Democratic debate: Live chat as candidates face off

Seven Democratic presidential hopefuls meet tonight in Manchester, N.H., for the first debate since voting began in the party’s race to find a nominee to challenge President Trump, and the top candidates have a lot on the line.

Former Vice President Joe Biden suffered what he called a “gut punch” by coming in fourth place in Iowa’s caucuses on Monday; his aides say he’ll more aggressively challenge his rivals tonight.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., topped the field in Iowa, so they’re likely to be targets.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts once led the field here in New Hampshire, but was badly eclipsed by Sanders in Iowa. A defeat in Tuesday’s primary here could severely harm her chances for the nomination.

To talk about tonight’s debate, we’re joined by three Los Angeles Times subscribers who will be asking questions of my colleagues and me, including Melanie Mason, who is with me here in Manchester, and Tyrone Beason, Seema Mehta and Matt Pearce in our newsroom in Los Angeles.

We hope you’ll find the discussion interesting and useful as we follow along with the Democratic Primary Debate.

Hey everyone! I'm Matt Pearce, one of the reporters on our political team. I just got back from the campaign trail in Iowa, where I've recently been following Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.

Hi, everybody. This is Tyrone Beason, another of our 2020 campaign reporters. Back in town after spending about a week in Iowa following Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren.

Hi everybody. I’m Seema Mehta, a political reporter at the Los Angeles Times. This is my fourth presidential campaign. Like Matt, I just returned from Iowa after covering the caucus debacle that arguably makes New Hampshire more important than ever. I’m looking forward to hearing from our subscribers and my colleagues during tonight’s Democratic debate.

Hi all -- greetings from New Hampshire, where I, a native Californian, have spent the day learning the joys of driving in "wintry mix." I was covering Joe Biden in Iowa and I'll be on the trail with Pete Buttigieg this weekend.

Hello. I’m Jingcheng Xu from Hollywood Hills. I do data analysis for large food and beverage companies -- it’s a lot of spreadsheets. I grew up in the Santa Clarita Valley and consider myself a realistic socialist. The issue I’m most concerned about in the 2020 election is inequality.

Hello. I’m Bobbi Ross-Neier from Newbury Park. I’m a fifth-grade teacher who includes current events in my classroom. I consider myself a liberal Democrat. The issues I’m most concerned about in the 2020 election is healthcare and education.

Hello. I’m Sandy Cowles from Irvine. I’m a reading specialist for elementary school students. I grew up in Orange County and consider myself a moderate Democrat. The issues I’m most concerned about in the 2020 election are the environment and ethics.

As the debate kicks off, I am most interested in seeing how much incoming flak former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets from the other candidates. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders went after him hard earlier today as the candidate of billionaires. What are you all anticipating tonight?

I would not be surprised if it turns into a bash-Pete-athon.

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has a lot at stake tonight after his disappointing fourth place finish in Iowa.

I'm looking to see how the candidates respond to Buttigieg, given his strong performance in Iowa, even if not an outright victory. And Joe Biden's reaction to his terrible showing there.

Biden's campaign aides have gone on TV prior to the debate promising a scrappy performance. But they've done that before and the former vice president hasn't necessarily thrown punches. Still, this is a critical moment for him.

I'm wondering if the rules were changed to allow those who are more self-funded to participate.

I think the B-boys (Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg) are the ones to watch tonight. But I'm going to keep an eye on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to see if she's able to have a big moment. New Hampshire should be friendly territory for her, since she's from the state next door. But she's been stuck in third place in recent polls.

"I took a hit in Iowa, and I'll probably take a hit here." Biden acknowledges he's not off to a good start.

Matt, that's definitely some expectations-setting from Biden.

Sandy, the Democratic National Committee has certainly received a lot of criticism for changing the debate qualification threshold to get rid of the grass-roots fundraising threshold after Julián Castro and Cory Booker dropped out.

The move also allows Michael Bloomberg to earn a spot on the stage, which has led to criticism that the billionaire is being allowed to buy his way onto the stage.

These changes will take place for the next debate in Las Vegas.

It's interesting that Sen. Sanders is talking about Democrats uniting given that some worry that if he is not the nominee, his supporters are the least likely to unite behind the nominee.

Sanders, too, acknowledging a bit of weakness in Iowa, calling the so-so turnout a "disappointment." In the closing days in Iowa, he had said that he would win the election if turnout was high. It's one of his big arguments for his electability.

Klobuchar is joining Biden in making the case that a Democratic socialist on the ticket could be risky. Since she's trailing badly in the polls, it will be interesting to see how she positions herself tonight.

That hesitation from the non-Bernie candidates to acknowledge they're worried about having a Democratic Socialist on the ticket was really something. Only Amy Klobuchar raised her hand but that is basically the position of all of Sanders' rivals. Tom Steyer literally ran ads saying that.

Interesting that Sanders comes out with a message of unification and by calling for a huge voter turnout in November, but you're right Matt. He can't be happy with the average turnout in Iowa.

Tom Steyer points out that it's not just about turnout but making sure key groups like African Americans and Latinos show up in big numbers. That's going to be a challenge for the Dems because as I've found, black voters in particular are feeling a bit taken for granted by the candidates.

This discussion about appealing to moderates or expanding the liberal base is the central question facing Democratic voters. They agree that their top priority is beating President Trump -- but do they do that by winning back voters in the middle who supported Trump or sat out the race in 2016, or by getting more young, minority and working-class voters to turn out?

The moderator tries, as many have, to get Elizabeth Warren, who calls herself a"capitalist to my bones," to split herself from Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist. And she declines to take the bait! Even as they're scrapping for each others' votes.

Their non-aggression pact has held up pretty well for most of the campaign, except for their spat shortly before the Iowa caucuses. But as Matt points out, they are scrapping for many of the same voters, and at some point they will likely have to draw contrasts with each other.

Seema, good question. I think both. The big-tent Democrats have a strange challenge ahead of them.

Buttigieg just clearly signaled that he views Sanders, not Biden, as his chief opponent at this point. He completely ignored Biden's criticism of him, and picked a fight with Sanders.

Buttigieg and Sanders are two good examples of the very different coalitions they're trying to build. Sanders wants to try to bring in working people, and disenchanted people who don't vote very often, into a different kind of progressive coalition. Buttigieg avoids the bash-the-rich stuff and competes much more aggressively for the kind of moderates and crossover Republicans who helped deliver the U.S. House to the Democrats in 2018.

I definitely want to ensure that whoever the Democratic candidate is he or she is electable. We must select a candidate that will beat Trump. Even if the candidate is not your favorite or first choice, we need ALL Democrats and Independents to support this candidate in the general election. Who is the best candidate?

Buttigieg is hitting on the themes I saw him talk about in Iowa, where he also told crowds he wanted to "galvanize and energize, not polarize" the American people. He clearly sees Sanders as his main competition.

That's the question that reporters hear all the time on the trail, Sandy! And Sanders and Buttigieg have two different answers to that question.

Sandy, the electability question has been the biggest question among voters we've interviewed on the trail. And that is definitely a change from prior election cycles. Our colleague Mark Z. Barabak wrote about this phenomenon here: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-31/democrats-electability-2020-iowa-caucus

How many times have we had this very same sparring match over Medicare for All in a debate? I literally can't remember. It's a lot. A. Lot.

Matt, you are channeling Amy Klobuchar right now!

Sandy, I heard centrist Dems and Republicans asking Buttigieg that very question in Iowa in town halls last week. People there worried about whether the party will have a candidate who can reach across to independents and just-enough conservatives.

Pete bash-a-thon watch: Klobuchar is now trying to take a notch out of Buttigieg for his past, fuzzy support for "Medicare for All," which he has sharpened into plan for a public option, rather than for single payer.

There's a lot of debate about whether a candidate from the center or the left would perform better, but Hillary Clinton in 2016 tried being the sensible candidate and trying to approach the general election from the center. Do the Democrats have something to offer this election that is different than Clinton's 2016 strategy?

Jingcheng, the interesting thing about this field is that it is generally quite a bit to the left of where Hillary Clinton was in 2016. But the arguments are often very similar.

That question gets to one of the key issues that Democrats argue about: Was the problem in 2016 the message or the messenger? Did Clinton lose because of her campaign, or because of her?

I think Hillary Clinton was such a unique candidate that it's hard to compare her to other politicians, in part because she was in the public eye for so many decades and also because she was viewed as polarizing even by some Democratic voters.

Also I think Democrats didn't understand how popular Trump would become among some parts of the Republican Party. They didn't have a playbook for competing with him or his campaign, because they had never seen a candidate or a campaign like that before.

The argument about the party's identity is so similar to last time, Jingcheng. But this time, there's no lightning rod like Clinton in the race. That's different.

Tom Steyer has been raising his hand trying to get a chance to speak for many minutes. Readers, what do you think of him or his ads? Are you familiar with him?

A defining thing about Buttigieg's candidacy is that his rhetoric is very much change, change, change, while his policies trend toward the more moderate end of the ideological spectrum of this group.

Who would have thought in 2012 that one day a Democrat would be standing on a debate stage praising Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, as Amy Klobuchar just did.

Steyer does come across as "anti-Trump" to a point where it almost seems personal. It seems unclear why he decided now to want to be President.

"Fifty-nine is the new 38," Klobuchar says, noting that she too is a fresh face in this race, not just Buttigieg. On the other hand, she says, "experience is a good thing." Interesting positioning.

I have seen his ads and, to be honest, they seem to offer a lot of policy proposals but they do not really convince me what he uniquely has to offer to be able to shepherd his proposals through a divided Congress.

I have seen Tom Steyer's ads on tv and heard him on a humorous podcast. He has some great ideas but I just don't know if he is a big enough name to gain traction.

Good point Bobbi -- Steyer has flirted with running for office for so many years in California, and ultimately decided against running for senator or governor. In fact just about a year ago he ruled out running for president. And then he changed his mind over the summer and decided to run.

I have a question: Does Buttigieg's sexual orientation come into his electability as a candidate?

Tom Steyer is channeling lots of voters in N.H. and the rest of the country right now. When I talk to voters, they tell me they like a lot of these candidates. But the question about who can beat Donald Trump is the first and foremost question.

Steyer's looking pretty vigorous on this debate stage, just got a big cheer. It's a bit of a far cry from when I last saw him, at the Des Moines airport in Iowa, sitting on a bench, alone, after he took a walloping in the caucuses. He's looking forward to Nevada and South Carolina, where his ads have given him more of a polling bump.

The question Bobbi raises is an interesting one. Buttigieg effectively tied for first in Iowa, proving that it largely wasn't an issue for voters though. (Though I am sure most of you have seen the viral video of a woman who planned to support him at her caucus and changed her mind after learning he was gay.) The question is what happens when he gets to South Carolina, where a large number of religious, older African American voters are a big chunk of the electorate. Some of them have a problem with Buttigieg's sexual orientation, as our colleague Mark Z. Barabak wrote about here: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-31/pete-buttigieg-struggles-to-convince-black-voters

Bobbi, last week I watched as Buttigieg folded his being gay and married into his pitch to Iowa voters. Dramatically holding up his wedding band, he told his audiences that they are partly responsible for him being able to marry the love of his life. Outside Iowa City, he was introduced by that city's black, gay mayor and he brought out his husband onstage. The crowd seemed to love it.

Bobbi that's a very good question. I don't think it should matter and I truly hope it does not matter to voters. The conservatives support Trump who is quite unethical. Trump and Buttigieg are such polar opposites in terms of ethics.

Just want to take a moment to say how remarkable Andrew Yang's candidacy has been and the fact he's still on this stage, outlasting senators and governors.

He's not a billionaire like Steyer, and he's built a genuine fanbase for himself.

So true. I spent some time with Yang on the trail in New Hampshire, and the energy in his crowds was palpable. And I met a number of former Trump supporters in his audiences. New Hampshire is really his best state in the polls, so it will be interesting to see how he does Tuesday night.

Matt, so true. People still turn out for him and he seems to have a connection to his supporters that is personal, not just political. People in Iowa, and last fall in L.A. at his MacArthur Park rally, kept telling me about how "human" he is compared to most politicians.

As I look at the candidates on stage, I can only think about who can beat Trump, rather than thinking about who is the best candidate based on the issues. Instead I'm thinking about which characteristics of the candidates will not appeal to moderate voters?

Biden just came over and wrapped his arm around Sanders. So much love right now.

There's a warmth there that didn't exist between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has continued to criticize Sanders in recent weeks.

No one, including the President of the United States, is above the law. It's frustrating to see Trump get away with high crimes and misdemeanors as well as covering up those crimes. We cannot stand for this behavior. We need someone who is ethical and understands checks and balances.

One of the interesting things about bringing in our readers to chat during the debate is that they have a lot different perspective from us grizzled campaign reporters, who have heard a lot of these lines before, ad nauseam. As Klobuchar made an argument for her electability, one of our subscribers murmured to the TV, "no one even knows who you are."

(I know who Amy Klobuchar is!)

Klobuchar is interesting in that she has survived candidates far better known than she is such as Sen. Kamala Harris and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke -- with far less money.

She bet so much of her campaign on Iowa, and while she did a little better than expected, she still did come in fifth: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-12/amy-klobuchar-surprise-iowa-caucuses

This all goes back to my question about who has the "electability". As a subscriber who is familiar with politics and candidates, I barely know about her. I think that directly speaks to her "electability" for less knowledgeable voters.

And Bobbi, that's something that goes right to the heart of the candidacy of someone who is NOT on this stage: Michael Bloomberg, who is spending massive amounts on advertising without ever setting foot in a debate, and who is surging in the polls. Klobuchar does not have that kind of financial wherewithal to reach every person in America.

Readers, in this year's campaign, is foreign policy a top concern for you, or are you more focused on domestic issues such as healthcare and education?

It is a big concern for me, given that there are so many problems abroad, but I think domestic issues are much more important.

I am actually concerned about both but if I had to choose it would be domestic policy including the environment.

Absolutely for me. Isolating our country from the rest of the world is what Trump has done and it's not what we want in a global market

It has been interesting that foreign policy hasn't received the attention this year that it has in prior elections. In 2008, it was all about foreign policy/the Iraq War vote.

It's the election that got half-swallowed by Medicare for All.

Buttigieg dropped a line in his stump speech in Iowa about not wanting to relitigate the Iraq War vote.

Speaking of the Iraq War ... Democrats are still litigating that vote as we see with Buttigieg and Biden's exchange here.

Yes, it keeps coming back.

So true Bobbi. If we isolate ourselves, we cannot address issues that countries have in common. We see that when we make decisions alone, it has a negative impact on global markets. Also we cannot tackle the issue of protecting our environment in a vacuum.

Sandy you bring up something really important. It's not just about matters of war and peace when it comes to foreign policy. The candidates are making the case that tackling climate change requires the country to rebuild frayed relationships with allies around the world.

Bernie Sanders is more than happy to relitigate the Iraq War, because he voted against it.

And Sanders goes right there on building international partnerships to address the climate crisis.

Hello, everyone! I’m Adriana Lacy, an audience engagement editor here at the L.A. Times. We'll be back after the commercial break with more conversation.

If you’re a subscriber and would like to participate in a future live chat like this one, you can apply here: https://www.latimes.com/debate-chat-sign-up?_amp=false

Subscribers, as voters, what do you think of the debate so far? Any candidates sticking out to you, any moments?

Slightly frustrated listening to the candidates. I don't hear clear plans for any of the issues. And I'm still not sure why we are still discussing the Iraq war? This isn't a debate that will help voters, if we're just reminiscing.

This debate, like the other ones, seems to really get bogged down in policy proposals and specific funding figures. For me, though, the candidates do not spend a lot of time talking about how they plan to actually lead and unify the party in November. I appreciate the policy discussion, but I want to know how they plan to retake the Senate, which they will absolutely need to pass any policies, given the hyper-partisan nature in Congress.

This is an exciting debate to watch, especially in this forum. Pete is sure being targeted tonight, yet he is holding his own and I'm impressed. Biden looks good as well. Bernie is vocal as always and I appreciate his attention on the environment. I don't feel like Yang is being heard.

It's been a consistent concern from Yang's campaign that he gets ignored.

Jingcheng, the point you bring up is a great one. Democrats can have all the policy proposals in the world, but if they don't control the Senate, how do they get any of this done?

The drug addiction issues they are talking about in New Hampshire is real. I was shocked when I returned to Manchester, N.H., and was shocked by the number of addicts I saw on Elm Street, and the number of obituaries I read of young people where their parents listed the cause of death as overdose. Here's a story I wrote about it in 2015: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-presidential-race-drugs-20151221-story.html

Getting into drug policy here. This is a fresh debate subject.

The opioid epidemic is just that, an epidemic. We need to address this. Which candidate has a realistic plan for doing so? I'm interested to hear what they have to say.

Why is it that when the candidates discuss healthcare it leans more to the extreme topics? While addiction to opioids is important, it's not addressing other health issues.

Curiously, I didn't hear any of the candidates I saw in Iowa talk about the opioid epidemic, though it's a problem in communities in the Midwest too.

I think the levels in some parts of the country, notably New Hampshire where the debate is taking place, the level of overdoses and deaths has reached such high levels that it's very front of mind there.

Bernie Sanders is known for how much he hasn't changed over recent decades, and a rare admission here that his views on gun control have evolved.

Gun control needs to be addressed. As a public school educator, it's extremely difficult to explain to children why we need Lock Down Drills and where they need to go to hide.

The NRA has bought and paid for too many politicians. Gun control legislation needs to be passed now. I agree with Bernie that an assault weapons ban is a priority. As a teacher, it frightens me to have drills at our schools where we practice for active intruders. How do we explain this to kids?

The Democratic field is proposing some pretty aggressive changes to gun control policy, but one of the reasons it probably hasn't come up much in recent debates is that they're largely on the same page on what they want to do: ban assault weapons, institute red-flag laws, universal background checks.

This is an area where the point Jingcheng raised earlier is critical -- control of the Senate is key for legislative action on guns.

Among conservatives, Trump's ability to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court judges is among the reasons they stand behind him. Readers, how much do you think about the courts as you make up your mind about who to support?

In South Carolina last year, I had one man tell me about black churches in the Charleston area holding active shooter drills because of the white supremacist massacre at Mother Emanuel AME Church in 2015. Mass shootings have become so deeply ingrained in the public's consciousness. It seems that the candidates don't have a choice but to talk about it, and in the case of Sanders, evolve. Warren just described it as a "culture of gun violence" in America.

One of the ways that the candidates are answering this "litmus test" question about appointing judges who will uphold abortion rights is talking about the legislature, too: They want to make Roe v. Wade into law.

While the Supreme Court is not a major point in my decision, it is important for me to know that the candidate the Dems put forward is one that holds the ideals of women's rights.

The courts are a huge concern for me, because Mitch McConnell has eliminated the filibuster on appointments and has allowed Trump to streamline appointing radical judges.

I definitely want someone who is pro choice since I don't think men should legislate what choices a woman can make with her body.

To codify it as a statute, rather, instead of as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution.

Discussions of court-packing! Did you have that on your debate bingo cards?

The Supreme Court/judge discussion is about time. Haven't heard much about it in previous debates but the ability to shape the courts is for sure something Republican voters are thinking about. Trump seems to be delivering for those voters so far with his appointments.

L.A. Times subscribers have the opportunity to participate in future live chats like this one. Not a subscriber yet? Sign up at https://www.latimes.com/subscriptions/

"We have not said one word right now about race," Steyer points out. "For goodness sakes, pull it together."

Steyer is speaking passionately about diversity. But it's worth noting that the Democratic field was initially historically diverse, and all of the candidates of color with the exception of Yang have been driven from the race.

Discussion of Buttigieg's record as mayor of South Bend, where he has had significant friction with many of the city's black residents, could be a window for other candidates to attack his record, if they choose.

I know, Seema. The lack of people of color, aside from Yang, is so glaring, given that race and equity are such huge issues in the campaign and the fact that there was a historically diverse field early on.

Question to reporters: Do you have a theory about why the field was winnowed down to mostly white candidates?

Warren: "You have to own up to the facts."

Here's one of the stories I wrote about the skepticism of Pete Buttigieg among black residents in South Bend: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-pete-buttigieg-mayor-police-shooting-black-voters-20190624-story.html

That's a tough question, Jingcheng. I do know that many of the candidates of color -- Julián Castro, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris -- had trouble raising money, particularly in hitting the grassroots fundraising thresholds that were needed to make the debate stage. It's a question above my pay grade as to why they faced that challenge, but I think the minority candidates really found the money chase to be a barrier.

Here's backstory on what Steyer is talking about, with the Biden surrogate: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lawmakers-demand-biden-disavow-surrogate-s-racist-comments-n1131531

Jingcheng, that's a great question. There has been a lot of criticism of the DNC for raising the fundraising and polling thresholds to qualify for the debates, which contributed to some candidates not being able to qualify for the debate stage. I think this is a question that Democrats are going to be talking about long after the primary is over.

Leave it to Steyer to bring up reparations too. But it was Sen. Cory Booker, an Africn American candidate who dropped out, who sponsored the Senate bill on setting up a reparations commission last year, as a counterpart to the bill introduced in the House.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-reparations-democratic-presidential-race20190715-story.html

Some of the subtext here is that Steyer is polling surprisingly well in South Carolina, and he's hoping to build on support from black voters who have largely been seen as likely to support Joe Biden.

"We've got to stop taking the black community for granted," Biden just said. Folks in Detroit would agree. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-02/black-voters-michigan-democrats-2020-presidential-election

Here's a story our colleague Evan Halper did about Steyer's apparent surge in South Carolina: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-22/does-tom-steyer-have-real-momentum-or-just-a-ton-of-money

I miss seeing Kamala Harris on the debate stage as she had some great ideas and experience.

Right. And after placing fourth in Iowa, the question for Biden is if he doesn't do well in New Hampshire, will the African American support for him in South Carolina crumble.

I see we're in the "surrogates gone bad" portion of the debate.

A ton of discussion of racial inequality on this debate stage in New Hampshire, which is, pardon me, pretty lily-white. Part of this could be seen as projecting to the more diverse set of voters who await in Nevada and South Carolina. But the other reality is that there are also a lot of white liberals in this early states who want to be persuaded that these candidates are viable with their fellow voters of color elsewhere.

I agree Matt!

Is there polling for any candidate preferences from Latinos and Asian-Americans/Pacific Islanders?

The discussion right now about racial inequities is fascinating in its detail. Here's my story from Sunday about how Dubuque, Iowa, a nearly all-white city, has tried to reduce bigotry in their community and racism at the institutional level. It's hard work and takes generations, they've found. It's a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-31/dubuque-iowa-confronts-racism

Obama made a concerted effort during his presidency to ensure that he wasn't overly emotional. Every movement and word was under a microscope. With Trump the pendulum has swung the other way and anything goes. I'm not okay with that. We need to select a candidate that thinks before he/she speaks and demonstrates ethical behavior.

There is! There is more general polling from groups like APIA Vote that show that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been trending Democratic as an overall group, though obviously every bloc is enormously complex. Latinos also tend to be generally very pro-Democratic.

Biden and Sanders do better with Latinos overall than Buttigieg and Warren do. And that'll be a big deal when we get to Nevada next.

Yang wants to put 'cash straight into their hands' to increase African American net worth. Granular detail from a guy who boasts that he 'does the math' before coming up with policy proposals.

Ah, they're playing Elizabeth Warren's song.

Speaking of which, here's a story Matt and I wrote about how Warren has to play catch-up with Latino voters: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-06/elizabeth-warren-lags-with-latino-voters

The voters who love Elizabeth Warren really love her anti-corruption messaging.

Warren is not, in her words, "sucking up" to billionaires in this campaign, but she has in prior campaigns.

"People don't look at the guy in the White House and think, can we get someone richer?" -Klobuchar, with a shot at Bloomberg.

Citizens United gets talked about a lot, but is there a way to overturn a Supreme Court ruling other than through a constitutional amendment?

That's probably what it will take.

Bloomberg isn't on this stage physically, but might as well have an astral Obi-Wan presence given how much Sanders is hammering him.

(Use your imaginations.)

Here's Buttigieg's counter-argument: We need rich people's money to beat Donald Trump. Why turn them away if they're willing to help?

Anyway, risky terrain for Buttigieg here, who was recently known as the wine cave guy.

And Buttigieg very cannily reminds viewers that he's actually the least wealthy guy on stage. Yes, including Bernie.

Bernie became a millionaire from writing bestselling books in recent years, which he had to grudgingly admit at the very start of this campaign.

One of our subscribers just did a little fist pump and gave a "Woo!" as climate change gets a question.

What specifically are the differences between this new USMCA and NAFTA?

This is tricky territory -- a lot of Dems in states like Michigan and NH support USMCA.

Here's a story our colleague Don Lee wrote about the shifts in the new USMCA: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-19/house-passes-updated-nafta-trade-deal

One of the big changes is that there's increased labor enforcement in Mexico that might allow them to more easily unionize. (One of the big complaints against NAFTA is that Mexican workers' wages weren't rising enough.) Bernie Sanders voted against it on several grounds, including that the new deal didn't address climate change.

Going out and talking to Democratic voters in the Midwest, trade comes up a lot.

"Who does that!?" The question of the night from Klobuchar.

Klobuchar just slipping a casual Bretton Woods into this debate.

*reference

You can have the chance to participate in a future L.A. Times live chat with our reporters. Apply here: https://www.latimes.com/debate-chat-sign-up?_amp=false

All right, subscribers. How are you holding up? Any more thoughts on the candidates tonight?

After watching that last segment about trade, I feel like I was listening to Charlie Brown talking on the telephone, "Wah, wah, wah!"

Amy Klobuchar has come out stronger in this second hour. I want to hear HOW we are going to protect our environment and bring back respect to the office of the President.

Klobuchar's "who does that?" line was pretty sticky.

I thought the last section on trade was really interesting. You mentioned that Sanders voted against USMCA because of its lack of climate change provisions. I have heard he, like Trump is suspicious of free trade pacts in general. Do you see more of this isolationism among people of both parties during your coverage?

Quite a bit, yes. There are people who like free trade policies because they generate a lot of wealth, open up new markets for farmers and other producers, and help lower the cost of many consumer goods. But it's the other stuff that the critics hate: shipping good-paying local jobs to faraway lower-wage jurisdictions. They feel like their communities have gotten a raw deal.

In the Midwest and the Rust Belt, I saw desperation caused by the trade war and the impacts of NAFTA. I didn't see isolationism, but rather a desire for a fair playing field.

Yang's $1000 per month idea is interesting, but is it reasonable?

I wrote about it earlier this year: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-04/andrew-yang-democratic-2020-debate-trump-jobs-automation

In short, it's hard to see this getting passed in Congress, but it's not a brand new idea. Versions of universal basic income have been supported by people as disparate as Nixon and MLK.

Universal basic income will probably be Andrew Yang's greatest policy legacy in this presidential campaign. The idea has really stuck with a lot of people.

Child poverty is a big issue in every place I've visited around the country in this campaign -- Charleston, Flint, Milwaukee, the Central Valley of this state. When I mention Yang's idea to give Americans $1,000 a month to help increase their standard of living, people say it would be a game changer for their families.

It passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 but failed in the Senate.

I worry about those people who work full time yet cannot support their families. What plans do the candidates have to make a difference for those who are struggling financially? This matters.

And there's a pilot program going on in Stockton, which our colleague Anita Chabria wrote about here: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-pol-ca-basic-income-stockton-reparations-20190415-story.html

Yes, Sandy. There are a large number of teachers, throughout the country, who have more than one job just to support their families.

Some of the candidates' anti-poverty proposals are vast, addressing everything from raising the minimum wage, making it easier to unionize, making housing cheaper, expanding access to childcare. They would reshape the American economy -- if Congress would actually go along with them on it.

Which makes it apropos that Franklin Delano Roosevelt has come up multiple times in this debate.

Alright everyone, what did you think?

Did tonight's debate make you decide you definitely want to vote for someone in the California primary? Or was there a candidate you decided you definitely don't want to vote for?

This experience has been really eye opening for me. Watching the debate with a room full of knowledgeable individuals who can answer my questions has encouraged me to become even more engaged.

I'm feeling much more invested in watching the candidates' campaigns more closely. Overall, Klobuchar came out swinging and appealed to the working middle class and I feel more informed about Yang and Steyer. However, I cannot definitively say I have one candidate I like for the primary.

This debate did not really move the needle for me. I think all the various policy proposals here would be much better than the status quo, but I did not really see a candidate stand out in convincing me that they could build a coalition like Obama did. Really my concern is that with such a large field on this stage, it is still difficult to narrow down which candidate can generate the momentum to run away with voters.

I like Pete Buttigieg even more and Amy Klobuchar came out swinging! I hope Americans will remain open to hearing the plans of all the candidates and make an informed decision. Let's hear more of the specifics but I think I have made my choice tonight.

Well, it will be very interesting to see what New Hampshire does Tuesday night, and then Nevada and South Carolina. The field may be winnowed by the time the race gets to California on Super Tuesday -- March 3.

It has been a pleasure chatting with you Sandy, Jingcheng and Bobbi, as well as with Matt, Tyrone, Melanie and David. I hope this was informative and entertaining for all of you.

Seconded. Thanks so much Sandy, Jingcheng and Bobbi -- and to all of you reading along at home!

It was a real pleasure!

Thanks for joining us, everyone and special thanks to our esteemed readers in the room!

Thank you to our reporters and subscribers for participating in tonight’s Democratic debate live chat. L.A. Times subscribers have the opportunity to participate in future live chats like this one. Apply here: https://www.latimes.com/debate-chat-sign-up?_amp=false

Tonight's debate was a lively, often combative 2 1/2 hours just four days before the Granite State hosts the nation’s first primary on Tuesday. Here are five takeaways: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-07/february-2020-democratic-debate-takeaways