The fifth Democratic primary debate showed that a cull is overdue

By A.R.

IF ONLY THE winnowing would happen faster. For the fifth televised Democratic debate, broadcast from Georgia, ten candidates lined up dutifully on stage, each behind a dazzlingly-lit lectern. Each vied to be heard, to land a rehearsed-but-nifty line to be shared by supporters on social media, then beg for online donations to keep them running for another month. Each took a turn to explain why he or she would do best in smiting Donald Trump before somehow “healing” the nation. It was mostly a thoughtful display, but fireworks were few. The two-hour debate covered an admirably wide range of issues. Yet the Democrats’ on-screen performance looks ever more divorced from the real world.

In reality, just four candidates dominate the Democratic race. Judged by polling data, fundraising, betting odds, attention in the press and so on, that pack has looked unchanging for months. Joe Biden, despite not raising much money of late, and Elizabeth Warren remain the front-runners. Both played the night cautiously and were relatively subdued; neither aimed a meaningful blow at the other, despite speculation that Mr Biden would strike hard at Ms Warren’s health-care plans. Mr Biden showed some vim only briefly, in attacking China and Saudi Arabia as human-rights abusers. Both candidates escaped the night largely unscathed.

Bernie Sanders, despite his heart attack, preserves a solid core of support. He said nothing new that would expand his appeal beyond the party’s far left. Pete Buttigieg, by far the youngest of the Gang of Four, is also holding his own. A recent spurt of hopeful polling in early states—especially Iowa, where he appears to lead—bodes well for his campaign. He put on a perfectly decent debate performance, speaking with energy. Surprisingly, given his rising profile, he took few strong attacks from the others. They might have pushed him harder on his troubles in appealing to black voters or his limited national experience. Perhaps wary of his evident ability to counter-punch, most opted to play it safe.

Get much beyond those four, however, and it is not clear why the party drags on these large-scale auditions. After the Georgia debate it is impossible (if it were not already so) to take seriously the notion that Tulsi Gabbard could ever be the Democrats’ choice. At one point she descended into a bizarre spat with Mr Buttigieg, alleging he had a plan to send American soldiers to fight drug cartels in Mexico. Tom Steyer’s grey presence was barely noticeable, other than during a brief exchange (with Mr Biden) over who cared most about climate change. Even if he and others were worthy of it, they show no sign of rising from a distant also-ran category. Cory Booker speaks well on many topics, including racial reconciliation. Andrew Yang talked of China’s AI threat and offered a funny line about Vladimir Putin meddling in American politics. Yet millions of television viewers have heard them speak now in a series of long debates. They said nothing to indicate that their fortunes might suddenly rise.

Two lower-tier candidates did have a good night. Amy Klobuchar found her voice in a way she has struggled to do before, for example in discussing abortion and women’s rights. The Minnesotan is trying to present herself as a centrist figure from the Midwest with a record of winning elections, who brings more experience than Mr Buttigieg. She might gain a little traction. Kamala Harris also came across as composed and forceful, most of all when she spoke on foreign policy and quipped that Mr Trump “got punked” by North Korea’s dictator. She was more spirited than she has been for some time, though her campaign is struggling to rope in donors or popular support. A brief surge in in early summer is now a distant memory.

Among the leaders the lack of drama in Georgia probably best suited the two centrists—Messrs Biden and Buttigieg. In the first debates, starting back in June, there was much radical talk of abolishing borders, doing away with immigration enforcement and rolling out free medical care for all. Neither of these men looked comfortable then, as candidates competed to appear as the most progressive figure possible. Instead Ms Warren’s popularity rose. But such talk risked putting off independent and middle-of-the-road voters and has since faded. In this debate, and beyond, the conversation has turned more to pragmatic questions—such as how the Democrats might try to win control of the Senate, which requires not scaring moderates, especially in rural and suburban places. The caucuses in Iowa are less than three months away. There are more television debates to get through before then, but come February it will be voters who begin with the real winnowing.