An existential threat scorecard for the Democratic presidential debates
By John Mecklin, Thomas Gaulkin | June 25, 2019
Ten candidates face off Wednesday evening in the first Democratic debate for the 2020 presidential election. It will be followed the next night by the second of what promises to be an almost endless series of such mass discussions, accompanied by 24-7 campaign news coverage that will last til November 2020, no matter what you say. But this first debate is important not just because it’s first, but because it offers debate moderators the opportunity to inject a modicum of substance into the campaign at an early stage.
I am not saying questions about climate change, nuclear weapons, and other existential threats—the kind of dangers that, if not forestalled, could end civilization as we know it—will dominate the debate. In fact, if debate moderators believe the 2016 campaign was just peachy and should be used as a template, such questions will scarcely even be asked. But candidates often provide answers to questions they aren’t asked. So on the off chance that some of the Democratic candidates (and perhaps even some of the debate moderators) decide to address the most daunting dangers the next president and the world will face, we’ve provided below an existential threat debate scorecard, so you can keep track of who does and doesn’t want to talk about what’s really important.
Click the images below to get your own printable scorecard.
June 26 scorecard:
June 27 scorecard:
Together, we make the world safer.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
John Mecklin
John Mecklin is the editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Miller-McCune... Read More
Thomas Gaulkin
Thomas Gaulkin is multimedia editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Prior to joining the Bulletin in 2018, he spent the... Read More
I am supporting Andrew Yang because he is the only candidate who even mentions nuclear. Atomic energy, international cooperation, and mitigation of atmospheric carbon and sunlight; these are requisite for arresting climate change.
Clearly Tulsi Gabbard is the most outspoken candidate and member of Congress speaking out boldly about the dangers and root cause of Nuclear build up and the dangers in addition to introducing her Off Fossil Fuels Act