Political Debates on Television

The first televised debate between Trump and Biden arose suddenly on my horizon. Once I realized it was coming, the first thing that popped into my head was that I needed to watch it. The second thing was, "I hope they've set up sensible procedures to keep Trump from using the scorched earth tactics he employed during his run in 2016."

Sadly as we all now know, "they" had utterly failed to do so. How, I thought, could the organizers have failed to recognize what the sedate standard format would lead to?  If I thought it was problematic, why didn't they? I had assumed that to ensure smooth process, the rules would be like the debate here in Virginia that I had watched the previous week. In that one, the three participants (two Senatorial candidates and the moderator, Chuck Todd of Meet the Press) were online, weren't in the same room, not even the same city. The camera moved from one to the other on schedule, and no one ran over their allotted time by more than a few seconds.

So who sets these things up?  I thought I remembered the parties bargaining over details but since about 1988 the process has been the exclusive domain of "The Commission on Presidential Debates." This organization was set up in a supposedly bipartisan way (for details, check their website http://www.debates.org.)  What I notice is that the three directors' politically active periods were as long ago as the 1980s, which may mean that their understanding of what constitutes normal political practice is a little outdated, and they failed to recognize changed conditions. I prefer to think that than to believe that the Republicans in the leadership duped the Democrats.

Clearly changes are needed, and as of today, the Commission has proposed some, mainly that the upcoming debates be "virtual" events. But the original error made the changes themselves chaotic and controversial. Trump can benefit by claiming that the Democrats requested the changes because Biden couldn't take the heat, and also handily extract himself from playing a losing hand (he has already said he won't participate on a "virtual" basis). 

I don't believe the public loses much if the remaining two debates are canceled. The greater interest will be whether the debates continue in future elections; whether the CPD can make changes that will make the process more relevant; and whether it will even be the CPD that is responsible for setting them up in future. 

Comments

[PiedType]

Trump was smart enough to realize a virtual debate would put him at a disadvantage because the moderator could cut him off at will. And he counts on being able to talk over his opponent. Biden, on the other hand, is wise enough to realize Trump may still be contagious and that it would be foolish to get anywhere near him. In lieu of debates, Trump wants to have another rally -- where he can possibly infect dozens of supporters. Like you, I'm thinking we've seen the last of the debates. But I expect more rallies for the spreader-in-chief.

[JHawk23]

Yes, so many rallies set for this week. A progression of desperation is in play. My takeaway from the GOP convention was "desperate." After the first debate, more desperate, and scared. Even more so now with the flurry of rallies and the fake bluster of Trump's "immunity" to covid-19. I believe many voters can see it, and it's not what they want to see in a President.