Our Washington Correspondent's Take on Round 2 of the Debates

Fresh off her appearance on The Daily Show, hear Olivia’s take on the second round of Democratic debates. [View in browser]( [Subscribe]( [Brand Logo]( Meet Olivia Nuzzi, Washington Correspondent   Political correspondent [Olivia Nuzzi]((pronounced noots-ee) covers the Trump administration for New York Magazine. We caught up with Olivia after her appearance on The Daily Show With Trevor Noah Tuesday night to unpack Round Two of the Democratic debate. [Subscribe to New York](     Let’s talk about Marianne Williamson’s (surprisingly well-received) performance last night. Does she have a legitimate chance?  Possibly! She’s obviously nothing like Donald Trump (except that she’s said a number of insane and untrue things), but one quality they do share is that their unconventionality and the low standards applied to them free them from the constraints placed on more-traditional candidates. So they both have an ability to say what they mean without tiptoeing around it, which appeals to some voters. I don’t think we’re going to see her win the nomination, but if there is anything that 2016 taught us, it’s that: a) I am frequently wrong, and b) anything can happen. I wouldn’t laugh her off. What do you think about Warren’s and Klobuchar’s presentation of Trump’s unsuitability and their calls for Democrats to unite?  A primary is supposed to be a process through which the strongest candidate emerges. But a danger of a long and crowded primary is that the strongest candidates may be weakened by the criticisms from their competition and may contort their positions in such a way that they become unattractive to the general electorate. Trump was always polling very highly from the moment he formally entered the race, but part of why he succeeded in the Republican primary last time around is because the field was so big and the infighting so intense that he — the madman on whom no attack could stick, because we already knew who he was and hardly anything could surprise us — was able to ride it out until the end. So I see the argument Warren and Klobuchar were making. And I suspect that over the next several weeks, as more candidates fail to meet the threshold for the debates, the field will winnow dramatically. After writing a [profile]( of Pete Buttgieg, are you surprised by his performance?  When he’s the only one onstage answering questions, he really shines. That’s why he became “a thing” to begin with — because of his performance at the CNN town hall. A debate is very different, and his quiet, reasonable, thoughtful style — not quite professorial, but, like, assistant-professorial — has not come across as very exciting or inspiring in that context. Six years ago, you published a story about interning for Anthony Weiner that landed you on the [cover]( of the New York Daily News. You recently wrote on [Instagram]( that at that moment, you believed your career was over before it began (at 20!). What did that rebound process look like, and how do you process criticism now?  I also thought it was hilarious at the time, to be clear. There was a two-year period where I felt like I was proving myself and most of my hate mail still mentioned that episode, but now my hate mail is much more general and more about why people dislike me as a person, which I really prefer! In all seriousness, though, I’m grateful my career began with the experience of being the subject of media attention, however scarring it was, because I think it taught me a lot about how the media works and made me more empathetic to the people I write about who live their lives in public all the time. On The Daily Show, you said the real bias in the media is toward conflict. As a journalist covering (and writing a book on) the 2020 campaign, how do you reconcile what makes for good television or a great headline with highlighting what’s really important for readers to know about the candidates?  Well, I think that conflict often is important. But I also think that a tragedy of the 24-hour news cycle is that we get so wrapped up in what’s happening every moment, these incremental developments, that we lose our sense of the bigger picture. The great thing about [New York Magazine]( is that we are devoted to the bigger picture, to storytelling, and the approach we take here allows us to focus on who people in the news really are, why they are the way they are, what they’re really like, and why they do the things they do and want the things they want. We have the freedom to ask big existential questions and search for their nuanced answers. [Subscribe to New York](     [logo]( [facebook logo]( [instagram logo]( [twitter logo]( [unsubscribe](param=daily)   |   [privacy notice](   |   [update preferences]( This email was sent to {EMAIL}. Was this email forwarded to you? [Sign up now]( to get this newsletter in your inbox. You received this email because you have a subscription to New York. New York Media LLC 75 Varick St., New York, NY 10013 Copyright © 2019, All rights reserved