The Current Dramatic Reality of the Democratic Debates
The Progressive Teen Contributing Writer
Last summer I went on a road trip with my family, and with a couple hours to kill, I decided to watch the July Democratic debate that I had missed a few days earlier in order to stay updated with the election. However, this proved to be a lot more difficult than I imagined. When I typed “Democratic Debate July 2019” into the search bar on Google and Youtube, the only results I got were analyses of the night and short clips from CNN. No matter how many variations of the words “Democratic Debate full” I searched, I could not find anything. When I did finally find a video that seemed promising, I got only half of the debate, with random large chunks cut out of the middle to prevent copyright issues.
At first, I was annoyed at this lack of access. This is the first election I will be able to vote in, and I want to stay informed: the debates are a way to find out more about each candidate and their platforms. Why was something that is broadcasted as a pivotal source of information so hard to find after the fact? However, from what I did see of the debate from the highlight videos and the bootleg YouTube version, they start to stray from their intended purpose.
For the candidates, the debates are a way to distinguish themselves from the others. Less popular candidates can make a name for themselves and garner more support, while those high in the polls, like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, will be looking to keep their place at the top and satisfy supporters. While the debates can be beneficial, they can also backfire for candidates. Word choice can make or break their campaign– one poorly-worded answer can leave them under intense public scrutiny.
The first debate on June 28, 2019 had over 18 million live viewers, breaking the record for the most viewers of a Democratic debate. This brought hope for high engagement in the election, marking a promising start for the Democratic primary race. But the January 15 debate, just a few weeks before the Iowa caucus, only saw 7.3 million live viewers, and while it wasn’t the lowest viewership, no other debate this election season has come close to the 18 million viewer mark. On average, about 10.6 million people watch each debate live, as numbers start to decline with time.
From what I did end up seeing from that July debate left me frustrated. I was watching a bunch of candidates stating the same things over and over again, while talking over each other. Plenty of candidates were shut down mid speech by moderators for going over time limits, and others were scolded for speaking out of turn. With so many people on stage at once, especially in the early debates, candidates were not given adequate time to express their ideas, leading to numerous interruptions as they tried to get their word in over so many others.
To make a statement in the media field, candidates need to be strong in their sentiments and push boundaries. Debates have become a way to do this. A strongly-worded counterpoint, a fiery quip, and sometimes even an outright attack can give a candidate media attention, separating them from the others and potentially finding new support. This has largely defined the debate process, as the events turn into battle grounds for candidates. At this point, by nature, there is no way to simply state positions on different pressing topics, and then question the validity of these positions. Doing so ends in yelling matches.
The moderators have a lot to do with the uneasy atmosphere at debates. They routinely ask questions targeting certain candidates; in July, John Hickenlooper was asked whether Bernie Sanders was too extreme, to which Sanders was asked to respond. This acts solely to stir emotions and get people heated, for both the candidates on stage and the people at home.
Other questions forego policy and social issues altogether, and just ask candidates to defend different actions; at the November debate, Pete Buttigieg was asked about the lack of black police officers compared to the black population in South Bend, and why these numbers haven’t improved over his time as mayor. Without any tie back to policy or a specific issue, this just asks candidates to defend their every decision without any inclination of why it is important to their campaign.
While these questions were most likely intended to discuss Hickenlooper’s thoughts about progressive policies like Medicare for All, and for Buttigieg to address race issues in his town and within the police force, the wording acts to garner conflict without framing issues within the broader context of the social issue or policy that could explain the actions and ideas in question.
With several more debates to come before a Democratic nominee is decided, the events will continue to see the same heated arguments and dramatic outcomes. No matter the consequences of the debates, however, they still remain vital to the primary process. Any candidate looking for the nomination is going to have to stay afloat in the bustle of the debates and save face for supporters.
