just the other evening watched an interview with Amy Klobuchar, sharp as a tack, and well versed.
We have great candidates, and thankful for all of them, and their service to the country.
32
@cherrylog754 I agree. It was very telling that Senator Sanders corrected journalist Margaret Brennan on Frontline recently when she interjected that Trump was "just doing a limited strike" on Iran. Sanders responded, "That's an act of warfare."
For all the grief that Bernie is given by the press and public for being a gruff, grumpy old man, it is times like these when I really admire his determination to speak the truth against the voices of the status quo.
147
@Sio
Except that a retaliatory strike is within the Executive's purview. It's not an act of war. Sanders was wrong.
2
If it is retaliatory for an aggressive ‘war-like’ act by Iran, call it tit-for-tat, then both striking the drone and striking back because the drone was struck are ‘acts of war’. If not , then what ?
4
Senator Gillibrand says "I don’t know what Andrew Yang — what his platform is, so I don’t know if I contrast with him."
Well if Gillibrand goes to Yang's website, she will find extensive policies listed, including the most central one to his campaign which is the Universal Basic Income.
I'm looking forward to Universal Basic Income being discussed at the Democratic Debates, probably for the first time ever.
79
My thoughts exactly. Yang deserves more name recognition than Gillibrand. Imo.
44
@Sio I agree. It’ll be interesting to see who has researched it and thought about it independently versus who just dismisses it out of turn.
4
@Sio - Universal Basic Income will be very important In the coming jobless era, when more and more of the service industry (what is left of jobs in the USA) will be done by automation and robots ie. your McDonald's automated order and payment board vs a counter clerk. The long-haul trucking industry may be eliminated by self-driving semi trucks etc. Democratic Socialism may actually be the best and only way to insure a decent quality of life in the future.
6
I hope a moderate democrat will have little trouble stepping over all the idiotic proposals out there so far. Free college tuition, medicare for all, reparations... these are all non-starters made for amatuers. They are never going to happen. Let's hope there are some real ideas to fill the room. The Clintons and Obamas left town with all the worked-over, dead, defunct and half tried ideas. Let's see if a realistic narrative will percolate into the conversation.
37
@cfc
You don't seem to know that we had essentially free tuition in state universities all across the U.S. in the years after WWII, and that resulted in the greatest economic expansion of a developed country that the world has ever seen.
18
I am 71 years old, white, well educated and have voted Democratic in every Presidential election since I was of age to vote. I will vote Democratic again and again and again until I die. But I look at the current "leader" of the people running, and I see an old man with old ideas. Mr. Biden's time has passed. I hope he drops back out of the race quickly so that we can get a great candidate gaining traction in this run for the office. We need one. We need to get the is country back on track. Our democracy is under threat.
221
@Patrick Stevens. Such drama. How is our democracy under threat? Liberals love to say that but offer no explanation.
9
Unpunished Russian interference in our Democratic elections is a problem.
80
@Jackson
The arrogance of believing our country is somehow about to topple because they despise the current president is hard to countenance.
10
The debates will be very interesting. As a Democratic primary voter, and a supporter of Senator Warren, I'm looking forward to seeing her reach a national audience with her detailed, well presented, thoughtfulnes. At the same time, I will be looking with interest at all the other candidates, as whoever is the nominee will have my support. I have reservations about both Mr Biden and Senator Sanders, for similar and different reasons. Both come across as though they aren't listening. Senator Sanders is good on issues in the Senate, yet he always strikes me as almost shouting, surly and grouchy. Mr Biden is from a different time, and as a progressive gay man of 32, I have a hard time understanding his recent statements about 'consensus' with segregationists and the Republican Party, which has largely abandoned all sense of reasonable discourse.
83
@Tony Robert Cochran. Since they don’t really disagree on anything, it’s hard to believe they will be interesting.
3
@Tony Robert Cochran I like to think in terms of archetypes. In my opinion, Bernie's major archetypes are that of the rebel/revolutionary as well as the wise elder.
Bernie has (helped) to get us where we are - climbing out of the quagmire of income inequality that has been building for the last forty years.
I'm okay with his grumpiness. He's been the voice calling out in the wilderness for so long. Now that he's being listened to, he sometimes still acts as if he has to shout.
15
@Tony Robert Cochran
And I'm looking forward to her explaining why someone who claims she had no idea that claiming to be Native American would be beneficial for her career is intelligent enough to be president.
4