The Daily - How the Democratic Debates Narrow the Field

Episode Date: August 2, 2019

Twenty Democratic presidential candidates have appeared on the debate stage for the last time. That’s in part because the Democratic National Committee has introduced a set of rules explicitly designed to narrow the field. We look at the intended and unintended consequences of that change. Guest: Reid J. Epstein, a political reporter for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: It will be twice as hard for the 2020 Democrats to qualify for the next debate. In addition to the seven who already have, three are within striking distance.Democratic candidates aiming to replace President Trump are forced to choose between adopting his media tactics or being left behind as others do.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. This year, the Democratic National Committee introduced a new set of rules explicitly designed to narrow the field so that this week's debates are the last time you'll see 20 candidates on stage. Read Epstein on the intended and unintended consequences of that change. It's Friday, August 2nd. Reid? This is Reid.

Hey, Reid, it's Michael. Hey, Michael. Reid, I want to start with a bit of background. When I was watching the first primary debates this year on MSNBC. From NBC News, Decision 2020, the Democratic candidates debate. And now watching the debates on CNN. Now, the stage is set

for the biggest presidential field in history to campaign for change in a state they want to take back from Trump. There's this kind of undeniable sense of spectacle about them. Tonight, a fight for the heart of the party. Senator Bernie Sanders determined to seize his second chance at the nomination.

The way that they are teased with these loud previews, these specially made soundtracks, these voice of God introductions. You've covered several presidential campaigns now. Could you put this year's Democratic primary debates into some sort of larger context? You know, political debates in this country have always been spectacles. We have now heard the leading arguments are the two candidates, Judge Stephen A. Douglas and Mr. Abraham Lincoln. Each of the candidates will now speak in rebuttal. Lincoln and Douglas barnstormed around Illinois in the 1850s.

Like Brutus, in Shakespeare's immortal tragedy, Mr. Lincoln is an honorable man. I grew up in Peoria, Illinois, and there's a plaque by the courthouse saying this is the site of the Lincoln-Douglas debate where however many thousand people came to watch them speak. But also like Brutus, he is an adept at the art of inserting daggers between an opponent's ribs just when said opponent least expects it. Now, that was about getting their message out to the biggest audience they could. Behold me, ladies and gentlemen. I am covered with scars. The candidates need no introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy. And Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. The question before us is, which point of view and which party do we want to lead the

United States? When the people who watched on television thought that kennedy did better senator kennedy and i are not in disagreement as to the aim we both want to help the old people or people who listen to it on the radio thought that nixon did better mr green did you turn on my phone for me ronald reagan if you could make an announcement his campaign paid for its own primary debate in New Hampshire. And as the moderator tried to cut Reagan off, Would the song then please turn Mr. Reagan's mic off for a minute? Reagan told him, I paid for this microphone.

I am paying for this microphone, Mr. President. That moment in that debate in New Hampshire is really a point that political historians look at that really helped turn around the 1980 campaign for Ronald Reagan and propelled him to the nomination in the presidency. And so that's sort of where we've come from. But this year, things actually are a lot different. As of today, the Democratic Party tells us that they have decided to make room on the debate stage for up to 20 candidates. So, Reid, let's talk about what's changed. Where should we start? Well, the first thing that's new is the qualifications for these debates. Joining us now is Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. It's always a pleasure to be with you, Rachel. Democratic National Committee, after watching the last two cycles, in 2012, the Republicans had, you know, 20-some debates.

And in 2016, the Republican debates were sort of marred in part by sort of Donald Trump's insult theater, while the Democratic debates were widely seen within the party as being tilted in the favor of Hillary Clinton. This is what it's all about. It's about giving the candidates a stage to give their vision of America. So Tom Perez, the party chairman, when he ran to lead the party in 2017, and ever since he took over the chairmanship, has made it a priority to have something that appeared to be a level playing field for all the party's

presidential candidates. In 2016, the Republicans essentially allowed anybody who was a candidate to be on the debate stage. And what Tom Perez wanted to do was to limit it a little bit at the beginning, and then gradually, as we get closer to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, limit it more and more so that there would be fewer candidates on the stage. So he looked at the previous debates and said, I don't want that. Right. And so he laid out these conditions to participate in the debates. To qualify for making it onto the debate stage at all, for being one of the 20, right? The threshold for inclusion is interesting. It has two components.

The June and July debates, it meant candidates had to have 65,000 donors. two components. For the June and July debates, it meant candidates had to have 65,000 donors. And a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September and October debates, that number will double to 130,000 donors. What it will do is it will incentivize candidates to make sure they're running these grassroots campaigns, because I really believe that we're at our best when we're connecting with people. That's how we won in 2018. And frankly, that's how Barack Obama won in 2008.

And that's exactly what I think this will incentivize. What that's led to is... Hey, everybody, it's Cory Booker. We are 5,000 donors away from being on the debate stage in September. Candidates who are serious people. I am so close to getting to 65,000 supporters, and I want you to be one of them. Please send a dollar so you can join us in guaranteeing my spot on that debate stage.

Hand-handling for single-dollar contributions at a time. We hope you can help us. It would mean a lot. Thank you. On Instagram and Facebook so that they can juice the number of contributors to their campaign in order to qualify for these debates. Thank you for all your help in getting us there. Please stay with us. I know we can make this by Monday. And by some estimates, it costs up to $70 in online advertising to find one new $1 donor. Wow.

70 to 1. 70 to 1. find one new $1 donor. Wow. 70 to 1. 70 to 1. And so what that means in real life is these candidates who are on the fringe of qualifying have to spend a lot of their time with big donors in order to raise the money to attract new small donors. Let me make sure I say that.

You essentially need wealthy donors to give you a bunch of money so you can afford to buy the $1 contributions of 130,000 less wealthy people to meet these qualifications. You need rich people to help you find less rich people. Right. Right. It costs a lot of money to raise small contributions if you're not one of the candidates who already has a large, small dollar base. Right.

a large, small dollar base, right? So if you're not Bernie Sanders, if you're not Elizabeth Warren, it becomes a very expensive proposition to meet these thresholds that the party has set to participate in the debates, which is where you'll get your biggest audience. And so it sort of becomes a hamster wheel for these candidates

that's very difficult for them to get off. And they've turned a lot of their campaign this summer into trying to qualify for the debates in the fall, as opposed to whatever other strategic imperatives they would have been trying to achieve. I come from a state where a lot of people voted for Donald Trump. Let's not kid ourselves. He will be hard to beat. It means that somebody like Steve Bullock, the Montana governor, who in 1992 or 2004 or some sort of previous cycle would have been a very attractive national candidate for president. Look, I'm a pro-choice, pro-union, populist Democrat that won three elections in a red state, not by compromising our values, but by getting stuff done. A Democrat who's been elected in a predominantly Republican state who has a track record of actually quite impressive progressive accomplishments,

but now it's a far higher barrier to entry to candidates like that. If you think of past races, Jimmy Carter in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992, they camped out in early states. Carter essentially moved to Iowa and Clinton to New Hampshire in those years. And they made their case to the voters in the early states. And by Carter finishing first in Iowa and Clinton doing better than expected in New Hampshire, they propelled themselves towards winning the nomination. That path doesn't really exist in this cycle because without the broad donor network, you're not going to appear in the debates

that voters in the early states are watching. So are you saying that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, under this set of qualifications, they wouldn't be president, and maybe they wouldn't even make it to the next debate. That's right. There's a real advantage, almost insurmountable, in being a national candidate or a candidate with a national brand.

Do you think that Tom Perez would have predicted that the consequences of this qualification would be so dramatic? And do you think he would see it as a good thing? I think Tom Perez understood that it would be too unwieldy to have two dozen candidates competing for debate slots well into the fall and winter. I don't know that he anticipated the sort of mass panhandling in order to qualify for the debates that we've seen from these candidates over the summer. And perhaps the impact it would have on the place of the early states, Iowa and New Hampshire. That's right. Because I don't think anyone quite understood it at the time that that's what would happen. And as the early states have lost

some of their power over calling the field and choosing the nominee, you know, because politics like nature abhors a vacuum, that power has shifted to the cable networks and the national media, which is the second big change in this process. We'll be right back. You know, in the old days, the powers that helped determine and shape these races were the local newspapers, places like the Des Moines Register or the City Rapids Gazette or the Quad City Times. Now that power has shifted. I am very pleased to say joining us now for the interview is Pete Buttigieg. He is the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and now officially a candidate for president in the Democratic primary. I'm joined now by Democratic senator and 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Back with us now is former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who is now running in

the Democratic presidential primary. Mr. Secretary, thank you again. Great to be here. Joining me right now is Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Thank you for coming on, Senator. To Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. And that has really changed how the campaigns operate and frankly, how the whole race operates. I don't know much about your national security background, but I do want to just get your response to this current controversy that's happening, this standoff that's happening now between Democrats and Congress. You know, there's not a focus on state level issues that you typically see. When you took that comment there about how it's not enough to beat Trump, that sounded like a shot at Vice President Biden. No, I've been saying it since I got in. I got in this race. Well, who are you talking about, if not him? This is the theme of my campaign since we kicked it off.

I can't remember a race in Iowa that didn't have some sort of discussion about the renewable fuel standard, which is sort of an arcane federal law involving soybeans, that isn't discussed at all anymore in the campaign because national television doesn't care about it. Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to test your local expertise here. I believe that involves ethanol and corn, not soybeans. Yes. I'll lose my Midwest street cred for that. I know you meant corn.

It's because they haven't brought it up. Right. It's because the current political environment has discouraged your local knowledge. That's right. Right. The media landscape is to blame. For all of our problems. I had a conversation with a campaign manager

for one of the leading tier campaigns in Iowa last month. And the campaign manager told me that every time his candidate is on Rachel Maddow, they see a significant bump in their online fundraising. There is a direct correlation to candidates appearing on these shows and not just the amount of money that they bring in for their campaigns,

but the number of donors, which has become far more important this cycle than it ever has before. So in order to build that national base and get the number of donors to stay in these debates, the incentive will be to focus on national media, which inevitably probably means being in a studio in Washington or New York rather than in a bar in Iowa. That's right. And so it's a television-driven campaign more than it is a person-to-person campaign. And television just has different priorities than regular people do. All right, we are just moments away from the first draw. When 10 candidates, half of the field, are going to be assigned a debate night in the first draw,

you'll see it all in real time. We'll have the first draw after a quick break. Being interesting for television is a different standard than being an attractive candidate for 50 people who might show up to see you at an Elks Lodge in Sioux City. And so all of that leads us to the third big change, which is the formats of the debates

and the incentive structures built into the debates and the incentive structures built into the debates. We're about to begin opening statements, but first a review of the ground rules that your campaigns agreed to earlier this month to ensure a fair debate. 160 years ago, you had Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln going back and forth in 15-minute segments. Right. Now... You will each receive one minute to answer questions, 30 seconds for responses and rebuttals, and 15 additional seconds if a moderator asks for a clarification. They get questions and they can respond for 60 seconds at a time.

Or if someone is doing a rebuttal or a follow-up, they get 30 seconds. Or when chaos breaks up, they sort of all speak over each other. As the youngest guy on the stage, I feel like I probably ought to contribute to the generation. As hard as Joe's generation. But in none of those instances do the candidates have a terribly long time to speak to people and make their point. Good health insurance, and it's not nearly enough. I'm staying with you. I'm staying with you. But you exceeded your time. And all of these candidates on stage have thoughtful positions on almost every topic that is being discussed.

But they don't get a chance to exhibit that during these debates because of the way the format is arranged. I have a better path. Medicare for America. Everyone who's uninsured is enrolled in Medicare tomorrow. Those who are insufficiently insured is enrolled in Medicare tomorrow. Those who are insufficiently insured are enrolled in Medicare. And those who have employer-sponsored insurance. You know, somebody like Beto O'Rourke, who is a very compelling political figure when he's doing campaign events, and he speaks in five or six minute explanations for his points, has struggled in these debates to condense what he's saying into 30 and 60 seconds. And you can tell by watching.

You have others to my right who are talking about taking away people's choice for the private insurance they have or members of unions. I was listening to Dee Taylor in Nevada. His members have said that it offering a false choice, sir. That it's hard for him to sort of edit himself in real time in what he's trying to say. For the networks, these events are cash cows. And so the incentives for all of this are toward... Under your plan, status quo, you do nothing to hold the insurance companies to task.

Not just spectacle, but conflict. Mr. Vice President, there's a saying in my community, you're dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don't even know the flavor. You need to come to the city of... It'll be about which candidate has developed the best moments that are seen by more people in the days after on cable television and in people's Facebook feeds. Better care for all is comprehensive. It covers all health care needs for senior citizens. It will finally include dental care, hearing aids, and eyeglasses. Second of all, second of all, I do know, and I wrote the damn bill. I talked for a story recently with a woman who had been a producer on The Bachelor who said, you know, it's very much like the early episodes where you have a lot of candidates or contestants.

And the audience doesn't have time to learn about all of them before you start weeding them out. to learn about all of them before you start weeding them out. And only toward the end does the audience sort of develop sort of an affection or knowledge of the characters who have survived to that point in the show. And that metaphor suggests that conflict is welcomed and encouraged along the way. Right. There's no question that the cable networks are trolling for conflict in these debates.

Governor Hickenlooper, you ran a Facebook ad that warned, quote, socialism is not the answer. The ad also said, quote, don't let extremes give Trump four more years. Are you saying that Senator Sanders is too extreme to beat President Trump? I mean, that's why they'll say, like, you've said that this other candidate's position is wrong. Why do you think that? Congresswoman Gabbard, you took issue with Senator Harris confronting Vice President Biden at the last debate. You called it a, quote, false accusation that Joe Biden is a racist. What's your response? I want to bring the conversation back to the broken criminal justice system.

What's your response? I want to bring the conversation back to the broken criminal justice system. That's essentially the setup for every question that CNN is posing to these candidates this week. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. To try to get them to interact and contrast with each other. Thank you, Congresswoman. Senator Harris, your response? My entire career, I have been opposed, personally opposed to the death penalty, and that has never changed. To develop a situation where there's some sort of rhetorical fireworks

that will create a moment that will be replayed over and over again, not just for the candidates, but for the other networks that are reporting on the debate to replace CNN's footage over and over again. Gabbard back in, your response. The bottom line is, Senator Harris, when you were in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people's lives, you did not. And worse yet, in the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them. It's all of a piece, and the candidates and the networks have a similar incentive to getting to the same point. You owe them an apology. It feels like these

changes that you're describing have all sort of converged to narrow the possible field of eligible presidential candidates. They have all but guaranteed that the only way to stay in the game is to be Washington-based, nationally known, somebody who's good at delivering buzzy 30-second soundbites on TV. That it's all been impossible to stay in the race unless you are all these things. The candidates who are all of those things have such a significant advantage in the 2020 presidential contest that it's almost incalculable. If you're not all three of those things, it's very difficult to be taken seriously as a first-tier contender for the president of the United States in the year 2019, which is why of all of the candidates running,

we've only seen one person in this race, Pete Buttigieg, who did not have all of those characteristics when he entered the race, add them while he was a candidate. He is the exception that proves the rule in this cycle. Most of them are just not going to have a breakthrough because the system is not built for it. The system is built to funnel attention and resources towards the top tier of a half dozen or so candidates. And if you're outside that group, it's very, very hard to be taken seriously. Reid, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. More after the break.

Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, President Trump once again escalated his trade war with China, saying he would impose a 10% tariff on an additional $300 billion worth of Chinese imports. The move was punishment, the president said, for China failing to keep a promise to buy more American agricultural products. The tariffs mean that a quick trade deal is now unlikely and that China and the U.S. are likely to remain locked in a trade dispute for months, if not years. And. So what was it that made this final decision for you to support an impeachment inquiry?

It was a conversation that I had with Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee. The Times reports that in the week since Robert Mueller's testimony, a dozen more House Democrats have declared their support for an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, including Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri. I think everybody realizes that Mueller has said repeatedly since the report that he didn't clear the president. And we need to make sure that we constitutionally carry out our responsibility, which is to provide oversight to the executive branch of the government. As of now, 116 House Democrats support impeachment — more than half the number

needed to open an inquiry — despite the open reluctance of House Democratic leaders to move ahead with impeachment. The president hasn't cooperated. That also bothered me a lot, that he's the only president in U.S. history who would not cooperate by sending his cabinet members to the committee. The Daily is made by Theo Balcom, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lindsay Garrison, Annie Brown, Claire Tennesketter, Paige Callick, Michael Simon-Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Our theme music Adiza Egan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Jnanasambandham, and Jasmine Aguilera. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonder League. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Michaela Bouchard, Stella Tan, and Julia Simon. That's it for The Daily.

I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.