“Regardless of whether my plan was in place or his, this is a crisis,” Mr. Biden said. “This is like we are being attacked from abroad. This is something that is of great consequence. This is like a war. And in a war, you do whatever is needed to be done to take care of your people.”
Mr. Sanders, meanwhile, sees the virus as a symptom of systemic problems in American society like income inequality, the power of big corporations and the demise of the working class. He offered a more structural critique, rooted in the virus.
“As a result of the virus here, the coronavirus,” he said, “what we have got to do also is understand the fragility of the economy and how unjust and unfair it is that so few have so much and so many have so little.”
Mr. Biden shot back: “People are looking for results, not a revolution. They want to deal with the results they need right now.”
The two-man, audience-free debate certainly led to a more substantive discussion. There was no playing to the crowd or moderators dwelling on candidates without a clear shot at the nomination (ahem, Michael Bloomberg). Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders debated bankruptcy law, campaign finance, climate change, immigration, Social Security, the Iran deal, the Iraq war, abortion rights and foreign policy.
Mr. Sanders delivered a forceful performance, turning policy critiques into questions about Mr. Biden’s leadership and trustworthiness. Mr. Biden’s team appeared to expect a less aggressive approach from Mr. Sanders. Anita Dunn, a top Biden aide, later described her candidate’s debate performance as “graciously dealing with the kind of protester who often shows up at campaign events, on live television.”
But none of the disagreements were particularly new. Voters paying enough attention to understand the details of those policy-heavy spats had most likely already settled on a candidate and which side of the party’s ideological divide they favor.