First-Guessing the Great Debate

Let us start today's piece with an interesting premise.  I am actually writing this on Wednesday morning, six hours before the undercard Republican debate and more than that before the actual candidates in contention mount the stage for the main event.  I'm going to publish this afterwards as a form of self-embarrassment -- this is what I expected to have happened, but it seems like it would be more entertaining to publish it thereafter.

I promise that I will not have changed a word of this even though I may have been proven totally wrong by the events that follow.  I'll comment on my own piece, but I won't change it.

After all, as I constantly write, whether something is good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, whether a governmental policy, a law or a televised primary debate, depends on what its purpose is in the first place.  And no matter what CNN wants it to be, the purpose of the debate should be to present the basics of the policy leanings of each of the candidates, and to try to distinguish those basics across the field.

Tonight, however, I expect that the questions will be intended to foment arguments among the candidates, particularly between the also-running (meaning everyone other than Donald Trump and Ben Carson) and The Donald.  In that it is CNN and not an actual, unbiased network -- there is no such animal -- there will be a great deal more fomented arguing about topics other than the actual issues about which the USA cares -- and about petty details that are far less important to the voter than the basic issues.

For example -- I assume there will not be a question such as "How high should the wall with Mexico be?", but there will have been several such sillinesses.  That kind of question is silly and counterproductive, and completely unhelpful to the viewer unless the viewer is tuning in for a battle and not to, you know, learn.

It is not important to the actual purpose (for the voter, not for CNN) how high such a wall should be, or even if there should be one.  That's all messy detail and irrelevant, and just an example anyway.  What is important is what the candidates' views on the role of immigration in the USA are; or more particularly, what do they envision as the appropriate future immigration structure.  Now that would make for an interesting question for all the candidates and a tremendously enlightening exchange, educational for the viewers.

CNN, of course, wants to sell advertising and therefore will ask questions meant to stimulate not "debate" but rather yelling and screaming.  If there is one "first guess" I'm sure about, it is that one.

Here is the tough part -- predicting successes and failures.  And "success" means holding one's own or being surprisingly effective in what they say.  "Failure" means not doing oneself enough good to stay in the race, even if you have a famous name.

So here is the prediction of what will happen tonight.

First, no one from the undercard will make enough of a splash to stay in the race.  The over/under on how many of them will be gone from the race by the time this is published is two.  Don't know which, but two.

Second, six will have a good night, at least in the sense of their supporters being pleased with what they were able to accomplish.  Those will be Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina and Kasich.

Five will accomplish nothing to help their cause, or say or do something that will hurt them.  Those will be Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Paul and Christie.  I say that knowing that I would be content if almost any of those five would be president, so there's no real prejudice in my choices.

I simply believe that the debate format is not set up to advance their candidacies.  I believe that in the case of Bush and Walker, they need to accomplish something they're not really set up to do.  Paul and Christie will not be effective in appearing "presidential", whatever that means, because the questioning will be designed to expose them.  Mike Huckabee, like Hillary Clinton, has attracted all the support he will ever get, and ought to return to the news commentary he does really well.

The moments that we will be told we are supposed to remember will be an exchange between Trump and someone -- it matters not whom.  The other candidate will be trying to make themselves known; Trump will respond in kind.  In that the topic will not be a policy-level one we actually want to care about, it will not hurt Trump a bit among his supporters and may gain him some.  It will probably take the antagonist out of the race within ten days.

As I write this, I'm looking forward to "tonight's" encounter.  Let's see if I'm any good as a seer.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.