It is just about four months until the primary elections of 2012 begin, and the GOP candidates are squaring off regularly to debate in hopes of gaining some popularity and support heading into the upcoming elections. But how much do these debates really matter?
Debates have the ability to shed light on what candidates believe and how they think, speak, and react. Debates tell us a lot about the candidates, and they should be an important factor in the election results. However, primary debates do not carry the influence that they deserve in the election. Instead, the media distort their usefulness.
Ultimately, the media are in control of these debates and, as a result, they have great control on how the public perceives them afterwards. While a good performance from a lesser-known candidate may result in a few days of media attention, the media soon revert their attention back to the frontrunners, regardless of their debate performances.
Currently, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are dominating the GOP polls, followed by some combination of Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum. The media are fixated on the Perry–Romney rivalry, while the other candidates are simply background noise. It is no coincidence that in every recent debate Perry and Romney have been side by side in the middle of the stage. Many moderator questions lead into some back and forth jabs between the two, while the other candidates simply stand, observe, and wait for their turns to have a chance to speak.
In the most recent debate sponsored by Google on September 22 in Orlando, FL, Romney was allotted time to speak ten times, Perry was allotted time to speak eleven times, and Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Johnson, Paul, and Santorum were each given seven or less opportunities to speak. It shouldn’t be surprising that Perry and Romney make up many of the highlights of the debate when they are given nearly twice as many chances to speak as other candidates on the stage.
Despite having a multitude of opportunities to shine, Perry faltered badly. He rarely impressed the crowd, seemed uncomfortable throughout much of the debate, and came off as rather pathetic next to a confident, poised Romney. Yet Perry still has much support, momentum, and media attention. On the other hand, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all had strong performances, drawing loud applauses from the crowd on multiple occasions while speaking clearly and insightfully.
Both Cain and Bachmann gained some popularity early on in the campaign season from a handful of strong debate performances, yet they are still overshadowed by Perry and Romney. In the very first GOP primary debate on May 5 in Greenville, SC, Cain was the clear winner. I was in attendance at that debate, and Cain controlled the stage. There was a buzz in the air about him.
It lasted a few days. After gaining some media attention for a couple days, Cain faded into the background as the media reverted its attention to the frontrunners and household names (which still included Trump and Palin at the time). Cain has been consistent throughout the campaign season in the debates, and he has even displayed noticeable improvement in providing specifics (his 9-9-9 economic plan drew a loud applause in the last debate from the moderator simply mentioning it in the question). He has stuck around, but is still in the background. He did win the Florida straw poll after the debate, and this will once again give him a glimpse of media attention, but before long he will likely lose media coverage once again to the Perry–Romney rivalry.
There are reasons of course that the media chooses to fixate on certain candidates and ignore others. Cain lacks political experience, and he has made some controversial remarks about freedom of religion in regards to Sharia law. Still, reasons such as this are not reason enough for the media to ignore him, or anyone else, in the race. It is both irresponsible and fundamentally undemocratic for the media, which is a very small group of the overall U.S. voting population, to make the decision of who are the best candidates.
When it comes to primary election time in 2012, what will voters consider when they walk into the booth? Will they really personally consider what these candidates say and how they think? Or will they listen to what the media says about how these candidates think and act? I hope it is the former, but I fear it is the latter.
After the recent debate in Florida, Perry’s spokesman, Mark Minor, said, “He’s the commander-in-chief, not the debater-in-chief.” Perry’s struggling debate performances make it obvious that he is no debater-in-chief, but he is not commander-in-chief either. Not yet, at least.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.