"Did anybody seem to be doing any better than anybody else to you?"/"No!"

Question by Althouse, answer by Meade, after Meade reads this headline out loud, "Booker and Castro Thrive, Warren Coasts, and Beto Crashes."

I think the press has to come out with these winners-and-losers pieces. It's the convention. The linked thing above is from National Review. I had already read this in WaPo: "Winners and losers from the Democratic presidential debate’s first night."

The news has to tell you what happened, but with a debate — if you watched it, you saw it. What did you think happened? There were some policy differences, notably that Warren and de Blasio are the only ones (in the first night group) who want to abolish all private health insurance, but I could see that much more easily by reading an article on the subject or looking at a good chart that compares their positions. What's the point of a debate? To see who's good at thinking on their feet and using a compelling form of expression. I did get to see who seems to be able and willing to speak Spanish and who's ballsy enough to speak out of turn, but other than that, it was a big group of boring.