Last Tuesday, CNN hosted the first 2016 Democratic debate featuring candidates Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. The event, hosted in Las Vegas and moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, reached a new high in viewership: 11 percent of American homes with televisions tuned into the broadcast, according to CNN, beating the previous record of 8.9 percent in 2008. Among the key issues discussed during the debate were American involvement in the Middle East, gun control and economic policy. Sanders and Clinton took time to address some of the key concerns of their campaigns, including the perception that Clinton flip-flops on issues and Sanders’s self-described political philosophy of democratic socialism. Who won the debate?


Dor Cohen ’16

Both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had a few soundbites during the debate, but ultimately no candidate stood out a great deal. A better question is “who lost,” and the biggest loser of the night was the audience. In a debate widely hailed as focused on policy, there was actually very little depth in the moderator’s questions and the candidates’ answers. Anderson Cooper did not grill Bernie Sanders on the cost of his proposals and how he will pay for them, did not press the candidates further on what specific actions they would take to rebuke Putin’s advance into the Middle East and did not push them to state what specific gun control measures they would implement, among other instances. Except for the beginning, the questions asked of the candidates were soft, and the candidates were able to present their fanciful platforms without scrutiny. The American people were deprived of a complete understanding of the platforms of the candidates — a worrisome outcome that should be rectified in future debates.

Dor Cohen ’16 is the president of Brandeis Conservatives. He is also a columnist for the Justice.


Iona Feldman ’17

Optimistically speaking, the principal winner of Tuesday’s debate was not any one politician, but rather the social movements that effectively pressure them to take more progressive stances. Without disruptive protests by activists from Black Lives Matter, there would not have been a question testing their understanding of institutional racism. Without the growth of the global climate justice movement, we would not have seen such a willingness from the candidates to discuss climate change before being prompted by the moderator. The influence of Occupy Wall Street (on economic inequality), United We Dream (on undocumented youth interests) and the 2009 University of California tuition hike protests (on free higher education) were also felt. But for this to be a true “victory” for the movements, they must not be satisfied with any politician’s answer, no matter how well worded. Social change must be led by the grassroots: only then will the politicians follow.

Iona Feldman ’17 is a member of Brandeis Climate Justice. 


Shaquan McDowell ’18
I’d agree with the polls that say Clinton won. This is not to dismiss Sanders as ineffective and unimportant. In various areas, including income inequality and global warming, Senator Sanders unquestionably deposed Former Secretary Clinton as regent. These points alone, points that resonate with the young demographic, generated a whirlwind of response via social media. From this analysis, one could presume that Sanders was more successful in the debate, but that account would fail to factor in that the large majority of social media users are young people. While this is commendable, in judging the outcome entirely, it’s important to focus on the specific points made by the candidate. Secretary Clinton continued to outweigh Senator Sanders in the areas of foreign policy, economy, health care. Whether Sanders is too socialist or Clinton is untrustworthy is not the point of the debate; the point is to evaluate what they said in that evening, and to determine whose explanation is more accepted by the democratic base — that’s Clinton. 

Shaquan McDowell is the co-president and co-founder of the Purple Party.

Noah Coolidge ’16

In the world of presidential debates, “winner” and “loser” are relative terms. Presidential debates are important because they give the public the opportunity to learn about different candidates, and they give candidates a way to get their messages out to voters. At this stage especially, name recognition and spreading a message is more important than success. Everyone did this, at least reasonably well, and no one made any horrible gaffes. The best way to measure the effectiveness of a debate performance is to look at two polls: one conducted before a debate and one conducted immediately afterward among viewers. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted Oct. 14 through 17 after the debate, Sanders got 33 percent to Clinton’s 56 percent. But in their previous poll, conducted September 17 through 19, Sanders had been at 28 percent and Clinton at 57 percent. Sanders increased 5 percent and Clinton decreased by 1 percent, both inside the margin of error for comparison between the two polls. Even though a majority of those polled said that Clinton won the debate, the fact that she failed to gain additional support in the horserace means that the debate was simply a wash.

Noah Coolidge ’16 is a student leader for Brandeis for Bernie.