On Tuesday, October 15, candidates to represent the Democratic party in the upcoming presidential election debated each other for the fourth time. Frontrunners Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders highlighted a field of 12 Democrats vying for the nomination. 

Throughout the debate, candidates discussed a plethora of different topics but consistently the conversation returned to the man the candidates are running to oppose: Donald Trump.

The debate moderators set the tone for the three-hour debate when Anderson Cooper opened the debate by asking Elizabeth Warren why she would impeach Donald Trump. Cooper then went ahead to ask every single candidate whether they supported impeachment of Trump. It was not shocking when every candidate answered yes.

Supporting impeachment is a fine position to hold. However, impeachment has no place being discussed in the democratic debates. Furthermore, mentions of the president often take away from substantive parts of the debate that voters will use to form their decisions.  Any candidate running for president in 2020 is running because they oppose Donald Trump. 

When candidates constantly bring up Trump, they subvert the meaning of having the debate in the first place. Civically engaged voters are not watching these debates to see who can roast Trump the best; they are watching to determine the differences in vision and policy between the candidates debating. When candidates bring up Trump, they are using him as a strawman to avoid clearly answering questions and taking distinct positions. 

For this reason, in future primary debates, moderators and candidate should avoid bringing up the president and stick to drawing out how their vision and policy differs from the candidates standing next to them. 

When Amy Klobuchar chose to answer a question about federalizing abortion law by asking, “what if Donald Trump was standing on this stage with me?” and then proceeds to answer the question as if she’s addressing the president while attacking draconian abortion laws put in place in southern states, she does a disservice to voters. 

Donald Trump is not on the stage with Klobuchar, 11 other Democrats are. Attacking the southern abortion laws is a political non statement in the context of a debate meant to draw out the differences between democrats. Klobuchar’s answer subtly dodges the intent of the question because it does not differentiate her from any of her fellow candidates.

Similarly, multiple candidates hid behind Donald Trump when asked if they would withdraw troops from Syria. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Corey Booker, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders all chose to answer the question by saying that Donald Trump was incompetent at foreign policy. 

Tulsi Gabbard deflected the question, and Pete Buttigieg was the only candidate to give a developed answer about the American military’s role on the world stage.

 Instead of participating in vague attacks on Donald Trump it would have been refreshing to see candidates actually engage in a debate about U.S military intervention.

In this field of candidates, opposition to the president’s foreign policy is politically irrelevant. Every single candidate opposes the president’s foreign policy vision. When this is true, saying that fact does nothing to help voters evaluate candidates. Instead, it wastes debate viewers time by adding needless non-informative filler to  an event that already has enough of it.

I began to feel insulted watching the debates when candidates refused to wade into specifics on how they would actually govern. When Amy Klobuchar tells Elizabeth Warren that on health care, “it is not one idea that rules here” and that Democrats can win the presidency, “if we fight around ideals and don’t go fighting each other,” she is missing the point of having a primary election.

Ultimately, Klobuchar and Warren have different visions for the country and one vision will rule whichever candidate represents the Democratic party. Klobuchar should ask herself: if she is unwilling to fight for her vision and her ideals, why did she agree to participate in the debate? Why is she even running for president if she believes that vision and policy do not matter as long as they seek the same ends? 

Beating Donald Trump should not involve candidates selling out their ideals in the name of unity. Making the argument that it should be when faced with legitimate opposition concedes a lack of real vision and conviction.

Likewise, throughout the debate Corey Booker engaged in similar forms of argument. When Corey Booker talks about how Democrats should not take stands for what they are against, so they can be effective against Donald Trump next fall, he makes it difficult for voters to tell what Democrats stand for.

Ultimately, these debates should not be about the president because he isn’t participating in them. Allowing the specter of Donald Trump to dictate who runs against him is the greatest mistake that the Democrats could make because it allows electability to supersede ideology. 

In the future, I hope that debate participants and moderators choose to take stands for what they believe. Right now, all of them are consistently falling back on hiding their views by attacking the president. That needs to stop. 

Democrats need to lean into their differences so the American people can see what each candidate believes in. A steady barrage of attacks on Trump might be satisfying and might be justified, but they will not produce an informed electorate ready to make a decision on who should represent the Democratic party in the upcoming presidential election.