The results are in. You can stage a gripping United States presidential debate without a Trumpian flow of insults. It is doubtful Hillary Clinton’s flinty performance will sway enough of New Hampshire’s voters — particularly its millennials — to stave off defeat in next Tuesday’s primary. Nor will Bernie Sanders miraculously invert Hillary’s advantage in the mostly southern state primaries that follow. But their detailed — and mostly polite — two-hour exchange augurs well for the Democratic party’s ability to unite behind its eventual nominee.
The contrast with the still large Republican field, in which ad hominem attacks are multiplying, grew still starker on Thursday night. Both parties are ideologically divided but Democrats are keeping their tone under control.
That said, the MSNBC debate — the first between just Hillary and Sanders (Martin O’Malley suspended his campaign on Monday after receiving less than 1 per cent of Iowa’s votes) — if anything, only sharpened the differences between the two.
As the self-appointed progressive in the race, Sanders loudly championed revolution — particularly in campaign finance, which he sees as the root of political evil. Hillary, meanwhile, testily rejected being labelled an establishment moderate, while arguing for a more practical application of progressivism.
The dispute over labels at times sounded academic. But it brought to the surface the old Democratic split between idealists and realists. In the party’s modern history, only John F. Kennedy and arguably Barack Obama have managed to fuse both tendencies.
As hard as she tries, Hillary has little chance of emulating either. She acknowledged that far more young voters had been stirred by Sanders, but hoped waverers would “bring their heads, as well as their hearts”, to the polling booths this week.
New peaks
Can she inspire followers with a campaign based on incrementalism? As the saying goes, “you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose”. Hillary is campaigning in prose.
On Thursday, she redoubled her case for experience. It is a risky strategy in a year when anti-Washington sentiment is approaching new peaks. In spite of having spent as much time in Washington as Hillary, Sanders rarely draws attention to that fact. Yet, as the campaign goes on, Sanders’ lack of legislative achievements is likely to come into greater focus.
The debate reinforced two other differences likely to come up again. Sanders is determined to nail Hillary’s colours to Wall Street’s mast. On Thursday, Hillary conceded that she would “look into” a moderator’s request that she make the transcripts of her paid speeches publicly available. These include $200,000 (Dh735,600) addresses to banks such as Goldman Sachs. That demand is likely to be picked up and amplified by Republicans and the media. Hillary continues to fumble whenever that “artful smear” is applied.
Second, Sanders’ thin grasp of foreign policy looks ever more problematic as the primary season unfolds. In a divided Washington, foreign policy is a president’s only true area of autonomy. Yet, Sanders appears to view the rest of the world as an afterthought. He is particularly weak on how to defeat Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Count on Hillary to drive that home.
Meanwhile, this week’s primary is all about expectations. Just as Marco Rubio parlayed a third-place finish in Iowa on Monday into a victory by clearing low expectations, Hillary could “win” New Hampshire by curtailing the scale of her defeat. It is hard to believe she will be able to erase Sanders’ 31-point lead within 96 hours.
But if she were able to restrict it to 15 points, it would count as a win of sorts. Either way, she faces a long and gruelling road to the Democratic nomination. On the plus side, she should count herself lucky in having as scrupulous — and restrained — an opponent as Sanders.
— Financial Times
Edward Luce is the Washington columnist and commentator for the Financial Times.
