Why Watch Useless Debates?
Submitted by HMR82
In the realm of American politics, presidential primary season debates have long been considered a cornerstone of the democratic process, providing candidates with a platform to present their ideas, policies, and visions to the electorate. It’s televised! Here are the stars of the show! Enjoy the candidate pageant! In recent cycles, there has been a growing sentiment that these debates are losing their impact and relevance. It’s a bit played out now exemplified by low viewership, the continuous nature of campaign messaging, the ineffectiveness of canned lines, and the changing dynamics of impactful commentary.
One of the most striking observations regarding modern presidential primary debates is the stagnant or declining viewership levels. These debates now often struggle to garner substantial ratings. In ‘16, the GOP had a double matinee set up with an undercard and then the main event. Who was watching the chumps in the first debate? No one needs to. The proliferation of news outlets, digital platforms, and social media have fragmented audiences, diverting attention from the traditional debate format. As a result, candidates' messages are increasingly spread through alternative channels, eroding the once-central role of debates as the primary means of reaching voters.
The twenty-four-seven nature of campaign messaging has rendered debates only as opportunities for personality to shine through. Gone are the days when select few candidates had only a few key opportunities to engage with the electorate on a national stage about a handful of specific topical issues or events. Campaigns continuously craft and disseminate their messages through a barrage of social media posts and interviews. This flood of content leaves little room for the unique impact that a well-prepared, game-changing debate performance once had. With stages crowded with eight or ten candidates, who would even get time to captivate an audience? The proliferation of candidates took off with the Democrats in 2004, and the consultant class has enjoyed eating good ever since.
Canned lines, which were once the bread and butter of debate strategy, are also losing their effectiveness. Sen. Marco Rubio’s repetition of canned lines sunk his chances in ‘16. He came off robotic. Voters that tune in can tell genuine responses from rehearsed ones, and they demand authenticity and depth from candidates. This was a power Bernie and Trump had in ‘16. In a climate where scripted soundbites are laughed at for the wrong reasons, candidates must find ways to connect on a more personal level with voters, transcending the confines of rehearsed, focus group tested lines.
We can’t forget the change Trump forced. The emergence of uncivil, humorous comments in the debates, as exemplified by Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, has reshaped the landscape. People want to be entertained, which makes sense for a figurehead job that was shaped by media firms. While traditional norms would have frowned upon such antics, Trump's blunt and unfiltered statements resonated with a chunk of the electorate that felt disillusioned by conventional politics. These comments succeeded in breaking through the noise and drawing attention to his candidacy and often pointing out hypocrisies or flaws of other candidates that were outside debate norms of decorum to mention. This shift in what resonates with voters highlights the changing dynamics of politics, which no longer exclusively favor polished and scripted responses. For all the policy talk Obama and Clinton exchanged in ‘08, Obama just had to sell himself as a cool, non-threatening and young black guy compared to Clinton. No one remembers a thing he said all campaign season besides “Yes we can.”
As the 2016 election demonstrated, uncivil comments and out-of-the-box communication strategies can indeed improve a candidate's chances. This paradigm shift challenges the decades old belief that candidates must adhere to the advice of campaign consultants and stay within carefully scripted lines. Trump's late night talk show host approach shattered this mold, proving that direct or controversial messaging can forge a deep connection with voters who feel estranged from establishment politics.
Do these debates matter? Did the 2020 DNC debates matter? At present, the 2024 presidential race is overshadowed by the looming figure of Donald Trump. Despite facing legal challenges, his dominance within the Republican Party seems to make primary debates more of an audition for cabinet spots. The focus has shifted from candidates vying for supremacy to broader concerns, such as an aggressive DoJ against a former president; the dreaded deep state judicial system. In this era of our republic, primary debates are an obligatory ritual, rather than a critical factor in shaping the election's outcome. Biden looked awful in debates yet was the selected figurehead. These GOP candidates are dead men walking.