The 2016 Presidential Debates Could Become a Slugfest

View published(active tab)

The 2016 Presidential Debates Could Become a Slugfest

iStockphoto/Library of Congress/The Fiscal Times

By Eric Pianin

June 17, 2015

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dow Plunges into Correction Territory: Here’s How Bad Friday’s Market Bloodbath Was

The Fiscal Times

By Michael Rainey

August 21, 2015

U.S. stocks closed sharply lower on Friday as slowing growth in China and worries about a possible rate hike by the Fed took their toll. The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished the day down 531 points for a 3.12 percent loss. The S&P lost 65 points (-3.16 percent) — its worst day since Aug. 8, 2011 — and the Nasdaq lost 171 (-3.52 percent). For the first time since 2011, the Dow is now in a correction, meaning it has lost 10 percent from its peak. The S&P is nearing correction territory, too, having lost 7.5 percent since its May 21 closing high.

The selloff was widespread, with 491 of the S&P 500 stocks ending the day in the red and only 11 managing to advance (the S&P 500 actually includes 502 stocks). For the week, 487 of the S&P 500 stocks fell and only 15 gained. In total, the S&P 500 lost a collective $1.14 trillion in market value on the week. Yes, trillion with a "T."

This snapshot from finviz of the performance of stocks in the S&P 500 gives a sense of Friday's carnage (Click it to enlarge):

This Is America’s Favorite Credit Card

Getty Images/Joe Readle

By Beth Braverman

August 21, 2015

According to consumers, it does pay to Discover.

For the second year in a row, Discover has ranked the highest in customer satisfaction among credit card issuers, according to the results of a new survey by J.D. Power.

Discover received a score of 828 out of 1,000 in the survey, based on credit card terms, billing and payment, rewards, benefits and services, and problem resolution. American Express placed second with a score of 820, and Chase ranked third at 792.

Overall satisfaction with credit cards hit a record high of 790, up from 778 last year.

Consumers were more likely to use their rewards last year, with more than half having done so in the past six months. That could be because rewards are getting better as banks get more creative with wooing and keeping customers, many of whom are still lukewarm about spending.

“When customers feel the rewards are attractive and when they redeem rewards more frequently, satisfaction improves, they spend more, and they are more likely to recommend the card to friends and family members,” Jim Miller, J.D. Power senior director of banking services, said in a statement.

Customers who redeem rewards spend an average of $1,128 per month, compared to $645 by those who don’t redeem rewards.

Even though they’re more satisfied with their credit cards, Americans are still concerned about ID theft. Less than a third of those surveyed felt their personal information was very secure, and just 16 percent thought that security had improved since last year.

Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:

Long Hours at Work Are Costing You More Than Your Social Life

iStockphoto

By Millie Dent

August 20, 2015

Putting in long hours at the office might impress your boss, but they’re certainly not helping your health.

A new study published in The Lancet found that individuals who worked 55 hours per week or more had a 1-3 times greater risk of a stroke compared to those who worked 40 hours a week. Long working hours were also associated with an increased chance of coronary heart disease, but this association was found to be weaker than that for a stroke.

The analysis was the largest study conducted thus far of the affiliation between working hours and cardiovascular health, including data on more than 600,000 individuals in Europe, the U.S., and Australia.

Researchers believe the constant triggering of the stress response from overwork induces the stroke, often resulting in sudden death. In addition, behavioral activities that stem from the longer hours also contribute to the heightened chance of a stroke.

Employees who work longer hours are found to rely more on heavy alcohol consumption as a way to reduce stress, but drinking only increases the risk for all types of strokes. In addition, more time at a desk means long periods of physical inactivity, which can increase the risk of stroke.

A study by Credit Loan shows that employees worldwide are working more than 40 hours per week. The U.S. leads the pack with the highest percentages of overtime workers – 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females.

Someone ought to tell Jeb Bush before he repeats what he said early in the campaign -- that Americans need to put in more hours at work.

Why Millennials Are Waiting So Long to Buy Their First Homes

Flickr

By Beth Braverman

August 20, 2015

They may finally be moving out of their parents’ basements, but don’t expect those boomerang kids to be taking out a mortgage any time soon.

Today’s first-time homebuyer rents for an average of six years before buying his or her first home, according to a new analysis by Zillow. Time spent renting has been marching mostly upward since the 1970s, when first-time buyers rented for just 2.6 years before purchasing a home.

Today’s first-time buyers are also more likely to be single and older (with an average age of 32.5) than previous generations.

“Millennials are delaying all kinds of major life decisions, like getting married and having kids, so it makes sense that they would also delay buying a home,” Zillow Chief Economist Svenja Gudell said in a statement.

Part of the reason for that delay could be that homes cost much more than they did decades ago. Today’s homebuyer makes roughly the same amount of money in inflation-adjusted terms as a buyer in the 1970s, but the homes that they’re purchasing are about 60 percent more expensive.

There are other roadblocks for first-timers. Limited inventory and strong competition make the home buying process difficult for property virgins and student debt can make it tougher to get a mortgage.

Those six years spent renting aren’t coming cheap, either. In 2013, almost half of all renters were spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, with more than a quarter sending half their income to their landlord every month, according to the “State of the Nation’s Housing 2015” report issued in June by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. That makes it pretty tough to save for a down payment.

Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:

Remember the Ice Bucket Challenge? It Actually Did Some Good

By Millie Dent

August 19, 2015

It turns out all those videos of people dumping buckets of ice water on their heads that clogged your newsfeed last summer helped scientists make a major breakthrough in ALS research. (ALS stands for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a neurodegenerative disease also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.)

A new study published in the journal Science last week details a new understanding of an important protein – TDP-43 – that is dysfunctional in more than 90 percent of ALS cases. The Johns Hopkins scientists behind the research thanked the Ice Bucket Challenge for helping them with the discovery by raising $115 million in donations for the ALS Association.

“We want to encourage all of you to continue this Ice Bucket Challenge to really push this work forward,” professor Philip Wong said in a YouTube video.

More than 17 million videos were uploaded to Facebook of people pouring cold water on themselves, including celebrities like Taylor Swift, Oprah, and Bill Gates. The money raised through the challenge helped the ALS Association triple the amount it typically spends on research for the disease each year.

The ALS Association has been encouraging people to once again participate in the challenge this August, having introduced the hashtag #EveryAugustUntilACure. And it’s working – every Major League Baseball team has pledged to take the Ice Bucket Challenge some time this month.

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Search form

Quick Hits