Pod Save America - “Plans vs. Pipe Dreams.” (Debate recap special!)

Episode Date: October 17, 2019

Jon, Jon, Tommy, and Dan break down all the highs and lows of the fourth and largest Democratic debate hosted by CNN and The New York Times in Westerville, Ohio.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. We're all here for the Big Post Debate Spectacular. Before we dive in, we do have some exciting news. The crew of Crooked Media has been working on a brand new top secret podcast for a little while now. And we finally got the green light to hint at what's coming.

We're announcing all the details early next week. But if you want to be the first to know what we're up to, you get to sign up for the newsletter, which is just fantastic. Fantastic. We've got Sarah Lazarus on board now writing it. Brian Boitler, as always, the whole crew here. It's fantastic. You can sign up at crooked.com slash subscribe to find out about our new podcast. We're really excited about it, and we think you will be, too.

Also, a little plug for the 2019 elections that are coming up in a month. Democrats have a chance to make big gains in Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia, where we need to flip just four seats to win the legislature and the chance to draw fair congressional districts in 2021. Gun reform, all kinds of good stuff could come from winning Virginia. So head to votesaveamerica.com where you can donate to our Fuck Gerrymandering Fund and find volunteer opportunities in these states, some that you can do right from the comfort of your home. All right, let's get to the news.

Last night in Westerville, Ohio, the Democrats held their fourth and largest primary debate in history featuring 12 candidates. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tom Steyer shared the stage for three hours. Three hours. That's normal, right? Usually you get more people in debates as they go on in primaries. And they get longer. That's normal, right? Usually you get more people in debates as they go on in primary. You know what's funny, though? And they get longer. Right before Iowa, there will be a seven-hour debate with all 50 candidates.

I will say, though, even though there were a lot of people on the stage and it was three hours long, it actually only felt like three hours. It felt like five to me. It felt like exactly three hours. One hour in, I saw John Harwood tweet, well, that's an hour. We got two left. And I nearly started crying. It was long.

It was hosted by CNN and the New York Times. The moderators were Anderson Cooper and Aaron Burnett of CNN and Mark Lacey of the New York Times. So, guys, this was the first debate where Elizabeth Warren was, if not a frontrunner, co-frontrunner. And she was, you know, it's about, it's a tie. It's like a tie in the average right now. Two-way tie for first. Two-way tie for first between her and Biden. And she was challenged more than she ever has been before by almost every candidate on stage. Which is a lot of people. Which is a lot of people.

It's a lot of people. So let's listen to her first exchange with Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar over, you guessed it, Medicare for All. Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for everything. Except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion dollar hole in this Medicare for All plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in.

And a part of that is we've got to stop Americans from going bankrupt over health care costs. Senator Klobuchar, do you want to respond? Yes, I do. And I appreciate Elizabeth's work. But again, the difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done. And we can get this public option done and we can take on the pharmaceutical companies and bring down the prices. But what really bothers me about this discussion, which we've had so many times, is that we don't talk about the things that I'm hearing about from regular Americans.

OK, first question. Why do we keep having these exchanges every single debate? Will we be having them forever about Medicare for All? What a good question. Well, I feel like there's two parts of it. One is, I guess, here's the question I had when I watched that exchange. So we've had this conversation four times now in four different debates. Almost verbatim. And there are two parts to it.

The one part is the public option candidates trying to find a way to criticize Medicare for all without seeming like wet blankets. And I think each time they've been trying different tacks at this. And then the second piece of it is that Elizabeth Warren is refusing to say something very specific. And everyone on that stage knows what's going on. She does not want to say on camera that, according to the Bernie plan, taxes will rise for the middle class because she is making a bigger argument that on the whole cost for the middle class will go down. And she does not want to create video of herself saying that, which will be used as a cudgel in the general to misleadingly tell middle class voters

that she's going to cost them more money because her broader point is correct. Under Medicare for all, even if your taxes go up overall, your health care costs will go down further than your taxes will go up because the costs will be shifted, will be progressive and shifted up towards the wealthy. And we've kind of been trapped in a loop on this. But the difference with this debate is this time, I think we had the most sophisticated debaters coming at her on this, which are Amy Klobuchar and Mayor Pete, two people that if they were a high school debating team would be fucking, I think, like ferocious. Yeah, they would be. I mean, they may be our one.

They see these guys smell some blood in the water here politically for Warren, right? I mean, there's two parts of this. One, there's the cost of Medicare for all, which is an attack on both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But the critique for Warren is broader and it becomes about her credibility. I was just reading a gaggle Biden did today, Wednesday morning, for Warren is broader and it becomes about her credibility. I was just reading a gaggle Biden did today, Wednesday morning, where he is doubling, tripling down on this and just hammering her at a stop in Columbus, Ohio. So that's why Pete is focused

on the cost of Medicare for all and the lack of specificity. Michael Bennett is running, I think like a million dollars worth of ads against Medicare for all in Iowa. And I think it becomes even more challenging for Warren and everybody on stage knows this because the contrast of her answer with Bernie just being like, yep, gonna raise taxes. It's part of the plan. It is pretty stark when you're like toe tapping

for 10, 15, 30 minutes or her entire CNN interview after the debate was about this too. Bet she wishes that Bernie never said that about the taxes going up. And if you'll notice, Bernie said that once before a couple of debates ago and has not said it since.

Dan, what do you think? The ultimate irony of this is Elizabeth Warren's going to dance around this in every debate till the end of time. And then if she's the nominee, the Trump campaign will just create a deep fake of her saying it, run an ad on Facebook,

it'll get 10 million views and Mark Zuckerberg will refuse to take it down. So that's where we're ending it. Do you think it's sustainable, Dan, for her to continue with this answer for the whole primary? No, I don't think it's sustainable, because it's not about the financing of Medicare for All. That's no part of the actual conversation. People are harping on this because it is the first crack in the armor that she has offered. She has put so much and so successfully put so much stock in to this persona as a incredibly courageous, policy-oriented, detail-oriented person with a plan for everything.

And here we have on her biggest, most expensive plan, a huge hole, and she's dancing around it, obviously. And it makes her look like a typical politician. And the fact that she has seemed different than other politicians has been her strength. And so people are going to keep hammering this on her. And the other point about this conversation, both this question and the larger Medicare for All conversation, as it relates to Elizabeth Warren, is it's a proxy for electability. They want to say that Medicare for all is bad politically, and it makes her more likely to lose if she's the nominee. And they're proving that because she can't answer

a fundamental question that everyone knows will be asked every single day by every reporter in the general election. Let me ask, what would you guys do if you were on the Warren campaign What would you guys do if you were on the Warren campaign next time you face this question? I mean, or eventually to get out of this box, right? You were saying it's not sustainable. It did seem like, you know, the strategy on both sides was pretty apparent last night. We talked about the strategy on the public option side. For Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, the strategy was every time the public option folks sort of got into the details about cost and sort of accused Warren of not being honest about the taxes, they would sort of bring it back to the system is fundamentally broken.

Private insurance companies are awful. They make money by denying care. There's a lot of people in this country who can't afford health insurance. So they brought it back to the problem with the current private health insurance. But that's about all, that's where they went. They didn't go anywhere else. Where would you go? I think there would be benefit in Elizabeth Warren being honest about this. She has to, like, she is exactly right, to be very clear. She is right about costs. And it is dumb and sort of operating in a Reagan-esque political frame to think about this in the context of taxes only and not overall costs for families. But it is also a fact that every policy is winners and

losers. And there will be some people whose taxes go up more than their healthcare costs come down. And I think she would, because she has been so honest about all of her other policies, having an answer that took on more aggressively the problem with the framing of that question, but then gave a little ground on taxes will go up for some people, almost entirely the wealthy. But like that, I think that there is, I just think when she says the same answer over and over again in every debate for the rest of time, that is not going to wear well. And so there needs to be some sort of pivot that gives a little ground here. And I do think to the original question about like, why do we keep going over this time and time again, it's a proxy for electability, but also we've all been in

primaries before. It is difficult to find policy differences in a primary. When you do find a policy difference, it becomes the opportunity to differentiate yourself from the other candidate. I mean, we spent a month in 2008 in the primary arguing with Hillary Clinton over a gas tax holiday. Oh, my God. Remember? Now I feel weird. Yeah. I've got a 2008 feeling, my God. Remember? Now I feel weird. Yeah. I've got a 2008 feeling in my stomach.

We made it a huge deal. We made the individual mandate in the health care plan an enormous deal. Not just individual mandate. Individual mandate versus automatic enrollment. Right. And so this is why this keeps getting brought up, because there aren't a ton of other big issues going forward where the candidates have big disagreements. I do think, Dan, to your point about where Warren should go from here, I think if she is more granular about taxes and costs and specific about the plan, it will also give her the opportunity to point to the other candidates

and say, you have trade-offs in your plan as well. Like, I don't know that either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have been sharp enough on the deficiencies in the, or the trade-offs in the other plans, because yeah, there's trade-offs on Medicare for all. There's costs, there's taxes, there's all this kind of stuff. There's also trade-offs in Pete's plan, in Amy Klobuchar's plan, in Biden's plan, right? Like they don't cut costs in the healthcare system as much as the Sanders and Warren plan. Their plans are more expensive. Other people are going to pay more out of pocket in their plans than they are in Sanders and Warren. Like there's just, you know,

there's trade-offs. This was, I think, the most sophisticated debate we've had, but it's still not really getting at the pros and cons of a public option versus Medicare for all and why they actually do believe it is a better system in which people transition from private insurance. One thing I was thinking about when I was watching them is like, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are really fucking smart. And Pete specifically, I think, has thought a lot about how can I be on the attack without giving ground on policy? How can I go after Elizabeth Warren without seeming like I'm throwing a wet blanket on boldness? It's the same thing what he tried to do with Beto later on. And this is the one place where the script is kind of flipped.

For the past three debates, what we've seen is I think the bolder, more left candidates attacking kind of the moderation and the nuance of some of the other candidates on the stage. And this is the one place where that sort of is flipped, where what they're actually doing is they're saying, you're being political. You're the political one now. I'm the honest, bold change maker. You're political. And I think that's why ultimately it's such a good attack and why it's not sustainable for her to stay where she's at. The other reason we go around the bend on this is the debates and the conversation and the campaigns are always focused on legislation you pass, which is really a dumb way to think about the president. So we

know having worked there that you can do so much more with executive authority. Now, obviously, they spend time talking about foreign policy, which is something presidents can do on their own, but there should be more of a conversation, but not about the bills that no candidate is likely to pass in the form in which they're proposed and more about how they would go about fixing the health care system on their own. How would they repair Obamacare? Who would they appoint to these jobs? Which would be a very refreshing question and debate. The pen and phone debate.

You know, like, asking them all, let's say that Mitch McConnell holds the Senate and there's a Republican Senate, what are you going to do to improve the health care system? It would be very interesting. I do think, back to your point, Lovett, there's a difference between Klobuchar and Pete, which I want to raise here. Klobuchar has been moderate from the start. This has been her whole theory of the case. Maybe she hasn't made the argument as sharply as she did last night in the fourth debate, which I thought she was very sharp. Pete back in February was arguing that Medicare for all is the compromise position and the center of the political debate because it involves private hospitals and doctors, but public a public payer. And a lot of liberals and people on the left said, oh, that's a very interesting way to frame it for Pete.

Pete also said many times about Republicans. It's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say because they'll accuse us of being crazy socialists no matter what kind of policies we propose. So we might as well propose the policies that are right. So the fact that he came out of the gate and became so popular by being this bold, progressive truth teller, and now he's looking to be the more moderate alternative to Joe Biden, I think opens up a vulnerability for him as we go forward that Warren or Sanders or some of the other more progressive candidates could easily exploit. Yeah. I mean, he probably benefits by being one of many people attacking Elizabeth Warren last night, but I was surprised that we saw so much angry Pete last night because- I don't think it served him well. I don't know that it did. I mean, look, we'll find out. I don't know that it did either. I mean, Dan, I saw you talking about this on Twitter. Like he has two choices when you're in third or fourth place, you have the choice of attacking and losing

or not attacking. It's like you have to do something to to shake up your campaign. But I mean, to John's point, I think if you're going to attack someone's honesty and credibility when you yourself have changed significantly on policy, That's a challenge. And when you're going to sound a little bit harsh in tone, when you have been sort of bring everybody together, this is why they hate Washington, stop the food fights guy. It felt a little disjointed with the previous part of his campaign. I think I have a different take. I don't think he came off as angry. I think this was his best debate. And I say that not because his performance was as good, right? Because that's often how we judge. We're like, well, Cory Booker was incredibly likable

and he had some good moments. He knows what his strategy is. He knows what he thinks his lane is, and he executed it aggressively. He is trying to change the dynamic of a race. He's really, of the most of the canceling stage there, have no plan to win right they just really don't he has a path he has figured it out that is a hundred percent true he has he does he has he it has required him to make some adjustments from where he was but yeah yeah that's yeah you just sort of yada yada over there yeah but every candidate does that right and like and i think it like we should watch it very carefully like there's an existential question about how much these debates matter in terms of changing public opinion, but they are very helpful in understanding how candidates see the race. The question is, are the adjustments natural and do they seem authentic or do they seem calculated?

And I don't know. You're right. We are way too in this. We pay attention to this way too closely. It is very possible that for most people who watch the debate, they just saw a really strong performance from Pete. He executed on a lot of answers very, very well. But there's a little bit of like, you know, for the last couple of weeks, a lot of pundits out there being like, Pete's got to get into that moderate lane. Pete's got to be more aggressive in these debates. And then he shows up and he's in the moderate lane and more aggressive in these debates.

And, you know, I saw Liz Smith, his communications person on Twitter last night, tweet out. She's like, for all the people who are saying that Pete couldn't throw or take a punch, tonight shows you otherwise. And it's like, okay, well, that's even more leaning into like, all right, you told us to do this and now we're doing it. I actually think what's more important to me is not, did he throw a punch or not? And even not what were the attacks? What was he trying to say about Warren or Beto or any other people he kind of mixed it up with? It's more, what does it say about him as a candidate, right? So the aggressiveness is a means to get attention. What is he saying? So when he goes after Elizabeth Warren about being evasive, he's saying, I'm the honest Midwestern truth teller. When he goes after Beto on guns,

he's saying, I'm the only one being honest about what we can actually achieve, right? Like you start to see the attacks are a vehicle for the message that he's now trying to say. And I think it's actually the, like we have seen debate after debate the more moderate candidates struggle to figure out how to not uh fall into the to seem kind of you know squishy compared to elizabeth warren and bernie sanders it's happened again and again i think that that to me is the takeaway on pete that he is thinking about how to be a angry bold moderate i thought pete was like aggressive and compelling on syria for example yes Yes. He knew his shit. He was righteous.

It was his best moment. It worked. And maybe the best moment of the night. Yeah. It was really impressive. I just do think like, you know, he, the front runners in Iowa are like 20, 21, 22%. He's sitting at 14%, which is really kind of great place to be at this point in the race. And there is a risk if suddenly all the Warren people are like, what the fuck?

He was being a dick to her last night. And all the Biden people think that. And all the Beto people, you know, it's like there is a risk to being too negative too early. Oh, for sure. Look, and I think he was not as aggressive as Castro was with Biden in the last debate, or as we're going to talk about, Biden was with Warren at the end of last last night's debate over the fucking consumer financial protection bureau which was like way too much but there were there were like i think pete's walking a fine line here and i think there were flashes

of annoyance and aggressiveness that were a little much but he he mainly kept it he mainly kept it in the right place it was a few times it was a diffuse uh tool that he was using it was like it was like now's the time where i'm gonna make this point by contrasting myself with you but if you actually like dig into the actual content you're like what are you actually saying here what is your actual disagreement it's not really i kind of it falls apart in your fingers well that's my thing is that i think i think warren was maybe not as prepared as she'll be next time to sort of tear into some of pete's inconsistencies well i don't think she handled i don't think she handled them as well as she

could last night i think that's the question for pete which is now he has got like the page has turned for a long time he was the inspiring good news non-threatening candidate right and now people he is making he's making a play for other people's supporters. He's trying to take down Biden and Warren because he is the one candidate who is most likely to benefit from the fall of both of them. And if you talk to reporters, you talk to people in the campaigns, almost universally, the candidate in the campaign that all the other campaigns are most annoyed with is Pete. And so I think there's going to be several counter punches over the next few days and we'll have to see whether they're

ready for it. All right. Warren was also challenged on her wealth tax by Beto O'Rourke and Amy Klobuchar. Let's take a listen. I think we need to be focused on lifting people up. And sometimes I think that Senator Warren is more focused on being punitive or pitting some part of the country against the other instead of lifting people up and making sure this country comes together around those solutions. I want to give a reality check here to Elizabeth because no one on this stage wants to protect billionaires, not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires. We just have different approaches. Your idea is not the only idea. And when I look at this, I think about Donald Trump, the guy that after that tax bill

passed, went to Mar-a-Lago, got together with his cronies and said, guess what? You guys all got a lot richer. That was the one time in his presidency he told the truth. So we have different ways. I would repeal significant portions of that tax bill that helped the rich, including what he did with the corporate tax rate, including what he did on international taxation. You add it all up. You got a lot of money that one helps pay for that child care, protects that dignity of work, make sure we have decent retirement and make sure that our kids can go to good schools. It is not one idea that rules here.

This was a moment where I was like, I don't understand what we're arguing about. Like, Elizabeth Warren does not support the Trump tax cuts. What she is responding to is this idea that if you're not for Warren's wealth tax, then you are pro-billionaire, which is an argument that both Bernie, who has a similar wealth tax, and Warren have made, certainly implicitly and sometimes explicitly. And Klobuchar's position, which I think she delivered very well, is there are other ways to get that. And no one here is pro-billionaire. Even Tom Steyer is taxing himself at $50 million in order to run a campaign.

I thought Klobuchar's answer was the sharper one there and made sense. Well, we can talk about better sense in a second. What Amy Klobuchar is saying there is we can do a lot of good by repealing the Trump tax cuts, but I don't think anyone on that stage really disagrees with that. She made a compelling argument for why we should repeal those tax cuts, but I don't understand. Because she's just saying, I don't think the wealth tax works and the way to get the money we need is to repeal the Trump tax cuts. That's her position. I guess that's what I'm saying. She didn't make an argument against Elizabeth Warren's plan. She made an argument for something that everybody on that stage would do

anyway. That's true. No one has, no one except for Beto's weird argument was talking about why the wealth tax specifically is bad. The reason that, and we didn't play the first part about Beto's answer, the reason that Beto's answer was so fucking confusing and basically nonsensical was they asked Beto, do you support a wealth tax? And he said, yeah, I think that's part of the solution. And then he was like, I'm worried that Elizabeth Warren is punitive. He's trying to make the point that Elizabeth Warren is too divisive. Right.

But he didn't have the facts to use the substance for. This is also Pete's argument. This was implicit throughout the entire debate. This is also Pete's argument, right? This was implicit throughout the entire debate. And Klobuchar, to another extent, is we need a candidate who can unify the country when this is all over, both to win the election and fix all the fucking problems Trump did. And the argument, which I think is unfair, but is that Warren is too divisive to do that. I just think the wealth tax is a terrible way to make that argument. Maybe the worst way to make the argument. The polling on the wealth tax is, latest polling from June is 66% of people in this country think it's a good idea. It'll bring the country together. Specifically, Elizabeth, the question is Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax. It was very specific. 66% agree, 30% disagree. 55% of Republicans think it's a good idea. 43% disagree. Warren, you could talk all day long about the vulnerabilities of Medicare for all and the position on taking Medicare for all.

There are no political vulnerabilities in being far well taxed. There just aren't. It should be in the Democratic Party platform in the 2020 convention, whether Elizabeth Warren's a nominee or not. There's no data that shows it. Show me data that shows it's politically problematic. I'm no policy wonk, but I think hammering billionaires is pretty good politics. And let's take a moment.

You don't even need the polls. Even the billionaire on stage thinks it's good let's take a moment to say i think it's so exciting because tom steyer spent 48 million dollars to get on that stage and it was so nice of everybody to kind of make him part of it you know because like when you pay for a vip ticket like that like sometimes you don't know if you're really gonna feel like it was worth it but then like the fact that amy made a joke about him like made him part of the show i think was really cool. Divisive tie? I kind of liked it.

Plaid tie? I like a plaid tie. I think there's a backstory to the tie. Yeah, he wears it all the time. Wonderful. Later in the night, Warren was even challenged by Kamala Harris on her reluctance to call on Twitter to ban Donald Trump's account. Let's take a listen. Senator Warren, I just want to say that I was surprised to hear that you did not agree with me that on this subject of what should be the rules around corporate responsibility for these big tech companies, when I called on Twitter to suspend Donald Trump's account that you did not agree and I

would I would urge you to join me because here we have Donald Trump who has 65 million Twitter followers and is using that platform as the President of the United States to openly intimidate witnesses, to threaten witnesses, to obstruct justice. And he and his account should be taken down. We saw in El Paso that that shooter in his manifesto was informed by how Donald Trump uses that platform. And this is a matter of corporate responsibility. Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site. It is a matter of safety and corporate accountability. Thank you. Senator Warren, you can respond. So, look, I don't just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter.

I want to push him out of the White House. That's our job. Join me in saying that his Twitter account should be shut down. Let's figure out. So we didn't hear the very beginning of that, but that whole thing started with Elizabeth Warren talking about breaking up Facebook and tech regulation. And then Kamala sort of gets herself ready and says, you know, Senator Warren, I called on Twitter to take down the account and I saw that you refused to join me on this. So she specifically decided to just kind of make a challenge to Elizabeth Warren about this issue. Why do we think she did this?

Yeah, I mean, so I criticize this line, maybe a little too harshly on Twitter. I heard from some folks on Kamala's team. Look, I like Kamala Harris a lot. I thought she had a really great line on the assault weapons ban when she brought up reproductive health. I thought it was really compelling and powerful. when she brought up reproductive health. I thought it was really compelling and powerful. Those are big, important issues, right? The fact that we have a white nationalist president who is inciting violence against others, I think is a big, important issue that is worthy of discussion on that stage. But I think the solution of shutting down

his Twitter account by appealing to Jack Dorsey is small and will not solve it. I mean, he can go on Facebook, he can go on Instagram, he can do big rallies, he can hold a press conference, right? Like we have to beat Donald Trump by appealing to voters, not by appealing to Jack Dorsey, in my opinion. So, right. But like, this is a debate, everything is planned and designed for political advantage. And so even just from like a tactical perspective, I don't think strategically this was the issue I would have taken up against Elizabeth Warren.

I'm not dismissing the issue of abuse of people on Twitter, but I don't think it's going to drive a lot of support her way. It seemed sort of precalculated and it seems smaller than the issue of the way Facebook specifically has distorted our democracy. And like it wasn't also just like one little moment, right? Like when you say something like that, you know, all the reporters going to pick it up because they live on Twitter. And I watched her post-debate interview on CNN and on MSNBC. And this was the focus of both of those conversations, like three questions in a row on both networks. So it's just not the thing I would have wanted to be talking about today. I was also pretty critical of it. And, you know, actually, you know, Kara Swisher, I talked to her on Love It or Leave It about this,

and she actually makes a really good argument for why Trump's account should be taken down from Twitter. Actually, the argument she's really making is Twitter should enforce its rules. And by any fair, objective reading of Twitter's policies, Donald Trump violates them all the time. And he does so in a way that incites violence and hate and could even lead to, like, genuine harm and threats and fear for people. And it does every single day. That's absolutely true. Elizabeth Warren was making a larger argument about the structural problems in our economy, the ways in which big tech companies and monopolies are influencing our politics and influencing our society and the dangers that that poses and the importance of

regulation. And Kamala Harris was saying that Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter and Twitter should observe its terms of service. Fine. But she was also using it as an opportunity to draw contrast, right? She didn't make an argument for removing Trump from Twitter. She took an opportunity to try to kind of put Elizabeth Warren on notice, to draw a contrast, to make a moment out of it. And I found that ultimately not, I just didn't find it reflected well of Kamala Harris, who I think is a much better candidate than that, who's had incredibly strong debates in the past, who can make a compelling argument against Donald Trump, who can be bigger. Yeah, I think it's pretty simple.

If Kamala Harris had said, by the way, you know, now that we're, since we're talking about tech, big tech and its responsibility, I've called on Jack to shut down Donald Trump's account. And I hope everyone on this stage will join me in saying that. I don't think she would have gotten

any criticism over it. I don't think anyone would have thought it was small. It seemed, I never begrudge someone for taking a position that they really believe in and are passionate about, you know, even if it's something that I disagree with because they just genuinely believe in it. Where I worry is when candidates seem like they are trying to calculate a moment or a lane or a position or something like that. And I look, I realize that's campaigns. You do that in campaigns. Right.

But sometimes it's clumsier than other times, right? Like we just said that Pete's, I believe that Pete's transition here has been a little clumsy and a little obvious. And I think in that moment, Kamala Harris getting herself ready, turning to Elizabeth Warren, pointing to her to try to bring up the contrast

was what that was about. Like I said, if she had just stood up and said, everyone on the stage should join me in this, it would have been different. It would have been different. It was a stunt. It is the definition of a stunt. It was a pre-planned moment for her to not just make a case for something important, which is trying to de-platform violent and racist rhetoric. It was about trying to take a shot at Elizabeth Warren. And at a time when Elizabeth Warren was making a pretty big and important argument about large forces in our society, in our economy, the kind of the place where she's strongest as a candidate. And, you know, I just I find it really disappointing because I think one of the things we've talked

about many times is how strong a candidate we believe Kamala Harris to be. We saw that in the first debate when she really, you know, struck at Joe Biden in a way that showed the kind of strength she has as a candidate. But what we've also talked about all along is we sometimes don't understand the larger justification for why she's running for president. And the question I would have for Senator Harris would be, what does this say about the kind of president you'll be that you think this is the big issue to draw a contrast with on Elizabeth Warren? I mean, yeah. And look, every candidate, this is the problem as we get this deep into the primary, is that all of the candidates who are not front runners are being told by everyone they know and everyone who's working for them and everyone who's consulting them that like, you got to draw a

contrast. You got to have a moment to get out front here. everyone who's consulting them that like, you got to draw a contrast. You got to have a moment to get, to get out front here. And it's not just Kamala, like a lot of them are doing that. And, you know, it's just, it's tough to watch because so many of them seem pre-planned and it's just like, it's an extra level of artifice on the process that I think is, you know, it's just obvious sometimes. The only other thing I would add to this very long conversation about this topic is that, I mean, is if we're thinking about what to be really concerned about the behavior of tech companies as relates to politicians and Donald Trump,

it is Facebook's policy that allows politicians, most notably Donald Trump, to lie in ads. And basically use Facebook's immense amount of data to target disinformation that the voters at Facebook tells them are most likely to fall for that disinformation. And that is a massive threat to democracy. And I don't think that should be a point of contrast between the candidates, but I think it is an issue that should be raised and Facebook should have to be held accountable for. And the presidential candidates can help do that. Yeah, for sure. All right. We talked about Pete earlier, who was particularly dominant and more aggressive than usual. And in one of his most

praised moments of the night, I think rightly, he and fellow veteran Tulsi Gabbard debated the role our military should play in defending our Kurdish allies in Syria. Let's take a listen. The slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we've been waging in Syria. Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war. Respectfully, Congresswoman,

I think that is dead wrong. The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence. It's a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values. Look, I didn't think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think we need to get out of Afghanistan. But it's also the case that a small number of specialized special operations forces and intelligence capabilities were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria and what we're seeing now, which is the beginning of a genocide and the resurgence of

ISIS. Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are reporting that for the first time they feel ashamed, ashamed of what their country has done. So, Tommy, first of all, what's wrong with Tulsi's argument? And what is her overall, what is, it's hard to pin down her worldview here. Yeah, so she's saying that Turkey is invading Syria and killing the Kurds, our allies, because of a quote regime change war that we've been waging in Syria. She said that a lot. She used that phrase a lot. Yeah. She referred to a regime change war in Yemen as well. That's just not accurate. Right. When Obama was president, he called on President Assad to go, but there was no effort to, you know, march towards Damascus and take him out. That just, that never happened. So she's just totally, she's just

totally wrong. In fact, the northeastern part of Syria has been occupied by these Kurdish forces and things have been relatively safe and relatively calm there for, you know, since basically the Kurds and the international coalition waged this campaign against ISIS and took back Raqqa and all these other places. So I don't know what the fuck she's talking about. And then she starts talking about how the New York Times and CNN smeared her for calling for an, so it's like, it's just so loaded with grievance. And to use this moment on this huge stage when you are a veteran and you have experience serving the military and some knowledge of the region and

to make it about yourself and the way you were treated by a CNN commenter just so misses the point. I couldn't believe it. Yeah. And I think the reason that Pete's answer was so effective, aside from the fact that he just delivered it really well and was strong and forceful, was anytime someone on stage makes an argument that seems like Trump's argument, which she basically did, and then you can say, don't make Trump's argument, you know, is a pretty powerful moment. And I think Pete seized on that pretty quickly. Yeah, it's interesting. You know, the first applause line of the night, I made fun of him earlier, a bit sharply.

But like Tom Steyer's, the first time the audience broke and agreed to applaud when they were kind of, I think maybe told not to, and to the chagrin of the candidates with their prepped applause lines, just sort of going into just fucking crickets. That was awkward. Where's our laugh track?

Yeah, really tough. But it was when he said, let's remember where every person on the stage is a decent person who would be a far better president than Donald Trump. And we should all just keep that in mind. Like it was, it was a, I thought a very gracious way for Tom Steyer to introduce himself and a reminder too, of like the stakes. I think sometimes in these debates, especially with so many people on stage, you lose sight of that. And what Pete did was I think,

recenter the focus on the actual stakes of this and just how damaging Donald Trump is and how unpatriotic he is. And I think that was incredibly powerful and probably the best moment Pete's had across all the debates. Yeah, I agree. Another heated exchange was between Pete and Beto O'Rourke, who continued the fight they've been having about Beto's proposal to have the government buy back every assault weapon in America. Let's listen. I want to make sure we have universal background checks and red flag laws and that we end the sale of these weapons of war. But to use the analogy of health care, it would be as though we said, look, we're for primary care, but let's not talk about mental health care because that's a bridge too far. People need that primary care now. So let's save that for another day. No,

let's decide what we are going to believe in, what we are going to achieve. And then let's bring this country together in order to do that. Listening to my fellow Americans, to those moms who demand action, to those students who march for our lives, who in fact came up with this extraordinary, bold peace plan that calls for mandatory buybacks. Let's follow their inspiration and lead and not be limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups. Let's do what's right while we have time to do what's right. Mayor Buttigieg. The problem isn't the polls. The problem is the policy. And I don't need lessons from you on courage, political or personal. Everyone on this stage is determined to get something done. Everyone on this stage recognizes, or at least I thought we

did, that the problem is not other Democrats who don't agree with your particular idea of how to handle this. The problem is the National Rifle Association and their enablers in Congress, and we should be united in taking the fight for that. All right, so who is more persuasive here on this, Beto or Pete? I think Beto. Beto was making an argument about policy with passion. Pete was making an argument about legislative strategy and how the Republicans react to our proposals, which, as we've noted in the terms of Pete's awkward transitions, is the exact opposite of the argument that he made through the beginning of this campaign, that we should say what we believe and then make that sell to voters and not try to change our rhetoric to adjust to the Republican talking points that are coming. voters and not try to change our rhetoric to adjust to the Republican talking points that are coming. Yeah. I mean, I think it's pretty clear if you were to be inside the Buttigieg campaign that none of them were happy with Pete blurting out that Beto's position on this was chasing a shiny object, right? Like it's just a dismissive thing to say. It's also, again, looking at the

polling like we did on the wealth tax, you know, mandatory buybacks, surprisingly to me, is a position that a little over half the country agrees with. Right. It is not a very unpopular position. It's in fact, you know, it's not like a whole bunch of Republicans are for it. I'm sure it's harder in swing states and swing districts, but it's not terribly unpopular. districts, but it's not terribly unpopular. So to call it a shiny object does open you up to charges of, are you too worried about the polls, which Beto accused him of being, and then to come back at that by saying, I don't need any lessons in courage from you, referencing his military service, struck me as a little much, particularly when Beto started the debate by praising Pete and Tulsi Gabbard for their military service and was making a point purely about polls and didn't even say the word courage, actually. Yeah, seems right.

No, but it's interesting. Like, this was one of those times where I was like, I'm trying to, like, Pete is so, I just see what Pete's trying to avoid saying in the answer. And does Pete think, if he could make policy in a vacuum, would he support what Beto's doing? I don't know. I don't know the answer because he didn't want to address the actual substance of it. He didn't want to actually get it. But he said he did, which was funny.

He was like, this isn't about the politics. This is about the policy, which I don't think is workable. Well, which is interesting, right? And then it was this sort of kind of confusing conversation about the enforcing This is about the policy, which I don't think is workable. Well, which is interesting, right? Like, and then it was this, this sort of kind of confusing conversation about the enforcing of the law, which I found like very kind of weird, weird question and weird conversation that really I think was pretty hard to follow and didn't leave much of an impression. But, uh, it's interesting. I think the thing that I contrast this with is what Pete said earlier, uh, about, uh, like, you know, after Donald Trump is gone, the country will be incredibly divided.

Do you really want to create even more division by going for Medicare for all? I think that's a more honest argument, right? Basically saying, like, I don't think it's worth the political capital to do Medicare for all. I'd rather do a public option and something else. I find that, I think, at least worthy of a debate. But his pushback, it was just sort of a diffuse, I'm being honest, you're being politically unrealistic, your boldness is a sign of ordinary politics, my lack of boldness is a sign of the fact that I tell it like it is. But it just wasn't telling it like it is because he was dancing through the various pitfalls of what he was saying. I'm sure there are people who think that the courage line was strong and well-delivered and, you know, compelling and sets Pete up well to throw a punch at Donald Trump that may or may not involve his military service. There are probably others who think that Beto O'Rourke's framing of making this about victims of gun violence and March for Our Lives felt bigger, right, and made it not about him or

the politics of the moment. Big, like, stepping back, like, I think they both landed some blows. It got them some attention, which I think probably net benefits both campaigns. But, like, longer term, Beto O'Rourke has done a lot of great work on raising the issue of gun violence and gun control in this campaign. If he cannot find another chapter in this campaign, another set of issues to talk about, it will be over. And they need to know that, you know, like these candidates, like they all have to make

the next debate or they're probably, their campaign is not going to be able to raise any more money and they will essentially have to shut down. And like, if I were his team, I would be trying to figure out what is that next thing? How do I broaden this message that I've been delivering on guns about a whole other set of issues? I think there's a real debate to be had about the feasibility of mandatory buybacks, right? Like it is a position that I support. I think Democrats should advocate, but there are real questions. How are you going to get these guns? What's the process, the penalty for people not doing it. Yeah. And like the, even Elizabeth Warren,

right. And Bernie Sanders have not adopted this position. Right. So this isn't necessarily a progressive litmus test. And also we should note that Castro made a very interesting, Julian Castro made an interesting point on this, which is, I don't want to give the police another reason to be going door to door in

communities, especially communities of color, poor communities with, you know, the problems we have with police violence, trying to door in communities, especially communities of color, poor communities, with the problems we have with police violence, trying to take back guns, which is not an argument I'd heard before. And interesting that he erased it. I think there are two elements of this. I think it is good when Democrats take positions that move the Overton window on these things. I think this has done that because it is insane, not just that people can buy AR-15s and other weapons of war, but that there's tens of thousands of them running around, you know, rolling around in our streets. My problem with Pete's argument is my most, it is the Democratic argument that most annoys me.

It is 90s pre-Obama argument that we cannot, there are certain things we cannot say because they will upset Republican voters. That if we say this, they will turn out against us, or it'll make the NRA want to spend more money, or the Koch brothers want to spend more money. And any discussion around 2020 that doesn't begin with the premise that every Republican voter will turn out is wrong. We should just say what we believe. One person who's made that argument quite eloquently is Pete Buttigieg. Again. Pete should have just rolled out 30 to 50 feral hogs

and said, what the fuck are you going to do about that? Look, the same people, the same strategists and pundits who told Pete that he's got to be more aggressive and be in the moderate lane were also concerned when he made that argument about Republicans are going to call us crazy socialists anyway, so we might as well say what we believe. And they were concerned about then, and then they've been pushing him to the moderate lane, and then he did it. This is my problem with this. I mean, they do maybe align in this specific way that he does genuinely believe

in a moderate approach to governing, and it is sincere belief that that's what we should be doing but i don't until we get to pack in the courts well no but love it see that's interesting because if pete's if he's only arguments last night were um i'm for my medicare for all who want it plan because i just think it's too expensive to do i think it's a better plan i think it's a better plan i don't like mandatory buybacks only because I think it's unworkable. Then he would be fine. I would not be criticizing it. But he keeps bringing in, it's too divisive. It's a shiny object. He keeps bringing the politics of this into his argument. And that's where his problem is because previously he said that politics shouldn't matter. If his only critiques of these progressive positions are policy-based, that's totally fine.

Bringing the politics into it is refuting himself from earlier in this campaign. I'm trying to think of any way to square it. Is there any way you can actually make this consistent from what he said before about not adopting Republican talking points and then not wanting to be too divisive? I mean, every candidate has this problem. Yeah. Right? Elizabeth Warren has made not doing fundraisers a big part of it. She did a bunch of fundraisers. They gave her her first $10 million in seed money for this campaign. Bernie has gun positions that he's trying to square the circle on. Kamala Harris has supported Bernie's, co-sponsored Bernie's Medicare for All bill. No, it's a different, like everyone has this problem. The question is, how well is Pete going to be able to execute this? And are people going

to effectively call him out on it? Right. Because if you don't effectively call him out, then it's your problem. You didn't figure it out. That is true. Democratic primary 2020.

All right, let's talk about Bernie Sanders who appeared in this debate just a few weeks after suffering a heart attack. He got questions about his health and his age, but he was also very, who appeared in this debate just a few weeks after suffering a heart attack. He got questions about his health and his age. But he was also very sharp and energetic in this debate, I thought. Here he is challenging Joe Biden's record.

Joe, you talked about working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what you also got done? And I say this as a good friend. You got the disastrous war in Iraq done. You got a bankruptcy bill, which is hurting middle-class families all over this country. You got trade agreements like NAPTA and PNTR with China done, which have cost us 4 million jobs. I'll say one thing about that exchange. We've been talking about sort of the right way to go after Biden. A lot of people have gone after

Biden in a whole bunch of different ways in this primary. To me, going after his policies and his record, especially Iraq, trade deals, the bankruptcy bill, is, I think, probably with voters, the most effective way to go after Joe Biden. A lot of people are waiting. I think a lot of people think that foreign policy and experience is Biden's strength, right? Certainly Joe Biden does. He said it last night on stage. The challenge for him is that when he was asked last night to articulate what he would do differently in Syria, it wasn't the most coherent thing I've ever heard, nor was it particularly compelling. He often makes the point about, I've met with Putin, I've met with Erdogan. Maybe that works. It's certainly simple for voters to understand. But like, I didn't come away blown away by the net impact of that experience. And then Bernie consistently drops the fucking hammer on the Iraq war vote. And that he has not figured out how to counter that yet. We're on like round three or four of that exact same criticism. Do you think voters still care about that?

It's a great question. I'm sure it's diminishing. I have no idea. I'm sure it's diminishing in the minds of some voters and especially for younger voters who have aged into the electorate and weren't really around during the Iraq war debate, maybe less so. I think there's probably, it's like issue five or six

after one through four being electability. But I do think that there are a bunch of anti-war activists in Iowa that still can be pretty influential. What do we think of Bernie's performance in general before we get to Biden stuff? Great. We should get his doctors. Yeah. He looked good. I mean, he was really strong.

And this was a very important debate for Bernie because his campaign, because he'd fallen behind Warren in the polls, there'd been some polls that show him getting closer to the single digits in some cases. And there'd been this sort of narrative of, is this over for his campaign? And so he needed a strong showing. And he has put together, he had really good cash on hand numbers to come out. He had a good front-runner.

The highest of anyone else is the most cash on hand. He had a good debate performance, and he's going to cap off this week with the endorsements of AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar at a rally in Queens. And so he has reasserted himself as a force in this race, and that was incredibly important. If he had had a mediocre debate performance, it could have been pretty devastating to his chances. Bernie is not going anywhere. That was that much clearer from last night. He is in this for the long haul. And look, I think, back to the Medicare for All discussion,

his response, I thought, on Medicare for All punching back at Biden and Buttigieg and Klobuchar was even stronger than Warren's last night because he had this moment where he said, the Democratic Party has to have the guts to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies. And it was real. And I saw someone someone was conducting a focus group somewhere of Democratic voters.

And he said that the focus group of voters much preferred Bernie's response actually to Warren's response in the to to Pete and Amy, which I thought was interesting. Yeah, I think we saw it's funny because before long before we got to the health question, right, you can ask Bernie and Biden health questions. They will answer those questions, not in that moment, but in how they perform, right? That is what we were looking at. And Bernie was incredibly strong. I thought, you know, the moment I actually, I forgot to mention, which I think is important is Elizabeth Warren. I think for the first time connected, she made an argument against private insurance. She talked about how in her work in bankruptcy, you discover just how many

medical-related bankruptcies are for people with insurance, which I think is one of the most compelling and important arguments for Medicare for all, not just a public option. But what Bernie did, I think, in the healthcare section, and I think what Bernie did was there was show why he's so strong. And I think sometimes I myself do this, we all do this. You get into the tactics and the strategy, but then you realize, wait, what actually makes a candidate incredibly strong in a debate is they have a compelling and faithful rationale for their candidacy that makes them unassailable, right? You know, Bernie can make that incredibly strong argument because it is something he has said forever. It is consistent. It is incredibly strong. It speaks to his values. It speaks to his

genuine philosophical disagreement with the kind of politician Joe Biden is. And it means that the candidates are debating not on garnish, not on little things, not on things on the outskirts, but like they're facing each other kind of chest to chest, big stuff versus big stuff. And I think that's why we've seen Bernie so at one point biden and warren tangled over the uh consumer financial protection bureau uh let's listen to that clip i agreed with the great job she did and i went on the floor and got you votes i got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let's get those things straight too. Senator Warren do you want to respond? I am deeply grateful to President Obama who

fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law. And I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law. But understand. You did a hell of a job in your job. Thank you. But understand this. It was a dream big, fight hard. People told me, go for something little.

Go for something small. Go for something that the big corporations will be able to accept. I said, no, let's go for an agency that will make structural change in our economy. And President Obama said, I will fight for that. Let's go for an agency that will make structural change in our economy. And President Obama said, I will fight for that. And he sometimes had to fight against people in his own administration. We have to be willing to make good, big structural change. Why do you think Joe Biden got so mad there?

I don't know. That was so bad. It was bad. The angle I was watching, we were all watching from, I think, he gestures at her and it looks so aggressive. It sounded so petty and so condescending of all the things to grab credit for. I don't know why he would lurch for credit for the formation of the CFPB. What are you doing, man? And her response was poised and devastating. And like, he really had a bad moment there.

I'm surprised it's not getting more attention. Me too. It seemed sexist. It seemed condescending. Yeah, look, we criticized Castro for going too hard on Biden last debate. And I thought this was the same kind of aggressive tone. It's the same thing. And it was bad.

You know? And I just... And also, it's like... Even thinking about voters' minds, right? Like, I got these votes for you for, like, an agency that's good for everyone that we all agree on? Like, why are we making it about, like, I got the... Like, as if, like, he was reluctant,

but because he was a good soldier, he wouldn't got the votes for you. Voters well-versed in the whip count process, right? Like, What are you talking about? Do you believe you've been robbed of your credit for Elizabeth Warren's signature achievement? I know what it is. He's thinking to himself, I have been a good progressive Democrat my whole life. I was a good foot soldier in the Obama administration. I did everything I was told.

And now I'm running for president. Everyone's telling me I'm this corporate stooge moderate who doesn't care about anything. That's what's in his mind and the mind of his campaign. And every once in a while, there's these, you know, he can't he can't control these flashes of anger where he, you know, talks about that and how angry he is. reaction to Warren, which I think is problematic for all the reasons you guys said. I think the point he's trying to make is it was really fucking hard to pass the bill that CFPB was in. And whenever there was trouble getting something through the Senate, Biden would go to the Senate and he would deliver the votes. He did that on a whole range of things. And I think Ryan Grimm from The Intercept tweeted he covered the CFPB for a year or so and never ran into Biden in that process. I think it is true that in the formation, the policy development, the staffing of the CFPB, that was not something Biden was involved in. It wasn't in his policy portfolio. But it is true when we needed votes

from a pretty conservative group of Democratic senators, Biden delivered those. I don't think he made his point well, but that is true. It also is a point that came up, like if he had been directly accused by Elizabeth Warren or a moderator of you didn't care about the CFPB or you weren't there on that fight, and then he responded and say, actually, I was out there getting those votes. It would be totally legitimate to say that, but it sort of came out of nowhere. He's responding was, it was. He's responding to the meta conversation, not the actual. That's exactly right. Which was, which was the reason it was a little problematic. Right. I mean, just, you know, passing, like it's, it's, and there is, there is a real,

you know, there is a real lesson, right. That Biden could offer there, right. That like passing Dodd-Frank, right. Elizabeth Warren brought an incredibly bold and innovative idea. It's actually, to me, it's before or long before Elizabeth Warren was a candidate. To me, just from our time in the White House, it was always to me an inspirational case of democracy because here she was just a thinker, an intellectual who had this idea for an agency that could protect consumers. And through politics, through the Obama administration, through victories and elections, there was an administration that was willing to embrace it and fight for it. And then it took an incredible amount of horse trading and difficult politics to get Dodd-Frank through. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency had to be

downgraded to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because in the fight to get it through, you had to make compromises that downgraded it just a bit to put it inside of another agency just to get it done. And then after that, Elizabeth Warren, who was supposed to run the agency, got dinged. And so she wasn't able to even run the agency she created, again, just because of just just bargaining and politics that takes place, which I think Joe Biden has a case to to make on why that's important and why his expertise in it. What we think of Biden's performance overall. I mean, I do think that he had a few really strong moments when he was asked about his age. And he said, you know, one of the reasons I think I'm running for president is because my age and with age comes wisdom. Another one when, you know, Tommy, you were talking about this with foreign policy, his record on foreign policy, you could you could ding a few times.

But when he said, look, I've met with Erdogan, I've met with Putin, I've been, you know, like, he did a better job last night than usual, I thought, talking up his experience and his wisdom that came with experience, right? So I thought he had some good moments there. But again, I think on other answers, he, you know, some of the other answers I couldn't follow again. I just couldn't follow. I have a ton of respect for Joe Biden. I think he's incredibly smart.

He is experienced. He does have wisdom that comes for age. But like, I just can't grade him on a curve. You know, he had a shitty week. and seem sharp and on his toes and on top of everything, and to do it with a smile like the Joe Biden who debated Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin did, with that big, beaming Joe Biden smile that could make every political shot go down easier. And instead, you get the pointing at Elizabeth Warren shouting moments, which I think are just going to nullify anything else that happened that night. Yeah.

I think Biden has begun to make a turn right and it is not a smooth turn but it like moving an ocean liner but he is deciding to make his experience an asset right which is something we've been talking about a long time he's sort of like trying to align the age question and now he's leaning into it in a way which is i've been here to do all these things because i have this experience to do all these things. I am the person best suited not only to beat Trump, but to fix the problems that Trump has created. And that's a very good argument to make. I think the problem for Biden that Tommy has pointed, I think very rightfully pointed out is Biden has lost the happy part of happy warrior. And that is very understandable. Like his family has been in the crosshairs from the president of the United States for

the last two weeks. His son, who is incredibly important to him. I mean, Joe Biden's connection to his children is so incredibly close and born in tragedy. And his son, who has struggled in his life, you know, and struggled in the public eye because of who his father was, is now being tweeted about by the president of the United States. Like, I think, I'm not trying to grade him on a curve. I'm just trying to create context for why we may not see the smile and the ability to laugh the stuff off that you otherwise, that we've seen from Biden in the past. Yeah. But I also think it's, and I don't think this is

necessarily an age thing because Bernie Sanders is a year older and just had a heart attack a couple weeks ago and was as sharp as they come in this debate. But it's just this, I don't know if, and it usually happens to Biden when he's getting a little angry about things, that he becomes a little less coherent on some of these answers. Like he almost gets so ready to go that he just starts, you know, blabbing a little bit. It's just, I think you, I don't know. And look, it may not cost him among his supporters, but you know, we can all see the trend lines in the race and he does need to sort of expand the universe of people who are supporting him at some point, or at least not lose any more. But I don't know. I don't know if it serves him well. I think he's got to find a way to be sharper. I've been involved with prepping Biden for TV shows and interviews in the past, and he's someone who's pretty resistant to prep. I mean, he knows what

he wants to say, and he feels like he knows how to say it better, and he's usually right. He clearly has submitted to the prep process here, and it makes sense. As we've said before, he has the best debate preppers in all of democratic politics working for him. But it sort of feels like he has 120 seconds worth of things to say, and he's trying to get them into 60 seconds. And he knows that. You can tell he knows that. Like in that answer where he was going through his accomplishments, which should have been a very, very powerful moment, he tried to fit so many things in that you, like saying you accomplished 12 things is not twice as good as saying you accomplished six things. Right. And I think that has been a problem. And, you know, maybe as these debates go on, he'll be able to

get into a more natural balance between having the strategic benefits of being involved with a very good debate prep process and still maintaining the authenticity that has been core to his political appeal for decades now. A few more candidates who we haven't talked about yet, we should. How effective was Cory Booker's strategy of constantly calling for democratic unity and focusing on Donald Trump? That was pretty much his play last night. clap. And as far as I can tell, he did nothing to advance his path to the presidency. I do not understand his theory of the case, his plan to win, how to change the dynamic of the race where he is at 3% in the polls. And I know we've said this before, his campaign says, organize, organize, organize. And that is incredibly important. But you have to organize for something. You have to have a rationale. And it just is not... I have, from the very beginning,

as someone who really likes Cory Booker a lot, and I think he offers a lot, both in this presidential race and in American life, I have yet to figure out what he, like, what is his case for himself to be president? Why him over everyone else? Yeah, I get the, everyone on the stage is a good person. Everyone on here is better than Donald Trump. I get the, I respect the sentiment and I respect the strategy there. I do think though, you know, and so like maybe it did work for him. It hasn't today, but maybe it did this time. I do think though that, you know, as we were, you know, we pointed out that Pete has sort of changed strategy over time and it's a bit discordant. It's worth noting that after the last debate, I believe Cory Booker went on TV and said that people are worried that Joe Biden is too old and might fumble the ball before he gets over the goal line, right? Which is a pretty stark contrast to the tone we see on the debate

stage. So to me, it's interesting. He always seems sort of like kind of annoyed or bemused by the question. It's like an odd, it rubs me in odd way, but I do very, I really like him as well. He feels like an outside observer to this presidential campaign. Yeah. It's, you know, there was a moment during one of the little, you know, scuffles, I think one with Pete and Booker comes in once again to say, see, this is what I'm talking about. You know, we can't do Donald, you know, we have to, we have to not do Donald Trump's work for him or whatever the specific line was.

And it was an opportunity, I think, to kind of enter the debate, right? Say what you think. Say why you think. It was on the guns thing. It was on the guns. Say why you think

Mayor Pete's full of shit. That's what you think. Your face says that you think Mayor Pete's full of shit. Well, he said it last week. He also thinks, right, he's all the things that Beto came to the issue too recently. Yeah, he has problems with both of them those would

have been interesting interesting things to say i would have wanted to hear them and and i and i guess like to me i think i've always found the promise of cory booker as a candidate uh quite real and i think it's and it's something he he kind of shows you little glints of and and and when he talks about love and and embracing people you disagree with and a deeper understanding of what it means to be part of politics. Like I have I just you know, I talked about him when I when I interviewed him. Like I just I keep waiting for like the meat on the bone that says, OK, if you have this different take, show me what it means in policy. Show me what it means in politics. Show me what it means and how you conduct yourself as a candidate. And because he sort of stays to these platitudes in the debate, you never see it. And I've just been

waiting to see it. And once again, I didn't. I guess if I were trying to guess what the Booker campaign strategy is and what Booker's strategy was last night, they're all trying to become the alternative to the third alternative to Biden and Warren Bernie, a fourth alternative, right? And Booker's case is, I'm going to be the one who is all about bringing this country together and not attacking my fellow candidates. I mean, like you said, he has not been there all along because he has been taking shots here and there. But last night, clearly his strategy was, I'm going to be the guy that when all these people are fighting and taking shots at Warren or Biden or whatever else, I'm going to stand back. And people are going to want that. People are going to want someone

who can bring someone together and talk about love and talk about unity and all that kind of stuff. So I think that's his plan. Whether it works, who knows? Julian Castro, he'd been more aggressive in past debates. Last night, I think he was much more subdued. Look, as someone who had criticized him in the past debates. Last night, I think he was much more subdued. I think, look, as someone who had criticized him in the past for being too aggressive, I really liked the Julian Castro that showed up last night. I thought he did a great job. I thought he had a lot of really strong answers.

And I thought, you know, I thought, but it, again, it's a question for, you brought up Dan, for Castro, for Booker, for Beto, for a lot of these candidates, like what's your plan to get out of two three percent and i think this isn't an easy it's not an easy thing to solve right because if it was you'd just be like okay attack other candidates and that's how i get it but there are risks with attacking other candidates there are risks with being too aggressive that we've talked about a lot on the other end end of the spectrum, there's risks with not standing out and just giving pat answers.

So when you're in these campaigns, you're like, how do we get attention, like Tommy said, without coming across as too aggressive or unfair or too calculated? And that's a really tough challenge at this stage of the race. It's really tough. And it's tough not because just it's not really a tactical question. tough. And it's tough not because just it's not really a tactical question. Part of the issue is that the three front runners represent the kind of broad ideological divisions of the Democratic movement. You have Joe Biden representing the center to center left. You have Bernie representing the left and you have Elizabeth Warren toward Bernie, but basically saying that I will, you know,

Pretty left. Pretty, pretty, no, but I would say pretty left while- Establishment friendly left. Establishment friendly left, saying, you know, she's capitalist, Bernie's a democratic socialist, but I'm not a moderate like Joe Biden. And so into that, I think all of these other candidates have struggled for months and months to find a way to get into that conversation and show why they are uniquely suited to be the nominee. And I think we see various efforts to... Andrew Yang. Andrew Yang on stage again last night, continues to raise a good amount of money,

continues to poll higher than some of the other candidates on the stage last night. What do we think? How did Yang do? With the possible exception of Donald Trump running on racism, Andrew Yang is the most successful single-issue candidate in history. Yeah. I mean, he-

Well, they all talked about universal basic income last night. Yeah, he ran- He put that in the debate. He made that a debate issue last night. And it got a very serious discussion in front of what I assume was millions of Americans and put it squarely in the middle of the policy discussion in this country. And for that, he should be applauded. And apparently Elizabeth Warren went up to him after the debate last night and said,

could you please send me the data on UBI and the details of your plan and everything? Because he was pumped about it. Dan, what you just said about Steve Forbes is disgraceful. And I think you need to apologize. Yeah, look, I want to admit this, but he voted for Steve Forbes. Forbes head. Flaunt tax Tommy. You see these debates. We all offer some subjective opinion about what we think happened or what voters will think. But then there's a bunch of data in terms of fundraising and polling.

And Andrew Yang is an unmitigated success story. You can't, like Andrew Yang two years ago was a guy with one big idea about universal basic income. And now he's duking it out on stage with Elizabeth Warren about automation. Like that's pretty unbelievable. Yeah. It's also, yeah, it's interesting. I know we get, you know, these debates can be very frustrating, but just stepping back, we've seen actually really good and interesting shifts in the policy discussion as a result of this primary, whether it's sort of UBI leading to a discussion of UBI versus a jobs guarantee, both incredibly big, would be incredibly bold and new policies. The wealth tax, I think Beto has moved the debate on guns. I think Julian Castro moved the debate

on immigration. We can be critical of some of the ways in which he's moved it, but he's certainly- And police reform. And police reform as well. And I'm forgetting a few, but we've seen that in this debate. There's been genuine policy focus in these campaigns. And I actually think one of the interesting things in these debates, I think partly because I think moderators have been a little cowed by Twitter and afraid to be called frivolous. The debate questions have been such big policy questions. That's why we have big immigration questions, big health care questions. But actually, there hasn't been a lot of like— Ellen and George Bush.

Well, yeah. Yeah, sure, sure. No, it's not perfect. But I think one of the reasons we've seen it stay at these sort of big policy levels is because there's been such a focus on policy from the candidates. And finally, let's end where we began. Tom Steyer. First debate. First time on the stage. What do we think? How did Tom Steyer do? He did good. I mean, he did. He has a message. He delivered it. It's a lot like Warren and Bernie's message. Very close.

There's something interesting about a billionaire saying, tax me more. It's the Roosevelt traitor to their class argument, which Trump pretended to be. A lot of eye contact. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Trump double-agent for his class. You mean with us. A lot of eye contact with me specifically. Yeah, no.

Staring into your soul. Me and Tommy Sties were locking eyes all night long. I like the tie. Someone told him, like, look, on that stage, you're not talking to the other candidates or the audience. You're talking right into that camera, which is, you know, the piece of advice that you do give people who are prepping for a debate. But he took that advice and he ran with it. But, yeah, in terms of just, like, success, right, along the same lines as Andrew Yang, I mean, Tom Steyer spent shitloads of money to run ads and get donors.

$47 million. And got himself on the stage. So he had a very expensive strategy. He executed it. And here he is. Yeah. I mean, it's also I'm very glad that the billionaire on that stage is not saying we need to be nicer to billionaires. We need to be more moderate. We need to attack

the center. It's not the kind of- It's not Howard Schultz. Right. It's not Howard Schultz. It's not, I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. It's actually, I think, a bet that basically you want what, it's implied, but it's basically saying you want what Elizabeth Warren is offering, but you don't think she can win. Take a look at me. I'm a businessman like Trump. Yeah, but the tough right there that you don't think she can win is because you have all the same policy positions as her. Basically, you don't think she can win because she's a woman. I mean, I'm not saying Tom Steyer said that, but what I didn't get from him last night is why you and not Bernie Sanders

or Elizabeth Warren, what specifically are you going to do differently than the two of them since your message is so similar? What qualifications do you have? I guess he said, you know, I started a business. So if you like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's message and policies, but you like the idea of a businessman in the White House, then I guess you got Tom Sondland. He's like someone who can make the arguments they're making while batting down the arguments that they don't understand how the world works.

That's, I think, the fair reading of it. I mean, we've had basically like a full day worth of debates in this primary, like hours at a time. And with the exception of Klobuchar and Pete tonight, almost no other candidate who's not in the top three has had any success making an argument for why them, why not the others. And so the fact that Tom Sire did not do that only does not mean that he

is failing where others have succeeded. He's just doing exactly as well as most everyone else in the same tier he's in. Well, which brings me to the final question. Do we think this debate, you know, will, do we think this debate, you know, will, do we think this debate will change the race in any way?

Has this changed the race or reshaped the race in any way? You know, I do think it's notable that both Buttigieg and Klobuchar came out swinging last night, and that's going to get most of the attention today. Most of the headlines today are moderates fight back last night, which has been what moderates have been trying to do for the last three debates and haven't really done successfully until last night. So I do wonder if it was a bit more of an important debate than usual. I think it's a preview for what's to come. I think we see the race has been the exact same

place since the very beginning, with the exception of Elizabeth Warren rising from third or fourth to second. And now we're seeing, I think, what the campaign can look like. I think for the first time, we've seen people land a punch on Elizabeth Warren, who otherwise has been untouched and flawless in all these debates. I still think by any measure, she was excellent last night, delivered her points, but there was some weakness. You could see some cracks where people might be able to exploit it over time. And so I don't think this debate is going to change the poll numbers, but I think we know more about how the candidates are thinking about the race than we have at any point before

now. I agree. Can I say one more thing now? You sure can. I think the most important thing that happened last night with the most consequences for the race is not what happened in the debate. It's the release of the Q3 FEC reports. We haven't talked about that.

And which showed Bernie Sanders with the most money, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg behind, but was still in the 20s of millions of dollars. And Joe Biden, co-front runner, as you called him, with less than $9 million, which is- Pretty shocking stuff. Devastating. Which is devastating. Like Joe Biden's path to nomination is to be able to organize and advertise in the first four states. And right now, he does not have enough money to run a full campaign in two of the four states, let alone four states and everything that comes after. And he has shown zero ability to raise money

online. So he does not have the capacity that a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or even a Pete Buttigieg would have to refill his coffers. And I think that is a fundamental game changer that's going to cause the Biden campaign to have to make some very serious, very hard decisions about where he's going to play. If one of these candidates had just bit the head off an Ellen doll like Ozzy Osbourne and spit it out on stage, this thing would be over. That last question. Ellen. Who's your weirdest friend?

Skip climate, like like Climate cheats No Weirdest friend Weirdest friend Everyone say John McCain All at once Skip the rest of the question John McCain

And then For Cory Booker Someone who ate meat Which Sarah Lazarus Predicted Like verbatim It was amazing John your wife Emily

Said that I'm her weirdest friend Yeah that's always been true That's always been true You're all of our John McCain Like verbatim. It was amazing. John, your wife Emily said that I'm her weirdest friend. Yeah, that's always been true. That's always been true. You're all of our John McCain. I think that was part of your speech at our wedding. That's true. That's true. We're like when a turtle and a rabbit become friends at the zoo.

All right, everyone. Again, we will have No Pod Thursday because this pod is out Wednesday. And then we will see you next week. Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The senior producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer.

Thanks to Carolyn Reston, Tanya Somanator, and Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmal Konian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as a video every week.