A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Did Warren win the first debate – or get herself in trouble? Maybe both.

Wilfredo Lee/AP
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., gestures during the Democratic primary debate hosted by NBC News at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, June 26, in Miami, as Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., listens.

Dear reader:

By most accounts, Round One of the two-part Democratic primary debates was The Elizabeth Warren Show. 

True, there were fireworks between the two Texans over immigration. Some lower-tier candidates managed to pull off brief attention-getting moments. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker may have done himself some good with an impassioned response on the issue of guns.

Why We Wrote This

Saying she would eliminate private health insurance may win progressive votes for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren – but could alienate moderates.

But the senator from Massachusetts, who has been climbing in the polls in recent months, came in as the frontrunner among the first night’s contenders – and appeared to leave with her position more or less intact. She impressed members of the progressive advocacy group Indivisible, a majority of whom picked her as their favorite in a flash poll conducted right after Wednesday night’s debate. Political observers noted that she set the tone from the start, crisply articulating her ideas about corporate greed and corruption, and demonstrating that she was, as Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias put it, “ready for primetime.” 

On the other hand, many say she also took a big risk when, in what could prove to be the night’s most pivotal moment, she said she would eliminate private health insurance in favor of a government-run system. “I’m with Bernie [Sanders] on Medicare for All,” Senator Warren said. 

Overhauling the U.S. healthcare system is popular among liberals, but doesn’t sell well with the general public. Ending private health insurance is a particular sticking point, as 70% of the roughly 181 million Americans who get coverage through their employers say they’re satisfied with their plans. Most Democrats – including eight of the 10 onstage Wednesday night – prefer a public option, or other incremental ways to expand single-payer health care that wouldn’t blow up the current system. 

Senator Warren’s position, which represents a shift from her take back in March, could leave her vulnerable in the general election – which could also turn off Democratic voters, most of whom want to choose a nominee with the best chance of beating President Donald Trump. 

“Warren ventured boldly, perhaps foolishly, onto a shaky limb,” left-leaning political commentator Jonathan Chait writes for New York Magazine. “She may have just filmed the most effective attack ad against herself."

We’ll see tonight whether former Vice President Joe Biden – or any of the other candidates debating in Round Two – take it upon themselves to draw that distinction more clearly.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.