One of the recurring discussion points in the media about the 2016 election is how Republican candidates are scrambling to make sure that they get into the first debate held in a month on Fox News. Only those candidates who are among the top ten in recent polls will get to the stage for that event. According to the media gurus (mostly liberals), being in that top ten group is the most important thing for a Republican candidate at this point.
Are they kidding? Think about what they are saying. Fox is going to hold this debate and CNN will have one a month later with similar but not identical rules for participation. If the ten candidates on Fox get roughly equal time to speak, that will mean each will get something like 8-9 minutes of camera time. If the audience for the debate is something like four years ago, there should be like five million viewers on Fox News and maybe four million on CNN. Those viewers will not watch the entire debate, however; only about half of the audience will stay for the entire time. Let's put that into context. If one of these candidates were to get interviewed for a segment on Meet the Press, the time before the cameras and the audience would be roughly the same as in the debates. Similarly, if another candidate gets on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, the audience and the time on camera would be again roughly the same as at the debate. The reality is that an interview on one of these shows would be much more coherent than a mix of short answer debate questions, especially if CNN runs its debate like four years ago when John King asked candidates tough questions like "Coke or Pepsi?"
It is silly to think that the debates in the Summer of 2011 will matter all that much. If the early debates truly were important, then the GOP would have nominated Newt Gingrich in 2012 since he was truly the standout in the early debates in the last cycle. Sure, there will be a big segment of the audience that will consist of Republican activists who will want to see their candidate vie with others on particular subjects. Most of these people, however, will follow the race closely enough that the one debate appearance won't really matter.
Are they kidding? Think about what they are saying. Fox is going to hold this debate and CNN will have one a month later with similar but not identical rules for participation. If the ten candidates on Fox get roughly equal time to speak, that will mean each will get something like 8-9 minutes of camera time. If the audience for the debate is something like four years ago, there should be like five million viewers on Fox News and maybe four million on CNN. Those viewers will not watch the entire debate, however; only about half of the audience will stay for the entire time. Let's put that into context. If one of these candidates were to get interviewed for a segment on Meet the Press, the time before the cameras and the audience would be roughly the same as in the debates. Similarly, if another candidate gets on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, the audience and the time on camera would be again roughly the same as at the debate. The reality is that an interview on one of these shows would be much more coherent than a mix of short answer debate questions, especially if CNN runs its debate like four years ago when John King asked candidates tough questions like "Coke or Pepsi?"
It is silly to think that the debates in the Summer of 2011 will matter all that much. If the early debates truly were important, then the GOP would have nominated Newt Gingrich in 2012 since he was truly the standout in the early debates in the last cycle. Sure, there will be a big segment of the audience that will consist of Republican activists who will want to see their candidate vie with others on particular subjects. Most of these people, however, will follow the race closely enough that the one debate appearance won't really matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment