Bad enough that we have a reality show president. Now we have a reality show newspaper. A sad day for those of us who used to take the New York Times seriously. ***just listened to the first deliberations episode, and I now see the value of this inside look at the nut editorial staff—we can now hear first hand how vapid and out of touch these people are.

I listened to Sen Warren’s interview , again . Following the Nevada dem senate, I’m changing my mind about Warren- for the better. Choice staff, bring Warren back. I see she has moderated her view on Medicare or at least a phase in which most people don’t understand. I hear a less radical leader in Warren vs a Very radical Bernie who will loose to Trump. We need to hear more from Elizabeth

People acting as if the editorial board is NYT news. They’re people, they have opinions and want to endorse the candidate *they* think is good. That’s the point and has nothing to do with their news section. Along those lines, these were very informing of things that don’t get asked a lot. People seem to act as if “catching the candidates off guard” is more important. And again, that’s kind of the point. These reporters know these candidates and their positions very well. They aren’t asking them to make their case to them, they’re asking to answer the questions that they feel still haven’t been answered even through all of the rallies and speeches and debates. Things that may be overlooked. All in all, it’s a great podcast and it’s a shame people misunderstand the intentions behind it and shame it for “bias”. WELL worth the listen.

The editorial board seemed more interested in catching the candidates off guard than having a substantive discussion

Their neoliberal agenda is clear. So take everything from NYT’s with a grain of salt. They are just as biased as Fox News. The only reason I give them 4 stars is cuz i like Interview of Bernie- the juxtaposition of His authenticity and integrity with the passive-aggressive and disingenuous NYT’s editorial board is moving. The other interviews are a joke.

The board shows a significant lack of understanding of where the American populace is politically and economically. Their observations, questions, and analysis make clear that they don’t understand why, or how, our current dumpster-fire-in-chief was elected. If you want John Delaney’s hot takes on the upcoming presidential election, be sure to listen to the board, and remember, it’s better to not try for any real change and just keep moving to the right with the republicans 😊.

If this is how interviews are normally conducted at the NYTimes, I may have to consider canceling my subscription. How is it good journalism to immediately put the candidate on the defensive the second the interview starts? They don’t post the whole interview but they do have time to overlay judge-y dialogue between questions. I am an undecided voter and I was hoping to have a better idea of who the candidates are as people, what their platforms are, what their plans are. Most of the questions went along the lines of “we heard you say/do this thing that makes you sound like a terrible person, what do you have to say for yourself?” I want here the plans and decide on those please! What’s past is past, I don’t care about what happened 20-sum years ago. I want to hear their plans for fixing this broken system.

Completely biased- and evident in the questions asked. I love the idea of this podcast and I think it holds so much potential. Instead I’m left disappointed. Like other reviewers mentioned, no endorsement was made. Doesn’t help that during the deliberation, they tend to talk over each other and I have to replay moments just to understand what was being said/argued by each person. Overall, Could be better.

The panel comes across as very anti-Midwest, as well as elitist and condescending.

This was so freaking pretentious. I’m still an undecided voter, but I did decide to never waste my time on another NYT podcast.

I want to see The NY Times release the full audio interviews in the future. If you are going to release a full transcript, why not release the full audio and let us judge for ourselves? Please do not underestimate your listeners capacity to understand long form discussion. I find it hard to bear some of the topics and I think the discussions can go a bit long, but that is why I am here, listening to a podcast and not sound bites. Editing seems very suspicious to me. Let us judge.

The interviews were somewhat useful, but in the end they didn’t ask great questions and there was a lot of bias. Also their lack of making a single choice of a candidate was a let down and very disappointing.

So Cons are: All of the liberal slow speak drove me absolutely crazy. “I love how........ the democrats........ offered so many........... just different options.....” Jeez, spit it out already. Also, has there been a single endorsement that made it through to the presidency? It seems like The NY Times endorsement is a death sentence for the candidate. However, the plus side of this podcast is that this cemented my choice to vote Republican in 2020.

As much as I enjoy the NYT, this was really disappointing. At such a critical point in time for our country, I was expecting interviews and reviews that were neutral, encouraging the listeners to make their own decisions. Each reviewer’s bias and opinions were evident in the questions they asked and how they discussed the candidates afterwards. Really disappointing for the NYT.

Despite some clear biases in some of the interviews, the interviews gave me a better sense of the candidates and what they offer. I didn't find their discussions after each interview or their decision process particularly interesting or enlightening.

I’ve listened to all the episodes and thank the NYT for giving us the opportunity to hear the candidates in their own words. My 4-star rating reflects my wish that the complete and unedited audio of each interview had been provided. One of the things I didn’t hear any of the candidates talk about - in these interviews, in the debates, or in the stump speeches I’ve heard - is the emotional side of “change”. A person may intellectually agree with a big change that’s being proposed, but emotionally they may struggle with how to get from their comfortable status quo to a new normal. Much like the stages of grief, I suspect there are “stages of change” and I’d like to hear more from the candidates about that.

It was hard to listen to the interview with Joe Biden. The board was so hostile and biased. I could tell that the board doesn’t really like the moderate candidates based on their tones.

The interviews are great! The fact that they couldn’t make an actual endorsement is maddening. That was the job.

Thank you for vetting these candidates and sharing these interviews. Sometimes the questions were off-putting, but it gave me a chance to see how a candidate would react to tough questions; tough questions that will be mild compared to what they are going to face in a general election. Some of the candidates got testy and acted like grumpy, old men. Others were prepared and their responses were honed. While I am still undecided, I think your assessments of the candidates were largely spot on.

It was refreshing to hear the candidates having a conversation with the panel (with varying degrees of spin) While I sometimes disagreed with the panel and their methods (are they rating on “electability”, ability, platform?), I came away with a better sense of the candidates. I have been recommending the podcast to all my friends.

It’s clear that the board already had fully-formed opinions about the candidates before most of them even stepped into the room. I enjoyed this podcast series at first, but I found myself growing increasingly frustrated by the personal biases of the interviewers, especially in the Buttigieg and Steyer interviews. The parts about Buttiegeg being on the frontlines of corporate price-fixing, corporate downsizing, war, etc. hardly even felt like questions, and seemed more designed to sway listeners than to dig for information—especially in contrast to many of the questions that the board’s seemingly more preferred candidates got.

The concept of the podcast is good, but the editorial board is underwhelming. The interview with Mayor Pete, by some board members was almost hostile- he was in his mid 20s during his McKinsey career and a number cruncher. Yet he was blamed for layoffs and an isolated price fixing incident of huge McKinsey clients. I thought he handled those naive and unsophisticated questions with grace. In the post interview discussion he was criticized for not having sufficient passion - like Beto O’Rourke. Really! He obviously needs to practice jumping on tables at diners. The OP/ED group from The Argument is much more impressive. Ross Douthat’s criticism of the decision to endorse two candidates was spot on as well as his observations of the mission of the editorial board. Independent Voter Larry

I greatly appreciate The NY Times making these interviews available. They were very helpful in making a decision on who to support. And, I wish they would publish their interview with Cory Booker. Even though he withdrew from the race, I have found him very engaging and would love to hear his interview. (He appeared on The Weekly as participating.)

Could not agree more with prior reviewers comment around the unnecessary attack and over simplified assumptions the times folks seemed to be making around the link between being employed at a company that is tied to some wrong doing /Mc kinsey...and how as just being employed there Mayor Pete is some how accountable. Also wish someone wound have asked any of the candidates more direct questions on importation tax strategy influence on China trade. That's a path Trump is clearly far down. If a democratic wins...what's the plan?

I want to be clear here that my opinion is not based on resentment that “my candidate” was somehow treated badly; in fact, the candidate I support was endorsed... at least halfway. 😅 That being said, I was disappointed with the bias that shone through throughout the interviews, from blatantly ageist arguments against some candidates (and this from a newspaper that purports itself to be unbiased, except of course when it suits their purposes), to the absurd attacks on Mayor Pete for his time at McKinsey as a junior staffer, when he supposedly had a direct role in doing things like price-fixing bread. These interviewers need to stop being so self-righteous. It’s irritating. On the flip side, I enjoy hearing from these candidates - even the ones I don’t support. They are all interesting people with substantial things to say and I enjoyed being able to hear from them in more than just sound bites.

In general, I found this podcast to be informative and interesting. At times, the questions posed to each candidate came across as superficial or simply an attempt to provoke pointless controversy. Still, I would recommend listening to gather even more information ahead of your state’s primary and the general election.

Preface: I am not a Buttigieg supporter The interview of Buttigieg was an embarrassment. The obsession with his time at McKinsey and the obvious lack of understanding of what junior consultants do was illuminating. As for Mr. Applebaum stating that Buttigieg was at the “front lines of corporate downsizing” and “corporate price fixing” merely highlighted Mr. Applebaum’s inherent prejudice towards Buttigieg. And for the Board to focus so much of their questioning and deliberations on Buttigieg’s style versus his substance (which they admitted was quite aligned with their own) evidenced the shallowness of their thought process and their prejudice towards form over substance. Shockingly embarrassing.

I’m very interested in the policies/ proposals of all the candidates but I could live without the superior attitude of the interviewers. The thought that a young employee of a consulting firm should have had some control over the mission / corporate responsibility or that of the clients he’s assigned to is ridiculous. Stop slanting everything, everyone has ever done as negative.... please!

Thanks to the Times for its commitment take a different approach to the 2020 race. But please STOP 🤚the shameless endorsement ads for Mockingbird.

Great interviews, excellent, well thought questions by journalists who know what they are talking about. What a great idea it is to also broadcast their assessment of the candidate. Well done, and make more podcasts like this!

I'm really grateful to have this! Election time can get so confusing and I feel like there's so much information out there. Nice to hear opinions and plans from the candidates themselves in this format.

Great podcast series to help the listener learn more about candidates and ultimately make a thoughtful decision for who you support in the primary and general elections.

If you’re interested in memorizing the reviews of a Broadway play, this is the podcast for you! It’s unfortunate that a podcast that frames itself on a need for transparency is undercutting the message through their obvious monetization of the offering.

I think a conversation reveals so much more than a debate. That’s why this feels so important, intimate, and revealing. Couldn’t recommend this more for voters from the whole spectrum.

This is exactly what I needed. With the sheer number of potential nominees and debates, it is hard to keep up with it all. This podcast does all the legwork for us- bringing all the most pressing issues and concerns to each interview. It’s also pretty interesting to get a peek into how they decide on their endorsement. The Choice makes journalism better by creating a platform that demonstrates such transparency.

Just found this podcast and listened to the Sanders episode. I’m blown away. What is this garbage? Where are the researched, thoughtful questions you should be asking? And then you trash him on the follow up episode about something you didn’t even bring up to him in the episode and say that young people coming out to vote is a cliche that never happens? AWFUL. NYT you have lost your credibility. Maybe re-staff your “editorial board” to host The Bachelor or some other meaningless opportunity.

These interviews are fantastic. I wish NYT Editorial had taken a firm final position on endorsement (agree w Ross on NYT The Argument) but the questions and answers are so much more substantive than the debates. One request, I think the NYT should break with the democratic organizers and interview Bloomberg as an encore to this series. Even if it’s after the endorsement, especially given the editorial board’s position that this exercise is about informing the electorate.

Feels like this panel is pretty biased but it’s hard to really blame them considering the echo chamber they are in. A fish doesn’t know it’s wet.

I like getting the interviews in auditory form, rather than having to read the transcripts (also available). Thanks for doing this! Reading some of the other reviews here gives me some chills - not in a good way. Nobody's perfect. Please, can we tone down the hostility?

No offense, but the voters didn’t need to hear how the NYT endorsed the candidate we all knew they were going to endorse from the beginning: Elizabeth Warren (plus Amy Klobuchar for some reason, ultimately providing no real guidance).

The NYT is clueless. I thought this would be an interesting podcast - but, they clearly have their own agenda, and understand little to nothing about technology and how it is shaping the future. How would they? They are part of the dying breed. Buy any newspapers lately?

I think the interviews I’ve heard so far were some of the most substantive and engaging conversations with the candidates I have yet heard. A friendly reminder that all of the Democratic candidates are a vast improvement over our current situation and very interesting for anyone curious about policy. That being said, only 1 episode was available before the NYT announced who their choice was for the endorsement. This means that all the interviews I’m hearing are kinda anti climatic, strange way to roll out such a great podcast

A great way to listen to the candidates in a format that isn't a stump, or trying to get sound bites

This is a joke. It makes all of the candidates look like a joke. Shame on the editorial board for their insane and unbalanced questions. I do not understand the reason to make a decision when no decision is ultimately made. Save your time and do your own research to learn more about each candidate.

Very informative to understand why Republicans will continue to rule the Senate and Presidency for another four years but deeply sad for the struggling silent majority. From a newly naturalized Kanuk from the “socialist” north of the border.

But Bernie Bros. You’re just as bad as the Trump ego cult. Take your self-righteousness and choke on it please.

Interesting conversations. The editorial board comes off as a bit condescending.

Where is the Andrew Yang deliberation episode?

From an undecided Democrat: the Tom Steyer “interview” was one of the most unfair I’ve ever heard. The panel already had a cemented opinion on him when he entered the room and didn’t take his answers seriously.

I started listening to this just to check it out but it’s actually extremely informative. You don’t get to hear the candidates this way on the debate stage or at rallies. The questions are good, and direct, and uncompromising. The result of that is that you get to know the candidates more as people, and hear what they’re like off the cuff. Wonderfully edited and produced.