The hot dog man has my vote if he will beat Trump. Mickey Mouse for VP would be ok too.
3
Members of the audience jeered “Traitor” as Manafort was hauled into court today. Will the Trump-Manafort and Russia/ Ukraine axis of infamy be tabled at the debate?
3
Why another swipe at Marianne Williamson? Cheap shot, Gail! Give the woman a chance to speak before you dump on her. If you disagree with her views, then say that. Until then...have some respect.
2
RE Ted Cruz
NO. As bad as Trump is, Cruz would have been way worse: a more competent, weaponized version with a daddy who thinks he's the second coming of J.C.
Journalists pay attention: your feelings about Trump are not what matters.
4
Strong agreement about Warren! But, to me, Klobuchar seemed shallow and lacking content.
4
I think Elizabeth Warren mishandled the Trump effort to slur her with the Pocahontas nickname. She should have pointed out to him that Pocahontas was not a Cherokee princess but from Powhatan tribal nation and, in point of fact, performed any number of helpful act for the struggling colonists at Jamestown, Virginia. That being the case, Liz should have said she was honored to be mentioned in the same company as the princess.
What I'm trying get at is, Sen. Warren has been on my radar since her performance in the development of the CFPB during Obama's administration. At this point, she's got me, babe.
2
The debate demonstrated why a separate debate on climate change is needed. Com'on DNC, face the facts. Climate change is the number one issue with Democrats and it is an existential threat to the US. You would hardly know that watching the debate. The media continues to give too little attention to this threat. And I don't believe the main news people from the networks know enough about it to ask good follow-up questions. While climate change was not shut out again it did not get the attention it deserved. There is a really grim reality here without unprecedented action and it is still not being faced.
9
Thanks, Gail, your observations are on target, as always. It was disappointing, though, that the moderators did not always moderate, that the men too often ignored time limits or the moderators calling "your time is up"; that so little time and attention was devoted to climate change. Some would say that the voters do not care about the latter. Perhaps we must educate them.
3
A president should be like the drummer in a very large band. Keep time, beat and tempo. Lay the groundwork.
Elizabeth Warren wants to be the drummer, the guitarist, the singer, the horn section, the string section, the composer, arranger and conductor.
I worry for a National audience, though she may well be a prodigy, there’s just too many notes playing in her head.
Prefer to stay on the beat.
2
While I always look forward to reading Gail's column, this one is an odd blend of yesterday's column about the impending first night and her reaction to it after the fact. When I got to the point where today's column just sort of stopped and then we suddenly picked up with yesterday's (where she starts talking about why it's being held in Miami), it sort of felt like watching someone with two of those horse costumes swapping out the head of one for the back end of the other.
Really -- I would have thought that the NYT of all places would have run a new-and-different recap instead of this Frankenstein's monster. And we expect better of you, too, Gail!
3
I wonder why the men all wore blue suits?
Best line: “I don’t think we should conduct foreign policy in our bathrobe at 5 in the morning.”
Kennedy used to do it with a mistress in the bath tube with him. How soon we forget.
2
Sometimes a president has no choice but to conduct foreign policy in his/her bathrobe at 5 o'clock in the morning. But s/he shouldn't do it every morning via rage-infused tweet not fit for consumption by small children or by their language arts teachers.
5
Count me among those Democrats who will vote for the “corner hot dog guy” if he can beat Donald Trump.
65
Did anyone announce their plan to reduce the debt? Or is their only plan to increase it?
1
@Jackson...Easy: start by repealing the Trump tax cut and then the Bush tax cut and raise corporate tax rate by half of the cut (which was more than initially proposed) up to 27 per cent or so.
Several $T, right there.
10
Actually, Delaney came off fairly well, considering he started below zero, though party doesn't a centrist
Beto - empty-suit status confirmed; eat something, dude
Corey - talks too much, lots of teeth
Inslee - had seemed good on Bill Maher; quasi-insane, last night; talk about teeth!
Gabbard - When I served, blah, blah, blah, tick-tock,
Warren - front runner
Castro - impressive performance
De Blassio - surprisingly well done, given his reputation
Amy K - liked her better in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Some guy from Ohio - All the charm of Virginia’s Jim Webb; poster boy for Myasthenia Gravis.
1
I always thought of myself as a Yellow Dog Democrat. Now I know I'm a Hot Dog Eating Democrat. Thanks, Gail!
1
The debates are not only for picking the presidential candidate. They are a megaphone with an attentive audience for ideas. Senator Swalwell may not become our candidate but he is on two of the most important committees in the Senate. Mayor Buttigieg makes an enormous statement by being there. Senator Warren’s ideas will influence the candidates campaign, even if is not she. Bernie (I know that to be consistant I should write Senator Sanders, but I think of him fondly as Bernie) really broke the ice for progressives during the debates of 2016. He will continue c arrying the torch of freedom whether he becomes our next president or not.
I only hope that future speakers no longer insult us who live on the coasts. Maybe we see the world as more than just Ohio - people had better find a better phrase which might unite us with doctoral degrees living in an urban setting with the blue colar workers in the midwest. But the debates are the lab for working these kinks out.
I am looking forward to tonight!
2
Trump has been stunningly effective at belittling his opponents.
It's time to fight fire with fire. During his or her debate with Trump, the Democratic candidate should smile and say, "With all due respect, Mr. President, you are such a Whack Job."
Then respond to whatever he says with his new name, "Whack Job."
5
we agree. klobuchar and warren are at the top of our list. and, if we factor in likelihood of beating trump, we think klobuchar is at the top and rising. booker would make a good running mate.
1
Wake me 3 months prior to the election, please.
3
I was very impressed with Tulsi Gabbard. I had not known much about her before. She was thoughtful, intelligent, and had some wise things to say about foreign affairs.
I thought Inslee did well, though he was given less time than any other candidate on the stage.
And, yes, Warren and Castro impressed.
3
I saw Swalwell in a town hall setting and he was surprisingly good at connecting with the audience. My previous impression had been formed by listening to him in a cable news setting where the Orange-Man piñata was the center of attention.
However, I believe nobody in history has gone directly from the US House of Reps. to the White House.
“Medicare for all” tends to scare people on two counts.
First, how do we pay for it. Note that Medicare premiums are tied to income. Someone I counsel had income in the first few years of their retirement that wasn’t that different from when they were working (stock option payouts, deferred bonus payments). And guess what - their Medicare premiums wound up being similar to the cost of their employee sponsored insurance. That’s how we would pay for it - premiums tied to income. Young, working and healthy would bear a disproportionately large share of the cost and small share of the benefit. Just like private plans
Second, they’ll take away my insurance. Once folks realize they’ll get similar coverage for the same or less cost they won’t care. The problem now is that quality coverage is hard to come by unless you work at a benevolent employer. If you have such coverage and no viable alternative you would naturally be disinclined to give it away.
1
@CG. Couple thoughts.
Over time, employers may want to get out of this, anyhow. It’s costly, and takes a fair amount of time and manpower to administer. (Employer provided health care was a quirk of the WWII war effort. As a concession for working long hours, many union employers were give health insurance. It spread to white collar professions in 1950s 60s, becoming a perk. Nowadays (beginning in the 80s, again everything bad in modern Amer. goes back to St Reagan) is much stingier and out of pockets higher.
Anyhow, we could end the tax benefits companies get for providing h.c. Insurance. Do this like Soc Sec taxes and current medicare: employers and employees each pay some percentage to fund coverage that is totally portable. We need to uncouple h.c. with place of employment. Those laid off currently face a double whammy. Self employed would pay both portions. Poor would get subsidies, cheaper than E.R. use. Concurrently, end provision allowing young adults to ride on their parent until age 26. This would put millions of healthy people into the system. Prices would be age adjusted.
I thought Warren offered a good explanation about how there is a good bit of bloat in private insurance.
Don’t know the circumstances of your friend, but for his medicare premium to cost as much as his employer insurance (employee’s share?) suggests 1. he had lame insurance or 2. was making so much he could well afford the higher fees). Medicare premiums are mildly progressive.
2
Elizabeth Warren is on the top going in and on the top going out. There is no number two.
51
@Kodali. I have to agree. Nobody comes close to Warren on substance, clear headedness or sharp articulation. As for style? Not so sure but then, look at the "style" already installed in the Oval Office. I hope never to hear another word from John Delaney again in my lifetime.
11
Then there are those of us who are concerned about policy, are pretty wonkish ourselves, but would certainly vote for the hot dog guy if he was the one who had the best chance of sending the big orange guy packing.
8
The way the men talked over each other I thought I had tuned into an episode of Bill Maher by mistake.
3
Agree that Warren and Klobuchar did well, but thing that the winner by far was Julien Castro, who was-all-but-invisible prior to last night. He gained the most from the debate, and that's how I measure success in these circumstances.
Warren and Klobuchar were on voters' radar; both were articulate, believable and informed. But we already knew that about them. We knew next to nothing about Castro, who showed himself to be intelligent, articulate, passionate, informed and confident. That makes him a viable candidate, not a non-entity.
Of all the candidates, I think that Castro profited the most from the debate.
3
@RCT. He certainly verified that he wants open borders.
1
I absolutely plan on making a contribution to one or several of the candidates directly. I just can't decide which ones!
Promises are meaningless without the political skill to translate them into actual programs. Obama was a brilliant candidate, but he did not have the political acumen and experience to deal with the realities of Washington. Biden's vision may be less aspirational than that of Warren and others, but he has the political understanding and experience to actually get some things done. At the moment, repairing the damage is a necessary prelude to developing the ability to enact the vision.
3
@Steve Fankuchen well, Bernie certainly has congressional experience
1
Why so down on John Delaney? During the few times he was allowed to speak he came off as knowledgable and articulate, not showing the obvious desperation to get as many words in as possible like many of the other candidates. If given a chance he could be a very solid option. He and Amy Klobuchar were the most impressive of the bunch.
1
The manner in which these debates are conducted and the biases on the part of the moderators that determine which big questions are asked -- and which are suppressed end obscuring the real policy differences among candidates. So our opinions on them are necessarily too influenced by their speaking skills, sense of humor, faux pas, tone of voice, sex and race.
The question as to who favors eliminating all private health insurance was good and useful as a preliminary to getting into more detail about the candidates respective views.
1
@StuartHurlbert
Migration is again going to be a major issue in the 2020 election. Before getting into all the separate aspects of that issue, why not ask each candidate roughly how much legal immigration we should have each year? Maybe as preface to the question the candidates could be informed that national commissions in 1972, 1995 and 1996 recommended 300-550,000 immigrants per year and that a scientific Harvard-Harris poll in 2018 found that 53% of voters wanted less than 500,000 per year, that in recent decades there have been over 1,000,000 per year, and that the failed comprehensive immigration expansion bills of 2006, 2007, and 2013 would have greatly further increased immigration.
The candidates would hate a question like that, but their answers would have been tremendously informative. Some (e.g. Julian Castro, Bill DeBlasio) seem as open borders as the libertarian, cheap labor Republicans while others (not quite sure who) might actually be sympathetic to Sen. Cotton's twice introduced RAISE Act, a bill very much in sync with recommendations of the past national commissions.
Of course since no news media pundit, from Rachel Maddow to Sean Hannity and everyone in between, would ever seriously raise that immigration question on their own shows, it will never be asked in one of these debates. Better to just virtue-signal and stick to the really big questions -- like who's responsible for the most recent drowning in the Rio Grande.
Small mindedness rules.
2
Warning! If you do contribute to a candidate do it anonymously or the ongoing solicitations will follow you to the grave. And beyond.
2
If I had to vote today it would be Warren but I was pleased with how everyone conducted themselves. It was so refreshing watching grown ups and no small hands references.
9
I’m puzzled about the Medicare for all proposals. I have had Medicare for several years, and I have supplemental insurance to pay for the things Medicare doesn’t. There are the MedAdvantage plans, and if you were smart enough to choose a Medigap policy, when you first went on Medicare, that is an option. If you were to do away with commercial insurance, it would take a much bigger investment in Medicare, to cover all the services commercial insurance covers now. I really like Elizabeth Warren’s other policy proposals, but I would want much more detail on how Medicare for all would actually work and how she would pay for it. I prefer the more incremental approach. And you can count me as one of those who would vote for Gail Collins’ hot dog vendor if I thought she/he would beat Trump.
3
The only ones believable were Warren, Klobuchar, Ryan, and O'Rourke. Klobuchar was the best in terms of answering with actual answers, Warren did a great wrap up, and O'Rourke was quick and clear about global warming. But earnest O'Rourke is too early to the game, and while Ryan is correct to bang that drum about the working class, he probably won't be heard because he's not one of the already-famous. DeBlasio and Delany don't have a chance to appeal to the nation, Booker and Castro played to chosen audiences to their own loss, and Gabbard's final statement was jargon. Basically, last night ended with Warren and Klobuchar still standing. I'm ok with that. If Harris does well, it will be hard not to fantasize about an all-women ticket. The optics of that against Trump (and all those charges) would be epic!
2
Gail: You made two cracks about John Delaney. These were totally unwarranted. He is a serious candidate with an excellent business and political record. He wrote the book last year "The Right Answer" in which describes what he has done and what he proposes.
Most important for me is his support for a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend, the best proposal on the table today for slowing climate change, the most important issue we face today.
Journalists have given him too little attention, and that occurred again last night.
5
It is interesting to compare the tone of the present debates, with that of the Republican primary debate a couple of years ago, where two of the front-runners argued about the relative sizes of their sex organs.
Sadly, it was never made clear whether the winner of that earlier debate was "larger".
1
A debate like this should be run with a line at the bottom of the screen, visible to us and to the candidates, of how long they have spoken. When they go over their time, a piece of music should quickly increase in volume until they are forced to shout over it to make themselves heard. (I suggest the ending theme from "Robot Chicken", a short, absurd thing from a modern British composer.) In addition, the microphones of people who have not been called on should be muted or turned down.
At the end of the debate, after the closing statements but before the broadcast ended, booby prizes should be awarded for the top three candidates in going over their allotted time.
For me, the first hour confirmed my support for Warren. Thereafter, she was quieter, as the rest of the field adopted the "teacher, call on me!" shtick.
The two real debate moments didn't really help much either. In the waning minutes, Tulsi Gabbard and Tim Ryan got into it, and she made Ryan look confused. That he couldn't summon a retort that Gabbard had referred to Bashar al-Assad as the legitimate president of Syria in 2017 and that we should overlook his gassing of his own people left me thinking that he was as ill-equipped as she was unacceptable.
And the Julián Castro and Beto O'Rourke dust-up didn't encourage me either. Castro kept hammering section 1325, and O'Rourke looked like a deer in the headlights. While the that may have raised Castro's stock in the primary, I am worried that all of that video and audio will be replayed next year to paint him and the rest of the Democrats as wide-open-door immigration supporters. I say this as someone who is disgusted by the Republican approach to immigration, and one who believes that many of the asylum seekers have a justifiable case. But it is such a lightning rod at the moment that it might be better to address the abuses in a more circumspect way.
2
In my opinion, the best part of the column is the following sentence: "Democrats, when the first round is over on Thursday, you need to decide who you liked best, and send him or her a contribution."
I've always believed in Senator Warren even as she ran for the US Senate in that she is going to look after the interest of the average American but I never did want her to run for the Presidency because I was hoping at least she would not have to depend too much on big money from "giant corporations". So I am particularly happy that she is not as she runs for the highest elective office of our country.
She will get more than my donation. She will get my vote as well.
3
I really wanted to hear more from John Delaney. He’s the most forceful backer of the best climate change mitigation policy and the best anti-poverty policy. It shouldn’t be hard to see why he should be listened to.
1
Bottom Line is grab whatever is Trump Success. Keep message simple. Lowest common denominator message works. Dem Candidates tend to speak on stage as if speaking to their staff.
I was particularly focused on what would transpire on climate change, an issue that generally gets overlooked in the debates. It was included in the debate but the moderators didn't ask a most important question for helping viewers find out out what the candidates would do to fight climate change. That is, the moderators did not ask them about the role of nuclear power. This is a critical issue because the left wing in the party is strongly against the use of nuclear power but some Democrats believe it could play a role. The moderators did ask a question on the carbon tax, another divisive issue for Democrats but did not ask about cap and trade, which ten states are now using. Climate change is such a complex issue that a debate only on climate change is probably needed for voters to understand the candidates' views on this issue.
1
Satire from The Borowitz Report, New Yorker Magazine
"Debate Viewers Struggle with Concept of President Without Glaring Personality Disorder" By Andy Borowitz
Miami—"Millions of viewers of a televised debate Wednesday night found themselves struggling with the notion of a President with no visible personality disorder.
In interviews across the country, viewers said that they were having difficulty imagining a President who does not display flagrant signs of malignant narcissism, impulse-control deficit, or rampant paranoia.
“I kept trying to picture whether any of these people would be capable of insulting another country on Twitter to compensate for his or her own pathological sense of inadequacy,” Harland Dorrinson, who lives in Akron, Ohio, said. “None of them showed me that they have what it takes to do that.”
“A President should be ready, at a moment’s notice, to ridicule another person’s face,” Carol Foyler, of Nashville, said. “I didn’t see one person on that stage who seemed up to that task.”
Tracy Klugian, who lives in San Diego, said he was taken aback by the candidates showing off their language proficiency. “Every one of them was fluent in English,” he said. “For a President, that would be jarring.”"
10
Actually, I thought Klobuchar's sniping about choice was the one off-key moment in her impressive evening.
The obvious implications of her snarky retort is that it is inappropriate for male politicians to work for reproductive rights or claim any credit for victories--no matter how impressive--in that area. This is just wrong and counterproductive.
In line with his messaging of the evening (that he has actually achieved and enacted many of the progressive policies his opponents just talk about), Inslee made the point that as Governor of Washington he pushed through and signed a law that requires all health care plans, public or private, to cover abortion and other reproductive services--something no other candidate can claim to have done. Inslee's record on this and reproductive rights generally is very impressive and has been rightly hailed; Klobuchar's snark seemed uncalled for and frankly petty.
She's one one of the candidates at the top of my list and still is, but I was disappointed in her in this case.
6
@Cormac. To be honest, I was a little annoyed with Inslee's insinuation -- really, explicit assertion -- that he was the only one who had brought these bills to fruition. Washington has a conservative region in the east, but there is no denying that it is a liberal state, with Democratic majorities in both the house and senate. Scoring points by saying that he was able to do things others were not doesn't speak to his exceptional leadership abilities; it just acknowledges the fact that he is fortunate to live in a progressive state. Were he president of a very divided country, he might find the challenge completely different.
1
@Ockham9
Well, I’m not sure I agree. Washington State is not all that progressive overall. It often has Republican or pro-business centrist Governors and the Democratic takeover of the legislature is fairly recent and still tenuous. Also, the bill languished for six years before he got in there and pushed it through. And when they did it, they were only the fourth state (after CA, NY, and OR) to have achieved it. Not Warren’s MA, not Klobuchar’s MN, not Gabbard’s HI, not Sander’s VT, or Booker’s NJ—all more Progressive than WA. For that matter, before solidly blue IL and ME (which since have both adopted such laws) or MD. Oh, and also, it actually uplifted and changed the life of thousands.
It is a pretty legit political and policy achievement. Would it be more impressive in, say, your own OK? Heck yes! But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth celebrating and crowing about. As someone who believes reproductive choice is a basic human right, I feel we should greet such accomplishments with acclaim, not the aspersions Klobuchar cast.
I’m all for letting it pass; everyone gets a little defensive and lashes out now and then. But to hear the embarrassing lapse toasted is a bit much.
2
Oh man, that was entertaining to say the least. It's going to be even funnier next year when the Dems are absolutely decimated on every level of government. What a gong show! Dems, completely out of touch with reality and America.
Yes, these Democrats all seemed like nice, honest, thoughtful people … in day-glo contrast to what's squatting in the White House these days.
6
Re interrupting: doesn't someone have the power to mute the mic? Only the person authorized to speak should have a live mic. Also, coastal elites: democrats should not continue to divide the country by using this phrase. Not all of us are elite; some of us just think we are.
2
@Nanny goat
Have we met?
Speaking of “the guy who sells hot dogs on the corner,” and this being the start of bumper sticker season (Trump 2020, Biden 2020), my current favorite was spotted by one of my children: “Any Capable Adult 2020.
9
I want to know that the candidates have a fact-based understanding of the world and our place in it. There are fundamental changes taking place that we are going to need to address, sooner, rather than later. I would like all candidates to take the world knowledge test at gapminder.org and I would like to know their scores. I want to be assured that the people I'm considering voting for have factually-informed foundations for their candidacies - reality and facts matter to me. The window dressing and sound bytes, not so much.
1
A Warren/Klobuchar ticket would be interesting. Warren is not afraid of tackling some of big issues like healthcare, while Klobuchar seems more pragmatic and ready to pump the brakes when changes aren’t feasible. Even if the dems win, I don’t think swinging too far left too fast would be good for the country. We’re already divided enough.
2
@Dan Jones
And, as a big part of the VP's job is to keep good pragmatic communication with the Congress, that might also be an arguement in her favor, if she is as good at bipartisan work as she claims. I'll bet Booker would be good at that same sort of task. I could see either of them as good presiding officers over the senate.
2
"At minimum, it will kind of make up for the party’s refusal to hold a separate debate on global warming, since it gives everyone lots of time to contemplate what happens when a state sinks into the ocean."
To glibly excuse the Democratic Party for not holding a debate dedicated to the issue of climate change, represents the worst of corporate-media journalism.
Climate change is at or near the top of most people's issue list, but the Dems are too timid to risk the ire of their corporate sponsors, so they capitulated .
2
@Ed Watters
She appears to be drawing attention to the issue from a point of agreement with you, but attack her if you must, I guess.
3
@Ed Watters
This:
"At minimum, it will kind of make up for the party’s refusal to hold a separate debate on global warming, since it gives everyone lots of time to contemplate what happens when a state sinks into the ocean."
is an excellent example of damning with faint praise.
Lousy way to find out who's the best candidate. But it makes more people pay attention to the Democrats, and to some of the major issues.
Look at it this way: Now we can discuss what's the best plan to expand healthcare, or deal with college debt, or reduce human-caused global warming, or reduce the incredible inequality of wealth and income in the US. That's instead of our current administration's neglect of all of these real and serious national problems.
408
@Howard
It is a winnowing process.
Good to hear from the serious candidates and the wannabes. Its 16 months till Nov 2020.
14
@Howard
Ma. Collins forgot to mention Tulsi Gabbard - who has a sane and sensible foreign policy. Best of the lot in that regard.
2
I enjoyed watching the debates. It changed my opinion especially of Tulsi Gabbard and Julian Castro who both impressed me with their calmness under the spotlight. And I can see why Elizabeth Warren has been moving positively in the polls. I have an increasing respect for her, too. But in the end, I now know that every single one of them would make a much, much, much better President than Donald Trump. I'd call that a Big Night for the Dems, and I'll be not only voting for whoever wins the nomination, I'll be actively campaigning for them.
775
@Brannon Perkison
If anything, we have an embarrassment of riches, and it’s only the first night. A future cabinet of the also-rans would be great if they don’t form a circular firing squad in the coming months.
75
@Lawyermom
I agree; we saw a president, many potential cabinet members, and perhaps some future senators ...
65
@Brannon Perkison
Before people get too high on Gabbard, remember that she is a Putin and Assad apologist. Or, if you aren't already familiar with this look it up. She has said some pretty not great things.
18
It’s pretty encouraging to have a debate and to have real ideas articulated, not just tweets and lies.
791
@NM That was my reaction too.
Wouldn't it be comforting to have a rational intelligent White House Staff?
25
@NM "real ideas"? Like Julian Castro's proposal to put all illegal aliens not convicted of a "serious crime" "on a pathway to citizenship," not just genuine refugees?
How did a Putin insert get on the platform. Why did all the other candidates and the moderators and NYT columnists given Castro a free pass on that?
3
@NM
Strong economy and strong national defense. Secure borders. Letting taxpayers keep more of what they earn.
Real ideas.
GO Elizabeth, we need you, and we want you in the WH.
Do not pay attention to all those who think it is ok to have a national single payer health care for children ( I cannot understand this) and not ok for all the rest of us. This makes no sense to me. Why are all the idiots opposed to health are for everyone. Look at our socialized health care for us veterans. 9,000,000 of us vets and all can go to the VA if they try.
I have used the VA for all of my healthcare for many years, and it is the best are there is. The folks who work there are great, very nice. Great nurses, staff, and doctors. Thank you all.
4
Gail,
I thought they all did a credible job last night, and any one of them would be an improvement over the current resident of the White House. Let's show unity, and whomever is chosen to run against "he who cannot be named", lets show our full support to that person!
5
Hey DNC: hire DeBlasio to stalk Trump onstage while the actual candidate does the debating.
11
I enjoyed the debate. Overall, I was impressed by all the candidates, except Tim Ryan, who got cut off at the knees by Tulsi Gabbard.
She came across as a knowledgeable, strong, stateswoman with real gravitas. Her voice, her posture, her thousand-yard stare all worked to impress. She could, I now believe, stand up to Trump, Xi, Putin, and Kim Jong-Un. She wasn't even on my short list before, but now: hats off, Tulsi.
Warren, my second favorite to Bernie, just comes off as a nervous, frightened rabbit, a smart rabbit, but she doesn't seem to have the necessary steel backbone, just good ideas, well thought out. I like Liz.
Klobuchar didn't impress me as much as she has when she's on the Senate floor.
Beto: I'm just not feelin' it, brother. Wish he'd run for Texas Senator.
Delaney, whom I've written off, came off well, I thought. In this format, he just hit some right notes, although he hasn't a prayer in this dogfight.
de Blasio is impressive to me, a non-New Yorker; but everyone says that he's already toast.
I really liked how Governor Inslee is totally focused on climate change, as we all should be. (Liz is on that train, too; good for her.)
Despite my disparagements, again, I liked what I saw and heard last night. And I look forward to tonight's debate. It's encouraging to see sane, solid Americans intelligently discussing America, its problems and strengths, not on Twitter.
This cool, fresh breeze should have been welcomed by all last night in hot, humid Miami.
9
@Jim Muncy Folks, please, please, please do your research (and I mean for real, there is plenty of respectable journalism out there) on Tulsi Gabbard before you let yourself be dazzled. She maintains longtime and ongoing associations with some people we do not want anywhere near the White House.
1
@gmg22
I'm a Bernie Bro.
I was merely commenting on the face value of last night's debate. Tulsi, whom I don't know much about, impressed me with her gravitas. That's all I'm saying. Besides, she has no shot at becoming the Democratic candidate.
Gov. Inslee is getting a bad rap. He actually said he was the only one on the stage who passed a law protecting women’s reproductive rights. Sen. Klobuchar certainly hasn’t, and I was kind of surprised the governor didn’t immediately set her straight.
2
Yes, "maybe not so much" to the idea of Ted Cruz as preferable to anything or anyone.
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, thank you very much.
I can't believe I'm saying it, but I would have vastly preferred Ted Cruz to the horror show we've been subjected to.
2
Warren may win the nomination, but she will lose to Trump. Sorry, but ow are you going to win without VA, FL, OH, NC, and other strong 2nd Amendment states? The first time she mentions confiscation, she’s toast. Obama was smart enough not to touch it.
Please cite any time in the debate or anywhere else where she said she was in favor of confiscation!
Your love of guns is misleading you... Huge difference between confiscation and “buy back” programs and only Booker emphasized a “buy-back” program.
Warren and any of the Democrats who are strong gun control advocates will win those so-called “2nd Amendment “ states by appealing to economic interests, common sense gun control, and taking power away from big corporations.
By the way, Hillary Clinton ran on a strong gun control platform and WON Virginia and nearly won North Carolina.
Plus, even most gun owners favor common sense gun control. It's clear that your anti-Warren, pro-gun ideology has trumped rationality and the facts!
2
Klobichar one of th stars of the night with Warren? Please.
Amy K said “I don’t think we should conduct foreign policy in our bathrobe at 5 in the morning.”
Cute, trite sarcasm! Not too informative. So she'd wait 'til after breakfast, and get dressed before 'conducting' policy?'
And Gail thinks she should be put in the same high category as Warren? And some of the others? No way.
She should be out of the running soon.
1
Her comment came at the end of a substantive answer — and she's right! She pithily captured how Trump operates!
Still, I agree with you that Ms. Collins was wrong about Klobuchar. She seemed a bit nervous, tentative, and may have been over-coached to not interrupt. But her remark about Trump's tweets was right on the money.
She's also been superb in hearings questioning witnesses and Supreme Court nominees!
2
@Marsha Pembroke .... really.... I didn't know that---I had tht Harris and Ocasio also were the best questioners in the hearings.
Why do you write the accent on Julián and not on Joaquín?
Sorry I missed it, Gail. Did they wear name tags?
I didn't watch and hope Castro was as good as I've heard. Warren would be my pick, but both Mediare for all and weatth tax are extremely problematic.
It's not fair, but many people including lots of Florida retirees, do have good health insurance. At the least, their Medicare and Medicare supplements are paid for. You don't hear much from these folks but like our hard working congress, with healthcare, they like things just as they are.
If Warren actually said we need to study guns, oh dear. Even Republicans know the obvious outcome of a gun study and that's why they block any research.
The super rich tax? Look, we can't even see our president's tax returns. You really think the very rich will just fork over the money wiithout any (successful) attempt at tax evasion?
1
@JR. I am a retiree with excellent health care coverage. Although I like that I have it I do not "like things just as they are." You might be surprised to learn that many of the elderly care very much about the future. We have children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren. It is scary to watch your children struggle financially and to consider the state of climate on our planet in 50+ years, when they will still be alive.
You are very pessimistic about the future. Things will change no matter what but the question is: can we defeat the GOP and the status-quo in Congress and reinstitute sanity and fairness? I believe we can.
4
JR, how gosh, they might try to evade taxes, so let's not do anything, throw in the towel, capitulate! 🙈 🙊 🙉 😎
Instead, let's write tougher tax evasion laws, raise the alternative minimum tax, close all loopholes, and stiffen penalties and fines. Most will comply. Eventually, the only folks cheating will be outright criminals.
In the meantime, we can raise trillions!
3
@Barbara
If we can't beat Trump after four years of seeing him operate, we don't deserve to win. His strategy is nonexistent; his tactics, unmentionable; his results, disgusting.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't Sen. Warren referring to the Bush-era ban on the CDC doing any sort of gun-related research? Seems like if the problem were studied seriously and academically, we might come up with a solution. Which of course the right wing in America doesn't want, because it will most likely say that fewer guns causes less violence.
Right now, I'm feeling a Warren/Castro ticket. Let's have a team headed by a smart, experienced candidate supported by a younger, empassioned one who shows a lot of great promise and could be an inspiring leader in the years to come.
6
My call as well: Warren/Castro 2020!!
1
Remember that in the last congressional elections of the 40 seats that were flipped only two were progressives the rest were moderates. Let's make sure Trump is not reelected!!
2
Gail, I have one correction: I (and I think many others) care about policy AND we would vote for the hot dog vender on the corner if we thought she had a chance of beating Trump.
10
@art strimling
Not the hotdog vendor, but "she" got almost three million more votes last time; therefore, after four years of dangerously incompetent management at the White House, I have lots of confidence that Mr. Trump will return to his golden penthouse in the sky in early 2021 to stay (unless he goes to prison).
1
I have often opined that the one good thing Trump has accomplished for us is the defeat of Ted Cruz.
4
@Mark
?? Cruz won, against Beto.
1
Amy Klobuchar scored with a “gotcha” line about abortion rights. Good for you, Amy. Other than asserting your gender, I would like to know what you have actually done, anywhere in your legislative or administrative career, to advance or secure a woman’s right to choose.
And NYT: I’m sick and tired of sports coverage masquerading as political coverage.
2
Beto managed to mention, yet again, "254 counties in Texas." In his debate with Cruz, while the latter gave cogent answers, Beto evaded every question by switching to pointing out he knew Texas' needs, he'd visited all 254 counties. He told us that five times. This makes six.
And the selfie video of his getting his teeth cleaned?
A man-child. Go back to El Paso, your wife's wealth will continue to provide your preferred life style.
Curious, though: Beto: What did you tell the 134 residents of Loving County?
9
So is there any ranking of the candidates yet? No? Hmmmm!
1
After reading all the negative NYT's reporting on de Blasio I was expecting an out of touch dork. but instead thought he made succinct comments and was an impressive presence on the stage. Heck, I thought every person on the stage was impressive.
11
Imagine! All those people who could speak in grammatically correct sentences.
17
gail. can you please get thru to these "moderators", that the "whatcha gonna do on day 1?" question is a stupid one. its absolutely stupid. its driven by Trump, and his nonsensical, "I'm gonna cure all our ills on day 1!" diatribes.
plus, its just stupid. no one with a brain thinks day 1 is the solution day.
my only advice for an answer is this. on day 1. force the various agencies involved, and others with the abilities to stop the mess on the border. stop the warehousing of anyone. rip the profit right out from all the for-profit parties involved. reverse the course, and make it right. thats it!
of course it will take time for a full fix, but start it on day 1.
8
Going into the debate, I was a Tulsi Gabbard fan. The only thing I had heard about Amy Klobuchar was negative; however, I have to acknowledge that, to me, she stood out from the crowd. She came across as relaxed and confident. She also seemed to be the only candidate who was actually talking vs. repeating a response that she had rehearsed numerous times during debate prep. Her charisma, the fact that she is from the Midwest, and her more centrist views might make her a true competitor in a national election. I still have my doubts regarding how a Massachusetts Liberal i.e Warren would fair in the South and Midwest though she'd likely do well in California and the Northeast; however, they likely won't get the job done.
3
@Bill Garrot Warren is from a working class Oklahoma family.
3
@Bill Garrot.
Warren has been visiting the midwest and even red southern states. She is going into the belly of the beast with her ideas. I like her. She will do well in Oklahoma, her home state. She wasn't always in Massachusetts.
4
How is it that Booker (11:06) yammered more than twice as long as Inslee (5:05)? Because he could, I guess. Moderators, try harder next time.
9
A Warren/Castro ticket.
4
Overall I enjoyed last night’s debate; any of them would be an improvement over Trump, and it was good to see people have differences over issues that all came from a place of deep concern over the country and its citizens.
For me the clear winners were Warren and Castro and I think they’d make a great ticket.
While I liked Klobuchar’s contribution to the debate, I can’t get past the fact that as prosecutor she refused to go after cops who shot unarmed black men, and the fact that she jokes about the bullying allegations and tries to spin them as some sort of positive trait is a major turnoff (and would have derailed her career had she been a man.)
Also, I’m not impressed by that phrase “reach across the aisle.” I already know most Democratic Senators are willing to water down their principles in the name of “bipartisanship.” Instead why don’t you tell us when you took a strong stance and everyone rallied around you.
Which is what Cory Booker did with criminal justice reform. He impressed me last night, though I’m still wary of his ties to Big Pharma, Wall Street and the charter school lobby, and I’m skeptical of how he will play in the heartland.
I was surprised by how not-awful de Blasio was. He made some legitimate points that are hard to refute.
Jay Inslee gave the only right answer to the threat question, and Tulsi made some good points about foreign policy.
Beto and Ryan are done. Delaney will stay in the race as a gadfly.
On to tonight...
4
I keep wondering if there are store surveillance tapes from the time. I don't know if the right to privacy prevailed and cameras were not used in the dressing rooms, but placing the perpetrator and victim in the store at the same time would go a long way to support the allegations.
1
Commenting on wrong story! Repost on that one... While surveillance tapes would be good (though, no doubt long erased), given his record, we know Trump ha sexually assaulted many women and should pay the price — for that and a host of their crimes.
1
John Delaney was the politician I knew the least, but liked the most.
I thought he was practical, making sense, and not trying to play the audience.
I hope he makes it through to the next rounds.
2
Delaney was the most sensible and knowledgeable of the group and deserved more time . The only one who recognizes “Medicare for all “ as financially devastating to hospitals.
3
When I was in first grade, we were told to raise our hands, and not speak out unless we were called upon. I personally feel it is disrespectful when candidates speak out of turn, talk over other candidates, or the moderator. I think this attitude of "I can talk when I feel like it" shows their lack of consideration for others, but it also is invited by having a forum where such behavior is not adequately reined in by the moderators. If there are going to be no rules, there's going to be misbehavior, and the best behaved should not made to suffer from the lack of exposure that results from their politeness. NBC needs to get its act together. That being said, the most surly and obnoxious will certainly become more obvious in a more freewheeling, loosely regulated debate. Overall, I think a better ordered experience would be more beneficial, as it would tend to highlight matters of substance more and lead to a more productive discussion. Lastly, we heard a lot about many of the issues, except for the most important one of all: why each candidate thinks they are qualified to lead the country. It is how the country is led, as much as where it is led that matters most, in the end. So what abilities does the candidate possess that qualify him or her? I would suggest poise,
intelligence, respectfulness of others, the ability to work with others to forge compromises, familiarity with the political processes in Washington, and living the values they speak for.
1
@Samantha. If good behavior was truly necessary we would not have Donald Trump in office. I agree the talking-over was rude and should have been curbed but the people on stage are all told to speak to the very end and a little over their time so they don't seem like have run out of things to say! I was impressed with everyone except Beto O'Rourke and Delaney. I particularly like Castro, inslee, and Warren.
2
Wow, last night's performance by 10 of the 20 Democratic presidential candidates who got airtime makes you proud to be a Democrat--again.
It was smart of the candidates not to mention the neon orange elephant in the room who destroys everything he gets involved in. Any one of these 10 Democrats would be better than he who currently sits in the Oval office watching himself on TV and dining on fast food burgers and downing (on average) 12 Diet Cokes a day. He really has no idea what is doing or going to do next.
Gail is right about the women, but besides, Warren and Klobuchar, another woman who came across as pragmatic and impressive in her informed & zinger answers was Tulsi Gabbard.
Contrast this Democratic debate with the 2012 and 2016 Republican clown show primary debates, where Michelle Bachmann spared with pizza man Herman Cain, or Trump took the clown show to a whole new crass low. Just when you think Republicans can't go any lower as a party, they always do.
My takeaway from last night is why the heck don't we get to see and hear more from Democratic politicians? We really have a deep bench, but who would know?
The Dem party officials remind me of those parents who tell their talented children to be quiet and humble; let the parents speak (Nancy and Chuck). Nancy and Chuck are fine people, but they are admittedly aging and Nancy seems to have a voice problem--It is a condition; I met a guy at a party last week who has this problem.
Good job Dems!
2
Gail, you are the best!
I strongly disagree with Gail's notion that you can argue about anything.
33
@William Park
And I vehemently disagree with your counterpoint.
8
@Phyliss Dalmatian
That's not an argument...that just simple gainsaying.
Pity that the Hit on Your Head lessons have been replace by Lying to Your Face lessons.
(Non-Canadians can Google "Hit on the head lessons Monty Python")
2
@William Park: Cute.
1
I was underwhelmed. Is this the best we can do? None of those people impressed me. I think I would rather vote for the guy who sells hot dogs on the corner than any of these canned hams.
Still, if one of them is nominated I will vote for them rather than Trump. But I have absolutely no faith that any of them have the ability or the will to do much for the country.
“God, if only we’d gotten Ted Cruz.” Really?
Voters,
All 17 Republicans running in 2016 promised to withdraw from the Iran nuclear arms treaty. That was not Donald Trump's idea; it was the Republican Party's ideal. Now we're on the brink of war because Trump kept that promise. And if we don't get war, we'll probably have a nuclear-armed Iran in a timeframe measured in months, not years. THAT was the consequence of Republican promises.
Maybe they uniformly despised the treaty because they believed they could do better, or to gain political points, or perhaps they just hated all of Barack Obama's accomplishments. Regardless of their motives, the consequence was predictable if we looked forward: either another war in the Middle East or an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
My main point? This is not Donald Trump's fault; we can blame the entire Republican Party, the same people who refuse to criticize this president's abuses of power, criminal behavior, and support of white nationalists.
Democrats need to defeat Donald Trump to achieve their goals, but the aim should be to win the argument against the entire Republican Party. That is my reason for supporting Warren, Booker, de Blasio, and Castro, not Biden or Delaney, who still believe they will be able to negotiate compromises with Mitch McConnell...
... and not Sanders because he AND his supporters are dividers just like the current hater-in-chief.
1
by now, after some thousands of outright lies (many of which he later claimed not to have said despite the evidence in his tweets and in video), and several self-created fake "crises" that he's "solved" by backing down from his over the top threats of "total destruction - or worse!" it should be child's play to appear on a stage with Trump and play back his greatest hits while he paces back and forth and fulminates about "fake news" and "immigrant invasions" and how only he can solve all the problems of the world.
If the moderators fail to control him - as they did with Ms. Clinton - his opponent should just walk off and leave Trump to try to lead the "Lock her up!" chanting of his dedicated followers.
Anybody who treats him respectfully, i.e. as anything other than an overinflated paper tiger with no understanding or concern for reality, is not dealing with reality and will lose.
1
Nov 3 and 4, 2020, and then we'll know, but in the meantime a bunch of
graveyard jokes and fun, fun, fun for we the feeble-minded if not wise fools.
And my point being?
I wish I had an original thought, because the phenomena for me is confusion
because this is too overwhelming to rationally handicap.
The h word has a negative connotation, not totally differing from a Republican rant against Medicaid and Obamacare and semi vaccinated.
The real world is as difficult to figure out as the theoretical ideal.
Complexities R Me and Ye.
Because illogicals are not always regarded as such.
Where do we get off calling the insane, insane?
Those voices in heads advocating irrational behavior could be
creative destruction.
Take retail shopping and what it said to Jeff Bezso, and how he beat the
s
By focusing on "the women," Gail Collins failed to recognize that Julian Castro who not only raised his profile according to widespread opinion, but raised the stakes for all Democratic candidates to address the horrors of our xenophobic state.
6
Too much butting-in, too much shouting, and not enough relevant questions from the so-called moderators: that is what keeps me away from these yell-a-thons. I'm not a fan of big crowds, on or off stage - - although I will make an exception for a musical production - - which is probably a result of my growing older and settled in my ways. So, I felt I made the better choice by slinking off and watching an old film noire that starred June Lockhart and Hugh Beaumont, rather than give my time to following the evening festivities down in Miami.
This isn't to say that I don't support the causes championed by the Democratic candidates. I've even donated money to one of them. I think the majority of the candidates in this gathering have what it takes to run for president, and eventually serve in that office. But I doubted that any one person would prevail. For now, I'll content myself with what I read in the papers the next day. And I'll reserve judgment when there are fewer of them on the stage.
2
Count me in the group that would "vote for the hot dog guy on the corner if he could beat Trump" The idea of his re-election fills me with dread.
2
“You can really argue about almost anything.”
I disagree.
2
@Jay Orchard LOL! Thanks, Jay.
I felt sort of proud after the debate, that we could offer up so many thoughtful, articulate, and diverse people who were focused on real issues and did not need to be combative. They offer us good alternatives to the stinkpot currently in office. I would go with any of them (and yes, the hot dog guy on the corner too).
426
@Jacqueline Mondros
Agree. I think that the foundation or infrastructure of Democracy can be ugly, but it is it's strength that we can have a reasonable discussion of the issues with a number of candidates offering their stories and not get into negatives. I hope the second round on Thurs. is as good.
15
How can candidates be expected to produce substantive solutions to highly complex, hot button issues within a (very) short-answer format? What the party needs to focus on is who can win the election. From the glimpse afforded on Wednesday night, any of these people would be light years better than Trump. But who will be compelling enough, and can marshal the campaign infrastructure strong enough, to get voters to the polls past all of the obstacles to their participation (gerrymandering among them, apparently just endorsed by SCOTUS).
2
The Democrat committee and party need to listen to Tim Ryan talking about being the party of workers and middle class. That is how we beat Trump.
This was a very civil debate and every candidate had something to contribute.
And no need to get snide, Ms. Collins, about those whom you choose to disdain.
1
It's mildly fun to assess who won this glorified boxing match- replete with a stadium in bright lights, time outs and aggressive moves to dominate. Pomp and fury- signifying nothing...or very little.
But in reality what is important is substance, persuasiveness, experience, truthfulness, accomplishment- all those things that require an active, engaged electorate to discern.
I support Warren for the Democratic nomination. She has all of the above. While her response last night to the gun shootings and gun control was somewhat weak- it was adequate- and the rest of her responses were clear, focused, well thought out and substantive. And guns are a public health crisis in this violent country.
2
Imagine that, a stage full of candidates and not a one of them has been accused of rape and sexual assault multiple times.
People that can disagree and yet remain civil. No name calling. No insults. People with actual ideas as to how to improve America and make it more just, more equal, more sustainable.
People not screaming to lock up their opponents and that some of us are better and more worthy than others.
That my friends, is all of America winning. We all won last night.
11
Warren clearly gave the strongest performance, though everyone performed well.
O'Rourke should be running for senate in TX. Win a statewide election, show us you can do a good job for a couple of terms, and then you can think about running for president.
11
@Rachel Kreier
Agree. This is not Beto's time to run for president. He would never stand up to trump. He needs more experience.
1
@Rachel Kreier Castro, Gabbard, Booker, even de Blasio did better than Warren, even though the moderators were clearly biased in Warren's favor.
1
Gail motivates me She is one of the best in the political arena, but IS the best at being wry and funny. Hey I'm 68 and this primary season has me captivated. It does worry me that my millennial sons are disengaged. Hopefully there are many who will vote!
In looking for things to get involved with that matter, I'm supporting Sara Gideon to get Susan Collins OUT.
Peace & Love...:-)
4
People with Medicare pretty much all have supplemental insurance in addition that they pay for. This is not a requirement, but it does seem to give more coverage for certain things such as dental, eye and prescriptions. I have never heard that if we go to a one payer system that they will get rid of private insurance companies offering supplemental insurance..extra Cadillac coverage..why don’t they mention that to people that are afraid of being stuck with the same government insurance everyone else has...that you can still buy SUPPLEMENTAL ADDITIONAL FABULOUS INSURANCE IF YOU WANT TO! Wouldn’t this make some people happy that are afraid of everyone getting the basic coverage? Why are they not talking about this? I think it would quell a lot of people fears...and companies would really have to offer something high quality for that optional insurance payment every month, but you just won’t HAVE to pay for it. What’s the down side to this? Additional care if you want it, but care for all. This is a big ball drop concerning selling this Medicare for all subject!
6
@Lisa Randles. I agree wholeheartedly that "SUPPLEMENTAL ADDITIONAL FABULOUS INSURANCE IF YOU WANT TO!" should be an important component in the candidates' proposals. In Ontario, Canada, we have "universal " coverage - not quite. Briefly, emergency ambulance at co-pay of $45, and hospital procedures are covered including surgery (excluding cosmetic). Youth under 24 have drugs covered. Seniors have paid drugs (specific list). Eye and hearing exams are covered. Private insurance companies offer dental, eye, hearing, physiotherapy, psychiatry, chiropractic adjustments and drugs .(prescribed list). the UK and some European countries have a more comprehensive coverage than we do.
2
I thought the 10 last night did really well and I was excited by Warren and Klobuchar’s passion about the issues. In general they all talked about stuff which needs to change and that’s refreshing, but few had some solid plans. Except Ms. Warren!
She is my candidate for sure and has been since day one.
I did not appreciate De Blasio and Delaney talking over each other, it was confusing and DID not help them get their message across, only that they were “cross”! Typical boys.
4
John Delaney really stuck out to me, as someone who should get out of this race yesterday.
I liked DeBlassio's first response when he powerfully said the Democratic Party needs to remind the Nation that it is the party of the working class and it must do better to express that. I thought at first he was going to attack someone, but he went for the unifying theme.
If American voters cannot see the world of difference between any one of the Democratic candidates and the slime that currently squats in our White House then their is just no hope for US.
Elizabeth Warren just keeps on being true to her vision and her voice.
I really came away with a positive feeling.
7
We like Elizabeth's wealth tax concept. For decades since Reagan, the rich have been rigging the system with loopholes and tax cuts for themselves. Working families have a right to step up to the return window and get their money back. Maybe Liz can offer up some gross Treasury revenue numbers for some added substance. Restructuring the income tax brackets alone won't cut it.
Similarly, she could talk about the reality of Medicare-for-all funding, including how the heavy private insurance premium fees now being shelled out monthly by working Americans could not only reinforce Medicare, but probably help it pay doctors what they're worth.
6
Warren is great on the issues but will get pummeled with her faking being a minority. That alone could get the incumbent another term. Can't take that risk.
2
@tman202: if you look into the actual facts of the case, she didn’t do what you said. And she never tried to use any First Nation ancestry (that she actually does have) to gain any benefit.
2
@tman202 She didn't "fake" being a minority, she related her family history as it had been told to her.
Speaking of faking....Trump.
3
Warren and Bill de Blasio raised their hands in support of “Medicare for All,” but the rest of the group was pretty much in accord about getting to the same place more incrementally.
As was "Incremental"Hillary. No more staus quo. Mr Biden's got to go, and some others up there. This is NOT a personality contest for a future job in government as some are hoping it will be. It's about the people getting life's necessities. LEGAL citizens already here and suffering.
5
I didn't know anything about John Delaney going in, but during the debate I found I actually did want to hear "more commentary" from him. Most of what he managed to say was reasonable and interesting. I liked his response about the carbon tax and how it might be made palatable. (In the interviews with all 21 candidates the Times published previously, he had the most well-developed response on climate change.) I also thought his comment during the DiBlasio-O'Rourke imbroglio - ‘We need to be the party that keeps what is working and fixes what is broken’ - was exactly what was needed at the moment. From what others are saying about his generally conservative stance, I suspect that I would disagree with him about a lot of issues, but for the moment I think he is adding a worthwhile voice to the debate. I hope he sticks around for a while.
4
This comment from Gail...
"the Democratic National Committee, which is celebrating the debates in Miami with a fund-raising lunch for big donors at the home of the founder of Lumber Liquidators...
says all you need to know about the DNC. Focus on raising money and making nice with rich people who aren't racist.
1
@Dario Bernardini Yeah, we'd certainly hate for our party to have the money to compete.
A presidential candidate can usually raise enough money, even from small contributions. Much harder for Congressional candidates to do so. They often look to the DNC for the funds to be competitive.
4
Dario - Let’s see, now. Trump’s reelection campaign has $129 million and last week raised $36 million in donations. Plus, he has the advantage of the bully pulpit. And you’re worried about Democratic Party fund-raising? You must enjoy losing elections like the last one. How’s being a purist working out for you?
Unless and until we get the big money out of American politics, you’d rather take a knife to the gunfight that has become politics. How much are YOU donating? I’d rather see Trump and the GOP defeated in this next election, for all our sakes. So bring on the rich donors, thank you!
Sheesh! Democratic purists will be the death of us all. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Old Arab Saying.
1
@Dario Bernardini
He/She who goes to the knife fight with a gun wins.
1
Tulsi!
3
I'm impressed enough by the independent mind of Tulsi Gabbard and so will continue supporting her - even if she is (for unexplained reasons) pariah to the NYT.
TULSI2020
4
"You can really argue about almost anything," says Gail.
Take a "dog on the roof," for example. Or a bat in your belfy.
Shoo out those who should be eschewed. Gail, too.
2
f the Democrats truly want to win in 2020, then the winning combination is:
Elizabeth Warren for President!
Cory Booker for Vice President in 2020 !
They will carry the women vote, especially those women who didn't vote, or those who voted for Trump, the woman hater and abuser!
They will bring out the the African American voters, Latino voters, progressives and the Blue Wave voters!
An unbeatable combination !
3
You cannot assert with absolute certainty that Cruz would have held press conferences. Had Trump not gotten the nomination, would he have grown a beard?
I guess you can't fault the Dems for being, well, democratic, and letting everyone on stage.
If you want to see people smiling like idiots, all you have to do is wait until Iowa and New Hampshire, whose combined populations are less than the Lower East Side of Manhattan, get to tell everyone else who are choices will be.
4
Gail
Is it just me or are we all counting down the minutes until Fox News airs the first piece of “reporting” about Trump alluding to Julián Castro being Fidel’s relative?
5
Gail: "You can really argue about almost anything...."
Readers: "Duh!"
3
Hey! what's wrong with John Delaney? really...
Not one insult. Not one immature nickname. No rolled eyes or goofy facial expressions. No shout-outs to Russia.
Thank you, Democrats, for setting us back on the path to normalcy.
13
Another fine column, Gail. But I really miss you on Saturdays!
1
Ok, registered Florida Democrat, past worker for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and will support anyone the Democrats noiminate to get Trump and his cronies out of office and into the legal system for examination, trial and possible conviction of too much to contemplate.
Elizabeth Warren is brilliant. Her grasp of economics, clarity of policy and explaining of just where she wants to go was outstanding at first, but what happend after that? She seemed to lose steam as the evening wore on.
Losers? Big one was Beto. He's in way over his head. Tulsi Gabbard? A one issue candidate. Bill DeBlasio? Forget it? Winner of the evening? Julian Castro, hands down. He needs to be on the ticket whether at the top or as Vice-President. Si El Puede!
3
@JWMathews
I agree. Elizabeth seemed to fade away after a while. Beto and Tulsi need to drop out. I had not heard anything about Julian Castro up to this point and I was impressed by him. I still like Amy, but I wonder how she would stand up to the criminal trump. I will be watching what Julian does moving forward and the next group of candidates tonight.
It is imperative that Donald Trump be removed from office. He is a serial liar and incompetent who has been accused of a litany of crimes and who further degrades the country at every turn. The strongest advantage of the Republican Party is their masterful propaganda machine that has basically brainwashed a large portion of the American electorate. By comparison, the Democrats are impotent in any statement of their policies and need to kick it up several notches.
5
So who's that guy on the corner? Seriously, I agree with you that almost any one of the women, and a couple of the men on stage would be fine Presidents--and any would be miles better than T the Terrible or his vice P the Pathetic.
6
Let’s recap what we learned last night:
- Trump is bad.
- Unrestricted abortion is good, even for trans-women who somehow must’ve acquired a uterus in the process.
- Illegal border crossing should be legal.
- High taxes are good.
- Trump is bad.
- The economy is bad and Dems have a ‘plan’ to fix it.
- Robert Francis O’Rourke speaks Spanish.
- Guns hurt people.
- Trump is bad.
(Really, Dems, is this is all you got, you’re toast.)
5
@EGD
1) Rational Americans knew Individual-1 was bad 40 years ago. Irrational Americans knew he was ‘bad’ 8 years ago when he went hog wild on the Birther nonsense.
2) 7 out of 10 Americans agree that a woman has the right to control her own body.
3) Not one of those candidates said anything of the sort.
4) Again you post a falsehood. Taxing Americans with OVER $50 million in assets means YOU won’t be paying higher taxes.
5) Individual-1 committed Federal Felonies before AND after he stole the 2016 election with Russian hackers assistance.
6) The ‘economy’ is GREAT for the TOP 10%, the Bottom 50% not so much.
7) 1 out of 6 Americans speak Spanish.
8) Hard to kill Americans with knives, not impossible but way harder than using a gun to kill Americans.
9) YES HE IS!
4
@EGD Try actually listening next time. You might hear about greenhouse gases, or income inequality or about making sure everyone can afford healthcare.
Slo you like lower taxes, guess you loved Trump's tax cut for rich folks. The deficit? Oh, you used to csre...
3
The great news is that we have a group of well qualified, committed and American citizenry-facing candidates from which to choose!
The self-entitled white male interruptus vocalis is no longer acceptable behavior, and the wing men will soon be clipped and sidelined.
Most, if not all, candidates use ActBlue as their fundraising platform, and fellow readers, I am pleased to inform you that you can donate on a sustaining basis, making your $1, $2, $3 and $5 donations go further if you can make them monthly. This is allowing me to support more than one candidate, and some I believe, will make fine VP and Cabinet members.
Elizabeth Warren, of course, has a plan for this, and she's on the record for wanting bold thinkers, and people who are willing to act accordingly in her Cabinet.
The debates at this point serve several purposes: they introduce most of the candidates to the public, they allow the name recognition factor to be blunted, and they give the public a first impression as to public speaking, leadership style and platform stances.
May the strongest and most capable candidates proceed, and may the culling being so as not to further dilute the campaign messaging.
4
Dear Ms. Collins,
Bravo. And I'm beginning to think you are just being contrary about insisting to use "swamp-draining" as a metaphor for cleaning up government despite your support for more responsible environmental policies. How about "A DC BP blow out" or "clear cut corruption"? "Blow that mountain top right off Congress!" You are the wit. Please think of something else.
1
Cruz would most certainly have been exponentially worse than our current King. Imagine a narcissistic Trump with a brain. As for the rest I felt most of the responses were pretty cookie cutter. At this point I am looking for who feels the most genuine and also has a good grasp of priorities and solutions in terms of issues. Warren,Castro and Klobuchar stood out to me.
1
Eric Swalwell has the most muscle and is the handsomest man in the race. He'd win the bodybuilding contest.
1
Julian Castro came on strong from the outset. He had me cheering for his immigration and reproductive rights views.
Elizabeth Warren was initially strong & then she lost steam after a half hour.
After the debate Warren went over to Castro & gave him a real supportive arm-round-the-shoulder.
I see either one holding their own onstage against Trump.
Now, on to Debate Night 2.
2
After the debate some of the MSNBC commentators we're complaining that the debaters didn't bring up Donald Trump. After all, they're running against him. I disagree. The debaters talked about what they would do if elected president.That's what I want to hear. The media talks about Trump, ad nauseam, everyday all day long. I was happy for the break.
13
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this analysis. Not that I don't like Warren or Klobuchar, I do. but I think we have to remember that there is a large portion of the American public who, to put it kindly, or non critical thinking. I've spoken with a number of them over the last several years and let me tell you presuming that they can be appeal to via reason is a major error.
Beto I thought was the weakest one on the stage he's all style no substance and definitely not ready for primetime. I suspect the sleeper here is Tulsi Gabbard. Why? Because I suspect she has charisma and a style that while not totally brain-dead might appeal to that portion of the American public which has trouble with cognitive functioning.
3
"Six women are going to be among the 20 Democratic presidential candidates in this week’s debates, which is a heck of a lot more than the old record of, um, one. Feel free to note this is still something less than 10."
Feel free to point out that 40% of women voted for Trump.
There's no one who has dissuaded me that Warren is the best candidate for president.
8
My goodness it was excellent to hear these presentations of normal humane values delivered by mature adults without pettiness, sniping and sarcasm. I would have to swallow some enteric-coated stomach meds to watch the Republican debates, if I were so masochistic.
9
Trump will eat them for Mickey D pre-breakfast. Seriously, folks.
1
The best thing about so many Democrats running for the nomination is that the country gets to meet truly good people with great ideas and thoughtfulness. Donald T brought a swamp to Washington of the worst people and they are always resigning or being investigated. We are seeing what a government led by a low level criminal can be. Michael Bloomberg was right that if he ran this country like he ran his family business.....
The country is meeting people hearing about ideas they need to think about. Don't forget Democrats need to keep the house and win back the Senate. the Republican party have left the American people a long time ago.
8
I think would be a very good thing to ignore Trump at every Democratic debate and campaign rally. Sure, mention his odious and traitorous actions, toilet tweets and policies, but never use his name. I would bet that the lack of focus on him was why Trump, who lid whe he said he was going to pay no attention to the Democratic debate, tweeted that it was boring - it wasn’t all about him.
7
De Blasio
True Progressive
And he is actually believable and communicates very effectively.
A New Yorker against Trump is an asset.
He will attract men who will not vote for a woman - maybe 'the real Trump' for Republicans.
He can surely easily attract alot of African Americans in the base. - he has a black wife and kids.
He is a great candidate.
4
@EC, he has almost no support in his hometown, which is not a
good sign
2
Where's Socrates?
A major point of my NYT subscription is reading those thoughtful, witty & well written comments.
9
Klobuchar certainly had the line of the night with her retort to Inslee. But it appears Warren and Booker stole the show. I can easily imagine a Warren/Booker ticket. White guys seem to have a poor track record and Beto really blew it in this debate. No need to comment on the likes of Ryan and Delaney though. And De Blasio is just another New York bully.
1
The 20+ Democratic candidates for President include at least one who will be an amazing President. The others offer a prime selection of outstanding candidates for the President's Cabinet.
Some of the Democratic candidates for President are 4 - 8 years of experience away from being a top-notch contender for President.
As far as I could tell, none of the Democratic candidates for President are liars. None are willing to betray the USA through overt and covert acts of treason. All understand the USA's history. All are willing to defend and support the Constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights. All can read and put together a coherent sentence.
Yes, I do have a favorite candidate.
However, I will vote for the Democratic candidate for President put forth by the Democratic Party's Convention.
In fact, I will vote Democratic from the top of the ballot to the bottom of the ballot.
We can no longer take a chance on any Republican or Libertarian or "Other" candidate for any national, state, or local office.
VOTE for the DEMOCRATs!
9
Gail don't you think Booker should have been asked about his 1% donors, or Klobuchar quizzed about abusing her staff, or de Blasio about his poor relationship with NY police, etc.? The NBC moderators were throwing softballs, admit it.
4
Ms. Collins, tuning in late to keep you company, and first was greeted by Tabloid News, where our President pronounced the top Democratic nominee 'A Lost Soul'. This engendered a wonderful laugh and with a little more work, we will have Mr. Trump sounding like Henry James. That is quite an accomplishment.
Glad you brought to our attention a memorable moment in political elections, when Lloyd Bentsen turned on Dan Quayle with his sharp retort. The Republicans won, and Mr. Quayle left us with the benefits of how to spell correctly 'potatoe'.
Wishing you plenty of good sleep, and perhaps we could have in time another of your rhymes, to keep track of all these democratic nominees.
'Somebody' once told us that Ted Cruz does not like avocados also known as crocodile pears, and that would be you now. But if you are in the swamp, you cannot afford to be too picky.
There is a 'cold war' going on in our midst, and it was another journalist who coined the above. Orwell was his name. What matters is that you are keeping your readership awake, with your wit and sensibility. Many thanks.
2
If Democrats offstage could come together even half as much as they did onstage last night, they'd win in a landslide and forever belt out "Happy Days Are Here Again." Their bench is deeper than I thought, yet still must be united and remain impervious to the corrupt, divisive and destructive attacks constantly waged against them and our democracy by Trump, Putin, McConnell and their ilk.
Strike up the band!
Vote.
7
My two cents is a winner take all dodge ball game. Bernie, no pinch hitters.
1
I am guilty as charged for a fourth inadequate excuse not to watch the debates tonight and tomorrow: I am a nervous wreck. The thought of seeing my people up on stage - which at this point is all of them with a slight edge to Elizabeth and Kamala - sets my mind aflutter. Here is the chain reaction of my overactive brain. We will narrow it down to one candidate by summer of next year. Our nominee will be faced with unseating the most corrupt, amoral, misogynistic, bigoted, racist, greedy, and narcissistic creature to sit in the Oval Office. Our nominee with thus prove to be better, smarter, more experienced, moral, ethical, stable, and sane. Sounds good, right? The problem is we have "Roosha" at the ready, rabid MAGA supporters, and weak-minded, spineless Reps in Congress who are themselves devoid of moral compasses. And, well, whew, I have to rest now. But, Gail, I promise you I will read the Times critique about our gals and guys.
3
Happy to see more than “one” woman though I understand the Trump supporters outside are shouting down “Hillary.” Go figure.
5
Gail, how can you say Klobuchar was a top two?
You were at a different debate.
2
"...Beto O’Rourke points for starting off with a response in Spanish that listed all the highlights of his agenda while completely avoiding the actual question..."
Beto was speaking to his base in Rio Linda.
Wonder if any of the candidates will bring up organ sizes,
or is that only a Republican thing?
2
Any one of the three women would be better than any of the men on that stage tonight.
1
Virtually no Dems are excited by tonight. I’ll read about it in the morning.
Could somebody please inform Chuck Todd that the Yellow Vests movement was in France, not Australia? By the way, I think the protests about fuel tax increases are also protests about the tax cuts for the wealthy that Macron enacted.
Submitted: 10.32 pm EST 6/26/19
7
If I had to choose this second, I’d do a Warren/Ryan ticket.
That’s just to win. I like Warren and Ryan has a lot of the qualities that play well in Midwest and he’s from Ohio. That could be important. But she needs to give up the single payer. It’s a political loser. Private/public option is the best bet or improving and protecting the ACA.
I was reading comments in the Post this morning and a few had already gone to the “shrill” and “shrew” on Warren. I sincerely hope the media doesn’t let this happen again. Hilary in 2016 was accused of being too wonky (you know talking boring policy too much) compared to Trump’s mob rallies. Now pundits have the gall to say Hillary didn’t have a strong platform. Wanting it both ways. So she talked too much while campaigning and not enough after she lost?...Huh?
She too was considered shrill (aka talking). I doubt Hillary would be tweeting from the toilet at 3 am. I doubt she’d be dating Putin or writing love letters to Kim Jin Un. I bet she’d have the same team she carefully vetted running things and I bet she’d be boring. I for one would love Trump to just take a day off .... in the woods, with no access to media. I have a feeling the whole world would have a brighter smile, a quicker step and less of a pit in their stomach. You know, boring.
2
This was not a debate, it was some kind of pageant/game show.
2
It was calm and civil and intelligent.
By golly, America does still exist! There’s hope!
9
There is an overwhelming amount of choice of candidates. Since they are all Democrats how different could the message be? It is going to come down to personality, and the ability to connect with a wide audience. It is a congenitally contest in the end when everyone is on the same page of music. With this many candidates in a debate, no one has the opportunity to really stand out, and this election, of all elections, we need someone who has a forceful enough personality and enough charisma to grab the attention of the voters. If you cannot engender enthusiasm, then voters will not listen to your ideas. Elizabeth Warren does have that ability when she is campaigning. She is intelligent like HIllary Clinton, but with a better ability to connect with her audience. Debates don't allow the candidates the ability to really connect with people at a visceral level. Donald Trump overcame this with his uncouth, vulgar, shocking style of non-debating. What he did was mostly attack people personally. I would not for one second suggest anyone do this.
I hope the debates, because of the brevity of time allowed each candidate, don't extinguish our chances of selecting a viable candidate that can carry the Democrats to victory in 2020. We cannot get it wrong this time.
Avtually, Gail, I did want to hear more from John Delaney. After his grown up, reality based comments on health care I wanted to hear him or someone, anyone, speak to the center on immigration.
I want to hear a Democratic candidate say loudly and unequivocally that we need to enforce our borders and that people need to wait in line because having borders is what makes a country a country and waiting in line is what's fair. I want to hear a Democratic candidate say that American citizens, in all of their wonderful diversity, have more rights to America's resources than non-citizens. I want to hear these things because a) they are true and b) they are necessary to win and c, d, e, winning this next election is everything and the only card Trump holds is immigration.
We can be appalled by Trump's rhetoric and policies toward refugees and immigrants. But if Democrats openly call for decriminalization and the abolition of ICE, the odds of losing in 2020 go up exponentially.
Democrats must win in 2020 and that requires centrist proposals on immigration and health care.
5
"“What I think we need to do is we need to treat it like a serious research problem,” said Warren."
That won't get her elected. What America wants least in a leader is a university professor who treats issues "like a serious research problem."
When you elect a university professor as a leader you get...a university professor. America has only elected one university professor as president, Woodrow Wilson, and he was the type of disaster that we would get with Warren. He inflicted a needless war on the US, destroyed the economy, and forever ended Washington and Jefferson's sage policy of avoiding entangling the US in brainless European alliances. All interesting "research projects," he was probably thinking.
America won't be trying that again. Hopefully.
1
I thought this was a good debate and I'm looking forward to tonight's edition. We had terrible cable outages here in AZ, which lasted the exact length of time of the debate. However, with all the discussion of the issues, I kept thinking, who among these candidates could and would stand up to Putin? My thoughts? Inslee or DeBlasio. But who knows, really?
1
I agree Elizabeth Warren has proved she is versed in the art of debating as she is known for in her early years. I was impressed with Julian Castro though I have to admit I sat there for two or three minutes before acknowledging to myself: "I know who this is." I wasn't exactly sentient during the Kennedy-Nixon debates but I do remember 'sweat.' Nixon took on alot of sweat. The debates though went down in history as a major contribution to how the public would choose their candidates: TV.
Mr. Inslee noted his accomplishment on the protection of a "woman's right to reproductive health in health insurance" to which Ms Klobuchar replied the three women on stage fought for a woman's right to choose. I missed at least ten minutes of the debate as it continued because my mind was looking for an interpretation of Inslee's statement. Reproductive health is covered under routine, physical examinations. We all know what Amy Klobuchar's reply meant. The whole scenario seemed to say a woman has a right to have kids and a right to an abortion. I drifted back to the debate. I was glad to see so many candidates working hard to achieve the title of the President of the United States. Can we imagine who we have now that so many would like to dethrone? We have a dud.
1
For me, the ones who most raised their profiles were DeBlasio, Castro and Gabbard. DeBlasio would not be the best candidate, but he had the best analysis of what the Democrats need to do to win: Act like Democrats (used to act).
4
Poor Jay Inslee. He didn't claim he's done more than anyone else to protect a woman's right to reproductive health and health insurance. He (correctly) claimed he's the only one running who's actually passed a law to protect those rights. The media is giving Klobuchar credit for a response that did not address Inslee's claim.
11
@Chris G
She took the bait. You saw her react.
2
I find it a little difficult to understand how any reasonable person would think Klobuchar was a "star" last night. She earned painfully little applause for her meandering responses that were mostly cut off by the moderators. I agree that Warren did well until the moderators ignored her in round 2; but the stars were DiBlasio and Castro. The former because he had something new to say, and the latter because the only issue he's passionate about is the one currently in the news.
1
If "Medicare for all" means the elimination is private insurance - especially as a Medicare supplement - I will sit this election out.
1
@logic: The employer-provided heath care of Kaiser Industries, General Electric, Time Warner, and many others are already history.
3
Thanks for mentioning the part about Lumber Liquidators, Ms. Collins. It does sometimes seem that the Democratic presidential race has a split personality: what most of the candidates are advocating to protect ordinary Americans, and then the contributions from, well, Lumber Liquidator et al, which the DNC especially seems to be going out of its way to cultivate. Of course; that's what worked for Clinton. I mean, Bill. Hillary, not so much, or we wouldn't be worrying about the man in the bathrobe at 5 AM. Maybe the party needs to heal its brain more.
5
"It felt like the women won."
Interesting lead, since there is no mention here of a woman who really won something, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I'm not saying she "won" the so-called "debate", but rather what she won was attention. She was poised and serious, and her military background was very impressive. A quick sidetrip to Wikipedia reveals a very impressive resume dedicated since the age of 21 to public service which has included being a state legislator, a city council member, and a Member of Congress, all sandwiched around two tours of duty with the Hawaii National Guard in combat zones. This resume reminded me of President Kennedy's inspirational discussion of the meaning of public service in "Profiles in Courage".
She is only 38 years old. She has a future, even if Ms. Collins chooses to snub her.
7
@Yankees Fan Inside Red Sox Nation
Absolutely agree, 100%. Even if she doesn't win a nomination now, she has a future,in my opinion. If Dems. win the Presidency, maybe as a Cabinet member. I think we will see more of her in the future. At least I hope so.
5
@Yankees Fan Inside Red Sox Nation
I thought Gabbard was one of the weakest of the bunch. Except for her impassioned statement about bringing troops home from Afghanistan, she sounded like she was reading excerpts from a speech rather than responding to the immediate situation.
Gov Inslee stated that he had actually achieved something with regards to 'reproductive rights' for women. Knobuchar's was to indicated that there were three women fighting 'pretty hard.' Obviously, their pretty hard fighting isn't good enough. Or that it's simply them paying lip service to others who have been fighting pretty. Someone achieving something tops others 'fighting pretty hard', but fruitlessly.
5
Agreed, it is not a debate. But in this time of splintered media, it seems to be the primary available means of becoming acquainted with most of the candidates for the most important office in the world and for their qualifications to do the most important thing in 2020: eliminate Donald Trump and his fetid influence from the public realm. Good luck with the latter, but if we don't try, nothing at all will happen.
3
Given the inability of the American political system to respond to the most pressing issues except under extreme duress due to a state of paralysis caused by complete partisan gridlock, I find it hard to believe that any of the candidates can keep their promises and carry out their stated policies, no matter how well intentioned or beneficial it may be for the country.
This gridlock was demonstrated in 6 of Obama’s 8 years, and it prevented the US from dealing with any of its most serious problems. Unless progressives in the Democratic Party take the House and Senate, expect more of the same. And if by some miracle they do win both Houses and the White House, expect the courts to attempt to block them at every turn.
3
Have to say I'm a bit put off by Klobuchar's response to Inslee. I am put off by anyone who feels that those who are not targeted by racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the like are somehow less offended by them or can't be just as determined to fight them.
I am not a woman. I will never need reproductive health care, nor will I ever have to make a gut-wrenching decision about whether to have an abortion. But I have a deep, visceral, negative reaction to anyone - man or woman - who feels they have the right to intrude on anyone's personal medical decisions.
I am not African-American, nor am I Hispanic, but I am deeply offended by racism. Just as deeply offended, I might add, as I am offended by anti-Semitism (I'm Jewish).
I am just as determined as Amy Klobuchar to fight for a woman's right to have control over her own body. I imagine Jay Inslee could be, too.
14
@John
Great comment. Wish more people had this attitude.
3
@John
I, too, am Jewish.
After checking prior remarks and positions of all the candidates on Israel and its security: Warren is a big fat NO! And the same on her ambivalence -- indeed, hostility -- to the idea of strengthening our southern border against the invading armies.
Unfortunately, the only two who pass my criteria have little chance against Trump.
Retreating into my hidey-hole until this farce is over. Uh . . . except maybe Biden, tonight.
1
It was encouraging to see the candidates talk about the issues in complete sentences with well thought out answers for a reality based world compared with the incoherence, demonization, fear mongering, name calling, belittling and bold face lying we get on a daily basis from the current resident of the White House. It was a stark reminder of how far down the toilet we have traveled with Trump, a nostalgic glimpse at the audacity of hope.
10
I was very impressed with Sen. Booker. I knew he didn't speak Swiss, but I hadn't known he spoke Mexican.
4
@Blair Spoke Mexican? I guess, it's closely related to speaking Los Angelesean. To the rest of us, it seemed like he spoke Spanish.
3
My take: Amy impressed me, Elizabeth cannot win against Trump, she's Bernie 2.0--better than Bernie but still unelectable.
The men who interrupted and yelled definitely did not impress me, when will they learn not to do this?
This may be the year when we'll find out if "I'd vote for a woman, just not THAT woman" was true--or an excuse.
2
@klm It was an excuse.
1
Other than the guy on the far right(how did a Republican get on the stage?), I was impressed with the Nine.
Liz and Cory stood out - they showed their idealistic sides - a great counterbalance to the cynicism of the MAGA crowd.
I also thought that Mayor De'B aquited himself well.
I would be comfortable if any of the Nine made it through to November 2020.
Truth to Power!
7
i too am upset that many spoke over each other, did not pay attention to the rules, - it was like who could yell the loudest. I came away with a stronger feel for Senator Warren, who happened to be the adult in the pack. Her listening skill, and answering the questions directly are an incredible sign of her competence. My wife said it seems the alpha males in the crowd shouted louder and louder and interrupted more.
8
I think it is very important to reiterate every time when discussing a 70% tax rate that what is generally being discussed is the rate one would pay after exceeding an income of say 10 million dollars in annual income. I know that most NYTs readers understand this, but it always pays to educate people to the truth because it makes it easier for people to then see the lies.
Let's go over that further. If a person were to make 9.5 million in annual income they would pay at the normal rates. If the make 10.5 million they would pay at the regular rates on the first ten million and then pay at 70% on the last half million. So they would pay about an additional $250K in taxes on 10.5 million in income. This is not understood by the majority of people. Although, as math deficient and logic deficient as most people are, it may not matter. I just think an effort should be made to educate them if possible.
Again, it is likely that most NYTs readers understand that, but there may be a few who don't.
When you make annually what most people never even make in a life time, you can afford to pay more taxes.
26
The best moment was when each answered one simple question – what is the greatest danger. Otherwise, the moderators spent too much time framing their questions and then arbitrarily chose one (not each) to answer. Thus, unfair distribution of questions and too much time taken up by moderators. Also, lost time and momentum due to technical problems. NBC – mend your ways.
7
Most of the people who are running for President, if not already in Congress should be running for a Congressional office that would replace a Republican. While they all seem to have talents and are articulate few of them project the qualities that are needed to be president. ( meaning a stable president ) They would be wise to find other ways to contribute to rescuing this county from Trump and the Republican Senate and by increasing Democratic numbers in the House and the Senate.
6
@PaulM
Great comment. I agree, taking the Senate would go a long way in controlling Trump, as would strengthening the numbers in the House. If no candidate can take Trump out of office, this would be a step in the right direction. Take the Senate if at all possible.
2
Thanks, Gail, for the complete and interesting rundown. The debate on Wednesday was interesting to me3 that I hardly moved from my futon seat. The women, spoke quite well…I could tell each of their life histories by how and what they shared about themselves, completely in sync with what has been established and accepted fact, like black letter law.
I did learn or was more intent of Tulsi Gabbard's remarkable and marvelous record of diligence and bravery in her brave ventures into male dominated walks and becoming quite successful and a resource to us all.
The women, I believe did not interrupt , I feel, because they would have seemed unstable, having to scream to be heard over the lower male voices. But the rowdiness illustrated the mass of energy and info the candidates possess, in comparison to the morbid and obese Republican show last cycle. The Dems can perform with or without others just about anywhere.
8
The "debate" last night was not a debate, unless you include the times when Mr. Castro (and others) were talking over each other. This serves to indicate to me that there were some rude folks on that stage. Warren was clearly at the head of the pack with Booker a close second.
6
For the record: the moderators did not moderate. Again. When will they learn to cut people off when they barge in and interrupt others? At many points in this "debate," one candidate was talking and another began talking. We could hear neither. At other points, the moderators were talking while one candidate was talking in an effort to get him (and I'm purposely omitting the word "her") to stop talking.
These news specialists need to learn how to run a debate. Perhaps they could watch a high school debate team and figure out how to maintain decorum. Personally, I will never vote for a candidate who butts into another's speech. I sat through it all but I wanted to turn it off because of the bloviating interruptions, the inability to measure minutes, the weakness of the anchors in controlling the bloviators, and the sound problems.
The whole production (not most of the candidates) was bush league.
155
@JD My daughter has a good idea: cut off their microphones after time is up, and I would add a 30 second warning to that. Or maybe only have one microphone active during that time, so no one can interrupt. Of course that does not seem technically feasible given last night's technical problems...
I did no time answers so not sure if they were not given equal time or if some answers just seemed to go on and on...
35
@JD
Like it or not these debates give us a peek into how a candidate handles a blowhard—a skill that will be essential in dealing with Donald Trump. I was a bit disappointed that Warren insisted on playing by the rules and did not talk unless asked a question. Maybe this was intentional, she is one of the front runners, and the other candidates on stage had nothing to lose but I’d like to see her puncture a few balloons in the upcoming debates.
40
@Brooklyncowgirl That's a great point. No matter who his opponent turns out to be you know Trump is going back to the playbook that got him elected. "You're the puppet", stalking around the stage, personal insults, interruptions, bald faced lies. The Democratic candidate is not only going to have to defeat him in content, but they're going to have to contend with his style without resorting to the same kind of atrocious behavior. Sitting in polite silence while Trump shovels manure all about you isn't going to work.
40
Why doesn't Lester Holt run?
3
All I can think about when I see Klobuchar is the fact that she ate her lunch with a comb?? I like her but I keep wondering if it was a salad or pasta? Booker sounds insincere but he carried a dog out of a burning building so I like him for that. Warren is scary smart - putting her on the debate stage with Trump would be like asking Michael Jordan to play one-on-one with Linda Hunt (Warren will wipe the floor with him). Beto looks like both Karen and Richard Carpenter. DeBlasio should keep his promise and get the carriage horses off the street. Castro is too shiny (but I like what he said about transgendered girls and boys, or boys and girls).
14
Obsessed? Seriously? This is predicting the 2020 World Series, and it's only 2019. Lighten up. Six months from now this will sort itself out. Wake me when you've got two or three candidates. Until then, chill out.
6
Too much of a good thing.
If Trump loses in 2020 election he will not concede and .A.G.Barr will void the election claiming only republicans are eligible to be president. Trump will declare martial law and Barr will round up dissidents ,democrats ,brown folks , women and other enemies of the state. Evangelicals will declare Trump divine and Catholic bishops will try to get him sainthood ,Wall street will have a parade for him if he gives them another tax cut. Everybody will just shrug oh well that's TRump we expected it what can we do he has bikers for Trump with AK-47'S roaming around looking for dissidents . Maybe 2024 he will leave , maybe not it's up to him.
4
These Democratic wonks are going to get destroyed by the force of nature that is Trump.
Isn’t there a single strong person among the Democrats?
32
@Jay LincolnBy strong do you mean angry, rude, dishonest? Then no.
If by strong you mean smart, articulate and honest, we saw Nine of them.
88
@Jay Lincoln, be a little more patient; part two is coming.
13
Warren came across as plenty strong. And his strongest adversary right now is another woman, Speaker Pelosi. Acting like Trump but moreso is not strong, it's pathetically weak. A woman cam fight and beat him on her terms, better than any man could. Just ask his 15 primary opponents in 2016.
87
I am sorry, but this is a waste of time. All that matters is that someone emerges in the next year who can out-insult and upstage the Liar In Chief. No debates with casts of thousands will sway the few who will decide this election. All these debates will generate is fodder for childish tweets and one-liners that will score point with His base.
Advice to Dems:
-Keep it short
-Avoid name-calling
-Get behind whoever emerges or we go through another 4 years of this train wreck
9
maybe at least wait until it's over.
Gail, I usually like your columns. This wasn't your best work.
One thing is certain: everyone on the stage is better than Trump.
5
Once again, the highlight of my morning is reading Gail Collins. Her writing is splendid and her wit razor sharp. "Or at least I think it was the congressman. You never really know." And, yes, there were at least a billion times this year when I thought. “God, if only we’d gotten Ted Cruz.”
5
As much as I detest Trump, I’ve already accepted the fact that he will easily be re-elected. 24 fools all vying against one another running on extreme left-wing issues that will chase off the middle-class whites they need in order to win. People keep saying the GOP will soon implode or become irrelevant however I see the Democrats doing a far better job at self destruction than the republicans.
3
It is a big night if it starts the impeachment process. It will then be a big night for America.
3
He missed the best possible response to Senator K...
You 3 may be fighting, but I passed actual legislation and then walked back to WA since he is toast
Hello -- On Warren's point about gun violence being a "research problem," I believe she was referring to the fact that the NIH has been prohibited by Congress from doing that kind of research. There's been deliberate avoidance of doing research -- and Warren has experience with going into research thinking one thing was true, and learning in the process that her initial opinion was wrong.
8
I live in the Miami area. One of my co-workers is a die-hard Republican. I'm an Independent and he's been on my case since I voted for President Obama both times ( I don't regret it either).
He's also Cuban. He got to the U.S. under the Cuban Adjustment Act and reaped all the rewards and tax payer funded benefits Cubans receive immediately when they across the border illegally or not. He also has family members that came here directly from Cuba under the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (chain migration) which of course only Cubans are eligible for. Both programs continue to this day under the guise of the Trump Administration. Google them. This is not the wet/dry/ dusty foot policy which is no longer in effect. Apples and orange.
So I was waiting for him because I knew exactly what he was going to say. "Did you watch the debate last night.How can you vote for a Democrat?" blah, blah, blah.
My reply "You're right. I'm not. I even turned off the channel when they started talking Spanish."
Not a peep. He had to do something.
2
Would Ted Cruz have been better than Trump? Don’t know but I’m pretty sure the guy selling hot-dogs on the corner would be.
That said, Elizabeth Warren would be fine President - taking a second look at Corey Booker. On to tonight’s debate.
5
Chuck Todd was TERRIBLE. His questions all boil down to one- "Don't you think I, Chuck Todd, am so clever"?
Also, I did not realize that this debate would only be shown on one network station, which I refuse to dignify by naming. Not even C-Span.
2
@Jack Lemay, we watched it on NBC. I too was surprised it wasn't on C-Span.
1
I felt the women were much more mature. They didn’t rely on storytelling like the men did and instead talked about policy. They didn’t shamelessly brag, use their children as props, show off their so-so language skills, talk about their neighborhoods or grandmothers to garner false empathy. We can read all about their backgrounds but what we want to hear in a debate is how the heck they are going to fix this broken country. Yes, the women were the definitely the stars.
482
Exactly. Only a woman can best Trump. Just ask Pelosi, who already has.
28
@me
What we need to ask is “Which Democrat can best the Russian hackers Putin will use to influence our electorate in the next 16 months?”
9
@Hortencia
The Democratic women in this debate also came across as the most pragmatic too--not only talking about what was broken (by guess who), but how they thought we could fix it.
I have heard several people, who owned their own businesses (men and women), say, "If you want to get the work done, hire a woman"
14
I understand that Collins actually used to be a pretty good reporter before she adopted this above-it-all, vaguely Gen-X-ish snark that seems to attractive to her target audience, educated professionals marinated in anti-political neoliberalism since gestation.
The framework that actually matters, as opposed to this high-school cliquespeak, is that if we don't make major changes to the global economy and foreign relations fast--like in the next ten years, tops--this whole sucker's going down, to quote W from a different context.
All over. Everything this species has managed to accomplish, gone. We all know it's true: unchecked global warming is both fascism-genic and will lead to war, soon to go nuclear--an independent disaster that could hit at any moment. E.g.: you think India and Pakistan will nicely share the dwindling Himalayan water supply as people starve?
If your favored candidate isn't ready, willing, and able to lead millions against burning carbon, building new nukes while trashing all arms control, taking on Big Oil, the MIC, and much besides in order to preserve, literally, civilization as developed in the past 500 years, and probably the species itself, at least in any decent form, then you're living in a fantasy world.
And if you think those things can't be done, you've just joined those like Trump flooring the pedal on carbon emissions. Funny how the right never gives up whereas the heavily thought-led "left" just wrings its hands in learned helplessness.
2
@Doug Tarnopol, you DO know that Gail Collins is an opinion writer, right? People used to insist that Jon Stewart be a better reporter too, but neither of them are reporters. They write opinion columns. Gail's style might not be your preference, but stop grabbing at every chance to insult.
1
If all I had to do was declare I was running for president, it looks like I too could be in this so called debate. Even I who has read a few books and served on a couple of Sierra Club committees could qualify as an environmental activist. At least I would not have to make up lies as to my qualifications, at least I am not a swindler of small contractors having been one for a short period. I know enough to appoint competent secretaries, and to listen to the security people. Keeping the economy in good condition would be important, I would hope Paul Krugman wold be an advisor, and maybe Barrack Obama might like to be Secretary of State. I certainly would not make speeches before my supporters with a smirk on my face and a posture like Il Duce to tout my imagined accomplishments. There are many things that need to be done in the near future, too many for one person to do much about but that need to be started upon such as income inequality, health and medical to keep the population healthy and wealthy. As you can imagine there is not enough space here to list all that needs to be done, but what I do know, is I or almost anyone else except a Republican can do a better job of it than the Liar in Chief that is there now.
4
Which candidate can stand toe to toe with the carnival barker from Queens, trade barbs and still appear to be sane, intelligent and not "trump-lite"?
Trump is skillful in inciting his gullible base with his imbecilic taunts, tweets and insults. That is what needs to be overcome, along with making the voters want to have a beer with you just as they did with Trump (Trump would possibly be loathe to have a beer with Joe Lunchbucket, and if he have a beer with Joe then Joe would possibly need to pay the tab).
Those candidates have an uphill battle ahead of them and given that Trump will create more crisis that he can resolve and have people believe he alone made America great again, that will be the battle.
My opinion is we have a problem with young adult because of the current men and women "on the stage." Control yourselves.
If all I had to do was declare I was running for president, it looks like I too could be in this so called debate. Even I who has read a few books and served on a couple of Sierra Club committees could qualify as an environmental activist.
At least I would not have to make up lies as to my qualifications, at least I am not a swindler of small contractors having been one for a short period. I know enough to appoint competent secretaries, and to listen to the security people. Keeping the economy in good condition would be important, I would hope Paul Krugman wold be an advisor, and maybe Barrack Obama might like to be Secretary of State.
I certainly would not make speeches before my supporters with a smirk on my face and a posture like Il Duce to tout my imagined accomplishments. There are many things that need to be done in the near future, too many for one person to do much about but that need to be started upon such as income inequality, health and medical to keep the population healthy and wealthy. As you can imagine there is not enough space here to list all that needs to be done, but what I do know, is I or almost anyone else except a Republican can do a better job of it than the Liar in Chief that is there now.
Imagine a female candidate behaving as De Blasio did. His Red Bull flavor of aggression is comfortably tethered to a big city mayor persona. He's allowed, because, well, he presides over a tough town; he's thus a tough guy, title earned. If a woman interrupted and challenged another candidate thus she'd be reported as rude, insensitive, and self-aggrandizing. We can only observe the behavior -- and its parsed take-aways -- through a gender prism. Expectations of decorum and self-presentation are very different for female candidates (see presidential election, 2016).
3
Tonight they really all just helped Biden because most democrats won't elect someone with big, wild-eyed ideas.
Thank you Gail Collins for your wit and perfect timing as your informed overview of tonight's big event included guffaw producing details, like the DNC's afternoon big donor fund raiser lunch given by the founder of . . . Lumber Liquidators. Funny stuff. If ever it was time to lighten up a bit it is now.
3
With the lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Hispanics, women and Asians, the democrats talking point that the economy is only working for the rich is a losing argument - Best to avoid the economy discussion entirely
@Jim, what do you think of Ms. Warren's idea of taxing 2 pennies of every dollar over $50 million for the richest? That would fund universal healthcare and preschool. I thought it made perfect sense. Isn't $50 million enough advantage so those very lucky few can still keep 98 cents out of every dollar OVER that?
What is the problem with that idea? Does any republican have an explanation that doesn't just involve insults? That seems to be all they have.
6
No matter where you may stand, at least we can all agree that John Delaney didn’t have a great night.
Big night for Warren, bad night for Beto, meh for the rest of them. Time for the also-rans to drop out before they embarrass themselves any further.
5
Dazzling melange
Cheers to inclusivity
Never mind winning
1
Talking about candidates without even mentioning their stance on the climate crisis is irresponsible.
1
Come on Gail, admit your disappointment that no one asked any of the candidates whether they had ever driven to Canada (or really anywhere) with a dog strapped to the top of their car.
3
It may not have been a debate but the format allowed us to see a lot of smart, capable people tonight. And they didn't have to lie, make up stupid nicknames for others on the stage or bow down to Putin. There's also a chance they will respect the Constitution and not act unethically.
In my opinion, Warren is tops. Ryan will get my vote when she finishes her two two terms in office. Castro and Inslee should have key jobs in the Warren administration.
To the NYT: Thanks for providing so many places for comments by readers.
5
Warren sailed through - they are almost out of her league.
Booker biding his time.
Beto imploded.
Castro rose from a complete nobody to a temporary somebody.
Everyone else: see yourselves out.
2
Glad to hear candidates debating policy nuances and not attacking each other. Whew!
After the debates I went to my wallet to make sure my American Express card was not stolen...
Lots of expensive ideas and more anti-Trump rhetoric calling for impeachment and jail...really?
1
Nothing like a string of two-, three-, four-, five-, seven-, eight- and nine-liners to balance out the two-day pre-debate warm-ups.
Love you Gail, but the snark toward Delaney is ignorant and dangerous. Maybe if you actually did listen to him you’d realize he has perhaps the only realistic plan to fix health-care and other good ideas that don’t fall into the “radical, far-left” trap that Trump is blissfully awaiting his opponent to fall into.
3
The future of the country depends on us being engaged and vigilant in the upcoming election. The NBC crew was professional and the questions serious. No name calling,no derogatory comments, no lies, no crude comments. How refreshing! There is hope. Thanks
We call this format a debate, but really it is a group interview. Is this the best way to begin a candidate selection? The interaction of the job seekers on stage was not helpful. Why not conduct a fifteen minute interview with each of them separately?
111
@Jeff
Didn't the Times just do that (of sorts?) Each candidate was asked abput their positions on a range of issues. Look it up, it was not that long ago.
15
@Jeff I was thinking 1 hour with 5 candidates would be better.
4
@myasara
I watched the NYTimes piece you are referring to several days ago. Not very useful, I'd say. Single sentence answers. What I am suggesting is an in-depth interview with each candidate, perhaps with two or three newspeople asking the questions. I said 15 minutes, that isn't enough time. A half hour at least. The interviews could be made available online for viewers to watch at their leisure. I've seen Rachel Maddow interview several of these candidates on her MSNBC program. Very informative. Much better than these group interviews.
10
My Dad was one of identical twins. I grew up never confusing my Dad for my Uncle and God-father. It wasn't an issue for me. My daughter however, felt like her great-uncle was the "impostor
Grandpa", and on that basis she looked at him warily! ( She told me this in her twenties!)
2
Maybe this was one time Trump was right--boring. :)
14
@JR
I did not find it boring at all. I found it quite riveting. What else do you find boring?
27
@JR Boring if you don't like policy discussions and big ideas.
16
@JR Yes, if you live in Bronxville you are in the 1% and probably support anyone who will help you maintain your financial status and tax breaks. Anyone with other ideas is boring.
14
with all of the debate regarding the healthcare, it would please me greatly to have members of congress have the same healthcare insurance that the rest of the nation has. Social Security as well should be paid and received by congress members rather than having their own "protected" system.
23
It’s so difficult to stand out when you have only one minute to speak. And the candidates used most of their minute, not to answer the question, but to tell a story about their life or to display empathy.
The most ridiculous example of how the time constraints stifled debate was when a moderator went down the line asking the candidates to name the biggest security threat to America without explanation, analysis or debate - asking the candidates just to give a one word answer. Inslee took advantage of the moment to provide the crowd pleasing response: “Trump.”
And everyone laughed and applauded.
One substantive difference that almost caught fire was the back and forth between Ryan and Gabbard on this country’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. Ryan, who touted his foreign policy experience, was for continued involvement; and Gabbard, who touted her military experience, wants withdrawal. I wanted to hear more, but like every other issue last night, the moderators moved on just as the debate was getting interesting.
8
@Steven Roth Even with only two people, these debates are worse than worthless. They are designed, packaged, and promulgated as entertainment; they, along with the whole travesty of an endless campaign, constitute a stimulus package for the media. You can't learn a thing from them, not about anything that matters in government. Go and read; watch speeches; dig deep. We're all educated NYT readers; we know how to do it.
These debates are basically garbage.
Elizabeth Warren can keep her campaign promises only if her proposed “wealth tax” produces sufficient revenue. She plans to impose an annual “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” on the assets of the richest Americans. However, such a tax would probably require a constitutional amendment.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that the Constitution prohibited federal income taxes, the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 to grant the federal government authority to levy an income tax, but the amendment does not grant the federal government authority to tax assets. It states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The proposed wealth tax is essentially a property tax, the major source of revenue for states. Journalists should inquire at state capitol buildings to see if three-fours of states legislatures would vote to ratify an amendment granting the federal government power to tax property.
4
When it comes to the "Medicare for All" question vs. private insurance, I don't understand that those on stage have not studied universal healthcare policies in the EU, namely those of France and Germany.
Universal healthcare is mandatory, but some having an income above a certain amount can opt out to either have private insurance from non-profits, and/or can up their plan of universal healthcare - again through a non-profit provider - to have a private room in a hospital, change their primary and specialists should they wish so, and other goodies. And the fairly low premiums for healthcare insurance, be it public or private, is split 50/50 between an employee and employer.
Many Americans are insured through their companies, but with far too high deductions, and once they lose their job they lose their insurance as well. And all those working just part-time jobs and not a minimum of hours per weeks are left with no insurance at all.
21
@Sarah: The whole trick of the medical "insurance" industry is to cover people when they're healthy, and leave the poor to Medicaid and the elderly to Medicare.
4
@Sarah: I've never understood why employers want or should have to take on the burden of supplying health insurance to their employees. Perhaps that's why so many can only get jobs in the gig economy or become 'contract' workers - no health insurance provided.
People change jobs a lot now. People want to start their own small businesses. Insurance should be de-coupled from employment. Entrepreneurs would flourish.
4
Seems the 10 acted better than expected, but as usual far too much talking over each other. And on that question about more gun control Liz saying let's "treat it like a serious research problem", well seems to me that was a blunder. Did I miss something? That is why the problem is still here today: all we do is research the problem and never take any action to truly get guns under control. Also, what is this speaking Spanish mean....are we in America, I think Florida hasn't seceded yet. For some reason they all wanted to look very presidential, say what we think we wanted to hear, but it was like the shot was made, they took off for the hundred yard dash, but no one looked like they were interested in finishing the race. Maybe too many on the stage creates that atmosphere.
5
@Me Too On the question of research, federal funding of research on ways to curb gun violence and the impact has been blocked for years out of concern that the recommendation would come back to meaningfully restrict access to guns. Meaningful research isn’t happening right now, and efforts to do anything are blocked on the purported basis of lack of evidence. A mountain of evidence likely won’t convince more people, but it may help provide political cover against attacks on those who want to do something.
99
actually, Republicans won't even allow research into the problem. Everybody has an opinion about why so many privileged white men are committed to shooting up their schools, their ex-wives, their children, their co-workers who don't want to date them, etc. but we haven't been able to study this phenomenon in an organized way.
5
@Me Too
The talking over one another issue is something the presenters of the 'debate' want because the audience likes to see the fights. Otherwise, a simple technical fix could be implemented. Just turn off the mics for everyone except the speaker of record, and turn off that one as soon as time is up.
2
I too was inspired by the candidates last night especially that they were, for the most part, sincere, passionate, and erudite, and didn't trash each others platforms, policies, or personalities. There seemed to be mutual respect and collegiality. However, I wish that NBC had not set up the stage, lighting and graphics to make it appear that this is a sensational, political game show. It was as if the candidates were contestants on Jeopardy. Seriousness on the part of the network and producers, to match the seriousness of the candidates assembled, would have been more appropriate to the seriousness of the situation in the U.S. today. The most human, non-scripted moment was the technical glitch which turned out to be a relief. At least everyone then got a chance to breathe.
12
We definitely need to start narrowing this field quickly. I suppose they want just a little name recognition. The positive, perhaps, is that the Trumpsters cannot focus on only one candidate to slander.
8
Cut to the chase. Who of the ten has a solid chance of beating Trump in red or purple states? And then, who would also have a shot at getting something done with a Republican Senate?
Amy Klobuchar.
8
@Bob Bruce Anderson: It is a pipe dream that the Republican Senate will negotiate equitably with any Democrat. The Republicans are halfway to the Rapture already.
5
@Bob Bruce Anderson I think it's too early to determine that.
1
@Bob Bruce Anderson. Nothing will ever be done with a Republican Senate if McConnell is running it. He's made that very clear over the last 10 years. It's not within any Democrat's power to get anything done with him unless they absolutely cave to everything he wants. Cooperation is not in his vocabulary.
5
Joe Biden won last night's debate if he says that the United States is not a borderless nation and will never be so.
3
@Hank-Joe Biden wasn't one of the candidates in last night's debate. So, he didn't say anything. But, as far as I know none of the candidates has claimed that the US is a borderless nation, and they all have plans to address immigration.
15
@Ms. Pea: Hank knows that. Even though Biden wasn't there last night, he won.
3
@Ms. Pea
No law enforcement means no border. Joe Biden won the debate by not being there.
1
I'm one of the Democrats who’d vote for the guy who sells hot dogs on the corner if I thought he had the best chance of beating Trump. Any of the Democratic candidates would do a fine job, is not likely to start a war with Iran or North Korea and would be better than Trump. So, I'm not watching the debates too closely. Whoever shakes out after the primaries will be fine with me. Those who want to nitpick over the candidates should just think for a minute about who we now have as president and ask themselves if they can live with four more years of that.
36
When the men all started arguing amongst themselves I began to wonder. Talking over, interrupting...I'm sick of it. Warren stayed polite and waited her turn but, when given the question, responded very well. I was quite impressed with Booker and the guy from Ohio. All of them were qualified, actually. It made my night to see so many great candidates up there. And I did find myself wondering how each would hand the Dumpster Fire.
18
@Amy Haible--I agree. I am sick of big-mouthed men. We've been listening to Trump babble and sputter and rant and harangue for three long years. Enough. I'm more than ready for a competent, dignified, thoughtful and articulate president. Warren comes across as all those things. The men all have egos the size of Utah, and I want no more of that.
4
Surprised one of the more obscure candidates hasn't made mocking Trump the centerpiece of his/her campaign. So much to work with and a gigantic audience that would gorge and beg for more. If it's gonna be a game show, mock the game show host.
Best line of the night? “I will govern with integrity “, said Amy Klobuchar.
7
@David Forster: "I will govern with integrity" says the staff abuser/shamer. I was way for her before I was way against her. I was shocked and upset at those stories of how she treats her staff. She had no rebuttal to that ("I have high standards" does not cut it). Saladgate did me in. She slammed Jay Inslee for no reason. I don't want another shamer/abuser sitting in the Oval. Her childhood with an alcoholic parent shows.
6
As long as the rhetoric about the candidates is based on race, gender or religion. none of these candidates will succeed.
5
@Matt
Specifically Corey Booker and K. Harris.
Tulsi Gabbard won the Drudge poll. There's a real hunger for talk about peace in this country. Some of us are old enough to remember when the Dems were for peace. Today, not so much.
81
@Steve L, consider the source. If Drudge told me what day it was I would check the calendar to make sure he wasn't lying. I give his poll the same credence. (Nothing against Tulsi Gabbard, who came off very well.)
20
The Drudge Poll? Is that a poll normal people should take seriously? It's not a serious polling organization-- just a right-wing aggregator, easily skewed by users intent upon disinfomation.
24
@Steve L, To me she comes across as a person who believes they hold the moral high ground on issues of war and peace--because she is a veteran. I don't agree. I think we have an equal say on these issues.
11
Beto said he supported a "fair" tax. How is taxing the rich 70 percent fair? So he did answer the question, in a statesmanlike way. He is very charismatic and the attacks on him by DeBlasio and Castro seems to indicate that they fear he is the one that who will break out of the pack. Why they didn't attack Warren with her proposals that are simply unattainable goes to how they are trying to cozy up to the progressive wing, which will make the Democratic party crash and burn in 2020.
4
@east coast writer First you need to understand that it's a progressive tax rate. If the highest % is 70%, that means that like all of us, a billionaire pays whatever we pay on the first level (say 15% on the first 100,000 for purposes of demonstration only, then 20% on the next level of say from 100k to 500k, then 25% on the next of say 500k to 5 million). A rich person does not pay 70% on the whole thing, and 70% as the top rate is what we had years ago before the conservatives started feeding their rich buddies.
17
"Trump didn't come up nearly as much as you might have expected."
The candidates were right not to focus on Trump. A number of them were unknown and all were limited to 60 second responses to the panel's questions. They wisely chose to introduce themselves and focus on their policies.
In this regard, a special shout-out to John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard and, of course, Julian Castro. They may not be going anywhere but it was uplifting to hear their views and opinions.
20
While it is customary for people to accept unchallenged that the press is liberal, it is clear that the media does not approach vital issues from that position. The largest among these are income disparity and tax policy. There are constant apologies that “we don’t want a class war.”
We need at least the threat of a class war for the benefit of EVERYONE in our society.
15
John Delaney will not win but he will make a surprise showing in Iowa. He’s conservative for this group and so is Iowa. And he’s been in the state longer than anyone with unlimited money (his own) to spend.
4
@Evan
All the commentary I've seen is getting it wrong about Delaney. He is not a contender for the nomination, but he represents a Democratic voice that's (as the commenter put it accurately) "conservative for this group." It's important for November 2020 that those who share this quasi-conservatism feel that Democrats have listened respectfully and heard them. Delaney had things to say and was shut down by the moderators. Does he represent my more liberal views? No. Even though he isn't my preferred candidate, my surprising takeaway is that Corey Booker maybe sounds most like what I think. But I was very interested in having Delaney's views aired in my "big tent" political party.
Obviously I disagree with Gail that nobody wanted "to hear extra commentary from John Delaney." Democrats exclude and disregard that voice at their peril. The debates are not a beauty pageant to weed out less attractive contestants—that's what voting is for. The debates are for the airing of ideas in shorthand, broad political philosophies, and attitudes. We need to show just how capacious our party can be.
13
I like Sen. Elizabeth Warren's plans to remedy an economy that is working for the wealthy while indenturing 90 percent of Americans.
Chuck Todd asked the question I have wanted to ask Ms. Warren: Do you have a plan to deal with Mitch McConnell? She replied she does, but I'm not convinced.
McConnell doesn't care about democracy, doesn't care what's best for Kentucky, doesn't care about America, the republic or the Constitution. He made Trump possible and he aids and abets the Trump disease afflicting the nation.
If McConnell heads a Republican controlled Senate, he will obstruct all of Ms. Warren's plans.
The hope to make America America again depends more on Democrats taking control of the Senate than defeating Trump. McConnell MUST be run out of Congress if we are ever to have a Congress that works for the people.
74
@JABarry I would recommend this comment 1000 times if I could.
3
Being nice is nice, but it is no recommendation for the Oval Office. We do need someone nicer than Trump but that is not all we need. The Dem aspirants do not have the look of being president -- those in the first batch. Tomorrow we'll see if Biden can slay the little dragonettes around him. If not the Dems may have to look outside the 23 on the list. After Biden the pickings are poor.
2
It’s hard for me to sit through an opera, especially when the leading man isn’t on stage, only the leading lady; instead watched NOVA. As soon as I know who all has a dog besides Beto, black lab, I’ll pay more attention to the large cast of wannabe wallabies.
1
@Prunella
And then later, voters complain that somebody picked the candidate they're expected to vote for.
If we already knew everything about everyone who's decided to run, there would be no need for a campaign. (Not saying that might not be better than endless campaigning.)
9
24 (?- I lost count) candidates, some of which are there for obvious self-serving interests. Makes the dems look disjointed and desperate. It is unfortunate, because there is much talent up there on that stage.
I think both parties should tighten up their requirements for who can run for office.
4
"Democratic voters are divided between the folks who are concerned about policy and the ones who’d vote for the guy who sells hot dogs on the corner if they thought he had the best chance of beating Donald Trump."
Why can't it be both, and why not connect the two? "Trump's policies are bad and this is why, and this is what I am proposing." Then, tie it into his shiny object distractions.
Here's an example. Donald Trump trumpets his tax cuts, but 90% of them went to the top 1%. Say, "Why not have a tax cut that goes 90% to the bottom 90%, and 10% to the top 10%?" Trumps reverses it for the wealthy. He bragged about his tax breaks at Mar a lago: "I just gave all you folks a nice, big tax cut." This got almost no play in the press. You have to pound him with facts, relentlessly, and then tie it into his obnoxious personality and dangerous policies. That's how it can be done.
17
It seemed like they weren't calling on Mr. Delaney as much as the others. They even cut him off when he tried to add something about his father's health. I wanted to hear him say "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Todd."
Julian Castro continued his macho behavior towards Beto, talking right over one of of his answers. I couldn't tell if the former HUD Secretary was compensating for his shortness or if he was channeling the Paul Newman role in "Hud."
I like Warren as a candidate, but when they asked who was in favor of abolishing private medical insurance, she cheerfully explained "I'm with Bernie!" reminding everyone that she's never far away from jumping on his bandwagon permanently.
1
When it comes to the health care debate, the press is conflating M4A with ending private insurance. First, most Medicare recipients also have supplemental private insurance policies to cover Part B expenses. Single-payer has not ended private insurance in other countries, e.g., Canada. If people are happy with their private insurance, does it make sense to force them to give it up? Does it make any more sense that the rest of us who are under 65 do not have Medicare as an option? Make Medicare or Medicaid, i.e., a public option, part of the ACA and let's see how popular it is. If employers start offering it as a choice with a lower cost share (say 10% rather than 20%) for employees, and people start taking that option, and then it becomes popular, we will be wondering what took us so long. With the right government incentives, e.g., allowing Medicare to bargain for lower prescription drug prices so that chosing Medicare saves money on prescription drugs and makes Medicare more attractive, we could end up lowering costs overall as private insurers have to keep pace or lose their customers. We would be paying a lot more for electricity if FDR had not created the TVA, a public electricity provider. Making the cost structure transparent, goes a long way to keeping private corporations honest. It's about choice. And it's about time.
28
I was unable to watch the debates last night but after reading this column by Gail Collins and all the attendant comments, I have not only a fair idea of what happened, but how it was received by at least a segment of the public.
Granted, 10 of anything on a crowded stage is quite a lot to fathom but who ever said Democracy is a cake-walk?
In any case, it offers an alternative to seeing something other than what we have in the Oval Office now.
And that's a good start.
17
During the 2016 presidential election, I wished that there would be multiple women on the presidential debate stage together. I'm glad I got my wish, even if the number of female candidates has not reached 50%. And all of the women more than held their own.
The candidates stuck to cogently discussing policies that affect all Americans, which Trump apparently found boring. I guess he finds comparisons of hand size or blood coming out of whatever or ghoulish descriptions of abortion to be more interesting.
14
I watched the debate. I agreed with all of the candidate's positions except medicare for all. However, I believe that not a single one of the on-stage 10 stands a chance of defeating trump.
I kept thinking about Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota and concluded that trump wins.
2
We saw the future of this country on that stage---and that non-white future is what motivates---maybe incenses Trump's base. Not only is there ethnic diversity, but more importantly, not since FDR, do we have a party calling out corporate greed, which for the last two decades has been masked by talk of supply side economics---which, by now, finally the public is waking up to the fact that all supply side talk is in fact Voodoo.
16
Amy Klobuchar was certainly not one of the "stars of the night" and yes, I would have liked to hear more from Mr. DeLaney. None of them really answered the difficult questions put to them. Elizabeth Warren's answer on gun control was terrible - pure college professor stuff. And NBC did a terrible job of dividing up the time, essentially giving Cory Booker the floor.
4
@JaneDoe: I think it was right after Warren's lame answer about guns ("Research! Research!") that I fell asleep and woke up when it was over.
Yes, research is important but without explaining why, it was just a weird, losing moment. Some of us know that the government does not allow much research on guns which is bizarre, but true. Her one word answer just confused people and there was no connection with the horror that is American carnage by guns, especially what it's done to school children.
I'm a Democrat who only cares, at this point in our history, to get rid of Trump. Pay attention to working class people and get rid of Trump.
I'm actually quite frightened that he will win again and we will lose our country to fascism and Lindsey Graham will have his dream come true and get a third - and fourth - Trump presidency. And then Ivanka will take over.
That is what is at stake. Just our country. Do you want to live in Trumplandia? I do not.
Dems better do better.
1
20 entrants are too many for the Kentucky Derby and too many for the debates, even when held on 2 nights. Let’s hope that the field is whittled down so we have more time to hear from the viable candidates.
8
Personality counts. Bear with me. So imagine these people were not talking about issues that the determine the future of our country. Who would you enjoy listening to? Castro and Klobuchar we’re people I looked forward to hearing. Their tone, their presence, they’re repartee. They just made me feel comfortable. All issues aside, I would crown them Mr. and Mrs. Congeniality. It does count for something.
7
@Sandy, Just Curious: Look a little deeper into Klobuchar and you won't see Mrs. Congeniality. Read about her 'salad' incident. Ironic and odd that you picked her out for that award.
She didn't need to slam Inslee, either. He has passed laws to help women. Her gender bashing was gratuitous and snide and just brought it all back to me - her shaming/abusing.
I was way for Sen. Klobuchar before all that came out. I looked deeply into it. She had no defense. Bye.
3
I don’t plan to pay serious attention to this race until there are a manageable number of candidates to choose from. Right now I know only that I will not vote for Trump. I will probably vote for whichever candidate wins the Democrat nomination, but that’s not a given. I wish there was a viable third party.
5
@Bookworm8571
There never was a 'viable' third party. And those leaning centre left and having voted for a third party candidate only because they didn't like the Democrat's candidate have crowned a loser of the popular vote twice in the past 20 years, Bush II in 2000 and Trump in 2016.
The US doesn't have a parliamentary system; ergo, voting for a third party candidate is akin to throwing your vote into the trash bin.
3
@Bookworm8571: A viable third party would give us Trump for sure. Please do not vote for a third party candidate.
2
Among Warren's many assets is her ability to listen to others without interrupting them.
Too many bloviators, too few listeners.
72
Last night I saw a great president, vice president, and half a cabinet on the stage. Wow - what a great country we could become!
246
Any, and I mean any of these people would be a night and day improvement over the bad joke of a president who sits in the Oval Office today. But I have to say that I was underwhelmed by the event in general. Perhaps it was the sheer number of candidates on stage at one time or the general format of the debate with so many participants. But something that let's us compare the intellect, ideas and judgement of these people is necessary if we are to make an informed choice
7
@James Mazzarella
A bit underwhelmed myself. But not to worry, it is very early and will most certainly get better as the process moves on and the crowd thins out.
8
@Zed18
Yes, I do hope that the crowd will thin out soon. There are unfortunately far too many running who have not one iota of a chance to become president. They are just taking time away from others talking about their agenda in ever shorter timeframes on stage.
3
@Sarah
Tend to agree. On the other hand more candidates provide more contrast meaning it might be easier to clearly distinguish to the best of the best.
1
There was one unfortunate aspect of last night's event: the seven men on the stage spent a lot of their time mansplaining and chest-thumping. Yet I was impressed by the way in which Warren, Klobuchar and Gabbard still managed to rise above the din and hold their own (and then some) as bona fide, experienced and able candidates.
Right now, I am more focused on demeanor and passion; details of policy choices will coalesce in the months ahead. Elizabeth Warren certainly possesses these qualities, so does Klobuchar, and I thought Gabbard was steady and serious.
This is encouraging.
58
As in 2016, the media gave more time to its pets (Warren, Booker) so it wasn’t a fair debate The way they positioned candidates they were going to ignore at the edges reminded of 2016, when the media gave Hillary the crown.
I would argue that Castro was the winner. Beto’s use of Spanish seemed manipulative, Warren bloviated about issues like guns without offering particulars and I would like Amy Klobuchar to tell us exactly how those 3 women fought for a woman’s right to choose. Just being female doesn’t count.
9
Oh, Ms. Collins, you brought back both humor and hit the highlights of the first night of the Democratic candidates debates. Thank you for getting us out of the spin room and back to which candidate is likely to still be on stage as the crowd of candidates is culled.
Yes, Ted Cruz might have more conventional skills than Trump (even enough to hold press briefings) but he still would be following the Republican party's anti-women, anti-diplomacy, anti-safety net and pro-Big Money agenda.
32
@Lynda
Cruz would also be supporting “big religion.”
1
Fainally we have people running on the Democratic side that will not conjure up "anyone but Hilary" pictures
Now it will be anyone but Trump.
Except I want more than anyone but Trump
I want solid plans to overcome all that is wrong for most Americans.
I was more impressed with the women, than the men. Too much Testosterone on the stage. Trump has made me wary of Testosterone, as has all the men in this Administration. But I will say that it was a welcomed sight to see all of the diversity that the Democratic Party has in its ranks. Real diversity, not the tokenism of the Republicans.
We need a Candidate with policy plans and a commitment to fight for all Americans, not just the precious few.
I think last night, Warren shined as the one Candidate who can accomplish this.
59
Elizabeth Warren’s response to the question about guns was to say we need to do research.
That is why we do not need a policy wonk like Warren as President; we need someone who will take quick and decisive action.
That is what Presidents are supposed to do—it’s called leadership.
10
@Mon Ray
I believe that Warren's response referred to the fact that Republicans have blocked the ability of the CDC and other governmental bodies to do any research on a national level about guns as a medical issue.
It would be helpful to the national conversation to study and produce data on gun related topics including number of accidental deaths, propensity for suicide vis-a-vis presence of firearm, maybe even the number of lives saved by the presence of a firearm in the house as a preventative.
We are missing a big part of the picture because the NRA - via Republicans in Congress - does not want us to study the issue.
37
@Mon Ray Actually, we do need research or we are likely to put forward a gun control bill that makes us feel good, but does nothing to solve the problem. The gun lobby has succeeded in not even allowing government research into gun violence. For example, what if it turned out that kids who shoot up their schools have been bullied extensively. Anti-bullying may be the answer, but what if the difference between those bullied who shoot up their schools and those who do not has more to do with the sort of support they get at home? This is more complicated than just get rid of the guns. Warren is right. And leadership is not looking resolute as you sail into a storm because you were too proud to ask for a weather report.
10
@Mon Ray Yup, make quick and decisive decisions without doing any research or thinking about the issue too deeply. Sounds like a plan. We need another "decider." Bush didn't do research before sending troops into Iraq. Trump didn't (doesn't) do research when he puts kids in cages, deregulates the energy industries, and starts trade wars.
11
"Only Warren and Bill de Blasio raised their hands in support of “Medicare for All,” but the rest of the group was pretty much in accord about getting to the same place more incrementally."
The question was not about supporting Medicare-for-all, they all did, but who was in favor of abolishing private insurance. A *very* different question.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/26/18760646/2020-democratic-debate-elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all
16
I think Warren’s choice of words about how to address the problem of the plethora of guns in this country may not have been the most artfully chosen: a research problem. But her more expansive answer is right, it is a serious public health problem that requires research and data that the federal government is currently prohibited from collecting.
49
It was about health, distribution of wealth and immigration. Warren nailed it. Talked about well-researched policy plans. Beto surprised me answering in Spanish but was on the lame side in substance. And, Delaney, uff. He did not belong there.
I loved the diversity. I hope voters, Democrats or not, will remember this diversity, compared to Trump's Administration's little club and out him from Office. I will vote for whoever is not Trump.
64
@Aurace Rengifo
Diversity or competence?
Decisions, decisions...
@Aurace Rengifo
But, does that mean you are a solid Democrat?
@Sam Song
A very solid anti-Trump voter.
1
I doubt that many here switched from the debate to CSPAN last night, where Trump was holding forth before the right-wing faith and freedom people, who cheered him on as he said everything that they wanted to hear. He and they are a clear and present danger to the United States, and he came across as far more canny and skillful at what he does than the rest of us would like to think. We need a candidate who can destroy Trump onstage, and no matter how good they seem to be, I'm not sure that many of the Democratic candidates are capable of doing that.
18
@JEB
If you listened to Hannity who was talking to Trump on Hannity's own show. He was trying to get a word in edgewise over Trump's bulldozer methods to preventing anyone from saying or asking a question. It was comical. Fortunately they set time constraints on answers during debates.
We saw during 2016 that Trump is a bully during debates, constantly interrupting and name calling. I hope the debates in 2020 are better moderated.
@JEB
Don't fool yourself. Most of us here in New York City know exactly how "canny and skillful" (or downright devious!) Trump is at manipulating public opinion.
He's a Showman -- not a President.
That's also why we didn't vote for him.
1
Like many democratic voters I am torn between wanting a candidate of substance and a candidate who can win.
Sometimes I look to Joe Biden as a "transition" candidate - like a transition relationship, the one that gets you past the bad breakup and on to your real soul mate.
I want to believe that a candidate with substance can win, but given the level of discourse, the low bar that the right-wing has set, I don't see how that can happen.
10
@DaveInNewYork
Have faith Dave. The Democrats have the best field of Candidates than the Republicans can only dream of
5
Warren is crushing it. Delaney has done well. Di Blasio looks strong.
6
My problem with Klobuchar is Al Franken. I just can't get past it. Julian Castro was a pleasant surprise but my number one is Warren.
23
@aginfla I can't imagine why Al Franken would be a bar to voting for Sen. Klobuchar.
Sen. Franken, a poster person for the Democratic leadership's failure to place respect for due process above a "zero tolerance rush to judgment" (pushed by Sen. Gillibrand who saw an opportunity in silencing a rival) only connections with Sen. Klobuchar is living in the same state and being a Democratic senator.
33
@aginfla: you may be confused; Franken and Klobuchar were effective colleagues representing Minnesota in the Senate. The person who did Franken is was Kristen Gillibrand, Senator from New York. She will participate in tonight's second round, and hopefully, someone will ask her if she regrets gaslighting Al. (She should, if she has any sense).
11
@aginfla. My problem with Amy Klobuchar is that she's no Al Franken.
1
May we all just spend a moment appreciating complete sentences? Rational arguments? Compassionate lines of thought?
Total win for all of the above.
583
@Diana C. 8 of the last 9 Democratic nominees for President have been lawyers. Lawyers can speak in complete sentences, but they are among the most unpopular of professionals. They are articulate in delivering their message. But what counts is the message they deliver.
3
@michjas
Being articulate in delivering a message isn't something we've seen coming out of the White House in almost three years.
32
@Diana C Our political discourse has been completely debased over the past 4 years by Trump. This debate was a real reminder that there are smart, passionate, moral and articulate people who want the job and appear ready to handle it. Thanks for your comment. After I saw it, I said to myself: 'hey, yes, how refreshing!'
25
The guy who was stage left came across the best. My governor had next to no time to talk.
6
@J Darby
Yes, Inslee had only 5 minutes. Several people had 10 and 11 minutes. It definitely was biased. And unfair. Shame on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo.
Your governor when he finally had a chance to speak made me sit up and listen. He stood out from the rest. I found him refreshing.
He was my first choice. I also found Amy Klobuchar refreshing. Warren was loud and shrill. The other women were not shrill and screechy and answered in calm quiet yet forceful voices.
Inslee first and Klobuchar second. Bye bye Castro, Beto, DeBlasio, Ryan, Delany, Booker. Warren should probably exit as well too wonky. But she will remain.
And I really did not appreciate those who spoke Spanish, it was a show off moment.. Most of us could not understand what they were saying. Even the Telemundo interviewer didn't speak Spanish. This was not the forum for Spanish. It will turn off white working class men that we need to attract.
4
@J Darby That was deBlasio, who surprised me by saying things that voters need to hear. And I noticed that the moderators gave your governor no time. I really like him.
3
@esp
Ah, "SHRILL".
A word reserved only for women.
Women are winners.
44
The debate had good moments for several candidates, but annoying Chuck Todd was a distraction. He likes to make speeches instead of asking direct questions. Huh ? was my companion's response to a few of Chuck's convolutions. Chuck, its not about you. Todd,in an affected way,looks sideways while he asks a question and then purses his lips when finished, as if to say " so there "! Then there is the hair thing. Chuck accept baldness! The bangs with comb over spurs chilling future images of a Donald Trump species, life form, on top of your head.One is already far too many.
40
@Don Shipp., agree Todd is awful, all the time, a very weak interviewer.
2
Liberal Warren is toast. No one in the red states will vote for her.
2
@MJG
Not true. Even people in the Red States want a decent wage, education, gun reform, good health insurance and equal opportunity.
40
@MJG A Democratic Jesus wouldn't get the electoral college votes from a Red State. I want a Democrat running that DEMOCRATS want - not who a few Republicans 'may' vote for.
2
@MJG The red states are a lost cause anyway. It's the purple states that matter.
Let's have two strong women on the 2020 ticket!
9
@BSR. That will guarantee a loss.
3
@Jackson Why?
" ... make sure Julián Castro of Texas was onstage, and not his identical twin." I'm an Independent living in Texas who is disgusted with Mr.Trump. I don't know much of anything about these two guys. I do know that the mayor of San Antonio is mostly an honorary position as they have a strong city manager. Maybe not the best qualification for POTUS.
9
Gail, Give these candidates a few lessons in loosening up and using some humor in their responses. Castro's "Adios Trump" was a big hit. Policies are great. So is personality.
24
No country in human history has been subjected to a presidential campaign that lasts for two years. Why must we be the first?
34
For all the Dem concerns regarding Trump this is the best candidate pool they could come up with? Yikes, not impressed. Still like Hawaii Gabbard the best.
4
@Pandora
Any one of them, on their worst day, is better than the protofascist buffoon we've got. Keep your eye on the ball.
Elizabeth Warren, who I've come to like lately, took a step back with her Sarah Sanders like avoidance in answering questions. She said she never dreamed she'd be on the stage — and her starry-eyed lack of preparation showed (and her lipstick was God awful). Amy Klobuchar was definitely better debating than on talk shows or committee inquiries, but a Klobuchar/O'Rourke ticket remains the nightmare scenario — the constant on air grating of their voices might push into Hillary territory. Julián Castro was the star of the night. Tulsi Gabbard killed off Tim Ryan's chances, but she could be too socially conservative. Corey Booker still has a shot.
5
I'd like to focus on the the agenda of the journalists for a moment who ran the debate. There attempts to pin down and get candidates on the record for holding positions on the left of the political spectrum is to their minds just doing their job. However they are unwittingly setting up these candidates for political attacks and distortions of their views by unscrupulous players on the right. It is not helpful to pin down good people new to the public who all have more goodness and better moral character than our derelict president. A series of questions that acted as if we did not have a clear and present danger in the WH just gives the other side ammunition for caricatures and smear ads from the right.
Maybe any and all TV exposure is good for new faces, but they will saddled with positions that will misrepresent them before they get out of the starting gate. I'm wondering if having such a long campaign season is in the public's best interest as well.
In other democracies in developed economies the campaign period is limited to a much shorter duration. My fear is the public will be burned out by the time we get to the election. Candidates need to sharpen their platforms, positions and criticisms of the status quo, but the Media needs to be more aware of how they play into the selection process. Every single person on stage last night was a better person than the scurrilous Trump, but that most important fact was never noted.
20
I wrote off Rep. Ryan for wanting to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan during his presidency. Luckily, he won't have a presidency.
I wrote off Corey Booker for being the only Democratic candidate Wednesday night to agree with Trump's position that Obama should have never signed the international nuclear agreement with Iran.
I wrote off Rep. Gabbard for insinuating she was just a teenager when she spoke out against gay people. She was lying. Also, why wasn't she asked why she refuses to denounce Syrian leader Assad?
I wrote off Beto O'Rourke for appearing to be out of his depth in the debate.
I felt sorry for former Rep. Delaney and Gov. Inslee for being pretty much left out of the debate. All the questions went to Warren, Booker and Castro.
Sen. Klobuchar tries but she doesn't have the 'right stuff.'
I'm hoping the second night of the Democratic debate is better. Oh, and why did Rachel Maddow think the NBC audio problems were so funny? Looked amateurish.
9
@RRM Booker’s answer was more nuanced than you describe.
1
@RRM
Let's face it. You're voting for Trump....Next.
In my opinion Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar took the night. Corey Booker and Julian Castro came close. The rest might consider leaving the field to help a Democrat beat Trump handily.
31
Seems to me Delaney has a remote control in his pocket. Pushes on and the smile appears. Off and it goes away. Can't tell you how much it creeps me out. What I wish someone would say is this: Wealth in America has had decades to show a willingness to share. They have demonstrated they are A. not going to share and B. have no interest in sharing. If the private sector had a plan to narrow income inequaity, they would have. They took away your health care, retirement benefits, sick time, child care, and pay increases. Screaming the whole time...."We simply don't have the money for those things. Believe us...we would if we could". Turns out they did have the money. And they could have. And Trump handed them. Enthusiastically Gave them. Lots more money. And has told them there's plenty more where that came from. And then they got average Americans to blame what our efforts have done to you on the poor and immigrants and single mothers. The wealthy and Republicans have pushed the non weathy further down the ladder. And now they want to raise their foot and kick those at the bottom off the ladder so there's more room for those they have pushed down the ladder. All you need to know is the wealthy, like the guy writing in the Times, feel they can't share their wealth unless politicians put the gun to their head, raise their taxes, and FORCE them to share. Then they tell you they are more than willing to. But politicians are holding them back. Rinse. Repeat.
26
@Walking Man
I'd vote for you.
One of the highlights had to be having a candidate rightly called out for mansplaining. The attempts at agenda roll-outs while evading the question at hand were quite precious as well. Time for the Democrats to start getting down to fighting weight, whittle out a few more candidates.
By the way Donald Trump is not a great president as he likes tell us often. He, by his performance, is a nasty (with emphasis) person. If that isn't bad enough, Mr. Nasty got elected to become President Horrible but I've never once thought if only it could have been Cruz. That's likely to bring my dinner back up.
16
That running for President has become nonstop should tell us something. Seems not much more than a big money maker.
7
I really hope they stay civil towards each other throughout the debates and their campaigns; one thing that John McCain showed us during his campaigns.
14
The 2020 election is not about the issues. We all know that if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, all the issues will be addressed and the corrections will begin. The 2020 election is 100% about getting rid of Donald Trump, the soulless Republican Party and the racist Republican base. If the Democratic candidates drone on about the issues for the next year, then Trump wins. If the Democratic candidates attack and destroy Trump, we have a chance to win.
10
@poodlefree
I disagree. The winning party should emphasize better programs for the hoi polloi that will be implemented if elected. A negative campaign benefits no one.
4
“I’m not Trump” (which seems to be Biden’s platform) will not win the election
@poodlefree
So true. Lock him up!
They are all impressive in their own way! Healthcare is certainly a big issue! Yet, in that vain, I didn’t hear an idea that would be beneficial! Sick people need healthcare causing insurance rates to rise! How about a concerted effort to push all American schools to have vigorous exercise programs, tied into good advice on diet! Yes, preventative medicine with such programs! Imagine how much money that would save, to get Americans moving!
5
@Counter Measures
Under our current system of healthcare for working people, health insurance prices go up and will always go up because the healthcare companies raise the rates or cut the coverage even if no one were “sick.”
2
i will say it because no one else will. Hillary lost in part because she was a woman. If anyone should acknowledge this fact, you’d think it would be a woman. And because of this prejudice, women candidates are a risk. And maybe it is a risk we don’t want to take.
4
@michjas
I'll say it because you seem to have forgotten.
Hillary got 3+MILLION more votes than Trump.
She might have lost some votes because she's a woman, but she really lost because of the Electoral College, FOX news, Republican gerrymandering, Citizen's United, Facebook -- and the Russians.
And just for the record.
The majority of Americans would be willing to take anyone over Donald Trump.
34
She was also extremely unlikable to large sections of the country. She seemed to many to be entitled. These women do not.
1
@N. Smith As a Canadian, one thing I find difficult to understand is the apparent tolerance for the electoral college system. How is it not an outrage that the Candidate who received 3 million more votes does not become the president? A system that allowed the orange-faced buffoon to become president is in serious need of repair.
2
I just love that the Democrats respond to the threat posed by Trump - I'd argue to democracy, but at the very least to social safety nets and the continuation of the environment - by gathering together and choosing the best of the best to face him.
Twenty times.
Yes, just looking at all the fresh and not so fresh faces who think they'd be great Presidents makes me certain we will see Trump and see his tweets until 2024.
Way to get coordinated, Democrats. Way to organize. Way to show us all you are not masters of goat rodeos.
6
Awful. A bunch of policy wonks yelling buzzwords at each other which will be meaningless to the vast majority of people who don't spend their lives on Twitter, MSNBC and the New York Times. Sixty seconds is not enough to properly deal with a highly complex issue like healthcare or immigration, but eliminating insider jargon is a start. The moderators should cover fewer issues, and allow longer for each response. I think NBC has failed to come up with a good format.
6
It was a great way to introduce and get to know the Democratic candidates. The positives that lit up the stage--civility, knowledge of topics, strengths, camaraderie. Elizabeth Warren made me most hopeful for the future.
36
Gail, your column was sophomoric. This debate as a first look at an alternate to the Trump administration was like a relief rally in the stock market. All the candidates handled themselves in a decent professional manner and articulated their positions in assertive ways without resorting to insults and put downs. Any one of them would be much much better than what we currently have.
18
The debate may have been remarkable for its diversity but that is certainly the only accolade I can think of.
4
No one presented themselves as a threat for Trump.
No one landed a catchy slogan.
No one lobbed a sticky topic for tomorrow night’s debate.
No one took on Biden or Sanders.
2
All my FB friends are saying: Warren, Castro, Booker.
I'd add Klobuchar.
17
Castro, Booker and Klobuchar. They came across as likeable and genuine. Warren has amazing intellect, but cringeworthy. So sorry, but that is the reality.
5
Thumbs down! I have never seen such a sad group who claim they could do the job of the presidency and fight for the economy that we deserve.
3
Charlie.. Did you miss the last republican debate? Never so any group as LOW as them.
So, Gail -- we could get two Castros for the price of one? That's a really good deal! Dems on stage last night, 3 dolls and 7 guys, all sprinting to replace Donald Trump next year. A big tent, diversity up the yingyang. A beautiful display of our American melting pot.
Yay for Warren and Kobluchar! Yay for Castro and Booker! Almost all the candidates on stage were likeable, some a tad less than others. And Sen. Amy Klobuchar brought the house down -- "I don't think we should conduct foreign policy in our bathrobe at 5 in the morning."
The first night debaters did their best, but a few of them didn't have such a good night. Life is like that, sometimes we have a good night, sometimes a bad night...it's the human condition.
We're only 6 months out from Elections 2020. We know the candidates will be winnowed during the debate process, and that our precarious and precious democracy will be restored.
8
Last night was like a community college buffet. At lot to choose from, but nothing really stood out.
6
Does anyone who watched the "debate" (hardly a debate by any stretch of the definition - 10 eager candidates looking to deliver a knockout punch in 60 seconds without really damaging their opponents) really think it did anything to change the Democratic landscape going into 2020?
This is one lifelong Dem who thinks it did not. Most Democrats are united in their collective desire to remove the current president from the Oval Office, and the big question is who among the candidates has the best chance to do that.
Everything else is secondary in my opinion. Any one of the ten people on the stage last night, and the ten who will be there tonight, would do a better job as president than Donald Trump. So my real issue is, if the majority remains in the Senate with the Republican Party, how exactly is the next president going to deliver on any political promise?
39
You can agree or disagree with any of the candidates, but the one thing it wasn’t was Name calling uncivil Republican debate. Good old intelligence shone through the entire event. Smart people with policies and plans. What a relief!
162
@Mark, 300 million guns floating around, just like climate change, is almost beyond our reach. Both involve the participation of millions of people. One answer, find it.
13
I AGREE WITH GAIL COLLINS'S Analysis overall. I do think that the women debaters made a very strong showing. Elizabeth Warren stood out above all the rest. Amy Klobuchar is a formidable debater. Tulsi Gabbard seems aloof and calculating. Her style involved lots of sharp edges delivered with an authoritarian tone, which may appeal to the military in the audience. I thought that Bill De Blasio made a surprisingly strong showing. He is a formidable debater, who projects himself very well. Literally. He of all the participants, is possessed of the most powerful voice. Even during moments when the debate turned in direction of an operatic mad scene, De Blasio's voice was clearly audible above the straining chorus of the others. Cory Booker was passionate and emotionally engaging. Several of the hopefuls spoke in Spanish intermittently, with varying levels of proficiency. Julian Castro was the only native speaker. Beto was pretty good. Cory needs to polish his Spanish. I was surprised how well the debate went. I had expected the whole business to resemble the Tower of Babel, with, well, a lot of babble. There were some blabberous moments, but they were few, kept to a minimum by the skillful, energetic, determined moderators
32
All 10 were far more articulate and informed than the current WH occupant. That was a good "debate" (and even involved some discussion back and forth), and far more informative than the clown show from 4 years ago when the Republican candidates spent much of the time trying to match Trump's juvenile nicknames and criticisms of the others on stage.
43
Senator Elizabeth Warren is intelligent and articulate She is highly educated and her statements regarding a multitude of issues told me this woman does her homework.
I believe our country is ready for a woman to hold the seat of the presidency and so far, Senator Warren fits the job description.
109
Many, many distinct and interesting viewpoint. As the Democrats only get one party, at least some of these fine individuals should consider runs as independents, a la Nader or Ross Perot.
There were a billion times this year that I was aghast at a party that produced a choice between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
16
Miami is not "soggy." We have trade winds, air conditioning bty Mother Nature, unlike any other major city. When we lived in DC, summers were intolerable and were soggy.
Tourism, our econimic measure, is up in Miami. Had Florida implemented expansion of Medicaid, the economy would be humming. We do need massive support to stem sea rise. Even our Republicans reject the Republican denial of climate change and support funding sea walls and barrier reefs.
10
It's clear the main points Inslee was making went past Collins and plenty of others:
Inslee was making the general point that he has enacted policies, in this case the specific point of protecting women's reproductive rights, to highlight his executive experience and concrete actions as a Governor. That's in contrast to people who've advocated for policies but haven't been in a position to enact them (legislators like Senators and Representatives) while dealing with opposition and taking responsibility--credit or blame--as the executive authority for a given policy.
In other words, his message was talk is only one part of the policy process and action is what brings the results desired. And he, unlike anyone else on that stage, has delivered the desired result. So, yes, it is a unique accomplishment of his compared to the others present.
The simplistic understanding is to interpret what Inslee said as being simply about women's reproductive rights. Of course, as Inslee's opponent, Klobuchar sought to and very skillfully and intelligently capitalized on what he said to make her well-put and important point.
Yes, credit due to Klobuchar for making her point, but credit due to Inslee for actually putting into effect the desired policies. Demerit for Collins in her failure to acknowledge Inslee’s accomplishment and not acknowledge or understand the bigger point he was making.
23
@AnotherCitizen
I thought Klobuchar chose the wrong moment to make a point. Inslee did not say anything he needed to apologize for. Klobuchar did not succeed in making want to support her.
5
As the culling of candidates begins, I hope every single one either runs for eligible seats in their respective states or works tirelessly to ensure that Democrats hold the house and take the Senate. Until that happens, no real change can occur.
67
@Hla3452
I would guess a fair number of them are in this race either to raise their profile for a chance at winning an election for a slightly lesser job, or as an audition for a Cabinet position.
5
Imagine, just imagine, a world in which someone like Elizabeth Warren could become president because she has the best ideas and the best policies and this was what the voters cared about.
If voters would, just for a few minutes, focus on which candidate will leave America better off if they become president, rather than on all the other nonsense, one-liners, language skills, personalities, charm, height, race, ...
Just elect a candidate that tells the world "OK, you can start taking America seriously again now." Please!
246
There could have been some discussion about how obstruction in the current context is worse than normal obstruction. Why? Because the Commander in Chief has obstructed investigation into Russian meddling in the election. This is a serious matter and should have been broached. Not only have their been multiple acts of obstruction but obstruction of investigating a foreign attack on America. Imagine if Obama had done one thousandth of what Trump has done in plain sight.
There should have been more highlighting of this urgent security risk. Perhaps in the next debate.
20
@Bob Guthrie Apparently the Mueller Report has not reached down under.
5
@Bob Guthrie
In January 2021 when Trump walks out of the white house a private citizen he will be buried by federal, state, and local charges. It will consume his life. Hopefully his daughter, her husband, and his sons will share in the fun.
"justice for all"
99
@JPE
Actually I have it and have read it avidly. It seems not to have reached a lot of Americans- for example the president.
On page 5 of the report it straight out describes obstruction and its all around Russia:
"The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed."
I think if the Dems work together as a team instead of just competing at these high profile debates they could be driving home the message about Trump. That was my point.
22
"The tenor was...so collegial..."
History (if civilization will last long enough for this election to be considered history, a very big if) will look back on this election cycle as a turning point toward maturation of our politics. This is because after Donald Trump, it is mostly impossible to seek the presidency as a personal trophy, or high point of a career. 1) The presidency officially doesn't really carry very much prestige anymore, if any; 2) No candidate mentally competent enough to mount a campaign could want the job a) w/ its current challenges/burdens & b) in light of (1), above, more passionately or avidly than s/he wants Trump ousted.
Each of these candidates sincerely understands that the stakes are infinitely greater than personal ego or a trophy. They may well want the job, but more importantly, they want a regime change. Accordingly, each in her/his heart is genuinely thinking "May the best candidate win, even if it's not me."
This process should be a genuine referendum on the issues, what direction the Democratic party, & the country should go in. Because everybody understands it's "not about me/them," but national survival itself.
Sad that it took such factors to bring us here, but it will be all about substance going forward, at least for a generation.
But again, this would not have been possible without Trump destroying the presidency's prestige, de-trophying it. That may be his only positive legacy, but he will actually have achieved this.
9
One thing I agree with here: voters need to become donors. If we sit back and let big donors fund campaigns, then those donors will be able to call on the winning donnees for favors. Even $5, if done an masse, can stave off corporate influence.
57
Well said, Mary! Every contribution helps and I'm not sure people realize that!
1
It was clear that the Democrats are able to produce candidates who appear to care about issues as well as think about them. Anyone in Debate 1 would make a better president than Trump, and the line up was overall one of people with more relevant experience than the GOP offered in 2016. The GOP has a couple of advantages the Democrats do not: utter unethical ruthlessness and an overall more cohesive party. The GOP crew are less likely to deviate from the party line than Democrats are, but their uniform thinking (while limited in its own way) allows them to focus their efforts more precisely (unfortunately in the service of a dreadfully bad agenda). Please Democrats, pick candidates for president and VP and pull together to get them elected. Voters: do not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the good. To independents and unhappy Republicans, I beg you to recognize that the experiment of electing someone like Trump who wants to deconstruct government has failed badly and damaged the country.
If the next administration is Democratic, their early months in office will be occupied with repairing the damage Trump has done to several government departments with critically important missions, like the State Dept, EPA, HHS, Dept of Energy, (which monitors and evaluates nuclear activity in other countries) and others.
90
@Bonnie
what I once read about the 'difference' between them:
democrats fall in love
republicans fall in line
3
The candidates with no presence in the polls need to go; twenty candidates spread over two nights is overwhelming for most voters. We can’t allow all those voices to become indistinguishable noise when our democracy and our future is at stake.
Let’s hope the number of viable candidates is significantly pared down sooner than later. And frankly, I hope DeBlasio tops the list of those leaving the stage.
32
@NYCtoMalibu
I, frankly, hope De Blasio tops the list! Actually, I consider Elizabeth Warren and De Blasio the top two candidates of last night. That debate cheered me more than anything that has happened since Trump took office. It shows that this country has many competent people who could take leadership and do a good job. We don't need to despair.
Los Angeles to NYC!
4
@JM
I have no doubts that New Yorkers are going to weigh in on this one, simply because we know Bill De Blasio better than the rest of the country (like we knew Trump).
Just be warned. You won't find too many willing to go to bat for either of them.
3
Ms. Collins,
Thanks for the good summation of the debate.
I must say that it was a good line up and, even though I have my favorites, I was happy with all of them. I remember thinking how much better the Dems are in their debates than the Republicans who are just mean little party machines.
Every time I see the GOP on the national stage like the Kavanaugh hearings, etc., they are snarly, dimwitted and really crazy like the "Senator" in my home state. It's plain scary.
This line up, tonite, of competent, knowledgeable people made me hopeful that our political landscape is not as barren as it has, of late seemed, and maybe, with enough good candidates like these, the Dems could retake the Senate too.
In the debate, tonite, Senator Warren continued to shine and I hope all will take note of her. We are lucky to have her.
174
I thought Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Julien Castro were very good. In truth, every person on that stage is equipped to be president. I like Jay Inslee, but would like to see him head the EPA, the most important position heading into the future, if we hope to have one.
277
There is a huge prejudice against female candidates?
Really?
For example, if Hillary had not been female,
if Bill had not met Hillary and they had not married, and she had not been "first lady" for 8 years as the president's female wife, Hillary would have been an outstanding politician and would have been elected president on her own?
Hardly likely.
In the real world, Hillary Clinton had enormous name recognition, as the female wife of a very popular male president.
Hillary was elected to the Senate, appointed Sec of State, and won the Democratic nomination for President, as the female wife of Bill Clinton.
In that sense, being female and the female wife of Bill was an invaluable boost to her political career.
Being female in this context was an enormous political asset for Hillary,
not a liability. Hardly a liability.
The idea that Hillary lost the election because she was female
totally ignores the entire context of her political life as a female politician gaining name recognition from her male husband, the popular president of the USA.
She lost the electoral college in spite of all of that help from being Bill's wife.
16
@David there is a huge prejudice.
I could argue with your specific example from the last election, but it is easier if we just consider the results of every Presidential election, ever.
19
@David
Did you read the Russia report?
Page 1 Paragraph 2;
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
”
6
@David
Did you read the Russia report?
Page 1 Paragraph 2;
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.”
2
"When a party puts John Delaney, Eric Swalwell and Marianne Williamson in a presidential event, you cannot possibly complain it’s being too picky.”
marianne williamson is intellgent, in tune with the issues, and articulate in discussing them. she can hold her own with any of the other candidates. she just lacks their political credentials.
you have to be as outrageous as trump to win that way. williamson appears to be sane.
in fact, they all do. after 2016’s coronation, i am glad to see so many sane democratic candidates. i have some confidence that when the number eventually becomes one, the party will stay united.
11
I didnt watch the debates. But there is no mention of "Health Care", "College Affordability/Loans", "Consumer Protection" in the news coverage !
Have Dems forgotten the basics that got them elected in Nov 2018 ?
@Sam Swaminathan
You read the news reports about the debates and conclude that Democrats had forgotten core principles? Firstly, the debate was moderated and the topics of the debate were directed by questions picked by the moderators. Most of the debaters answered the questions rather than use their time as an opportunity to present preselected talking points. Secondly, just because the news reports you read don't mention it, health care was a focus and all weighed in. College affordability was discussed. Consumer protection could be inferred in the responses candidates offered when confronting the outsize roles large corporations currently enjoy. I imagine you also read the Barr report and accept that the Mueller Report's overall thrust was "No collusion, no obstruction!"
6
@Sam Swaminathan
Next time watch the debates. Health care was discussed at great length. And the debate questioners (NBC & MSNBC anchors) set the agenda & asked the questions, not the candidates.
Visit the candidates' websites to learn their policies on health care, college affordability/loans & consumer protection, & many other important issues for our country.
ANY of these candidate would be a vast improvement to Donald Trump.
1
@Sam Swaminathan these are all signature issues of Warren who has practically made these 'basics' her own.
Gail, from one Native Ohio Gal to another, I’m just sorry YOU are not running. Imagine that inside info and drama. Alas.
It’s Warren for ME. If WE can’t get this brilliant, compassionate Woman elected over Trump, we might as well all stay at home and start taking massive tranquilizers. We’ll need them.
Seriously.
64
Newsflash --
The "elite coasts" have millions of hardworking blue-collar workers, and, yes, even farmers.
Dem's must stop pitting the coasts against the middle.
38
@SLBvt It's Trump who's been ranting about coastal elites, from my observation. Everyone seems to assume the coastal population looks down on the middle of the country, but I don't think that is the case.
30
@SLBvt The two paragraphs here seem to state opposite points. "Coastal Elite" is hollow trash talk to isolate red state inhabitants by casting blue states as threatening "others". In the first 30 years of my career in Silicon Valley, we made manufacturing test equipment for customers in Beaverton, Oregon; Pocatello, Idaho; Tucson, Arizona; Garden of the Gods, Colorado; Kokomo, Indiana; Allentown, Pennsylvania; Melbourne, Florida; Raleigh - Durham, North Carolina; and Essex Junction, Vermont. In addition to many in California, Texas, New York and Massachusetts. Its only been 10 generations since "The United States" were 13 British Colonies, 12 with Atlantic coastlines, and Pennsylvania with a Great Lakes coastline. No regionalism has more impact away from the coasts than air conditioning, systematic racial and economic oppression, and subsistence rural economies evolving into urban, industrial, cash-wage economies.
4
My main takeaway is that all of these candidates could probably beat Trump, as long as we unite behind them.
Does anyone remember the clown car that was the Republican Party primary in 2016? Rick Perry couldn’t remember a department he wanted to eliminate. Herman Cain couldn’t explain his signature 9-9-9 plan.
All these candidates knew what they were talking about. Hugely positive sign. Most have decent charisma. This was effectively our undercard debate, so tomorrow may be a bit more of a melee. But this was a good showcase.
65
"Thanks to Donald Trump, Americans have been obsessing about the next election since 2016. Remember? You were stalking around the house yelling, 'He’s lying about the popular vote!'"
No. I wasn't. I guess I'm not as easily trolled as some are.
3
Social groups once had some sort of lying competition or tall tale contest. This started to go away when Democrats made each year before presidential elections into extravagant promises competitions, and it may as well be that way.
What you WON'T hear is how their promises can be paid for without crippling the economy. I'd guess 3 out of 4 of these pilgrims are only here to polish their paid-speaking resumes.
4
@The Observer
Republic Administrations and/or Congreases signed off on legislation causing more than 80% of the current $22 Trillion National Debt.
36
Maybe it's a mistake for taxpayer money to fund the presidential campaigns of non-entities.
The huge 2016 GOP lineup was bad enough, and we ended up with the guy who was good at affixing silly epithets to his rivals, and not much else; now we have even less experienced Democratic candidates.
We even have the mayor of New York City, Mr. Bill I-get-chauffeur-driven-in-a-city-SUV-to-my-old-gym de Blasio.
1
@B.
1) these candidates ALL fund their Campaigns with money DONATED by Americans and do not have Russian hackers working to influence the American electorate on their behalf.
2) have you ever driven in New York City?
7
@B. Literally every single person on that stage has years more government experience than Trump.
7
I liked Booker more than I expected to. Warren kinda scares me — the steely gaze is a little too steely.
11
@Marianne
Cory Booker is a kind, intelligent person, and as qualified as the other current candidates to run the country. I agree that Warren is a little scary—her passion is sometimes overwhelming, and in context can almost seem a little forced—but maybe that "steely gaze" is indicative of the strength our candidate will need to beat the buffoon.
7
@Marianne
I notice Senator Warren's ideas and her passion in talking about them.
1
Delaney believes he can work with McConnell.
This says to me he is unrealistic and NOT honest.
He is out.
And I am a US citizen.
42
I'll be flipping back and forth. When asked to support broader candidate recognition in our highly contested city mayoral race, someone had the brilliant idea to hold a full debate at the exact same time as the presidential primary debate. It's totally a Hillary Clinton redux on a local level. Way to go DNC. Slow clap...
@Andy
I TiVo the debates .. always. Then I can back-up & replay whatever I didn't get the first time around.
Perhaps YouTube will have videos of this debate? Wouldn't hurt to check.
3
@Andy
In the last 2 decades, has Utah ever voted for a Democrat for president?
One could guess that the schedulers of your mayoral debate most likely thought--with reason--the first night of the first Democratic debate would not be a high priority for anyone in Utah.
I'm / we're watching, but we are still very ticked about Bullock's exclusion.
And to know a slot for him went to Maryanne Williamson or
De Blasio (tho his call for Dem unity of purpose as it speaks to 2020 results in WH is appreciated) or several of the other bland white guys whose names I'm still not sure of???
That's not just wrong, it's foolish.
The DNC HAS TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER!
Okay, got that out of my system for today. And Gail, sorry about the negativity.
What gives me hope tonight is simply hearing most everyone speak in complete and -- mostly -- extremely coherent sentences and thoughtful and insightful policy considerations. And in some cases, in more than one language.
What a refreshing, promising, hopeful change from the last three+ years of ... you know who.
He who finds tonight 'Boring!'
He who. Has. Got. To. Go.
And, Steve Bullock, don't let me down in July :)
7
@jazz one: Sorry, but I have never heard of Steve Bullock...or Marianne Williamson, or Delaney, or several others; the only reason I know who Bill deBlasio is because he is mayor of New York City and I live on Long Island. The Democrat field needs to be whittled down to three or four candidates, so that voters heads won't spin around.
As long as the next President is not Trump!
21
@jazz one
Yes, I agree, I missed Bullock too but he entered late due to other commitments and there had to be rules in a crowded field.
And you're right, it's hard to think that Williamson, a good person but who has limited potential in election politics, got a slot and Bullock didn't.
I'm sure we'll see him next time.
7
@Miriam
I hear 'ya Miriam. Of course, the goal HAS to be to get the nominee who can soundly beat Trump.
It can be the Tooth Fairy at this point (kidding ... kind of) ... whoever gets the job done.
And we rebuild from there.
As to Bullock ... if you wish, watch "Dark Money," (PBS, 'Frontline') about untraceable super PAC and offshore money in Montana elections -- and heroic, successful efforts to fight back against that shadiness. That was our intro Gov. Steve Bullock.
Smart, solid, pragmatic. Heck, he's a Dem, in Montana! -- and he's the Governor :)
He's got something 'extra,' or at least seemed so in the limited time have seen / heard him.
1
Liz!. A wealth tax on (only) 75,000 families brings the country enough income that we can do things like universal pre-school? See how out of whack things have gotten?
Liz!
45
@James Ferrell
I'm glad you pointed that big, little fact out for us. Thank you.
4
I watched to whittle down who I might vote for in a primary. The mayor of New York and Castro were the losers tonight - in my opinion. They acted too much like Trump with their interruptions and lack of respect for others on the stage.
8
@Kathy Very good point .. however their interruptions & lack of respect for others on the stage might work really well for either of them if they are the ones to debate Trump.
3
The election is as important as the nomination. True
But why do we have primaries to pick the most left wing then see them move to the center after nomination? It makes me think Warren is both moderate enough yet somehow progressive. The contradiction in terms.
The best Republican is not in the White House now.
Ted Cruz would have had news conferences. True. Anybody would’ve!
1
After the primaries, Democrats will need to debate Republicans. The GOP is going to attempt to make this election into a referendum about "socialism". If you look, you can see it coming from a mile away. And it won't be a fair fight. The Republicans will be the junkyard dog.
If we don't pick the candidate who can lead the Democratic party toe-to-toe with them, we could end up with four more years of Trump plus Mitch McConnell still leading the Senate.
24
@Bill B. Yes, I agree. My friend, aRepublican/Libertarian, has been giving me a heads up on the fact that for Republicans the issue of “socialism vs capitalism” is going to be their go to argument because it resonates with many fearful voters. The Dems can deny this easily and counter with the picture of that father and daughter drowned and put that right in the face of Donald Trump: is this who we are?
9
@B. Rothman Maybe the GOP will repeat their usual complaint that Dems just want to give people free stuff. Could that be countered by saying if a country wants to compete globally in an effective way, it must make some investments in its people and infrastructure? That's what a lot of people believed before Reagan.
11
@Bonnie By "investments" do you mean "free stuff given to some people using money stolen from other people"? The Democrats are now divided between those who want to get to full socialism quickly and those who want to get to half-socialism or three-quarters socialism a little more slowly. If looting and redistribution are what the Democrats (and many Republicans) endorse and advocate, how is it a "distortion" for others to notice this?
2
Chris Matthews pressed O'Rourke about tax rates. He said he does not support a 70% rate, which is why I'm assuming he did not answer the question on stage.
And yes, Elizabeth Warren is more and more impressive every time I see her speak. She really does have a plan for what ails America, and the where with all to make it happen.
As for Steve Bullock, I worked hard for him his first year running for Governor, including canvassing and getting out the vote. He's a good man, and would make a great Senator from Montana. I hope he changes his mind about this presidency thing. We need someone like him to take on the 1%er we have in there now.
68
@avrds
I’m very disappointed by so many of these Presidential candidates seemingly ignoring the potential of controlling the Senate for their ‘dream’ on being President.
O’rouke, Bullock, Inslee or even Castro could win Senate seats next year. We need them and Stacey Abrams to run for Senate.
50
@Blank Speaking as a WA state resident, I don't want Inslee to replace either of my senators. Senators Cantwell and Murray are both fine. He should remain the governor.
8
@avrds
What little I've seen of Governor Bullock, I have liked. I can see why you would like to keep him and he does have time yet for the national stage.
Perhaps you should start a movement out there called
"Keep Steve Bullock Home". Good Luck.
2
Warren impressed me with her intelligence and her heart. I was surprised to find myself believing in her. Maybe she really can go all the way.
Booker similarly impressed me with his intelligence, his heart, and his charisma. I've been hearing about him for years now, but this is the first time I've ever really focused on him, and in many ways, he was refreshing. Maybe he could beat Trump, too.
Delaney is a bit rough, but looks capable of defeating the president in a debate. I hope he remains on the scene, and I hope I see him at the next debate. Maybe, maybe he could beat Trump.
Klobuchar was so close to delivering, but not quite. I have always liked her, but I have also always wanted more from her. I liked Castro, but similarly, just wanted a little more. I hope I see him again. I'm on the fence about whether either of them can actually beat the president.
The remaining five are lost to me. I wanted to believe in Ryan, but did not. He was too robotic, too humorless. I want him to be much much better than he is. Neither Beto nor Gabbard came across particularly well -- they each seemed airy, light, insubstantial. Inslee was likable, in his way, but similarly thin -- a one trick pony. DiBlasio is very capable but smarmy and untrustworthy, and his continual interrupting of others was rude.
I would take any of these candidates over Trump.
86
@Peter
I like what you are saying, but I think you are being a bit unkind to Ryan. He nailed it: democrats need to represent, speak to, fight for working Americans around median incomes. Else, it is a party that has relevance on the two coasts and city central.
13
@Kalidan I'm tired of hearing about the "coasts" as if everyone on the coasts makes millions, lives in a mansion and sips "lattes" constantly.
There are millions of us on the coasts who have lost long term jobs due to automation or outsourcing, who struggle from paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet, who struggle getting our kids through school - in other words have all the problems and issues that people in the "heartland" face. Time to stop the stereotyping that both groups do and recognize that we are all fighting to live a decent life in a society where we have a chance to succeed - whether we're "coastal" or "heartland".
292
@Kalidan
Kalidan,
I do appreciate the message Ryan is trying to deliver, and also I suspect (as apparently do you) that this election rides on how a relatively small segment of middle class white centrists in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are inclined to vote. Believe me, I get it. That's why I wanted Ryan to shine. (That's also why I hope that tomorrow Biden shines). I just didn't feel like he made it tonight -- that's my two cents.
9
Castro, Booker, and actually Delaney came out the strongest here. Probably Castro did himself the most good, but Booker as well.
6
@Skillethead
Step back NZ
Delaney believes he can work with Mitch McConnell.
This says to me he is not being realistic or honest.
He is out.
And, yes, I am a US citizen.
7
I watched, not to see who "won" but to hear from some of the candidates who are not as well known to me. Ten more to listen to and then I will start making my short list. But one thing was clear to me, any of those standing on that stage tonight would be a far better president than the current occupant of the White House.
275
All I felt tonight was someone rummaging through my wallet! I don’t think so...
9
If you’re referring to the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the insurance companies, Russian oligarchs, and the wealthy to whom the Republicans gave an enormous tax giveaway, you’re absolutely right. I don’t think so either.
73
@Charlie
I think they were up to a gajillion billion dollars in spending.
4
It's Steve Bullock and yes, I am ticked off.
6
Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker gave the only coherent responses.
Did it not seem that the second half NBC duo practically ignored the fact that Sen. Warren was there? They never addressed her. She still gave the best closing.
The group of 10 reminded me of my first day of college, when we were told to look to our left and right; in a year, only one of the 3 of us would still be there. I suspect the same will be true by the July debate(s). Reaching 2% in the polls is going to be tough for quite a few candidates after tomorrow's group is done.
42
As expected, the Democratic lovefest is played out, like the Tony Awards, for the people in the room.
I truly don’t think they realize that when they pick the perfect progressive candidate (think McGovern, Dukakis) that man or woman will have to win over some purple states. And reparations or free-everything-for-all just ain’t gonna do it.
When Trump realizes he will win again, he will finally be able to relax and let his hair down.
12
When I watch these dodgeball sessions, I always wonder how much of a fudge factor is calculated by the hosts for each time-limited response? It all has to fit into a two hour slot, commercials included, so allowances must be made in advance for the certainty that everyone will exceed their allotted time. Perhaps, after decades of this, there really is some reliable rule of thumb that's been developed.
Debate skills should not be a qualification when considering who to vote for. A President, as opposed to a candidate, does not engage in public debates, nor does he or she need to be able to do so.
I was a high school debater. One time the debate was about segregation. I was assigned the pro-segregation role. Though all of us were against segregation, I overwhelmingly won the debate, which merely proved I had verbal skills that were not simply irrelevant to the substance of the debate but potentially dangerous.
The TV debates are essentially entertainment, largely theater of the absurd, where entertainers such as Trump have a distinct advantage, an advantage that plays well to an American Idol-oriented society, but one that bears no relationship whatsoever to one's ability to be a good President.
I would also note that I would give five-to-one odds that Collins is wrong about everyone perpetually obsessing about the 2020 election. Yes, pundits such as Collins, compulsives such as we who continually refresh the Times Home page and make comments here, the internet of gossip, and the media industry making money off hyping (when not creating) controversy do obsess about the election. The rest of the population, I would bet, (anyone want to take me up on the 5-1 odds?), just go about living their lives and probably won't start paying attention till after Labor Day at the earliest.
15
@Steve Fankuchen
I completely disagree with you.
While the president may not need to publicly debate, they certainly need to debate behind closed doors. In negotiating, in getting one's view across.
And I watch the debates, more than anything, to judge demeanor and to hear their positions on topics that may not have been clear to me (recall infant Trump name-calling in the debates).
And I will definitely take your 5-1 odds, which imply that 80% of the population is not paying attention yet.
That might have been true 3 years ago, but I can assure you it is not the case any more.
If anything good came of Trump's election win, it's that people are more involved and paying attention to politics than every before.
NBC did the Democratic nominees no favors. The weirdly triumphal music set the wrong tone. The sound problems were amateurish and embarrassing. Their questions often read as if a group of high school debate teams came up with them.
Nonetheless, every single one of those candidates sounded many times more presidential and thousands of times more informed on basic facts of reality than anyone in our current administration.
357
@Stacy VB Totally agree NBC did not pick their “A” team, or project professionalism in production values. Plus, Melodrama from the two men, amateurish presence from Savannah Guthrie. (Why pick someone who usually covers makeup and children’s sleep disorders to cover something as important as presidential debates!?) It was distracting. Why not Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow for the two nights? Even Chris Matthews, whose ballast and melodrama is at least entertaining. Much more gravitas needed.
19
@Stacy VB That music is soooo annoying!
4
I'm saving my retired-on-a-fixed-income single $50 political contribution to whoever the Kentucky Democrats put up to run against Mitch McConnell. THAT is the man we need to get rid of as much as, maybe more than, Trump.
And if we can get a Democratic majority in the Senate on the tails of a solid electoral/popular Democratic presidential victory, maybe we can start to put things right again.
1357
@Ralph Averill - I love optimists, I wish I was one.
12
@Ralph Averill
Brilliant! I will do the same, so glad you brought that race to our attention.
74
@Ralph Averill
Donate to the "Ditch Mitch Fund" instead. They're smart, experienced, organized, and intensely focused on making sure Dems put up the best candidate to ditch Mitch. Then, supporting that candidate to unseat the most appalling, unethical obstructionist America has ever known.
74
I was shocked, but I should not have been, that all of the candidates got the "what is the biggest threat to our country" question wrong.
The correct answer is the combination of authoritarian states and trans-national criminals eroding democracy both here and abroad. Without preserving and expanding functioning democracy, there is no chance to halt climate change, protect human rights or finally invest the peace dividend that we anticipated at the end of the Cold War on our own well-being.
Treating symptoms but not causes rarely ages well.
24
@Alan
Your answer will not and does not resonate with the public.
Issues and morality are what the populace want not some global attack on demogogues elsewhere. Let's defeat our home grown demogogue first.
30
@Alan De Blasio came pretty close to this response when he said Russia, no?
The only two candidates that appeared Presidential to me were Castro and Gabbard. Castro seemed to the the better "politician" which I counted against him. So, I pick Gabbard for tonight as confident and Presidential.
But, in general I think the debate was a disaster. There would be no more than 4 or 5 candidates on the stage, and the moderates need to make it a debate and not a town hall.
1
This was a good beginning - a little chaotic, but good ideas. Definitely everyone supports women's rights. They are abhorred by the immigration cruelties. They are concerned with economic inequality. I am uneasy at those who want only government insurance without the option of private insurance, and Klobuchar had a good response on that as did one or two others. The climate and environmental crises had a good account, and the fact that most of the candidates would go back to the Iraq nuclear deal is a good sign for future peace.
The Democratic Party is basically united and reflects normal, pre-Trump American values.
Frankly it's relaxing not to have to hear all the insults of Trump.
All the while Trump is flying off to meet privately with Putin and tells reporters it's none of their business. He means the entire American public. Just another little tête-a-tête with one of the country's greatest enemies. And also with his love interest from North Korea. While trashing the environment even more.
Any Democrat would be better than Trump but we have a good selection.
125
Gail:
As much as I enjoy your humorous takes on the political scene, 2020 is too important to make fun of the candidates.
Trump and his legion of toadies in Congress must be defeated.
Thanks
67
As usual, the "journalists" concentrated on gotcha questions and Washington instead of the needs and interests of the people.
Remember, every person asking questions makes over a Million Dollars a year and it was broadcast on a huge multinational that is a poster child for the deregulated and unaccountable corporations.
Who speaks for the working people among the press?
33
@David Gregory
The journalists asked tough questions - the questions I wanted answers so. And actually, journalists and nearly all the staff at NBC/MSNBC behind the scenes producing the debates are working people, too.
When did "working people" come to mean only people with dirt on their hands at the end of the day? My dad owned his business, worked 11-hour days six days a week, and employed dozens of people. He was a "working people", too.
39
@Cordelia28
When Ms. Guthrie was asking about raising taxes on the wealthy, she did not identify herself and all the rest of the hosts as one of those who would be impacted. Comcast- the owner of MSNBC/NBC - is exactly the kind of company that should be broken up and that was not mentioned.
When Trump and the GOP Congress cut taxes and exploded the budget, Comcast and those hosts all benefitted and mostly at the long term expense of everyone else.
Ask an attendant at a Nursing Home who makes a little over minimum wage if they think Lester Holt works as hard as they do. Do not be disingenuous.
5
@Cordelia28
"Working people" don't make $30k a day. That was DG's point. They are paid not to think for themselves or ask the hard questions that challenge the corrupt establishment. Why do you think they were hired in the first place? Grow up.
1
The good news is that so many articulate candidates are travelling all around the country talking about how bad Trump is. That’s a real plus for the Trump opposition. They are taking the fight to Trump via the voting public.
These Democratic hopefuls need to kick some you-know-what, and they need to keep doing it. They need to be apt students of Trump’s debate tactics from 2016, and they need to use them against him. They need to learn to adapt to what he has inflicted on modern politics. And right now, they need to practice on each other.
The ones who are not making it need to drop out and clear the field for the frontrunners. They need to help Democrats retake the Senate. Without that, the Democratic Party will still be in real trouble.
50
The problem with this debate is that all of the candidates are acting as if there are no conservatives or independents in this country and are addressing only Democrats. So, much of what these candidates are saying they would do if elected President needs to be taken with several, large grains of salt.
13
@Jay Orchard
Of all Warren's plans, she still doesn't have one to get her big progressive programs past Congress (and its voters). If she cannot manage to actually implement anything, those plans are meaningless.
5
Trump only addressed Republicans and he won. There is nothing wrong with addressing one's party.
18
@AACNY
Besides trying to elect a Democract as president, the Dems need a majority in the senate. Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated. Whether it’s Elizabeth Warren or Santa Claus that runs against trump, no progressive legislation will be enacted with our current Congress. Think Merrick Garland!
4
My wife and I are very politically involved but after fifteen minutes of watching what was called a debate we turned on Fauda.
My defintion it was not a debate. It was crowd staring their positions.
The DNC is grossly incompetent in allowing people up there with absolutely no name recognition, no standing in the polls and no significant donor base to crowd out the four or five with any chance of getting the nomination.
If the DNC does not winnow down the number by 2/3 for the next show they should all lose their jobs.
23
@Edward B. Blau Too bad for you that you did not watch the full two hours. Maybe chants of “lock him up” (not Mueller) or a new hat with some catchy slogan like “foreign interference bought (FIB)” would keep your attention. The NBC team was excellent, the questions insightful, and the cordiality was genuine. I admire the 20 candidates that are placing themselves on the front line. We need more Americans that are as committed.
187
How about you listen, make a decision and vote in the primary? The rest of us are. Maybe we end up voting for the person that beats Trump. Why do the number of candidates concern you? There are some good people in the mix. Let’s hear them out. Trump was one of a proverbial boatload of Republican candidates in 2016. And he won. Variety is the spice of life.
46
@Edward B. Blau
Really? I thought it was one of the more interesting presidential debates of the last twenty years. I was wary of having that many people on the stage at once, reciting rote messages. But I didn't feel that was what happened—instead, I got a series of snapshots of the Democratic party, and it was a party I could be proud to belong to.
Sure, with two television hours and ten candidates, you won't get in-depth discussions. But it was far more worthwhile than I expected, and my attention never wandered. And that includes the candidates who don't have a snowball's chance—they have nothing to lose, so they speak their own truths. I even wish we'd heard more from Delaney and Inslee, not less. Inslee's self-appointed mission of keeping climate change central to the campaign is vital and good for us all, and I genuinely want to know more about where Delaney's coming from. Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win, but hers was a distinctive voice informed by her military experience in a way we don't usually hear from Democrats. I got a stronger impression of De Blasio, who had a lot to contribute.
And Julián Castro—I have been watching him for years and frankly have been sad that with so many great candidates he was completely overshadowed. No longer! Great to see him getting his due.
Why should only the people already known and at the top be heard? What's campaigning for?
96
Independent swing voter. Since I have no primary vote unless I declare Democratic on primary day, I’m
not watching. I’m only hoping they nominate an electable candidate.
Unfortunately, I’m not holding my breath.
7
@David
Commit and keep yourself informed and the way to do that is watch the candidates instead of hearing someone else's interpretation.
Be Serious. Pick your person. Don't let someone else pick the candidate for you.
5
@David
Perfect. You can sit it out because in reality you support Trump.
2
Here's sound marketing advice: at the next debate, each and every candidate should make the same coordinated statement before you they into the debate:
"Before I answer the question, I would like to say loud and clear to the audience and to the millions of viewers who are watching us at home that I pledge to fully and unequivocally endorse whomever our voters decide to pick as their candidate for President. And I ask my supporters to make the same pledge today. Let there be no mistake: we may discuss, agree or disagree on some issues, but the Democratic party is united in the pursuit of the same ultimate goal."
It would be an unprecedented display of strength and unity, and a great communication strategy.
Unity is strength, and most of us democrats worry that the same divisions that doomed us in 2016 will play out again in 2020.
930
@Lawrence Mc Cormick
"Before I answer the question, I would like to say loud and clear to the audience and to the millions of viewers who are watching us at home that I pledge to fully and unequivocally endorse whomever our voters decide to pick as their candidate for President. And I ask my supporters to make the same pledge today. Let there be no mistake: we may discuss, agree or disagree on some issues, but the Democratic party is united in the pursuit of the same ultimate goal."
Great idea and you're absolutely right that divisions in the party in 2016 gave us Trump. Republicans understand that the party comes first, even if you have to hold your nose while voting. Democrats tend to vote for third parties or stay home if they're not enthused by the nominee, or are sulking because their favored candidate lost.
259
@PJ Same page PJ. If the Dems charge ahead united and focus their energy on our real adversaries, Trump has no hope.
54
@Lawrence Mc Cormick
Thank you. Wish your advice could be delivered directly to the candidates. Or at least to Bernie.
68
Gov. Jay Inslee--tall enough to dominate, hits all the right notes, matinee idol good looks, seems empathic. I want to see more of him.
44
I wish I were excited about this debate. Last time there were only really two people debating - my guy didn’t get the nomination. I voted in the general election for the most capable candidate, who didn’t win either.
The last time I was excited about a Democrat debate was 2008 - oh, so long ago. I like that Mr. Barack - or was it Mr. Obama? - Initially I didn’t even know the order of his name. He got the nomination and won the presidency.
This group doesn’t have any appeal to me other than it’s better than who is President now. That’s not enough for me. I feel like I’m just settling for someone.
5
@Sheela Todd, for Pete's sake, we're more than a year away from the actual election. I don't think you have to decide on who you favor right this instant. Give them some time.
23
@Sheela Todd This primary business has just barely begun, and if you've not closely followed people who are competing, of course you wouldn't be inspired. There was very little chance to show who they are. Read some of the pieces written about Elizabeth Warren and look at some of the clips from her town halls, for example, and do the same with others.
11
@Sheela Todd
Clinton did win the election.
3
After 30 minutes, I call the winner by a technical knockout. Big Liz owned the night. The ref should stop the fight.
She is doing the one thing that the others can't come close to doing. She is answering questions directly and forcefully. None of this side stepping of the issues and talking about topics not related to the questions. She is passionate and believable.
Amy Klobuchar is the toned down, more moderate version. All substance, but not as much passion. That's OK. Give people a range to consider. But she is also being upfront and not political. The rest of them should pack their bags and go fishing or bowling or whatever it is that they do for fun.
Let's see what shakes out tomorrow night and get this field whittled down to five or six of the strongest candidates. The mob scene is no good for selecting a president.
691
@Bruce Rozenblit
I agree, Elizabeth Warren is really doing the job tonight.
I am pleasantly surprised by several others ... Mr. Castro, better in debate than he is on, say, late night talk shows. A smart guy, clearly.
Ditto Mr. Booker, who has been so completely overlooked.
Much to be cautiously hopeful about.
In a bit of levity, I would only add: Mary Kay Place gets to play Amy Klobuchar in the TV miniseries or movie version of this period. (Yes, I'm old, but man, kind of a dead-ringer.)
85
@Bruce Rozenblit I am sorry, I wish Warren would have impressed me, but honestly as I watched her in the background while others answered, she did not broadcast confidence, she almost looked puzzled or confused at times. I am CERTAIN she wasn't, my point is we are going to need someone who instills confidence in Americans that she can pulls us back from the Civil War we are facing. And Warren did not fill me with confidence.
15
@Bruce Rozenblit. YES. Warren hands down and shoulders above all the rest. Love her even more. Our next President.
183
Elizabeth Warren’s debating skills are showing through tonight. Her argument about who the economy is working for will be a strong rebuttal to Trump’s inevitable talking points that our economy is strong.
683
@AACNY
This American cares about understanding slices of the pie because this information offers the foundation for the logic that drives positions. These "academic indulgences" are the tools that will lead us to effective governance. I appreciate any candidate who uses facts to support their governing goals.
Why would you want to discredit the value of reliable information? Asking members of our government to do that is akin to asking a dentist to disregard all he learned in dental school before pulling out a decayed tooth.
22
@NM
Americans know things have improved and they don't care about slices of the pie, etc. Those are academic indulgences that sounds good but don't pass the 2-eyes' test -- that is, what Americans can see with their own 2 eyes.
2
@NM
What "argument?"
She made statements, not arguments, and she provided no evidence for her "research" projects. Those aren't "plans." They are "ideas" - she's from academia.
(I'm not saying she's worse than Trump - he has no clothes.)
Why, Ms. Collins, do you feel the need to make fun of Montana's governor? He might be the best candidate in the field. He's at least as noteworthy as any of the other candidates.
Montana operates with a budget surplus, thanks mostly to him. He refused to sign several wasteful bills. Montana still has expanded Medicaid. We are one of the highest ranked states, as far as education is concerned. We have seven Indian reservations with at least eleven tribes (we are a diverse state). We understand the importance of protecting this country from overpopulation (i.e., massive immigration).
This state has a history of independent thinking. Montana had the first female to hold federal office, Jeannette Rankin, who voted to stay out of both world wars (we aren't mindless followers). Mike Mansfield was a fantastic Senate majority leader, serving longer than any other, from '61-'77 (we understand commitment).
What makes AOC a more legitimate candidate than Steve Bullock, other than she's from NY (the Times perspective)?
52
@Raz
AOC is not running for president. Mayor Di Blasio is running for president but no one in New York believe that we will get rid of him by sending hime to the White House.
Jeannette served just two terms in the House, separated by more than two decades. Does that count as commitment by the people of Montana?
31
AOC is not running for President, I’m told. So she is not a better candidate.
30
@Raz
We too are huge fans of Mr. Bullock.
Everyone, every concerned citizen should watch PBS "Frontline"s program, "Dark Money." Prepare to be extremely impressed by Mr. Bullock.
15
No one has to decide who they will vote for tonight,
Hopefully, rather than catch zingers, people will be impressed with the broad agreement among Democrats on the agenda of health care for all, a fairer tax system, protection of the environment, investment in infrastructure and education, comprehensive intelligent immigration reform, protection from gun violence.....
Although specific proposals re how to achieve these shared goals may differ among Democrats, there is a long list of pro-people policies that differentiate Democrats from Republicans
129
Most of us do not live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina so will not be shaking hands with these candidates at the local diner.This is the best we can do to understand their platforms.The debates will give us a brief glance at a number of candidates-it is up to us to become informed.With so many men and women to evaluate , we must do our homework.
65
I wish all Democratic voters could agree that first, we need to get rid of Trump. Let's commit to voting for the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination. Then, we can talk about what we can accomplish on jobs, health care, equality, immigration, and the rest. If we have third party candidates who peel off Democratic voters, then we will be stuck with Trump, again. Republicans love to fund liberal third party candidates.
223
@babyblue
If that was aimed at Jill Stein and her supporters, you're right about Stein but that does not excuse the sheer airheadedness of her supporters.
78
@Bob Acker
If Jill Stein's party really cares about the environment they won't run a candidate in 2020. They're probably in denial but the fact is they accounted for enough votes to hand the election to Trump, who then proceeded to trash the environment. Nice one guys.
31
Debate skills should not be a qualification when considering who to vote for. A President, as opposed to a candidate, does not engage in public debates, nor does he or she need to be able to do so.
I was a high school debater. One time the debate was about segregation. I was assigned the pro-segregation role. Though all of us were against segregation, I overwhelmingly won the debate, which merely proved I had verbal skills that were not simply irrelevant to the substance of the debate but potentially dangerous.
The TV debates are essentially entertainment, largely theater of the absurd, where entertainers such as Trump have a distinct advantage, an advantage that plays well to an American Idol-oriented society, but one that bears no relationship whatsoever to one's ability to be a good President.
I would also note that I would give five-to-one odds that Collins is wrong about everyone perpetually obsessing about the 2020 election. Yes, pundits such as Collins, compulsives such as we who continually refresh the Times Home page and make comments here, the internet of gossip, and the media industry making money off hyping (when not creating) controversy do obsess about the election. The rest of the population, I would bet, (anyone want to take me up on the 5-1 odds?), just go about living their lives and probably won't start paying attention till after Labor Day at the earliest.
7
@Steve Fankuchen
"....a candidate, does not engage in public debates, nor does he or she need to be able to do so."
I disagree.
What would you call the discussions of proposed law that take place on the floors of the senate and the house of representatives? And if you're worried about the amorality in the craft of skillful debating, wouldn't you rather see those skills displayed by a thoughtful candidate that shares your concerns? I like to hear the ways a person articulates their thoughts, and uses information in their arguments.
I want to hear substantial proposals. I don't want to hear lofty generalized visions, second-hand ideology or scapegoating in political speeches. It's that kind of public speaking that has landed us where we are now.
23
@Steve Fankuchen
This is an excellent comment, summing up the nonsense handicapping the evaluation of presidential campaigns. Each candidate has a track record. Who studies it? We end up with a president who ran a TV show.
4
Important comment. Thank you very much. Hope many understand what you are saying.
3
Gail - only some Americans have been obsessing - the rest of us are going about our businesses (which are flourishing) and taking care of our families and neighbors (which seem to be doing better). Obsession is not a healthy way to respond to politics.
23
My soybean business isn't flourishing so much as it did a couple of years ago.
45
@Jamie
Outside the bubble, things are actually quite good. Inside the bubble, people are frantic and believe our Constitution has been shredded and our government is on the verge of collapse.
1
@AACNY Things were consistently improving under Obama. The current group has done nothing to change that arc. The debt explosion is a bit alarming, though.
1
As you watch tonight, and going forward, look for Democrats who campaign on issues and put country before party, instead of nihilist "If I can't win, I'm taking you all down with me" politics that will hand the election to Trump a second term (or permanently installed, Xi-style, for life). We can all agree that our voting rights, freedom of speech, our civil liberties, and the laws protecting our democratic republic, matter.
148
@common sense advocate
The Center for American Progress appreciates your repeating their talking points. We must not note that 25% of Hillary voters voted for Romney in 2008 versus an estimated 12% of Bernie's supporters voting for someone else, or the Russian interference that doubtlessly took its toll, or the fact that Hillary polled low right up to the finish line and disregarded much of her so-called base in the upper mid-west.
Finally, do you think the DNC machinations on her behalf any had unintended consequence in voters becoming disgusted by her campaign?
Also, the withering condescension by Hillary, her limousine liberal followers, and her campaign towards anyone who wasn't fully on-board with her was another real turn-off.
With talents and friends like that, who could believe she lost?
2
@nora m - actually, with the Trump supporting points described in your post above, of course he won.
3
I wanted to go to our place in the mountains today, there's no TV there. A certain somebody, who really likes Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard, Harris, Gillibrand etc. says, "we're staying and we're going to watch it.
Ok will do.
103
Elizabeth Warren is not Hillary Clinton. Hillary (left of left pre-Bill and the political machine) tried to overcome the Ivory Towers, but got willed by the will to power instead.
Elizabeth, on the other hand has been protected by data and the American stories in that data. From this I believe Elizabeth - not the wonk - but an impassioned Listener turned fighter - a fighter for all Americans!
335
@frank livingston
She's not supported by many minorities and is somewhat one-dimensional about the economy. A president needs to care about foreign affairs, the environment, and other issues.
8
@SMB
She is completely unrealistic and anyone who believes "having a plan" is the same as getting things done is kidding him-/herself.
1
@SMB
Good think she actually does. She has a fairly detailed plan for, well, just about everything!
8
Big night - I think not.
A political speed sting session conducted in public.
I will be surprised if anything productive comes of this to hone the field. I hope I am wrong.
12
The debates will be big for any Democratic candidate who is "daring" enough to actually give truthful answers and not just the answers that he/she thinks voters want to hear. Voters want honesty, or at least answers that pass for honesty.
107