Memo to the Democratic presidential candidates: Stop raising your hands

“This is a show of hands question and hold them up so people can see,” co-moderator Savannah Guthrie told ten Democratic presidential candidates on June 27. “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

Co-moderator Lester Holt used the “raise your hand” technique on both campaign nights. “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?,” Holt asked.

Show of hands questions are designed to quickly, definitively, and somewhat simplistically separate candidates from one another on “hot button” policies. They often force candidates to stake out positions that may attract primary voters in their party but scare off independents in the general election.

With virtually no exceptions, the Democratic presidential contenders fell into the “gotcha” trap on June 26 and 27. Smelling blood, President Trump tweeted before the second debate had ended: “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race.” 

Talking heads, including prominent “Never Trump” establishment conservatives agreed that the president was the big winner in the debates. Pointing to the responses to Lester Holt, George Will declared himself “staggered by the amount of time Democratic candidates are spending talking about things they know are not going to happen.” Conducted inside “a blue bubble,” Charlie Sykes opined, the debates added numerous items to Trump’s campaign playbook, including “socialistic” health care plans that would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and eliminate existing government programs. Little wonder that Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) subsequently pulled down her raised hand, indicating that she favored private insurance as supplemental coverage to “Medicare for All.”

The debate format and the number of candidates dictate the kinds of questions likely to be asked and the strategies available to the men and women on the stage. To get airtime, they feel compelled to interrupt, use sound bites, and attack one another. That said, they need not obey show of hands expectations that have a significant downside (to individual candidates and the party).

For the next round of debates, scheduled for late July, candidates might consider answering the question (instead of raising their hands). If several start talking at once, they can launch into an exchange that is likely to be more informative than the “yes” or “no” the questioner is seeking. If one candidate (a la the TV game show, “Jeopardy”) hits the (metaphorical) buzzer quickly, he or she can command the stage, albeit briefly.

A candidate might address coverage for undocumented immigrants by indicating: “We should, of course, treat anyone seeking to enter the United States humanely. Shame on the Trump Administration for failing to do so. That said, we also need a comprehensive approach to immigration that uses modern technology to secure our borders, helps our neighbors provide for their own people, provides clearer criteria for asylum seekers, and a pathway to citizenship for DACA ‘dreamers.’ As president, I will do something Mr. Trump seems unwilling or unable to do: Work with Congress on far-reaching legislation.”

On abolishing private health insurance, a well-prepared, fast-talking candidate might say, as Mayor Buttigieg did, “Medicare for all who want it.”  Or: “I recognize that health care is the number one priority of millions of Americans, who are outraged that President Trump is trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions — and has failed, despite Republican control of both house of Congress for two years, to present his own health care plan. My goal would be clear: comprehensive health care for all Americans at a reasonable cost, including preventive care, physicians’ and hospital services, and prescription drugs. And I would understand that getting there requires working closely and collaboratively with members of Congress.”

Although it is likely to frustrate moderators (who already have their hands full refereeing interruptions), this approach, in my judgment, is in the best interests of the Democratic party. If you agree, please raise your hand.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of Rude Republic:  Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.