Category Archives: Democrat

By

LYNN ELBER AP Television Writer

January 17, 2020, 6:46 PM

3 min read

PASADENA, Calif. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has advice for Democratic voters faced with an unsettled field of presidential contenders: pick a winner.

This is an election that will have such profound impact, so take your vote seriously, Clinton said. And for Democratic voters, try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win. Because at the end of the day, that is what will matter and not just in the popular vote, but the electoral college.

Voters must act thoughtfully because Lord knows what will happen if we dont retire the current incumbent and his henchmen, as (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi so well described them, the former first lady said.

Clinton, who won a majority of votes in the 2016 election but lost to GOP candidate Donald Trump in the electoral tally, made her comments Friday during a Q&A session with TV critics about a new Hulu documentary on her life and career, Hillary. The session largely focused on the documentary directed and produced by Nanette Burstein and ended before any questions about President Trumps impeachment trial were asked.

Former President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 in connection with his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He was not convicted in the Senate trial.

Hillary, which includes whats described as previously unseen footage from the 2016 campaign as part of an intimate portrait of Clinton, debuts March 6 on the Hulu streaming service.

What started out as a campaign documentary became something more expansive, said the former secretary of state for President Barack Obama.

Clinton recalled Burstein telling her it was a bigger story that needed to be told, one that was part of the arc of "womens history and advancement, choices that are made. Im not running for anything, Im not in office, so I said, Sure, why dont we give it a try. And off we went.

The filmmaker said a main goal was to help people see "this is a historical figure who is incredibly polarizing and why. When you actually get to know her and really understand the intimate moments of her life ... you realize how misguided we can be in the way we understand history and media.

Clinton was asked what she took away from the films depiction of her journey.

One was the recognition that I have been often, in my view, mischaracterized or misperceived, and I have to bear a lot of the responsibility for that. Whatever the combination of reasons might be, I certainly didnt do a good enough job to break through the perceptions that were out there, she said.

Excerpt from:

Hillary Clinton on whom she thinks 2020 Democratic voters should nominate - ABC News

It was not that the CNN/Des Moines Register debate on the campus of Drake University was necessarily bad. But most of the dynamics on display were familiar as in, very familiar in ways that evidently suited the candidates interests in staying safe but also seemed to challenge the basic theory of the officially sanctioned Democratic National Committee debate schedule.

This was the seventh debate since last summer, and the last before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses. At least as I understood the hypothesis, the gradually rising thresholds to qualify for the debate stage six candidates this time compared with 20 over two nights at the first encounter last June would replace the historic role of early-state voting in winnowing the field and clarifying the race.

It is true that the field has been winnowed, but its hardly clear that electrifying debate moments along the way have played that big a role. The people bunched at the top of the race are mostly the same, led by former Vice President Joe Biden, probably the weakest debater in the top tier. Some briefly viral moments from the summer and fall passed quickly, delivered by candidates no longer in the race. With voting finally just around the corner, one might assume this latest encounter would represent a debate crescendo. In musical terms, however, it was more of a fermata the term for holding a note rather than beginning the next one with some modest variations in emphasis but no fundamentally new arguments.

By evenings end, it seemed possible that the candidates time, and for that matter the journalists, would have been more valuably devoted to individual encounters with audiences of actual early-state voters. The next big change in trajectory of the race is more likely to hinge on what they think rather than on some zinger that a candidate lets loose in a debate.

As it happened, there were only one or two of those in any event. There was an arresting moment when Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders volleyed over whether he had once told her in a private conversation as she and her campaign assert that he didnt believe a woman could be elected president. He strenuously denied saying that. She more strenuously noted of the four men on the stage that collectively, they have lost 10 elections, while she and the other woman on the stage, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, have won every single race.

So true, Klobuchar said, so true.

There was another possibly arresting exchange not shared with the rest of the class, as Warren and Sanders appeared to have a sharp moment she did not respond to his outstretched hand as they exited their lecterns at debates end.

Otherwise, it was an evening of things you know, unless you are one of the cohort of people that didnt care enough to follow the 2020 race even passingly in 2019, but with the turn of the calendar is ready to start acquainting yourself with the candidates and the choices they are offering.

You know that former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is very articulate, and that he, Biden and Klobuchar all think the mandatory Medicare for All proposals backed by Sanders are too expensive and politically and practically unworkable. You know that Buttigieg seems to get on the other candidates nerves a bit, especially Klobuchars, as they think he is trying to cut in line on the strength of smooth talk but scant experience getting things done or proving real electability against Donald Trump.

You know that smooth talk isnt Bidens selling point, and words can elicit reactions that vary from Well, that was fairly crisp and emphatic to Whoa, that sentence is wandering nowhere even within a single answer. His Des Moines performance seemed to land around the median maybe a shade higher? of previous outings.

There were elements of what seemed like fairly obvious calculation, delivered for fairly obvious reasons. Buttigieg, who has negligible support among African Americans, kept invoking support from individuals in that community and how his policies would help Democrats largest voting bloc, which in polls so far has been loyal to Biden. The black voters who know me best are supporting me, he said, invoking support from South Bend.

Warren, meanwhile, seemed to be emphasizing a pragmatic, can-do approach, evidently a rejoinder to those who might believe she is enamored with the conceptual purity of her plans but would not be effective in Washington. She emphasized executive actions to lower drug prices that she would have legal authority to carry out as soon as she becomes president, without waiting for legislation.

None of this, however, lived up to too-optimistic projections from a POLITICO headline early Tuesday that promised the debate could be a doozy. That prediction failed due to extra o more doze than doozy.

As I write this, I hear the admonitory voice of Broder, who died in 2011, as well as those of more belligerent contemporary media critics: Why is that the test of a good debate, how colorful the exchanges or vigorous the conflict?

Some previous debates in this cycle have shown the candidates highlighting relevant differences on policy or electability without resorting to personal insults or triviality. But Im happy to plead no contest on charges of trying to cover democracy like a sporting contest to any prosecutor who truly watched the entire debate and did not even once have to scold themselves to pay attention.

During the first debates in 2019, the sheer number of candidates gave moderators a challenge of controlling the proceedings and cutting off politicians lest they attempt to filibuster. Oddly, though, Tuesdays moderators often acted like they had a herculean task to rein in candidates for going a little over time even when they did not seem to be speechifying or rudely ignoring rules.

Thank you, senator, Thank you, mayor, Thank you, Thank you dozens of times in ways that interrupted relevant answers and were often distracting.

The evening ended with questions to all candidates to address their perceived vulnerability. In Sanders case, it was polls say two-thirds of voters are unenthusiastic about voting for a socialist. CNNs Abby Phillip asked, Doesnt that put your chances of beating Donald Trump at risk?

A fair point, Sanders replied, one he had not previously considered. Actually, no, that was my own fantasy dialogue as I watched the clock and pondered what I might soon be writing. Sanders actual answer was, Nope, because people would understand that his brand of socialism is about things people will like such as universal health care and fighting climate change while he would also make the case that Trump is a pathological liar and a fraud, who actually practices socialism for polluters and wealthy self-dealers.

Similarly, Biden denied that he is not tough enough to take on Trump and his penchant for insults; Buttigieg denied that he cant expand his coalition; Klobuchar denied that her pragmatic approach is bland and uninspiring; Warren denied that she is too divisive; and billionaire Tom Steyer denied that he is just a rich guy with no other claim on peoples support.

So a debate can be helpful in getting certain things on the record. But there have been some 30 hours of Democratic debates over more than six months. At some point, proceedings must come to a close and the election really does belong to voters.

So, thank you candidates, thank you cable networks, thank you print and online partners, thank you, DNC. Just to repeat, thank you, your time is up, we will return to you when we can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Read more:

Democrats Take a Walk on the Mild Side - POLITICO

An important story lost below the din of the primaries, impeachment, and rallies, is the growing party rancor toward a vocal left flank the politicians have correctly identified as weakened.

The far-left of the Democratic Party is out of the spotlight. Out of the spotlight, but clearly still within the crosshairs of their colleagues.

Its young congressional leaders, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, the fresh-faced consciences of the swamp, are all-three the targets of finance investigations. Two are tangled in credible accusations of anti-Semitism, and one is mired in a hard-to-believe incestual infidelity scandal with a married man on her payroll.

Their outside support, which so successfully took media credit for gathering hundreds of thousands of liberals whod booked non-refundable hotels and plane tickets to Her D.C. inauguration and became the Womens March, has collapsed amid credible accusations of racism and, you guessed it, anti-Semitism. And the New York/D.C. media that ran glowing profile after fawning profile months ago dont seem to visit any more.

Somebody is at the door, though. An important story lost below the din of the primaries, impeachment, and rallies is the growing party rancor toward a vocal left flank the politicians have correctly identified as weakened.

Members of The Squads freshman congressional class, which largely ran against President Donald Trump and not for socialism, have begun to flock to Vice President Joe Biden as Sen. Bernie Sanders gathers party faithful, Politico reported Sunday. More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks, they reported, adding, A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before the primary voting begins.

Days before, fellow Queens Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks openly criticized Ocasio-Cortez to Fox News for her refusal to pay congressional party dues and insistence on instead using her sizable fundraising to pay for far-left candidates and primary challenges to her Democratic colleagues.

Its no surprise Ocasio-Cortz is not paying dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Like leadership operations in any political party, the committee doesnt like the ideological primaries against members she has made her name on, and seek to blackball those involved in any capacity. What is a surprise is the rising willingness to publicly speak against Ocasio-Cortez and her inside and outside allies, even by a 22-year incumbent in her very neighborhood. It appears the trance is broken.

Back in Washington on Wednesday, a smiling, laughing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named her impeachment team for the Senate trial, having delayed its date to the point that the trial will likely force Sanders and Warren off the campaign trail at a critical time. This, conservative Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen points out, will benefit Biden at the expense of his closest rivals.

Theres no definitive proof that strengthening Bidens hand was part of Pelosis otherwise-doomed ploy, but there is plenty evidence she, like all Democratic leaders, is not a fan of the rogue Sanders or his supporters in her caucus. The absence of howling protests over the delay from The Squad is entirely in line with the lack of talent for tactics they have displayed to date, and Pelosi can comfortably assume Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will take their blame if all happens as Olsen predicts.

No doubt, Ocasio-Cortezs immediate goal is her ally Sanders winning the primary. Toward that objective, the lies, back-stabbing, and attacks they have and will continue to face from former fellow travelers will be as vicious as they are relentless. Both he and she know, however, the ultimate goal is the transformation of the Democratic Party.

If they defeat the frantically-forming Biden wing of the party to win the primary, that prize will at once become more attainable and more imperiled than its been in 75 years, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelts socialist vice president was removed from the ticket and thereby ascendancy to the presidency for FDRs final re-election campaign.

A Sanders loss to Trump, which in 2020 is far more likely than it would have been in 2016, would result in party retribution against all involved. Primaries and political exiles would be sure to follow. Then, a similar fate was assured conservatives after Sen. Barry Goldwaters general election loss and, 12 years later, Gov. Ronald Reagans unsuccessful primary against sitting Republican President Gerald Ford. A political movement far stronger than Washington party politics saw to scuttling those planned executions.

This battle may be Sanderss last stand, but the war for control of the Democratic Party has just begun.

Here is the original post:

The War For The Democratic Party Will Destroy Lives, Change The US - The Federalist

About half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (47%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 15% who describe their views as very liberal, according to an average of Pew Research Center political surveys conducted in 2019.

The share of Democratic voters who describe their political views as liberal has changed little over the past few years after increasing steadily between 2000 and 2016.

Liberals outnumber moderates (38%) and conservatives (14%) as a share of Democratic voters. Yet combined, conservatives and moderates continue to make up about half of Democratic voters (51%).

This analysis of changes in the self-identification of ideology among Democratic registered voters over time is based on a compilation of 239 phone surveys conducted by Pew Research Center from January 2000 through September 2019. These surveys were combined into a single, large file that allowed us to analyze data across a range of demographic characteristics, with comparisons made across different time periods. When combined, the 239 surveys represent over 150,000 interviews with Democratic or Democratic-leaning registered voters, or more than 8,000 interviews with this group each year. Yearly averages are calculated by combining all surveys for the calendar year, with appropriate weights applied.

While the ideological composition of the Democratic coalition is not much different than in 2016 when liberals constituted 45% of Democratic voters liberals make up a larger share of Democratic voters than they did in earlier presidential election years.

In 2012, when Barack Obama was reelected, a somewhat larger share of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters called themselves moderates (40%) than liberals (37%), while 19% described their views as conservative. And in 2004, when George W. Bush was reelected after defeating John Kerry, just 30% of Democratic voters called themselves liberal, while more than twice as many (66%) described themselves as moderate or conservative.

The subset of Democratic voters who describe their views as very liberal has similarly increased since 2000, though they remain a relatively small group within the party. In 2000, just 6% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters said their political views were very liberal. By 2019, 15% of Democrats described their views this way.

White Democrats remain more likely than black or Hispanic Democrats to describe themselves as liberal. In 2019, a majority (55%) of white Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters identified themselves as liberal, an increase of 27 percentage points since 2000. Among white Democrats, 19% called themselves very liberal in 2019, compared with 6% in 2000.

By contrast, more black Democratic voters continue to characterize their views as moderate rather than liberal. In 2019, 43% of black Democrats called themselves moderate, 29% called themselves liberal and 25% called themselves conservative.

Since 2000, the share of black Democrats who describe their political views as liberal has changed little, while liberal identification among white Democrats has nearly doubled.

Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 38% described their political views as moderate in 2019, while 37% called themselves liberal and 22% conservative.

A majority of Democratic voters with postgraduate experience (62%) described their political views as liberal last year, as did 56% of college graduates with no postgraduate experience. The share calling themselves very liberal was 19% among those with a postgraduate education and 18% among those with a college degree.

Fewer Democratic voters among those with some college experience but no degree (43%) and those with no college experience (34%) characterized their political views as liberal or very liberal in 2019. Just 13% of Democrats with some college education and 11% of Democrats with no college education described their own views as very liberal.

Americans descriptions of their political views are distinct from, but strongly related to, their attitudes on specific issues. Most Americans continue to express at least some mix of liberal and conservative attitudes, but the share with either uniformly liberal or uniformly conservative attitudes has grown in recent years.

Note: This is an update of a post previously published Sept. 7, 2017.

See the article here:

Liberals make up the largest share of Democratic voters, but their growth has slowed in recent years - Pew Research Center

Tuesday nights debate was the last one before the voting starts in Iowa, and before the debate, our forecast thought there was roughly a four-way tie for who will win the caucuses. So to get more insight into this neck and neck race, we once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register, affected likely primary voters feelings about the candidates on the stage. The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsoss KnowledgePanel, interviewed the same group of voters twice, once on either side of the debate, to capture both the before and after picture.

To better understand which candidates did well or poorly Tuesday night, we plotted how favorably respondents rated the candidates before the debate vs. how debate-watchers rated candidates performances afterward and Elizabeth Warren, in particular, seemed to have a breakout evening according to this metric. She not only received the highest marks for her debate performance, but her scores were high even relative to her pre-debate favorability rating.

That said, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden also received medium-to-high marks for their performances, but because of their relatively high pre-debate favorability ratings, we expected a lot of voters to already be predisposed to viewing their debate performances in a positive light. So while they still did pretty well on the debate stage, they didnt exceed expectations the way Warren did. Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, on the other hand, tied for the lowest overall debate grades, putting them only barely above where wed expect them to be given their pre-debate favorability ratings.

In terms of raw debate grades respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) Warren got the highest average score, closely followed by Sanders, Buttigeg and Biden.

Before debateAfter debate

Respondents could pick multiple candidates or someone else.

Unsurprisingly, given her strong debate performance, Warren was also the biggest winner in terms of attracting potential voters. She gained a little over 3 points in the share of respondents who said they were considering voting for her. Buttigieg and Klobuchar also gained roughly 2 points each in potential support. Gains were pretty small for the other candidates, though less than a point each for Biden and Sanders, and a little over 1 point for Steyer.

UnfavorableFavorableBefore debateAfter debate

We also asked likely Democratic primary voters how favorably they felt about each candidate both before and after the debate. And perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the less-well-known candidates who gained the most: Klobuchar and Steyer saw the largest jumps in net favorability (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) 5.8 points and 5 points, respectively. Buttigieg and Warren also did well on this metric, however, with Buttigieg picking up 4.7 points and Warren 3.9 points. Sanders and Bidens net favorability, on the other hand, actually fell a bit Bidens dropped by 1.6 points, and Sanders took the biggest hit in this metric, falling by 3.6 points.

Excludes respondents who chose I don't know enough to say.

Voters were also asked what matters more to them a candidate who agrees with them on most issues or someone who would have a good chance of defeating President Trump and as you can see, there was no change in these numbers. Democratic primary voters really want a candidate who can beat Trump.

Finally, we asked respondents to estimate each Democrats chances of defeating Trump, from 0 percent (no chance) to 100 percent (certain to win). Going into the debate, as in other general-election polls, Biden was the candidate voters thought was most likely to beat Trump, on average. He still leads on that question after Tuesdays debate, with Sanders in second. But, as you can see below, Bidens average stayed essentially unchanged while all the other candidates gained ground.

Here is the original post:

Who Won The January Democratic Debate? - FiveThirtyEight

Pelosis list reflects her desire for geographic, racial and gender diversity among the impeachment managers, and it draws from the Democratic Caucus wide swath of legal and national security-related experience.

Schiff was the de facto leader of the impeachment inquiry and has, over the years, cemented his status as Public Enemy No. 1 for Trump and his allies. During the trial, Schiff, 59, a close Pelosi ally and former federal prosecutor who earned his law degree from Harvard Law School, could be afforded an open-ended soliloquy to outline the presidents alleged misconduct. Giving Trumps political nemesis an uninterrupted stage on the Senate floor could test the notoriously mercurial presidents patience as he vacillates between a desire for a quick, dismissive trial and a robust one that includes a slate of his hand-picked witnesses. Trump has even mused about calling Schiff himself as a witness, though its highly unlikely that Senate Republicans would agree to such a move. Pelosi said Schiff will serve as the lead manager.

Nadler, a vocal Bill Clinton defender when the House impeached him in 1998, earned his spot atop the Judiciary panel in part based on a pitch that he has the constitutional know-how to lead a potential impeachment of the president. His committees efforts to pursue special counsel Robert Muellers evidence largely receded into the background while Schiffs panel led the Ukraine probe but the Judiciary Committee returned to the spotlight when it came time to draft articles of impeachment. The panel also issued lengthy reports about the constitutional underpinnings of the case against Trump, which padded Congress thin precedent on the issue. The 72-year-old Nadler, a Fordham Law School graduate, will likely buttress Schiffs presentation of facts by laying out the reason Trumps alleged offenses warrant removal from office.

Lofgren has more impeachment-related experience than perhaps any lawmaker in Washington. She was a staffer for the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon, and was a member of the panel during Bill Clintons impeachment in 1998. She ran for chair of the Judiciary Committee ahead of the swearing-in of the new Congress in 2019, but lost the race to Nadler. Lofgren, 72, was first elected in 1994 and got her law degree from Santa Clara University.

Jeffries, 49, has quickly risen through the ranks since his election to the House in 2012, and he has been floated as a future House speaker. Jeffries, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, was chosen as the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus after his party took control of the chamber in the 2018 midterm elections. He has stood out in committee hearings and on cable television as a vocal critic of Trump and a forceful Pelosi ally and defender. While dozens of House Democrats were announcing their support for an impeachment inquiry last summer, Jeffries remained aligned with the speaker, who was resisting an inquiry until the Ukraine scandal blew up. He got his law degree from New York University.

While she isnt a lawyer, Demings, 62, has an extensive background in law enforcement and was a standout during the impeachment hearings. Demings, the former Orlando police chief, is one of just two Democrats who sits on both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, giving her a uniquely prevalent role during the Houses two-part impeachment process. She also brings geographic, racial and gender diversity to the lineup of impeachment managers a key priority for Pelosi.

Crow, 40, was a surprise choice, but Pelosi has leaned heavily on the so-called national security freshmen in the Democratic Caucus during her deliberations for the impeachment process. Crow, serving in his first term, doesnt sit on any of the committees charged with investigating Trump. But he is a former Army captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he received his law degree at the University of Denver. He was one of seven national security-oriented freshman lawmakers who wrote an op-ed in September calling for an impeachment inquiry after the Ukraine scandal came to light. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Garcia, 69, was also an unexpected selection to be an impeachment manager, but she serves on the Judiciary Committee and is a former municipal judge in Houston. Garcia, a freshman lawmaker, brings racial, gender and geographic diversity to the lineup of impeachment managers. She received her law degree from Texas Southern University. Her district covers much of Houston, where she also served as the citys controller.

Read more here:

Meet the Democrats prosecuting Trump's impeachment - POLITICO

Welcome to Opinions commentary for the Jan. 14 Democratic presidential candidate debate in Des Moines. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate probably didnt belong on the stage and should probably drop out; 10 means its on, President Trump. Heres what our columnists and contributors thought about the debate.

Read what our columnists and contributors thought of the December debate.

Elizabeth Warren

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) A substantive candidate, even if her position on the trade agreement between the United States and Mexico is not very credible. On Iran and troops abroad she was categorical and honest.

Gail Collins (8/10) It does sound as if she really has a plan for everything, and no one could really take that on. Shes the one the debaters need to focus on the next time around.

Ross Douthat (6/10) The moderators basically took her side in the he said/she said with Sanders and she got to deliver what was no doubt a prepared speech. So a good-enough night, but hard to see a momentum swing for her.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) Her slide continues. Sanders has gotten back the progressive high ground on health care and soaking the rich, even after the Warren forces tried to submarine him this week. She didnt want to push it too hard and that let him off the hook.

Michelle Goldberg (9/10) One of her best debates. She had the most memorable line of the night: The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women.

Nicole Hemmer (9/10) Barbara Lee was the clear winner of the debate, repeatedly cheered for her lone vote against authorizing the use of force after 9/11. But Warren was a close second, turning a challenging conflict with Sanders into a forceful case for her candidacy.

Robert Leonard (9/10) Best line of the night on whether a woman can win the presidency the women in the debate were undefeated.

Liz Mair (5/10) Shes lucky no one pressed her on whether Sanders said what her campaign is alleging if she said he had, Im not sure many people would have believed her.

Daniel McCarthy (6/10) Shes especially cogent on trade when defending the new NAFTA against Sanders. Made the case she can threaten Trumps Rust Belt support.

Melanye Price (9/10) She gave an amazing answer to the question about electability and it was her best moment of the entire debate.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) She maneuvered the gender issues handily, kept her cool and didnt take the bait to go to war on Sanders. But we know her brothers were in the military and that shes determined to fight corruption. She needs to refresh her talking points.

Hctor Tobar (8/10) I saw flashes of the conviction that briefly propelled her to the top of the Democratic field. Of the progressive candidates left standing, shes the most credible and presidential.

Pete Wehner (6/10) What she said on policy during the debate wont matter much. Her refusal to shake Sanderss hand after the debate will. My bet is this now intensely personal confrontation shes essentially accusing Sanders of being sexist, hes essentially accusing her of being a liar wont help Warren or Sanders.

Will Wilkinson (8/10) She needed a strong night and delivered. She made a fiery, galvanizing case on womens electability that made Sanders seem less than honest. Shes a fighter and still very much in the hunt.

Bernie Sanders

Jorge Castaeda (8.5/10) His best performance yet: authentic, eloquent and on-message. But will Americans elect a socialist?

Gail Collins (7/10) He isnt the most appealing, but he did have a whole lot of the most rousing moments.

Ross Douthat (6/10) Himself, himself, himself: The most consistent candidate from debate to debate was consistent once again. The Biden-Bernie debates after Super Tuesday will be deliciously grumpy.

Maureen Dowd (8/10) Waving his arms with the flair of a maestro, Sanders dominated the stage, didnt give any ground on his give-away programs and stared down Warren over her claim that he had told her that a woman couldnt win. He said he totally believes a woman could win. He obviously doesnt want one to win this year.

Michelle Goldberg (8/10) Bernie is more or less always the same, which is one thing his fans love about him.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) He is debate-stage comfort food: You always know exactly what youre going to get.

Robert Leonard (7/10) Bernie is Bernie. But if Elizabeth Warren looked over the top of her glasses at me like she did at him, Id confess. He had different math teachers than I did he needs to show his work on Medicare for All.

Liz Mair (5/10) Let me keep telling you how Im totally not sexist and make you think Im totally sexist.

Daniel McCarthy (7/10) I dont share his faith in multilateralism, but hes the alternative to the foreign-policy status quo and clearest contrast to the G.O.P. all around.

Melanye Price (9/10) He looked like the nominee. His supporters should be ecstatic.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) The Cassandra of the campaign, but circumstances are conspiring to make him look ever more rational.

Hctor Tobar (7/10) He was cornered on health care. What will happen when the G.O.P. cannons are aimed at his campaign?

Pete Wehner (5/10) He was Bernie: curmudgeonly, loud, deeply ideological, a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else. The exchange with Warren that was leaked by her campaign wasnt one he was going to win, and he didnt.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He burnished his anti-war cred and deftly defused Warrens a woman cant get elected allegation. Despite some shakiness in his hair-splitting opposition to NAFTA 2.0, which is good for Iowa, hes heading toward the caucus with his mojo intact.

Amy Klobuchar

Jorge Castaeda (6.5/10) She was substantive on health care. Yet even by a politicians standard, she talks too much about herself.

Gail Collins (6/10) Since her strong points have been so much about her performance in the debates, this wasnt a help or at least not a step up. Still waiting for the moment where she goes beyond likeability and really rouses the audience.

Ross Douthat (7/10) She forgot the governor of Kansas name, and she sometimes gets lost in Senate procedure, but another solid, personable performance that probably isnt going to be quite enough to lap Buttigieg in Iowa.

Maureen Dowd (6/10) She mined her ore-mining Midwestern roots and whacked Sanders and Warren for their pipe-dream math, their grand ideological sketches that will never see the light of day. But no breakthrough moment to get better traction in Iowa.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) She was sharp, empathetic and charming. If I were looking for a pragmatic moderate, she might have won me over.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) She should be the moderates choice, but she sounds senatorial, not presidential shes good on the ins and outs of legislation but often fails to tell a bigger story.

Robert Leonard (9/10) The women won the night. Klobuchar was pragmatic and tough but if you are going to name-drop the Kansas governor, you should remember her name.

Liz Mair (4/10) A weak debate. She often stumbled and sounded uncomfortable. She must be all in on Nevada with all the casino and gambling references.

Daniel McCarthy (4/10) She was the second-tier, standard-issue politician this time and came off as a foreign-policy lightweight.

Melanye Price (6/10) Someone should tell her the center is disappearing and the party has moved to the left.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) Once again, the queen of competence. Good idea to limit the one-liners. Biden-Klobuchar?

Hctor Tobar (8/10) The new centrist hope. Her reasonableness, competency and empathy could carry her to an upset in Iowa, and maybe in New Hampshire, too.

Pete Wehner (8/10) She needed an outstanding debate, and she got it. Shes authentic, informed and persuasive, is able to criticize other candidates without being nasty and (in an increasingly radical Democratic Party) she comes across as fairly moderate.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) She dominated the contest to name-check Iowa municipalities and built on her impressive electability bona fides. Yet every note she hit, like this entire debate, felt like a rerun.

Joe Biden

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) Uninspiring but solid on Iraq, Iran and womens issues. This may well be all he has to do to win the nomination.

Gail Collins (5/10) He didnt screw up! But I cant really celebrate the fact that he seemed functional but flat. Fair to mention the many things he did in previous administrations, but you still need a new thought to grab onto.

Ross Douthat (5/10) A very Biden performance he rambled, evaded and courted disaster in multiple answers but somehow always stumbled through. Nobody really attacked him; nothing happened to hurt his lead.

Maureen Dowd (5/10) Bidin his time til South Carolina; as he reminded his competitors, hes strongest among African-American voters. No gaffes but no heat, even though he had more breathing room because the candidates who used to attack him are gone.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He seemed sleepy and tripped over his words, at least until his riff on the economy. But none of his fellow candidates hurt him.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Biden debated like a candidate whose biggest goal was not to say anything dumb. (He gets an extra point for succeeding).

Robert Leonard (8/10) At times presidential, others a scold, and occasionally forgetful, he nailed it on paying farmers to sequester carbon to help fight global warming and stabilize a crumbling rural economy.

Liz Mair (8/10) Not a great debate, but at least he made people laugh once when the debate otherwise made people cry and tear their hair out.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Stumbles havent hurt him before hes almost Trump-like in his resilience. Hes not getting sharper, though.

Melanye Price (7/10) He has done a lot, but not enough to avoid a dumpster fire of political division and bigotry.

Mimi Swartz (7.5/10) He flogged his record during the Obama administration like crazy and held his own for 120 minutes, which was all he had to do.

Hctor Tobar (5/10) Ugh. Hes a shadow of the man who we knew just four or eight years ago. At the most pointed moments of the debate, he seemed to disappear.

Pete Wehner (6/10) He wasnt dominant or terribly impressive, but he didnt make any damaging errors. No one went after him. He used Trumps attacks against him to his advantage.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) Biden hasnt won a single debate, but it clearly doesnt matter. Hes ahead in the race and he capped off the night with energetic authority. The nomination is still his to lose.

Pete Buttigieg

Jorge Castaeda (7/10) Hes strong on education and articulate, but he comes across as scripted at times. He acknowledged that the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada was not perfect, though it seems he half-heartedly supports it.

Gail Collins (7/10) He had some of the best arguments, but worried that he still sounded like a really, really smart high school debater. He knows how to do those As a war veteran ... moments, which would be terrific in a debate with Trump.

Ross Douthat (4/10) Every answer was equally smooth, and at this point thats the problem.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) He continued to emphasize his veteran cred and how he would take down Cadet Bone Spurs. But he still seems canned and comes across as the star of the high school debate team. Hes straining to come up with the Vision Thing.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He was, as usual, poised and agile, but in a night with no fireworks, none of his answers stood out.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Last debate, everyone attacked him. This debate, they mostly ignored him and his overly rehearsed answers felt less relevant to the actual debate raging around him.

Robert Leonard (8/10) While Biden and Sanders bickered over old wars, Mayor Pete looked to future wars climate, cybersecurity and election security. He was the only one to mention the Poor Peoples March that took place at the debate site.

Liz Mair (7/10) Mayor Pete was one of two people who managed to not mangle the English language. Thank goodness.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Hes right that millionaires and billionaires kids shouldnt get free college from taxpayers. So why not means-test all entitlements?

Melanye Price (6/10) He will have to work to get some energy back. But no matter how he performs, pundits will say he was excellent.

Mimi Swartz (6/10) Hes starting to sound over-rehearsed. Nice try answering the question about his lack of black support, but the numbers speak louder.

Hctor Tobar (6/10) Hes the most polished and telegenic guy up there, but his ideas dont inspire me.

Pete Wehner (7/10) Strong but not outstanding. He told some humanizing stories, hes future-oriented and hes the only Democrat who isnt afraid to talk about his faith.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) Mayor Pete felt too much on auto-pilot to extract himself from the depths of the wine cave and reverse his slumping Iowa numbers.

Tom Steyer

Jorge Castaeda (6/10) Decisive on issues like impeaching Trump and climate change. He was unable to break through on other issues.

Gail Collins (2/10) We have a better billionaire.

Ross Douthat (5/10) His best night dont roll your eyes.

Maureen Dowd (3/10) Steyer pressed his case that he is the one to take on corporate America, given that he has already wrung a billion dollars out of the economy. But if we have to listen to a rich guy, lets hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) He was fine, but why is he there?

Nicole Hemmer (3/10) The guy pointed to his globe-trotting as evidence that hes qualified to be commander in chief. Yes, hes got good answers on climate, but cmon.

Robert Leonard (5/10) Getting stronger, but Cory Booker and Andrew Yang should have been on this debate stage.

Liz Mair (6/10) He also managed to not engage in rampant word salad yet still came off as someone just running a massive vanity exercise.

Daniel McCarthy (2/10) If nothing else, this minor-league candidate shows Democrats that money does have a role in facilitating discussion of big issues.

Melanye Price (5/10) He is paying a ton of money to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) Hes growing into his candidacy, but I dont see him breaking out of the pack to become the nominee. Secretary of climate?

Hctor Tobar (4/10) Its shameful that a man can buy his way into the semi-finals of the Democratic primary. Hes a marketing phenomenon, and not a political one.

Pete Wehner (2/10) He spoke less than any candidate and he still spoke too much. For future debates can we trade Steyer for Andrew Yang?

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He delivered a clear, impassioned case for a progressive agenda, especially on climate change. His billions undercut the credibility of his left message, but they bolster his claim to be able to rattle Trump.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

About the authors

Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd and Michelle Goldberg are Times columnists. (Ms. Goldberg's husband is consulting for Ms. Warrens campaign.)

Jorge Castaeda (@JorgeGCastaneda), Mexicos foreign minister from 2000 to 2003, is a professor at New York University and the author of Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War and a contributing opinion writer.

Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) is an associate research scholar at Columbia University and the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.

Robert Leonard (@RobertLeonard), the news director for the Iowa radio stations KNIA and KRLS, is the author of Deep Midwest: Midwestern Explorations.

Daniel McCarthy (@ToryAnarchist) is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Quarterly.

Continued here:

Opinion | Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

Tucker Carlson continued to take on the homeless crisis Friday night, this time tying itto the 2020 presidential election and asking viewers what kind of impact the election will have on the United States.

"The issues at stake are bigger than just the economy or even our foreign policy commitments. 2020 is about the broadest possible questions. What kind of country should we have? Who should live here? What will America look like 50 years from now?" Carlson asked on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"There are a lot of possible answers to those questions," he added, "but leading Democrats appear to have settled on their position. America, they're telling us, should be a lot more like California."

CALIFORNIA EXODUS COULD LEAD TO STATE LOSING CONGRESSIONAL SEAT, CENSUS ESTIMATES FIND

Carlson, who has covered California's problems extensively, mentioned Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg's recent comments praising the state.

"I think that California can serve as a great example for the rest of this country, Bloomberg said last week.

Carlson said he sees Bloomberg's view as being woefully outdated.

"The people who moved here in 1960 when Bloomberg graduated high school found their American dream," Carlson said. "But things have changed. Now, the children and grandchildren of those people are fleeing California."

The Golden State's problems have included health and immigration -- and residents leaving the state because of failed policies, Carlson said.

"It's messed up, really messed up," Carlson said after playing a montage of homeless people taking drugs and leaving filth in the street.

"That's right. And so finally normal people are leaving California. For decades, the state led the nation in attracting migrants from other states. Now the flow has reversed."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Carlson blamed the politicians.

"Instead of fixing the problems that are forcing people to flee," he said, "politicians here have spent the last few years on policies that are frivolous and counterproductive."

Follow this link:

Tucker Carlson: Democrats want US to be more like California -- the state that's driving residents away - Fox News

Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang poses for a photograph with a student wearing a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat during a campaign stop at Concord High School in Concord, New Hampshire, U.S. January 2, 2020. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)In short, he talks like a person, not a politician, and he talks to voters as if theyre people, not potential votes.

At one point, nearly 30 men and women had entered the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. As of this week, only a dozen of them remain. Among those who have exited the contest are three sitting U.S. senators, five current or former U.S. representatives, and three governors. Among those still standing is an entrepreneur whom nobody in the political world had ever heard of until early last year: Andrew Yang, the only non-politician left in the race aside from Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager bankrolling his own campaign.

Why has Yang succeeded where so many more-experienced Democrats failed? In a sea of candidates whose rhetoric offers only familiar, talking-point-laden jargon, Yang sticks out like a sore thumb, and thats to his advantage. He built his campaign from the bottom up, starting with no political experience or name recognition to speak of and rising from there chiefly by embracing his status as a little-known outsider.

Likely because he faced a stiff challenge in gaining any public attention at all, Yang began his campaign willing to go anywhere and talk to anyone, and he remains that way even after having outlasted half the field. His first chance in the spotlight came last February, when he joined Joe Rogans immensely popular podcast for a two-hour chat.

This was a preview of things to come for Yang. Embodying one of his slogans, Not Left, Not Right, Forward, he hasnt shied away from granting access to conservative outlets. He did a lengthy interview on The Ben Shapiro Show last April and, later that month, gave a lengthy interview to National Review. As I noted in the resulting profile, my conversation with him gave me an immediate sense of why his campaign was already resonating with voters, especially younger ones who had never before been interested in politics:

Talking to Yang is like talking to your undergraduate economics professor in office hours as he tries to find a way to communicate with students who were too bored to pay attention the first time he explained something in class. He thinks he gets it, and he wants you to get it, too.

In other words, Yang is unconventional, and thats the secret to his success. He talks like a person, not a politician, and he talks to voters as if theyre people, not potential votes.

Just this morning, for instance, amid the brewing spat between Senators Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Yang tweeted, Watching this Elizabeth Bernie dynamic is upsetting. We have big problems to solve and both want to solve them. Im sure thats where they would want our attention focused too.

While other Democratic campaigns likely would be paralyzed with indecision at the sight of two front-runners dragging each other into the mud either remaining cautiously silent or gaming out a detailed strategy for a precisely worded, carefully evasive comment that might redound to the benefit of their own polling numbers Yang just says what he thinks.

The core of his platform, the Freedom Dividend a universal basic income of $1,000 per month for every American adult is an excellent example of how Yangs routine willingness to flout customary political tactics has contributed to his rise. When Yang announced during the September debate that his campaign would give away $1,000 per month for a year to ten American families, he was met with audible laughter from several contenders on stage, including California senator Kamala Harris. Four months later, Harris is out of the race, and Yang is still standing.

Yangs ability to come across as less programmed than his opponents is apparent in nearly everything he does. Last month, for instance, he announced that anyone who donated any amount to his campaign would be entered for a chance to win a trip to Los Angeles to see the newest Star Wars movie with Yang after the debate. Yes I am that candidate, he acknowledged in the tweet, followed by a smiley face and a thumbs-up emoji.

What I wrote in my profile of Yang last April is still true: He wont be the Democratic nominee. But several of the things he told me at the time have been proven true as well:

Most Americans are still going to be finding out about me when they watch these debates, he goes on. Theyre going to see me. Theyre going to Google me. Theyll be like, Whos that guy? He pauses to chuckle at his own comment. Then the more people dig into my vision for the country, the better Im going to do.

Given that hes managed to stick around longer than many veteran politicians whose campaigns were boosted by constant media acclaim, it seems that Yang was right.

See the article here:

Why Andrew Yang Has Endured While Traditional Democratic Candidates Have Not - National Review

Star Wars fans of a certain age remember the opening scenes of the very first movie in the franchise, Episode IV: A New Hope. Facing a desperate situation, against a better-financed and more ruthless opposition, Princess Leia Organa makes a desperate plea: This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Youre my only hope.

In a galaxy much closer to home, Democrats are facing similar prospects in the race to defeat Donald Trump in November. In this world, however, its becoming more and more clear that former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hillicon Valley: Biden calls for revoking tech legal shield | DHS chief 'fully expects' Russia to try to interfere in 2020 | Smaller companies testify against Big Tech 'monopoly power' Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on Sanders-Warren feud: 'Don't play to the pundits, play to voters' MORE will be playing the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi in 2020.

In the latest Morning Consult poll conducted Dec. 30 through Jan. 5, Biden is leading President TrumpDonald John TrumpNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Dems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' MORE 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup, the widest margin recorded among the top five contenders for the partys nomination. In the same poll, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hill.TV's Saagar Enjeti rips Sanders over handling of feud with Warren On The Money Presented by Wells Fargo Sanders defends vote against USMCA | China sees weakest growth in 29 years | Warren praises IRS move on student loans MORE (I-Vt.) and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg lead the incumbent president by just two points, with former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on Sanders-Warren feud: 'Don't play to the pundits, play to voters' Poll: Sanders holds 5-point lead over Buttigieg in New Hampshire MORE and Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hill.TV's Saagar Enjeti rips Sanders over handling of feud with Warren On The Money Presented by Wells Fargo Sanders defends vote against USMCA | China sees weakest growth in 29 years | Warren praises IRS move on student loans MORE (D-Mass.) statistically tied within the margin of error.

This latest poll is similar to previous surveys over the past few months that show Biden leading Trump anywhere between five percentage points (CNN 12/12-12/15) and nine points (Quinnipiac 12/4-12/9). The Democratic nominee will need that kind of national advantage to ensure not just a popular vote victory, but an Electoral College win the only thing that actually matters.

In 2008, then-Sen. Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Climate 'religion' is fueling Australia's wildfires Biden's new campaign ad features Obama speech praising him MORE was able to assemble a broad coalition of voters that delivered him a massive Electoral College win, defeating Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainMartha McSally fundraises off 'liberal hack' remark to CNN reporter Meghan McCain blasts NY Times: 'Everyone already knows how much you despise' conservative women GOP senator calls CNN reporter a 'liberal hack' when asked about Parnas materials MORE 365 to 173. Critical to that victory was the fact that Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976, including winning 54 percent of young white voters. Obama also received a record-breaking 96 percent of black voter support and held McCain to breaking even with suburban voters, a key voting bloc that Republicans had previously counted on.

According to the same Morning Consult poll, Biden is the only leading Democratic candidate in the field that can assemble that similar winning Obama coalition. Biden outperforms all of the leading contenders among white male voters leads Trump among middle-income Americans, 45 percent to 43 percent and he bests Trump by 8 points among suburban voters.

Despite the presidents recent boasting of his electoral prospects come November, its clearly Biden who he is most worried about facing. No other Democratic official, aside arguably from Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Trump chooses high-profile but controversial legal team Trump: Impeachment timing intended to hurt Sanders MORE (D-Calif.), elicits the kind of fear that Biden provides in the mind of the Commander-in-Chief. One only needs to see the lengths to which Trump was willing to extort a foreign government in a careless and malicious attempt to try and discredit the former vice president to understand the level of anxiety in the White House over a Trump/Biden match up.

For all the hand-wringing among Democrats about which nominee would be most able to unify the party heading into November, Biden is also uniquely positioned to win over Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg supporters. When Sanders supporters are asked about their second choice in the primary, unsurprisingly Warren picks up 32 percent, but Biden follows closely at 28 percent. Similarly, Warren backers support Sanders as a second choice by 33 percent, but Biden is also strong at 24 percent with Buttigieg trailing with 12 percent. Biden also leads among current Buttigieg and Bloomberg supporters by wide margins when asked about a second option.

Pundits and casual political observers are currently promoting the idea that Democratic primary voters are split ideologically into warring camps, but the second choice figures paint a different picture of an electorate ready to unify behind Biden as the nominee.

With just a handful of weeks before Iowans head to their caucuses on Feb. 3, the Vermont senator and progressive groups in particular have trained their attacks on the former vice president. Politico is reporting that many activist groups and rival campaigns had expected Biden whose campaign once faced questions about its durability to have crumbled by now. But as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has observed, voters have seen all this information thats been thrown at [Biden], and theyve concluded that he is still the best person to beat Donald Trump.

Obi-Wan Kenobi went on to inspire a movement that ultimately tackled the Empire and brought balance to the force. Hopefully Democrats will give the former vice president the same opportunity.

Kevin Walling (@kpwalling) is a Democratic strategist, Vice President at HGCreative, co-founder of Celtic Strategies, and a regular guest on Fox News and Fox Business.

Read more:

Biden is the Democrats' 'only hope' to defeat Trump | TheHill - The Hill