I like Booker.
Why are the moderators not journalists? Scholars? Academics? Questions like "Will you support the federal gov't going after the guns?" will only solicit a response that Republicans will love and will use to support what they have been for saying for a while: Dems are coming to take our guns. Also, questions like "is X's proposal enough?" leads the next person with no option but to disparage their opponent...What are they supposed to say? Yeah, that's fine? Need to stop looking for soundbites.
16
When all this greed on Wall Street finally comes tumbling down like it did in 1929 all of the sudden everybody will want to be a Democrat. As long as we can be a democracy our fates are tied together. Bernie is trying to prevent it because people are going to get hurt and dead. But true learning comes from experience. We have forgotten the lessons from the roaring 1920's and now its 2019.
3
Would Mr. Biden PLEASE step out? He makes no sense. He's done. Stop giving him air time. Please please please. No to Joe.
4
Klobachar may have landed an applause, but the fact is, what laws has she passed? What significant legislation protecting women's rights has Congress passed? what proposals, let alone actual laws, has the Senate initiated and managed to get passed in the last decade. If the governor of Washington has signed legislation (executive sign laws, they dont pass them, btw) then perhaps he had done more than the women in the Senate, even though he is a man.
Unless we democratic voters can beat Trump and take control of the Senate all that talk is just that. As an independent voter, I am for strict control at the southern border and elsewhere, such as visa for tourists and students. I am very sorry for the terrible conditions in Central America and through out the world of countries with dictators. In many cases our country has been a large part of the problem. I believe our country cannot solve all the world's problems. We now have extreme difficulty solving our own problems. Think, ten percent of upper families own ninety of wealth. Solve world problems U kidding??
5
If Democrates aspiring to become POTUS are focused on reality they would (a) advocate for a large reduction in the number of immigrants and asylum seekers allowed into the nation because the nation's population/resource imbalance is great and growing, and (b) prepare for the eventual depletion of the global petroleum resource, an event that will prove to be the monumental challenge of these times and times yet to arrive. When reality drives politics our "leaders" will be forced into the uncompromising posture of having to think. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
3
I would like to give them all a simple knowledge exam, so we can at least winnow out the lame brains.
Q1 Mark X on the map where Kazakhstan is located.
Q2 What does the equation A=π r² calculate?
Q3 The election of the President of the United States is determined solely based on the total popular vote. T or F?
Q4 How many candidates does one party need to elect a president.
A1 just south of Russia
A2 area of a circle
A3 False
A4 TBA
Can you imagine Mr. Trump's answers? Actually,
4
Most unfortunately significant smarts, and integrity, are not qualifications for election to POTUS.
1
I don't like this headline much -- I felt there was not all that much "divergence" last night. I was amazed at how together these candidates were on the big issues. As to Klobuchar, ten percent of Britishers retain their private insurance, though still pay their National Insurance tax for the National Health Service, nursing homes, the disabled, and so on. NHS covers dental and vision, btw, and I hope OUR public healthcare, if we ever get it, would do the same. British costs for their healthcare is a modest fraction of what we pay -- for our tremendously complex system. Billing alone takes up a lot of the money spent. If it would help to get public healthcare through, we could afford to give a little on certain matters. Most people would want Medicare for All from the start, and others would eventually join in.
4
As an Alaskan resident, I’m deeply alarmed by the fact little is being done to mitigate climate change. Alaska is literally on fire. Air pollution. Dead whales. Receding glaciers. Melting permafrost. Mercury. Anthrax. Arsenic in Fairbanks’ drinking water. Thin ice. People dying. Methane. Jay Inslee is a tough hitter on climate change mitigation policy but he stumbled in the debate. Elizabeth Warren is fierce and her policies are appealing and she recognizes the need to act now on climate change. I wish I could have heard more from Castro and Klobochar. Gabbard is also worth mentioning but she stumbled. I feel there are introverts out there that would do a terrific job as President but they will never have the chance simply because they are at their best in small groups. I also thought it was a mistake for candidates to speak Spanish. Immediately after the debate I got a text from a pilot/veteran that read “Trump 2020”.
8
@Kimberly Slone
Sen. Warren talks, but she was nowhere to be found on Standing Rock. Stopping the Dakota Pipeline from transferring dirty tars sands from Canada, across our aquifers, rivers, farm lands and NA Lands all the way to the gulf. It could have been a major blow to the Gas 'n Oil land grab as well as Climate Crises mitigation.
Warren didn't stand with the tribes, didn't speak out on the congressional floor and attempted no stoppage.
Senator Warren displayed the same penchant for political expediency, and same political cowardice that has incited resentment from millions of voters toward the Democratic Party establishment, and some of its so-called progressives.
As soon as the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would not grant the final easement for the pipeline’s construction, instead initiating an environmental impact study to explore alternate routes, Senator Elizabeth Warren immediately swooped in to exploit the Dakota Access Pipeline for political points now the political risk in doing so has been substantially mitigated, and to provide herself with plausible deniability that this was her stance all along. Despite her silence for months while activists froze and fought.
Her rallying cries against the establishment, and against injustices only come at opportune moments when there are political rewards to gain from speaking out. As her falling in line behind Hillary Clinton immediately after the primaries ended to reap the benefits of supporting the winner.
2
The most effective opposition against a leader are by those who pretend not to oppose them. Give her room.
1
A most cruel unintended consequence of the new "I'll outdo you on open borders" policy of the Democrats -- make illegal attack on our border the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk--will be its inevitable outcome. Citizens with guns will make this civil offence into a defacto capital offence. It won't be pretty. And it will happen sooner rather than later.
8
Reading many of the comments here, and elsewhere in recent months I see the seeds of Democrats defeat in the absolutism of some camps.
I think it is extremely important for Democrats to NOT fall into rigid camps creating litmus tests thus rejecting a candidate because they are not pure enough. "Biden is too moderate so I can't vote for him vs Warren is too Liberal so I can't vote for her., etc." We run the risk of becoming so shrill in our narrow opinions that we end up creating the division that leads to our defeat.
I don't agree 100% with any of them. But would not reject any of them. Winning the election and getting 80% of what I wish for is better than losing altogether. Losing this time, I fear, means the loss of hope that our Constitution will survive.
I'm a purist. I prefer Single Malt Scotch, neat, and grass fed organic beef; but I'll drink a gin and tonic or a regular burger when I need to.
4
I watched the debate with my 19-year-old nephew. He was most impressed with Elizabeth Warren, who he'd never heard of before last night. He also agreed with Tim Ryan's views on the Democratic Party and the working class, perhaps because he's grown up in the midwest in a working class family. We'll be watching again tonight.
7
"I believe in reproductive justice. And, you know what that means is just because a woman or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community—a trans female —is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose...." I thought I heard it wrong in the live feed, but the Times transcript confirms that Julian Castro came out strong for the right of a "trans female"--a person born/assigned as male at birth--to obtain an abortion. If only reproductive biology could be so inclusive!
9
This wokeness of these candidates truly amazing. If I didn't know any better I would say they all work for Trump and the pres is paying them to derail there own agenda to bolster his. They may as well have been running for the president of Mexico. Here in the Midwest even our democrats are laughing at that spectacle. Why were they speaking Spanish when we are trying to elect an American President? I didn't hear Warren speaking Cherokee . Please accept the fact that Donald Trump has already won the 2020 election and move on.
16
Obviously, you’re going to need good advice and strong support to implement your policies. Have you thought about who you might ask to serve in your cabinet and why?”
1
I was impressed with Warren and her thoroughly thought out policy proposals and she is now one of my top candidates.
5
Gotta say the Spanish and immigration talk is going to turn away angry white voters and do nothing to increase your constituencies. Talk about bad strategy; it’s like they all had the same misguided debate coach.
18
Tulsi moved up quite a few notches for me. Beto and she are the only two with the it factor up there, maybe Klobuchar, too.
Still think Biden and Harris are the best options.
1
@Andrew
Biden yes, Harris, not so sure. Given Biden's age, the role of vice president is much more significant. I'm not sure the Midwest will favor a woman of color a heartbeat away from the president.
1
I don't agree with everything she says, and I don't think she'll achieve everything she wants to, and I'm a moderate, not a "progressive." That said, my top issue is gender inequity, so Warren has my attention. After the insane spectacle of 2016, I will not be voting for a man. We're *still* long since past the time for the first female president. I'm *still* done with waiting for that. If you want me to vote in 2020, nominate a woman. If you don't want my support, don't worry.
4
I'm very happy to see that anyone of last night's candidates is more intelligent,moral and effective than the Fool on the Hill. Castro looks great and we've heard very little about him. We need some unbiased coverage so we're not seeing the same old guys (Biden) getting lots of coverage. Maybe Warren/Castro would be a good mix!
5
Nice job Amy! She is the real deal, and I have the highest regard for her and her talent. But I don’t think it is her time yet. Despite her making moves on the national stage, not enough national recognition and, frankly, appreciation. I’d like to see her as VP, and then run in 8 years.
3
Warren was the clearest and most powerful candidate, Delaney had a lot of good points but little charisma, deBlasio was pushy and boastful, Booker and Castro seemed to be running for chiefs of their respective communities rather than the country, the candidate with the most chances to capture the most votes was Klobuchar. My favorite was Gabbard.
8
Border between the U.S. and Canada is OK. But why is the border between the U.S. and Mexico not OK?
These immigrants come to the U.S. primarily to escape problems in their native countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) which includes a stagnant economy, high levels of crime, political corruption and widespread drug use. There is a legal way to request a green card to enter the U.S., however unlawful mobs entry is not allowed. Shame and disgrace of all these central American countries and their governments who fail to feed their people, to give them medical care, good housing, and jobs. These central American countries and their governments are the ones at fault.
Sorry that your country does not love you anymore. To find true love you need to find and walk on God’s Holy road which will one day open the gate to His Kingdom in Heaven. The road you are currently walking is man made and will only bring you tears and despair, darkness and regrets.
5
Seeking asylum is not illegal. For the millionth time. And who does our country love? Not the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, that’s for sure.
8
I have always been a strong supporter of women's equality and rights including the right to choose when it come to abortion. I was a strong supporter of Hillary in 2008 and 2016. However - and I will be yelled at and called a misogynist for this - I desperately want to play it safe with a moderate candidate with the widest appeal to the most voters because I desperately want to excise Trump, McConnell, Kellyanne Conway, Jarvanka et. al as the mortifying cancer they are on our government and country.
So, regardless of the appeal for Elizabeth Warren, I'm for Biden because of his long experience in politics as a legislator and as a vice-president. And if he gets the nomination, I would desperately hope he asks Adam Schiff to be his running mate. Realizing that the election is as much about "American Idol" appeal as it is about substance, Schiff's eloquence would make up for Biden's apparent lack of "spark" as NYT journalists have unfairly complained, ignoring his honesty and steadiness which is what we need to return the country to normalcy. Once sanity returns, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand shall have their moments.
4
@styleman
As a liberal feminist woman, I agree completely, and it's not misogyny, it's reality. I don't want to hear "but there has to be a woman or a person of color on the ticket..." I want two moderate males. I'd also take Tim Ryan as VP or maybe Klobuchar.
Given the past three years of Trump, and what another term portends, those who claim to be uninspired and stay home will deserve another Trump term.
1
I would watch tonight befote putting eggs in Biden's basket.
3
Inslee should be smart enough not to claim that he "passed" bills. As a governor, he signs them. Sheesh. Disappointed in the format, in the moderators, and in the down card candidates who kept interrupting. Really disappointed in O'Rourke, who clearly was in over his head.
8
It's clear after this debate that the Democrat candidates are for unchecked immigration and open borders. They are not running for President of United States, they are attempting to become President of Mexico. A truly sickening and revolting lot they are. Vote RED and save your country America!
14
Wake up readers and writers of the nyt. Most Americans want borders! Last night was a total disaster despite 10 fine candidates. The voters that count will hear open borders, Spanish language and vote for Trump.
17
None of these clowns care about the economy, or what’s good for this country. They are all terrible liars, while it’s true politicians lie, and if you cross them like with Hillary Clinton, she’ll have you killed, and no one bothers to investigate. None of them would make a good candidate, therefore, Trump wins by a landslide. Trump 2020. Are you with me?
13
@Brian
And Trump is a truth teller?
3
"there is a democratic candidate for everyone"
-I believe STRONGLY in the 2nd ammendment
-I hate the government sticking its hands in my wallet for ridiculous projects
-I believe we need to strictly enforce immigration policies
-I believe we should protect our government by only counting citizens in our census who can vote to determine how voting districts are created
-I strongly believe in a country as populated by illegal immigrants as we are, you should have an ID to vote... same as is required to board a plane, drive a car, or any other menial societal tasks
Given these beliefs, which democratic candidate should I vote for? Answer: NONE
17
Warren could have really wowed the field if she had whipped out her official Medicare Health Insurance card showing that she is entitled to Hospital (Part A) and Medical (Part B) commencing with her 65th birthday. Then she could have proclaimed that she refused to buy private supplemental plans to cover all of the expenses that her Part B won't cover. Like deductibles, co-pays, meds and so on. Because, you know, private health insurance is evil...But, Comrade Warren didn't brandish her official MHI card. Which makes one wonder if she and her fellow comrade Sanders talk the talk but don't walk the Medicare-For-All walk...Let us see your Medical (Part B) endorsements.
5
I qualified for Medicare this year. And got the supplementals. Prior to this I had individual private health insurance. I am now paying abt. the same, my copays are higher, and one of my drugs is not covered by Medicare and I have to pay $575 a month, not covered by supplemental bec. if Medicare doesn’t cover, they won’t either. So, please explain to me how I am better off?
7
"Medicare For All" is not kicking Americans who now have good health insurance plans through employers off their current plans. "Medicare for All" is giving every citizen regardless of where he works the same health care that only those lucky Americans now have. When there is a single payer there will be NO COLLUSION between for-profit insurers, pharmceutical companies and the politicians who now support them to suck large profits out of the system which could otherwise be used providing health care. When run efficiently a "Medicare for All" system would cover everyone with much lower administrative costs and far better outcomes and at lower overall cost to the entire nation than we now spend feeding the parasites who run the for-profit health care industry. It can be done if Americans wake up and see what works in the civilized world (e.g. Canada, western Europe) as opposed to the lies told to them by Republicans dependent on the for profit health care industry that are paying for their re-election campaigns.
8
@RLW Medicare for all mantra means bad medical care for everyone. The waiting list for a total hip in England is two years, would the American population be happy with that? I doubt it. My husband an Orthopedic surgeon generally works 80 hours a week, under the risk of medical
Malpractice which costs upwards of a million a year for an insurance policy. On call, tragic horrific accidents, drug addicts who lie about their health, AIDS patients, who don’t have to disclose they have the disease, endless hours of paper work, patients who threaten when they don’t receive enough pain medicine, will quit before being dictated by the government to provide care for a measly pittance they would pay as will many others leave the medical profession. The AAMC already predicts a shortage of doctors by 95,000 by 2020. Pass Medicare for all and there will be an even bigger shortage of professionals!
1
@Let me knows Please
Where did you hear 2 years? The latest I read was about 19 weeks—pretty long, but not 2 years. I have Medicare, btw, and the only wait I had for a hip replacement was my surgeon’s availability (and because he is one in high demand, it was over two months, and also, as you must be aware, being married to an orthopedic surgeon, hip replacements are rarely medical emergencies. Most people have waited years before even deciding to do it).
2
So, if you wait a decade + to immigrate to the country legally, pay taxes, go to college(on merit), pay your student loans and hold a good job, you're a sucker.
If you gate-crash into the country, are unable to manage your finances, or are just plain lazy, freebies for you all.
I think we get the message.
18
The debate was a hilarious mix of pathetic politicians trying to out-pander each other for the public's attention. They are all losers.
9
Unfortunately for us, non of these guys can beat Trump.
They all have wonderful ideas but that's not what the next election is about. It's about getting him out. To win you need to come up with a nickname for him, a rally chant, get ready to get in the ring and duke it out. We need a bruiser, a street fighter, somebody with guts. Our Stable Genius will chew these peeps up and spit them out so fast they wont even know what hit them. Hopefully tonight's group will have a little bit more fire in the belly. If not, it's 4 more years of this proto fascist regime.
6
@Chamunyo:
As much as I loathe to admit it, you are spot-on.
Seriously, NYT?
‘Clashed’?
2
Ms. Klobuchar was the most firm moderate because her message is that if she gets into office she will do nothing, oh but she will listen. Well that is something. And she was telling the big greedy donors that she is up for sale. But she has homey jokes.
Medicare for all is the only way to go because it costs less than insurance companies whose main goals is as Elizabeth said to charge as much as they can and pay out as little as possible. And Booker who used to take a lot of money from insurance companies and Big Pharma and all the rest of the candidates not able to bear taking away expensive and not optimal coverage from people, many tied to jobs they hate, is because the insurance company lobby has recently poured millions and millions into bribing them to say that. Turn down that money, are you crazy? If we have Medicare for all the government goes has leverage over prices. And it was a big lie that one of the candidates said hospitals would shut down if we have Medicare for all, which is better insurance than the commercial profit driven model, all would be covered. And it would save businesses fortunes which could go, at least some of into raises and expansion. And all that overhead that insurance companies charge their clients would be gone. Don't buy the hype we have to go slowly any more, it is code for it will never get done.
3
Imagine… watching the democratic charade aka the democratic debate where socialist dreamers managed to display their cunning fluency in neo-nonsocial mumbo-jumbo, while demonstrating to any and all their inept grasp of reality.
Imagine… a political charade where a couple of socialist wunderkinds even managed to mangle the Spanish language in their egotistical efforts to appease those among us not capable of grasping their English mumbo-jumbo.
Imagine… suffering the egotistical fluency of political wunderkinds in search of the entitlement vote to satisfy their whimsical notions of political power. Or the rhetorical obscenities and parsed lies favored by our political wunderkinds in their efforts to appease their self-aggrandizing dreams.
Imagine… obtuse, or the continuing search of idealistic followers having no bounds. The latest revaluations regarding Joe Biden and his Jim Crow pals aka senators harboring segregationist notions in the Democratic Party. Should be enough to make even starry-eyed advocates cringe and gasp in astonishment during tonight’s political charade.
4
The NYT, like the Democratic party establishment guiding last night's debate, the MSNBC media machine all together ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room in Climate Change. It was reported today that only 7 minutes (that seems generous by my count) in a most important national two hour presidential debate was devoted a subject that will decide the future of the human race.
Five stars to Jay Inslee for his past and present governing leadership in prioritizing the problem. Running against fossil fuel mega money interests who have totally infected the politics of both parties was all too apparent last with the timid Democratic party leadership response to global warming. Inslee stands somewhat alone as the only credible and qualified opposition to a political party (the GOP) that has long since become the party of GasOilPollution.
4
BeyondKona:
SPOT-ON, excellent observations!
Unfortunately, the truth of Global Warming is the Elephant in the room which the vast majority of the general public chooses to ignore -- to our global detriment and species' demise.
The Democrats’ pandering, ad nauseam, to illegal aliens over the best interests of the American citizenry (and the future of this country) is precisely why they will NOT be getting my vote in 2020. Good job, Dems!
12
Watch the Chinese Communists party the nation is planning on encircling the United States of America. They are weaponizing, their markets to Crush the World. It's clear they want to purchase and own most materials for shipping industry's, and Aerospace technology by placing agents highly intelligent in the Universities in the world to steal ideas which equal money the nation who develops and builds upon it will own it... As we are putting to much effort in our nation the Chinese teams up with their friends like Russia, Iran,Brazil and other peanut nations to control contain business by sidling the World.
1
Headlines insinuate Democrats clash on issues. We are DISCUSSING issues like normal mature people! The media treats the debates like an episode of reality tv SMH
4
Who is going to pay for the trillions of dollars for all of this free stuff?
13
DeBlasio is a total phony. Look at his record of corruption. encouraging gentrification, taking money from big donors and real estate.. He talks socialism but is straight out of tammany hall. Middle class folks cannot afford to live in his gentrified city.
What has he done about that?
8
I wasn’t thrilled by what I saw last night.
DeBlasio needs to go home; so does Beto, I am sorry to say, and probably Booker.
Bill’s just annoying; Beto’s way better, but a one-trick pony. Most of the others, including jay Inslee, just cannot draw the eye. Governor, Senator, Congresscritter, great...but run them against Trump? Can’t see it.
Booker...I just don’t see where he’s a great orator. Castro? A surprise, but again, a one-trick pony, with an immigration plan that’s way, way too easy to paint as nuts.
Klobuchar and Warren were likely the solidest, in terms of their plans, however different.
But all that’s okay. It’s the first debate in a long primary, and the point is to get a look at candidates, see their moves, start sorting them out. It’s okay if they yell some and come up with some oopsies. That’s what a primary is for.
Oh, and the people shouting about concrete plans (like Trump?), telling the truth (like Trump), being realistic (like Trump?), not putting up wacko plans (like Trump?)....
Your guy’s a far-right wacko-bird. Worse, actually, because he sprinkles little greed and crazy jimmies onna top.
ANYBODY on that stage, including at least two of the moderators, would make a better President than the current fool.
For that matter, I’D make a better Prez, and I cannot think of worse to say about Trump than that.
8
@Robert:
OUTSTANDING COMMENTARY!
A rare gem herein
P. S. --
If you do decide to run for President, be sure to let me know: you'll have my vote!
The Spanish was cringe-worthy. These guys are clueless about what the swing voters in the heartland care about. It is the the border, stupid!
17
I was very favorably impressed with the quality and breadth of last nights debate (Wed.). Both the candidates and the issues discussed impressed me with their command of the issues, their personal intelligence and accomplishments, and their civility.
It was an extremely refreshing experience to hear articulate, and knowledgeable people express themselves in an adult manner — no childish behavior such as name calling and derisive taunts as we always see with Trump. These were women and men of substantial thought. I look forward to more of it.
6
I fear we're headed for another 2016 situation where anyone who offers solutions with the broadest appeal will be labeled a "shill" and vilified. Several of my friends were on social media last night complaining that Klobuchar is really a moderate Republican who shouldn't even be on the stage. Op-ed writers and the Twitterati have all but completely turned against Biden. I have some hope that Elizabeth Warren will be able to bridge the divide (she was about the only one that impressed me last night) but I'm already seeing the rumblings of conspiracy theories again from the Bernie Bros. I turned off the television last night more concerned than ever about the possibility of reelection and another four years of chaos.
14
@Alcee All I know of the so called Bernie Bros and I know a bunch is they are thrilled there are at least three progressive candidates. Now these Bros are all from different walks of life and I have heard one of them laugh heartily at the suggestion that there is a conspiracy. Now there is a conspiracy of sorts but it is laughable, a right wing organization recently said they liked Warren's plans and support her, she did not ask for this support at all. But I think the right wing group is thinking they can either influence her to be bribed or that she is better than Bernie for their own agenda, but as one of the progressives said, if she wins the primary watch them distance themselves from her very quickly.
3
@Alcee I agree with you in many ways. I think it is extremely important for Democrats to fall into rigid camps creating litmus tests. Biden is too moderate so I can't vote for him vs Warren is too Liberal so I can't vote for her., etc. We run the risk of becoming so shrill in our narrow opinions that we end up creating the division that leads to our defeat.
I don't agree 100% with any of them. But would not reject any of them. Winning the election and getting 80% of what I wish for is better than losing altogether. Losing this time, I fear, means the loss of hope that our Constitution will survive.
I'm a purist. I prefer Single Malt Scotch, neat, and grass fed organic beef; but I'll drink a gin and tonic or a regular burger when I need to.
3
@Sea Typo: should read "...important for Democrats to NOT fall..."
Oddly enough, the more Castro put down O'Rourke and challenged other candidates, the less appealing he was to me as a nominee. Booker's recent attack on Biden made everything he said last night seem politically calculated. Warren held her own although getting rid of private insurance companies right off the bat seem a guaranteed mess waiting to happen.
I really hope some candidates - Inslee, Ryan and Gabbard among them - drop out soon. The focus needs to be on a smaller pool of candidates so that voters can focus on who has the best shot.
5
What the debate tonight brought forth was the opportunities being lost under Trump for having substantive discussion about very important issues. The issues: climate change, health care, economic issues - from corporate ownership to good jobs for all, are vastly more important than Trump. But to get to solutions through substantive discussion we need to be rid of Trump. Please everyone make that happen or the next 4 years will be devoid of anything but Trump.
7
"Mr. Castro dominated the segment devoted to immigration, promoting his proposal to decriminalize illegal immigration.”
Is there a difference between decriminalizing illegal immigration and “open borders”? If we welcome every poorly educated person who manage to come here, how would we be able to afford Medicare-for-All, low cost child care, or free college tuition?
In order to provide universal health care for its citizens, Canada has managed to deter almost all illegal migration, and unlike our country, it does not provide free hospitalization for the relatively few migrants who have illegally moved there.
When it comes to legal migration, we give most of our green cards to those who have relatives already living here. Canada, in contrast, accepts most of its immigrants based on what special education and abilities they could contribute to the Canadian economy, on their fluency in English and/ or French, and on their ability to assimilate. As a result, most Canadian immigrants immediately start working at good paying jobs and paying hefty taxes.
A “Safe 3rd Country” agreement between our country and Canada shields Canada from having to assess many requests for asylum. Those applicants whom it does consider and rejects are quickly deported. A bill has been introduced to automatically deny asylum to anyone who has been denied by the U.S. (with a few exceptions).
Canada has strict immigration policies so it can afford to provide benefits for its own citizens.
15
One proposal that many of the candidates agreed on was that the earned income tax credit should be raised so that low wage workers are better able to support themselves. I disagree. The earned income tax credit has never been anything more than Walmart Welfare because it requires the American taxpayer to subsidize the wages of Walmart's low wage workers. Increasing the earned income tax credit means more tax dollars going to Walmart workers. Why not raise the minimum wage to a living wage and restore collective bargaining rights that have been eroded by fifty years of conservative take-backs? Make employers pay! Stop shifting the obligation to support low wage workers from profitable employers to taxpayers. End Walmart Welfare!
6
I listened for even less, 35 minutes, and grew too weary of listening to two guys yap in Spanish to one another, and very disgusted with all of them for politicizing the deaths of two immigrants in that gut-wrenching photo. But not one of them had the courage to ask, why did the El Salvador father bring with him on such a journey a child of not quite two years old? Because, as smugglers tell them, she's a passport into this country. Nobody had the courage to talk about what is needed: immigration reform. especially asylum rules. Showing off one's Spanish and embracing open borders is not going to get a Democrat elected. I fear Trump is going to win re-election -- there are too many Democrats running, all so desperate to climb to the top of the pack they'll say anything, promise anything, no matter how impractical or unlikely. Now those who want to do even more to encourage even more illegal immigration are being called "the progressive wing." Don't fall for that, either.
15
@gmt:
EXCELLENT analysis and commentary on the situation at hand.
I thought Warren did a great job, but I wish they'd asked her more questions in the second half. De Blasio said it well when he looked in the camera and said to the voters, the immigrants are not the reason for your troubles, or words to that effect. And I like that he said Russia was our greatest threat, clearly a reference to Mueller report. Castro was impressive. Wish they'd given my governor Jay Inslee more time. Booker is eloquent, if a bit long-winded. So good to hear from intelligent decent candidates.
5
On health care, the first step should be to make health care not-for-profit. Profit is a perverse incentive. Control costs first. Medicare for all does this but is very disruptive. We could fix the ACA and introduce a government option. I think that we could look to the German model with a mix of private and government insurance. There are different avenues to universal health care. But first, take away the profit incentive, the excessive compensations and the astonishing profits of hospitals - even "non profit". Also, ban pharmaceutical advertising.
3
@Deborah:
Excellent ideas all; none of which will ever be implemented in this country. The National Obsession is MONEY. The National Good has long been a myth.
Single payer as an option would not eliminate private insurance. After more than 100 years with private health insurance as the norm, it would be naive (and foolish) to say we were going to a single payer system in a handful of years. It would require a massive administrative change but one for the better. Over time, more and more people and companies would choose it. Single payer would expand coverage, improve health outcomes and lower costs. It’s an embarrassment we have failed to accomplish this as a country from Teddy Roosevelt onwards.
1
From my view in flyover territory, this "debate" (really a discussion) just enforces my long-held view that this really is two very different countries with very little, if anything in common.
The open borders/socalism agenda (everything is free!!) put forth by almost all the candidates, along with their social justice points, will, no doubt, do well in the left-wing urban coastal compounds, but will fall flat among blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt and farmers and ranchers in the heartland.
Unless the Democrats make a sharp tack back to the center, there is no way they will win a single red state and to the dismay of 99 percent of the Times' readers, Mr. Trump will coast to an easy victory in 2020.
You may not like it, but it's the truth and anyone who gets out their liberal city will clearly see that.
13
@Paul:
When I first came of age and was able to vote, I voted GOP most of the way. However, as I aged abd and experienced more of life's realities, I came over to the Democratic camp.
Having done so, it has been a surreal, farcical, tragic and sickening experience having the Buffoon-in-chief as our ersatz President.
While I now hold hopes that a Democrat may win the election, I agree with your observation. If the Democrats fail to coalesce and offer practical, attainable policies and goals, we'll be striken again with the corrosive and stupefying experience of Trump again.
And that, tragically, would spell the end of our nation as having any further credibility on the World stage.
Just one comment: A Harvard Harris Poll taken in Jan 2018 indicated that 70% of Americans are in favor of "Secure Borders vs Open Borders", so I'm concerned that we do not as a Party make the same mistakes we did in 2016 in moving to far ahead of the voters, and instead try focusing on the main points that seem to concern them most.
And no, given that the voters reelected Bush II even after the horrors of Forced Rendition were being revealed, I do not have much confidence in those who would say that we need to have faith that people in this country will change their minds about "Border Safty" , based solely on compassion for the deplorable conditions recently revealed in INS holding areas. Eyes on the Prize.
2
Actually I thought that the entire group went lite on trump. This was a thoughtful pool of candidates that discussed major issues. It was so refreshing not to hear people stoop so low as to discuss the size of someone's hands.
5
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments here and have found them so thoughtful that I’ve made a pledge to myself that I will read only the post-debate comments on this site and ignore the Monday morning quarterbacking of the paid political pundits so as not to skew my own observations. Good job, readers!
6
The Americans in the states that will really count are economically progressive but socially more conservative. Democrats will not win unless they address the border and stop with the Spanish.
5
I see Ms. Warren came out for single payer, which I think is new for her.
Though the ACA is better than the old system, some experience with the ACA has led me to see some flaws, some of which are not the most popularized flaws.
One of these less popularized flaws is what can happen if you get coverage from the expanded-Medicaid half of the ACA. (That is, people with incomes up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level.)
As far as I can tell, it is legal, under a law approved during the Clinton administration, for states to recover all medical expenses they payed out for you under expanded Medicaid at the time of your death, from your estate. This could be 2 million dollars, say.
This kind of estate recovery is routinely done for nursing home expenses.
Some people have asserted to me "no state Medicaid agency will do that".
I think those people are thinking wishfully.
It is legal: ( https://www.elderlawanswers.com/medicaids-power-to-recoup-benefits-paid-estate-recovery-and-liens-12018 )
and there has already been some informed discussion of this (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/08/obamacare-final-payment-raiding-assets-low-income-poor-americans/ ).
--
Another less popularized flaw is what can happen if a state has been clumsy, by say making expanded Medicaid eligibility based on monthly income.
What can happen is that people can be ineligible for either expanded Medicaid or an on-exchange plan in any given month. I'll bet this has happened in some states.
Warren for President. Gabbard for Secretary of Defense. Inslee, Secretary of Interior. Booker and Castro on the Supreme Court.
The next government is taking shape. Lots of jobs. Abundance of talent.
Win the White House. Win the Senate, with a 60-vote plurality. Win the House. Save our democracy.
@Thomas Briggs:
A nice description of fantasyland, as much as I'd like to see (some) of it actually occur.
Forget the Supreme Court fantasy; excepting the eventual retirement (or death) of RGB, we are tragically saddled with an uber conservative Court for many years to come.
Compared to the Republican debates four years ago this was a debate for adults. The Republican debates rarely rose of middle school name calling. Those debates were a disgrace. The people on stage last night had serious policies to address various problems. However, there were too many issues and too many candidates for good in-depth discussions and part of the debate was consumed by the struggle for power between the progressives and center left. No matter who is the nominee the election will come down to a referendum on white supremacy. This election could be the last opportunity to save the US from becoming a country dominated by hate of non-whites.
3
What a disappointing and disheartening performance. Throughout the two hour debate each candidate responded as if the primary responsibility of the President is to make and establish laws and policies, gun control, health care, immigration education etc. In my opinion unlike the present occupier of the office,the primary responsibility of the President is to be the leader. His/her first responsibility should be to establish a cabinet and advisors of experts who will guide him even if he/she disagree. The one absolute requirement from everyone serving is incorruptibility and integrity Never again should Americans be subjected to two of its officials be serving prison terms for graft and corruption and with I suspect more to follow.
This is what I would like to have heard in addition to the routine, practiced questions and replies we were subjected to last night
Chrisslevin
America is not working because the top 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%. People feel left out because they ARE left out. Warren’s appeal is not socialist. It’s the true populism of the Roosevelts. The imposter populist hasn’t offered the vast majority of Americans anything other than to blame their discontent on immigrants who have no wealth.
2
quoting Will Rogers "I am not a member of an organized political party, I'm a democrat"
the silly season has only just begun
1
Defending abortions for trans-female or transwomen (a biological impossibility). Speaking Spanish without translating into English on a national debate. On day one getting rid of border enforcement and creating de facto borders.
The amount of pandering last night was nauseating. It's like the Democrats want Trump to be re-elected.
9
We watched with our 30 something family members and two generations weighing in/ winner was Trump and Democrats are in free fall. Was a train wreck of an event from moderators asking inane questions to dumb strategy by all candidates.
Democratic friends aka the coastal elites also agreed nit s great night for party but great one for Trump.
3
The candidates last night were fairly progressive with some more or less so. The candidate who wins the Democratic presidential nomination will have to move more to the center if they are to appeal to the American voter. And this is no guarantee that they will win the presidency. Our economy is booming and people are gainfully employed under President Trump. The stock market has seen highs not experienced in years. The candidate chosen would have to come up with something better then this and it would be very hard to match. The candidate would need a miracle.
5
I must say the candidates responses to the gun questions was pretty anemic and shows how little they really know. Here's what they should say..gun violence is one of nation's most significant public health crisises but there is no single panacea. We must acknowledge that the Second Amendment is not going away and commit to a sustained campaign involving: 1) education ( safe storage and firearm training), 2) legislation ( background checks, small magazine capacity, ban of assault weapons etc) and 3) technology ( i.e. free market adoption of RFID child proof smart guns that can only be fired by authorized user). We commit to this effort and our gun deaths in ten years will be cut by more than half or some 20k lives saved annually.
4
If you are progressive, any of the candidates in last night's debate is for you. It was mentioned by one of the candidates that he will appoint liberal justices and judges to the court. This is something to take into account if that is important to a voter. Many cases will be appearing before the courts in 2020 and beyond which could affect the future of our country. The court before President Trump had begun to swing to the left but with his election it has become more moderate/conservative in its decisions. Do we really want to go back to a more progressive court system. I think most of the country would say no. The citizens of the United States are still quite moderate and do not approve of our country tilting leftward.
3
Political media Labels aside, there is no left, left in the Supreme. The days of Warren Court are long gone. Today it's only alt-right, far right, and center right that make up the Supreme Court majority previously stuffed with McConnell appointees. Even a center-moderate court majority would be welcome.
Dumping Trump in 2020, and taking him to justice for his governing corruption should be a national priority. In a post Trump world, restoring democratic institutions operating under the rule of law is a top priority for most Americans.
What's left of the Republican Party has given Trump a blank check to govern by fiat, to fail in their responsibilities to represent the American people by providing oversight and governing check and balances to Trump's oligarch governing style and actions.
And then there is McConnell's Senate control that are happy to blindly support a puppet president doing the bidding of their mutual fossil fuel money interests, and to railroad through radical right and fully unqualified ideologues in the form of justice appointments to the Federal Courts.
1
Neither Trump nor the current GOP is “moderate,” by any rational definition of the word.
Of course, one realizes that defining your goofy views as “common sense,” or, “neutral,” like this is of course a good cheap tactic, if anybody lets you get away with it.
Oh, well. It’s not like you’ll ever look at the polling data that says more than two-thirds (often, much more) of America supports universal background checks, a living wage, universal health coverage, Roe v Wade, and a long, long list of other commie ciews.
The reporting says that foreign affairs topics didn't surface until the end of the program. But what about the candidates' remarks on the Iran nuclear deal, which most agreed the US should negotiate itself back into keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Most candidates, however, expressed deep knowledge of the deal.
4
Well illegal immigrants certainly made out well.
20
So now we actually have 2 distinct parties? Cry me a river.
2
It was simply much worse than BORING! I did not see anybody who can match Trump in anything.
7
@Alex E so agreed they are all a bunch of unhinged lunatics
1
Trump would destroy these amateurs easily. Looking forward to another 4 years of Make America Great Again!
9
Don't count on it my friend. You are underestimating the American voter. We as a country will come together and vote him. Total disaster and embarrassment.
2
Tulsi Gabbard was "googled" more than any of the other candidates following the debate. You sure wouldn't know that from reading this paper. NYT, MSNBC, CNN, etc. have our political leaders already picked out for us, clearly.
7
@carl bumba Was she there last night?
1
Thanks to the Russians for shutting off Rachel Maddow’s microphone.
4
Why is Cory Booker Senator Booker but Amy Klobuchar is Ms. Klobuchar?
11
@edep,md cause she is a woman
@edep,md: Because the Times introduced each candidate with their title and full name, and then referred to them each by Mr. or Ms. [family name].
Here: “Most prominent among them was Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota...”
Please stop turning the real question of gender equality into a joke. Taking offense at everything real or, as here, imagined, doesn’t help advance society one bit.
2
one unhinged delusional lunatic after another!. The only one who has any semblance of reality was Tulsi and she is a military girl! The rest are just a laughing stock. I just love the entitlement attitude that they are willing to bestow on everyone. Free everything! Geez who in god's name is going to pay for it. Insanity rains with the the democratic party. I would pick Trump anyday over these complete fools.
8
so the debate went just as I expected. They pulled on each other over who was more liberal taking Immigration, Abortion, Health care to the extreme left. At this rate they won't be getting moderate voters or Independents in 2020.
4
It was a stand up performance by all the candidates. By most measures, they did the Democratic Party proud. But best of all not one of them showed any trace of narcissistic personality disorder.
I'm surprised at how little attention is being paid to the question of psychological fitness of presidential candidates. We can see what kind of damage an unordered mind can inflict on the country and the world, a la Donald Trump.
By inserting the question in the debates going forward, "Do you believe you are psychologically fit to hold the job of president of the United States," the country might start better understanding the crucial difference between fit and unfit.
7
You want healthy minded leaders. That’s one of those things left up to the voters. That’s probably for the best if one considers it well. Any objective system for determining who is fit would rely upon a body of knowledge that is only partially reliable.
The candidates seemed more concerned with Nationals in this country illegally and the millions trying to break in then American citizens. Inslee stated that Washington State would be more than happy to take them all in. I live in Seattle and the homeless problem is literally catostrophic. We are failing at providing for millions of our fellow citizens already but adding a few million more is no problem? If America can handle a huge influx of poor people in need then why are we not already doing so for our fellow citizens?
19
Someone needs to break out of the political grandstand box and address issues such as a world without tariffs. These Democrats who believe in open borders never address the real issue. Protectionism at its worst in the manufacturing world.
BTW, no one mentioned Trump much last night. Nancy and Chuck have coached Joe this morning. It's all about Trump Trump Trump. "See how many times you can put him down".
If the democratic platform is going to be to raise taxes, abolish private insurance and tear down the wall and not make it a crime to cross the border...... they will lose the election.
13
The DNCs been taken over by extremists corporatists and racists. Climate change, infrastructure, health insurance and retirement then everything else. Is it really that hard to figure out? I didn’t see any winners that scare Trump. Get it together and stop smearing and attacking your own parties candidates.
2
As a conservative, the only two that made sense and I would be willing to listen to and learn more about are Tulsi and Delaney. The rest were just an indistinguishable and hysterical bowl of mush.
10
It just seems the Dems are turning left only because the current administration is so abnormally crazy.
5
@Pam Not Joe Biden and Tim Ryan.
Free healthcare for all and free tuition to public universities, not to mention reparations, etc.
Can we total up the bill please? How many trillions a year?
There ain't that much money. These folks are lying to you.
9
@Saints Fan, one thing I’ve learned over the past few decades is that Republicans only worry about fiscal responsibility when a Democrat is in the White House. So I’m guessing you are preparing for a Trump loss in 2020? Smart move.
As for actual fiscal responsibility, the last president with a budget surplus was a Democrat. Not surprising.
Republicans say: Tax cuts? Wars? Sure, plenty of money for that!
Educating our workforce? Providing healthcare like they do in every other advanced country? Preserving Social Security? Republicans say “It’s impossible!”
For about three weeks of deploying a carrier group to the Persian Gulf, we could fund tuition-free state schools like they have in most of the rest of the modern world. And Americans pay many times more than anyone else for worse health care.
There’s plenty of money in the richest country in the world.
3
I first registered and voted in 1968. I have never seem such a deep, intelligent pool of men and women who have so much to offer. Democrats should be proud of all these candidates.
70
@James Osborne
James, I am not far behind with my first vote in 1972. But after watching the debate, I think we Democrats could be in trouble. The GOP is clearly going to make this election a referendum on "socialism".
I like E. Warren and I am glad she is in the Senate to counter the politics of greed. But, I'm afraid she is playing right into McConnell's hand. Some of the leftward rhetoric will undoubtedly energize Democrats. This is good. But we have to be careful not to energize the opposition.
I remember thinking of G. McGovern as a true progressive, perhaps well ahead of his time. And he was. But he couldn't get elected. The day after the election, the college newspaper had a one page editorial, all in black, with just the words "Four More Years" printed in the very center.
2
@Robert
DeBlasio is still far more intelligent than trump will EVER be.
4
What is the issue that attract more republicans votes to Donald ? Immigration right. I think it would be risky to win the nomination but smart to beat Donald if there is a candidate offering moderates views and proposals on immigration and win the votes of Independents, moderate Republicans unhappy with Trump and moderate Democrats as well. With that being said, I am still looking a middle ground between Democrats candidates and Trump when it comes to immigration. The closest one to the middle I believe it was Tim Ryan, but first, can he win the nomination and then beat Donald ? I don’t know. Lets wait and see today. If no one came close to the middle ground on immigration I am afraid we will see an unstoppable Trump for 4 more years and that will be bad for Students, Earth, Wars, etc.
4
Reality Check to be or not to be. Solution is simple our beautifull country is shining hope for rest of deplorables of world. We could feed world if we used our resources wisely. We have techolgy to free us from use of fossile fuels,hyperloop. All about choices government done horrible job in choosing to use trillions in tax revenue over last 20 years to purchase imports for government use like computors. Knowing those jobs oringinated in usa to build those computors was worse part,zero accountabilty in washington. The denial led to trillions in debt that has drove the dallor value to record low levels in value. Agun solution is present stop using tax revenue to purchase imports an jobs will return that pay tax revenue. An value of dallor will increase making lives of poor an hungrey alot easyer.
1
Don’t we already know Biden will be the nominee? He’s the anointed one like Hilary in 2016. For balance he’ll select Harris as his running mate. She’d be a
fool not to accept because chances are he wouldn’t make it through his first term if he is elected, but that’s is not too likely either because the progressives, feeling cheated again, won’t turn out at the polls. Why do the Democrats always outfox themselves when they would be better off just playing it straight?
2
It is disingenuous of politicians to call their health insurance schemes "health care".
No insurance policy will affix a bandaage to my knee. Telling me I can afford health insurance does not mean I can afford the costs of the health care that applies that bandage.
2
The reason they do that is if no have insurance, no have real health care.
1
I found the lapses into Spanish to be pandering and a turnoff.
I am for upward mobility and success for all groups and ethnicity The use of Spanish or any foreign language in a debate is a misleading signal that one can fully participate in the American dream by maintaining one's non English tongue.
Nonsense!! You are not going to get classes at Yale in Spanish. You will not have any major position in the US economy without English fluency.
Catering to a Spanish speaking community without English fluency condemns the members of that community to an economic sub-class with a very low glass ceiling..
22
You think you’re, “fluent in English?”
Not by my standards.
I’ll go further: until you get to about Buckley or Scalia or Frum or Stephens, NOBODY on the Right can read or write a lick. Worse, they don’t know anything real, and worse still, they refuse to go find out.
They don’t even read Buckley et al: they “read,” if “read,” is the right word here, Coulter and Rush and d’Souza and the bizarroland “novels,” of Tim LaHaye.
Then, they bloviate about far better-informed, better-educated, more-literate, people like Castro and Warren. When they’re not bloviating about pointy-head intellectuals, that is.
Don’t understand why the pundits focus on two of the least likely to beat Trump: Warren and Castro. They both have great ideas but if you think moderates would flip for either of those two, you’re crazy.
4
The responses to questions asked by moderators, even from the least articulate candidates showed that any one of them would make a far better POTUS than the narcissistic ignorant phony that we now have as the occupant of the White House. What each of the 10 candidtes showed us is what "presidential" really means. How we can tolerate the fool who now is called "President for one day longer is beyond belief. How Republicans can think that Trump is adequate in the job of POTUS makes one wonder just what they see as "normal" behavior. The only thing that will Make America Great Again will be to see that Trump is summarily ousted from the office of the POTUS by Jan 2021, if not sooner. Anyone but Trump !
3
Re: swing states. (FL, OH, SC, MI, PA, FL).
First, Dems cannot answer the key question about 'Mitch' - the one man who aims to take us back to 1850 if he can, and 1950 at least. Dems need a strategy for Kentucky to get this guy out.
Second, Tim Ryan is right; if democrats do not connect with white working class, and white middle class - the party cannot win. These good people cannot be reached with talk of immigration, or free tuition, or free healthcare for everyone. Plenty of evidence to suggest their willingness to shoot themselves in the foot than have non-whites get anything free.
Second, Trump won on the promise that he will hurt immigrants and Mexico (see PA). The swing states side with Trump. Speaking Spanish and pandering, is similarly crazy.
Third, we've now had over two decades of experience of 'free healthcare' as a dead issue; Americans want something that cannot be had: "Free for me (whites), not for you (everyone else)."
Fourth, please note Obama did not mention guns, ever. We can't stop people from buying guns, but we can produce draconian consequences for people who misuse. How about mandatory 50 years in high security for using a firearm in any crime? Similar consequences for people who fail to report when they see a person close to them losing it emotionally and owns guns?
My two cents: Dem message: "Law and Order, because Trump and reps are sowing chaos, robbing us blind, destroying our future."
3
No one among this group mentioned GMI - on to the next!
@Dave rideout GMI, huh? Slipped right past me!
1
What a pleasure to watch the first Democratic debate; an actual discussion
of national issues. No candidate bragged about being a stable genius, and
no childish name-calls: Little Marco, Low-energy Jeb, or Pocahontas.
I trust that part 2 this evening will be similarly educational and civil.
3
Politicians lamenting people "losing" their private insurance plans is such a laugh. Private insurance plans bleed people dry. Their outrageous deductibles and out of pocket costs and "out of network" nonsense make them essentially useless. Single payer eliminates all of that. I'm on a private plan. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take it away from me.
5
This is considered a "debate"? Americans have the attention span of goldfish. I can't stand how they 60 seconds to have a candidate solve an issue when it's more complex than that. Last night was just a platform to trash Trump while simultaneously touting how "qualified" they are. No real solutions.
1
Watching Elizabeth and her prom court last night all grabbing for the same crown was not very reassuring. Perhaps Democrats need to employee the Cinderella model. Take the glass slipper to each one and see whose foot fits it. The one's who does is their candidate.
3
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.
33
@Steve Fankuchen
True, Biden has political acumen, but look how he used it in the past.
LBJ went through a huge transformation as president and used his considerable political skills to get civil rights legislation passed. But he was a much younger man.
Biden is much older than LBJ was when he became president and sounds a bit out of touch-- I would not count on Biden to provide leadership in today's world.
8
@Steve Fankuchen Biden would get nothing done, he would be an old establishment Republican Light like Obama. He did all he could to get a compromise, a bipartisan bill, it was impossible, Republicans did all they could to destroy his administration. Obama is out of the office and still, the predatory Republicans are beating up on him destroying every little trace of his administration.
We need a fighting democratic party with a real backbone and riots in the streets to change anything and holding on to Democracy if there is anything left when Trump is done with the nation.
5
@Steve Fankuchen Wondering how you think he should have dealt with "the realities of Washington". More open to compromising with a party that was determined to make him fail? More dedicated to attacking them?
Passing Obamacare was hard. It was worth doing since it was a game changer, Americans now believe that the federal government should make sure everyone has health care: a right, not a privilege. That didn't happen because of speeches.
1
@ShailendraVaidya. Great insight. As a Democrat Abroad and a Baystater, I've been despairing about this lot. The scope and challenge at hand is not just to win an election. I see no one in the horizon with gravitas or moral compass to unite the country. Think about it. It's not just the economy and inequality, respect abroad, coherent foreign policy underpinned by human rights and values etc. The American government is NOT a business. Selling weapons has no equivalence to not defending press freedom in light of the highest casualties of murdered journalists. Over the years, I've heard politicians say that Washington is broken, making me wonder why they want to go back there. Doing politics is not a profession, it's public service that we need them to commit to before they get our votes.
So Elizabeth Warren was basically on stage with opponents that have zero to little chance. Is the DNC propping her up by giving her the first night on TV with little competition. I may be wrong but I remember her getting a question before the technical difficulty issue. Please tell me this wasn't planned as to give her advantage of being able to prepare her answer during the break. Too coincidental!!
1
I thought I heard Elizabeth Warren say she was "the only one" who visited the Homestead immigration center yesterday. But she had to have known that Amy Klobuchar had also been there. Apparently Professor Warren knows how to play the game.
2
I am concerned that Democrats might think a society can turn on a dime. Societies like to move slowly and with thought, not like a lightning strike. Ideas take time to work through although too often Americans love to talk things to death as talk is cheap.
3
De Blasio nailed the 1st debate. He's gonna battle with Biden for the nomination, just you wait and see!
1
Amazing, the blackout on SAnders by the MSM continues. There is not even a single mention of Bernie here in this article. This is really beginning to resemble a charade. The reporters who have written this piece really never heard SAnders speak at this debate?
8
Maybe they didn’t write about him because he wasn’t there last night. They had 10 other candidates to discuss. Is this somehow evidence of a MSM conspiracy?
34
The reporters didn't hear him because he wasn't there.
23
@Paul Art satire I assume?
18
I’m a 55 year old male and have always liked Biden and Sanders - and recently favored them
for the White House. Til now. Elizabeth Warren has to be president. The thought gives me goosebumps, brings tears to my eyes. Kamala Harris would balance the ticket nicely.
8
Performing for crowds is not really what presidents do on a day-to-day basis, so it’s unfair that they’re put in that arena—essentially, auditioning with farce when they’re going to be cast for Hamlet. The problem with Orange Sludge is that his audition piece IS how he’s governing, and we see where that has gotten us.
They did nothing but pave the way for Biden who is the only moderate in the bunch. It’s all part of the plan. No one will win on the first ballot, but the superdelegates will throw their weight behind Biden on the second. I think that’s precisely why some of them like Slalwell are running to make sure that happens. They are not real candidates but stalking horses. Once again the DNC is putting on a charade which will only end up with a Republican sweep. It’s an insult to the intelligence.
3
Months ago I emailed a few of the Democratic candidates asking them to put their immense egos aside, admit that they will not be elected President of the United States, and quit their futile runs at the nomination. Needless to say, none heeded my advice and I consider their appearances in these debates a harmful distraction to the very important job of destroying President Trump's attempt at being reelected.
3
I know. The egos are ridiculous and they have to know they won’t be president. I’m not sure if they are hoping for a cabinet position, want more name recognition for their career or just want to put a policy agenda of their passion out there.
More than a few that are just embarrassing.
2
These debate forums are a useless as they can get. As such, the media . . . so deprived of good news . . . should not even lower themselves and cover these debates.
1
Lets call Liberalism what it truly is, Socialism, & with it comes
higher taxes.We have become a great society & the envy of the world because of Capitalism. Capitalism is what brings the most talented of the world to immigrate to America, Socialism brings the Disenfranchised & poverty to America.If indeed people like Warren & Sanders become President we will join the 3rd world countries of the world..Industry will one again move off shore to avoid the taxes that Socialism brings, & unemployment will rise.There are no free rides with Capitalism , those that work hard will thrive in Capitalism, the give me’s will struggle..
11
@Independent1776 "Lets call Liberalism what it truly is, Socialism..."
Which one of the radio blowhards told you that? Why must everything be binary with you conservatives? Ever hear of the word "nuance"? Look it up.
*Well- regulated capitalism* is what this country needs. And no, that's not "socialism".
1
Democrats in elections spout about everything they will promptly forget if miraculously they are elected.
Not one of them has even the slightest chance against Trump.
5
Democrats Diverge
'I have got the urge'
On Economy
'Hope that you'll agree'
And Immigration
'To want a change in our nation'
In First Debate
'Wouldn't that be great?'
1
Everything will be free! Yay! And the 5 guys left on Wall Street will pay for everything.
7
They all sounded like a bunch of Democrats to me. I wish I could get that hour of my life back.
9
We have not the means to offer health care, higher education, even to repair infrastructure, nor to provide decent jobs with good pay to all who need them. We cannot afford the tax cuts we have made for decades and most people cannot afford to pay more taxes. We cannot afford to grow as rapidly as in the past without greatly worsening climate change. Free market capitalism serves capitalists not the rest of society. They are sequestering most new wealth from the use of the rest of us while they use up resources and energy. We cannot afford our vast military but we cannot be secure without it.
We are boxed in by myriad factors about which we have lacked any ability to manage decades ago. This is the central issue, we are in poor circumstances with no plan to deal with them, just a lot of emotions and dreams. Not one candidate last night showed any real grasp of it.
5
I see candidate Warren came our for single payer, which I think is new for her.
Single payer sounds good to me.
Besides the issue that a good proportion of our 18% of GDP medical expenses come from administrative work due to all the different health plans, I just found out what a nightmare finding an in-network provider can be with so many plans.
I just had an income-forced switch on me, from an on-exchange Obamacare plan, to an expanded-Medicaid plan. Just finding an expanded-Medicaid plan for which an available PCP existed, took me about 50 hours, and could have actually taken 200 hours if I weren't lucky.
The cause of this long amount of wasted time was that the insurance companies had provider databases with lots of errors and omissions.
In the end, the insurers told me the only reliable procedure for determining if a provider was in-network was to call the provider billing office, and get the 10-digit National Provider Identifier (NPI), and give that number to the insurance company by phone.
I had a lot of potential providers billing offices to call for the NPIs, and then each NPI had to be phoned in to each of 9 expanded-Medicaid sublans to see if the NPI qualified as in-network.
Even this procedure failed once, and the insurer told me only certain locations for the provider were covered, while the provider asserted all locations were covered. The insurance company and the provider and other parties all had to resolve this together over a few days time.
Crazy.
2
There must be a less grandiose and media-based way to learn about our potential presidents. The struggle to capture the attention of the camera, to capture "the moment", with something pleasing and convincing is grotesque. But a few of the candidates appear to be adults.
I thought the format of this debate was appalling. Perhaps the bar for participation should be higher. It is not possible to have a real debate with ten people. Equal time was not given to every candidate. They tried to cover everything and did none of it adequately. Perhaps they should narrow the scope of the questions so everyone gets a chance to respond so we know where everyone stands on an issue. Two hours with 4(?) breaks for ten people covering every issue? Can't be (and wasn't) done adequately.
1
The real clash in last night's debate was only over how aggressive to be in campaigning to achieve the ideals that most Americans who are not registered Republicans really want. We saw how little Obama was able to achieve by trying to accommodate the Republicans in Congress and the "Blue Dog" Democrats, otherwise known as DINOs. McConnell and Senate Republicans (probably un-Constitutionally) wouldn't even allow Obama's SCOTUS nominee to be considered for the Scalia vacancy during Obama's last year in office. That was his reward for trying to accommodate Republicans. Now is the time for all Americans who are not members of the Republican Cult to stand up for what is best for the Majority of Americans and not allow the 19th Century dinosaurs of the Republican Party to determine what is best for the rest of us.
@RLW, McConnell deserves all the condemnation he receives regarding his outrageous treatment of the Garland nomination and his resistance to working more with Obama during Obama's first term.
On the other hand, Obama deserves significant condemnation for betraying his 2008 promises about changing Bush-Cheney foreign policy and instead continuing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars his entire 8 years. Some troop variations in Iraq and then taking page from Bush-Cheney playbook by trying to hide continued involvement via hiring thousands upon thousands of private military contractors. Killing Bin Laden toward end of his first term and then just continuing Afghanistan war his entire 2nd term. Expanding the neo-con, intervention-first regime change nonsense to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc.
Obama also deserves some condemnation for leading with Affordable Care Act instead of focusing on more significant bipartisan infrastructure bill, beyond the smaller one he first got passed. There was some modest but important financial reform such as Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and some revisions in accounting standards.
Then, during 2nd term, perhaps as distraction from their failure to change disastrous Bush-Cheney foreign policy, Obama-Biden administration lurched far to the left on "identity politics" type issues and empowered lunatics among the Twitterati. Embraced Chamber of Commerce-driven "Gang of 8" immigration reform. Independent voters do not solely blame McConnell.
2
I found the debates last evening to be very entertaining. It was amusing to see the various candidates jumping in at any time to answer questions that were not addressed to them. Elizabeth Warren had a lot of speaking time and some had hardly any. The candidates wanted to outdo the other with their progressive policies. This was just a dress rehearsal for what lies ahead in tonight's debate. I will be tuning in for another entertaining evening. Of course, I do not think that is the intention. PS I am not a Democrat.
What is the proper role of government? What should it not be involved in? These are key questions that need to be discussed. The US government is too big, too bureaucratic, and too wasteful no matter who is in office. We are $22 TRILLION in debt. I think individuals will spend their own money more wisely than the government will. The Dems and Repubs want us to fight each other, when the truth is that BOTH PARTIES HAVE FAILED US. We need to teach basic economics in this country and teach personal responsibility. Please listen to NPR Planet Money podcasts from 2008 to 2016. Please read "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem" by Jay W. Richards or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Watch videos by Milton Friedman. Get government out of healthcare, out of mortgages/housing, from being the police of the world, eliminate subsidies, bailouts, welfare, get out of education, out of student loans, stop excessive regulations, and stop spending trillions more than what they take in. Just because something is expensive does not mean government should provide it. Proper roles of government: To provide national defense, to protect individual freedoms, and to be like a referee at a football game to ensure fair play in business to prevent fraud and monopolies. This does not mean no government, weak government, or anarchy. This does not mean completely unregulated capitalism. Government does have a role to play.
1
@Joe Sounds like a great way to become a plutocratic country. Most of us don't want that.
@idnar I'm not sure what your definition of plutocratic means as far as policies go, but what I stated would bring lower taxes, less government, more freedom, more personal responsibility, more jobs, less government debt, less spending including military spending, and more prosperity for everyone.
Julian Castro must not be dismissed. No one is more progressive than he is, yet he is much more successful in framing the pragmatic purpose of such progressiveness. He thinks on his feet, not just with quick answers but thoughtful answers. He engages the problems and sees underlying causes. His comment that we need "not only reproductive freedom, but reproductive justice" wasn't just a great line, it underscored who he is. He may not gain enough primary votes to win the nomination but he can and should be everyone's first choice for VP. He is a rock.
3
We all know America has the strongest economy and military. How then does it lack in a strong infrastructure of high speed intercontinental railroads and a national electric grid system to transfer power? Why is it that women are being challenged in how they can make decisions for themselves, ie, abortions? Why are people in other countries less worried about health care, retirement and education? Yes, the Federal system is broken and corrupt and will take a sea change to fix it. None of these people or those already in a position to do so can make a difference. Empires fail due to their over extension and failure to adjust to the changes at home.
2
The last debate I listened to (on radio) was Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale, moderated by the excellent organisation the League of Women Voters. Walter trounced Ronald 'Voodoo Economics' Reagan in that debate. I already know who I support (Sanders and Warren) and I don't need to watch to figure that out. I'm sure it was interesting to some and maybe some info was gleaned, but I already know who is progressive and who is Republicon Lite.
The author claims that the Republicans are accusing candidates like Warren and Castro of being for "open borders".
Wouldn't Open Borders be a situation, like the EU, where residents of two countries are permitted to travel and work in the territory of the other country?
I don't think anyone has proposed that. Warren and Castro are simply suggesting that we take all comers with no vetting process whatsoever. I would call this, not Open Borders, but a "Rubber Earth" philosophy that suggests that all people are good, and the resources of any country automatically expand as people pour in.
This is a little hard to understand, when proposed by the same people who insist that one of the greatest threats facing us is a fragile ecosystem.
If we have the capacity to take in endless people, why have we been building homes on flood plains, hillsides, and in areas prone to forest fires?
The truth is, that we are "full up" in terms of resource usage, and efforts to help people from other countries, while laudable, should take place on their territory, and not on ours.
4
Americans understand pretty much nothing about the EU. We do not have open borders, in fact even you are not welcome here past your 90 day tourist visa.
1
@mons
You're right. Mostly we are just glad we are not part of it.
And it's not surprising that the British voted to get out of it - why would they, after their heroic efforts in WWII, want to support a Europe dominated by Germany?
The Democratic Party does not represent the people of this country to the extent that it did in the middle of the last century but the candidates last night presumed that it does. The world of the next century will be very different from the world at that time. Our country is very different, too. So they complacently offered priorities and dealt with the preference of only some people that have their attention, and ignored all others.
Health care is a big concern. Wage and salaries losing value because they do not keep up with inflation and they produce no surplus for savings or improving lives are a big concern. The rising costs of education making post-high school unaffordable is a big worry. The huge proportion of people in prison robbing even far more families of ever prospering as a result are problems. The specter of global warming destroying our way of life and much of the biosphere which supports us is dogging us. These were touched upon but not taken in perspective.
The solutions offered were pie in the sky because they are not considered in context. Good leaders do that, they offer solutions that account for the realities, they do not harp on dreams that are not about reality.
6
Fantasies like the return of manufacturing jobs?
2
I did not care for their answers, but that’s simply nonsense.
1
Really, how do we pay for big solutions when the only way we have to do so is to make our problems much worse? The candidates just skated right over that fundamental problem. We need more wealth to fix everything discussed and no thought as to how to do that and to produce a sustainable result. That is the first thing we need to address. The candidates are just trying to find the menu of items reflected as being of popular concerned in polls that sells their candidacies to win election.
Sorry Beto your time is not now. Please return to Texas and run for the opensenate seat. "BIG John" is vulnerable and you will do yourself and our country a big favor as we need to gain the majority.
9
No!
We have already recruited a great Democratic challenger to take on Cornyn: MJ Hegar represents Texas values: tough, hardworking, patriotic. Check out her campaign.
2
@T
This is the first I’ve heard of her. Beto already has a huge base. not an aikenite is correct.
There you go again Times. Dividing the Democratic party into factions: populists, pragmatists, liberals, moderates, progressives. Each candidate was prefaced by a label, and the emphasis is on conflict.
Elizabeth Warren is a populist, but Amy Klobuchar is a pragmatist. I would say both are pragmatists, and both care about ordinary people.
But thanks to the maniacal, manipulative mr. trump, the term "populist" now has a highly negative connotation, suggesting trading on ignorance, inflaming audiences, and pitching snake oil politics--Elmer Gantry-style politicians (okay, mixed metaphors, sorry).
I like Elizabeth Warren more each day, though having taught at an academic medical university, I really believe to get elected, we have to let the people who really like their employer or private health insurance keep it. Start with expanded Medicare for those who want it as an option. However, Warren is the real deal as a human being, she is flexible and listens to reason, and she is a strong fighter who will take the Democrats' agenda for the people to the bully pulpit and hold McConnell's feet to the fire.
I was surprised and impressed by (1) Julian Castro (good on his feet and more depth than O'Rourke, as Castro deftly demonstrated), and Tulsi Gabbard (organized, sharp, and to-the-point). Maybe possible VPs.
I have been frustrated that the Democratic Party hides its talent under the old bushel basket. Compare these 10 Dems with the 2012 & 2016 GOP clown shows
9
Economics is not a science.
Economists are not scientists.
There are too many variables and unknowns to craft the double-blind experimental controlled tests that provide predictable and repeatable results.
Economics is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, faith, politics, education and history plus arithmetic.
Not all Americans are the heirs of immigrant ancestors. Neither aboriginal brown Native American pioneers nor enslaved black Africans were 'immigrants'.
American immigration was a white European Judeo- Christian colonial and conquering invasion and occupation of the Americas accompanied and facilitated by their black African enslaved and separate and unequal property stealing the lands, lives and natural resources of brown Native American pioneers with a Bible in one hand and gun in the other.
1
How does your statement help us today?
I doubt anyone is going to pull up stakes and leave and I am doubtful reparations would get the light of day.
Do you suggest everyone leaves and goes back to the homeland of their ancestry? Would those countries take them back? Could they?
2
Sigh.
Yeah, it is. A dismal one, as famously titled.
And not the same as sociology...which, if you want to rant about sciences not being science, probably takes the biscuit.
1
@Practical Thoughts
I am not trying to help 'us'.
I am trying to make America better by finally and firmly dealing with it's original twin sins of denying the natural divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness aka brown Natives and black Africans as the essential first step towards a more perfect union.
There is only one biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300,000 years ago. Color aka race is all about Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations.
Despite my paper and genetic documented white European, black African, brown Native and yellow Asian heritage I am all and only black African in America.
There were 500 brown Native Nations in the United States when the Europeans arrived.
1
It’s not to “the left” or “center” or “right.” Those are simplistic and lazy labels and generalizations for a media that wants to reduce everything to measurable soundbites and countdown lists, and deceive the public that it has comprehensively covered and accounted for everything. Hopefully, sooner or later these labels will rightly increasingly be left behind.
People are more complex than these labels.
5
This Times article demonstrates the power of the press. The single greatest threat to the United States and all of humanity is not poor heath care or bad immigration policies or Iran or China, but Climate Change. Governor Inslee all but shouted this time and again. The Times, and others, choose to ignore it. There is a fine article in the current issue of Mother Jones about how this inaction by our “leaders” and the media is affecting the scientists who keep attempting to wave the flag.
5
How refreshing to hear "normal" political discourse. Were Trump on that stage, he would resort to name calling because he is soooo out of his league.
8
Disappointing that NYTimes uses the word "Clash" in the title of this article.
How about "Disagree or Differ?"
There are going to be different opinions and the candidates need to differentiate themselves but let's not set everything up as a Battle Royale!
A debate is about justifying varying positions so of course there will be those contrasting opinions.
Hearing the candidates articulate their positions is key.
Let's not make this internecine war.
We need to present ourselves intelligently and coherently.
7
It was a great debate. Loved Warren, De Blasio impressed me with as I had never paid much attention to him prior to the debate. Unlike others, I was not impressed with Castro, he just repeatedly appealed to emotion. That gets old fast. Booker strikes me as an empty suit, not genuine.
4
What I saw was the future. What I saw gave me hope. What I saw was a group of intelligent people of multiple ages, genders, and races thinking about the future. What I saw were solutions, not red meat for the base. If God is kind what I saw last night and tonight is the future President of the United States.
6
All of the shouting, interrupting and talking over others was off putting, and the NBC moderators were owned by Castro. When the 2nd panel failed to begin because of technical issues, I turned it off. The border discussion shows Castro would be a toxic candidate against Trump.
2
I think Warren was the clear winner (she did precisely what she needed to do, no more), and Beto stayed true to his respectful, soft-spoken and incredibly impressive style. Booker over performed, but who says their comfort food is a bunch of vegetables. Even if they actually are, can you try any harder to sound disingenuous and out of touch?
A lot of their low-tier candidates, like Castro Gabbard, did what they needed to do to get their name in headlines, though it didn't work for most. What this meant was often interrupting the mid- or high-tier candidates, often mischaracterizing them, and seeking soundbites often at the expense of honest discussion. What a disservice to actual ideas. Beto just wouldn't stoop to that level, and Castro smelled blood. How do these under-handed tactics strengthen our democracy?
A real debate, a respectful debate would have. But Castro's and De Blasio's attacks (and others behavior - e.g. Booker side-eye, Gabbard's mischaracterizations of what's his face) were right in line with what the salivating TV viewers of blood sport garbage want to see in a time of Trump.
With the exception of Warren, and maybe Beto, I was actually quite disappointed by everyone's approach to this valuable time on stage.
I was particularly interested in Senator Booker's unsolicited statement that he refused to take money (anymore) from big pharma, ostensibly because of the public perception that they were ripping off the American public and he wasn't going to stand for it.
Cory Booker held the record for the most amount of money received by ANY candidate for office in the U.S. prior to his deciding to run for the office of President. He is probably more responsible than any other politician for preventing big Pharma's profits from dropping (e.g. disallowed Canadian imports, government negotiation of prices, patent extensions, etc.)
If Booker really wants to appear sincere he should immediately return ALL of their former contributions he's ever accepted. If not, he proves he's nothing but a hypocritical phony.
7
First things first. Messieurs Martin and Burns deserve commendation for their fine writing, their ability to reduce all that verbiage at last night's mass debate into an article that is clear and compelling, even if the candidates themselves were neither convincing nor persuasive.Second, can't help feeling that all were mediocrities, which as I tirelessly point out, mediocre is the worst insult in Latin AMERICAN cultures. See V.S.Naipaul's "Return of Eva Peron."Third, more unchecked immigration means an America in which citizenship will no longer have the significance it once had. If drivers' licenses r given to illegals, which they will then us as i.d.in order to vote, then the fix is really in, Finally, remember that this country was founded by white men, descendants of Anglo Norman knights who assembled at Runnymeade in 1214 to force King John to sign the Magna Carta, which became the foundation for democratic rights which we enjoy . If 1 candidate last night,had stood up to declare a debt of gratitude , recognition of our Anglo Norman heritage, I would have said to myself that there is someone not afraid to speak the truth. There's room for everyone in this country, black brown or tan, but recognition of our debt to the descendants of King Harold and William of Normandy who laid the cornerstone,"pierre angulaire"for the liberties we enjoy today should have been first on everyone's agenda!
1
@Alexander Harrison Is this satire? I can't tell.
1
Indeed, it is unconscionable that white men have never been placed at the center of either history or politics. A remedy is overdue!
4
@AnnaT: Hunch that if 1 of the candidates on the stage had publicly recognized our debt to our Anglo Norman ancestors, paid due recognition to their contribution to our democratic system of values, he or she would have enjoyed a huge round of applause.That brave soul also would have set himself apart from the pack,stood out, which each of them sought to do.Have you read "1066 and All That!"Also neglected to mention that Einstein was white!
warren and castro seemed to stand out. too many candidates for a two hour debate.
2
"We the People" need more time for these debates, not more time for commentator spin after the debate. The commentators need to focus on all the Candidates and the issues, not who won or lost. We are smart enough to make our own decision, and will voice it with our votes in the Primaries. The commentators need to appear non-partisan, regardless of which candidate they may personally support, or it will lead to a feeding fest on all of them. We need the facts, not your scorecards. Please and thank you.
2
As a Warren supporter, I was worried about her stumbling or being out shined. (Standing between two tall men didn't help.) But according to your analysis she acquitted herself well, only being outshined (outshone?) in the second half by Castro.
Way to go Julian! He seemed to have more energy than anyone in the second half. It's almost like he had a fresh double to take his place. (Archivist, please note; this is the first time this joke is told in this campaign season.)
3
They agreed on the issues and, in the eyes of this Trumper, agreed on the solutions 1) make the government bigger and more powerful with more regulations, 2) abrogate personal responsibility and freedom in favor of nanny state government regulations and bailouts, 3) de facto legitimation of illegal immigration...the list is longer but already enough to hope none gets elected.
5
This is the second analysis I’ve read this morning that made no mention of the time the candidates spent discussing climate change.
3
I really disliked the debate’s format. I understand now why Trump got the nomination. This format is perfect for one liners but terrible for substance! I would have appreciated some time for introductions too.
I got my impressions from the first 30 minutes and then I stopped paying attention. Having said all that, here are my 2 cents:
Senator Warren is the most pationate and interesting campaigner. She has firm convictions and she is really thoughful. I would be very enthusiastic on voting on a ticket with her in it.
Julian Castro was really the most articulated and eloquent of them all but unfortunately he does not have a very commanding presence. However, I am willing to hear more from him.
De Blasio has tremendous presence and I was greatly surprised but he can be too much at times when he interrupts others for example. Nonetheless I want to hear more from him.
Amy Kobluchar was by far the best prepared. She was armed with figures. But she seemed very nervous and she was not an impacful voice.
The woman from Hawaii is articulate and has great resume but I kept thinking, she is really a one topic person ( she kept talking about the war at every opportunity) So she put me a bit off.
The rest of the candidates did not leave much of an impression to be honest. I was expecting more for Cory Booker but he really did not impress :-(
Nonetheless this was the first debate and we still have a way to go. Go Democrates!!!!
2
will having so many democrat candidates divide the votes and result in trump winning the election again? many of the democrat candidates come across as compassionate about their causes, have good ideas, integrity and decency. Will they serve America better by running for the Senate (a Republican controlled Senate will limit the powers of a democrat president - Obama's presidency an example) instead of the presidency ?if u truly love your country, u do what's best for the country.
1
Your headline suggests a very different debate to the one I watched. I saw 10 intelligent and articulate candidates debate respectfully, and politely, so I am not sure why you refer to it in militaristic terms, is that to encourage clicks by those hoping for high drama? Words matter, and last night was a stark contrast to the last rounds of GOP debates, and the current occupant of the White House. I am ready for actual adults, with policy ideas and a passion to help others, not just themselves in the White House, please do not treat this as entertainment and click bait, that is what have #45 billions in free advertising, and a route to the highest office in the land.
2
I Thought some of the candidates were so rude and pushy that I could never vote for them and in fact by the end of the debate I thought they should not be in another debate. They hogged the spotlight and refused to shut up when asked by the moderators.
The two biggest spotlight hogs were COrey Booker and Bill di Blasio. The moderators should have the ability to cut their mikes off when their time is up.
I would like to have more from John Delaney but he got squeezed out by the big boors pushing for the spotlight.
The moderators need to do their job - and cut the mike of the big boors when their time is up. Basically the moderators did a very poor job.
3
They only had an hour with 10 people up there. The only chance to get noticed.
I was surprised there weren’t more interruptions
@Judith weller Rude and pushy? Pray tell, have you ever heard of this Trump fellow that people sometimes talk about?
1
@Judith weller
Beto O'Rourke may not have interrupted as much but he was a real motormouth who consistently talked way over the time limits.
When I watch these debates, I ask myself, "Would I want to invite him or her to dinner at my house?"
If it is yes, it is because that candidate has insight and opinion worth implementing as national policy. And the person appears to be mature and civil. If no, it is because the candidate has no idea worth listening to or manners worthy of being my guest.
Back in 2016, Trump failed the test. Now in 2019, I would like to invite many Dems and I think I would enjoy the evening.
I love most of what Elizabeth Warren stands for but if she is going to endorse illegal immigration then she will not get my vote.
36
@Landy She came out too strong on healthcare and immigration for the first debate. Some people are calling it "brave" and "authentic" but I find it a poor move and a lot of it feels like she's trying to pander.
6
@L99 How can she come out too strong on health care? Is it better to vote to repeal more than 50 times even a little Band-Aid-like ACA in the effort to deny health care?
Republicans came out too strong AGAINST health care, is that better, less extreme but in line with Republican ideology?
Asking for asylum is not illegal immigration, and nothing excuses the inhumane treatment on the border. It exposes the ugly government we have.
4
@Landy, she already unfortunately has. She had a chance to be the pro-worker candidate who believes in supporting the least advantaged US citizens and legal immigrants. She had a chance to re-embrace the recommendations of President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, led by African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan.
Instead, Elizabeth Warren has fully endorsed and supported Julian Castro's immigration policies. To support de facto open borders by overturning the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton). The Koch Brothers and Chamber of Commerce could not ask for a better ally on immigration than Julian Castro and apparently now Elizabeth Warren. What they want, in decriminalizing all illegal immigration, is no different than de facto open borders and unlimited immigration. It is anti-environment; anti-labor; and contrary to everything the Democratic Party once stood for, at least as represented by Barbara Jordan in the 1990s.
8
None of these candidates look like a crazy dictator.
I would be comfortable leaving my wife or daughter alone in a room with any of them.
Not one of them spoke with a loving twinkle in their eye about Putin or Kim.
If we only had a democracy and were electing someone to lead and respect the rule of law, one of them might actually win.
75
@HL We have a democracy.
3
@L99 We have a Republic that has some democratic principles incorporated in it. We don't have a democracy. See today's SC decision as an example.
1
@HL
"The rule of law": Open borders? Or what about Rachel Rollins' refusal to prosecute "brown" people because they're probably illegal and if she prosecutes them, we might actually send them back home where they belong?
Or prosecuting invaders because they steal social security numbers (presumably because they want to pay taxes so badly!)
And now your kind want to decriminalize both marijuana and the illegals! Well done. The rule of law, indeed!
If you haven't read Julián Castro's immigration policy on his webpage you really should.
It is a Total Gift to DJT.
Castro in essence calls for making every one of the 22 million people now in the US in violation of immigration law a citizen.
Castro also wants every one of those 22 million, plus tens of millions more, to be able to have their distant relatives waltz on in at JFK, LAX and ORD.
Castro wants to decriminalize illegal entry into the US, turning it into the equivalent of a parking ticket.
Castro wants all those who overstayed their visas and were caught to have their records expunged so they can come back again by just paying that a parking ticket.
Castro wants to break up, demoralize, and hobble ICE and CBP. And since everybody already here will be legal and it will be legal for every other one of the 9 billion people on the planet to come across the US border and stay permanently, with at most a parking ticket penalty, why even have ICE and CBP? They would have no laws to enforce (other than the most limited focus on sex trafficking).
Julián Castro supports open borders by any rational definition.
Do Democrats really want to go to the voters in 2020 with a plan to flood the US with an unlimited number -- likely hundreds of millions over 10 years -- of folks from Asia, Africa and Latin America?
Because that is what DJT will tell them the Castro plan does.
And for once, DJT would not be lying.
26
@Frank Exactly right. This issue dooms the Dems. Why don't they get that? I am so frustrated with the Democrats right now. It's like they have a Death Wish.
1
@Frank they're falling to the pressure of immigration advocates, lawyers, certain media companies, and their undocumented constituents who are more and more in mixed status families. Seems odd the party went rogue on this issue in a few short years.
1
@Frank I really hate to break this to you, but most people in this world don't actually want to come here. Nor do I blame them. I mean, our healthcare is ridiculous, our infrastructure is failing, our jobs are being shipped overseas to ever poorer countries while our working class is being ground into dust, and we have a serious racism and xenophobia problem. Evidence, the number of people claiming to be Democrats whining because someone spoke Spanish for a few minutes. Holy smokes, people, who can imagine that not everything in this world panders to you personally??
Believe it or not, most of that nine billion wants nothing to do with us. I seriously don't blame 'em.
But those who do will doubtlessly work hard, as they already do, and we'll be a better country for it.
I hope the media will truly dissect the two top ‘big ideas’ - forgiveness of college loans and single-payer health care.
Loan forgiveness - if I did not take a loan should I still receive a check. If I did not go to college (college is not for everyone) do I pay taxes for other people’s’ loans, is it once and done or free tuition forever. Oh, and how much incremental tax will all of us have to pay.
Single-payer - eliminate private insurance for 180 million people - will I have the same or different coverage under single payer, how will this work, how much more tax will I have to pay, will illegal immigrants be covered.
Answers are needed before we even contemplate such enormous changes.
17
@Brian
Abolishing private insurance may be their biggest blunder but progressives don't know it because they are enamored of other countries' systems.
5
@Brian
Well Brian, it depends upon what sort of a single payer system you select.
In Canada, the cost is much less per person than your present for profit insurance system costs.
The outcomes are also better.
Other western countries have some other different systems, I believe they also cost less per person than the US system.
There are many studies available on the internet.
3
While other countries have a range of systems, what unites most other countries’ coverage systems is that they all work better, cheaper.
We lead the world in one thing: costs.
Otherwise, we are about 35th...down around below Cuba.
2
If you think Trump lies, look at what these clowns said last night. I won't go over every single one, but a big one -- women are paid less than men for doing equal work.
A lefty shibboleth that simply is not true. It is based on the fact that in corporate America women tend to gravitate to lower paying jobs. Take a bank- - most tellers and customer service agents tend to be women. Secretaries, support staff, etc. So if you look at the average of pay for all employees, women will be paid less, but it's not due to anything other than the jobs they are in which is a matter of education & choice. If you analyze the data by job, region, industry, length of service, performance -- gender differences in pay disappear.
Now, if you want to advocate that women need to be more represented in the upper echelons, fine. That means getting finance, engineering or other technical degrees rather than sociology or education. And be willing to put in the 60 hours a week or so it takes to distinguish yourself. But if this often bandied about statement, women aren't paid the same for equal work were true then corporations aren't stupid, they'd get rid of men and hire women.
So why don't we look at the NY Times pay data -- just average pay by gender over all. Then let's start looking by job. Fair?
But, when a party repeatedly states a lie as truth -- all of the candidates for president -- when there is no supporting evidence -- how can you trust any of them?
19
I worked in banking for almost 40 years and believe me women don't just want to be tellers
All the studies show that women earn less than men--20 percent less.
7
@DebJ no the studies don't. Only the high level studies that don't take into account job level, industry, and market etc..
Although I wasn't a compensation analyst, part of my responsibilities included analyzing compensation data in a huge bank against the entire financial services industry. Both me and the comp director (female) agreed gender played no role in comp -- that women in the same job were paid at the same level as men.
So you see, I've actually seen and analyzed the data.
5
@Ralphie: When it comes to lies, none of them hold a candle to Trump. Not even close, Ralphie-boy.
6
I always have to laugh when I read a description of universal health care as 'far left'. That must be scripted by ALEC. Sanders and Warren will make a great team for our next presidential administration. Looking forward to it.
9
I’m glad climate change was mentioned by several candidates. We had a storm on Tuesday night, at dusk, unlike any of the storms I’ve witnessed in the last 50 odd years. (Not a tornado.) It snapped limbs, toppled trees and rained quarter size hail. Heavy dark stratus clouds layered on top of one another moved in, followed by an overall darkness, and then it cut loose, with straight line winds, hail, and rose colored flashes of lightning, followed by very little thunder. It was more like we were under attack from an unknown, as it did not look or behave like a typical storm. It’s like we had a reverse tropical storm/hurricane with hail in the Midwest.
35
As a longtime Progressive, I feel like a kid in a candy store. Right now I'm just enjoying seeing a group of people who represent my views, and speak of things that I've been saying for over twenty years.
4
Warren is an incredible candidate. Let us hear what she has to say, even if that means asking her one or two more questions than the others at the beginning! So fascinating reading all the comments complaining that she was "allowed to talk too much"... yet she was #3 in the list of who talked the most. Why are people so hung up on the amount of airtime she's getting? Aren't there bigger things to complain about? Even if she was the #1 talker, why would that be an issue?? Genuinely curious!
159
@Visible I thought before this event even started that it was a flawed concept. The hype was annoying. It opened the door for moderators to pitch their own personal quirks and issues. Objectivity was never a concern. It seemed at times they were going for a brawl but the candidates did not take the bate.
6
@Visible
Warren did emerge as an excellent candidate, in my view--and I say that as a Pete Buttigieg supporter.
But last night's debate format also favored Warren unfairly. She was chosen to open both rounds of questioning--on what grounds; did she win a coin toss twice? Throughout each round, moderators selected her frequently to weigh in with rebuttals. Also not fair. (I believe it's one reason DiBlasio barreled his way into commenting: he realized he'd never get a chance to speak otherwise.)
What impressed me most last night: the full range of Dem candidates is extremely talented. I was genuinely surprised--and pleased. I turned off the TV feeling more hopeful than I have in weeks.
Of course some candidates are stronger than others. We do have frontrunners and they aren't looking back--and neither is the media, which loves to wield its spotlighting power to shape what the public knows and thinks. But the public deserves to hear all of the candidates until the first primaries are held. I felt as if I was looking at the next White House Administration's cabinet choices. What a refreshing, empowering thought!
So, I want to hear all of the Dem candidates explain their views--not just the anointed frontrunners. A robust and transparent contest of ideas is honest is exactly what our democracy calls for.
17
@Visible...You guys are supposed to be all about equality this and equality that. Ten candidates were on stage. How many candidates did this article mention? Equality of opportunity to present themselves was not afforded to every candidate. Somebody had their fist on the scale from the gitgo. Somebody is stacking the deck. Remember 2016 and the DNC's deck stacking? That's why disproportionate "talking" is an issue.
1
Am I the only one who was concerned about dissolving entire industries such as insurance and oil practically overnight? I like the idea of green technology jobs - whatever those might be? - however it reads reckless to put tens of thousands out of work simply because it sounds good to bash insurers and oil companies.
4
@ladyluck
Yeah. Because insurance companies and oil companies have our best interests at heart.
Wake up. They don’t and need regulation....
3
@Draw Man Not my point. Jobs is my point. Warren said she would in effect end these industries. She didn't say regulate - she meant end. What will all these folks do for employment? Here are the statistics. 2.66 million are employed in health insurance. 1.39 million are employed in the oil industry. These are not all execs. Did anyone explain what would happen when they suddenly put over 4 million people in this country out of work? That is not going to win an election my friend.
Elizabeth Warren continues to show us why she's the best person to beat Trump, the best person for the job and arguably the most prepared. I'm supporting her.
4
It sure has, especially regarding immigration.
I can't remember the last time I voted Republican. After watching them cater to illegal immigrant supporters so much I may end up voting for Trump.
Another thing I really have a problem with are the debates, for both parties and I've been saying this for years . There is no valid reason for any debate to be in front of a live audience. Candidates should earn a vote on their answer to the question. Not on who gets the most hooting and cheers from the audience It also cuts into the time.
If the Republican debates were held without a live audience in 2016 Trump wouldn't be President.
5
I'll vote for any of these fine people. And any of the ten candidates tonight. I am a democrat in a blue state. So all of this is irrelevant. The only data we need is who has a chance in the swing states?
1
As a physician who supports Medicare for all, it amazes me that so many Dems can play to people's fears about this.
I wish someone would point out that among the things such a system would eliminate would be in-network requirements with the possibility of bills for out of network services.
Yesterday I saw the first ad I've seen attacking Medicare for all as a socialist government run takeover of healthcare where people will have to wait months for care like in some mythical European country. If a government run system is so bad, let whomever sponsored the ad run getting rid of Medicare and VA healthcare system, both of which are government run.
Finally, if our current system is so great, why is lifespan declining in this country even though we pay far more money per capita on healthcare than any other country.
The incremental proposals are like giving aspirin to someone with a fever due to an infection. It may help reduce the fever but it will do nothing for the underlying infection.
7
Having watched the debate in its entirety, I find myself wondering if Times reporters were watching the same event. What struck me most was the degree to which all the candidates (except one or two) were on the same page. Goals were similar but details often diverged but not to the degree the Times suggests.
Clashes were really acts of rudeness on the part of Julian Castro and Trump-like bullying from Bill Deblasio, in particular. John Delaney looked like a surrogate for Joe Biden who had trouble controlling himself.
The Times needs to re-evaluate its tendency to rely on sensationalist reporting. Clearly, there were 3 or 4 candidates that had no business being on the stage but for the most part what struck me was the unity among the major candidates.
5
One topic that will need to be brought up is what to do about the alt-right and their militia. Past US Presidents including Washington and Grant confronted the militias and stopped them in their tracks. We will need to do the same with the alt-right militias who will use their massive amount of gun fire power to get their way if trump loses.
2
What will be of real interest is how the second debate plays out tonight. Those candidates will have seen the questions (and answers) from the first debate - and the reactions to them. That will undoubtedly shape their responses tonight.
A pity we could not have put them in an isolation booth last night until tonight's debate, so we could see them face the questions cold.
But good golly - these people are on fire and it's about way more than just being against Trump. Peolosi and Schumer had better be ready to move come January, or risk 'moderating' the Democratic Party to death. Caution and compromise have not served us well - and it's certainly not be GOP practice, not for a long time.
If Democrats seem to moving to the left, the reality is that the GOP has been shoving the country hard right so long, we are on the right wing fringe.
Democrats are finally trying to bring us back to reality - and a majority of America is waiting for them to lead us there. Let's hope so, at least. We're running out of time on so many things, not least of all Climate Change.
5
Seems like most of the fringe candidates have no reason to leave just yet. I think Tim Ryan might be the only guy who left with having much to build on. Delaney had just enough good moments to have a roll, particularly being the voice of the status quo on healthcare.
I like Elizabeth Warren. She doesn't have my vote yet but I think we are well passed "is she likeable enough" and the whole Pocahontas thing. My hesitation with her is actually policy. Some of her ideas are great (wealth tax is my favorite) but some of them worry me. For example, taking away private HC is an uphill battle and dangerous politically. She has some work to do to sell that message.
1
I'm registered NPA, so I cannot vote in the primary for any of the Democratic candidates; however, I watched last night's debates with interest.
I thought Tulsi Gabbard was the most deserving of a time and attention. Given our current geo-political climate, it is important that our president has military experience.
I also find it interesting that the only the two millennial candidates have military experience.
5
This was a very interesting night. I enjoyed listening to smart people for a change. Gabberd patted herself on the back too often. It was just fine that trump was hardly mentioned. We all know what and who he is and what he has done to our country. Ignoring him was perfect. I'm sure that annoyed him.
How do those who are for all those freebies plan on paying for them? Not mentioned was our deficit that has never been so high, does anyone have a plan on reducing this?
1
The Democrats were appealing to the dreams not the minds of people and not to all Democrats with their priorities and solutions to big concerns. More of the same that has paralyzed good governance for decades. Just winning offices does not serve the people even though it is the topi priority of elected office holders.
We have seen enough of politicians winning with visions only to show no ability to deliver with satisfying results for our nation’s real needs. These Democrats are just offering more of the same.
As much as I understand that we must participate in this government of ours to retain our liberties and democracy, this constant appeal to emotions and none to serious thought is a drag.
1
@Casual Observer
Try being a lot more observant. Because you missed 99% of what was said and proposed.
2
Planet Earth and global warming need to be the NUMBER ONE priority - none of these other debate issues will make any difference when our surroundings are inhospitable! Unbelievable.
1
What was most enlightening, and sad, was the lack of answers to the question of how they would deal with Mitch McConnell if they won the White House but the R's still held the senate. Not one of them had a hint of an idea. Maybe they didn't want to have to admit that Obama could have done a lot more by going into McConnell's office and privately threatening him with harm, exposure for criminal acts or death if he held up Garland's nomination. The man is single-handedly twisting our country's fate for the foreseeable future.
I enjoyed listening to the Candidates and the lively exchanges which were refreshing and polite. All of these people including those who take the stage tonight are well qualified Public Servants who got here because they have been successfull and are intelligent.
However, its obvious that the Democratic problem is the Economy and they have to paint its booming success as only helping a few tenths of a percentage points at the top of the heap. Thats just not true and every economic index backs that up. What I heard were all different ways to dismantle it and spread Socialism by creating huge new taxes both in the Private Sector and using Climate Change as a battering ram to basically shut down Capitalism as we know it. This is a recipe for Disaster and you can bet that Russia and China are praying that a Democrat wins just like they hoped Hillary would win in 2016.
My guess is the talking points will be the same tonight. I expect Warren and Biden to emerge as leaders but its too soon to tell. I will vote for whomever can keep the Socialist Agenda at bay for a few more years..god knows its coming once the Millenials gain more power and foolishly pursue the destruction of our great economic engine on the backs of the middle class.
Didn't hear Warren mention her Native-American background which probably did at least as much to advance her career as anything else she ever did so as far as importance goes, that should have been high on the list of what she mentioned regarding her background.
I never read her book but according to the profile in The Times earlier this week,in it she said her mother's family opposed her marrying her father because he was Native-American. Considering that DNA found Warren to be 1% Native-American, her father was at most 2% which meant that one would have had to go back so many generations for there to be anybody in his family tree that others would have considered Native-American that it is doubtful anybody would have even known about it.
I'll stick with Bernie. He's never falsified his background to get ahead.
I think we democrats should immediately start impeachment proceedings. It would slow down this disaster of an administration from contemplating war with Iran and tearing up any more regulations to please their greedy donors.
Trump can do a lot more damage in the time between now and the election.
Some of the candidates are in favor of impeachment, and I'm with them.
2
I am not offended by candidates speaking in Spanish. I realize they are not speaking to me, and have no expectations of getting my vote. Which is good, because they won’t be.
4
Two candidates advocate open borders, another two would like to wipe out private health insurance and give all providers a haircut. All crazy ideas that would be impossible to legislate.
That won't sit well with the voters, Trump fodder.
Most of all I didn't feel any of them really Love America, not one could stand up to the Trump enthusiasm. America has it's cheerleader, very tough to replace.
Perhaps round two of the student council debates will bring some hope to the Democrats.
5
The amateurs in the Oval Office are more dysfunctional than my student leaders at my high school.
3
Did the candidates address jobs? Did they address the costs of receiving health care (not just access)? Did they address the disasters that are destroying farmers and owners of small businesses? In the words of the late, great Harvey Milk: "You gotta give them hope."
1
What is it with Amerrican politicians who discuss the immigration problem without talking aboyut the real issue: the political instability, crime, and poverty in the Central American home nations of these tens of thousands of immgrants? The U.S. can do everything it wants to put a band-aid on a much bigger, deeper malady -- including building a wall to keep people out. But they will continue to come north because they are so very desperate, fearful, and hungry. That is the real issue here and it isn't easy to deal with. Time for an imagainative big-picture solution, not fiddling with or arguing about piecemeal reforms?
3
It was apparent they couldn't find any legitimate reasons to criticize Trump so they resorted to promises of free government benefits in exchange for peoples votes. It's always someone else who is going to pay for it. Socialism 101.
3
@Don
Not. Government for the PEOPLE. CIVICS 101.
3
@Don "they couldn't find any legitimate reasons to criticize Trump ..."
Are you serious? Take off the rose tinted glasses! Even plenty of GOP'ers are criticizing Trump!
Not one candidate in that stage has ever run or lead anything. Never ran a business or a state. Not one has ever created a single job, or ever had to meet a payroll. And you folks want one of them to run the USA? To be responsible for making decisions that affect our entire economy? Affect how our companies could be competitive on the world stage?
They have a plan. Sure they do. But they never put these plans to action No experience. No accomplishments. That’s the difference with a true leader or a true CEO. They have the hutzpah to put a plan to action and make it work. These folks on the stage are all politicians. They will use other politicians to implement their plans, again, folks with no experience in the real world. And while some folks like their plans because they call for “fairness” in capitalism, guess what, there is no fairness. You invest your capital, and don’t know what your doing, you fail. It’s having the experience and genius to do it again and again until you get it right. None on that stage or tonight’s stage has ever tried. Sorry folks, until you nominate an accomplished leader, and not an ideologue, you won’t win another election. As for Trump? He’s created tens of thousands of jobs with every development he undertakes. He’s built skyscrapers all over the world, including the 4th tallest on the US, Trump Tower in Chicago. He created and ran a multi billion dollar company. There isn’t one Dem candidate who would know how to build a wood box.
1
I wonder if any are in debt to Russians? I wonder how many have credible claims for harassing women. Several have held the responsibilities of running cities and states. John Delaney has created a successful company with many jobs sans bankruptcies. I wonder how many have a record of consisting cheating contractors so that decent companies don’t want to do business with them. I wonder how many have a history of hiring undocumented workers. I wonder how many avoided the draft with a specious malady? I wonder how many were “born on third bases, ended up on first , and told the world they hit a home run! And the world believed it. “
I wonder how many will go to their rich person enclave and pridefully tell them that he just made them all a lot richer, when he tells the public it was a great tax break for working people?
I wonder how many have fake Time magazine covers of themselves made up? Or a charity foundation so fraudulent the government decided it had to be closed. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
1
@NYCSurgical "Not one candidate in that stage has ever run or lead anything. Never ran a business or a state..."
Di Blasio, Delaney, Booker, Castro, Inslee. Didn't pay attention, did you? I've no problem with a contrary opinion, but at least make it an INFORMED opinion.
2
DNC should have stayed out of it in 2016, and let the chips fall where they may. This year, though, DNC intervention would be welcome. Anything more than five candidates is a distraction, so the field should promptly be winnowed. Anyone excluded who believe they are viable are perfectly free to run as independents.
The morning after the night before.
I had the uncanny and unsettling thought that if the first night of 10 Democratic presidential candidates were the only ones running, all of them would all be better than Donald Trump.
1
The economy is terrible. Low mortgage loan rates and high stock market prices are an illusion. It is all the fault of Republicans. You really are not better off today than you were four years ago. The tax reductions most people got as a result of the Republican tax law are really a gift to businesses because you now can spend more. We need to repeal Obamacare. But you can keep your doctor, pre existing conditions will all be covered, and you will pay less. We promise. Your student loans will be forgiven. Someone else will pay the bill. Those of you who paid off your loans or worked your way through college, thank you for your generosity. We need to immediately use less energy to slow climate change. To set a good example I am turning off the air conditioning in my house and my office. I will walk to work. There is no immigration crisis. Open the border to everyone, not just those from Central America. China is our friend. Although we hate big businesses, we don’t want to burden them with finding suppliers in the US or Central America and providing new jobs. Keep buying from China. North Korea is our enemy and we should never have begun talks with them. Iran is not a problem. We should follow Obama’s example and send Iran another 150 billion dollars. We can afford it but not better detention facilities at the borders. I hate Trump more than the other candidates do. America was never great. That seems to sum it up.
1
The Democratic wailing chorus got their cue last night. Warren want's Medicare for All. She wants the end of a parasitic insurance industry, driven by the profit motive, whose role it is to dole out minimal medical care to most Americans. Here comes the wailing chorus. "Woe is us", chants from here until November 2020, all in the service of our lords, the 1%. We have a peasant mentality in this country which informs us that the 1%, like the lords of yore, know what is best for the peasants. Warren is trying to torch that tradition. She is putting fresh air and ideas into our heads and lungs. Breathe deep.
2
Not one single question on the federal deficit. Every candidate has all these programs that cost money. How do we pay for them? How do we pay for our infrastructure repairs and expansion? How do we pay off the federal debt?
The biggest threat? we have met the enemy and it is us! our huge annual deficits and accumulated debt is out nation's largest existential threat. Unless our goal is to become like Greece or Portugal.
Shame on the moderators for never mentioning this. Shame on the candidates for never bringing this up.
2
My takeaways after watching the "debate" (each got too little time to call it a real debate) and listening to the pundits afterwards :
1. We all know Trump's faults, ignorance, total disrespect for the law, and inability to tell the truth. No need to waste precious time reviewing all that. We witness it daily.
2. Civilized differences of policy and leaving out the personal attacks and vitriol is great for Democracy & correcting the low that Trump has brought to politics.
3. Proposing that we have "Medicare for all" and eliminating private health insurance is shocking to many but private health insurance is the major reason that we have skyrocketing health insurance! Millions of people cannot afford the co-pays and prescriptions even if they have employer provided insurance.
4. I'm tired of people whining the old trope about the "liberal elites of the east and west coast". Many, many of the R's/Trump sycophants have Ivy League educations and are millionaires and billionaires. Are they not "elite" too? It's ridiculous to assume that the majority of east and west coasters are highly educated and wealthy. Does this mean that people in the middle of the country are uneducated, don't go to Ivy League schools, are not wealthy? That's a pretty broad brush to paint and I doubt it's accurate.
5. There will be time enough to "stand up to Trump" during the campaign. For now, let's remind Americans what sanity, sound thinking, planning, and dignity look like.
3
While not really a debate these candidates all showed they are in touch with issues that citizens care about. Instead of attacking each other they presented their ideas. Refreshing. We have time to go yet before primary season and I hope to hear more from Klobuchar, Castro, Booker, and Warren as they provide more details about their ideas. All the others on the stage had their moments but these three stood out for me.
3
@JWyly
Citizens care about their livelihood, economic opportunity, and providing a decent life for their families.
We currently have a booming economy.
Do any of them have the accomplishments or experience necessary to create a great economy that would incentivise investment.
While I agree that the candidates were all civil and presented a (relatively) unified front of progressive ideas against the monstrosity of the Trump administration, I was particularly struck by the inability of any of them to answer what I thought was the most important question of the night, posed by Chuck Todd: If Mitch McConnell remains the majority leader in the Senate, how will they deal with him in getting any of their proposals passed into law?
What I heard was a lot of wishful thinking about pulling together "the people" and putting enough pressure on McConnell to, for example, confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The other alternative seemed to be an even less likely hope that the Dems retake the Senate in 2020. Mitch McConnell takes great pride in his ability to stymie the Democratic agenda, and no amount of public pressure is going to change that.
All of which leads me to the same conclusion I've been coming to all along: For the Dems in 2020, policy proposals are well and good, but are 99% wishful thinking in the face of a Republican controlled Senate. What matters, then, is not who has the better idea on health care, it's who can defeat Trump, as the first step in regaining controlling of the Senate.
Until we return to some semblance of a bi-partisan approach to legislative action, it is critical that the Democrats regain control of the presidency and both chambers. Short of this, Mitch McConnell will stand firmly as the roadblock to any progressive policy.
5
@Jim,
Consider this: Why would any deft politician give the machiavellian McConnell a heads-up about the specifics of how they plan to deal with him? He would just use it to anticipate their moves. And block those moves. Certainly Democrats need to address McConnell's vicious obstruction in earnest - but behind the scenes. Better yet, the DNC/DSCC ought to be pulling out all the stops to run a candidate for Senate who will topple him (his approval rating in Kentucky is in the 30s). Although he seems to have developed a playbook of sorts so we can probably expect similar behavior from other GOP Senate majority leaders in the future
It is an important topic. But it was a stupid question for the debate stage.
I looked especially to Elizabeth Warren to see how she would answer the question, and was happy to see that she didn't give anything away
2
@Pamela I agree, but the stuttering response of every one of the candidates didn't reveal the political craftiness you suggest. To me it revealed the reality of just how much power McConnell wields, and how little there is the president can do in the face of a determined obstructionist like McConnell.
My point was not so much to criticize their inability to answer as to point out just how important it is that we, first and foremost, elect a Democratic president. Then we go to work on regaining the Senate majority. Just defeating McConnell in Kentucky doesn't guarantee anything, not with Kevin McCarthy waiting in the wings.
@Jim,
Definitely just defeating McConnell doesn't eradicate the problem with McCarthyites waiting in the wings, though it would be a start and signal a true effort to change the direction of the Senate. First and foremost, I agree, must be the election of a Democratic president but I also think that now is the time to fight for open Senate seats too which is why I wish there were fewer presidential candidates (20 is overkill) and more efforts to mount strong Senate campaigns.
About the stuttering responses: Perhaps they were just genuinely surprised by the question. I know I was, and that was the impression that I got while watching the candidates when it was asked. I don't recall a question like that in past debates; I think it's a reflection of our new (ab)normal.
In last night's political debates, the word "cybersecurity" was not mentioned one time by either the candidates or the moderators. IMO, this reflects a lack of knowledge and confidence on this critical national security topic. All candidates for public office should have cybersecurity programs for their own campaign operations and also be able to articulate cybersecurity policy statements.
1
What should democrats do now to get back in the win column, after 40 years of Republicans supporting a plutocracy where the wealthiest individuals and corporations win and the middle class loses?
Start with undoing what Republicans did to diminish a true democracy.
First, re-establish a progressive tax code where the wealthiest corporations and individuals pay the highest tax rates. They can do it, as was shown when the highest tax rate was 70% and they still survived very well.
Second, reestablish unions with power to negotiate one-on-one with corporations, because the workers don't have the power to do it.
Thirdly, reestablish anti-trust laws "with teeth" to stop the merger mania.
Next, repeal Citizens United, which is a feeding trough for the big corporations and wealthiest Americans where they can invest their tax savings in buying political power.
Fifth, establish laws that prevent outsourcing American jobs to low wage countries to increase their profits and avoid taxation by keeping their money in foreign lands.
It's time to do away with trickle-down economics, and establish an economic system that allows each American who is willing to work to earn a decent living wage. This is a fight to the end. The democrats have to take off the gloves to win.
8
@Underdog
Not gonna happen underdog.
They won't change anything, just tinker with the edges of it.
Although there seems to be a groundswell of support for progressive politics, we should remember that many Dems are more moderate. Also, we want someone who can peel off those voters who "tried" trump in '16 but now know they made a mistake. It will not be a progressive candidate who gets those votes; those people simply will refrain IMHO.
6
@JG Then those people are by default supporting Trump.
1
A couple of more significant moments occurred when Delaney said Medicare-for-All would bankrupt hospitals, and during a conservative attack ad that ran on MSNBC in the hour before the debate, suggesting Medicare-for-All would cause delays for coverage. I've been waiting for the pushback. Medicare-for-All sounds like a wonderful dream as described by Sanders, Warren, and others, and I'd be open to a modest tax increase if it delivers as promised, but I'm concerned that hard questions about this and other proposals aren't being asked enough. Maybe I'm missing them and need to get out of my bubble more. I've read commentary that a robust primary is healthy so that whoever wins the primary is battle-tested, but if no one is willing to question progressive ideals like those put out by Warren, she may end up with the nomination only to be shredded in the general election.
Other thoughts were that Klobuchar had her strongest performance that I've seen since she announced. Castro did a good job of distinguishing himself, but there are so many candidates, it won't change much. Warren was strong as usual. I've heard her talking points so many times now it didn't have much of an impact on me, but other people were probably hearing it for the first time. The diversity of opinions was nice; very good balance. Beto had an awful performance. The most annoying part of the debate overall was so many questions not being answered. Expecting Mayor Pete tonight to answer something in Norwegian.
7
@Chris
Hi Chris, in most western countries universal coverage is less costly than the US system and produces better outcomes.
You could actually save money by dropping the for profit insurance model.
Hospitals don't go bankrupt under that system, I've never heard of that happening where I live.
7
@Rod Sheridan
The hospitals here on America are wolfs away from hospitals where you live. I know, I’m in the business. Every one of our teaching hospitals here in America has scores of medical residents from Canada. When I’m in the OR, and ask them why they are here, instead of their home country, the answer is always the same. The universal healthcare in Canada only permits surgeons to conduct about 200 surgeries per year. That’s it. That limits their experience, and limits their pay. My Ortho surgeon clients would do 600 knees, 200 shoulders, and at least 300 of various other extremities in any given year. My plastic surgeon clients will do 100 surgeries every month. The last thing you want is an experienced hospital employee cutting open your loved ones. That’s why govt run healthcare doesn’t work. Not to mention the long wait you folks have for serious surgeries.
Co later to what we have here, single payer, universal, or Medicare for all is a bad bad idea. It would destroy innovation, and turn our hospitals into something resembling or local DMV centers. No way.
2
@Rod Sheridan
I’ve heard this before. It’s just such a big shift for the US, I would really like this studied and picked apart if it looks like this will be on the Democratic platform.
The point on the hospitals is that our current Medicaid reimburses health care facilities at a lower level than private health insurance. I believe Delaney was saying the Medicare-for-all bill would keep Medicaid payments at the current rate.
1
Frankly, the use of the term “debate” seems a bit stretched. While candidates last night for the Dem nomination stated in a matter-of-fact way positions favored, they provided no systematic argument to justify their favoring. And there were no point-counter point interactions of note among the participants. Not to to say there weren’t some good one-liners, but these would be largely rated as such in the preferred view of listeners, ie, that which they, the listeners, wanted before hearing. The problem surely has to be tied to the format of the program. As well, with a general American focus on “winning” (how ever that’s defined). There were some excellent performances nonetheless ... in particular, by Warren and Castro (in my view anyway). And the candidates overall presented themselves very well as thoughtful individuals interested in the welfare of the nation, a delight to see! My concern is that what is good for the nation in terms a new, so-badly needed president, is not predictable from the likes of the show that went on last night (and most likely the one to-night if with similar format). How well, including in personal acceptability, a candidate responds to some single hot-button issue, say abortion, also may not be a wise way to predict presidential capability.
4
I admit that I did not watch the "debate" last night. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the absolute worst of this group is only a billion times better (more intelligent, more compassionate, more patriotic, more honest) than the monstrosity stinking up the White House, the country, and the world right now.
9
John Delaney was the only trace of sanity on the debate stage last night.
7
I thought he had the best day. His challenge on the low Medicare for All reimbursement and it’s impact on hospital funding deserved a clarifying response from Warren and Booker. Especially when he reminded them that Bernie’s legislation freezes those same rates.
He also deserved a response with his defense of Union provided health care.
I also think Delaney was spot on about the impact of a high minimum wage on small business, drawing on his experience as an entrepreneur and small business banker.
3
@Saints Fan But he is getting zero mention post-debate, not on the news shows, not in the NYT and CNN articles I've read, and he had a heck of a time getting any attention on stage.
1
They missed the obvious line to deflate Trump while using some Spanish: Macho does not prove mucho. (Dorothy Parker)
4
@Zendzian, I take it Spanglish will become America's official language under any new Democratic administration? I work at a place everyday where people can't make up their mind either which to use and are switching back and forth all the time when it suits them. I find it very annoying.
1
@Zendzian, I take it Spanglish will become America's official language under any new Democratic administration? I work at a place everyday where people can't make up their mind either which to use and are switching back and forth all the time when it suits them. I find it very annoying.
Not one word from any of them about how to protect our borders and stop the meth and heroin pouring into this country poisoning an entire generation. These 10 are out of touch with mainstream America. Next....
12
Using hyperboles like "entire" weakens ones argument. No ENTIRE generation behaves identically.
@Conservative Democrat
There is no method of stopping illegal drugs from entering a country aside from eliminating the demand for them.
You either have to make them legal and obtainable through normal channels, or eliminate the demand for them through drug recovery programs.
As to protecting your borders, increase processing methods for applicants, and make it impossible to hire non legal employees.
Building a wall doesn't work.
2
They had less than a minute to answer a question and this was not one of the questions. Why would you dismiss all of them for not answering a question they weren’t asked?
3
The debate was a moment of optimism for me - clear thinking, intelligent, civil individuals directly answering the questions asked (for the most part) and treating each other with respect. Loved watching them gather at the end!
Almost every candidate on the stage impressed me, and I'm glad they had the opportunity to shine in the first debate without Biden overshadowing them. My only disappointment was how little climate change was discussed. Certainly encouraged to hear that at least 3 candidates recognized it as the primary threat to our future.
10
@Joy You were clearly watching a different "debate" than what I was watching. Most of the time the did their best to avoid answering the actual question being asked.
I agree with the many comments saying that the candidates did a very good job of being serious, intelligent and civil in discussing issues. Not so much the moderators and network. Some of the moderators seemed more interested in stoking controversy than exploring issues and the network took an annoying sports competition approach to its promos . The media should stop with the emphasis on the competitive entertainment approach and, like the candidates to their credit, focus on substance.
18
@stephen The thing is that the Democrats seem to believe that rules/laws are purely optional. I thought the moderators were continually run over by the candidates who just kept talking over any attempt by the moderators to keep control, to hold them to the time they were given to respond, to provide equal time opportunities, to keep the candidates focused on the questions that were asked. They may not have attacked each other personally but they showed little respect for when someone was speaking. I do not count that as being civil.
1
@DC That's certainly not specific to Democrats. It's what we always see in political debates of all sides. With a field that large, also, it was nearly impossible for moderators to redirect and insist on an answer.
1
Stephan,
You are right about the sports competition approach.
These debates should be on C-Span or NPR. Places where they can allow for a more academic debate with plenty of time for real policy discussions. I thought the immigration and health care discussions begged for more time. The differences in approaches were only surface level. I felt they all had more to say.
Unfortunately, Americans ability to absorb complex ideas grow less and less each day due to 50 years of lousy education and an incessant need to be entertained ALL the time.
That’s why we have a carnival barker in the White House today. That should never happen in an educated and enlightened society.
2
I don't know who won the debate last night. For me, it was so refreshing to see grownups presenting their positions without the shoolyard invectives we've gotten so used to hearing these past two years. To be reminded that there are reasonable men and women with the intelligence, dignity, and compassion required for the highest office in the land, was sufficient for me.
15
@Potlemac
A little lacking on experience and accomplishments.
It’s one thing to have an idea, or a plan.
It’s quite another to have the accomplishments and experience to have the ability to lead.
Has any of them ever created a single job?
@NYCSurgical If you watched the debate, you'd know that all of the candidates are accomplished. Senators, Congresmen, Governors, Mayors, etc. Yes, I think they've created more than a single job.
2
Where did you see any of that last night? They talk like robots with their pre written responses. which one of them was intelligent? the communist Bernie or the confused about her race Elizabeth Warren? how about the overly sensitive Booker?
I have 2 main takes from the "debate". First, although my heart lies with the progressives, I fear it will not play well in the midwestern States that the Democrats need to win. We will see how it plays out in the primaries. Second, the candidates all missed out on the issues of global climate change. Any clear-headed person understands the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses, like CO2 and methane. That's obvious and it needs to continue. The real issue is that even if we had negative emissions tomorrow, the effects of climate change will continue and accelerate. No one seriously responded to the question of rebuilding flood-damaged houses in flood-susceptible areas but this is as significant as reducing greenhouse gasses. More wildfires, more flooding of coastlines and iland river basins will get worse. I see virtually nothing being done about this. New York City, for instance, suffered badly from superstorm Sandy and something like this will return sooner or later. But nothing serious has been done or proposed. All we have had so far in our city is an insipid plan from Mayor DeBlasio (who was on the debate platform) to put up sandbags in a few places around the coastline of Manhattan; this is like trying to fight life-threatening cancer with bandaids.
6
While these candidates are inspiring, it is imperative that Congress be swung back to Democratic control. If we‘ve learned nothing else these past three election cycles, remember that it matters not who is in the White House when one Senate majority leader can hold democracy and fair domestic policy in check...
12
Regarding immigration policy: Dems must confront the fact of significantly loosened (if not open) borders, and how this does not significantly harm the economic prospects of their working-class citizen voters. Economists (e.g. NYT's Krugman in these pages) seem irrationally unwilling to admit this obvious result of an influx of poverty-level immigrants willing, even desperate, to work for poverty-level wages. Such immigration may be favorable to employers (indeed reliable voters and donors) who benefit from a low-wage economy. But Dems probably and generally should not be supportive of such stressful and, in the end, disfunctional class-driven economy.
It is probably true that many US citizens are disinclined to do low-wage work, but the national interest seems better served by changing this fact with higher wages and better working conditions than by driving these citizens into more desperate circumstances and resulting xenophobic anger by spreading and deepening poverty-level conditions through the importation of cheaper labor.
11
I could see myself voting for any of them, but to me pragmatism won out. I really liked Amy Klobacher with her low keyed, but tough stance. If it were a regular election she would be my choice. But perhaps against Trump John Delaney with his in your face, but considered positions might do better in the general election. But then again all of them had there moments though to me Elizabeth Warren with her wishy washy response to gun control and all or nothing approach to Health Care did not impress me as much.
All in all a great bunch of candidates and democrats should be proud to have such thoughtful strong people representing us.
6
Delaney or Klobuchar would appeal to a lot of Americans if they made it too the main stage. They seem very honest and clear with what they plan to do and how they want to accomplish it.
Delaney would probably fare the best in a debate against trump which I think is important for choosing a candidate. We saw how Trump picked Hillary apart and he’ll do the same to warren, Biden or Deblasio.
1
My biggest disappointment was that not a single word was mentioned about the huge BUDGET DEFICIT that now exists, one that has ballooned during the Trump administration, largely because of the inordinate tax cuts to the wealthy.
8
I joked with friends about getting out a box of wine to dull the pain of watching the debate. I have been anticipating disaster and blaming Democrat leaders for allowing so many candidates.
The fact is that it was a fascinating, thrilling display of American values.... the very best such debate I've ever seen! I'm looking forward to tonight's.
Our country is in great danger.... but there's a chance--given the candidates I've seen so far--that we may rise to the occasion and throw Trump out. May it be! My thanks to everyone who spoke last night, and my hopes for tonight!
10
Interesting distraction. It should be noted that virtually all of these candidates’ extreme positions guarantee that they will not beat Donald Trump in a general election.
The entire Democratic Party currently exists in a news-media protected bubble that has come full circle; they are so comfortable in their echo chamber they are literally vocally taking positions that will preclude them from ever being president of the United States.
I honestly don’t think it looks good. Biden will likely win, and I think Trump easily beats Biden.
Weird times.
11
I take real exception to "Perhaps mindful of the debate’s South Florida venue, several took pains to flaunt their Spanish-language skills,"
It's a dismissive way of saying candidates spoke directly to a substantial minority in their first language.
6
I don’t know if we needed to have a winner. We just needed to see decency, thoughtfulness, and strong, reliable character.
However, i do know who was the biggest loser, Tom Perez. The DNC needs to get a chairperson who rallies locally, regionally, nationally not only for president but for the senate and house. Tom Perez looked like he was one of those for-hire entertainers at corporate events. Loud, think he is funny, and absolutely has no idea what the event is all about. I am a proud democrat but i wish the DNC will bring a charismatic leader who can speak to most of the base. The chairperson plays a key role to energize the democratic base.
1
Until candidates start talking numbers, this is just rhetoric.
I need to understand how much Medicare For All will cost? How will that program drive savings? How much will doctors and nurses be pay be impacted?
If you “go after” pharma companies for cost reduction, where will they make up the revenue loss? America pays more than other countries. If Pharma takes a loss, will that slow innovation or make fewer drugs available for the masses?
How many immigrants should we plan to take in including legal, illegal and asylum? Is it 5,50 or 500 million people per year? How much will it cost to house, educate and provide health care?
How will you aid Latin America with their corrupt and racist leadership?
What’s the annual cost for free tuition? What impact could that have on the quality and availability of colleges? Will there be pressure applied to colleges and universities to hold down costs & who gets to decide?
I assume there would be military spending cuts to help pay for this expansion. How much would you cut? What would be the impact to the US deterrent in trouble spots like Asia? Would spending cuts come from manpower, weapons systems purchases, fleet retirement, tech development? What would the impact to jobs be from proposed cuts? Also, we pay more for salaries and benefits than China or Russia. Will most of the cuts come in equipment?
Can small business afford $15 & $25 min wage? Should min wage be same nationwide?
I need numbers.
9
@Practical Thoughts
They will never talk numbers because so many of their ideas become unpopular in polls the minute costs are mentioned.
1
@Practical Thoughts "... Should min wage be same nationwide?.."
Totally agree, never heard anyone else mention it. A living wage in San Francisco and a living wage in rural North Carolina are very different. A minimum wage that gives an employee just a chance to rent a room in one area, might crush mom-and-pop small businesses in another.
1
Last night's debate told me who not to vote for. Some of those men who disrespectfully interrupted and shouted over each other to get attention. The women- Warren, Klobuchar and Gabbard were very civil in comparison. Warren is the most knowledgeable and organized of them all.
5
@Shailendra Vaidya Women do tend to be more civil, but unfortunately that doesn't necessarily translate to more votes :(
@Susi Yes, Susie that is the problem. Being nice and civil is equated with weakness, which is not true.
I found the debate boring. Yes, they focused on policy with their solution ideas. But for me, they have been (are) career politicians and have been part of the process that has caused
& perpetuated income inequality, women reproductive issues ( i.e mortality rates of pregnant african american women) ; growth of opiod epidemic (heroin, crack and back to heroin), raising health costs. I'd like to hear someone owned up and tell how they going to reverse the problem
2
Here’s a novel idea. How about if instead of a “career politician” we elect an incompetent, criminal, mentally unstable know-nothing. That’s a far better alternative.
1
Yes, there was some divergence on details but overall agreement on core issues. I saw empathy, passion, and intelligence across the debate stage. I could not help drawing stark contrasts with candidates in the 2016 Republican primary debates.
Yet, there were some demagogues on stage last night, appealing for votes with false blame. I don’t but the argument falsely describing the Democratic Party as “Coastal Elite” and ignoring the average American worker, when the core of the Democratic Party was and remains average working Americans. Republicans blame immigrants and some Democrats blame their own Party. It is a gimmick to get votes. It was used in 2016 effectively by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
The core economic issues behind false blame are real enough. Some, though, refuse to accept reality. In 2016, these Americans chose to believe the demagoguery on both sides; ignored the racism, bigotry, and cruel policy promises of the Republican candidate; dismissed long-term plans for long-term economic vitality and fell for the con game of empty promises.
Most perceive the economy as doing well now, but this is partly a consequence of short-term “fixes” and Americans must come to terms with real world changes and the long-term policies required to address them.
2
Warren it is,
Enough said!
6
Please tell me there is one capable democrat to run for president. The idiots I saw last night...we are in serious trouble. I don't want four more years of Trump...but last night's debate was a JOKE. Please tell me we have someone with real solutions that move the country forward.
8
So I guess that native English speakers from Florida don't need to hear the Spanish speaking candidates' message?
5
As a republican, I was absolutely delighted by their performances. The happier progressives are with what they hear, the less the likelihood that they will appeal to moderates and independents.
This was a good night for Trump. When progressives are happy, he's happy.
8
What a typical MSM headline!! So, offering Healthcare to everyone, college that doesn't financially strap young adults and taking care of the environment are "far left" ideals?? NO NYT it's not the Dems who have moved so far Left, it's the Republicans that moved radically to the Right.
10
Increasing taxes and mandating everyone to use a single player system, and using tax dollars to pay of college debt are far left ideas.
There are other ways to accomplish the goals on making sure everyone can afford healthcare and college (not saying they’re better or worse) but increasing taxes and having the government pay for these things is a far left solution to this.
3
@Ben Ledoux OK, Ben, what are those solutions? Because the right has been saying this forever, but has never put forward any actual plans.
1
When one candidate gets 50% more time than another it shows how thoughtless, stupid and even biased the MSM has been in organizing this event. Shame on them ! Gabbard had so little time yet she got more Google searches afterwards than any other candidate. Clearly she aroused more interest than many of the other candidates but her opportunity had been suppressed.
8
@Ron Bradley Agree on this. I went online & donated a small bit of money to her campaign. I'd like to hear more from her & I know the number of individual donors is one of the metrics they use.
2
Wonderful! Hopefully, in those numerous Google searches folks will discover the many reasons why Gabbard is totally disqualifying as a Presidential candidate...including the despicable views she still holds regarding the LGBTQ community, her popularity with rightwing nut jobs like Steve Bannon, her willingness to meet with trump in the WH, her decision to visit with Assad and her subsequent belief that she doubted that he had deployed poisonous gas on his own population..
1
If this is all the Democrat Party has to offer (pandering & out of touch) it’s going to be bad. Trump will eat them alive.
6
@JOSEPH
Can you imagine how Trump would respond to Warren's constant refrain, "I have a plan for that!"?
What a breath of fresh, clean air watching intelligent, well mannered, passionate candidates debate. I just hope and pray whomever is nominated can outsmart Trump, and handle him in the debates. Any one of these talented candidates would be an enormous improvement over what we have now...but the person who wins the nomination will have to be prepared for a different type of campaign and debate going up against Trump. May the best person win.
5
Not a question asked of these candidates about the bottomless money pit we call the Department of Defense. Not a question asked about the war in Afghanistan that continues to be fought without any chance of being won. Not a question asked about any of the serious issues the Pentagon has. And so, we allow the Pentagon leadership to "muddle along" without challenge.
If these questions are not asked of presidential candidates. they will also remain unasked and unanswered by the candidates for Congress in 2020. And all of them will remain secure behind the meaningless mantra of "Support the Troops."
4
@Wes There was a substantial amount of time spent talking about our bottomless quaqmire in Afghanistan. DiBlasio was pretty passionate, but unfortunately seemed to fall short of indicting our government on following our own laws when it comes to actually declaring war in relation to the longest "war" in our history.
2
@Wes there was a spirited back and forth towards the end on this very topic between Gabbard and Ryan
1
The only one with presidential presence of mind and poise was Tulsi Gabbard. The others were scatter-brained and trying too hard.
10
@Edward
Love Gabbard personally but she is an anti-war hammer and every event looks like a war (nail) to her.
1
Tulsi Gabbard got the largest share of Google searches overall according to our media outlets. The only soldier on stage. A lot of people now want to know more about this relatively unknown candidate. If Beto, Booker & DiBlasio shamelessly pandered to blacks & Latinos while some of the others over-hyped their achievements & accomplishments, I don't see why Tulsi should not put on her army uniform next time she's on stage, call out Trump the chickenhawk he is & appropriate the vote of 200 million patriotic Americans who truly love their country. Go Tulsi!
17
The democrat/socialist agenda will lose in 2020.
7
I was turned off by the similarities between the 'debate' and the typical game show! Is this really the best way to choose a presidential candidate? At the very least the producers should have asked the audience to maintain control and limit the shouting and applause. Of course, what's a game show without an overactive audience. Is it any wonder we ended up with a game show host in 2016?
5
@Joseph Thomas Totally agree. We're choosing the person who will lead us into the future by a type of reality show entertainment program.
We've already seen how this politics-as-reality-show mentality can turn out, and it isn't pretty.
2
Why does The Times insist on categorizing the candidates as “left’ or “center,” “moderate” or “progressive?” Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has some positions that are unabashedly progressive, like Medicare for All, and others, like suspicion of concentrations of power, that are deeply conservative. The Times does its readers and its journalists a disservice by making shorthand distinctions.
19
Any one of these candidates would be a welcome change after 3 years of crooked Donald.
19
I know headline writers like a conflict but there was little clashing. As a voter, not a drama critic, it seems just fine that our candidates are all headed pretty much in the same direction and toward the same destination.
Not a single candidate was a buffoon, a nihilist, a racist or a bully. That all works just fine for me.
23
I'll reseeve any judgement until after tonight.
Fair is fair.
5
This was an “Issues” cluster-confusion produced and propagandized by the ‘media/propaganda/TVad sector’ of the EMPIRE.
Just as the old and true phrase goes, “can’t see the forest for the trees” — this debate and all the hype is an Empire produced ‘show’ to distract, disempower, and DIVIDE ‘we the American people’ into being so confused they “can’t see the Empire for the ‘Issues’”!
The only real “Issue” is the fact that our former country is now obviously a ‘covert’ EMPIRE under faux-Emperor Trump — and the massive TV and media focus only on a multitude of subordinate “issues” is designed to distract & Divide the people so that they “can’t see the Empire for the issues”.
What America needs, is not to deal with a growing array of dozens of ‘symptom issues’ — which the Disguised Global Crony Capitalist EMPIRE is causing, like a cancer on our presidency and country — but to focus, like a laser, on the Empire and insane Emperor Trump.
We can’t be blinded and divided by “not seeing the Forest for the trees”, nor by “not seeing the Empire for the Issues”.
2
I’ve decided. I’m for Warren. I’ll watch tonite. I’m a big supporter of Sanders, but I think Warren can win.
11
@Zejee
Warren has many great plans. Unfortunately, plans that won't survive Congress are meaningless. She has no real plan for getting her plans implemented.
With almost all the candidates, so far, attempting to sound like Sanders this first debate reminded me of the old show "To Tell the Truth" -- will the real progressive please stand up? That person was Elizabeth Warren. Jay Inslee and Julian Castro also did well. Two stood their ground against the rising progressive tide as conservatives, showing the weakness of that positions in addressing crucial issues. I am glad that climate came up though not strong enough, it being the one issue that if undressed, renders all other issues moot.
3
Putting aside the immense giveaway plans of these candidates for a second. There is simply no way to accomplish their goals anyway. I found myself asking myself which candidate would do the best in negotiations with leaders of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. With all due respect to the candidates, the thought of any of them with these leaders left me shaking and laughing. There is just no way we would be respected. Well, ten down and let's see if the others tonight are any better.
5
We aren’t respected at all right now, so in a sense, anyone of them is better than what we have.
4
@BobsOpinion I have no idea why you would say that re respect, especially given the low bar that our current administration has set.
5
@BobsOpinion
Because Trump is a superior and formidable negotiator?
As I watched this first debate, I remembered the Republican debates. And I felt proud to be a Democrat.
18
Same here Sophia! I will fight for anyone of these people to win the next election!
2
If we made addressing climate change our top priority, the vast majority of the problems we face as a society would be easier to solve now and in the long term.
12
Enough of the softball questions. For instance, I would have like someone to ask a certain candidate if she thought her getting paid nearly half a million dollars to teach just one course at Harvard was symptomatic of why the cost of education is wildly outpacing the the rate of inflation and wage growth.
16
Warren was not paid that much for a single course in one year. That number was cumulative over a number of years. Yes, she is still one of the highest paid faculty members at Harvard and should certainly own up to her own responsibility for tuition inflation, but the actual numbers have been exaggerated by the right wing press. She also publicly released 10 years of tax returns and deserves credit for her transparency.
It is clear that this is the time for more than two parties. The Socialist Democratic party it is clear in the mind or ideas of many candidates. At the same time there are two at least ideas in the Republican party. A multi parties election is after all the reason of the electoral college.
6
They should've broken these 2 groups up into 4 debates . Too many on the stage trying to out left each other.
8
The debate made me proud of the entire slate of Democratic candidates who participated in the debate. They did not turn out to be a circular firing squad and they all addressed substantive issues.
I am most inclined to support Elizabeth Warren. I donated to her first campaign for the Senate and I am proud of her record of helping the poor in spite of the rudeness of Mitch McConnell and the President himself. "nevertheless she persisted" and continues to blaze a trail for ways the US can become more oriented to the needs of working people. She also came out strongly in favor of changing our immigration system which is a cancer on democracy.
7
This event was by no means a "debate," but rather a series of frenetic attempts by each of the candidates to gain some air time with viewers. Things weren't helped by NBC's incompetent news personalities, all of whom focused on inside baseball questions and constantly interrupted the candidates to remind them that their ridiculously short times were up. (Chuck Todd is in love with the voice of Chuck Todd).
The winners last night were the American people -- at least those who bothered to tune in. Each of the candidates was earnest in proposing ideas to repair the damage wrought by Trump and the now extremist Republican Party. The details will emerge as time goes on and the field of contenders shrinks; for now, the broad strokes of what to do, as outlined by each candidate, demonstrates that the Democratic Party still is the Party of ideas to help the vast majority of voters.
Contrast that with the current Republican talking points: silence on Trump's extravagances and histrionics, a harsh, completely ineffective immigration policy, more tax breaks for the rich and, over-achingly, playing to a base of misanthropic, mean-spirited and vulgar slice of the electorate.
The choice could not be clearer!
4
I think you Americans are incredibly fortunate to have a presidential candidate as magnificent as Elizabeth Warren.
20
I found it telling what happened after the debate.
Warren and Booker were swarmed by attendees. Castro and DeBlasio not so much.
Before, during and after the debate you can see who is emerging as a real leader and someone that people willingly follow.
3
A debate without name calling, with many of the candidates understanding what they are talking about.
What a refreshing leadership change any one of them would represent.
6
I’m British so maybe I should stay out of it. But none of them feel like they could take on Trump at the moment. Where was Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg?
I feel like Trump is going to walk it. I wish it was different.
5
@Leejesh they will be on stage tonight along with the other 8 candidates. Debate was divided into 2 nights because of the number of candidates.
@Leejesh They'll be debating tonight with more candidates.
To the DNC and NBC, "We the People" need more time for these debates, not more spin from the commentors, after the debate. Many of us, can sit and watch a sporting event or a movie for 3 hours or more. I don't like watching and listening to the commentors after the debate, picking winners and losers from the debate. "We the People" can make our own decisions on who won or lost, and we will do that in the Primaries. Stay focused on all the candidates, and the issues. Stay away from trying to sway our opinions about them. Just give us the facts, not your scorecards, please and thank you.
11
Problem is beyond great news story these debates are meaningless and based on the overnights most people didn't even watch. Who ever at NBC thought this was going to be a great rates success should be fired.
When it gets down to a couple candidates then maybe there is some value, but, beyond giving candidates some free press time the debates in general are a waste of time.
Nothing new last night based on the press spin (not worth my time to watch). Will be the same tonight.
2
Passion! That is the word that encapsulates the Democratic fleet of presidential candidates - each and every one of them. Passion for issues that are derived from the gut issues of the American people.
And when you compare that people passion to Trump and his concerns about Trump the choice in 2020 is stark - hope versus hate.
2
why headline divergence? these candidates may have expressed some differences, demonstrating a healthy spectrum of choices for Americans' priorities, but by and large they contended for speaking time more than they "clashed". for the number of issues raised, there was not only civility but even an invisible bond making their coherence refreshing: maybe these are the United States
2
It was a breath of fresh air to listen to intelligent individuals discuss such important issues. They understand America and we listened to potential solutions. There was substance to their answers, the GOP political foe who refuses to do anything was mentioned as a recognition of his gridlock but he was not the focus of the debate.
These candidates focus was on Americans not on the horror show that is playing out in DC. They proved the talking heads wrong.
Looking forward to night two.
207
It was a lively, polite, informed debate. Booker and Castro had their surprising breakout moments. Gabbard mentioned her time serving the country a little too often.
But my biggest gauge was how will he/she handle themselves against the bully Trump when it comes down to the wire? We all remember well how he stalked Hillary around stage and interrupted. The Democratic candidate will not be facing a polite, intelligent debater.
119
@denise
Denise, don't make the same mistake twice. Respect the opponent. He beat Hillary who would still defeat all of these candidates. Therefore, Trump is a skilled debater.
5
@Dude
"Trump is a skilled debater."
You're right! He DID convince the hundreds of electors in the Electoral College to vote for him. The American people, not so much. He lost their vote to the tune of 3 million votes.
7
@denise
I had to fast forward and skip around the debate. After pouring through the Times “Meet the Candidates” piece with the little videos of them answering 18 questions, I’m on over-saturation right now. In the Times article, I was struck by Gabbard’s answer to “When did your family first come to the United States?” “My mother is from Michigan...” (for any movie buffs does this sound familiar? To Sal: “Is there any special country you wanna go to?” Sal: “Wyoming.”) (Cringe. I actually felt sorry for her but I don’t want to feel sorry for my candidate.) And in the debate, her answer on equal pay was her bio—not a single bare allusion to the question she was asked. I know they don’t have much time to get across who they are, but come on. Why didn’t the moderators say, “...and how about the question we asked you?” Oh well, like I said in another comment, she’s my least favorite candidate (I would have rather seen Seth Moulton or Steve Bullock included in the debates) but she looks like a genius compared to Trump. And I think you make a good point about standing up to Trump—I kind of think they’re all up to the task right now. It’s not going to be like last time. His base continues to love him but people really understand who he is now.
2
I liked hearing Spanish during the debate. A sophisticated society is a multilingual one because identity is expressed in language. Tolerance of language is tolerance of other people. There are a lot of people here in Australia who would freak out at hearing languages other than English being acceptable. Perhaps your tolerance is borne of the huddled masses meme that we in Australia do not have. Though I have read quite a few comments that show that some Americans share Australia's intolerance of languages other than English. Anyway good for Beto, Castro and Booker for not being afraid to reach out to a huge part of their constituency.
104
@Bob Guthrie
Yes hearing Spanish was refreshing. It was a recognition that in actuality we are a bilingual nation. As far as the politics though, it gets you nothing. Witness Michael Dukakis against Ronald Reagan - all Dukakis could say "Hasta la Vista" to the White House.
5
@Bob Guthrie
The problem is that it's a two way sword.
Yes, it may get Latino voters to support you during the primaries. However, in the general election it plays into the fears of many white working class voters who elected Trump in 2016 who believe that they are losing their place in America.
And if you don't think fear of "outsiders" is a great issue to run on, I don't think you have to look further than the recent election in your country.
10
@Bob Guthrie
Ha Bob, you're what the debaters were trying to get away from - "elitism". I speak a second language but not Spanish.
To me, it's a game of identity politics which is repulsive. I don't hire people because of their race, religion, etc. However, you want to elect someone for that very reason.
5
The biggest problem Democrats face is that many of these problems our country is facing are problems other, smarter, more progressive countries have already faced and solved. It's reflective of the reactionary shadow that hangs over the nation, thanks to the GOP over the decades.
This is something that makes the faux-centrist "moderates" look foolish in their tiptoeing to the future stance -- America's no longer leading the world in solutions to various problems; if anything, we've fallen behind, and need to rejoin the 21st century.
Ergo, the bolder, more progressive stances aren't terrifying explorations of the unknown -- rather, they're opportunities for the US to rejoin the civilized, developed world and embrace ideas that have already been in place in other countries for decades. Gun control? Health reform? Energy policy? Etc., etc.
Any Democrat who doesn't see how behind we are on so many issues is doomed to be captive to the GOP's blinkered and hidebound view of the nation and the world. The GOP is trying to drag the US to the 18th century; Democrats need to get us to the 21st (and some of those "centrists" are hoping to get us to the 20th century, as the "safer" option, as if that, too, wasn't a step backward).
8
Those other countries don’t have the military responsibilities we do. If you’re cutting military spending, be sober and honest about potential risks. They do exist.
First, the discrepancy with global pharma prices vs. US prices is unacceptable. Those other countries DO NOT pay their share of R&D costs for pharmaceuticals. If the USA also adopts the same approach, pharma will have to cut back on development costs. Their share prices also would fall which would lead to more cost cutting in areas that will ultimately hurt innovation.
America takes in more low skilled immigrants than EU, Canada and Aus/NZ countries. There are challenges with education, housing and health care they don’t have to deal with to the extent we do.
2
Irrespective of the political positions of the 10 candidates, which Republicans and Democrats will continue to differ on, one thing stood out as a contrast between the parties that no one can deny. Not one single male candidate referred to one of the women on stage as a "dog face". I think that says it all.
5
At a crucial point, these candidates will have to place their support in just one to be completely and enthusiastically behind one candidate, spurring each of their constituents to put aside disappointment that theirs did not get the nomination. This will get a Democrat into the White House.
2
Warren looks better all the time. Many of the others, it is time to go home. Warren is a fighter, the upcoming election will be the most mudslinging one ever. The problem for Warren is that America is not ready for another female candidate, however she will make a strong choice for vice president. The Democrats will have to come up with fangs and teeth bared to go after Trump
2
Realigning with issues fundamental to workers’ security in America is crucial. Issues such as a livable minimum wage, the insidious cost of private insurance healthcare that acts as a gateway limiting access, rejection of current anti-immigration policy and return to America’s fundamental values as a haven in a heartless world, ridding current trade policies based on tariffs that historically have always led to damaging the US economy and leading to high prices and high unemployment ,and, restoring America as an ethical and consistent leader on global issues. This is the message that the emergent Democratic candidate must reflect to unseat the a president who is a pathological liar and will go down in history as the worst president we have ever had.
1
The winner was Donald Trump. He should have been squirming not tweeting “Boring”. Policies are critical to identify candidates and party values but these policies should be focused on Trump. He personifies all that is wrong with America. I want to see a candidate with policies reflecting the damage Trump has done to America (and the world) but I also want a candidate who realizes you don’t come to a fight and not hit at your opponent. Trump doesn’t hesitate to hit at anyone—the Democratic candidate needs to immediately take on Trump and the party needs to focus on taking back the Senate by talking meaningfully to the party strength that they have ignored for too long—working class grassroots America
3
Looks like it's more of the same neoliberal policies then.
No change.
7
The Democrats seem determined to blow the presidential election by decriminalizing illegal immigration which is essentially open borders. A country that can’t or won’t control its own borders will cease to be a country.
16
I have never seen more anger in one room in my entire life. Without a positive, uplifting message, Trump gets 4 more years.
4
These are not debates. They are press conferences. Real debates take place at the Oxford Union.
4
It's hard for me, a lifelong progressive Democrat, to pick winners and losers. I will say that Julian Castro caught my attention with his advocacy for the E.R.A. at a moment when anti-abortion advocates are passing laws that will make women the equivalent of sexual slaves. His put down of Beto O'Rourke also was a surprise and equally effective. Castro was the only of bottom-tier candidate that had a break out. Others held their own depending how you look at it. Elizabeth Warren was fierce and passionate, but her advocacy of "Medicare-for-All" may, as John Delaney cogently critiqued, be her down fall. Wasting your energy to "fight" for something that's politically unattainable is, as George W. Bush found out when he attacked Social Security, a very bad idea. With the insurance industry ready to pounce with new Harry-and-Louise ads and Republicans already labeling it "socialism," it only may make Warren, for all her passion and plans, an unelectable candidate. Amy Klobuchar showed the most wit, but was unwilling to be as forceful, say as Delaney, in advocating for her moderate views. She and Cory Booker may be just too nice to take on Trump, but I'm withholding judgment. The rest of those on stage should call it a night and return to their day jobs.
52
@Paul Wortman -- O'Rourke was advocating for immigrants longer than Castro, and in places where it wasn't popular. Castro's taking one technical aspect of immigration law and hammering at it without explaining the implications of his position, in a forum where there was no time for detailed answers, was inexcusable.
If these events are set up for "gotcha" moments and not serious discussions of the policies that will affect all our lives, then we'll continue having our nation led by reality show stars. Sadly, most people don't even seem to question this.
4
@Paul Wortman woe is the country that can only elect candidates that want to move backwards on all of the critical issues, such as healthcare, environment, law, democracy, and human rights. Niceness is not a mark of principle, but moving forward on the above issues is. Trump has already lost on the principles, now the American people must elect someone who will move us forward.
3
@Robert M. Koretsky Medicare for all SHOULD be fought for. The rest of the first-world countries have some form of this. It's a no brainer. My daughter lives in Germany and I know first hand how good their system is. People are not afraid to be hospitalized. No bills when you are discharged, no matter how long the stay. NONE.
10
My favorite part was the open borders advocacy and all of the speaking in Spanish.
As a foreign language (French) college professor who frequently speaks to my children, nanny, house cleaner, and lawn boy in Spanish - and in public as much as possible - this was the starkest symbol that I truly belong to a party with similarly superior moral values and talents.
Lower class and deplorable white Americans who are neither bilingual, multilingual, or college educated let alone blessed with a PhD in the humanities, probably resented this the most. And I welcome their hatred. They are the America First monsters. We Democrats are Children of the World.
The America First crowd may win the election. But it matters not, for my moral superiority is what keeps me warm, and my rage at losing that keeps me hot and distracted from my clinical depression! To the ramparts! Onward, onward! Once more into the open borders and virtue signaling breach my fellow leftists, for tonight presents yet another chance to provide Trump with more campaign ads!
10
No one proposed open borders and the wonky Spanish speaking attempts by Beto were more of a gimmick
Tried to watch and didn't last 5 minutes. Horrible format to answer questions in any depth or get to know some of the candidates. Robots in stage. It's unfortunate because I know some are very qualified and have good ideas but they'll never be heard.
4
Bill de Blasio was able to become mayor by shouting down everyone on stage. He especially beat up on Christine Quinn. I was there at some of the debates so I'm speaking from personal experience. Both de Blasio and Trump are from NYC. And both are bullies. But that is how they both won by bullying everyone else on stage. Not sure if it will work this time.
5
@Wayne - "...Not sure if it [bullying, interrupting] will work this time."
We The People will get to decide whether it works. If it does, it's a comment on us more than on the candidates.
1
It's going to be tough for any Democrat to win over Trump because there are so many of them. So they are all trying to out-immigrant one another, jumping on the latest issue, that heartbreaking and numbing photo of a father and toddler who drown. But it says little about this group other than they are getting desperate for votes and will say anything. Beto O'Rourke thinks jumping into the debate by answering in Spanish will get him points -- from whom? The interpreters say the meaning differed between his Spanish and English answers, and I hope the DNC looks into that. I fear that the rush to capitalize on a tragedy at the border will end up costing Democrats a most important election, as few in America want open borders or no security, or illegal immigration that will favor a group who happen to be closest in proximity.
2
When they start speaking ,predominantly in Spanish ,that's a no go for many ,many American citizens.US law is not spoken ,nor written in foreign languages be it Spanish Swahilli ,mardarin, Japaneze or Usbeck ,all of which are spoken in America.Yet every eastern block ,and Chinese person I know speaks English ,many very well ,and they assimilate towards american culture and laws.
15
@Alan Einstoss
I was under the impression that the US does not have an official language?
@Alan Einstoss
What is American culture? Our greatness is our diversity.
1
Why did this take place? The election isn’t for another year.
3
@Mark J you should read up and learn about the primaries and caucuses around the nation, how they work and when they take place. Read the policies on nydems.org (since you're from New York) as well as the National Democratic Convention's website. We'll have a candidate by early March! It's really just around the corner.
Sure, every American family wants to hear that we will have open borders so that this country's resources can go to migrant children and families, rather than our own. Democrats are losing and will lose. They have no respect for the working people of this country, nor does Trump. However, he does believe in national sovereignty, sort of.
12
By far the most significant threat of disastrous consequences — climate change — and not a mention of it in this article! Shocking, disturbing, and incredibly depressing.
3
Thinking of switching parties to republican. If this is the future of the democrat party I’m out!
12
@J Clark
The irony is that Trump is the most rational GOP president we've had in a long time. He's not pro-war. He's pro-small-business. He doesn't let other countries get away with murder because of US corporate profits. He's always willing to make a deal with democrats.
And he's working harder than any other president has ever worked to give us a clearly defined border.
It's a really good time to be a republican.
This "debate" was so weak and lame, scripted by corporate mainstream media, with inequitable distribution of the time given different candidates, and a predictable set of topics.
I note that the only "gotcha" personal attack question of the night was asked of Tulsi Gabbard, who was also ignored most of the time by the moderators.
The topic of getting rid of the most corrupt president and GOP senate majority leader ever should have been front and center.
And the network hosting the debate was so unprofessional that it couldn't even do its audio production properly.
American democracy is shallow, feckless, and a circus.
3
How refreshing. Ten rational people putting forth actual ideas to improve the lives of US citizens, based on facts and not fiction. No naked hate mongering, no alternative realities and no use of the other as scapegoats to blame for their lack of workable concepts.
What a stark contrast to the lies, hate and deceptions of the right. We can only hope that the nation looks more like the former than the latter come election day in 2020.
7
Watching a listening to these intelligent people made it even clearer how much Trump lacks. We will be in big trouble if that so deficient man wins reelection!
5
You have to be in an echo chamber to think Castro's take on immigration is a path to the White House. If any Democrat candidate enters the general election claiming we should have unlimited illegal immigration with no penalties may as well save their donors money and stay home.
8
It would be interesting to see how many donors will support that.
2
Warren is easily the smartest person on the stage but lacks presence to defeat Trump. de Blasio has all the polish and presence you could ask for in a candidate....but would be as popular as the swine flu in mid America. Hoping for better on day two.
1
To the media: Please don't keep talking about "just how sharply to the left the party has move.". No, it's 'how far their proposals go to helping the middle and working classes by taxing the rich and trying to level the playing field". Last night the Democratic candidates all had good ideas about how to help the majority who are suffering. Nevermind Left or Right, it's useless to tlk that way.
10
Last night, we watched 10 children, desperately calling for attention, who are completely out of touch with the world. Democrats need to 1) stop Trump and his cronies TODAY.
We have one, slim chance to become a voice of reason in the world. Time is running out. 2020 is, sorry to say, too late.
If you don't read, you won't understand the nature of the problems we face -- as a world. Oh, by the way, Pompeo might actually want the end of the world to come now. Read your Bible folks!
3
If Democrats decide to make 2020 about decriminalizing illegal immigration, we can just save ourselves a lot of time and energy and give Donald Trump his second term.
8
1. Only 2 or 3 of those 10 answered the questions the moderators asked them. Most deflected, made speeches and used the gimmick of speaking spanish.
2. Only Klobuchar stood and stated her policies, with Warren almost collecting her thoughts to do the same. Those 2 did the best on explaining health care, but Klobuchar actually stated how to pay for the public option. Warren didn't and probably can't pay for her Medicare for All, at least not with a straight face.
3. Only Todd and Maddow ought have been moderators. The other 3 were a waste of time, if not a joke, especially the angry speechmaking Jose guy.
* The DNC needs to pay Deblasio, Ryan, Castro, Booker and O'Rourke to leave the race. Today. All were non-stop varying degrees of annoying, rude and flat out dumb. I'd vote for a chair before casting a ballot for any of those loud mouths + dopey Beto.
5
@Maggie Beto did not do well in that format but I hear he is good in others. I agree though this is not the right time for him. Ryan must go and Deblasio was so annoying, but then one of the MSNBC guys, sorry cannot recall who, gushed over him after the debate. I think Castro and Booker held their own.
1
I did hope that the world was watching last night. Each candidate was so far above Trump that it shows that America is not lost.
Now vote people! Not just if “your” first choice is the nominee. I have read a lot of comments this morning along the lines of “if so and so wins primary I won’t vote”... get over yourself!
It’s time to be a adult.
4
I’m still trying to figure out if last nights debate was paid for by the Trump 2020 Campaign.
Open borders, eliminating private health insurance - you might as well re-elect him right now. Seriously - decriminalizing illegal immigration - has the DNC lost its collective mind. SMH
10
The Democrats are now openly admitting they want to decriminalize unauthorized border crossing and conducting the debate in Spanish. No, this won’t do at all.
10
Ok candidates remember what history taught us:
If you offer moderate progressive proposals that a majority of Americans are for, you stand a good chance of getting elected.
That is what America wants now. They don't want a bigot on the right like Trump or and identity obsessed, social engineering east coast liberal never met a trade agreement, Wall Street banker, war I did not like, white men are the problem candidate like Hillary.
The two candidates who spoke Spanish (ie identity obsessed) put 2 1/2 nails in their coffin. It could be a lethal blow.
America wants a unifying moderate progressive. Right now its Biden but it could be anybody, white, black, young, old, male female.
Lincoln set the gold standard for it. Obama was the latest president to practice the formula.
Hillary and Trump failed miserably.
4
I did not like when they started speaking spanish. Most of them are no qualified, especially those I mentioned above.
3
A plan for taking away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of offering better government alternatives would be a huge mistake. If government plans are better than the private alternatives let them prove it. The gradual approach is better than a government mandate. Universal health care is the goal and allowing alternative programs to compete should be the method to reach that goal. Sanders, Warren and others who would strip people of coverage that they are comfortable with. As a retiree I'm happy with medicare supplemented by a health care insurer that I've dealt with for fifty years. Don't take that choice away from millions of Americans.
5
The candidates confronted the hard issues head-on in language that all Americans can understand. They stimulated thoughtfulness, not fear. By and large, they challenged Trump on his handling of the issues rather than on his personality. And if the Democratic field can continue to display civility toward one another, that alone will demonstrate to American voters why we need a Democratic landslide in 2020.
5
@Charles Michener
They did nothing of the sort.
All but 2 or 3 deflected, trotted out their massive egos and big mouths to give speeches, rudely shout and talk all over the candidates whose turn it was to answer, insulting the intelligence of the American people with the same shallow pc silliness that resulted in Trump.
A Warren / Klobuchar ticket looks solid.
3
Klobuchar supports none of Warren’s policy points so not really
Last night's debate was hysterical. The Democrats spent the entire time railing against the horrid conditions 70 years of Democrat governorship in our country's largest cities run into the ground with profoundly silly and dangerous policies.
L.A. Detroit, Baltimore, you name it and you'll find homelessness and poverty.
11
No discussion of Trump Campaign Russia ties, Trump Tower Moscow, Mueller Report findings of obstruction of justice, or extramarital affairs and alleged sexual assaults, Trump crude remarks about grabbing women or the murder of journalist Kashoggi, etc.
Refreshing!
There is one thing that is beyond doubt. Televising debates among 25 candidates is no way to pick a nominee. Narrowing this kind of field is a task unfit for the public. That is an excess of democracy. In a parliamentary system, the candidates are narrowed down by the party. It is more efficient, quicker and cheaper. We fear taking responsibility away from the general public. But when millions of people are charged with narrowing down a field of dozens of candidates, what you get is chaos.
6
I think the debate device is to spark interest in the candidates' platforms so as to let the public gain motivations to pay closer attention. I totally agree it is by no means sufficient (what is)
1
I wish debates could be debates again. Granted, that's nearly impossible with 10 people on a stage, but even in 16 with less people the debates have become mostly soundbyte contests, all encouraged by the complicity of the media. We are a long, long way from Lincoln-Douglas.
12
I would trust Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee or surprisingly Bill DiBlasio. The others, with the exception of the man from Maryland, talked the progressive talk--but their donors might keep them from walking the walk.
My interests are anti-war, burning of fossil fuels, production of harmful chemicals and unnecessary plastic, and fair taxation of corporations and the 1% to fund a social safety net of affordable healthcare and education for all.
Our party must rise above the din of wedge issues to champion the interests of the common people in every state.
9
@betty durso
The best in breed of that show was Warren/Klobuchar, but the U.S. is too retrograde and still stuck in the 1980s anti-female gender wars created by the GOP to keep America behind other 1st world nations, even many 2nd and 3rd in that regard.
1
She lied about being Native American and used it to advance her education and career. You should look more into her before using the word trust.
3
@J
You should look more into her before using that tired slur. It reminds me of the stable genius calling her Pocohantas.
She is speaking truth to power. I hope the American people are listening.
1
I'm still leaning toward Elizabeth Warren, but I was impressed and heartened by the responses of the all the candidates as well as their cordiality. Whoever wins the top spot could use the expertise and leadership of the others to form a great cabinet!
34
@Dr. Conde
She won “best all around” for me too! They all seem to have issues where they excelled, but she was by far best all around.
This is like boxing or a good rock concert.
The under card, warms up the crowd, like the opening act to some good rock show.
Now "Lets get ready to rumble!!!"
The main event. The headliners we've all been waiting for...
The battle of the B's.
Dim the lights and settle in folks, this is gonna be good~!
1
@Dobbys sock
Nailed it.
Round two was full of haymakers and shiv's to the back.
Not the best concert performance, but all the old hits and a few from the current albums too.
Time to whittle down the also rans, and sharpen those long knifes for the coming scrum.
The battle to be the Big Tent boss.
1
One unknown rather impressed me this evening, despite being somewhat sidelined by both the questioners and completely ignored in this article: John Delaney. Is he my first choice? Probably not at the moment (I'm partial to Klobuchar), but he gave a positive and pragmatic vision and exuded competence, something I did not get from DeBlasio, O'Rourke or Booker.
He is worthy of more coverage than some of the better known, but frankly, shallower candidates.
13
I agree, Delaney did a good job detailing attainable goals that would accomplish a lot.
I think he would have the best chance against Trump on the main stage out of any of the candidates tonight.
2
He’s basically a Republican. Just sayin’
@Bill
Agree that Delaney was the best of the dudes. The others were obnoxious and even embarrassingly ignorant.
It was instructive to watch relative newcomer Tulsi Gabbard hand low IQ Tim Ryan his hat on military mideast policy.
1
I wonder how much private sector experience that panel of Democrats has between them. They all seem like career politicians, lawyers, and academics. They can’t relate to the common person.
15
@Mark
I think the US has had enough of wall street and haliburton running government mate.
3
Perhaps but also look into their personal stories, not just careers. Other presidents have been career politicians who could relate. Plus look at how well having a non politician is going for us right now lol
1
Duh, Warren’s background is a case study in rags to riches by way of smarts and drive... But you’d rather have the common man Trump...
2
You seem to have forgotten the part on Iran. For the rest, I thought that the debate was robust and that each candidate voiced the need for a better sharing of the economic results between corporate and rich, and the working class.
1
I was pleased that this was a substantive review of policy positions and not a name calling event.
I liked hearing the policy differences and why each candidate took those stances. I did not like every policy and each candidate had good and bad moments.
It’s still early but I believe Booker and Klobuchar helped themselves and Ryan and Beto are a little dinged.
I know they weren’t called out specifically but I wanted to see someone focus on infrastructure and cyber.
Both create jobs and make our nation stronger, regardless of your zip code, race or gender.
The single best comment was Inslee’s comment that our greatest geopolitical threat is DJT.
Priceless.
True, on time and priceless!
13
They all are fantastic compared to Trump. Booker won the night because he was strong, articulate, genuine, and had good ideas that are progressive but not so far left as to be impractical or impossible. Klobuchar held her own but I think she is too moderate and not charismatic enough to beat Trump. Castro and Gabbard did much better than I expected. Beto did not shine as many people hoped. Warren lost the night, despite her focus on policies - she is too far left and though she says she will fight, I don’t see her beating Trump. Inslee, Ryan, and DeBlasio had some good ideas, but none of them shined. DeLaney looked bewildered and out of his league.
3
“We are not connecting to the working-class people in the very states that I represent in the industrial Midwest,” he said, scorning Democrats’ “Ivy League” attitude. Mr. Ryan nailed the problem with the Democratic Party on the head. While anything is better than what we have now for a President, the road to the presidency is dependent on working-class people who get up every day, make their way to a Job that they may not like, but need, live two paychecks away from homelessness, and are the lifeblood of this country. Until Democrats are viewed as the champions of these people as Obama was, they will find themselves forever winning by razor thin margins, or losing by the same.
Promising everything under the sun to everyone is not going to play well with people who have had to work for everything they have. While I am not sure that Biden is the answer, I am sure that taking positions so far to the left that it is impossible to tack back to the middle left is a recipe for disaster. It may sound good to some, but open borders, Medicare for all, a 70 percent tax on the wealthy, are ideas that will require a whole lot of detailed explanation if the working-class is to be set at ease. Unfortunately, details are boring.
17
Warren might get up to 40% of the primary vote and has a chance at going over 50% but if she sticks to mandatory single payer she'll lose the general election. Of the developed countries that have universal coverage, very few have mandatory single payer. The majority use a combination of private plans and a government plan which everyone can join but isn't forced to. If many European countries didn't go the single payer route, a thoughtful policy person should ask " in what ways are the American and Canadian public sufficiently different that such a system might pass in Canada but not in the US?" Anyone who can't see the obvious answer won't win the general. Similarly on the open borders issue. A plan to make unauthorized border crossing a civil offense needs to be coupled with a credible plan to reduce unauthorized future immigration to sell in the Midwestern states that need to be flipped to beat Trump. Such a plan needs to include a massive development project focused on Central America, so people have stable, safe and growing countries they don't need to be fleeing to survive. It's like the war on drugs- you can spend a lot on stopping it using security and force and fail slowly over time or you can tackle the source of the demand with a more humane approach and accomplish so much more with the same budget. Reduce the ICE budget by 50% and put it into stabilizing Honduras, etc and the migrant crossing goes down to irrelevant levels.
6
While the debate had fresh perspective on healthcare, immigration and foreign affairs, the economic conversation was sorely lacking. Much of it was railing about corporations and favoritism towards the 1%, and about raising taxes to 70%. This message won't beat Trump. Democrats need a strategy for economic development and growth that will connect with middle America. Should have been more discussion about tariffs and their cost.
One candidate said the 1% was the enemy. Was waiting to hear the music from Les Miserables next and 'viva la Revolution.' Business and Entrepreneurship and Jobs are part of the solution, not the enemy. If you want to win.
11
Enough of the "folksiness" - we've already heard Obama in 2008 and 2012. But if we are to unseat Trump, we'd better focus on real issues. Hear me out: Inslee is right on climate change and a Green New Deal. If there is no planet left, what does all of the other stuff matter? Number 1: Climate. Number 2: Health care. Number 3: Isolationism. Based on last night's debate, I am eagerly waiting to hear from Bernie, Harris and Biden.
10
Rather than picking a winner, we should be determining which team of two would best complement and strengthen each other on policy, eloquence, demographics and appeal. Which team of two could best unite, civilize, energize, and inspire voters. Which team of two could give confidence, maturity, and leadership, a sense of cooperation, integrity, good sense and humor. Which team of two could credibly speak to and for the most Americans.
3
It was refreshing to hear intelligent people discuss issues and proposals to improve life and propose solutions to many of our chronic domestic problems. Building bridges instead of walls, the panel addressed climate change and immigration with creative and sensitive ideas. Crafting a clear path with legislative proposals that can help our government agencies work smarter, not harder and presenting a humane face because what is government for, but for the people? Radiating a desire for inclusivity and expressing a direction of more freedom vs. less; I might start feeling hope again. I am interested in learning more about where they stand on foreign policy. I heard more from Julian Castro from the debate and following commentary, a candidate that previously had little exposure.
8
@Kathy
He’s wonderful on the issue of immigration and they all seem to have their topics in which they excel.
If we could get Booker on gun issues, Castro on immigration, and Ryan and DeBlasio should be heading up the DNC, because a Democrat will not win if we can’t earn back the trust of the working class Hillary lost, whom Obama won.
Good Ol’ Elizabeth still won in the best all around category. For me, as the wife of a third generation successfully self-employed skilled master, who must purchase private health insurance— if you’re not for Medicare for All, you’re automatically disqualified, and do not understand the problem at hand. On last night’s stage, Warren and DeBlasio were the only two candidates who understood this issue.
re:
"Ms. Warren’s repeated denunciations of economic elites and Washington’s governing class won repeated ovations. But her unabashed willingness to terminate private health care, a question she had evaded in the past, alarmed some members of her own party who fear that embracing a single-payer system would hand Republicans a political weapon in a country where nearly 60 percent of people are on private plans."
===
One might address this by stating that if one's company or source of private insurance was to offer another policy option, one that cost a little less but provided the same, or better, coverage, would one not consider switching plans?
Yes, I presume 'cheaper', but I believe a focus upon better coverage, e.g., reproductive health care, preventative health including counseling (diet, exercise, mental health, cessation, etc.), and dental care, something many private plans lack in any substantial form. Let's not forget vision too.
Attract them.
8
@DKM
Is that something like if you like your current insurance you can keep your current insurance. They can say it but after the ACA debacle no one will believe.
1
@DKM
Every health insurance company I've ever had has treated me like dirt, putting their profits ahead of my health.
When I was severely injured and awaiting crucial surgery, I had to spend three hours on the phone with a heartless health insurance company bureaucrat who was trying to deny coverage of the surgery and various doctors.
I'd be glad if the government shut down the vulturous, greedy, dishonest health insurance industry and installed an intelligent single-payer system like ones found in democratic socialist countries. I've lived in those countries and their people get far better medical care and don't have to worry about some greedy corporation trying to interfere with the care they need!!!
6
@DKM
Ya, well then tell them about the kind of money their beloved Republicans, like Sen. McConnell, are receiving from the insurance industry. And Tucker Carlson previewed, in last night’s show, the kind of salaries those in the hospital industry believe they are owed. If you’re not for Medicare for All, you’re being paid off, plain and simple. I love people in Washington who don’t take money from the industries who could care less about the people!
1
How will the debates be conducted tonight? It’s certainly not fair to use the same questions or anything remotely resembling them, but the issues are the same and what is to prevent a candidate from answering some of last night’s more pointed questions, knocking out others? Can’t wait to hear, Bernie, for he is the trail blazer — how long, if ever, did the others mention income inequality? Or make raising minimum wage a priority? Medicare for All? (Not hard to pick out the candidates receiving money from the insurance industry.) If Bernie wouldn’t win, he has put his place in history books far above any I have ever seen in my lifetime. Go Bernie!
4
I would like to see Lester Holt run for president. Other than that, the candidates still have to convince me that they have a coherent workable plans for immigration, health care funding, homelessness, and monopoly capital.
On immigration we need a clear coherent plan for legal, refugee and non documented status with a rational economic policy towards our neighbors to the south. I don't want non documented law breakers to obtain the benefits of a citizen taxpayer. I had to be vetted to work abroad.
I think we need to have discussion about inclusion, poverty, medical care and education. What unites us is to be cherished and promoted.
5
@St. Thomas
Holt was awful as a moderator, as were his 2 cohorts an utter waste of time. Team #2 Todd and Maddow succeeded in somewhat leashing the show pony big mouths: Booker, Castro, Deblasio.
The entire spectacle indicated what ails the Democratic Party, how far bona fide network journalism has dropped, and what a gift to America PBS has been in prior years of prez debates, particularly with the late Gwen Ifill.
1
Why isn't climate change front and centre of the debate?
4
@Jianning Meng
Because there are far more important things that need to be discussed like health care, education, housing, immigration, discrimination, toxins in our environment, jobs.
The climate has always changed. Those who adapt survive. You are aware that even if all humans stopped all non-life CO2 emission today, your great, great grandchildren would not live to see the change. If you are really concerned about climate change, work to restore historical land cover, clean the environment around you, eat only locally produced food, and stop participating in mass consumption.
8
Tell that to your grandkids when they can’t breath the air or drink the water. Climate change is the only topic that matters at this point, if civilization ends the rest is all moot.
1
Worst part of the 'debate' was Chuck Todd. His questions were off-base, ridiculous, and an attempt to find a "gotcha" moment. That's irresponsible and juvenile journalism. Hope MSNBC gets rid of him.
32
Just how delusional can these candidates be that they think Americans want less immigration control and not more?
37
@Bob, sounds a lot like 1924 when Congress enacted immigration laws to keep folks like my grandparents out of the country. Might want to read up on our history before you decide what Americans might want. My Italian grandparents
legacy represents WWII vets, Vietnam vets and business owners contributing jobs and a lot of revenue to this country.
And plenty of Americans didn’t want them either.
1
Hey Chuck Todd, how about shorter, straightforward questions and longer time for candidates to answer? We need less of the moderators and more of the candidates.
21
It was expected and rational to have climate change be a main topic. What I can't fathom is how you discuss that subject and not include talking about population growth?
7
@Al--Because these candidates have scripted their responses to fit into the format. The substance and syntax of responses are probably developed on the basis of polls and focus groups. The goal is to create sound bites to advance the campaign.
It is impossible to have a mature discussion about any issue in this format. If people want a mature discussion have two candidates and a host have a roundtable with briefing books containing specific information and facts.
4
@Sendero Caribe. i guess I'd be more hopeful if the subject ever came up. But it never does. Yet it impacts every single issue in a fundamental way. From the economy, to the environment, to immigration, education, taxes, climate change, everything.
I watched afew minutes of the debate on YouTube which was the only medium on Bogota, Colombia where I am presently visiting.
I gave up after Sen Kloubacher sounding very Minnesotan refused to name Sen. Warren or Sen Sanders by name over Medicare for all.
Why have a debate when you are afraid to name names in your own party.
As to speaking in Spanish and making illegal immigration legal - good luck.
Congress has been debating this issue for the last 12 plus years and nothing has come of it.
And if Mr Castro or Beto want to rule with Executuve Orders - we have a guy inthe Oval Office who is attempting it - but only o be stymied by Obama judges for the most part.
Finally, many comments including mine are premature to rate this debate because tonite debate is what counts with a presumptive nominee and one who thinks he should have been the nominee the last time around.
Not to mention a couple of other very prominent and aggressive female candidates.
5
The ten people onstage tonight have far more in common than different. And any one of their respective visions for this country looks immeasurably better than the bleak outlook of Trump’s presidency. Let’s hope that they keep their focus on changing the White House to blue and not on attacking one another.
666
@NM totally support ur thinking as i am a democrat myself, but i would never want just democrats in power, without an opinion and choice for a resonable opposition this country won't grow.
8
@NM There was not enough discussion of Trump's disastrous policies. Little discussion of the mess he has made. Candidates need to find a way to go after him.
25
@YV you don't sound like a democrat to me.
31
What a pleasure and relief it was to listen to an intelligent and passionate and articulate -and civil! - exchange of diverse ideas and plans to move this country forward. The contrast between this type of reasoned discussion compared to the idiocy and hot air that’s been jammed down our throats for 2+ years couldn’t be greater. I might add that for all its excellent reporting, even the liberal media has been complicit in drawing attention to every dumb, dull, and inane comment coming from the White House and I don’t mean just from the guy occupying the Oval Office.
It was exciting to watch the whole two hours of this debate and to finally hear other visions for the country that could lift it from the dystopia it has been descending into.
33
Visions are necessary and wonderful things but we all know that actual execution to achieve the vision is the hardest part. Unfortunately I heard alot of sweeping comments last night with little substance. There was also considerable avoidance of actually answering the questions that were asked. I guess to be expected at this early stage in the campaigns but at some point substance is going to have to come to the front. Many Americans were fooled in 2016 by sweeping vision and candidates saying what they wanted to hear, especially the one who currently sits in the WH. But voters are weary and tired of promises for grand plans without a solid basis for explaining how they will be accomplished that makes sense.
Just proclaiming that you are going to break up the big tech firms, hold the pharmas accountable, deliver free college education, boost the minimum wage to what is imagined as a livable wage (newsflash Mayor, in New York $15 an hour may be a start but it is by no means a livable wage there but it will work in St. Louis), or go after the wealthiest with huge tax increases plays to the ears right now but I want to hear exactly how you are going to do. And I want it stated such that the math can be checked against whatever domino effect would happen from a policy implemented.
As to all except one or two last who pushed the idea that we need to pull our troops home from all the hot spots, get real. Cannot happen with China and Russia ready to fill the void.
@DC. You don't get elected by speaking in specifics. You get elected by slogans. Ex "make America great again" and "hope and change". The average American can't name half the Supreme Court justices or the three branches of government. Think audience not details.
7
@Al lets remember that one of your shining lights if progressivism, AOC, couldn't name the three branches of government.
2
It must be so depressing being a Democrat these days. Look at that sad group. It’s like they’re vying for a chance to get embarrassed next year.
15
@Mark, quite the opposite. It gave me great hope and optimism that this clown car administration will be gone very soon (although not soon enough).
4
@Mark
Yes, it must be disorienting to Trump supporters to see politicians discussing policy issues in an informed, coherent, civil manner. But we can say this for the Trumpers: they don't have to wait until next year to be embarrassed. Their president is delivering for them right now.
4
Perhaps we can critique the wardrobe choices of the candidates?
The gentlemen appear to prefer blue suits and blue ties.
3
The difference between last night’s Democratic debate and the large field of Republicans in 2016 is the large amount of substantive policy discussions instead of personal attacks.
While I am currently supporting Warren, I thought the moderators kept going back to her, Beto, and, to a lesser extent, Booker and Castro.
I thought Tulsi Gabbard presented herself well, but she was not called on nearly as much as the others. Unlike the New York and Maryland candidates, she did not override the debate rules to make sure she got equal time. I hear her demonized or marginalized by the press, but I thought she gave a good defense of pulling out of Afghanistan, for instance.
But overall, Warren owned the debate’s first hour, with Castro coming on strong when the debate shifted to immigration reform. I liked that there were so many substantive policy discussions and I would be happier with any of these candidates than the travesty currently occupying the White House.
32
After watching it for an hour I shut off my TV - too fake, negative, tricking each other, and simplistic. The Democrats are not lost in words but rather in leadership . Quite troubling really.
12
You’ll never build a functioning government by perpetually running for office. What a silly mess this is.
Also. While we debate small things on television for entertainment the environment is collapsing.
7
I guess everything's going to be free and we don't need borders. It was like an ad for trump 2020.
40
@Al
Apparently what was said last night was too nuanced for you.
1
@Dawn. Yeah. Like " hope and change" and "make America great again". I heard nothing about how you pay for "Medicare for all" or anything about slowing down, much less, stopping, the human wave at the southern border.
1
Castro looked the best. If you want someone who can stand up to Trump, it has to be someone who is under the radar.
1
A tacky stage set and silly format was perhaps the best that modern TV can do. That is a sad reflection on TV and the dominance of marketing today.
Though Elizabeth Warren is by far the best candidate, this was a lousy "experience", manufactured and artificial.
And enough with looking for labels and sound bytes. She's not a "populist" but a rational intelligent human being who gives incredible energy and wisdom to solving problems.
Any one of these Democrats is way better than Trump, but of course there will be attacks about immigration and humanity. How can people call themselves Christians, when they are for wealth, power, and cheating over common humanity and working together to solve problems?
8
Immigration remains one of tcome he leading issues of concern among American voters. These voters do not support open borders (another way of saying we no longer have a country). Yet the Democrat candidates have, to a person, come out in favor of open borders, health care and education for anyone who can sneak across our border or overstay a visa, and many other benefits, including voting in local elections. They are, of course, pandering to the, for example, 38 percent of the 11 percent of registered voters in Queens who "elected" Ms. Caban to District Attorney. Disaster awaits in the General Election in 2020 when it will be clear to the voters how the Dems plan to destroy our country. "Medicare for the Whole World" won't be a winner.
26
@Bob Sorry, I didn't realize that magically the United States ceases to exist as an entity if people cross the border. Wow, am I educated today! /s
The Democratic candidates all won; all would be way better than any of the GOP candidates from 2016. The moderators did a terrrible job and lost. Almost nothing on how to get money out of the elections and make sure we have secure elections where every vote counts. Almost nothing to distinguish the candidates on foreign policy and military spending and priorities other than on Iran. No one should be allowed to interrupt and yell over the top of other candidates or moderators; and why are moderators directing questions to specific candidates anyway? It would be better to ask specific questions, and let each that wants to respond do so with a light button to push if you want to talk. Each given say 2 times to go first, 2 times second, 2 times third and then take your chances after that. Maybe take 5 or 6 responses to each question. The focus of the questions should be on how their responses differentiate them from the others. I want questions that will show how the candidates are different and that speak to questions that are crucially important for our country's future.
I want to know which candidates will fight to include vision, dental, hearing and preventative medicine in our health care system; what they will include in prison reform; how they would lead our country in becoming fully sustainable; what to do about COPs killing people; how they would protect and restore the natural environment and transition to a circular economy, etc.
1
I have to give the USA some credit. With the primary system and endless debates they created something that last longer than the Christmas shopping season. How many months before the first vote is cast?
The system is broke.
12
1) The live broadcast of a national event of this importance should not be controlled by one network. Not everyone up here in the hills has -- or wants -- TV. I could have gone to a local bar for a watch party, but assuming that I'd be able to hear it on NPR, I stayed home. Surprise! Not even the most radical of public radio stations was allowed to air it. Thank you, capitalism.
2) This is the first synopsis I've seen and the message I get from it is that it's considered political suicide to address the climate crisis, even in Miami, which is knee deep in the rising sea.
5
This event has received far more attention than it is worth. The format is laughable as are most of the candidates.
The Times is building up tonights debate as a clash of titans--Joe the Lightweight versus Bernie, the guy who isn't even a Democrat.
At least there was a decent ball game on.
3
There was free live streaming last night; we watched it on a laptop via YouTube, no more difficult than submitting a response to your comment this morning via my Smart Phone.
3
@EZWriter I didn't try YouTube, but the Times's connection didn't play here.
1
I watched with my husband, and my son, who is of voting age. Both of them loved Elizabeth Warren for her specific, clear responses. She has a clear ideological direction. I, too, believe she embodies integrity and good intentions. However, we have a divided government and country. So, I am also attracted to the incremental philosophy of Amy Klobuchar. Yes, she is practical. Yes, she is scaled-back. Sometimes, change should occur quickly, other times, slowly. It should be an interesting primary. I feel the two sides within myself having a battle. Not sure where I will end up.
13
@Amy I just don't understand how you can use the word integrity in the same sentence with the name Elizabeth Warren. She lied for her whole career about her ethnicity for personal gain. Almost as bad as Madeleine Albright not figuring out her Jewish heritage because it might hurt her career.
2
What bias? Of course Elizabeth Warren was given center stage and given more time to speak than other candidates; she deserves it. Right.
She was lucky no one mentioned her claims to be of Cherokee descent, which included claiming to be Native American and seeking special minority consideration when she applied for a faculty position at Harvard Law School.
Also, there was no mention of her recent, infamous DNA test that showed she was not related to the Cherokees, as she claimed, but related at the 1/1024th level to indigenous American Indians in Central America. This is very different than her story about her ancestors, and is a genetic level found in many millions of us plain vanilla Caucasians who make no claims to special minority status. Indeed, Ms. Warren has specifically been described by Cherokee tribal representatives as not being a recognized Cherokee.
Sent from my iPad
16
@Mon Ray
Warren was simply repeating what she believed based on the family’s oral history, passed down through the generations. It is not unusual for people to believe these stories, and unexpectedly discover they are not true. It happened in my family.
5
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 White House 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.
1
The more they go left the more this lifelong Democrat goes right.
37
@Rich Murphy I remember Arriana Huffington saying years ago the compromise between the left and the right is the"middle of nowhere." It would seem this is a place many are comfortable with. You gotta love it .... nowhere.
9
What did you think of the moderate candidates Delaney and Klobuchar? I’d like to be able to hear more from them in future debates and more coverage.
1
Any good the Democrats stand for is negated by their extreme views on abortion. To talk about all the good they want to do for people, and then embrace the whole hearted slaughter of our future generations in abortion clinics is an affront to human rights and human dignity.
7
@dgbu
If you are so concerned about future generations, please tell the GOP to support these policies specifically designed to protect us from harm: gun safety measures (e.g., universal background checks & waiting periods for gun purchases), a freeze on nuclear weapons, Medicaid expansion, adequate funding of Food Stamps, universal pre-K, assertive steps to combat climate change, free access to medical cannabis, and an end to forced separation of families.
If you,oppose any of these commonsense measures, you expose your own hypocrisy.
15
They might have interrupted each other sometimes, but how beautiful to not have to see a cruel, non academic, inept, corrupt stalker on the debate stage!
And we all know who I’m referring to.
Last night’s debate was refreshing! There’s hope for the US once again.
16
Speaking as a Londoner, I really think you need a real change in the US, as we do in the UK. New Labour was essentially tory light. But Labour seems to be getting back to it's roots now.
Maybe the democrats should remember who it is they wish to represent.
Gabbard seems to be the correct choice.
6
I am proud to be part of a party whose candidates know how to conduct themselves as thoughtful adults rather than name-calling school yard bullies. That said, there is high risk in going with a candidate who is calling for immediately abolishing private health insurance.
As a practical liberal I support single-payer as an ultimate goal; right now Warren is on (though not top) of my short list of favorites. However, there is already, here in Chicago, a very effective scare TV ad running re the supposed danger of having a single-payer system. It shows various 'ordinary Americans' holding signs indicating how long they would have to wait for needed care under single payer, e.g., "brain surgery 4 months." There is no way to know the veracity of the time frames offered, but that hardly matters. It will frightened people into believing that in a single payer system much needed care will be scarce and that they or their loved ones will die waiting. Imagine 15 months of such ads. Trump, with his pie-in-the-sky promise of 'better, cheaper, covers more' insurance will win those frightened people in a heart beat.
5
@Anne-Marie HislopThis^long wait times for urgent surgery etc^ is a trick taken from the lies about long wait times for hip replace ment surgery in the British NHS.
There were some problems a few years a go all successfully dealt with by greatly increasing ^fast tracking^ of special cancer surgeries etcThe British NHS is not a rigid inflexible organisation it is continuously monitored by every kind of committee etc as would any American NHS.....ignore these scare stories....
2
Tulsi Gabbard got my attention. She is the only candidate willing to take on the military-industrial-political complex that has gotten this country into disastrous regime change wars that have cost trillions of dollars (according to the Pentagon, we currently spend $45 billion/yr, down from $100 billion/yr in Afghanistan alone), thousand of deaths of our military members and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the countries we attack. Without reigning in our bloated military budget of almost $1 trillion a year, we will not have the resources to address all the progressive social programs we desperately need to transition too.
13
I would love to hear a moderator ask these Dims if there is any difference between legal and illegal immigration.
33
@Bob. The attitude you describe correctly is why we have trump and the mess at the southern border. No matter how much they say they aren't for "open borders" the democrats propose nothing but "come one, come all, and nobody gets deported". Tragic pictures are not how you set policy. The average American knows flooding the country with every economic migrant who shows up is not going to be good for them or the country.
10
@Bob I would love to see a coherent, genuine explanation about why illegal immigrants are bad, using cited sources and verifiable facts. (No, not the Drudge Report.) Would you care to do that? Show me the numbers, Bob. Show me exactly how people seeking a better life are somehow costing us more than they contribute to our society, in actual numbers. Considering they pay taxes, but can't collect on social security or medicare. Considering that they do work that's considered beneath most Americans. Show me the numbers, buddy.
DeBlasio trotting out his father's suicide where it was absolutely irrelevant was rather disappointing. Other than that, a fine start!
10
Agreed...that was cringe worthy. It had nothing to do with anything but exploiting a personal tragedy for political gain. Ugh.
8
DeBlasio trotting out his father's suicide where it was absolutely besides the point was rather disappointing. Other than that, a fine start!
In today's world, running on highly progressive platforms tends to scare away the middle class. I cite Australia's recent experience. The polls showed a consistent lead for the challenger candidate for Prime Minister, Bill Shorten. He was offering lots of perks, but also higher taxes on the upper class to pay for everything. The incumbent, Scott Morrison, simply offered stability and lower taxes. There were no great policies on his agenda. Everyone was shocked when the incumbent's party swept the election, winning by a wide margin.
I don't want this to happen with Trump. By offering radical policies, the Democrats will be exposed to a very shrewd politician who will simply point out that higher taxes will be the only way to pay for all this. And guess who then wins on election day?
Better to take the middle road to incremental changes in my opinion.
15
Trump would demolish Warren on the main stage. They’re a long shot right now but I’d rather see a moderate like Delaney or Klobuchar win the primary as they have a much better chance to sway voters away from trump.
From your article:
"There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban."
The ONLY mention (no counting picture captions) of either of these candidates. No wonder they are little-known.
13
Please do us all a favor and stop calling this Q & A period a “debate.” It isn’t. Check real parliamentary and/or American debate procedures and rules, and the differences will be self-evident. This was a get-to-know, democratic Q & A derby for the media and its gullible gobbling-up-the-ads audience. Depth not breadth, please!
37
@JD: Making the perfect the enemy of the good loses moderate voters, who both parties desperately need to win most races.
@Adrienne
There is no “perfect,” as all is imperfect.
JD
Terrible format to try and have ten people "debate". If you have so many and more besides, then each candidate should do an hour solo interview with two or three questioners - an opening statement, then Q & A, then a closing statement. No more "10-person debating"!
19
It is concerning that all 20 Democratic candidates, however compelling some of them sound, may have little chance of winning against a gargantuan bully like Trump who amassed a blind and ardent constituents along with GOP's ceaseless support to a disquaified president, with a blatant disregard to what stands to benefit the country.
3
Perhaps I missed it, maybe overlooked it, but I did not see coverage of Tulsi GABBARD in this article.
12
Warren is in effect working for the Republicans, skewering votes from Bernie to give the nomination to Biden, who would be an easy pushover for Trump to beat. She's touting Bernie's Medicare For All, trying to be anti-corporate like him, riding the coattails of his long-standing free college platform, etc.. - a really weak imitation that would be laughed off the stage by the Republicans with the devastating Pocahontas baggage.
10
@Julianbook Sorry.. none of this corresponds with the facts. you need to do some research on Warren who has a courageous and stellar record as a defender of the consumer and citizen in the face-off entrenched corporate and financial interests.
66
@s.chubin I gave three specific leading issues, so I don't know what facts you're talking about. Consumer agency is a tid-bit compared to the issues Bernie has been championing. Aren't the banks still Too Bigger To Fail, with obscener than ever bonuses, posing a threat to the economic system? She was a Republican until 1996. Why didn't she endorse Bernie in 2016 if she wants to pose as some great progressive, now essentially running on his platform?
So far she has been relatively quite militaristic, both in rhetoric and in voting for outlandish military budgets, but don't be surprised if she soon switches to his long-standing anti-militaristic stance.
Bernie has stellar civil rights credentials and is a runaway leader with the latin vote. If serious, Warren would just endorse Bernie and get out of the race so a real progressive wins, and we don't have four more years of catastrophe.
2
My vote: Julián Castro for president with a strong personal stake in immigration reform at home with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as vice president acting as Castro's advisor on foreign policy. Rep. Gabbard would provide a strong rebuke to Trump's never having served and his egregious insults to the late Sen. McCain. This Castro/Gabbard ticket checks Cory Booker's box for diversity and leaves the white men out of the fight so that we can fire up the women and minority voters.
Imagine that: Castro takes Trump to task on his racism and deplorable immigration standpoint while Gabbard simultaneously takes him to task for being submissive to the war monger hawks like John Bolton. Rep. Gabbard knows the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda while Castro can speak to the latino population.
Castro has the fire and Gabbard has a calm-under-fire demeanor I didn't see from the other women on the stage.
That's my middle-aged white male $0.02 from round one. It's still early of course.
2
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo Why stop with decriminalizing "undocumented" immigration when we can decriminalize "undocumented" purchases -- i.e, shoplifting?
2
I was not impressed. None of these candidates seems to be the whole package needed to outdo the train wreck that is Trump. The Spanish speaking, the pandering to minuscule minorities like transsexuals, and the too liberal ideas about illegal immigration were disappointing not because they are wrong but because they don’t appeal to most Americans. People all over the world are concerned about loss of their culture because of influx of immigrants. You need to see their point of view. Whenever there is an article on illegal immigration in this paper most comments are supportive of a more stringent albeit humane approach. I like Warren the best, but she lacks the charisma. She’s smart but boring. I liked Castro’s strong personality but his views on immigration are way too loose. Let’s hope the second debates show me a winner.
30
@Silvana does Angela Merkel have charisma?
5
@Sandi Angela Merkel came up through a Parliamentary system where charisma is far less of a factor than it is in a US Presidentlal election.
2
Ask the average German if Merkles immigration ideas have been a good idea.
4
Please use your words more carefully - is Warren seeking to end private insurance for healthcare costs or private healthcare. Words matter because ideas matter. Please up your game.
7
Place any one of the 10 in the Oval Office and the rest in the Cabinet and the American people have won.
62
Overly simple and heavily biased review of the debates. Stop pushing the Biden narrative NYT, literally not a single person under the age of 75 wants Joe Biden. The polls are wrong like they were in 2016, just give people a recap of the debates and stop trying to influence our decisions so they fit your narratives. The debate was good, the candidates were fierce, and we're off to a great start! Every person on that stage has some really great ideas and a whole lot of passion. Let's all take our time sorting out who is best and why...I mean rank them if that makes you feel better - I have - but there's no need to pick tonight, there's another debate tomorrow and Thom Yorke's new album ANIMA just got released and it's really good. Love you all xoxoxo
3
Very, very impressed with Elizabeth Warren. She stood out. I came away from the debate thinking that we need the combination of her deep understanding of the issues and the fighting spirit she has. I was surprised to find myself moved by her clear authenticity. No doubt in my mind she truly believes everything she says and would fight for a better America.
152
@Jonathan I hope others respond in a similar way. she has the integrity,brains and commitment to make a great President.( not to mention the nightmare of Trump and hegemony of the 0.01%)
8
Trump's response to the debates was, "BORING!" Let's let that sink in:
One can agree or disagree with what was said. But clearly these are all urgent national, or even global, issues.
Sure, we might expect a middle-schooler to find this discussion boring. ...But this was being said by the President of the United States.
Very chilling indeed.
18
Exactly correct. I think people voted for DJT because he was entertaining. They forgot what they were supposed to be considering. Yes. Chilling.
5
Until this election, I had never really thought about age as a criteria for choosing a candidate. Since the last election, I have watched my great aunt in her 70s decay into dementia. It only took a few years for a very sharp woman to not be able to function on her own. Sure anyone can become demented, but it is of course more likely for the old. I won't support any candidate over 62. Ageist? Yes, certainly.
7
Like others, I was impressed by the civility of the candidates and the thoughtful way they answered questions. I wish someone would add up the minutes the moderators spoke, as I found them a bit long winded and wished they'd asked the same brief question of several candidates rather than taking up so much air time and aiming questions at one person at a time.
I also thought some of those candidates with the most time saw they could get more time by being aggressive and jumping into the discussion before called, a behavior often associated with men at meetings. Glad to see Warren and Klobuchar in the top five.
7
This was depressing.
Not one of these candidates has the charisma or the energy to draw a good Democratic voter turnout.
I fear that highly motivated Trump voters who are in the minority will win again.
Bernie, the only Democrat with energy, is doomed because he will not renounce the Socialist label.
11
Clearly, one candidate stood out from the field by presenting the most well thought out, coherent, detailed policies which they would pursue as POTUS. The Democrats would be wise to unite behind that person sooner rather than later.
Biden's early lead in the polls reflects him having the highest name recognition at the start of he campaign, but this will surely fade as his outdated campaign style and penchant for gaffes create useful sound bites for GOP attack ads. Whoever emerges from the pack as the alternative to Biden is likely to become the nominee.
Last night we saw on display the person best qualified to lead the nation. No question- that person is Elizabeth Warren.
16
The Democrats lost in 2016 to the least qualified candidate for president in American history. And it looks all too possible that they're going to lose in 2020 to an incumbent president who is inflicting unprecedented damage to America. The best qualified Democratic candidate will be in his late 80s by the end of a presumable second term. The candidates with the most enthusiastic supporters are far too left-leaning to win a general election. And the long-shots are all either too young, too boring, or both. I loathe Trump, but I don't see any Democratic candidate I'd be especially enthused about voting for.
12
Did anyone else find it odd that poor Delaney was shut down over and over by almost everyone questioning the presidential hopefuls? I know little about him but still less after that debate. It was so obvious I would be surprised if it doesn’t become a Saturday Night Live skit.
7
He was shut down because he kept interrupting others and talking long after he was told time was up. Obviously his strategy was to be pushy in order to get attention away from the more well known candidates but I found it irritating and rude.
4
@Anne Last time around, "Irritating and rude" won out over a scold. Stop bring a scold. This time around, we need to try something different.
I thought the candidates did a fine job. However, the moderators did not.
13
2 many candidates - 2 much info 2 B digested in 2 little time. One comment stated that there were 'network difficulties' on one of major networks carrying the debate. Perhaps a preview of the future of this Presidential Campaign? All candidates must come together on at least one major problem facing the country. Take your pick: corruption - can't get anywhere when that's in power: climate change - without controls? a major factor (health, safety, food supply etc.). No such thing as free education - state paid tuition at state universities is limited to the lage states with huge income coffers. (all teenagers move to NY, CA, TX). Private institutions operate as private business - they call the shots. 2 cut this short - country needs a united plan of action for every election campaign at all levels for the next 2 decades to undo what has brouoght us to this dire place. Wait..forgot..Electoral College.
1
Like a lot of people I favored another candidate, but Elizabeth Warren grows on you. She seems to have the 'right stuff' and will be a great President!
6
When upper middle class Democrats seek the upper hand by one-upping each other in promising to champion the poor, I find it self-serving and insincere. Well-off professionals who pretend to have no self-interest and to be absorbed solely in those they hardly know comes off as anything but genuine. Exploiting their supposed selflessness seems artificial. In real life, the upper middle class is devoted to a nice home in a nice neighborhood and getting their kids into Harvard. That has become pretty darn clear.
6
I can't help but keep noticing that Senator Warren looks so thin and frail—
And also note that upon taking office in 2021 she would be one year OLDER than Trump was when he took office as the oldest president in 2017.
3
In the debates there needs to be more discussion of the anachronism known as the U.S. Senate—broken and dysfunctional.
And the stranglehold the Republicans have on this most undemocratic chamber.
And the nuclear-option era of Senate confirmations.
2
Those of us who follow politics avidly can speculate who gained and who lost ground, but it is only speculation and spin. The answer to those questions lies in the minds and next day conversations of the many more who considered these candidates comparatively for the first time. We'll find out soon enough.
But, all in all, it struck me as a very successful debate for the Democratic party, for the same reason it was a mildly disappointing debate for the media: no knock-down-drag-out fights among the candidates and no ritualistic Trump bashing. There will be plenty of time for both.
Despite the occasional basketball court elbowing, the debate never descended to the embarrassing circus the Republicans put on stage when they had too many candidates. It wasn't just Trump who dragged those debates into the gutter. Christie, Rubio, Cruz, and even Bush were right there slinging mud from the start with Trump. And the Democrats, to their infinite credit, had no inexplicable, miracle of modern medicine, full-on somnambulist on stage.
The candidates and the party managed to put forward a rather normal face to the public, from the most centrist to the most progressive, serving up a kind of political comfort food to a nation much in need of comforting. Even the most radical were not wild-eyed, despite the advance billing. Reassured about the field as a whole (or at least half of it!), most Democratic primary voters can now go about the business, more leisurely, of forming preferences.
8
As a Democrat, I found little to give me comfort about the prospects of defeating Trump from these 10. In the short time they had, some of them should have produced some memorable zingers with emotional impact. Klobuchar's quip about Trump doing foreign policy in his bathrobe at 5 a.m was memorable but aimed at a minor issue considering how much damage he has done across the board. On immigration, they seemed to be trying to outdo each other on how little they care about controlling who and how many come into our country, and the three who spoke Spanish confirmed they are deaf to voters who do care. That will not win the electoral votes of states they need to take back from Trump.
41
@abigail49 I don't care who crosses the border. I don't care if people speak their own first languages. I'm much more worried about healthcare and climate change than spitting on my fellow human beings for wanting to come here and try to make a better life for themselves.
As a former Obama voter turned Trump enthusiast, I must say that none of the candidates posed any threat to Trump.
The only reasonable thing I heard was Tulsi Gabbard saying that we should not be involved in wars for regime change. You cannot make Afghanistan or Syria or even Saudi Arabia into a Westernized society... They should just not bother us.
But then, this is the same as Trump's position.
20
I can only speak for myself. I don't need these debates to decide who to support. In his speech announcing his candidacy, Mayor Pete won me over. In no time. I knew this guy spoke for me. But he probably doesn't have a chance, so I'll have to consider the others. I don't know how it is for you, but when I hear the one it's clear and it's quick. If you are bouncing around about seven candidates you think you like, I don't think you know what you believe in.
There may be three or four legitimate candidates invited to the debate that could be considered serious contenders. The remainder are pretenders, some of whom may be auditioning for the second slot on the ticket. By the way, this was not a debate. More or less a get to know you question and answer contest.
7
Tulsi Gabbard got 43% of the vote in the Drudge poll, the winner by several lengths. It's not a scientific poll and the voters probably lean toward Republicans, but it is significant nevertheless as an indication of how attractive a large sector of the voters find her. And yet the Times story mentions only that she clashed with Tim Ryan. The same thing happened in 2016 when the main news media ignored that Trump won every Drudge poll.
8
The Democrats first mistake was to agree to appear on Trump's Television Alma Mater. It was a strategic mistake that cost them independence. That fact disappointed my good impression of the candidates. Always view the big picture.
1
None of these candidates impressed me. I will be voting for Trump.
21
@Olivia - thankfully you are in New York, so your vote won't count.
4
This was an incredibly limited opportunity for these candidates to share their views. I'll vote for any of them if they're on the ballot--all sounded very well prepared to be our next president.
Of all these candidates, Cory Booker impressed me most by his candor. His demeanor resonates as being a person that is trustworthy and that will stand by his word, which he has background that shows he is genuine.
4
Booker disappointed but didn't surprise me when he consistently referenced the African American community in each of his answers. Seems he was reaching out for that group only. He will be president of every American. Not sure he understands that. I used to admire his sincerity and authenticity but I'm afraid he's just become another grandstander.
1
I'm disappointed to see the ongoing symbiotic relationship between political leaders and the Television industry with no hint of moral objection to the outwardly cynical practice. Remember that the Television industry helped elect Trump, their actor, by dedicating a Billion dollars worth of free airtime. Oh, how we forget campaign reform before an election.
3
Still barely any mention of the climate crisis in a state that is already receding under water. Incredible. I realise healthcare is a pressing issue but it simply does not compare to the coming climate apocalypse. An American President must be able to look beyond the borders and make decisions that benefit the entire world. With Trump, the opposite has been true.
3
@Mark Crozier How is an American President suposed to stop China or India from burning coal -- or to reduce a human population that already exceeds the carrying capacity of Planet Earth?
Seems to me, the headline is: Democrats united on major policy positions.
9
Julian Castro deep-sixed Beto O'Rourke on immigration issues but Elizabeth Warren's remarkable grasp of policy was and is unmatched. Yes, her support for medicare for all will be controversial even though EVERY comparable idustrialized demoracy treats health care as a right. As a Canadian who grew up the United States I know that single payer is far superior and much less expensive than private US healthcare. Big Insurance and Big Pharma will spend a fortune on a smear campaign to con Americans into thinking that medicare for all, single payer, or other attractibve alternatives would be a disaster. Not true.
50
...and we all know from our previous election that the American people give a hoot about a candidate’s “ grasp of issues”.
1
This was a good opportunity to learn more about these candidates. I definitely like some better than others. It's pretty clear to me who won't be going forward for long. I look forward to tomorrow night. At the end of the day I'll vote for whomever is nominated, but at least I'll know more about him or her.
9
I was pleasantly surprised that candidates had a bit more time to answer questions than I thought at first. Foreign policy is still not being addressed the way I would like- tariffs, alliances, friends, not such good friends- the issues sometime go beyond income distribution, and the DNC Platform Committee is going to have to address many of these problems we helped create.
The USA is going to have to make bold proposals on climate and follow through- and soon. I sometimes wish David Attenborough would run for the office (he can't of course), but we need people who read and analyze scientific material to make the case. The planet is NOT big enough to absorb all of our physical and chemical waste. And I dislike the flashy atmosphere of the debate stage. This gives it an almost game-show setting. It should be a forum of good ideas and translating those ideas into policy and legislation. But too many voters are openly hostile towards Democratic big-idea approaches, so giving skeptics the impression that "we're here to help" might work better than grandiose plans and overhauling the system. And again, the range of topics should sometimes address more than concerns over money and the "millionaires and billionaires". And BTW, health professionals and their patients should be in charge of making decisions- not insurance companies or politicians. New drug research and faster approvals perhaps could get some public funding, so we could stop complaining about prices. So much to do...
4
This voter will be most influenced by a candidate's ability to address issues of domestic and foreign policy knowledgeably and reasonably. The Republicans have made any serious discussion of issues, ranging from abortion to climate change, taboo among themselves. It is the responsibility of Democrats to show substance matters.
253
@Podesta
We heard very little last night of forward thinking tough as nails domestic and foreign policy, sadly, and very, very little of how to pay for their vanity projects while fixing the economy for all Americans.
Our household is keeping a chart on which candidates and at what point in the debate they resort to political correctness and hurt fee-fees, instead of the real issues facing the U.S. and the planet.
And almost all of those 10 have been in Congress long enough to be able to fake it, even lightweight boy band Beto.
2
@Maggie you lost me at “political correctness and hurt fee-fees”
4
@Maggie
Don't confuse fake issues of the Trump campaign with real social issues like health care. 50 times Republicans voted in Congress to repeal the real ACA to destroy a most important social service like health care. They have nothing to show how to make it better, Trump has just a big mouth and lots of ignorance and audacity. He is not a man with decency or integrity.
I'll be honest: I did not anticipate my genuine emotional response tonight while listening to the candidates represent their vision and actions worthy of this great nation.
Remove all the spin and who-bested-who soundbites. What I witnessed was ten civil people painting an aspirational vision of America with often times subtly different brush strokes and color palettes. It's been 887 days since the last inauguration and 573 days until the next inauguration.
We are closer to dawn that to our previous dusk.
770
@GMOinSLO I love the last line of your comment. Looking forward to that dawn!
27
@GMOinSLO
These folks give us all hope. Focused, thoughtful, and well-spoken they make us feel better about getting back to who we are as a country. Watching them it was like comparing apples to - dare I say - oranges.
18
@GMOinSLO Totally agree. I had a similar response watching the debate. ... And it made me realize that his element was missing in the lead-up to 2016. Imagine if we would have had strong democratic debates back them, maybe we would have been more energized about that election (whoever the candidate would have been).
14
Why did so many candidates say China was our greatest foreign adversary ? A country we have a trade deficit with is worse than Russia who is undermining our democracy, democracies abroad, and standing against our allies and interests in almost every area of the world? I’m not an economist, but a global superpower that backs most of our nuclear armed/nuclear developing adversaries much worse than a country we have a trade war with. I see why China is creating an economic issue for us, but compared to the thread of hostile nations and climate change, I’m not sure I see it as equally dangerous.
182
@Roman Doyle Hi! I admit I'm not an expert on China but, from what I understand, China's aggressive foreign and economic policies disrupt U.S. influence abroad and act to threaten our own long-term economic stability. I think it's almost a requirement for anyone pursuing work in foreign policy to learn about China's role in the world, because it's that important. With Trump in office, this influence continues to grow stronger, and I think that's why you see so much worry. I recommend you watch some of the brookings institution videos on youtube about china!
37
@Roman Doyle I agree that China is a serious threat, but I was astonished that only one candidate mnamed Russia and Putin. It is terrifying to see Putin flying under the radar even of these folks. He has so cleverly weakened the Western alliance and Nato thanks to his buddy Trump. Subtle and surreptitious!
20
@Roman Doyle You're wrong. China is an extreme threat on many levels. It is directly opposed to the US's ideology in every respect. It seeks to take America's position as the world's leading superpower and has the means to do so, mainly through its relentless focus on cheap manufacturing. Look at its aggressive stance in the South China Sea. It is also eating large chunks of Africa and has already way surpassed America's influence on the continent. Not that most Americans care about Africa, but that's just one example. I vigorously disagree with Trump on just about everything but on China he is dead right.
27
I love the debate tonight. All candidates are knowledgeable and civil, (no-one attacks the the other for having small hands). I can vote for any of them, although I have a few favorites.
387
@Michelle I agree, I could vote for any of them (except the "deer in the headlights" Mr. Ryan and the obnoxiously aggressive Mr. Delaney). Perhaps they all look presidential compared to Mr. Trump. Let's see how tonight's candidates measure up. Maybe some of them will begin to stand out.
1
@Michelle: agreed! And the fact that DiJiTs (sorry) pronounced himself "bored" reinforces how much this was Not about him.
I'd go with the one who is not concerned with winning the banal popularity contest, but who instead presents cogent, rational and feasible plans to salvage and rejuvenate the well-being of the American Middle Class, the strangled, chaotic education system, laws for environmental protection; the one who can re-establish trust and reliability among foreign allies, and has policies that can actually create an equitable taxation structure to help, not rob the country blind. I only see one candidate who shows these qualities and ideals coming together. OK, not as charismatic as skateboard punk drunk driver "I was born for this" Beto, but she's got the real thing. Elizabeth Warren.
571
@WR - Let's just say I am taken aback by where my former law school prof - Elizabeth Warren - is today. Did not see it coming.
30
@WR there's no need to dispartage Beto because you prefer Warren. I have listened to his one-hour interview with Tommy Vietor, and he is every bit as serious a candidate as Elizabeth Warren and doesn't sound like a "skateboard punk drunk driver"- whatever that means. I have seen this type of slandering of others from Mayor Pete's fans and I abhor it. It's a stark warning signal for how we should not polemicize if we want to avoid a repeat of 2016.
93
@WR I was surprised to get a text from a friend saying Warren was growing on her. She liked Warren's debate answers and her interview with Chris Matthews. My friend's text was surprising because we had stopped discussing politics after getting into a bit of an argument about Biden; she likes/d him, and I don't. Now if I could only convince a former-Republican Biden-supporter like my husband to like Warren.
40
I’ve notice the NYT has started branding Elizabeth Warren a ‘populist’. She doesn’t strike me as fitting that definition at all. Is it because her policies are getting more ‘popular’?
45
@CBG she is a populist. That’s not a bad thing though. She claims the economy served the rich over working people. She’s right.
8
@CBG 100% agree - and the Democratic Party is not veering left but returning to its historic messages.
5
We need not fear progressives or seeming too lefty. We are in CRAZY times and without swift, smart action, our climate, economy, democracy and any semblance of a middle class are dead!!! Look around the US - there are neo-nazis, shanty towns, unlivable wages, anti-women laws gaining more control every day. It's scary weird. Asylum seeker's babies are in cages with Forbes publishing articles that the cages are owned by private equity buddies of republican donors.
This is not a time to play to the undecided. We have to do what's right and not worry appeasing them because that will not result in the turn-out we need! Middle of the road doesn't exist now. I've never been a super lefty. I love competitive markets. I love facts. Speak about climate change, speak about creating a livable wage and safety net. Warren can do it.
106
@Ari I agree, except for the weird part. This is the logical outcome of the direction this nation has been going in for forty years.
3
One of the most defensive slugfests - if you can call it one. They recited rehearsed lines but clearly did not display the wits to take on the most divisive, yet master communicator, incumbent in recent history.
6
You do realize the Republican Trump and his Television coworkers ran the debate through persistent issue portrayals and scripted questions, don't you?
There were a couple of outstanding candidates characterized by their pioneering ideas and firm belief in them.
Break free of the news cycle chains of the media and discover new grounds of strategies and ideas consistent with the long held democrats belief in caring for all Americans, not just some.
I thought Julian Castro was undoubtedly the best performer of the night - he came across as genuinely caring about the future and was consistently eloquent. However, I also thought Amy Klobuchar had a good outing; she was calm in her delivery and was successful in presenting pragmatic solutions to America's problems. I was most disappointed by Cory Booker, who didn't make the most of the large amount of time he was given. Those are just my initial thoughts, though. Senator Warren was impressive, as always, whilst Beto just appeared out of his depth.
23
Inslee: 'Hold on there, little lady. Let me mansplain that whole abortion thing for you'.
16
@Flossy
I don't think that is what he said at all - despite the 3 ladies countering him. He is an administrator, not a representative, he has, indeed, been the only one of the group to administer widespread laws for full-on women's health choices. Senators are unable to do this. On top of this, he was the first governor to declare his state a sanctuary state and to sue Trump for violating federal immigration and refugee statutes.
26
@Flossy
That is not what Inslee said. When he was asked about reproductive choice, he spoke the truth that while he was governor of the State of Washington legislation was passed and signed to Trump-proof abortion rights in Washington state. In Washington state, there are more than thirty Planned Parenthood clinics, abortion is available around the state, and Washington state uses its own funds to cover medically necessary abortions sought by low-income women under Medicaid.
And when he was in Congress, Inslee voted against the ban on using federal funds for abortions, and regularly voted to preserve women's abortion rights. He co-sponsored a bill to expand contraceptive services to low-income women.
Jay Inslee has a 100% rating on his pro-choice voting record on abortion rights from NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Neither Warren, Klobuchar nor Gabbard have passed abortion rights legislation in Congress. It is not productive to mock and make false accusations against a governor who has been a steadfast supporter of women's right to reproductive rights and freedoms.
59
@Earthling: A year ago I was hoping Klobuchar would run and I fully expected to support her as my first choice. After saladgate, I changed my mind. I do not want another abuser/shamer sitting in the Oval. It was a cheap shot at Inslee and another indication of her temperament. No thanks.
2
And where was the subject of climate change? Our greatest challenge?
It’s been nearly 30 years since the first report by the IPCC. Nearly 30 years and global emissions have increased by 60 percent since then.
And now they still don’t include the subject in the debates.
Now that the NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot has stated that we’ve already destabilized around 6 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice from the marine sectors of Greenland and West Antarctica’s ice sheets and the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet is waking up and it has 19 meters worth of marine based ice.
17
It’s obvious why “Climate Change “ is avoided: It has become a religion.
How can one tell? Simple. It’s the wording climate change itself. We have been convinced that climate change will always be a negative thing. No one says, “negative-effect climate change” they just say “climate change.” They say it so much they don’t even think about it anymore. Words mean things.
The opposite of Climate Change is Denier and that’s half way there to the perfect 1984 scenario.
We have measurable pollution problems, we have measurable habitat destruction problems but global warming has been happening since roughly 22,000 years ago and it’s gotten much less since about 8,000 years. But that data doesn’t matter because, as in all religions, its about faith. Faith in the big Computer Modeling God in the sky!
They avoid talking about it because they have to. Because it’s presently viewed as a negative line-item to be avoided if one wants to get swing voters. Swing voters aren’t just a thing; they’re everything!
1
@Erik Frederiksen
If the moderators had asked Inslee more questions and let the others rebut, we might have heard more about climate change. If I recall correctly, just one question on the topic was asked the whole night.
Gov. Jay Inslee had the best spontaneous line of the night. "The greatest threat to our national security is Donald Trump." He ended up speaking the least, an indication of his Pacific Northwest manners. He is the candidate with the strongest executive experience in governance, a resounding successful record of progressive legislation, and Washington State currently has the strongest economy of all the states. He's running on the single most important issue on earth: the existential crisis of global climate change.
Pssst, he voted against the Iraq war. He voted against assault weapons, and he did so knowing this would likely mean his rural constituency would not re-elect him.
Folks, check him out.
269
@Carolyn Nomura I actually was pleasantly surprised by him. I hadn't heard much about him and I'm definitely going to dig into him more. I was surprised that people thought he was mansplaining abortion to women. I thought it was powerful to hear about someone who'd actually accomplished a few of the things that other candidates want to enact.
27
@Carolyn Nomura Washington state voters have rejected multiple Inslee-supported ballot measures to tax carbon emissions. He has a losing record in his liberal home state on his #1 issue. He'll never be president. I suspect he is really running for EPA chief in a Biden administration.
5
@Carolyn Nomura: if his own constituents don't want him....and they know him best....why would WE want him?
4
Speaking in Spanish was a big mistake. Trump won the debate right there.
43
@miken How come? The Latinx population is one of the largest, if not *the* largest, minority groups. Getting our vote is going to be crucial for whoever's going for the nomination. While cringeworthy at times, I thought it was a nice way to try and connect with Spanish-speaking voters.
10
@miken My ATM speaks Spanish. The sky has not fallen on banking. George W. Bush delivered speeches in Spanglish. It's been a normal course of political campaigning in many states, for example, Texas, for generations, Republicans and Democrats. Even Ronald Reagan delivered the occasional line in phonetically rehearsed Spanish. It's only some kind of horror for those who'd be voting for Trump anyway because they have a whole lot more Others to fear and hate along with him.
42
@kmmunoz
Spanish speaking voters, should consider themselves American and speak English.
( I was born in the Caribbean and find it condescending when people speak to me in Spanish thinking that because i have a Spanish last name i don't speak English)
5
Any of them over President Loud. Same tomorrow night.
25
What is the proper role of government? What should it not be involved in? These are key questions that need to be discussed. The US government is too big, too bureaucratic, and too wasteful no matter who is in office. We are $22 TRILLION in debt. I think individuals will spend their own money more wisely than the government will. The Dems and Repubs want us to fight each other, when the truth is that BOTH PARTIES HAVE FAILED US. We need to teach basic economics in this country and teach personal responsibility. Please listen to NPR Planet Money podcasts from 2008 to 2016. Please read "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem" by Jay W. Richards or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Watch videos by Milton Friedman. Get government out of healthcare, out of mortgages/housing, from being the police of the world, eliminate subsidies, bailouts, welfare, get out of education, out of student loans, stop excessive regulations, and stop spending trillions more than what they take in. Just because something is expensive does not mean government should provide it. Proper roles of government: To provide national defense, to protect individual freedoms, and to be like a referee at a football game to ensure fair play in business to prevent fraud and monopolies. This does not mean no government, weak government, or anarchy. This does not mean completely unregulated capitalism. Government does have a role to play.
15
@Joe: thank you for reiterating what I say all the time here: BOTH PARTIES HAVE FAILED US.
On illegal immigration...on climate change...on universal health care.
I didn't hear any fresh ideas whatsoever here.
5
@Joe
One man's "fair play in business" is another man's "excessive regulations".
@Joe: I formed my opinion on this subject by traveling the world and spending time in both successful and unsuccessful countries. Without exception, I found the residents of big-govt, high-tax countries to be happier, healthier and better educated, with infrastructure that frankly makes me embarrassed each time I return to America. The impoverished countries have minimal taxes, weak services and lower literacy. The pattern is clear.
I watched it but did not see a real debate of ideas. During the network technical difficulties I could have sworn that my TV began flashing RECESSION.
18
@Charlie, adorable comment. Made me laugh.
4
For those voters concerned about policy, all the candidates came off as more informed, connected with voters, and committed to change than Trump. Warren articulated her progressive “I have a plan,” but many voters go with their gut on who can win. Booker and DeBlasio made their middle of the road policies sound transformational through assertive, masculine presentations. Warren has to go punch for punch with the men, especially with Trump, to win.
4
Political "debates" are, for the most part, sideshows created by the media. Ever since Nixon sweated himself out of the presidency during his debate with Kennedy, everyone knows that little of substance is learned about candidates. It's all about appearances.
So, I have an idea: the Democrat Candidate in 2020 should simply not show up for the "debate." There's no law that says he/she must stand on stage and engage in ridiculous banter with Trump. Simply have the candidate make a formal policy statement alone or with a group.
It's all a show people. All sizzle and no steak!
11
Want to hear more from Gabbard. She and mayor Pete are about the same age as I am, and their resumes are more impressive than anyone else.
7
Specifics, specifics, specifics please. None of them were detailed in their responses. However they were all “civil” and “respectable” and no major dramas so it was minus a few laughs and gasps compared to Trump and his debates. Good luck candidates you all did well for the first go round and no one lost their “cool”.
8
I did not see the debates -- because for the last 25 years, I have abstained from having television. But I am tuned in to NYT and Twitter every day. It is interesting to me that an hour after the debate concluded, there are still only 30 comments here...
But even more surprising, considering the liberal constituency of this readership, is how it is that almost no one has pointed out the true surprise here.
I'll do it; I will ask. Why is it that no one is wondering about how the environment was not the first -- and biggest --topic, during this meeting?
People -- I am now very troubled -- more than before. Now I'm thinking these candidates are not tuned in. And that makes me think we get 4 more years of the Orange Menace?!
6
@ADH3, get a TV. I appreciated your opinion.
1
@ADH3 You can watch online, by the way. I'm in Australia and watched a live NBC broadcast of the debates. And you're right, I'm surprised climate change didn't garner more time. The Washington governor is really strong in that respect, I think.
2
@ADH3
Twitter instead of TV?
Egads, what's this world coming to -
4
Ten candidates on the stage with a one minute time frame in which to answer serious questions seemed rushed, and only allowed the viewers to get a slight overview of their positions on the issues. Not as in depth as I would have liked, more like sound bites when what is needed is more comprehensive plans from each. These are all dedicated civil servants addressing issues that could take several hours each to adequately explain. Nonetheless, they were civil and mostly courteous with each other, a far cry from what we currently see from the WH these days.
36
Representatives Ryan and Delaney garner little attention from the press. But these two are good Democrats with an important message for us all: the Democratic party may be failing to reach the constituencies that it needs to reach in 2020. We ignore their voice at our own peril.
19
I wanted more questions - and specific answers - about climate change. Four candidates stated that climate change was the biggest threat to our nation. I need a steady gaze on this topic.
88
Too many people to make this an interesting 'debate'.
It's as though a collection of people were standing at a Presidential bus stop making small talk about some things they wanted to complain about.
Not a Trump supporter and not a "Progressive" (cause I think they're both nuts. Identity Politics nuts.)
Looking for a solid moderate, who can somehow make government work a little bit better (Ok...maybe a WAY little bit better). Someone with some pizazz ;)
11
@They - Sen. Corey Booker fits your description of the kind of candidate you are looking for. Would you reject the Rhodes Scholar, businessman, former mayor and senator because he is African-American?
2
@Podesta
"because he is African-American?"
I'm gathering that's a sarcastic play on my destain for Identity Politics.
No, Booker strikes me as an eager beaver, looking to please, lots of posing. Too scripted and working hard not to seem like it? None of the candidates stood out, although Gabbert seemed to have moved in from the fog.
5
@Podesta
I worked in Newark when Booker was mayor. Things ran very well during that time. You want to give him points for competency.
I know the Times and NYers can’t stand him, but I think De Blasio really stood out and will get a big bump — especially for the short time Todd & Co gave him. He can take the gloves off with Trump.
64
@KJ I found De Blasio to be an extaordinarily rude person on the stage, interrupting and not waiting to be asked a question before interjecting his opinion.I agree with much that he stated, but his demeanor is missing what I consider to be essential elements of debating in this format. He needs to demonstrate that he understands that others have as much right to say what they want to say without interjecting, with the presumption that his opinion is better. In my estimation, he will never be my first choice as a candidate.
39
@KJ: well, DeBlasio is belligerent, I'll give you that.
But he's munged up NYC and can't deal with the homeless or failing schools.
Who on earth would elect him to a HIGHER position?
14
@KJ Deblasio is the worst NYC mayor of my lifetime. I am a native New Yorker and have seen them all.
10
People seem to belittle the inclusion of McConnell in the debate. Democrats must win back the senate. McConnell has sold out the integrity and the responsibility of the two houses of congress. Votes must be taken in the Senate. McConnell succeeded in blocking just about everything Obama tried to pass including the nomination of a supreme court justice. McConnell is just as dangerous, perhaps more than Trump. How the Democratic hopefuls plan to deal with McConnell is important. The Democrats have to find candidates that can unseat Republican senators.
337
I suggest we all contribute to the Ditch Mitch campaign because, realistically, getting him out of the Senate is the only way to get him out of the way of progress.
19
@Tom
And I wasn’t impressed by the responses to that question, not even Warren’s. McConnell’s actions warrant impeachment, and his interest conflicted wife deserves a corruption trial.
13
@DisplayName
Yes Warren's answer was disappointing. What seemed to work against McConnell recently was the coverage of Jon Stewart and 9/11 hero Luis Alvarez begging for help for the 9/11 first responders. Bad publicity seems to do it. Obama went silent about SCOTUS nominee Garland. He should have been on the news every single day hammering away at McConnell's obstruction.
3
I failed to see much outrage tonight against Trump's actions and character. If Democrats are looking for a fighter to go toe-to-toe with Trump, she/he wasn't on the stage tonight. Democrats across the country are angry. We want someone who thinks/feels like us. For instance, having an extended debate over a particular provision of an immigration law was reflective of participants talking to themselves rather than to their prospective voters.
8
@Tom Q I actually thought it was refreshing to not have Trump mentioned every other word. Also, I think the Democrats are trying to make the point that they can be civil with one another. That's important, so that the primaries don't become an awful, dragged-out affair that leaves the nominee with little time, energy, and money to go after Trump. I feel like many of the candidates on the stage could pull the gloves off and go toe-to-toe with Trump when the time comes.
19
I don't know why the media keeps giving Biden so much attention and credit. I don't think I know anyone who even thinks he should be running, much less thinks he's a front runner.
132
Because Biden is leading the entire pack by about 15 points. He is by far the front runner in every poll.
14
@KJ General polls when there are over 20 candidates are almost meaningless. More significant are head-to-head polls, and there Warren is leading.
4
Liz Warren, a brilliant compassionate Leader, just the antidote to the Trump poison. I'm IN, Bigly.
381
@Phyliss Dalmatian
But can she win the Latino vote?
@David
I was impressed by the warmness Elizabeth Warren showed to both Booker and Castro right at the debate's end. Yes, they were the closest to her on the stage, but the affection seemed genuine. I could see either of them on a ticket with her.
3
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Warren was the smartest person in the room but I also liked Bookers charisma.
1
What was to like? Who was comfortable with all the spanish? Who thinks thats going to win independents or even weak Trump supporters - only going to make them back away. Whats the platform? Reparations for gays. Reparations for blacks. Free healthcare even for anyone who comes into the country. Cancel student loans. Tax the dirty rich! They want to send medical teams and bedding to the border but nothing for the 500 thousand Americans who are homeless tonight. A field of losers in a booming economy. Very disappointing.
77
If the economy is booming, why are there 500K homeless people in the streets to begin with? Could the debatees possibly have a point?? The economy is booming for a small fraction of Americans. Precisely those that can do without more boom anyway.
171
Booming for who? Not people working full-time on poverty wages. Not those who have to work two jobs. Not people who can’t afford healthcare or drugs. Not those who are paying half their earnings for rent.
Spare us the Republican taking point, disconnected from reality — as usual.
204
Clearly, without the shadow of a doubt, you did not watch the debate.
50
Reasonable people can disagree about which of the top candidates should be the Democratic standard bearer.
But the riff-raff should get out of the race sooner than later: Delaney, Gabbard, Ryan, and Inslee displayed plainly tonight that they shouldn’t be running for president.
The middle tier candidates tonight were a mixed bag: I was pleasantly surprised by Klobuchar, Booker and Castro, but I think O’Rourke is toast. My Texan friends say that he is charismatic, but I have never seen any evidence of that. To me he seems awkward, immature and lacking in self awareness.
34
@Cousy
I agree that we can agree to disagree about the frontrunning candidates. But I think the country needs to hear from the Dems' full slate for a while longer--until the first primaries, with a final cutoff being S. Carolina--for this reason:
The full slate--from top tier to lowest polling--presented an impressive front. I felt as if I was watching and learning more about potential cabinet members: Inslee as EPA Chief or Secretary of Energy; Ryan as Secretary of Labor; Gabbard as a Secretary of Veteran Affairs; Delaney as Head of Small Business Administration. And we still have a second debate to watch for talent!
We have to restock the government with these 2020 elections--the White House, the Senate, and the President's Cabinet (not to mention SCOTUS: should Kamala Harris not win the President or VP nomination but a Dem wins the election, I'd love to see her nominated to replace Ginsburg when that venerable, brilliant justice retires). This upcoming election puts bite in the phrase "clean sweep." The overlarge candidate field is brimming with talented, experienced, committed people who could serve our country in more ways than one. I, for one, want to learn more about them.
8
@Jackie
Good point - a large field has its benefits. But on the other hand, it’s a weird message that running for president is an audition for a cabinet post.
1
@Cousy
That's my inference from the very large field we have on hand now--how to take advantage of this unusual and complex situation? We can bemoan the overstocked stage, or we can see fresh opportunities with it. "We" being the voters.
1
How about a fair debate where candidates all have equal time to speak. Moderators didn’t do their job
76
@Rosemary Rowe I agree totally. I was displeased how the polite debaters waited to have a questions addressed to them, and there were many who had far less questions than others. I thought this format for a debate was unfair and definitely slanted in favor of a select few. There were a few who were not asked questions and interrupted those who were and spoke out rudely, in my opinion. I hope tomorrow's debate is more evenly handled regarding the distribution on questions, and that if anyone interrupts someone who has been asked a question, will be told to shut up.
24
@Rosemary Rowe
I agree, Rosemary.
The first slate of moderators--Holt, Guthrie, Diaz-Balart--strived to spread the questions across the panel. The second pair--Maddow and Todd--honed in on their known knowns (Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, O'Rourke), and then were condescendingly rude to the rest, who they rarely called to speak, even for rebuttals.
Emerging from last night's format, I hope for 2 things:
First, I hope that MSNBC doesn't have a lock on hosting all of the debates. Frankly, I'd like to see one moderated by print media journalists: we might get even more substance out of those exchanges.
Second, I wish the DNC would host a You Tube channel where all of the candidates could be interviewed and we citizens could hear their ideas and stands directly for ourselves.
I'm struck that, until last night, I'd not seen or heard much (if anything) from Castro, Inslee, Gabbard, Delaney, or Ryan in the mainline press. That's not fair. The DNC can level the playing field for its own candidates by staging a separate forum where (a) they can be questioned and tested beyond sound bites, and (b) the public can engage and listen to decide our vote, sans the filtering favoritism of the mainline media.
10
@Jackie If you want to hear in-depth individual interviews with each of the candidates then check out Pod Save America. They are posting interviews on YouTube, as well as on their podcast. I think there are about 16 that have been posted to date and they include candidates that didn't make the debate cuts like Steve Bullock and Seth Moulton. You learn a lot about them personally and their platforms. I was surprised about a lot of what I learned and how my opinions about several candidates changed.
2
Inslee and Booker win this as I see it. Both had good points and differentiated themselves. Both strong on issues and emotion, which will be needed to beat trump
10
How is Biden the front runner? I wouldn't vote for him, even if he made Obama his running mate.
72
Because he is a centrist - like most of the electorate.
22
This is precisely the kind of "thinking" that may well propel Donald Trump to winning in 2020. You sound like the people who swore that they wouldn't vote for Ms Clinton, no matter what. If you think Trump is a better candidate than Biden, then you are entitled to your opinion, of course.
23
@KJ A centrist? Today that is Republican Light. He is old school and not to good at that.
7
Klobuchar and Booker stood out tonight. Thank you! We will need common sense and level-headedness in the White House after four years of wanna-be-king Trump tearing the country apart and reversing decades of policies...and bringing us closer to another war. He sure didn’t drain the swamp! He just brought in bigger, stingier alligators.
54
@Mominthesouth
I liked Booker and Klobuchar more than I expected to.
6
@Mominthesouth - Cory Booker thinks they speak Swiss in Swizerland - said as much on Swiss Radio. There is no such language. Not too bright...
1
One of the candidates should’ve answered that the greatest geopolitical threat America is facing is giving Chuck Todd this much influence over presidential politics.
131
@Jake Spot on.
13
I think that they are all strong candidates although Warren stands out among them for conviction and real plans. Klobuchar does not seem like a particularly great person and the press says she abuses her staff.
13
She seems more like a Republican than a Democrat. Much more conservative than I would vote for.
@Mythoughts - I don't pay much attention to hearsay but the facts are that she has the highest staff turnover on the hill. That's a big red flag.
2
@DR: I was a Klobuchar supporter so I read as much as I could about her temperament problems. She had no defense or rebuttal except "I have high standards and expect that from my staff".
The salad story killed any interest I had had in her. To take a comb out of one's purse, use it as a fork and then demand that the forgetful staffer go wash it just made me sick to my stomach. We do not need another abuser/shamer in the Oval. And besides the shaming, wouldn't you want the comb washed before you ate the salad? Bleh.
And her slam at Inslee was uncalled for and, again, showed us who she is.
No thanks to Amy.
3
It's hard to say which of the 10 candidates performed best, but all were far more informed and articulate on every issue than the current occupant of the White House. If Wednesday night's debate is any indication, the Democratic presidential race seems to have benefited from being wide open, with the candidates having sharpened their positions and talking points in an effort to emerge from a crowded field. This can only benefit the eventual nominee in the fall of 2020.
275
@DbB - at the conclusion of last night's debate, which I had predicted would have been lacking content and rigor due to the format and time constraints, I said to my husband that each person on that stage was more thoughtful, intelligent, and poised than our current President and that any of them would do a better job as Commander-in-Chief than Trump. Even de Blasio reminded me of how he emerged from a behind-the-scenes local politician several years ago to beat all of his formidable competitors and get elected Mayor of NYC. The debate left me very impressed and encouraged. A year from now the DNC will have its excellent nominee.
9
@DbB What is also interesting is listening to their differences and their willingness to verbalize what things they are for, and what things they are not and you literally do not see this with the Republican Party who literally rubber stamp EVERYTHING Trump. Seriously, Sen. Graham was just tweeting that Trump should have a third term. He should be recalled.
19
As long as we avoid another Jill Stein incident
117
Dont blame Jill Stein. The blame rests with the “purists” who wouldn’t support Sen Clinton after Bernie couldn’t win the nomination. And that Sen Clinton ran a weak campaign.
14
Nominate a good deserving candidate and that situation will be avoided
6
@Nick
Really?
Stein pulled in 1 million, TOTAL votes.
Trump pulled in 10 million Democratic votes.
Seems your bashing the wrong side of the aisle Nick.
You'd of made more sense had you castigated the 96 million eligible voters that abstained.
You blame the severed pinky for the death, while ignoring the missing leg.
C'mon, be better.
15
I thought Elizabeth Warren seemed a bit unsteady at this first debate - I went in with her as my favorite but found her answers felt a bit scripted and not as on target as I hoped. She needs to up her game for the next debates or I may lose faith in her.
Booker was the most impressive - he commanded the stage in my opinion along with Castro.
Least impressive was Ohio’s Tim Ryan. He seemed to be constantly interrupting and sounded like a Republican lite.
21
There were two losers in the debate: Beto and Chuck Todd.
Chuck asked an inside baseball question about McConnell.Very little to be said about that.
26
Alas I think this whole discussion in this paper and elsewhere in informed and/or liberal-leaning media is bringing a Tesla to a truck-race...feels very self-important and lacking situational awareness of the fact that the news on ALL sides foments trump-like tactics and idiocy and rewards it...these debates felt right and correct in normal times but he's sitting watching Fox and tweeting and thinks this is all absolutely stupid. This debate was BORING to what people see in the daily news...and unless someone can take a sane stance and figure a way to rebuff an insane person and then also rile emotion versus rational policy the Dems will lose. The person in the office is great at inciting emotion because he lives on that...he has no policy or POV except to keep himself and his twitter account maxed out...so some DEM candidate needs to start learning that now.
29
@scott Totally agree. What Trump does well is speak the common man’s language. When there were 10 people on stage all somewhat sounding like Hillary Clinton, Trump’s “BORING,” tweet kind of cut through all of that.
Totally agree. I want to see Trump thrown out of office, but I didn’t think any of those people could do it the way they spoke tonight.
5
I actually welcome this debate and others where grown up have discussions about topics and not lean into the mud every 5 seconds. You do not beat Trump et al. by attempting to reach down to their level. It just wouldn't be authentic ;-)
That said, clearly a one on one with Trump will have a much different flavor simply because of the fact that Trump is in the room. No worries. You will not be bored much longer. Really..... you need Circus Maximus to keep your attention level up? In that case, America has lost already.
Politics can and should occasionally be 'borning'. That is no excuse to be arrogant when explaining policy to all citizens (the argument of elitism). But it sure does not have to be a circus show for people with a 5 sec attention span either.
51
@Fred - it's easy to speak the common man's language when you're just selling a bunch of simplistic lies, specifically designed to appeal to the common man's prejudices. Trump's strategy was just to keep promising whatever got him the most applause.
The Democratic candidates actually have serious proposals and real ideas they want to talk about. Whoever wins the primary can find a dumbed-down message to sell to Republican voters for the general.
16