Details literally are "substance."
Would you judge the sturdiness of a bridge by the number of pages in its design book? Of course not.
e: The candidates who most deserved to be celebrated for their policies in this cycle were Michael Bennet (Medicare X), Cory Booker (baby bonds), Julian Castro (affordable housing), and Kirsten Gillibrand (paid family leave). Warren isn't even in the top ten.
Considering the level of detail she went into for a functioning health care plan, bankruptcy protection, consumer protection, and a host of other issues, you're denigrating her on this point is simply factually inaccurate rather than a difference of opinion. One could really argue that the above-mentioned candidates had better ideas which were likewise a very detailed, but saying that Warren suffered from a lack of policy details is frankly mind-blowing considering that, again while other candidates may have had more specific policies on individual issues, across-the-board she was the most detail-oriented candidate who ran this year bar none.
It's not that she lacked details; it's that her avalanche of details only served to obfuscate that her policies don't actually hold up to even slight scrutiny. It's the JJ Abrams school of illusory policymaking: if you throw enough stuff at someone at once, they can't process it all before you're on to the next thing.
