 Well, we knocked out another debate. And I honestly don't know if the debates are in fact becoming progressively worse objectively speaking, or if I personally am just getting increasingly frustrated and disenchanted with the process itself. And the reason why I say that is because, like, I don't know what the average non-politically savvy consumer of news media would be able to take away from these debates that would help to make a more informed decision going into 2020. Because there's just little to no substance. There's not enough time for the candidates to really dive deep into these issues and actually debate issues like healthcare and foreign policy and debate solutions with regard to climate change. I mean, there's just none of that. And the moderation is just incredibly incompetent at all of these debates. This one was certainly no different. Some of the questions that they asked were absolutely insane. Like, why waste your time asking Andrew Yang what he'd say to Vladimir Putin in his first call as president? Who cares? Why ask Elizabeth Warren about a national service program? Why ask Bernie Sanders about whether or not it's appropriate for his crowds to be chanting, lock him up about Donald Trump? Who cares? How does that make me make a more informed decision while voting? Now, when it comes to Bernie Sanders, we know that they deliberately tried to tie Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump and prime people to believe that he's Trumpian because MSNBC and the Washington Post, both moderators here, they hate Bernie Sanders. In 2016, Washington Post ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders within 24 hours. So we know that their agenda is crystal clear, but getting to the substance here, there was just not much to be found. And I find that incredibly frustrating because we need to really dive deep into these issues, you know, go through the details about health care and not just debate, you know, the centrist versus, you know, the progressive position actually allow Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to hash out their differences because these debates, they kind of present this false image of Elizabeth Warren basically being, you know, the standard bearer for Medicare for all when that's not actually the case. Right? We're asking a billionaire, Tom Steyer, a question about affordable housing. I mean, the entire process is laughable. With that being said, we're going to get into the specifics and who I think, you know, was the winner who lost. I think that this, like all debates is largely subjective. I don't necessarily believe that there was any clear winner. With that being said, let's talk numbers first. So when it comes to talk time, Elizabeth Warren got the most time to speak with 13.4 minutes, followed by Pete Buttigieg with 12.8, Joe Biden with 12.6, Bernie Sanders with 11.8, Cory Booker with 11.5, Kamala Harris with 11.5, Amy Klobuchar with 10.7, Tulsi Gabbard with 9.2, Tom Steyer with 8.3 and Andrew Yang with 6.9. And when it comes to Google search results, once again, Tulsi Gabbard did dominate in this category. Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg also saw some spikes throughout the course of the debate, but there was also some interest for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. When it comes to attacks overall during the debate, we see that Tom Steyer was the most aggressive. And then we also had Amy Klobuchar taking shots at Joe Biden, Mayor Pete and Tom Steyer. Now, they didn't include Mayor Pete here, but she did in fact attack him for his qualifications. Now, going back to talk time, I find it incredibly absurd that Andrew Yang, who is polling higher than people like Cory Booker, polling higher than Tom Steyer and Amy Klobuchar gets the least amount of time to speak. That is absolutely absurd out of all the front runners throughout that first half of the debate. Bernie Sanders was given almost no time, he was being completely ignored and I'm actually surprised that he got the amount of time that he ended up getting when it was all said and done because Bernie Sanders was also being ignored. Now, the thing about Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang and why they kind of get swept under the rug is because they are less aggressive debaters, right? They don't necessarily take as many shots at their opponents. And when you take shots, when you instigate these types of exchanges, you do get more time to speak. And I think that it is a really important debate strategy to kind of be aggressive and elbow your way into the discussion by taking shots. You know, Tom Steyer was able to get more time because he invoked other candidates. So I think that, you know, if you want more time, then you've got to really speak up and you've got to be a little bit more aggressive. That would be my advice to Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang, but that's just not the way that they debate. And on top of that, moderators should not be going out of their way to give Amy Klobuchar so much time to speak as if she's a front runner. She's polling at what, 2% nationally? Andrew Yang is beating her. How are you not including him in the discussion more? How are you ignoring candidates for large periods of time? I mean, the way that this is moderated, it just, it doesn't make sense to me. This is why I don't believe that corporate media should be moderating these debates. Because when you have a privately owned corporation moderating them, we don't know if their agendas are getting in the way. But nine times out of 10, that is in fact the case. We all have biases, right? And moderating a debate with 10 different candidates would be difficult. But I mean, you've got to do better. You've got to do better in MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post. They've all completely bungled these processes. Now we're going to get to some specifics. I'll do some follow-up videos with individual segments. I think that there were some really huge moments of the night that happened in that second half. So I think that probably the most memorable moment was when Cory Booker attacked Joe Biden for his stance on marijuana legalization. That was probably the biggest moment of the night. The second biggest moment was when Tulsi Gabbard was basically the only person to take on people to judge. When you have someone who's surging, who is largely viewed as a front-runner in Iowa, I mean, you have to go after him. And Tulsi Gabbard, to her credit, was the only person who went after Pete Buttigieg. Kamala Harris got the opportunity handed to her on a silver platter to attack Pete Buttigieg. And she didn't do that. Now there was another moment in the debate where Bernie Sanders talked really beautifully about foreign policy. And he talked about respecting the rights of Palestinians and how they deserve dignity. And I thought that that was also just amazing. Another highlight of the debate, not necessarily highlight for me, was when Joe Biden called out Tom Steyer. That was kind of a surprising moment. Now he did it in the most boring way possible because it's Joe Biden. And you can tell that he was struggling to collect his thoughts. And whenever he spoke, it looked like he was literally in pain. But nonetheless, it was a pretty big moment. Another moment was when Kamala Harris called out Tulsi Gabbard. So there's a lot and we'll get to that. But what I want to get to first is my winners and losers. And as I usually do, I'll talk through their performances one by one. Now, usually what I do is I will break these down in four different categories. Whoever is the winner, whoever did good, but didn't necessarily win. The meh category didn't necessarily do bad, but just kind of maintained. And then the losers. Now, I think that it's probably easier to divide this debate up into two categories. Winners and losers. Because I think there were a lot of people who you could argue were winners. But I believe this is largely subjective. I think there were people who had pretty solid performances. Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren. But I don't know that there's one clear winner. There's a winner to me. It's Bernie Sanders because, I mean, he's my favorite. So I have that bias. But putting that aside, I still don't know objectively who would be the best in terms of performance. In terms of losers, I do think that there are clear losers. So I'll go ahead and follow the usual routine where I talk through those four different categories. So starting with losers, I placed three people in this category. Joe Biden, Tom Steyer, and Amy Klobuchar. Now, the reason why Joe Biden is in this category is because he lost his status as front runner. So he needed a big night. And I think that he knew he needed a big night. But as usual, he's an easy target and he was embarrassed. Cory Booker dunked on him and then Kamala Harris laughed at him when he forgot that she was a black senator. So I mean, you can't have a moment like that. And he seemed genuinely embarrassed and come away unscathed, right? It's going to hurt him. And you can just tell he shouldn't be in this race. That very first statement that he got, you know, I don't remember if it was about impeachment or whatnot. Like he kept losing his train of thought and it was just painful to watch. Like he shouldn't be in the race. He's not helping himself at all in these debates. And I like, I don't know what else to say. Joe Biden is not fit to be president. His performance here really spoke to that. Now, when it comes to Tom Steyer, Tom Steyer is someone who was a complete fraud and Joe Biden kind of exposed him. Now, the problem with Tom Steyer is he really wants you to think that he's anti-establishment, that he's not like all the other people on stage and he's the only one who did X. Like anyone can say that about anything, right? You can say that you're unique in some way and criticize everyone else for not doing this unique thing that you did specifically. But he's a fraud. He's a billionaire who bought his way onto the stage and that really is the elephant in the room whenever he opens his mouth. So you're not serious about any of these causes. Like if you're a billionaire, do you honestly believe that the best way that you can affect change using your wealth is to run for president? I mean fund some type of organization that combats climate change. I mean, what are you doing on the stage, Tom? Drop the fuck out. Like you should not be there. See, I couldn't buy my way onto that stage if I wanted to. Mike Gravel couldn't even get on the stage when he got 65,000 individual donations. So the fact that you're on that stage because you have money to basically swarm the media markets, it's unacceptable. You said nothing of value. You weren't substantive. You took shots at people and they didn't really land. What are you doing? So Tom Steyer, an obvious loser, I think. Now, another one is Amy Klobuchar. No matter how much the moderators love her and try to prop her up, there's just no there there. She doesn't have charisma. She doesn't speak about things in a way that is inspirational. I think that Hillary Clinton was probably a more inspirational candidate than Amy Klobuchar. Amy Klobuchar is so dry. She has nothing. She's milk toast. She's the definition of milk toast, I think. And on top of that, she gets away with lying and the moderators do nothing. So she talked about how Medicare for all, and she just kind of threw this in willy-nilly. Medicare for all would lead to people losing insurance, taking away insurance. No, that's a lie. People who support Medicare for all are not taking away insurance. They are expending it to 100% of the people. Like that's something that the moderators need to call her out on, right? You're supposed to fact check them in real time. And if someone is saying something that is obviously untrue, to let them get away with that is unacceptable. And to keep calling her out when she is polling at what, 2%, it's completely unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. So nothing she says lands, and I can't see how she has much money to sustain her campaign to Iowa even. I know that it's like two and a half months away, but there's just no excitement there. People don't like Amy Klobuchar, right? If they're centrist, they're already backing Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg. It's not happening for Amy Klobuchar. And it just is frustrating that the moderators are trying to proper up when nobody likes her. Okay, getting to the meh category, I placed two people here. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. Now, I honestly, I think that all of these categories here are entirely subjective. And I say this every time, but it really is super subjective. I put Kamala Harris here because she really needed a big moment and she squandered that, right? Whatever opportunity she had to stand out, she bungled it. She had the opportunity to take on Pete Buttigieg and, you know, the stock photo of a Kenyan woman. And how the media, they haven't talked about this huge scandal. She could have called him out on that and she didn't. She wanted to broaden the picture and just talk generally. Well, I mean, if you're aggressive, sometimes you'll be rewarded for that with a bump in the polls. She took on Joe Biden directly and she was rewarded for that. So to back away doesn't make sense. Now, on top of that, she also demonstrated weakness when she called out Tulsi Gabbard and she called her out for, you know, going on Fox News and attacking Obama. Even if it's not policy-based, it can land with voters because I don't feel comfortable with Tulsi Gabbard going on Fox News before and criticizing Obama for not saying radical Islamic terror. She went on Breitbart like a couple of weeks ago. Like they're basically an outlet that caters to white supremacists. So you can call her out on that and I think it would have landed. But she called Tulsi out, Tulsi responded and then Kamala Harris backed down. That doesn't demonstrate strength and you could have demonstrated that, you know, you've got your mojo back and you're ready to fight and you're ready to go head to head, head to head with Donald Trump, who will be brutal, who will be ruthless and you back down. You were too afraid to actually take on Tulsi Gabbard here and she basically swatted away that attack. And I think that you kind of had a valid criticism of her in that regard. So for you to back down, it just shows weakness and that's not a good look. So I'm not going to say that this was her worst performance. I think that in that last debate, when she was trying to press Elizabeth Warren to have Twitter ban Trump or some nonsense. That was her worst debate. That was embarrassing. She didn't embarrass herself here, but I don't think she had the performance that she needed to propel her at a time when we're getting down to the nitty gritty. Iowa is a couple of months away. She just didn't turn out. So in the mech category, people to judge, you can honestly argue that he's in the good category. And I say this not because I think he performed well. I think that he performed terribly. But he is now, as I stated earlier, perceived to be the front runner because he has taken the lead in Iowa, which could give him momentum if he does, in fact, when Iowa. So if you're in that new fangled position as a front runner, you should basically brace yourself and be able to absorb a lot of attacks. But Pete Buttigieg wasn't really attacked throughout the course of the debate. People were obviously biting their tongues. They didn't want to attack Pete Buttigieg. Now, thankfully, Tulsi Gabbard was the exception. And everyone else on that stage should thank Tulsi Gabbard for doing their work for them. Because I mean, it's in everyone's best interest to take out Pete Buttigieg. But I mean, he didn't have a great performance. He didn't say anything that I think will resonate. He didn't have a good reason as to why he's not really appealing to black voters. But with that being said, if you really weren't the subject of attacks when you're the front runner, that's a pretty good day for you regardless of your debate performance. If nobody's calling you out and you don't have to defend yourself, you know, as hard as Elizabeth Warren did in that last debate. Yeah, you're not coming out too badly. So I don't know that there was enough attacks at him that will actually drive down his numbers. Now, maybe Tulsi Gabbard knocked him out in the same way that she knocked out Kamala Harris. But I don't think that her attack on Pete Buttigieg was as powerful as the attack on Kamala was. Now, it was great and we'll get to that. But I just like he didn't have to defend himself as much. Like each time you're the front runner, you're supposed to be bombarded with attacks. Like your opponents want to back you in the corner after that first debate. Kamala witnessed this. In that last debate, you know, Elizabeth Warren witnessed this. Pete Buttigieg, he kind of got a pass and that's to the failure of everyone on that stage. Tulsi Gabbard, not so much because she actually did her job on that debate stage. Now getting to the good category. This is a really tough one. So I'm going to place Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren in this category as well. Now you can argue that Bernie Sanders also belongs in this category because as I stated, I don't believe that there's a clear winner. But I'll get to why I think Bernie Sanders won. But with that being said, I placed these people in this category because overall I think that they had solid performances. Was it enough to move the needle for them? That we'll have to find out. But Andrew Yang, I really felt like he improved his debate performance and each debate he really tends to get better. Like he has stepped it up. You can tell that he is, you know, more comfortable talking about policies. He kind of has broadened the scope and he's not just talking about universal basic income. He's branching out to talk about other policies. And I think that that's a really good look for him. What he needs to do because he has that really loyal base of supporters. You'll find a way to broaden his appeal, right? Andrew Yang didn't really have a fair opportunity to pitch his ideas because he was largely ignored for a good portion of that debate, even though he is basically in, you know, fifth or sixth place overall, depending on the poll. But I would say to Andrew Yang the same thing I'd say to Bernie, you have to be aggressive. Now, I'm just going to have to accept that some candidates are too nice. Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders, they're too nice. So they're not going to be aggressive. You know, if you're not aggressive, then you will be kind of ignored for portions of this debate. You've really got to try to get in there. With that being said, Andrew Yang still did good. I think that this was a solid performance. The only thing that I will knock him for is defending Tom Steyer. Like, don't defend a billionaire in any context ever. By definition, billionaires are pieces of shit who should not exist. So don't do that. Otherwise, Andrew Yang did a good job. And when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, so throughout the first half of the debate, I like, I was not very impressed with her performance, but she definitely picked it up towards the end. So the thing about Tulsi Gabbard that I don't get is her performance and really who she chooses to target. Like, I don't understand why she goes after Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. When you have Joe Biden on the stage who basically has the same exact foreign policy as Hillary Clinton, you're not running against Hillary Clinton, you're running against Joe Biden. Now, it's well played. Like the way that she spun this, you know, Hillary Clinton attack, I think that that was a brilliant move. But it's time to move on now. You got people's attention. So now it's really time to talk about policy, you know, talk about the things that you are running on. And the thing about Tulsi Gabbard is she has the same problem that I have. She needs to learn how to cut out the fluff and be more concise. Like for me, I just like, I'm a chatterbox, right? So I'm always talking and talking and talking, and I really have to force myself to get to the, you know, the point that I want to make. I'm doing it right now. And she has this problem and she's got to fix it because you don't have time. So I'll give you an example. When I came to climate change, she started off her answer about climate change mitigation by talking about how, well, you know, I've talked to Republicans and libertarians and all progressives alike. We all care about this. Yes, we know that lots of people care about climate change, but you just wasted a minute of your time not talking about solutions. Now she ended strongly on that particular answer, but you have to cut out the fluff and get straight to the substance. And she does have an issue just getting to policy, right? Like she ended her closing statement by talking about respect and aloha. Don't. Like that's platitudes. Get to the policy. Lay out your agenda because if you are a candidate like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, to be fair, you're not going to be given that much time. So you've got to make the best impression you can possibly make. And just espousing platitudes. I mean, everyone else in the race is doing that. So people aren't really going to be able to determine who's the better candidate based on who has the nicest platitudes. Like they're voting based on policy and Tulsi should have laid out her agenda there. That being said, I don't want to be too hard on her because I think that her performance was good overall. And this is namely because she had a really big moment and she knows that she needs at least one to two big moments at each debate to kind of build up momentum to prevail her for that next debate to get more donations and support so she qualifies. And she did that. Now, I will say and I don't want to talk too much about this in this debate breakdown because I will have a separate segment on that. What I would have done if I were Tulsi Gabbard when it comes to that Pete Buttigieg attack is rather than just focus on him, you know, floating the idea of sending troops from the United States to Mexico to combat gang and drug violence, which is absurd, by the way. But rather than just focusing on that, she should have done to Pete what she did to Kamala and lay out multiple things. It's called gish galloping. It's a debate strategy where you just kind of throw a bunch of things you overwhelm your opponent and they can't possibly respond to everything. So since she only called him out, primarily for one thing, he was able to respond and swap that away. Now, I think that she got the better of that exchange and you can really see the fragility of Pete Buttigieg like he doesn't do well under pressure. And he doesn't like to be criticized, right? But if she kind of threw a lot at him, the way that he was basically lying about endorsements he got his record in South Bend, I think it would have been a knockout punch in the same way that she gave a knockout punch to Kamala Harris. Now, with that being said, I think that her calling out Pete Buttigieg is great. It's fantastic. But I think that there could have been a better way to do that, but I still think she did a good job. And why she refuses to attack Joe Biden, though, it doesn't make sense. It makes no sense to me. He's your opponent and your whole thing is regime change wars. You have someone in the race who voted for the Iraq war. You can't talk about the Bush and Hillary doctrine when you have someone on the stage who voted for the Iraq war. So I don't get the strategy. I don't get, you know, the criteria for how she chooses who to attack and who to give a pass to. But either way, you know, her performance, I think was solid. Getting to Cory Booker. Cory Booker, he irritates me a lot because he is always one of these candidates who is, you know, about I'm above the fray, right? We can't attack each other. We can't have all of this divisiveness, right? And whenever he says that, I hate him. But whenever he starts actually calling out his opponents in a meaningful way, he does a good job and he's got phenomenal one-liners. So when he talked about how Joe Biden didn't want to legalize marijuana and he thought when he heard Joe Biden say that he must have been high, that was a phenomenal way to criticize Joe Biden. You know, it was memorable and probably the best moment of the night throughout the whole course of the debate. So, you know, kudos to him for that. But overall, did he do enough is the question because he's kind of on the brink of death, right? He hasn't qualified for the December debate yet. So was that enough? I don't know. Really, who truly is going to benefit from this debate is based on who the media chooses to prop up. So if they think that people to judge should benefit from this, they're going to declare him the winner and he's going to get a boost. If they think that Cory Booker should be the new winner and they start their love affair with him and move on from Pete, then Cory Booker will get a boost. So I think this will be determined by the media, by and large. However, I think his performance overall, objectively speaking, as someone who does not support Cory Booker and who thinks he's fake and smarmy, I think it was solid. Now, when it comes to Elizabeth Warren, I don't know what to say about Elizabeth Warren. I think that her exchange with Cory Booker about the wealth tax was solid. But by and large, I feel as if she kind of faded into the background throughout the course of this debate and she didn't say anything new that we didn't already know about her. I think she's a very good debater and I'll be fair to her. She doesn't really need to do much because she is one of the front runners still. So you don't have to be super bombastic. You don't have to be aggressive and go on offense, but you do have to maintain. And I think she just kind of maintained, right? We didn't hear nothing new. There was no moment that was devastating for Elizabeth Warren. What does irritate me though is that she's kind of, and I alluded to this earlier so I won't be too redundant in rehashing this, but she needs to not be presented as the standard bearer for Medicare for All because we know that she's not serious about it. She's backing a public option. That's her number one priority, not Medicare for All. So that's irritating, but I mean, regardless of Elizabeth Warren, she maintained and that's what she needed to do. Okay, so getting to my winner, surprise, surprise, it's Bernie Sanders. Now, I think that this is largely due to the fact that I just support Bernie Sanders. So that's my own bias, like it's difficult to escape your own subjectivity and, you know, be objective here in this instance. But let me explain to you why I believe that Bernie Sanders is the winner. He didn't deliver what I wanted. Going into this in my pre-debate analysis, I wanted aggression from Bernie Sanders because that's how you get more talk time and that's how you have, you know, the highlights that mainstream media will talk about and we need them to stop ignoring Bernie and talk about him. However, even though I say every single time going into these debates, Bernie needs to be more aggressive, he still manages to win me over because he talks about things in such a thorough and, you know, nuanced way and he's laying out an agenda that truly is transformative and there were so many good moments in this debate where Bernie Sanders just, he caught me off guard. So when he talked about, you know, rethinking the war on terror, that was a huge moment because the failed war on terror has created more terrorists. That would be a game changer. When he talked about Palestinians deserving equal treatment and bringing Saudi Arabia and Iran together, I mean, you have to think about the global impact that this would have. He's bringing together a largely Sunni country and a largely Shia country. He as a Jewish American is saying, I believe that Palestinians deserve respect. Like you have to understand the impact that this would have internationally would be monumental and potentially history changing. So I'm trying to accept the fact that Bernie is not going to give me the aggression that I want and I don't like it. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way that he is. He doesn't have it in his nature. He's a nice person and Andrew Yang supporters can probably, you know, sympathize because Andrew Yang is also very nice and he doesn't want to attack people as well. But Bernie Sanders has an agenda that is so transformative, so revolutionary that when I hear him talk about the policy, he's so clear. He, you know, conveys a vision to the American people that is unlike anyone else on the stage. And even if he's not attacking them, I think he differentiates himself from the rest of the field by always cutting straight to the core of the issue. You know, when we talk about health care, we have to talk about taking on the health insurance industry. When we talk about, you know, climate change, we've got to talk about standing up to the fossil fuel industry. His answer on climate change, by the way, was remarkable. So that's why Bernie Sanders, I think he won this debate. Now, was he a clear winner? Was it, you know, just above and beyond everyone else? No. And I'm willing to admit that I think that I'm probably labeling him the winner because he just, I agree with him more. Right. So he spoke to me and I don't necessarily believe that there was a clear winner. And I try to be fair and objective and I've declared other people winners before. But the thing about Bernie Sanders that I will say is that, you know, he throughout the course of all these debates is staying the course. Right. He is not trying to win by having these really big moments throughout this debate and attacking people. He's trying to win based on policy. And while I think that there is, you know, value in attacking your opponents during a primary. I do think that this debate strategy that he has now would be great going up against Donald Trump because Donald Trump is going to try to make this, you know, a race to the bottom. Right. This will be gutter politics with whoever is the nominee going up against Donald Trump. But if you stay focused on policy substance and you're really, really substantive, then I think that that's the best strategy going up against Donald Trump. So Bernie is just he's, you know, he's staying the course. That's I think the best way to put it. And sometimes slow and steady wins the race. I'd love to see him actually call out the corruption. Like when people to judge and Amy Klobuchar talk about Medicare for all who wanted a public option, all of that nonsense. Like I would love to hear him ask them how much money have you taken from the health insurance industry. Let me tell you, I have a list right here. That would be such a powerful moment. So I mean, he's a nice guy, but you can attack someone in a very polite way. You know, you can you can criticize them while not conveying aggression if that's what he's worried about. But with that being said, there's just so much substance there that I find it hard to fault Bernie Sanders because he's given me exactly what I want. When it comes to policy, the substance, the nuance, and he's doing this with a very limited amount of time, right? He's very concise to get straight to the point. And that's what I love about Bernie Sanders. So that's why I think he won. Could you argue and say I think it was someone else? Yeah, I think that those five people, Yang, Gabbard, Booker, Warren, if you're a supporter of them, I think you're probably going to argue that they were the winner of this debate. But certainly what I'm not willing to negotiate on is the fact that Biden stay in Klobuchar are definite losers. I mean, I looked at lists online and I try not to do that before doing these debate breakdown videos because I want my opinion to be unadulterated. And they were just all over the place. And this is, you know, this is something that I think we're going to continue to see. Because with that many candidates on the stage, it's really difficult to kind of have your moment and stand out. So candidates do what they can. And this really is about how wisely you use your time, right? And I think that Bernie Sanders always uses his time wisely and he just he speaks truth to power. Now he's preaching to the choir. I'm I'm the choir, right? So everything he says, you know, it's going to resonate with me because I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and I believe he's the best. But you can make the case that maybe debate performance wise, he wasn't the best. But I mean, there wasn't, you know, many attacks lobbed against him. And, you know, that leads me to believe that maybe they're sleeping on Bernie Sanders and he could be a sleeper, right? He's still in the process of slowly but surely surging. He's gaining in the polls, right? It might not be at the speed that Pete Buttigieg is gaining, but he's gaining nonetheless while Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are going down. So, you know what? He's not aggressive, but I love him anyway. So that's my breakdown. We're going to get to the specifics. And yeah, I'm curious to know what you think. I always kind of like to gauge the audience because I do believe that this really is subjective. And oftentimes I'll see comments like, Mike, what are you thinking? This person definitely lost or this person definitely won. And I really do believe that you can make that case and possibly persuade me because this really is subjective. When there's this many candidates, it's so difficult to stand out and this is really, you know, it's tough. We're not really engaging in policy details in as thorough of a way as we need to be. But, you know, I think that candidates for the most part in that top five list, you know, the Yang, Tulsi Booker, Warren, Bernie, they made the best with the time, you know, that they were given. But Bernie Sanders, I think, stood out the most. So yeah, I'll leave that there.