The exact same network is moderating this debate. What do you think caused them to steer this one away from the reality show format? What could it be?

In the 2nd Republican debate CNN was eviscerated for the content. It lacked policy issues, substance and intentionally pitted the candidates against each on petty personal issues. Add in their inability to control the debate and they got burned.

It would seem they listened and steered this debate to the populist issues Democrats wanted to talk about.

Best line: “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.”- Hillary Clinton.

Joe Biden won the debate.

Bernie the socialist wouldn't wear a uniform and fight and now he wishes to be the Commander in Chief.

I kept thinking that Bernie was doing an impression of Lewis Black.

I agree with this take on things. I'm not sure the questions were that much different, just the positions.

Democrats have never quite mastered the art of the apocalypse like Republicans have. The GOP primary is all about a world on fire, to quote Ted Cruz—Islamists set on destroying us, an Iran with nuclear weapons, Russia and China the Big Bads hovering in the background, rapists running freely across the Mexican border, Planned Parenthood genociding babies and selling them for spare parts, an opposition bent on taking your guns and forcing Christians to abandon the teachings of Bible.

The Democrats, meanwhile, want to send you to college for free, make sure you can see a doctor, and give you time off work.

http://www.vice.com/read/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-103

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Bernie the socialist wouldn't wear a uniform and fight and now he wishes to be the Commander in Chief.

Lots of presidents never wore the uniform. At least Bernie stood up for what he believed about Vietnam and didn't hide out in the National Guard like the 43rd president did.

Bernie the socialist wouldn't wear a uniform and fight and now he wishes to be the Commander in Chief.

Lots of presidents never wore the uniform. At least Bernie stood up for what he believed about Vietnam and didn't hide out in the National Guard like the 43rd president did.

Sanders and Webb had a principled and respectful exchange on this which I found refreshing.

I agree with this take on things. I'm not sure the questions were that much different, just the positions.

Democrats have never quite mastered the art of the apocalypse like Republicans have.

The hell they haven't. Our energy usage will turn the planet into a vast unsurvivable wasteland marked by flooding, wildfires, killer storms, famine, mass migrations, drought, ect, ect. Their proclamations trump anything the Republicans will ever come up with. By miles.

I agree with this take on things. I'm not sure the questions were that much different, just the positions.

Democrats have never quite mastered the art of the apocalypse like Republicans have.

The hell they haven't. Our energy usage will turn the planet into a vast unsurvivable wasteland marked by flooding, wildfires, killer storms, famine, mass migrations, drought, ect, ect. Their proclamations trump anything the Republicans will ever come up with. By miles.

point acknowledged, although I think some in the GOP are or will come around on the climate change issue.

I guess Bernie did ok to keep himself in the running, but he should have been more on the attack mode against Hillary;

Him rolling over on the email issue like a trained democratic seal is not a strong characteristic of a person who may be leading this country. It didn't come off as classy but rather limp wristed, passivist, and scared to tangle with a party boss. How in world would he be able to negotiate with a Putin or Chinese official?

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

What an unflattering photo. He looks terrified as if Hillary will hit him with a rolling pin.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I think that he helped both Hillary and himself with that. He obviously helped Hillary by deflating the issue, but he also helped himself by showing that he speaks what he thinks and is not a shallow political opportunist. It's the other three who were hurt by this. Their plans for attack on the email issue were ruined. Chaffee tried it and looked like an idiot. Not that the other three are viable candidates anyway. But I think Bernie benefitted as much as Hillary by this exchange, especially when you consider that the audience was Democratic primary voters.

I'd like to see more questions about achieving economic growth in these Democrat debates...

"Throughout history it's been demonstrated that the middle class benefits the most when the economy is growing and expanding. Please lay out your plans for economic growth and explain how raising taxes on a relative handful of wealthy citizens helps boost middle class wages?"

They still think it can be done with taxation.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I think that he helped both Hillary and himself with that. He obviously helped Hillary by deflating the issue, but he also helped himself by showing that he speaks what he thinks and is not a shallow political opportunist. It's the other three who were hurt by this. Their plans for attack on the email issue were ruined. Chaffee tried it and looked like an idiot. Not that the other three are viable candidates anyway. But I think Bernie benefitted as much as Hillary by this exchange, especially when you consider that the audience was Democratic primary voters.

If it helped Hillary, how could it help him? There are essentially no votes to grab from the three outliers, so it can't help both. It's mathematically impossible.

I'd like to see more questions about achieving economic growth in these Democrat debates...

"Throughout history it's been demonstrated that the middle class benefits the most when the economy is growing and expanding. Please lay out your plans for economic growth and explain how raising taxes on a relative handful of wealthy citizens helps boost middle class wages?"

They still think it can be done with taxation.

_________________________________________________________________________

The tax the “wealthy” more and scream about the evil one percent is the standard Democrat populist line.

The fact that they can’t pay for all the handouts promised last night is, to them, a petty side issue.

Anybody notice the word “jobs” was missing last night?

I'd like to see more questions about achieving economic growth in these Democrat debates...

"Throughout history it's been demonstrated that the middle class benefits the most when the economy is growing and expanding. Please lay out your plans for economic growth and explain how raising taxes on a relative handful of wealthy citizens helps boost middle class wages?"

They still think it can be done with taxation.

There was a lot about economic growth in the debate. I kept flipping back to the ballgame but finally settled on the debate once I realized the candidates were answering substantive questions and defining their positions.

Bernie the socialist wouldn't wear a uniform and fight and now he wishes to be the Commander in Chief.

BigV I respect your opinion but I absolutely disagree. Vietnam was an amoral war based on lies. I applaud Mr. Sanders for not taking part in that disastrous military campaign. Many of our country's loudest pro war voices got out of serving by far more cowardly means than standing up and being a conscientious objector.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

The tax the “wealthy” more and scream about the evil one percent is the standard Democrat populist line.

The fact that they can’t pay for all the handouts promised last night is, to them, a petty side issue.

Anybody notice the word “jobs” was missing last night?

The words middle class were mentioned 300% more often than in the Republican Debate. This election boils down to who you want your President to serve, the rich or the middle class.

I'd like to see more questions about achieving economic growth in these Democrat debates...

"Throughout history it's been demonstrated that the middle class benefits the most when the economy is growing and expanding. Please lay out your plans for economic growth and explain how raising taxes on a relative handful of wealthy citizens helps boost middle class wages?"

They still think it can be done with taxation.

_________________________________________________________________________

The tax the “wealthy” more and scream about the evil one percent is the standard Democrat populist line.

The fact that they can’t pay for all the handouts promised last night is, to them, a petty side issue.

Anybody notice the word “jobs” was missing last night?

It's interesting how they continue to connect tax hikes on the wealthy with helping the middle class and are never called on to explain the rationale. No question it helps the government, but the middle class? How?

"How do you intend to pay for that?" Another absent question, and could have been used at least a dozen times last night.

We're into the seventh year of a no-growth economy, yet we have Sanders up there ranting about middle class wages. He's either unwilling or unable to grasp the concept of what drives wage growth. Higher taxes won't cut it. The disconnect is frightening.

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by alloak41]

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I think that he helped both Hillary and himself with that. He obviously helped Hillary by deflating the issue, but he also helped himself by showing that he speaks what he thinks and is not a shallow political opportunist. It's the other three who were hurt by this. Their plans for attack on the email issue were ruined. Chaffee tried it and looked like an idiot. Not that the other three are viable candidates anyway. But I think Bernie benefitted as much as Hillary by this exchange, especially when you consider that the audience was Democratic primary voters.

If it helped Hillary, how could it help him? There are essentially no votes to grab from the three outliers, so it can't help both. It's mathematically impossible.

It helped him by demonstrating his character, just as his response to the question about being a conscientious objector did. The fact that he did not give answers based on mathematical calculations help him.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I think that he helped both Hillary and himself with that. He obviously helped Hillary by deflating the issue, but he also helped himself by showing that he speaks what he thinks and is not a shallow political opportunist. It's the other three who were hurt by this. Their plans for attack on the email issue were ruined. Chaffee tried it and looked like an idiot. Not that the other three are viable candidates anyway. But I think Bernie benefitted as much as Hillary by this exchange, especially when you consider that the audience was Democratic primary voters.

If it helped Hillary, how could it help him? There are essentially no votes to grab from the three outliers, so it can't help both. It's mathematically impossible.

It helped him by demonstrating his character, just as his response to the question about being a conscientious objector did. The fact that he did not give answers based on mathematical calculations help him.

Not caring about Hillary's lack of character demonstrates character? Wow.

Sounds interesting. Too bad I missed it, the cat needed a bath.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

I think it is acknowledgement that this "scandal" has played itself out. Any damage this might still cause will be pushed by the Republicans, who just can't seem to let go of any dirt they "think" they have. (Hard to believe they are still talking about Benghazi). It won't help Sanders to work this angle. People already know about it, and if they are still supporting Hillary whatever he says on the email "scandal " won't change any votes.

I thought the diverse positions on gun control, rather than parroting the party line (and each other), was refreshing.

As for the line of the night, in my book that goes to Bernie when Cooper tried to pull him into the Hillary email quagmire...

[Edited on 10/14/2015 by gondicar]

Here I was thinking that the purpose of campaigning for the nomination was to win it. Clearly, Sanders is not running to win. This is the first time I ever remember the line of the night helping the opposing candidate.

He prefaced by saying it probably wasn't good politics, but he also pledged not to run a negative campaign and Cooper tried to bait him into roughing up Hilary on the email controversy and he would have no part of it, instead saying what most other people are already thinking. He is running to win, but does not base his campaign on a "win at all costs" approach which seems to be the norm these days. He is not your typical politician, that's for sure.

I think that he helped both Hillary and himself with that. He obviously helped Hillary by deflating the issue, but he also helped himself by showing that he speaks what he thinks and is not a shallow political opportunist. It's the other three who were hurt by this. Their plans for attack on the email issue were ruined. Chaffee tried it and looked like an idiot. Not that the other three are viable candidates anyway. But I think Bernie benefitted as much as Hillary by this exchange, especially when you consider that the audience was Democratic primary voters.

If it helped Hillary, how could it help him? There are essentially no votes to grab from the three outliers, so it can't help both. It's mathematically impossible.

It helped him by demonstrating his character, just as his response to the question about being a conscientious objector did. The fact that he did not give answers based on mathematical calculations help him.

The clownservatives here know nothing about character or integrity, it's no wonder they don't understand how Bernie helped himself with his comment.

I also note they haven't mentioned the only standing ovation of the evening went to Bernie.

It's interesting how they continue to connect tax hikes on the wealthy with helping the middle class and are never called on to explain the rationale. No question it helps the government, but the middle class? How?

"How do you intend to pay for that?" Another absent question, and could have been used at least a dozen times last night.

We're into the seventh year of a no-growth economy, yet we have Sanders up there ranting about middle class wages. He's either unwilling or unable to grasp the concept of what drives wage growth. Higher taxes won't cut it. The disconnect is frightening.

His plan lowers taxes on the middle class. Your disconnect is frightening alloak. May I suggest you stick to the petty "issues" discussed in the Republican "debates" and leave the Democrat debates to the free thinking adults.

"How do you intend to pay for that?" Another absent question, and could have been used at least a dozen times last night.

That question always seems to be absent from the Republican debates as well. Let's give tax cuts to the wealthy, keep spending ridiculous amounts of money on the military, and yet somehow think that the deficit will magically go away, never mind that the deficit has ballooned with every Republican president in the last 50+ years.