Nearly 15 hours of Democrats’ debates have been largely unsatisfying. It’s a difficult, imperfect process, but it can be better. Here’s how.
Nearly 15 hours of Democrats’ debates have been largely unsatisfying. It’s a difficult, imperfect process, but it can be better. Here’s how.

Democrats’ debates aren’t helping much

Maybe it’s campaign fatigue or the time of year, but TV ratings for the Democrats’ last two debates fell precipitously and the prospects for improvement in the Dec. 19 event are dim. Part of the problem is process. As Republicans learned in 2016, crowded debate stages and uneven moderating are frustrating to viewers — and candidates.

So far this year, nearly 15 hours of debating among Democratic contenders has been largely unsatisfying. It’s a difficult, imperfect process, but it can be better. Here’s how.

Use fewer moderators

While much is said about the crowd of candidates on stage, little is discussed regarding the number of moderators, which has proved to be a major problem. The first DNC debate back in June had five; last month’s had four, as will the upcoming event in Los Angeles, which makes absolutely no journalistic sense. One or two moderators is ideal, but networks insist on squeezing more into each event simply to showcase their talent.

An analysis of the transcripts shows that bouncing from one questioner to the next invariably means an abrupt change of topic, denying some candidates the opportunity to speak about the most important issues. For instance, when climate change came up last month only five of the 10 candidates were called upon; the topic of paid family leave was discussed by only four. Sen. Cory Booker chided moderators for leaving him out of a discussion about African American voters, noting, “I’ve been one since I was 18.”

The upcoming event will have seven candidates and four moderators. That’s more like a press conference than a debate.

Allow an undercard

The DNC wisely sought to avoid the mess Republicans created in 2016 when 17 candidates took part in a single debate. But Democrats rejected the GOP’s solution which split the field into upper and lower tiers based on polling, with the lower-ranking candidates having their own separate debate. Although derided by some as a “kiddie table,” the arrangement gave marginal candidates, such as business executive Carly Fiorina, a chance to be heard and climb to the top group.

A debate among second-tier Democrats would be useful. Voters might be interested to hear what recent entrants former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have to say — and they shouldn’t have to travel to Iowa or New Hampshire to hear them say it. If low ratings are the problem, so what? Run the secondary debate online if necessary, but at least allow it.

Vary the format

I’d like to see Democrats try a debate in which candidates come on stage one at a time, in an order determined by random draw, with the others waiting backstage in a sound-proof area. Each candidate is given the same three pointed questions concerning, say, tax policy, health care and climate. This approach allows everyone to address the main topics, without benefit of hearing what the others said. The questions should be framed to avoid stock answers. For example, rather than asking, “What should be done about climate change?” the question could be, “Do you favor a tax on carbon, and if so how would you distribute the revenue?”

Once all candidates are on stage, the second segment could be a more free-wheeling discussion in which each candidate is asked about things the others said.

Dive deeper

Back in August the DNC voted against having any debates devoted to a single issue, a big mistake. If such an approach is too radical for Chairman Tom Perez and his committee, then why not try a debate with each half hour devoted to a major topic. That would allow some depth, force candidates to stay on point, and prevent moderators from drifting into meaningless questions.

In last month’s debate, businessman Andrew Yang was asked: “If elected, what would you say in a phone call to Russian President Vladimir Putin?” Really? Yang got less time than any other candidate and then he’s given that? His quick quip: “I’d say ‘I’m sorry I beat your guy.’”

Try fact-checking

It’s too late to cut the number of moderators for this debate, but how about giving two of them new assignments? Start out with two moderators asking questions and the other two backstage doing fact-checks. For the final half hour these two journalists would come on stage to confront each candidate with their inaccurate or misleading statements.

Ban hand-raising

Granted, raising one’s hand is more polite than raising one’s voice out of turn, but it’s a distraction and candidates should be cautioned against doing it. In the last debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was called on to speak five times before three of her competitors had uttered a single word.

Until the general election when debates will be one on one, the process will never be perfect. But changes are needed at this stage to help, as pundits like to say, move the needle. On Dec. 19 I’d like each candidate take a crack at this question: What, specifically, should the DNC resolve to do in the New Year to make debates more informative and compelling?

The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:

—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.

—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.

—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”

—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).

—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.

—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.

Articles related to “Democrats’ debates aren’t helping much”

Democrats play the race card

Joe Biden will win Democratic Nomination, if only by default

The Democrats lost their own debates

Click This Ad
Previous articleChristmas debtors
Next articleBBB study examines risk to businesses from business email compromise scams
Peter Funt
In print and on television, Peter Funt continues the Funt Family tradition of making people smile – while examining the human condition. After 15 years hosting the landmark TV series “Candid Camera,” Peter writes frequent op-eds for The Boston Globe and The Wall Street Journal as well as his weekly column distributed by the Cagle Cartoon Syndicate. His writing contains the same pointed social observations that have made “Candid Camera” so popular since its invention by Peter’s dad, Allen, back in 1947. His new book, "Cautiously Optimistic," takes America's temperature in six-dozen essays, guaranteed to make readers think and smile. It's available at Amazon.com and through CandidCamera.com. Peter is a frequent speaker before business groups and on college campuses, using the vast “Candid Camera” library to bring his points to life. His newest presentation for corporate audiences, “The Candid You,” draws upon decades of people-watching to identify factors that promote better communication and productivity. Details about Peter Funt’s speaking engagements are available at: www.CandidCamera.com. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naYXOGIktsw for video. Peter hosted the newest versions of “Candid Camera” in recent years with Suzanne Somers and Dina Eastwood, with complete collections now available on DVD. Peter Funt actually made his first appearance on “Candid Camera” when he and the legendary series were each just three years old. Peter posed as a shoeshine boy who charged $10 per shoe! Since that time he has appeared in hundreds of “Candid Camera” sequences, hosted over 200 network episodes. In addition to his hidden-camera work, Peter Funt has produced and hosted TV specials on the Arts & Entertainment and Lifetime cable networks. He also spent five years as an editor and reporter with ABC News in New York. Earlier in his career, Peter wrote dozens of articles for The New York Times and TV Guide about television and film. He was editor and publisher of the television magazine On Cable. And he authored the book "Gotcha!" for Grosset & Dunlap on the lost art of practical joking. Peter’s essay on the evolution of television is included in “The Story of American Business,” published in 2009 by Harvard Business Press. Peter also follows in his father's footsteps as President of Laughter Therapy Foundation, a non-profit organization started by Allen Funt in 1982. Drawing from the Candid Camera library, Laughter Therapy sends special videos, at no charge, to critically ill people throughout the U.S. When Peter took over as host of the CBS specials, "Variety" wrote: "The latest new 'Candid Camera' specials seem to be getting funnier. Peter Funt is as personable as his dad..." Following Candid Camera's Battle of the Sexes special, "The Hollywood Reporter" observed: "This show is great fun. Peter Funt has a remarkably effective presence." Peter Funt received his degree in journalism from the University of Denver. In 2010 he returned to the Denver campus to be honored as a Master Scholar in Arts and Humanities. He is a past winner of the annual Silurian's Award for radio news reporting, for his ABC News coverage of racial disturbances in Asbury Park, NJ. Peter is founder of the Monterey County Young Journalists program in California, which provides hands-on training for high school students pursuing careers in news. He also inaugurated the Courtroom Journalism competition in Monterey County in conjunction with the Lyceum Organization, and conducts a similar statewide event for the Constitutional Rights Foundation in Los Angeles, as part of its Mock Trial program. Peter resides in Central California with his wife, Amy, and two children, Stephanie and Danny. His favorite pastimes are golf, baseball, tennis and people-watching.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here