 So, I'll be honest, coming into this debate, I wasn't necessarily sure what to expect, although I did have this overwhelming feeling of dread given how horrible the last debate, which was hosted by CNN, went. However, that debate wasn't too bad. Moderation? Pretty competent, relatively fair. They equally distributed talk time amongst the candidates. That wasn't too bad. Don't get me wrong, I do take issue with some of the aspects of moderation. They weren't 100% fair. And I don't know if they just have that advantage of moderating a debate after CNN, because CNN, you know, they did such a horrible job, so when you go right after someone who did a bad job, you look better. I don't know what it is, but this debate was pretty good. And it may even be the case that my opinion of this debate is biased by the fact that my favorite candidate, Bernie Sanders, I think did a really great job, regardless, not too bad, not too bad at all. And really, this debate, when you have two candidates emerging victorious out of Iowa, Bernie Sanders won Iowa overall, let's be clear, because he got 6,000 more votes. But I mean, everyone was kind of looking at Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders. The general audience was, at least. And, you know, it's very clear that one candidate stood out. One candidate was incredibly competent and confident. And Pete Buttigieg has kind of been in the spotlight before when he was perceived to be one of the front runners, if not the front runner. And he just, he doesn't perform well under pressure. All that he has are his rehearsed talking points, his script. And when he gets to push off script, when he gets challenged even minimally, he just, he implodes. So overall, not a great debate for Pete Buttigieg. But overall, you know, I'm not going to say that it was a blowout performance by Bernie Sanders. I think that you can argue that this was one of his better performances, if not his best performance. But there were some weak moments for Bernie Sanders as well, although I do think that he's coming away pretty strongly. Although I'll get to, you know, who I think are the winners and losers after we get to some numbers. So when it comes to talk time, overall, Bernie Sanders surprisingly got the most talk time with 20 minutes and seven seconds. We have Joe Biden coming in second place with 19 minutes and 38 seconds. We have Pete Buttigieg in third with 18 minutes, 28 seconds. Amy Klobuchar with 16 minutes, 32 seconds. Elizabeth Warren with 15 minutes, 54 seconds. Tom Steyer with 13 minutes, 53 seconds. And then we have Andrew Yang with eight minutes and five seconds. So once again, I do think that Amy Klobuchar's talk time is inflated, you know, with regard to her staying in the polls, compared to other individuals like Elizabeth Warren. And I don't think that eight minutes is enough time for Andrew Yang. Given that, I think he's polling relatively well, at least comparable to Tom Steyer in New Hampshire. But overall, you know, there's been worse distributions of talk time where we had just Amy Klobuchar near the top, which didn't make any sense since she's not really catching fire. But, you know, overall, not too shabby, not too shabby. So I'm going to get to the winners and the losers. And this time I'm going to have, you know, that middle category be the okay slash meh category. You know, it's difficult because I don't necessarily think that there were any real strong losers, with the exception maybe if Pete Buttigieg. But I'm going to be grading all of the candidates a lot harsher this time because I mean, this is do or die. We have votes taking place. We are less than a month away from Super Tuesday. And really, we needed standout performances. And some candidates really had to deliver. And I just don't think that they did that. So first and foremost, let me get to the losers, because I think we had quite a bit of them in this category. I am putting Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, and Pete Buttigieg. Now, going into this debate, I tweeted that I was really just genuinely excited to see Andrew Yang at this debate, because at this point, like I hate everyone's face, but Bernie Sanders and like the anti-establishment type candidates, and I don't agree with Andrew Yang's policies. Like the human-centric capitalism is not something that appeals to me. Like I don't like capitalism at all. And when it comes to policy, I disagree with him. But like in terms of just genuine authenticity, it was nice to see him there. With that being said, Andrew Yang really, he has demonstrated that he can perform really well in these debates. And I expected quite a bit like he raised the bar high with his last performances. And I just don't think that he delivered. You know, going into this, my pre-debate analysis, you know, I kind of talked about what Andrew Yang needs to do to be successful, especially coming out of that Iowa debacle. He's got to run against the system. He has this advantage as an anti-establishment candidate to just go crazy. I mean, you have nothing to lose at this point. So absolutely go balls to the wall, run against the media bias, call out the DNC, and I really think that that would resonate. And you know, we kind of just got this, it was like, it wasn't a bad performance. But the reason why I put him in this category is because he didn't do enough to move the needle. That's basically my opinion. There was a moment where it looked like he was eating when he was called on. His energy wasn't as high as it usually is. Yeah, you know, I just, I think that he needed to really have a great performance. And I think that he could have done better. I think that he needed to jump in a lot more. And to be fair, he wasn't really called on. So like when you have, you know, less talk time and you're not called on, there's this perception that you're fading into the background. And I don't think that helped him. So I mean, overall, he needed to pull this one off. And I don't think that he did. Elizabeth Warren, I mean, for the first half of the debate, she faded into the background as well. And she just wasn't saying much. Now towards the end of the debate, the second half, I'd say, she was a lot more lively. But Elizabeth Warren, after finishing in third, in a distant third in Iowa, she really, really needed to make the pitch that I am this person who can, you know, unite both wings of the party, the centrists, and progressives. That was kind of what she was going with. Now she has kind of proven that she can't win over progressives because she's been shifting too far to the center. So she needed to fight for that space that Pete Buttigieg is currently occupying. And that's kind of a difficult line to walk, right? Because you're trying to present yourself as someone who's progressive, but yet you're trying to take over the lane that a moderate currently occupies. Nonetheless, like she kind of needed to make herself the anti-Bernie option to everyone else. And she just, she failed to deliver, you know, her lines fell relatively flat during healthcare. She didn't mention Medicare for all. Overall, it was just a weak performance from Elizabeth Warren. Will this hurt her? I don't necessarily think it's going to hurt her. Her performance like wasn't that bad, but much like Andrew Yang, she needed a really strong performance and she didn't deliver. Now Amy Klobuchar, you know, I watched for about five minutes after the debate and the commentators once again loved Amy Klobuchar's performance, but the problem is like Andrew Yang, like Elizabeth Warren, she needed a good performance. She finished in fifth, I think, in Iowa. And I believe she overperformed the polls, but at this point in time, when you have no clear path to the nomination, you can't play it safe. Like you have to start attacking. And I think that she did, like she threw in a couple of blows against Pete Buttigieg. But with that being said, was it enough? Was it enough to basically position herself as that anti-Bernie choice? Because it seems like Bernie Sanders, he's going to be one of the front runners. He's in this for the long haul, he's the favorite on Super Tuesday. So everyone else is vying for that spot as the vote for me, because I'm not Bernie, you know, position. And she did nothing to demonstrate why it should be her as opposed to, you know, Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren. And every single time, you know, we see lots of praise from, you know, CNN and all of these corporate pundits with Amy Klobuchar's performance, but it doesn't resonate with voters because it's fake. Like what she's saying isn't landing. And she just, like she hasn't changed up her strategy at all. We hear the same talking points from her. And if it hasn't worked before, we have no reason to believe that it's going to work now. And she's largely a manufactured media candidate, not to the extent that Pete Buttigieg is, but nonetheless, she wouldn't be here, had the media not propped her up. And she did nothing to prove that she's viable. And I mean, she, at some point, she's going to run out of funding, right? So she needed a big performance so she can cultivate, you know, some fundraising, some momentum. And I just don't, I don't see it. So, you know, this is going to be about how long will the media be able to carry her on their backs? How much longevity does she have? And I just, I don't see much. I don't see much from there. So the next loser is Pete Buttigieg. And as I kind of alluded to going into this video, the problem with Mayor Pete is that, you know, whenever the pressure and the spotlight is on him, he can't perform. So surprisingly, to the moderator's credit, they actually challenged him about arrest rates with regard to marijuana in South Bend. They increased under his tenure. And as you can see, he dodged the question. They actually asked a follow-up, a follow-up. And we got nothing from him. Like, he is unable to defend himself. And under the most minimal amount of scrutiny, he just, he can't take it. So in terms of like, if I'm an average viewer, trying to be impartial, trying to like remove myself from my own subjective bias, if I'm really watching Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, Pete Buttigieg did not come off as a winner. He did not come off as someone who can take on Donald Trump. Like imagining him on a debate stage against Donald Trump, he likes to prime us to think about that and what it would be like. But that's not good for him because he's fake. He's corporatist. He's, he's openly corrupt. And he flaunts his billionaire donors by basically saying, look, we can't argue that certain people aren't welcome into our coalition. We need the biggest coalition and every dime, except that's not going to land with people. Donald Trump literally attacked Hillary Clinton from the left because she was taking money from Wall Street. He is going to obliterate Mayor Pete. And I think that if you don't see that on this debate stage, then you're, you're blind. But under the scrutiny, under the attacks from his opponents, he just came off as someone who was empty. Like he's an empty suit. Everything he says seems rehearsed. Um, focus group driven. Like every single thing that, uh, he says with regard to policy is very vague. Like we're getting no specifics. Like this was just a really bad performance. And, you know, going into this debate, if you want to be the front runner, you've got to defend that status. And I think he did a horrible job. So I don't know how this is going to work. Will this hurt him going into New Hampshire? Now that he's surging, I'm not sure. But all I can say is not a great performance. And after seeing that, I mean, I'm like a hundred percent sure why I shouldn't say a hundred percent. I'm fairly certain that he would get demolished by Trump. And basically if he were the nominee, God forbid, Trump would be guaranteed a victory almost. Okay. Getting into the okay category. This was tough. And you can argue that this individual, the one person I'm placing here, is also in the loser category. But I'm putting Joe Biden in the okay category. Now the reason why he is here and not a winner and not a loser is because he was okay. At the beginning, you can hear it in his voice, the disappointment. He seemed like he was deflated after the results in Iowa. But towards the end, he kind of got a little bit more animated and whatnot, although he started to stumble over his own words. And it was difficult for him to collect his thoughts. And the thing about him is he really needed a breakout performance so he can kind of, I don't know, be at least viable in New Hampshire. So he can guarantee his win or at least make sure that he can maintain that lead in South Carolina. And I'm just not sure where to place him here. And I think that overall, you know, he took some shots at people to judge and Bernie Sanders. And nobody really focused on him. And he wasn't necessarily the subject of everyone else's attack. So I think that people were kind of overlooking him. So I mean, he benefits from that by not being attacked by his opponents. But at the same time, you kind of want to have that target on your back. So the viewers know that you are the one to watch, you know, so that way viewers perceive you to be a threat. So I'm not really sure where to place Joe Biden. But there were a couple of moments where he looked really bad. And we'll get to that when we get to the policy specific portions. But then, you know, some moments, I think that he did a fairly good job. He was more personable. So he was just, he was okay. You can argue that he's a loser, but I'm just going to place him in the okay category because I'm not necessarily sure what to do with him at this point in time. So I have two winners. One is a clear winner. One is an arguable winner. And in this category, I placed Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer. Now, Tom Steyer, you can argue that he is in the okay category because he did nothing in this debate to really push himself into that front runner category. However, what I will say with Tom Steyer and what I think he was trying to do was position himself for a really strong performance in South Carolina. And that's what he did. That's why I think he outperformed Biden here because currently if you look at polls for whatever reason, he is surging in South Carolina. He's now in second place. Are you a third place? So I mean, he can do a good job in South Carolina. And that's what he was trying to do. That's why you can see the pressure that he was putting on Joe Biden to disavow someone who made racist comments was associated with him. So he basically did what he needed to do, I think. And that's bring down Biden in hopes that he can maybe pull off a victory in South Carolina. So going into Super Tuesday, he doesn't get obliterated. And that's really the only reason why I think he was able to win. Although I will say, I don't trust anything that Tom Steyer says because he was a fraud. He's a billionaire hedge fund manager. And what we saw from him was a little more than political theater. However, I think that the viewer is going to realize that he tried to stand out and I think that he did. Okay, getting to Bernard Sanders. Arguably one of Bernie Sanders' best performances for the first three-fourths of the debate. Bernie was absolutely on fire. And going into this debate, like his energy was palpable. Like he had that front-runner confidence and going into this, I think that he knows that he is the favorite. He's the one to beat. Mayor Pete, maybe trying to claim victory in Iowa, but regardless, Mayor Pete doesn't have a real path to the nomination. And now that Joe Biden underperformed, Bernie Sanders is the one who can fill that vacuum that is being left open by Joe Biden. And I think that Bernie Sanders knows this, which is why he did what he needed to do. He attacked when it was necessary, but at the end of the day, he wasn't overly aggressive. And I want him to be aggressive, but I think that he struck a relatively good balance. You know, he called out Pete Buttigieg when it was necessary, his billionaire donors. I think Bernie did a really great job. He made phenomenal policy points when it comes to climate change and foreign policy. One of the best lines on climate change I think I've ever heard from a politician ever, and we'll get to that in the separate segment, but he did a good job. But that's not to say that there weren't some flaws with Bernie's performance because I did not appreciate when he left Nina Turner hanging when, you know, they asked about an op-ed that Nina Turner wrote about Joe Biden. This is the second time that Bernie Sanders has done this. You know, Zephyr Teachout wrote an op-ed about Joe Biden for the Guardian, saying that he's corrupt, and Bernie Sanders basically disavowed that and said Joe Biden's a friend of mine, and we got that same thing. So Bernie needs to stop doing that because you have these people who are going to bat for you, fighting for you, pointing out facts. A fact is not an attack. And I get that Bernie Sanders doesn't want to be perceived as this aggressive candidate, but the media is going to attribute that label to you regardless of if you attack or not. So you might as well just, you know, affirm what Nina Turner said because it was correct and not leave her hanging. So that irritated me. Like that legitimately irritated me. And it's the one thing that's keeping me from saying that this was Bernie's best performance. However, you know, that wasn't enough to detract from his overall performance. I think that after this, Bernie can certainly do good in states like South Carolina, in New Hampshire. He really showed voters and viewers, hopefully that he is the one to beat. So I think that this debate can help kind of stop a Pete Surge. Hopefully I'm crossing my fingers. Definitely donate to him, but he had a good performance. But I do want to get to some specifics here. And one of my favorite moments of the night, probably my favorite moment of the night, was when Hillary Clinton's attacks on Bernie was brought up. And even though I can't stand Amy Klobuchar or Joe Biden, the fact that Amy Klobuchar said, you know, I like Bernie and the fact that Joe Biden hugged Bernie Sanders, that actually was really sweet. Like that legitimately was heartwarming. And I never in a million years thought that I would see, you know, a moment at the debate that I would describe as heartwarming. But that was really great. And on top of that, there was a great moment where Bernie Sanders basically low key called Pete Buttigieg a rat. Take a look. But at the end of the day, there's no way around it. You may want to nibble around the edges. I see what you're doing, Bernie. I see what you're doing. And I like it. Now, Andrew Yang also used that same line. And I think that he's low key calling Pete Buttigieg a rat as well. But, you know, overall, I said in my pre-debate analysis that if anyone goes on that stage and calls Pete Buttigieg a rat-faced fuck, I would switch support from Bernie to them. Didn't get that. But the nibble around the edges comments, I think that will suffice. And since Bernie said it first, you know, I'll continue supporting him. Okay. But to be serious, so I have a couple of things in my notes that I want to point out that irritated me. So Elizabeth Warren said that her and Amy Klobuchar were the only individuals on that stage that don't have super PACs or something along those lines. So she was basically attacking Bernie Sanders insinuating that he has a super PAC. Now, I'm not sure what she is trying to say is or isn't a super PAC. It's obviously the case that Bernie doesn't have a super PAC. He has no billionaire donors. Elizabeth Warren has four. And in fact, Elizabeth Warren held private fundraisers, some of which were at Wine Caves, back for her Senate campaign and transferred about 10 million of that money to her 2020 presidential campaign. So she's not the best judge when it comes to corruption here. And if she's basically inferring that groups like our revolution or the Sunrise Movement are dark money groups or super PACs, I've got to ask the same question that I saw NYT journalist Steadman points out. Why isn't the PCC also considered a super PAC by Warren's own standards if it is the case that she is suggesting that the Sunrise Movement, for example, is a super PAC of sorts? I mean, it's a grassroots organization. So that's different than a super PAC. Nonetheless, you see what Elizabeth Warren is trying to do. She's kind of scrambling and she really wants to draw distinctions between her and Bernie Sanders. I don't think that's necessarily smart because she attacked Bernie last time and it backfired horribly. So she really wants to go after people to judge to occupy that lane. And once he's gone and if it comes down to her and Bernie, then they can really draw distinctions. But I mean, it seemed desperate to me and I don't think that's going to land with voters because Bernie Sanders is the most trusted politician. He's the most popular politician in America whereas Elizabeth Warren is one of the least popular. So to try to go after him and imply pretty heavily so that he's like everyone else on that stage with a PAC, that's absolute bullshit. Now, what was really interesting to me was the healthcare debate where Amy Klobuchar kind of gave me some mixed feelings and we'll get to this more specifically. Like she both attacked Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg at the same time, but both from the right. So she lied about Bernie's Medicare for All bill. She said that it would take away health insurance. Now anyone who is saying that Medicare for All which extends coverage to 100% of the population would take away insurance. That is a bold-faced lie that originated straight out of the health insurance industry. But on top of that, she did hit Pete Buttigieg for changing his position. He did tweet out, here's the tweet that he supports Medicare for All. So I was a little bit torn on that. I don't like her lies. It isn't the first time she lied about it. I mean, Amy Klobuchar is a Republican. I don't know why she's running in the Democratic Party. She is a Susan Collins. She's a Republican. But I mean, overall, Amy Klobuchar, just a complete fraud, swimming in cash from special interests. And that's why she doesn't support Medicare for All. Another phenomenal moment was when Bernie Sanders once again called out Pete Buttigieg's billionaires and his only defense was, well, we need as much money as we can to beat Donald Trump and I'm not gonna exclude anyone from my coalition. In other words, billionaires, we can't just tell them that they can't join our movement. Of course, we shouldn't do that. We need money to beat Donald Trump. And yes, I welcome them to our movement as well, except Hillary Clinton demonstrated that money isn't everything because she outraised Donald Trump by what, two to one? That's a large margin and she's still lost. So that is a failed strategy and guess what? You're gonna lose in the general because Trump will call that out. Okay, when it comes to foreign policy, there was a clear stand out here and that individual is Bernie Sanders. He's the only person who really gave us a new vision. First of all, he called out Saudi Arabia, which was phenomenal and how Muhammad bin Salman killed a journalist. Like we should never not be outraged at that. That really is an international outrage. And on top of that, he re-centered foreign policy to tailor it to climate change and said, look, instead of attacking everyone, instead of spending more than a trillion dollars collectively, why don't all of us countries around the world get together and attack climate change, which is our real enemy. And that's such a powerful moment. I want to play a clip and talk about that deeper in a different segment. But I mean, he was the clear winner here and it's not just because Bernie Sanders was such a standout here, but it's because Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden did a horrible job. So Elizabeth Warren, she talked a good game, a relatively good game, but she didn't stand out and she also doesn't have the credibility because she voted for Donald Trump's military budget. So for her to say, I'm going to bring the troops home, I mean, that's better than Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Nonetheless, you don't have the credibility that Bernie Sanders has here. And she also didn't really try to chime in to that foreign policy conversation as much as a front runner theoretically should. Pete Buttigieg just, he's indecisive. He shows that he's inexperienced here. He wouldn't say with certainty that he would not execute a foreign leader like a top military official. If you can't say unequivocally, what even Joe Biden, someone who voted for the Iraq war was able to say that you wouldn't greenlight the execution of a top military general, then you have no business being in politics. But that's not to say that Joe Biden did a great job himself because even though he could say what Pete wouldn't say, that I wouldn't have allowed for this killing, he still basically argued that we should stay in the Middle East indefinitely. And on top of that, once again, brought up the line that he was basically tricked by George W. Bush. I trusted George W. Bush. Like, I can't believe that he's using this as a defense. Again, like you don't want to use this defense. It's not resonating with anyone. You have to stop. Not a good defense, not a good look. What are you thinking? But keep talking because it's helping Bernie Sanders. So I mean, there were moments in this debate where Bernie Sanders just dominated when it comes to healthcare. Bernie once again dominated. And you could tell that that's reflected in the polls because he's the most trusted when it comes to healthcare. So he's winning this argument, and Bernie Sanders once again sharpened his message when it comes to healthcare. He was clear you have to take on the insurance industry. Nobody else wants to do that. He explained why we don't get anything done, why we've been talking about healthcare for 100 years because of the insurance industry's power. Like, he was so, so solid tonight. But there were other moments that were really great. For example, Tom Steyer came out and he unequivocally said, I support reparations. Now, with any politician, when they say that word, you have to ask them what they mean by that. Because we've had politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and Julian Castro all commit to supporting something like reparations. But when you ask them what they mean by that, it's not really what we usually envision as reparations. Like when I think of reparations, I think of investments in communities of color as well as direct cash payments to them. Like you've got to go with this two pronged approach, but they just kind of have this milk toast. Well, it's a little bit of everything, this, that, we invest in the community, like a very non-specific answer, not something that Marianne Williamson said. So I do credit Tom Steyer for bringing that up. I think it's important. During the healthcare portion, getting back to that a little bit, Elizabeth Warren, I don't believe, said Medicare for All even once. So she's standing out less and less, whereas at the beginning of the Democratic Party primary debates, she was absolutely crushing and dominating. So it's very clear now that she does not support Medicare for All. She is in favor of a more incremental nibble around the edge approach, if you will. And it's not going to resonate. Like we need to get in past one bill and then Medicare for All will be the law of the land. But her approach is so convoluted. She's just kind of fusing more people by moving the goalpost. And that's why she, I think, is becoming more and more irrelevant in these healthcare portions of these debates. And when it comes to the issue of trade, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar did not do a good job at defending their votes. They didn't, whereas Bernie Sanders came off as decisive. He explained specifically why this is not a great thing to support. I mean, there's no mention of climate change. How can we in 2020 sign on to anything when that should be the issue that we are thinking about with every legislation we passed? Now, Tom Steyer, I think he kind of sensed that Bernie Sanders was doing well here and dominating. So we tried to ride Bernie's coattails, jump on board and say, look, Bernie Sanders is right. And I think it worked for him. So that's really all the specifics that I want to talk about here. Overall, it's really difficult to predict how these debates are going to influence the polls and the races now because we're knee-deep in this primary, right? We've got New Hampshire this coming week, South Carolina, or Nevada the next week, South Carolina the week after that. And the week after that, March 3rd is Super Tuesday. So, you know, we're really going to start seeing the results pour in. And I don't know if these debates will have more or less of an influence. With that being said, I do know that the two people who were being watched the closest were Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. And Bernie Sanders absolutely demonstrated that he has the capacity to withstand, you know, the status as front-runner. He could absorb blows and also counter-punch. He could be confident and speak with authority and decisiveness. And that is something that you really want to be able to do, which is why he just had such a phenomenal night. The one weakness, of course, as I mentioned, was when he did his whole, oh, Joe Biden's my friend. I don't agree with Nina Turner's op-ed. That is weakness right there. Don't do that, Bernie. Stop doing that. Pete Buttigieg, on the other hand, like once again, showed that in that spotlight as the front-runner or one of the front-runners, he can't take the heat. Any scrutiny to his record, he is incapable of defending himself in any meaningful or persuasive way, which is why I think that voters are hopefully thinking about how he'd fare against Trump. And Trump is going to do nothing, but attack and attack and attack and attack. And you know, Pete Buttigieg doesn't like to be questioned. So, I mean, that's all that I had to say. The debate was unexpectedly good. I'm not willing to go so far as to say that it was substantive. I'm not going to say that the moderation was perfect because towards the first, like, 15 minutes, they just... I think that George Stephanopoulos literally asked them, does anyone else take issue with the socialist being the nominee? So, they kind of just allow the other candidates to take turns attacking Bernie, but in a way, I think it helped Bernie Sanders because Bernie Sanders kind of demonstrated that, go ahead, attack me. It's not going to hurt me. I can take it. He was confident. He was absolutely speaking with the utmost authority. He was glowing. I think this debate was really great for Bernie Sanders. And I hope that once you click close on this video, you will go and donate to Bernie Sanders because a post debate money boost will definitely be something that the media will hopefully report on and we need whatever we can get in terms of positive press because they are looking for reasons to beat up Bernie Sanders. So, do what we can to help them.