Scott Varley/Orange County Register/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

It made a big difference having only seven candidates on the debate stage tonight. Almost everyone got time to weigh in on almost every subject, and there was less downtime while the debate suddenly seemed to stop dead so we could hear from the folks who had no business being there. That said, here are my first impressions of how everyone did:

Amy Klobuchar seemed like the big winner, relatively speaking. She got plenty of speaking time, she was clearer than usual in her answers, and she did the best job by far of selling a moderate vision without directly attacking Warren or Sanders.

Pete Buttigieg was the big loser. I thought he sounded more politician-y and rehearsed tonight than usual, and his newfound combativeness didn’t play well. During his squabble over fundraising with Warren and his squabble with Klobuchar over experience, I thought he came out on the losing end both times.

Joe Biden had a good night. For one thing, the tone of this debate was louder and more aggressive than past debates, and by contrast Biden sounded like a cool drink of water whenever he spoke. That’s a good look for him. He also did well when he got a little more animated, as he did when talking about immigration and Afghanistan.

Bernie Sanders was . . . Bernie Sanders. Even after you account for the fact that I’ve never been a big fan of his, he just sounded like he had absolutely nothing new to say. In debate after debate, all we hear is that he’s somehow going to lead a revolution and then all our progressive dreams will come true. Meh.

Elizabeth Warren had some good answers and some bad ones. I’m undecided about whether it was smart to simply say “They’re wrong!” when she was asked about economists who said her two-percent wealth tax would be bad for the economy. On the one hand, yay! She’s probably right. On the other hand, don’t you have to at least pretend to take the experts seriously? This is a Democratic debate, after all, not a Republican one.

On the positive side, “billionaires in wine caves” is likely to be the meme of the night.

Andrew Yang showed some nice flashes of humor, and I admire the guts of anyone who’s willing to say “thorium nuclear reactor” on a public stage. But he’s still never going to be president of the United States.

Tom Steyer didn’t matter before the debate, and he still doesn’t matter.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate