The results of the latest Des Moine Register/CNN poll of Democratic candidates were released this morning.  Here are the numbers for the five top-tier contenders for the nomination.

Candidate/Percentage Support/Change Since March

Joe Biden/24 %/-3 %
Bernie Sanders/16 %/-9 %
Elizabeth Warren/15 %/+6 %
Pete Buttigieg/14 %/+13 %
Kamala Harris/7 %/unchanged

The remaining 18 announced candidates polled at two percent or lower.  Eight months before the Iowa caucuses, absolute numbers mean nothing.  The same cannot be said about changes in those figures.  Each trend represents a data point which is more about what rather than who is resonating with potential voters.

The differences from March to June for Biden and Harris are within the margin of error and should largely be ignored.  At best, one could say they are holding on to their initial support.  Sanders is a different story.  Conventional wisdom says his decline is due to the fact the policy lane he had to himself in 2016 has gotten more crowded.  If you compare his latest standing against the results of the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his support has dropped by a whopping 33 percent (49.6 versus 16).  This morning, Joe Scarborough made an observation which deserves our attention.  While Sanders talks the talk, he has been relatively unsuccessful delivering the goods.  His record of enacting legislation he has sponsored is not what anyone would call distinguished.

In contrast, you have Warren and Buttigieg.  Warren was among the first and loudest voices calling for Wall Street reform before the 2008 recession.  And her strong advocacy for fair treatment of customers by banks and other financial institutions was key to creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Likewise, Mayor Pete has converted words into action.  One example is the South Bend “Community Resident Card” program.  Buttigieg worked with local businesses and La Casas de Amistad, a Latino outreach center, to create a government supported, but privately run program by which undocumented residents were issued ID cards honored for local services and as valid identification to open bank accounts and pick up prescriptions.

Which brings me to the title of today’s post.  The first Democratic candidates debate is scheduled for June 26-27.  And, based on the new Iowa poll, the pundits are already suggesting this may be the last chance for those below the top five contenders to “break through.”  Any candidate who is pinning his/her hopes on that might as well close down their campaigns now.  The numbers for Warren and Buttigieg tell us this is both wishful thinking and bullshit.

What do Warren and Buttigieg have in common?  They have both sought venues where they can explain their positions to voters.  And the fact they have both benefited even when they have taken opposite positions proves the point.  One example is Buttigieg’s decision to participate in a Fox News town hall and Warren’s adamant refusal to do the same.  Buttigieg wanted to talk to people who might not otherwise hear his message.  Warren did not want to normalize an organization which she believes is controlled by executives “who are running a hate for profit scam.”  While one can argue with either position, you have to appreciate Warren and Buttigieg have a well thought out rationale and shared it with their supporters.  Their June numbers suggest neither had few if any defections.

So here is the reason relying on debates to give us a better idea of who the candidates are is a “circus for profit scam.”  First, the most memorable moments in most debates are not enlightening about any issue or policy.  They are more likely to be gaffes or suggest that the candidates are not as “fast on their feet” as we had hoped.  Rick Perry’s “Ooops.”  Gerald Ford’s misstatement in 1976 Poland was not under Soviet control.  Mike Dukakis’ being caught off guard by Bernie Shaw’s personalizing capital punishment.  In fact, debate prep often focuses on getting through 90 seconds without destroying your candidacy.

More importantly, debates have nothing to do with governance.  I would argue, among his many instances of executive malpractice, one of the most obvious is Donald Trump does not understand the difference between campaigning and governing.  He thinks he makes policy by tweeting 280 character sound bites. Is that what we want from our next president?

You don’t need three degrees in political science, 13 years in state government or staffing several campaigns to recognize the answer is a resounding “NO!”  One example, the Cuban missile crisis, when we came the closest to nuclear war since the advent of the atomic age, is all you need to understand why.  John Kennedy huddled with his advisors and generals for days to first analyze the situation and then choose a course of action.  He then went on television to explain to the American people his decision to blockade Cuba and what was at stake.  No “fire and fury” or “Nikita Rocketman.” Now that is what I call an actual MAGA moment in presidential history.

Why do we want candidates to debate when presidents never have to?  It is not in their job description.  I’d much prefer seeing how they would do what presidents actual need to do.  Instead of a debate, why not have the networks agree to a series of “presidential moments.”   Candidates would be given a topic–e.g. immigration, income inequality or infrastructure–two weeks before the actual event.  They would have 10 minutes of air time to make a live presentation in which they would address the nation and:

• Lay out the issue.
• Tell viewers what they propose to do.
• Explain why they chose that course of action.

They could select the venue–sitting at a desk, from a podium, as a fireside chat or at a campaign rally.  Some will argue it is all staged.  But have we not learned by now everything a president does is staged.  Do you think those advance staff, speechwriters, camera operators, White House photographers, lighting specialists, etc. are just part of a federal job creation program?   Isn’t it much more important to learn how, given the time, a future commander-in-chief would make policy or a momentous decision?

There is a reason they are called 30-second sound BITES.  That’s exactly what they do.  BITE.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP