The schedule has been set by the DNC for most of the presidential debates. The participants at this writing will be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. The first four are:
- 13 October in Nevada and televised on CNN.
- 14 November in Des Moines, Iowa, with CBS, the Des Moines Register and local television station KCCI as media partners.
- 19 December in Manchester, New Hampshire, with ABC and WMUR as media partners.
- 7 January 2016 in Charleston, South Carolina, co-sponsored by NBC and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.
The other two are amorphously planned: maybe February, maybe March – one in Miami as a cooperative effort with Univision and the Washington Post, and one in Wisconsin with PBS as a media partner.
Do you think it is reasonable to hold some of the debates until after the primaries and caucuses have started? Some people, including Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, have publicly called for an earlier schedule with more debates. The feeling is that knowing more about the candidates will enable people to make better choices, not just in terms of primary/caucus voting, but also with respect to political contributions. On the other hand, some feel that it’s better to spread out the schedule as many voters aren’t that interested too far in advance of their primary/caucus.
What do you think?
Most Democratic primaries without an incumbent have featured a “scandal” which challenged the front runner. Sometimes, the front runner weathers it (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama). Sometimes, they don’t (Gary Hart).
Either way, there need to be subsequent debates. If the front runner collapses, voters need a chance to compare the remaining field. If the front runner falters and recovers, voters need a chance to take a second look at them.
Also, debates help steer the focus of campaigns. If a candidate starts making, say, BlackLivesMatter a centerpiece of their campaign, and gains some traction in primaries (but without actually seriously threatening the status of the front runner), they’ve earned that topic a more prominent role in subsequent debates, thus forcing the eventual nominee to treat the issue more seriously.
So I think the four debates prior to the start of primaries is sufficient. But two after that seems a bit thin. Four before and four after would be better.
I am not sure it is necessary to announce additional post-March debates at the present time on the off-chance that there will still be a primary contest in the later part of the primary season. Assuming an early February debate in Florida (which votes on March 15) and a late March debate in a state like Wisconsin (which votes on April 5), you are basically covered through the New York primary. If there seems to be a tight race developing after March 8, the party might be able to put together another debate, but as discussed below, the question would be whether a date could be found in which the debate would still matter.
While we do not really have enough cycles under the rules to make projections with any degree of certainty, most primary cycles have gotten down to 2 or 3 candidates by the end of the first cluster of states (looking at this year’s calendar, mid-March) and have effectively been done by the end of April (with 2008 being the exception). If a candidate has a solid lead by the time that Wisconsin votes in early April, the proportionality rules make it very hard for a trailing candidate to win enough delegates in the later contests to substantially narrow that lead. Even in 2008, with a close race, President Obama was able to hold off a strong performance by Secretary Clinton in the April-June states based on a narrow lead gained from the February and March states. From a general election perspective, it is not necessarily desirable to make an almost-certain nominee spend time addressing his/her primary opponent rather than the likely Republican nominee.
Additionally, while the calendar is not fully finalized yet, it seems like between mid-February and the end of the primary season, there will be a primary election in some state almost every week. Having a debate will require the candidates to forego the opportunity to campaign for a day or two to prepare for the debate at the very time that they will be wanting to campaign in the key states. If the current estimated calendar at the Frontloading blog is accurate, the February debate would probably have to take place before February 14 and the best time for the March debate would be between March 22 and March 30. By that time, 30 states will have already voted. You might be able to squeeze in an April debate between April 6 and April 13 before too many other states have voted. After that, there might be time in late May for another debate before the last 8 states vote. So, schedule wise, it looks like ending the debates with a late-March debate seems sufficient to give most voters a chance to hear the remaining candidates debate midway through the primary process.