It is an understatement to say the Democratic debate was better than the three fiascoes the Republicans have broadcasted in as many months. It falls into the category of gross understatement, the “only a flesh wound” kind of understatement, utterly ignoring what a low bar the GOP candidates have set.     

Not to say that the first Democratic debate was free of embarrassing contenders. Even the most devoted Dem would squirm when asked to defend the capability of Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee. Webb haggled with the moderators for time like a ten year-old asking Mom to stay up past bedtime; Chafee, meanwhile, claimed to be “a block of granite on the issues” before asking for amnesty on a controversial vote because “it was my first.” Whining and incompetence are not exactly the character traits they write presidential biographies about.

Where these Democrat clowns are different is simple honesty. Webb and Chafee both resigned within two weeks of their debate performances; both were willing to admit they did not have what it takes. Meanwhile, Republican polls are led by two amateurs who are given frequent opportunities to showcase their political ignorance and have actually made it the centerpiece of their campaigns.

While CNN’s framing of the debate and the questions delivered were out of the candidates’ hands on both sides, the Democrats managed to avoid getting trapped by them. Clinton is an old pro at the art of redirection, Sanders knew his best bet was answering with the economic ideology he has been road-testing; both created opportunities to talk policy from their podiums instead of waiting for one. If Ted Cruz truly wants to be asked more serious questions, he would do well to follow the approach of his opponents across the aisle: deliver responses worth listening to.

Even more refreshing was Sanders’ refusal to go for the easy attack on Clinton’s e-mail. The senator’s claim that this move “may not be great politics” was faux modest; it played great to a Democratic base sick of smear tactics and shifted the conversation back to the issues. Republicans can talk about Reagan’s 11th commandment all they want, but the Dems are actually following it.   

If there is any legitimate complaint the Democratic primary has registered, it is the lack of debates themselves: there are only five more scheduled before March, compared to Republican plans for a total of twelve. But that may just be a blessing in disguise. Who really wants to slog through 27 more hours of debate, especially coming from the scintillating orators last seen on CNBC? Nobody, that’s who.       

The Democratic debate featured candidates who do not support the deportation of millions, do not champion tax cuts that fail to account for the federal budget, and are not intent on pandering to their audience. Even if the only major candidates are Clinton and Sanders, at least they are viable options. The Republicans have not offered the public anything near that. Any candidate who steps out of that bargain-bin bar fight will have been compromised by positions swallowed and vitriol spewed some time before November.      

To say that the CNN primary debates went off without a hitch would be nothing short of an exaggeration. Conflicting opinions are bound to occur during the debates that help decide the fate of the nation as a whole, or at least the fate for the next four years. Running for president is prestigious, usually only the most intelligent or the most political savvy are able to even attempt this feat. It is not only a competition between political parties, but a competition for the popular vote of the candidate’s own political party.

Keyword: competition.

A competition that was between eleven people from the Republican Party, meanwhile the Democratic Party only had five people in their debates. Although the Republicans may have gotten off track constantly trying to one up each other, there were nearly twice as many of them making it harder to get a word in edge-wise. The moderators could have stepped in and stopped it at any time. Instead the politicians were allowed to keep at it. Even at the beginning of the debate, Governor John Kasich stated that if he was “sitting at home watching this back and forth, [he] would be inclined to turn it off.” Why? Because the moderators were not insuring that the politicians stayed on topic as they should have.

Meanwhile, the Democratic debate’s moderators seemed to interrupt the candidates and actually speak up in order to insure that they stayed on track. One such instance would be when the moderator asked about how former governor of Maryland and presidential candidate Martin O’Malley could run the nation with the policies that were implemented, causing riots in the areas that he ran. And before the candidate could avoid the subject he stepped in to highlight a specific example of a policy that contributed to the riots.

Let us not forget that the Democrats neglected to comment much on education and avoided directly discussing certain issues, instead choosing to speak in roundabout ways. Although both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders brought up the issue of education, they were both rather brief about it. A fellow debate watcher teacher and blogger Steven Singer pointed out that even though Clinton did mention implementing better schools she “neglected to say what those good schools would look like.”

These two examples are not the only time that the Democratic debaters chose to remain rather vague on issues. Clinton even admitted as much to the audience while stating, “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.”

A little bit of rowdy behaviors between the candidates is inevitable, especially if they are truly passionate about what they are debating and want to answer in the most straightforward manner. The main difference between the debates is not just the number of people involved, but how willing the candidates were to speak out and defend their candidacy.