![]() |
First presidential debate Friday, September 26 Audience: 52.4 million viewers (36.2 million households). |
University of
Mississippi, Oxford, MS [foreign policy] Moderator: Jim Lehrer - Executive Editor and Anchor, The NewsHour, PBS |
![]() |
Vice presidential debate Thursday, October 2 Audience: 69.9 million viewers (47.8 million households). |
Washington University
in St. Louis, MO Moderator: Gwen Ifill - Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour, and Moderator and Managing Editor, Washington Week, PBS |
![]() |
Second presidential debate Tuesday, October 7 Audience: 63.2 million viewers (44.4 million households). |
Belmont
University, Nashville, TN [town meeting format] Moderator: Tom Brokaw - Special Correspondent, NBC News |
![]() |
Third presidential debate Wednesday, October 15 Audience: 56.5 million viewers (40.0 million households). |
Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY [domestic policy] Moderator: Bob Schieffer - CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, and Host, Face the Nation |
![]() |
New Orleans leaders, Google, and YouTube proposed a two-hour forum at Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans on September 18: America's Presidential Debate in New Orleans. |
Controversy Over the CPD
Critics charge that the
CPD, headed by the former chairs of the Democratic National Committee
and
the Republican National Committee, is a bipartisan rather than a
nonpartisan
organization, and can scarcely be expected to be fair to third party
and
independent candidates. They also maintain the CPD lacks
transparency.
Clearly some limits must be set as to who will appear on the debate stage, for with too many candidates these events will become unmanageable. In past cycles, the CPD used a complicated set of "objective criteria" that drew much criticism. In 2000 and 2004 the commission used simpler criteria. To participate in the debates, candidates had to:
(a) be constitutionally eligible;Third party candidates have raised strong objections to their exclusion from the debates. They argue that the 15 % threshhold is arbitrary and too high. In addition to legal actions,2 there have been unsuccessful attempts by a few members of Congress to legislate the question of participation. For example in Nov. 2001, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) introduced a resolution that sought to lower the threshhold for participation to 5 % (H.C.R. 263).
(b) have ballot access in enough states to win a majority of electoral votes (at least 270); and
(c) have a level of national support of at least 15 % as measured in polls done by five selected national polling organizations.
In 2004, Open Debates, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit "committed to reforming the presidential debate process," established a Citizens Debate Commission in an effort to replace the CPD. The Citizens Debate Commission proposed five presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, what it termed "real and transparent" presidential debates as opposed to "stilted and deceptive events proposed by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)." (August 16, 2004 letter) Open Debates traces back to Ralph Nader's call for a People's Presidential Debate Commission (2/18/02). Founder George Farah has worked at Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law and authored a book, No Debate (Seven Stories Press, April 2004). Nothing came of the Open Debates proposal.
Open Debates took several other actions. On Feb. 14, 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the FEC alleging "that presidential debates sponsored by the CPD are controlled by the major parties in violation of FEC debate regulations." The Open Debates complaint sought to have "the FEC prohibit the CPD from staging future corporate-sponsored presidential debates." And on April 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the IRS in an attempt to revoke the tax status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged the substantiveness of the CPD-sponsored debates. In an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa on Aug. 12, 2005 he called for an end to the current tightly formated presidential debates saying they "trivialize the whole process." Instead, Gingrich said, the candidates should engage in a straightforward dialogue without a moderator for 90 minutes. During a "Lincoln at Cooper Union" dialogue held on Feb. 28, 2007, Gingrich stated "I propose that we challenge every candidate in both parties to make a commitment before the nominating process begins that if they become the nominee they will agree from Labor Day to the election to nine 90 minute dialogues, one a week for nine weeks..."
"I commend to you the 1996, 2000 and 2004 presidential debate agreements which run 53 pages apiece. They are bizarre examples of lunacy. No serious adult should agree to them. They're childish. You don't elect a president to memorize. You elect a president to have wisdom, to have serious thought, to reflect." -Newt Gingrich
Negotiations
There is no
requirement
that presidential candidates participate in debates, but it would be
quite
damaging to be seen as avoiding or blocking the debates, particularly
since
the candidates are taking federal funds. Typically every four
years
there is a ritual debate over debates. For several weeks the two
major campaigns jockey back and forth haggling over details big and
small--everything
from the number and format of the debates to the podium height and
shape
and who is or is not acceptable as a moderator. Closed-doors
meetings
alternate with pointed public pronouncements, but eventually the two
sides
reach an accord. In 2008 the Obama and McCain campaigns
reached an agreement quickly and without posturing. They did not,
however, release the full Memorandum of
Understanding [PDF]
as happened in 2004.
Format
The format of a debate has
a critical impact on nature of the exchanges that occur and on the
amount
of information viewers are able to learn. The most obvious parameter to
consider is who is on the stage and who is not, but there are many
other
factors. Is there a live audience and are they controlled or
disruptive?
Is the subject matter confined to one area, such as the economy, or is
it more wide-ranging? What is the time limit on candidate responses and
on rebuttals? Finally, who asks the questions? The 1960 and
1976-1988 presidential debates exclusively used the panel of
reporters.
More recently the single moderator and town hall formats have come into
favor. The town hall format was first used in the Richmond, VA
debate
in 1992. Having an audience of undecided voters pose the
questions
likely results in a broader range of questions, but on the downside
this
format does not foster follow-up. One format which has not been
attempted
is to have the candidates question each other directly.
Prep
In the lead up to the
debates,
the candidates undergo intensive preparations. Briefing books are
put together, and the candidates engage in mock debates. The
media
provide glimpses of these rehearsals. The candidates will also be sure
to be seen engaging in public displays of confidence such as throwing a
baseball, jogging, or giving a thumbs up.
Spin
Following each debate
occurs
one of the most unique and fascinating scenes in American
politics.
Top campaign staff, campaign surrogates and party leaders gather in the
media filing center and spin reporters, telling them what they have
just
seen. On opposite sides of the filing center chairs are set up
for
Democratic and for Republican partisans to do satellite interviews with
local stations around the country. Meanwhile, a rapid response
unit
has been working feverishly to produce rebuttals to various claims made
during the debate; these documents are distributed and faxed out.
Media
In 1988 media were
criticized
for giving too much attention to the spinners. Spin soundbites
still
form an integral part of coverage, but another common element is to
assemble
a group of undecided voters and interview them for their
reactions.
Starting in 1996, the Commission on Presidential Debates has run a Debate
Watch program to encourage debate-watching groups around the
country.
According to the Commission in 2004 over the four debates more than
30,000
people participated in an estimated 2,003 groups around the
country.
These groups provided convenient opportunities for local media to do
debate coverage.
Third Party
Debates
Several third party candidate
debates occurred. An Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate
organized by the Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA), the
Nashville Peace Coalition, and Vanderbilt Students of Nonviolence, took
place on Oct. 6, 2008 at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN; Frank
McNulty (New
American Independent Party), Brad Lyttle (U.S. Pacifist
Party), Charles Jay (Boston Tea Party), Gloria LaRiva (Party for
Socialism and Liberation), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) and
Brian Moore (Socialist Party) participated in the 2 1/2 hour event
moderated by Bruce Barry, a professor at the Owen School of Management
at Vanderbilt.
An Independent/Third Party Presidential Debate organized by Free & Equal Elections occurred on Oct. 23, 2008 at Mayflower Renaissance Hotel in Washington, DC; however only Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) participated in the forum moderated by Chris Hedges, the former New York Times reporter who is now a senior fellow at The Nation Institute.
On
Oct. 30, 2008 The City Club of Cleveland hosted a debate on "The
Economy: Where do we go from here?" Ralph Nader (Independent),
Robert Barr (Libertarian Party), and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)
participated in the event moderated by ideastream's Dan
Moulthrop. (Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) was in Huntsville, TX
protesting the death penalty and sought to participate by a remote
connection to no avail).
Free
& Equal Elections sponsored a
Third Party Vice-Presidential Debate between Matt Gonzalez
(Independent), Wayne Allyn Root (Libertarian Party), and Darrell Castle
(Constitution Party) in the Marietta Tiberti Grand Hall at UNLV in Las Vegas, NV on Nov.
2, 2008. >
2004
Bush-Kerry |
Sept.
30, 2004 Coral Gables, FL |
Oct.
8, 2004 St. Louis, MO |
Oct.
13, 2004 Tempe, AZ |
Cheney-Edwards
Cleveland, OH Oct. 5, 2004 |
2000
Gore-Bush |
Oct.
3, 2000 Boston, MA |
Oct.
11, 2000 Winston-Salem, NC |
Oct.
17, 2000 St. Louis, MO |
Lieberman-Cheney
Oct. 5, 2000 Danville, KY |
1996
Clinton-Dole |
Oct.
6, 1996 Hartford, CT |
Oct.
16, 1996 San Diego, CA |
. | Gore-Kemp
Oct. 9, 1996 St. Petersburg, FL |
1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot |
Oct.
11, 1992 St. Louis, MO |
Oct.
15, 1992 Richmond, VA |
Oct. 19, 1992
East Lansing, MI |
Quayle-Gore-Stockdale
Oct. 13, 1992 Atlanta, GA |
1988
Bush-Dukakis |
Sept.
25, 1988 Winston-Salem, NC |
Oct.
13, 1988 Los Angeles, CA |
. | Quayle-Bentsen
Oct. 5, 1988 Omaha, NE |
1984 Reagan-Mondale |
Oct.
7, 1984 Louisville, KY |
Oct.
21, 1984 Kansas City, MO |
. | Bush-Ferraro
Oct. 11, 1984 Philadelphia, PA |
1980
Carter-Reagan-Anderson |
Reagan-Anderson
Sept. 21, 1980 Baltimore, MD |
Carter-Reagan
Oct. 28, 1980 Cleveland, OH |
. | none |
1976
Ford-Carter |
Sept.
23, 1976 Philadelphia, PA |
Oct.
6, 1976 San Francisco, CA |
Oct.
22, 1976 Williamsburg, VA |
Dole-Mondale
Oct. 15, 1976 Houston, TX |
1960
Nixon-Kennedy |
Sept. 26, 1960 | Oct. 7, 1960 | Oct. 13, 1960 | Oct. 21, 1960 |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
|
Notes
1. CPD
milestones
in planning debates for the 2008 cycle:
January 2, 2007 | 2008 Site Selection Guidelines and Application Information [PDF] issued |
March 31, 2007 | Due date for proposals. (19 applicants) |
April-June 2007 | Site surveys scheduled and conducted by CPD production staff |
June-September 2007 | Review of proposals and site surveys |
November 19, 2007 | CPD announces 2008 sites, dates, format and candidate selection criteria |
2. In the 2000 cycle, Pat Buchanan/Reform Party, Dr. Lenora Fulani's Committee for a Unified Independent Party, John Hagelin/Natural Law Party, and Ralph Nader all filed lawsuits seeking to gain entry into the debates, all to no avail (see the 2000 debates page).
In the 2004 cycle there was likewise considerable legal activity. Third party candidates and parties filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on June 17, 2003 charging that the CPD is a partisan group and that therefore cannot finance the debates with corporate funds. This complaint would not be resolved until long after the debates and the election. After the FEC failed to act in a timely manner, attorneys filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 11, 2004. (press release). On Aug. 12, 2004 U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. ruled (Hagelin et al. v FEC) that the Federal Election Commission had to investigate the charge that the CPD is a partisan group. The FEC filed a motion to stay the decision pending appeal. The District Court granted this motion on Oct. 6. The matter then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which on June 10, 2005 issued a ruling siding with the FEC and reversing the District Court ruling. Attorneys for Hagelin et al. did not give up; they asked the Appeals Court to reconsider its decision, but on Aug. 9, 2005 the Court reissued its opinion, effectively ending the matter.
Meanwhile on Oct. 1, 2004 the Arizona Libertarian Party filed suit against Arizona State University and the CPD in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County charging that ASU, a state entity, was "making a donation to two individual campaigns [Bush and Kerry] through the Commission on Presidential Debates as a conduit, in violation of the Arizona Constitution's prohibition on making gifts or donations to individuals or corporations." Judge Pendleton Gaines issued an Order to Show Cause for the president of ASU and the director of the CPD to appear in court for a hearing on October 12, one day before the scheduled debate. The Arizona debate nonetheless proceeded. At the debate in St. Louis on Oct. 8, Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik and Green nominee David Cobb were arrested as they crossed a police line.
Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action |
![]() |