Who won the Democratic debate

After suffering through the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates between entirely too many candidates – relegated to a two-tier system consisting of “varsity and junior varsity” forums – I was unsure how a field of more than 20 Democratic primary candidates would work this time around.

The decision to split the qualified candidates into two groups based on luck of the draw instead of rankings created an opportunity for the lesser known contenders to compete on the same stage as their more notable rivals.

Surprisingly, the tightly controlled format worked well. It was fast paced and engaging. It favored candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who excelled at articulating her positions with clarity, confidence and ease. Other standouts were Julián Castro and Cory Booker, whose campaigns desperately needed a boost.

Moderators allowed the candidates to have robust exchanges on issues of importance to voters like health care and immigration, which highlighted not only the differences among each candidate but also exposed the policy weaknesses of others. (Yes, Beto O’Rourke, I’m talking to you.)

Despite my considerable policy differences with all of the Democratic candidates, it was refreshing to watch 10, smart, serious contenders engage in an intellectual debate about substantive issues facing our country.

No personal insults. No name calling. No juvenile antics. It was a breath of fresh air.

The ultimate question is can any of them defeat Donald Trump in a general election? Based on some of the answers on major policies from Round 1, I’d say no. Good thing there’s a Round 2.

Tara Setmayer is a former GOP Communications Director, host of the “Honestly Speaking with Tara” podcast and a CNN Political Commentator. Follow her on Twitter: .@TaraSetmayer

Only in the last 20 minutes of the debate did the question of impeaching President Trump surface. Former Rep. John Delaney – who has been running for president since July 2017, the longest of any candidate – explained why he and his fellow Democrats should not spend too much time on the issue. Based on his two years of campaigning, said Delaney, “This is not the number one issue the American people ask us about. It’s not.”

The polls bear that out. As Delaney explained, “kitchen table, pocketbook issues are what most Americans care about.” The moderators did us all a favor by pitching the debate toward real issues, not the daily chatter about the Mueller report and impeachment questions. There will be time for that tomorrow.

Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. Follow him on Twitter @Errol Louis

The Democratic debates seemed set up to be a disaster: Too many people on stage with too much to discuss. Instead, Wednesday night was a moment of hope in the midst of a deep political depression. Regardless of your political views, the first debate, featuring 10 candidates, was reassuring and even inspiring.

All 10 people on stage were (for the most part) cogent, competent, serious, and passionate. It’s a shame that the bar has been lowered to such a degree that “most of the people we watched tonight, all of whom are running for president, would probably do fine at the job” is a source of comfort, but here we are.

Comparisons to the current White House aside, the first Democratic debate showed that the party is both moving leftward and engaging seriously with policy questions. It’s easy to stand on stage and offer platitudes. What many candidates did instead was dig into the specifics.

On some core issues – a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, for example – the candidates seemed more or less aligned. But on other issues, including immigration policy and the best path to ensuring high-quality health care for the largest number of Americans, there were real differences. Debates on the question of how we get to our ideal endpoint, not just on what that endpoint is, are what American voters deserve.

The debate also did what few before it accomplished: It allowed previously underrecognized candidates to have their moments– and may just catapult some standouts up in the polls. Most notable among them was Julián Castro, who has struggled to get traction in both coverage and support. On Wednesday night, he shined.

His answers on a series of difficult questions were among the strongest, most lucid and most progressive. Among the front-runners, I have some candidates I like better than others, but no strong sense of who I think would be the ideal nominee, let alone who would make a compelling running mate. This Democratic debate, finally, offered sharper distinction between the candidates, in both policy and personality.

And they brought good news: Just about anybody on that stage is already leagues more intelligent, capable and qualified than the current president. All we need is one of them to win. 

Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in Washington and author of the book, “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Follow her on Twitter. 

Here’s my ranking of the candidates’ performance in the first debate:

1.) Amy Klobuchar

2.) Elizabeth Warren

3.) Cory Booker

4.) Tulsi Gabbard

5.) Beto O’Rourke

6.) Julián Castro

7.) John Delaney

8.) Jay Inslee

9.) Bill de Blasio

10.) Tim Ryan 

Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator and former communications director for Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign. Follow her on Twitter: .@alicetweet

Here’s my ranking of the candidates’ performance in the first debate:

1.) Elizabeth Warren

2.) Julián Castro

3.) Jay Inslee

4.) Cory Booker

5.) Bill de Blasio

6.) Amy Klobuchar

7.) Tulsi Gabbard

8.) John Delaney

9.) Tim Ryan

10.) Beto O’Rourke

Joe Lockhart was White House press secretary from 1998-2000 in President Bill Clinton’s administration. He co-hosts the podcast “Words Matter.”  Follow him on Twitter at .@JoeLockhart

If the race were frozen in time and debates determined the outcome, there are a few candidates who helped themselves Wednesday night. 

First, Cory Booker had a good night. He effectively weaved in his bio, his connection to the city he lives in and his passion for civil rights, gun safety and equality. He may not move up dramatically, but he is back in the game. Second, Julián Castro was on track to be an also-ran, but he came out strong, specific and passionate on immigration. That will stick out after tonight. 

Finally, Elizabeth Warren may have been largely absent from the second half of the debate, but she was dominant enough in the first half and in the closing to keep her in the top tier.

Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki.

I had four quick reactions to tonight’s debate:

— I came away feeling the Democratic field is stronger than I thought. Several candidates on the stage could be credible opponents to Trump.

— I also came away thinking that Dems are more unified than I thought. Press reports naturally emphasize differences, but what came through tonight was general unity on winning back the working class, on climate change, and having some fresh ideas to replace today’s paralysis. 

— Even though they had less air time than some male candidates, the three women showed how much better it is when women have a stronger presence. Elizabeth Warren was especially effective in her fighting spirit; Tulsi Gabbard’s approach recalled the spirit of Nikki Haley. Among the men, Julián Castro and Cory Booker were strong throughout.  

— It seems unlikely that we will see an immediate shakeout in polls, but the evening may prompt voters in early states to take a closer look at Castro, Gabbard, Booker and perhaps others. That would be healthy for the party.   

David Gergen has been a White House adviser to four presidents and is a senior political analyst at CNN. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The liveliest exchanges in the first hour came on the hot-button issue of immigration and what candidates would do to prevent tragedies like the recent drowning of a Salvadoran man and his daughter in the Rio Grande.  

Immigration and border security are emotional questions for the Democratic candidates, who have harped on the Trump administration’s verbal attacks and harsh restrictions on migrants, mostly from Central America, who are seeking asylum. The morality of the issue is joined to the political reality that Democrats will need robust turnout by Latino candidates.

So it came as no surprise when panelist José Diaz-Balart of Telemundo– who asked some of his questions in Spanish – drew responses in Spanish from Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Cory Booker and Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio. 

Castro, the sole Latino in the race, believes strongly in eliminating section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which punishes unlawful entry into the US with fines and imprisonment – sanctions that Castro says form the legal basis for the Trump administration’s crackdown. 

The issue provoked the first spontaneous interruption of the night, when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio jumped in to counter Castro’s legislative proposal with a political point. “We’re not being honest about the division that’s been fomented in this country,” de Blasio said. Condemning the Trump administration for anti-immigrant rhetoric, de Blasio asked Americans under economic stress not to blame their problems on migrants. “The immigrants didn’t do that to you! The big corporations did that to you! The one percent did that to you!” he shouted.

Castro also made a bold move, attacking his fellow Texan, O’Rourke, pointedly telling him that he’d join Castro’s call for revoking Section 1325 “if you did your homework on this issue.”

Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. Follow him on Twitter @Errol Louis

Right out of the gate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was echoed by other debaters as she engaged in class warfare, trying to drive a wedge between Americans when we need to come together.

Warren said the economy was benefiting a “thinner and thinner slice at the top,” yet as Heritage Foundation analyst Adam Michel pointed out, for Americans with high school degrees, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since before the Great Depression.

Warren also bashed oil companies as profit-hungry corporations profiting at the expense of the poor, yet with greater American drilling, gas prices have dropped, and CNN reporter Chris Isidore notes, “Most of the decline is because of falling oil prices, in part thanks to booming US oil production.” This helps families take more summer road trips and it keeps us less dependent on foreign sources of oil, including from the Middle East. 

Multiple candidates decried a rise in income inequality, yet as economist Michael Strain wrote, inequality has “narrowed by 5% over the last decade.”

The “pay gap” question asked by moderator Lester Holt was also inherently biased. As I wrote earlier for CNN, that line of thought fails to take into consideration multiple variables that show the gap is nearly nonexistent.

Bottom line is, look at the numbers. Since January 2017, the US economy, as of March, has added nearly 3 million new jobs for women, and during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, the number of American women in poverty fell by nearly 600,000.

Carrie Sheffield, a conservative commentator, is the founder of Bold, a digital news network committed to bipartisan dialogue. She is also national editor for Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog organization, and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. Follow her on Twitter: @carriesheffield

There is no doubt that the election in 2020 will be a change election. The polarization of the Trump Presidency has united Democrats and most independents around the urgent necessity of change in America. Tonight’s face-off has highlighted the central debate in the Democratic primary process: radical structural change that pleases progressives or incremental change that appeals to moderates and independents who tend to decide elections.

That was the debate within the debate tonight. Elizabeth Warren dominated early (helped by MSNBC moderators, who called on her repeatedly), with a strong economic populist message. On immigration, Julian Castro owned the stage for a time by taking the most progressive position on decriminalizing undocumented immigration at our southern border.

The more moderate candidates struggled a bit to gain attention, but particularly on health care, they made a strong appeal to the middle–the bulk of voters in America– to retain the ability to keep existing private health insurance. 

As excited as many will be by the performance of Warren and Castro, I suspect just as many are concerned by what can be characterized as ripping away both existing coverage and open borders with no security.

Warren is the winner tonight, but in no small part because the power of the middle didn’t show up. The second debate, where I suspect MSNBC will focus on former VP Biden, will offer a chance for the middle to fight back. 

This fight will define the process through Iowa, New Hampshire and on to the Democratic Convention. Are Democrats willing to take the big risk for big change or will they take the safer route of incremental progress if that gives them a better chance of beating Trump?

Joe Lockhart was White House press secretary from 1998-2000 in President Bill Clinton’s administration. He co-hosts the podcast “Words Matter.” Follow him on Twitter at .@JoeLockhart

It’s nearly impossible to stand out in a crowd but Senator Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are doing exactly that in the unprecedented field of 20-plus Democrats who are running for president in 2020. 

In the fast and furious Democratic primary debate, every candidate was vying for an edge. A few showed off their ability to speak Spanish (Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker with horrible “gringo” accents). They are hungry for Latino votes. They know the road to the White House runs through the black and Latino communities. I get it. Still, I’m not convinced speaking bad Spanish will win too many votes in the end. It’s more likely that focused thinking around what most Americans want: jobs, healthcare, better futures will be the key to winning votes.

Warren’s agenda has a clear focus: giant corporations have been allowed to “do whatever they want” to gain profits at the expense of working people, she said. Nearly all of Warren’s policies focus on putting more of the power back in the hands of working people. Her vision to make America the leader in green technology economies to capture 1.2 million jobs is a plan that will resonate with voters. 

Klobuchar, who also seemed thoughtful and informed at the debate, especially on immigration, showed how she’s starkly different from President Trump: “Immigrants do not weaken America,” she told us. “They make us stronger.” Her comments might not appease those on the far left who seem to want open borders for all immigrants but Klobuchar’s plan to continue President Obama’s efforts to create paths to citizenship for immigrants who can contribute to our nation is what most voters want.

Klobuchar avoided the pitfall of attacking her follow Democrats – Julián Castro and O’Rourke did not. They bickered way too much, especially around immigration policy.

In truth, the debate was way too much work for most voters to learn much more about any of the candidates. And I’m still undecided on who can beat Trump. But at evening’s end, Warren sounded like the best bet. Let’s see what tomorrow brings, when the rest of the candidates get their chance to face America.

Roxanne Jones, a founding editor of ESPN Magazine and former vice president at ESPN, has been a producer, reporter and editor at the New York Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Jones is co-author of “Say it Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete.” She talks politics, sports and culture weekly on Philadelphia’s 900AM WURD. Follow her on Twitter: .@iamroxannejones 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running one of the most thoughtful campaigns right now and proving herself as a viable 2020 contender. While many presidential hopefuls have focused much of their efforts – particularly this early in the primary season – on personality and name recognition, Warren hit the campaign trail armed with tangible policy solutions to pressing issues that American families truly care about. Warren produced plans for student loan debt, affordable housing, and childcare.

But the senator has failed to generate a clear answer on confronting one important obstacle – Sen. Mitch McConnell. Now, more than ever, Democratic hopefuls must provide answers on the issues they would prioritize, how they would get their policy agenda through, and what executive powers they would wield–especially since McConnell won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.

Tonight, Warren was asked about overcoming the Kentucky Republican’s vise grip on the Senate, but her response – although passionate – lacked substance. Warren has plans and has driven the policy debate, but tonight her plans hit a brick wall. Without dealing with the reality of Mitch McConnell her plans are nothing more than false hopes. 

Bakari Sellers is a former Democratic member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and a CNN commentator. Follow him on Twitter @Bakari_Sellers.

As a retired federal law enforcement officer who once served south of the border, portions of the first Democratic presidential primary debate pained me. The lineup of Democratic lesser-known hopefuls clearly recognized the podium-filled stage was overcrowded, and arrived in Miami desperate to separate from the pack. Tacking toward the extreme gets one noticed in a crowded primary field.

Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke and Senator Cory Booker both spouted rehearsed lines in Spanish. It was their way of attempting to appeal to the Latino community – “Hey, I’m one of you!” Must have sounded like nails on a chalkboard to native speakers. I say this as a Spanish speaker. This was how they plan to separate themselves from the heartless Republicans who are somehow responsible for the deaths of Óscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his 2-year old daughter Valeria.

The bodies of these two migrants recently washed up on the banks of the Rio Grande River –an image captured in a heart-wrenching viral photograph that has become political fodder to attack Trump administration’s border policies. And there was no moderator caution to dispense with the staged moralism and offer a bipartisan plan to solve the humanitarian/security crisis at our border.

James A. Gagliano is a CNN law enforcement analyst and a retired FBI supervisory special agent. He also is an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University in Queens, New York. Follow him on Twitter: @JamesAGagliano. 

Live from Miami, it is Elizabeth Warren and everyone else – including a few presidential aspirants who needed a name ID on the screen to help viewers recognize them. At its midpoint, this debate illustrated both the advantages and pitfalls of having such a large and diverse field. 

On the plus side, the first half of the first debate was refreshing. There was no bullying, no name-calling, and no childish nicknames. This was an opportunity for the Democratic field to put their best foot forward, and to their credit they all engaged in substantive policy discussions. Perhaps it was because the moderators seemed to come back to Warren quite frequently, but she stood out as the most prepared on myriad topics, taking on income inequality with the same ease that she discussed Medicare for all and reproductive rights. She clearly has benefited from being a policy wonk as well as a professor. As the front-runner in Wednesday’s lineup, she has the most to lose, and so far she has more than held her own.   

On the downside, this was not truly a debate. Given the large number of candidates and multiple moderators, it was more of an opportunity for each candidate to present themselves and stand out to potential voters. As the questions whipped around the debate stage, with answers limited to one minute, at times it felt like political speed-dating. 

Note to Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, it is wonderful that you can speak Spanish. But Latino voters do not really care whether a candidate speaks Spanish, we care about health care, jobs and the economy, and immigration (in that order). Coming from these candidates, their speaking Spanish felt like pandering to the Miami home crowd, and it was a waste of valuable air time.   

Also noted: The Texans did not come to play. Castro challenged his fellow candidates to sign on to his pledge to decriminalize illegal immigration (and enforce civil penalties instead). He assailed O’Rourke for their differences on immigration policy, at one point muttering “If you did your homework…” 

Castro needs his breakout moment, but it was probably not wise to engage in such sparring and over-talking so early on. It was also interesting that it was on this topic – immigration – that nearly all the candidates seemed to want to jump in and score points, giving the debate its first “moderators lose control” moment.

Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes. 

Donald Trump was prepared to dominate the first Democratic debate. Once again he failed to meet his own expectations. With a few notable exceptions, including Senator Amy Klobuchar’s reference to Trump gloating in the White House, the debate is so far–perhaps surprisingly–about substantive issues.

This is smart both on the part of the candidates and the moderators. This was the first introduction of a number of the candidates to the American public and we now know more about what they want to do on health insurance, on the economy, on guns, on immigration. We need that and should demand that from these debates. 

There is plenty of time to talk about Donald Trump, but determining who will beat him isn’t about who has the best one line attack about his morality. It is about who has a better vision for the future of the country.  

Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki.

Senator Booker talks passionately about health care access and the low-income black and brown community he lives in.

And while nationwide roughly 26% of blacks and 23% of Hispanics live in poverty, the majority of blacks and Hispanics do not. The focus on the problems of the poor, significant though they are, ignores the very real health problems associated with higher income blacks and Latinx. Research has revealed—surprisingly–that racial disparities in health tend to be more pronounced at the upper ends of the socioeconomic (SES) spectrum.

Despite having access to above average social and economic resources, nonpoor blacks and Latinx report significantly worse health outcomes when compared to non-poor whites. (Non-poor is defined as households with income greater than $55,000.) That is, black-white racial disparities in health are often more pronounced among higher than lower SES status populations–and upward mobility does not seem to bring similar improvements in health for blacks as it does for whites.

For Hispanics, particularly those born outside the United States, the association between higher SES status and health is so tenuous that investigators have coined the term “Hispanic health paradox” to describe this particularly troubling finding. While the problems of racial disparities in health means a great deal to poor black and brown Americans, Senator Booker, by focusing solely on the poor misses an even greater problem.

Dorothy A. Brown is a law professor at Emory University. Follow her on Twitter @DorothyABrown

The NBC moderators make a mistake by cutting off candidates and insisting on short answers even when candidates are battling to get a word in. There’s a right and a wrong way of handling crowded debates; earlier this year, I moderated a 90-minute debate between 10 candidates for the office of Public Advocate, the official whose main job is to step in to run New York City if the mayor resigns or becomes incapacitated.

As our successful 10-candidate debate showed, time rules like a 60-second response or a 30-second rebuttal work best when they are used as a guideline and framework to get a good conversation going. If a helpful and informative exchange breaks out, the moderator should relax the rules and let the conversation happen.

Unfortunately, the NBC moderators are taking a different approach. “We will be ruthless if necessary,” Rachel Maddow warned. That’s the wrong approach. 

Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. Follow him on Twitter @Errol Louis

By dominating on the issue of immigration, Julián Castro has breathed fresh new life into his struggling campaign. He is the first candidate to come out with a comprehensive immigration reform plan. He is also the first to propose decriminalizing crossing the border.

He was not only able to tout his strong work on the issue but was also able to school his fellow Texan, Beto O’Rourke. Immigration has been put front and center in the minds and hearts of Americans due to the heartbreaking reports coming from the border. First came the news of children in detention centers not having the basics such as soap and toothbrushes – and then last night, we learned of the tragic death of Oscar Martinez and his daughter Valeria.

Castro also thus far has the memorable lines, “I believe in reproductive justice” and “let’s not criminalize desperation.” Castro needed this debate to make his mark. He did just that.

Patti Solis Doyle, a CNN commentator, served as an Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton, was chief of staff on Clinton’s 2000 and 2006 Senate campaigns, and Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2007 and early 2008. She is president of Solis Strategies, a Washington-based consulting firm that specializes in serving non-profits, NGO’s and corporations. Follow her @pattisolisdoyle