Adrenaline-pumping music pulses in the background. Cameras pan around the room, capturing the gaudy red, white and blue graphics projected on the walls, zooming in and out on the applauding audience, sweeping across the candidates as if running down a high-five line, the same shot used to build excitement at the beginning of basketball games. The whole thing has the look and feel of an overly patriotic game show — “Who Wants to Rule the Free World?” Eventually, the focus settles on the host, John King: “Welcome to the first Republican presidential debate in this crucial primary state of New Hampshire!”
It was the first, in fact, by a long shot: The debate was held last June, over eight months before the commencement of the primary season. Nate Silver, the statistical prodigy at The New York Times who typically revels in political minutiae, wrote at the time that “most people have better things to do” than tune in to such a premature contest. Apparently not, since “early and often” seems to have been the very lucrative philosophy of network executives this political season. There have been a whopping total of 25 debates thus far, with at least four more down the line. By imbuing what is essentially entertainment with the gravity of political significance, the networks have created a cash cow.
The most recent debate in Florida, hosted by CNN, captured 5.4 million viewers, 1.74 million of whom were between the ages 25 and 54, a highly coveted demographic. Typically, Fox destroys the other 24-hour news stations in the ratings war, but these debates have been an equalizing force. How do the networks entice so many of us to tune in?
In general, there are two possible reasons why one might watch the debates, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You may take them seriously: As a voter, you might think they will help you learn more about the candidates. Or, as a lay analyst, you may look for clues as to the trajectory of the race. Alternatively, you could watch them purely for their entertainment value. From Michele Bachmann compulsively citing her ability to keep track of 23 foster kids to Rick Perry demonstrating his inability to keep track of three government agencies, this particular field of candidates has made this year more fun than ever.
The networks, of course, want to attract both categories of viewers. To do this, they have made the race appear lively even though it is, for all intents and purposes, dead on the table. The theory of “anyone but Romney” has been their strongest ally in this endeavor. At the time of the first New Hampshire debate, Tim Pawlenty was touted in the media as the candidate to bring him down. At various points since then, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have all taken their turns filling this role, enjoying surges in the polls and brief moments in spotlight. By concertedly focusing on the anti-Romney candidate of the moment, the media has been able to convey the illusion of a contested race for those serious about their politics, while introducing the rest of us to a cast of fascinating characters. This raises the suspense and the profile of the debates — and their entertainment value. It’s amazing how well it works. Recently, people were convinced that Gingrich was a serious contender on the strength of a couple of his performances. What a joke! In Florida, Romney out-spent him into oblivion.
The reality is that Romney’s status as a front-runner has not been seriously contested. As the establishment candidate, he has such a monopoly on endorsements, money and political machinery as to make him virtually untouchable. And the politicians who might have had a real shot at dethroning him — Chris Christie and Jeb Bush — were wise enough to know this. Since time immemorial, the Republicans have gone with the establishment candidate. It’s Romney’s turn. But network executives are savvy enough to know that this kind of foregone conclusion will tank their ratings.