Welcome to Opinion’s commentary for the second night of the second Democratic presidential candidate debate. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate probably didn’t belong on the stage and should probably drop out; 10 means It’s on, President Trump. Here’s what our columnists and contributors thought about the debate.
See rankings for the July 30th debate here.
Cory Booker
Charles M. Blow (5/10) — Solid performance, but not a distinguishing one.
Jamelle Bouie (8/10) — Booker has powerful youth pastor energy, and he used it to great effect, giving the best performance of the night. He turned every question into an effective discussion of values. His criticism of Joe Biden felt gentle and good-natured, even as it was a strong critique of the former vice president’s rhetoric on criminal justice reform. Booker did well in the last debate, but this should be his breakout.
Gail Collins (8/10) — Best of the night.
Ross Douthat (7/10) — He’s intensely likeable and had the best Biden-bloodying exchange. But he’s still searching for an open lane and a clear rationale as he tries to hoist himself into the top tier.
Maureen Dowd (4/10) — He landed a couple of blows on Biden, but the smirking was annoying. He bemoaned the Democrats’ infighting as “playing into Republicans’ hands” — yet he provoked the infighting more than most.
Michelle Goldberg (10/10) — Booker was as good as I’ve ever seen him — eloquent, inspiring and humane. He was masterful in rising above the fray during the health care fight and turning the debate back to Donald Trump’s war on the Affordable Care Act, and he was the most successful of all the candidates in taking on Biden. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get a bump in the polls.
Nicholas Kristof (8/10) — Booker is arguably the smartest and most eloquent of the second-tier candidates. He stressed the need for unity, and he threw relatively few grenades at other candidates. The emphasis on the positive sometimes comes across as fake, but it goes way back in his career.
David Leonhardt (9/10) — He won the night. He was engaging and succinct and avoided the needless detail that many candidates went in to. He won the face-off with Biden and also tried to stay focused on the real opponent: Trump.
Liz Mair (5/10) — For my money, he over-relies on emoting. I’m a little concerned about his “radical love.” His Kool-Aid line was funny, though.
Gracy Olmstead (8/10) — After a tepid first response, Booker grew more eloquent. He was effective in his debate with Biden on criminal justice and excelled with a strong closing statement.
Miriam Pawel (9/10) — Best consistent performance of the night: He was articulate on a range of issues, passionate, skillful in taking on Biden while remaining relaxed and comfortable, and no one landed anything on him.
Bret Stephens (4/10) — N.Q.G.E. Not quite good enough. The New Jersey Senator was to the second-round debate what Beto O’Rourke was to the first.
Mimi Swartz (7/10) — Dynamic, but by taking so much back to race he’s limiting his chances.
Peter Wehner (7/10) — If you liked Booker going in, you like him more after the debate. He didn’t slip up, he had some nice lines and he was the most upbeat and positive of the candidates. He was less about going negative and more about offering a narrative. But I find there’s a contrived passion and artificiality about him. His debate performance will generate short-term buzz for him, but it probably won’t last.
Will Wilkinson (8/10) — Cory Booker is a high-variance performer, but when he’s at his best, he’s very good. His appeal for intra-party comity was obnoxious. (It’s a debate!) But his vision of social justice and national unity is genuinely inspiring, and he gutted Biden like a carp on criminal justice. He won the highlight reel, and so he basically won the night.
Joe Biden
Charles M. Blow (7/10) — He was attacked from all sides. But he survived without much lasting damage. In fact, he even got in some attacks of his own. People were beginning to question whether Biden had enough fight in him. This was a make-or-break moment for him, and he made it, or more precisely, he scraped by.
Jamelle Bouie (5/10) — Before the debate, Team Biden said the vice president would take the fight to the other candidates. He did, and he landed a few hits, easily parrying attacks from Gillibrand and Harris. But he got laid out when he squared up with Booker, and he slowed down considerably as the night went on. He did well enough not to collapse, but not so well as to erase the sense that he is vulnerable, even as he maintains a lead.
Gail Collins (6/10) — Sort of sad when someone wins by not having a disaster.
Ross Douthat (6/10) — He was sharp early but stumbled more as the debate wore on. His exchange with Cory Booker over criminal-justice reform was an echo of his fumble against Kamala Harris. As long as there isn’t a plausible alternative for moderates who just miss Obama, this kind of just-O.K., “there you go again” performance may suffice.
Maureen Dowd (6/10) — No malarkey! Uncle Joe woke up and came prepped to whack back at Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. He also savaged Kirsten Gillibrand by reminding her, when she criticized an old op-ed he had written saying that women working outside the home led to the deterioration of the family, that she once was bubbling with praise about his record on women. Taking direct aim at her reputation as an opportunist, he noted dryly, “I don’t know what’s happened except that you’re now running for president.”
Michelle Goldberg (6/10) — Beyond my ideological disagreements with Biden, I worry a lot about his electability. His performance on Wednesday was better than in the first debate, but he still stumbled on some of his words and abandoned thoughts mid-sentence. His attempts to hit Harris and Booker from the left on criminal justice seemed phony and contrived, and the debate was a reminder of all the issues — including the Iraq war, NAFTA and reproductive rights — on which he’s running from his record.
Nicholas Kristof (7/10) — He’s back! After dozing through the first debate, Biden woke up and did much better. But he still struggles to explain a vision of the future, and most problematic, I don’t think he succeeded in outlining why he’s a force for change rather than for continuity. Nobody tonight was as effective as Elizabeth Warren was on Tuesday night.
David Leonhardt (4/10) — He has a good case to make and had some good lines, but too often didn’t appear sharp, struggling to find the precise word he wanted and almost seeming relieved when the moderators told him time was up. How many times did he say “in fact” or “the fact is …”?
Liz Mair (8/10) — The hits just keep on coming. But he was much more fluid tonight, willing to throw many punches, and showcased his experience. He handled Harris well in many exchanges. I suspect the frequent invocation of Obama, the fact that he doesn’t sound scripted, and looked just aggressive enough will keep him in good standing.
Gracy Olmstead (7/10) — Biden started strong but often struggled to deliver articulate rebuttals as things got heated on criminal justice and immigration. He had some strong moments but also some fumbles.
Miriam Pawel (6/10) — He got pummeled by all sides and managed to muddle through, not terribly well, but he remained standing, a step up from his showing in the last debate — admittedly a low bar.
Bret Stephens (7/10) — A far stronger performance than last time, particularly since he was the target of such relentless attacks. It will lay to rest some of the fear that he’s too old to run. But it will heighten fears that his long record is full of vulnerabilities.
Mimi Swartz (6/10) — He still looks shocked that he’s being attacked for his Senate record and his allegiance to Obama. He’s in great danger of evoking a wounded wooly mammoth, and he shouldn’t receive praise for hanging in, but he does.
Peter Wehner (7/10) — He needed a good performance and he got it. Biden was much more energetic than in the last debate. He was on the offensive, most especially with Harris. Biden was determined not to be apologetic for his moderate stances; he wisely decided to defend them. He was certainly uneven at times, but he put to rest (for now) the age question. He was also helped that his opponents, in attacking Biden, ended up attacking Obama, who remains wildly popular in the Democratic Party.
Will Wilkinson (4/10) — Vice President Biden was bright, energetic and charismatic in his scripted opening and close, but between the bookends he was beaten like a rented mule, failing again and again to adequately meet the charges and arguments pressed against him. He was clearly extremely well-prepared, but it just wasn’t enough. He looked like a thoroughbred with an irreparable limp. Democrats would be nuts to run him against Trump.
Julián Castro
Charles M. Blow (6/10) — Calm, deliberative and poised performance, but he didn’t stand out as much with this group as he did during the last debate.
Jamelle Bouie (7/10) — Castro was calm and confident. He knew all of his lines, landed all of his hits and was even able to re-contextualize a loaded question about decriminalizing the border. It still feels a little like he’s running for the vice presidency, but if so, he’d make a great pick.
Gail Collins (5/10) — Very sensible but not much pizzazz.
Ross Douthat (3/10) — He didn’t get a bump from his pretty-good performance last time, and he won’t get a bump from his unmemorable performance this time.
Maureen Dowd (4/10) — He didn’t make much of an impression. His push for impeachment was bananas. (See my last column.)
Michelle Goldberg (7/10) — He had some good lines — “Say adiós to Donald Trump” — but didn’t really stand out.
Nicholas Kristof (8/10) — Castro was among the most articulate people on the stage and very savvy on policy. Even when he fought with others, he avoided being nasty. If I’m ever knifed in the back, I hope it’s by Castro.
David Leonhardt (6/10) — He had the best opening statement, mentioning health care, education and job opportunities — the kinds of issues that matter most to many voters. Later, he sometimes went into the policy weeds.
Liz Mair (9/10) — He’s probably the most talented candidate when it comes to shivving other people in a way they don’t even see coming and don’t know how to respond to. By rights, he should be rising in the polls.
Gracy Olmstead (5/10) — Castro was one of the only candidates to discuss affordable housing. He had strong moments but didn’t take command of the stage at any point.
Miriam Pawel (8/10) — He had some of the best lines of the night and a strong grasp of policy in a performance that showed his high marks in the first debate weren’t a fluke. But can he leverage it more successfully this time?
Bret Stephens (2/10) — At some point, will it occur to Democrats that the former Housing and Urban Development secretary is a walking, talking gift to the Trump 2020 campaign?
Mimi Swartz (8/10) — He has triumphed over his wonkiness, but I wish he had challenged John Cornyn for Senate. If Castro gets the VP nod, maybe he and Beto O’Rourke can reconcile in time to deliver Texas to the Democrats.
Peter Wehner (6/10) — He did fine for the second debate in a row, and bless him for smacking down Bill de Blasio. But he’s one of the candidates who needed to shake up the race with his debate performance, and he didn’t succeed in doing that.
Will Wilkinson (8/10) — Castro turned in the night’s smoothest, most impressive performance. He spoke with the clarity, poise and cadence of his old boss, Barack Obama, sliced through CNN’s egregious “decriminalization” framing around “improper entry” like a laser and easily bested Biden in their exchange. Keep it up, and it’s adiós to the second tier.
Andrew Yang
Charles M. Blow (8/10) — Sharp as a tack. He didn’t have any attacks coming his way, so he could focus on explaining his positions, which he does with an ease and surety that is extremely impressive. If he doesn’t win the nomination — and I don’t think he will — he definitely needs to be in someone’s cabinet.
Jamelle Bouie (6/10) — Andrew Yang wants to give you $12,000 to run to the hills and escape from the impending robot uprising and inevitable climate catastrophe. Somehow, this was incredibly compelling. Also, he wears the tieless suit very well. Take note, men.
Gail Collins (4/10) — Has he mentioned he’s an Asian man who likes math?
Ross Douthat (8/10) — He learned from last debate’s vanishing act, made good policy points on a range of issues and was on-brand for his big universal basic income idea all night. The YangGang should get a little bigger.
Maureen Dowd (6/10) — I’ll always listen to a futurist. And he’s right. The robot apocalypse is upon us. Is a thousand bucks a month enough to get us through, and will Sarah Conner get more?
Michelle Goldberg (9/10) — I find him a far more winning novelty candidate than Marianne Williamson, even if his bleak rhetoric on climate change — “we are 10 years too late” and we need to start “moving our people to higher ground” — is the opposite of galvanizing. It’s amazing that he’s the only one who spoke about declining life expectancy and rising deaths of despair. And I appreciated him breaking the fourth wall and riffing on the absurd reality show nature of the debate itself.
Nicholas Kristof (3/10) — He’s very smart and thoughtful and made excellent points, but Yang lacks the political experience and is simply not ready to be president.
David Leonhardt (5/10) — I don’t like universal basic income, his signature proposal, but he does a nice job describing it — and his other ideas. The debate was better with him in it.
Liz Mair (7/10) — He had a good answer on the coalition he’s building and good closing statement.
Gracy Olmstead (8/10) — Yang brought intriguing and divergent takes to the stage and demonstrated poise and humor throughout. His closing statement was one of the best of the night.
Miriam Pawel (4/10) — He had the best opening line — “the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math” — and stayed on message, but didn’t climb into the first tier.
Bret Stephens (4/10) — Andrew Yang will be a very effective United States ambassador to the World Economic Forum. But will Twitter now fault him for perpetrating stereotypes about Asian guys and math?
Mimi Swartz (3/10) — Buy Marianne Williamson dinner and call it a night.
Peter Wehner (7.5/10) — He’s probably not going to stay in the race much longer, but he was a refreshing presence on the debate stage. (His point that the United States isn’t close to being the world’s main cause of carbon emissions is true and almost never said by Democrats.) Yang was reasonable and persuasive; he has carved out a nice niche for himself.
Will Wilkinson (8/10) — The robots are coming, and Andrew Yang wants to give every American $1,000 a month — an idea he weaved into the answer to practically every question with deft, dryly twinkling efficiency. Yang’s not going to break through, but the multi-tool appeal of his “freedom dividend” really did. That’s a win.
Tulsi Gabbard
Jamelle Bouie (6/10) — More than anyone else on that stage, Gabbard has a coherent and powerful message on foreign policy, and she delivered it incredibly well. I think she’ll remain a marginal candidate, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a talented one.
Gail Collins (5/10) — Best of the candidates nobody has heard of.
Ross Douthat (6/10) — She didn’t quite have the on-brand consistency of Yang, but she was effective linking her military record to anti-interventionism. Her hammering of Harris on her criminal justice record was the sharpest attack of the night.
Maureen Dowd (5/10) — It’s too bad she has that Syrian baggage because her answer on our “forever wars” was good, as was her line that “Donald Trump is not behaving like a patriot.” Her attacks on Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor had the California senator rattled.
Michelle Goldberg (7/10) — Her assault on Kamala Harris’s criminal justice record was absolutely brutal. One of Gabbard’s great advantages is that she can tear into the other candidates, but she’s not polling high enough for anyone to have prepared condemnations of her anti-gay history, support for right-wing Hindu nationalism in India or fondness for Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Nicholas Kristof (4/10) — Representative Gabbard was most effective at taking on Senator Harris, but less effective at portraying herself as presidential.
David Leonhardt (5/10) — She certainly isn’t my favorite candidate, but she made a strong case against Harris’s record as a prosecutor.
Liz Mair (7/10) — Gabbard gave a good answer on Iraq. She’s not where most Democrats are, but she’ll have more appeal than the punditocracy thinks — guaranteed.
Gracy Olmstead (7/10) — Gabbard pulled ahead of the pack on the night when she attacked Harris’s criminal justice record. It was her strongest moment of the debate.
Miriam Pawel (2/10) — Her most useful role was effectively questioning Harris’s record as attorney general.
Bret Stephens (8/10) — The Hawaii congresswoman deserves high marks for taking a hammer to Harris’s record as a prosecutor and hypocrisy as a candidate.
Mimi Swartz (6/10) — She woke up midway through the debate to go on the attack, like Sleeping Beauty turning into General Patton.
Peter Wehner (6.5/10) — Some of her claims were reckless, but the most notable thing she did is go after Harris on criminal justice issues. She did it quite well — “you owe them an apology” — and did real damage to Harris. Now Harris knows how Biden felt in the first debate.
Will Wilkinson (6/10) — The soporific Hawaiian legislator nailed her usual, anti-war high notes and landed a punishing hit on Kamala Harris, a not-so-good cop, which left the normally unflappable former prosecutor diminished and, well, flapped.
Michael Bennet
Jamelle Bouie (4/10) — When I close my eyes and listen to Michael Bennet, I hear John C. Reilly, if John C. Reilly were really mad about education.
Gail Collins (6/10) — It’s not easy being passionate when you’re arguing for moderation, but he had some pretty good moments.
Ross Douthat (4/10) — He had a very effective moment on education but otherwise too many unmemorable answers.
Maureen Dowd (7/10) — Michael Bennet had a good night — and I’m not just saying that because he’s my boss’s brother. He was passionate about education, reprimanding Democrats for spending too much time revisiting a 50-year-old fight over busing when many public schools are still segregated. He drove home the point that we’ve wasted $12 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy and on Middle East wars that could have gone to fixing every road, bridge, airport and water system in this country, including Flint, Mich.
Michelle Goldberg (6/10) — His riff on modern-day educational segregation was superb, but otherwise he was too soporific to break out as the younger, fresher alternative to Biden.
Nicholas Kristof (6/10) — Senator Bennet is very smart but, especially early on, seemed too restrained and sleepy. He made a solid pitch for support from moderates and gets extra credit for emphasizing investments in children.
David Leonhardt (5/10) — The line about Trump not giving a damn about “your kids or mine” was good. And he’s strong on policy. But performance matters too in presidential politics, and he needs to find a way to grab attention without raising his voice.
Liz Mair (2/10) — (A) He seemed to talk about education in the most memorable way, and (b) he sounded a little like a Trey Parker or Matt Stone impersonator at times (hat tip to Caleb Howe on that).
Gracy Olmstead (4/10) — Bennett was not a star, but he brought some interesting centrist rebuttals to the stage (in delightfully soporific tones).
Miriam Pawel (2/10) — Just was not a factor.
Bret Stephens (6/10) — The Colorado Senator deserves great credit for doing the real math on progressive health care fantasies.
Mimi Swartz (5/10) — Smart but earnestly soporific. The Pete Buttigieg of the night.
Peter Wehner (8/10) — He showed you can take more moderate positions and still speak with passion and moral conviction. His command of the issues exceeded everyone else on the stage. He’s emerged as the most articulate advocate for the (relatively) moderate wing of a Democratic Party that is otherwise lurching left. If Democrats were smart, they’d listen to him. They probably won’t.
Will Wilkinson (6/10) — Senator Bennet exudes decency and competence, and even unveiled an appealing bit of indignant gusto. He’s a terrific legislator and might make a good president, but he’s dull, and that makes a bad candidate.
Kamala Harris
Charles M. Blow (4/10) — She had to defend a lot — her fluid positions on health care and busing, among others. But the attacks by Biden and, more important, Tulsi Gabbard on her criminal justice record did real damage. She needed another stellar moment. She got a weakening one.
Jamelle Bouie (4/10) — Low-energy and a little out of her depth on health care. She was also the focus of attacks from other candidates and not quite ready for the attention. A very middling performance, but one I think she can recover from.
Gail Collins (4/10) — Disappointment of the debates.
Ross Douthat (4/10) — She spent the first 20 minutes of the debate on the defensive over a health care plan that she couldn’t even explain well herself, and never recovered the air of command she had last time.
Maureen Dowd (5/10) — Tall poppy syndrome. After she garroted Biden in the first debate, everyone came after her, challenging her health care plan as she struggled to explain it herself. She wasn’t able to bring specificity to the Vision Thing. She was left shaking her head a lot as her rivals poked holes in her agenda. Elizabeth Warren, she’s not.
Michelle Goldberg (5/10) — I’m a Harris fan, but she certainly didn’t have a breakout moment as in the first debate, and Tulsi Gabbard’s attack on her criminal-justice record was devastating. It will hurt Harris with the left, and by rattling her, it undermines the idea that she would be uniquely tough and unflappable onstage with Trump.
Nicholas Kristof (6/10) — Senator Harris manages to sound very authentic even when she’s clearly scripted. But she dodged the busing question, seemed short of vision and didn’t effectively answer the questions about her own past on criminal justice.
David Leonhardt (5/10) — Still a commanding presence. But her new health care plan was supposed to save her from having to defend the abolishment of private health insurance, and she fell back into the trap. She also kept accusing her rivals of “wrong,” “false” and “not true” criticisms of her record.
Liz Mair (4/10) — This time, Biden came prepared. She didn’t. The “Kamala is a cop” attacks stuck, and she didn’t have good answers, even though she’d obviously rehearsed and still sounded scripted.
Gracy Olmstead (5/10) — Harris seemed shaky throughout the debate as she battled other candidates over her health care plan and criminal justice record. She failed to come across as one of the front-runners.
Miriam Pawel (5/10) — Her single-minded focus on attacking Biden was less effective than the critiques of Biden offered by Booker and Castro, and her weakness in defending her own plans and thinking on her feet showed whenever she had to go off-script.
Bret Stephens (4/10) — Harris did not hurt herself in the debate, but she didn’t help herself, either.
Mimi Swartz (8/10) — If she isn’t the nominee, I would still pay real money to watch her debate Donald Trump.
Peter Wehner (3/10) — She had a breakout performance in the last debate; she was very much on the defensive in this one. Harris was unsteady, agitated and at times plaintive (“This has gotta stop”). Rising to the top tier of the field made her a target, and she didn’t handle it well.
Will Wilkinson (6/10) — Senator Harris, the runaway victor of her last debate, seemed both stilted and shaky throughout this round. She was stern but confusing in the opening tiff with Biden over health care, and at times felt over-loose and almost medicated. Gabbard’s attack on her record at California attorney general, which she did not effectively parry, left her weakened, and she never fully recovered.
Jay Inslee
Jamelle Bouie (7/10) — First: Jay Inslee’s glasses were dope and he looked great. Much respect for good style. Second: Inslee is running a single-issue campaign on climate change, and he’s doing a great job of it. He’s passionate, he’s knowledgeable and he has conviction.
Gail Collins (3/10) — The climate candidate — hard for a politician who’s so passionate about an issue to be so boring.
Ross Douthat (5/10) — He was looser than in the first debate and more consistent in his self-presentation as the single-issue climate change candidate — but still not as single-minded and intense as he needed to be to stand out.
Maureen Dowd (3/10) — Inslee, time to get outslee.
Michelle Goldberg (8/10) — He was charming, he’s right about the existential threat of climate change, and he made it clear that he has one of the most substantial records of executive accomplishment of any of the candidates.
Nicholas Kristof (4/10) — Governor Inslee is very good on climate change but didn’t seem as effective on other issues or at outlining a national vision.
David Leonhardt (7/10) — Not the most dynamic speaker, but he had a good night. Thank goodness one candidate insists on talking about climate change — not to mention the filibuster. Also, that shirt: He was the best dressed on the stage.
Liz Mair (2/10) — Congratulations, you’ve clinched the Democratic nomination for head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Gracy Olmstead (4/10) — Inslee was most commanding and memorable on climate change and green energy, but otherwise mostly slipped into the background.
Miriam Pawel (3/10) — Articulate and wonky, more professorial than political, he didn’t have the breakout he needed.
Bret Stephens (3/10) — The Washington governor would have been more persuasive on the subject of climate change, and the need for urgent action on it, if his own state hadn’t overwhelmingly rejected an effort to impose a modest carbon tax.
Mimi Swartz (6/10) — He says all the right things and has done many of the right things. Even so, seems like the perfect vice-presidential candidate for 1980.
Peter Wehner (2/10) — He was both flat and risibly alarmist (“literally” the “survival of humanity on this planet in civilization” is in the hands of the next president. Actually, it’s not.) Inslee seems to believe that the two great threats facing America is the earth burning up — and the Senate filibuster. He also helpfully informed us that he’s never been a black teenager. The governor of Washington state needs to return to the Pacific Coast. Soon he will.
Will Wilkinson (7/10) — Governor Inslee managed to keep himself from Hulking out, was commanding on climate change and eloquently trashed Biden’s climate plan. Biden’s rebuttal, like his plan, was technocratic, defensive, too little and too late.
Kirsten Gillibrand
Charles M. Blow (3/10) — Debating is not her forum.
Jamelle Bouie (8/10) — Like Booker, Gillibrand was greatly improved from the last debate. She leaned into her “woke suburban mom” persona with strong answers on health care and racial justice. She may not get much traction, but I think she deserves it.
Gail Collins (3/10) — Only good moment was her quote about using Clorox on the Oval Office.
Ross Douthat (3/10) — The “Clorox the Oval Office” line was a good moment; her telegraphed-in-advance attempt to take down Biden over an ancient op-ed on working women was, um, not.
Maureen Dowd (2/10) — She came after Biden and missed. Harris and Gillibrand going after Biden as a racist and sexist seems non-productive.
Michelle Goldberg (6/10) — I like Gillibrand and wish she was doing better, but I’m not optimistic that white women who voted for Trump are going to listen to lessons about white privilege from her or anybody else.
Nicholas Kristof (5/10) — This was the most passionate I’ve seen Senator Gillibrand, and it mostly worked. But she came across periodically as opportunistic rather strategic. I don’t think she succeeded in persuading people that she can beat Trump.
David Leonhardt (3/10) — She didn’t always seem ready when the moderators called on her. Her best moment: When she said the goal of the Republican Party was to take away people’s health insurance.
Liz Mair (1/10) — Um … bye.
Gracy Olmstead (2/10) — She was hesitant at times and fumbled attacks in others.
Miriam Pawel (2/10) — She voiced platitudes, struggled in her one carefully planned effort to attack Biden, and seemed at a loss for answers a couple of times.
Bret Stephens (3/10) — Points for the line about Clorox. But defining herself as a “white woman of privilege” smacks of the kind of pandering that has defined her career, going back to the days when she was an upstate New York representative with an ‘A’ rating from the N.R.A.
Mimi Swartz (5/10) — Promising that you will explain white privilege to other white people is not a road to the presidency.
Peter Wehner (3/10) — She admitted to being a “white woman of privilege” and then gave herself the job of explaining what white privilege is to white suburban women. In a historically progressive field, she’s trying so very hard – too hard – to be the progressive candidate. She and de Blasio are shallow. Come on, New York; you can do better than this.
Will Wilkinson (7/10) — Senator Gillibrand was charming and effective, save for a couple of missteps. She’s natural and knowledgeable with a talent for humanizing policy, and she showed steel confronting Biden with his patriarchal fossil record. An infusion of gravitas would raise her to the next level.
Bill de Blasio
Charles M. Blow (2/10) — He seemed to think that relentlessly attacking Biden would raise his profile. In hip-hop this is called “dissing your way into the game,” when a lesser known or unknown rapper attacks one of the most popular ones on a record. This rarely works — and it didn’t for de Blasio.
Jamelle Bouie (2/10) — Wild that the mayor of New York spent his night as a co-moderator for the debate.
Gail Collins (1/10) — Winning the bronze cup for most irritating.
Ross Douthat (3/10) — His “let’s enact the Communist manifesto” shtick was lamer this time. New York controversies dogged him instead of elevating him.
Maureen Dowd (2/10) — Too catty, and I’m not buying his “message of hope.” He needs to go back to New York, where the hope is that the subways will come.
Michelle Goldberg (4/10) — I guess he served his purpose as a left populist ringer standing in for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but his candidacy remains inexplicable.
Nicholas Kristof (3/10) — Mayor de Blasio aimed for attention and support from the left, but mostly by tearing down other candidates. He came across as mostly opportunistic and destructive.
David Leonhardt (4/10) — He over-performed in the first debate, carving out a space as a proud leftist. On Wednesday, he sometimes seemed to be piling on Biden instead of making his own case.
Liz Mair (3/10) — He handled the Eric Garner point about as well as he could have and wins points for talking direct to the camera and not the moderators or other candidates — he’s good at that, and it really works with voters.
Gracy Olmstead (2/10) — De Blasio went into attack mode from his opening statement, but his responses were forgettable and he faded into the background.
Miriam Pawel (2/10) — It wasn’t a great night for New Yorkers. He tried to be the voice on the left, but the mayor’s “break out” moment may have been when the moderator chastised him for breaking the rules.
Bret Stephens (3/10) — Do Democrats really think a New York City mayor who is unpopular even in a liberal city is going to succeed by railing on the Obama administration’s immigration record?
Mimi Swartz (4/10) — It’s time for him to go. New ideas, the vision thing? M.I.A.
Peter Wehner (1/10) — He was his typical irritating and insufferable self. He may be the most unlikeable presidential candidate in living memory. De Blasio is also as far to the left as any person running for president. His main problem is his record as mayor is dismal, and he wants to do for America what he did to New York. No thanks.
Will Wilkinson (3/10) — The mayor of the Big Apple was rotten. He can’t fix the subway and can’t fire the goon who murdered Eric Garner, but he can come dead last in a Democratic primary debate.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
About the authors
Charles Blow, Jamelle Bouie, Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Michelle Goldberg, Nicholas Kristof, David Leonhardt, and Bret Stephens are Times columnists.
Liz Mair, a strategist for campaigns by Scott Walker, Roy Blunt, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry, is the founder and president of Mair Strategies.
Gracy Olmstead is a writer who contributes to The American Conservative, The Week, The Washington Post and other publications.
Miriam Pawel is the author of “The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation” and a contributing opinion writer.
Mimi Swartz, an executive editor at Texas Monthly, is a contributing opinion writer.
Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the previous three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer, as well as the author of “The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.”
Will Wilkinson is a contributing opinion writer and the vice president for research at the Niskanen Center.
