The So-Called Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate

It was not a debate.  It was a debacle.  It might have been one of the worst examples of pettiness,
sloppiness, and simply meaninglessness that one could experience.  The Democratic presidential candidates did themselves no favors, and the American public learned little of value from it.
First, it was not a debate.  Debates, even loosely defined, are about something that matter.  They are about protagonists taking positions, using facts, evidence, and logic to advance positions and, in turn, doing the same to respond to antagonists.  Go back and watch William Buckley’s early  Firing Line as an example.

What we saw in Nevada was simply another media event–Jerry Springer with shoes on.  Reporters asked trite questions to encourage candidates to fight, and the candidates obliged. It would have been great to learn about how the candidates plan to address a record budget deficit, deal with future corona virus epidemics, address racial disparities in criminal justice, or lower drug costs.  Instead, the debate was over whether Sanders would release all his medical records or encourage his supporters not to be so mean.   It would also about each candidate carving one another up, pointing to the fact that Bloomberg oversaw a horrible stop and frisk policy or his sexist behavior in the past.  Or about Klobuchar noting knowing who the president of Mexico was and then reading off a fact sheet to try to show us how smart she was.

Warren is declared a winner but destroying Bloomberg.  Sanders wins by not being attacked as much as Bloomberg.  Bloomberg loses by revealing that he is like a typical CEO in a room with yes men who never question him and therefore he thinks he is a genius.

For the most part, we should not care.   At the end of the day does it really matter if one releases one’s full medical or tax records, or one’s supporters may be jerks?  These are all side shows and largely irrelevant. 

It is true, as Bloomberg said, none of the candidates are perfect and that all have done things wrong.  The issue is not whether someone has done something wrong in the past so much as it is acknowledging and learning from it.  It appears none of the candidates have done that.  Being rich, powerful, or running for president must mean you do not have to say you are sorry.

Yes, Bloomberg and Klobuchar have weak records on race.  All of them on stage do.  But what was telling was none were willing to say I am sorry, I was wrong, AND here are the policies going forward to remedy or address the problem.  Especially troubling, the candidates should have reasonably foreseen the questions coming and have been prepared with good answers.  They were not.  They failed to learn from past performances what their weaknesses were to address them going forward.