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.
Trump and Schumer Will Try to Scrap the Debt Ceiling
The president and the Senate Democratic leader agreed to seek out a more permanent debt ceiling solution that would end the perpetual cycle of fiscal standoffs. “There are a lot of good reasons to do that, so certainly that’s something that will be discussed," Trump said Thursday. It might not be easy, though, as conservatives see the borrowing limit as a way to keep government spending in check. Paul Ryan said Thursday he opposes doing away with the debt ceiling.
Is a Fix for Obamacare Taking Shape?
Senators on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions heard from governors Thursday in the second of four scheduled hearings on stabilizing Obamacare. The common theme emerging from the testimony was flexibility: "Returning control to the states is prudent policy but also prudent politics," said Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican. He was joined by Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who said that states need room to innovate and learn from their mistakes. Much of what the governors said was in line with what the Senate panel is already considering, including the continuation of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies. (CBS News, Axios)
Senate Approves Trump's Deal with Dems. Will the House Go Along?
The Senate on Thursday voted to fund the government and increase the federal borrowing limit through December 8 as part of a deal that also included $15.25 billion in hurricane disaster relief funding and a short-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill passed by a vote of 80-to-17, with only Republicans voting against the bill.
The package now goes back to the House, where it likely faces more strenuous resistance. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus with more than 155 members, on Thursday announced it opposed the deal because it does not include spending cuts. Rep. Mark Walker, the group's chairman, sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan listing 19 policy changes to "address the growing debt burden" or "begin draining the swamp" that could win conservative support for raising the debt ceiling. Some Democrats may also vote against the deal to signal their frustration with an agreement that they say weakened their hand in trying to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children.
White House Backs Off Shutdown Threat…for Now
“Believe me, if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” President Trump said of his planned border wall with Mexico 10 days ago. Just two days later, though, White House officials told Congress that a short-term spending bill to fund the government into December wouldn’t have to include $1.6 billion for the wall, The Washington Post reports.
Trump still wants money for the wall to be included in a December budget bill, and he could follow through on his shutdown threat at that point. For now, though, an agreement on a “continuing resolution” to keep the government running after September 30 seems likelier, allowing Congress to deal with some of the other pressing issues it faces this month.
Which Trump Agenda Items Are Companies Talking About With Wall Street?
Hamilton Place Strategies, a public affairs consulting firm, analyzed transcripts of earnings calls by publicly traded U.S. companies over the last three quarters. They found that tax reform was the policy issue companies discussed most on those calls with Wall Street analysts — but that mentions of the subject dropped by 38 percent from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017. Overall, the percentage of earnings calls mentioning government or policy issues fell from 41 percent to 16 percent. Health-care reform saw the largest increase.
Does this mean that businesses have given up on tax reform this year? Perhaps. More likely, it's simply the result of a lack of action on the tax overhaul. Hamilton Place notes that mentions of tax policy peaked in February just after the Senate Finance Committee advanced Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's nomination and have spiked after other tax-related announcements. So mentions of tax reform on earnings calls could surge again the fall.
One other note about what businesses have been discussing: Calls mentioning President Trump fell by 84 percent from January to late August.
08312017_HPS_Chart_of_the_day.PNG
