By Alexandra Burns, New York Times—
The Democratic presidential race has grown increasingly bitter and personal ahead of next week’s New York primary, and Thursday night’s debate in Brooklyn may be the clearest indication yet of how fractious the contest has become.
Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont have clashed in sometimes caustic terms in recent days: Mr. Sanders has questioned Mrs. Clinton’s judgment, and she has criticized the credibility of his policy ideas with obvious exasperation.
The only remaining debate scheduled between Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton is likely to be an exacting test on both sides. Here are some of the dynamics to watch:
Can Sanders fight outside his comfort zone?
Mr. Sanders can be somewhat formulaic in debates and on the stump. He rails against Wall Street, declares that it is time to break up the big banks and get money out of politics, and argues that only a “political revolution” can change Washington.
Beyond that, Mr. Sanders has often evaded and even struggled with thorny questions of policy. In a long interview with The Daily News last week, he repeatedly bristled and dodged when pressed on national security and foreign policy issues, and even on the fine points of some of his core concerns, like banking reform.
If Mr. Sanders is to put to rest skepticism about his readiness for the presidency — and a lingering perception that he is chiefly a potent protest candidate — a commanding and fluent debate performance is an essential first step.
Can Clinton fight on her own terms?
For a candidate who entered the race in a commanding position, Mrs. Clinton has waged a largely defensive campaign, focused on blunting Mr. Sanders’s appeal to core liberal constituencies and reassuring communities and interest groups that would be critical to her success in a general election.
In debates, she has often found herself in the uninspiring position of expressing sympathy with Mr. Sanders’s principles but arguing that the scale and specifics of his promises are unrealistic.
To put down Mr. Sanders’s insurgency, Mrs. Clinton might have to break out of that pattern and deliver a message that genuinely excites the Democratic base in a state that twice elected her to the Senate. The debate could be her best opportunity, before the end of primary voting in June, to convey a vision of the presidency more enthralling than the pragmatic pursuit of incremental liberal policy change.
Can Clinton show fire on Wall Street?
The news cycle gave Mr. Sanders a big gift on Wednesday, with the revelation that five big banks had failed to develop plans for dismantling themselves in the event of a financial crisis. It is a story that plays directly into Mr. Sanders’s area of political confidence, and that is an easy cue for him to brandish his core message on the debate stage.
Mrs. Clinton responded assertively to the news, urging regulators to take on the banks more aggressively. It will be essential for her to project that message with real force in the debate, especially in the almost-certain event that Mr. Sanders once again challenges her friendly relationship with the financial sector.
Can Sanders clear a New York standard on guns?
Mr. Sanders has battled criticism of his record on gun control throughout the primary campaign, especially over his vote for a measure in Congress stating that gun manufacturers cannot be sued over the criminal use of their products. In many states, the issue has been little hindrance for Mr. Sanders, especially in the rural caucuses where he has performed so well.
New York is tougher territory on guns. Voters in New York City are overwhelmingly supportive of gun control — including, presumably, many of the young liberals who have thrilled to Mr. Sanders’s economic message. But Mrs. Clinton has gone after his gun record with new intensity in recent days, and Mr. Sanders may face the toughest audience yet for his deviations on the Second Amendment.
Will Israel matter?
In the Democratic presidential primaries of yore, it was essential for candidates competing in New York to demonstrate their energetic and total support for the state of Israel. At times, the issue became deeply divisive: In the 1988 election, Mayor Edward I. Koch harshly attacked Jesse L. Jackson for his views on Israel, widening a racial rift in New York politics.
The subject has been far more muted this year, despite marked differences between the candidates. Mrs. Clinton has been a conventional, down-the-line defender of Israel, whereas Mr. Sanders has been a more vocal critic of Israel’s settlements and its use of military force.
Unless Israel becomes a matter of dispute on Thursday, it may play no meaningful role in the Democratic race at all. That would be a watershed, of a kind, in New York politics, and perhaps a sign of shifting currents in Democratic politics nationally.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.