Andrew Yang’s closing statement struck near and dear to this professor’s sensibilities. The Democratic debates from the last two nights deserve to be accurately characterized. They are televised events designed to attract viewers. The introductory material feels like a rejected pilot for a dating show. “Here’s Cory–he likes musical montages, dank memes, and chillin’ with his bros. Watch out for Kamala! She’s the prankster of the group. No rules, no problem!” The rest fares little better. 60 seconds to introduce yourself or answer a question and 30 seconds to respond. Given the constraints, candidates are reduced to hucksterism, which is great for tv and horrendous for picking the next leader of the free world.

The debates themselves were occasionally revealing. There were three primary attacks over the two nights. Former Rep. Delaney (MD), former Gov. Hickenlooper (CO), current Gov. Bullock (MT), Sen. Bennet (CO), and Sen. Klobuchar (MN) raised the more moderate banner against the progressives. They argued the party’s leftward drift was both bad policy and bad politics, since it would strengthen Pres. Trump’s campaign. If one of them would gain enough traction to stay in the race, while the others dropped out, this view might draw enough advocates to challenge the top tier, but I don’t see it happening. The moderate’s best hope is for former Vice Pres. Joe Biden to compete in the Twitter or progressive elite portion of the primary, thereby yielding space. So far, he has mostly resisted this temptation.

Speaking of Biden, he once again emerged as the favored target on night number two. Sen. Harris (CA), Mayor De Blasio (NY), Gov. Inslee (WA), Sen. Booker (NJ), and Sen. Gillibrand (NY) aimed most of their fire at Biden. They had two basic methods–either grill Biden for his long history in the Senate or his role as Vice President in the Obama Administration. The first approach was safer, but Biden defended himself ably. The second indirectly casts aspersions at Barack Obama and the apparent horrors–immigration and otherwise–of his presidency. This is a dangerous game because it probably solidifies Biden’s standing with African Americans, who still make up a significant portion of the Democratic constituency. Biden is not an impressive candidate, but he was energetic and broadly likable. He still struggled with specifics. I doubt the debate will erode his lead in the polls, which is still significant.

The other attack that stood out was Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (HI) decision to go hard at Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General in California. For a debate, it was vicious, but it has been coming. While Harris touts her prosecutorial prowess, her choices then don’t easily mesh with today’s Democratic party. Gabbard may not break through, but she stands out on the stage. Her past as a soldier puts her in a solid position to make arguments about foreign policy and the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief. Will that be enough? Probably not, but I can see how a Biden-Gabbard ticket presents some problems for Trump and the Republicans.

The race now looks much like it did before the debates started. Biden is still the frontrunner. Sens. Sanders (VT) and Warren (MA) are competing to restructure the American economy. One of them will probably emerge as Biden’s chief rival. Warren seems poised to do that. Harris can still appeal to all the parts of the Democratic coalition, but how will she handle playing defense? Of the other candidates, Sen. Booker (NJ) and Mayor Buttigieg (IN) might stay around, but they may not be distinctive enough to garner sustainable support. There is still a long way to go.