A presidential election has no undercard

 I apologize if I am misusing sport-terminology.  I do not follow sport.  Regardless, I warned that last night's debate would be particularly pointless.  All debates are pointless, but last night's debate was even more absurd.  Sure, you can point to moments of theater that could be entertaining to some, with zingers and gotcha moments, but it all amounts to even less than those in a typical debate.  If I understand the term, "undercard," correctly, there are boxing events and such in which lower-ranked fighters fight each other, and those fights may either be entertaining for their own sakes, have later implications because of rankings, or even just matter for the fighters' pay.  Watch if you so choose.  Presidential elections have no undercard.  It is not even a tournament.  It plays out over a series of primaries and caucuses, but it is still a winner-take-all contest with no dummy prize, unless you count the VP slot, which does not necessarily go to a losing contender anyway.  There is no undercard.  Last night's debate had a bunch of losers sniping at each other.  Most would not even dare to take a shot at the guy so far out ahead of them all as to embarrass them.  That is, if they were capable of embarrassment.  Did Nikki Haley get in some great shots at Vivek Ramaswamy?  Do I care?  Neither had any chance before last night, and neither has a chance now, so why does this matter?  The only one who will really take the fight to Trump won't win precisely because he'll take the fight to Trump.  That's Chris Christie, who will lose, but enjoy the fight.

Last night was not an undercard fight because there is no undercard.  If you treat it as anything other than a demonstration of the absurdity of the 2024 GOP nomination contest, you are missing the point.  One guy is so far ahead he doesn't even have to show up.

That's the point.