As we approach the second round of debates, I’m still hung up on the first round of debates, frustrated about how the Democratic candidates are approaching this election, and worried about how the Democrats will somehow find a way to lose to Trump in 2020.
Republicans are, generally speaking, not interested in parsing differences within their party. They have a short list of platform requirements such as lower taxes are always good, abortion is always bad, health insurance comes from employers, foreign people and influence are bad, etc.. If a candidate meets these minimum criteria, then they have the vote of the Republican.
Democrats are, generally speaking, a persnickety bunch. There are some basic principles like equality among all people, taxes are useful when used wisely, and health insurance should be affordable regardless of employment type or status. But within that general outline of a platform, Democrats find ways to differ with viewpoints ranging from idealism to pragmatism largely about how to achieve their goals. How to tax, who to tax, what healthcare is affordable, who should run it, what is equality, etc..
While that degree of discourse may be healthy to generating ideas and finding solutions, it fails when it comes time to make voting decisions. Democrats, especially the idealists, can hold on to their specific beliefs as an all or nothing viewpoint. As in “if Bernie Sanders doesn’t win the nomination, I’m not going to vote for whoever beat him” or “if the winning candidate’s plan for dealing with climate change doesn’t match mine, I’m not going to vote for them”. That’s a problem in the general election because you have all of the Republicans voting for the Republican candidate, maybe half of the independents voting for the Republican and half voting for the Democrat but you don’t have all the Democrats voting for the Democrat. In terms of how to be a political party, Democrats, you are doing it wrong.
For a candidate to get through the primary, they need to appeal to the persnickety party activists. But to win the general election, the candidate needs to appeal to everyone in the party as well as the moderate independents. So here we are in primary season with 20+ Democrats running and they all want more visibility because more visibility means more money. If you don’t stand out from the pack, how can you expect to win? And yet if you stand out from the pack too much, you can create a divide within the party that may persist through the general election.
Take Kamala Harris’s attack on Biden in the first debate. In attacking Biden, a frontrunner according to polls, she improved her numbers and brought his down which was her goal. But what if Biden ends up the nominee? How many Harris supporters are going to remember her attack and decide not to vote for Biden because Harris was right? And if Biden responds in kind in debate #2 by going after Harris’s record on crime, he could damage her credibility if she is the Democratic nominee. Or worse, if Harris then counter-attacks Biden after his attack. And so on. Undoubtedly, the moderators would encourage that and not cut people off because that would make good TV. So we end up with candidates who might succeed in a general election either attacking in a debate, being attacked in a debate, or not getting enough screen time in a debate because they aren’t attacking or being attacked.
Not only do the candidates need to avoid alienating the supporters of their competitors but they need to speak to the independent moderates who are also watching these debates. These are the people who might see all politicians as equally corrupt and either didn’t vote in the last election or after considering that neither candidate was “likable”, they preferred Trump’s bombast to Clinton’s experience. These independent moderates are looking for somebody who says the right things in the right way and can represent our country in a way that Trump can’t. They are looking for somebody that can plainly explain how Trump’s policies are the opposite of what helps that particular individual. They are not looking for far left policies but center left might be tolerable. Candidates should ask themselves if a moderate were to view their platform, would they prefer it to Trump’s. If not, then there isn’t a clear path to victory in a general election.
How should a candidate stand out without creating division while appealing to moderates? In the first debate, we saw Buttigieg answer honestly about a way he had failed to resolve a police problem in South Bend which somehow turned a negative he had against him into a positive. Swalwell spoke against guns rather than another candidate. Inslee spoke against climate change rather than another candidate. Sure, they all did this in a way that made them seem like they were more qualified than others about these topics but attacking problems rather than people seems like the high-road that we need right now. They elevated themselves without pushing down others. And in this time when Trump attacks Democrats telling them to go back to where they came from or for presiding over filthy districts, it seems to me a perfect opportunity for some Democratic unity.
The best possible result for the debates tonight and tomorrow is for the news analysts to say it was boring, that nobody “won”, that there was no exchange to highlight. Productive political discussion may not make good TV. The debates should not be entertainment that is exciting to watch like sports. We have a reality TV president and we know that isn’t good for any of us. So let’s look forward to boring debates tonight and tomorrow filled with insightful discussion and one where the winner is the one who appears most able to defeat Trump in the general election.
