The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: candidates
How To Fix An Unfair Presidential Debate System

How To Fix An Unfair Presidential Debate System

By Stuart Rothenberg, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Fox News and CNN, which will broadcast the first two GOP presidential debates, have decided on a system for excluding candidates that could result in Donald Trump participating in those debates but current or former senators and governors being excluded.

Nice going, guys.

I certainly agree having a debate with 16 candidates is simply unwatchable, and there is no easy way to make the early debates fair to the candidates while at the same time more watchable and informative for viewers. But Fox and CNN have both dropped the ball as they try to avoid making tough decisions.

At the first debate on August sixth in Cleveland, Fox will limit participation to candidates who “place in the top ten in an average of the five most recent national polls in the run-up to the event.” Fox apparently will “provide additional coverage and air time on August sixth to the candidates who do not place in the top ten.”

CNN has chosen a similar-but-not-identical approach that is also based on polling leading up to the debate. It will hold two separate forums, one for the top-tier hopefuls and a second for the also-rans.

Fox and CNN, along with the Republican National Committee, can (and surely will) argue they are not excluding candidates from the first debate, the public is. And I’m sure they will say that with a straight face.

Even debate veterans privately admit ten participants are too many. Most of the early GOP debates last time, from August to November 2011, included only eight candidates, and that was bad enough.

But ten is a nice round number, and it allows Fox and CNN to claim they have found a reasonable balance between having too many hopefuls and arbitrarily excluding some. It’s a classic cover-your-behind strategy.

But limiting the field to ten participants means as many as six hopefuls could be excluded from the meaningful debates. Sure, CNN will have a loser’s bracket, but much like the NIT basketball tournament, nobody will care. Being the best of the losers isn’t exactly a winning outcome.

The two networks could end up excluding the only woman in the Republican field (businesswoman Carly Fiorina), the only African-American in the field (Ben Carson), or the only other candidate of color in the race (Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal). For a party that needs to remake its image, excluding candidates who are not white men is a novel strategy.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would all appear to have guaranteed slots in the debate. That leaves room for five others. Who could be excluded?

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is the last Republican to have won the Iowa caucuses, but he could be excluded. The same goes for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won those caucuses in 2008.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is about to announce his candidacy, but he doesn’t yet have a campaign. He could be on the outside looking in, even though he is a sitting senator from the second primary state. Not only that, but Graham has become one of his party’s leading voices on national security issues. Oh well, who cares about those issues anyway?

Ohio Governor John Kasich appears poised to enter the race, but also has no real campaign yet. He may not be able to ramp up quickly enough to make the top ten cut. But the first debate is in Cleveland, which, the last time I looked, is still in Ohio. And Ohio remains one of the key states in 2016. Oh, what the heck, he’s only the governor.

The rest of the field includes former Texas Governor Rick Perry, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former New York Governor George Pataki and the aforementioned Trump.

Right now, Trump would make the cutoff, and because of his celebrity status he might very well meet the criteria later this year when the first two debate fields are set. Yet, I think we all know Trump is a carnival barker, not a credible contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

Clearly, any effort to limit the field will generate complaints and criticism. But any approach that limits the field so early in the race, at least five months before the first contest involving voters, seems inherently unfair. And using national polls to select participants in early debates seems odd when the first few actual tests of strength involve small, retail politics states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

After all, we are talking about the first debate or the first couple of debates, not the fifth. Each candidate can rightly argue he or she deserves to be in the first few debates, since those televised events will be the first time many Republican voters will have the opportunity to evaluate and compare the candidates.

The obvious answer is to divide the field in half, randomly assigning individual hopefuls to one of the two debates. Of course, not everyone will like the group he or she is in, and the makeup of each group would determine the particular dynamic of that debate.

After a couple of debates, the hosts of additional debates will have just cause to limit the number of debaters. But doing so in the first couple of debates is inherently unfair and could end up damaging the party’s image. You’d think that that would be something the RNC would want to avoid.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Is Anyone Not Running For The Republican Presidential Nomination?

Is Anyone Not Running For The Republican Presidential Nomination?

By Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg News (TNS)

Everyone, it seems, is in.

The multi-year “will they or won’t they” game that political reporters, operatives, and junkies have been playing was all for naught. Just about every Republican whose name was floated as a potential 2016 candidate — and a few who never even entered the conversation — have taken a look at the political landscape and decided to enter the race or have given clear signals that a campaign launch is imminent. While there are clear benefits to the diverse field, it is also already creating headaches for party leaders looking toward a major general election fight.

Six candidates already are officially in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Over the next ten days four more candidates may join the field. That group still won’t include expected players Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker; or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Or Ohio Governor John Kasich.

“The field is larger and deeper than in previous cycles,” says Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, a non-partisan analysis of campaigns and elections. And that, without question “makes things more complicated.”

Republican donors and operatives have for weeks been weighing the benefits (real debate over the issues; the type of race that excites all corners of the party; an unlimited number of attacks from all sides directed at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton) and negatives (no control of aforementioned debates; no unified message; donors spread thin; a primary process that, like the one in 2012, may suck resources, energy, and some of the sheen off the eventual candidate) of such a deep field. But the hypothetical exercise turned real last week when it was reported that Fox News would limit participation in its August debate to the top ten candidates based on the average of the five most recent national polls.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who will announce his decision on the race Wednesday, criticized the “arbitrary” nature of the debate metrics in an interview with National Journal. He pointed to the 11 states he carried in the 2012 campaign as Exhibit A of why using early national polls is a poor plan.

He also noted the possibility of excluding candidates with major government or business bona fides — like Jindal, or former technology executive Carly Fiorina, or South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is expected to announce his entrance into the field on June first — as other examples of why the threshold was flawed.

That’s not to say there aren’t clear positives to the size of the group. The diversity, both in viewpoints and in backgrounds, the group brings to the table is something Republicans gleefully point out as a contrast to the current Democratic field of two (and dominated by one.)

“The quality of the candidates is just higher,” says Gonzales, something the party’s likely voters seem to agree with. A May 19 Pew Research Center poll found that 57 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning registered voters had a positive impression of the current field. That early enthusiasm, even with a looming hard-fought primary process, is certainly a step up from past years. The same poll found 50 percent of the same group had an excellent or good impression of the GOP field in September 2007. Last cycle was even worse: Only 44 percent had a positive impression of the field in May 2011.

Gonzales also points out a key, and too often ignored, point at this stage in the race: It’s really, really early. No, it sure wouldn’t look good to have the governor of Ohio, the premier swing state, left off the stage of the first Republican debate, which just so happens to be held in Ohio. But early debates aside, gaming out an elongated primary process with a sizable field of financially viable candidates ignores a key data point: the voters. Nothing whittles a field down quite like a couple of eighth or ninth place finishes, he says.

Photo: Teresa via Flickr

Death Of A Wedge Issue: 4 Ways GOP Presidential Hopefuls Reacted To Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Death Of A Wedge Issue: 4 Ways GOP Presidential Hopefuls Reacted To Same-Sex Marriage Decision

AFP Photo/Nicholas Kamm

AFP Photo/Nicholas Kamm

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow rulings that recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in five states was a massive step forward in the drive for marriage equality. But it could also scramble the GOP’s political calculus in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

In the past, Republican candidates have almost uniformly spoken out against same-sex marriage. So you might expect the party’s 2016 contenders to voice their dissatisfaction and grumble loudly in the wake of Monday’s news. However, many have instead chosen to bite their tongues.

Here are the four ways the GOP’s 2016 hopefuls have responded to the big news:

Silence

Chris Christie. Photo via Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Many Republicans appear reluctant to engage in a dialogue about what was once a top wedge issue. “We don’t have to agree with the decision, but as long as we’re not against it we should be okay,” an anonymous aide to a 2016 presidential contender told TIME. “The base, meanwhile, will focus its anger on the Court, and not on us.”

In other words, candidates would rather avoid the issue entirely than choose between being on the wrong side of a losing battle and alienating their Republican base.

Chris Christie, for instance, declined to comment on the subject at a campaign event in Connecticut. “I haven’t had a chance to read it,” Christie insisted. “All I saw was the headline when I was coming up here, so I don’t give comments based on headlines.”


Acceptance

Scott Walker. Photo via Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Some potential candidates seem to have thrown in the towel. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, for example, is a contender who embraced surrender. As reported by TIME, Walker acknowledged, “It’s over in Wisconsin. The federal courts have ruled that this decision by this court of appeals decision is the law of the land and we will be upholding it.”

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, also a likely candidate, echoed Walker’s sentiments that the matter is out of his hands. “The law is certainly in the Court’s court,” Jindal explained.


Defiance

Ted Cruz. Photo via Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) isn’t ready to slink away quietly. On Monday, Cruz declared that he would introduce an amendment to rein in the Supreme Court’s power over marriage laws.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower-court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” Cruz stated. He also called the inactivity by the Supreme Court “judicial activism at its worst.”


Denial

Mike Huckabee. Photo via Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee went one step further than Cruz in his opposition to the Court’s ruling. On Monday, Huckabee clung to the idea that Republican governors can still prevent same-sex marriages.

“It is shocking that many elected officials, attorneys and judges think that a court ruling is the ‘final word,'” Huckabee said. “It most certainly is not. The courts are one branch of government, and equal to the other two, but not superior to either and certainly not to both. Even if the other two branches agree with the ruling, the people’s representatives have to pass enabling legislation to authorize same-sex marriage, and the president (or governor in the case of the state) has to sign it. Otherwise, it remains the court’s opinion. It is NOT the ‘law of the land’ as is often heralded.”

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Tips For Surviving The Republican Candidate Debate

Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) — Having avoided preemption by a presidential address, the debate of hopefuls for the Republican presidential nomination looms Wednesday night as a critical event on the party’s primary calendar.

All eight candidates are under pressure to perform, yet that pressure isn’t evenly distributed, and the participants don’t all have the same burdens and opportunities on debate night. So who has to do what to be a winner at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California?

Although many have suggested that Texas Governor Rick Perry — participating in his first debate of the race — has the most work to do, in fact, just the opposite is true. Perry does have a long way to go before his front-runner status is cemented, but in this debate, he needs to establish only one thing: sure-footedness.

No candidate since Wesley Clark in the Democratic primaries in September 2003 has leapt so quickly from entering the race to the front of the polls. As the debate-preparation coordinator for the Clark campaign, I remember those heady and anxious days. Like Clark in the fall of 2003, Perry in 2011 is drawing support from many voters who have never heard him utter more than a sound bite or two — a tenuous position.

Perry’s mission tomorrow night, then, is to do nothing that unnerves these newly acquired supporters in their first extended exposure to him. He must sound sharp on economic matters and reassuring on national-security concerns. Having come so far, so fast, Perry probably cannot — and almost certainly need not — gain ground in the debate; his focus needs to be on making sure he doesn’t make major gaffes that imperil his status.

Practice, Practice, Practice

If I were advising Perry, I would have him off the campaign trail, preparing, resting, and practicing, practicing, practicing.

By contrast, the performance burden falls most heavily on the previous front-runner, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. In the months before Perry got in the contest, the Romney campaign lost its edge by adopting the political equivalent of a prevent defense in the first quarter of a football game. Unprepared for what hit them, the Romney camp has floundered since Perry came on the scene.

Romney has lurched to the right, in a doomed effort to compete with Perry and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota on their turf. As a result, he is losing the “strength” primary to Perry, as the Texan appears comfortable with his more natural positioning, while Romney seems uncertain and weak in his newfound conservatism. Romney needs to use the debate to reclaim the middle ground, showing that he can stand up to Perry and Bachmann instead of trying to emulate them.

Outrageous Statements

Perry has made outrageous statements, even by the standards of the Republican primary electorate. In his 2010 book, “Fed Up,” he suggests that Social Security is a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles,” and that Medicare is unconstitutional. This should be fodder for Romney at the debate for a much-needed move to unapologetically reassert a centrist position for his candidacy.

Only by taking on Perry’s extremism can Romney arrest his opponent’s momentum. Will Romney be the 2012 version of Arizona Senator John McCain — the 2008 front-runner who stumbled early but regained his footing — or will he more closely resemble former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the early leader in 2008 who saw that position slip away, never to be reclaimed? That question starts to be answered tomorrow night.

Establishing Competence

Bachmann, too, finds herself under pressure, albeit for a very different reason. She has raised the bar for herself with her success in earlier debates: Mere competence (what Perry must demonstrate in his first outing) won’t be enough to ensure a successful night for Bachmann. Unlike Romney, who needs to aim his fire upward at Perry, Bachmann needs to take her shots at two candidates who are nipping at her from behind: former executive Herman Cain and Texas Representative Ron Paul.

For while Bachmann will ultimately have to counter Perry’s gains among establishment conservatives, her most immediate concern should be the fracturing of grass roots, Tea Party support among herself, Cain and Paul.

She should use the debate to appeal to these voters directly, telling activists that their failure to unite behind a single candidate means the inevitable nomination of either Perry or Romney. She needs to make the case for why she — and not Cain or Paul — is the right wing’s best chance at having one of their own as the Republican candidate.

Breakthrough Moment

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman are rarely lumped together, but they share a common task tomorrow: avoiding irrelevance. Thus, the preparation that most candidates engage in for debates — polishing expertise, crafting answers, preparing for oddball questions — is of no importance to them.

A good overall performance does little for them; what each of them needs is a single, exceptional, breakthrough moment. With Perry, Romney and Bachmann hogging the spotlight (on the one hand), and Cain and Paul sustained by hard-core followers (on the other), Gingrich and Huntsman need to use the debate to avoid a Tim Pawlenty-like fade into oblivion. Their goal is to claim an attack, a new slogan, a memorable idea that cuts through the clutter and earns them precious post-debate sound bite coverage that will otherwise go entirely to the big three.

They won’t get many chances, and they can’t wait until the setup is just right: They need to force their moment as soon as they get the microphone.

Core Supporters

Cain and Paul, by contrast, need to do only what they do best: energize their core supporters. Unlike Gingrich and Huntsman, who are failing to find an audience, Cain and Paul have devoted followers who seek out what their candidates are saying even when the mainstream media gives them little airtime. Yes, they need to guard against any effort by Bachmann to snatch their supporters, but their best counter to such an effort is to stick with the messages that have won them a devoted following.

If all the other candidates need to stretch in some way on debate night, Cain and Paul just need to keep firing up their supporters with uncompromising, hard-line positions that lack broad appeal, but resonate with true believers. And what about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum? He should just enjoy his time in the limelight, which is probably coming to an end soon.

Perry, Romney, and Bachmann enter the debate like stock cars on the track, running three abreast down the straightaway, speeding toward a corner.

Will Perry spin out? Will Romney reclaim the middle of the road? Can Bachmann put distance between herself and Cain and Paul?

Something — someone — is going to have to give ground in Simi Valley.

(Ron Klain, a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden and senior adviser to President Barack Obama on the Recovery Act, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a senior executive with a private investment firm. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Copyright 2011 Bloomberg