no charlatans in charleston
Referee's Report Card for the 4th Democratic Debate

January 18, 2016 - Last night, shortly after Peyton Manning secured his return to the AFC Championship game, the 4th Democratic Debate was held in Charleston, South Carolina.

With polls indicating a dead heat between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders in Iowa, this debate was the most contentious one yet. We were watching and calling penalties according to our 3 rules; answer the question you are asked, don't stray off topic in your response, and don't compare any of your opponents to Nazis. Below is a summary of how many times the candidates were penalized.

*All the quotations in this article are from the helpful debate transcript available here.

---

The Candidates
(Listed below based on number of penalties received)

Bernie Sanders - 3 penalties

Failure to answer: Senator Sanders was asked about his healthcare plan which was described as “medicare for all.” When asked why he thought his home state of Vermont walked away from such a plan because it could double the state’s budget, Sanders deferred the question to the governor of the state and talked about the corrupting influence of money from pharmaceutical companies in political campaigns.

Failure to answer: Sanders was told that SUV sales have spiked in the last year as gas prices have fallen. So, how will Sanders convince the American people that climate change is real and their behaviors have to change? The Senator responded with a detailed answer on why “the debate is over. Climate change is real,” but failed to address the main question about how to convince those who disagree.
​
Failure to stay on topic: When the conversation turned to fighting terrorism, there was some reluctance to stay on topic. After a debate on balancing security and privacy concerns, Sanders was asked what he would do to stop lone wolf home-grown terrorists like the ones in San Bernadino and Philadelphia. Instead of answering, Sanders returned to the topic of government surveillance going too far and private industries controlling too much personal information.

Hillary Clinton - 3 penalties

Failure to answer: A main critique of Secretary Clinton’s campaign of late is that she has accused Sanders of wanting to replace Obamacare in favor of a single payer healthcare system. When asked if she really thought Sanders wanted to “kill Obamacare,” Clinton was unclear. Her rhetoric seemed to say that Sanders’ plan would start the process of universal healthcare from scratch, but that hardly seems to be the same thing as killing it.

Failure to answer: Clinton was asked point blank “Why is Senator Sanders beating you 2 to 1 among young voters?” It seems like a lot to ask a politician to explain why people aren’t supporting them, but Clinton was in full dodge mode when she expressed respect for Sanders and his supporters and promised to work hard to win everybody’s vote. This platitude was not a direct answer.
​
Failure to stay on topic: One of the most lengthy and substantive discussions of the night was about how Clinton and Sanders differ on the issues. Both candidates spoke about differences on healthcare, foreign policy, and economic issues. However, one last penalty was called on Clinton for trying to change the subject to the Republican Party and stating that both Sanders and herself were better choices than the GOP candidates.

Martin O'Malley - 1 penalty

Failure to stay on topic: Fighting for speaking time sometimes caused Governor O’Malley to resort to desperate measures. While Sanders was answering a question on whether he thought there was a substantive difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, O’Malley interjected with a non sequitur attack. “But Senator, you never came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor. In fact, neither of you came.” Penalty on O’Malley for answering a question no one asked.

O’Malley also came close to getting a technical foul for comparing Donald Trump to a fascist. Since we do have a strict ban on Nazi comparisons at these debates, there was a quick meeting of the rules committee. However, O’Malley got off on a technicality--similar to the relationship between squares and rhombuses, while all Nazis are fascists, not all fascists are Nazis. Perhaps O’Malley was referring to Francisco Franco’s fascist government in 20th century Spain or the philosophical works of 19th century French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras?