DNC Chairman Tom Perez offers a response to the DNC Members seeking a change in the guidance of the way our debates are currently structured. One of the great things about working with so many thoughtful Democratic minds is that we can understand that you can disagree without being disagreeable; and we can have a reasoned debate without needing anger or venom.
With that in mind, I respectfully disagree with some of Chairman Perez assessment of the current status of our debate format; and I think we have to recognize that distant past guidance isn’t always the best for the current media market, or to defeat President Trump.
In order to understand this, I think we need to understand that campaigns generally do not follow the exact rules we hope to dictate. And when the sitting president shows he is more than willing to ignore any and all rules, strict adherence to early plans isn’t always helpful toward our effort to win.
In a post on Medium, Tom Perez Writes:
Already, a number of organizations and networks have hosted their own issue-based forums and town halls — and I hope and expect more of these will take place in the coming months. Nobody is prohibited from participating in a DNC-sanctioned debate because they participated in a climate change forum or town hall. And combined with our unprecedented debate format, our candidates have more opportunities than ever to communicate their values and vision to the American people.
In order to understand what is being said here, and throughout Tom’s response, we have to grasp there are three different components: First, what constitutes a forum vs a debate; Second, can and should plans change; and finally can we come to a realistic compromise?
What is a debate and what is a forum?
In guidance sent out to TV Networks MSNBC and CNN, the DNC informed the networks that a forum would be any event in which one candidate was on stage at a time. A debate would be any event where more than one candidate was present on stage at once. This guidance, which has been given to numerous progressive entities who also looked at creating their own forums, comes with penalties. Networks or entities that offer to broadcast any event with more than one candidate on stage at once. In a notice sent to Gov. Jay Inslee, he was informed that if he participated in any such event with more than one candidate on stage at once, he would also be forbidden from participating in future debates.
This is a little bit of word use magic. Candidates are encouraged to participate in forums, that is, forums specifically as defined by the party. One candidate at a time, no more. For many viewers and those who have followed past campaigns, this can be confusing, because in 2015/2016, Republicans held their own debates and forums, and these restrictions were not present.
This allowed Republicans to hold 19 events, a mix of debates and forums, as well as one on one events from the networks. In comparison, the DNC laid out a schedule of 12 debates for 2020 schedule — which would closely simulate the Republican schedule, but by limiting forums to one candidate at a time events, the party would effectively hold significantly fewer opportunities for candidates to take on issues and have frank discussions.
Because of how we define words and change how we talk about the format, it allows the Democratic Party to present a significant upgrade in the number of debates, and a downgrade in opportunities in comparison to the last time the non-incumbent party ran for the office of President.
Can or should plans change?
Chairman Perez brings up a point I have heard from other members as well, but it is something that I think we need to discuss. Again, from his Medium article:
We have received more than 50 requests to hold debates focused on these important issues and many others. And we knew it would be unfair and unrealistic to ask the candidates to participate in so many. (This is not a new problem; in fact, in past Democratic primaries, candidates were frustrated by unwieldy debate schedules, leading the DNC to make reforms in future cycles.)
This is where we have to start looking at where we come from and where we are heading, and how those definitions can change where we need to go. One part of this argument needs to be dismissed: “in past Democratic primaries” is simply an irrelevant argument. The 2016 cycle had not enough debate or opportunity, largely due to the small field and campaign strategy. 2008, the last contested Democratic primary, may have been seen as “unwieldy” but, uh, it produced a winner — and again, it was before the broader use of social media as a major mover of influence.
Any reference to contests before that, like 2004 cannot be points of data because the marketplace was simply too different.
This is where sometimes learning from the past, or thinking you are learning from the past, can harm as much as it can help.
The argument being made, though, that candidates could be prevented from campaigning in person in Iowa or New Hampshire is certainly an issue that I have heard frequently. In truth, the online marketplace has become far more significant than either state. Whether we want to admit this or not, the fact that several states will start early voting at or earlier than the Iowa caucus means that having time to win over online communities can have far more longterm impact, thanks to the way our electorate has changed, and the heart of the delegates who will cast their vote at the national convention.
One of the arguments boils down to this: we set these rules at the very beginning, and in order to prevent the party from putting a thumb on the scale, we must stay as rigid as possible.
This simply isn’t how successful campaigns can work. Campaigns aren’t like selling ice cream treats out of a truck; the goal is to find ways to WIN, and be flexible enough to adjust as needed when the opportunity presents itself.
Is now the right time to adjust?
Chairman Perez is right on a key point, we cannot hold a never-ending series of debates featuring candidates at podiums with a panel of four moderators in a traditional format. This is old world thinking and if you look at what the marketplace of voters wants is about as popular as going in for teeth cleaning.
This is, however, an opportunity to look at the current conditions and make adjustments designed to help us win. The current guidance was created early, as Perez acknowledges, with rules around what constitutes a forum. These rules are constricting to the point of preventing even top flight candidates from getting their scheduling in order. If a set of candidates were available to appear on “The View” under the guidance given to ABC, if three women candidates for President sat down on the couch at the same time, that’s a debate and they could be barred from further participation. The network itself could lose access to DNC future debates.
With such a large field of candidates, we have to recognize that sticking hard and fast with this kind of rules with have consequences we also don’t desire. While Chairman Perez pokes a bit at Gov. Inslee saying he cannot bow to any candidate, Gov. Inslee really has no reason to bother appearing in DNC held events; he could simply go outside of the system and get far more media attention at this point by going on a small debate with other candidates who simply cannot get airtime.
For their campaigns, there is far more benefit to saying “OK, I might be able to get somewhere by doing this in comparison to doing nothing and staying at 0% in the polls”. Be honest with yourself: a rogue debate with say, Inslee, Bullock, and several other second-tier candidates on just one issue would still find some coverage somewhere, and it would be discussed afterwards, dissected by the media s to what it means and used by conservatives against Democratic efforts.
This is why we as a party work to adjust.
Conclusion
Tom Perez is right — we do not need infinite at the podium debates. But we also need to go back and come up with a way for the Democratic candidates to be able in joint to show unity and to have a real discussion with the American public. That means adjusting the guidance around what is a forum, or allowing for new kind of events that allow for multiple candidates to speak to the same topic, same goal, without facing penalties from the party.
Too many Democratic groups believe the 2020 election is a foregone conclusion. It isn’t. The more we stick to rigid campaign rules and guidance, the less we try to break outside the box and embrace energy into our part the more we handicap our own efforts.
We don’t need podiums and moderated debates — something the DNC can stand firm on their position — but just having the willingness to embrace the current campaign realities, and how different they are from 2008 and even 2016, well, that can show us as a party that l istens, works, and builds bridges with our own members.
That’s why 50+ members of the DNC have called for us to look at the rules, to adapt and to offer opportunities. That isn’t putting the fingers on the scale. That’s recognizing that the party itself cannot see the future and can adapt to the needs of our members.
Forums about issues with broad agreement aren’t about preaching to the choir, they are opportunities to expand our discussions of issues that matter to people who don’t hear them as often. It is an opportunity to build solutions, connections and create a more unified Democratic party that is positioned to unify behind a candidate that wins our nomination.
While I disagree with Chairman Perez, I’m grateful for his willingness to continue this discussion.