See you in Summer 2012!

We're taking a hiatus for now, but we plan to be back in full force on August 1, 2012 to cover the Presidential Debates.

Whitman and Brown Agree to Three Debates

The Whitman and Brown campaigns have agreed to hold three gubernatorial debates in the Golden State. Brown had originally asked for ten. The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece out on the decision, quoting me (Aaron) and PDB guest blogger Alan Schroeder.

California Gubernatorial Primary Debate

The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece up today which cites our blog about Sunday's debate between Republican candidates for governor Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. You can read the full piece here.

Summing Up the British PM Debates: A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV. To read more on his lessons for America from the British debates, see his recent piece in the Huffington Post.

With Britain’s first-ever prime ministerial debate series now at an end, the obvious question is: what took so long? Like its two predecessors, last night’s third and final joint appearance among the three major party leaders played out as a substantive and illuminating exchange of ideas. Voters who watched the debate gained a good deal of insight, not only into the policies of the various parties but also into the personalities of the men who aspire to lead the British government.

Coming into the final debate, incumbent prime minister Gordon Brown (Labour) found himself in an awkward position, thanks to a well publicized gaffe the day before in which he unwittingly got caught referring to a Labour voter as a “bigoted woman.” Brown wisely defused this tempest-in-a-teapot in his opening statement, saying, “There’s a lot to this job, and as you saw yesterday, I don’t always get it right.” The reference, oblique yet crystal-clear, managed to push the unpleasantness into the shadows, at least for the duration of the broadcast.

Brown gave his best performance in the third debate, but this was not enough to overtake his more telegenic rivals in the snap polls. David Cameron (Conservative) also turned in his best debate of the series, and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) extended his impressive track record as a gifted television debater. Most of the instant surveys and many of the pundits gave Cameron the win, with Clegg trailing slightly behind.

For my money, the third debate was more of a three-way stand-off. Gordon Brown faced the greatest challenge, not only because of the “bigoted woman” flap but also because the topic of the debate was the economy. As the incumbent prime minister, Brown had no choice but to play defense, while his competitors were able to present alternative scenarios. Brown did about as well as anyone could under these circumstances, especially in view of his monotonous style of delivery.

Nick Clegg has been a consistently strong performer in these debates, but in this final installment of the miniseries, he seemed to be repackaging his greatest hits rather than broadening his message. Clegg’s attempt to invoke Ronald Reagan against his rivals—“there they go again”—fell flat, and the Liberal Democrat leader came off as less commanding than in his previous appearances.

To this observer, David Cameron has been the most difficult of the three candidates to read in these debates. He is obviously a bright and articulate man, full of ideas and talented at arguing his case, but an invisible barrier between him and the audience seems to prevent him from fully connecting. Interestingly, before the debates began Cameron was thought to possess the most gilded media personality of the trio. Although he improved considerably as the series progressed, the Tory leader never quite came into sharp focus, at least from my perspective.

Finally, a mea culpa: Before the debates I predicted that the restrictive format would make for dull viewing. It didn’t. While it is true that the town hall questioners felt more like scenery than participants, the net effect was to keep the focus on the candidates, where it properly belonged. Brown, Cameron, and Clegg appeared more interested in interacting with each other than scoring points with the studio audience; this resulted in a higher degree of candidate give-and-take than we find in American debates. And fluent camera work by the British networks successfully circumvented the proscriptions imposed in the campaigns’ heavily negotiated production guidelines, making the programs visually compelling.

With its five decades of history, the institution of presidential debates in the U.S. proved highly influential in the design and execution of Britain’s first prime ministerial match-ups. In the final analysis, however, America may have lessons to learn from its pupil.

The British Debates, Round Two – A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

The second U.K. prime ministers’ debate proved to be a more spirited affair than its predecessor, with the candidates displaying fewer nerves and more aggression. After Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg’s surprise win in round one, rivals Gordon Brown (Labour) and David Cameron (Conservative) were determined to prevent a repeat of the previous week’s outcome, and in large measure they succeeded. Post-debate polls split the victory between Clegg and Cameron, with Brown also making gains.

The format for all three British debates is the same. However, each program has a different TV network as its sponsor, which means a new look and new packaging from one week to the next. Sky News, the Rupert Murdoch-owned news channel that produced the second debate, opted for a glitzier set, but as in the previous outing, the town hall audience of questioners appeared detached from the proceedings, both visually and spiritually. These debates are very much candidate-centric, with minimal input from the moderator and studio audience.

Perhaps because of this format, the first two debates have been remarkably substantive, with a broad range of subject matter under discussion. In the second debate, which focused on international issues, one of the more interesting topics was a “wild card” question about Pope Benedict and the Vatican sexual abuse scandal. During his response Nick Clegg uttered words that to American ears were nothing short of shocking: “I am not a man of faith.” In the U.S. this would have torpedoed his candidacy; in Britain it barely merited comment.

Ratings dropped from 9.4 million viewers for the first debate to 4.4 million for the second, not because of lessened interest but due to the quirky sponsorship arrangement, which strictly limits which channels are allowed to broadcast the debates. This week’s final debate, sponsored by the BBC, is expected to be more widely available. And as the concluding installment of the miniseries, interest is likely to run particularly high.

In the final analysis, Britain’s first-ever prime ministerial debates may not affect the result of the election; nonetheless, they have captured the nation’s attention and dominated the campaign. After the 2010 debates, it seems safe to say that British elections will never be the same.

Who Won Britain's Prime Minister Debate -- A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

Nick Clegg’s decisive win in last night’s first-ever U.K. prime ministerial debate is one of two topics dominating the news in Britain today. The other is the plume of volcanic ash from Iceland that has closed air traffic in and out of the country, wreaking havoc on the travel industry. This morning the tabloid Daily Mail managed to acknowledge both events with a memorable page-one headline: “We’re All Paralysed by Hot Air.”

According to the ratings, some 10 million viewers watched the first of the three scheduled debates among the three British party leaders, a respectable if not spectacular figure in a country of 61 million people. That number probably would have gone even higher if not for the peculiar sponsorship arrangement of these debates, which allows each of the three sponsoring TV networks to air its program on an exclusive basis within the United Kingdom. Unlike presidential debates in the U.S., which are simulcast by all the major networks, viewers here could watch the first Brown-Cameron-Clegg matchup only on ITV (though it was also available on the internet and on BBC Radio.) For next week’s Sky News debate and the final BBC debate on April 29, similar restrictions will apply.

Another key difference between the US and British debates could be seen in the media coverage. In the hours before the debate began, ITV offered no special programming leading up to the event. Instead, the schedule went directly from “Coronation Street” to the debate, a juxtaposition reminiscent of how the U.S. broadcast networks handled the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. The all-news BBC and Sky channels did present a fair bit of pre-debate discussion during the afternoon and early evening hours, but nowhere near what we find in the U.S.–no countdown clocks, no glitzy graphics, no endless discussions by talking heads of which candidate has to accomplish what.

Post-debate coverage more closely followed American norms, with party spinners and instant polls and focus groups of voters reacting to what they had seen. But again, by U.S. standards the intensity of the effort seemed quite subdued.

Although the tightly negotiated British format did not look promising on paper, in practice it worked reasonably well. An audience of 200 demographically representative voters, selected by an independent recruiting agency, submitted written questions in advance. These questions were reviewed by an editorial board, which then decided on the topics for the debate. Only eight audience members actually got to ask their questions on the air, meaning that the town hall “participants” played a very limited role in the proceedings. The candidates addressed each theme for one minute, followed by a four-minute period of “free debate”—by far, the most interesting part of the program. The moderator, who asked no questions of his own, served primarily as a traffic cop.

Why did Nick Clegg, the third-party “odd man out,” win the debate? In addition to a technically proficient performance, Clegg approached the evening with a clear strategy: to portray his major-party opponents as two peas in the same old pod and himself as the breath of fresh air British voters have been waiting for. Clegg was handed an unexpected gift by Tory leader David Cameron, whose usual camera savvy seemed to fail him at this crucial point in the campaign. Pundits here weren’t expecting much from incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown, an ursine man with an inexpressive face, and he lived up to those low expectations.

From an American perspective, the interesting thing about Clegg’s victory is that it ultimately may not matter, since voters in the U.K. elect a government, not an individual leader. Given the realities of British politics, it will be virtually impossible for Clegg’s Liberal Democrats to pick up a majority of seats. Still, this should not diminish Nick Clegg’s accomplishment. Most debates do not produce a clear winner—this one did.

Prime Minister Debate: The View from England -- Guest Post by Alan Schroeder

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

The anticipation is mounting as Britain prepares for its first-ever prime ministerial TV debates on Thursday night. As a scholar of the U.S. presidential debates, I’ve come over to London to see how this influential American institution manifests itself across the Atlantic. This preview that I wrote for the Huffington Post provides a basic introduction to the players, the format, and the media coverage, but a few additional points also bear mention.

Critics of the British debates question whether these events are appropriate in a country with a parliamentary system. After all, voters are electing a government, not an individual leader. This means that the three contenders – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg – will appear on the ballot only in their home constituencies, not nationally. Those arguing against debates in Britain make the point that the exercise is too presidentially oriented and therefore not reflective of local political realities. It’s an interesting assertion, and not without validity, but a strong counterargument can be offered as well: numerous other countries with parliamentary systems regularly feature televised debates during national elections, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

For the British, this seems to be an appropriate election in which to inaugurate candidate debates, because the polling indicates a murky outcome. There is little enthusiasm for incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour party, yet plenty of trepidation about his chief rival, Tory leader David Cameron. This heightens the importance of the third party candidate, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, who may be called upon to form a coalition government – or, as the Brits call it, a “hung Parliament.”

I am struck by the degree to which American debate history is coloring the British debates. American political consultants are advising the candidates on debate prep, and clips from past American debates fill the airwaves. The local media are promising American-style instant post-debate polls and analysis, though the rules of engagement prohibit the superimposition of any poll results before the live events have gone off the air. I will be especially interested to see whether this opening round of prime ministerial face-offs ratifies debates as a permanent fixture of British campaigns, or whether the U.K. will see a repeat of what happened after Kennedy and Nixon, when debates vanished from American politics for the next sixteen years. Much will depend on what happens these next three Thursdays.