A few progressive stalwarts and a bevy of moderates met on the debate stage Tuesday in Detroit for a refreshingly policy-heavy debate. They made their cases based on the minutiae of their health care plans, focused on electability and changed up their stylistic approaches.
Um, the debate is still going on, aren’t we jumping the gun by publishing the “biggest takeaways” at this point?
@ralph_vonholst - Tapper is the Chuck Toad of CNN moderators and I’m really pissed that Bullock and Hickenlooper got as much time to speak as they did!
Those two blowhards are jerks. The women should sue.
It seemed like Bullock, Williamson, and Ryan, & maybe Delaney all made the case that Democratic voters shouldn’t or wouldn’t vote Democratic if the nominee supports policies they don’t like. Good thing nobody knows who they are.
IF this is the first debate, what was the last one?
Forgotten. (ba doom bum)
Ridiculous. No one gets enough time to speak. And September won’t be any better because close to 10 will qualify and they will shorten it to one night. Media has decided the real race is Biden Waren Sanders Harris so no one else will get much coverage from here on out. It was pretty depressing to me to watch tonight and I’ll probably skip tomorrow.
Sanders is asked to explain his plan to cancel all the student loan debt. What is his answer? A rant against 1%. Come on… it was not even an attack on his plan, it was an honest question by moderators: explain the reasoning behind the plan and how you will achieve it.
On the other hand, nothing surprising – I do not remember anything from him except slogans.
When I watch debates, I listen mostly for two things.
One, of course, is policy. What policies does each candidate support and how do they make the case for them, and which ones do I find most appealing and convincing?
The other is presence and performance, as I imagine the average voter sees it. How strong and commanding do they come across as, how confident, appealing and presidential do they seem? Which ones seem most “presidential”?
Obviously the first one is more important, but the second matters too, both because it has everything to do with their ability to get elected, and because it’ll have a lot to do with their ability to get things done if elected. American voters want a confident and commanding leader type as president, and rarely elect someone who doesn’t come across as one. Like it or not, it’s how it is.
On the first, Sanders and Warren won me over, as usual. No questions there, and we all know what policies they support and why. But on the second, I found Sanders most “presidential”. Perhaps I’m the odd man out here, but I liked that he doesn’t seem like he cares about whether people like or agree with him or not. He’s interested in results, not sound bites or pleasing. Whether he’d make a good president is another matter, but between policy and presence, Sanders got my vote tonight.
But then given that Warren was the only other real progressive there, it wasn’t a hard choice. I picked him over Warren because she comes across as too plaintive and desperate, almost like she’s begging people to agree with her. Bernie just repeats what he’s been saying for 40 years like it’s clearly correct and it’s high time we finally do what he says.
Sanders had maybe 8 minutes total to speak tonight and repeated his same old tired lines multiple times during that limited time. I can’t even… 
Did Sanders transform himself from a grumpy old man to a raving lunatic tonight?
So, I take it that you’re with the “Let’s not punish success” crowd?
They sound like a so-so law firm:
Bullock, Williamson, and Ryan, & maybe Delaney: We’ll put in a moderate effort for you!
I don’t think Angry Old Man is a good look for crackpot Sanders. He’s feeding every image of himself as a crazy, sanctimonious scold.
This is why I’m not watching tonight. I can’t listen to Bernie - never could.
I’m waiting for tomorrow and my girl Kamala, born to be President.
It’s CNN. They’re paid to be schmucks and beat up on hippies.
I am with “slogans are not enough, realistic plans are needed” crowd.
Sanders could have won me over if he explained why canceling student loans for everyone is the right step to take (as opposed to making education affordable to everyone – which would mean free to the poor, inexpensive for the middle class, and more expensive for the rich). He could have won me over if he explained why this particular step has higher priority than many other things (because we can’t do everything at the same time). He could have won me over if he gave a general outline of his plans to pass the necessary legislation and then implement it in practice.
But instead Sanders wasted his time ranting about the 1% and calling for a revolution. I was born nearly 50 years after a revolution in my country of origin and I can tell you: you really really do not want to live through a revolution.
Lemon understands what the format needs – he started on a topic and then asked different but related questions of subsequent candidates.
Tapper and Bash did the opposite – the only “change up” was to try and generate conflict.