In an effort to gain more control over the nomination process, the Republican National Committee has placed strict limits on the number of presidential primary debates. But by doing so, party leaders are hindering their voters’ ability to adequately judge candidates and work through important issues confronting the party — and the nation — in 2016.
The current problem is rooted in a misdiagnosis of the factors contributing to Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012 and a failure to recognize how this election cycle is different. Under the RNC thinking, Romney was weakened by the debates, because they were too numerous and were too dominated by questions from the liberal media.
In 2012, there were 20 Republican debates. This time, the RNC has sanctioned nine debates (with three more possible) and there will be more involvement from members of the conservative media. Any candidate who participates in a debate that isn’t sanctioned by the RNC will be barred from any future RNC-sanctioned debates.
The later point can be argued either way (under one theory, candidates will eventually have to face the media anyway, so it doesn’t help to shield them from liberal moderators in the primaries). But it’s a separate discussion, because ultimately the RNC could have gotten members of the conservative media involved with or without reducing the number of debates.
As to the main point, there is zero evidence to support the contention that Romney was damaged by excessive debates during the primary. If anything, he benefitted from them — as evidenced by the high point of his campaign, his dominant performance in the first general election debate against a rusty President Obama. Speaking of Obama, in 2008, he won the presidency despite having participated in over 20 debates. In fact, the debates likely helped him develop from a novice into a seasoned candidate by the time the general election rolled around.
Even if one were to accept that debates had diminishing returns in 2012, this still isn’t relevant to the current campaign, because the field is a lot different this time around. In 2012, Romney was an overwhelming favorite for the nomination, as a parade of other candidates competed to be the not-Romney. But this time there are already 10 candidates and there could be 16 — and they have a diverse array of qualifications.
The size of the field means that in the early stages of the campaign, debate organizers will have to face the decision of excluding certain candidates, or severely limiting speaking time to the point of uselessness. Currently, six of the nine scheduled debates will occur before Iowa votes, meaning that there will be fewer debates once candidates start to drop out and the field is whittled down to a manageable size.
This is the deepest field of Republican candidates in recent memory. There are debates to be had over the candidates records; over whether executive experience, Congressional experience or private sector experience is more important; over how they would beat Hillary Clinton; and over how they would advance a conservative agenda if elected.
Then there are the important ideological and policy arguments. Republicans are going to need to hash out what a post-Obama foreign policy should look like; how they would reform the tax code; how they would address entitlements; what type of Obamacare alternative they’d prefer; and a myriad of other domestic and international issues.
Nine — or even 12 — debates are simply insufficient to be able to adequately address these issues with such a large field of candidates.
There’s a further advantage to having more debates. As noted above, in 2008, debates sharpened Obama, the freshman senator, ahead of the general election. Whatever else one may say about Clinton, she is seasoned. The eventual Republican nominee will have to be well-prepared to defeat her, and many of the current candidates have limited exposure to the national political stage. Debates will benefit them.
In overcorrecting for what was a non-problem in 2012, the RNC is depriving voters of a real chance to evaluate the many qualified Republican candidates, and in the process, leaving the eventual nominee in a weaker position. Instead of restricting debates, the number should be doubled.
