We Watched 5 Hours Of Presidential Town Halls So You Don't Have To

The huge number of candidates running for president in 2020 has made traditional televised debates impractical, at least until the field narrows. In response, cable networks have been broadcasting 'town hall' style events, where a single candidate takes questions from an audience. Tonight, CNN will broadcast five such town halls, from seven to midnight. WGBH News' Senior Editor Peter Kadzis and Politics Reporter Adam Reilly watched them all and live-recapped them here.

Adam Reilly: So, Peter: before CNN starts its marathon town-hall broadcast from St. Anselm College, with five(!) of the Democrats running for president, there are a couple of points I I've got to make. First, this was my idea — i.e, watching from seven to midnight and responding in real time. So if things go horribly wrong, the responsibility is mine.

I don't think they will, though. After all, we've done this kind of thing before, and it usually works out OK. Also, the timing couldn't be better: with Democrats trying to figure out where to go in the wake of the Mueller report, it's a perfect moment to see how the favorites (for now) handle what feels like an especially precarious point in American history. Obviously, Elizabeth Warren has already set herself apart by saying impeachment is the way to go; I wouldn't be surprised if one or two others follow her lead tonight.

And here, I'm contractually obligated to mention that even though I grew up in Minnesota, my parents were actually working at St. Anselm when I was born, and I spent the first four years of my life in the Granite State. Hence, the extra "oompf" my analysis tonight will pack.

But enough about me. What's on your mind as we head into the Dempalooza? And what will you be looking for from [checks notes] Amy Klobuchar, Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg?

Peter Kadzis: Adam, the 2020 Presidential action began this morning when U.S. Representative Seth Moulton became the 19th Democrat to declare for president on ABC's Good Morning America (he spoke to Joe Mathieu of WGBH News immediately after). Moulton's mother, wife and the U.S. Marines all figured prominently in the internet video intended to introduce him to that portion of the American public who was unaware of Moulton's opposition to Nancy Pelosi's re elevation to speakership of the House. Uplifting though that video was, I can't help but think that his candidacy is a mid-life crisis playing out in public.

But why not? The Democratic primary is shaping up to be more of a demolition derby than a political contest. We're still waiting for former Vice President Joe "Hamlet" Biden to announce. And New York Mayor Bill "Snowball's-Chance-In-Hell" de Blasio was on television hinting that he may make it 21.

You are correct in flagging Senator Elizabeth Warren's jump onto the Impeach Trump train. It's in keeping with her focus on being first: to declare, and to issue policy papers. That this hasn't translated into being first in fundraising and opinion polls is a trifle concerning to some. But her supporters are stalwart.

Media obsessed Democratic voters will no doubt wonder why other candidates haven't jumped aboard the I-Train Express. People with real lives, for example those that live in flyover country, could probably care less. They are too busy worrying about jobs, health care, and their childrens' future.

How the candidates address issues such as these will be what matters tonight.

Before the candidates make their pitches to the people, I want to leave our readers with two facts: a.) Tonight President Trump's approval rating is only 11.9 percent below his disapproval rating. If you think that's noteworthy, consider: b.) During the 2016 primaries, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received 11.9 percent more votes that her upstart challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders. Think about it.

Amy Klobuchar

Reilly: I took your advice and thought about those numbers for the better part of an hour, and I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

But now to the main event! At the risk of sounding shallow, my big question heading into Amy Klobuchar's hour was whether she'd push back, overtly or implicitly, at the Angry Comb-Eating Salad Lady sterotype she got stuck with right as soon as she kicked off her campaign.

Then the college kids started asking questions, and I immediately felt like a shallow pundit. The first three questions — on impeachment, the criminal justice system's disproportionate impact on people of color, and Klobuchar's disinterest in cancelling student loan debt or making college free — all dealt with substantive issues, and pushed Klobuchar into answers she didn't necessarily seem excited to give. Maybe it's just those three topics, but she seems like she's struggling to find a rhythm — though now, as I type those words, she's kind of finding it as she ticks off the alleged virtues of millennials.

Kadzis: I'm impressed with Klobuchar's nerdiness, her command of detail. I get the feeling that she is working to stay focused. And I like that. And given the expressions on the audience's face, the crowd likes and respects that as well.

What got me was when she said "repeal the REGRESSIVE portions of the Trump tax cut." The emphasis is mine. The word regressive is important because it shows that she is not willing to dismiss the Trump cuts as being totally worthless. That's true. What parts of the tax cuts are beneficial is debatable. But she scored with highlighting "regressive." Earlier today Klobuchar talked about defeating Trump with inclusiveness. Here is an example.

Reilly: Ever since I panned her, she's gotten better and better. Everyone who's in that auditorium, or watching at home, now has Klobuchar's skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry seared into their brain. Her ability to talk up winning a bunch of rural counties in Minnesota that Trump carried seemed to resonate, too. And segueing from an analysis of Trump's Twitter habits into an Earth Day shout-out was inspired.

Kadzis: Now it's my turn to be negative. The student who asked her about her support for frozen pizza in school lunches made by a small-town company in her state during the economic downturn as a form of corporate pandering almost sent me around the bend. Klobuchar handled it well, drawing a series of distinctions that in effect established that was a short-term measure she would not repeat, but left no doubt — in my mind at least — that she was a pragmatist with a conscience.

Reilly: As Klobuchar wraps up, I'm thinking about how important humor is when it comes to political success — not just in isolation, but as a tool that both leavens and accentuates more serious points. She's just demonstrated that twice, with her quip about Chris Cuomo looming over her shoulder — "but not in a Trumpian way" — and the aside about her dad finally staying married once he got into recovery. Hadn't realized this was a strength of hers, but the more I see the more I'm sure it is.

Elizabeth Warren

Kadzis: Elizabeth Warren stepped out onto the stage more fluidly that Klobuchar did. It think this is important because it may provide a hint as to how Warren is doing on the campaign trail. The Warren campaign is running a burn rate of about 85 percent. That means that for every $10 the Warren campaign raises, it pretty much spends $8.50 right away. The money is being spent largely on the ground, on staff members, rent, and social media. In political terms, Warren is investing in the ground game, which in the end is what does or does not yield votes. The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are months away, but I'd say — really I'd guess — that Warren may be making headway. That's what I'm taking away from these first few minutes.

Reilly: Definitely more fluid out of the gate. I actually have a slightly different explanation for why, though: for months now, Warren's been using her core political philosophy —that Washington works well for a select few and badly for everyone else — into an interlocking set of policy proposals that inform and reinforce each other. So when she gets, say, a question about how she'll pay for student-debt relief, she can point immediately to her proposal for a wealth tax — and talk about all the money that'll (theoretically) be left over after she does everything she wants to do. In other words: Warren's relentless focus on policy has a rhetorical upside, too.

Also, this particular format highlights something I witnessed with Warren when I caught her on the presidential campaign trail in Iowa, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire earlier this year: she's a really effective retail politician! People don't see that, or forget it, or ignore it. But it's undeniable.

Kadzis: Your point is less mechanistic than mine, more organic. And you've helped me make my point, which is that the organic nature of the Warren campaign may not yet be registering in the polls.

I have to say, however, that as I was typing the above, Warren went into a version of the poor-little-old-law-professor who ran against incumbent Republican Scott "The Giant Killer" Brown. Give me a break. It was a beautiful piece of revisionist history and clearly demonstrates that she has the ability to dissemble, which is key requirement to be POTUS (President of the United States). Anyone with half a brain knew that Scott Brown was a mediocrity who had run a very smart campaign and out hustled his opponent. Warren out-hustled and outsmarted Brown and in the process revealed that she was capable of perhaps being too smart for her own good. We can't discount her episode with her Native American heritage.

Reilly: I've got to say: what a contrast between Klobuchar's take on impeaching President Trump a resounding "maybe," you'll recall, couched in so many caveats it was hard to keep them straight — and Warren's, which was direct and unequivocal. I'm trying to think of the last time I heard a candidate for any office arguing that political expediency needs to take a back seat to ethics, and I'm drawing a blank. Maybe Sanders will steal her thunder by echoing the call for impeachment in the 9 o'clock hour, but even if he does, Warren's stance has to help her gain ground on the rest of the field...right?

Kadzis: On the left, it should. Klobuchar is a person who is left of center, speaking to the center. Saying if impeachment happens she'll be on the jury, so she wants to keep as open a mind as she can about a guy — Trump — she distrusts. Warren, on the other hand, has no pretense of openness. That's because the odds of impeachment being voted are long. People of a certain age, who lived through Watergate, may remember Zonker Harris. Zonker was a campus DJ who declared Nixon "guilty, guilty, guilty," before it was convenient. Warren makes Zonker look restrained. I wonder if this will translate into donations when tonight is over.

I can't escape the feeling that Klobuchar was talking to people, while Warren was talking to a demographic. In the context of our uncontextual politics, demographics usually win out. Just ask Cambridge Analytica.

Bernie Sanders

Reilly: Just me, or was the applause when Sanders walked out about 50 percent louder than what Warren and Klobuchar got?

My second impression, as Sanders goes through the paces: he doesn't seem to have lost a step compared to 2016. Same funky combination of cantankerousness, enthusiasm, and wry humor. I'm not sure all his policy stances are winners — give Dzokhar Tsarnaev the vote? — but his delivery shows just how much mileage politicians can get out of being fully, unapologetically themselves (though that may not apply to candidates who aren't white and male).

Kadzis: Adam, you are spot on. It's Bernie unchained tonight. I hope Larry David is watching because we are seeing facial expressions, ticks, and shoulder shrugs that have never been seen before.

If the presidential election were held today, or in the near future, I believe Trump would be re-elected. At the moment, I think Sanders is the only one of the Democratic pack who could defeat Trump. I know, I know. What about Biden? The question isn't whether Biden can beat Trump; it's can Biden win the Democratic nomination? But I'm getting ahead of myself.

A Sanders presidency would, however, be a sobering thing. Not since the Jimmy Carter years, would America see such vision in action.

I've talked to Democratic money people who are terrified of Bernie. Polls show that party activists are afraid of Bernie. But if Emerson's most recent poll is correct, Bernie now has a better shot than Biden of sending Trump into Siberian exile.

Reilly: The part of a hypothetical Sanders-Trump match-up I'd most like to see is the back and forth over democratic socialism. I imagine it playing out the same way Sanders' exchange with that Harvard student who said her parents fled the Soviet Union in the 70s did — i.e., with Trump invoking Cuba, Venezuela, etc. and Sanders replying by making democratic socialism sound like the political equivalent of what the late Tom Menino once called "American bread." I don't think Sanders would change the minds of die-hard Trump supporters, but I can certainly imagine him appealing to some swing voters who hopped from Obama to Trump.

Speaking of hypothetical match-ups...how do you think the Democratic race would shake out if, say, it ended up coming down to Sanders and Biden? (I'm not saying I think that'll happen, or that it should, just engaging in a modest thought experiment.) Maybe it's recency bias, or Sanders' strong performance tonight, or Biden's drama-queen approach to announcing, but right this second I find myself thinking that Sanders would win that head-to-head contest with ease.

Kadzis: Of course Sanders would win. It would be immodest of me to point out that about a month ago I said Sanders was the front runner whether Biden announced or not. But I fear almost three straight hours of sincere, well informed college students asking presidential candidates reasonable questions is frying my brain.

I haven't suffered prolonged exposure to Sanders in quite a while. What's changed with Sanders is that Trump is now almost beside the point. Hillary Clinton was never beside the point. And until recently Trump wasn't beside the point. But tonight, at least, Bernie is channeling FDR. "Don't tell me we can bail out Wall Street to the tune of $1 trillion and not wipe out student debt." That's a rough approximation. But Sanders is articulating a vision for the nation. It's almost as if he is leaving the details to Elizabeth Warren.

Kamala Harris

Reilly: Maybe it's because I'm up past my bedtime, but I'm pretty sure Harris kicked things off by going further than she previously has on impeachment and saying Congress should, in fact, get the proceedings going (even though they'll probably peter out in the Senate). Unless I misheard, or she's said that before, we should credit Warren for pulling one of her competitors in her direction on an incredibly high-profile issue.

Whenever I see Harris in action, I'm struck by what a huge aesthetic contrast she'd offer with the president if she were the nominee. I'm talking about race/ethnicity, obviously, but also gender, age, and general affect. In fact, in a field that's packed with people who are really unlike Trump, she's probably the most unlike him, stylistically speaking.

I'm also struck by the fact that, when she wants to be, she's pretty good at not answering direct questions. Case in point: that slick getaway she made when asked if she'd support Elizabeth Warren's new plan to forgive hundreds of billions in student debt.

Kadzis: You are on to something that never occurred to me, Adam. Kamala Harris, tonight at least, appears to be the embodiment of the senatorial class. Smooth. Well tailored. No rough edges. But with a hint of passion. She's cool in the manner of Marshall McLuhan. Perhaps not as interesting as Klobuchar, Warren, and Sanders, but very well suited to television. I can understand in a way I could never have imagined why she was such a success in California. It's interesting that among Democratic activists, Harris is the candidate activists fear the least. It's a measure as to how far to the left the Democratic establishment has moved that Harris can so smoothly mention a hot button issue such as reparations without seeming to be a bomb-thrower.

Reilly: Peter, she did it again! By which I mean: when Don Lemon asked about Sanders' assertion that incarcerated violent felons should be able to vote, Harris said a bunch of things that left Lemon confused, and forced him to ask a follow-up question — at which point Harris non-clarified, seriously and with conviction, "I think we should have that conversation."

I'm pretty sure that's where she came down on reparations, too. And it's strikingly like the way she dodged the student-debt question. That's at least three separate occasions in about 45 minutes where Harris has dodged, artfully in the moment, but pretty blatantly when you look back on it. Strikes me as a liability in the making.

Kadzis: This might be her essence. Everything is a transaction. Everything is relative. As long, that is, as everything moves to the left. I'm not sure I can imagine the middle of the nation voting for Harris. Her appeal strikes me as exclusively coastal. I'll be interested on Tuesday to see what others make of her performance.

Reilly: And once more, in response to a question about letting 16-year-olds vote. Hope someone's keeping a running list of conversations Harris wants to have.

Pete Buttigieg

Kadzis: I can see why Mayor Pete is popular with Obama alums. He's smooth. He's smart. He's so reasonable. At the risk of puncturing his ascending balloon, I wish he had experience with something more than trash collection and snow removal. Warren may have too many policies; Sanders might have too few. But I'd like it if someone could strike a mean. When he said "bipartisan immigration reform," I wanted to yell at the top of my lungs, "No one can utter those words without specifying what they mean." But I'm getting old and crabby and it is well past my bed time.

Reilly: Smooth may be an understatement. In terms of affect, Buttigieg is the cool TA, the one who breaks down esoteric knowledge in terms even the slower students can understand — smiling slightly as he talks, in a way that conveys just how much he loves this stuff. And— to channel my inner midwesterner — holy moley! Are his speech patterns and body language Obama-esque, or what?

Obviously, the parallel doesn't stop there. Obama gave people a chance to elect the first black president; Buttigieg would give them a chance to elect the first gay and the first millennial president. That, it seems to me, is one reason that he's doing increasingly well in the polls, and would be a legitimate threat to Trump if he became the nominee — his lack of political experience notwithstanding.

Kadzis: You may be right. My disappointment with Obama coexists with my recognition for what he achieved, contentious though that heritage may be. I can't escape feeling that Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg is the thinking person's Beto O'Rourke.

Harris says, "Let's have that conversation..." Buttigieg says, "We have to find a way..."

Go back and listen again to his answer about how the nation should respond to de-industrialization. A whiff of Klobuchar's repressed wonkiness would have been welcome.

Reilly: So Peter, now that the end is in sight, finally, let me ask: did one of these candidates turn in a performance tonight that'll significantly boost their standing with the Democratic primary electorate? Or did they all perform about according to expectations, leaving the contours of the race mostly unchanged — i.e., with Biden (when he finally announces) and Sanders out front, Buttigieg nipping at their heels, and Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and assorted others struggling not to be consigned to second-tier status?

Kadzis: Let me take a stab at this. If you want to stand tall in Malibu, vote for Harris. If you think America will be a better place when people "with listening hearts" drive solar powered street sweepers through our urban canyons, vote Buttigieg. If you want to give Trump a run for his money, Warren and Klobuchar showed signs of being able to take him on. Warren really believes in herself now. Klobuchar doesn't quite have that confidence, but I confess to thinking she may have depth that is still emerging. And Bernie Sanders, he's Bernie -- only more so.

Follow @Kadzis and @reillyadam on Twitter for more as the 2020 elections approach.