As I write, this is the sandwich day between Tuesday’s Colorado primary election and Thursday’s presidential debate. Without further ado, let’s look both backward and ahead.

With one notable, but utterly predictable exception, Tuesday’s primary, while still a rather low-turnout affair, was as hopeful an election as any of late for those who yearn for a more moderate, reasonable, toned-down form of politics.

Voters of both parties sent an unmistakable message to that effect. Hooray for them.

Herewith, a handful of quick, analytical points.

• First, with the exception: Lauren Boebert’s gamble and gambit paid off. When news broke back in December of her move from her old western slope district to the one Ken Buck was departing including the eastern plains and Douglas County, it seemed a hail-Mary pass by a desperate politician.

But it worked — due to the outsized egos of other Republican politicos and their unwillingness to rally behind a single Boebert challenger. Boebert’s 43% showing was well more than enough to get the job done, but still significantly short of a 50% threshold. Ranked-choice voting, anyone? In the context of the results in the three other Republican congressional primaries, Boebert may well have been beatable in a head-to-head match-up.

•  The night’s biggest loser (substitute “overwhelming” or “most embarrassing,” if you wish) is Colorado GOP Chair Dave Williams. He lost the congressional district for which he had long been angling by a two-to-one blowout margin.

As if that was not defeat enough, the slate of ultra-MAGA candidates his state party endorsed in a break with all decorum and tradition were almost uniformly losers except for Boebert. Ron Hanks, Janak Joshi and a whole bunch of legislative pretenders, please take a perfunctory bow and leave the stage.

Considering the drubbing, compounded by Williams’s blatant misuse of the party’s meager funds, it is hard to conjure up a reason how or why he remains as chair another day.

•  Democrats were fully in on the action as well. Provocateurs Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez were convincingly shown the door. The Epps rejection could be foreseen. Hernandez’s not-all-that-close loss was less predictable. Will the state be able to endure without their provocations?

Beyond those two headliners, in contested district after district, with only rare exceptions, the more so-called progressive Democratic candidate lost to the more center-leaning one, even if the distinction was sometimes marginal. Ditto on the GOP side, where the Williams-endorsed, MAGA candidate ran well behind the mainstream conservative again and again.

•  Once more, we should put to rest the tired notion that the topline designation on the primary election ballot is of any advantage. This pole position is usually indicative of the choice of those most intense party activists, who still attend caucuses and conventions.

The traits most attractive to that hardcore, whether ultra-progressives on the Democratic side or unyielding conservatives among the GOP, are often off-putting to the expanded group of primary election voters.

As a first example, see Jeff Crank’s annihilation of Dave Williams. Also see Jeff Hurd’s convincing victory off the very bottom line in the 3rd Congressional District. Further down the ballot, Rex Tonkins, husband of fringy, incendiary El Paso County Republican chair Vickie Tonkins, was awarded that topline spot only to finish a distant last in a three-way race won by center-leaning incumbent Larry Liston with over 60% of the vote.

Also of note, though 2,000 miles away, was the landslide defeat in New York of Democratic congressman and “squad” member Jamaal Bowman. His brand of hard-left, pro-Palestinian politics proved far too much even for left-leaning Democrats in this upscale, suburban area.

But enough retrospective. Political watchers, to go along with healthier, ordinary citizens, are fast turning their attention to the unprecedented, early summer presidential debate Thursday evening.

Viewership will be high as would be the case for any prescheduled, televised, well-hyped train wreck. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump will enter the CNN debate studio with underwater approval ratings. Each needs a respectable showing for very different reasons.

Partisans, of course, will contend that their candidate won convincingly. More neutral observers, to the extent they exist in this climate, tend to score the match on points. Neither really provides much of a yardstick.

Most such debates are important not for the totality of the 90 minutes or for the quality of reasoning as in a high school debate competition. Rather, presidential debates are most often remembered for one or two moments, whether an instance of humor or particular eloquence or, conversely, a notable stumble or faux pas.

Think of Ronald Reagan’s retort to Mondale on the issue of age. Or Lloyd Bentsen’s dismissal of Dan Quayle with “You’re no Jack Kennedy.” Or George H.W. Bush’s glance at his wristwatch as if he wanted to be done with the whole thing. Or Al Gore’s exaggerated sighs. Or Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women.”

It is also important to bear in mind that being deemed to have “lost” a debate, especially an early one, need not translate into losing the election. Reagan did poorly in his initial encounter with Mondale yet went on to win 49 states. And recall all the angst within Democratic ranks following Barack Obama’s first debate with Romney right here at the University of Denver.

Thursday’s clash could also be impacted by one or more Supreme Court rulings between now and then. A decision in the Trump immunity case or in the case around legal process for Jan. 6 defendants or in the “Chevron” case as to governmental regulatory powers or in a still-pending abortion case could inject a wildcard into the evening’s proceedings.

Biden and Trump will show up with different imperatives. Biden’s task is to effectively counter the feeble factor while Trump’s mission is to alleviate the crazy piece. Both are self-evident. The candidate who best mitigates his dominant weakness will reap the rewards.

Given the mutual disdain, the event could be akin to a professional wrestling cage match – senior citizen edition. A great many viewers may be heard muttering, “Please, Lord, someone else.”

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for ColoradoPolitics and the Gazette newspapers. Reach him at EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann