The candidates could simply stand there saying nothing, and people would have opinions on who won.

These debates are worthless worthless worthless and such stupidity should not be entertained by the media or the newsreading populace.

@3 -- Other than Bernie or Warren? doubtful.
But -- credit where it's Due --
she surely moved the debate Leftward.

I'd fucking LOVE to see Bernie debate trumpfy.

trumpfy'd fold like a bad souffle

The Democrats have completely fucked up the debates. No surprise, since we are the party that manages to have the smartest people and the policies that make the most sense, yet repeatedly fuck it up by making stupid political decisions.

There should be no more than six people in each debate. Each debate should be focused on one topic (foreign policy, the economy, health care, global warming, etc.). That means a shit load of debates. Great. It really isn't that much harder on each candidate, and if it is, tough shit. With debates like that you actually get to hear what people have to say, and you might even have a real debate (e. g. do we really want to follow the English approach to health care, Bernie, when the World Health Organization considers the French model much better?).

Instead we have crazy joint conferences where people interrupt each other, and moderators speak longer than sitting governors. It is fucked up, and yet we really won't get to know the candidates until a lot of them drop out -- and by then we may have excluded the best ones.

We should do the thing California did, too. If it catches on to the point where purple states are doing it too,he could get himself into serious trouble

Here's Williamson on the state of the Union:

“I assure you — I lived in Grosse Pointe, what happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe [a wealthy part of Detroit, I assume]. This is part of the dark underbelly of American society. The racism, the bigotry and the entire conversation that we’re having here tonight, if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.

We need to say it like it is — it’s bigger than Flint. It’s all over this country. It’s particularly people of color. It’s particularly people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the Democrats don’t start saying it, why would those people feel they’re there for us, and if those people don’t feel it, they won’t vote for us, and Donald Trump will win.”

Hell. Yes.

@4: No, only Biden can beat Trump.

Oh, and Williamson questioning how some candidates were acting like members of the oppositional party. Beautiful. She Shone.

[Hmmmm ... I may hafta get her poster... .]

@9 -- Unlikely -- Biden won't be able to defeat Himself.
If the DNC somehow pawns him off on us
look for the teensiest Turnout imaginable.

Williamson is definitely the most entertaining. One minute she sounds like the most sensible person on the stage. The next minute she's spouting Lurv and Woo and huffing crystals. My brain gets whiplash listening to her.

Anybody who says Mayor Pete won the debate was already in the bag for Mayor Pete.

Of course, I’m already in the bag for Sanders and Warren and they won the top two with Marianne getting an honorable and unbelievable third place.

Just give me a Democrat to vote for, and I'm there. I'm out in the front with the smokers until the convention.

Anyone else wondering what the hell was up with all the John Delaney? I probably wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a police lineup prior to this evening, then every time I glanced up at my screen there he was. I didn't even really mind him all that much, and imagine he'd probably make a perfectly cromulent president if elected. Which isn't gonna happen. Actually kinda looking forward to tomorrow night.

A new Quinnipiac poll proves that Republicans are completely divorced from reality. But that's not really news.

Unfortunately I missed most of the debate tonight. I was able to catch only about 2 minutes, and most of it was Williamson deftly tearing the bark off the people around her on stage, which was quite a surprise. Jupiter must be in retrograde, or her ley line was spiking, or some other nonsensical shit she buys into.

For me it was Sanders and Warren tied for first/second, Williamson third.

Pete didn't do badly. His comment about being called crazy socialists no matter what we do was good. Its just that he delivers maybe one or two zingers like that each debate, while the other three I mentioned drop tons of zingers. He needs to up his quotient.

I really did not expect Wiiliamson to do as well as she did last night. I was surprised she even made it to the stage at all. However, this almost certainly guarantees she will make it to the next debate.

John Delaney, however, may be headed for the exits.

Warren did amazing tonight. I can't decide if she should be POTUS or Veep, but her and Sanders together tonight proved they're the best combination for defeating Trump and then fixing the mess he got us into.

Sanders was much better this debate than he was in the first. I Wrote the Damn Bill was awesome. He looks like a kindly old grandpa, but that man can fight. And thats why I want him to face Trump in 2020. The centrists fold under the slightest pressure, while Sanders punches back, and way harder than his opponents.

@13: God forbid defeat is snapped from the jaws of victory otherwise.

I like how Bernie Sanders has three stock answers and he is going to give you one of them, no matter what question you asked.

Also, ever notice how rich liberals like Warren and Delaney demand the government tax them more, but never write a check to pay more in taxes than they have to? If the rich being taxed at a higher rate is just the moral solution, why don't they just do it themselves? The government lets you overpay your taxes if you want. Weird, huh? It's almost like they don't actually believe what they say, or just assume someone else will be taxed instead of them when the actual laws change...

@8: Political laws blatantly made to attack one single person/party usually do not hold up to court challenges. Judges really don't like that kind of shit, but since it is California, legal rules do not really apply to such rulings in favor of current feelings/emotions.

@23: What other things does that logic apply to, where if the individual can not do a complete task by themselves, they should never try to help, make it easier, or set an example for others?

I mean, wouldn't it be a real shining example for others to follow if the super rich liberals actually chose to pay the higher taxes they demand on others, instead of simply talking about it and hoarding wealth by using the same tax dodges as the people they claim are responsible for our wealth inequality because they hoard wealth and use tax dodges?

@25: "A handful of modestly wealthy people can not fund a national healthcare system on their own."

A lot of subjective and meaningless language in that sentence, but Warren and the leading Dem candidates would disagree with that, apparently. They just want different people to pay. Furthermore, the people I am referencing are not "modestly wealthy." They are literally the 1%. Warren, Delaney, O'Rourke, and Biden are just the wealthiest of the bunch.

It's really the hypocrisy that does it. They blame faceless "wealthy" people for wealth inequality for legal tax dodges and wealth hoarding, while they hoard wealth and employ those same tax loopholes. I think bald faced hypocrisy kind of matters in a candidate, but to each his own.

Anyway, your logic is bizarre, because it suggests that we all would need to recycle/mind our waste, but it is not important for the individual to do so. This is the same dumb "logic" that people use when they say there is no point for the US to worry about CO2 emissions because we are screwed anyway until India/China reign it in as well.

Back to Williamson, who insits we need look to the larger picture (I concur) --

"We need to say it like it is — it’s bigger than Flint. It’s all over this country. It’s particularly people of color. It’s particularly people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the Democrats don’t start saying it, why would those people feel they’re there for us, and if those people don’t feel it, they won’t vote for us, and Donald Trump will win.”

For more on this, check out Chris Heges' and Joe Sacco's brilliant semi-graphic
novel 'Days of Destrucionn, Days of Revolt.' A review from the NYT:

"Anyone who grew up near a postindustrial area — who has seen a middle-class town become a pocket of destitution — will not find any one chapter in this book too shocking.

What is shocking is the degree to which this depth of poverty is found everywhere, from rural Indian reservations to near-slave conditions in Florida tomato fields.

These are not pleasant stories. They are the very sort of thing we all prefer to forget so that we can focus on our daily lives, and this makes it all the more important that they are recorded."

Wonkiness isn't gonna make it, this time. Not against a fake populist
Demogauge who campaigns on Feelings -- mostly fear, loathing,
vicitmization, racism and, well, you know trumfpy...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/books/review/days-of-destruction-days-of-revolt.html

@26,

They wouldn't be excluding themselves. They're not wealthy enough to be affected by the taxes they're talking about enacting.

Quick google search says Warren's net worth is around $10 million. Million with an M.

Jeff Bezos: $165 billion. Billion. With a B.
Warren Buffett: $84 billion.

I mean, yeah, Warren's rich, no doubt about that. But she's a pauper compared to Bezos and the rest of the top hundred or so billionaires.

Jeff Bezos alone is worth the equivalent of over 15,000 Elizabeth Warrens.

In any case, it's not bald faced hypocrisy. Everyone hoards wealth and pays the minimum they can in taxes and uses legal loopholes. Everyone. They're simply saying taxes on the insanely wealthy should be higher. None of them are insanely wealthy.