Debates

While I was out running an errand at lunch, I caught part of an XM130/POTUS ‘08 interview with someone from the Commission on Presidential Debates…specifically that portion concerning the fairly high threshold set to be invited to the debate (ballot access in states totaling at least 270 electoral votes, and a 15% showing in the polls).

Folks who support (or are at least sympathetic towards) third parties have long sought access to national debates.  After all, the hurdle faced by third parties is public awareness; and the easiest way to garner awareness as a credible candidate is by participating in a debate with the major candidates.

Well, the interviewee made a fairly interesting rebuttal to that point.  He pointed out that the COPD debates occur fairly late in the process.  He said (paraphrasing), “The winnowing process has occurred.  This is not the time for a candidate to launch their campaign.  We want to provide voters a chance to evaluate the most viable candidates.”

You know, that’s not a bad point.

I am still of a mind that minor parties are somewhat unfairly denied public awareness by media focus on the two dominant parties.  True, if there were a not-too-nutty, potentially electable third-party candidate to rise through the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, or any other minor party, he/she would likely eventually gain that attention.  However, it would be an uphill battle, plus “potentially electable” candidates tend to have enough of a sense of realism to align with one of the two major parties, in order to maximize their chances of election.   Heck, even Ron Paul holds GOP credentials despite his criticism of the party.

It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg situation.

One possible solution, I suppose, would be to have, say, a week-long forum on issues a couple of weeks after the major conventions wrap up.  I could imagine the event stretching over five evenings, involving the two major candidates, and (say) the three leading minor candidates.  Each evening would be dedicated to one particular topic, and candidates could provide a response from a venue of their choosing.  Grant 15 minutes each to the two major candidates, 10 each to the 3 minor candidates, and have presentation order be randomized and vary each day.

(Yes, I know, the time difference is unfair…but for such an idea to ever have a chance at succeeding, the donkeys and pachyderms will demand preferential treatment.)

Presumably, that would provide an equalizing “launching point”.  The dominant candidates would have a chance to describe who they are and what their positions might be, before campaigns degenerate too far into silly season; and the leading minor candidates would have a decent venue to get some public awareness, and perhaps enough support to achieve critical fundraising mass and entry into the debates.

It’s obviously too late to implement for the ‘08 elections…but maybe something closer to fairness could be found for 2012?

(I know.  I won’t hold my breath.  But I can dream, can’t I?)

Just in case you haven’t seen enough of them already, the AP reports:

ABC News will host the [Hillary-Obama] debate on a date still to be determined. Pennsylvania voters go to the polls April 22 for the primary, a contest with 158 delegates at stake.

Obama also has agreed to a matchup on April 19 hosted by CBS News in North Carolina, his campaign said. North Carolina has 115 delegates up for grabs in its May 6 primary. CBS News said it was awaiting word on whether Clinton would participate.

I like the idea of having a debate-filled campaign…but I wish we were seeing the great debates of old, rather than the 90- or 120-minute battles of the soundbites that we see today.

For the past several days, there’s been a fuss in blogging circles over the apparent decision for FOX to exclude Ron Paul from a debate to be held on the 10th (as an apparent “make up” event for the unpopular Iowa Public TV event).

For a sample of what I’ve been encountering in my reading pile, consider this post at The Moderate Voice, including the nice roundup at the end.

One of my complaints about the debates held so far is that the stage has been too crowded. When your format limits you to 90-120 minutes of stage time, and there are 8-10 candidates vying for time on camera, you’re seemingly limited to soundbite answers rather than deep, insightful debate.

Early on in the process, it does make sense to have all the contenders on stage, because with that many candidates, anything can happen. However, at some point you probably do need to start pruning the invite list in order to permit longer-format discussion.

So, I have to admit, I’m not necessarily bothered with the apparent fact that FOX wants to trim the debate roster.

However, I do think the Ron Paul camp has reason to be bothered by the apparent snub. Specifically:

• I think it is somewhat arbitrary that the criteria for qualifying for the debate are being specified so close to debate night. An allowance could be made for the “last minute-ness” of the debate, I suppose, but in general if objective criteria are going to be specified as requirements to get an invite, those specifications should be laid out far in advance. Consider, for example, the COPD debates scheduled for this fall, where we already know that a 15% polling number is required to attend the main event.
   
• This early in the process, fundraising perhaps ought to be considered as part of any set of objective criteria. Money can buy advertising which can sway voters.
   
• Given the timing, shouldn’t the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as polling in at least the remaining January primary states be considered a bit more heavily than polling from states that have, at least until now, mostly been on the sideline?
   
• And, I have to agree—given how abysmally Thompson has been doing, and given the structural biases of traditional polling, it probably is seemingly unfair to invite Thompson but exclude Paul. Personally, I don’t think either is a viable candidate…but if you’re going to give one the benefit of the doubt, you should grant the same courtesy to the other.

Due to work Wednesday, and snow chores Thursday, I missed the Des Moines Register debates. I have been trying to catch up a little, and I do a couple of thoughts.

• Huckabee’s “niceness” doesn’t translate as well into the printed word, and it does help ease the…conflict I’ve had when thinking about the guy. I’d still like to see someone with a “nice guy” / “not sleazy politician” image in the White House, but I’d also like to see something a little more than that. Huckabee didn’t convey “a little more” in the transcript. But I can still see how conservative voters might really like him, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see him in a veep slot on the ballot.
   
• Keyes gets an invite, but not Kucinich or Gravel? That ain’t right. I can believe it complying with the guidelines set out by the register for getting an invite…but maybe those weren’t the best guidelines to set.
   
• For some strange reason…I’m left wondering what a debate moderated by Anne Robinson would be like. The concept appeals to my strange sense of humor.

Part of the backstory in the aftermath of Wednesday night’s GOP YouTube debate has been the potential for ulterior motives among the questioners. For example, you’ve probably heard about the gay retired General who failed to disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign (you can read about it at Politico if you haven’t). Michelle Malkin has also not been shy in pointing out other questioners having previously expressed support for Edwards or Obama.

While I can agree with the idea that it’s bad form for a Clinton staffer to get to pose a question without disclosing his ties (regardless of whether it’s his question or a “plant” from Hillary)…I’m not overly excited about Dem-supporters having their submitted questions aired at a GOP debate.

Yes, I suppose that it is a little disingenuous for folks to pose as Republicans or undecided voters if they hold interests (or appear to hold interests) to the contrary.

However, a fair amount of the (admittedly limited) outrage I’ve seen expressed seems to be of a “how dare they invade our debate”…and that’s something I don’t buy. These folks are ultimately running to be President of the United States…not President of “Us but not Them”.

They’re running in an election that is at least in part being funded by taxpayers’ dollars, regardless of any partisan affiliation of those taxpayers. True, in many states, you have to be a partisan to participate in the taxpayer funded primaries…but that’s a practice I disagree with and therefore don’t accept as justification.

An update to my earlier post on the 2008 Presidential Debate schedule:

The WSJ’s Washington Wire blog provides some additional details regarding the format:

The commission is limiting the presidential debates to 90 minutes and will allow for only one moderator — welcome relief for debate fans frustrated with the sometimes lengthy Republican and Democratic debates and the large casts of moderators not to mention video questions posed by snowmen.

The first presidential debate will be on domestic policy, the second will take be a open forum in a town hall meeting setting, and the third will focus on foreign policy. The vice presidential debate will cover both domestic and foreign policy. In all but the town hall meeting, the candidates will be seated at a table with the moderator.[...]

Also — third-party candidates be warned — only candidates that appear on enough state ballots to have a “mathematical chance” of winning the majority vote of the Electoral College, and are polling at or about 15% nationally can participate in the debates. Moderators will be decided next summer.

OK, so theoretically there will be a bit more focus on a particular topic…which, now that I think about it, is tradition (not to mention a welcome change from the primary debates). However, I’m still concerned about trying to cram all the issues of interest into merely 4½ hours of short-answer questions.

I’m also a bit disappointed that the powers that be didn’t take advantage of the rise of online video. I actually do like the idea of a YouTube debate—the idea of ordinary citizens actually getting to ask questions directly to the candidates, and to express a preference among the different potential questions being posed. However, I can see that the concept could stand some maturity (hopefully the GOP YouTube debate will undo some of the damage the talking snowman did), and I’d understand concerns about favoring one video service over another. At least it’s been mentioned that questions submitted over the internet will be accepted for the town hall debate.

I disagree with the “15% rule”, however. I can understand the desire to avoid crowding the stage with extra-nutty minor candidates…a desire that is probably particularly understandable after the umpteen primary debates we’ve had so far. However, if a candidate has the organization to get on the ballot in almost every state, you’d think that that would be sufficient significance to get an invitation to at least one debate.

Seen in the Business Courier of Cincinnati:

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the sites for three debates between the two parties’ presidential nominees, and one for their running mates, on Monday. The first presidential debate will be Sept. 26, 2008, at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss.; the second Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn.; and the third on Oct. 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The vice presidential debate will take place Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis.

After, what, 20-30 primary debates, seeing only 3 Presidential and one Veep debate seems…almost dull.

I guess it was too much to hope for to series of in-depth debates, rather than the lightning-round of questioning we’ve become all to accustomed to seeing.