I only saw the highlights, but both Sanders and Warren fought, and won.
I will say this, Swalwell knocked it out of the park tonight.
A good debate with impressive performances. Each candidate had their separate positioning strategies (play it safe, or appeal to the middle, etc), but overall my top 3 in no particular order are Bullock, Delaney, and O’Rourke. Also good performances by Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, and Ryan.
This was a good debate and I look forward to tomorrow’s.
I can understand why you find it annoying, but it’s an important part of effective Democratic politics IMO. Blame Bill Clinton for elevating it to an art form.
I recall the GOP candidates indulging in it equally during the 2016 primary. Kasich comes to mind as being particularly annoying.
John Delaney was destroyed tonight, I have no idea who in their right mind would consider him having a good night, Warren and Sanders dominated the debate.
Don’t be so sure. Nate Silver made an interesting point on the immediate post-debate 538 podcast. Right now taking away private insurance is about 12 points underwater, with roughly 43% of the public supporting it and 55% opposing. But if people see that quite a few Democrats are willing to criticize that move, it might go to something more like 25 points underwater, a real danger zone.
So that actually does somewhat justify Warren’s complaint that these are GOP talking points. In theory, if the party were unified behind single payer, it might help keep the issue close to being at least not super damaging politically. But of course the more moderate candidates are not under any obligation to help prop up Bernie and Warren at this point, especially since neither of them is a frontrunner.
And it cuts both ways: if everyone were supporting the same agenda, it would not provide those two as much of a lane to differentiate themselves and elevate their own campaigns.
Again, I didn’t see the debate, only the highlights, but I had a similar thought as I was watching the responses by Bullock and other moderates. They may not have a snowball’s chance in hell at the nomination, but they’re making the case for Republicans on why Warren would be a problematic nominee.
This is one reason why I’m glad the Democratic party tightened up its requirements for future debates. Being a big tent is fine, but you don’t want different factions having it out on national TV and weakening the front-runner, whether it’s the progressives weakening a centrist or a centrist weakening a progressive.
I’ve seen a lot of comments about the candidates, but not many about the debate format. I realize that with 10 candidates on stage you have to make sure they (mostly) get equal time, but the one minute time limit, especially with a 3 hour debate, was ridiculous. Just when a candidate would get to the meat of their response, the moderator would cut them off, often switch to a different candidate with a question like “Congressman, Senator Warren says you are a big doody-head. How would you respond to that?” It was incredibly frustrating, to the point where I’m not even sure if I will watch tonight.
Also, if they ever make a live-action Simpsons movie, that Delaney guy would be a perfect Homer.
Although I was glad they policed interruptions better than MSNBC did, I agree that the time limits were too short. They needed to let everyone have 15 or 30 seconds more and be content with fewer questions.
But I did like how they encouraged more back-and-forth to make it more of a debate rather than a joint appearance.
When are they supposed to air it, then? Given how mass shootings occur so often in this country. And on gun control in the debate, we get the usual references to how background checks are evidently gonna solve all of our problems. :rolleyes:
No, you don’t. People who are in the low single digits, or fractions, are there because they haven’t shown they deserve any more attention than that. Air time should go mostly to the contenders. Why the hell did CNN let Delaney and Ryan and Williamson take so much time away from the *real *candidates, especially when it was only to disparage them?
In general, everyone was pretty impressive, each in their own way, even though I certainly don’t agree with all of them. This is how debates should be. Reasonable, yet passionate discussions of the issues at hand, not performances, a la Harris in the last debate, where bluster is mistaken for competency.
I give the slightest of edges to Warren. Just one thing. I understand her need to have big, bold ideas, and I respect that and think it’s the right path, but please for the love of God, drop the decriminalization of border crossing stance. Talk about dreamers and the truth of how immigrants are always a benefit to the country, and the like. The feel-good stuff. When you use the word “decriminalize”, the unintended connotation is that some immigrants, even most, are criminals. Enough. Get elected, and then come back to that.
Having had more time to watch the extended highlights, the candidates who passed the eye test were:
Williamson
Warren
Buttigieg
Note that I don’t think Williamson gets to the next round of debates, but she came out feisty and got lots of applause, so she won in that sense.
Sanders looked tough, but last night was the first time where I really felt that he came across as a grouchy old man. His acuity is there, but he just seemed like angry gramps trying to find batteries for his TV remote.
If you look at Google Trends, FWIW, the names that seem to have been searched the most over the last 24 hours are:
Williamson
Delaney
Warren
Sanders
Others weren’t too far behind but those candidates in particular seem to be getting the most attention.
Based on that triangulation, I’d say Williamson and Warren won the debate. They were the ones who seemed most ideologically in tune with their audience, who looked good on camera, who sounded like they were fighting for a cause, and who consequently are getting attention because of it. But whereas Williamson is probably just a spectacle candidate, Warren is for real. Thus, the real winner last night was Elizabeth Warren, IMO.
This of course is purely within the context of the Democratic primary; whether or not, Warren ‘won’ in the eyes of the centrist voters who would matter against Donald Trump is a completely different matter. I think Happy L’s family might be a better barometer in that regard.
The first time? 
He always comes across like that to me.
Warren gets bonus points for shutting Delaney up, too.
The more I see of Buttigieg, the more I like. He’s right to put the emphasis on how the Republicans have broken the government, and the concept of democracy itself, and that takes precedence over specific policy details that can be easily and soundbited by the lying opposition. Also, for the Democrats to seem like the party of energy and determination, they may not be able to afford to nominate a septuagenarian. You can’t beat a dotard with another dotard.
This was the first time where I thought, “Shit, let’s go to the store and buy him some AAA batteries before he has a heart attack - and let’s get some Depends while we’re at it.”
Imagine a few years of being president and being over eighty rather than just pushing eighty. :eek:
Whether it works with independents or not is one thing, but I felt the same way: she shut him down every time. Not in a nasty witch kinda way, but just like a courtroom lawyer would do, or the way a law professor would put down a smart-ass, know-it-all student.
Buttigieg really handles himself well in debates. I’m just not sure if it really matters, unfortunately. Maybe he’ll gain traction as other candidates drop out.
It will be interesting to see what happens as the field starts to narrow. Looking back to the 2016 Republicans whose field was almost as large. trump led most all the way. My expectation was that as conventional pol A dropped out that his support would go to conventional pol B. Didn’t happen, trump gained support from every departure. Will that dynamic operate amongst the Dems as well?