I figured I would try this again like I did for the GOP debate once. Same caveats apply. I won’t be editorializing or fact-checking on the fly. Please forgive any typos, sentence fragments, etc. Expect fireworks between Clinton and Sanders on health care and guns. The latter released a plan to pay for health care and has reportedly reversed himself on firearm immunity. I’m told some guy named Martin O’Malley will be on stage as well:) Feel free to interject in comments.
Please share widely!
Clinton – invoked MLK’s legacy, remembers hearing him speak, prepared for all aspects of job
Sanders – continued on MLK theme and reiterated campaign themes
O’Malley – praised Charleston in wake of Mother Emmanuel shooting, born in the year of I Have A Dream, new generation
Sanders – health care as a right, $15 min. wage, millions of jobs through infrastructure, wealthy pay fair share
Clinton – present plans for job creation (manufacture, infrastructure), raising min. wage, equal pay, improve ACA by bringing down costs, bring country together
O’Malley – increases wages, equal pay, easier to join union, immigration reform, 100% clean grid by 2050 w/5 million jobs, new agenda for cities including transit infrastructure
Calls Clinton claims disingenuous, cites NRA D- ranking and gave examples of regulation he has supported, supports POTUS executive action, being from rural state positions him well to bring people together.
Follow up about immunity specifically; he explained the nuances of his positions.
Clinton responds that he has voted w/ gun lobby, voted for immunity and against Brady Bill, for guns on Amtrak in National Parks and against research. Cites stats. Pleased that Sanders has reversed himself on immunity.
Says both other candidates have been inconsistent. Brought people together in MD following Sandy Hook shooting. Regulations did not “interrupt anyone’s hunting season”.
Need to retrain officers, end racial profiling, cited stats indicating racial disparity.
Sanders interjects that system is broken; asks who is satisfied at our high incarceration rate, have police records, but that Wall Street goes unpunished.
Polls have moved in his direction and is confident minority voters will support once familiar.
Created civilian review board, repealed possession of pot incarceration, repealed death penalty as Governor.
Sanders – US Justice Dept. should get involved whenever suspect dies in police custody, vast majority of cops hard-working trying to do job, must demilitarize departments, forces must be as diverse as community.
Comprehensive approach with federal money to states, first responders must be armed with NarCan, treat as public health rather than criminal.
Sanders – agrees with everything Clinton said, but added that pharma companies bear responsibility, need more mental health treatment
O’Malley tried to get 10 seconds, but was cut off for commercial.
Will Sanders kill Obamacare?
Clinton recalls how she worked in the 1990s and got Chips; questions practicality of Sanders plans and previously sponsored bills. Dems worked since Truman to get ACA which is toward universal, but does not want to start from scratch.
Sanders pushed for Medicare for all, worked on ACA and voted for it, but 29 million still have no insurance, spending way too much, more than other countries, get private industry out.
Clinton says 19 million have gotten insurance and touts other benefits of ACA, but we can improve rather than start over and get into another contentious debate.
Sanders says more underinsured. Why spend so much more than UK, France, Canada per person?
O’Malley explained MD “all-payer” system, based on how well patients kept out of hospital. Clinton says that’s what we’re doing, eliminate unnecessary costs.
Mitchell cites VT walking away from single-payer; Sanders says you have to ask VT Gov. why and cites political money system to blame for not going further.
Clinton says she has experience standing up to health care lobby, but says we couldn’t even get public option under Dem control
I agree with doubleman below. Hillary should really be looking at why Vermont failed and hit Sanders on implementation for his grand vision. How does he get it passed a GOP congress? How does he pay for it? How does he take it from the drawing board to the Oval Office desk to sign? I really don’t think, even with the details of his plan made public, that we have a clue how this will happen.
It would also give him a good chance to discuss his record as Mayor and give O’Malley a final shot at pointing out how he managed to actually pass these things as a Governor.
Instead it’s who did or didn’t like or dislike what Obama said back in 2011 and Hillary’s absurd linkage of support for single payer to Republican refusal to expand medicaid. Both could be so much better on hashing out this policy in a wonky way, and the public and our party would be the better for it.
…to attack single-payer so directly. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the preferred route of many of her own supporters. At least acknowledge that it is a laudable goal, but we can get there piecemeal by improving on ACA.
It was because of bad math. To have single payer would have called for a 10% tax on income. The balance sheet was not strongly promoted by Gov Schumlin. That tax would have wiped away premiums in the private sector, and the cost of more comprehensive insurance would have been reduced. However, just as HRC is doing, the true reality got pushed to one side of the ledger. The Vermont Governor just got tired of pushing what would have been the first state to be under single payer. The insurers were mounting an all out propaganda campaign. He lost his mojo.
My impression is that’s why he got elected and narrowly re-elected, he isn’t running for another term so it’s not like the risks aren’t worth it politically. It’s widely popular in his state and the main insurance company was on board with getting absorbed into a single payer system.
It failed because it was too damn expensive, it would increased the budget by 30% after a time. That’s why it seems more like a policy implementation failure rather than a lack of cajones. And for Bernie to demur like that was a bit of a stretch, it’s his signature issue in his home state where he’s been a major political player for three decades. He should know why it failed and learn from it rather than retreating to “big money is bad” talking points. And Hillary’s attempt smear single payer in the same company as GOP governors opposing ACA Medicaid expansions is also a disservice to the debate we should be having. We’re the adult party after all-let’s dig into the weeds!
It was a combination of politics, interference of private insurers, and a loss of energy as stated above by the Governor.
Here’s the story: http://goo.gl/lKnSnN
Cites examples going back to time as FLOTUS, health care, adoption, nuclear treaty w/Iran. Will meet anytime, anywhere, with anyone to find common ground.
Sanders worked w/McCain to get veterans health care, but says real problem isn’t partisanship per se, but big money in politics, wages, infrastructure, fair taxation among issues affected.
We need 50-state strategy, cites contributions.
O’Malley says Sanders didn’t campaign for Vincent Shaheen and says we shouldn’t demonize people.
Apparently nobody else knew either. The Times had an interesting piece on how nationalized these primaries have become.
The frontrunner in IA opposes ethanol subsidies and there have been few Red Sox name drops and home heating oil discussions on the NH side as in years passed. In many ways, O’Malley is running a solidly traditional 20th century primary race. His traction in the polls shows the limits to the traditional strategy.
…who also served as O’Malley’s surrogate on MSNBC’s predebate coverage.
Not ShAheen, per jc’s link. (So presumably no relation to Senator Jeanne Shaheen, or to Billy.)
O’Malley had a good point there too, but (apparently) he squandered it. How hard would it have been to say “Nikki Haley’s opponent Vincent Sheheen”?
Clinton – making college affordable, pay off student debt, create more good jobs, free community college, protect rights from GOP (voting, civil, workers), pull generations together to encourage all Americans to vote.
Why is Sanders beating you 2-1 among that generation? Clinton will continue to engage them.
Questioner (in so many words) – “Why aren’t you doing more to court the youth vote?”
Because young people don’t vote in proportions worth such pursuit.
They need a reason, and I am heartened by the many young people I know who were unaffected and disinterested in the 2012 and 2014 races getting interested in this one. I predict Stopping Trump and nominating Sanders are massive turnout boosters. Trump’s America is nothing anyone under 30 would recognize as their own country, and Sander’s America is something the vast majority of us want to see.
At least that’s as much as I can vouch for.
I don’t think that should be allowed by the network.
Her team is trying to tie her closely to Obama…I suspect her team feels she needs to up her numbers in certain polling demographics.
…but I agree with no VP she is essentially running as Obama’s heir apparent.
Still doesn’t seem right
Sanders says he doesn’t get speaking fees (mixed audience reaction). Break up banks, need new Glass-Steagal, believes President TR would agree.
Clinton says no daylight on basic principles, but takes exception to comments about donations, faults Sanders for criticizing Obama in this area, praised Dodd-Frank.
Sanders says he campaigns with Obama, but can Clinton really reform WS when they provide contributions and speakers fees? Does not have superpac.
Clinton has plan that most commentators have said is tougher, more comprehensive. She goes after all aspects of financial sector, citing their animosity as prove.
O’Malley will put “cops on the Wall Street beat”, but says there is daylight, will bring back Glass-Steagal, would go further than Clinton.
Clinton says Barney Frank and Paul Krugman endorsed her plan, O’Malley has raised from WS as head of DGA. Crosstalk ensues.
Goldman-Sachs has provided two SecTreas, 600K to Clinton in speaking fees, not one of their executives prosecuted.
Clinton says Sanders only one on stage to vote in 2000 to deregulate this sector. At least we’re debating reining in WS as opposed to GOP.
Sanders says check his record, put gov’t back on their backs.
Close loophole allowing offshore tax shelters. Tax on WS speculation. They were bailed out so it’s their turn to help us.
Clinton says she’s documented how she’ll pay for her plans, will not raise taxes on middle class, but rather incomes. Wealthy pay for child care, family leave.
Sanders says Clinton is making GOP criticism, single-payer will lower overall costs, savings for private health care will more than compensate for tax increases. Does not believe this contradicts previous pledge to not raise taxes except for family leave.
O’Malley only one on stage to balance budget for 15 years, in a down turn, but still invested in education and infrastructure, need to tax capital gains at same rate as wage/salary.
The cap gains discount rate is an upper class giveaway (mostly). O’Malley deserves credit for putting it front and center.
How does Sanders convince Americans to change behavior? He says the younger generation already gets it. Climate change is real and already causing problems. Amazing that GOP is so owned by industry that they don’t listen to scientists. Must create millions of green jobs.
O’Malley wants to challenge Dems to push for 100% clean grid by 2050.
Clinton tried to interject, but cut off for commercial.
Clinton in control on guns, but Sanders aggressive on health care and Wall Street. Moderators tease that foreign policy and the “Commander in Chief test” are up next.
Should we restore diplo relations?
Sanders – move aggressively to normalize relations, but still many areas of disagreement, strongly supports deal. No embassy tomorrow, but keep moving forward.
Clinton – very proud of nuclear agreement, responsible for imposing sanctions, Iran cooperating so far, but still need to watch before normalization, still other issues.
Clinton – absolutely not, but air support, disrupt supply chain, support Sec. Kerry in slowing down events.
Sanders – applauds Obama, GOP hasn’t learned lessons of Iraq, new war would be a disaster, follow King Abdullah’s advice to put Muslim troops on the ground.
O’Malley – join forces with others, also believes Obama doing right thing, need new alliances, glad we’re not as cavalier as GOP about “boots on the ground”
Sanders – no, the war itself did, praised Obama for sticking to promise to withdraw, other countries in region must step up.
Clinton – we ultimately did the right thing resulting in getting rid of chemical weapons, C-in-C should constantly re-evaluate options, blames PM of Iraq for “sectarianizing” military and Assad for turmoil. Critiques Sanders for suggesting Iranian involvement.
Sanders agrees with most of HRC’s comments, but believes first US priority should be destruction of ISIS, but second get rid of Assad even if it means involving Russia and Iran.
O’Malley says we are still lacking human intelligence, need investment in new generation of foreign service to get better sense of what happens next.
We did get something from Russia, cited examples, but she spoke out against Putin in 2011 when he returned to power. Has an “interesting” relationship with Putin, has had tough dealings, but he is a bit of a bully.
O’Malley – principle of getting warrant should hold, quoted Ben Franklin about giving up liberty for security. Need adversarial court system on PATRIOT ACT issues.
Sanders – need technical help, but circled back to privacy question citing info in private hands.
Clinton tries to interject, but cut off for commercial.
Pleased that Obama’s people went to Silicon Valley to discuss privacy/security, first line of defense is Muslim Americans, comments from GOP about Muslims shameful/dangerous.
O’Malley made leader by colleagues on state/local action, sign him up for Trump’s proposed registry.
Sanders – 600M military budget, much of which is still fighting Cold War and not enough for current conflicts.
Will ask for ideas and advice, use as goodwill emissary to find good ideas, outreach to disadvantaged communities.
Sanders says admin stacked by WS won’t accomplish much, promises that SecTreas will not come from Goldman-Sachs
He was asked a question, but has avoided going negative on items that are not campaign issues.
…but they have come more frequently recently.
Starting with O’Malley gets laughter, refers to immigration, treatment of Puerto Ricans by hedgefunds, drug trafficking in Americas, need new leadership.
Clinton – outraged about water crisis in Flint, MI and the Governor’s reaction, sent campaign aide to assess situation, she would take care of such things as POTUS.
Sanders – demanded resignation of Gov. Snyder, heard great ideas tonight, but must end corrupt campaign finance system, superpacs, Citizens United, must revitalize democracy
Chuck Todd – substantive debate with fireworks. Lester Holt thanks sponsors. This concludes the live blog. What say you?
Bernie proved, perhaps for the first time, that he can withstand close scrutiny without really changing who he is or how he debates. I felt like he was treated as someone who might…conceivably be a president, not just a vanity campaign. This was the journey Trump was on a couple months ago.
And Sanders remained, well, Sanders. Pugnacious, focused on inequality, unshakable on Wall Street. He was a bit more fluent on foreign policy. Clinton didn’t do any worse off, or lose a step in any real way. But Sanders is demanding himself a second look.
I will say that I think Hillary is trying to claim Obama’s legacy, not least to shore up any concern with minority voters. If Sanders can be presented as attacking Obama, he is in trouble in Nevada or South Carolina. I don’t know that Sanders made himself a potential winner tonight, but he did make himself more than a one-issue candidate.
I do not understand Clinton’s attacks against Sanders. Who on her team is coming up with this stuff?
There is a lot to criticize Sanders about – his plans are not detailed and too unrealistic, his lack of foreign policy experience, bad positions on guns, etc.
Instead, the attacks are that he wants to dismantle Obamacare and that he hates Obama. They are so damn disingenuous. I think it’s such a stupid strategy. 1. It’s not working and Bernie has been doing better since the attacks started; and 2. It’s making many pro-Bernie supporters that she will need in the general not like her.
It’s like many of the attacks leveled against Obama in 2008. They seemed so hypocritical and also didn’t work.
She doesn’t need them and should do better.
How is it that when the battle with Sanders heats up, it seems to make Clinton a worse candidate rather than a stronger one?
I think he actually looked presidential and a plausible nominee. He is making pragmatic concessions to electoral reality (flip flopping on his gun record, talking about foreign policy) while recognizing who is base is and how to motivate them to come out. Hillary’s above the fray, all things to all people strategy failed her in 2008 and its failing her now.
She can’t go nuclear against Sanders like she did with Obama since that ended up failing her in 2008. Her best bet is to just run as who she is-the pragmatic progressive who recognizes America can’t do single payer based on her 93′ fight and a liberal hawk who wants to police the world but do so more responsibly than her predecessors. That’s it, pretending to be who she isn’t doesn’t work for her.
Bernie’s line of the night:
“The main point in the Congress isn’t that Republicans and Democrat hate each other,” Sanders says—arguing that’s a media myth. “The problem is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do”
I support Sanders in the primary but have been fairly consistent in calling the previous debates for Hillary and saying she came off more presidential. She didn’t do badly, but it’s clear momentum remains with Sanders going forward.
A lot of work here, great for those of us who missed some or all.
I agree with you on the commercials — no ads (for any candidate of either major party) during the debate. Networks barely seem to even think about stuff like that anymore. I know they’re hurting, but they still have responsibilities.
Also props to O’Malley for staying in this thing as long as he has. I haven’t really absorbed much of the debate itself, so that’s my only comment so far.
I’ve now seen several opinions on this and it seems to come down to Sanders won among visionaries and Clinton among pragmatists.
I despise “who won” coverage of debates, I find such stories silly and irrelevant. I similarly have no use for blow-by-blow accounts of thrusts and parries (though that happens more on the GOP side this year).
It seems to me that what matters in these debates is how many primary voters have changed their minds. I started as a supporter of Bernie Sanders, and shifted to Hillary Clinton as I watched the candidates fielding questions side-by-side on the podium.
I saw nothing last night to make me change that opinion.
Once I decided O’Malley wasn’t going anywhere, I landed with Clinton…for the most part. Since then I’ve been drifting on the fringes. With this debate, I really have to consider supporting Bernie. I always supported his platform, and I doubt in our system whether anyone can do 1/3 of what they’re promising, but my worry was always if he could handle unanticipated events, particularly in foreign policy. Now, I think I am comfortable with that.
they both spoke with passion, integrity and wisdom.
They both gave voters a viable choice by acting presidential and respectful of each other.
I stand with Clinton and her principled, pragmatic, and evolutionary approach to getting us to a more perfect union. Yet, I admire Sanders as an idealistic fighter and a visionary revolutionary.
May the best man / woman win and I hope we can all unite for the general.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
All the more reason we should have more debates in prime time, not in the after football playoff death slot on a Sunday. They can be one on one after Iowa and maybe focused on specific issues. I agree with the Daily Beast which blasted NBC for a single question on climate change framed entirely in horse race terms.
It’s an issue only one party cares about and I would love for both candidates to have to compete with one another on whose ideas to solve that problem are better. A whole debate on that one topic would be too much to ask, but I could see it as part of a terrorism, foreign policy and security debate.
if for no other reason than this. Bernie and Hillary are so knowledgeable on real, substantive issues like climate change. It would also highlight the dangerous ignorance of their Republican opponents.
AGREED : To the Democratic Party : We, proud Democrats all, demand a series of debates in prime time following the Iowa Caucus on February 1, be held between both of our excellent candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton ; on a range of important issues including climate change, domestic and foreign policy.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
When I say Sanders won that’s entirely my subjective opinion, as it is anyone making that statement on any side of the fence or in the media. Granted I’ve judged high school and college debates in my time, but I also prefer a rapid parry style that works on the APDA circuit but can come across as belligerent as Ted Cruz is coming to find out.
But I largely agree with sabutai. On domestic issues my heart was always with Sanders, on foreign policy he was right on the bigger issues but ignorant of the smaller ones and downright wrong on a lot of the players and how they interacted with each other, particularly in the Middle East. He seems to have come to this debate far more prepared for those issues which is a good thing and should improve both candidates.
O’Malley will stay in until Iowa and drop out, he is already out of money by all reports. I look forward to one on one debates and strongly feel Hillary should call for more. Her above the fray focus on the general strategy fooled her once and is failing her again.
HRC was asked what caused the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria. Her answer was that the elements were already there when Iraq was invaded. As far as I know Al Queda and ISSIL were not present before the US invaded, and would have been enemies of Saddam Hussein. ISSIL came into existence through a joining together of a Jordanian Al Queda recruiter, disgruntled Bathists who were part of Hussein’s military, and those Sunnis mistreated after the invasion. So subtly, almost under the radar, she backtracked on calling the Iraq Invasion a “mistake”. She came down on the side of regime change, again. On the other hand Bernie stated the present mess was a result of the invasion as previously stated above. Most agree that Bernie’s had it right.
But he has been wrong about thinking Saudi Araba will be enlisted in the fight against ISIL. It’s in its interests to big Iran down in the Syria quagmire for as long as possible, it’s state media is pro-Islamic State and it has funded the extremist brand of Sunni Islam they have followed for decades.It’s a categorical mistake to think the Saudis will fight this war for us, but maybe it is time we stop fighting their wars for them.
At least Hillary identified them as a funding source and pledged to cut it off. It’s important for Sanders to remind audiences that Hillary enabled the Iraq disaster, he should also remind them that ISIL in Libya is the direct result of that failed intervention, but it’s easy to be a critic of the status quo without proposing a workable alternative. Obama has found this out the hard way as he has tried to forge a post-Dubya policy. A vision has largely been absent, just rolling from one crisis to the next. I want Sanders to clearly state what he will do, not just what he won’t do.