Several of the Republican candidates are upset with CBS News for not allotting them much time during last night’s debate. In Michele Bachmann’s case, her campaign received an inadvertent email from CBS News’ political analyst John Dickerson which predicted she wouldn’t receive much time because she is polling so poorly. I have a couple of observations about this.
I know it is difficult to manage a debate with eight participants and only ninety minutes of time. And I know that there is an incentive to focus the debate on the candidates who are relevant. But this practice of giving more time to people who are polling better is fatally flawed and very unfair.
If you’ve been paying attention to the Republican contest, you know that the polls have fluctuated wildly, with candidates like Bachmann, Cain, and Perry taking turns as the strongest challenger to Mitt Romney. Recently, Newt Gingrich has been on the rise while Rick Perry’s support has completely collapsed. With this kind of volatility, the candidate you give more time to today might be at the bottom of the polls tomorrow (and vice-versa). I think polls can play a part, but not once the debate has started.
In the interest of having a meaningful debate with adequate time for each candidate, it’s reasonable to have some metric that candidates must meet to gain entry. For example, you might devise a metric that considers polling averages, fundraising, and endorsements from federal elected officials. That’s just one idea, and different organizations can come up with different standards. As long as the standards are transparent and consistent, candidates will know what they need to do to qualify for a podium in the debates.
I’d suggest that debates limit themselves to no more than five candidates for a ninety-minute format. That would give each candidate about eighteen minutes of time, as opposed to last night when Ron Paul (according to his campaign) got only ninety seconds of time during the televised hour of the debate.
Once the debate starts, each candidate should be treated completely equally. I don’t think there is a debating society or club in America that doesn’t operate on the principle of equal time. I think it’s reasonable to exclude people from a debate, but not reasonable to limit their time based on their momentary position in the polls.
This also points up the difficulties inherent in devising a fair system of federally-funded elections, if we ever got the political will necessary to revise the current system. How do you determine which candidates qualify for public funding, and how do those targets shift as the campaign season advances, etc. I’m all for 100% publicly-funded campaigns, but I admit I don’t have a clue how to implement such a system.
I agree with your take on the format for all of these events. They are, in many ways, just clusterfucks.
And they can only be considered “debates” in the loosest sense of the word. I’ve heard more substantive exchanges of ideas while sitting at the counter at the local donut shop listening to the locals talk politics. While touted by the debate sponsors and the news media as being something of value, it seems like the primary goal is see if they can elicit one of those Rick Perry moments so they can all sit around for the next week talking about what it all means.
I watched whole thing last night, just out of curiosity. It was painful to think that this what we’ve come down to for winnowing the political field for the most powerful office in the world.
What gets me is they cheer for torture, boo our service people, hate the unemployed, laugh at the disabled and poor.
I mean WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE anyway?? No one I’ve ever met.
Unfortunately, I have.
Me too. They’re pathetic. But there aren’t that many of them, really. The News Media pay way too much attention to them though because they whine so loudly that no one could possibly miss them.
Let’s trade places for a week. You will have an eye opening experience. Where I live, these people are everywhere you would ever have a need to go.
Count yourself lucky, Jan.
I agree that skewing it toward high poll winners is a lousy idea. People need to see that the candidates are all equally insane.
And yes, I totally agree that they want to give the biggest gaffe-makers the most time. It’s all about eyes on the screen and selling airtime. Viewers will tune in to see the biggest crash and burn candidate, not the quiet, sensible ones.
People need to see that the candidates are all equally insane.
LOL Batshit crazy!
I agree with you in general.
But… “Presidential Debates” are not real debates. They tend to be question and answer sessions by media stars and the response time is limited to so little time that no one could possibly give a reasonable answer to anything.
I really miss when the League of Women Voters set the rules for debates. But they really need to send the producers of these things to debate school. Because no one seems to know what a real debate is anymore.
Eight people on a stage for 90 minutes with moderators throwing questions is in no way a ‘debate’. A circus act, yes. Debate, no. Include the outliers if you must – I wouldn’t – but under no circumstances have more than three people on the stage.
What I want to know is why are there so many debates? Seems like there is one every week. And I’d love to see how many people actually WATCH these clowns.
It’s good having so many debates. gives visibility to the candidates.
Didn’t see last night, but from liveblogs I understand that they broke for long commercials. that’s a problem – if they’re putting on a debate, don’t break like that. sounds like they cut a lot of candidates’ time
I’d suggest they do a game of “Jeopardy” with Alex Trebec using subjects like “The Constitution”, “8th Grade Civics”, “The House of Representatives”, “The Senate”, “World Leaders”, “American Geography”, “World Geography” and “American History.” Final Jeopardy could be “How a bill becomes a law.” And then whoever scores the highest wins the “Debate.”
Come to think of it, maybe with this crowd of Republicans, they’d be better to get Jeff Foxworthy and the fifth-grade kids to do a series of “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth-Grader” games to determine the winner.
I will add my vote to those responders who emphatically reject the idea that the traveling show featuring the Republican primary contenders for U.S. President is by any stretch of imagination a “debate”, formal or otherwise. The MSM has been utterly complicit with the Republican goal of saturating the airwaves with a year of Republican “talking points” essentially for free ( i.e.,no political advertising costs are associated with staging these “mega-media” events). These so-called Republican “debates” have been nothing more than a chorus line of eight pseudo-politicians, in effect a choir; all singing the same gospel chorus of “no government and no taxes will make America great again, Halleluiah!”, all pitched in the key of F America.
I propose that the name of the remaing scheduled GOP presidential primary events be RENAMED OPINOBATES. This name more accurately depicts the format of what actually occurs at these events. Namely, each participant is asked a question by a member of a selected “independent” panel of journalists. Further, the person questioned is alloted a short period of time to state his OPINION on the matter or matters raised by the question. Rebuttals and/or further exploration of the respective question varies widely, dependent mainly on the discretion of the moderator.
Changing the name of these events to OPINOBATES will better inform the TV audience what they can expect to hear from these events, while freeing the TV producers of these events from any obligation to adhere to any contrived format supposedly mimicking the structure of a formal debate. This name change will also allow the ghosts of the Stephan A.Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debates to mercifully return to their prescribed historical “place of rest”.
The Republican sham-debates are just the latest installment of reality (using the term so loosely as to make it devoid of meaning) game show. They should be called America: You’ve Got Bullshit!!!
“Debates” with a moderator asking diffeerent questions of different candidates are not debates at all. They are a platform for news ratings, that’s all.
I would prefer debates with each candidate giving his position and the other candidates questioning it, with back and forth. I think this only works with two candidates.
The moderated debate is OK IF and only if the SAME question is given to each candidate and each candidate gets to rebut. With nine candidates, That means Q1 is asked nine times and there are 72 rebuttals. With ninety minutes that means about a minute apiece. For ONE question. Conclusion, nine people debating is too unwieldy. Nine people at a press conference having ten minutes a piece for two or three questions (3 to 5 minutes each question) is feasible. It could be informative, but it is not a debate. Still, the SAME question for everyone. The question to be known in advance, so what we really hear is a set of related questions.
To boost ratings, there is another scenario, attacks only. Each candidate gets to directly question three other candidates (his choice) with no re-direct. Thirty seconds for the question, three minutes for the answer. No time outs. For further fun, the studio audience should have electronic buzzers to vote “yes” or “no” on whether the questioned candidate actually answered the question.
Now for the completely absurd (but a ratings bonanza) Herman Cain mud wrestling with Michelle Bachmann. Herman wins if he can get a significant item of clothing off Michelle or force her head into his lap. Michelle wins if she can hit Hermann in the groin hard enough for him to pass out. Bonus for emasculating him. Hey! How about a win-win?
As others have said, having the media toss questions for the candidates to answer is not a debate.
It’s a beauty contest.
(we can all pause and be thankful that there is no ‘swimsuit’ component)
To be a debate, the debaters have to engage each other. Given the mentality of the GOP candidates and debate audience, I suggest the first round of debate be conducted with hand-grenades; the survivors go on to the ‘flame thrower’ round.