This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opinion/democrats-2020-debate-chaos.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| How the Democrats Can Avoid Debate Chaos | How the Democrats Can Avoid Debate Chaos |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The Democrats have too much of a good thing: More than a dozen creditable candidates are looking to run for president in 2020. A large field isn’t in itself worrisome, since the party needs a strong crop to choose from to oust what will probably be a weakened but still formidable President Trump. The problem is the selection process itself — and in particular the pre-primary debates from which most voters will form their views of the candidates. | The Democrats have too much of a good thing: More than a dozen creditable candidates are looking to run for president in 2020. A large field isn’t in itself worrisome, since the party needs a strong crop to choose from to oust what will probably be a weakened but still formidable President Trump. The problem is the selection process itself — and in particular the pre-primary debates from which most voters will form their views of the candidates. |
| Obviously, it’s a recipe for chaos to have 10 candidates, let alone a dozen, on the stage at once — as the Republican Party learned the hard way in 2016. But you can’t ruthlessly exclude candidates, either, at least not without depriving some talented dark horses of the chance to reach the front of the pack. | Obviously, it’s a recipe for chaos to have 10 candidates, let alone a dozen, on the stage at once — as the Republican Party learned the hard way in 2016. But you can’t ruthlessly exclude candidates, either, at least not without depriving some talented dark horses of the chance to reach the front of the pack. |
| Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, has said he will announce a solution by the end of the year. If he gets it right, the debates will make the voters’ job a lot easier. If he gets it wrong, he risks depriving the party of an as-yet unheralded, world-beating talent. | Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, has said he will announce a solution by the end of the year. If he gets it right, the debates will make the voters’ job a lot easier. If he gets it wrong, he risks depriving the party of an as-yet unheralded, world-beating talent. |
| What Democrats desperately need is a balanced, deliberative process. They must let candidates prove that they have the charisma to take on our reality-show president and the experience to repair the country after taking office. And they have to give voters a genuine opportunity to see the contenders’ key personal qualities as well as the meaningful policy differences among them. | What Democrats desperately need is a balanced, deliberative process. They must let candidates prove that they have the charisma to take on our reality-show president and the experience to repair the country after taking office. And they have to give voters a genuine opportunity to see the contenders’ key personal qualities as well as the meaningful policy differences among them. |
| So what should the Democrats do? | So what should the Democrats do? |
| First, they should learn from the Republicans’ mistakes in 2016, when flawed debate rules may have helped Donald Trump trounce a raft of seasoned public officials. Faced with more candidates than a single debate could withstand, the Republicans initially relegated lower-polling candidates to an “undercard” that aired before the main event. No one watched it, and the participants — who included senators and governors with as much claim to consideration as those in the top tier — lost any chance to improve their lots. | First, they should learn from the Republicans’ mistakes in 2016, when flawed debate rules may have helped Donald Trump trounce a raft of seasoned public officials. Faced with more candidates than a single debate could withstand, the Republicans initially relegated lower-polling candidates to an “undercard” that aired before the main event. No one watched it, and the participants — who included senators and governors with as much claim to consideration as those in the top tier — lost any chance to improve their lots. |
| Even so, the main debates were still too frenzied to offer any coherent discussion. Making matters worse, other ill-advised rules rewarded Mr. Trump with disproportionate airtime. Favoring fireworks over forensics, the debates catered to the imperatives of cable television, not the voters. | Even so, the main debates were still too frenzied to offer any coherent discussion. Making matters worse, other ill-advised rules rewarded Mr. Trump with disproportionate airtime. Favoring fireworks over forensics, the debates catered to the imperatives of cable television, not the voters. |
| To avoid such a circus, the Democrats should decree that no debate will have more than six participants. In a 90-minute program, even a roster capped at six would allow the candidates just 15 minutes apiece to present themselves to the public. | To avoid such a circus, the Democrats should decree that no debate will have more than six participants. In a 90-minute program, even a roster capped at six would allow the candidates just 15 minutes apiece to present themselves to the public. |
| The party should also recognize that early poll numbers mostly reflect nothing more than name recognition and the recency of someone’s appearance in the news. For that reason, establishing tiers is a bad idea, at least until the campaign season is far along, at which point the field will most likely have narrowed, allowing for face-to-face matchups between the heaviest hitters. | The party should also recognize that early poll numbers mostly reflect nothing more than name recognition and the recency of someone’s appearance in the news. For that reason, establishing tiers is a bad idea, at least until the campaign season is far along, at which point the field will most likely have narrowed, allowing for face-to-face matchups between the heaviest hitters. |
| If, as seems likely, more than six Democrats enter the race, the whole pool should be randomly sorted into two groups. Group A can debate in prime time during Week A, Group B in prime time during Week B. If the aspirants climb to more than 12, a third debate could be held during Week C. | If, as seems likely, more than six Democrats enter the race, the whole pool should be randomly sorted into two groups. Group A can debate in prime time during Week A, Group B in prime time during Week B. If the aspirants climb to more than 12, a third debate could be held during Week C. |
| For the next month’s cycle, candidates should be re-sorted into entirely new groups, to create new pairings. This egalitarian format would de-emphasize pre-existing notoriety and highlight the qualities of assertiveness, vision, eloquence and policy fluency that contribute to leadership. | For the next month’s cycle, candidates should be re-sorted into entirely new groups, to create new pairings. This egalitarian format would de-emphasize pre-existing notoriety and highlight the qualities of assertiveness, vision, eloquence and policy fluency that contribute to leadership. |
| Of course, this six-people-per-stage formula can only accommodate about 18 candidates. The Democratic National Committee will also need rules about who gets to participate at all. | Of course, this six-people-per-stage formula can only accommodate about 18 candidates. The Democratic National Committee will also need rules about who gets to participate at all. |
| To be as inclusive as possible, it should admit any current or former national officeholders, governors or mayors of big cities. Non-politicians, like the hedge-fund manager and possible candidate Tom Steyer, or politicians of lower rank, like the West Virginia State Senator Richard Ojeda, could still earn a slot by clearing a given threshold in reputable polls. | To be as inclusive as possible, it should admit any current or former national officeholders, governors or mayors of big cities. Non-politicians, like the hedge-fund manager and possible candidate Tom Steyer, or politicians of lower rank, like the West Virginia State Senator Richard Ojeda, could still earn a slot by clearing a given threshold in reputable polls. |
| Democrats should further nix two Republican rules from 2016 that rewarded theater and played into Mr. Trump’s hands. | Democrats should further nix two Republican rules from 2016 that rewarded theater and played into Mr. Trump’s hands. |
| The first rule stationed the highest-polling contender at center stage, reinforcing his advantages. Instead, the candidates’ placement should be randomized anew with each contest. | The first rule stationed the highest-polling contender at center stage, reinforcing his advantages. Instead, the candidates’ placement should be randomized anew with each contest. |
| The 2016 rules also held that a candidate attacked by name would always get to respond, allowing Mr. Trump to bluster on before some rivals spoke at all. The 2019 rules should prohibit anyone from speaking twice in a given round until each participant speaks once. At a round’s end, anyone called out by name can briefly reply — once. | The 2016 rules also held that a candidate attacked by name would always get to respond, allowing Mr. Trump to bluster on before some rivals spoke at all. The 2019 rules should prohibit anyone from speaking twice in a given round until each participant speaks once. At a round’s end, anyone called out by name can briefly reply — once. |
| Other problems in 2016 stemmed from letting the individual cable news networks sponsor and run debates, instead of covering them. The networks thus geared the broadcasts toward ratings rather than public edification. This time, the Democratic National Committee should partner with groups like the League of Women Voters or the Council on Foreign Relations and invite all broadcast news outlets to air them. Questioners should be drawn from not just one network’s stars but also the vast reservoir of newspaper, magazine and radio journalists who report on politics. | |
| The imperatives of cable television, which thrives on simplified story lines and high-decibel confrontation, don’t necessarily align with the goals of the candidates, who seek a fair chance to get their message out, or of voters, who want to size up the candidates as people and educate themselves about salient differences in their policies and values. By choosing a patient, more thoughtful process, the Democratic Party has a chance not just to fight for democracy but also, in doing so, to exemplify its finer values. | The imperatives of cable television, which thrives on simplified story lines and high-decibel confrontation, don’t necessarily align with the goals of the candidates, who seek a fair chance to get their message out, or of voters, who want to size up the candidates as people and educate themselves about salient differences in their policies and values. By choosing a patient, more thoughtful process, the Democratic Party has a chance not just to fight for democracy but also, in doing so, to exemplify its finer values. |
| David Greenberg is a professor of history and of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University and the author of “Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.” | David Greenberg is a professor of history and of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University and the author of “Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.” |
| Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. | Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. |