 So about that Democratic Party primary debate that took place last night in Ohio, man, that is what I would like to call an unmitigated disaster. It was bad. Not only was CNN completely incompetent, but it was evident that they had horses in this race. They weren't just neutral arbiters, right? They weren't trying to moderate a debate with impartiality. They were biased. They had preferred candidates and they wore that bias on their sleeve. So first of all, Erin Burnett is someone who has previously attacked Bernie Sanders. She literally called him hypocritical because he rails against millionaires and billionaires, but yet he's a millionaire. The problem is when you're Bernie Sanders and you rail against people paying their fair share and you don't have the huge charitable donations and you're not donating money to the IRS, you are a hypocrite. Why should we trust that she's going to be objective during this debate? The answer is we can't trust her. She's not objective. Furthermore, when you see that they are obviously going out of their way to protect certain candidates and they're cutting off candidates, whereas some other candidates get to speak at length. Joe Biden, for example, he was never cut off or if he was, it was rare, but Bernie Sanders, whenever he talked, they cut him off. Furthermore, when you have someone like Amy Klobuchar pulling at 1.6%, but yet getting double the talk time almost as someone who's pulling ahead of her like Andrew Yang, this doesn't make sense. You would expect to see the amount of talk time of the candidates be relatively comparable to their standing in the polls, but we didn't get that. For example, let's look at the top time here. Expectedly, Elizabeth Warren as the frontrunner got 22 minutes and 47 seconds. A lot of this, mind you, was due to other candidates attacking her, so of course they gave her the chance to respond. But then we had Joe Biden getting called on pretty frequently and for whatever reason, the moderators loved Amy Klobuchar. She got 13 minutes, 18 seconds, makes no sense. Beto O'Rourke, who you can argue isn't even a mid-tier candidate, got slightly more time than Bernie Sanders, almost as much as Amy Klobuchar. And then you have Pete Buttigieg, who someone is a mid-tier candidate, getting 13 minutes and 1 second. And that's almost as much time as Bernie Sanders, but you would expect him being higher in the polls to get more time than someone like Amy Klobuchar. You have Kamala Harris and Cory Booker getting 12 minutes and 23 seconds and 11 minutes and 40 seconds respectively. Andrew Yang, who is a mid-tier candidate, getting 8 minutes and 32 seconds. Now the fact that Amy Klobuchar got nearly double the amount of speaking time compared to Andrew Yang, that really is embarrassing. You have Julian Castro with 8 minutes, 26 seconds, Tulsi Gabbard with 8 minutes, 24 seconds. And then you have Tom Steyer, who literally bought his way onto that debate stage, shouldn't even be there getting 7 minutes and 13 seconds. Now when you look at this second chart here, I mean Amy Klobuchar sitting at 1.6%, she should not have been allowed to speak that much. Of course you call on her, you don't ignore her, but the fact that she was getting called on more so than Bernie Sanders, it speaks to the bias and incompetence of the CNN moderators. Now when it comes to additional instances of bias, it was clear that Tulsi Gabbard wanted to call out Elizabeth Warren, but conveniently Aaron Burnett cut to commercial break. Now I get that you can say, well you know what Mike, maybe they were just planning a commercial break at that time. However, let's keep in mind that these debates are centered around really big sensationalist moments. It's about the headline grabbing moments. This is what CNN tries to do. They try to get the candidates to pick at one another. They pit them against each other intentionally so they will butt heads. But when someone says, I want to go after this person and you cut to commercial break, I don't think it's conspiratorial or irrational for us to think maybe that was because they wanted to protect Elizabeth Warren. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I mean, it just seems weird that if you want candidates to attack each other, one candidate is trying to do something that would facilitate ratings and you cut to commercial break. It's a little suspicious, right? I mean, they could have at a minimum just said, look, we'll resume that conversation when we come back, but they didn't. Now getting to what the audience thought and how viewers felt about the candidates, if we base that on Twitter follows and Google Trends. Well, according to Dan Diamond, when it comes to which candidates gained the most Twitter followers, we have Andrew Yang coming in first place with 4,441. Elizabeth Warren in second place with 3,774. Gabbard in third with 3,000. Sanders in fourth with almost 3,000. Buttigieg in fifth with 2,000. Klobuchar with 1,700. Kamala Harris with 1,400. Booker with 1,300. Castro with 1,200. Biden with 1,200. Steyer with 800. And O'Rourke with 680. Now, when you look at the percentage of new followers gain, Gabbard came in first with 0.56%. Yang with 0.48%. Steyer with 0.33%. Castro with 0.31%. Klobuchar with 0.22%. Buttigieg with 0.14%. Warren with 0.11%. And we have Harris O'Rourke with 0.04%. And Biden, Booker and Sanders all with 0.03% gains. Now, when you look at Google Trends, it's evident that the viewers were really interested in Tulsi Gabbard because she got the biggest boost. And since Tom Steyer lacks name recognition, he also got a boost because whenever you see someone who you don't recognize, then you want to look them up. But once again, Tulsi Gabbard, she came in first with Google Trends. So you can't argue that there's no there-there in spite of her performance. People are clearly interested in finding out more about Tulsi Gabbard. But let's go ahead and get into my rankings. Now, usually if you've watched these debates before, you know that I prefer one candidate and I wear that on my sleeve. However, what I try to do is I try to remove myself from my own subjective point of view and I try to judge the candidates based on their performance alone, irrespective of whether or not I support them. So I usually categorize their performances in four different ways. I have my loser category, candidates who sucked. I have my meh category, candidates who I don't really think did particularly well and didn't move the needle. And then I have my good category where I think that the candidates performed well. However, they didn't really do enough to move the needle in the positive direction. And then I have my winners. Now, because the stakes were so high, because the threshold to qualify for the November debate has increased. Well, a lot of candidates needed to have a great performance. They needed to turn it out. And I don't think a lot of candidates did that. However, I think that the overall rankings here, it's entirely subjective. And like the last debate, I think you can probably persuasively argue that I'm wrong here, right? And maybe because my thoughts on this are fresh, maybe a day from now, I rethink some of my rankings, but this is just based off of my impression, having just watched the debate. So in the loser category, I have quite a bit of people. Of course, the biggest loser naturally is CNN. We should not allow corporate media to host these debates. They profit off of it. They run advertisements that are contrary to the messages that some of the candidates are talking about, namely healthcare. CNN is bad, right? CNN did a terrible job. Corporate media should not be hosting these debates, period. But getting to the candidates who I believe were losers. Now, again, this is arguable, but based on performance, these are the candidates that I would put in the loser category. Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Corey Booker. Now let me explain my reasoning here. So Tom Steyer, first and foremost, the fact that he's a billionaire and he managed to buy his way onto that debate stage. One, by spending millions on advertisements to get his name out there. And two, by creating this need to impeach campaign where he essentially just farmed emails that he would eventually use for his presidential run, it's a disgrace. The fact that he is participating is embarrassing. It's disgraceful. So he shouldn't be there. And on top of that, in terms of his message, he's a bullshitter. And I think that it's pretty clear to voters that he's not the real deal. He talks about corporate greed, but he's a billionaire. You are, you know, the embodiment of corporate greed. You're a former hedge fund manager. So if you were serious about these corrupt capitalist forces in democracy, you drop out and endorse Bernie Sanders. The fact that you're not doing that shows me that you're an opportunist and you're just like Donald Trump, except on the left. I don't think that people are going to like what he has to say. People are maybe going to be interested in just finding out who he is. But I don't think he had a good performance. He was a non entity and anything he said was just, you know, a diet version of Bernie Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren. I wasn't feeling it. When it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, I think that she really needed to step up and have at least one big moment. Now going into this debate, I expected her to pounce on Elizabeth Warren in the way that she pounced on Kamala Harris. And I think that that made her a winner. And at each debate, Tulsi Gabbard, even if she is often, you know, disenfranchised within these debates and marginalized and doesn't get called on, she still manages to have at least one good moment. And unfortunately for her, I don't believe she had that good moment. That's not to say that she didn't try to call out Elizabeth Warren. But if I were her, I would have approached it differently. Like rather than trying to pose a question to Elizabeth Warren in the sense of how should we believe that you're qualified to be commander in chief or whatever. I would just invoke Elizabeth Warren, name drop her. And then they're going to allow her the chance to respond because you criticized her. And that's how you can kind of catalyze and exchange. But I think that Tulsi went about it in the wrong way, which is why she wasn't able to. Now again, CNN shut that down, cut to commercial break. So I get it. But on top of that, when she was, you know, going through these different exchanges with Pete Buttigieg, I don't know that she got the better of that exchange like she did with Tim Ryan, where it was very clear she owned him. Now, Pete Buttigieg was disgusting and disingenuous. He lied numerous times throughout the debate. But just trying to judge this from the standpoint of an average viewer, like if I'm seeing these two argue, I don't necessarily know who to believe in this instance. So it's just, I don't know that she did enough to really have a sea chip to change the momentum so she actually gets a boost in the polls, get some momentum because there's certainly interest in her. Hence why people are Googling her after all of these debates. But it's just a matter of is this enough to, I think, get the ball rolling and get her out of that one percent category. And I don't know that she did enough. I'd say no, she didn't do enough. She didn't have that big moment. She didn't have a breakout moment at all, arguably. But there were some good moments, right? I think that it was good on her to call out the media buys against her. I'm glad that she addressed that smear piece in the New York Times. And I have my criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard as well, right? But the New York Times recently penned an article about her where they basically just say she's a Russian asset, completely idiotic, intellectually lazy. I'm glad that she called that out. But I think that we really needed a solid moment where she demonstrated to everyone that she's a leader here and she's better than everyone else on that stage. And I don't think she was able to do that effectively. When it comes to Beto O'Rourke, I honestly don't know how to feel about his performance. Overall, he had his exchange with Pete Buttigieg, but like the Tulsi Gabbard exchange with Pete, I don't know that it was enough to demonstrate why he's better than Buttigieg or would move the needle at all. And Beto O'Rourke overall, he needed something to really give him a boost to qualify for that next debate because he's not really mid-tier, arguably. And I don't know that this was enough. And for the most part, he didn't really say anything like he did at that last debate. Like, hell yeah, we're gonna take your assault rifles. That got, you know, the audience to cheer. That made the headlines. And because of that, because he also didn't have a really strong breakout moment like Tulsi Gabbard, I don't think he pulled it off. When it comes to Kamala Harris, you know, it's crazy to think that in that first Democratic Party primary debate, she seemed unstoppable. But now, when I look at her, she is flailing. She doesn't know what to do to regain momentum. And this debate showed me that I gave her too much credit. Like, she's not as politically savvy as I thought because what she chose to go after Elizabeth Warren for was cringe-worthy. She essentially attacked Elizabeth Warren because Elizabeth Warren wouldn't agree that we should suspend Donald Trump's Twitter account. I mean, who cares? What a pointless conversation to even be having. If you want to demonstrate to the American people that you're serious, that you're gonna fight for them, I don't care about whether or not Twitter suspends Donald Trump or not. In fact, you can make the case that as a lefty, we should not want him suspended because a lot of the things that he tweets, they're self-incriminating, right? Like, obviously, we're all worried about the saber-rattling via Twitter. We're worried about him escalating tensions with foreign powers on Twitter. But to say that he should be suspended from Twitter and to really make that a big thing that you're trying to make happen, it's not gonna catch on. Nobody cares about that, Kamala. So the fact that that's what she focused on, embarrassing. So she did not have a good night. I mean, she had a couple of okay moments. But overall, just this wasn't enough to turn it around for her. When it comes to Cory Booker. Cory Booker, he has had his moments in prior debates where he went after Joe Biden. This wasn't one of those nights. He tried to position himself as the candidate who's just above the fray, who's better than everyone else. And hey, guys, we shouldn't fight. We should unify because Donald Trump is the one who's watching us bicker and he loves that. This is a Democratic Party primary and you're literally saying that in the middle of a debate. You're not convincing anyone this is the time to battle when you're in the actual fucking arena. What are you talking about? So he said nothing of substance, nothing of value. And what's interesting to me is that he chose to take an opportunity to boost himself to the detriment of Biden and squander it. So at the beginning of the debate, when Biden was asked about his son, Hunter Biden and the nepotism and conflict of interest, Cory Booker chimed in to try to defend Joe Biden. Now, if you don't see that Joe Biden's response to that was not very persuasive. If you don't see how that is going to be a huge weakness for him and the general going up against Donald Trump, who is going to beat Biden over the head with that, then you're an idiot. Use that to your advantage to demonstrate why Joe Biden is a liability and you're more electable. The fact that he chose to defend Joe Biden in that instance when he shouldn't be defended. It just shows that, you know, Cory Booker is he's a bullshitter. Moving on, we have the Mac category. Now, this is arguable, right? I think this is very subjective. You can make the case that some of these people are in the good category. You can make the case that most of them should be placed in the loser category. But let me explain my reasoning after I tell you who I've placed in this Mac category. So in this category, I have Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden. Now, let me tell you something about politics. What's really interesting is that some candidates, the more they speak, the more that their favorability goes down. This was evident with Hillary Clinton. This is something that Joe Biden's own team knows. They know that the more he speaks, the more voters dislike him, which is why they're trying to hide him away a little bit more from the public, not have him attend every single campaign event. So even if it's the case that Amy Klobuchar was propped up by the moderators at this debate, you know, it showed why we shouldn't take her seriously. It showed how unlikeable she is. And the same is true with Pete Buttigieg. Amy Klobuchar, she doesn't ever get called on. And she usually, this debate was an exception. But the reason why is because she doesn't really have much to add to the conversation. And it's evident that she ran out of things to say. So towards the end of the debate, like the last third, she just started repeating the same shit over and over. Like she tried to attack Elizabeth Warren multiple times. None of it landed. Elizabeth Warren effectively swattered away all of her criticisms. On top of that, Amy Klobuchar, she kept saying, well, you know, just because your ideas are different doesn't mean that they're less bold or that I'm less bold and it doesn't necessarily mean that because we disagree, I'm using Republican talking points. No, you're literally using Republican talking points and lying about progressive policy proposals. If you don't like that we call you out on that, then don't use those talking points. So she just was insufferable. But not as insufferable as Pete Buttigieg. He might as well just show up to the debates wearing a monocle and a fucking top hat. This individual is the most smug, elitist, arrogant person in this race by a mile and a half. I can't stand him. Like this debate seeing him speak more demonstrated to me that if he is the nominee, which he won't be, but if you were to win somehow, he would lose to Donald Trump because voters will see that elitism that he wears on his sleeve. But like Amy Klobuchar, the only reason why I feel inclined to kind of place them in the MAC category as opposed to the loser category is because they got so much talk time. So that could lead voters to believe that these two individuals are front runners, right? But maybe they don't know about the polling. Maybe they don't know that Amy Klobuchar is polling at 1%. Maybe they don't know that Pete Buttigieg has been consistently staying at like 4 to 5%. But just by seeing them talk, that could give individuals who watch this who are casual observers the impression that these are front runners when they're not serious people. And I hope that this debate showed people why they're not serious. Although if I had to keep someone in this category, possibly move them to the good category, it would be Pete Buttigieg over Amy Klobuchar, specifically because of one exchange he had with Elizabeth Warren, where he essentially called her out for not just saying clearly that she is willing to raise taxes in order to fund Medicare for All. He lied, you know, in calling out Elizabeth Warren and Medicare for All. But I think he did seize on a moment of weakness for Elizabeth Warren successfully, where he did demonstrate how she's really not being upfront. She's not answering the question directly because maybe she doesn't want to answer it. Again, his talking points about Medicare for All are factually incorrect. Like at this point, he is lying and literally using the talking points that are fed to Republicans by the health insurance industry. He's a liar. But strategically, on a debate stage, I think he did a good job at kind of putting Elizabeth Warren in a corner. But that was just one moment for the rest of it. I don't think the attacks that he lobbed against Warren landed. Now, on top of that Julian Castro, you can easily say, Mike, what are you doing? Put him in the loser category. The reason why I'm not putting him in the loser categories because he had his moments. Like, do I think he did enough to move the needle? No. And I don't know that he's going to be able to qualify for that November debate. However, he's one of the only one percenters that didn't say something that came off as embarrassing or wasn't questionable. Like there was no exchange where him and another candidate argued. And I think that maybe you can see them getting the better over him. There was no moment like that. So we just kind of made a couple of points that I think likely resonated with viewers and then moved on. It's not enough. So he's kind of in the meh category. Didn't move the needle anyway. Joe Biden, he's in the meh category. And yes, I am biased against Joe Biden. And I'm putting him in the meh category in spite of the statement that I'm about to make. This was Joe Biden's best performance yet. But the bar is very low. So to put things into perspective, Joe Biden did better. He had less brain farts. He still had brain farts. There were less awkward moments with him, less aggression because Elizabeth Warren is perceived to be the new frontrunner. So people are kind of directing their rage at Warren as opposed to Joe Biden, which allows him to kind of skate by a little bit more easily with a few exceptions, of course, of Bernie going after him. But you know, on top of that, he also demonstrated strength and was loud. And I think that voters will see that and like that because voters like someone who is strong and appears strong and confident. However, what Joe Biden needed to save his failing campaign is a really big night. There needed to be no question that he was the winner. He needed to steal the show. It needed to be a big victory. And even if he had a better performance than the last couple of times, it's still not enough. Like what we're looking for is for him to turn this around dramatically. And I don't think that he did that. And if anything, he said the same things that he said at the last debate. So he didn't move the needle at all. He just used the same talking points, but he said it while tripping over his words a little bit less. I mean, there was still a moment where he said that he's going to repeal the estate tax, I think, or increase. And then he said, no, I'm going to increase it, something to that effect. I'm paraphrasing. So he still had his brain melty moments. But I mean, overall, it was a better performance for him. Not enough. He's still going to be in the Mac category. Okay, moving on, I only have one person in the did good category. And I think that person is Elizabeth Warren. So I believe that when she was attacked, she did a really good job at swallowing away those attacks. So when Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang responded criticizing her stance when it comes to the wealth tax and Medicare for all. For the most part, I think she did well. The only thing that's keeping me from moving her into the winner category is that exchange with Pete Buttigieg. She is doing really bad when it comes to explaining the tax increase with regard to Medicare for all. Now, I'll grant you that that question is stupid. It's idiotic mainstream media needs to not ask it. You're basically framing the question about healthcare in a very right wing way. We don't care about tax increases. We care about the delivery of healthcare, but there's the added bonus of saving people money. So she does have to be more direct. She needs to say, look, yes, Medicare for all leads to an increase in taxes, but we'll net save people money because we eliminate co-pays deductibles and monthly premiums. Bernie sharpened his message. He was concise. He was quick. And Amy Klobuchar even gave him credit for saying, you know what, at least Bernie Sanders is honest, whereas Elizabeth Warren is not being honest. And I think she is being honest, but it doesn't seem like she's being honest because she's not saying it directly. And this is something she needs to improve on. Even Colbert asked her about this when she appeared on his program and the fact that she hasn't figured out a more concise persuasive way to respond shows that this is a really huge blind spot for her. But that was just one moment. I think it made her look weak. I think I think it made it seem like she didn't really know how to respond to them. But in any other moment, whenever she spoke, she spoke with confidence and authority and I think that she did a good job. She came off as wonky, but still likable and personable. So I think that she did a good job. But what we really were looking for when it comes to Elizabeth Warren at this debate was for her to solidify her performance as the front runner. I think that maybe she did that, but she kind of needed a runaway performance like Joe Biden to really move into that spot. Because if you check the polls lately, Biden kind of got a little bit of a boost and she is declining a tad bit, right? But that's just, you know, overall polling. Certainly some polls are saying she's still the front runner. But regardless, I digress. She needed a good performance and I don't think she did as good as she needed to do. Now, with that being said, moving into the winners category, I placed two individuals in this category, Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. Bernie Sanders is a winner because what I was looking for was energy, confidence, and I wanted him to concisely convey complex policy ideas in a way that would resonate. I think he did that. I wanted him to sharpen his rhetoric, attack his opponents more forcefully and directly. I do think he did that. However, do I think that even if he's a winner, this was a runaway performance? No. I think Bernie won, but there's a little bit of an asterisk there. He could have done better. I think that that attack on Joe Biden was great, but he needs to dial that up to about, you know, a 100 and go after him more forcefully. Like you don't have to qualify your criticism of Joe Biden with a statement about how he's your friend. Rather than wasting your breath saying that you could have added in an extra criticism because there's no shortage of things to attack Biden for. So Bernie's got to sharpen that message. Go after Biden. Biden is not afraid to go after Bernie Sanders. So Bernie shouldn't be afraid to go after Biden. Biden doesn't qualify his statements with Bernie Sanders as my friend. So I mean, the thing about Bernie is he's such a nice guy. He cares so much for people that he doesn't want to be mean to people. Like in 2016, he prided himself on never running a negative campaign. But I mean, times have changed, Bernie. It's 2020 and we want you to take the gloves off and fight like your life depends on it because your life in this race does depend on it. So he had a good, solid performance. Don't want to be too down on him, but he needs to turn this around and you do that. You switch it up by attacking your opponents. He also needed to indirectly go after Elizabeth Warren and other opponents. And really anything that he said should have been laced and coded with an attack, you know, a tacit criticism, even of his opponents. You know, he inched closer in that direction. He had a solid performance. But what I wanted was a runaway evening where even the pundits can't deny that he did a phenomenal job. It was the winner. But, you know, aside from him having a good performance, something that kind of limited him and held him back was the moderators basically ignoring him. So next time, if I'm Bernie, I'm not going to let that happen again. I'm going to elbow my way into these conversations. I'm going to interrupt. I'm going to speak up if they don't give me the chance to talk because this is too important. I'm one of three front runners like if I'm in that top three, you're not going to ignore me for an hour to talk to fucking Amy Klobuchar for the 10th time. I'm getting in there and I'm making my voice heard and I really hope that he, you know, goes out of his comfort zone and really hit some hard. Okay, so when it comes to Andrew Yang, this was Andrew Yang's best performance yet. And I think that he improved in every area that he needed to improve. So here's what I said previously about Andrew Yang. I think that he needs to be more assertive and actually call out some of the other candidates. Go after them. Play offense. I think he did that. He criticized Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for their wealth tax. Don't be a tepidly, but nonetheless, I think that you do need to draw these distinctions. If you want to get a boost in the polls to show people that you're serious, that you're strong enough to take on Donald Trump. He did that. On top of that, I've said that he needed to diversify his platform, not just focused exclusively on UBI, but venture out a little bit. He did that as well. He talked about, you know, drug decriminalization and he's the best on this. So he should have really boasted. If I were Andrew Yang, I'd be saying, I'm the only person who wants to decriminalize opioids in this cycle. That would have been powerful, but he still did great. He talked about how our data should be characterized as personal property and companies are mining it. So I mean, he did a good job. The only thing that he needs to work on is he needs to have a more persuasive rebuttal to the criticisms that people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders lob against him when he attacks them. So let me explain what I mean by that. So when you basically say that Elizabeth Warren's approach is not as good as your approach, you want UBI, her and Bernie want a federal jobs guarantee. He needs to be able to anticipate their criticisms and respond in a persuasive way. So Elizabeth Warren responds by saying, well, you know, we need to strengthen unions rather than just allow these companies to automate away jobs. So we need fair trade agreements, not like the TPP, where we incentivize outsourcing. These are really strong criticisms of UBI that I would like to hear Andrew Yang answer because I am a supporter of UBI, but I support a different implementation in comparison with Andrew Yang. On top of that, I would opt for structural change before implementing UBI so that way UBI actually has a stronger impact so that way you don't, you know, pass UBI and then landlord suddenly up rent by $999. That's just something I'm throwing out there as a potential consequence that doesn't necessarily mean that it would come to fruition, but it's a fear that a lot of people have with UBI. I think that Andrew Yang should go a little bit deeper in explaining, you know, why his approach is superior. But the fact that he was able to get a discussion about UBI versus federal jobs guarantee in and of itself shows that he is able to monopolize political discourse in this primary, and it's a win for Andrew Yang. So if I had to choose between who was probably better off after this debate, even though I put both of them in the winner category, I think that Andrew Yang probably outperformed Bernie Sanders. And this is really impressive considering he had one of the least amount of times to talk. I mean, Amy Klobuchar was called out more than him when he's pulling higher than her, which is ridiculous. But I mean, he just did a phenomenal job. So overall, to kind of wrap this up, I think that this debate was, I don't know that it's going to be that impactful or really have a meaningful effect on the overall primary because it was really all over the place. There were too many candidates like imagine if you broke this up into two nights and we had six candidates on each stage. Imagine the difference that that could have made people would have been able to talk more thoroughly about Medicare for all health care would be able to dive a little bit deeper into foreign policy issues. And imagine if they didn't waste their time like the last 15 to 20 minutes on dumb questions about how, you know, well, Elizabeth or Ellen DeGeneres is being criticized for hanging out with Bush. What's the shitty friend that you hang out with? Like, first of all, what a way to miss the point. We're not criticizing her because she's friends with a conservative. We're criticizing her because she's friends with a mass murderer. So thank you for oversimplifying that entire complex conversation that we're trying to have. Second of all, I don't care. Like, why would I care? How does that help me make a decision as a voter going into the voting booth knowing that, you know, these candidates have shitty friends. Like, how does Tulsi Gabbard being friends with Trey Gowdy and everyone praising John McCain helped me as a voter make a more informed decision? The answer is it doesn't. And they could have dedicated that time to climate change, but instead they chose to talk about Ellen. Look, if I'm DNC, I am not allowing CNN to host any more debates. The fact that climate change wasn't discussed at length shows that this debate was a failure. And there were a plethora of policies that were left out that should have been discussed. And it's just all the more reason why we need to limit these debates. If you're going to have 12 people on a stage, first of all, make it 11, exclude Tom Steyer. But second of all, most importantly, break this up into two nights so we can either A, talk about more policies or B, talk at length about the policies that we're talking about. Not just like have everyone comment for like 30 seconds on healthcare and then we move on. So overall, it was biased. It was insufferable. It was probably the worst debate yet. And I don't necessarily know that there was any clear winner, although when it comes to my candidate who I support, Bernie Sanders, I am satisfied in his performance overall. He just needs to be more aggressive. And I don't know why everyone kind of let off the gas when it comes to Joe Biden. But if they don't pile on to Joe Biden harder, he could still win. Like I know that everyone is thinking that he's out of the running yet. Don't be too confident in that. He's still pulling very well, way higher than he should be, right? Joe Biden with how bad of a candidate he is, he should be pulling in last place. So I'll leave that there. I may follow up this video with additional segments about specific moments from the debate that I want to, you know, dive a little bit deeper into. But that's that's my take, you know, lots of losers, a little bit of winners overall. Did most of them do enough to move the needle? Probably not. Is this debate really going to have a substantial impact on the overall election? Probably not. But nonetheless, that's my thoughts.