Spoiler Alert: If you did not watch the three-hour Democratic debate on Wednesday, you missed must-see TV. It was simultaneously, entertaining, horrifying, and bizarre. It was more than President Trump could hope for. If the transcript were provided to a team of Saturday Night Live writers, a killer one-hour special would write itself. This column references some “highlights” of the evening.
I could not resist tuning into the debate to see Michael Bloomberg’s debut performance on a Presidential debate stage. His reputation as a mediocre debater was confirmed, especially early in the debate. The challenge he faced was mammoth. His polls had sky-rocked in recent weeks, propelled by his massive advertising spending. Polls being a zero-sum game, his rise was accompanied by sharp declines for Biden and Warren. And the momentum enjoyed by Buttigieg and Klobuchar dissipated. Only Sanders, the candidate running on class-warfare, saw his numbers rise.
In some ways, Bloomberg’s candidacy is the best thing to happen to Sanders. Voters want a choice and Sanders and Bloomberg give them one. Nonetheless, five of the six candidates on the stage came together in pulling out their knives and going after the former NYC mayor. Warren attacked him on reports of non-disclosure agreements with former female employees suggesting he had engaged in sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Sanders repeatedly hammered on his “immoral” wealth. Biden criticized him on his positions on Obamacare. And so on.
And the candidates, more energized than in any of the previous five debates, attacked each other like a pack of sharks after the first blood is in the water. Warren, in particular, was vicious. She targeted Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, all of whom have enjoyed higher polls than she. She also disingenuously stood up for Klobuchar after she was questioned about forgetting the name of Mexico’s president. Klobuchar offered an ineffective excuse, which prompted Mayor Pete to go in for the kill, but Warren, the self-proclaimed champion of a unified Democratic party (good luck with that), stepped in to comment that just forgetting the name was an excusable failure.
Post-debate, many suggested Warren to be the winner because she “came out fighting.” Others have suggested she is simply shifting her strategy and is now seeking to package herself as a semi-centrist alternative to Sanders. The thought here is that if Biden continues his decline, Buttigieg wilts under scrutiny and is recognized as the smart but woefully inexperienced small-town mayor that he was, and that if Klobuchar can be dispatched, Warren will be the only woman in the race. Note to self: Don’t count Warren out next time she appears to trip herself out.
So where does all of this leave us? If you believe Trump’s defeat is imperative, you should be very afraid. If this field doesn’t narrow, defeating Trump will be all but impossible. Also, time is running out. Bernie, Trump’s preferred opponent, has emerged as a strong front-runner. With Bloomberg’s mixed performance at the debate, hopes that he will emerge as the “sane adult” in the room to rescue the party’s hopes, are fading. Get ready for the Trump campaign to use tapes of the debate in coming TV ads.
All told, it was a sad night for democracy, for Democrats, for civility, and for the future. If only what happened in Las Vegas could stay there.
J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.
George Merrill says
I read you column and I too experienced the disappointment you felt. I share a thought with you: about half way the debates I shut off the TV.
One thought kept dogging me; how wrong and destructive this whole format was. The candidates were behaving in the same way Trump does: relentlessly dissing opponents in order to legitimize themselves. Suppose, I imagined to myself, all the candidates were locked in a room for at least three weeks. They had to shake down their differences to find their agreed upon message and common denominator, be realistic about who was best qualified to make their case and then put all their collective weight behind their choice. Naive? You bet. But I think this; if they could have demonstrated that level of maturity and statesmanship. we’d have a winner who could energize us.
John Dean says
George: Thanks for your comment. We’re on the same page, but I was too stupid to turn off my television.
Al Sikes has a thoughtful column today with some suggestions on how these debates might be better conducted. Tom Perez would benefit from reading it. My only difference with Sikes’ comment is that I hope Bloomberg’s candidacy has not been fatally wounded.