In Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Gayle King, one of the CBS moderators, asked Mike Bloomberg a question that got at some of what many Democrats find frustrating with his candidacy. It also hinted at why so many other candidates, despite the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders, are still in the race. King noted that Bloomberg had repeatedly said that he was sorry for stop-and-frisk, a policy that, during his time as mayor of New York, involved hundreds of thousands of police searches of people who might just have been walking down the street, and targeted black and Latino men and teen-agers. But, King asked, “What exactly are you apologizing for?” The point of the question seemed to be to give Bloomberg a chance to address something that he had seemed oblivious to in the last debate: the moral and civil-liberty perversions of stop-and-frisk.

He didn’t take it. Instead, he answered, “We let it get out of control and, when I realized that, I cut it back by ninety-five per cent.” That was a distortion. He “realized” that it was out of control by way of a judge’s order. He repeated that he’d apologized, and added, “I’ve met with black leaders to try to get an understanding of how I can better position myself, and what I should have done, and what I should do next time.” Is how he will “position” himself really the heart of the matter? Bloomberg can’t seem to refrain from talking about stop-and-frisk as if it were a failed product launch—regrettable, but not worth dwelling on. When King asked why the issue continued to follow him, he said, “Well, that’s because it’s in their interest to promote that”—referring, presumably, to his competitors for the nomination.

Bloomberg’s tasks at the debate included doing better than last time—a low bar, which he certainly did surpass—and stopping Sanders, who is charging ahead after a near-tie with Pete Buttigieg in Iowa and victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, where he had a particularly strong showing with Latino voters. There, Bloomberg was not so successful; Sanders had a strong night, and Bloomberg is a natural foil for him. For Sanders, it all comes back to capitalism, and a belief that the logic of the market, which Bloomberg exemplifies, distorts the judgment of people with power. In the first question of the debate, King asked Bloomberg if he thought that a Sanders economy would be better than a Donald Trump economy. Bloomberg said that Trump thought that he’d be a better President, and that while Bloomberg didn’t agree, Vladmir Putin, the President of Russia, did. Bloomberg then said to Sanders, “And that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him.”

“Oh, Mr. Bloomberg,” Sanders said, as if embarrassed for his opponent. (He added, “Hey, Mr. Putin, if I’m President of the United States, trust me, you’re not going to interfere in any more American elections.”) But Sanders wasn’t alone in drawing an effective contrast to Bloomberg. King, as a follow-up to her stop-and-frisk question, turned to Buttigieg. “You’ve certainly had your issues with the black community as well,” she said. (Jelani Cobb has a summary of criminal-justice issues that the Democrats face this year.) “Do you think New York City’s implementation of stop-and-frisk was racist?” Buttigieg said yes, “Because it was about profiling people based on their race.” He added that he came to this issue with “a lot of humility,” as well as a consciousness of the reality that he and his fellow-candidates are “seven white people” declaiming on racial justice. “None of us have the experience, the lived experience of, for example, walking down the street, or in a mall, and feeling eyes on us, regarding us as dangerous, without knowing the first thing about us, just because of the color of our skin.” He noted that lack of experience with regard to racial disparities in maternal mortality, too, and said that, not having it, “the next best thing we can do is actually listen to those who do.” That answer in itself may not improve Buttigieg’s poll numbers among black voters, but he at least managed to express some of what Bloomberg had missed. His response also spoke to his strength on the debate stage, where, on Tuesday, he expressed an air of good sense and discipline.

So did Senator Amy Klobuchar, to whom Norah O’Donnell, another of the CBS moderators, next posed the same question, about whether stop-and-frisk was racist in its implementation. Klobuchar did think so, and quoted Martin Luther King, Jr., on our interwoven destinies, but then said that she wanted to talk about “where we’re going to go forward.” This involved sentencing reform but also issues such as child care, the minimum wage, and voting rights. In the previous debate, in Las Vegas, Klobuchar and Buttigieg sniped at each other, which didn’t serve either particularly well. But Buttigieg had a reasonably strong third-place finish in Nevada, and in Tuesday’s debate strove to convey that he is the alternative to Bloomberg and Sanders. Klobuchar did a good job of arguing why, in terms of her moderate policies and Midwestern profile, she should be that alternative, but she has fewer resources and, so far, fewer votes. On Tuesday, Klobuchar praised Representative Jim Clyburn, the popular African-American South Carolina politician, who was expected to announce his endorsement the next day. He endorsed Joe Biden. The former Vice-President was forceful and spirited throughout the debate, and is counting heavily on South Carolina, but Sanders is gaining there.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is also still fighting; she had something of a breakthrough in the Las Vegas debate, but without much to show for it. (She finished in fourth place in Nevada, with less than ten per cent of the vote.) Last time, she had flustered Bloomberg with damaging quotes about women that have been attributed to him (“horse-faced lesbian”) and demands that he release some of those women from nondisclosure agreements they had signed with this firm. Bloomberg didn’t seem prepared for that, although he should have been, which may be why Warren made a similar attack in South Carolina. She said that he had allegedly told a pregnant woman at his company, “Kill it.” Bloomberg has denied saying this—the quote is from a 1998 suit that the woman brought, and which was settled—and did so again Tuesday. (The Washington Post has a good overview of the case, which does not reflect favorably on Bloomberg.) Whether because of the denials, or because it required more explanation, or because Warren’s follow-through was less surefooted, the tactic didn’t come across as strongly. Since the last debate, Bloomberg has offered to release a number of women from their N.D.A.s, which he accused Warren of ignoring. “We’re following exactly what she asked to do!” he said. “And the trouble is, with this senator, enough is never enough.” The last comment, with its evocation of a nagging woman, was not attractive, and Bloomberg’s added note that the releases, which were confined to three women, might transform “the corporate landscape” was a reminder of his tendency toward grandiosity. But Warren hadn’t triumphed, either. Her vagueness on questions relating to foreign policy, specifically Syria and Israel, did not help her performance.