Do the Democratic debates make a blind bit of difference?

One of these 10 will almost certainly face-off with Donald Trump next year

Bernie Sanders (left), Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke debate on the first night of the second 2020 Democratic US presidential debate in Detroit in July (Reuters)

So, it’s the big one.

After two spirited but not knockout debates, in which 20 Democratic hopefuls bashed heads with each other over the course of two nights, we finally get to see the major candidates – Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang – on a single stage together.

This means two things. So far, Biden, the frontrunner with a history of mumbles and fluffs, has avoided having to defend himself against Warren, the most effective debater, and who probably has the most detailed set of policy proposals. He can no longer avoid the showdown.

Secondly, barring some unlikely development, we can assume one of the 10 people who appear in Houston, Texas, will challenge Donald Trump for the presidency in 2020. That is no small responsibility.

Do these expensive, unsatisfying debates, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) farms out to television channels whose overriding priority is ratings, make a difference? They are pored over by the political and media classes, but frequently ignored by the public, especially given there are 12 of these things scheduled.

Biden had a very bad first debate, where he was mauled by Harris, and not a great second performance. While his poll numbers briefly took a dip, they bounced back and he remains a clear frontrunner. Did those voters who were polled not watch, or did they decide the 76-year-old Biden was still the man for them for other reasons?

On the other hand, after two impressive and forceful performances, Warren, 70, has seen her numbers steadily climb. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed the Massachusetts senator’s numbers climbed more than other candidates. The poll put her 11 points behind Biden, on 22, and Sanders on 16. Did her fortunes rise because of those debates, or because of her assiduous and smart groundwork in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire? Most likely, it was a combination of the two.

One thing that is certain is the candidates themselves see the things as vital. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was furious when she failed to qualify for Houston, accusing the DNC of “cockamamie criteria”. She is hoping to make the fourth debate.

One person who did not qualify for Houston, but will take part in the fourth debate, is billionaire Tom Steyer. After spending many millions of dollars of his own money in a number of states, the 62-year-old was able to meet the requirement of 130,000 individual donors and a showing of 2 per cent support in four qualifying polls.

His rivals accused him of buying his way onto the debate stage, an accusation that is hard to disagree with.

US presidential politics often comes with a Hollywood sheen. But it has long been polluted by money and special interests. That combination is partly what makes it so gripping.

Lots of people will be watching the drama in Houston. And so will The Independent.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Buncombe

Chief US correspondent