I think I have been quite patient up until now.

Was it a good thing or a bad thing that I spent the hour before the sixth Democratic Presidential debate following #CripTheVote on Twitter, reading scores of disability policy ideas from people with disabilities all over the country? I saw 100 times more substance on the subject, in increments of 140 characters or less, than we have heard from all of the the candidates so far. And that includes John Kasich’s welcomed but cryptic references to home care in Ohio.

(Full disclosure: I am one of the #CripTheVote organizers, so this is a bit of a plug. I can at least assure you, the readers, and of course Bernie Sanders, that I make no money from the project, and we’re not taking a cent of Super PAC money).

As a disabled person and disability activist, I want candidates for office to address disability issues a lot more this, but I try to be realistic.

I have never thought that whole segments of Presidential debates need to be given over to disability issues. I don’t take it personally that the candidates don’t see disabled voters as a critical constituency at the moment. I realize that even under the best, most enlightened possible scenario, disability issues are always going to be second tier priorities, at least to a general audience in a time-limited format.

It’s also tempting, but a bad, ugly path, to ask, resentfully, why disabled people get barely a mention, while the candidates go out of their way to mention and discuss other “minority groups.” This isn’t a competition. Plus, lots of other really important issues have been mostly ignored in the debates as well, like global warming and education.

Still, I think we have now just about reached the point where the lack of meaningful discussion on disability policy is a real problem, not just from the disability insider point of view, and worse than just an annoying snub.

Let’s look at Thursday night’s scorecard:

Hillary Clinton twice failed to mention disability when she listed struggling, oppressed groups. I don’t think we expect to be included every time, but when we disabled people are never named, I think it’s right for us to notice and wonder what is going on.

Bernie Sanders mentioned “disabled veterans” twice, at moments when veterans’ issues weren’t even especially relevant. It seems like he has fallen into the habit of tacking on “veterans” whenever he says “disabled,” as if someone has told him that “disabled” alone doesn’t pack enough emotional juice or something.

To his credit, Sanders did draw the basic outline of an argument for a fairly provocative idea … expanding, as opposed to cutting, Social Security. This could be beneficial to disabled people, though again, Sanders didn’t make that connection very precisely, instead saying it would help “disabled veterans.” At some point I would love to hear how both Sanders and Clinton would feel about extending Social Security and other benefits to disabled people who work, by raising asset and earning limits for instance, or substantially extending the Trial Work period.

Frankly, I would be even more curious to hear how the Republicans would respond to such an idea, since they more than Democrats love to remind us all that work is good for our souls. Would they be willing to pay out more in benefits to disabled people, if doing so actually increased our rates of employment?

But I digress. We are talking about the Democrats here.

After six two-hour debates on the Democratic side, all we really have is a few name-checks on disability, a few sideways glances at what could be relevant disability policy that is never identified as such, and of course, the odd reminder that murder is, apparently, a mental health problem.

Could the candidates really say more though? Or, is this the most we can reasonably expect to hear? To steal a political phrase, yes, they can. Here, free of charge, are three steps all of the candidates of both parties could take that are relevant, easy, and not time consuming, within the current debate format:

1. Go ahead and name marginalized groups in poetical groups of three, as you typically do now, but do it two or three times during a debate, and name different groups each time, including “people with disabilities.” That would take care of the “shout outs” we really do need to hear from time to time, to reassure us that you know we are here. You could also fit in a few other important groups you tend to forget while you’re at it.

2. Talk about a familiar campaign issue, and as a side note, mention that disabled people have an important and maybe different take on it … for instance, Social Security, health insurance, or abortion.

3. At some point, maybe in your closing statement, say that in addition to offering policy proposals, if elected, you would continue to listen and seek advice from groups of citizens that have more specialized needs and perspectives on what constitutes good and effective government. One such group? Disabled people. Many of us are more impressed by a politician who will listen to us than one who tries to fake his or her way through an unfamiliar disability issue.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that some of the candidates have said more about disability policy outside the televised debates, on their campaign websites, in stump speeches, or in town hall forums. RespectAbility is doing a pretty good job of documenting the candidates positions and statements on disability issues. I think it’s reasonable that we do some of the work too, seeking out their positions and piecing together our own sense of how each candidate might address disability issues as President, instead of just relying on televised debates.

Still, it wouldn’t kill them to make more of an effort in the debates. So far, we’ve been fed pretty thin gruel.

Stray observations:

When a Facebook user asked the candidates to name two political heroes, one American and one foreign, Sanders mentioned Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Yet, he missed the opportunity to mention that both men had disabilities. FDR was paralyzed and used a wheelchair, and Churchill had recurrent depression.

When the candidates were asked about Americans’ distrust of government, it occurred to me that disabled people have unique insight on the subject. Most of us have real-life reasons to be skeptical of government’s ability to do things right, yet we also know better than most that simply rejecting government outright isn’t the answer.

Sanders’ plans for universal health care, and all the others candidates’ plans and ideas, too, should at some point be vetted specifically by disabled voters. It’s a crucial test for any health care or health insurance system … how it works for people with atypical needs, for instance, people with disabilities.

Contact: Andrew Pulrang