If you agree with more than 90% of your political opponents, how do you differentiate yourself?

That was the challenge facing the three Democrats who took to the stage in the first nationally televised debate in California's competitive and expensive Senate race.

The answer is to capture relatively few differences and emphasize them loudly and repeatedly. A powerful layering of anecdotes and personal stories. Just to be safe, give yourself an elbow bump every now and then.

If you were paying close attention to the Senate race, you would have easily recognized the Democratic contestants who gathered on a red, white and blue soundstage on the University of Southern California campus Monday night.

If not, it didn't take me long to get the point.

Cautious Rep. Adam Schiff told how he took former President Trump personally as Congress' chief tormentor, not just a talker but a doer.

Passionate Congresswoman Barbara Lee shares her long history as a progressive in Sacramento and Washington, as well as her lived experience as a single Black mother who was once homeless and raised her children with the help of food stamps. did.

Outspoken Rep. Katie Porter has made her case that she is a hindrance to corporate interests trying to shake up Washington, not a politician with many promises but little track record. She asserted that (like Mr. Schiff and Mr. Lee, she has each served in Congress for more than 20 years; Mr. Porter was elected in 2018).

Standing out was not difficult for Steve Garvey, the only Republican among them. He was a former baseball great and (that was abundantly clear) a political novice.

Garvey is not involved in the Senate race, but the state's electoral system means that the top two candidates from the March 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the November general election. Therefore, the battle for second place is as important as the battle for first place.

Garvey has little chance of winning a Senate seat, given California's weakened Republican Party and the state's poor image among Democratic-leaning voters. But with stronger Republican support (the party has more than 5 million California registered voters, more than the population of many states), Garvey could easily reach a November runoff. be.

His appearance Monday night was a political debut of sorts, and a shaky one at that.

Mr. Garvey is in a dilemma, trying to appease the Republican base that loves Mr. Trump without alienating the far larger number of Californians who loathe the former president. Even the most agile politician would have difficulty achieving his feat, but Garvey proved himself otherwise.

He voted for Trump twice and strongly hinted he would vote again Monday night after being repeatedly pressed for answers. But Mr. Garvey declined to say directly, instead he said: “At the end of the day, it's all a personal choice. As my personal choice, I'm going to do it within my sovereignty wherever it is and that's my personal choice.”

He also stumbled when asked about the abortion issue. Although Garvey personally opposes the process, he said he would support reproductive rights as a U.S. senator. “The people of California are speaking out, and I pledge to support them,” he said.

Debate co-moderator Melanie Mason of Politico then asked whether Garvey would follow the will of most Californians who strongly support stricter gun control and oppose Trump's return to office. Asked.

More word salad.

“Of course I have my own opinion,” Garvey said. “And I have common sense and compassion and the ability to build consensus. You know, I look at all the issues. I think I'm fair.”

Throughout the night, Garvey was vague on most issues and downright confused on others. At one point, he suggested that the solution to California's housing affordability crisis was to cut Washington's spending excesses and open “gas and oil pipes” to lower energy costs.

Will this performance cost Garvey voters? It's not clear.

He had an affable, badass attitude reminiscent of the political hero he named, Ronald Reagan. Reagan easily weathered some gaffes by delivering them in the same calm, airy style.

Will earmarks decide the Senate race?

This has been one of the main points of contention within the Democratic Party, with Mr. Porter rejecting the practice of lawmakers directing federal funds to specific, often pet projects, and Mr. Lee and Mr. Schiff both defending the process.

“Earmarks are just a fancy word for politicians to substitute our needs for their own personal interests,” Porter argued.

“I believe in landmarks,” Lee said. “I believe in not neglecting my duties.”

Will the war between Hamas and Israel be decisive? (Foreign policy is rarely decided through elections.)

Mr. Lee reiterated that on Monday night, saying his early call for a ceasefire in Gaza set him apart from both Mr. Schiff and Mr. Porter. “The only way to keep Israel safe is a permanent ceasefire,” Lee said.

Schiff disagreed. Hamas “still holds more than 100 hostages, including Americans. I don't know how you can ask any country for a ceasefire when your own people are being held by a terrorist organization.” ”

“Ceasefire is not a magic word,” Porter said. “You can't just say it out loud and make it happen.”

If you listen closely, there are other differences as well.

Both Lee and Porter supported a government-run universal health care system. Schiff said he supports “Medicare for All” but would allow those who prefer private health care to keep it.

The debate was the first of three sessions scheduled to be televised.

Perhaps the next two will try harder to establish some major differences between the leading Democrats. Otherwise, it seems likely that the Senate race will be decided more on style than substance.

And this is California, where any candidate has the money needed to reach millions of voters who don't pay attention to the debates.