The televised
presidential debates are the mega-events of the fall campaign.
Stakes
are high as the candidates face each other, across a single stage,
within
a month of the election, before a television audience of tens of
millions
of people. A debate can reveal the candidates' differences and
ability
to think on their feet or it can devolve into a scripted exercise
bordering
on a joint press conference or an exchange of
soundbites.
Format PrepSpinMediaThird Party DebatesPast Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on
Presidential
Debates (CPD), a non-profit organization established in 1987, has
organized all general election debates since 1988 (six election cycles
now). Previous debates
were
sponsored by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, and 1984) and the
networks (1960). The CPD develops candidate selection criteria
which
are used to evaluate which candidates it will invite to
participate.
It proposes dates and locations of debates. It lines up corporate
sponsors and oversees preparations for these important events.1 The CPD
debates have become very well established and although
other
organizations have put forth proposals for debates, none have come to
fruition. Here is the proposed schedule of CPD debates as announced on
Oct. 31, 2011:
|
First Presidential Debate |
Wed. Oct. 3, 2012 |
University of Denver, Denver, CO |
 |
Vice Presidential Debate |
Thurs, Oct. 11, 2012 |
Centre College, Danville, KY |
 |
Second Presidential Debate (town
mtg) |
Tues. Oct. 16, 2012 |
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY |
 |
Third Presidential Debate |
Mon. Oct. 22, 2012 |
Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL |
Twelve venues sought to
host a 2012 debate. The back-up site is Washington University in
St. Louis, MO.
Each cycle the CPD tweaks its formats to try to improve the debates; for example the 2008 formats featured looser time constraints. However, despite the best efforts of the moderators, direct exchanges between Obama and McCain were rare and the presidential debates remained somewhat stilted affairs. Major issues such as immigration were not addressed. The vice presidential debate, held on Oct. 2, 2008 garnered the largest audience of the four debates, a reported 69.9 million viewers. Audiences for the presidential debates ranged from 52.4 million to 63.2 million.
Critics charge that the CPD is a bipartisan rather than a nonpartisan organization, and can scarcely be expected to be fair to third party and independent candidates. They also question the CPD's reliance on corporate money and maintain that it lacks transparency.
Clearly some limits must be set as to who will appear on the debate stage, for with too many candidates these events will become unmanageable. Starting in 2000, the CPD has used three simple criteria. (In earlier cycles, the CPD used a complicated set of "objective criteria" that drew much criticism). To participate in the debates, candidates must:
(a) be constitutionally eligible;
(b) have ballot access in enough states to win a majority of electoral votes (at least 270); and
(c) have a level of national support of at least 15 % as measured in polls done by five selected national polling organizations.
Third party candidates have raised strong objections to their exclusion from the debates. They argue that the 15-percent threshhold is arbitrary and too high.
Challenges to the CPD and its criteria have proven unsuccessful. There was considerable legal activity by minor party candidates in 1996, 2000 and 2004. In Nov. 2001, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) introduced a resolution in Congress that sought to lower the threshhold for participation to 5-percent (H.C.R. 263) but it did not go anywhere. In 2004, Open Debates, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit "committed to reforming the presidential debate process," established a Citizens Debate Commission in an effort to replace the CPD. The Citizens Debate Commission proposed five presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, what it termed "real and transparent" presidential debates as opposed to "stilted and deceptive events proposed by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)." (August 16, 2004 letter) Open Debates took several other actions. On Feb. 14, 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the FEC alleging "that presidential debates sponsored by the CPD are controlled by the major parties in violation of FEC debate regulations." The Open Debates complaint sought to have "the FEC prohibit the CPD from staging future corporate-sponsored presidential debates." And on April 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the IRS in an attempt to revoke the tax status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Given the lack of success of these various efforts, it is not surprising that there was no noticeable legal activity in the 2008 cycle.
In addition to who participates there is the question of content. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has challenged the substantiveness of the CPD-sponsored debates. (See here for an example of how a debate might be conducted). In an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa on Aug. 12, 2005 he called for an end to the current tightly formated presidential debates saying they "trivialize the whole process." Instead, Gingrich said, the candidates should engage in a straightforward dialogue without a moderator for 90 minutes. During a "Lincoln at Cooper Union" dialogue held on Feb. 28, 2007, Gingrich stated "I propose that we challenge every candidate in both parties to make a commitment before the nominating process begins that if they become the nominee they will agree from Labor Day to the election to nine 90 minute dialogues, one a week for nine weeks..."
"I commend
to you
the 1996, 2000 and 2004 presidential debate agreements which run 53
pages
apiece. They are bizarre examples of lunacy. No serious
adult
should agree to them. They're childish. You don't elect a
president
to memorize. You elect a president to have wisdom, to have
serious
thought, to reflect." —Newt Gingrich
There is no
requirement
that presidential candidates participate in debates, but it would be
quite
damaging to be seen as avoiding or blocking the debates, particularly
since
the candidates have, at least until recently, taken federal
funds. When
it comes to the number, timing and formats of the debates, as well as
who
will participate, there is a lot of discussion, but invariably the
major
party candidates and their campaigns have the final word.
The CPD proposal is on the table and serves as a starting point, but
each
campaign acts in its own best interest. The goal is to create the
most
favorable
possible set of circumstances for their candidate.
Thus, typically every four
years
there is a ritual debate over debates. For several weeks the two
major campaigns jockey back and forth haggling over details big and
small—everything
from the number and format of the debates to the podium height and
shape
and who is or is not acceptable as a moderator. Closed-doors
meetings
alternate with pointed public pronouncements, but eventually the two
sides
reach an accord. In 2008 the Obama and McCain campaigns
reached an agreement quickly and without posturing. They did not,
however, release the full Memorandum of
Understanding [PDF]
as
happened
in
2004.
The format of a debate has a critical impact on nature of the exchanges that occur and on the amount of information viewers are able to learn. The most obvious parameter to consider is who is on the stage and who is not, but there are many other factors. Is there a live audience and are they controlled or disruptive? Is the subject matter confined to one area, such as the economy, or is it more wide-ranging? What is the time limit on candidate responses and on rebuttals? Finally, who asks the questions? The 1960 and 1976-1988 presidential debates exclusively used the panel of reporters. More recently the single moderator and town hall formats have come into favor. The town hall format was first used in the Richmond, VA debate in 1992. Having an audience of undecided voters pose the questions likely results in a broader range of questions, but on the downside this format does not foster follow-up. One format which has not been attempted is to have the candidates question each other directly.
In the lead up to the debates, the candidates undergo intensive preparations. Briefing books are put together, and the candidates engage in mock debates. The media provide glimpses of these rehearsals. The candidates will also be sure to be seen engaging in public displays of confidence such as throwing a baseball, jogging, or giving a thumbs up.
Following each debate occurs one of the most unique and fascinating scenes in American politics. Top campaign staff, campaign surrogates and party leaders gather in the media filing center and spin reporters, telling them what they have just seen. On opposite sides of the filing center chairs are set up for Democratic and for Republican partisans to do satellite interviews with local stations around the country. Meanwhile, during and after the debate a rapid response unit works feverishly to produce rebuttals to various claims made during the debate; these documents are distributed in the media center and e-mailed out.
In 1988 media were criticized for giving too much attention to the spinners. Spin soundbites still form an integral part of coverage, but another common element is to assemble a group of undecided voters and interview them for their reactions. Starting in 1996, the Commission on Presidential Debates has run a Debate Watch program to encourage debate-watching groups around the country. These groups provide convenient opportunities for local media to do debate coverage.
Several third party candidate
debates typically occur. Although C-SPAN does cover some of
these, they usually
receive virtually no attention. One organization that has done
work on such events is
Free & Equal Elections.
| 2008 McCain-Obama |
Sept.
26,
2008 Oxford, MS |
Oct.
7,
2008 Nashville, TN |
Oct.
15,
2008 Hempstead, NY |
Palin-Biden Oct. 2, 2008 St. Louis, MO |
| 2004
Bush-Kerry |
Sept.
30, 2004 Coral Gables, FL |
Oct.
8,
2004 St. Louis, MO |
Oct.
13,
2004 Tempe, AZ |
Cheney-Edwards Oct. 5, 2004 Cleveland, OH |
| 2000
Gore-Bush |
Oct.
3,
2000 Boston, MA |
Oct.
11,
2000 Winston-Salem, NC |
Oct.
17,
2000 St. Louis, MO |
Lieberman-Cheney
Oct. 5, 2000 Danville, KY |
| 1996
Clinton-Dole |
Oct.
6,
1996 Hartford, CT |
Oct.
16,
1996 San Diego, CA |
. | Gore-Kemp
Oct. 9, 1996 St. Petersburg, FL |
| 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot |
Oct.
11,
1992 St. Louis, MO |
Oct.
15,
1992 Richmond, VA |
Oct. 19, 1992
East Lansing, MI |
Quayle-Gore-Stockdale
Oct. 13, 1992 Atlanta, GA |
| 1988
Bush-Dukakis |
Sept.
25,
1988 Winston-Salem, NC |
Oct.
13,
1988 Los Angeles, CA |
. | Quayle-Bentsen
Oct. 5, 1988 Omaha, NE |
| 1984 Reagan-Mondale |
Oct.
7,
1984 Louisville, KY |
Oct.
21,
1984 Kansas City, MO |
. | Bush-Ferraro
Oct. 11, 1984 Philadelphia, PA |
| 1980
Carter-Reagan-Anderson |
Reagan-Anderson
Sept. 21, 1980 Baltimore, MD |
Carter-Reagan
Oct. 28, 1980 Cleveland, OH |
. | none |
| 1976
Ford-Carter |
Sept.
23,
1976 Philadelphia, PA |
Oct.
6,
1976 San Francisco, CA |
Oct.
22,
1976 Williamsburg, VA |
Dole-Mondale
Oct. 15, 1976 Houston, TX |
| 1960
Nixon-Kennedy |
Sept. 26, 1960 | Oct. 7, 1960 | Oct. 13, 1960 | Oct. 21, 1960 |
