The 2016 Presidential Debates Could Become a Slugfest
Few could doubt the impact of nationally televised presidential debates after Republican Mitt Romney set President Obama back on his heels in their first encounter in October 2012.
Romney was articulate and aggressive while Obama appeared frazzled and very much off his game. Romney’s commanding performance helped the former Massachusetts governor briefly energize his floundering campaign and regain its momentum.
Related: Clinton Plays the Gender Card as a Campaign Strategy -
Moreover, with home viewership topping 67 million, the debate -- moderated by Jim Lehrer, the former news anchor for the PBS News Hour – broke a 32-year gross viewership record dating back to the first debate between Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Yet amid dramatic changes in political campaign tactics and fundraising and the way Americans consume the news, these televised general election presidential debates actually are suffering from diminished reach.
A new study issued on Wednesday by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania seemed to compare presidential debates to TV entertainment. Their assessment: the more than two-decade old debate format is to blame for the low viewership among millennials, although baby boomer viewers have increased.
Related: Why Marco Rubio Might Just Beat Hillary Clinton
So what to do? In an era when large audiences pay far more attention to “Game of Thrones,” “House of Cards,” “Master Chef” and “So You Think You Can Dance” than to increasingly lengthy presidential campaign seasons, how can the political parties and the National Presidential Debate Commission jazz up the debates to attract and keep a wider audience?
The Annenberg panel, of course, stops well short of recommending the equivalent of no-holds barred political mudwrestling to heighten audience engagement and sustained interest. The goal, the group says, is to expand and enrich debate content and produce a better informed group of voters.
To that end, the advisory group appears anxious to get rid of the moderator or middle man as much as possible and allow the two candidates to set the agenda and duke it out. They want to get rid of the one or more prominent journalists who set the ground rules and determine the pace and course of the evening’s discussion.
Related: GOP Prunes the 2016 Primary Debates Down to Nine
If, for example, Hillary Clinton were to slam, say, Marco Rubio in a debate, Rubio shouldn’t have to wait patiently for his opportunity to reply but should be allowed to jump in with a rejoinder. Think of it as the resurrection of CNN’s Crossfire.
To add a smidgeon of Jeopardy to the proceedings, each candidate would have a total of 45 minutes to spend to make their case or defend it.
While the candidates would have plenty of opportunity to get their political messages across, they would also have to respond quickly to attacks. A well-scripted candidate wouldn’t necessarily do well in that setting, and the possibility of “oops” moments would be increased. Welcome to reality TV, Beltway style.
Related: The GOP Hunger Games: Who Will Make the Debate Cut?
Ah….but dead air is not an option, so a filibuster is off the table. No answer, rebuttal or question could exceed three minutes, according to the panel. When a candidate runs out of total time, he or she has exhausted the right to speak. Remaining time at the end of the moderator-posed topics can be used for a closing statement.
The recommendations are advisory only and it will be up to the presidential debate commission and the national parties to iron out the final ground rules next year.
Quote of the Day: A Big Hurdle for the Tax Cuts
“He goes in and campaigns on an issue, and the challenge is he then talks about executing drug dealers. Why do you think the press is going to cover the tax cuts if you’ve given them the much more exciting issue?”
-- Grover Norquist, president of tax-cutting advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, on President Trump’s failure to sell the tax law.
The Obamacare Mandate That Could Produce $12 Billion in Fines in 2018
Republicans effectively eliminated the individual Obamacare mandate in the tax package signed late last year. Although the new regulation reducing the mandate penalty to zero doesn’t take effect until 2019, President Trump has cited the rule change as a victory over the health law so many conservatives oppose. “Essentially, we are getting rid of Obamacare. Some people would say, essentially, we have gotten rid of it," Trump told a crowd in Michigan two weeks ago.
However, many parts of the Affordable Care Act are still in effect and will continue to operate even after the individual mandate is eliminated in 2019.
In particular, the employer mandate, which requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits or face fine of roughly $2,000 per worker, will continue to play a significant role in the Obamacare system. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the mandate will produce more than $12 billion in fines in 2018 alone.
Some conservative groups are pushing lawmakers to stop enforcing the employer mandate, but the IRS is still working to enforce the law. According to The New York Times Monday, the IRS is sending out notices to more than 30,000 businesses that have failed to comply.
Chart of the Day: It’s Still the Economy, Stupid
Security may be the top policy issue for Republican voters, but the economy is the top concern for Democrats, independents and voters overall, according to Morning Consult’s latest polling on the midterm elections. Health care is third on the list, followed by “seniors’ issues.” The results are based on surveys with more than 275,000 registered U.S. voters from February 1 to April 30.
Number of the Day: $13 Billion
An analysis by Bloomberg finds that the roughly 180 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported earnings for the first three months of the year saved almost $13 billion thanks to the corporate tax cut enacted late last year. Those companies’ effective tax rate dropped by more than 6 percentage points on average. About a third of the tax savings went to 44 financial firms.
How a Florida Doctor with Social Ties to Trump Delayed a $16B Billion VA Project
A West Palm Beach doctor who is friends with Ike Perlmutter, the chairman of Marvel Entertainment and an informal adviser to President Trump on veterans’ issues, has held up “the biggest health information technology project in history — the transformation of the VA’s digital records system,” Politico’s Arthur Allen reports. Dr. Bruce Moskowitz “objected to the $16 billion Department of Veterans Affairs project because he doesn’t like the Cerner Corp. software he uses at two Florida hospitals, according to four former and current senior VA officials. Cerner technology is a cornerstone of the VA project. … Moskowitz’s concerns effectively delayed the agreement for months, the sources said.” Read the full story.