Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The famous Latke-Hamantash Debate of the University of Chicago, now copied by a lot of wannabee schools, takes place tonight. (It started here in 1946.) I’ve been to it a couple of times, and it’s always a hoot. The premise is that local scholars, using only data and analyses from their own academic fields, debate the merits of the two Jewish foods latkes (potato pancakes) and hamantashen (triangular cookies filled with prune or apricot paste, usually eaten during Purim). The debate continues the classical disputations of Judaism, and, like those, cannot be settled.
The debaters, nearly always Jewish, are required to wear academic gowns.
Here’s the entire debate from 2016—the 70th debate. As usual, it begins with a musical piece, and then an introduction. Then the real fun begins: the arguments. They were good that year. Shadi Bartsch, a classical scholar, is also married to our University’s President.
This year, sadly, it’s a virtual debate, but the show goes on, as it has yearly since 1946, but I’m sure it’ll be as funny as ever. You can read about this year’s debate here, which begins tonight at 7 p.m. Central (Chicago) time, and you can register here for a free webcast link, and learn who the three speakers will be. Usually there are at least six speakers, and the debate always ends in a tie. Afterwards, the audience and speakers repair to the nearby refectory, where the two items at issue are served to all.
Latkes (with applesauce, though sour cream is a popular topping as well:
The estimable hamantash, here in the classic prune-filled version:
The post-debate nosh in years past:
Images from the 65th Latke Hamantash Debate at Mandel Hall at the University of Chicago on November 22, 2011. (Photo by Jason Smith)
This video came from reader Ken, who added, “These were popular in 2016, but this is the first debate lip-sync I’ve seen this election cycle”. It’s pretty funny, and, at any rate, it’s funny enough to bring to a close a pretty mediocre day. (I’ve started cutting way back on feeding the ducks, which makes me sad, but it’s necessary to make them move on.)
The debate between Biden and Trump, with the innovation of silenced mikes (not mics) will start at 9 Eastern US time (8 Chicago time) and last for an hour and a half. You can watch it nearly anywhere; as the NYT notes:
The debate will be televised on channels including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, C-SPAN, PBS, Fox News and MSNBC.
Many news outlets, including ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox News and C-SPAN, will stream the debate on YouTube.
The links right above take you to the livestreams.
I’m providing this post for you to comment live, and, if you’re one of the people on this site who seem to like Trump over Biden, you’re welcome, too, though I will try to watch at least half the debate and may make ascerbic comments.
You can watch Mike Pence and Kamala Harris go at each other at many places. One of them is the CSPAN livestream below. The debate starts in exactly an hour, and, if you wish, you may comment below as it proceeds.
Several readers sent me a link to SNL’s spoof of the recent Trump/Biden debate. Chris Wallace is played by Beck Bennett Trump by Alec Baldwin, and Biden by Jim Carrey (I didn’t recognize Carrey at first!) I’m not sure who plays Kamala Harris, as I almost never watch Saturday Night Live. When I have seen it, I can only compare it to the early glory days with John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Dan Akroyd, and the other greats.
This bit is pretty good, but not outstanding, which exemplifies the whole show to me these days. The last two minutes, however, aren’t half bad.
I was too dispirited last night to watch the Biden/Sanders debate, and I haven’t watched many of the Democratic debates anyway. I had called several of my friends, who were also dispirited, and decided to have half a bottle of cava and the leftover carnitas I ate for lunch on Saturday. If there’s one silver lining in this pandemic, it’s that Trump’s hamhanded reaction seems to have made his reelection less likely. Or so I hope.
The New York Times did it’s usual “what’s-the-debate-take-of-our-columnists” article, and, to my surprise, Biden was declared the winner by a narrow margin. You can read the story by clicking on the screenshot.
Last night the average score of Biden (on a 10-point scale of increasing performance quality) was 7.6; that of Sanders was 7.1. Apparently Biden said he intends to name a woman as his vice-presidential candidate, which I think is fantastic. That, according to the Times columnists, boosted his score. Plus Biden didn’t commit any gaffes, reassuring people that he’s not demented.
A few words from the Times, and the history of the candidates’ scores (Bernie has generally been ahead):
Throughout the long Democratic primary process, Opinion columnists and contributors have ranked each candidate’s debate performances. Now, after the 13th and potentially final Democratic debate, we’re presenting the results.
Overall, Bernie Sanders had the most consistent performance, according to our columnists and contributors, winning one contest and scoring 7 out of 10 overall. Joe Biden fared worse than Mr. Sanders in most debates, but he finally placed first in our rankings with Sunday’s debate.
And three opinions on each candidate (the article gives many other takes):
Biden
Nicole Hemmer (9/10) — The smartest move Biden made in the debate — other than committing to a female running mate — was tying revolution to disruption. At a moment when the world’s been turned upside down, he offered to flip it right side up, not shake it up more. His reassurances send a powerful general-election message — and why he won the debate.
Peter Wehner (8/10) — In a shrewd political move, Biden ensured that the only thing people will remember about this debate is his promise to pick a woman as vice president. It was also his best political debate. He was fairly sharp and focused, empathetic and crucially he didn’t fade. Biden should have focused a lot more on Trump and a lot less on his record, Sanders and the 1980s. Still, from coast to coast, Democrats are breathing a huge sigh of relief.
Mimi Swartz (7/10) — Who knew? Joe Biden saved the Western world while he was V.P.! Yes, he was substantially better debating one person instead of a basketball team. He was as usual better at the beginning than the end, and convincing and calming on his plan to fight the coronavirus. His tack to the left was less convincing. Promising to put a woman on the ticket was a good move. “Results, not revolution” will be the mantra until the convention, whenever that will be.
Sanders
Elizabeth Bruenig (8/10) — What’s odd about Sanders is that he’s simultaneously the ideas candidate — unlike Biden, he has a philosophical brief against the excesses of American individualism — and the practical, materially focused candidate, worrying over how low-wage workers will survive this crisis financially. That breadth of interests came through strongly in this debate, and the no-audience format suited him well.
Jamelle Bouie (8/10) — If Biden tried at every turn to make the debate a question about what to do now, Sanders tried to turn the conversation to structural problems — to the larger dynamics that have produced the present crisis, whether it’s the devastating effects of coronavirus or climate change. It’s his most favorable terrain and he was strongest on that ground. Also, he seems much more vibrant than Biden, despite being a little older.
Gail Collins (7/10) — If you like Bernie Sanders, he was just fine. But he didn’t do what he’d promised: to set up a progressive ideological standard that Joe Biden couldn’t match. I suspect most voters who were listening thought these guys were pretty much on the same wavelength. But one has already been vice president. So that’s a huge win for Biden.
Now is the part where you weigh in. Did Biden look as if he were compos mentis? Were you reassured by his performance? Did you change your mind?
And, of course, who do you think will be the female v.p.? I’d like Elizabeth Warren, as it would give her a springboard to the Presidency, but she’s also needed in the Senate. I like Stacey Abrams but her experience is limited. And of course there’s Amy Klobuchar. . . . also in the Senate. If there’s a woman on the VP slate, which one would you prefer?
As I said this morning, I didn’t watch last night’s Democratic debate, but I’m watching it now as I work (from the ink below). But it’s distracting, and I may have to stop.
I gather from the media reports that it was pretty fractious, with everyone going after Bloomberg and Sanders. I’m still amazed that Sanders is the front-runner, which seems to derive solely from his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, tiny states that are nearly all white. I’ll vote for him in November if he’s nominated, but he’s not my favorite candidate. (In fact, no candidate gets my juices flowing, and so I’m not sure who I’ll vote for in the Illinois primaries.)
Elizabeth Warren, 8.4
Bernie Sanders, 7.2
Pete Buttigieg, 6.9
Joe Biden, 6.2
Amy Klobuchar, 6.0
Michael Bloomberg, a bottom-scraping 2.9!
I see you can watch the full debate (1 hour, 38 minutes) at the NBC News site (click on screenshot):
So, since I’ve only watched a few minutes of the debate (and am already cringing), I’m sure most American readers have, and so weigh in below with your take. Did Bloomberg shoot himself in the foot? Is Sanders unstoppable? If so, can he beat Trump? This is all prognostication, of course, and it’s not pleasant to see the Dems attacking each other this way, but hey, there are big stakes and they have to distinguish themselves from the other Dems.
I watched half an hour—all about healthcare—and I give up. Harris won’t admit that she’s banning employer-sponsored healthcare, nor tell us where the money for her plan comes from. Biden is being overly polite. And Americans care about other stuff, too. It’s dispiriting. Something about an internecine squabble, necessary thought it may be, makes me think that Trump is sitting back, waiting to use some of this stuff when he finally is forced to debate.
Anyway, by all means discuss your impression below. I’m done, and am going to work on my lectures for Antarctica.
Read this op-ed by David Brooks in today’s New York Times (click on screenshot) and see if you disagree with it. His fear, which is also is mine, is that the Dems, by moving ever further left in an effort to out-woke each other, will improve the prospects of Trump:
An excerpt (Brooks is a centrist):
According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal. The candidates at the debates this week fall mostly within the 26 percent. The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win. . .
The party is moving toward all sorts of positions that drive away moderates and make it more likely the nominee will be unelectable. And it’s doing it without too much dissent.
First, there is health care. When Warren and Kamala Harris raised their hands and said that they would eliminate employer-based health insurance, they made the most important gesture of the campaign so far. Over 70 percent of Americans with insurance through their employers are satisfied with their health plan. Warren, Harris and Sanders would take that away.
According to a Hill-HarrisX survey, only 13 percent of Americans say they would prefer a health insurance system with no private plans. Warren and Sanders pin themselves, and perhaps the Democratic Party, to a 13 percent policy idea. Trump is smiling.
Second, there is the economy. All of the Democrats seem to have decided to run a Trump-style American carnage campaign. The economy is completely broken. It only benefits a tiny sliver. Yet in a CNN poll, 71 percent of Americans say that the economy is very or somewhat good. We’re in the longest recovery in American history and the benefits are finally beginning to flow to those who need them most. Overall wages are rising by 3.5 percent, and wages for those in the lowest pay quartile are rising by well over 4 percent, the highest of all groups.
Democrats have caught the catastrophizing virus that inflicts the Trumpian right. They take a good point — that capitalism needs to be reformed to reduce inequality — and they radicalize it so one gets the impression they want to undermine capitalism altogether.
Third, Democrats are wandering into dangerous territory on immigration. They properly trumpet the glories immigrants bring to this country. But the candidates can’t let anybody get to the left of them on this issue. So now you’ve got a lot of candidates who sound operationally open borders. Progressive parties all over the world are getting decimated because they have fallen into this pattern.
Fourth, Democrats are trying to start a populist v. populist campaign against Trump, which is a fight they cannot win. Democratic populists talk as if the only elite in America is big business, big pharma — the top 1 percent. This allows them to sound populist without actually going after their donor bases — the highly educated affluent people along the coasts.
. . .The debates illustrate the dilemma for moderate Democrats. If they take on progressives they get squashed by the passionate intensity of the left. If they don’t, the party moves so far left that it can’t win in the fall.
Right now we’ve got two parties trying to make moderates homeless.
There’s more; read the whole piece. And then weigh in.
I, of course, will vote for any Democrat over Trump; I haven’t seen one who wouldn’t get my vote in such a contest. But I also want Trump gone for good in the next election.
I missed all but the last ten minutes of the first Democratic Presidential debate, as I was out and about. All I saw was a bunch of self-promotion, and some heated moments as the Dems attacked each other. Well, that’s to be expected. Weigh in below with your opinion, though it’s early days. Who did well and who didn’t?
CNN’s analysis is here, with their list of winners and losers. Of course making lists like this is largely for entertainment value, but for what it’s worth:
WINNERS
* Julián Castro: The former San Antonio mayor had been running below the radar — WAY below the radar — until Wednesday night. That is likely to change after his performance, in which he was able to carve out a remarkable amount of speaking time for a candidate polling somewhere between 0% and 1%. (An hour into the debate, Castro had spoken as much as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is in the midteens in national polling, according to a count kept by The Washington Post. Hugely helpful!) Castro’s battering of Beto O’Rourke on immigration was hard to watch (especially if you were related to O’Rourke), but a clear win for Castro.
* Elizabeth Warren: Yes, she got more questions than anyone else. And, yes, she didn’t directly answer all of them. But Warren — especially in the early parts of the debate, when the most people were watching — was the straw that stirs the drink in the debate. (She did disappear somewhat in the second hour.) The debate began on home turf for her — talking about economic inequality. And Warren’s hand-raising when all of the candidates were asked whether they supported abolishing private insurance (only Bill de Blasio joined her) was a strong message to liberals watching that she was proud of who she was and what she believed. Warren came into the debate with the momentum in the race. Nothing she did on Wednesday night will stop that momentum.
* Cory Booker: The senator from New Jersey won’t be the big star coming out of Wednesday’s debate — my guess is that Castro will be that person — but he found a way to inject himself into most of the conversations during the night — even those where he wasn’t directly asked. Booker had the most talking time of any of the 10 candidates; talking the most isn’t always a sign of victory, but when you are someone like Booker who is just trying to get his name out there, it’s a pretty good measure. One caveat: For all of that talking, is there a memorable line from Booker coming out of this debate? I don’t think so.
LOSERS
* Beto O’Rourke: Hard to watch. Badly out of his depth from a policy perspective. Too rehearsed in his answers. The idea of him starting his first answer of the debate by speaking Spanish might have seemed like a good idea in his debate prep room but it played as pandering and overly planned in the moment. If one of O’Rourke’s goals coming into this debate was to show he was more than a good-looking but sort of empty vessel, it, um, didn’t work.
* NBC’s sound people: It’s never a good thing when there are hot mics when there shouldn’t be. It’s even worse when the tech people can’t fix that problem quickly and you have to go to an unplanned break. And it’s disastrously bad when the President of the United States takes to Twitter to say this: “.@NBCNews and @MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves for having such a horrible technical breakdown in the middle of the debate. Truly unprofessional and only worthy of a FAKE NEWS Organization, which they are!”
