What happened in the second 2020 Democratic debate? Read our live chat transcript of night one.

Such a kind comment - thank you! And thank you for reading The Washington Post. 

Really appreciate the comment and your time. We'll be back tomorrow.

You've said something that a number of Democrats definitely think about Sanders; the ones who remain furious about how long he ran against Clinton.

I generally try to bite my tongue about "optics" unless something unmistakably good or bad takes place (i.e. Rick Perry melting down). But Twitter (which I occasionally spend time on) has been churning out memes of Delaney looking chagrined by Warren. Ryan controlled the bug-eye look from his first debate.

The X-factor here: What did Hickenlooper do to himself by making fun of Sanders's wild waving hands? It's a trait that even some Democrats roll their eyes at but it didn't cover Hickenlooper in dignity.

Thank you! 

Tonight appears to be your lucky night.  We've addressed policy differences in an easy-to-read graphic. 

Yet his 2018 Senate campaign was one of the Democrats' signature races for his party and led to a huge cash haul and a documentary on Netflix. Running against Ted Cruz is different than running against more than 20 ambitious national Democrats.

One thing that matters a lot in these debates is who gets the most time, and that's something we're tracking right here. Of  course, what they do with that time is also important. 

You definitely heard more about reparations tonight than you had at any previous Democratic debate! But you might have left confused about what everyone is proposing. The "Sheila Jackson Lee bill" that O'Rourke referenced would create a commission to study reparations, while Williamson was alone in talking about cash payments.

This is an issue that polls terribly with non-black voters, and is not a priority issue for black voters, so the candidates were pretty happy to move on.

I think Marianne Williamson had two strong answers — her one on the water crisis in Flint, Mich., and her one just now on reparations. 

I don't know that it totally changes the dynamic for her, but she definitely is having a better debate than she did last time.

Delaney is taking up the moderate mantle and getting time  to do so. Klobuchar and Bullock, too, but Delaney is more willing to directly criticize Sanders and Warren, so he is having an impact. Whether it gives his campaign a lift remains to be seen.

Agree with Ashley that Williamson is doing better than expectations. More focused answers than first debate, even as she uses phrases and descriptions that are not used by other Democrats, to put it mildly. 

"The racial divide lives within me," Buttigieg says, talking about race and South Bend. He continues to face difficult questions about his record and how he handles what he called "systemic racism" tonight. 

Klobuchar seemed to walk the line: blasting Trump but saying that his supporters aren't necessarily racist, they're folks who "want a better shake in the economy."  

It seems O'Rourke handled this question well, as he's done with questions on race dating back to his Senate campaign, attacking the issue of racism head on, not just through the lens of President Trump's words, but also about racism and inequality that are baked into our government and economic systems.  

That seems to be in line with what I've heard from African Americans on the campaign trail: not just saying that "racism is bad," but also highlighting that government needs to address social systems that have racial inequality baked into them.  

Rep. Tim Ryan said to Senator Sanders that he doesn't need to yell. Yet while Sanders is a yeller from time to time, perhaps more of a shouter, this isn't a yell-filled mess, full of acrimony. A pretty civil debate, at least at 9:48 p.m. ET.

Word for word, he has probably done the best job talking without saying anything that could backfire. ("The racial divide lives within me" was maybe a little more airy than it needed to be.) But if you're a cynical Democrat, when Buttigieg said he would be able to stand up to Trump as a veteran versus a draft dodger... how do you not think of John Kerry?

He's not made any mistakes, but he's somewhat out of the "pile on John Delaney" fray and out of 'proud moderates" group. Maybe that gives him a little more flexibility down the road. His fundraising haul gives him time to navigate.

He's new on stage and he's a sitting governor from a red state, so it's natural he'd gets some attention and time.

This is astute; the questions are more about whether their policies are politically impossible than how they would implement them. That's blurring the differences and leaving the audience more with a stylistic choice.

At your service - a running transcript of the debate.

That's a good question. We discussed this a bit earlier in a response to a question about who, if Biden was the nominee, he would choose as a running-mate — and the consensus was decidedly NOT another white man. You're right that "balancing the ticket" — or creating the most well-rounded ticket possible — is a common concern. That said, if the nominee is a progressive like Warren or Sanders, I can imagine a world in which they choose another fighter with a similar world view.

After all, as Warren just said in her most memorable and compelling line of the debate so far: "I don't know why somebody goes through all the trouble of running for president just to talk about all the things we shouldn't do and shouldn't fight for."

10 candidates on stage isn't optimal. You can get a sense of who these people are under this structure, but you can't hear the details. You're able to get a sense of whether someone is left or center-left on questions, but little more. For someone like Bullock, it's a chance to mix in a little biography and he's probably been the most effective in doing that. Others are doing less "bio" because they assume, mostly rightly, that they're well-known.

Hard to say who is winning. But I will say John Delaney is getting a LOT more airtime than I would've expected - giving him several opportunities to contrast himself with the liberals in the race such as Warren and Sanders. 

Klobuchar is a seasoned senator who has a Midwestern, tough and smart persona (see her work on the Judiciary Committee). Your review is what she was looking for tonight, some notice amid the high-profile stars of the left in Warren and Sanders. Her main competition for that "Midwestern option" slot could be Buttigieg.

Delaney (and other candidates such as Hickenlooper) are hoping that there are more voters such as you. But it seems Warren's view has more traction, if the audience response in Detroit is any indication.

What no candidate can say, but kind of hangs over this, is that we *have* a president who made promises that his opponents called impossible. One: It was enough to win the election. Two: His entire re-election message is that he fought and (sometimes) delivered when other presidents hesitated, like moving the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and going to court over the border wall.

For a certain Democratic voter, it is definitely frustrating to think that they play by rules while Republicans get to swing for the fences; that was basically the point of Sanders's riff on how Republicans have "big ideas," just bad ones.

Maybe by the September debates? 

She did seem to go further out on immigration than the other candidates on the stage - according to my notes from the immigration exchange, she appeared to be the only one who flatly answered "yes" when asked whether she would support decriminalizing border crossings. 

His answer on guns was an example of how, for the moment, he is having to address issues in South Bend instead of just answering the policy question. He has given concise and clear answers on policy nonetheless, remaining mostly outside of the moderate-vs.-liberal riptide on stage.

Some of this is attributable to simple practice and repetition.  We see it in stump speeches often -- over time, candidates will crystallize  salient points or refine zingers. They also have the ability to go over their previous performances (with an army of staff) to  weed out weaknesses and intensify strengths.  That sort of goes out the window when there is an all-out fracas.    

Her "yada yada yada" answer tonight drew some cheers and she appears to be at ease on stage as an outsider.

While Klobuchar isn't a Medicare for All Democrat, her NRA answer on guns is an example of how she still believes she can win liberal votes and not just be cast as another moderate in a crowded race.

I can't recall how often it's come up in the 2020 presidential campaign thus far - but targeting visa overstays (which estimates show is responsible for roughly 40 percent of all immigrants here without legal status) has generally been a part of comprehensive immigration reform proposals. 

The Democrats are arguing more about whether to decriminalize border crossings than talking about President Trump and detention centers. The detention centers dominate the party's discussions on Capitol Hill, yet they're not at the fore tonight. It's an example of how these debates are a challenge to any political party. Even if you want to make certain points, the debate can drift away toward related but more politically fraught ground.

Well, there are a handful of senators on the stage, and trust me, they love to filibuster! It's a tough job - the moderators want to encourage debate, but they also have to extract real and substantive answers from the candidates instead of letting them ramble. 

Yes, there's really no other way to do it; you get rolled if you let them keep talking. Stand with Tapper!

Sanders is one of the political godfathers for Medicare for All so not that surprising to see him get time on that debate. He used that time pretty effectively tonight, punchy and engaged.

I think it's natural to keep pivoting back to him when we're still on the issue of health care and the moderators started with him on the topic. But this dust-up between Delaney and Sanders is an actual debate - enjoying it! Let's pop some more popcorn ... 

I think CNN is making a very concerted effort to keep everyone to their allotted time, which is an admirable — and important — goal. BUT. I do think the rigor with which they're enforcing the rules, often cutting off the candidates mid-sentence, is not always appealing or pleasant to watch. And sometimes, I think the best exchanges are the serendipitous ones when a candidate or two get into a real unscripted back and forth, which can require some time to breath. 

Buttigieg saying he has a "Medicare for All who want it proposal," which is an attempt to keep people who support Medicare for All from worrying that he's too centrist, while also reassuring centrists that he's not Sanders.

The clapping and other responses don't appear to be cutting into the candidates, who are talking over the applause (and occasionally each other).  Another observation: several candidates have said they use town halls to workshop debate questions, so this is somewhat familiar territory.  Also, just seems like it would be weird to have candidates yelling at a bank of television cameras.  

Buttigieg's camp (and Buttigieg himself) often say they won by losing in 2016. He didn't get the DNC chair, but he built up his donor base and built relationships in the party that are still helping up these days.

Delaney just began by going after Sanders and Warren. First shot of the night at the liberal favorites at center stage. He's underscoring his business experience, casting himself as a moderate.

The Speaker is the party's leader in spirit these days and the DNC is,  for the most part, and organizing and fundraising organization. It's not dictating strategy for the whole party. Democrats are going to be led by congressional leaders and the eventual nominee. 

I know CNN has said that tonight, unlike the in the first set of debates, there will be no questions that require candidates to raise their hands (or not), or give one-word (think "yes" or "no") answers. But I'm going to go against conventional wisdom here and say: Sometimes I like those questions! They absolutely don't allow for nuance, which is one of the fair complaints. But sometimes, they force a politician to take a stance on an issue, rather than pontificating and obfuscating and generally doing their politician thing and never actually giving a clear, definitive answer. So, if you asked this live chat, by a show hands, should there be these sorts of gimmicky questions... I would raise my hand.

Hi, the reporters are all looking at the questions, in addition to three editors. 

It may be a bit easier tonight for the candidates to concentrate on President Trump and race. Tomorrow, you'll have VP Biden there, likely facing questions about the 1994 crime bill and perhaps busing, again. 

It will be interesting to see what they do tonight. Some may think calling out Trump on his recent spate of racist and racially charged tweets and comments is good politics. But I don't think it's that clear cut. My colleague Tolu Olorunnipa and I wrote a story this weekend about how Trumpworld believes these sorts of appeals may actually help him turnout a certain segment of the electorate. 

One of the most consistent things I hear from voters, whether or not they support Biden, is that if he's the nominee he must pick a female veep; ideally, a woman of color. The Stacey Abrams float from a few months ago was pretty clumsy but that's a name I've heard ordinary Democratic voters give. Her, and Kamala Harris, even after the last month. It's unthinkable to them that he would choose a white man.

Part of this is that many Democrats are proud of having nominated the first black and first female candidates, and consider the "white guy" the safest choice because *other* voters will like him. Biden would turn 80 if he won the presidency, which would lead to tons of speculation about his successor. You hear this a lot: "We need to get things back to normal, then we can have change."

Whether it's Biden or someone else, there could be a lot of pressure to nominate the person who's the runner up. If Senator Warren comes close to beating Biden, but he wins the nomination, you'll see a lot of calls for her to be on the ticket. Democrats remember how some Sanders voters stayed home in 2016 and weren't enthused about the Kaine pick, so keeping base voters excited will be a factor.

Maybe sooner than you'd think! Remember, the criteria to qualify for the third debate in September is much stricter. I would expect the field to winnow down, perhaps dramatically - particularly because of the requirement of 130,000 unique donors. 

My colleagues Annie Linskey and Michael Scherer predicted earlier this month that tonight/tomorrow's debates could be the last for as many as half of the candidates. 

Much more the latter. This has been, I think, an unhappy surprise for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Polls show that majorities or super-majorities of Democratic voters agree with him on issues, but the perception that Joe Biden is more electable than him has not cracked.

I also find that voters who say they support "Medicare for All" or some other liberal policies are pretty flexible on how it should be handled. Yesterday I talked to a bunch of people who had shown up for Elizabeth Warren in Toledo... and when I asked what they thought of her health care plan, they couldn't define it. I wasn't trying to "gotcha" them, I just had a hunch that they liked Warren because they thought she was the most effective communicator, not because she checked off the ideological boxes.

I do think that's likely a safe assumption —if by "innies" you mean candidates atop the polls and money, and by "outies" you mean those at the bottom of the heap. A Republican strategist recently told me he thinks the candidates who are most likely to be dangerous to their fellow Democrats — read: slightly unhinged, overly combative, looking for that viral moment — are those who started with high hopes and have plummeted to the bottom. So basically, if you're onstage tonight or tomorrow, be wary of the candidates who believe they're First Tier, but have somehow landed in the Third Tier. 

They are definitely both seen as the candidates of generational change, although Buttigieg clearly has been more successful at building up support in the Democratic primary than Beto. But another factor to consider when it comes to Beto that while he was definitely a Democratic superstar when he was part of a binary choice against Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race in 2018, it is much different when Democratic voters have a buffet of nearly two dozen candidates to choose from. 

Can Beto translate the passion seen in his 2018 Senate race to the 2020 race? That remains the central questions facing his candidacy. He is well-liked in the party, but has struggled in the presidential race. If he doesn't pick up speed soon, expect Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to call him (again) and ask him to think about challenging Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) next year.

A number of them have talked about it, actually! (If you don't see all of their remarks in between breaking news about presidential tweets, that's understandable.)

Warren was the first candidate to release a plan: Free child care for any family of four with total income under $51,000 a year. Gillibrand followed her, with a plan to expand tax credits so that 50 percent of $12,000 in childcare would be covered by the government.

These have both been big applause lines, but not very newsy; exactly the sort of frustration you hear from Democrats about how their race gets covered.

The Trump administration has been issuing new health-care rules in recent months, which Democrats see as an effort to undercut President Obama's health-care law. At this point, most of the Democratic debate in this race is about protecting that law or expanding health-care coverage through Medicare or Medicaid. The perceived Republican threats are front and center, rather than this particular issue.

Only a sampling, but if you scroll near the bottom of this WaPo story from July 19, there are details of compensation for staffers from the Warren, Buttigieg and O'Rourke campaigns. 

That's what these debates are for! (Allegedly). That said, I don't think we know yet what type of candidate is best to take on Trump. Do Democrats need a candidate with some of Trump's sizzle and X-factor and dismissive nicknames? Maybe — but remember Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried this during the 2016 Republican primaries, and it didn't work for him. Is the candidate best positioned to go head-to-head with Trump someone who is his total anti-thesis? Someone who is honest to a fault and never uses offensive language? Maybe. David Axelrod captured a bit of that idea in a recent tweet. We just don't know yet. And, obviously, it's up for voters to decide. 

Trump indeed does thrive when he can zero in on an adversary. This is why Biden emphasized from the moment he got into the campaign about his ability to take on Trump in a general election (although now, we see he is focusing more on a handful of his primary challengers) and you're hearing from more Democrats, including Kamala Harris, about their ability to do the same. Harris debuted one of her toughest attack lines against Trump shortly after her breakout moment in the first Democratic debates, when she declared in Iowa that Trump is a "predator." 

What Democrats usually say is that not doing anything will send the message that a president can get away with bad behavior and call the opposition's bluff if they try to impeach him. When Warren endorsed impeachment (she was the first 2020 Democrat to do so) she said that "There is no political inconvenience exception to the Constitution." Basically, if you play it "safe" then you tell some future president, perhaps even her, that there's no consequence if a president breaks the law.

Since the Democrats aren't in the White House, Speaker Pelosi is the party leader. Few people are comfortable challenging her directly on strategy. But since that's the dynamic, there is a possible opening for a candidate to be the "impeachment candidate" who breaks with Pelosi and others and tries to steer the party in that direction.

If I had to guess - I would pick the candidate with the lengthiest record in public service, which is Sanders (He has served in Congress, first in the House and now in the Senate, since 1991). Some potential targets: Sanders' vote in favor of the 1994 crime bill that has caused so many headaches for Biden (here's a primer from Vox) and gun policy, as someone who hails from a rural state (here's an example of the questions Sanders had to answer in a debate during the 2016 campaign)

Buttigieg's experience in South Bend could be a factor. While he addressed the racial issues in the city at the last debate, following a white police officer shooting and killing a black man, it has not faded away as an issue that raises questions about his tenure. It'll be interesting to see if he is a target as race is discussed or if his rivals instead focus on the president. 

Some candidates have already laid the groundwork for attacks on Joe Biden's record.  Sen. Kamala Harris's polling and fundraising bumps after the first debate showed that there is potential gain going after Biden, and other candidates could easily follow suit.  And Sen. Cory Booker has also clashed with Biden in recent weeks, calling him "an architect of mass incarceration," which seems like an effort to pull black voters away from Biden.   

Having seen Ryan on the trail, he's definitely impressed people at some cattle calls, especially labor union events; his style is what we usually call "scrappy." If you Benjamin Button'd Joe Biden for 30 years you could come out with someone like Ryan.

His best chance to break out might come if it seems that moderators are asking too many picayune ideological questions and he butts in to talk about trade, wages, and Trump breaking his promises to workers. That's kind of what he's done on the trail.

I think attempting to know someone's internal motivation might be beyond the scope of our journalistic abilities.  But Holly Bailey spent some time with Williamson and took a deep look at her campaign.  In May, Bailey wrote: "[Williamson] felt it was worth the risk to spread a message that she says should be the Democrats’ answer to President Trump: A country riven by anger and anxiety needs a spiritual awakening led by a serious thinker who knows how to heal emotional hurt."  

Williamson has also told voters that she felt "called" to launch a bid. 

She's getting attention and remains on the stage. As a longtime author and speaker, that doesn't hurt her public profile. And in a world where norms are shattered in American politics, I don't rule anyone out. She has a steep climb, but President Trump is in the White House and a testament to how celebrity has power even if you have little to no political experience. 

Warren's poll numbers and favorables have been going up since the last debate, when she didn't go on offense at all. I would be surprised if she goes on offense against anyone onstage; if she attacks, it'll be a counterpunch against one of the moderates who wants to disqualify her.

But how hard to punch? In a multi-candidate race, this is tricky. If Warren sat back and let Sanders defend the policies they both agree on, with no backup, she could raise some questions about how she'd take on Trump in a debate. (I read Trump's strange insult of her, as "skinny," as a way to envision him looming over her.) If Sanders came off as too shrill, then it would probably hurt him, and send some soft voters looking again at Warren.

This could be a significant evening for her. If Senator Sanders doesn't make gains, you could see her continue to consolidate liberal support in the party. She's been making strides, so it's hard to see her on the offense or taking on Sanders in a major way. Her allies tell me she's right where she wants to be, but wouldn't mind another "persist"-type moment that'd further bring liberals to her camp.

This is a great question. Part of the reason the Democrats will likely go after each others tonight (and tomorrow night) is because — as I believe Bob said in another answer — they are under tremendous pressure, especially the second and third tier ones, to have a viral moment. And that often comes by debating the people onstage next to them. That said, this a question the Democratic electorate cares a lot about: Who is best to beat Trump. So the candidates are facing a tricky balance between juggling Trump Fatigue — and an impulse we're seeing to try to ignore him and not respond to every tweet and taunt — but also working to prove that they are well-equipped to beat him on Election Day. 

Candidates usually drop out because they can't afford to stay in the race. So a lot of those decisions end up being fundraising decisions. But if anyone feels pressure tonight, among the bigger names, it's probably Beto O'Rourke, as Jenna Johnson documents here.

Many eyes are on Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who raised less than $1 million as a candidate so far and who needs to decide by early December whether to run again for his House seat. (As I wrote recently in the Trailer, this was why Eric Swalwell quit.)

The caveat: Ryan has really thrown himself into this thing, and actually won endorsements from two former Biden supporters last week.

We might not see a drop-out right after the debates, but the candidates to watch are the ones who have no shot of qualifying for the September debate; they need to get 130,000 donations and poll at or above 2 percent at least four times. That's everyone not onstage, and it's also Ryan, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Marianne Williamson, Steve Bullock, Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Tulsi Gabbard, and Julián Castro. So... one of them.

Most Democratic contenders support the efforts of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal, who is an ally of Speaker Pelosi. He is pursuing the president's financial information.

Interestingly, there is no age ceiling to inhabit the Oval Office, but there is an age floor — you have to be at least 35 to become president. That said, voters often consider a candidate's age, among other factors, when deciding who to vote for. And it's certainly something Trump is already trying to use to his advantage. Those attacks on "Sleepy Joe" Biden, and quips that Biden just seems to have lost a step, are the president's barely veiled digs that Biden is, as you say, "too old to be entering the presidency."

My favorite policy area! Here's a great graphic from the Post that details where the 2020 Democratic candidates stand on immigration issues. 

There is so much pressure on the candidates who are stuck in the 1-percent range to get some traction by punching up. It's not that they're trying to attack other Democrats because they like it -- they're trying to survive, politically. 

Many candidates already have this issue baked into their stump speeches.  I think Joe Biden even includes the phrase "improve our standing in the world" or something similar in his words to voters.  And Sen. Cory Booker also talks about elevating the conversation.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar has talked about not conducting "foreign policy by tweet."  But they're not exceptions in this situation. Every candidate I've heard has talked about how he or she would be a contrast to Trump's governing style -- even if they don't always mention the President by name.  

One of the pressing questions facing Democrats is: What is their vision on foreign policy? We are watching a self-defining nationalist in the White House rewrite GOP foreign policy on big issues like trade, relations with the European Union, Saudi  Arabia, etc. Do they want to return to Obama-style mainstream Democratic foreign policy views? Or do they want to borrow some of Trump's nationalistic instincts and build a new Democratic worldview?

Senator Harris "broke out" politically during the first round of debates, in terms of critiquing Biden and elevating her presence in the field and in the polls. But she's not on stage tonight. The related question I have is: Who from tonight's stage will effectively raise their profile in this race? Could it be Buttigieg after a tough stretch in his city where he has dealt with racial issues? Or, it could be Warren or Sanders doing more to cement their status as liberal favorites.

To your second question, about when Sanders would quit: His answer is going to be "after two terms of a successful presidency." The political answer is that there will be pressure on him to quit if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively a state he lost by a handful of votes and a state he won by a landslide. 

After the long-term primary debacle of 2016 (which many Democrats still re-live all the time), I doubt you'd see official, establishment pressure on Sanders to leave. If he ran behind Elizabeth Warren you'd likely see calls on Sanders to quit and endorse her, like the one Splinter's Hamilton Nolan pre-emptively wrote this month. (Nolan called on either Warren or Sanders to quit if the other one beat them.)

It's a good question because the "moderate" vote has not been moving away from Biden toward moderate candidates.

For a long time, the theory was that a moderate "lane" would be open to several candidates, and if Biden slipped (which he did last month) then someone like Klobuchar or Delaney would benefit. 

It turned out that voters were less focused on ideological "moderation" than on whether the candidates seemed "electable," which is even harder to define than ideology! So Bullock's clear play here is to hammer home, again and again, that he won in a red state with Trump on the ballot, and nobody else did; that is more compelling, goes the theory, than Klobuchar boasting about her big blue state margins.

Bullock has to do more than be a "moderate" tonight; he has to introduce himself to the Democratic Party. Unlike the others, he hasn't been on the debate stage before and he's not a regular on television. It'll be interesting to see how he blends in his biography, if at all, in addition to whatever points he makes on policy.

But being a moderate in the Democratic Party in 2019 isn't easy when so much of the energy is on the left. An example of this is Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor, who is on CNN tonight as a commentator because he chose to stay out of this crowded contest.

Several of the  candidates -- N.Y. Mayor Bill De Blasio, former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Gov. John Hickenlooper (who used to be mayor of Denver) and Sen. Cory Booker, who used to be mayor of Newark -- have touted their executive experience leading cities.  And even candidates who are making an explicit appeal to rural Iowa voters, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, have included policy proposals that include addressing the problems of big cities.  That said, I think part of what your question gets at is the influence of Iowa, South Carolina and other rural states on the early primary calendar.  Candidates in those states are definitely going to lean into questions about issues that affect those people.  

To build on Cleve's points, there are some tensions in the party about having Iowa and New Hampshire have such influence in a party that is increasingly diverse. That's why the South Carolina primary is likely to have significance next year. Its primary voters are majority African American and provide a contrast to Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of Super Tuesday as the party figures out who's best positioned to take on Trump.

I think that is certainly the contrast that Warren will want to make tonight, which is really the first opportunity that voters have to see the two candidates - who are often described as being in similar lanes - head to head with one another. As you mention, Warren has emphasized that she is a capitalist while Sanders has been an ardent advocate of his views on democratic socialism (my awesome colleague Sean Sullivan has a good piece on that here) and Democrats are well aware that Republicans, writ large, are eager to tag Dems and their candidates with the "socialist" label because they see it as a major political advantage for the GOP next year. 

I also think Warren has a special talent for communicating concepts that can be a bit amorphous to a broader audience, so I think she'll really want to make that vision clear tonight if she gets the opportunity. 

Senator Warren echoes Senator Sanders on many issues, and vice versa. But she's careful to not define herself as a Democratic socialist, like Sanders. She is a Democrat whose politics are anti-establishment and populist on finance and consumer issues, in particular. Her allies tell me this distinction, and the fact that she can rally over Democratic socialists but not be one by name, would enable her to be an effective nominee.

It's hard to see how Senator Sanders modulates his message at all. He is one of the most consistent politicians in the nation. That said, he will be on stage next to his biggest rival for support in the liberal wing of the party. Look for him to underscore his record and how he has led on these issues for years. 

I'd invite you to read some of our coverage.  Several of us have spent days and weeks in pivotal states, taking a deep dive into a variety of issues.  One of the stories I'm proudest of is a look at the intersection of manners, black voters and South Carolina. And my colleague Sean Sullivan wrote about Bernie Sanders's staffers' complaints that their pay doesn't match his campaign rhetoric about a $15 minimum wage.  

Cleve is right. Here at the Post, we're working to provide our readers with fresh and informative reporting. One new project I'm involved with is "The 2020 Candidates" series for Washington Post Live where we have hour-long interviews with the candidates.