Home › Blogs › Sarah Burris's blog ›

What Happened to Debate 2.0?

TPM Election Central is reporting that the Obama campaign has accepted the debate structure put forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

This line from the acceptance letter by David Plouffe caught my eye. Emphasis mine:

Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign. Consequently, we believe that finalizing the arrangements for these debates with promptness and certainty is in the interests of both campaigns and the American people.

So does this mean that there won't be any YouTube debates? Or MTV Candidate Dialogues (which for my money were the most participatory and informative televised debates of the primary season)?

Did we all just take a huge step backward?

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
August 2nd, 2008 4:13pm
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pressure

Submitted by blueflame on Mon, 2008-08-04 02:26.

I see two main reasons why we're only going to get a few standard debates, rather than the many interactive ones we had in the primary:

1) Pressure put on by a large field.
During the primary process each party had about a dozen candidates all clawing to get as much media attention as possible. Since no candidate wanted to let their opponents gain an advantage of TV time, everyone wanted to be in on every debate. That's simply not the case when you only have two viable candidates, and debates can easily be canceled if either one decides to back out for any reason.

2) Quit while you're ahead.
Generally the stronger candidate is any election is less likely to agree to debates because they don't want to hand their opponent an opportunity to gain ground on them. Since Obama is obviously heading into the fall in a stronger position than McCain, his campaign wants to minimize the opportunities McCain has to change the dynamics of the election. A YouTube debate is inherently somewhat risky, and why take chances when you're ahead? (or so the assumption goes)

Caution

Submitted by Michael Connery on Mon, 2008-08-04 09:50.

I agree with you on #1. I have a little different view of #2.

Both candidates did exceptionally well during the MTV dialogues, and it can be argued that one of Obama's biggest foreign policy wins (negotiating with our enemies) came out of his performance at the YouTube debate.

Plus, these were the events that most young people paid attention to. Seems like a no brainer to keep them going. McCain because he did so well and picked up support, and Obama because it increases interest in the election and promotes a larger turnout (which in turn helps him).

I feel like maybe it's an excess of caution on the part of both candidates. If so, that's extremely disappointing.

Add this to the list of

Submitted by Fred Gooltz on Mon, 2008-08-04 17:09.

baffling decisions made by Barack Obama's campaign post-primary.

I fully anticipate an enormous letdown with his VP choice. The disappointments keep rolling.