So, as somebody who is writing a book about 2020,
tonight's debate,
do you think that factors in?
Is it-- is it a domino?
Is it anything that shifted the conversation in any way?
What was your big takeaway of tonight?
Well, I think we won't know what is important two years from now
until two years from now, right?
We might look back at this debate and say
that this was a turning point,
this is when Marianne Williamson became president.
-Wow. -Um... I'm kidding.
-Which is-- You say "kidding." -Or...
After Trump, anything is possible.
-So, yes. -Right.
Or, uh, we look back and we can barely remember it.
-We won't know until then. -Right.
'Cause there are a lot of moments--
Even when we were talking about Donald Trump saying
his hands at that-- at that debate stage
-that they were on tonight, -Right, right.
I mean, I could-- if I was asked where he did that,
I would have no idea, earlier today.
So when you look at just tonight then in isolation,
you had ten people up on that stage
who all, you know, were trying to get policy ideas across.
Let's start at the basics.
Do you think they were successful in doing that?
Some of them were.
Um, I think it's difficult to see where they differ.
Uh, there-there are a lot of similarities
with what they believe,
and I think, uh, it depends on the personality.
Uh, I think Elizabeth Warren's very consistent.
She talks about the same things in the same way,
-regardless of where she is, right? -Right.
Um, and I think somebody like Pete Buttigieg
is a little bit, uh, less talented at getting across
what precisely he believes, uh,
because of the way that he communicates it
in an environment like that.
-He's more careful with his wording. -Yeah.
Right. When you look at Marianne Williamson tonight,
why do you think she won the debate, as they say?
-Are they saying that? -No, I'm saying, it's people--
No, I'm saying, as a phrase, you know people say,
"They won the deba--" I don't know how you win at debates,
but people say, "They won the debate," so...
I-I think pundits-- This is something
-that pundits get to decide, right? -Right.
And so we, therefore, really shouldn't believe it
when people say anything definitive
about something where there is no voting.
Um, but, that said, I do think
she was a very strong performer tonight.
And I think it's because she's coming from it--
She's-- It was not, uh, the most diverse crowd up there.
-Yes. Right. -Um, and I think
she is genuinely different,
and that helps kind of set her apart and helps her be heard.
But I also think the way that she talks about these things,
she's not-- because the expectations for her are so low,
-they're much lower than they are... -(laughter)
No, this is true. This-- I understand what you're saying.
-They are. -Yes. Because you are coming in as a one percent,
-a non-politician, yes. -Yes. No one was, like,
waiting for her to get in the race
because they thought she was surely the next president.
-Right, right. -Right? She does not have that
in common with Hillary Clinton.
Um, but I think, because the expectations are so low,
she, uh, is kind of freed up.
She's able to talk and say what she really means
and what she really thinks, and she doesn't sound
-like a consultant, clearly. -Right.
Or not like any consultant I've ever met.
-Yes. -And so she's able
to get at these kind of universal truths
in an interesting way, and I think that separates her
from people like Pete Buttigieg or even Beto
or any of the other candidates who are so afraid
of screwing up that they, uh, sound inhuman.
If you were to look at today's debate
-as, uh, foreshadowing for tomorrow's debate, -Mm-hmm.
there are ten other candidates who are now lining up.
-Are there? -They've seen how--
They-- I think there's even, like, four, like, backups
if they need substitutes.
Those candidates have now watched a debate.
They've seen how CNN does it.
-It's a different style to NBC's. -Yes.
There's a-- there's a little bit of a different tactic
that they use.
If you were looking at tomorrow's debate
and you were giving advice to those candidates,
what would you say that they would need to improve on
-from tonight? -Well, I wouldn't give advice to any candidates.
-Um, but I... -But if you had to, what would you say?
If I had to, I guess I would say
to try and not be so stiff.
I mean, as journalists, we want more information all the time.
Right? That's what we want in general from any politician.
And I think that when you talk in this stilted way,
when you sound like a consultant,
when you're afraid of making people angry at you,
you're tiptoeing around,
uh, you're not really saying the truth.
And I think people can sense that.
And I do think that is part of why Marianne Williamson
was able to really puncture through in some ways tonight.
She really had a-- she really had
a powerful breakthrough moment.
One thing that was interesting for me is
watching how different moderators
and how different stations can shape
-how a debate actually plays out, you know? -Yeah.
NBC's debate was very different to CNN's one tonight.
For instance, NBC would ask questions directly
of a candidate, just of their policies.
It seemed like CNN tonight skewed more towards
-how do you respond to somebody else's criticism of you -Mm-hmm.
-during a race, et cetera, et cetera. -Right.
Do you think that is something
that a journalist should be doing?
Or do you think that's just, like, up to a network?
Like, how do you-- how do you figure out
-a good debate as a journalist? -I don't know.
I guess the result is what tells us whether or not
it was a good debate. Did we learn a lot?
-Right. -Right? Did we-- Was the information gleaned
during the debate, uh, important and valuable to voters?
Um, did we see something that we didn't know about before?
Um, I do think-- I think people talk a lot
about the media being biased in one way or another,
to the left or to the right. Usually, they're talking
about it having a liberal bias, which I think, uh,
can be true in some cases.
Uh, but I do think that the real bias in the media
is towards conflict.
It's not about an ideological thing.
-Interesting. -It's just that journalists look for risk.
They look for, um, things that are happening.
And often, in politics, what's happening is conflict,
whether it's inside of a campaign
or it's between candidates.
Uh, that is exciting. It makes for good television.
It makes for a good headline.
And I think that oftentimes, uh, means
that you can't really have much of a conversation,
because, uh, the truth is usually nuanced
and it's not black and white.
Right. Doesn't make for great TV
unless you get the people to fight.
Well, thank you so much for being on the show.
I'm excited to see what happens tomorrow.
Thank you for having me.
Olivia Nuzzi, everybody.