• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Aaron David Miller"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Four Key Debate Questions Answered

The Democratic primary debate in South Carolina answered several key questions that may have a bearing on the elections to come.

Link Copied
By Aaron David Miller
Published on Feb 25, 2020

Source: CNN

Before Tuesday's debate -- best described as a political circus with the moderators all but losing control -- I identified four main questions that needed to be answered. And to the extent these contests matter now that Americans are actually voting, they may have a bearing on what is to come.

The first is a simple matter of arithmetic -- mainly subtraction. Now that there are actual votes and delegates distributed, how do the candidates who do not have a particularly good night and who lagged behind in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada justify staying in race? Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg have deep pockets and can ride it out even though their road may lead nowhere. But what about Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, and even Pete Buttigieg? They all had strong performances, but will they have any momentum coming out of South Carolina and into Super Tuesday?

Second, what kind of night did Bloomberg have? Not bad compared to his last performance. He did make a compelling point on the logic of electability and scored points on his record in New York City. (Nonetheless, Warren came for him a second time.) But Bloomberg just doesn't project empathy, his rhetorical skills are terrible, he has no sense of humor and his efforts to bond and relate on a personal level largely fall flat.

Third, did Joe Biden have the much-needed debate of his life? Not exactly. But his interventions were strong and confident. He projected strength, experience and comfort being on the debate stage in a way we have not seen before.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, was Bernie Sanders hurt? He was hammered -- and was hit hard especially by Buttigieg and Warren. But he survived. The attacks on Bloomberg deflected much of the heat. Where Sanders disappointed was his failure to explain what his democratic socialism really means -- and to separate it from his past positive comments on Cuba and Nicaragua.

This article was originally published by CNN.

About the Author

Aaron David Miller

Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Is the Russia-Ukraine War Vibe Shift Real?

      Dara Massicot, Aaron David Miller, Andrew S. Weiss

  • Commentary
    Carnegie’s Summer Beach Reads
      • Steve Feldstein
      • +8

      Sophia Besch, Eric Ciaramella, Steve Feldstein, …

Aaron David Miller
Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Aaron David Miller
Political ReformNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Satellite in space
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Has Weapons in Space. Now What?

    The acknowledgment has sparked fears of a new arms race with China and Russia.

      • Chris  O'Meara ​​​​

      Chris O’Meara

  • Blue Water Bridge with Flags of USA and Canada
    Paper
    What Canada Knows About American Power

    Smaller powers cannot go it alone, but Canadian history shows that integration with the United States will not always be benign.

      Paul Samson

  • Trump holding a glass of champagne up in a toast, with a table of guests in the foreground
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump Had the Chance to Address U.S.-China AI Safety. He Threw Xi a Party Instead.

    The summit may be remembered as a fatal blunder, when Washington, Beijing, and the AI industry collectively chose ceremony over action.

      • Jeffrey Prescott

      Jeffrey Prescott

  • Article
    Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective Defense

    European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.

      Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont

  • Tourists taking photos in front of the White House on a sunny day
    Paper
    Squandering Attraction: How the Second Trump Administration is Undermining American Soft Power

    Soft power on its own is insufficient to meet U.S. national security needs, but hard power also has its limits. Soft power allows for more effective and efficient use of hard power than hard power alone, as it encourages cooperation and compliance which deters the need for hard power.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.