Elizabeth Warren Summed Up the Democratic Debate in 9 Seconds

There was no Joe Biden. So John Delaney would have to do.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., talk Tuesday during the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates in Detroit.AP Photo/Paul Sancya

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

By the 80th minute of Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, Elizabeth Warren had finally had enough.

“I don’t understand,” she said, “why someone would go through all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to tell us what we can’t do and what you won’t fight for.”

The target, in that moment, was former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, who for the third time in an hour had just dismissed the Massachusetts senator’s platform as “impossible.” But Warren was responding to a lot more than Delaney.

Heading into the night, there was speculation in certain circles that the second round of Democratic debates (10 more candidates will take the stage Wednesday) would be a showdown between the two progressive stalwarts in the field, Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Perhaps the two candidates, whose views on health care and the American economic system overlap in so many ways, might seize an opportunity to distinguish themselves from each other.

Instead, the two longtime allies—and the best-polling candidates on the stage—found themselves responding to attack after attack from more moderate candidates anxious to kickstart their own campaigns. Those candidates were egged on in the matter by CNN’s moderators, who, faced with a lineup that included five candidates polling at zero percent, concluded that the easiest way to make people like Delaney relevant was to ask them about someone else.

It started in the opening statements. Americans “can’t wait for a revolution,” said Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who had failed to qualify for the first debate. Delaney invoked the ghosts of George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, and warned that “impossible promises” of “free anything” would doom the party to irrelevance. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper stated (falsely) that not a single Democrat who flipped a Republican seat in Congress last fall supported the policies of Warren and Sanders. 

Most of the criticism of Sanders and Warren from that point forward focused on their health care plans, which they acknowledge would replace the private health-insurance market with a government-run system. Sanders, with the first question of the night, was asked to respond to criticism from Delaney that Medicare for All was “political suicide.”

“You’re wrong!” he responded.

A few minutes later, Warren jumped to his defense with a line you should expect to hear more and more of.  “We are the Democrats, we are not about trying to take away health care from anyone,” she said. The idea that Medicare for All would force people off their health care was, she continued, “Republican talking points.”

Over the next 15 minutes, CNN moderators invited other candidates to weigh in. Moderator Jake Tapper tried to pin Warren down on whether her bill would raise taxes on middle-class families. (She’s a good enough debater to know when to dodge.) Other candidates, such as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, criticized the Big Two for trying to do too much. A public option bill, she countered, “is the easiest way to move forward quickly.” If you were only just tuning in, you might have thought that Warren or Sanders, and not former Vice President Joe Biden, was the candidate leading the field by double digits.

But the Big Two relished the opportunity to defend their plans in front of a national audience against a cadre of opponents whose relative anonymity and earnest arguments for moderation made them useful foils for populist one-liners. When Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan—a longtime backer of a House bill that would eliminate private health insurance—complained that union members who like their insurance would have to give it up under the Sanders plan, the Vermont senator explained that his bill would offer things like dental care and vision that many plans don’t cover. 

“You don’t know that, Bernie” Ryan said.

“I wrote the damn bill,” Sanders said.

Choppy though it may have been, the debate—and in particular its back-and-forth over Medicare for All—was a test run for the big argument that Democrats cannot escape anymore: the question of whether the party should head into next fall’s election promising to transform the nation’s economic structures, or patch up the ones it’s got. It’s the argument that Warren and Sanders, in their own different ways, have been jonesing for, the one that the party has been building toward over the past two years. It’s just a little weird that they had to have it with John Delaney.

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