Presidential debate: Town hall format poses risks, rewards
AP
For candidates who want to prepare for every possible question that could be thrown at them, the format for Tuesday night's presidential debate is slightly terrifying: It is a town hall-style debate, which means that the questions come from uncommitted voters. When political reporters are posing the questions, the candidates usually have a good idea what to expect. But when members of the public get the chance to weigh in, the candidates can sometimes face curve balls that leave them flummoxed.
That's precisely what happened in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was the first to respond to a question about how the national debt has affected the candidates personally. The questioner pressed the wealthy president to talk about his own experience, prompting him to respond at one point, "are you suggesting that if somebody has means, that the national debt doesn't affect them? I'm not sure I get it." Mr. Bush later recovered to some extent, but it was an awkward moment.
Famous debate moment: Bush, Sr. checks his watch in 1992
And it only got worse: When Mr. Bush finished, Bill Clinton approached the woman and asked, "tell me how it's affected you again?" He then said, in part, "in my state, when people lose their jobs, there's a good chance I'll know them by their names." It was one of those moments that gave rise to the notion that Mr. Clinton was particularly good at feeling the pain of the American people. Mr. Bush, meanwhile, was caught by the cameras checking his watch.
The bad news for Tuesday night's debate is that town hall debates are now more tightly controlled than they were in 1992, when moderator Carole Simpson had no idea what would be asked. This year, moderator Candy Crowley will screen the questions beforehand; that reduces the likelihood of a question that catches the candidates completely off guard.
Here's how it will work: Questions during the 90-minute debate, which takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., will be asked by local uncommitted voters from a variety of socio-economic, racial and political backgrounds selected by the Gallup Organization. Roughly 12 audience members out of about 80 will get to ask questions, with Crowley determining which questions will be posed, and in what order.
Those who want to ask a question write identical versions of the question on two cards and give one to Crowley; if they are selected, they then read the question from their card. Questioners who deviate from the question they said they would ask run the risk of having their microphones cut off, though it seems unlikely that such a step would be taken unless the question is clearly out of bounds.
Despite the fact that the questions will be screened, as they have been since the relative free-for-all of 1992, It's not impossible that a left-field question could get asked. In 2000, for example, George W. Bush was asked during a town hall debate about why he "seemed overly joyed and as a matter of fact proud" of the fact that Texas, where Mr. Bush had been governor, led the nation in executions. (Mr. Bush responded that he was not, in fact, proud of that.)
"You get these questions that are very different than what they would get on 'Meet the Press,' and it also makes it very difficult to prepare when you're doing your mock debates," said Northeastern University professor Alan Schroeder, an expert on presidential debates. "Because who would come up with a question like that?"
Famous debate moment: Gore intrudes Bush's personal space in 2000
Town hall debates, which allow the candidates to roam the stage, also elevate the importance of body language. In the 2000 town hall, Al Gore decided to walk uncomfortably close to Mr. Bush when he was answering a question; Mr. Bush looked over at Gore, nodded, and grinned slightly as he finished his answer. The crowd laughed at the situation - and, to some extent, at Gore's apparent ham-fisted attempt to intimidate his rival - while Mr. Bush came across as natural and good natured.
The format brings specific challenges to both President Obama and Mitt Romney. In the wake of the president's flat, widely-panned performance in the first debate, Mr. Obama's campaign has promised the president will bring more passion and energy to the debate stage while taking more shots at his opponent. But the town hall format makes that difficult: It can look unseemly to turn a question from a struggling voter about how to make ends meet into a political broadside.
"It's definitely harder. You have to finesse it a little more," said Schroeder. "If you're going to lay a glove on the opponent it better be a pretty gentle glove. And you have to attack within the context of the question that the person in the audience asked."
For Romney, meanwhile, the town hall format means he must figure out how to better relate to the American people as a human being. Polls show that Mr. Obama is more widely seen as understanding the problems facing average Americans, and the Obama campaign has portrayed the wealthy Republican nominee as an out-of-touch plutocrat with little sense of the challenges the middle class faces. The town hall format, with its direct interaction with voters, gives Romney the chance to reverse - or reinforce - existing perceptions.
Before the 2012 debates, the two campaigns agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" over how this round of debates should be conducted. The Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't sign off on the document, and it is not an official set of campaign guidelines. But the commission is largely controlled by the parties, and it thus tends to follow the rules as laid out in such memoranda.
The 2012 memorandum was not released publicly, but it was obtained and published by Time Magazine. It specifics that the candidates will each get two minutes to respond, followed by additional discussion guided by the moderator - something the Commission has announced publicly. But it also says that "the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic" and goes on to make clear the moderator should remain largely quiet.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 204 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
The last Debate you came back with your one-sided rigged jabs against Romney, and you lost based on your opinions when you said Obama had more or less walked away with the Debate. You said the same with Joe Bidden, again YOU WERE WRONG.
YOU need to be an HONEST News Reporting Media instead of being a Foolish looking Liberal Front with your one-sided Views. Lorri was wrong, John was wrong, and you being an Evening News Anchor, well, you made yourself appear as a total fool by your comments against Romney in your support for Obama. We Americans are not stupid while you all are thinking your so smart and above us. GROW-UP and get a grip on Reality.
Now you do not have to post my comment. but your can count on I copied it and will be posting it every where and on Face Book. Chaplain Jimmie King
REGULATION AND MORE SPENDING.
U GUYS ARE CRAZY
VOTE FOR ROMNEY
FOR LESS GOVERNMENT, LESS REGULATION, LESS TAX AND MORE JOBS
Seems in previous elections that both parties were always able to distract and polarize voters with insignificant peripheral issues, which ended up getting most of voters so caught up in the BS that they lost sight of the bigger picture.
Now that that abortion and gay marriage are not legitimate distractions, they're going with gas prices and Social Security.
If they (Both Parties) don't start addressing the real problems in our country like "out-sourcing", illegal immigration and the out of control costs of health care insurance, by the next election - American citizens may just have to run a nation-wide campaign to vote every single incumbent elected official out of office, so that maybe they'll finally get the message.
Wouldn't it be More Productive if Our Elected Leaders Started Working Together as AMERICANS for AMERICANS and AMERICA, instead of just bickering, stalling and posturing for the next election as democrats and republicans! The American People have had it with this unproductive BS! The sad thing is that both parties stink! Neither party is really looking out for the best interest of the US citizens who elect them and who they're supposed to represent.
Perot said it back in 1992 "Jobs getting sucked out of the country" - Many people saw it back then, but unfortunately too many people bought into the spin of "BS" that we were being sold.
YouTube - Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv
And this something that most of us already knew at that time, because it was just common sense!
You may want to check this site out: economyincrisis.org
economyincrisis.org/content/protectionism-matter-self-survival#comment-6632
economyincrisis.org/content/unethical-predatory-practices
Too bad we'll never see these types of articles in the mainstream media.
It's appears that the foreign interests are influencing our media as well, just watch the ABC Nightline special on Apple's iPhone and iPad products being made in China that ends with the dramatic biased comment "That you can be the nation that lines up to make these products or the nation the lines up to buy them, but it's impossible to be both". What BS propaganda! ABC has direct ties to Apple and Foxconn.
It also doesn't help us compete when these companies are subsidized by their communist government.