Perhaps it’s the somewhat civil nature of the campaign, or perhaps there really isn’t much of a difference. Last night’s Democratic Town Hall debate provided some excellent opportunities for the Democratic candidates to make clearer the distinctions between their plans, their visions and their fight for the soul of the party. Unfortunately, both of the candidates missed most of the opportunities. I’ll focus on the top three for each candidate, sprinkled with some unsolicited advice about rhetorical upgrading (and please remember that “rhetoric” is a good thing). Here’s why I think the candidates are missing the fuel that would move them “full steam ahead.”

Sanders Missed Opportunities

  1. On paying for programs and the possibility of a tax increase. Most Democrats like the sound of Sander’s ambitious agenda but are nagged by doubts about how he will pay for them. He has reluctantly begun to acknowledge that some tax increases might be necessary. He has been slower to put those increases in perspective and should do more to make people understand the impact those tax increases would have on the middle class. He started in the third debate when he noted that paid family and medical leave would be an average tax increase of $1.61. He tried again last night when he said that paying $500 more in taxes would save several thousand dollars in insurance costs. One of the hurdles he faces is litmus-test nature that any mention of a tax increase has taken on. Sanders faced criticism for sticking to principles, but people have short memories. For example, during the 2012 Republican primaries, the candidates were so opposed to any tax increase they flatly rejected a hypothetical ten-to-one cut to spending deal. See the evidence. Sanders needs to speak the language of investment showing what benefits will accrue from modest tax increases.
  2. On his viability as a general election candidate. Several polls show Sanders beating Trump in a general election, and Sanders made a brief mention of these. More importantly, he needs to subvert Clinton’s veiled inferences that he simply isn’t a real candidate. Each time she uses terms such as “progressive that gets things done,” “realistic” and “pragmatic,” she attempts to undermine Sander’s candidacy, casting herself in the role of the more reasonable and experienced choice. Sanders needs to develop the revolution theme more thoroughly, making the case that he wants a new political paradigm that empowers people. An effective rhetorical strategy here would be the use of antithesis, such as “they said X couldn’t be done, but we did it.”) On a related theme, he should do more to define his understanding of “Democratic Socialism,” not with examples of European countries, but instead, with examples from American history such as eight hour workdays, worker protections, food safety and many others.
  3. On campaign finance reform. Sanders did point out that he is funded by individual contributions compared to Clinton’s Super PAC. If he hopes to win more independent voters, he needs to make the shift from lecturing to educating. Most voters have heard the terms “Super PAC” and “Citizens United,” but what do they actually mean in the context of an election? What are some of their most egregious manifestations? When Sanders refers to a “corrupt finance campaign system,” he needs to drill down much further than simply repeating the phrase “billionaires buying elections.” His indictment thus far is slogan swinging rather than sound argument. The public sphere contains so little of these analyses, it presents a genuine opportunity to kick up righteous indignation and pick up swing votes. Sanders needs to make a better case.

Clinton Missed Opportunities

  1. On gun control measures. Although Clinton must be cautious about mentioning differing records on gun control because she has so often shifted her position, it does remain a differentiator for her. She could gain more traction by indicting the leadership and extreme elements of the NRA specifically rather than the organization in general.
  2. On owning up to mistakes. As Sanders pointed out, he and Clinton saw the same intelligence briefing on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but they voted differently. Instead of owning up to her mistake, Clinton shifted the blame to Bush. Her assertion that U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix requested the vote to aid in inspections as been rated by CNN RealityCheck as “False.”
  3. On taking a stand on issues. I used to think that many of the questions asked at Town Hall Meetings were “planted” by the different campaigns. However, after watching Clinton flub her responses so badly on end-of-life care, legalizing marijuana and requiring women to register for the selective service (responding that each of these needed more thought and research), it’s easy to understand the charge that she is sometimes progressive and sometimes a moderate.

Who won? It’s difficult to say in these Town Hall settings. Sanders probably didn’t gather any converts, but Clinton probably failed to garner any Sander’s supporters either. The loser was CNN. I never though I’d see Fox News moderating debates better than CNN, but the latter has fully embraced the mantle of the “tamestream media.” Anderson Cooper had several openings to push both candidates on their answers, but chose not to. The commentators have become simply apologists for their own candidates. It was interesting that the CNN panel was so impressed by the insights of one of the questioners from the audience that they asked her to stay longer. So impressed was Don Lemon that he opined “they might be out of a job.” Please make it so.