‘This Was Not a Great Night for the Democratic Party’

***

Lots of intensity but very little information.

Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail.

The candidates cranked up their energy level to 11 in this debate. But energy does not necessarily translate into a satisfying viewing experience. An air of desperation permeated this gathering, not surprisingly, given the realities of the calendar. The biggest desperado of them all: Biden, who substituted nostalgia for vision and loudness for coherence. Biden spent almost as much time griping about not getting called on as he did discussing the topics on the table—the wrong move for a debater who already reads like a crabby codger.

Sanders drew plenty of incoming fire from his opponents, and while his debate style is to constantly plow forward no matter what, some of the criticism seemed to agitate him. Of greater significance, as the newly crowned frontrunner, Sanders missed an opportunity to use this debate to pitch undecided Democrats who’d like to be comfortable with him but remain uneasy about his ideology.

Warren took advantage of the debate to revisit her greatest hits—not just “I’ve got a plan” and “three brothers in the military” but also her takedown of Bloomberg in Las Vegas, which generated its own sequel in Charleston. Warren toys with Bloomberg like a cat with a mouse, and instead of effectively defending himself, he comes off as defensive. Bloomberg’s overall tone-deafness is staggering, as evidenced in the weird joke he made about having won the previous debate, a quip so odd that it eluded even those in the live audience whom Bloomberg had seemingly paid to cheer. Another problem for the former mayor: The Bloomberg whom voters were watching on the debate stage could not hold a candle to the Bloomberg who kept popping up during commercial breaks. The two Mikes may as well have been different people.

Buttigieg and Klobuchar managed to stay out of each other’s grills this time, both of them striving mightily to promote the appeal of a moderate Democratic nominee. Articulate as Buttigieg may be, he is shaping up to be a divisive figure. (Evidently one person’s brilliant is another person’s smarmy.) Klobuchar tried her damnedest, but instead of relishing the experience, as she has in previous debates, she was reduced to last-ditch pleading. A joyless Klobuchar is not the Klobuchar debate audiences have come to expect.

Finally, a word about the moderators of this broadcast: Let’s stipulate that moderating a live TV debate is a singularly tough job and that any journalist in this role can have an off night, but this was an especially off night for Norah O’Donnell, Gayle King and the small army of journalists whom CBS saw fit to add to the dais. Too often the questioning stoked conflict for conflict’s sake, and the candidates were allowed far too much leeway to run amok. When debaters sense weakness in moderators, etiquette flies out the window and chaos ensues. That’s what happened in this high-intensity, low-information debate.

‘The most animated performances came from the two old codgers’

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

The South Carolina debate formed a political graveyard for a number of candidates. Klobuchar may protest that the biggest misconception about her is that she’s boring, but she did nothing to disprove it. Bloomberg came across as a lout as he dismissed his opprobrious remarks about women as amounting to no more than a few stray comments. Steyer’s most powerful statement was his rigid refusal once more to don anything other than his shabby tartan tie. And Warren was once again as ineffectual as she was earnest.

The most animated performances came from the two old codgers, Biden and Sanders. Biden’s advisers performed some powerful necromancy to reanimate him after his previous lackluster performances. He got in some good shots about Sanders’ loopy comments about Cuba as the Harvard of the Caribbean. As Sanders blustered about his veneration for Cuba’s educational attainments, he came across as a relic from the 1960s, someone who has learned nothing and forgotten nothing from that turbulent decade. Small wonder that Trump is elated at the prospect of facing off against him this fall. If Sanders’ histrionic performance was anything to go by—hair flapping as though it was caught in a jet stream, arms waving wildly and protuberant eyes—Trump would likely make mincemeat of him.

Stop debating, please.

Jennifer Lawless is a professor of politics at the University of Virginia whose research focuses on political ambition, campaigns and elections, and media and politics.

Tuesday’s debate concluded with a two-part question for each of the candidates: What’s the biggest misconception about you? And what words do you live by? None of the responses was particularly surprising or interesting, as each candidate basically used the time allotted to make a closing statement to voters in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. But the question itself provides a great way to summarize the debate.

The biggest misconception going into the debate was that it would actually matter. Yet there was little reason to think it would. Last week’s debate saw sparks fly, so the candidates were all prepared for more incoming this time around. Sanders took the heat directed his way. Bloomberg’s weak performance wasn’t as bad as last time. And Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Steyer stayed on script about why they’re best equipped to win and lead. The criticisms were the same as usual: Sanders’ worrisome relationship with the NRA, Buttigieg’s billionaire donors, Bloomberg’s racism and sexism. The narratives were the same as usual: Biden has done the job; Warren has a plan to do the job; Klobuchar gets stuff done. And the content was the same as usual: The first 38 minutes of the debate focused on electability, and the rest could be summarized as an unfocused discussion that touched on a lot of important issues, but didn’t give any one of them justice.

This is a long way of saying that the debate changed nothing. Sanders entered the stage as the frontrunner and emerged with that status intact. Biden started out with an advantage among African American voters and sustained it over the course of the next two hours. And the other five candidates similarly walked off the stage in much the same shape as they walked onto it.

If I had to come up with a motto that emerged from this debate, it would be an homage to Nike: Just Do It! It’s time to vote. We don’t need another debate. We don’t need another town hall. We’ve reached the point of the primary season where these debates provide little in the way of new information. Voters have seen the candidates engage in robust conversations, breakout moments and lackluster performances. They’ve viewed prepared statements, rehearsed accusations and off-the-cuff responses. They’ve developed a sense of the candidates’ strengths, weaknesses, experiences and temperaments. This isn’t to say that debates can’t matter or that citizens don’t learn from them. But we’ve reached the point of diminishing marginal returns. It’s enough already.

‘Bloomberg improved his performance from godawful last week to merely awful this time’

Larry J. Sabato is founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and is a contributing editor at POLITICO Magazine.

If I’ve learned one thing over these 10 Democratic debates, it’s that identifying the loser is easier than picking the winner.

And the loser Tuesday was everybody on stage. The Democratic Party. Any hope for sensible, coherent debates.

Out-of-control candidates talked over one another, and hapless moderators were unable to enforce the rules. I’m partly sympathetic. The classroom can be like that—a tug of war between teacher and unruly students, although I’ve never had a class with people constantly waving their arms in the air and begging, “Pick me, teacher. I know the answer!”

Presidential primary debates lost every ounce of dignity in 2016 when Donald Trump showed up and everyone climbed into his clown car. Now Democrats have joined in.

To no one’s surprise, Sanders was the primary target. He’s the current frontrunner so it was his turn to fend off attacks. As befits a frontrunner, he was the center of attention, and as far as I could tell, he shed only a little blood. Almost no one’s mind was changed. Sanders has the most intense support, though nowhere close to a majority. His backers will stick with him through thick and thin, and that’s enough in a still-crowded field.

Sanders’ main foe in the Palmetto State remains Biden. The former vice president had more fire than usual, and maybe this will help him buck the trend of declining support, holding enough of the vote to win on Saturday. Almost as important, we finally learned why he’s so obsessed with obeying the time limits and dictates of moderators. It goes back to his “Catholic school training,” where talking out of turn could get you a sore hand. The fear of the nun’s ruler becomes a lifelong phobia. Biden and I have this in common.

Bloomberg isn’t even on the South Carolina ballot, yet there he was on stage, even managing a mention of New York City’s famous naked cowboy in Times Square. Bloomberg improved his performance from godawful last week to merely awful this time. Warren finished administering the beating she gave Bloomberg in his first debate. It made no difference because Bloomberg’s TV ads appeared before, during and after the show. Shouldn’t the stations and networks pass on airing any candidate’s advertisements during a debate? Shock us, and maybe introduce a small element of fairness, even if it costs you a few dollars.

Steyer is a player in South Carolina, thanks to enormous expenditure in the final state uncontested by his fellow billionaire, Bloomberg. Steyer was passionate and finally got a decent share of debate time. Maybe it wins him a few more points on Saturday, probably eating into Biden’s vote. As of yet, though, no one sees Steyer as a real contender to be the Democratic nominee.

I’m a broken record on Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Klobuchar’s feisty attitude and solid performance always appeals to me, and Buttigieg has a rare talent for synthesizing his answers into virtually publishable paragraphs that serve his interests. Yet both of them are scraping bottom with African American voters in South Carolina as well as many states voting on Super Tuesday. Money is running low. Hoping to hang on in case of a deadlock is not enough in a field that may be winnowed to just a few contenders in the not-distant future.

Answering the moderators’ challenge to the candidates, I’ll finish by noting my own (biblical) words to live by: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The Democratic debates, combined with the presidency of Donald Trump and the coronavirus, suggest we ought to stock up on nonperishable foodstuffs.

‘It was exhausting’

Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.

In the wake of Sanders’ decisive victory in Nevada with a broad coalition that included the largest number of nonwhite voters in the state, I could see why so many “feel the Bern.” I saw why so many Americans of every race, ethnicity, sex, gender and religion support Sanders’ bid for the presidency. I saw a man who appears to understand the fears, hopes and dreams of all Americans in a way that we have not seen since Barack Obama left office.

Then, I watched Tuesday’s Democratic debate.

What a mess.

It was exhausting. At times, I felt as if I was watching a team of 5-year-old kids peacocking for attention. They raised their hands incessantly, talked over and interrupted one another frequently, and ignored the questions they were asked to discuss whatever they felt like discussing. Bloomberg even delivered an incredibly bizarre joke about the Naked Cowboy that no one outside of New York could have comprehended.

It was impossible for any of the candidates to even begin to pretend to look presidential in an atmosphere so focused on pummeling one another at any cost.

So, in this very un-presidential presidential debate, the winners were Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Sanders, Steyer and Warren. The losers were Biden, Klobuchar and, quite possibly, the Democratic Party.

On issues of racial and economic justice, Steyer really stood out. His statements on these issues gave him standing with the African American community that he probably hasn’t enjoyed to date. For the first time over the many weeks of debates, he made us want to listen to and believe in him.

As always, Warren was superior on issues of gender, racial and economic justice. However, Tuesday’s attack on Bloomberg didn’t seem to resonate with the audience and may have caused her campaign more harm than good. Bloomberg does not appear to be a Harvey Weinstein, and the allegation made against him and voiced in the debate will inevitably be investigated. If it proves to be inaccurate, Warren’s attack on Bloomberg may hurt her campaign and the #MeToo movement. If it turns out to be accurate, Bloomberg will be out of the race.

Bloomberg’s discussion about his experience with charter schools in New York was a beautiful symphony for the ears of the thousands of people of color who are advocates of school choice. His work in creating Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are huge feathers in his cap, but his ability to get things done may not be enough for him to dispel the myth that he is a Republican in a Democrat’s clothing.

Biden and Klobuchar were fine, but fine isn’t good enough. They just didn’t rise to a level that seems capable of putting together a coalition close to anything that will be needed to win the 2020 election. If Biden or Klobuchar loses South Carolina, their campaigns will effectively be taken off life support.

The Democratic Party has changed drastically before our very eyes. The caucuses in Nevada proved that a large swath of Democrats of every demographic believe in and want all of the things that Sanders and Warren are promising. The phrase “Democratic socialist” doesn’t frighten many of them. However, no matter how boring he was in demeanor, Bloomberg was correct when he declared that the country just can’t afford many of the things that are being promised. Most Americans must know that a wealth tax will not propel a Democrat into the White House; that there will never be government-mandated free tuition for public colleges and universities; and that capitalism is as American as apple pie.

‘An irritating mess’

Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent. He is writing a history of the Democratic Party.

The last debate in Nevada was the most substantive of the entire campaign. Candidates often articulated their views in something other than cliches, and Warren led a successful effort to expose Bloomberg as a facsimile of a moderate, albeit absurdly wealthy and not very articulate, Republican from a bygone age.

But the Charleston debate was, until near the end, an irritating mess. All the candidates—save Steyer, who remains an earnest irrelevancy—devoted themselves to hurling unfunny snarks and personal attacks against the others. Biden and Sanders seemed in a competition to see who could shout louder and more often, and Warren appeared, for some reason, far more interested in thrashing Bloomberg once again than in promoting any of her famous plans. After an hour or so of this, Preet Bharara, the New York prosecutor whom President Trump fired early in his tenure, tweeted, “I would like to cringe less during debates relating to who will become the most powerful leader on earth.” Amen.

Finally, when the moderators, who consistently failed to keep the debaters from interrupting one another, got around to asking about foreign policy and the threat of a global pandemic, the candidates showed that they can be calm, intelligent people who would not, like the incumbent in the White House, conduct diplomacy as if it were a popularity contest. But even then, most of their answers boiled down to pat phrases about “consulting our allies” and the like.

Any Democrats who watched this debate to make up their minds about who to vote for might wish there were a category on their ballot labeled, “None of the These Candidates,” as there is in Nevada state and federal elections. Next time, how about a few more well-honed critiques of President Trump and a lot more concrete talk of hope and change.

Joe Biden finally showed up.

Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.

The best debate yet for Biden. He was firm. He was forceful. He was fierce. It’s about time. I think that Buttigieg also had a really strong debate. The problem for him is that he will likely not place in the top three in South Carolina. And I am not sure where he goes from there. Warren had another great debate. Bloomberg’s debate performances have been awful. Just awful. His ads are amazing, but I do not know if that is enough to get him in the top three in South Carolina. Sanders had a tough night. He was piled on by everyone for good reason. But he is still the frontrunner. Klobuchar and Steyer need to drop out. They have no path to the nomination.

Biden is winning black voters, and it showed.

Atima Omara is a political strategist and former president of the Young Democrats of America.

The race was on to convince the predominantly black electorate of the South Carolina Democratic primary who was the best candidate for president. From criminal justice reform to affordable housing to education, black voters were discussed a lot more than in previous debates.

Definitively Biden shined more, if simply because his lines got more applause and cheers, which reflected his strong standing with black voters, especially age 50 and up. He even blurted out that he would appoint a black woman Supreme Court justice toward the end. Warren kept up her pointed prosecutorial energy that gained her momentum heading into Nevada that clearly she hopes will translate in South Carolina. And in his second debate appearance, Bloomberg piped up more than he had in his first debate, a marked improvement. Steyer, for all his ads and early organizing work in South Carolina, still seems not to make much of a dent on the debate stage.

‘Sanders ended up looking rattled’

Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.

Let’s first establish the debate’s losers, to get it out the way: the CBS moderators. If getting paid to just sit there and let the candidates brawl in a verbal battle royale is the way it’s supposed to work, a handful of South Carolina high school students could have done it better.

Finally, this debate raised an issue they’d been avoiding up until now: coronavirus and the critical need for emergency preparedness. Bloomberg was the first to bring it up, but Biden, by far, gave the most confident and reassuring answer on what he’d do in a coronavirus response scenario—to the point where, real talk, you’d feel better if he were in D.C. managing it right now instead of being on the campaign trail. This, and other solid steps, offered Biden renewed life heading into Saturday and Super Tuesday. If there was a debate winner, it was Biden for looking solid; Buttigieg came in second for attempting a holistic conversation about the significance of Democrats needing to win the trifecta of the House, Senate and White House.

Biden also finally got the memo: Drill in on Sanders, and drill in hard. Between Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg and even, at one point, Warren, Sanders ended up looking rattled and more ranty than ever, rambling off his hypothetical poll matchups versus Trump and his approval ratings in a way that looks, unmistakably, Trump-like. Maybe that doesn’t hurt him, since his force of yelling keeps him impenetrable and his core supporters are only energized by every attack, but it ensures his base doesn’t grow anymore beyond that. I’m still trying to figure out the shrewd calculus behind Warren’s relentless pursuit of Bloomberg; and even as she poked holes in Sanders and needed to as a way to siphon off his support, she went right back to hitting Bloomberg’s buttons. Klobuchar was just there, filling time.

Ultimately, we didn’t get the deep-dive structural conversation that was needed in a place like South Carolina. South Carolina is held down by high poverty, food insecurity and other ailments, and yet this debate went in other directions.

Sanders survived.

Jennifer Victor is a professor of political science at George Mason University, a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Political Networks and a member of the board of directors of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.

The race is Sanders’s to lose. He took more lumps than anyone, but held his own. Back when there were a dozen candidates on the stage, the debates were chaotic, noisy and lacked substance. Tuesday’s debate felt very much like those early contests. There was an intensity and hunger coming from all the candidates, which means that the event was not particularly enjoyable or substantive for the audience. From that perspective, the debate is not likely to have a big effect on the primaries in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday.

The 2020 contenders have separated from the pretenders.

David Polyansky was a senior political and communications adviser for Ted Cruz.

As a Republican, it is easy for me to write that President Trump won the night, but all you would have had to do is watch the first minute of the debate to know that’s true regardless of partisan labels. The very first question addressed the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination as a democratic socialist—a description that is appropriate but lethal in a 2020 general election. The debate immediately spiraled into a free-for-all of opposition research attacks with very little discussion about policy or ways to make the lives of everyday Americans better. A robust economy, peace and prosperity, and a president who is historically skilled at driving his message versus socialism and a fractured Democratic Party simply wouldn’t be a fair fight for Democrats against President Trump come November.

It was not Sanders’ best debate performance, but he met most of his mission for the night and remains the national frontrunner—for now. While there was very vocal opposition to him in the audience (likely, and successfully engineered by competing campaigns) he remained fairly consistent and wasn’t knocked off his game for most of the night. Outside of the opening salvos, he was able to sit back and watch the Bloomberg versus Warren fight that consumed almost the first quarter of the debate, and when the opportunity was presented, he was able to debate the merits of his policies, which have found favor with a plurality of primary voters so far. However, it did feel like the attacks on his gun control voting record and his past statements related to Cuba and AIPAC (which fortunately for him weren’t raised until the final 25 minutes) may have some lasting legs into South Carolina, Super Tuesday and beyond.

Biden secured a much-needed winning debate performance: He showed great energy throughout the full two hours and didn’t speak at great length, but when he did, he made his point and then allowed the hyper-zaniness of the rest of the debate go on around him. Most important, the former vice president stayed out of the crosshairs of his competition for much of the night while also effectively delivering some lasting and effective hits, especially on Sanders. His “moment” of demanding and receiving more time to continue throttling Steyer (who is eating into some of his target support in South Carolina) for his alleged misdeeds by private prisons was one of the finest stretches of the entire campaign. Biden also projected strength with his declaration that he was going to win the South Carolina primary on Saturday—confidence his supporters or those still considering his candidacy desperately needed to hear.

Buttigieg had trouble breaking through and standing out, but when he did he made some articulate and compelling contrasts between himself and Sanders. He was the most prepared to make the argument that a Sanders nomination would have a negative impact on down-ballot Democrats across the country, which he has to be hoping will be on the minds of primary voters across the country onTuesday.

Bloomberg was unable to get past his basic talking points to counter some very effective attacks by Warren and others. He certainly fared better than last week’s effort in New Hampshire, but the bar was set very low coming in. He would not be a contender if it weren’t for his ability and willingness to endlessly spend a portion of his own fortune on his seemingly effective paid ads.

The rest of the field seems to have fallen into pretender status. Warren, whom I have praised for her very strong past performances, for whatever reason simply is unable or unwilling to drive the necessary progressive wedge between herself and Sanders. She again showed so much more energy and enthusiasm dropping opposition research on Bloomberg—at some points appearing to even go too far for a decent swath of the live audience. Warren is not going to increase her share of the vote by focusing on Bloomberg, but perhaps that isn’t her aim anymore.

Steyer and Klobuchar were largely absent for most of the debate. When Klobuchar was given an opportunity, she did a nice job of being a voice of reason, including her thoughtful answer on coronavirus, but that alone isn’t enough to inspire primary voters to give her underdog candidacy a fresh look. Unless these pretenders make a quick turnaround, the only rationale for them to continue to compete is either to assist one of the contenders by serving as a targeted attack dog or trying to carry delegates in the hopes of a contested convention in Milwaukee.

Sanders stumbled, while Biden and Buttigieg sprinted.

Michael Starr Hopkins is a Democratic strategist who has served on the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Delaney.

In the last debate before the first-in-the-South primary, Sanders stumbled under the spotlight, failing to assuage the fears of worried Democrats. He failed to define democratic socialism, instead choosing to talk in broad strokes. Both Sanders and Warren were booed on multiple occasions after avoiding questions and harshly attacking their fellow candidates.

Warren put forth her weakest debate performance in the primary season. Her attacks on Bloomberg were predictable and overtly political. Like a boxer who tires herself out swinging and missing, Warren failed to land her attacks on Bloomberg and missed her opportunity to draw substantive distinctions. The raucous crowd in South Carolina was left unsatisfied with her performance.

The same cannot be said for Biden, who, on the verge of defeat, found his voice on the stage in Charleston and gave his campaign a much needed jolt. He showed the energy and humor that his previous debate performances have lacked. Biden continuously brought the debate back to his time as vice president in a way that came off as more authentic and natural than usual.

Buttigieg continued his streak of impressive debates, providing the audience with the substantive answers and inspirational rhetoric that has escaped other candidates. He continues to shine on the debate stage, often looking like the adult in the room, despite his young age. The question remains whether it will matter.

Warren has ‘released her anger’

John Neffinger is a speaker coach, lecturer on political communication at Georgetown University and Columbia Business School, former communications director of the Democratic National Committee and co-author of Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential.

This was not a great night for the Democratic Party. The moderating was not strong; there was a lot of shouting and cross talk; it was unpleasant to behold. Through all of that, not a lot changed the dynamic of the race, which is good news for Sanders, even as he stumbled several times under fire and even got booed by the crowd. (In Bernie’s defense, this crowd was the Democratic establishment.)

Biden and Bloomberg did just enough to give them a chance to do well on Super Tuesday and hope to pick up a larger share of the vote should other candidates drop out. Bloomberg did not have a great night, but he fought off his attackers and made the case that he ran New York successfully, easily clearing the very low bar he set for himself last time. Biden could have been sharper, but he looked vigorous and more commanding than usual, and that helps him going into South Carolina. A convincing win there and a strong prime-time victory speech could give him a sense of momentum going into Super Tuesday and bring back voters who had drifted away from him in recent months.

I can’t write another one of these without mentioning Warren, but as much as I would personally like her to run our government, the news is not great. She has released her anger, and she is fearsome to behold. But a lot of voters want optimism, and she is seeming pretty grim lately.

Fundamentally, this still feels like Sanders’s race to lose. The rest of the field is split, there’s no consensus alternative, and it’s likely Sanders will pick up a bunch of other candidates’ voters as they drop out. There is a case to be made against him, whether you agree with it or not, but it was not prosecuted in a sustained way during the debate. If you care passionately enough about filibuster reform for that to affect your vote, you’re probably already voting for Warren or Buttigieg. “Socialism!” doesn’t seem any more off-putting to voters than the rest of the spectacle we witnessed Tuesday night.

Bernie Sanders is the new status quo.

Dan Lavoie is a progressive communications strategist.

The last Democratic debate before Super Tuesday sounded like a fork caught in a blender—all smashing and crashing noise with no substance at all.

And a fork in a blender works out well for the status quo.

That means that Sanders remains the national frontrunner, emerging relatively unscathed from an aimless free-for-all. Biden still has a shot in South Carolina. Warren still has a slim path to being the so-called consensus pick in the lead-up to the convention. Bloomberg and Buttigieg still have an outside chance at challenging Sanders for the delegate lead if things break right for them on Super Tuesday. And Klobuchar and Steyer still continue taking up valuable speaking time from the other candidates.

In a race that is clearly trending in Bernie’s direction, anything that doesn’t fundamentally alter that dynamic is a win for Sanders. He may have given some unnecessary ammunition to Republican ad-makers with his Cuba answers, but nothing he said—or anything any of his rivals said—shakes the foundation of the race. And that means Sanders is still on track to win the plurality of delegates and, in all likelihood, the nomination.

‘That’s two hours of our lives we’ll never get back’

Amanda Litman is co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.

That debate was a downer. Nobody won, but somehow all of us at home lost. That’s two hours of our lives we’ll never get back. And even worse: Barely a minute of those two hours was spent discussing reproductive rights, climate change or immigration reform, which might have made the evening at least a little bit redeemable.