»» Columnists

Whose Questions Are The GOP Debates Answering?

by Philip Bump | 12:06 pm, February 17th, 2012

» 20 comments

Next Wednesday is the 20th – and second-to-last Republican debate. Second to last. Weary veterans are we, glimpsing of the end of a terrible conflict.

Over the course of those debates, the candidates have been asked 839 questions; 839 opportunities to dive into how the candidates would address America’s problems. This is according to the Citizens Agenda project, a partnership between the Guardian US and NYU’s Studio 20, which cataloged each question, breaking them down by subject area to determine what the most common topics were.

The most common, expectedly, was the economy, included in 227 questions. Next, candidates’ lives and records, 223 questions, followed by the national debt and “fixing Washington,” covered 188 times. There were about twenty topics covered in total. One conclusion drawn by Citizens Agenda:

The debates have been serious. Only 12 questions (about 1%) could we fairly classify as “fluff”.

While the toplines appear to be good – a diversity of generally substantive questions – NYU professor Jay Rosen, director of Studio 20, suggests that the range of questions was insufficient. Climate change was rarely covered, for example, and only a few questions addressed topical issues like Occupy Wall Street or the Arab Spring. Rosen wonders: what would you ask the candidates?

Which fits with the mandate of the Citizens Agenda project. Its goal is to establish a mechanism for determining what voters care about, and to insist that candidates address those issues. Rosen’s question reflects the rationale behind their breakdown of the debates to-date: are candidates being asked about the issues voters care about? Again, what would you ask?

Well, what I would ask isn’t important. I’m not a Republican. The environment the debates strongly influenced their decisions. Did the debates ask the right questions? Using exit poll data begs the question.

And it brings us to the core question: are debates responding to opinion or driving it? The goal of a democracy – and the system the Citizens Agenda hopes to inculcate – is that voters are gauged by pollsters which can then drive candidates’ focus on issues which informs debate topics. Voters > pollsters > candidates > debates. Instead, it’s very possible that the system is reversed: candidates’ ads and spin drive debate conversation, which informs voters, which drives polls. Candidates > debate > voters > polls.

Ask yourself this: if voters were driving the debates, if the most important thing were to hold candidates accountable to the concerns of voters, why would the debate schedule be tapering off just as the Republican primary season has reached a point of real tension, in which the long-time front-runner faces his first real derailment threat? Part of it is that the establishment assumed the contest would be over now, and didn’t schedule debates this far out. But Romney bailed on a debate scheduled for March 1st that has now been cancelled. Are debates now less important than four months ago, when Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty provided amusing filler?

Another conclusion from Citizens Agenda:

Who’s the most conservative of all? was a preoccupation of the journalists who moderated these debates. When it wasn’t an explicit theme, it was there in the subtext. (When handed the microphone, members of the audience never asked about that.)

If the (well-vetted and moderator-okayed) audience members aren’t interested in that question, who is? Is it what the candidates want to talk about? The party? Or is it the media?

Debates aren’t driven by meeting voter concerns. The contests are part of the amusing pageantry of a process that’s led by top-tier decision-makers. The Citizens Agenda may have illustrated that the questions asked aren’t useless, but it’s almost impossible to tell the extent to which they’re useful, the extent to which they’re addressing the core concerns of Republican voters.

Which means, quite possibly, that they aren’t.

Anonymous

“Are debates now less important than four months ago, when Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty provided amusing filler?”

There was nothing amusing about Tim Pawlenty. In fact, he was so boring that I’m 100% certain if he had stayed in the race he would be the front runner right now. He has Romney’s (perceived) elect-ability, yet no Romneycare, no Mormonism, and no off shore tax shelter bank accounts. He was everything the GOP claimed they wanted, so I’m still confused why he dropped so early and why he didn’t get more support. He’s boring, true, but Romney hasn’t exactly shown himself to be a bright shining personality either.
Anonymous

It didn’t really matter what the questions were. Each candidate tried to use the format to fit their needs.

Gingrich used the opportunity to declare war on the so-called liberal media and sound tough.

Romney used the opportunity to look more presidential and stable.

Bachmann, Santorum, Cain and Perry all used the opportunity to try and outcrazy the others in order to be the SoCon alternative.

Ron Paul used the opportunity to try and tweak prevailing Republican orthodoxy.

Huntsman tried — and unfortunately failed — to stand out from the yahoos.

And, of course, Obama will be using these events to replay throughout the general election as a stark contrast to his own principled leadership.
Anonymous

The DNC has so much material to work with.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WH3ZLMM7CUKUHUIMK4TKXW6SQE John

I really can’t remember a single question asking how the candidates would specifically cut the budget/deficit?

There were too many questions on gay marriage, immigration, and things like space travel. The questions often were framed from a liberal’s point of view and rarely got to what conservatives really cared about.

BTW* – You can’t have an article objectively reporting on conservatives where you quote freaking Jay Rosen as an “expert”. Jesus Christ.
http://profile.yahoo.com/3EV7LMBN3SWQMEVDJCAKUCTCKM Top

I know the title is a rhetorical question, to which I respond, Are you kidding?

The so called gNOp debates are their chance to prance around and demonstrate who is the biggest, baddest, tightest wraped in flag, REAL clownservative deserving to be called prom queen.

Let’s look at what is left:

Ron Paul – Never had a chance.

Mittens – MittensCare, anyone? Lard Limpo already called him a flake clownservative.

Santorum – Lard Limpo finally called him a “real clownservative” but this week has shown his extremist wingnut views.

Newt – Disgusting, corrupt, ultimate DC insider – I think we have a winner!
Чёрт Возьми

The more important concern is whether the candidates answered the questions or deflected them.
On the other hand, I would expect the people who attend a Republican debate would play softball, not hardball. It would be very interesting to have questions from an audience made up of the opposite party.
For the 2016 election, that would be possible. Both parties will have to put up more than one candidate. That assumes that Obama will have two terms, and all indicators are that he probably will be reelected this time.
Anonymous

For the most part, I feel that debates are a very good measuring stick for the candidates. Through the questions and the follow-up hype after the debates, we learn more than we would have – if we had not been privy to them.

We are the only country in the world, that vets our candidates, the way that the US does. I am proud of that process.

But, even good things can become wearisome – and I’m afraid that these debates – have become tiresome – especially to the candidates.

Armed with more information that we could ever use – and still not aware of information that we should know – it is time to make our decision.

The show is over and the applause is about to begin.
http://www.occupywallst.org/ (CAR)

Who cares? After 19 debates all we know is the candidates will give all trillions to rich people, make poor people pay more and eliminate civil and equal rights in this country. And only Ron Paul has a plan to seriously cut the deficit, but it would mean that we all have to move to China for a few years.

What a field of idiots. Do we really need to ask them questions??
Anonymous

Whose Questions? It’s pretty clear that George StepOnAllOfUs was using questions planted by the DNC. Why did he go ON AND ON AND ON with the birth control question? This was weeks before the current controversy. Coincidence? Doubtful.
Anonymous

You got this one right, they were asked a question and they gave an answer but did they actually answer the question as asked? I, like everyone else, had seen on more than one occasion how they just decided to make an off topic statement in lieu of answering the questions as they were asked.

Now for the next few debates they hold lets use those dog bark collars and when they do not answer questions as asked they can be “motivated” to give an actual answer to the actual question.

Of course this may just turn out to be a very long electro shock therapy session but it sure would have some entertainment value
Anonymous

JUAN,
Speak for yourself, Juan. I am voting for MITT ROMNEY, the only man who can and WILL defeat Obama. Romney’s personality is that of an excellent President. You may never have seen a real President.
Delores Smith (Priscilla Alden)
Delores109@cox.net
Anonymous

Hahaha you obviously are a hundred years old.

I feel bad for old folks who can’t think for themselves like you. All you care about in qualities of the President is his personality? Really? His strategy of putting on jeans to seem normal must have really taken you for a ride.

Enjoy 4 more years of Obama! Mitt doesn’t stand a chance!
Mr. Awesome!

MY QUESTION TO THE CANDIDATES:
Sublime ignorance makes for a happy life. Intellect leads to
questions, questions, being complicated require a hypothesis which
requires tests and tests leads us to ask more questions-which requires
rational critical evaluation of the evidence deriving from the original
set of questions. The subset requires further evaluation and then the
two data streams need to be compared. This requires detailed statistical
testing, regression analysis on a scatter-plot, and determining
whether or not there is a correlation and how strong that correlation
is.

So, if I may be so bold, let me pose the question that
is currently eating at my core, making me nostalgic for those fond
days of my youth, where all questions were easy and had simple answers:

WHERE THE HELL IS mY goDDAMN cAPSLOcK BUTTON?
Mr. Awesome!

MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES:

The Wealth of Nations: “The necessaries of life occasion
the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and
the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The
luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the
rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best
advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax
upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the
rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to
their revenue, but something more than in that proportion (Adam
Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(1776). Book Five: Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth.
CHAPTER II: Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the
Society. ARTICLE I: Taxes upon the Rent of House).”

DOES THIS MEAN ADAM SMITH WAS A DIRTY DAMN SOCIALIST!!! HE MUST BE BECAUSE HE WANTED TO TAX THE WEALTHY MORE THAN THE THE REST OF US!!!
Mr. Awesome!

Serious Questions for the Candidates:

1. Is it possible to produce
higher tax revenue as a percentage of GDP when the tax burden falls on
the middle class rather than the wealthiest one percent, when
unemployment rates are near full (3 to 5% Unemployment).

Yes or No and explain?

2. Sense Unemployment rates are at 9.6% wouldn’t it make more sense to put the burden of taxes on the wealthiest portion of the country?

Yes or No and explain?

3. Does economic growth come from people who produce a product or people who purchase a product?

4. True or false and explain:

Taxing the middle-class at a higher rate than than the wealthiest one percent (For you liberals)/Job creators (For you conservatives) creates economic growth, because when the wealthy have a lower tax rate, the cost of production is cheaper-i.e. Lower taxes for rich people=investing in the economy.

5. True or False and explain:

Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the middle-class means more money for the middle class- when the middle class has more money they spend it-when people spend money demand increases which also increases production, and increased production means more jobs-more jobs means more money for workers which means more $ the wealthiest one percent?

6. Is it possible that taxing the wealthiest one percent at a higher rate than the middle class can reign in the influence they have over our elected representatives?

7. By easing the tax burden on the Job Creators they are able to reign in the power of the government and insure people control the government not “elites?”

Should Wallmart (Any Big Business) have a lower property tax rate than Bobs Plumbing Supply (Small Business)?

Should small business in the area be responsible for the ware on the streets caused by Wallmart trucks? And Isn’t this an example of a negative externality?
Anonymous

I’m with you. I like the dog bark collars and I would love to see it on Newt & Rick and Mitts. Whose the leader of the pack now?
Anonymous

They didn’t bother to answer very many questions. They just huffed and puffed.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Caroline-M-Corman/1790826629 Caroline M. Corman

If you want to see a real debate, youtube Kennedy and Nixon. That is how a debate should sound. Intelligent questions and answers.
The modern debate is a farce and an embarrassment to the candidates getting the questions.
Anonymous

It doesn’t matter what you ask now. I leads to one of 8 or 9 talking points.
Try drinking every time you hear the same answer/talking point in a 2 hour debate. make sure you have a designated listener, so you know how many talking points you missed in the second hour. When you wake up!
Anonymous

catch aids and die fuckface.