Fred Thompson and the Lessons of the CNBC Debate: It’s not Real it’s Politainment

So what might the death of politician-entertainer Fred Thompson and the complaints surrounding the recent CNBC debate have in common?  Quite simply, they are proof that the line between politics and entertainment have disappeared, producing what I have called for 17 years a politainment culture where the lines between news, politics, and entertainment have disappeared.
Fred Thompson was a Republican US Senator and presidential candidate, as well as an actor most famous for his role as the Manhattan DA Arthur Branch in Law & Order. (Recall how the original DA Adam Schiff, played by Steven Hill was a takeoff of the real Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau).  Less anyone forgets, Thompson served nobly as legal counsel to Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings.  Thompson glided easily between television acting and politics, with his presidential run, though unsuccessful, bolstered by his Law & Order fame.  The point is that Thompson was able to use his acting, entertainment, and political skills and persona throughout his multiple careers, often making it difficult to separate fact from fiction, reality from drama, politics from entertainment.
Enter the CNBC Republican debate. The RNC has pulled out of future debates with NBC  because of complaints of gotcha questions; they candidates more or less have said the same.    Behind their sorted complaints is a simply one–the debate was not supposed to be a debate, it was supposed to be a staged media event.  They candidates really did not want to be asked tough questions they simply wanted free air time and opportunity to say what they wanted without being grilled or held accountable for their actions.  For them the  presidential debate has turned into what the national conventions have become–choreographed infotainment for the party (the Democrats are the same with this expectation).
Yet somewhere along the way the reporters at NBC forget this.  They came to the debate thinking it was, well a debate, and that they as journalists should ask real questions, sort of.  By that, while on the one hand the CNBC reporters treated it like a real debate NBC too knew it was a media event and it had to sell time and generate an audience.  One is not going to do that if you ask serious questions about the economy and national defense, or at least ask these questions in a serous way.  Instead, the CNBC reporters asked questions in a style meant to provoke.  After all, given the media success of the Fox and CNN debates, the ante had been upped and if CNBC did not continue in the pattern of good entertainment that the previous GOP debates revealed then the worst possible thing could have happened–ratings failure and irrelevance.
Both CNBC and the GOP candidates came to the debate last week understanding all this.  Ostensibly it was a debate, in reality it was entertainment competing against other amusements such as the World Series.  Fox was so criticized for the first debate and claims that it has become nothing more than the media arm of the Republican Army.  Maybe that is its business plan, but do not forget that all the networks have a business plan that is basically blurring entertainment and politics.  All of them face similar bottom lines.  News divisions have become as dependent on the entertainment factor of politics as politicians have.  Trump figured this out this year first, but Fred Thompson understood it years ago and his passing is simply a reminder of the how politics has evolved into politainment.

Jerry Springer Without Jerry: Thoughts on the First Republican Presidential Debate

Let’s be serious–this was not a debate it was pure entertainment.  More accurately, the first Republican presidential debate (including the junior debate for the also-rans or wannabees) was pure politainment.  It was the spectacle of demonstrating what happens when we merge politics and entertainment, we get politainiment.  It is about the transformation of news into entertainment where the focus is on ratings and making money, and it is about the effort of candidates to become media personas to succeed in politics.  This is what Ronald Reagan did, as did Jesse Ventura.  Now we have FOX, Donald Trump, the first debate,  and might I say, the departure of Jon Stewart from Comedy Central all occurring on the same night.  Welcome to politainment and the 2016 election cycle.

Jon Stewart and Comedy Central never pretended to be real news but so many people treated like it was.  It was pure politainment representing the fine line between politics and entertainment.  But FOX national news (as opposed to the local FOX affiliates) has be pure partisan politics pretending to be news.  It has brilliantly figured out (in ways that MSNBC has yet to) how to break down the walls of partisanship, news, and entertainment and package it into a multi-billion dollar force that serves as the unofficial house organ for the Republican Party and often crackpot conservatives theories.   Thus Fox is conflicted with competing demands of pushing ideology, making money via ratings, and entertaining.  This is the context of the Thursday so-called debate.
Had this been a real debate the first question would not have been about honoring party endorsements and third party candidacies.  It would have been one asking candidates questions about global warming, ISIS, unemployment, or their stand of the treaty with Iran and what alternatives they had.  I heard so many people say the journalists did a good job asking tough questions.  No, they were terrible in terms of encouraging a debate on serious matters of public policy.  Instead they were provocateurs do their best to ask questions to hype ratings and get a fight started–no different than what Jerry Springer did so successfully.

The debate was made for Trump.  He is the ultimate politainer of our age.  Setting up with an opening question to get Trump mad was brilliant entertainment. It made for perfect theater.  And in setting up a format where Trump was the star–and also the object to be attacked–perhaps Fox was also trying to protect mainstream Republicanism from what it has become–Trump.
So much has been made of Trump’s racism with his immigration comments and sexism with comments about women and allusion to Ms. Kelly and her menstrual cycle (at least he did not say she was “on the rag” or was PMS but you knew he wanted to say that).  But the fact of the matter is that the other candidates are just as harsh on immigration.  They have all taken extreme positions on abortion and women’s health.  Even though no federal funds pay for abortion, they all want to cut Planned Parenthood off from federal funds that pay for women’s health.  Jeb Bush said too much money is being spent on women’s health.  Huckabee said he would send in federal troops to prevent abortions.  Rubio will not support abortions even when a woman’s life in endanger.
Trump scares the Republican Party because he actually is what the GOP has become, except he is not shy to run away from his racism and sexism.  The rest of the party wants the benefits of racism and sexism but without owning up to it.  They pretty up their policy positions–no immigration, no abortions, restrictions on voting–but want to deny the real reasons or implications of their policies.  Texas tried to justify its voting restrictions but a Fifth Circuit this past week upheld a lower court decision finding a racial impact to its voter ID laws.  Trump is laying bare where and what the Republican Party is and has become, and   faced with that reality FOX is trapped.  Does it come to the defense of the kinder and gentler Republicanism that wants and cake and eat it too or does it exploit Trump for all the money and ratings they can garner?  This is the problem for FOX and the Republican Party now.

The Republican Choice: Why Gingrich?

Is Newt for real? This is the question increasingly asked as polls indicate that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken the lead among the Republican presidential contenders. The simple answer may be yes, boding badly the for campaign of Mitt Romney who has struggled for months to be the inevitable last choice candidate once all the others have faded. But Newt’s rebirth and Romney’s campaign strategy are linked, pitting inevitability against reliability.

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Mitt

Mitt Romney has had an identity problem from the get go. Best summed with the label “Multiple Choice Mitt,” Romney faces an initial problem that no one knows where he really stands on the issues. He is a former moderate Massachusetts governor who supported reproductive rights, gay rights, and he signed into law a health care bill essentially identical to Obamacare. Romney is a skilled businessperson and politician who saved the 2002 Olympics. He knows how to get things done. This should be his political narrative for his presidential campaign. But it’s not.

In 2008 Mitt ran away from this narrative. He pandered to the conservative base of the party, renouncing his moderate positions. Yet given the global economic collapse and John McCain’s avowal that he did not understand economics, had Romney stressed his business experience then he might have won the nomination. Now in 2012 as the Republican Party has moved further to the right Romney has abandoned even more of this narrative, seeking to out-duel the other presidential contenders in terms of xenophobia against immigrants, bashing gays, abortion rights, and taxes, or in renouncing health care reform. Mitt both wants to be the can do governor and businessman and the right wing extremist. No one really trusts him anymore–especially the Tea Party base–thus the moniker Multiple Choice Mitt.

But Mitt also suffers from another flaw–he is a pretty boy. Pantene shampoo famously featured a 1990 commercial with Kelly LeBrock who cooed “Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.” Mitt may be hated for that reason. He is rich, handsome, has perfect hair, and a trophy wife. All reasons to hate him because he has it all. Few can identify with him because of that. Voters bonding with presidential candidates is important. In 2004 voters preferred Bush over Kerry because the latter came across as an aloof prig.

Mitt also has another identify problem–no charisma. He is wonkish and more of a technocrat. He is reminiscent of another former Massachusetts governor–Michael Dukakis–who was similarly skilled but also boring. Politics is about passion and no one can really get passionate over Mitt.

Romney, though, has labored to make a virtue out of all of this. Be the viable second choice who outlasts everyone else in the race. Manage the best campaign, raise the most money, site the most offices, and script the best choreographed speeches. Romney’s strategy is to be the “steady Eddy”; be the one true love or candidate who is there for you after the quick romances and one night stands for the others pass by. Romney’s strategy–Mr. Inevitable.

But why Newt?

He’s not Romney. That is only part of the appeal. The other part of the appeal is that he is the last candidate standing. Gingrich appeared to flame out early before it became fashionable for the other Republican contenders to do so. Stories of infidelity, million dollar credit lines at Tiffanys, growling at the media, and a campaign staff quitting en masse; Newt was just ahead of his time. Since then we have see the other flavors of the month, as the media calls them, rise and fall. Trump. Bachmann. Perry. Cain. Each had an Andy Warhol 15 minutes but each faded as the presidential debates and vetting process grinded on. But eventually each undid themselves. Who was the last one standing? Not Romney, but Gingrich.

Most importantly, Gingrich is actually Mr. Reliable. Unlike Romney where no one knows where he really stands, everyone knows Gingrich and his views. His reliability is a political virtue compared to claims of inevitability. Gingrich was there with the Contract for America in 1994. He led the impeachment against Clinton in 1998. He carries the mantle of the Reagan brand. He is a known and dependable conservative. Yes he is full of warts, but unlike Cain and others, he admits them and says it’s time to move on. Americans hate denial or lying but can accept sinners and that is what Gingrich understands.

Conservative Republicans distrustful of Romney and not liking the other choices finally came back to Gingrich. He is more than the flavor of the month. But even if he is, it is good to be the flavor when it is your month and with it being T-minus less than a month to the Iowa caucuses. The timing is great. Gingrich leads in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, three of the first four contests. He is behind in New Hampshire but picked up the critical Union Leader newspaper endorsement. Romney was expected to win big in New Hampshire. He may still win but unless it is a blowout he will look vulnerable.

What is happening now with Gingrich is different than what transpired with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. What is now occurring is the coalescing of the party around him. Cain’s endorsement is a sign, look to see others also endorse him as they leave the race early in January (except for Ron Paul who will potentially run again as the third party Libertarian candidate and complicate GOP strategy). By the end of that month look to see a race between Gingrich and Romney. Beyond January, the task will be organization, money, and momentum. Right now Romney has the first two but not the third. Gingrich has the third but not the first two. His challenge is taking his momentum and the passion around him to create the organization and money he needs to win the nomination. If he can do that, Romney is done.

Defining Obama: Presidential Image and Narrative in the 2012 Elections

In so many ways it may already be too late for President Obama. It may be too late for him to construct an alternative narrative about his successes and accomplishments that he can use on the campaign trail to support his re-election. For many Americans, the narratives have already stuck that his presidency and policies are a failure.

Two rules that every successful presidential candidate remembers are that “politics is like selling beer” and that “define or be defined.” The first rule refers to the power of political narratives, the second to the constructing your own image–creating an image–or having someone else do it for you. Both of these are rules about constructively using the media–generally in an aggressive and proactive way to do messaging.

This blog has repeatedly discussed the power of political narratives. Candidates need a compelling narrative that describes who they are, their vision for the future, and what they want their presidency to look like. The narrative is their reason for running for office (“I am running for president because...”) and the direction they want to take their presidency and the American public. George W. Bush was chided for lacking that “vision thing” and rightly so, but he still won in 1988 for other reasons (see below).

The way of persuasion is about having a narrative. We tell stories about ourselves when job hunting (the cover letter and resume), we tell stories to do fund raising (“Send money to feed the homeless”), and businesses sell products by telling stories (“Drink this soda and you too will be cool.”). It is less reason and facts that move people than it is narratives, with the best being about the future, messages that are optimistic, and those which inspire passion.

The great narratives of our time were Ronald Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” and Bill Clinton’s appropriation of Fleetwood Mack’s Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. Both were brilliant narratives about hope and the future. They were narratives that promised a better tomorrow; they appealed to America’s sense of progress, optimism, and that the future will be better than the past. Perhaps one of the most famous lines in movie history–Scarlet O’Hara’s “Tomorrow is another day” from Gone with the Wind captures the compelling nature of this American belief in a better future.

The 2008 presidential race witnessed dueling narratives of John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain’s narrative spoke of the world being a dangerous place and that we should not trust enemies. He touted his military experience to keep us safe and he sought to get America to forget that he was a Republican wanting to the keep the White House in his party’s hands after a failed eight years under George Bush. McCain’s narrative sought to channel the Reagan brand one more time but it failed. It failed to an Obama narrative of change. A narrative of hope for the future, of an appeal to a new generation wanting their turn at power. Obama simply had a great narrative. He also had the fortune of a collapsing economy that worked to his favor, and a Republican vice-presidential candidate in Sarah Palin who few thought was qualified to be president in the event of McCain’s death.

But beyond the narrative, Obama also understood the power of define or be defined. In politics, you need to define who you and your opponents are before they do that to you. Remember the famous 1990 Andre Agassi Canon commercial–“Image is Everything”–that captures the point.

Image construction is important to politics, especially if you can do it to your opponents. On Labor Day 1988 Michael Dukakis had a 18 point lead over George Bush. Bush used Willie Horton, references to the ACLU, and stories about the Massachusetts’ governor not wanting to kill someone who hypothetically raped his wife to cast him as a pinko who was soft on crime. Bush went to win the presidency by three points.

In 1992, when allegations of marital infidelity nearly wrecked Bill Clinton’s campaign, his staff used the latest technology of the day–the fax machine–to proactively counter stories. Finally, in 2004, the Bush campaign brilliantly defined John Kerry as an elitist coward who purposively injured himself three times to get out of Vietnam early. The genius in transforming a three-time Purple Heart winner into a coward was amazing; thus the power of narratives.

Again in 2008 Obama understood the charm of definition. He defined himself as the candidate of hope and change, of McCain the candidate of the old an stodgy, and he also successfully declared Ronald Reagan and his narrative to be dead. Obama brought narrative and definition together to create an amazing campaign story about himself and his opponents.

But the brilliance of 2008 rapidly faded. All that was done so well in 2008 failed Obama and the Democrats in 2010. They lost the narrative and definition. Palin mocked Obama by asking how we liked the “hopey-changey stuff?” The Republicans tied TARP to Obama and not Bush. They decried that the stimulus bill was a failure (even though it did work but was insufficient to address the real depth of recession the economy was in), and they questioned his competence and leadership. All of this has stuck. In part it stuck because there was some truth to many of the accusations, but still the Republicans were lethal after being trounced in 2008. They went on the attack from January 20, 2009 and redefined Obama as a failure.

Now think about where Obama is as 2012 is about to begin. Obama’s successes are defined as failures. The stimulus did help, TARP made money (Yes, it was a Bush program), and he did deliver on many other promises. Health care reform is decried as Obamacare and bank regulation as killing the economy. Obama’s narrative of change has degenerated into “It could have been worse” as described so many times in this blog. Obama still lacks a narrative and worse, he is defined as a failure and as unable to rescue the economy. Again, there is much evidence that this is accurate, but even if not, Obama has been defined by a narrative that he cannot escape. Obama needs to escape the economy and run against a do-nothing unpopular Congress. He needs to cast himself as an economist populist that fights for the other 99%. In short, Obama needs a complete makeover.

It will be hard to do this now that he has already been defined by the Republicans for the last four years. But even if not for the last four years, clearly in the last few months the Republican presidential debates have been influential in doing that. While Obama does his presidential thing, the GOP candidates debate and get press. They get air time attacking the president and he does not respond. The candidates collectively have succeeded in crafting an image of Obama that has stuck. While four years ago content analysis of media coverage of Obama demonstrated overwhelming positive images, were a similar study done today the hypotheses today would be of just the opposite–overwhelming images. Obama has been defined–his narrative for him written by his opponents.

Obama at least has one advantage–the image and narrative for his Republican opponents is being written and it is a negative one. Palin never had a chance to run for the presidency with over 60% of the public thinking her too dumb or unqualified to be president. Now think about the other Republican contenders–Romney as a boring multiple choice Mick–Bachmann as a religious zealot–Perry as a lightweight cowboy–Cain as a lightweight sexual predator–and Gingrich as a cranky, adulterer, arrogant, hypocrite. These are largely self-defined images reenforced by the media. Hardly the images that are winning presidential formulae.

As the Iowa caucuses loom it will be telling to see how Obama tries to remake his image and narrative. Again, it may be too late to do that but with the narratives and images of his opponents equally dismal Obama might be able to pull off a second term with a slogan reminiscent of we chanted when Richard Nixon was running for a second term: “Don’t change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in 72.” Better the devil we know than the one we do not. That may be Obama’s best hope for a narrative.

Bonus quiz and word association time: When I mention Obama or any of his GOP rivals, what words or images come to your mind? Let me know your suggestions.

“Don’t be Cruel”: The Limits of Republican Compassion

Since when have cruelty and greed have become politically and ethically acceptable in America? From the looks of the base of the Republican Party, both seem to be selling in 2011.

Just look at Republican presidential contenders and the debates so far. Rick Perry gets applause from the audience when he stated that he presided over more than 200 executions in his state. Conversely he gets attacked for using the word compassion when advocating some route for illegal aliens to get citizenship in America. States such as Arizona pass laws to randomly stop and question individuals who look illegal; Alabama adopts a law punishing the children of illegal aliens. Republican candidates jockey for position to show who is tougher on immigration. They talk of building fences and deploying troops to barricade the Mexican border, and proposals to amendment the Fourteenth Amendment to limit citizenship receive applause.

An openly gay solder Stephen Hill asks a question at the Orlando, Florida Republican debate and he is booed by the audience and then literally denounced by the candidates. No one thanks him for his service, for placing his life on the line. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and the rest of the candidates acted as if he did not exist, denouncing homosexuality as wrong and gay marriage as evil.

But there is more cruelty and greed. Unemployment is 9% and underemployed near 16%. The delinquency rate for homes (homes foreclosed or facing foreclosure) is above 8%–nearly one out of twelve owners are in danger of losing their homes. In 2010, 15.1%, of the population, representing a record 46 million, are in poverty. Record numbers of women, children, and people of color are in poverty. Nearly 50,000,000 are without health insurance. Better girls get cervical cancer than receiver the HPV. Better that children get aids or sexually-transmitted diseases than talk of birth control. Better women give birth to unwanted babies the product of rape than allow for the sale of RU 486. Children go hungry to underfunded schools.

But the GOP fiddles while America burns. They say we need to slash government spending, cut back on social services, preserve tax cuts for millionaires, and punish people who come to America seeking a better life. Cut back on disaster relieve and FEMA funding to extract budget cuts. Somehow the free market will save us all. Yes, the same free market that brought us the market crash, the mortgage crisis and the subprime problems, tainted meat and cantaloupes,

At one time America was the embodiment of the inscription of the Statue of Liberty--“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But no more. How did this all happen?

Perhaps it began with Ronald Reagan asking in 1980 “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Such a question made greed acceptable. Maybe it was Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant on CNBC against government bailouts to help owners that spurred the emergence of the Tea party. Who knows! The issue is that the anger expressed this year in the Republican presidential debates is so un-American and unpatriotic. And an unchristian.

Social conservatives talk of America as a Christian nation. I thought compassion and charity were the essence of Christianity. At least this is the version I learned growing up. But somehow the social conservatives seem inured to social compassion. They fail to practice what their faith preaches. This is not my Christianity, my America, my vision of socially responsible capitalism. Adam Smith, author of the economic classic Wealth of Nations, also wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments and of the virtues of social compassion. America’s legacy is one of open arms to help others. Christianity of a religion embracing the golden rule.

America is not a suicide pack. We are in it together–we are supposed to be one nation-indivisible. We should be helping one another–with the thought that on another day they will help us. This is the America I grew up in.

My question to the Republican presidential candidates and members–“Have you no sense of decency?”

The Made for Television Campaign: Or why there are so many debates and is anyone listening?

Another day, another Republican presidential debate. Thursday night witnessed another debate–the third in 15 days–among the GOP contenders for president. Yet what did we learn about the candidates from it? Perhaps no more than they are artful at reciting their talking points. The debates revealed no new policy insights, no growth or development in positions, and no breakthroughs in terms of more detail on positions already articulated. The debate was an exercise in carefully delivering choreographed and rehearsed statements that had been pretested and repeated in the past.

Yet the debate leads one to ask why so many debates now, is anyone paying attention, and why has the dialogue and statements by the candidates appeared to have frozen?

Why so many debates so early?

State competition for attention.

The general election for presidential is November 2012–more than fourteen months from now. The real Iowa caucus is in February 2012–approximately five months from now. Why all the debates so soon? The simple answer is money and the expansion of primaries.

Think back to 1960 when Kennedy ran for president. There were very few primaries and the first was in New Hampshire and it generally did not take place until the spring of the election year. Most states then still did party conventions. In an era when few primaries existed one did not really begin running for president until late in the year before the election. More realistically, declarations to run for president took place early in the election year. Primaries and state conventions took place in the spring and ended by June and the general election more or less began around Labor Day. The campaign season was short.

But now nearly every state has a primary or secondarily a caucus. The expansion of democracy with parties to move presidential selection beyond the state convention and let party rank and file select their candidates really begin in the 1970s–especially with Jimmy Carter in 1976. This change has several implications. First, delegate selection at caucuses and primaries has made state parties and events more powerful and important than the national party convention. The latter now are more photo opps or coronations than real events to select presidential candidates. The power to select presidential candidates thus has shifted to the state level.

Second, the explosion of primaries and conventions requires space and time. There needs to be time and space on the calendar to hold all the caucuses and primaries Presidential candidates need time to reach voters in those states. They need to campaign in those states. Moreover, each state wants to be influential–it wants candidates to come to their state to campaign and it wants their state to be the one that has a real say in who the next president will be. States thus compete for presidential selection influence with one another. This has gradually pushed out the primary and convention season and led to state parties coming up with crafting ways to expand influence–straw polls and early primaries for example. Each event thus takes on special importance, especially when it is early–as each of these events come to be seen as significant or an early clue about viability. Moreover, parties use events such as straw polls and debates to bring attention to themselves, and also as fund raising tools.

But unlike with a convention where presidential candidates only needed to reach a small number of delegates, primaries and caucuses require them to potentially reach thousands or millions of voters in a state. The only way that is possible is via the mass media-television. Thus state campaigns are not simply personal appearances and speeches to ask for votes–they are media campaigns too reaching out to potential voters. All this requires money.

Thus, the campaign season is longer to accommodate competition among states to gain an edge in presidential selection in an era where national conventions mean little and state primaries and caucuses have each become mini-presidential campaigns requiring money and media exposure. Thus, each state wants to run a debate or do a straw pool as early as possible to maximize influence.

But what do we learn?

Little.

Debates are scripted with talking points that are poll-tested and focus-grouped researched. Watch several debates and one will hear Bachmann repeat for the umteenth time: “I will not rest until we repeal Obamacare.” Why repeated so much without elaboration or development? These are talking points geared to the way we consume news.

In 2004 I watched the debates between Bush and Kerry. Every 30 minutes they repeated their lines and statements already stated the previous hour. Why? They understand the concept of the 30 minute tv cycle. People tun in and out on a 30 minute cycle. We are conditioned to view tv in the 30 minute sit-com chunk. Repeat your lines for each half hour time slot and you maximize your messaging.

Now combine that with candidates having test marketed their comments to reach specific audiences. The two together mean candidates repeat the same statements frequently in the same debate. They also now do the same in multiple debates.

Even worse. With so many debates candidates come to know what they will say, what their opponents will say, and what they should say, all based on audience reaction. Debates seemed seem scripted like plays and the lines actors rehearse in them. There seems to be minimal incentive to change your script unless it is not working for you, but that is hard for candidates to do. Think about Pawlenty’s inability to do this.

Finally, why are they televised? They rise of cable news and the 24/7 news cycle means airspace to fill. Debates are easy and cheap filler. Broadcast the debate, do a post debate analysis, and this keeps your analysts busy and audience and advertisers happy.

Are voters listening?

Doubtful.

Most voters are not listening because nothing new is said. Each debate repeats the same lines from a previous debate. It is like watching the same movie several times. It gets stale.

What does all this suggest? The debates are saying little and Nielsen ratings probably confirm little viewership. They are scripted events that feed on themselves, producing little debate and serving little more than advertising events for candidates and state parties .

Moreover, it is only September 2011–13 months before the election. Most voters are zoned out, thinking more about other things–such as their kids, holding a job, and making sure they can pay their bills. None of these debates seem to offer any ideas on how to address these problems.