What Went Down At The CNN Democratic Debate

One of the things that the Democrats — Clinton, Sanders and their supporters — have to start thinking about is what this contest will mean. Looking at the delegate math, it’s likely that Clinton will be the nominee, but Sanders will have a strong claim to having made an impact on the race and the party. I’m not sure that the tone of the debate is connected to anything substantive. The candidates share some views and have not infrequently been on the same side of policy issues, but there are some significant differences. Thing is, we’ve had plenty of time to air them. The candidates differ on their foreign policy records and approaches. Clinton is connected to the establishment, the Obama administration, and the banks. Yup, we’ve got it. Still, these are real differences, and Sanders might represent a real shift in the direction of the party. The Democrats have moved left since Bill Clinton left office, and inequality issues have moved to the fore. In some ways, I think Sanders is playing the same role that Ronald Reagan played in 1976 for the Republicans, signaling a movement that would eventually become the party mainstream. But are the Dems headed for a crack-up? I would be surprised. (Of course, I’ve been kinda surprised by what’s happened with the Republicans.) Oddly, thinking back to what I’ve written about party splintering, the fact that there are real policy differences between the candidates is a good sign. Parties can contend with different factions, provided there’s some common ground. The Republicans are dealing with different candidates who claim to carry the true vision of conservatism — and one insurgent who’s challenged them all. The Sanders candidacy has been unexpected, but it’s premature to expect that it’s a signal of party weakness.

Julia, here’s a question that is way too big to adequately answer in a live blog, but I’ll ask it anyway: With this debate getting pretty testy at times, and Sanders’s continued strength, are there reasons to think the Democratic Party could have structural problems down the line akin to the crack-up the GOP is currently undergoing?

Clinton was sharply hawkish during that earlier exchange on the Palestinians, hewing much closer to the positions of the Netanyahu government than that of the Obama administration in which she served. Obama has been far more critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and Clinton refused several opportunities to suggest that Israel could deal more evenhandedly with the residents of Gaza and the Arab towns on the West Bank. It’s tempting to blame that on crass demographic politics prior to the New York primary, but in fact, the Middle East is one of the areas where Clinton has long taken a clear right turn away from the administration’s policies. As Sanders pointed out, she does support a no-fly zone in Syria, unlike Obama, and has pushed for a stronger military response to ISIS. By not calling on Israel to halt settlement construction or criticizing its military responses, she has made clear how much more centrist her approach to foreign policy is likely to be if elected.