A race for third place
I viewed tonight’s Democratic Presidential Primary debate differently than I think most people did.
This is a long race. Longer than it should be. So I wasn’t looking for a knockout punch between Obama or Clinton. Instead, I was looking to see if a clear number three was going to emerge.
It wasn’t that guy from Alaska. (Except for entertainment value, there was no reason for the debate organizers to invite the have-no-chances like him and Cleveland’s mayor.)
It definitely wasn’t John Edwards who cemented his igominy with his “the restaurant was too expensive” tearjerker. Yeah, right. It wasn’t Biden, who I think already holds the abortion record–that is, the record for the greatest number of aborted runs for President.
If I had to choose tonight who is going to emerge as door number 3, I’d have to say that it will probably be Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd.
So to sum up: Out of the eight candidates tonight there emerged two leaders, two loonies, two losers, and two left.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Chris Dodd showed very strong, I agree.
I am surprised to hear you say this — as someone who’s been through a campaign I would think you of all people know how hard it is to get exposure.. Not inviting candidates to events/debates simply because they “have no chance” is self-reinforcing and circular logic.. I would have put Chris Dodd in that category as well, prior to this debate.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yeah, to echo what Chris wrote, after being denied opportunities to debate Sen. Henry, I’m surprised you would be opposed to candidates like Kucinich and Gravel being included in the debates. They’re both kinda’ nutty, but I’m glad their voice gets to be heard. CNN is not allowing Gravel to participate in the NH debate.
What I’d like to see happen is for the cable networks to just make these crowded primary debates 2 or even 3 hours long. It’s not like they don’t have the programming time. MSNBC spent the entire day and evening breaking down the a one and half hour debate. More likely, it’s the candidates who don’t want to spend that much time on the stage, giving rise to a potential gaffe.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Chris and JB,
You’re comparing two very different races. If I had been the seventh or eighth fringe candidate with the proverbial snowball’s chance, then I should have been excluded. What Sen. Henry did was to exclude everyone from a debate between just two people.
Or to use another analogy, Gravel and Kucinich are in “Chris Lugo” territory. It was right for Lugo to be excluded from Corker-Ford debates, because Lugo was a sideshow act. He was not a serious candidate and to treat him seriously would have made for an unserious debate.
However, in Lugo’s defense, at least there was only one of him running for U.S. Senate. Right now the Democratic Party has two sideshow acts alongside an already too-crowded field.
Republicans have the same issue. It’s a mistake to continue to invite Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Sure, it may be okay for the first debate, but further into the year, it’s just crazy to continue to treat them like they’re relevant to the Presidential contest. They aren’t, and they won’t be. Get over it.
I remember four years ago when Democrats had a 9-way debate right around Thanksgiving–only two months before Iowa. The presence of Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton diluted the debate. It was as inane as last night’s affair.
Debates beyond three or four participants are useless for anything more than establishing who is more telegenic and able to offer clever soundbites. Read everything on last night’s debate, and that’s all you hear from the myriad pundits. Is that how we want to pick a President? There’s an argument to be made that the way we do it isn’t the best way, but it’s better than inviting every “25-friend candidate” to the podium.*
One last analogy–a sports analogy. Go ahead and let everyone play now–that’s probably the only way we’ll get any entertainment value out of these things. But there will come the day when only the Final Four remain on the floor. And fifteen-seeds never advance that far.
*Roger Abramson, a frequent contributor here deserves credit for that phrase. To be on the ballot in Tennessee for any position from dog catcher to President takes just 25 names on a petition.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Bob – How can you compare Chris Lugo to candidates like Tancredo, Paul, Kucinich and Gravel who’ve been elected to the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate, respectively. They may be fringe candidates by national standards, but it’s not as if they just walked off the street yesterday.
What’s the difference between Tancredo and Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore or Duncan Hunter? They all poll about the same, but Tancredo is perceived as the crazy immigration guy. And don’t get me wrong, Tancredo is a one issue candidate, but that doesn’t mean his voice shouldn’t heard — in fact it NEEDS to be heard and these debates will be his only opportunity for a national audience.
As for your own race, who gave you the “proverbial snowball’s chance” to win? You needed the opportunity to debate to get your message out, and without that chance you never had a chance. It doesn’t matter that you were Henry’s only opponent, debates help level the playing field between the haves and the have nots in political races.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
What’s the difference between Tancredo and Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore or Duncan Hunter?
There’s no difference. None of them will win. Although some of the latter three may end up on a VP short list.
I’ll concede the point that for now it’s okay to have all these guys on the stage. But recognize that for as long as they’re there, the debates will not be substantive. As long as there is time afterwards for real debates, I suppose it doesn’t hurt anything to let the soapboxers in Washington Park have their say. However, if toward the end of the year there are more than a handful of contenders on the stage, then they’re not the only fools in the auditorium.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“If I had been the seventh or eighth fringe candidate with the proverbial snowball’s chance…”
There may have only been two of you, but your chances were pretty nil.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
True perhaps, but if 35% isn’t a high enough threshold for you for entry into a debate, then you’ve got no room to complain about the one-percent club not getting an invitation.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“There may have only been two of you, but your chances were pretty nil.”
Brittney,
Are you suggesting that Bob was a fringe candidate, bereft of serious ideas and opinions worth hearing? Senator Henry ‘ducked’ Bob because he didn’t want the physical comparison or to explain some of his positions. Bob’s record of posting thoughtful opinions was proof of his value to the campaign.
That is hardly close to excluding fringe candidates of either party who’s time on stage simply limits the time of serious candidates.