Dem
51
GOP
49
The first presidential debate of the cycle is a week away, as of yesterday, and so it was time for debate host CNN to finalize some key details.
To start, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is officially not invited. To be on stage, CNN decreed that a candidate had to be: (1) eligible to serve as president, (2) at 15% or more in four national polls and (3) on the ballot in 270 electoral votes' worth of states. Kennedy cleared only one of the three bars, namely the first one. He's got three qualifying polls, but not four, so he came close on #2. As to #3, the Kennedy campaign claims to be on the ballot in 310 EVs' worth of states, but CNN could only confirm 89 EVs' worth.
Of course, Kennedy is not the type to go gentle into that good night. He had already filed a complaint with the FEC, which has taken no action. After getting the bad news yesterday, his campaign put out a whackadoodle statement under the heading "Kennedy Exclusion From CNN Debate Stage Is 'Undemocratic, UnAmerican, and Cowardly.'" The statement includes this assertion:
CNN's published debate criteria require that "a candidate's name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold." CNN is holding Kennedy to this requirement but is not requiring Presidents Biden and Trump to meet this requirement by claiming they are each the "presumptive nominee" of a political party.
CNN has persisted in this approach even after FEC made clear the phrase "presumptive nominee" is "not in the FEC's debate regulation," and therefore it cannot exempt CNN from the prohibition on excessive campaign contributions. As the Commission on Presidential Debates explains, "Until the conventions take place, we don't know who the official nominees will be."
This means CNN, and every member of CNN who is participating in planning, executing, and holding this debate, is at risk of prosecution, as happened to Michael Cohen, for violating campaign finance laws. This risk is now acute given that any further violation would be knowing and willful, and thus could carry with it serious jail time.
Who knew that when Jake Tapper and Dana Bash agreed to moderate, they were taking the first step on the path to ruin? ABC really oughta make an after-school special about this.
The other bit of debate-related housekeeping required CNN to flip a coin. The Biden campaign correctly called tails, and were allowed to choose either: (1) which podium they want, or (2) whether they would go second in making the closing statements. You might guess they would pick #2, on the theory that you want to have the last word with the audience. However, that's less valuable than it might seem, because by the end of a 2-hour debate, much of the audience will have tuned out, or their attention will have flagged. So, the Biden campaign chose #1, and picked the stage-left podium. That means that Biden will be on the right-hand side of viewers' TV screens.
So, why did Biden want the right-hand side of the screen, even at the expense of whatever (small) benefit might come from going last? The campaign has not explained themselves, as yet, and may not do so. However, it's not too hard to figure it out. There have been some presidents who were experts in the art of stagecraft. Franklin D. Roosevelt was possibly the most expert, maybe because he took drama class in school, or maybe because that is just how his mind worked, or maybe because his wheelchair compelled him to think about visuals more critically. He wasn't the only stagecraft expert, of course; Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan (also with drama backgrounds) were pretty shrewd in this area, and at least a dozen other presidents were conversant.
Anyhow, it is Stagecraft 101 that the right-hand side of the viewers is the position of strength. The most obvious manifestation of this, at least for people without extensive theater backgrounds, is the positioning of the host's desk on TV talk shows. With rare exceptions (the BBC's Graham Norton being the most notable), the host is seated on the right-hand side of the screen. That's true something like 90% or 95% of the time.
So, why is the viewers' right side the position of strength? There are three common explanations, and any or all of them might be correct. First, for centuries, it was customary for the monarch to sit on the right-hand side of the dining table. So, that could have planted the seed in people's minds, one that continues to grow to this day. Second, in nearly all Western languages, people read left to right. So, the eye tends to linger on the right-hand side of the screen. Third, most people (including Biden) are right-handed. So, if you are standing on the right-hand side of the screen, you can gesture as you normally would (for emphasis, or pointing at the other person, or giving them the bird, or whatever) without blocking your face.
It is possible that the Biden campaign is just aware of the general notion that "right side equals strength." It's possible that the campaign is aware of one or more of these sub-reasons (like, say, the gesturing), and that is what they cared about. But the answer is almost certainly contained somewhere in the last few paragraphs.
And as long as we are on this subject anyhow, we got a very good breakdown of the debate rules from reader J.B. in Bend, OR. That means that, in a pretty remarkable coincidence, today's post mentions reader J.B. in Bend, OR, AND reader J.H. in Bend, OR (see below). We assure you they are different people. Anyhow, here is J.B.'s take on the debate rules (we don't know what J.H. thinks, unfortunately):
The debate rules are worth assessing because everyone assumes they favor Biden, as they are all from Biden's campaign:Of all of the rules, the one that will be most interesting in terms of effect will be the lack of an audience. It could favor Trump by keeping him calm and in control or it could take the wind out of his sails.
- One microphone on at a time: People think this favors Biden because it will prevent Trump from interrupting. Well, maybe. First, Trump himself can still interrupt, it just won't be easily heard. Biden might nonetheless respond to an interruption he hears. More importantly, though, when they debated previously, Trump's constant interrupting hurt him according to polls taken after the debate. By potentially preventing Trump from doing something that hurt him in past debates, this rule may actually make Trump look more in control and "presidential."
- No studio audience: I think this may be a wash, even though pundits generally feel it will help Biden. First, it will certainly prevent a huge crowd reaction to some nonsense Trump spews, so the viewing audience will not be influenced to think Trump made a great point. However, Trump feeds off the reaction of the crowd, and without one, he may be less inclined to go off script in an effort to get a laugh or reaction. Without the audience to rile him up, Trump may not ramble on about electric boats and shark attacks. On the other hand, it is possible that without an audience to energize him, Trump may be flat and low energy. It's hard to tell whether this rule will favor Trump or Biden.
- Two commercial breaks and no consultation with staff during them: This one favors Biden, I think. The breaks will allow Biden to take a breath and re-focus on his main points. I don't think it helps Trump at all because he is so easily bored, and he will probably be more restless during the breaks. Also favoring Biden is no consultation with staff—Biden knows his stuff, Trump does not. If the moderators are even mildly insistent that Trump actually answer their questions, Trump will look bad.
- No notes can be taken to the podium: This one favors Biden. Biden is doing normal debate prep which means he will learn his pre-packaged lines and be ready to use them. Trump is undisciplined and much more likely to give up on any prepared remarks (assuming he actually bothers to learn them).
Thanks, J.B.! Incidentally, J.B. has some doubt as to whether or not Trump will actually show up. We understand that thinking, and we share those doubts. That said, if Trump is going to bail out, he has to come up with a reason that doesn't make him look weak. And the closer that we get to the debates, the harder it will be to come up with something compelling. For example, if he announced he was skipping the debates because of the microphone on/off switch, then the question would be "Why did it take so long for you to figure that out? Why not a week ago or four weeks or... when you agreed to the switch in the first place?" He'd really need to come up with a "problem" that only emerged recently.
Also, Trump is actively preparing for the debate. He's not holding mocks, but he is meeting with various Republicans for policy briefings. He and his team are also trying to course-correct the narrative they have put out there about Joe Biden, fearing they've set the bar so low that it will be easy for the President to clear it. Trump, who earlier this week went on several harangues about how Biden barely knows where he is anymore, did an interview yesterday in which he declared: "I watched [Biden] with Paul Ryan and he destroyed Paul Ryan... So, I'm not underestimating him I assume he's gonna be somebody that will be a worthy debater." We hope those last few sentences did not give readers whiplash.
We'll likely have another debate item or two next week, but it doesn't hurt to start reminding people now that the debate is on CNN at 9:00 ET Thursday. The network will undoubtedly make a stream available, but they haven't posted it yet. We'll link to it, once it is available. (Z)