Moderator: "The republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon,
and the democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy."
Presidential debates in The U.S. have become bigger and bigger spectacles.
"Ronald Reagan's presidential plane as our backdrop."
But a smaller share of Americans are actually watching them, compared to The '70s and '80s.
That may be partly because the debate format is not nearly as useful as it could be.
It does more to create news than give voters information.
Newscaster: "...and while The Donald sniffed, Hillary shimmied."
'Whew, OK!'
Without having to confront one another on the issues,
candidates can focus more on landing zingers
“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy. (applause)”
and less on explaining their positions.
"That is a mainstream media nonsense. Put out by her."
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and a bipartisan group of former campaign advisers are trying to fix that.
Their first recommendation is ditch the live audience.
“...he referred to my hands: if they’re small, something else must be small.
I guarantee you, there’s no problem.
I guarantee it. (applause)”
Do you hear the audience?
Now listen to how it plays without them.
“if they’re small, something else must be small.
I guarantee you, there’s no problem.
I guarantee it.”
(silence)
The audience at home is being cued by the audience in the studio
and it is not being consciously cued. It has no control over that.
“I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. (laughter)”
Like a sitcom laugh track,
researchers have shown that an audience reaction can influence voters at home.
"...for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. (silence)"
When the applause is removed, Reagan’s performance rating drops.
There's just too great a risk
that there is going to be an outbreak of applause or jeering or cheering
that provides enough of a cueing to enough of an electorate to swing a close election.
The Kennedy-Nixon debates didn’t have any live audience, those were terrific debates.
Since Nixon-Kennedy, the moderator at every single presidential debate
has been a network journalist.
They’re the ones asking the questions, except in Town Hall debates, where the audience participates.
What they do for a living is: they produce breaking news.
So, what they are trying to do is advance a news agenda.
They also produce news on the assumption that you have been following news for a long period of time.
Well, most people watching debates are not high news junkies.
They don't pay a whole lot of attention to news.
Moderator: "Quote, 'one high-tax, Common Core, liberal-energy-loving,
Obamacare Medicaid-expanding president is enough.'
Do you think you went too far on that and do you want to apologize to the governor?"
Someone who doesn’t live, breathe, and sell news might be a better proxy for the American public.
Jamieson: And so we recommended looking, for example, to
former retired judges, looking to college presidents, looking to historians.
The thought being, that they might ask different questions
but they also might think differently about what the electorate needs to know.
In addition to asking questions,
a moderator has to manage time and try to keep the candidates on topic.
Moderator: "Your two minutes has expired."
Moderator: "Let me interrupt just a moment-"
Trump: "I'd just like to respond."
Moderator: "Please respond then I've got to follow up..."
"I got him to give the birth certificate so I'm satisfied with it and
I'll tell you why I'm satisfied with it: because I want to get on to defeating ISIS."
Lester Holt was the one who had to follow up to say, 'But the question was...'
Trump: "Just like she she can’t bring back jobs, she can’t produce."
Moderator: "I'm sorry, I'm just going to follow up
--and I will let you respond to that because there is a lot there--
but we are talking about racial healing in this segment."
Our thought was: pull the moderator role back, increase accountability of candidates
and increase their obligation to hold each other accountable
and the moderator needs to play that role less so.
To create that obligation, the Annenberg group suggests a chess clock model,
where each candidate gets a chunk of time to allocate as they see fit.
In the chess clock model, the moderator tees up a topic.
Then, first candidate who wants to take it would hit the chess clock, start talking.
If the other candidate wanted to interrupt, hit the clock.
"My tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan.
I'm very proud of it.
It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs, but-
What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses.
Regulations.
You are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.
What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy
because they have made all the gains in the economy.
You want to increase the regulations and make them even worse.
I'm going to cut regulations.
But I'm going to cut taxes big league and you're going to raise taxes big league.
End of story.
Moderator: Let me get you to pause right there..."
Right now, the candidate simply interrupts
and the other candidate tries to continue to speak.
"Donald supported the invasion of Iraq-"
Trump: "Wrong."
"...that is absolutely-"
Trump: "Wrong."
"...proved over and over again."
"'Wrong."
In some of the cases where Donald Trump is saying "wrong”,
“I do not say that..."
well what is he going to say after that?
“...I do not say that."
He’s benefitting by tagging the statement as inaccurate,
but not having to take on any obligation to explain why.
In the chess clock model, interruptions carry the burden to continue speaking,
which might mean fewer one-liners,
more staying on topic,
and, as a result, we might better have a better idea of what they would do as president.
If debates are good at something that no other form is good at, it’s at getting both candidates
on the same topic saying things about the same subject
so that you can forecast what they would do as president.
You want the format to increase that likelihood.