There’s no reason Dems should be media entertainment; we just want to take America back from whom they’ve allowed to take it over-Trump.
23
Who will call out every presumptuous fake who claims to be a messenger of a deity fabricated in their own image?
8
Democrats have more than one or two serious problems.
11
The President doesn't need known liabilities of his potential opponent to use against them. He is quite happy with free-riffing them out of his fertile garden of decay.
14
This thesis is wrong. The candidates need to hold hands in battle against a corrupt trump administration and a very sick GOP. Not assault one another. Bernie is a wild card jerk who should have thrown his personal support and his supporters to Hillary. Let's see some unity here against the GOP. Biden needs to wake up and admit that Congress can't be unifed, that the GOP must go. He should point to the current make up of SCOTUS, and what they are about to do to women-- as due in part to Obama's willingness to play dead the final of his 8 years in office. They all need to vow "never again." Unity in the Democratic party is a must. Voter registration, voter turnout, and dem exposure of GOP election malfeasance can result in a 2020 landslide over the GOP.
23
The tough questions ought to come from the moderators, not the competing candidates.
16
Frank, you're not frank. Would you tell the NYT readers why you have never, ever found anything positive to say about Tulsi Gabbard. There are others running who you and the Times are not excited about, yet Tulsi is the only one who the lead newspaper in America has blackballed and no one there says why?
There were two cases this week where the NYT couldn't duck giving a resume of every candidate who will debate and twice she was falsely described or in such weak terms that the effect was negative.
Come on out and say it. The loser of the last election hates her for backing Bernie and she has a controlling voice in the NYT political positions, with the help of a few billionaires who also support her and are loved by the Times.
That's okay. There are often players like that in politics, but it would be honest journalism if the Times and the many who write for the Times would just come out with Why?
7
If we can't field a candidate with the smarts, the facts, the honesty and the guts to take on an ignorant, nasty oaf, without getting into the gutter with him, then we're in trouble.
He can insult, bellow, snort, stomp his feet and rage - that's his shtick - also called intimidation. Responding forcefully, with facts, not counter attacks, will do him in.
He's still the petulant, angry, rotten child he always was. Treat him like one.
19
The NYT demands certain rules of discourse as evidenced by its review of every comment posted here. But it seems Frank Bruni is asking that Democrats who are represented by so many here should take on the GOP persona and begin trashing each other in terms that might not be even allowable in this paper. To me politeness means mutual respect, something that must not be sacrificed for the GOP dirty tricks attacks. Perhaps Democrats might win a campaign but at what cost?
11
I honestly do not know what has happened to Frank Bruni.
This column makes no sense, is terrible advice, and shows little to no political insight.
Yes, let's have the Democratic Party tear itself to shreds before the main event. Nonsense.
18
Frank, you're not frank. Would you tell the NYT readers why you have never, ever found anything positive to say about Tulsi Gabbard. There are others running who you and the Times are not excited about, yet Tulsi is the only one who the lead newspaper in America has blackballed and no one there says why?
There were two cases this week where the NYT couldn't duck giving a resume of every candidate who will debate and twice she was falsely described or in such weak terms that the effect was negative.
Come on out and say it. The loser of the last election hates her for backing Bernie and she has a controlling voice in the NYT political positions, with the help of a few billionaires who also support her and are loved by the Times.
That's okay. There are often players like that in politics, but it would be honest journalism if the Times and the many who write for the Times would just come out with Why?
4
Shame on you Frank, you started your opinion piece with Elizabeth Warren and ended it with Elizabeth Warren. Everything in the middle was just filler material to disguise your Warren hit piece. If I recall you didn't exactly rally to Clinton's side after she was nominated and yet you criticize Bernie for what you saw as his lack of enthusiasm. The guy was not only defeated but undermined by the privileged few at the DNC who had previously determined that the brass ring should go to Hillary, hardly conducive to a lovefest.
Personally I don't want to see a televised Democratic bloodbath. In the era of crass, vulgar, lying Republican politics I will gladly welcome civility and sticking to the issues.
19
A great candidate should be able to do what you suggest in a reasonable and polite way:
Senator Warren, could you please explain why you don't think that a public option within Obamacare isn't good enough to force insurance companies to compete for patients?
And as a follow up Senator, aren't you setting yourself up for the label of socialist when an adequately funded public option would provide universal healthcare without disruptions?
Senator Sanders, could you please explain precisely how you will fund your universal healthcare program? As a follow up, how will you fund your education program?
The candidates can ask each other very hard questions without being a nasty jerk like Trump. And, when faced with polite but very pointed questions, Trump will look very bad. Remember that 60% of the American people don't like the creep. President Trump, why are you inconsistent, incompetent and insufferable? Have you always been such a complete jerk to everyone who doesn't kiss your derriere 24/7?
8
Democrats don't like Republicans in sheep's clothing.
3
FYi Frank Bruni, Bernie did campaign for Hillary with gusto. You make it sound like he did not. He was rightly terrified of Trump winning and focused on opposing him as best he could even though the DNC was against him from the start.
5
Frank, evidently you rate the intelligence of Democratic Party voters rather low. Your column suggests they need verbal face slapping, in order to discern whom to vote for. There is plenty to discern regarding each candidate's position already. If anything, those rabid moderates need to be pressed on just how middle class America will benefit from the timid solutions and on why they believe Republicans can be negotiated with on any economically or environmentally substantive solution. The two you clearly target, Warren and Sanders have been far more "out there" with their vision of where we need to be than any of the others on stage. Is there a reason to start with half measures to be retreated from when this unproven negotiation of the hard stuff begins?
4
I would prefer someone like Bullock or Bennett, but the Democratic party, and caucuses, are controlled by the more left wing side of the party, so they aren't going to get anywhere. However, I do agree these candidates should be made to be clear and address the "baggage" in the primaries. Trump will be in full melt down mode by next spring given how is acting at the moment. My biggest fear is that some branch of the Democratic Party or Independents will off in sulk mode like they did the last time around, and this will allow Trump to prevail. I don't think America or the world can take another four years of that fool.
8
Every Democratic candidate has vulnerabilities. Either Biden or Sanders would be the oldest elected president ever, and both have already shown signs of age. Buttigieg would be the youngest, and lacks the benefits of wisdom & at least a degree of cynicism - both of which proved to be two of Obama's biggest challenges. Warren used to be a Republican but has since migrated to the far-left, and many of her policy proposals are extreme enough to potentially alienate many moderate & independent voters (as are Bernie's). Harris's history as a DA and state AG is problematic in myriad ways, and the fact that black voters still strongly support Biden ahead of the candidate who would be the first black woman elected president is a problem the media has explored at too little depth.
That said, these vulnerabilities are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a hypothetical match-up against Trump. Even if the Democratic had a perfect candidate, Trump would simply start devising fictions to tear them down - much like he did with Obama's "birther" nonsense even when he *wasn't* running for office (and as he's already done with Biden & Ukraine).
I completely agree that the Democratic nominee needs to be fully prepared to respond to Trump's below-the-belt attacks in the general. I completely disagree that Tuesday's debate should be used as some sort of test run for it, with the candidates needlessly tearing each other down to demonstrate their ostensible "toughness."
7
Please face reality. Politicians have to lie. Trump is not a politician and can lie to his heart's content. It's not the case for Democrat politicians.
In a street brawl, the bully wins, unless bystanders jump in. Too bad American politics has descended in street brawls. Tough.
If Trump is not impeached, he really has a chance for a second term.
4
I cannot agree with Mr. Bruni on this. Having the Democratic candidates reduce themselves to a dog fight on national TV would be a mistake. Save that for the actual debate with Don "The Don" Trump - (and they can use that meme if they want to - no extra charge.)
Harris and Castro made me extremely uncomfortable when they attacked Joe Biden to make political points. Those points had a very short life and did not move either candidate to the front of the line.
Most of the nation - except for the die-hard 40% who would support Donald Trump even it it were proved he was the devil incarnate - are getting a pretty good idea of what is at stake in 2020. I believe the electorate wants to throw its weight behind a Democrat with a reasonable middle road platform.
And we have those moderate choices from the current field. Taking off the political gloves to bloody each other is not only not necessary, it would turn off millions of voters. I say save it for the big event a year from this November.
8
Actually, you are wrong- they need to continue their civility against each other. They cannot tear apart each other to benefit con man. That was the dream of Trump so that he can easily win the election.
On the other hand, the party leaders which includes all of the primary contestants are giving easy pass to Trump. There is No coherent media strategy. He, his family and cronies are involved in so many criminal activities on a daily basis. But, he gets away with them. Where are the democrats? Take your gloves off and reach out to people all over the nation exposing the coverups and lies. Trump gets away with relentless lies and illegal activities while the democrats watch them on the sideline. Where is their communication strategy?
6
All the Dem candidates will have to wrestle with the toxic "D" problem millions of swing voters have with the party brand. The always Trumpers and never Trumpers will vote accordingly, no matter who is nominated. 2020, like the last election, will be for the tens of million independents who haven't made up their minds. If the Dem candidate, whoever it may be, can't speak in simple, convincing terms about how they will address trade, immigration, jobs, taxes, national defense and cede Trump/Reichwing media the narrative that Dems are only for open borders, high taxes, anti-business, bad trade deals, weak foreign policy, etc, they will lose, even to an abomination like Trump.
2
A bigger worry among the Democratic faithful and all citizens of conscience is the field going soft on a rampaging, unhinged trump. The guy's gone completely off the rails but we're not hearing much from the candidates. Fine, ask the tough questions and iron out the basic message the party has to present to the country. But, for Pete's sake, narrow this gaggle of a field and start focusing on the clear and present danger, which grows by the day.
4
Me thinks that the politeness problem is only with the corporate and forgive me corrupt Democrats. I know I harp on this so much, it is something other people comment on from time to time and indeed over 90 percent of Americans think that our politicians represent corporations and not us.
But, but usually the writers here and on broadcast news will never, I mean never address this. So I keep saying it over and over again. It makes no sense to talk about the race for president by mainstream news till the corruption is spoken about, it is such a big factor in what a candidate can promise.
That all said for the hundredth time, the much maligned squad who do not take corporate bucks and represent their voters and more, have no trouble speaking the truth and very succinctly and brilliantly I might add. No punches pulled there. So of course in this topsy turvey world, the honest ones, the ones who will fight back and have nothing to hide are not polite at all. We need more of these true fighters.
Attacking the real heroes in congress is disgusting. And what I meant to say about the politeness of the democrats who take bribes is that they most probably have a few sins to cover up and are fearful of being found out. So they mince and posture and shake their heads and will never really call out another corrupt politician. The bible of DC. The so called high road is self protection.
2
Call me when the Dem candidate field winnows down to 4 or 5. Until then I won't be watching debates. I have zero taste for a Democratic food fight. All candidates should do nothing but state their policies for America and go after the Trump crime family.
5
"Let's just make sure we don't nominate a candidate who supports Medicare for all" - essentially sums up the position of the NYT editorial board, as they subtly shift their ire from Bernie (post heart attack) to Warren (now the front runner for progressives.) It's not that they're in the bag for Biden like they were for HRC (Bullock, Klobuchar are ok) - it's that they've been in the bag for the private health care industry since basically forever. It's that they represent the elitist wing of the Democratic party that will never understand populism or "fly over states" because they've already got their Blue Cross & Blue Shield.
3
Like a number of commenters on this piece, I disagree strongly. Democrats need to be focused and organized toward the goal of defeating Trump, and should not sink to his level of rudeness.
4
The ONLY question of importance in 2020 will be Roe vs Wade. It is why Republican voters put up with Trump. Any discussion on that in the debate?
1
No. Just NO. If a candidate can't win based on his/her own message/plans/program, then they have no business running. Any Democrat who thinks the way to the nomination is by attacking other Democrats will not get my vote. Why do the Republicans' dirty work for them? Shame on any Den who does this and I am disappointed in Frank Bruno for suggesting this
3
No, excessive politeness is not a fault that Democrats must correct.
We all know how a debate that matches Bruni's personal preference would be covered by the press - exactly the same way the press covers all policy discussion among Democrats right now:
Democrats in disarray!
Deep divisions fracture the Democratic Party!
The far left is driving the party away from the center!
But on steroids.
No thank you. Politeness is fine.
3
Democrats don't need to demonstrate that they can handle Trump's ad hominem vicious attacks filled with lies and slurs both personal and political. They need to demonstrate that they can put forward ideas in a cogent and persuasive manner that will bring to the American people a better future. Their will be many voters that have become inured to the viciousness and cruelty of Trump and in many cases revel in it. But these are not the American that will elect the next President. American want a plan forward. They know what they are facing every day. Climate change, growing inequality (both racial and class) heighten contradictions between the cities and the rural communities, immigration reform, education reform, the rising tide of drugs and gun violence. The American people need to know where the Democrats stand. They know where the Repulicans stand. With Trump!
2
Let's face it. While some of us have a favorite or two among the many who are democratic presidential candidates, we will vote for whoever winds the primary. For that reason I think it would be wrong for the current candidates to attack each other and estrange some voters and provide fodder for the deranged commander in chief and his lying minions.
Let's keep our eyes on the prize: Let's get rid of Trump and his criminal cabinet members.
3
Enough arm-chair punditry. If people behave with politesse and respect for others' voices that may be a reflection of traditional values rather than political strategy. Mediation and flexibility rather than confrontation are easier to live with though Bruni has a point--force and brute antagonistic strength can win in the short run, but for the long run let's have the stability that only comes with politeness. Well, at least he got his column written, eh?
2
Good advice--but the top-shelf Democrats won't take it. They are, at this stage of the game, more terrified of opening the already wide split in their own party--a quiet little civil war that the mainstream media is wont to report.
But here are some predictions: Biden is a hollow shell; a couple of dreadful performances in early primary states will crash his chances. Warren's itty-bitty lies will catch up with her, as sure as I'm not Tucker Carlson. Sanders will flop and sulk; so will his followers. The rest are running for either VP or a cush cabinet post. The party will lurch into the convention with no clear front-runner. Out of the mists of time will appear the zombie Hillary. It's been her play in the Ukraine CIA op; a twofer: take out Biden, put the hurt on Pelosi.
Bet on it!
2
Mr. Bruni, I take your point about "de-fanging" issues Trump is likely to hurl at candidates. No doubt a valid one. But, I'm having a hard time imagining Trump (or his surrogates) successfully slinging anything at Sen. Warren (or anyone else) about where their money is coming from.
Trump HAS to be the big loser if we go down the "Where is our money coming from?" road. Even if the issue is floated as one of "hypocrisy," again, Trump loses.
2
Sorry to disagree Frank !
There is no particular candidate who has come out as the real front runner, yes Warrn is almost there.
But infighting is not going to help them defeat trump.
Look at Tulsi, she is far from being The candidate ( and is about to lose her seat by being away all the time ) but she aimlessly attacked Kamala Harris.
Julián Castro attacked Biden, althought Biden was correct I understand but so many times Biden loses his opertunity.
Anyways..may the best one win the Nomination to make trump a one time President.
3
Bruni is just hoping that all the major contenders, who all have some political history, will get damaged so that his favorite, the political novice Buttigieg, will have room to rise to the top. Bruni was voicing support for Buttigieg many years before the primary campaign was underway and Bruni's entire outlook on this primary seems to be a hopefulness to support Buttigieg. And he knows that the Democrats will not be able to or desire to attack Buttigieg for one of his likely major electoral weaknesses at the national level, being opening gay.
1
I've read a number of comments by readers who disagree with Bruni by characterizing what he proposes as giving a green light for candidates to attack each other. They make no distinction between attacking and challenging a candidate. They are not the same thing. Bruni, I think, is arguing for the latter. He decries, for instance, the "gratuitous nastiness" of Harris's and Castro's attacks against Biden. (Many Democrats think Sanders did a lot of this in 16 after it became mathematically impossible for him to win which damaged Clinton in the general.) So I agree with Bruni. Civil debate is not the same as a "circular firing squad."
4
There is a bigger politeness problem with the debates. Everybody has to keep pretending that there really are more than 3 candidates. The race is now 9 months old and Biden, warren and sanders continue to dominate the polling. At this point, nobody else is even at 5% and only a few of the remaining 9 or so candidates have ever even reached 5%.
So, we have no-hopers cluttering the stage. Honestly, in the next debate, it should be 5% minimum to be there.
The real problem is not whether or not the candidates are too polite. The real problem is whether or not the election is again manipulated by foreign governments, voter suppression and what I suspect was fiddling the vote count via computer software manipulation.
5
There is no evidence that the candidates attitudes towards each other in the primary predict success or lack thereof in the national debate.
In fact, I think the lack of fighting shows the Democrats biggest strength: solidarity.
3
Thee's already been a premature selection of a candidate. Why are the current 12 or original 20 the best potential candidates? Would any of them be more deserving if they engaged in rhetorical combat as the nation burns?
If you want to be sure "there’s no premature coronation," let every Democrat with the bona fides to be President to contest the nomination.
There are dedicated hard-working Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Mark Warner, who strive daily to protect the country; would one of them be a better candidate than those in Tuesday's debate?
There are others as well. What distinguishes them all is dedication to country is at least as important as strategizing to demean their opponents.
Frank, this is the second time you've told an untrurh about Warren. She did in fact answer the healthcare "tax question" the second time she was asked it in the second debate.
She said that yes, middle class taxes would rise a bit - but would be more than offset by the actual cash savings from not paying premiums (really high for families), deductibles and co-pays. All so high many families can't afford to *use* the insurance they pay for. She also said that at the end of the year, a family eould have saved thousands of dollars even after paying the tax increase. You don't like her idea, fine. But please be honest about it.
"It’s possible that Democrats would be on safer ground with any of the candidates below that tier — Amy Klobuchar, say, or Michael Bennet or Steve Bullock"
The reason those otherwise fine people are in the 'lower tier' - is because the voters have said, in polls and with their money - No Thanks.
Other readers here have said it better than me, but at this point we are ready to vote for the rat who hauled an entire pizza slice down those NY subway stairs. He's clearly smarter than Occupant - and more capable, too. I'm not sure why it's taking you and other pundits so long to see this, but I really wish you would. I'm getting tired of reading the same old arguments (with new names inserted) from 2016 regurgitated again. Thanks for listening.
8
I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the debates so far. No, it hasn't been political theater, and not much for producing catchy sound bites, what it has been is a clear roll out of what the Democrats might have to offer in 2020, starting front and center with a return to civility and the open discussion of issues. It is a rare and wonderful thing to watch these discussions unfold in real time.
We can't lose sight that this is a process. That the field has already been winnowed significantly without drama or controversy is a very good sign. If this continues, the Democrats will arrive at primary season without major damage being done and the opportunity for the broad range of the party to be able to gather around the eventual nominee without feeling that their favorite, if not chosen, was somehow cheated. And let us hope that continues and they don't decide to stay home on election day.
This is a good time to test out policies and positions, but it doesn't mean attacking other candidates, we see enough of Trump's attacks on everyone who he has even a minor problem with; let the Democrats be the other folks, the ones who can disagree and get along, who can take into account differing views and come up with something better. After all, the most extreme positions will be trimmed on the debate stage, in the caucuses and primaries, and while creating the platform during the convention, and to be sure, no matter what they come up with, it will be better than what we have now.
1
Mr. Bruni,
I find it interesting that since impeachment has caught fire with the public, and Elizabeth Warren's popularity keeps growing, you've found it necessary to attack her various guises. This is not a matter that you are entitled to your opinion. Your disengenuous "I start with Elizabeth Warren because she is the frontrunner" (and end with her too!) is shabby cover for your public dislike of Senator Warre. Adding in the disclaimer, but really heavy grilling applies to all Democratic candidates doesn't absolve you. Why didn't you simply write your column openly why you don't want Warren for President? Regarding funding for her policies, she has addressed that. and I'm in favor that some of that funding come from increasing the tax rate on "quite well off people" who make 300,000 a year, notwithstanding the fact that people in Manhattan and SF consider that sum a good middle class income.
5
I am so ready for Amy Klobuchar to rise up in recognition and polling.She is the perfect candidate.
3
With respect, Mr. Bruni, Democrats don’t want to see a monster truck rally in the debates. The inherent objective of attacking each other is to persuade Democrats that their opponents are not who they say they are - that somehow, they aren’t being straight with the voters. We always end up with wounded candidates in the general because of this process because it is not structured as a true debate. Clinton left the last debate wounded because of Sander's attacks on her honesty.
Instead, absolutely every Democrat in America wants to see three things: how each candidate sees - with detailed explanations - Donald Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party against whom they are running. We want to know how, specifically, they will extirpate this malignant party from our national politics. I, personally, would like to hear: precisely how Republicans are obstructing an investigation into the Trump/Russia crime and what that says about their party; discussion into how our election apparatus was hacked and why a Republican Congress has refused to secure it; see a debate concerning why Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate appear to be collaborating with Trump’s serious criminal activity.
Additionally, if I hear even one more question about the nuances of healthcare, Democrats will all conclude that none of the candidates understands why they’re there, what the challenge is that we face as a nation, and, like most Democrats, I’ll change the channel.
4
This is one of the problems with Democrats; we insist on a standard that no one candidate can claim, so we feel no one is good enough. Politics is about compromise. You'll never get perfect. Opting for Ralph Nader in 2000 over Gore only served to install George Bush in the White House. Opting for Bernie Sanders in '16 got wasn't a rejection of Clinton, it was support for Trump. Not only do Democrats criticize one another, they're tepid in their denunciation of Trump as if harsh language would tarnish their moral standing. The election of 2016 was lost partly because during Obama's administration no one cared to strenuously promote the president's policies,starting with the president himself, and worse, no one forcefully denounced the false campaigns against Obama that the Republicans ran non stop. The side that talks the loudest most gets the attention. Trump has mastered this strategy. It's time the Democrats learned from him.
4
On almost every issue, the Democratic candidates have more in common than the details on which they may differ. How they present themselves and advocate for these policies is more effective at this stage than being trapped into bickering over details or engaging in personal attacks.
Universal healthcare, addressing climate change, repairing relations with our allies, restoring progressive taxation, humane treatment of asylum seekers and other immigrants, sensible gun safety measures, protection of voting rights for all citizens, eliminating foreign interference in elections, reducing the role of money in politics, assuring women's control of their bodies, promoting an expanded view of civil rights - these policies are all popular with voters and shared by the candidates.
By offering a united front on these issues and providing a positive image of how they present themselves, each candidate can appeal to undecided Democrats and help other undecided voters move towards the Democratic column. Once the field has been narrowed further there will be plenty of time for the candidates to find effective but polite ways to address each other's personal vulnerabilities.
2
I try not to do to others what I abhor myself, which is why I never ever project human personality onto physics and other topics amenable to description by the self-organizing language of mathematics.
4
"So Biden’s rivals onstage on Tuesday night should ask if him if anything that he and President Barack Obama did, or failed to do, inadvertently paved the way for Trump."
An equally good question for Biden would be, "Your candidacy is premised on your ability to work with the other side and get things done. After the House impeaches Trump will you commit to getting at least 20 Senate Republicans to vote for Trump's removal from office?"
4
A circular firing squad is exactly what we don't need.
The Democrats need to show that we can politely debate policy differences, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. That is one large contrast between any of the Democrats running and Mr. Trump.
4
I am through with the democratic debates -- polite or otherwise. Two was more than enough. Why must Americans endure this years-long slog when four to six months immediately prior to the election, with one or two debates between the final party nominees, ought to suffice? The current tortuous campaign season wastes time and oodles of money while simultaneously stoking the fires of a poisonous national polarization. Enough already!
5
Isn't it astonishing that Mr. Hunter Biden served as a Director to a Ukrainian natural gas firm for five years?
Is he a petrochemical engineer? Does he speak Ukrainian? Did he have a notable background in Ukrainian laws and regs? Did he receive board meeting materials in Ukrainian? Did Mr. Biden attend board meetings? Were the board meetings conducted in Ukrainian?
Did Mr. Biden serve on one or more board committees, such as Nominations, Compensation or Audit?
Can Mr. Biden describe any actions that enabled him to earn substantial fees, upwards of $50.0K/month? For example, did he tour the firm's facilities or take comparable actions to familiarize himself with the firm and its operations? Did he pen an analysis of one or more aspects of the firm? Did he lead or oversee a special project or two?
Did he represent the firm in business negotiations or in discussions with governmental or regulatory authorities?
Who else was on the board during Mr. Biden's tenure? Can any of those board members describe what they saw as Mr. Biden's contributions? Can they recall conferring with Mr. Biden on any matters?
Meanwhile, Mr. Joe Biden has gone on record as asserting he never discussed his son's involvement. Never in five years? That is more than astonishing.
Mr. Joe Biden is well aware of the concept of the appearance of impropriety.
He ignored that concept for five years. Regrettably, he is now paying a high price. Absent questioning, it will be more so.
3
@Daniel P. Doyle: When has Trump ever even answered to a board of directors?
I could not care less who you spoiled children claim did a bad bad thing first.
1
If, as generally agreed, the 2020 election will be won by whichever candidate wins the swing voters in the swing states, then Bennet and Bullock, who have the experience, record of winning elections in purple and blue states between the mountains, and the toughness to stand up to the massive Republican propaganda machine.
Yet, as late starters, they are being left out of the "debates" because the formula excludes them.
Time for a command decision by the DNC to include both of them in all of the remaining "debates" if the Democrats really want to replace Trump.
1
@Clark McAdams: US politicians evidently just play to states because the states already co-opted all rights and powers reserved by the people.
I finally contributed to a campaign this year. I was deeply compelled by an extensive interview I heard with him in The Daily podcast (as I recall that is where I heard it). Take a look at Corey Gardner. He has the moral gravity of Pete Buttigieg, superb educational credentials ( also a Rhodes scholar), and puts his money where his mouth is. Just look at where he lives, by choice, in New Jersey when he isn’t in DC. Gardner understands how government works, has practical solutions, and a moral uprightness to him that is not pious. I believe he is one with no baggage and could outwit Trump in any debate. And he has the gravitas to lead.
@Patricia Cross
Cory Booker.
Cory Gardner is the junior Republican senator for Colorado.
Yes. By all means, let’s encourage the Democrats to tear each other apart during the primary season so that deep and non-healing wounds open up. This will carry us right into the hands of Donald Trump in November.
7
Frank, Frank, Mr Bruni are we so used to seeing and hearing such viperous attacks on those they disagree with come spewing out of this White House (and from their enablers) that
we think every disagreement that we Democrats have among ourselves or with others must end in some sort of ritualistic bloodletting?
How many of us , in fact, on both ends of the political spectrum would welcome a return to moderation in both speech and politics, and look forward to the time when having a disagreement with someone whose beliefs were different from your own didn't necessarily mean we could declare open season on them. And isn't that what Democracy is in fact primarily about-Freedom of speech and freedom to disagree without worrying about being physically or morally attacked?
Enough already! I'll consider it a sign of a return to normalcy and a renewed faith in the democratic process when, during difficult negotiations, our leadership (Left or Right) spends more time ironing out our differences then on personal attacks.
4
While we are asking Warren about the tax increases needed to pay for Medicare for All we should be asking Biden and all the moderates why they claim to be for universal health care when the plans they support will leave millions without adequate coverage.
By the way Sanders and Warren have both answered this question. Now we pay premiums and sick people get to pay deductibles since health insurers have a lot of power we don't really have a lot of choice. With Medicare for all we will pay taxes, probably less, and get better service. But you aren't really interested in the answer.
4
@Chris Martin: The real question is how can the US bring down per capita health costs to those of the average first world nation without creating massive unemployment of workers peripheral to health care delivery.
The problem is altogether the debates themselves, and the formats devised by the media. The questioners have their own agendas, which often is in an effort to raise their own status, rather than to elicit meaningful commentary to enlighten the public. Unfortunately the candidates are often long-winded, and hearing about their "plans" is frankly confusing and, worse, boring. Sometimes at the behest of the questioner, one of them will go on to attack each other injudiciously. All that might be better aired at the state primary stage. It makes one long for the days of smoke-filled rooms, where the issues of platforms, programs, and plans were hammered out in policy formats by the pols. Too much transparency forces the public into the process of making sausage. Let the DNC deal with that.
2
When has Bruni's judgment about Democratic candidates been helpful? Recall how W charmed him and how he bought into the FALSE narrative that Gore was a liar. Recall how he gave Trump ALL the benefit of doubt in 2015 and NONE at all to Hillary. Now he says Democratic candidates will improve their chances of winning if they attack each other, rather than attacking Trump and the Republican Senate. Why presume his judgment will be right about that when nearly all his judgments about Democrats have been wrong?
8
If we were talking about a normal election year with normal consequences for the nation, I’d agree that the Dems could be more forceful in distinguishing themselves. But they should not carve out positions today that they can’t walk back in 2020 in support of the ultimate nominee.
5
"If she can’t answer the question well, let’s find out now, before it’s too late."
You sure did a great job of this with Trump. We knew enough about Trump before the election, and he still was elected President.
8
Mr Bruni proposes good questions. Perhaps, though, it is the job of journalists to ask them, rather than the candidates?
3
Moderate Republican here that voted for President Obama.
Frank Bruni says 'So Biden’s rivals onstage on Tuesday night should ask if him if anything that he and President Barack Obama did, or failed to do, inadvertently paved the way for Trump' ... and here's my take on the three reasons we have DT:
Obama wholeheartedly endorsed Hillary Clinton.
The DNC allowed Bernie Sanders to caucus with the Dems and co-opt their convention.
The 'Bernie or Bust' leftists that stayed home on voting day.
3
@Thomas Penn in Seattle
Listen to what Yang says about why we got Trump. It's all about data, and not about Hilary, Comey or Russia.
1
Everyone, including Bruni and Biden, are telling half-truths about Medicare For All (MAL).
Here's the honest question, ask it and you'll get an honest answer: "Senator Warren is the 10 year total cost of MAL cheaper than the 10 year total cost of the current system, and, if so, please explain why, and how private savings for individual and families would exceed the cost of any new taxes they might pay.
Answer:
MAL changes private insurance payments (employer paid and individual paid) to public payments (taxes) paid to Medicare, but the MAL SYSTEM costs less than the current mixed public-private SYSTEM.
Individuals pay less both because MAL is more efficient and taxation is progressive on employers and the rich.
Employers who once made private payments for policies now pay taxes for MAL policies. Individuals who made private payments to insurers will pay taxes, but NO LONGER MAKE PRIVATE CO-PAYS, DEDUCTIBLES, OONs, etc
Individual net costs (private savings - increased taxes) go down -- exactly what Warren says. And it is true.
Bruni's lie, the pundit lie, makes us think that all existing costs stay the same AND we pay higher taxes. Biden tells this lie at the system level, saying the program will cost $30T over ten years (in new taxes) without telling us it will save MORE THAN $30T in private payments. He implies that all current costs stay the same and MAL costs ANOTHER $30T on top of that.
Good on Warren for being smarter than y'all.
5
Trying to get Warren to give what is essentially a republican sound bite about taxes is deceitful. Of course there will be an increase in taxes, but this is only half the picture. The overall cost of healthcare will go down with benefits available for all.
And, no, having the Dem candidates bloody each other will not blunt the attacks and lies of trump nor better “prepare” them. This kind in infighting merely does the republicans’s work for them.
10
I don't think debasing civil discourse further is a good solution, nor do I think attacking each other over nonsense, because Trump is sure to do it, is a good idea either. Democrats need to demonstrate to the American people that our country, and humanity, is much better off with one of them.
6
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. While I agree with Frank Bruni's opinion in almost every one of his columns I don't think the Democratic candidates should stoop to Trump's gutter behavior just to find out who can withstand future Trump attacks. Yes indeed they should specifically challenge details in Warren's Medicare for All plan, and any other policy issue that the Republicans and Trump could make hay with next year. But they must keep themselves distant from any personal attacks. Every challenge should be on the issues, the details, but not the person. Most Americans are fed up with Trump's childish ad hominems like "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe" and "Pocahontas". The contestants need to contrast themselves from the adolescent bully that is Trump. Warren indeed needs to spell out in precise detail how each of her "plans" is going to work so she can counter Trump's ad hominem rants with wonky details that will satisfy those voters who are really thinking about the candidates. The democrats need to convince through rational explanation with verifiable facts and let Trump's howling like a frightened dog look as ridiculous by comparison as he most certainly is to most of already.
8
From the outside looking on, not in, as I resolved to boycott the United States until Trump is out of office, my own travel ban, as it were, I think Elizabeth Warren will hold her own in any debate, be it with among the Democrat candidates or against Trump (must see tv).
While I admire Mr. Bruni’s writing, there seems to be increasingly negative slant concerning Mrs. Warren. I subscribed to the NYT after the 2016 in part because I was trying to make sense as how the US got there. Days later I took a cruise from Miami and was surrounded by many older than me, wealthier, too, who would likely vote Conservative here and support Brexit white Americans in their glee. That I got. What shocked me were the immigrants, Cuban, Middle Eastern, those in the service industries of restaurant and taxi services also delighted Trump was in office. America, I realized, I hardly knew ya.
But Mrs. Warren? She reminds me of decency and advocacy and the willingness to stand alone when no one else is willing. I think Mr. Biden is a good man; one whose time has come and gone. So maybe cease the negative slant — you’ve a long time (way too long; we vote next week here, phew) to churn up opposition. For now, perhaps curtail the inclination to begin with a negative anecdote about the woman within the leading contenders and focus further on the deplorability of an administration that makes me concerned about a young Syrian in my own classroom — what must he be thinking?
4
I hate to disagree with Frank Bruni, a columnist with whom I nearly always agree. But the place for the Democratic candidates to prepare themselves for encountering the Trump monster in the general election is in private debate preparations, behind closed doors, where their coaches play the Trump monster and try to throw them off their game. Why should they demean themselves and each other by challenging each others credibility in public? Just the facts, Ma'am. Nothing but the facts.
7
I want to make something perfectly clear. If a candidate feels comfortable cursing , and endorses legalizing illegal drugs, I will not be voting for you. Please act presidential, dress for the job, talk like a leader, talk about the future, be an adult, and let me know how you plan to put your ideas into effect and pay for them.
2
It's the moderators' job to ask probing questions and followups to illuminate the candidates' positions, not the candidates' job to present an entertaining catfight. We'll see if Tuesday's debate co-presented by this paper can do better. The bar is low.
4
I’m not sure that Trump is capable of staying on script and asking these cogent questions, even if he prepares. Instead, he’ll come up with a few damaging dog whistle phrases that he will pound in mercilessly. I suspect that his real strategy—especially if the Dem candidate is a woman—will be to mock and make personal attacks to see if he can get them in a position of defensive anger. No matter how good a candidates’ policies or political smarts are, Trump knows that male voters (and a lot of women too) will tune out “angry” women. He can’t actually compete with them on the grounds of policy debate. His only real talent is a killer instinct for what outrages people.
3
@WhichyOne Your comment is optimistic. You’re clearly a good person. And in “normal” times I might agree with the notion that we can remain polite. But these aren’t normal times. These are desperate times (although this reality hasn’t hit most people yet). These are urgent times with world actors so hostile, malignant, and Machiavellian that most people can’t understand what’s happening. The truth is difficult to comprehend if you’ve never dealt with men like Putin, Trump, McConnell, as I suspect most agreeing with your comment haven’t.
However, those who have experience with malignant humans can tell you that being polite with people who are incapable of politeness won’t work. Being reasonable and rational with people who are unreasonable and disordered won’t work. The only way to deal with a sociopath is to remove their power (their followers, supporters) and the way to do that is through cunning and semantics, with sharp, concise arguments and attacks. But you first have to understand the beast you’re fighting and the tricks they use. You have to be coiled like a spring with a counter to ALL of their semantic tactics (bullying, false dichotomy, gaslighting etc). Politeness won’t work.
I urge you all to try to take a step away from how the world “should be” and truly “see” what is in front of you. The Trump masses are hypnotized by the propaganda and cult of culture (religion, nationalism) of the conservative agenda. Everyone else is spinning in the chaos.
2
Why is it that NYT writers constantly fault Bernie Sanders for just about everything. He did in fact throw his support behind Hillary after she won the nomination. He campaigned quite vigorously for her. Hillary lost because she neglected Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio. Btw, the main issue is nominating a candidate who can turn out the vote and you do that with vision and passion, qualities lacking in Biden.
4
@elotrolado
Actually no, Bernie did NOT "campaign vigorously" for Hillary Clinton. What he DID do was:
1. Embraced republican talking points and kept battering Clinton all the way to the convention... going so far at one point to publically root for her indictment by the FBI.
2. Did nothing to stop his supporters from protesting the convention and booing all of the speakers (including civil rights hero John Lewis). Sarah Silverman had to tell these supporters to behave themselves, while Bernie never said a word. Instead, Bernie demanded a full floor delegate count and pouted.
3. Bernie took the entire month of August off so he could write a book on how to oppose the impending Clinton Presidency... which is what earned him his million bucks, so there is that.
4. Had to get a personal phone call from President Obama in mid-September before he even considered doing ANY campaigning for Clinton.
5. In late September, in answer to a radio interviewer's question, that it wasn't HIS job to convince HIS supporters to vote for Clinton.
6. Did NOTHING to stop his supporters' virulent, non-stop, hateful attacks on Clinton, which went on straight through election day. Not once did Bernie EVER denounce these attacks and ask his supporters to stop them.
Bernie divided the Democratic party during the primary, did absolutely nothing to heal the wounds HE inflicted, and at most did half-hearted campaigning for Clinton after being pressured to do so.
2
Brilliant idea. Take Mr. Bruni's advice and tear each other to pieces. Dig and expose dirt in every nook and cranny, even thirty years back. Prove that none of you, candidates, is an angel and therefore doesn't deserve to be elected. Apply the same Technics that the GOP used to destroy Hillary Clinton. Blow up every blemish to monstrous size and repeat it over and over and over again. Give the opposition, run by a pathological ego maniac, enough fodder to chew you all up, as if he needs it. You can trust the inventive stable genius whose wisdom is second to none, to fabricate enough dirt about you, fanning it out by Fox&all to every corner of the globe. He doesn't need your help.
I am not an American but like millions (or billions?) all over the world I look with disgust and despair at what America's leadership has become and it's corrosive, extreme right, influence on other western democracies. The betrayal of the Kurds, the cheap, dirty game in Ukraine, the endless erratic stupidity, the transparent cover ups, are sickening.
The democrats need to fight Trump tooth and nail without destroying themselves in the process, even if Mr. Bruni thinks otherwise.
4
Biden-Bullock 2020!
Simple enough. Personally, I support Liz Warren but if we simply play to get Trump out of th White House then a ticket like this should get th job done.
Hunter Biden's resignation speaks volumes. While he likely did nothing illegal, it certainly didn't pass the smell test.
3
Democrats don't have a politeness problem with each other, Frank Bruni. Our president has shown us his exceedingly vulgar mouth. Fortunately Donald Trump is beating himself unmercifully as the empty drum he is. The Democrats won't have any problem impeaching him. He's overripe for impeachment right now. McConnell's and Lindsey Graham's Senate will try him and remove him from our presidency. No man, no problem.
1
No, Frank, no. The democrats need to remain civil, to be role models for the rest of the country, to provide a stark relief to those who are crass and ill-mannered.
The democrats candidates need to at all times remain friendly with each other. All of them are very accomplished and decent people, and when one of them becomes the democratic candidate, all of these stellar Americans should hit the ground running, campaigning for the one. Then, each person (former candidates) after the election, according to their ability and experience, should be placed in some sort of service to the government.
5
It's a given that Democrats despise Trump and Republicans generally but that doesn't mean that Trump will necessarily be easy to run against, even with all the baggage he has accumulated. The debates should, if nothing else, clarify and sharpen the policy agenda that is actually saleable to independents and swing voters, even if it is less than ideal to those idealists who imagine that we are one election away from being Switzerland or Norway.
2
Trump wins by bringing his opponent down in the dirt
If the Democrats start the process now, ot will just make his team’s work easier.
My guess is that Parscale is spending most of the millions they’ve already collected from mega-rich afraid to lose their tax breaks on oppo research. There’s a very good chance ot is that research that gave us Ukraine.
1
Warren's answers (at least in the debates) are often sufficient only for those who are already convinced, and this problem was shown in the way she avoided answering the question about MFA. She's either preaching to the choir or oversimplifying a la Bernie and railing against corporate profits.
Ms. Warren need to focus more on educating the American public about how systems work.
For example, most people have no idea how much of their health insurance is being paid by their employer. They certainly don't think about that substantial amount (typically twice the amount of the employee payroll deduction that shows on their paycheck) as a deduction from their wages. If that employer payment were paid to the employee to cover their increased taxes, the difference might be a wash. If the employer payment to wasteful health insurance companies were instead paid directly into the Federal Single Payer fund, the difference again could be a wash.
Warren should have worked out the numbers on all of her proposals—she should present them in understandable terms. Stop preaching to the choir and talking down to us with platitudes about corporations.
She is my number one choice right now, but I'd like to see more of the teacher and less of the anti-corporate professor.
1
@Yojimbo It's hard to educate a voter when you have to limit your answer to 1 minute.
1
Let's suppose that after the Democrats finish applying purity tests to each other, Warren and Klobuchar emerge at the top.
But what if polling then shows that the voters overall will not support a woman as president, especially a woman who has the toughness and wit to battle Trump. I fear that is the case. That any woman who can stand up to Trump with her record and assertiveness, will automatically lose many voters, particularly voters who are women.
3
@Svante Aarhenius I'm a Klobuchar supporter and hope she wins. I even see the fact she ate her salad with her comb because they forgot the utensils a sign that she can think on her feet and get things done. Klobuchar has realistic ideas that have a chance of being funded and passed. If Trump wins again, it won't be because a woman is running, it will be because our country is lost...
1
They all want to be President. If any of them could just explain to all Americans why they deserve to be elected and demonstrate that they can dismiss Trump, we would all be the better for it.
Gee Mr. Bruni - thanks but no thanks for your ‘helpful’ advice. I’m sure it has nothing to do with The NY Times fear of Democrats going too far left or actually adopting a progressive agenda.
Go help Trump, okay? I am pretty sure he will be as aggressive as you want, in an unhinged way. You might ask him how he’s going to pay for his agenda. Oh wait - IOKIYAR.
5
The Democratic nominee needs to slap crooked Donald silly and belittle the smallest man to ever occupy the Oval Office,
It won't be hard...and I'm sure Elizabeth Warren will enjoy it and be good it.
When DT calls her 'Pocohantas', Senator. Warren can point out that lying Donald said he was Swedish for 70 years before he decided to admit he was German a few years ago.
When DT calls her a socialist, Senator Warren should happily point out that Trump, who spent most of his life mooching off his daddy, the income tax code, bankers, investors, wage slaves, stiffed contractors and bankruptcy filings, is the biggest freeloader in the room.
When DT waves the flag about what an incredible President he has been for the country; Senator Warren should ask him what country he's talking about ?...Russia ?...North Korea ?....Turkey ?....Saudi Arabia ?...Syria ?...the ISIS caliphate....or some other dictatorship he's been helping out with his Make Authoritarians Great Again Presidency.
When DT attacks Medicare For All and asks how she's gonna' pay for it, Senator Warren will tell him that we'll start by reversing your 2017 0.1% Welfare Tax Cut that Trump and his Reverse Robin Hood friends passed AND then remind Americans that Trump and his Grand Oligarch Party came within one vote of ripping healthcare coverage away from 15 million Americans just so millionaires and billionaires could paint their toenails in gold.
Elizabeth Warren will mop the debate floor with Trump and his fake hair.
16
If his rumpness makes it to that stage, I’m betting there’s no way he’ll agree to debate. Those pesky debates will be deemed “illegitimate” or “fake” or “kangaroo”.
That said, I’d pay big money to watch Elizabeth use that mop for a polisher.
You are all commanded in the Bible to be polite and be merciful to one another.
Frank Bruni, suddenly a blue dog. Dear NYT, could you please become more corporate? It’s clear you have a distain for the concerns of actual people and the politicians who represent the economics that would help them. I wonder how many advertising dollars you get from insurance companies and big Pharma.
7
As I write this there are only 92 comments. Thus far I've yet to come across a single one in support of Frank's advice to the candidates. I'm with the consensus here and agree that the candidates would be doing a terrible disservice to the eventual nominee (presumably on Tuesday's stage) by assisting the GOP attack machine. I hope the candidates and their advisors read the comments here and take a pass on Frank's suggestion to bare some fang.
5
You’re partially right, Frank. The Democrats have been too polite—to Trump. Every time Trump opens his mouth, Democrats should stick a sock in it. Biden’s son is a “crook? “ No, your kids are the grifters! Your “genius” moves in Syria? No, your traitorous moves in Syria, siding with Russia and stabbing our allies in the back! Where is the anger? The passion?
13
Oh boy. Grill the Democrats and let Trump make his own rules. Lie. Scam and skim tax dollars. Pressure Ukraine to steal the election from Democrats. Bomb anyone he likes without alerting anyone. But first grill the Democrats!
7
Sounds like Bruni attacks Warren to prop up Buttigieg...
4
Yet more craven neo-liberal pablum from the elites. For the millionth time NYT, can we have one single solitary voice in this section who’s world view isn’t distorted by the terror of losing their unearned privilege???
3
Trump will eat their lunch and give them the bill + a healthy commission. Democrats show up a fight with their ideals, their "gosh by golly" civility & policies.
Republicans always show up to the match with clubs, knives, lies with "cheaten their hearts".
Skippy the Boy Scout vs. The Hells Angles, in blue suits & red ties.
1
No thank you, Frank Bruni. If the next debate turns into a mud-slinging brawl, my TV goes off. If, on the other hand, the candidates engage in an intentional, constructive, intelligent exchange on issues impacting American citizens, I'm all in. But a punching-bag food fight, no thank you.
6
I agree that tough questions should be asked of the candidates in the Democratic debates. Warren is vulneralbe on the way she has recreated herself over and over again throughout her life. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if it can be wrapped up in a neat package of personal growth, but she needs to be tested on her ability to explain apparent contradictions in the the diversity of personal stories she has told over the years about her past or Trump will surely crush her.
Biden is vulnerable on the way his family members have profited over the years through backdoor nepotism. Sanders has to do a better job explaining how his proposals can be paid for and is now legitimately vulnerable on the issue of his age.
If the Democrats want to win in 2020, there needs to be a frank exchange in the debates, but each candidate has to be especially careful in the way in which they express themselves when they go on the attack. Better to have other candidates and the press do the attacks for them.
Correction: Sanders did rally to Clinton's side after she won the nomination. He not only acknowledged her win, but actively campaigned for her, even though there is no evidence that she offered him anything in return. He was also very kind to her in the debates, giving her the ultimate break when he said: "I think the American people are tired of hearing about your damn emails." He was right that there were more important issues to consider, but Trump was not so nice.
82
@Robert Scull Sanders didn't rally to Clinton's side until July in 2016, while Clinton won the nomination in May, and effectively in April, after which there was no real path to victory available to him. He wasted 2 or 3 months in which he could have worked as tirelessly for the election of Clinton as he likes to work for himself. All politicians are self-involved, but he is one of the best in that department.
And what Clinton was offering was defeat of Trump: Sanders shouldn't have asked for more, and having been roundly defeated by Clinton, it's unclear what right he even had to expect an offering,
His difficulty in breaking out this time around is of a piece with his defeat in 2016. Clinton obtained a far more decisive result in the 2016 primary than Obama did in the 2008 primary, and yet Clinton folded her tent in May, 2016 and worked tirelessly throughout the remainder of the year for the election of a Democrat to the White House. Sanders's support for Clinton in 2016 always seemed to me to be that of the sore loser.
22
@Robert Scull: Sanders hung on until the very last minute praying that Comey would indict Hillary for some kind of e-mail crime.
9
@Robert Scull How could anyone like Hilary Clinton eke out a win when her negatives were higher than her positives? She had too much baggage & was a poor campaigner, thus losing that margin of victory against an ugly opponent who didn't even expect to win.
9
I strongly support Medicare for All and I, too, am mystified about why Warren has evaded the question of taxes (not just "middle-class taxes") when advocating for her plan. We are all adults in this room. We know there is no such thing as free health insurance. We know it has to be paid for and if it is a government plan, it was will be taxes that pay for it. Republican have made "tax" a dirty word for the middle class, which is probably why she has avoided it. But there are ways to overcome that built-in bias, and also that "They're taking away my (private) insurance!" scare tactic. First, declare, "I want to do way with those middle-class premiums, deductibles and co-pays you're all paying right now, that keep going up every year, so you can't get ahead." Then, "I want to give the middle class something they need for the taxes they pay, guaranteed, no matter how you earn your living, where you live, or how old you are, or how healthy or sick you are. Something you can always count on, in good times and bad times." Then, set out the principles on which the taxes will be based. Will it be a fixed percentage of income, like present Medicare taxes? Will it be on a progressive basis like income tax and nobody will pay more than X percent of income for their insurance? Will employers also be taxed to contribute to employees' coverage? It's time to talk about that or else voters' minds will be closed before they even consider the benefits.
3
Are we sure Trump will even show up for a general debate (even if he is still in office)? Better for him to continue to control the narrative on his own terms.
1
I suspect as this juncture, Warren probably doesn't know the cost of universal health care. I doubt anyone has the right number. What we all know or should know, is the current system is too expensive and doesn't cover everyone. We also know our system is the most expensive on the planet but the outcomes are not topping the list.
A better approach to determining the true cost is to first assess the amount being paid today. How much comes from individual premiums and what employers and employees pay on employment health care?
We also need to know the amount fo dollars taken from premiums by the insurance industry. An examination of hospital costs should also be on the agenda.
Until these costs are examined, we cannot expect any candidate to know whether we even need an increase in taxes to make universal health care a reality. No one can assume their taxes would increase to the amount currently being paid in their health care premium.
2
There's a difference between criticizing the Democrats for not being more specifically critical of each other than to be more specific about their plans that would itself do the trick. Yes, Warren should have been more specific about taxes--and then include how it would be a trade-off about the cost of health care as it is now. She could add that being quoted about raising taxes but omitting the trade-off fact would be a half-truth--which would be a lie about her positions as much as a full lie. In court, people are thereby told to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Adding her remark about the trade-off would be the whole truth. It goes the same for Sanders who has actually been frank about raising taxes but including that trade-off being to the advantage of average Americans. And mentioning Sanders--he didn't need to be "more enthusiastically" in support of HRC--his support was more than sufficient after how he was treated by the DNC. Fully stating one's position as it supports the American people, as well as critical of some aspects of other candidates plans, is the way to go in a campaign.
1
Frank: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." If Democrats highlight their policy differences, they will fall into the first category, which is what a plurality of Americans are looking for. To suggest they focus on events and people affords no separation from the other side. Silly column.
6
In Warren vs Pence in 2020, Warren wins.
Taking the gloves off should include an issue the Democrats have been trying to duck all year.Why was Hunter Biden a member of commercial boards in Ukraine and China while his father was a sitting Vice President? This reeks of influence peddling.
2
Really?? And I might ask, what was an incoming president doing installing his TOTALLY inexperienced and know-nothing daughter AND her husband in the White House!
1
Why are you focused on knocking down democrat's politeness, when you do not have the courage to forcefully demand that current administration follows the law?
Bruni you let us down today, hope you'll do better next time.
7
I thought it would be an article on really going after the GOP. Very bad take Frank.
9
No. Sorry. It's not a problem.
The Republicans are lead by the most publicly vulgar speaking person ever to be President.
Politics isn't a boxing match. Leaders aren't chosen to land punches and beat people up.
The Democrats are behaving with dignity which suits the office they seek.
Tulsi Gabbard on the other hand is hatching conspiracy theories about rigging the election and trying to attrack right wing nuts and bolts. But then she got her start in politics working for her fathers' conversion therapy scam — no i didn't make it up, you couldn't. If that's what Mr. Bruni wants more of, go right ahead and follow Tulsi around. She seems to want to lower the bar too.
4
The requisite spark from the "second tier" will continue to be snuffed when all the oxygen gets funneled to the first tier candidates by the first tier media.
1
All humans are flawed and lack perfect forsight. Collectively, the flaws of the democrat canditates are of the magnitude of subatomic particles as compared to the President.
4
The idea that ripping up each other will make democrats "stronger" is--I have to say it--a stupid idea. It didn't work in 2016 and it won't work now. Republicans' power is their unity. We have more reason for it than they do. Our nation is at stake, and perhaps the world. Together we stand. That should be every democrat's message in the face of the demented Trump.
6
Excellent column. Warren is a strong candidate, fully capable of defeating Trump. But the numbers on her economic policies are never going to add up. Her choice is to amend her positions during the primaries, which she’ll never do unless the centrist candidates force her to, or she’ll get carved up during the general.
1
The most important outcome of these debates is that the Democratic Party and all candidates remain united behind the winner. Another Bernie vs Hillary disaster will hand Trump the election for sure.
4
Am I the only one who looks out at the debating group and thinks, “those folks could make one great administration. An amazing cabinet, White House staff, advisors.” One Democrat, we hope and pray, will be president but a good president builds a good team. And they don’t start the team building by insulting one another.
10
So Frank wants a circular firing squad that uses automatic weapons instead of the pea shooters they have been using? The gloves should come off, but not with each other. The Dems have to understand and agree between them that whichever of the candidates wins the nomination, has a very good chance of winning outright in 2020. They need to not pony up the oppositions arguments and sound bites for them in the process of getting there. Instead, they should all be training their fire on Trump and the GOP Senators who they need to knock out on the way to winning in 2020. And continue with a unified message until the election itself. Bruni's myopic arguments only make sense in a world where Trump and McConnell don't exist. The dems have allowed too much of a vacuum on messaging against Trump and the GOP to exist for too long; time for them to coordinate and hammer the opposition, not each other.
9
Dear Frank: Your article had to be written and I hope our Dem candidates take heed. Now that Warren emerging as a front runner, she needs to wake up that Americans want a choice in their health care ( at least at this point ) and not Medicare for all and she will lose this critical election unless she moderates her views ( she has alot to explain if she does the latter). In addition, Warren should re-think her ideological war against the wealthy and corporations. Like her, they are not perfect and not evil either. She needs to bring out the best in them and all of us to win this race against the tyrant in the White House. Mayor Pete is also the best spoken candidate and I wish he could win: he and his generation have alot to lose with another 4 years of tyranny in the Senate and Executive Branch. Finally, Biden is toast; his judgment about supporting his son in international positions bears negatively on his candidacy. Trump will skewer him.
2
I supposedly have amazing healthcare through my job, but they still deny this, deny that etc. it’s time to catch up with the rest of the first world.
4
The only attacks on each other that make sense in appealing to primary voters are on issues that only Democratic primary voters care about, not the much larger general electorate. But such attacks can and will harm the eventual nominee by suppressing Democratic turnout for him or her or making votes for third parties -- exactly what happened in 2016. Contentious primaries are poison. To ensure Trump's defeat, Democrats should all resist attacking each other and aim their fire at Trump. If there are questions to be raised about Warren's bio, Biden's ethics or Bernie's health, Bruni and his colleagues in the media can raise them.
4
Let's be honest - the Dems need to take a page out of Donnie's playbook. Find a good nickname for him. Something snappy and fun. Don the Con comes to mind.
3
You can matter-of-factly and tactfully press Trump's buttons in a cool, calculated manner. These days, all it takes is a disgreement, and - more than likely - Trump will go off the rails and act like a raving lunatic.
Because that's what he is.
The contrast at this point between Trump's behavior and a mature and intelligent manner is so stark it's stunning.
6
The only show worth watching is how CHAOS TV STAR Trump works for Putin to crush stupid America & Europe! Nobody is paying attention to the too-nice Democratic debates.
1
I think you can ask tough questions and be polite but don’t back away from asking the questions. I also think the only ones who deserve to be treated like I was in boot camp by my cpo are the republicans. Be mean and nasty but honest and tell them the truth and point out as many lies as possible.... I know that might take awhile but now is the time to start and don’t quit until he and his sycophants are safely in custody and headed to Kansas
2
Disagree. This is a national emergency. Attacks, vitriol and nastiness only divides the anti-Trump vote. Save it for the incompetent, unhinged and dangerous "President".
9
The 65 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 already know how they are going to vote in 2020. All 65 million are sick of the psychotic stupidity of the Trump administration, and all 65 million are sick of Washington DC and Wall Street and corporate and war machine corruption. All 65 million are sick of racism and misogyny. Frank Bruni is correct in that "timidity won't do." I am thankful that the Democrats are not trying to sell us squishy types like Mondale and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry. Forget the issues. Forget Joe Biden. I want articulate intelligence in the White House and in Congress. First Crush Trump, then debate the issues. Vote for Sanity. Vote for Democrats.
4
So, should the democratic candidates ask why Hunter Biden is just now announcing his resignation, effective at the month’s end, from the board of a Chinese investment firm? With plenty of time before VP Biden’s candidacy announcement , one would have thought that he was preparing for the obvious to come. He didn’t. Again, shades of Hilary Clinton. That leaves pragmatist Elizabeth Warren. Her big challenge right now is making inroads into the African American community, which she will. Contrary to insinuations, the Senator is not channeling Chairman Mao as much as Eliot Ness.
82
@Ted
"Pragmatist Elizabeth Warren." Gosh, I'll have to think that all the way through. Proposing to utterly revamp the U.S. health care system, for instance, up to and including asking suburban voters to make a leap of faith that the new system will be as good or better than their existing employee-based coverage (some of the conglomerate plans are reasonably good), and this in the face of inevitable distorted advertising from the opposition in key areas during the general. I won't even mention "free college." Or, for that matter, Warren's foreign policy stances, which seem geared to placating the left at the expense of responsible American leadership in strategic regions of the globe. "Pragmatist Warren" seems a bit off.
13
@T. O'Hal
The Trump voter got it wrong.
The only people who truly have spent their whole life fighting corruption is Bernie Sander and Elizabeth Warren.
End of story.
Fighting the Military industrial complex
Fighting Big Banks
Fighting Corruption in Oil
Fighting Corruption on Wall Street
Protection the poor? Only 2 people.
Only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will actually take from the rich; everyone else is playing a political game.
29
@T. O'Hal
The Trump voter got it wrong.
The only people who truly have spent their whole life fighting corruption is Bernie Sander and Elizabeth Warren.
End of story.
Fighting the Military industrial complex
Fighting Big Banks
Fighting Corruption in Oil
Fighting Corruption on Wall Street
Protection the poor? Only 2 people.
Only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will actually take from the rich; everyone else is playing a political game.
5
One nice thing about attending debate parties: you can easily see the reactions of roughly a dozen Democrats. I've noticed the audience absolutely hates the food fights, and tune out when they get started. All the Democrats I know are far more interested in new ideas, backed up by viable strategies to implement them. That's why Elizabeth Warren has gradually risen to the top. She is the best at that.
These candidates don't just hire oppo researchers, they hire people to dig up dirt on themselves, so they know how to respond when their Republican opponents do the same thing. Encouraging the candidates to go after each other's throats during the debates will just suppress the Dem voter turnout. Bad idea.
2
It's the Democrats passivity to the GOP that sinks my heart. We all watched Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech, his performance in Helsinki, his sharing with Russian diplomats his relief on firing Comey. Yet Pelosi was fearful of impeachment triggering a backlash. She couldn't fathom that the impeachment would be a democracy affirming process that we see now.
As for the candidates, Biden should call Trump a weakling for needing foreign help to win; real American presidents win on their own steam. And a toughy saying "I'll beat you like a drum," would just make me laugh.
And as for Warren, she has addressed the task of collecting those two cents. And her plans don't have to be paid for in full to begin to level the playing field. Her other plans focus on consumer protections against aggressive corporations; it's not all done by taxation. As for education, that she wants teacher accountability and some market forces towards good schools is what I've wished for my children, regardless of what DeVos said or didn't say.
We've seen Harris go after Biden and Gabbard go after Harris and their tactic didn't seem to help their poll numbers. In contrast, Warren's stuck entirely to her very good plans for the US; I would suggest her steady rise to the top is due to her good ideas, her folksy way of explaining the problems as she sees them and her solutions to these problems. The only negative I've heard from her is two public statements in favor of impeaching Trump.
3
The mere spectacle of 12 Democrats contending for the nomination is a sign of weakness against the backdrop of Trump’s authoritarian swagger. While some see strength in the diversity of contenders, many more see fragmentation. Mr. Bruni would like the next debate to be a kind of round-robin purifying ordeal, from which “the most broadly appealing, durable, fearsome Trump slayer” will emerge. The sad reality is that there isn’t a single one among those twelve who poses a real threat to the wannabe strongman. Each of them has vulnerabilities that Trump and his propaganda machine, which has barely gotten started, will exploit to the hilt. Trump’s own serious liabilities are too well known at this point to matter. Assuming he’s still in the running in 2020, many voters will go with the devil they know. I believe the Democrats’ only hope to win the next election and save our democracy is with someone who hasn’t yet declared their availability. I like Susan Rice the more I see of her.
The Republican and right-wing election machines are viscous.
They will spare nothing to win. They go right for the throat and they take no prisoners. The truth is no defense.
Democrats tend to be too nice. The democratic primary needs to weed out the weak and vulnerable.
High poll numbers and support from the Democratic base won't be enough to withstand the onslaught that's coming.
I consider myself a progressive. But the priority ought to be getting rid of Trump. Who can win? Who can stand up to the viscous attacks that are coming. Who can take it Trump on the debate stage?
The policy debates are secondary. And they are meaningless if the Senate stays Republican.
3
Why should Democrats take any stand at this point, or answer any hard questions, that would give Republicans more talking points to lie about, until someone becomes the nominee?
4
The "middle class tax hike" is a right-wing, cheap shot, talking point which, out of context, needlessly muddies the discussion. When you eliminate the exorbitant premiums we are now saddled with to make sure the wealthy insurance providers become obscenely wealthier, the taxes will be comparatively much lower.
4
True, this is no time for timidity or foot-stomping, nor is it time for belaboring the obvious: why give the Trump campaign red meat for them to hold against Democrats? I don't know how much intramural calling to account is too much for the primary contenders; we obviously know when a line has been crossed, as in Castro's attack on Biden. This is a delicate game to play - displaying strength, resilience, intelligence, wisdom, standing up to outsized bullies, and yet being someone you would be proud of as your representative if not also your friend. I don't know if one of the leading contenders, the backfield, or a dark horse will answer that question for us; but someone must and help the country in the world be rid of Trump and trumpism. He is already in full campaign mode, puerile slogans and slanderous lies in a torrent at firehose force, and we're still losing precious time in the sorting process.
Yes, Mr. Bruni, the Democrats are generally polite. That's what gives them that snooty, elitist aura that trumpites so loathe. Dems should be more like trump, yelling profanities, lying gratuitously, defaming people. They'd be less elite seeming and trumpites wouldn't feel talked down to. Except so what? There's nothing that will chip the base away from him. Nothing.
You write that Dems should confront Warren as trump will. Except trump has already has his shot at her and all he can do is call her Pokahontas, stale even to him.
You say Dems should question Pete's ability to hit millions of voters "jackpot", though trump got the jackpot with about 80,000 but lost by over 3 million. Got the jackpot despite bad relations with black voters, women, and millions of us in the no electoral college account states.
You say that Dems should try to be other than themselves, no matter how cringemaking, so they will get battle hardened for trump. But there are a dozen plus former GOP presidential candidates for whom that was a complete bust.
Maybe Dems should mud wrestle each other, except you know that they'd be no good at it, not like the master in muck, trump.
The Dems are doing okay. They should ignore trump, focus on agendas and why they want to be president. They should show respect for each other, remain civil, and yes, polite.
In this trump era, there is no such thing as too polite.
5
Frank Bruno is basically advocating a circular firing squad.
Republicans and their enablers evade uncomfortable questions all the time and it seems to have worked out just dandy for them.
5
Mathew Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Tray Gowdy—just the opening act on the House Side. Not smooth and polished like Mitch McConnell but highly effective in the “I get what I want category.” Moreover there is Steve Mnuchin’s brother by another mother in the form of Rick Scott and finally absolutely nobody’s favorite, Ted Cruz. What do these characters have in common? There is not a scintilla of empathy for the poor and middle class anywhere among them and they are Republican.
Thank God for AOC, the squad and Maxine Waters—they at least understand the other side brings clubs to the fight.
2
The last thing I, and nearly all of my friends want to see, is more bickering and mudslinging. We want to see decency, a steady moral compass, genuine concern for ALL Americans regardless what state they live in and an actual understanding of the issues. Plus Mr. Bruni, you clearly have some burr in your typewriter about Ms. Warren. Any functional adult will do. That is how simple the choice for this election will be. And the top 5 polling candidates all currently beat Trump in head to head polls. So dear members of the media, I plead: STOP picking ridiculously unimportant nits when we have a treasonous cockroach in the presidency right now.
6
I need politeness, civil discourse and respect for different opinions. I long for weel though arguments and fact supported plans and decisions. My brain cries for good grammar in talking, declaring, explaining, listing, and completing sentences.
High road please, keep taking the high road, anything else is going to turn all of us into destructive, ignorant, selfish and useless beings.
Unfortunately, the ones that succumbed to the sewer call are starting to drown in it. That is what karma is all about.
3
Instead of calling for Democrats to stop being polite, how about calling for Trump to stop the lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness? How about a debate moderator that turns off Trump's microphone every time he begins to lie or insult his opponent? I don't want less polite candidates, I want more polite candidates who discuss issues without rude name-calling and don't make president debates into some kind of Jerry Springer event.
6
WOW Frank....
This is an "I want to destroy Elizabeth" piece.
What is your objective here?
Biden?
Do you not understand the strategy of the Dems not attacking one another? Which, if done, only makes them look as nasty as the Repubs. Argue issues.... not attacks. I personally think Castro lost a lot when he attacked Biden so relentlessly. The point had already been made. And I am not a fan of Biden.
The only attacking should be on the Repubs and Trump. They are the enemy. Not on each other.
4
Frank, let’s be perfectly frank about both of our ‘opinion-leading’ newspapers of record being entirely non-candid about the meta-causal ‘Issue’ of all issues — this Disguised Global Crony Capitalist Empire, which is only nominally HQed in, and merely ‘posing’ as, our formerly “promising” and sometimes progressive country (PKA) America.
If the “Times” reporters on stage, in public, and on national TV —which should be more accurately described as the ‘media/advertising/propaganda sector’ of this Empire — don’t bring-up the hardest hitting question to the Democratic candidates, of:
What is your position on our American “democracy dying in darkness” under Empire, as both the “Washington Post” and the “Times” are concerned with and writing about in our articles and editorials on dangers of; vast inequality of wealth, political deceit, climate destruction, racism, Emperor Trump, and other serious problems?
“The Times they are a changin” — but is the “Times” changin.
1
These debates are awful. All the candidates are diminished by them, and having them get even less polite isn't going to make them better. Does the Democratic Party have a platform, and are we choosing between different people who offer different ways to reach those goals? Not as far as I can tell. Can't we politely agree on Medicare for all, and of course private insurance remains available for those who want it? No? Can we politely agree on reducing carbon emissions by a certain date, and that we need to promote alternatives to burning oil?? No? Can we at least politely agree that lower college tuition is a worthy goal? That our immigration system is insufficient?
Go ahead and disagree over how to get there, but state some goals other than getting rid of Trump. Republicans are already calling the Democrats hypocrites, socialists, and clueless, radical, insane, idiots - no need for Democrats to have a debate highlighting those qualities, and no need to add "impolite" to the list.
2
Nonsense.
The "lesson" that the Democrats garnered from their 2016 Presidential loss was to put a triumvirate of 70+ year old white European Judeo-Christians at the top of the polls for 2020.
Bernie has a bad heart. Biden has a soft brain. Elizabeth fell for being mocked as Pocahontas.
And what will that do to motivate the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party aka black African American Protestant females?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been focused on mocking and marginalizing the Squad Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez while offering a bevy of excuses for not investigating and impeaching Donald Trump.
1
The real problem is with the debate format.
They are designed to be big TV "events" , so this is more about show than information.
A better format would be roundtable interviews with 3 or 4 candidates at a time, but that wouldn't have the dramatic splash that TV networks love.
So really we've learned nothing, because a TV show gave us Trump in the first place.
4
If the Democrats take the gloves off ,as you suggest, the Democratic accusations against each other will be picked up by Trump”s deranged minions and parroted in a snide and sarcastic form to attack Democratic weaknesses.Why should the Democrats provide ammunition to the corrupt Trump re-election campaign which is already scouring the Ukraine andChina for possible dirt.Let Trump work on his own filthy,fraudulent campaign and let the Democrats state in clear and unambiguous terms their goals for good, principled government which aligns with the American Constitution.
247
@JANET MICHAEL
Good point. If the Democrats can be caught on video tearing down each other, Trump will just endlessly rewind those videos on the campaign trail. He won't even have to add new material, he'll just dredge up what the Democratic candidates have already said, and that carries far more weight. Just ask any PR expert.
23
@JANET MICHAEL
In the last election Bernie Sanders and his supporters picked up and parroted ALL of the RW talking points and battered her with them straight through to election day... and when Trump started using the exact same attack lines against her, he would always point to Bernie Sanders for cover (after all, if Bernie said it then it must be true).
This time around Trump and the GOP are trying the same fake non-story narrative to smear Joe Biden, and this time around (so far) Sanders has refrained from spreading the fake news about Biden that he was almost gleeful to spread about Hillary. So far.
16
A deadlocked convention next July will actually choose from Bullock, Bennet or Klobuchar and pair the choice with Stacy Abrahms in the VP spot.
2
Either one of those 3 will lose to Trump or any other Republican candidate
The Democratic candidates should prepare for a Trump debate with their advisors who can throw anything at them, not in public attacking each other Trump-style during a debate that's supposed to be on their plans and policies as president.
2
Mr. Bruni makes a good point about no one -- including the media -- asking any hard questions of the Dem candidates. But there's nothing new with that -- no one ever asked Obama or Hillary any hard questions (even Bernie famously declined to ask any questions about Hillary's emails).
Fortunately, the American voters already see the warts and problems with each of the Dem candidates. That's why no one thinks that any of them can beat Trump. And they can't.
6
@Ulysses , cast your eyes on Trump. Just glance. It won't take a saint-genius-warrior-virgin to do better than that.
3
@jb If the Dems were really confident, they wouldn’t be making the desperate impeachment play.
1
The problem with the debates is that the front runners emerged because they were given more time by the questioners. I wonder if Bennett and Klobuchar would be further ahead if they had been given more time at the start.
3
Tulsi Gabbard has been the toughest on going after another Democrat, specifically, Kamala Harris. And Harris herself was very tough on Joe Biden, which resulted in a boost in her polling numbers. With regard to Warren voters should be able to clearly see that she is evasive about not saying that Medicare for All would raise taxes on the middle class. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders bluntly admitted that middle class taxes would go up. Any voter should realize if that they are going to vote for a progressive candidate they should expect their taxes to up. That is how countries like Sweden and Denmark provide so many social benefits. You can't get such benefits through magic. People are willing to pay higher taxes because they believe it is worth it.
3
The article hits the bull's eye: in a war, be ferocious like the war. The timid should stay at home. It astutely highlights the liabilities of the top five, and the spark-less alternatives. Isn't Cory Booker the candidate with the "right stuff"?
Unfortunately the current debate format neither allows for good, probing questions nor detailed policy answers. But there is an alternative-good journalism. Why aren't there more articles examining how we could pay for Medicare for All? They use V.A.T. in Europe and Canada to fund national health programs like this. Can't the NYT examine whether or not a wealth tax would generate enough money for this program or if it's necessary to also consider something like V.A.T.? Similarly if we want a "Manhattan project" crash program to address climate change in a timely manner, it's going to cost trillions to rebuild our infrastructure to improve energy efficiency and convert to green power. The young Democrats recognize that trying to tax for such costs is going to be problematic and are proposing MMT for programs like this. I was skeptical, until I realized it's not different from the QE that the Fed has been doing which has simply been creating more income inequality by raising asset prices. AOC has suggested we use this tool to benefit all Americans, instead of just the wealthy. I'd rather see some good journalism in the NYT examining issues like this to educate voters, rather than turn these debates into a ridiculous cage-match between the candidates.
9
I disagree. The way to the presidency is not by attacking each other, particularly if everybody is giving Trump so much leeway. With the exception of a tax cut he has accomplished none of his campaign promises. Democrats should start to quote back to him all those empty promises.
4
The Dems have always had a politeness problem. They need to take the gloves off with Republicans, too. They have always been too obsessed with being politically correct. Americans want a tough, stiff spine in their elected officials. Hillary Clinton was a tough one but Putin won out on that. Americans dont want Trump and his vulgarity and vileness anymore. When I read about his "base" I am reminded of the GOP plan to use world wide internet trolling to make it appear they love him. They dont. He is now trying to fill seats at his rallies with children! They dont vote! Hello?
1
You are right on. I think you can "take the gloves off" and still take the high road, just by stating the facts of this criminal presidency. hunter Biden an issue when the Trump children are conducting foreign policy and Ivanka is getting chinese traemarks? Just say it. BUT LET'S STOP FEEDING ON OUR OWN. There are policy differences, they should be discussed factually, but personal attacks on each other only serve to make the issues that join us less visible.
2
You're right about health insurance, but the American voter is so self absorbed, so individualized that fear of what the other guy is getting makes critical thinking difficult.
2
It is a frustrating issue I had with President Obama. Time after time it seemed President Obama let Republican attacks go unopposed and failed to punish them for their failures. I agree with the author that the Dems are too polite. As a Nation, we are being bullied politically. Compromise is not a concession Republicans are willing to have. They would rather burn the house down instead of sharing it with others. For the Dems to survive, they will need to punch the Bully in the face in order to respond to a language they understand. Today they see the Dems as weak and easily forced to obey their bidding.
6
Because the Trump Party is in a race to the bottom of crass and vitriol, Democrats should attack each other too? This will somehow “weed out the weak”? This seems like the wrong approach to knocking a malignant narcissist out of a position of power. The more everyone conforms to how he does things, the more powerful he grows. The DNC/CNN/Times have already produced the Democratic debates as a reality tv show— his forum. Candidates should not also attack each other— his forum. Debate the issues, don’t make personal attacks, don’t talk about Trump. Ignore him. No oxygen. Make him irrelevant.
4
I agree that Warren should be (politely) presses. But Mr. Bruni has not been watching the same debates I saw if he thinks Biden hasn’t been hit with haymakers above and below the belt during each debate. Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, and Castro have all gone for the knockout against Biden. Harris, too, was clocked by Tulsi Gabbard. And Beto was slugged by Castro. Nobody else on the stage has been seriously challenged by fellow candidates. So if people go after Biden again, it will just be par for the course. The people who need to be challenged this week are Warren and Steyer, who in my opinion bought his podium with advertisements and organizing supposedly created to push an issue and not a person.
Clinton didn’t lose because Sanders damaged her in the primaries and didn’t fall in line quickly enough in the general.
Clinton lost because Sanders pointed out some real problems with her candidacy and the DNC and centrist Democrats insisted on ignoring those problems and instead shouting “racism” and “sexism” in response.
The Democratic party as a whole lost because they let Clinton clear the field for her even before the primaries, and the Democratic leaning establishment was complicit- I recall the Times’ endorsement of her before the first vote was cast. Democrats basically turned the party over as a Clinton vehicle.
5
Okay, so let’s be objective and hard-hitting.
Is St. Bernie gonna quit after his heart attack at 76, and throw his support behind Warren, or is he gonna keep feeding his own ego?
3
@Objectively Subjective
And Sanders lost because he showed himself to be nothing more than a "spoiler" and a poor sport in the end.
Not only that.
He didn't get the votes, or connect with the Black and Latino communities to get their support.
And guess what?
It's happening again.
4
Had I been Ms Warren, I would have answered Mr. Stephanopoulos' question directly. "George, that is a scam question. If I tell you something will save you $1,000 a year, but you will get a $500 tax increase, the press will only talk about the tax increase. They won't bother to mention the net savings because insurance companies buy ads." Of course, I would never be elected president, either.
3
The Democrats have a politeness problem, but it is with the Republicans, not each other.
6
could not agree more. I want this debate--not November debate eligibility rules--to have clearly knocked out some of the contenders. But beyond that, I think the "politeness problem" extends far beyond Democratic candidates. Everyone, Democratic presidential candidates, members of Congress, and certainly the media have from the beginning of the Trump administration been far too polite in how they deal with and yes, even talk about and refer to the lying, treacherous racist who occupies the White House. That must stop. When Donald Trump lies, say "he lied" plain and simple.
2
No Frank; Democrats attacking one another will only help Donald Trump. He would surely these criticisms against any Democrat who runs for President.
5
Too polite all eat way, including in responding to Trump. Democrats have to clean their house right now. Otherwise, Trump's bazookas will demolish it. Branding morality is brandin defeat.
1
No, Frank, the Democrats have a problem of being polite, downright subservient, to the Republicans. They, the Democrats, still appear to believe that Republicans can be reasoned with. No, it did not happen during eight years of Obama, and it will never happen in 12 years of Trump. The Democrats need to declare total war on Republicans, on their cheating, on their lying, on their hypocrisy, on their destruction of America and its values.
6
Again, merely as meta4, I suggest the image test for each Dem challenger: imagine the scene where each replaces Atticus Finch facing the rabid dog, only with a Louisville slugger instead of an AR15... if you can't see the Dem winning that imaginary fight they are not ready for a cage match with T-wrecks.
Since Sen Warren has had the kid glove treatment, indeed a lot of cheerleader help, from media, it is past time for her to face a stress test. I suspect Biden, who did go after her directly on Med4All costs, will set out to knock her off the momentum tracks. But I think her greatest potential fail lies in the # of her plans. She has to win any argument on every one, T can pick 2, cast doubt and that doubt undercuts the lot.
Biden can cut to the quick merely by asking her, after pointing out none of her plans will pass the Senate (even with a small Dem margin): what's her back-up plan?
The nightmare I see is the ad T runs of her at rallies claiming to be "a nasty woman", given part of T's narrow win was based on Clinton folk emphasizing the Me#too gender divide.
(an aside, someone should point out to Den Klochubar that rich kids don't take out loans for school, mom and dad take it out of the bank!)
As a lifelong Democrat, I'm greatly disappointed that Democrats have failed to unite behind one good candidate, preferring to squabble among themselves and throw dirt on each other. Biden is a fine candidate, lifelong public service, experienced, respected, decent. Warren would be an excellent running mate with a shot at becoming our first female POTUS should Biden have a health crisis (God forbid). In unity there is strength; unify, Dems!
1
I have to laugh. Your assumption is that in a debate trump will have any points to make in reality. I think we have seen the man has a very shallow perception of just about anything except promoting himself. Liz will polish trump off as an appetizer in debates.
1
Bruni is right on the point that 2020 will be a brutal year both for the Democratic candidate , whoever she or he is, and we the public. Trump has perfected his predatory skills, energized his base as well the sycophantic coterie of Republican leaders in the Congress. We the public will be tortured with vile innuendoes, blatant lies, hatred and bigotry.
Bruni is right that the Democratic candidate will be falsely maligned, their loved ones will be dragged into mud, and brutalized. In this game truth, policy, economics will not matter.
Bruni is right that Democrats must anticipate this brutal fight and be ready. They must not cave in. They must stand together with a single goal of capturing the White House, dislodge Moscow Mitch from his perch and keep the House. Nothing else matters if we want to keep our souls.
Bruni is however wrong in advocating an internecine brawl as a preparation for toughness.
2
I totally disagree with Bruni. The Democratic candidates have so much ammunition against Trump that they can use. Why turn on each other? It doesn't look good to the voters. They need to stand united against this miserable president. Point out his blunders and crassness - and stay classy. Voters will love that.
3
No. Honest discussion welcome. Sniping at one another is channeling Trump. Don’t go there Democrats. Many of us watched Kamala’s disgusting display and had a visceral reaction against meanness for the sake of meanness. Don’t do it, Democrats. You are a team.
3
Through some fluke of channel changing last night I ended up on the Judge Judy on Fox for the first time. In the first two minuted she railed against democrats as always having been mean, underhanded and in lock step and unified in treating republicans unfairly. How the democrats bend the laws and the rules to their will and manipulate the system illegitimately. She portrayed the republicans as naive good hearted little souls who fail because they don't band together the way democrats do. This is the twisted reality that trump supporters are spoon fed and it will only get much worse. Mind boggling...
2
Nice column but surprisingly sad and confusing You are saying – literally – that Trump will win if some Democratic candidates can’t answer some questions “correctly”. I get it but ..wow!
“If she can’t answer the question well, let’s find out now, before it’s too late. If she can, she’s one step closer to wiping the floor with Trump.” --- if not….
That reflects the low morality that pervades USA. If Trump wins – it will be – not because some mistake on part of a democratic candidate answering a question – it will be because of the decadence of your society. There should be no need for “correct” answers – if Democrats stay home because Warren ““…raised enough cash to transfer $10.4 million in leftover funds to her 2020 presidential bid” (mortal sin), or because Biden mumbled an answer (stupid) ... well – if that’s the case, you will then have the “leader” you deserve: four more years of Trump.
I am deeply concerned about this path of political reasoning. I do understand the power of money- the influence of deceit – but everyday there should be a headline about the hypocrisy of people of Lindsey Graham… that alone should raise all Democrats off their sofa and vote for whoever wins the democratic candidacy.
The world is in peril…look at Syria – because of “a stable genius”.
1
The real problem of Democratic politeness is not that candidates haven’t been tough enough with each other but that’s the Democratic Party has, until just 2 weeks ago, allowed a corrupt, criminal President with a megaphone voice and no decency to run roughshod over our Republic. Their caution, good manners and lack of self assertion have done an enormous disservice to our democracy. They have finally begun an impeachment inquiry and still don’t have the guts to take a vote on it. They still worry the tide may turn in Trump’s favor if their inquiry appears unfair.They seem to lack the courage to realize that the majority of this country is disgusted and fed up with Trump. Do your job, Dems, and put on hearings to expose this man like no other President has been exposed before. Dare to believe in the rightness of your cause for once!
198
@Lural, point taken. However, the Democrats are working within a context set by McConnell (the “grim reaper” of legislature - his term) and a lap dog Republican Party, who themselves defend egregious lies told repeatedly by Trump and in turn attack Democrats. The Democrats are not working in a vacuum.
There is a very real threat that, if impeachment goes through and the Senate rolls over and does not remove Trump from office, it will have a negative effect on the 2020 election (not just for President, but for Congressional seats).
Given the twisting and neutering of the findings of the Mueller report, it is understandable that unless there were a kindergarten-level criminal act (As is the Ukraine extortion), McConnell, Barr et al would spin it to death. As it is, even this textbook example of impeachable office is being propagandaed to within and inch of its life.
If the Senate was held by the Democrats for the last two years, do you think Democrats would (and could) have acted more forcefully?
10
@Lural: Democrats never go for the jugular. The US has a problem with belief that it is clever or wise to believe things that cannot be objectively established.
1
@Lural Well said, Lural. Thank you!
I have stopped watching the debates. I am not overly fond of any of the candidates and have no earthly idea who I might vote for in the Ohio primary. Frankly, I don't see any of them as able to take on Donald Trump and knowing that foreign meddlers in our elections are not being challenged or dealt with at all keeps me from being too excited about any candidate. There is a strong possibility that no Democrat will win the White House this election thanks to unchecked interference. We are in troubled times--just check the front page of this newspaper for confirmation. These Dem candidates are dancing around one another and Trump. It just is not doing the job for me. This campaign and these candidates should reflect more of the dangerous times that we are in. They haven't yet gotten serious and I'm not sure that they will. Maybe when the primaries start I will get serious about my choice or perhaps if Trump simply cancels the 2020 elections, then, of course, my choice won't matter.
3
There is a serious disconnect between what this author expects in the way of candidates answers ..."fully recon with the costs of their proposals", "explain persuasively their biographies".. and the fact that the candidates have 60 seconds to talk, with rebuttals at even less time. These "debates" are actually just sound bite fests, and the subject matter dictated by the corporate media with their weekly programming in mind. A much more useful format would be questions submitted by the voters, and time allocated for answers significantly increased.
4
I like Warren, but I'm concerned she will lose to Trump when he calls her a Socialist and says she will take away health insurance from millions with MFA. As Frank notes, she's been evasive when asked whether people will pay more in taxes for health insurance. (Never mind total out-of-pocket costs will go down, people don't seems to get that. )
Much as I'd love for Warren to be president, I have doubts she can take on Trump.
Sherrod Brown remains my preferred non-candidate. Maybe Amy Klobuchar, boring but midwestern and moderate, would be the best candidate.
The thing is, there is no perfect candidate. No one knows who has the best chance to beat Trump.
1
Yes... like crabs in a barrel, if one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back down.
I understand why it makes good television -- and what is a presidential debate if not mostly entertainment? -- but is it good for politics for all the people who seek to lead the party away from Donald Trump are caught scrapping?
Donald already has enough ammunition.
3
I have to question Frank's motivation here. Any zinger that a fellow Democrat uses on another during this debate is free ammunition to be used by Trump if that democrat makes it to the General election.
This seems like a perfect strategy to improve Trump's campaign chances and someone as bright as Bruni would know this. So again, I wonder what his intent is in writing this column.
5
I still don’t believe moderate voters in key states like Michigan or Wisconsin (the swing states democrats need to win) will forgive Warren for using a fictitious ethnicity for personal gain. She essentially cheated the system and wrongly used affirmative action programs to advance herself.
No other candidate carries that kind of stain and I believe it will sink her in the general election. If democrats want to win- they need to win a few key states and better start giving Klobuchar or a more moderate candidate a serious look.
5
@Jason they had no problem forgiving Trump for bragging about sexually assaulting women.
1
@Jason
I believe if you look farther into Warren's biography, you'd change your mind about your assertions. The Boston Globe -- along with other publications -- has done extensive investigation of the charges made and of Warren's professional, academic and political career. They found no evidence supporting the claims you make. Even Tom Cotton, who was a student of hers at Harvard, acknowledges her accomplishments as a teacher and thinker.
1
I think Democrats need to model what "civic discourse" looks like - a dialogue for the sake of creating greater understanding. I think it is good that Cory Booker and others acknowledge that Democrats have a lot in common and tend to agree about what the key issues are. I hope Democrats will be both civil and honest, and this means some of them need to be more honest about the cost of their proposed plans.
2
Good comments around the edges. When are you or some other Times' columnist going to broach Democratic Party issue one? Who among the Democratic candidates is most likely to win back Midwest white, working-class voters? Absent that reversal, Trump is reelected.
4
Yeah, and how did Harris’s attack on Biden work out for her? The last thing we need is to have Democrat’s looking like Trumpies. There is not enough difference between them to matter when the Republicans are taking down our country. A unified message is the only way to go.
9
You quote Bob Kerrey.
Convincing evidence shows that Mr. Kerrey ordered that twenty-one Vietnamese old men, women, children and finally, a baby, be point-blank slaughtered even though he was in full control of them and knew that they presented no danger to his Navy Seals.
1
Frank, it’s pretty rich to slight Sanders for not enthusiastically supporting Clinton back in 2016. Considering that she was coronated without asked being the difficult questions that you speak of - and that we now know party leaders essentially conspired against him - he nevertheless rallied his supporters to get out the vote to prevent a Trump presidency.
Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to overcome political baggage, lack of excitement, and the tactical errors of the Clinton campaign. Hopefully these are some of the lessons we learn from 2016.
3
Sorry. I know you like Sen. Sanders, as did I in 2016.
Reality, no matter how you’d like to spin it: he/you (staying home and not voting) and Comey, gave us the mess we are in now.
So count me in the “never Trump and never Bernie” camp!
@Expat Travis
Sorry. You've got your countries mixed up.
There are no "coronations" here.
Clinton was the Democratic candidate because she was the ONLY Democrat running -- even Sanders never got tired of saying he wasn't one.
And no he didn't support her in the end, enthusiastically or otherwise, and that helped to fuel Trump's victory.
If anything, dividing the Democrats was the main lesson to be learned from 2016.
But it looks like we still haven't learned it.
2
Dear debate participants, please don't take the advice. I can't think of any situation in my life where being polite created a problem.
10
Simply outline your plans and policy proposals to address the myriad of problems facing this country and I'll be happy.
The networks trying to create drama, one liners, and showmanship are doing us a great disservice. We need these public forums.
9
If done in an even-handed manner, I agree with you. However, if the "challenges" are based upon deliberately sharing false and misleading information, I must disagree. What causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up is when such challenges are based upon false and misleading information because those soundbites will be used by Trump and others to make such information appear true and accurate because it was said by other Democratic presidential candidates.
In addition, it depends upon how such "challenges" are made. What I mean by that involves the extent to which the challenger fakes certain feelings and emotions to make a point. This is important because research shows that people incorrectly believe that they can tell truth from fiction based upon a person's demeanor. Those mistaken beliefs are then manipulated. In fact, effective trial attorneys engage in such manipulation all the time because winning is not the same as fairness, justice, ethics, morality, and what's right.
When such challenges are done in an even-handed manner, I think they're incredibly important because it helps to flush out important information. And, I firmly believe in the importance of voluntary and informed decision-making.
2
Maybe it's hopeless but I would really rather not encourage a culture of yelling over and/or interrupting as 'discourse'.
7
Why pick on Elizabeth Warren? She is a politician after all. She does have a plan for everything which are quite workable. With ' Medicare for all ' she dodged. That gives her space to add that people can opt out or keep the health insurance they like. Again she is a politician and allowed a tweak to her original plan. And with regards to tearing each other down - I'm afraid the ultimate nominee will be so battle scarred that he/she will have no strength left to send Trump packing. The ferocious Democratic debates would play right into a Trump win.
6
"we cannot afford to pick the wrong person"
There's the entire primary in a nutshell. Test the candidates. Pick the very best. This is no time for weakness.
2
I agree Frank. As the great Mr Dooley opined more than a century ago, “ politics ain’t beanbag”. If these candidates can’t confront each other, how are they going to confront Putin or the Chinese boss?
1
@Phil Gerson, have you looked at what’s sitting in the Oval Office today? A squirrel would have more backbone with regard to Putin and China. If Democrats are breathing, they would have more ability to stand up to Putin and China (without hurting the US more than our adversary).
2
Thanks, good column. We need a candidate that has been battle tested to confront the so-called president. If a someone has a problem attacking, just preface the attack with "Trump would say that..."
Political Science 101: Divisive primaries benefit the opposing party. Frank Bruni should know this and stop calling for a Colosseum of gladiators on the Democratic debate stage.
I have no doubt that the Democratic candidates, after watching his style for almost three years, are clued in as to what to expect in a debate with Trump. Give them some credit!
10
No vote from me for any candidate who refers me to his or her website in answering debate question. If you're not prepared with succinct summary of your vision and policies you're not my candidate. An overall vision for the next 4 years has yet to be pronounced by any of these 10 candidates. You've got 2 minutes so wow me.
7
@Maureen , the queen has spoken, huh? Four years worth of policies and two minutes to "wow" you. The choosy consumer. This nation is in trouble indeed. And I don't mean because of the candidates. The self-inflated entitlement of citizens who have no sense of reality or their own responsibilities has wrecked even basic common sense.
2
Frank, part of what made the attacks on Clinton’s emails so successfully was that they were sustained over a long period of time. They may have not seemed credible or important early, but after months of hearing the same thing, the argument sticks. Same with the Mueller report.
Republicans will try this tactic again. Democrats should play no part in aiding them. The few moments they have to dominate the news cycle should focus on policy and a positive vision for the country. They need to create a counter-narrative starting now.
8
It's one thing to challenge an opponent directly, as would happen in any high school or college debate. It's another to be impolite and angry. The reason to make use of a false sense of outrage is that humans are tribal by nature and rally around a strong leader during uncertain times. Elizabeth Warren realized this, which is why she seems angrier than in interviews five years ago. Hers is a calculated feigned anger, when compared with Bernie Sanders, who has been consistently angry since the 1960s.
Calculated anger feeding tribalistic tendencies is, in the long run, counterproductive. I like Warren's policies, but her manipulation in this regard will keep the cycle going.
The left isn't nearly as bad as the right--there is no Fox News on the left to produce fake stories and avoid real ones. But is it really a good thing for CNN to gain ratings by focusing so much attention on Warren's angry outbursts about large multinationals? Warren would appear more measured and academic if she calmly stated she would support a study to determine the effect of 'breaking them up'--as opposed to exhibiting a calculated angry finger and head shaking certainty that she has the solution.
@SunscreenAl No fake news from the Left? You have MSNBC and Certainly Not News. The ratings for CNN are lower than the Hallmark Channel.
1
Here's a novel suggestion - keep it all positive among Democrats and keep it all negative about Republicans. The last thing Democrats should do is undermine progressive and liberal ideas. That is why they lost in 2016! The establishment Democrats did their level best to undercut Sanders. They still do it today and they assume progressives won't notice what's really going on. Don't forget, we still have an Electoral College but it still came down to three states and less than 80,000 votes. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!!
Our government is not serving the best interests of the 99% and every economic indicator over the last 40 years bears this out. The establishment has had many opportunities to get it right but have failed and worse their republican lite strategies have helped shift the country far to the right.
Maybe the majority of Democrats are moderate corporate centrists but the majority of the country wants programs and policies that level the playing field, expands job opportunities, improves quality of life, eliminates poverty, and ensures a healthy planet for generations to come. Those are the goals of liberals and progressives. They are not socialist policies or income redistribution policies or pie in the sky. They are traditional broad based (big tent) Democratic policies.
So I say no to trying to score political points at the expense of what is or should be sacred to every Democrat - insert preamble to Constitution here!
7
Warren did not avoid the question about higher taxes, but pointed out that it wasn't the right question. Moderators should know better than to ask simplistic yes or no questions on issues that clearly require a more thoughtful approach. The GOP does a fine job of misrepresenting pretty much everything. No need to further feed into it.
8
When taking Senator Kerry’s advice about Presidential campaigning, it is useful to remember that he lost.
A more productive course for the Democrats would be to cut all but the top 4 candidates and then narrow that to two and then one before Easter. The GOP and Trump will find the weaknesses in the candidate’s policies by early Spring, which is more than enough time to modify them for the summer and general election.
Destroying each other is truly bad politics for the Democrats. Remember Reagan’s 11th commandment — say nothing bad about Republican Rivals.
5
If the Democrats are successful in taking both congressional chambers and the presidency many of the Senators and Representatives will come from a wide range of ideological viewpoints. They will include purple leaning red conservative states and districts in suburban and rural areas and bright blue liberal strongholds in the urban areas, plus every kind of district and state in between these two extremes. Leading such a broad coalition will require talking to each other respectfully and honestly, resolving critical differences and reaching compromises that can result in meaningful legislation. The president who can pull this off will need outstanding communication skills, a willingness to listen empathetically and adjust on her/his feet under pressure and an ability to inspire our support. Ducking the tough questions won't tell us who has these skills. The successful future for the Democrats lies in their abilities to (1) create a welcoming and respectful environment across the ideological conservative/liberal spectrum and (2) compromise effectively with each other while the Republicans wither away as an intransigent ideological artifact. What makes the Republican future so glum is their inability to respect and work effectively with others with different viewpoints, skin colors and first languages. The successful Democratic Presidential candidate must highlight their ability to unite a diverse coalition that respects everyone.
The Democratic nominee needs a full spectrum of desirable and achievable policy goals that can be fully explained and supported by a majority of voters. It will not be necessary for that nominee to mention Trump. It will be spectacular to see his response to being ignored.
2
mr. bruni runs his article on the following hypothesis: the demo debate is a shadow boxing match. the different demo candidates can step up to be sparring partners and test mutual combative reflexes before the main event with The Brawler.
i have a simpler criterion than confrontation and adversarial vibe. i listen carefully to the question asked, then i listen carefully to the answer given.
does the answer have anything to do with the question? how accurate, evasive, succinct, wandering, insightful, opaque, factual, hypothetical, inspiring, clichéd, assured, flustered is the answer?
the demo debate is an opportunity to display leadership, and leadership requires the articulation of answers that are accurate, succinct, insightful, factual, assured and inspiring.
we've had three years of lies. my allergy at this point is inflamed by the lying, not by the lack of brawling. we don't need more adversarial spice. we need the nourishment of the truth, spoken by a leader.
the great line from "Rumble Fish": "If you're going to lead people, you have to have somewhere to go." you also have to convince them that it's someplace the people want to go.
9
I generally agree that the Democratic contenders should press each other on their policy positions, particularly Medicare for All, a wealth tax, and decriminalization of illegal border crossings. But I see nothing of value that can be gained by asking Pete Buttigieg why he thinks he can win the nomination given that he has never been elected to any office higher than mayor of a mid-sized city, or asking Joe Biden if he should accept some responsibility for Donald Trump's election. Let's leave these vacuous questions for the horse-race-obsessed political journalists, and encourage the candidates to focus on policy and their vision for how to restore democratic values and respect to America.
6
One factor that worries me is the incompetence of Democratic Party leadership. Really, a debate with twelve candidates at this point? Let’s get down to a number who have some reasonable chance of winning and hear from them. Ancillary resistance organizations like Swing Left and Sister District have been much more organized and effective. It’s no coincidence that Obama won twice with his own ground game, not the party’s.
I don’t fundamentally agree with Mr. Bruni’s point. Tearing each other down will help Trump, not hurt him. Weakening each other won’t make the eventual nominee stronger a year from now. Everyone should be attacking Trump to help with his impeachment and removal, which is what the country needs most at this moment.
5
Frank is right. No one has even tried to go after Warren. Some might fear a backlash because of her growing popularity within the party. Others (Harris, Mayor Pete) might be vying for a VP slot. Biden does not have the skill to debate her effectively. Mayor Pete does (but see above). Tulsi Gabbard might be best suited. It’s not always clear where she is coming from but she knows how to hone an attack and she’s fearless and a perhaps little angry.
1
I will watch the Democratic debate on Tuesday night from start to finish as I have not always in the past. The candidates should just be themselves. If they try to be so someone or something they are not, people will see their pretentiousness.
I hope the commentators ask the "tough" questions and base the topics that are relevant to the voters. The people want the candidates to debate those things that have importance to their lives. They should concentrate on health care and economic issues in addition to job creation. This is what concerns most people. And they should not interrupt the other candidates as they will have their turn to speak.
2
Wrong. They need to put on 2 more pairs of gloves. Only attack Trump.
5
It all comes down to this: the Democrats must treat each other politely because when our candidate is chosen, we do not want to have done the opposition research for Trump. Lord knows he's got enough help on that front from Russia and China, and I rather suspect the North Koreans, Turks, and a whole host of others are in on this as well.
3
@Peter Hornbein I guess you forgot it was Hillary who did the opposition research.
Excellent points. The idea of Dem candidates asking each other tough questions to select the best candidate against Trump is great in theory, but how to do it in practice does not seem that easy. Look at your own example:
"So Biden’s rivals onstage on Tuesday night should ask if him if anything that he and President Barack Obama did, or failed to do, inadvertently paved the way for Trump. I’d be fascinated, and potentially illuminated, by his response."
That would be a fishing expedition, a coward and vague question, and an unfair one. There should be a backlash against any one who gratuitously asks Biden to self-destroy:
"Hey Bidey, is there anything that you may have done and which may have elected Trump ?" Is like the prosecution asking the accused for help in convicting him:"Dear guilty accused, is there anything illegal that you may have done and which we could not be bothered to investigate ?"
2
Why do you think you are the best person to run against Trump and beat him? What is it about you, personally, that makes you ready to take him on? What is it about you that will make Americans want you as president? That's all I want to know at this debate. Let's cut to the chase -- Democrats want the toughest, most electable candidate -- and get into the weeds on policy differences when there's only four or five still standing.
3
This is an appalling suggestion. As a lawyer I engage in debates all the time. One can be forceful and committed without being rude and obnoxious. The Democrats should stop squabbling amongst each other and go after the real problem, which is Donald Trump. I don't really care who they nominate as long as they win against Trump. As far as who got what donors and who supports Medicare for all, I don't really care about that, although I think medical care for all is a great idea, it is a pipe dream. It would never pass the, Congress, so why make it a test of purity? It's nice to have grandiose ideas about reforming health care etc. etc. but the reality is they seldom come to fruition. What we need is a competent leader who can get us out of the mire that we are in internationally and domestically.
2
"although I think medical care for all is a great idea, it is a pipe dream. It would never pass the, Congress"
Perhaps there is something amiss when a proposal like "Medicare for All" doesn't even get a committee hearing in Congress despite it sounding like a great idea to the vast majority of the American people - in both parties and amongst independents. Instead, the insurance and hospital and drug companies, who also carved themselves out a nice piece of the ACA, flood the media with stories about how terrible it would be and how it will cost Americans more in taxes, and how it will mean you cannot choose your own doctors. All half-truths at best - but without the pushback that such a proposal deserves.
2
The "problem" with politeness doesn't only start and end with the way the Democratic candidates treat each other -- it also extends to the way they go about treating Donald Trump who if anything, is the epitome of impolite.
Let's face it.
There's no other way of facing a bully.
And Trump is a bully.
Of course it helps if the Democratic candidates could actually answer the questions given to them point blank.
Especially when it comes to subjects like universal Medicare. which would probably cost more than several large wars put together.
But nothing is more called for than a show of strength and a lot of moxie, because that's the only thing that will get one across the line when facing a contender who has had his gloves off all along.
2
THere is no comparison between the cost of "several large wars" (over $3 TRILLION for Iraq alone - so far) and Medicare for All. There is more than enough to cover the cost with a reversal of the recent tax giveaway to the richest Americans and corporations. Cutting the obscene Defense Dept. budget from being larger than total of the next 10 countries in the world would help a bit as well - rather than the annual bipartisan clamor for more and more funding for more and more irrelevant, wasteful, destabilizing weapons systems based on America needing a 'soft' Empire.
1
@d ascher
Fine. You want to be literal about it -- but that doesn't change the fact that Medicare for ALL would be an incredibly expensive venture and that money would have to come from somewhere. And we all know the wealthy don't want to pay their share of ANYTHING.
Of course it would make sense to go after the Defense Dept. budget -- but you'd better take another look at the position this president has put our country in first.
He wants a war, and at this rate he just might get one...or two.
1
Very polite of you not to mention Biden and Ukraine. Why on earth would you go to the general election muddying the waters with a guy who's letting his family deal off his name just like Trump. Americans seem more forgiving of corruption than virtue signaling and hypocrisy. We win the political Darwin award of the century if we nominate Biden, too stupid for this world, bless our hearts.
2
Why would you want to have the Democrats create a bloodbath? Sure Trump will play dirty, really dirty, but let’s not have the other Democrats create the nasty questions and accusations.
Same the responses to Trump ‘s filth for the general election.
4
Frank, you're a fine columnist, but not much of a salesperson.
Successfully "selling" America on anything is avoiding talking about the competition (the competitor will talk enough about himself). You don't get people to buy your peanut butter because the other peanut butter tastes awful. You explain how your product has a more peanutty flavor. People won't buy your pickup truck because you said the other guy's truck won't carry a heavy load. You tell people your truck will handle a heavy load.
Most people are sick of politicians bad-mouthing each other. They want to know "what's in it for me?"
2
You obviously missed the last election. Trump offered nothing except crude and ridiculous denunciations of, first his GOP rivals, and then Ms. Clinton. Enough voters in key states bought it and here we are.
Trump has given the Dems hours and hours of video recording him lying, denying he lied or even uttered what is clearly visible and audible on the videos. Anybody debating him should just use their time to play those videos and occassionaly ask him to defend them.
America deserves Trump.
That is my 2020 mantra.
1
@Mogwai, do nothing if you want. Say whatever hopeless, useless thing you choose. You don't speak for or of most of us. We will fight for the good--in our families, communities, workplaces, wherever we are. We will support the schools, the poor, the national parks, the first responders, the environment, the children. We will see those who help, and who struggle, and join them. And we will wrest our land from the venal and corrupt. Doing nothing and cursing all is Trump's dream for you, all right. But that is not our dream, and we aren't his to own.
4
The best defense is a GOOD OFFENCE.
Any Democratic Candidate who is preparing to defend against President Trump's free floating broadsides is sure to lose. Ask Little Rubio, Lyin TED, Lyin Hiliary, Low energy Jeb, Pocohontas, etc etc.
1
Are you serious? Are you suggesting that Democratic candidates start pummeling their rivals, any of whom would make a much better President than the current occupant of the White House? You seem to be suggesting that they start acting more like Trump, in style if not substance.
George Bernard Shaw had the best reply to this:
“I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and besides, the pig likes it.”
The Democrats should stay civilized.
6
Cautious to a fault is right. That you are, Frank Bruni.
The statement, "... she [Warren] swerved from past positions that essentially aligned her with Betsy DeVos", is horribly disingenuous. DeVos is a religious fanatic, favoring parochial schools. Without further qualification, this would imply the same about Warren, which is ridiculous. Mr. Bruni just took the first shot in the circular firing squad.
7
With friends like Bruni, who needs enemies?
Getting a little worried about a Warren presidency, Frank?
7
@John Lizzie could never win.
The only person who is going to wilt under pressure when faced with real opposition is Trump, unless his cornucopia of corruption does him in first.
Trump reverts to true form as a pathetic whiny wimp when the gloves come off and it is he who is on the receiving end.
And nobody likes a pathetic whiny wimp.
With that knowledge, the eventual Democratic candidate will do just fine.
3
I think this is an excellent opinion piece even though judging from the comments section many readers disagree with me. The Democrats do need to closely question one another concerning their histories, their policies, and their qualifications.
This is a transformative moment in American history and the country doesn’t need a president who is simply a slightly better alternative to Trump. The country doesn’t need a president whose primary interest is putting the Democrats back in power so that the Democrats and their lobbyists can have all the benefits of that power (for instance their offspring making significant sums of money, legally but still sleazily, in countries like the Ukraine and China).
None of the candidates are anywhere close to perfect, and the voters have a right to know each of the candidates limitations so that they can make an intelligent choice. And no one knows these limitations better than the other candidates. So let’s talk about these limitations in the debates.
Let's not quibble. DJT has been the worst president since this great country's founding, including Buchanan, Hoover, and the most corrupt until now, Harding. (Nixon gets a pass for a number of positive accomplishments, including the self-awareness that led to his resignation.)
A "slightly better alternative than" the lying, corrupt, ignorant, incompetent lazy current (part-time) occupant of the White House? The one who has done serious if not irreparable damage to our economy by obscene deficits, nonsensical trade wars, as he exacerbates the distribution of wealth? The one whose racism and divisiveness has polarized this country and glorified hatred beyond any possible point of return? The one who has betrayed our allies as he kow-tows to the world's autocrats and works in lockstep with them? The phony flag-hugging bone-spur patriot? The one who enables his half-witted offspring to make obscene amounts of money while personally benefitting to the tune of hundreds of millions, all in violation of the emoluments clause? Populated the "swamp" with a whole bunch of his self-serving cronies? You mean that one?
Since, in the writer's words, "the voters have a right to know . . . the candidates limitations," these candidates need to emphasize and re-emphasize the limitations of the fraud and con man who is the current president. The bully once said, "If I get hit, I hit back harder." it's time for the Dems to hit this bully back and send him home crying to his momma.
1
I think there is a temptation to regard being polite as a problem since Trump won in 2016, when behaving in the opposite way. No Democratic is as good as Trump in this regard (as we have seen in the debates so far), nor should they. Civility and wisdom may be winning qualities for 2020.
4
I think you're wrong about the need to confront Warren. We all know about the claiming to be a Native American to get a job at Harvard. It was despicable, & she's apologized. We know she doesn't
t have Sander's integrety. What she has is answers to the needs of non- wealthy Americans. If you want progressive, & I do, I'm glad she keeps gaining, & hope she's the democratic candidate. I think she can more that handle our demented president, so there's no need for Dems to weaken her by confornting her with the relatively petty issues you mention.
100
@Jenifer Wolf. Sanders integrity? It was obvious last time he was a spoiler. His support of HRC after her nomination was half hearted at best. His proposals are pie in the sky nonsense that have zero chance of enactment. He would do us all a favor by dropping out now based on health and age and then working hard to bring his supporters along to support whoever is nominated. My preference is for one of those described as second tier candidates.
27
@Jenifer Wolf
Speaking of petty issues: Warren did not claim to be Native American to get a job at Harvard; she checked the box “Native American” because she was told by her family that she is part Native American. (And, it turns out that is the case.)
My husband is from Oklahoma - his family has been there since before statehood in 1907 - and he told me that it is completely common for OK families to have Native heritage, or to be told that is the case by their parents & grandparents.
I’m glad you like and (potentially) support Warren, but don’t give Trump/the GOP this as a talking point. EW shouldn’t have to apologize or explain any further; if (rightfully) claiming Native American heritage is her most egregious offense, give me a break.
74
@Jenifer Wolf
Harvard did not consider Warren’s ethnicity in hiring her. That claim has been debunked.
Also “despicable”? Really? In our country, being one-eighth African American or Native American was sufficient to have you deemed “non-white “ in many states. Not so many years ago (in my lifetime), she could have been accused of “passing” for white.
Let’s not form the circular firing squad just yet.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-harvard-did-not-consider-her-native-american-boston-globe-report-2018-09-01/
54
"So Biden’s rivals onstage on Tuesday night should ask if him if anything that he and President Barack Obama did, or failed to do, inadvertently paved the way for Trump.."
No, they shouldn't.
What purpose would it serve. And what would the answer possibly be. "Yeah, we were too polite." "Yeah, we gave bipartisan politics a shot." Actually, I'm not even sure what this question means.
5
Wait, isn't this the circular firing squad everyone was criticizing the progressives of doing by simply asking questions and calling out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and those running? Progressive have been saying all along that if you can't whether a few tough questions from fellow Democrats how in the heck are you going to survive Trump, who, regardless of his faults, is a master at reading a room and counter-punching.
And this:
"But her wounds would have mattered less if Sanders had rallied more enthusiastically to her side once she’d won the nomination."
Is an absolute shameful lie Mr. Bruni. Sanders campaigned his heart out for her. More of Bernie Sanders voters voted for Hillary Clinton than her supporters voted for Barrack Obama. That is a fact. So stop with your egregious smears. Maybe if she had consolidated her party by balancing the ticket with ANYONE but conservative, Right-To-Work Tim Kaine and gone to Wisconsin just once, ONCE!, she would have won.
4
@FXQ, some valid points. But let’s not forget, Hillary did win.
She would have taken the office the majority of voters elected her for if it had been for any other elected office. The Presidency is the only non-democratically elected office.
Let’s put this in a broader context:
the Democrats won the Presidency; the Republicans took office.
Getting a bit old now.
3
Frank Bruno would do us a greater service if he spent his column space excoriating the DNC for not splitting the televised debate field of 12 so the public could really learn more about the issues and governing philosophies of these candidates. The argument for having 12 on stage—giving us the opportunity to see the front-runners debating one another—is ridiculous at this point. If the candidates follow Mr. Bruni’s advice on Tuesday, we’ll have an ugly scene that could turn voters off early in the process. If the ugliness is then ratcheted up closer to the Democratic convention, people could—perish the thought—stay away from the polls.
2
"Senator Warren, in 60 seconds, please discuss the complete financial, social, and structural details of your health care plan, with specific attention to how it will affect each of the +300 million Americans individually."
"Thank you, Mr. Moderator, but I will not insult the American people by reducing an extraordinarily complicated issue to sound bites. The details of my PROPOSAL are readily available for all to see."
"Well, then, let me follow up with another question. Answering 'yes' or 'no' only..... have you stopped beating your husband?"
3
I could not agree with you more. All the questions you want Elizabeth Warren to answer are all the questions I want to ask myself. She is peddling such solutions that can't possibly get done. Where does that leave us? Let me tell you, even as a woman, I quake at the idea of her being the nominee. I would also like some questions from the moderators about foreign policy. We as a country have ignored these issues for too long and as a result we have a commander-in-chief who is unhinged and unravelling our alliances. How do you build them back up? What do we need to do in the Middle East?
Really I am all in for Pete Buttigieg and have even sent him a bit of money. I am Trump's age and would all septuagenarians head for the hills please. Yes mayor Pete is young and it is refreshing to see someone young, but perhaps he is too young. My fear is as a gay married man this will be a problem and wrongly turn off many voters including I'm afraid many black voters. (I didn't like Warren's cute remarks at the town hall about what she would say if someone said to her his religion does not allow for acceptance of homosexuality. You engage with someone how holds these views, not insult them.) Yes I am not in for Liz. And yes Democrats need to be challenging each other and so do moderators.
No, no, no, Mr. Bruni. Do not promote incivility. We have too much of it on a daily basis from Trump and his base. We have seen it embolden his supporters. It cannot become the new normal. Not the spirit of the language nor the crass and obscene language itself.
5
Don’t be silly, they have a centrism problem. Even Bernie couldn’t be called a true lefty. That’s what we need if we want to have morals or even just plain sense in this country again.
1
Thank you for pointing out that Bernie's refusal to fully support Clinton was a huge contributing factor to her defeat!
He came off as a grumpy old man then; he goes off as a grumpy old man now.
4
It would be far more informative if these events were actually debates. Two participants who discuss one or maybe two topics and provide in-depth information and analysis of their positions on that/those issue(s). What we have are basically stump speeches presented in pieces.
Here is an idea. What is the most important issue - one that all, every one of the Democratic candidates share? Our democracy is being existentially threatened - our check-and-balances structure that protects us from authoritarians; our institutions, our judiciary, our free press.
Start the “debates” with a written statement read by a moderator - agreed to by all the candidates - that takes a stand, all the democratic candidates together, 1) that they all agree that our democracy itself is being threatened and that is the fundamental issue and 2) if we do not re-establish our democratic structures and policies and norms - everything else, jobs, healthcare, climate, Social safely net, jobs, the economy - will be reduced to lip-service.
If Democrats can put forward that stance, which they actually all share, - restoring our democracy - then they can all more easily get behind whoever is the nominee. None of their policies matter, if we cannot restore our fundamental democratic institutions, norms, and power-sharing (and power-checking) structures
4
I'm tired of Donald Trump, tired of his know-nothing acting department heads, tired of whiny, bratty Supreme Court appointees, tired of mealy-mouthed McConnell mumbling to the press when he deigns to speak to them, tired of lies, tired of the ignorance of so many people (including my own relatives). Blood sport or not (And who says so? The people who make it that way??), I'd like some civility and competence to return to government and to society. Less individuality and selfishness and more "of the people, for the people, and by the people." I think that's what most Democrats want.
5
When you have 10-12 people on a "debate" stage, you can pretend that it has real value and can change voters' minds, or you can recognize how silly these spectacles are and get real about whom to support.
5
No. You're trying to get the Democrats to devour each other. Let's hope that Trump will not remain on the national scene much longer.
3
Heaven forbid; they may all aspire to be the Vice Presidential running mate.
1
Frank, Frank, Frank, once AGAIN you ignore the candidate who is going to be there all along: Andrew Yang. Buttigieg is a corporate shill and we'll have no more of them, thank you. Beto is Zero. Biden should (and I hope will soon) drop out, once he finally understands his time is over. Warren cannot be trusted to fight the way Bernie would, but I am worried that the heart attack is going to negatively impact Bernie's chances. Let's see exactly how much time someone with real ideas for solving our problems--Yang-- is given in the upcoming debate. Wait, it's being organized by CNN and the NYT? That pretty much says it all.
Why is Andrew Yang not being considered a Top 5 candidate considering he raised more than 10 million dollars in the previous quarter, has seen a higher rate of growth than most of his competitors, has increasing support from past Trump voters, has polled in the Top 5 in recent polls.
Not once was Andrew Yang mentioned in the article. This is blatant media bias against a strong and genuine candidate for the presidency of the USA. This is unacceptable from a serious and supposedly unbiased and objective media outlet.
Please give Yang much more coverage. He deserves it.
If blacks stay home because they don't like the Democrat candidate, then that's a vote for Trump. Same with Hispanics and other minorities. They will decide the next president either by voting for the Democrat nominee or not voting at all. If voters who despise Trump and what he stands for don't rally around his opponent, no matter whom he or she may be, then the collapse of democracy that we're seeing now will become American fascism. That's not an oxymoron.
1
Any policy proposals put forth by the Democratic candidates that require the slightest thought will be ignored by Trump supporters. In addition, Trump supporters will resent them and consider them elitist for trying to explain their positions. So why are the candidates subjecting themselves to hectoring questions from pompous talking heads who are trying to foment typical reality show conflict between them? The candidates are battering each other while Trump ignores the whole charade. Get tough with the networks, these debates make them all look foolish.
2
@usedmg Any policy put forth by Dems as “free” considers all voters to be fools.
Is that what it has come down to.....a "Pocahontas" vs "Captain Bonespurs" mudslinging contest? I'm sure that's what the American voter has been longing for all along. The thing you forget about is all these Democratic candidates is they are on the same team. So by all means they should ruthlessly attack each other because that is what Trump will do. Perhaps Warren should wear a Lock Up Hunter t shirt at the debate? Or maybe Kamala should hire someone to wear a Pocahontas out fit and sit in the front row? The real question is do the American voters want this to end or are they thirsty for more? Instead of standing up to the bully and saying 'ENOUGH" , you think the Democrats should follow the "if you can't beat him, join him" way of thinking. Here's another aspect of this: Perhaps if you aren't an expert at bullying. If you aren't so low that your view is anything goes, maybe it's better to not try and be like him. Because Trump looks natural when he is doing it. He likes being like that. He's been doing it since first grade. If Warren or any of the others try to do it, you'll write a column about how inept they are at it. And that will be your rationalization for why they lost.
5
REALLY? ... Nice provocative piece, but sneaky in the subtext that EW is too "radical" for NYT and Mr. Bruni.
Because make no mistake - the part of her appeal that can be described as GENUINE POPULISM is right for the time - even Trump's supporters recognize that it's a Heads We Win, Tails you lose operation where the "we" are wealthy people like Trump.
And increasingly, they're coming to realize that this self-dealing spills over into foreign policy and genuinely makes the US look like a banana republic.
Yes, Trump will play dirty, ... but there's no reason to give the GOP material than can use in their attack ads.
If defeating Trump is - and I'm sure it IS - high on Mr. Bruni's wish list, getting Bernie on camera saying, "Elizabeth - look what a hypocrite you are" is not the way to get there.
NOT EVEN CLOSE! Let the GOP own "thuggery." Michelle O. had it right, "GO HIGH!" ... updated for 2019 - stay HIGH, i.e., not turning an already unwieldy 12-some into a food fight!
3
in his thesis that Democrats should "stop being nice", I think Mr. Bruni misses the larger point. Rather than going after one another, they should collectively be going after the larger monster(s), trump and the GOP. They should employ the Gingrich strategy from the Clinton years, of at every opportunity, labeling them for what they are: immoral, unpatriotic, money-grubbing, lying scoundrels. Gingrich's strategy was so much rhetoric; the one I am proposing would be truth telling. Yes, the Dems are too "nice"; we in their base have known that for a long time and hate them for it; but they are not too nice to each other, but rather too nice to the disloyal opposition. Go get 'em!
2
The time they need to take the gloves off is when their candidate debates Donald J Trump. Several of them could do it. Do it. Just do it. I would love to choreograph it.
3
Time for Dems to fall in line, not in love.
1
Because Warren refuses to be boxed in by a Republican “did you stop beating your wife yet” talking points question about taxes v. costs of her plans (a drum that you, yourself seem sadly willing to beat) is exactly why she can handle Trump and a media that seems more than willing to carry water for Republicans asking such political “gotcha” questions to push an agenda (in your case your incorrect views on Medicare for All)
2
@Mark Some should ask Lizzie what her plan is for reducing the national debt.
You mean the Trump national debt.
1
Hillary was "hurt badly" by Bernie??? Really?
Thank God he was there to sharpen her up. The DNC wanted to wrap her up in cotton until the general election.
I notice that Bruni doesn't mention Sanders at all, except to snipe at him for supposedly not getting behind Clinton enthusiastically enough once she secured the nomination. He has lots to say about many lesser candidates who are very, very far behind Sanders in donations or in the polls. Frankly, I'm sick of NY Times columnists trashing Sanders as they did in 2015, or ignoring him as they do now.
1
With regard to the next debate I look forward to hearing more from Tulsi, especially after the hit piece published in today's NYT (no comment section provided). Tulsi won't play the game that corporate democrats dictate She thinks deeply about issues and won;t fall in line wjth the Clinton wing. That's why she left her position in the party in 2016.
2
I think people can debate politely and vigorously without going after each other without accusations and digging up dirt. Let the journalists point out how they are hypocrites.
I just want to hear their ideas and don't want to hear them yelling at each other.
3
Dems are polite and they’re very bad at marketing themselves. There is SO MUCH fodder for them to use against the lying tyrant in the WH but I fear their polite ways will stop them in their tracks. That’s why I thought some version of this proposal had merit (even though I’m for Pete): https://www.smerconish.com/news/2019/10/4/an-immodest-proposal-for-2020?rq=Guy michael.
Bruni must think this is a slow news day. With all that's happening, why else would he pen such an absurd column. He wants the Dem contenders to be bolder, but then he suggests the party could pick a "safe" nominee from lower down the ladder.
In the 2016 election the Republicans made their choice well before the convention, but I don't recall Bruni calling for a longer campaign so that other candidates could pin trump down on how exactly he would MAGA.
20:00 EDT, 10/12
1
Thank you Mr. Bruni!
I’m so sick of Democrats apologizing for every little misstep or misstatement. When was the last time we heard a Republican, ANY Republican, apologize?
Additionally, if the Democrat candidates don’t stop playing to the “Twitter crowd” and start playing to the flyover states (reality: they will control the Electoral College), and stop the “give-a-way train” , we’ll do what Democrat presidential candidates do best: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
And here’s my latest very unprofessional prediction: we nominate an “every thing free” candidate (ie. Sanders, Warren, etc) we lose FORTY STATES, and put our country in catastrophic danger with 4 more years of this truly crazy president.
1
Right idea, Mr. Bruni, but slightly off-target. Democrats are too polite, but not necessarily to each other. They are far too polite to the Republican party. They have yet to realize that the Republicans regard us (I am a Democrat) as the enemy and are out to destroy us, rather successfully to date. As long as Chuck Schumer calls that evil conniving troll Mitch McConnell his "friend", there is no hope. The sentiment expressed by Michelle Obama ("when they go low, we go high") is admirable, but naive. All that brought us is 8 years of racist obstructionism by McConnell and his minions followed by the current nightmare under the wannabe fascist dictatorship of Trump.
Time for the Democrats to get real and get nasty. This is a zero-sum game, and we are losing big time.
Trump never ran for any public office before stealing — um, ascending — the presidency in 2016. He succeeded by being a bloviating, cunning, shrewd, boorish, down-in-the-gutter muck jumper who flew the flag of racism, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ, foul-mouthed gangsterism. The Democrats are mostly high thinkers, cerebral, compassionate, idealistic and patriotic Americans who are facing the devil and know what they’re up against. Will urbane eloquence vanquish the trash-talking thug? Can vision and elevated thought propel a democrat into the White House? Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, Steyer and others with either have to take the gloves off and call out Trump for his horrible nature, drug addiction, criminal proclivities and satanic nature, or take the high road and hope America eschews the pablum of the incumbent and embraces decency. It will be fascinating to see how the democrats proceed, and how Lucifer’s emissary responds. Buckle in; it’s going to be an unforgettable ride.
1
@H. Clark When have Steyer and Yang run for office?
not only should the gloves come off, but the brass knuckles put on.
may the gods cause them to take your advice, mr bruni.
1
Last time, the lovely idea of "When they go low, we go high" didnt work out too well.
How about "When they go low, we kneecap 'em"
Bruni perpetuates the lie that Bernie Sanders did not help or rally to HRC's side in 2016. Bernie traveled all over the country and even got booed by his own supporters at the convention for his support of Clinton. Bruni conveniently forgets how angry many Democrats were at the DNC for rigging the primaries for Clinton. He forgets that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down as the head of the DNC during the convention. That Donna Brazile slipped Hillary the questions before a CNN debate. That's why many Democrats couldn't bring themselves to vote for her. Bernie did his best and was in no way responsible for the mistakes made by her and her campaign.
2
The real "politeness" problem for the Democrats is that they continue to put candidates who are not going to be the nominee on the nationwide stage, who then make wild comments that hurt the whole party. If these candidates want to continue a feckless campaign, let them pay for their own microphone and stage to make their irresponsible commitments about things they know they'll never have to follow through on. but keep them away from the top tier individuals.
2
Candidates should use the debate(s) to inform viewers how Trump hurts America and Americans, and to highlight how the candidate's specific policies will help correct the damage Trump and Republicans have caused and continue to inflict. Democrats should not give Trump sound-bites for the general election just to get a debate bump in the polls. Win by offering solutions, not by turning on your fellow Democrats.
9
Medicare for All may involve switching premiums for taxes, but there's no reason to assume those taxes would be higher than today's premiums if we eliminate most of the overhead of insurance companies.
Further, if we give the government the power to push down prices 40% to equalize with Europe, those taxes will be far below the premiums we pay today.
Yes, the politics could be challenging, so I would suggest we start with lowering the Medicare age to 55 if someone doesn't have a qualified plan through their employer. We then cover the remaining uninsured by expanding the level of income available for ACA subsidies and shaming the Red States into passing the Medicaid expansion.
Recall the ACA was a moderate deficit reducer due in part to its tax hikes on the top 1%; we can certainly increase those.
9
I do not want to see the democratic candidates fighting and tearing each other down on the stage. It is the journalists job to find out how she will pay for health care. I love the way they don't want to hurt each other - probably because I'm so tired of the president's constantly tearing down other Americans. It is true that the democrats in general are more polite. Do they tear into people being investigated by congress not allowing them to answer the questions?
7
Mr. Bruni might have reserved some of his criticism for the media staging the debates. Sure, the candidates should challenge each others' ideas where they disagree. But their main job is to make the case for their own proposed agenda. It's not their job to step in and do the work of journalists. Too many of the televised debates have been framed (and constrained) by the standard narratives of the political political press corps. I recognize that the size of the field and the nature of the current TV format make it tough to take a deep look at complicated issues. But the moderators should try anyhow. They would serve us better if they reached more often for original angles and more substantive questions.
6
No, Frank. Dems do not have to provide Repubs with clips they can use in the 2020 campaign. Repubs will do enough trashing of the next Dem candidate for president; Dems should not help them.
Moreover, the questions you raise probably don't matter. The 2020 election will depend on how many of the voters go to the polls with malignant racism in their hearts. Trump's base will not cite race; they will cite taxes or "the swamp" or the deep state or political correctness. But the bottom line is how much their resentment of POC weighs with them, when balanced against a president who is clearly crass, foul-mouthed, bullying, dishonest, and without any meaningful strategy for foreign and domestic affairs, other than advancing his own interests.
11
You have been unduly influenced by the incumbent, Frank.
Since when was politeness a "problem?"
Coming upon the heels of your "agony" over Pete, this piece makes me wonder what you have been eating lately.
If we were all "imperfect" like Pete the world would be a much better place.
Something for you to consider. Perhaps the Democratic candidates are constitutionally incapable of removing "the gloves."
And that is a good thing.
Kirsten Gillibrand, former Republican and the most interruptive debater, was universally reviled and left the scene pretty quickly.
Rude combativeness is the bailiwick of Republicans and guests on the Jerry Springer show.
By my count there are about six Democratic candidates who can prevail over Trump--through their charismatic intelligence and decency.
11
Frank, keep your eye on the ball.
Trump is the issue, not the finer points of the Democratic platform.
Are you actually advocating a circular firing squad? Elizabeth Warren’s hairbrush has better qualifications than Trump.
10
@David G.: And don't forget Amy Klobuchar's comb!
Before Trump, I always thought that flinging dirt at anyone will make two people dirty. The one who hurls, and the one that is being hurled at.
I am not sure whether democratic voters will cherish someone who is attacking. Nevertheless it will be important for the frontrunners to be attacked in the primary. If only because the attacks during the general election will be 10 times tougher.
1
I don't agree. The Democrats need to pick their horse without wearing him or her out, get a running mate, and then as a party go after Trump and everyone around him.
5
This is our (We the People's) only chance to vet our candidates.
To wait for the general election and let the Repubs/Trump do it for us is to lose the opportunity to promote a better, less blemished choice.
We/they all have skeletons and foibles. Bad votes and decisions. Many are liars and darn good at doing such. Many are rank opportunists and grifters.
Most are very smart, ambitious and wealthy; but not all.
We have this chance given to us NOW. Later is too late.
Let the melee ensue and a champion arise.
I want a truthful president. If she/he has blemishes lets show them and decide it those are deal breakers or not.
America and the human species is at a crux. Waiting and kicking the can will/is just making the issues worse.
THIS is our chance.
Please, not more of the same. Status quo, business as usual.
Less Evil doesn't cut it anymore. We are HERE because of that repeated mistake.
You want to stab delicately and with charm and grace 'n class...fine.
But stab we must.
Our future must be vetted NOW while we still have a chance to choose better.
Pull the masks off and lets see who they all really are.
It's now or never folks.
This is your only chance.
1
Warren should be asked if the majority of Democratic voters want to keep the private option if she will switch her position.
It’s and easy explain. All she need to do is say that she is listening to the majority of her party and that she is not Queen or Dictator like Trump. Yes, she thinks it is the best path for the country but she will also respect the majority of voters.
This is a loser with unions. They made financial concessions for decades, went on strikes, ticked firing to get those health plans for themselves and their families. She needs to rethink that.
2
While Mr Bruni almost always gets it right, in this one he is off the mark. There is no way to prepare for a campaign against Trump without an opponent like Trump. He is already lying, cheating, and mudslinging, and the real campaign hasn't even begun. The Dems should concentrate on their policy differences; the eventual nominee will have ample time to prepare for the breathtakingly dirty campaign Trump will unleash.
6
In 2016 - the Republican primaries were brutal, Trump taking down the Bush family was staggering. Christie taking down Cruz.
Death blows . Trump was the last one standing, So when the democrats started their McCain/Romney attacks, he was ready.
Hillary faced a gentleman in Sanders, who said "who cares about the email servers" - which just delayed the Trump and Comney attacks.
The problem in 2020 is a complacent and partisan press. Being myopic sycophants, they will allow a weak candidate to win, and be decimated in the general election.
Biden is very old - he makes Reagan sound young
Warren - getting no push back and is out making up stuff (being a minority and getting fired from a special-ed teaching job for being pregnant when it looks like she quite as teaching was not for her - but real-estate law was?)
Harris is dead - even in the puff pieces - her contradictions are hard to ignore. Tulsi destroyed her.
The only person that is getting tough coverage (if any at all) is Sanders and Tulsi.
Trump will indeed be ferocious. However that is unlikely to be expressed in detailed attacks aimed at minor inconsistencies. Instead, he will attack with trumped up fantastical falsehoods and broad labels like "Socialist" and "Radical". He will make outrageous accusations of bizarre scenarios. The successful opponent will need to come up with an effective defense against unhinged, but catchy, assertions. Trump is not limited by truth or scruples, so his opponent must be adept at handling absurdities.
3
Most Americans have neither the interest, the patience, nor the intellectual curiosity to process the nuanced positions or probing questions of which you mention here, Mr. Bruni. General themes, broad and sweeping characterizations, and the branding of a concept is all that most citizens can handle. It is why Donald Trump has been so successful: he is a master of branding. And in our capitalist, commercialized world, people “buy” only that which they can wrap their heads around.
As Trump brands all the Democrats as “socialist”, so, too, should the wise primary candidate not focus on the weaknesses of his or her primary opponent in this filtering primary, but aggressively brand Trump and his enablers for what they are: corrupt fascists. Oligarchs. Destroyers of democracy. Russian sympathizers. There is certainly plenty of evidence to support those monikers, but Democrats always are too polite to get in the mud. “Treasonous Trump” should join “Moscow Mitch” in the election lexicon.
“If they go low, we go high”, is the right thing to do, of course. I abhor the suggested behaviors I just mentioned. But we are not dealing with opponents in the Party of Trump who respect democracy, rule of law, integrity, or civility. The successful primary candidate should set nuanced policy solutions aside and rise up in righteous indignation about what the Party of Trump is doing to destroy our nation. Only THAT will get the attention of the electorate.
2
I want the Democratic debates and the campaign of the nominee to be the opposite of the trump rallies. I want civility, steadiness, goodwill, and rationally presented ideas instead of rudeness, chaos, wrath, and lies. I want passion and enthusiasm without violence or savagery. And I want frank, plain speech devoid of name-calling.
I want everything I saw in Senator Klobuchar when she announced her candidacy in a snowstorm.
3
This isn’t the time for Democrats to fight amongst themselves. They only diminish their moral authority. That’s what Trump and his ilk want. Democrats need to be smart and tactical and ready to talk about how they will govern and lead. By the way, let’s spend some debate time on the topic of leadership. As tempting as it is to try to undermine an opponent, it is foolish in this election when ALL of these people need to get on board with whoever is eventually the nominee.
5
Good column, Mr.Bruni.
"now is the time, well before the voting in caucuses and primaries begins, to size up the various Democratic candidates’ hypocrisies, half-truths and vulnerabilities"
So true, but do you really think the same older democratic voters with rotary telephones and faded "I'm with her" stickers on the backs of their sport utility vehicles, who thought that the corrupt, Libyan war criminal HRC was "the most qualified candidate ever", have the moral fortitude to go down that road?
I don't think so.
"I urge the losers this time around to get in line pronto."
Votes are earned, it's up to the candidate to make his/her case.
Voter shaming will get you nowhere.
"So Biden’s rivals onstage on Tuesday night should ask if him if anything that he and President Barack Obama did, or failed to do, inadvertently paved the way for Trump."
You mean like their war crimes in Libya, Yemen, Syria etc., their funneling weapons to radical Sunni terrorists that enabled the formation of ISIS, their increase in domestic unconstitutional mass surveillance, their bailing out the banks while kicking homeowners to the street, the illegal drone-assassination-program killing 90% civilians, the new regime change operations launched in Honduras, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizens, or the relentless prosecution of whistleblowers using the 1917 Espionage Act?
Do you mean those?
I hope you do, but I doubt it.
All Dems have is "But Trump!"
2
The candidates are too cagey. Unlike the others, Beto has thrown caution to the winds. I agree with some of his positions, like machine-gun control. I disagree with other positions, like open borders. At the least they can give Trump more opportunities to make a political fool of himself.
mr. bruni’s advice is terrible. the last thing democrats need is an intra-party fight. the candidates need to cooperate and work out who is the best candidate among themselves. as usual, marianne williamson, who has no chance of being nominated, is the only one advocating a sensible choice.
this is not a fight, it is, or should be, a cooperative process. we are all democrats, remember? it is certainly not a debate, not given the current idiotic format. i think the candidates should ignore the press questions and start asking each other questions, and see if they can come up with some sensible solutions - not fight each other. they are not each other’s enemies. one reason they lost in 2016 is that bernie sanders supporters refused to back hillary in the general election. let’s not do that again.
3
This commentary assumes that trump and his party deals in substantive questions and criticisms — when our experience has been that they get much farther with inflammatory charges that bear no resemblance to reality.
Do you really think trump, if he actually showed up for a debate, would ask Warren how she would pay for her programs?
He would rage that she is a socialist who will take away your guns, hamburgers and plane flights etc. etc. while enslaving your children in communes! And he will repeat it ad nauseam until it sticks.
There is a fine line between substantive debate and a muddy brawl that bloodies all of the nominees, leaving the losers tepid in their support of the eventual nominee (I agree with Frank's comment on Sanders).
I am skeptical that a substantive debate would be any kind of preparation for the bizarre attacks and projections that will be levied by trump. I fully expect that trump will be loudly accusing Warren of paying off a porn star with campaign funds via her personal lawyer. And so on.
trump has never been capable of substantive debate or criticism on any point of policy -- and has never bothered to give the slightest explanation of the details of his own policies.
He won't start now.
Substantive Democratic debates will be a preparation for debating trump like a round of Jeopardy would be preparation for a knife fight with a crack addict.
3
So frank is for more infighting and division. Just what we need. And while he’s at it he can help trump to another four horrid years.
7
Candidates can point out each other’s weaknesses, without turning nasty but by sticking to the facts. I also think it’s time to question certainly the “Top 5” how quickly they will rally around the presumptive nominee. One of my issues with both Warren and Sanders is how they made Hillary Clinton grovel around for their “blessing” in 2016 — especially Liz Warren who acted like she was some huge D powerbroker.
Voters will need a REASON to go to the polls to vote D — and “Trump’s a bad guy” probably won’t do it in PA, WI or MI, sorry. It’s easy on the coasts to say “oh, tut tut, someone should do something”. What is the driving reason someone will do a better job, make my life easier, keep us involved in international affairs but not make us the “world’s policeman”, address climate without taking away my plastic straws. Is Biden too old? Is Warren? Is Sanders? Yes to all three. Are Booker, Harris, Castro and Pete running anything other than a Veep campaign or, worse, a vanity campaign? Let’s find out. You’re right, Frank, 12 is a full debate stage. I don’t know that the rules state everyone gets a question. I’m not interested in hearing from Tom Steyer, let him stand there and make an opening and closing comment.
Usually agree with Frank, but not today. Save the confrontations for the moderators’ questions or ‘Meet the Press’; the Democrats can’t afford a circular firing squad this time around.
3
I think Amy Klobuchar holds back because of the early attacks on her that she was a mean boss. In my opinion she is the best of the bunch, doesn't promise pie in the sky, and could win in the midwest.
2
Obama won in part because he went 15 rounds with Hillary. Durning which, her campaign was the first to bring birtherism into public focus.
Thanks to Hillary taking the gloves off, Obama was able to deal with that issue well before the general.
2
So you’re saying attack more fiercely but afterward losers get in line more quickly. Doesn’t your first piece of advice make the second more difficult?
4
How about using some Trumpisms to excite the Democratic base? Time to put a face on the injustices of the Trump agenda. For example, the Dems could promise to repeal the Wilbur Ross billionaire tax break. He didn't need it and everybody knows it.
Next, the Dems could point out how ludicrous it is for our Middle East policy to be in the hands of Jared Kushner, his wet behind the ears son-in-law with no prior experience in foreign affairs and everybody knows it.
Or the Dems could point out what a wonderful job the Trump trade deals have been for our farmers. Just ask the ones who have on average lost 50% of their former yearly salary due to the losses in overseas contracts.
Finally, the Dems could urge Trump to please not wrap himself in the American flag the way he did at one of his recent reelection gatherings. It was unseemly knowing that he got out of the draft with a suspicious bone spur while brave men took his place. They can also point out to our former Kurd Bothers in Arms that they aren't the first soldiers he has left behind and they won't be the last if we re-elect this man.
3
So, according to this logic, democratic candidates must be as pure as driven snow and it is the responsibility of the media (or competitors in debates) to make sure that there is not even a hint of a venial sin in their records.
Because, of course, to fight the cleanest, more honest, most ethical, most saintly Rep candidate ever, you can only do it with someone who is at least as impeccable as the adversary.
To summarize: the Ugliest American has set the bar of honesty and ethics so high that his opponent cannot afford to have even a typo on her campaign literature.
3
No, don't take the gloves off. Democrats will lose gloriously if they fight each other, throw a fit about purity, and look for a perfect, pure, unsullied candidate (as a new born baby). Democrats must, instead, coalesce around the best available and start knocking on every single of the 110 million households in America with locally-known democrats.
Democrat politeness is a nonsense notion. What democrats suffer from is nonsensical notions of purity and perfection, and their default option to not vote or vote for a third party candidate to make some insane point, and leave the country with horrendous leadership (like Bush II, his wars, his economic collapse; and Trump - long list).
Let people vote in a primary, then coalesce. Period.
3
Mr. Bruni advocates for just the kind of circular firing squad that he will most likely be critical of in his next article summarizing the "debate". He forgets that trump does not argue positions, does not debate an opponent with facts, nor respect anyone. He will reduce his rants to schoolyard taunts while his minions spread rumors.
Regardless of the candidate, expect lies, slander, stalking, foreign dirty trucks and threats from the republican destruction team. Expect talk of 2nd amendment solutions, murderous gangs at our borders and terrorists in democratic clothing. There is no preparation for the foul ugliness that is trump and the republican's approach to keeping power.
The biggest question for the candidates will be how they will clean the the White House of the trump smell, and how they will return our government back to serving the people once again.
3
Frank -- you are dead wrong on this one!
What we need MORE of is politeness in our national dialog, not less. And especially among the democratic contenders -- ANY of whom would be a HUGE step up from Trump and the horrid, faithless Republicans. And you know it.
In fact, when in a recent debate Julian Castro was harshly criticizing Joe Biden ("did you already forget what you said two minutes ago..."), PeteB deftly came to his rescue, and criticized Julian back, indicating this is why political debates are unwatchable -- which was a class act.
Indeed, the democrats in unison -- in stark contrast to the republicans -- are offering hope, and progress towards our many challenges, including race relations, environment and climate change, wealth inequality, gun violence, etc. Their visions are fairly well aligned, and their differences are minor. They must stand united.
6
Choose quality and low-vulnerability. Biden is now off the table, although he should keep competing just to show he hasn't been defeated by Rudy and the Trumpo-Ukrainian con artists. Warren will benefit from being attacked by the Trumpers, because that will chase Trump's own support lower and lower into the sewer. She should pledge to respect a party platform on funding Medicaid-- not on some nebulous promise for costing. The best candidate, in my view, is Buttigieg who has low vulnerability; a shining service record that will shame the mafioso Trump; a gender profile that can unite men and women; a vocabulary that isn't full of French Critical Theory and Check Your Male Privilege; and the wits and eloquence to dissect Emperor Donald forcefully. Forget the minority grievances at the margin-- that's a media detail.
As to your last interrogation about how Warren went from a right-wing education position to her new one - I would suggest reading your own paper where a whole article details her change - apparently frequently described in her own stump speeches.
4
Bad advice, Frank. This is how Democrats eat their own and bad feelings linger after the primaries... what a naive, naive assumption that losing candidates will come together after the primary is over.
Did you even think about that? Do you think Kamala Harris is grateful for the attacks on her past as a prosecutor? Do you honestly believe she will be a happy warrior and get behind a person attacking her should that person become the front runner?
Also, you just gave intellectual cover to political terrorists like Tulsi Gabbard (R-Moscow), who have no shot at winning, to do Putin’s bidding and inflict lasting damage to the stronger candidates opposing Trump.
5
I disagree. They should not go after each other - that only will give more glee to the Problem Person in the White House. But they should be way less polite about him. He uses gutter language about everyone he doesn't like (which is anyone in his way). Go ahead & call him out on his vile behavior and go ahead and call him names.
1
I find this a very poorly thought out column. Frank has access to any and all the candidates and has the ability to ask for answers to the questions he poses in this article as do the commentators asking questions during the debates. A circular firing squad in which everyone is killed or injured is the last thing the Democrats need. What the Democrats do need is a candidate that will appeal to the Southern and Middle Americans. They do not need a candidate espousing elitism or unrealistic idealism or pie in the sky promises. Most of all, the Democratic candidate must have the quickness of mind, sense of humor and street-toughness to slug it out with the psychotic in the White House and show our liar-in-chief for the true danger he is to our democracy and to the world.
3
My partner and I were talking about Elizabeth Warren.
We recalled how stunned we were when it was discovered that even large numbers of women voted against Hillary Clinton. We delusionally believed that misogyny, which means ‘hatred of women. in this country was far less than it clearly is, and not just among men.
The rhetoric and language used in even the official news, much less on opinion shows and in social media, was sexist to the point of offensiveness, and was/is inexcusable. Hillary had to deal with questions about her “likeability,” endless discussions and comments about her appearance, how much she smiled. None of this is EVER mentioned when talking about a male candidate.
Then came the tape of Trump bragging of groping women with impunity. The defense was later deemed “locker room talk.” Then America turned around and still elected this depraved misanthrope.
Then there was the sham confirmation hearing of SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh where a female accuser, who couldn’t be more credible, was treated HORRIBLY by Congress, even in the news.
The time of Trump’s regime, from the election to 3 years into his first term, Trump has pulled back the curtain: Kavanaugh, Weinstein, Cosby, Nassar, and even the current President of the United States himself.
Can a woman, even one as amazing as Warren, become President in the kind of society where a man can brag about sexually assaulting a woman on tape and still get elected!?
I will vote for her and see....
6
@SMcStormy
Ian's wife here... I would have voted for anyone over Hillary. I am not a hater of my own sex.
Maybe some of us simply wanted the candidate that would move this country LEAST to the Left. In most cases, that's usually the Republican.
The Democrats are making the same mistake they did four years ago -- assuming that not supporting the Democratic candidate is because of racism or misogyny.
Some of us couldn't care less about the race, sex, or sexual orientation of a candidate.
1
@Ian (Ian’s wife), “Some of us couldn't care less about the race, sex, or sexual orientation of a candidate."
Perhaps consider that you should....
All the data suggests that either you, or some other woman you know, has been sexually harassed, assaulted, molested as children, to a near certainty.
Its hard to know exactly because so many women never disclose this, even to their mother, sister, daughter, etc. This silence is at least partially due to knowing what happens when women speak up, even powerful, wealthy, highly-educated women such as Christine Ford. It would be difficult to overestimate how credible she is as a person, or a witness in a confirmation hearing.
Ford had nothing to gain and so much to lose, yet she stepped up and spoke up anyway, because it was the right thing to do.
Right or Left, the systemic inequality, double-standards, marginalization, not to mention the risk of discrimination and outright violence women face, STRONGLY argues that these issues should be at the top of *every* female voter's list.
The White het males circle the wagons in solidarity, even when the perp has a line of credible accusers that reaches around the block such as Weinstein or Nasser.
Trump saying he gropes women with impunity on tape should have resulted in criminal investigations, not being elected as President.
Women might want to take a page from the male playbook and demonstrate some solidarity, empathy and support for each other... including you.
1
While i get what you are saying Frank, but isn't this the job mostly of the people questioning the candidates? I do agree totally with your reminder that the big problem in 2016 wasn't that Clinton and Sanders fought before the primary, but that Sanders and his extreme followers never rallied meaningfully in supporting her once she won and, actually, kept spreading negative info about her. I notice in the present NYT blogs about the candidates, the same patterns are raising their ugly head again.
3
The Democrats should launch vicious and misleading attacks on each other because Trump will and they need the practice. Sure, it's so important to beat Trump that we should act just like him. The media moderators have certainly adopted that notion with most of their questions being some form of "your opponent has said such and such. Can I get you to attack them for that?" So far some of the candidates have chosen to instead have a respectful discussion of ideas and policies at least some of the time. Apparently it's a problem that they aren't nasty enough.
3
Frank, not to question your powers of observations, sir, but the fisticuffs are already "bare-knuckled." And, free-swinging, may I add. Of course, so have the many swings from their conservative combatants.
Neither side seems to read or understand "Miss Manners" in their failure to distinguish between a right hook and the right fork.
Two things sure: neither side is right; and both sides left Tip O'Neills's politics years ago.
1
I, too, am extremely worried that the Democratic presidential candidates are not providing the kind of Sturm und Drang that sets the pulse racing among the tribe of political reportage. Where is the dramatic conflict and clash of vital interests, where the march to a stunning conclusion? For the current Democratic race for president is really not that exciting for the tribe of political reporters. Instead, we get all this talk about policy, which you gotta admit is pretty boring. I mean, if one of them ends up in a debate with Trump, how can they be expected to counter his spittle-flecked rages and first grade vocabulary? Don't they realize that Donald Trump is eleventy feet tall, and that everybody loves Republicans? Sheesh, get a grip, Democrats.
2
Terrible idea. Dems need to stick together. We see the depths Trump will troll to win at any cost. Save the fight for Trump.
3
Take the Gloves off--Sure--Get PBS to Moderate
Amanpour, Woodruff, Goodman
2
Bernie and Biden should drop out.. Let Warren take it from here..
Warren-Gabbard
Warren-Mayor Pete
Warren-Booker
Any of these combos will work..
1
@Aaron
You might want to do a little more research on Tulsi Gabbard.
Anyone who appeals to white supremacists deserves a closer look -- especially when we've already got one of them in the White House.
1
With a 37% approval rate and a penchant for lying Trump should be able to beaten by a plain speaking ham sandwich if it gets the nomination. If it gets out the vote.
3
@mr. mxyzptlk
Ham sandwich or not, don't forget the Electoral College.
1
@mr. mxyzptlk Check your numbers again.
Hard to believe that an intelligent man like you can’t see the disingenuousness of the “will you raise taxes, yes or no” question. It leaves out the savings people will have from universal health care and just leaves your opponents with the ability to say “she’ll raise taxes!” If you pay ten dollars out of one pocket and receive fifteen in the other, you’re five bucks ahead; do you really not get that?
4
The Republicans are united behind one thing: Mouth shut about Trump. Zipped tight. And Fox is running a 24-7 propaganda loop on the president's faith, family, and foreign policy acumen. And he's a also great businessman - only declared bankruptcy a few times - and black people love him because he's done so much to advance civil rights.
But the Democrats should tear each other down in public -just for practice - to tune up their policy positions for the upcoming election.
Right...
3
I agree. The right wing funded campaign against Hunter Biden, and smearing of Joe Biden is only the tip of the cesspool. Unless the candidate can counter those attacks the election will be lost. Need more? Just review the attacks on Hillary.
@Marc
The right wing funded campaign against Hunter Biden means bupkis when it comes to the Trump family scams headed by Don Jr., Ivanka and Jared Kushner -- who continue to rake in millions as we speak.
Democrats, if you are listening...
@N. Smith I agree that, if one were to simply look at the facts that was true, but I think that the propaganda of Fox, Rush, Savage, Levin, etc. trumps fact (sic).
Frank will be the first one wringing his hands over the Democrats “incivility and lack of unity”.
2
Frank, are you tired of the country being destroyed by Trump and corrupt Republicans? Or does that destruction giving you much to write about make your life more interesting? Tell you what, I am tired of losing because people like you suggest we should have knockdown drag out fights so one candidate can emerge as being tough enough to take on Trump. Please, Frank, let's have a debate and have a field of candidates who have not given Trump the ammunition to kill any of who might remain. The time to take the gloves off is now and Democrats should focus on Republicans who have failed their oaths to protect this country against domestic and foreign enemies, and those who are obviously corrupt and a part of the Trump conspiracy of undermining our elections again. They are the enemy Frank. Those are the people we should be hitting Frank. And your job Frank, should be to report on those abuses and who committed them. Stop taking it easy.
2
The assumption underlying this piece seems to be that since the republicans will be dealing in viciousness and lies, on a grand scale, during the election the way to win is outdo them in their viciousness and mendacity. Big mistake, Frank. The election, to the degree that there will be a free election at all, will be between facts and the republican gas lighting machine. Dems should just keep telling the truth, and tell it again, and tell it some more. If facts can somehow win out then the various offices will be held by people of honor and good will. Then policy details can be worked out.
2
Tuesday night they should all take the high road. They should all show respect for one another as they describe their different stragegies and plans.
There are more of us in this country who prefer treating each other politely than there are people like Trump who are rude and nasty.
in the end, I believe Trump will be swept out of office.
299
@BSR. They can be polite while challenging policy positions and asking hard questions about how policies will be paid for. There is no need for attacks on character to have a spirited debate.
28
@BSR Thank you so much for this.The Republicans have become the party of obnoxious and dishonest behavior.We don’t need a race to the bottom.
30
Yes, by all means let’s bring on the food fight, and let’s not demand that the debate rules be changed so that they generate anything other than a food fight.
2
Is it better for a democrat to lower him/herself to trump’s level just to avoid appearing to be timid?
I think not.
There are ways to combat a bully and a punch in the nose can be elucidated politely while still making the point.
Hammering on trump’s dishonesty, disloyalty, bigotry, corruption, and ignorance with facts should be enough. Impeachment inquiry proceedings are likely to expose many more incidents of these repulsive qualities.
195
@Steve Ell
Be careful what you wish for...
“Senator Warren, why do you believe in taxing hard-working Americans, many of whom are recent immigrants, to give cash reparations to the descendants of an institution that dissolved in the mid 1800’s?”
“Senator Warren, why should hard-working Americans pay taxes so that an immigrant who overstays a tourist visa can schedule a free heart transplant at the Mayo Clinic?”
4
@Cass --Warren, or any honorable person, should have an answer for both those questions, and it should be something along the lines of: "Because it's the only decent, appropriate and principled thing to do."
12
@Steve Ell Many Republicans who are around president Trump have problems with their own families.How many times did Guiliani leave his spouse? What about Newt Gingrich.Pence is the exception.When your home life is a mess you can’t always be sane on the public stage.This point has to be hammered home.All these Democratic candidates take care of their home life and then govern.They understand the web of human relationships in ways Trump can never fathom.I hope this point is brought home to the progressive and conservative voters.
8
Great advice. I want to see how a candidate fights when the pressure is on. Trump is gonna drag the Democratic candidate through the mud whether he or she wants it.
Maybe Elizabeth Warren really does have the backbone to stand up straight, wipe the mud off and shame Trump into an apoplectic melt down. I'd like to have confidence in that possibility.
Maybe Joe Biden can throw hard punches behind the metaphoric high school gym. Let's see some evidence.
Kamala Harris. What can I say. I had high hopes for you. You were once focused and tough. What happened?
Mayor Pete. We know you're smart. But what kind of fighter are you?
Bernie. You had a heart attack dude. That's not a good look. Sorry.
As for the rest of you. Take off the gloves.
2
@Mad Moderate: A presidential debate is not a boxing match. The Democratic nominee should ignore whatever Trump or a sensationalist moderator throws at them and simply say, "I came here to discuss what I'm planning to do when I become president, so let's talk about my plan for (health care, education, jobs, infrastucture,...), which is ....".
1
@Anna Standing up in that way would be great!
Trump absolutely positively will drag the debate into the mud and how a Democrat will respond is critical to know in advance. If their move is to rise above and steer the debate back on point, good to know. If it's to hit the incompetent corrupt preening narcissist harder than he hit them, that's good to know too.
Being polite at presidential debates has to stop?!
How about just calling a halt, or at least reining in these tiresome and counterproductive sound-bite deceit based "debates"?
Impolite debating is exactly how Donald Trump become the Republican front-runner. Surely we can at least learn that basic lesson from the 2016 election?
The grueling years-long horse race approach to presidential elections, especially circus stunt beauty contest / slugfest "debating", has become a national disgrace. No other country puts on such a useless, childish, and embarrassing spectacle.
Why can't we go back to having just one or two debates shortly before the primaries actually start, run by League of Women Voters, and focused on in-depth discussion of public policy issues?
228
@Sage
Agree 100%. The debates are sound bites that have no bearing on how a candidate would function in office.
21
@Sage
" No other country puts on such a useless, childish, and embarrassing spectacle."
Sorry, Canada does. At least the campaign lasts a few weeks, not a few years.
6
@Sage, until we can return to LWV-style policy-based debates, we have to put up with CNN's cage-match style garbage promotion (to which the NYT has apparently signed on, much to my disappointment) and must make the best of the situation we're given. We know that all the candidates are against Trump; they need to firmly state what they are for and make us enthusiastic to follow their vision.
15
Well, the only one Trump can’t knock off his block, is Bernie. And the other Democrats cannot either, which is why they are all following Bernie’s ideas, rather than leading with their own. And, I’m sorry but I challenge your patriotism to this country and its people if you do not support a Medicare for All system - those against it have aligned themselves with the corporate outfits who have denied healthcare benefits to their employees, leaving many to die. (Withdraw in disgrace, now!) And education? What future do we have if we deny access to education? We need every available young person educated to the fullest and then some. If you care anything about our future, you’ll be on board with these ideas, because there isn’t any other way forward.
If Warren is the nominee, Trump will goad her at some point into a wild angry rant that will be the end of her candidacy.
By all means, nominate her.
2
@John Xavier III So Trump's constant "wild angry rants" are OK, but if a woman gets angry it's a problem? Kind of like Hillary, society expects women to act a certain way, or they're out.
2
@John Xavier III
Nice to see a sadomasochist this morning.
1
@J Kaur
Trump's rants are calculated ... hers will be unhinged... let's see who is right ...
1
Yeah, this must be frustrating for you, Frank. I know there's not another candidate as likely to lose as your preferred choice in 2016, HRC, but surely there must still be time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
So keep punching, Frank; maybe there's someone else that can alienate Republicans and independents while causing Democrats to yawn and stay home come election day.
3
Trump will be watching the "circular firing squad " to see who bleeds the most. I think Sander's heart attack moves him to a retirement village or back to the Senate where he can be most valuable. Beto should stop being so stubborn and take on Cornyn whom Texans are tired of. I like mayor Pete for his youth, energy, intelligence, and his status as a veteran. I wish Sally Yates could be drafted to serve in some capacity; for me it's a toss-up between her and Kamala Harris for Attorney General. I nominate Elizabeth Warren for the Federal Reserve. The moderate Amy Klobuchar has good record in the Senate, is a former Prosecutor is young and has a winning personality. Such riches to choose from!
3
Twelve on the debate stage with a whooping TV audience in front of them, an audience who cheers for the most electorally poisonous policies, does us no good at all. When they cheer for open borders, it’s hard not to think they were paid by the GOP. I have turned to praying that one of the purple-state pols in this crowd of candidates is working some magic in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina that the rest of us don’t know about. Because Warren is too left, Biden is too old, and then there’s a crowd.
2
Modern, televised "debates" are anything but. Yes, sure, there are fleeting opportunities to learn more about the candidates, but in the end, they are all about things that don't — or at least shouldn't — matter: telegeneity, who you want to "have a beer with" and so on. They are scripted, the candidates are prepped with "applause lines" and the moderators often seem on script themselves.
They are, in sum, mostly useless and I pay no attention to them.
1
"I urge the losers this time around to get in line pronto"...to support the nominated candidate.
This is the essential heart of what the Democratic party must be doing and saying. It would be healthy for all the Democrats on the debate stage to take a pledge jointly to actively -- get that? actively! -- support any nominee. If they collectively and individually made that absolutely clear, the debate challenges would have some sort of context and not amount to consorting with the enemy.
WE know that any one of these candidates would be a better president than what rages on at this moment. The country should also be told that is true.
But, Democrats are prone to quibble and quarrel, to sulk and pout and to try to distinguish themselves from the group. Just that kind of behavior has contributed to our present condition. I can't blame Hillary's dealings with Bernie, but I can blame all the Democrats who stayed home because 'she was going to win anyway and I'm not that crazy about her.'
1
I don't want the candidates attacking each other. Enough. Let them tell me where they disagree, what their policies are, how their policies disagreed. I didn't like Harris going after Biden personally. Anything they bring up to attack each other will be taken up by Trump. Let him do the work himself. This isn't a boxing match. I know that the current president will turn it into one, but I'd actually like these people to show us what they are doing and aiming for our country. Their job is to lead us somewhere, after they defeat Trump, and we, the voters, need to make sure that enough Americans understand that the current president has no respect for the truth, our laws or constitution, or the American people (all of us!). I just don't want a mud fight, or to see them all tearing each other down. I've had enough and am disgusted, and I'm sure many other Americans are, too. Enough outrage, there is plenty to do, let's have someone with a vision and goals for us as a country.
3
I'm completely with Frank on this one. If the candidates are not up for little league, they have no business dreaming of playing pro.
Forcing each candidate to deal with his/her political vulnerabilities is absolutely essential at this stage. Dealing with those at the time of the general election will be infinitely harder given how nastily Trump will attack with lies.
What is most important, though, is for all candidates to unite strongly behind eventual nominee. Disunity within the Democrats will be disastrous.
There is a reason why they tread lightly on each other- they all have something to hide! After all they are humans and that too politicians! We had one chance with a cleanest guy - and the country did not support him. I am talking about Obama!
This article is based on at least two questionable premises: (1) that substantive argument will form a significant part of the Republican general-election campaign, and (2) that the eventual Democratic standard-bearer will do a better job of responding to criticism if she gets more practice in the here and now.
This isnt a " too polite" problem. Its much deeper than that. How do you rally people to a cause with constant/instant feedback, misinformation, out right lies in addition to how difficult it is to sort out what is true and real? Dems were/are part of the problem- just a different more palatable veneer. This comes down to the all mighty dollar. Dems have been just as willing to line up for funding as repubs. I dont need to see mud slinging to make a decision, I just want someone to stand up to corporate power, then be able to prove it
Your premise -- that Democrats should grill one another to toughen them for the attacks to come -- disregards a crucial takeaway from 2016: if your campaign truly inspires people, attacks from the opposition will not work. Hillary Clinton attacked Trump constantly (and certainly for good reason), but never quite articulated a fresh, visionary message of her own to counter his, and millions stayed home. Lesson: we know you hate the other guy, but why should we vote for you?
2
@Scott Barnes
Exactly the right question, "why should we vote for you?" Part of the problem the Democrats are creating for themselves is that there are, simply, too many people running. In these so-called "debates" there is not enough time to articulate a clear vision of anything substantial beyond "dump Trump." If you can't define a clear message to those in your own Party, how the heck to you think it will translate into something of significance for that other politically important group of Americans, the Obama-to-Trump voters?
1
The problem is not with the candidates. The candidates are following a script that informs just enough on their plans to pique voter interest.
The problem is with the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez. He should be more vocal and visible to combat the abusive President Trump. Perez is timid and does not understand the political fight. He is running an old-time campaign that does not translate in todays environment.
The Democrats need a war time consigliere. Tom Perez needs to be replaced.
I'm sure we won't hear anything similar to this column coming from the right about Trump, or whomever might end up being the GOP nominee. They don't engage in detail, except as dirt on the opponent. Focus is their strength. Flaws? Trump has flaws?
I am sure that as the intelligent woman she clearly is Warren didn't go into details about how funding of her plans will work during a ten-candidate soundbite session, aka Democratic "debate". If she becomes the nominee I am confident that she will detail her plans, in her customary plain and easy-to-understand manner. I for one will be listening closely. But at this point I will vote for Alvin The Chipmunk in order to save our country from the likes of what we currently endure. November 2020.
1
Don’t underestimate Warren’s intelligence and capacity for clear thinking. That has put her at the head of the pack and win my vote. Trying to turn her into a Trump caricature at this point in the campaign is not a good idea.
3
Think you’re off on this one, Frank. Constructive criticisms of a rival’s plan are one thing. Taking the gloves off, as suggested in the column, is another. Voters see enough of that and enough relentless negativity from the other side. Many of us don’t want more, particularly when that negativity becomes the story—then it only makes Democrats seemed weak and divided and gives Republicans the ammunition. There’s something to be said for politeness in this political age, particularly at this stage of the process. In the general, those gloves should be off, against Trump or whoever replaces him if it comes to that.
2
If Biden is the nominee, then Hunter will be at the top of the Republican talking points list.
Democrats in response will have to put Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr. and Eric under the spotlight.
I disagree. I think Warren is right on to focus her attack on the Republican corruption. I think the Democrats should present their individual merits and not savage each other. They can and should attack the Republicans in these seemingly endless “debates”.
2
No matter how tainted Trump is, if his term survives until the 2020 election, he will increasing throw dirt, lies, conspiracy theories at the crowd of seemingly feckless Democrat candidates. None of them are capable of withstanding that sort of onslaught. None of them as of yet seems to have a reasonable and doable program to sell voters and catch the voters interest. If Trump wins office again, it will again be because the Democratic party is incapable of convincing the electorate and winning.
Is it not possible to ask a difficult, challenging question in a polite manner? Isn't that what we want our candidate to do with Trump? We don't want someone who descends to Trump's level of name calling and lying, but someone whose speech presents a civilized, rational, strong and intelligent demeanor. The contrast should be significant.
The candidate should be able to both give and take. Frank is right that we do not want the Democrat to appear to be a wimp. We also don't want someone who appears to have been raised in the gutter by a bunch of thugs.
Based on what I've observed so far, both Elizabeth Warren (feisty, but humorous) and Pete Buttigieg (totally calm) could handle Trump well.
I agree with Frank. Practice is good.
1
The strengths and weaknesses of any Democratic nominee are almost irrelevant to what Trump will do or say in the campaign. He will tell outrageous lies and bully the Democratic nominee, regardless of who the nominee is. So why not nominate the best candidate who speaks most urgently and effectively to the issues that are important to the American people? That would be Elizabeth Warren.
Is it a politeness problem or an intelligence problem? Maybe they aren’t quick on their feet and need prepared answers.
1
Enough already. Hillary Clinton did not lose because Bernie Sanders didn’t fall into line fast enough. And she didn’t lose over Russian meddling. It may not have even mattered if she did deign to go to Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Hillary Clinton was an unelectable candidate.
Sanders spoke directly to and resonated with voters who felt an urgent desire for change in a way Clinton never could, and could never deliver. He brought a credible fight to the anointed Establishment candidate all the way to the convention against the considerable muscle of the Clinton machine as the DNC worked overtime to rig the primary process in favor of Clinton. If not for that, Sanders would have been the nominee and would likely have beaten Trump hands-down.
As for the current state of play, point well taken. Whoever winds up running against Trump will face a very formidable adversary, well funded, with the incumbent’s advantage, and absolutely no hesitation to hurl filth, lies, and innuendo to win. No room for politeness here; better be ready to dive into the gutter and fight to win.
1
Just how often will a Democratic president need to "debate" anyone, score points against anyone after being elected?
The voters who will vote for the Democratic party platform are looking for a person who can achieve consensus---not with a poisoned Republican party---within the families broken by Trump's idiotic rants or tempted by Trump's call to white supremacy to turn against people who do not speak English, have a different gender or skin color or speak a language from a country torn by violence or natural disaster.
For too long too many good citizens of the USA have been enthralled by Trump's crude language, crude actions and disturbing beliefs. Wouldn't it be wonderful to act as if laws and normal behaviour standards didn't apply, they said. Isn't winning about some one else losing, they said. Until Trump showed them the bad side.
Most voters do not chose to seek foreign wives and then discard them. Most voters do not believe winning means getting to "grab and kiss" any women one comes across. The next Democratic president will not need to shout or put down the other candidates in order to capture the votes to defeat Trump. Voters in the USA are waiting for a call to their better selves where working together for healthy communities is once again meaningful. The women of the USA are ready to contribute to the country equally in the
military, in owning businesses, in earning wages equal to men while being safe from men like Trump in their workplaces.
The problem Frank is not one of politeness or or candidates savaging each other (to the delight and advantage of Republicans), but obtuseness.
The American electorate is not, in the main, the readership of this paper or similar quality publications. The obtuseness occurs when our educated, sophisticated, filled with facts, and a solid knowledge base white liberal Democrats assume voters are like them. They're not.
Is Warren's wealth tax (tried and mostly abandoned in Europe) the great re-distributive tool claimed by her when the super-wealthy have battalions of tax lawyers and accountants to battle evaluation issues in tax court? Then we have the fact the IRS is so hollowed out it can't even audit the wealthy under present laws. Your helpful click-on link explains the fact that several non-conservative mainstream thinkers say her plan is pie in the sky.
Inquires should be polite and respectful among our candidates. Haven't we experienced enough crude offensive rhetoric issuing from this White House? Shouldn't Democrats show they can disagree with integrity and decency?
I think all this candidate to candidate badgering about specifics details (large and small) of their proposals just make a pot of juicy quotes that Trump can turn into a smelly porridge of lies.
At this stage of the game I'd rather see the candidates coalesce on major liberal objectives, like global warming, universal health care, and future job uncertainties do to the advent of AI, more expansive automation, and globalization reaching further into every nook and cranny where cheap labor can be found.
Trump won ( by way of Founding Fathers contraption anyway) in 2016 because he ran as a liberal, with a counterbalancing touch of underlying racism, bigotry, and contempt for non-white immigrants: much better, much more universal, much cheaper health care, massive return of manufacturing jobs, mind blowing trillions for infrastructure redo. Other then his dark side what's no to like.
The candidates should be presenting overarching progressive objectives, and leave the quibbling over programmatic details alone for now.
Given the wide acceptance, and worship by many, of Trump who is impoliteness epitomized, being impolite is acceptable if not often the only successful approach.
Given the headline, I thought Mr. Bruni would be writing about the Democrats sitting meekly by while the opposition hurls a never-ending stream of insults and lies at them, not to mention all the lies he tells about himself which demonstrate his utter contempt for the American people, their intelligence and their gullibility. This same strategy, playing Mr. Nice Guy (or woman) obviously did not work for Hillary, upon whom DJT projected his own mendacity and corrupt nature, nor for the distinguished Mr. Kerry who allowed himself to be swift-boated when running against a candidate who conspicuously avoided war-time service.
Yes, it's time to take the gloves off. But not through increasing the calibre for the circular firing squad, a tactic which the opposition will relish and turn to its own advantage. Every week if not every day there is some word or deed emanating from the White House which surely deserves condemnation or comment.
The problem is where to begin. The unrestrained corruption and self-dealing? A foreign policy which spurns and mocks our allies while encouraging autocrats to weaken our country's effectiveness and standing in the world? The work-free habits of the most powerful leader on earth? The disdain for reading, analysis or thought? The constant lies told without consequence?
Rather than focusing on their own flaws or shortcomings, the candidates would be better served to emphasize how incompetent and unworthy their opponent is.
Mr. Bruni, we’re where we’re at because the media is led by the concept, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Trump created headlines by the minute with his smart-aleck mouth. The media lapped it up. The media lapped up endlessly dogging Clinton about emails and other non-issues that were known to be non-issues. But hey, it sold copy and clicks. (Clinton forgot working people issues, too.)
To top it off, Comey delivered the coup de grace with his pearl-clutching FBI speech.
Let’s not forget the gossip media industry, (Facebook, etc.), and how they salivated over all the money they could make without vetting it … and later pleading, “Who me?” Right.
You’re worried about Warren and healthcare affordability? We working Americans can’t afford what’s available. We live not in fear but terrified of decisions we’ll have to make if a family member develops a serious medical condition. Medical bankruptcy? Work for the rest of our lives paying for a $250,000 bill? Or, worst, having to say, “We don’t have anything,” meaning, “We have to let you die.” Try living after saying that.
Warren can say she changed her mind once she saw the dire straits most Americans live in. I was raised in a wealthy, staunchly Republican family. I’m now a committed Democrat because, as a college professor in my 30s, I changed my mind when I saw the dire straits in which most Americans live.
Most Americans have had enough of Trump and the propaganda of the wealthy. It’s a matter of getting everyone to vote.
This is 100% bad advice and I really hope the democrats do not listen. I won't watch the debate anyway and most people I know aren't going to watch it. Why, because no one wants to hear them fight. All we hear now is fighting, attacking, dehumanizing - and for what, a few likes on Twitter. It's just disgusting. We need to lead the way with optimism.
Isn’t the real problem here the format? 12 people on stage. The format lends itself to sound bites only. That is by design. If you want some substantive, ditch the format.
Oh BTW. It’s a media driven format.
Another argument for Bruni's own center-right preferences. Polls may show Trump beating the likes of Amy Klobuchar, but she's so very electable -- according to center-right Dems horrified at the prospect og Warren, Sanders....
Who would ever guess, in the face of these pleas for the status quo, that Trump beat Clinton in the rust-belt states by running to her left?
Not this columnist, who pronounced himself bored by policy discussions when last he covered a political campaign as a reporter, quite openly preferring the genial GWBush to boring boring boring Al Gore.
Your considerable analytical and persuasive talents would be much better served if rather than advocating for a tougher approach by the candidates you would push the DNC for a change in the reality show like debate format to allow for exactly what your point of enhanced interaction is. The DNC
needs to stop pandering to television and dump the lame and cumbersome format once and for all.
The current format of ten plus candidates lobbing 30 second ad hominem pre-packaged sound bites at each other is a farce and it's not the answer to your column. If the DNC would wake up and restrict the debates to no more than 5 or max 6 candidates on stage at a time and add a night, each of the candidates might just might be to articulate and defend tough minded cogent points of view.
The electorate would benefit greatly and moreover the final candidate for the general election would certainly benefit from having been "toughened up" by a real debate for the ugly mud fight that will characterize the 2020 election campaign against Mr. Trump.
1
The question of how to pay for Medicare for All is moot. Workers are taxed already by Dracula Healthcare, Inc., and tat tax goes into the pockets of the company.
The healthcare industry in the USA is a scam.
Democrats have a cowardice problem that manifests itself as politeness, like sending “strongly worded letters” to people who ignore subpoenas, but as far as the election goes, their big problem isn’t too much politeness, but rather a lack of unity. What does the Party itself stand for? Is health care for all a goal of the Party, or just certain individuals? Same with climate change, college tuition, immigration... seeing the individuals tear each other apart on stage doesn’t give me confidence in the Party, and one person alone can’t accomplish much.
The "debates" are useless. Sadly, they are a function of today's media response to a population with a short attention span. The only debate that will matter is the one when Trump is confronted and trashed by the Dem nominee.
Like most media representatives you want conflict. It's better for ratings. The enemy is Trump not fellow Democrats. Trump thrives on conflict, anger, attack-mode. It astonishes me how even the media critical of Trump still plays into the attitude of victim-hood, bigotry, outrage upon which he thrives. Why is politeness and mutual respect equated with timidity? Next you'll be telling me that The Gettysburg Address is weakness and Trump's rally speeches in Ohio and Louisiana are strength.
The problem with Elizabeth Warren is that she is 8 years or so ahead of her time. It is as plain as the nose on your face that she will not poll well with the centrist working class whites and the African Americans whose support is crucial to beating Trump. It is tragic that Dems (and most importantly their supporters/contributors) are focused on pie-in-the-sky remodeling of the ship of state at the same time that a wild pig is running through all the staterooms and driving the boat.
Maybe people like a little civility. They want the un-Trump. The candidates you mentioned who went too far in the debates were quickly punished with a swift rebuke in the polls -- Swallwell is no long running and Castro dipped so precipitously he might as well not continue. Can you imagine Buttigieg turning nasty? Can you imagine Yang? Really, can you please imagine Yang, and stop cutting off the field at the top five? If he moved into that top five (he's currently right behind Harris), you journalists would all start talking about the top three. And he's the most affable (and innovative) of all.
Is it overly simplistic, for every Democratic candidate for president, to answer the question: “How will Medicare for all” be paid for?” — by answering: “Lift the Capps, on what each and every taxpayer pays into the Medicare fund.”
If Bill Gates (and the like) paid the same percentage of his income, into the Medicare fund, that I did, Medicare for every USA’n, could operate with a surplus.
Ditto— Social Security.
Why is this obvious remedy, hardly ever even considered?
Frank, your desperation to defeat Elizabeth Warren is palpable, one might almost think you're a surrogate for Joe Biden. WIth republicans hurling insults left and right and Democrats, until recently, reacting largely with passivity one might have thought that would be the thrust of your column.
Instead you want to trap the candidate that is actually inspiring citizens into giving he gop a soundbite to attack her with. As Senator Warren has said, you don't win by choosing someone because you're afraid - it seems she was talking to you, Frank, are you listening?
Democractic candidates come together and support Pete B.
He is pragmatic and if given the chance can dump TRUMP!
It’s not about party anymore or even about policy. It’s about the cult of personality. for which Trump is unrivaled. He is a giant figure of mythical proportions. Love him or hate him. It’s all about him. Who dares step in to the arena with him? He will ruthlessly slash any and all contenders from head to toe. It’s time for the Dems to forget impeachment and start saying their prayers.
Who do you think you are kidding?
The question was blatantly dishonest and misleading. There was no way to respond in the setting, but a full response had been made many times before and the questioner knew it.
Fairness? Politeness? That nonsense.
Right now Democrats are in a complete frenzy and have lost all emotional sense about near everything. Trump is only the half of it. Their desperate desire to prevent any real reforms is the other half.
Oh, and the answer is that medical care for all by this or another name would cost barely half what we pay now. We are being robbed, and George Stephanopoulos' loaded question is merely an attempt to help the establishment to keep on keeping on, rob some more.
You can label the payment however you like, benefits, taxes, deductions, whatever, but reform would be voter money going back into voter pockets, in amounts about double the defense budget, and for just the remaining money everyone can have coverage.
1
Should Democratic candidates be more prepared for the mud slinging and outright lies certain to come from Trump's direction? Absolutely.
However, I think it's quite likely that Trump will resign in utter disgrace, or decline to run for a second term, as a strategy to preclude further revelations of his financial status and activities. Prepare for the worst....hope for the best.
Any Democratic candidate would be a vast improvement over Trump and put us on the road to saving our democracy. To state that any of the lower candidates would be better is to imply that our candidate must be “perfect” Really? Victory lies within the electorate. Blacks, Progessives, LGBTQ, Green, etc. All these groups must agree that they will vote for our candidate, whether or not they agree with all their policies or past actions. Get over it. Trump must not win again.
1
Trump and Republicans will not be attacking the Democratic candidate on the issues of consistency and rationality that Bruni mentions, because their own positions on most of these things are inconsistent and indefensible. They will be attacking the candidate on the basis of racism, misogyny and fake scandals.
Democrats need to concentrate on defining positive positions on issues that can really appeal to swing voters, not exposing personal flaws in each other. It is not a matter of politeness, it is a matter of keeping control of the issues under debate.
Maybe we should go for an all out power grab. It's catnip to many of Trumps supporters - you know - sticking it to the liberals. How about if we stick it back? Maybe it is time to stop giving voters the benefit of the doubt. Not with Facebook and Ichan out out there. It's not a level playing field and Russian Republicans would aim at Lady Liberty herself if it suited their donors.
The research is divided on whether bittier and contentious primaries hurt or help the ultimate candidate and the effect of this in the general elections.
There are many views that they hurt the front runners, e.g.:
https://news.stanford.edu/2016/05/17/bitter-primaries-hurt-high-profile-candidates-chances-general-election-stanford-research-shows/
Mr. Bruni is willing to gamble based on his thesis. For every point of his thesis there is an antithetical argument.
Politics is the art of evasion and doublespeak.
Rough questions and the truth may get brownie points among the talking and writing heads. It can also cause damage and lose elections. Stupid comments under pressure cannot be withdrawn. They live in internet eternity.
1
Here is a question for Elizabeth Warren, with regard to her claiming virtually her entire adult life she was a Native American. Quote from the NY Times - "At some point in Warren’s academic career, this lore became part of her official biography, so that she was listed as a “Native American” professor at the University of Pennsylvania and described as Harvard Law’s “first woman of color,” and she even contributed a family recipe to a Native American cookbook." Ms. Warren, you obviously did not dispute being called a woman of color and a Native American professor. How can you make that claim and is it not only preposterous but also highly offensive to Native Americans?
1
Right on!! they are too nice and the DNC who could be attacking Trump while the candidates focus on each other needs to get active and run ads on tv and social media pointing out Trumps lies and flip flops
Bruni has a point, but the media so obviously favors Warren that almost any line of attack will be spun, post-debate, as either a misfire or a draw. It's really too bad that so many Dems got in the race. The over-crowded stage and field has led to the better known septuagenarians gaining an advantage by default. This could very well result in a humdrum primary season in 2020. An early coronation, not much back-and-forth and, oddly, not great for the media if Dem voters end up getting bored.
One thing Bruni gets wrong, here, though: bringing up anything about the Obama administration is a mistake. Did he forget how much gasoline got spewed after the last time someone dared to mention it? It's like volunteering to be tarred and feathered.
But as for Warren--an early coronation? If it happens and her too-far-left platform proves to be a problem in the suburbs, it will be rich to watch the press try to figure out how she got the nomination in the first place. Get out a big ole mirror, folks.
37
@T. O'Hal
The media didn't favor her at all until she gained financial support and went up in the polls.
6
@T. O'Hal The media has been completely in the tank for Warren since early summer. The obvious bias has been shocking to me. Though she and Bernie have often been roughly tied in the polls or he has actually been ahead of her in a number of them, you would never know it by the media narrative. He has usually been completely ignored, while the pundit class would go on and on about her "surge." Biden has gotten the opposite treatment from Warren. His policy positions have rarely been mentioned, only how he has been shaky in debates, how he is a gaffe machine, how time has passed him by, and speculation as to when Warren will overtake him. Of course, this is mostly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters hear how great she is and how she is surging, and they want to get on the bandwagon, though the vast majority couldn't tell you what her vaunted "plans" are. Her "plans for everything" has become a cliche. Many of her plans are completely unrealistic, even if she could get through a huge tax on the rich. I wish the media could at least make an effort toward objectivity.
2
@T. O'Hal
Why do you somehow believe that using the word "septuagemeraians" is not ageist? And maybe there's something behind your apparent dislike of Warren...?
5
Many anxious, Trump-horrified Democrats take the view that the candidates should tread lightly on one another. “When we know that President Trump will be spending his money to discourage Democratic turnout more explicitly and underhandedly than in any other modern campaign, why would we want any candidate to spend time persuading Democrats of how bad other Democrats are?” asked Jack Markell, the former governor of Delaware.
I have never understood this approach, Do people like Markell think that if candidates go easy on each other during the primary, the Republicans will go easy during the general? Unfavorable information that is dealt with during the primaries is old hat come the runup to the general. And if it's so bad that it sinks a candidate's campaign, better that it happen during the primary than the general.
Warren answered Stephanopoulos's bear-trap question "perfectly" (apologies if I sound like you-know-who). Under Medicare for All, the overwhelming majority of people now covered by employer-based insurance would pay less overall for health care, would not lose it if they lost their job, and would have more choice of providers. Limiting it to taxes is half a question and she responded to the whole question she should have been asked. She won the encounter.
The real question for Democrats is whether it is even possible to educate voters about their own interests. The current employer-based system is so full of perverse incentives, terrifying coverage gaps and inflated costs that everyone ought to hate it, even those with supposedly Cadillac coverage. Health coverage on average comes to nearly a third of an average employees' compensation, and it is being squandered in a system that is 25% waste -- that's not counting opportunistic gouging, which is additional -- because our hybrid system is so complex there is almost no effective cost control. It's not Grendel, it's Grendel's mother. It totally needs to die.
I like to travel in Europe. "Health insurance? Why do you need insurance for that? It's health care. Isn't it just provided?" They all think we're nuts.
But folks with supposedly good coverage from an employer think they've got it good because they know Americans who don't have it, who forego testing or medication or sicken themselves by half-dosing. God help America.
181
@Bill U. : I would like to have seen her turn it back along the lines of:
"People are paying for health insurance now, directly or indirectly, with the money going to private corporations. What we propose is to have them pay what we believe will be a lesser amount directly to the federal government, with their employers being required to pay what they withhold for health insurance directly to the employee. We expect that the total paid by individuals will be less than they pay now. Now you tell me George, is that a tax increase?"
30
@Bill U. A couple of glitches in your theory.....first of all, it depends what part of Europe you're referring to. If you're a "pensioner" in the UK and you don't have any private insurance, you're at the bottom of the barrel for healthcare. You'll get your high blood pressure meds, they'll treat you for a heart attack, but God forbid you have bad knees, you'll likely die with them because you're not a priority like children or parents who are working and caring for kids. And even more dire: everyone needs to contemplate one important fact.....The Government has been solely responsible for the VA for decades......that is one small portion of healthcare in the US.....if they can't manage that with any kind of success, what makes you think they can manage "healthcare for all"??!!
4
@Bill U. , Excellent comment, you are 100% right. But it won't fit on a bumper sticker. Many Americans simply cannot grasp the truth about MFA.
It will take a lot of "educating" for the Harvard law professor to gain enough support for MFA to win. It can be done. But this is why the sooner she gets the nomination the better. Then she will have months to get her ideas across.
15
I thought John Delaney tried hard to criticize Warren's plans, but she got the better of him with the zinger about running for president based on what we can't accomplish, rather than on what we want to do. Granted, he didn't skulk around the stage like Trump did to Clinton, but I'm not sure we want that level of full-pads practice.
I know that reporters/pundits dearly want her to say that taxes will go up with Medicare for All, but she is just as determined to avoid that deadly sound-bite and focus instead on the reduction of overall costs for healthcare consumers. I don't think more harping on that from her primary opponents is helpful.
As for the difficulty of enacting her agenda, I discern a plan: hold the House, win the Senate, kill the filibuster.
1
I usually agree with Frank Bruni, but not this time. The Democratic debates this fall are auditions, not dress rehearsals. The voters still have the Primaries to judge the the relative strength of Harris, Booker, Klobuchar and Buttegegg. There's a good chance they will not be facing Donald Trump next year anyway.
Meanwhile, Voters should realize that Bernie and Biden are both in their late 70s and showing signs of weakness. Democrats must choose someone not only to survive the Primaries, but to demonstrate they have the character an stamina to restore decency and the rule of law to the country at least over the next 4 years.
1
No, please no. We are all exhausted from the hate, rancor, incivility, attacks by Trump and his base. Let the moderators ask follow-up questions (for a change), but let's let the Democratic Party really show itself to be an antidote to the Trump Era of mean, treachery, gotcha, attacks....
207
When I evaluate the candidates, I want to know their personal history, their intellectual horsepower, their connection with the people around them and their true constituency.
Their policies are secondary.
How about a forum (instead of "debate") where we can discern those things?
3
I want to see something a lot more creative, thought provoking, and constructive than an insult and oneupmanship festival. Honestly, I think the "debate" format is a complete waste of time, and the only people who benefit from this travesty are the advertisers.
I want to see the candidates sit down at tables and actually work together. I want to see how each candidate does in open discussions with other candidates. Who steps up to the ideas? Who presents the best scenarios? Who is willing to actually listen to the others? Who can work together with other people to create the best directions for America?
We tend to fall under the illusion that one person can solve the problems. One person can be the ultimate leader, the ultimate cheerleader, and the individual can rally the forces toward happiness and social cooperation.
Well, that's nonsense. This country has a political system called a democracy, and that requires people to sit down, work together, and come up with common solutions. In recent years, we streamlined the whole thing to the point of giving the Executive Branch - the President - a green light for everything.
So, how is that working out?
What we need is a person in that job who knows how to work with others. So let's see them actually talk to each other rather than go at each other. Put them in small groups, have a sort of musical chairs format where they can talk to each other, an then we can really see who has the skill to bring people together.
5
The opponent of the Democratic Party is Trump and the Republican Party. In fact the opponent of democracy and decency is Trump. We need people to state policies and positions and why theirs are good for the country and the world. We do not, I say again NOT, need a catfight like the one that led so many of the Berniebros to sit out the last election. Comey and the Bros .. an alliance created someplace really hot...gave Trump his throne. Attacks appeal to the media because they make for great one-liners and column headers. Real government is more complicated than that. Just look at the mess Trump and McConnell have created.
3
The preseason is over. It’s time to play. Which ever candidate wins the nomination, he or she better be well versed in attacking one’s opponent. Because Trump is, and has spent a lifetime practicing.
Attorneys will hold mock trials and grill their own clients, to prepare them for the actual trial.
All the nominees here must understand this, and take the gloves off. The country’s future lies on their shoulders.
1
While I agree with Frank in principle, the problem with his argument is that Trump feels no compunction to be tethered to reality. His arguments against Warren or whoever wins the nomination will devolve into conspiracy theories, lies and general nonsense. No candidate can prepare for that. Nor should any candidate try
136
@Susan
Susan, you have an excellent point: how any civil human being responds to mean & crazy is a difficult one. And as we all know now, just because Trump can do mean & crazy hardly means he has the toughness or qualification to do the job. But it is something the democratic nominee will have to deal with regardless. One point to keep in mind: the argument really isn't with Trump at this point (he isn't capable of an argument); the argument is with the republican party because they must be held accountable for helping keep Trump in power. In effect, the democratic nominee must turn Trump's outlandish behavior into a referendum on the republican party itself.
23
"At the debate this coming Tuesday night, they should grill her — and one another — with less delicacy than they have exhibited to date." Well, Castro assertively, strongly, and rightfully called out Biden during a debate for blatantly contradicting himself within a few minutes on Medicare position he took and was swiftly and viciously condemned by media and politicos as attacking Biden when it was they who projected and injected their own ‘serious cognitive decline” concerns about Biden into fact-checked and mated move by Castro on Biden. The argument that going after any candidate’s self-evident vulnerability or flaw is “gratuitous nastiness” is just gratuitously silly. And dangerous. Biden is very old (relative to the job he’s seeking), has shown it repeatedly on the campaign trail, age is considered a primary vulnerability by many voters so should be pointed out, not directly (political suicide), but indirectly as with that blatant Medicaid contradiction. Age issue has to be dealt with, even (gasp!) debated. My question is, do the applicants for presidency continue to go out onto the debate stage wearing American flag pin lapel-ed, party-leadership-imposed-strait jackets so as not to offend or ruffle feathers? Can they, so attired, be allowed, in following debates to mosh around more freely without landing fists? Debate at this stakes level can’t be relegated to a high wire tip-toeing act or everyone is going to tumble and fall before Trump.
2
Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. Rather than Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia whom most of the country had never heard of, Clinton should have unified the party by making Sanders her VP running mate. Instead the revelation that the DNC had thrown Sanders' campaign under the bus, to guarantee Clinton's nomination, one can't entirely blame the guy for having somewhat sour grapes. Still the VP slot would have perhaps helped to mend the fences, and Trump may have retired to Trump Tower on the Wednesday in November after the election, and stayed there.
3
@Patrick
And then she would have won the popular vote by even WIDER margin whle the electoral college ended up crowning Trump the King of the DisUnited States.
I'm afraid that the morally bankrupt republicans and the unmovable mass of Trump supporters will make mincemeat out of Elizabeth Warren, no matter what she says or does. I just hope and pray that democratic voters get it together this time and don't let what happened in 2016 happen again. If it does, there really is no hope.
1
@Martha: oh, as in 2016, I’m afraid that we Democrats will suffer from disgruntled Bernie supporters intent on teaching the Party a lesson by cutting off their nose to spite their face. And they won’t even assume any responsibility for it either.
1
The next debate is the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to attack Trump now that he's weakened his own candidacy for the presidency. He's beginning to sink in the swamp he created so the Democratic candidates should give him a downward shove, now.
Trump's corrupt and criminal behavior against Ukraine for political gain and his complete desertion of the Kurds, our steadfast allies in Syria who supplied 90% of the manpower to defeat Isis to serve an autocrat are easy to understand. What better place to reach millions of people to showcase his high crimes and misdemeanors than at a national debate?
Dems should go after Trump, not each other.
253
@Mary Scott They have an entire year still to go after Trump. At this moment in time, it is imperative that we determine which one of them has the requisite skills (and that includes the ability to successfully fend off vicious attacks) to take on Trump in the general. Joe Biden's response to the Hunter Biden attacks was late and weak. That's illuminating to those who feel he has the best chance of "taking on Trump". Perhaps he does not. Every human has weaknesses that can be exploited - often unfairly (and Trump will always be unfair) - and we need to know which one of them can handle it. At the moment, we don't. People just assume their gal/guy is the one to do it, but they've been subjected to very little pressure.
6
Trump’s strategy of winning is to dominate the news cycle 24/7. It’s the most basic marketing method. I’m not sure Democrats should play into that.
Instead I think candidates should promote the Democratic ideas that resonate with all non-libertarians like economic inequality and tax rates of the rich, affordable schools and daycare, minimum holidays and pay, etc.
Avoid talking too much about guns, abortion, religion, climate change, ... These are areas in which to just ram policy through during the first year in office.
14
@Mary Scott Hardly anyone paying attention the Democratic debate needs convincing of Trump's awfulness. The candidates would only be preaching to the choir.
4
Wrong, we don’t need a circular firing squad for the next Democratic debate as readers mention.
We do need a full discussion of what America should do immediately to resolve the Trump approved war/disaster against the Kurds in Northern Syria. Show us the possible.
US needs American leaders right now to show us Americans out of this dreadful present that we are in today.
The abandonment of the Kurds must be addressed.
US diplomacy must be restored In Ukraine, China and the EU; and in our American neighborhood of countries including Mexico and Canada, and Central and South America. Russia must no longer be Trump’s North Star for America’s actions.
Kids and people in cages as anti-immigrant “policy” practices must be changed to humane, comprehensive immigration policy and practices.
Democratic candidates will succeed when they look at the whole morass that we’re in and lead us out. This is not the same election and Presidential campaign of old.
United we stand or together we fall.
9
Being polite and respectful contrasts nicely with the crassness of the spectacle in the White House.
Pointed questions do not have to be vitriolic.
18
There is plenty of room for anyone of us to see the light and change our point of view, over time. I have become more and more liberal in my thinking as I have grown older, had more experience, become a better critical thinker, seen more of the world. I was a moderate Republican in the 80's, then an Independent for 25 years, and now a Progressive. I don't really understand older people not being able to change as they age. Many of us are not lazy or afraid. I have no trouble speaking out, wherever I am, whatever I see or hear what people do and say, that is unfair, threatening, or discriminatory. I have probably endangered my own life a few times. But, I, and millions of others like me, are not having this corruption, this greed, this racism, this religious discrimination, this misogyny ANYMORE. We will no longer be quiet about any of it.
11
The American public can focus on only one cat fight at time Frank. Besides, no one wants to incur the wrath of Trump before their time. Elizabeth Warren is setting in a good spot right now. Trump is busy hacking away at Joe Biden, building a pretty good argument that Joe did indeed accompany his son on business trips to the Ukraine and China; for what purpose? All Liz has to do is remain silent and Joe is being taken care of for her. Her next rival, Bernie Sanders, has just suffered a heart attack. It just confirms what everyone knew anyway, that Bernie is just too old and frail to endure the rigors of the campaign trail much less the pressures of the Oval Office. As for the rest of the pack, they're underfunded and are only hanging around until their funds run out. So come the end of the day all Liz Warren's got to do is remain calm, coherent and comfortable; the rest will take care of themselves. It's not a politeness problem Frank, it's called using your head and playing your cards right.
9
@Kurt Pickard Building a pretty good argument? This is the problem the democrats have. They never see strategy. That is strategy by Trump to use the left against itself. Once Biden is out of the way it will be Warren's turn. Watching the left turn against Biden, their frontrunner and the only one who can win, has been one of the greatest disappointments. It is Edmund Muskie and George McGovern all over again.
3
I would normally agree with this political assessment but the corporate, high donor Dems have already made clear, in writing, that if Warren becomes the front runner they Will find a way to kneecap her. One of them, Zuckerberg has said in public, he will vote for Trump before Warren. Just look where Bidens money went in the third quarter, straight to Buttigieg’s campaign, who is their second choice after Biden
@Sasha Stone I don't agree that Joe Biden's the only one who can win (I actually think he is a weak candidate as he has always been and there are better centrist options who might rise if he would get out of the race) but I agree with you about strategy. Trump's attack on Biden is strategic - attempting to get to the opponent he feels he can most easily beat (Warren - and I actually think he might be right there) - and if Democrats continue to ignore that fact, they are doomed to fail.
I was happy with the debates so far, which were respectful and bar a few punches below the belt with mostly a decent level of discourse.
The real question is how much Democrats should move left to repair the country and re-establish solidarity and respect between people instead of the buffet for the rich it has become.
Biden’s outdated paternalism and lack of ethical hygiene are now in the way of that. He’s certainly no Obama in those areas.
6
Why is Warren not the acknowledged lead candidate? Sanders must withdraw shortly, this column does not even mention his heart attack this month and age! His support goes to Warren, she will crush Biden like Trump crushed Jet Bush, the old guard is on its way out. As far as beating Trump goes, whichever candidate emerges the mainstream press will be fully mobilized to promote her campaign in its full-throated love of anyone but Trump...
6
Speaking out against ageism (and racism along with every other ism) is only done when it fits the agenda. It’s outrageous to even imply Bernie is too old.
1
@Jim his body is broken down, heart failing, posture stooped, campaign schedule reduced. Is that ageism or just his health reality, he is physically unfit to lead the country and looking worse all the time.
@michaelf
You think his support goes to Warren?
Then why did he get into the primary in the first place?
You think his supporters will automatically get behind her? While we still have multiple choices?
The same way Warren endorsed Sanders last primary?!
Ha~!
As for his heart attack and age, we are all awaiting to see Tues debate and his subsequent events to evaluate his condition. As proven by millions, improved blood flow to a previously blocked heart is like a new lease on life. More energy and vigor. More well being and piece of mind.
We await.
Chances are the mensch actually comes back stronger than he previously was.
Lets find out shall we, before we cast aside the best politician, fighting for We the People in America today.
Lol...we aren't leaving.
C-ya at the convention.
1
Who wins has less to do with the quality of the Candidate as it does with the character of their constituency.
Due to the electoral college the candidates appeal in the Center-White states determines the election. As much as I like Elizabeth Warren and her policies, people in the upper Mid-West don't relate to her. Specifically since you have a lot of Union members who are concerned about Medicare for All's impact on their Employer provided health care. Though Joe Biden's aren't ideal, they are at least palatable to electorate thus he has the best chance of beating Trump.
1
@Robert Ernst
A reasonable argument, of course. One reason to focus on positions and positives and not hair-pulling and name calling in the debates.
These debates are important but leave little time for in depth discussion. When the final candidate is selected and we have the debates between Trump and the Democratic candidate I would like to see "real" debates based on what a debate should be - pro and con positions supported by research, substantiated facts and cogent arguments. Sorry Frank, but the press too often lands on the superficial. Anybody who has had or paid attention in Science 101, for example, understands the efficacy of the science supporting climate change assertions.
2
@WhiskeyJack You believe that with Trump on one side of the stage, you're going to see "real debates" on issues? Ha! It will be a WWF mud fight of lies, deceit and slander on his part and the Democrat opponent better be ready to handle it.
I must admit I am surprised at the number of commenters who have interpreted this piece as a call to attack each other. At what point did raising valid questions about policy proposals and past behaviors come to be defined as a street fight? Some of Bruni's points are questions that I want answered as well.
It also surprises that many commenters seem to think that republicans need disparate positions and disagreements between the Democratic candidates to launch and augment their attack ads. Have you not been paying attention? The republicans will lie and misrepresent whether the candidates play nice or not.
13
@Andy perhaps because the column begins by saying candidates are too nice to one another and the lead graph is a kicking match. He doesn't mean rational disagreements over positions. The media wants nastiness...if it bleeds, it leads.
2
Julian Castro seems to have NO problem with being rude, at least in the debates—which is why I will not support him. If he’s the role model, I fear for any future civility.
14
@Pat I agree but Bruni isn't calling for rudeness. He's saying they need to delve into the legitimate weak spots each candidate has to see how they handle the questions. That's fair game.
Some people are forgetting that it is possible to question and even challenge others about their policies and beliefs without name calling and insults. Possibly because we haven't seen it for a few years.
19
Many of Warren's plans sound good if not great; however, as is well-known and understood, there's a problem: Few, if any, of her plans will pass the Senate. Furthermore, she has an electability problem with Midwesterners, Southerners, Westerners, and minorities. She has a likability challenge. She doesn't have that X-factor either. Nonetheless, she still has some momentum, and could probably barely defeat Trump.
Joe Biden has problems from the past and currently, but he was Senator for decades and Vice President for eight years. He's moderate, liked by minorities, and can hit the ground running.
My first choice is Bernie, but let's get real: He's very old, recently had a heart attack, is an avowed socialist, and his campaign seems dead-in-the-water. His window of opportunity, if it was ever open, is now closed, which I regret having to admit.
Moving on, though, if Joe Biden gets through Ukrainegate relatively intact, he should pick Stacey Abrams as his VP as soon as possible. Such a move would galvanize the country and Joe's campaign. She would garner the black and women's vote, plus she's bloody outstanding in her own right, but she could use some VP experience before living in the White House.
If Joe gets pushed out somehow, Warren/Abrams would be our next smart move. It's still a long journey before us, though, no doubt with at least some surprises along the way.
It's interesting, worrisome, depressing, and frustrating: the best of times, the worst of times.
2
@Jim Muncy
You count Bernie out at your own peril.
How about we await and see for ourselves before we call him dead.
Millions of us actually feel worlds better with improved blood flow to our hard working hearts.
Stents are like rolling back the clock for many of us.
The energy and overall wellbeing is hard to put into words unless ones felt/experienced it.
A mild heart attack is a wake up call. Not a death knell.
You sell the mensch short.
Just as before, give him a shot and a listen.
He always impresses.
@Dobbys sock
Ironically, I, too, carry a stent; however, it never made any change in my health. Wish it had.
I like Bernie: I've donated $635 to his campaign this year, but I finally stopped the monthly contribution. I'm not rich, and no sense throwing good money after bad.
Bernie did make a big difference, though. I thank him for his Herculean efforts, courage, and tenacity, risking his health for all of us. That's a great citizen.
But facts are facts: I no longer feel the Bern.
Oh, are we back already to parsing the theatrics of the Democrats' debate? Give me a break. Three of the last four presidents were elected in no small part because they promised change (for better or for worse, as we see). The Trump Effect means that Any Democratic Candidate will be a huge vote getter. I don't need to see these people tear each other apart on stage first. I need to see them tear Trump apart.
27
@Amelia The thought that the "Trump Effect" means that Any Democratic Candidate will be a huge getter is woefully short-sighted and was partly in play during 2016. I personally know many committed red State Democrats who are seriously loathe to vote for Warren and have suggested sitting this one out should she get the nomination. We ignore that issue (or respond to it by decrying their lack of conscience or stupidity) at our peril.
As long as the disagreements are not personal, I can agree with you. Most of the contentiousness has not been based on policy however.
I too though would love to see the second tier candidates end up on top. They all seem like better general election candidates.
2
All first term Presidential elections are about the performance of the incumbent President. Tearing themselves down and going off on long policy dissertations doesn’t help any of them. If you can’t make a case against the Presidency of Donald Trump, you don’t deserve to be President, Hillary Clinton proved that. The Democrats need a candidate who can prosecute Donald Trumps corruption in the court room of the public square with simple direct language. The American people should be ashamed of Donald Trump and they need to be confronted with the mistake they have made and realize they can redeem the self by making a better choice this time. A box of rocks is a better choice than Donald Trump and everyone knows it. Don’t provide the voters with reasons not to vote for the box of rocks, pound them with reasons not to vote for Trump...
1
I sure don’t want to see a 45-style debate that resulted in the least qualified candidate winning the GOP nomination.
-Say what you stand for.
-Point out differences with the other candidates.
-Stop speaking in tweet length sound bites.
5
"Never speak ill of another Republican", said Reagan which seems to have worked out pretty well for them, not so much for the United States. While I agree in part with Mr. Bruni it seems a bit early in the game. Twelve people onstage allows little time for nuanced explanations, or rebuttals. More importantly, given the current state of affairs, rather than fighting amongst themselves, now is the time to be zeroing in on the wounded rat in the White House. Whatever questions they are asked by often times self serving media pundits, they all need to use this venue and their time explaining to the American people how horrifying and dangerous this kleptocrat and his imperial minded enablers are to our Democracy. I enjoy your columns Frank, but did you write this last week? Trump is on the mat, you seem to be suggesting the Dem candidates start punching each other.
6
Politeness is not really the word we should focus upon. In fact, rudeness and obnoxiousness, ala Swalwell and Castro, is definitely not what we want in a nominee or a president.
See, e.g., Trump, Donald J.
If the debaters are going to "go after" one another, let's hope the conflict is calm, reasoned, and based on policy proposals and verifiable facts that primary voters might not be thinking about.
Speaking of calm, insightful, and intelligent, and possessing a good record of genuine public service, Michael Bennet is sort of a white Obama. Just the sort of candidate who could wipe the swing state floor with Trump and then be a very fine president. Sadly, as a middle-aged, white, male with a strong sense of reality and a traditional family, he doesn't fit the Dem primary zeitgeist, nor the counter-productive DNC debate rules.
We live in interesting times, and the next year may be the most interesting since 1968 or 2001.
3
As you said, there are too many candidates on the stage to dig deep on any one policy point. The path to the "how" for Warren's healthcare proposal has many possibilities and if Democrats don't get in to trashing one another they can each have input and draw a consensus. Warren is a collaborative leader. She has put up goal posts. The plays the team will make to get there will have many play-option passes.
2
Maybe this concern can't be addressed onstage, but Democrats will eventually have to deal with the spectacle of politicians enriching their families while in public office. Trump, of course, is the worst offender but the issues involving Biden and his son in Ukraine and China cannot be ignored. Biden is not alone, of course; Mitch McConnell is doing the same thing. But just because everybody does it is not acceptable. Will Democrats be courageous enough to propose a good government reform to prevent this corruption? That could be a winning issue against Trump in 2020.
3
The only question is who can beat Trump. All the policy questions among Democrats are devilish details. None of it means anything if a Democrat does not defeat Trump.
And everyone knows that most people decide on whom to vote based on emotion not on thoughtful analysis. Surely very few who did or will vote for Trump make that decision based on thoughtful analysis.
My concern is that Democrats must choose that candidate most appealing to the undecided voter. Given how polarizing Trump is and given the litany of his horrible behavior, the idea that there are many undecided voters is more frightening than that 40% of voters support Trump unconditionally.
If a voter has not yet been swept into the Trump pile, what could possibly persuade them now? One would hope that undecided voters would break significantly against Trump, but there’s no accounting for emotion.
6
"In this next debate, they should take the gloves off."
But not against each other. The obscene policies enabled by the Republican party provide ample targets for fact-based jabs by the Democratic candidates.
9
@Leslie Exactly! Even in a three hour debate there isn’t enough time to list and castigate the crimes committed by Trump and his Cabinet of robber barons. Besides, nothing any candidate says will actually become law unless it is approved by Congress. So all the Democratic “plans” are mere dreams and fancies unless Democrats get a majority in the Senate.
@Leslie What policies are you talking about? Do you really expect everything to be free?
Mr Bruni is missing a crucial detail When he demands a more "robust" democratic debate as training for the future Trump duel: Trump won't linger on nerdy bits like previous stances in education policy or financial structures of a new health care system. Those are boring blablas to him. He will go to the "jucy" stuff, personal attacks on his opponents appearence, family and friends, or make up outrages accusations with little to no merrit. Democrats can't "train" this kind of debate on each other without vindicating its inmorality and really hurting themselfes beforehand.
Granted, it would be a spectacle, the kind of many in the media love instead of the laborous rinsing of nuance they are required now. And I can't shake the feeling that that is the real, at least subconsious, reason for Mr Brunis desperation.
3
Politics, our new national sport, is giving us all concussions. It is NOT a game. I may be exaggerating but our lives depend to some degree on what occurs in the world of politics so let's continue with the integrity and evenhandedness that our reps such as Nancy Pelosi and (fill in a Republican name here) bring to running our country.
5
Feeling a bit frustrated, there, Frank?
I do not think it's a matter of whether the debates are polite or not.
I am much more concerned with whether they are constructive or destructive.
There is a point where the democratic (and Democratic) political process needs to start building in a positively reinforced way. The time for tearing each other down needs to end and a consensus needs to be built, because whichever one "wins" the nomination -- the others need to still be in the game, helping the Democrats get this country back on its feet.
12
Agreed;however, I think Warren has better defense for her health care plan than you believe, When confronted with that “how to pay for it” question again, she should counter with her own question, how can the rest of America continue to pay for all those with private health insurance? Those without insurance are paying for those who are lucky enough to have it. How can we, moreover, afford to make private insurers rich at the expense of the rest of the country? People have died with “pre-existing conditions” because you want to attach the word “freedom” to a basic human need. Private insurance has failed. Do any of those status quo candidates have an answer to those questions? Can we afford to have such a candidate reduce voter turn out?
5
@Tom
Those are all valid and true.
But so is telling it like it is...yes, your taxes will go up.
Avoiding truths, evading the obvious shows duplicity and disingenuousness. It kills it before it starts in peoples minds.
The author who "wrote that damn Bill" tells the truth.
He doesn't evade and weasel lawyerese around the uncomfortable truths.
Warren isn't doing him any favors watering down his M4A saying it's "just a framework". Now she's calling out for "more access to health care", and "many roads to achieving that...".
No, she just sold out the premise of Medicare For All.
If she want's to be "all in with Bernie" then she needs to wo/man up and speak plain hard truths.
Waffling and weaseling is why we are were we are now.
And why many of us don't trust her.
1
Not sure exactly what you’re looking for here in the next made-for-tv food fight on Tuesday, Frank. If it’s to get explanations for inconsistencies or weakness in candidates’ positions, that’s one thing. If it’s to find out how well they’ll do in a battle with Putin’s Puppet, that’s entirely another. If it’s both, we’ll need two debates. One conducted with straight forward questions, the other with nothing but outright lies.
7
"if Sanders had rallied more enthusiastically to her side once she’d won the nomination."
You, sir, are repeating a slur. Sanders campaigned for Hillary in thirteen states, sometimes doing 3 or 4 rallies a day and helping to draw far larger crowds than she did on her own.
Maybe the real problem for Hillary was that - even after losing to Sanders in most of the upper Midwest - she didn't go there to campaign. She just assumed they would vote for her. As the party elites like to say, "What choice do they have? They aren't going to vote Republican."
She chased after Republican voters Arizona instead.
Note to DNC, it didn't work.
17
@nora m
THANK YOU~!
It is infuriating to hear this lie repeated over and over, from my supposed allies.
The man set a record of 41 events on stumping for her. More states, in more cities than she did herself in that time frame. More than any previous primary candidate on behalf of the general nominee.
In the final three months before Election Day 2016, Sanders held 39 rallies in 13 states on behalf of Clinton’s campaign, including 17 events in 11 states in the last week alone.
“We needed all hands on deck, including Bernie, and we were grateful for his support and the generous amount of time he gave the campaign,” Mook told POLITICO when asked for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-private-jets-1343307
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-private-jet-flights-1182793
I also think the candidates are too polite. They should be calling out serious infractions by Trump, Barr, Moscow Mitch, Kushner, Ivanka, Lindsey Graham and others.
Every Democratic candidate should support and urge their supporters to help the Democrats Presidential candidate win the election.
31
These are not traditional "debates." Nor with so many candidates would they work if everyone could ask challenging questions of each other. That's the job of the moderators.
8
Politeness is about presentation in debate, as portrayed in the article, not the substance. Unfortunately, Trump's base entertain how he verbally he pushes on his rival downplaying, no matter the substance is, a populist tactic.
5
Mr. Bruni suggests that after aggressively attacking the front runner, the losing Democratic candidates should quickly fall in line to support the Party nominee. The problem is that the voters notice the hypocrisy. Attacks invariably designed to please the far left in the debate audience drive the nominee to the left and make the nominee less attractive to those in the center who actually decide the election in the states that matter. (Decriminalizing illegal immigration and providing free health care to illegal immigrants were gifts to Trump that came out of the first debate). I often wonder why we have these debates at all; while communications skills are useful for a political leader, debating is not actually part of an effective President’s job.
18
The Democrats can’t win our cultural war through policies. Pointing out the differences in their positions or weaknesses won’t do it. They need to present a vision for America that includes everyone.
Furthermore, attacking each other will make it more difficult for them to “get in line behind the leader”.
15
@Howard Levy
If you want to know who is working for "everyone" (except the billionaires), I suggest you look up Sanders actual record and positions instead of depending this publication for them. You will discover that he is honest, consistent, and devoted to the common good.
3
@Howard Levy
As in Bernie never fully supported Hillary.
@nora m
Sanders positions are not the issue. His skills as a politician and statesman are the issue. If you want to get elected so you can actually do something, you don't do things that are self-defeating. The issue is calling yourself a socialist in a country where over 40% of the electorate doesn't have a college degree with an inkling of the nuance differences between economic systems. He could of called himself a progressive or just a liberal and no one would make much issue of it. But I believe in a narcissistic way, he wanted to be more famous and described himself that way for the effect. Well that doesn't allow you to get much stuff accomplished when the other side gets to cloak you and the party's nomination your running for as a bunch of communists. It's just politically stupid. But it's also intentional. So guess what, I am tired of people who don't get stuff done. I am tired of narcissists. Bernie should recognize he impacted the debate and for that I thank him. But that doesn't get you on the subway. Winning does. And winning creates the opportunity to actually change peoples lives. That is the goal, not fame. and that's why I will not vote for him.
I disagree with Mr. Bruni here. Democrats do not need to rip each other apart, damaging the eventual nominee for the general election. As a long-time Democrat, I do not want candidates going for one another’s throats. I want them to present their ideas and plans and let the voters decide who has the best policies and ability to defeat Trump.
26
@Ulysses
Ok. Noted. Thank you for so emphatically calling the election a year out. It is especially noteworthy that you have accomplished this even in the midst of such volatile times. My hat is off to you sir! You have saved us all from having to think about any of this going forward.
Well done.
3
I also disagree with Bruni and agree with most of the commenters here . I think Bruni’s take on Kamala Harris is wrong . Her debate attack on Biden because of his stance on busing in the 70’s in which the overwhelming majority of black , white , and liberal Americans disagreed with busing at the time , was disastrous for her . After that she dropped to the bottom and never recovered because she looked petty , vengeful and opportunistic. Same for Castro .
I do think that candidates can press Warren on how she would pay for mandatory Medicare For All but a better strategy in my opinion is for the other candidates to present their case as to why they believe Medicare Option is the way to go . The candidates were able to do that in last debate and it was the best debate of all.
Let’s not give the right any more food for fodder .
17
Only a policy wonk would think this is a good idea. “Let’s have a policy Hunger Games!”
Yea great. How did that work out for the dozen dwarves to Trump?
These are extraordinary times and they require extraordinary measures. All these debates should be entirely about Republican malpractice, with each candidate getting a topic to show the utter failure of Republicans to uphold democracy, civil rights, human rights, tax fairness, a woman’s right to choose, my god the list is endless.
This election is different than any past or future - this is tribal warfare to save the Constitution. Fight like you know it is.
28
That there are still 12 candidates in the Debate shows how weak the Democratic leadership is. Elizabeth Warren is their best hope to defeat Trump. To do that she is going to have to moderate her platform to appeal to a broader electorate.
Biden, Sanders and Harris might have a chance but lost it. The rest of the field should stay home.
Well maybe Andrew Yang should continue as he is a breath of fresh air!
5
If Warren or Sanders win the nomination Trump will go after them with two accusations: they are socialist and the Dow will drop at least ten percent if they are elected. The thing is, he may not be wrong about the latter. They need to respond to that question now. There are plenty of Independents, with 401ks and IRAs, that will be loathe to vote for either of them.
2
And even if that were true — and who really knows WHAT will happen — aren’t there plenty of other things that are more important than how much money someone has?
11
@JohnM
Republican candidates have attacked Democratic candidates as "socialists" for as long as I can remember, which is a rather long time. The entire right wing (is there anything else?) of Republicans think all Democrats are socialist, so what will be different? Seriously!
The Dow may drop. It certainly has over Trump's tenure as he veers from one disaster to another. However, it gets a grip and comes back.
By the way, my 401k gains are offset by the puny interest rates on my CDs and savings and Trump is trying to drive those down to zero. So what is your point?
3
@Von Jones Not when it comes to the ballot box!
It's not politeness or confrontation that ought to be the guide. But strategy. What will, in the long run, position the right candidate to stand up against, and bring down, Trump?
5
I don't agree at all -- for all the reasons that the top commenters have articulated.
However, I maintain that the candidate who will win the nomination is *one who is running as if s/he has won the nomination*. That is, address the concerns of the electorate as a whole, rather than move as left as possible to appease the far left wing of the Democratic party.
A candidate who takes issues out of Trump's grasp with sensible answers and while acknowledging center and center-right voters' unrest will win the nomination *and* the general election.
Assert that China needs to be handled wisely because of their predatory IP theft and other policies that harm our way of life. Assert that outsourcing to China will no longer be the carte blanche that it has been for the last 30+ years.
Assert that illegal immigration cannot be allowed to continue: we need to welcome needed workers with dignity and in an orderly way and the current situation is unsustainable. Acknowledge the link between climate change and population size.
Assert that as president the candidate will pursue policies and actions that are good for all US citizens and not those that are for non-citizens and foreign entities.
I am a Democrat and I am hungry for a candidate who will take away Trump's appeal to voters who feel forgotten and mistreated, while also being a person of integrity, humility, and patriotism.
16
The main problem w this piece is the assumption that Trump will focus honestly and directly on policy weaknesses. Trump is going to hurl lies we can't even imagine, paint all Democrats as socialists, make up a new nickname a day for the eventual candidate and then brag falsely about his own record. This upcoming presidential race will be one in which there is the least substance in history and personally I am not looking forward to seeing any more animosity any earlier than I have to.
12
Frank is, I think, too intent on insuring that the eventual Democratic nominee has been tested and tempered for light saber combat with Lord Vader. I'd like to see all the candidates model an authentically fresh kind of political engagement. One that takes truth-speaking seriously, avoiding cliches, sound bites and gotchas. One that both ventures constructively, and responds non-defensively, to tough--but fair-minded and open-hearted--discussion of specific issues and their ramifications. And then, one in which, as in certain martial arts contests, the competitors bow to each other, and even to the panel of judges--which in this case would be not the moderators but the entire fretful, fearful, hate-fomented nation.
8
When we add the obstruction and incorrigible indecency of Senate Republicans into the mix, we soon discover how little difference there is between Democratic candidates in policy. What won't get even a hearing, much less passed, will put them all in the same boat. The question is who among them has the leadership to remind Americans that we are a nation of laws that aspires to moral decency. The contrast with Republican pathology couldn't be plainer. Ripping each other over policy serves no good purpose except perhaps to see how each withstands the attack and responds with poise and clarity. Does America want more of the vulgar buffoon or is it looking for someone honest and ethically grounded? Does America have the attention span and the aptitude to tell the difference? Will any of the 100 million who couldn't be bothered to vote show up and fulfill a civic responsibility? Any of these candidates could provide some reprieve if not an antidote to the catastrophe before us.
6
Democrats have a voters problem. Saying the same things more aggressively won't help. They need to change their policies.
7
The battle between Liberal Democracy and Populism has an ethical background, politeness vs arrogance and the defiance. You can formulate in another form: humanitarian vs populist bugs instincts.
1
All of the top-rated comments demonstrate why the Dems are likely to lose the next election: they don't realize that politics is a contact sport. The sooner their eventual candidate can steel him or herself for battle, the better.
2
@Steve
Consider the ready made ads that Trump has composed and starred in for the eventual democratic candidate to run continuously in national media. Ugly to have to see again, but devastating to Trump.
@Steve , nope. Trump always wins if professional wrestling and personal taunts are the new presidential qualities we seek. The battle here is in large part to cast out the "biggest animal in the barnyard" TV reality show presidency and bring sanity and reason back. The republicans won't. But the democrats must--for everyone's sake. The debate with Trump won't change any minds, no matter the absurd strutting, bellowing, or sniping that transpires. The election will be won by decent people voting in huge enough numbers. And they aren't looking for a bully but a president. A real one this time.
1
Why should we pin anyone down on these issues? The answers are self-evident. A tax increase on the middle class depends on how you define "middle class."
Technically speaking any household making around $70,000 is middle class. Where does the "middle class" tax begin? Is it $80,000 or $200,000? Should we even continue to focus so heavily on income? How about wealth? Pinning Warren down on these issues is nonsensical. We won't know the actually tax policy until after the election. What we do know is Warren is advocating strongly for public health care and she intends to finance it. Take it for what it's worth. Her main rival, Biden, isn't promising either.
As for Buttigieg on age, we're talking about a non-issue. Republicans conceded the debate on experience when nominating Donald Trump. 8,515 votes is more votes than Donald Trump ever received before election day. Keep that fact in mind. Calling him too young makes you sound old.
I could go on at length. The point is: Infighting is petty and cheap. Don't do it. What Democrats should be talking about is consensus rather than distinction. Here are the points where we universally agree. That's the Democratic platform no matter who wins the nomination. You'll win on the priorities without worrying about the nuance of details. Everything will change with a new Congress anyway.
41
Unfortunately, for the first time, I disagree with you Frank. The endless debates with intramural fighting will just weaken the democrats' chances. We've seen enough of the top contenders to know the none of them is the charismatic, idealistic leader that the country will rally around. Instead of more debates, the candidates should just decide among themselves which two have the combination of charism and creditability to get elected. And stop debating about "Medicare for All" and other pipe dreams. Nothing like that will ever concur unless and until the Republicans repent their partisan sins and get real about bi-partisanship. And to me the most important campaign issue is who has the best plan to repair the damage to our society, economy and national security done by the President and Republicans.
35
Democrats are generally polite and intelligent. That is why I would always prefer a democratic candidate over a republican.
I love the democrats but bless their hearts, they don't seem to understand that the point of politics and conducting campaigns is to win an election. If you are going to do anything in politics you first of all need to win election to an office.
The democrat who has a good grasp of day-to-day politics is Nancy Pelosi. She grew up in Baltimore where her father, and others in her family, ran for city and congressional offices. She understands real street politics.
I think that many democrats think that politics is like being in the League of Women Voters or the Good Government Society. A place where intelligent, nice, polite people get together to discuss "issues". As a consequence many democrats are not equipped mentally to stand up to the Fox/republican/The Donald smear and propaganda machine.
In the last election, many democrats brought into the smears against Ms. Clinton and decided to stay home on election day. Now I admit that Ms. Clinton is not a natural politician, but the republicans have been investigating and smearing her for about 20 years. What have they found? Nothing. But they did manage to turn many democrats against her by their use of propaganda.
I expect the republicans to do it again in 2020; will the democrats stand up to the smears and support their candidates? We will see.
16
@Aubrey In a follow up to my original post:
Who is more trustworthy? The Donald or Ms. Clinton. Strange that many democrats said that they could not vote for Ms. Clinton in 2016 because of the trust issue. She did not exhibit sufficient empathy.
Does The Donald exhibit empathy? Does he demonstrate trust?
Many democrats are worried about the Supreme Court and what it might do to abortion, civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. If Ms. Clinton had been elected in 2016, Gorsuch and Kavanagh would not be on the Supreme Court.
See how important elections are?
7
@Aubrey
Aubrey, Admirable thoughts but so ‘last century’. It’s all Internet now.
And nobody had to say a word about the picture of Ms. Clinton embracing Henry Kissinger. Or the picture of Ms. Clinton cavorting with Don and Melania at their wedding reception. Two pictures: thousands and thousands of words that did not need to be said.
1
Re medicare for all: Of course taxes would go up. Americans wouldn't gladly vote for the benefit of the common good.
7
But my health insurance premium would go away, as would my co-pays and out of pocket deductibles. It’s a win/win any way I look at it because my taxes would never rise to the level of the thousands of dollars I pay every year, and I am a healthy American.
What stands out about the democrats is the fear that they will actually say what they think. The whole politeness thing is tied to the "no more questions asking for candidates to raise their hands" because it exposes the wokeness of the party to rest of the country.
Bruni points to the pass that has been given Warren - some of it is so obvious, such as a "wealth" tax not being constitutional or how Medicare for all would shrink the pool of care providers and reduce diagnostics to a bare minimum. But no one dares ask these questions in front of the public.
3
@Chris I keep hearing that, yet I'm on Medicare, love it, and have no difficulty finding a top rate physician and/or specialist of my choosing. Maybe it's just my geographical location, but rural areas have been losing doctors and hospitals for decades so maybe there's another reason for that at play and not just a plethora of Medicaid/Medicare patients. I don't think there's any basis for you to say and the pool of care providers will shrink.
4
Wealth tax is not unconstitutional
1
@Karen K Karen, most medical practices are financed based on only a certain percentage of Medicare patients because private insurers pay more. If you make all payments Medicare most practices would lose between 25-40% of their income - you can't lease in nice office buildings and you can't purchase diagnostic machines like MRI's cause you can never recover the cost. It's simple economics but no one on a democratic stage is going to do more than bemoan the cost - the results of Medicare for all isthe elephant in the room.
Maybe one person can ask the question. How are children, pregnant women, families under stress with children, eating disorders, post part in depression, premature infant, even abortion going to be cared for under Medicare for all with a 3 Trillion Dollar budget and no experience other than mostly later in life care. These are investments that pay off in years of life.
4
@Wayne By ending the practice where we spend nearly a quarter of our health care funds adding three months of life to the aged. Sorry, but there it is. And as I approach that stage of my life, I pray for wisdom and selflessness.
12
@G. James
That will win over the pivotal older voters!
I suspect many of those decisions are more complex than aggregate statistics might suggest. If we do not treat people who have a good chance of dying even with treatment, what exactly is medicine for and how would it get better at preventing premature death?
Medicare is a health insurance type, not a medical practice specialty (like gerontology). It'd be like saying physicians who accept Medicaid (another health insurance type) are only skilled at treating people with limited income and assets.
As a municipal employer, about 1/5th of our budget is health insurance (employer share) - that cost is directly passed on to the local taxpayers in the form of their property taxes. Just like the cost of uninsured employees at a private company is passed on to taxpayers in the form of Medicaid costs via state taxes.
In effect, the average citizen is paying for her health insurance share, her municipality's employees health insurance (police, teachers, etc), her state employees health insurance (pick a state agency), the uninsured in her state, etc. How much are we already paying, unknowingly?
1
With respect, Mr. Bruni, I disagree with your call for these presidential candidates to take off their boxing gloves and start throwing punches intended to draw their rivals’ blood.
Why? Washington DC politics is a series of high stakes reality TV shows right now. The current president comes from that world and knows how to promote that kind of spectacle. And spectacular they are, engaging, distracting, and ultimately meaningless. The race for the Democratic Party nomination is precisely such a reality TV show. We pay attention because we want to know who’s next to be voted off the island.
And, we pay attention to impeachment hearings because we can’t wait to see the next crazy tweet or shenanigan. It works it keeps us distracted.
Doing things a different way is hard. Even knowing we have to try a different way is hard. The Democratic National Committee was suckered Into making a reality TV show of the nomination race. I fear the House Democratic caucus was suckered into the impeachment-inquiry spectacle. Battle Royale! The more epic the struggle, the more important it seems.
What can be done to improve politics? What can be done to win? Focus on Little League, not the World Series. Do under-the-radar local politics, and do them ruthlessly and well. How come Sen McConnell doesn’t have four primary challengers, all with names like MacDonald?
In health care policy, get quotes from business people about the insane expenses of providing benefits.
5
Democrats need to debate this question: Even if legal, is there any doubt that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s name and power into a Burisma Board of Directors position which paid him $50,000/month where he had no background in gas energy? This follow-up question: does the Hunter Biden Ukraine situation make Biden a flawed candidate? We need to look at Amy Klobuchar as a moderate alternative.
10
@David Parsons
Agreed. Biden at this point is too inconsistent in his debate performances, and he will need to be at the top of his game if he is the nominee.
Klobuchar is always effective, whether you agree with her or not, and is the other clear moderate.
3
@David Parsons
People trade on fame all the time. There was, iirc, a Ditka's restaurant in Chicago named for the NFL legend. It is possible a company run by vain and likely corrupt people would want the name recognition and illusion of legitimacy of hiring a Biden. If people infer that this meant an ability to leverage the federal government, where a VP has almost zero power, that is their problem.
People also do not control their adult children. We do not elect a family, just one person. Linking all these things together would make forming a large government nearly impossible.
@David Parsons
Arriving at Amy after dissing poor Joe Biden for something his son did is just ridiculous.
I'm more revolted by the comb-fork episode where Ms. Klobuchar reveals her inner Trump by treating her staff like servants than I am by poor Joe Biden whose son may have sought to leverage himself on his daddy's position--which didn't even help Burisma in the long run.
1
It is right to assert that the Democrats should ask direct and forceful questions of one another, because if not now, then when, plus they will get hammered by Trump.
However, it seems that the focus should be on Trump, how he's hurting he country, and why history will record him as one of our worst presidents.
The point must be answered convincingly. It should be woven into a narrative of:
1) acts he's done, from attempting to dislodge the ACA to asking a foreign country for dirt on his opponent and the ramifications thereof
2) how the divisiveness he has created has hurt us and why we can do better
3) how his tax cuts helped the rich and did nothing for the middle class while raising the deficit
4) how much wrong and harm he has done in foreign policy, and why it matters.
The candidate must sell "anti-Trump." Of course, Trump will trumpet the stock market and economy. To that there are three responses: first, the deficit has gone up about 40% from Obama's $700 billion to a trillion; second, the middle class got a tiny tax cut whereas 90% went to the wealthy; third, Trump through his massive tax cuts jacked up the stock market by improving earnings-per-share and buybacks, but created a much bigger hole in the deficit, so it was just re-distrubtion to corporations away from individuals.
If the Democratic candidate cannot "sell" why Trump is a bad president then they might not win nor create the upsurge required to re-take the Senate.
10
Elizabeth Warren stoops to mocking men who wish to be married but cannot find love. All the candidates dismiss any discussion of substantive issues like immigration, policing each other and attacking the public. Various candidates abuse each other over being not woke enough.
The Democrats don't have a politeness problem. The problem is they're addicted to bad ideas.
10
@Tina Trent I didn’t think she was mocking at all. It was a loaded question and she fired back. With humor.
2
@Tina Trent
What? In no way, shape, or form did she mock men who "can't find love."
I don't understand how you can infer that from her tweet. Ms. Warren simply believes that two consenting adults who love each other should be able to join together in marriage. She doesn't believe in requiring that those two people be one male person and one female person.
That's all.
1
@Tina Trent I don't think pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump, Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Giuliani, who between them have SIXTEEN marriages, is mocking anyone.
This is an issue that has been bothering me ever since an earlier debate when Warren continuingly swatted away legitimate questions on her positions as ‘Republican talking points.’ All I could think was, so what? Let’s get a preview of how you’ll handle
it when the game goes from softball to hardball. I just pray that that evasive dodge isn’t repeated by her or any of the others in the next debate.
6
This column makes a decent point. But Mr Bruni you need to hold yourself and your colleagues to the same standard when it comes to Republicans. In the 2012 and 2016 elections the following mantras went unchallenged by the press:
1. Republicans can eliminate the deficit and all would reject a budget deal that provided $10 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Tax cuts are needed and we'll balance the budgets.
2. Republicans will repeal Obamacare in its entirety and replace it with a program that covers everyone with lower deductibles and premiums (Donald Trump, 2016).
3. We reject climate change because we reject climate change. If your community is flooded or your farm bankrupt well too bad for you. Talk about "stamping your feet."
Democrats challenging each other may serve a desired political end -- victory over President Trump in 2020. But the press has utterly failed to make the same challenges you are imploring Democrats upon each other. It's easier and likely more fun to report whacky treats, Presidential profanity, and absurd claims and insults than it is to hold an entire party responsible for its total lack of a policy agenda.
The exception to this general practice has been Paul Krugman.
20
Bruni is so yesterday's pundit. Collectively I know what these Dems stand for. Same with the GOP. I would take anyone of the progressive Dems over Trump. And I am not alone. That is Trump's biggest problem - it is now 'Anyone but Trump'. There is no need for a blood sport primary to keep the Bruni types happy. The risk is that the Dems, once they get back into office, revert to form and do nothing for the working class. Should they revert to form,Republicans have a long list of back bench Trump like candidates to feed the masses come 2024.
12
The question you mentioned at the start was a loaded question- the very kind that drives people crazy about the press.
Single payer will collect money in the form of taxes, but will eliminate the employer and employee payroll cost of health insurance. Instead of spending say $250 by the employer and $75 by the employee on your policy every pay period, that money will go to the government in the form of a tax to pay for your “free stuff” (in the terms of Republicans and Centrists). Instead of the money going to a for-profit insurance firm it will go into a not for profit fund to pay for our healthcare. That might mean a “tax increase” but in effect costs the taxpayer no more than the private plan they had before. The fact that the question was not phrased in a way acknowledging that fact makes people distrust journalists that ask them and does not serve democracy.
We need better questions that are not “loaded” with hot button phrases that may make a sound bite on the next newscast but do not advance the purpose of informing voters. We do not need a food fight or political equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show.
39
@David Gregory
This is so true. I hear nothing about the cost of for profit insurance to the businesses nor the people. If we in the middle class got hit with 7% increase in taxes but it means I drop even 4% of my income paying for all the deductibles, and co-insurance payments AND if I lose my job i don't lose my healthcare, I'm in. Where do I sign up.
Start concentrating on what the total cost for our busted medical system is costing us before we say not one dollar in taxes.
12
@David Gregory
It's up to the candidates to answer that question effectively.
The most effective way is to start with something pithy that might stick--like: "We Americans are already paying for our health care--who else would be paying for it? China's certainly not paying for our health care, America is already paying for it whether you call it taxes or premiums."
That's the thing people don't get--we're already paying for it to the tune of twice what it costs other developed nations with no better health outcomes.
After stating the obvious, Warren or Sanders could throw some numbers and examples out there which will surely glaze everyone's eyes over. But, that won't help until people get the point that we are all already paying for it, and that we're paying too much for what we get. It will just look like it's coming out of our pockets as a tax increase.
It's not up to the questioners to explain it....it's up to the candidates.
9
@Bikerman
All that is true, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people employed by insurance companies. I’m no fan of them, but I can’t see how any kind of chaos is good for the country.
Please stop with the meme that Bernie Sanders' support for Hillary Clinton was "tepid". When he endorsed Clinton on 7/12/2016 he declared "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today!"
He followed that speech will 39 campaign rallies in support of Hillary Clinton in the final 3 months leading to the election.
Bernie's support of Hillary was unequivocal and enthusiastic and I'm tired of the false meme that he was anything otherwise.
16
@Leslie J. Matthews Exactly!!
Goodnight, America. If it’s true that there’s no mention in the Constitution under impeachment saying that, if convicted, a person can’t run again, then, even if convicted, Trump could still run again, win again and be President again since he would still be allowed to run twice. The rest is just noise.
Just vote.
3
Incorrect.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 says “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any position oh honor, trust or profit under the United States: ....”
Saying timidity won’t do and a few paragraphs later claiming cautiousness to a fault seems somewhat inconsistent. I’m with those advocating that candidates keep their powder dry in the primary and save the fireworks for the general election. We need to promote unity and respect, not wallow around in a Trumpiam pigpen.
20
You have got it backward, Mr. Bruno. The candidate that will get my vote, and that of many others will say this: "Standing on this stage with me is the Democratic Dream Team. We are only asking you to pick the captain of the team, and here is why it should be me. My choice for Secretaries of State, Commerce, Defense Justice.....are standing beside me here." . That candidate will stand out, show where the real threats to our nation lie, and bring solidarity to a diverse Democratic electorate.
38
@dAvid W Brilliant. And since it is Sunday - amen.
It is difficult to explain within the confines of the debate format something more complicated than a talking point. Warren didn't answer because she didn't have the time to explain that a medicare for all option would necessarily mean more of people's money going to government in the form of taxes, but much less going to private insurers, collection agencies, administrators, lawyers, etc. In the long run, the middle class tax payer will save money and be able to get the health care as well as job mobility desired by American families. Moderators know this, but their effectiveness is judged by holding the candidates to account within a process that does not allow the candidates to do so effectively and fairly. Bruni must know this as well, so I'm surprised he's advocating for the debates to be a blood sport.
10
What the candidates need to say to the moderators that cut them off when trying to explain something is this:
People are watching because we are here - not you. Shut up and let me explain.
The voters can decide if they told the truth.
Moderation should be light touch and almost invisible. Lincoln and Douglas did not have a reporter getting in the way. Each candidate spoke at length and then the other, followed by rebuttal. No journalists or morning TV hosts need apply.
If the Democrats need to discuss their flaws, they should do it privately. Not in public where Republican operatives keep track of everything they're saying and turning it into weapons when the actual campaigns start.
12
There's a critical difference between these candidates demanding clarity and candor from one another and mounting personal attacks. IF the moderators will permit (unlikely), what we should all want to see is a substantive exchange on policy detail and depth of understanding of the issues under discussion. If this occurred in a corporate conference room, it would be considered business as usual. No reason we shouldn't be able to get a similar quality of conversation going on that stage.
3
Watching debates is a cringe inducing exercise. First, the breathless hyping by the host “news” organization makes for a game show or circus atmosphere. Second, the time constraints, the preening of the questioners, and the pressure for a breakout moment make the whole thing look juvenile. Let’s hope the facile showing of hands questions are no more.
Surely, the political parties and non-partisan organizations could come up with a way to expose candidates to probing questions and productive back and forth exchanges that don’t insult the intelligence of the candidates and the viewers.
14
The media should be fair, and that includes covering Bernie Sanders fairly, the most progressive "Democrat" on the debate stage and in the primary race. Warren has been posing thus, and if the candidate, I would vote for her. But she has been hanging out I hear, with the so called centrist, Hiliary Clinton..who by the way is an out and out corporatist and banking person. So I'm worried the DNC is up to its old shenanigans of taking the big money and not worrying about the ordinary voter. And if that happens, I fear Trump will win again. Go left Democrats! if you want to win. But don't try to fool us. We want the real deal.
5
I would agree in principle that the debates should also be a testing ground for how candidates handle criticism of their positions, past and present, but worry about how that would turn out in practice. The risk is that, rather than revealing vulnerabilities candidates have with more moderate voters in the general election, they would focus more on issues important to the core left but very unpopular with the larger electorate. The specific examples chosen (Harris attacking Biden's lack of support for busing and Gabbard on Harris' toughness as a prosecutor) focus exactly on issues where the party core is at odds with majority opinion. Unfortunately, the most effective political attacks are less often grounded on policy specifics and more often about intangible personal traits or "flip-flopping". Anticipating Trump's attacks means getting personal, and this may be very destructive for the general election and the eventual coalescing behind a single candidate.
2
M. Bruni: I completely disagree. What the democratic candidates should do, early, is to assert loudly that all the candidates have excellent ideas, all would make excellent presidents (especially as compared to the present one), and that they will enthusiastically support whoever gets the nomination.
They should emphasise that they are essentially in agreement on the goals, and that they disagree mainly on tactics to achieve them.
It is not their job to increase TV ratings by providing a good show, however much the moderators try to needle them into doing so. Their job is to articulate the goals, and each to outline how his tactics are most likely to achieve them.
41
@BarbaraAnn I totally agree with you, BarbaraAnn. Candidates sniping now will be seen as hypocritical if they unite behind the eventual nominee. Trump will exploit that in his campaign, just as he previously pointed out that the Democratic candidates spent more time in debate fighting each other than talking about him.
Democrats do not need to attack fellow Democrats, period. It doesn’t take answers to win the Presidency. Trump has shown that to us already. I will not vote for a fellow Democrat that tears down other Democrats. That will be the job of Republicans and Russia. I cooled to Harris because of her attacks on Biden and will do so to any other Democrat, who does the same. No Republican attacks on Trump, in the primaries, stopped his momentum. So why should we think hobbling a Democrat by a fellow Democrat would succeed any better. Your taking plays from a bygone era. What I don’t see is enough attacks on Trump and what he is doing to America. That’s the real story. His promises were empty but that does little to damper his Republican support. People aren’t supporting him because of his programs or how he will pay for them.
11
The temptation to be nice to one's fellows is commendable, but sadly, we live in an era when niceness doesn't seem to cut it. Fighting howitzers with squirt guns won't get the job done.
It is always far better to inoculate one's audience with bad news and challenges before they find out for themselves. The former signals openness and thoughtfulness, while the latter is emblematic of shape-shifting for political convenience. It leaves a candidate as an open target for gotcha moments from which it can be hard to recover. Moreover, it leaves Democratic candidates weaker and open to invidious branding by the Brander-in-Chief, Donald Trump.
Politicians will always be opportunists, and will always tack this way or that with political winds. That's just how they roll. Lifelong principle, as it turns out, is a precious commodity. It's time for candidates to stop pretending that they are and always have been 100% paragons of consistent virtue.
While one can argue that fellow Democrats should not expose the potential weaknesses of others for their Republican opposition, we live in an age where everything is discoverable. The sooner candidates are held to account for their positions and the evolution of them, the better equipped they will be when their Republican opponent, likely Donald Trump, seeks to exploit their weaknesses, something at which he is especially capable.
2
@Quoth The Raven , no he isn't. He will taint them like a thirteen year old bully. For him, it's always professional wrestling or nothing. All this arm-waving and the agitated commands and arguments by the "experts" of the commenter cohort are so much hot air. The debate is not the election, and will change few votes in the general. No, this is only about the primary, and cutting on each other is a gift to the right. Including the sneers and gibes out here in comment land-- fostering democratic infighting while never laying a glove in Trump.
1
@jb I used to agree with you, but politics has changed, albeit for the worse, and it's best if the Democratic nominee is prepared and ready for whatever Trump throws at him or her. If there's a better way, then I'm all for it, but if a Democratic candidate can't successfully stand up during the primaries, what's to say that capability will suddenly emerge during the general election?
The citizens, the core of the United states, are worn out by division and anger.
There will be only one Democratic candidate--imagine the power and the victory if they acted as one in a unified civil debate.
9
All the Democrats currently running must unite and support the eventual nominee forcefully and without hesitation. Bernie's tepid support of Hillary was too little and too late, and permanently soured me on him. In 2020 Democrats face an all hands on deck situation. Sniping at each other during the debates and primaries is self defeating. Why reload Trump's gun with GOP talking points? I welcome intense policy debates during the primaries, but always focused on how best to highlight the failures of Trump and the GOP. All else is fiddling while Rome burns.
10
@Stop Caging Children See Leslie J. Matthews response to the false meme that Bernie offered tepid support. He said he it better than I could. The facts are in black and white.
An argument on behalf of the "circular firing squad?"
Can candidates dialogue effectively in thirty-second sound bites?
Raising middle-class taxes is a given, but the cost of such an increase is more than offset by the overall savings of a universal health care system, which distributes the cost over the entire population.
Trump's combativeness is a non-issue. Trump embraces personal attacks and nationalistic diatribes rather than engage in reasoned debate. In the current political climate, this approach will hurt more than help him--except with his base. Trump's putative "ferocity" is toothless, just like his foreign policy.
Harris's, Swalwell's, and Castro's attacks ultimately backfired because they were personal and experiential rather than substantive and policy based.
Gabbard surged because she called out Harris's record as attorney general, emphasizing Harris's severity in prosecuting marijuana offenders, suppressing evidence, and imposing punitive bail requirements.
Biden and Obama had nothing to do with Trump's success. Trump's base was already gestating and resentful of the changing demographics of the American scene.
This question would be more appropriately addressed to Bush, the titular architect of the Iraq War.
Trump's base apparently has not caught on that Trump is exclusively invested in currying favor with the international billionaire class.
What binds Trump's base is white nationalism.
Frank, you would never make a campaign manager.
23
Sorry Frank,
My favorite candidate is too smart to take the bait and get in a back and forth on stage. She will restate the question or charge in the context of her world view of corporate cheating (money has drastically re-written the rules since Reagan) and give her well-reasoned answer. If piqued, she might explain why another candidate's position provides a less reasonable path for returning our country to fairness (and justice for all).
What she will not and should not have to do is explain why a presidential election is different from a senatorial election, particularly when, as a first-time politician (it was her first election), she had to beat an incumbent republican senator backed by the National party ($$$). She made the decisions necessary to win. She is doing the same thing this time.
She is the smartest one on the stage. We need more of that, particularly now.
20
Lets see Healthcare cost are 2x plus everybody else's where does the money come from? Those that are currently paying for healthcare. You split the savings with them by phasing in a tax. Why give companies an unearned profit windfall? It's still win win. You don't provide the opposition with a televised image of you saying you are going to raise taxes because they will omit the part of lowering cost and saving lives. Democrats stab each other in the back enough but thanks for the recommendation to do it more.
7
@Tom To make the phrase ironic, Tom, write "Thanks but no thanks. ...)
The press hypes every perceived debate gotcha and stumble. Voters have other ideas. Attacks at best offer a temporary bump to a candidate. However, in the Democratic debates attacks backfire. It isn't surprising. Those in Trump's wretched base love his nasty attacks, the rest of us hate them.
We understand how venal, vindictive, corrupt, immoral, crooked, lying and insidious Trump is. Thinking that Democrats need to have perfect policy positions and never stumble is wrong, they need to show they're decent.
In the debates so far Harris attacked Biden, Castro attacked Biden, and Gabbard attacked Harris.
The attacks on Biden did nothing but hurt the people who attacked him as Biden's been remarkably stable in the polls. (The latest polls show his support rising to 32 percent). Sanders is also very stable in the polls, with indications he's underestimated. Warren, like Sanders and Biden, has not used negative attacks, and she's risen in the polls by gaining support from other candidates, primarily Harris.
Harris's attack on Biden caused a temporary bump in her numbers, but then she didn't return to her previous mean and kept falling. She's now polling at under 4 percent. Gabbard didn't help herself in attacking Harris, and her attack hurt Harris because Harris had already damaged herself in attacking Biden.
Voters already know Trump will viciously attack. A majority of Americans will instinctively become more supportive of any Democrat Trump attacks, not less supportive.
13
Sure. Good idea to for the candidates to preview those question suggestions at the end of the piece. Answers can be better prepared.
Overall, it’s more important for the candidates to avoid sniping at each other. A customized response to a possible Trump attack may be better articulated if and when the attack comes. Better that the candidates show respect and admiration for each other in the debates and on the campaign trail.
17
If we want the debates to reveal who is the most skilled combatant suited for president, we have to change the format of these debates.
Enough with debating each other. Have each candidate debate
with a prominent Republican, give them a list of issues to focus on and let them go for it.
1. Audience of such debate will include voters from both parties because both parties will be represented
2. Perfect opportunity for party fanatics to witness and listen to the other side and see their reaction. There won’t be time for these candidates to plan or strategize lies and misinformation.
3. We would witness first hand their level of alertness, their knowledge, their strengths and flaws by their demeanor towards issues and policies.
As these debates continue, the questions on critical issues and the pressure on the candidates will intensify.
We don’t need cat fights. The position to fill demands that we have a fight match of words. A match on character, alertness, judgement, listening and patriotism. The rest can be learned on the job in cooperation with a competent cabinet.
People nowadays are more visual, too lazy to read and focus only on hearsay and headlines. Give voters every week a television show that is informative, exciting and emotional. Education in the form of entertainment, a civic game show that even Trump might learn something from.
1
@Judy Where are we going to find a republican to get in a debate stage. They won’t even answer a question posed by A reporter.
@Louise
I know they are all pretending to talk on the phone
but if they don’t want to join the debate, we could invite their supporters to defend their views and respond in public as to what Republicans beliefs are and how they help trade, Americans and American values. They talk of the great achievements of Trump and how he made America great.
Our government is already full of clowns. Let’s fight them on their level. They don’t read real news and this would be the only way to reach them. They love to wear the hat and brag about being conservative and I am sure, they would love to be on television.
Extreme times demand for extreme actions. Trump would certainly get involved and his supporters will have his tweets to defend. We are already an embarrassment and we have nothing to lose.
In the 30 seconds given each candidate to make his/her pitch for president is Frank Bruni suggesting that the time be spent on attacking one another? Mr. Bruni should have been more forthcoming and pointed out the obvious fact that both the questions asked of the candidates and the moderators asking those questions fall far short of being both astute and incisive and hence poorly serve the needs of the American people.
The responsibility for informative debates rests on the shoulders
of the Democratic Committee personnel.
2
I disagree with Mr. Bruni on several points.
First, Democrats need to unify in order to defeat Mr. Trump.
Second, there’s really not a lot of difference between the candidates’ major proposals.
Finally, the question on taxes is simplistic, and answering it in a few seconds will result in a sound bite that will be used endlessless by Republicans.
The real answer is, yes, of course taxes will go up with single payer universal health care. BUT overall out of pocket spending for most Americans will go down because monthly health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles will be eliminated. Ask any average citizen in any Western European country or Canada if they’d trade their system for ours.
No. Democrats “evasion” of the tax question is simply a recognition that the answer is more complex and any full answer will be diced up and served back in misleading republican attack ads.
14
@Beth Cox I agree that Democrats need to align themselves to defeat Trump. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do so. BUT as a moderate, well-educated woman (the kind that Democrats need to consider) who has until the last election voted mostly for Republican Presidential candidates, I and my like-thinking friends believe that the surest way to get Trump re-elected is to have Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic nominee. She is too "Hillary-esq" except more liberal. We need someone (a woman would be great) who identifies with at least some of our more moderate positions.
8
Why would taxes go up under a single payer system? Workers are already taxed by Dracula Healthcare in every paycheck. If you take the profits out of the equation healthcare payments per employee should go down.
7
@Claire O.
I disagree. Warren is both intellectually and rhetorically much sharper than Clinton and, with her many plans, much better prepared. Also, she displays enormous energy and effectiveness at her presentations. I feel confident that she would mop the floor with Trump.
14
How on Earth could the government afford universal healthcare, as Warren et al are suggesting? We've been doing here in Canada for over six decades, with no problem... The reason she won't answer the question 'Will your taxes go up to pay for healthcare?', is that it is a loaded question that purposely ignores the cost of insurance premiums. The question, not her answer, is evasive.
23
@Matt M
Warren should try to decode her plans for people to understand.
The cost of healthcare has a lot of hidden cost. We pay for deductibles, out of pocket, monthly premiums and our employers often cover half of the cost.
If a family of two that pays a combined $20,000 on health care every year, pays instead an additional $5,000 on taxes only, the savings and peace of mind are obvious.
All of course are subject to income but this way at least, your healthcare savings do not depend on your employer.
We should all advocate for ourselves and search for information. Health care won’t be free but it will be more affordable and will save lives.
For people who are terrified that social services might make us a communist country, stop worrying. Every capitalist country, every democratic country offers social services because a prosperous society is needed to create capital
7
@Matt M
In addition to my above comment, allow me to add the following:
Patients waste a lot of valuable time filing claims and fighting the insurance companies.
The insurance companies are holding patients hostage,
keeping them waiting for authorization for treatment dictating to patients their choice of the facility and doctors. Their plans have set caps and at their discretion, deny claims often.
the savings and benefits outweigh the
minimal increase on our taxes
4
Maybe this is merely a semantic disagreement, but I don't think the problem is an excess of courtesy. The problem, as Mr. Bruni has pointed out, is that it is impossible to have a substantive debate with 12 participants. It turns into a series of sound bites interspersed with an occasional cheap shot, a la Julian Castro, and a bit of embarrassing showboating (see Beto O'Rourke). Voters come away none the wiser about anything. A serious, substantive debate might leave a candidate's chances seriously damaged, but so be it. A good debate is a baptism by fire: the winner emerges stronger & the public has a clear sense of who they are. Tough questions need to be posed and answered by these candidates if we are to winnow the field. We desperately need clarity and honesty now. That doesn't have to involve a lack of civility. You can criticize an opponent's ideas without engaging in ad hominem attacks. Why hasn't the DNC focused on devising a format aimed at informing voters rather than giving everyone a participation trophy?
9
I disagree with the notion that the candidates should be aggressive with each other in this debate. The main reason is because it's not a debate. 12 candidates for a couple of hours amounts to, at best, serial talking points.
I would suggest the 'democrats' have a conservatism problem. As conservatives they are mired in the timidity of conserving the failed status quo, the fictional moderate center, hoping, against all reason, that the corporatist candidate will somehow be inspiring. This time around, as Old Bush said, Not gonna happen.
It's time for "pundits" to recognize the zeitgeist correctly. Anti-establishment IS the watchword. From the left and the right and increasingly encroaching on the gradually awakening middle. The real battle is between the financial elite and everyone else.
Republican voters are awakening to the reality that the establishment is leading them around by the nose with conservative social positions while bending them over a barrel regarding their financial well being. That is what Trump ran on. Though obviously now lying about it.
Democratic voters are awakening to the hypocrisy in their party establishment. Nominally for the Average Joe, the so called Big Tent of the party caters to the financial elite Brutus's who from behind the curtains, regularly stab progressive policy in the back. The very policy that would help the Average Joe. So No More Establishment candidates. Time to stop being conservative and embrace the Zeitgeist FTW.
7
Democrats should not be looking for the unicorn candidate who exists only in our imaginations, but we should be trying to find the best presidential candidate available.
Frank Bruni is right that we need to see if the various Democrats have the grit and intelligence to defend and explain their positions, although the obstacle to that determination is not the “politeness” of the candidates towards each other, as much as it is the format.
A stage filled with 10 candidates rewards those with the best one-liners and slogans, but it is a hindrance to separating the chaff from the grain.
Of the top five qualities Democrats should by seeking in a nominee, the first four are the ability to beat Donald Trump, and the fifth is the ability turn out Democratic voters in November.
1
Given the news of the past two weeks, it is highly likely that no Democratic Party candidate will have to deal with President Trump on a debate stage. If he has not previously been removed from office, it is almost inconceivable that he would expose himself to free-form questioning from either a panel of moderators, or from another candidate.
5
@S.P.
Yes, it is entirely possible if not likely that, if trump somehow DOES end up the nominee for reelection, he will conduct the debate via twitter rather than by showing up on the debate stage.
And that will work just fine for his base, while the Democratic candidates will have succeeded only in bloodying each other and reducing enthusiasm for the nominee (with the usual complaint from progressive voters that the nominee was chosen by the corrupt DNC and is fatally flawed).
4
I don't think the Democratic candidates need a boot camp to prepare for going against Donald Trump. You or I could go against him right now and show him up without letting any of his punches tell. Hillary Clinton accomplished that, for what it was worth.
The greater challenge will be to withstand the Republican campaign of smears and disinformation, and so the greater risk in the debates is that of facilitating it. There's no point in giving them a handbook of quotations showing that "the Democrats themselves" doubt their nominee's qualifications or honesty.
I'd like to see the Democrats take turns discrediting the current administration and the unpatriotic Republican Party while vying to put forth the most realistic, inspiring ideas for moving the country out of this dismal period and into a better future than even the best of its past.
Let the primary voters be presented with a choice among worthy Democratic candidates, any of whom would be a vast improvement over the don of the Republican mob.
14
"The only way to know is to make sure there’s no premature coronation."
Therein lies a fundamental issue. The candidates are placed on stage by dint of their performance in the polls. The top polling candidates get center stage, and thus more camera time. The lower polling candidates remain on the fringes, off-camera, and usually seething silently (and watching their "spark" slide down the drain as they do so) as the big three or four "battle" it out in the center.
How, then, do we truly get to know the other candidates? Why do the moderators not seek to include them in the discussions? From where I sit, the coronation process has already begun.
My suggestion would be to have the candidates placed randomly, or in alphabetical order, or in whatever way other than by polling rank. Let us make an informed decision. I, for one, am weary of seeing Biden, Sanders, and Warren (note: alphabetical) repeat the same talking points. I want to learn more - and maybe that means letting the other candidates ask the tough questions.
8
I’d like to see them sitting in a circle - so there is no ‘middle’ or top tier. Cameras would be placed all around to cover all candidates equally.
3
Bruni is plain wrong. Gotcha questions need to be asked. Journalists on the campaign trail should right now be going after all the candidates with every gotcha question they can think of. That is a substantive way to screen the candidates, and strengthen the eventual nominee. It will make every candidate think systematically about weaknesses and potential challenges, and get useful, truthful answers ready for later on during the election.
But personal gotcha questions tailored to each candidate during the debate should not come from either the moderators, or from other candidates. The chaotic debate format, with 10-12 candidates vying for attention, assures that such heavily freighted attacks will be neither fairly distributed, nor answered within a fair time frame. And such questions will be biased toward attacking front runners, who have already shown they are more likely than others to succeed in the general election. A gotcha free-for-all during the debate would just become an occasion to drag the better candidates down to the level of the lesser ones, weakening the field as a whole.
That, of course, does not mean there can be a permanent pass on aggressive questioning. The time for that will come when the field is whittled to two candidates. Then the nation can test their mettle fairly and equally, by demanding that they slug it out under the most trying attacks, while affording ample time for answers.
3
There is a fine line between criticizing an opponent's differing policies and impugning one's character. That is where the line should be drawn. The last thing I want to see is a replay of the Republican debates of 2016...nasty and even crude, particularly the shots between Rubio and Trump about their "manliness." And, yes, I would like to hear more specifics on how a candidate intends to enact or build on, say, a Medicare for All plan or a decent immigration policy that will be fair for all peoples involved. For me, the above examples will not stop me from hoping that Elizabeth Warren will be our nominee. She fits the bill across the board, as far as I am concerned. But I, from a very Blue state, can not and should not be the voice of Americans from our intermountain and mid-western states in particular. I recognize that. One thing, however, which is a must is that whoever is our final choice, we must support her or him with everything we have. If we don't, and providing Mr. Trump is not impeached by both the House and Senate, our democracy absolutely will not sustain itself with this specimen in the Oval Office for four more nightmarish years.
18
I'd say the Democrats' real problem is that they're too far left and know it, but can't bring themselves to compromise by moving even a little to the center, a position from which they could easily win the White House and both houses of congress. Why do they so stubbornly refuse to do this? Why do they insist that it's the job of the voters to come to them, rather than their job to go to where the voters are? If they could fashion a policy-set that could appeal to a majority of voters, something that wouldn't require very much compromise on their part, they could dispense with divisive impeachment and just go out and sell what would be a winning party platform and triumph in a spirt of electoral positivism instead of corrosive negativism. Why don't they want to do that?
8
Good question. Maybe afraid to lose the nomination?
1
@Ronald B. Duke
How do you know where the voters are? How does anyone? Each candidate makes his/her own estimate, and gives it their best shot. None of them are deliberately trying to go where the voters aren't. You know why we have elections? Two reasons. First, because nobody really knows where the voters are, and, second, because the process of an election may move some of the voters around during the campaign.
Question: ever notice how Republicans NEVER have to compromise or move just"a little bit" toward the center? Compared to what they were 40 years ago, today's GOP is the party of inflexibly hard-right extremism. Why not pressure them to moderate a bit?
4
So wrong I don’t know where to start. And about that tax hike for medical coverage, an issue Mayor Pete raised and lost my support...is it really a tax hike? Do you pay for your medical coverage Frank? I do, and rates skyrocket. So if my taxes go up, but less than my medical payment goes down, did I get a tax hike in the overall scheme of things? Might as well go that route, as the annual hikes and decline in service are frightening.
10
If Frank Bruni really wants to know how Elizabeth Warren advocates paying for Medicare for All, he should google her and listen to her speeches! She plans to put a tax of 2% on the wealth of those with more than $50 million in wealth.
That's wealth, not income per year - something that has never been tried before in the United States. Thomas Piketty discussed this at length in his book "Capitalism in the 21st Century." It's difficult and will far to complicated to define in 3 minutes.
Yhe President, whoever she or he is, has only a small role in determining how to calculate 2% of the anyone's wealth - will that include corporations owned by stockholders, for example? What's important is that a really bright woman is thinking about how wealth can be just a tiny bit more equally distributed in the United States.
This is a critical problem because the increasing disparity in wealth lies at the heart of the great political divide in the United States.
Democrats ultimately want to switch to a non-oil based economy (as our current economy is). Elizabeth Warren has some good ideas about this. Most of the candidates, Democratic and Republican don't even understand what it means.
The video talent shows (my term, but accurate) are very ineffective in my view and potentially very harmful. That's how we got Donald Trump from a field of 17 Republican candidates.
Why doesn't Frank Brumi write about how we select our presidents? We could use some advice on that topic!
20
No premature coronation of anyone yet. The absurdity is all on Trump’s side. If Senator Warren is surging is thanks to her hard work connecting with voters, eg NYC a few weeks ago - not the media or establishment. Senator Warren is tough and smart. She was quick and laser focused in her responses to the veracity of losing her HS teaching job due to her her pregnancy 1971. Or, the question by a homophobic “conservative” about same sex marriage. Enough said. Medicare for all won’t happen any time soon; though, it can be expanded - no matter who’s elected. The ACA was hard enough. Evidently Senator Warren has been doing her homework and can take Trump on.
VP Biden spent last week fund raising and at one event for his top 100 donors, the Biden campaign provided a “special” campaign briefing. It would have been great had he done that for the voters. Tier two candidates are there for a reason: not good communicators and anemic agendas. Midwesterner Senator Klobuchar offers big helpings of status quo, and was severely wounded when former staffers uncovered her abusive behavior to her staff: temperament counts for a lot, which she seems to lack. Bullock is smart, but entered a bit late. Good VP, or cabinet candidate.
With so much in front of the country, is it really smart to hurl destructive bombs at one another? Though, asking candidates to elaborate their plans is smart.
14
Mr Bruni needn't worry for the Democrats. When the time comes for Elizabeth Warren, or any of the other fine candidates vying for the nomination, to debate Trump, they'll have more incriminating FACTS than they'll ever need to remind voters of the disastrous quality of his character and his leadership. By the time it's all over, Trump won't have an nasty insult left to stand on.
17
Trump will still be deflecting with his outrageous lies and conspiracy theories and confusing the public
1
Mr Cohens comment below needs to be answered regarding her electability.
Her academic nature and white papers show a desire to not reform but replace many of the things that have made us the most successful nation on earth.
We need to reform the elements of our system that are not working.
Our public assistance policies have destroyed the African-American family. This policy should be reformed to re-incentivize marriage. With stable family units successful homes will be to norm.
Reform our broken public education system controlled by corrupt unions. Revive meritocracy based systems as used in non-traditional and parochial school. Encourage competition.
Fix immigration to have controlled borders and a pathway to citizenship.
Put corrupt corporations executives,such as Big Pharma opioid and others in jail.
Infrastructure
And on and on.
How many times have we seen – in both parties – the eventual candidate being torn down by the other party's candidate using arguments and little bits of past actions aired by the candidate's same-party opponents in the primaries.
I'll hand it to Bernie Sanders for not berating Hillary Clinton over her use (something done by many Republicans as well) of a private email server. Genuine policy differences are one thing; "gotcha" questions are quite another, and are the last thing Democrats need to encourage.
12
@Howard
I don't know whether Sanders' constant reminders of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street constituted berating, but they had their effect.
2
@Alan J. Shaw
AND Alan, the Wall Street comments were appropriate!
@Alan J. Shaw As they should have, right?
1
These questions might need to be addressed but not at the debate. I don't think the candidates should attack one another or be the ones asking. That's the job of moderators and interviewers. The "debate" as currently presented is practically worthless. We already know how they present themselves. Their policy ideas are out there ad nauseum waiting to be nit-picked to death when the fact is none of them will ever be implemented as planned. Why dwell so much on that? We can already see how smart they are; details can and would be ironed out by others later anyway. Being a policy wonk is not the job of the President. We need to find out how these candidates lead. How do they set direction/establish goals, influence, resolve conflicts, build consensus, get work done with and through others, build alliances? I want to know how they will repair the damage done from the last three years. How will they work to bring the two parties and the country together? What will they do in terms of foreign relations and diplomacy? Instead of a debate, how about several round table discussions with five or six at a time addressing a particular issue, solving a particular problem...a chance for them to actually talk with one another so we can see them at work and so they can distinguish themselves without bragging and pandering. What skills do they bring to the job? That's what I want to know. That's what I need to see in order to best determine who will be the best leader.
21
@child of babe Wow - that sounds amazing! How do we get into that world? What a wonderful way that would be to decide on a candidate.
Beto has gotten over the politeness, which I like
He keeps swearing when guns are brought up, which seems appropriate if you ask me...
Warren (and Bernie) need to be pressed on how they intend to get Medicare for All through the legislature. (It is fine to sell in theory based on its success elsewhere, but the implementation through legislation has to be addressed).
And iF we are letting politeness go for a minute...I feel for Pete. If he had another foot on his frame, he would be the frontrunner.
5
I will vote for the Democratic candidate who uses his/her opening remarks to say this:
"I know Joe Biden as a Senator and as Vice-President. He has devoted his life to public service. And he is an honorable man. Donald Trump is smearing him with lies. And he will do that to any one of us here tonight. Our nominee for President - and I hope it's me - should be chosen by us, not Trump."
54
Trump will not attend any debates. Autocrats do not "do" debates. (It is also true he may not be in office at all..) I hope all candidates do not pay Trump any mind at all. That is not worth their, or our, time.
14
MO Girl,
I think President Trump will do debates. He shines during a debate. He was able to out debate the 16 Republican presidential candidates and Hillary Clinton. This is his strength and he would not miss a debate. He thrives at debates. This is how he was able to win over fine American public. His rallies have been attended by thousands and he has a very large following. They will certainly watch a Trump debate which is never boring. He will be there and would not miss a debate for anything.
Democratic candidates need to walk a narrow line between self-harm and honing their edge for taking on Trump. If an issue is likely to be used by Trump, then the Democratic candidate needs to be ready with a response. But we don't need to generate the kind of bitterness that led some Dems to refuse to support Hillary. We can survive being a little too polite.
14
You're wrong Frank. Why should the Dems give any kind of roadmap of how to rattle or beat them?
But I would like to see them "take the gloves off" and call out Trump and his abysmal record, and the danger that he presents to America.
And I'd also like to see Liz and Bernie "take the gloves off" and push back at the misleading meme that Medicare For All is so expensive, and will raise everyone's taxes and drive up the deficit. Where's the uproar about Trump's putting the deficit on steroids with his tax cuts for the 1%? And where are the statistics that show how much our current health care system will cost (actually more than MFA over the same time)?
But what I'd like to see most of all is for the DNC to exercise some good judgement and common sense and trim the field down to the top 5 candidates and "invite" the others torun for the Senate. All they're doing by continuing this "mob" is confusing voters and not allowing the top candidates to sharpen their message. "Take the gloves off" DNC, and cut the field down to those with an actual chance to win.
33
@Kingfish52
The problem with Medicare For All is that it is good policy, but bad politics. Explaining why on a debate stage is a near-impossibility.
The policy advantage is that it is, by far, the most cost-effective way to deliver comprehensive health insurance to everyone. For reasons too complicated to explain in a time-limited format, the attractive-sounding option of Medicare For All Who Want It would fairly quickly become a policy failure. Adverse selection in the insurance pool would drive all the high-cost/low-payment risks out of the corporate plans, and onto the public plan. That would stint the public plan of sufficient funds to pay the cost of insuring the higher risks.
But to make that case politically, in debate shorthand, a candidate would have to explain to millions of voters—who benefit from great insurance deals in big corporations and unions—that they are not getting a good deal because they have earned it. Instead, they are, in effect, freeloading.
The corporate plans benefit hugely from the fact that continuous employment is an efficient screen to exclude bad health insurance risks. It gets rid of the sick and the old, while permitting young, fit employees to pay less because they use little medical care. Problem is, those young employees are also paying in little or nothing to cover themselves for when they, too, become sick or old. A policy which encourages that will collapse.
Try winning an election by explaining that in one minute or less.
1
@Kingfish52
Not only is the DNC not paring down the field, they hold "candidate forums" on select issues to give those who can't meet the debate thresholds a chance to continue on.
When Biden got 2% in the Iowa polls in primaries past, he was called a loser.
Today, progressives call a 2%er a "major candidate whose voice is being supressed."
1
@S.P. This is one of the best explanations of why the current system is a trap that we're stuck in, and making it worse is that those stuck don't realize it so see no need to escape.
And you're right that trying to answer the questions posed about MFA in the silly "debate" format is virtually impossible. This is one of the reasons my anger is aimed at the media because they're asking these questions that can't be answered in the sound bites they demand.
Still, ways can be found to get the message across succinctly, and Sanders and Warren do need to work harder at that if they want to convert the skeptics. That said, 3 years ago the majority of the "smart" people said Sanders' MFA idea was crazy, and now it's gained significant support.
Getting people to accept new ideas - even great ones - is hard because no one likes change. The reality is though that change is inevitable, even if we fight it.
Candidates should not go after each other, seeking "gotcha" soundbites. Sure, ask why a position has changed ( or evolved) over time or question numbers that don't don't add up, but make the primary process about educating voters about our options. Let us pick the path and the person we want, recognizing all the while that the whole group of Democratic candidates has more common than not. Also, with the shockingly degrading language coming from the President and his supporters, I want the Democratic candidates to embody a contrast by treating each other - and the American people - with respect.
25
This would be wonderful to be so open and transparent in a more rational society. The reality is that while informing us, it will give the Republicans talking points fodder once the Democrat candidate is chosen. When will Trump and the Republicans ever get pinned to be mat in the same manner?
12
I read Mr Bruni's essay with a bit of cognitive dissonance. As long as I can remember, and it's quite a long time, the case against Democratic candidacies has been that the candidates do such a good job of cutting each other up in the primaries that all their Republican rivals had to do was show up at the funerals.
On top of which is the ancient truism that it is unwise for anyone to pay much attention to how candidate X states candidate Y's position, which is a yawning trap for caricature and misrepresentation. Neither of which we need.
20
Politeness between our candidates is refreshing and appropriate. I'm actually proud of the democrats for setting that standard, or resetting that standard. Tough questions and persistence in asking by the debate moderators are fine and can be effective. These candidates and their teams need to spend more time resting and preparing a few days prior to each national debate, rather than campaigning up until the last minute; that way they can consider the questions they will probably be asked and develop concise, cogent responses. I like the way the democratic debates have gone so far.
16
People forget that, as much as he alienates and angers the Left, Trump ascended in the primaries through challenging Republican orthodoxies (free trade, interventionist foreign policies) in ways that appealed to party outsiders. In the end, straight ticket Republican voters stayed with the party, while his unconventional approach brought in new or independent voters.
People appreciated his willingness to stand on a stage and present ideas that were deeply counter to the stated Republican platform; it made him sound genuine, and made the other people on the stage seem cardboard and milquetoast.
I don't care how politely the candidates address on another on stage, but I would like to see someone willing to really challenge the party orthodoxy, whether its on issues of identity politics, protectionism, neoLiberalism, entitlements or abortion. Something about the current Democratic party does feel aimed at the coasts, at the over-cultured, over-educated and smug. I'm not worried so much that the party is aiming to far left, as I'm concerned that the type of Leftism they're selling is something that much of the country is unwilling to buy.
6
How can a national political party not be able to put forward a candidate who is qualified, energetic, untainted, well spoken, has good realistic policies, and is charismatic? Is there no Democrat with these qualities in the entire USA?
2
@Horace Mayor Pete has all of those qualifications
Trump does not answer questions by facts and reason and careful refutations. Being able to do this is not evidence of being able to parry his attacks. He will muddy the waters with all sorts of real and purported facts, and careful refutations will look like more of the same to anyone who is not paying careful attention.
Having candidates debate each other will not show how they would do against Trump unless some of them start debating in the style of Trump so others can show how they handle it, either by also emulating Trump or by doing something else.
Perhaps each candidate should debate one-on-one with an opponent who plays Trump and perhaps wears a Trump mask. That way each of them can show what he or she is capable of, and also present the audience with Trump parodies that might wake some supporters up.
5
Much of what Mr. Bruni says needs to be asked should be asked by the debate moderators, not the candidates. Candidates should be in the business of answering questions about themselves or about their proposals. If, in contrasting themselves and their own proposals with their opponents, they compel responses by others, that is to the good, but it is different from what Mr. Bruni appears to be arguing for.
11