It seems like there is at least one a week. I don’t have a TV so I may have a distorted perception of the situation, but several elections ago it seemed like there were just a handful. Is my latter perception incorrect?
A wider field of candidates and a longer campaign season is probably the answer.
There are more this year. I can think of several reasons.
First, the active campaign started much earlier this cycle than any other. That gives more time for debates.
There are more active candidates than usual in both parties because of the rare circumstances that neither the president nor vice president is running. That hasn’t happened since 1952.
More candidates mean that television is leery about appearing to back one candidate by frequent appearances for fear of charges of favoritism. Debates are an easy way of getting everybody up on stage together. (Once there, the lesser candidates can be all but tokenly ignored, but that’s a different game.)
The candidates also like getting on national television. I think few of them like the debate format very much, but that is what is being offered and no one is about to turn down free television time.
Debates are visual. They can be used in Youtube videos, in campaign ads (sometimes), on political sites. They connect the internet audience to the television experience. More eyeballs are good.
Debates make news. Even though few people bother to tune in, and fewer make it all the way to the end, the political media all have to watch and stories about the debates will start a week-long news cycle because nothing else is really happening in a fairly dull campaign season. True attack ads are just beginning to appear and not much nastiness has surfaced in the debates. That’s dull for the media, so the have to make the most out of what they have.
The media is clamoring for more debates, too. Each debate is hosted by a news organization and features its star newscasters and politicos. Good advertising for them. So each channel wants more and there are so many channels to begin with that the pressure for debate after debate is strong.
Debates are thought to be useful by the candidates, or at least the candidates’ staffs, because it’s practice for later. Make a mistake in October, no big deal, Make a mistake in January when the voting starts, very big deal. (It’s like the BCS. A football team that loses a game in September looks good after a bunch of wins in November. A team that loses in November, even though it likely to be to a much stronger opponent, is screwed in the rankings. No matter than each has the same overall record.) And the length of the debating season means that various messages on various issues can be hammered home, one at each debate, rather than try to get them all out on top of each other.
Even the public, or that small percent of the public which is either in an early primary state or a political junkie, gets something out of lots of debates, because they can watch the candidates perform and preen and change and back tract and look glassy-eyed and lie through their teeth and, oh yeah, maybe even learn something about their stances on issues and what they think most important. And they can figure out which one they like. Not like as policies, but like as people. Ad that’s usually a critical step toward a vote.
All these unusual states are coming together for this one election. I can’t believe it will happen again in 2011, so we might as well grab the chance to observe it now.
I like to do my observing of presidential debates though bird-watchers binoculars from a distance of several hundred feet. They spook so easily, you know.