In January, the Republican National Committee moved to shorten the 2016 Presidential nomination process after a 2012 process that many felt culminated too late in a bloodied, bruised, and broke candidate heading into the General Election against a strong incumbent who was able to define Mitt Romney before he was able to even begin telling his own story.
Next month, the RNC convenes again, this time in Memphis, and will take up the issue of debates in the Republican nomination process. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is expected to propose fewer than half the number of debate for 2016, down to 10 or less, from the 27 that 2012 saw.
In 2012, the debate-heavy schedule is credited, or blamed, with Newt Gingrich’s temporary ascent, as well as Texas Governor Rick Perry’s hasty retreat. Last month, Priebus described the rigorous debate schedule as “a traveling circus” in speaking to the California GOP. I suspect that after the 2014 Elections are over, Georgia voters, and especially Republicans, may view debates in the same way as Chairman Priebus.
This year, Georgia’s GOP has been pitching its tent across the state, in debates that sometimes resemble a clown car, with as many as eight candidates for United States Senate appearing in a GAGOP-sponsored series taking place mostly outside Metro Atlanta, and nine State School Superintendent hopefuls appearing in various forums and debate before local parties or conservative groups. The Tenth and Twelfth Congressional Districts will see a series of debates among hopefuls to replace Rep. Paul Broun in CD10 and challenge Democratic incumbent Rep. John Barrow in CD12.
This weekend, Cobb County saw debates for State School Superintendent sponsored by conservative activist group Americans for Prosperity, a Cobb GOP Breakfast with two candidates for Congress and one Senate hopeful, and an afternoon debate for Commission District One. Later that evening, the 11th District GOP and local Young Republican groups sponsored a very good debate for CD11 aspirants seeking the seat being vacated by Phil Gingrey. Mercifully, the 11th District debate series will be short, only two are planned, including the one this weekend. That’s probably due to the geographically compact nature of the district more than anything else.
Two facts stood out about the 11th District debate. First, not a single blow was landed between candidates, and no one stepped on his or her own toes. Absent a clear winner, at least three of the campaigns sent out emails declaring themselves satisfied with their candidate’s performance. But even with innovations like questions drawn from Twitter, the questions were mostly predictable, the responses canned. The second fact that struck me was that the Congressional debate was the largest I’ve seen yet this year, eclipsing the non-Metro GAGOP debates, and even the one at nearby Kennesaw State University.
While 2010 was the year for clown car straw polls, with some candidates putting all their chips into winning every local contest they could haul supporters to, this year is the year of the great debate.
But perhaps, we should be debate whether “debates” in their current predictable format and content serve the voters, the candidates, or the party.
At the State School Superintendent debate, the crowd seemed mostly composed of supporters of one campaign or another, and the 11th District debate had the same flavor. If nothing is to be won or lost at a debate, which takes hours of planning and can cost thousands of dollars, what are we doing?
I think that the GAGOP Senate debates serve a purpose of showing non-Metro voters that they are being taken seriously, both by the political party and by the campaigns. If that’s the goal, the enthusiasm of communities like Adel, in South Georgia, which became the center of Georgia’s political universe for one night indicate that the strategy is successful.
But at the same time, we may be having an unintended consequence of putting the candidates in a more combative state of mind through narrowing their focus onto the frequent debates. The campaign mindset of “winning” every public event makes them a focal point, and both emotion and adrenaline can run high, while those outside the hardcore party set are scarcely paying attention.In my experience, emotion plus adrenaline creates a combustible atmosphere. Does anyone else wonder how it would have gone if Karen Handel and David Perdue had shared a stage on Saturday?
Perhaps fireworks onstage are not in the offing, as any campaign manager worth his salt knows the stakes of an off-the-cuff remark or ill-prepared candidate before a debate crowd. Perhaps 2016 will be the year in which the main event is not televised, but broadcast over YouTube, featuring candidates on candid cameras. At least those hold the possibility of something unexpected.
