I agree. As long as Warrren wasn't among the top-polling, she got very little critique, here in this thread and in the media. There was the DNA-thing and then nobody cared about her. Biden and Sanders got attacked though for multiple things. Because they were the ones polling highest. I think in this thread Biden got more fire, as the participants in this thread are surprisingly progressive. But in mainstream media Sanders got a lot of flak too.

Tulsi Gabbard was also attacked, although she is not polling high. But I don't think it is sexism either. A lot of people are bothered by her critics on wars. This actually lead to that the people who didn't want to face her arguments directly, dug up everything that looked in the least suspicious to throw it at her. Some of it was ridiculous, some of it was somewhat concerning, but my point is, if she hadn't criticized the ongoing endless wars, nobody would've cared for her and left her alone. This makes Tulsi by the way the best vetted low-polling candidate, we know everything about her.

Compare to Andrew Yang: not much critcism came his way yet, but I suspect this would change if he started polling above 10%.

So the majority of attacks stems from the polling results, if someone polls high and you don't want them, you probably look for everything that you could criticize this person for. This explains the rising attacks onto Warren, as she rises in the polls.

Well, Tulsi supports abortion in the first two trimesters, which makes her base pretty big. Is anyone against that except some extreme christian fundamentalists?

Yeah, we all know you're the conservative/moderate in this thread.

I always expected that all four of the Squad will in time endorse Bernie Sanders. But they would choose a moment that makes their endorsement count. Maybe the two see this moment now, as he has problems in the polls and is recovering from the heart attack. We will see how this influences the race.

As i couldn't see the debate, I watched some clips. Warren got seemingly attacked from multiple sides (which makes sense as she is polling well recently). Did Bernie attack her too? I saw no clip of that, but maybe it was on the stuff left out. I hope he didn't, as I hope my theory that both have a strong alliance is true.

@morenoingrato: And this is why you should be fearing this as a Biden-fan: if Warren and Sanders are allied, Biden needs more than 50% of the delegates in the convention. If he doesn't get it, the other two will come together and have the stronger base. That is why the splitting of the progressive vote isn't actually hurting but instead strenghtening this camp. You better hope Biden gathers 50% for himself.

Thanks. So, my theory they might be allied still stands. Nice!

Good performances from Klobuchar and Buttigieg, some good statements from Biden and Booker. Overall a good night for moderates.

Meanwhile Tootsie does her Russia thing, and Bernie and McMeme defend more taxes. Which, obviously, the suburban folk who carried Dems to victory in 2018 will love, and finally prove rural Whites are actually closet socialists waiting to vote for something that isn't rampant racism. At least Warren was smart enough not to give Trump and the Republicans this soundbite.

Waiting for our friends at VGC again to give their expert analysis on how the debate will move the polls this time ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Last night the Democratic candidates sought to wage a regime change war against the new front-runner Elizabeth Warren.

All in all, I think the regime change war went poorly. Warren stood her ground well overwhelmingly, with one notable exception: right at the start around how to finance her single-payer Medicare-for-all goals. I've always taken Warren's evasiveness about the details of her plan in that one area as an indicator that she's developing her own plan of how to transition into and finance a single-payer system distinct from the bill that Bernie Sanders authored because she likely prefers a different taxation strategy that might tax middle-income people less. Health care is the top voting priority of Democratic voters though, to which end Warren should know by now that this subject is going to keep coming up at the very start of each one of these debates, had to anticipate that as much would happen last night accordingly, and really should finish up her plan rather than continuing to just disclose the general principles thereof. That may very well be one of the factors that cost her the "squad's" endorsement last night, which will certainly help Bernie Sanders win back younger voters. There's no escaping the fact that Sanders is clearer in this crucial area so far. Warren needs to correct that shortcoming. Soon.

I also felt that the position Warren tried to articulate about our government's betrayal of the Kurdish people in Northern Syria was unsatisfactory, though I saw it coming, honestly. One simply does not complain about the Trump Administration abandoning the Syrian Democratic Forces and then use an expression like "we should get out of the Middle East" in the same breath convincingly. The fact is that Warren, like the progressive movement she seeks to represent generally, has never supported the SDF and was only pretending to last night, much as the progressive movement never broadly supported the SDF until Trump decided to sell them out last week and are just simply posturing as though they've always cared now that it's politically expedient to do so. Yeah, I see right through that. It's only fortunate for Warren that her interrogator in that moment happened to be Tulsi Gabbard, who's performance, if you didn't catch my mockery thereof in the my opening statement, I found to be exactly that: a performance. Anyone would've come out of that exchange looking better than Tulsi Gabbard. I especially enjoyed the bewildered look on Warren's face after Gabbard concluded her "regime change war" rant. That was exactly how I felt about it! It was as if to say, without saying, "What in the hell...? What exactly is your argument here?" That's how I felt about it.

Speaking of Tulsi Gabbard, I want to talk about her for a minute longer because, frankly, she's the only candidate who really made me angry. This was her worst debate so far, in my view. She started out, appropriately, claiming to be a victim of media bias, only to go on to prove that many of the criticisms of her are perfectly legitimate. Military service runs in my family too. It's the most accessible career choice in my area that pays a living income (if you live), to which end lots of younger people who live in my community enlist in the armed services. My granddad served in World War II and my dad served in the Vietnam War. (I enlisted in the army in the hopes of serving in Afghanistan myself after dropping out of college, but washed out of boot camp and pretty much gave up on life, being as I'm the all-around failure of the family. Anyway...) My dad never fully recovered from his experiences in Vietnam. It turned him into an abusive alcoholic and my relationship to him was always a strained one as a result. My point with that being that I too am familiar with what the cost of war can be. I get it. But I'll tell you what, I have yet to hear anyone who has served in our armed forces weaponize their service as often as Tulsi Gabbard does, let alone to such disgraceful ends. Almost everyone in my community voted for Donald Trump in 2016, but none of them who has served in the armed forces believes that President Trump has treated our Kurdish allies in Northern Syria justly or acceptably. These are people who aren't easily angered by Trump, but this they are angry with him about.

The fact that came across very clearly last night is that, despite her most disingenuous efforts to fabricate some, there objectively exists no daylight between Gabbard's position on the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria and Donald Trump's. More than any other candidate in this race, and more passionately than any other candidate at that, she has always opposed the SDF, frequently comparing them (as you heard for yourself last night!) to "Al Qaeda". (Who she also wants you to know is very different from the honorable Taliban, remember?)  Gabbard sought to argue that somehow, somehow, using the phrase "regime change war" approximately once per sentence, supporting the SDF in their successful fight against ISIS was synonymous with betraying them. Spoken like, frankly, a legit Assad police state shill who hates basically everything this country has ever stood for! Pete Buttigieg was the candidate who reminded me the most of the armed services folks here in that exchange. Having served himself, he was the perfect person to respond, and respond he did! That I found to be highly satisfying and sufficient to qualitatively improve my opinion of him as a candidate. THANK YOU for saying exactly what so many legitimately patriotic Americans were thinking!!

In fact, last night was good to Pete Buttigieg in general. I didn't agree with all the ideas he articulated (obviously), but I thought he struck a much more effective tone. Up until now, "Mayor Pete" has seemed to worry a great deal about his "likability", being the first openly gay candidate to run on a major party ticket for president, and has made honestly too much effort to avoid confrontation. The word I've most often heard used to describe his campaign up to now, if it says anything, is "cute". It's been a problem for him. He may be from the Midwest, but he hasn't come across like a typical working class Midwesterner; like he gets that type of person. Last night he did. He came across as someone who gets blue collar workers: like a tough, practical person who sincerely cares about people's best interests (as he perceives them anyway), not just their feelings. I liked his concluding remarks explaining why he's calling for a (non-military) national service program. I personally connected to it when he talked about people wanting a sense of belonging and purpose in life and that that's missing in today's America, in that regard. I thought that was a particularly powerful moment for him. He had my attention.

Anyway, getting back to the invasion of Northern Syria (which you may have noticed is, honestly, the main thing on my mind these days because I've always been a strong supporter of the SDF and what they're about), I also thought Bernie Sanders and even Joe Biden spoke compellingly on that issue. Overall, I'd say that between the health care discussion and discussion of Northern Syria and the Kurds, I was moved distinctly closer to the Bernie Sanders camp myself. I will also say though that I think the Sanders supporters here could take a cue from the candidate they support. You'll notice that he did not attack Elizabeth Warren, the candidate with whom he clearly has the most in common overall, but rather focused on making what in most respects was her case as well as or better than she did. That was a lot more appealing to me than what the Bernie Bros here (especially the ringleader, Uran) do. Aggressively attacking and well mostly fabricating fault with Elizabeth Warren is a definite turn-off to me, as (up to now anyway) a Warren supporter. That shit repels me rather than drawing me toward the Bernie Sanders camp. It makes me not want to support Sanders in lieu of just not wanting to be associated with type of people who support him. So I'd just offer the example of Sanders himself as an example of how be persuasive going forward is what I'm saying. Sanders goes after Biden because he knows that Biden's supporters aren't going to support him anyway. He doesn't attack Warren because he knows that Warren supporters are largely progressives who are naturally more open to someone like Sanders.

I know people don't like me calling out sexism, but it really does feel sexist when Bernie Sanders supporters treat Elizabeth Warren as though she were exactly the same as Hillary Clinton even though she's running on 90% the same platform as their candidate, not taking money from high-dollar donors, etc. It really does come across to me like the only reason you would hate Warren as much as Hillary Clinton is because you simply dislike the idea of women running for the presidency, period. It makes it feel like there's nothing a woman can do or support that would be acceptable to you. Sorry if you don't like hearing that, but it's the truth of how I feel.

As one final point, I was REALLY glad that last night's debate included a discussion of the opioid epidemic. I thought the candidates in general did well in that discussion, and especially the ones who called for the criminal prosecution of the pharma executives responsible. I mean fucking seriously, is anyone satisfied with the settlements we've seen so far? Like Purdue getting off with only having to give back ONE-FUCKING-THIRD of all the profits they made KNOWINGLY MURDERING COUNTLESS AMERICANS IN COLD BLOOD?! No, they should definitely go to prison. For life, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as everyone I know is concerned! That said, I would've liked to hear more specifics about plans to tangibly reduce flow of opioids and other deadly and highly addictive drugs into poor communities in this country, not just an articulation of the general principle and pledges to throw money at the situation. We need to stop over-prescribing opioids in the first place. In fact, personally I'm in favor of straight-up banning their prescription as pain killers altogether. There are so many reports of people suffering from severe, chronic pain who report better results, to say nothing of more personal comfort, with marijuana prescriptions. ...Well anyway, I'm just glad that they had that discussion. I think it will improve the Democratic Party's image here in rural parts of the country to talk more about the opioid crisis and drug addiction in general.

(Seriously, do you really think Donald Trump won rural America so big in 2016 because of fucking IMMIGRATION? Really? Only rich people care about immigration! People here would LOVE to have more people move in, if only so maybe we'd have a tax base to fund public services with again! No, he did better than Republicans usually do in rural America because he made a frequent habit of visiting smaller communities and talking about doing something, however contrived, about the flow of drugs, not just pledging to throw some money at the crisis from major metropolitan parts of New York and California like Hillary Clinton. I mean resources directed toward rehabilitation certainly help and everything, but what people REALLY want are the root causes of this problem addressed. And they don't connect to expressions like "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work." Trump hasn't delivered much in regards to the drug problem, which is probably part of why his level of support among low-income white Americans has fallen off since election day. There is an opening there. The Democrats would do well to take advantage of that opening. Sorry for the sermon.)

Regime change war.

I think the Tulsi stuff is mostly the result of really irritating fanboys. They act like a cult: if some media source doesn't talk about "TUUUULSI" enough, then they're unfairly marginalizing her. Talk about her, but not in absolutely glowing terms, and they mass downvote videos and claim bias and such. Hers is one of the most childish fanbases I have ever come across. Unfortunately for Tulsi Gabbard, they reflect very poorly on her; and I'll be fair, I don't think she deserves those toxic fans damaging her image for future elections.

But with less than 1% of the overall support, she probably shouldn't have been in the debate.

To get onto another topic: when are they going to start having serious debates with the actual people that can win? The major problem with this debate is that the questions feel like "Outline your plans for dealing with foreign policy and climate change; you have 18 seconds." There should be three people, maybe 4 people max, in debates like this. It's tough to understand anything of importance. While this debate has been an improvement, it's an improvement from 2% debate and 98% reality TV show to about 6% debate and 94% reality TV show. No one is saying anything substantial, and often it is just a garble of half points, vague points, and nonsense.

I appreciate what Biden tried to do in that weird exchange, but it came off VERY clumsy and strange. It should be a debate forum, but the news networks are not looking for a debate, they're looking for entertainment. This is a massive crack in the US's malfunctioning democracy. It should be a substantive debate, not a pro-wrestling promo.

Pete was fantastic last night. As always, he is the most realistic, articulate, and a bridge-builder. I'm glad he called out Beto for his unhelpful gun stances, and especially glad he called out Tulsi for her shit. He looked at her with raw anger and I loved it.

I like Amy too. She used to be my #1, but I don't think she has any path forward so I'd prefer if she dropped out.

Something we can all agree on:

Steyer spent $6,595,524 of his own money per minute of speaking time tonight. https://t.co/Aq4StIdJbN

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 16, 2019

Being happy that Steyer got what he deserved.

Anyway, on further thoughts, I think the three Elders were solidified: Sanders, Warren, and Biden. There were attacks against them, but they were all weak and inconsequential, mostly brushed off because they were either not accurate or not significant. I only think Sanders, Warren, or Biden affect each other at this point, the others aren't necessary at this point. I hope that the next debate focuses on these three without the rest of the noise.

I'm not saying the others did poorly in the given format. I thought many came off great. But the issue is that there's nothing new.

Nothing moves except Beto, who I felt came off amateurish - he lacked the convictions he had the last time. So he's back down to where he was after the first debate. Buttigieg, again, came off inauthentic and imprecise, shifting subjects to fit his talking points even if they were blatantly off-topic.

Steyer is the only one who I felt I learned anything new about. I didn't make a huge splash, but he came off competent, but he reminds me of an imitation brand Inslee. I think he's too little too late.

If there's anyone on the stage who I wish was polling better, it would be Booker, Castro, and Yang. I feel they're underachieving, but at the same time, Yang is a newbie, so it's expected for him to be where he is. I hardly can wait to see where these three go in the future. I think Booker is right that the winning candidate needs to be able to inspire. I also agree, strongly, with him that the petty attacks are a waste of time and counter-productive.