Do you remember the Republican reality show of 2012? There were 20 episodes. Some people called them “primary debates.” In New Hampshire in January, one debate was held on a Saturday night and another the following Sunday morning, less than 12 hours apart. “The number of debates has become ridiculous,” wrote the authors of the post-2012 election GOP autopsy report.
It wasn’t just the quantity of debates that was a problem. The quality wasn’t great either. Because the polls favored candidates who had good theatrical performances, like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, the process put a premium on zingers, confrontations and gaffes. (The lowlights: “9-9-9,” “pious baloney,” “Oops,” “$10,000 bet.”)
The Republican National Committee is taking a step this week to fix this problem. At the RNC’s spring meeting, it will announce the formation of a standing committee on debates. The committee will select moderators, evaluate rules and determine the number of debates. The number is likely to be half of the previous cycle, and the committee will likely agree to remove delegates from any candidate who participates in a debate outside the party structure. The move will be a test of whether order can be restored to a primary process that gets more unpredictable every election, and whether grass-roots activists will tolerate the top-down meddling.
The Republican Party has to step in because the candidates can’t do it themselves. In 2012, campaign managers say they felt compelled to have their candidates participate in every televised debate because if they didn’t, their opponents would show up and have a free 90 minutes to trash those who were absent.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Debates are a huge diversion from campaigning and raising money because they require at least a day of preparation, a day to compete, and a day to clean up or celebrate how the candidate did. Multiply that by 20 debates, and that’s 60 days that are out of the campaign’s control.
The reasonable worry is that limiting the number of debates will give an advantage to candidates who have the backing and financial support of the party establishment. Scrappy candidates, or those who start late, who may not have that much money but thrill members of the movement, need debates to increase their exposure. But that’s just what worries those who want to change the rules. They fear the party will be hijacked by charismatic but unqualified candidates who perform well in contests that do nothing to test whether a candidate is fit for office.
If the RNC is successful in bringing order to the debates, it will be the latest step in the resuscitation of the political parties. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, donations to the political parties are likely to increase. The RNC is also working like mad to produce a permanent campaign apparatus that targets voters and turns them out to match the one the Obama team has built over the years. If the party creates a permanent structure that candidates can plug into when they run, that will give the party more control of the campaign process.
For some, the death of the debate free-for-all may suggest the 2016 campaign will lack excitement. But the GOP field will be the strongest it has been in recent memory, with five or more governors or former governors and at least three from the Senate. There will be plenty of heated debates.