And yet the right answer to CNN’s “Let’s you and him fight” is “no,” and it is worth seeing which of those candidates have the brains, dexterity, and courage to just say “no.” In that regard, bad moderators provide an extra element of challenge for candidates to overcome.

I was more put off the questions that deserve paragraph answers to which only a sentence could be allocated. There’s only time for reductive sound bites that can easily be made to look foolish because there is no time for the caveats.

It is wrong for candidates to “have a plan” for everything, As Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Better to have goals: “I will fight for sustainable, affordable universal coverage.” “We didn’t separate families under Obama, so we don’t need to decriminalize all illegal entry. We just need a President who doesn’t see cruelty as a policy option.” “We have to treat sick undocumented aliens as a matter of public health. We should bill them, so we can say the treatment isn’t free, but we should not expect to realize 100 cents on the dollar billed, either.”

There are concise, potent answers to these awful questions, and it’s the candidates’ job to trot them out when the questions are out of bounds. In that regard, poorly moderated debates give us an idea of how the candidate will respond to that famous 3.00 a.m. call. So, two cheers for CNN — their incompetently run debate was a great think-and-do exercise for our would be Presidents.