The incentive structure of the Republican primary debate cut-off is to promote the crazy even if the goal of the cut-off is to minimize the crazy talk.
The debate will be on August 6th, and it is split into two parts. The main event will have ten candidates who have filed with the FEC and are in a blended average of the top ten positions in live respondant telephone polls within a given time frame. The second part is the kiddy table event which will have every other filed candidate whose campaigns had sufficient funds to pay for gas to get the candidate to the studio.
It is structured this way for two reasons. First, it is purely a logistical move, as fifteen to twenty people on stage would mean no one gets to talk for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Now that is not a great loss as the information to time level is fairly low, but it is a reasonable concern. Secondly, the top-ten feature is a public culling method as the invisible primary becomes slightly more visible. Debates are often one of the easiest ways for a low polling candidate to make up ground quickly and cheaply. This is especially true in any primary process where the ideological universe is narrower than in a general election as a voter is not making significant ideological re-evalatuations when they switch their support between primary opponents. This point is esepcially true in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary as the issue space ranges from who will cut some taxes to who will cut all taxes, who will bluster first and then bomb compared to who will just bomb, and how much everyone hates seeing working class people get private market health insurance. The ideological space is fairly narrow. So a good debate that rubs a voter’s button the right way will get a very throaty response to a particular candidate.
A candidate who is not in the first debate will have a very hard time getting into any future debate, and thus will have a very hard time raising their polling.
Working with that assumption, five groups of candidates shake out of the crowded Republican field. The first group are candidates who are definately in the debate and project that they will be in all debates until the primaries/caucuses start. These candidates just have to not fuck things up in the debates and start to knock out candidates whose supporters are most inclined to choose them as their second choice. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are in this bucket.
The second group are candidates who have to hold serve, but can safely assume they’ll be in good enough shape for the next couple of rounds. It splits into two groups, the hucksters/self-promoters (Trump and Carson) and actual candidates (Rubio, Paul, Huckabee). (Yes there is overlap here, especially with Huckabee and Paul). The hucksters will throw bombs as that is what they do, while the actual candidates will try not to fuck up while tearing down a front-runner who is closest to them.
These groups are fairly condifident that they’ll be invited back to another debate. Their incentives are to minimize variance if they are actually running for office as a statement in 2015 can be used against them in 2016. Trump and Carson don’t have this constraint, so they’ll embrace the id.
There are two other groups who have to embrace the Republican Party’s Id. The first group is the cluster of candidates who are currently qualified for the debates but whose position is precarious. They have a simple objective in the first two rounds; survive and advance to the next round. That means they have to punch down until the moment the moderater welcomes them to the stage. The last group has to generate a surge of momentum to get into the top ten between now and August 4th. The bottom six (the currently excluded candidates) have a consolidated 3rd place position if all of their support was pooled together. These candidates need to grab support from one another as well as grab support from the easy switchers of debate qualified candidates. Given what we know about the Republican Party, the easiest way to get base Republican support is to embrace the crazy; threaten mass deportation, threaten mass impeachment of the Supreme Court, threaten massive resistance to healthcare, make a few racist and or sexist jokes and then claim persecution by the liberal elites.
Given the incentive structure of an early, public and hard line cull, the bottom half of the Republican field has no incentive to avoid making statements in July 2015 that could hurt them in October 2016 because without those statements in July 2015, they don’t make it to September 2015.
Punchy
Per my telly, add Kasich (sp?) and Christie to the mix by Tuesday. That’s gotta be damn near 15 candys by now. At what point does the pure grift angle for ~75% of these GOP clowns become obvious and news-worthy to be reported by the Very Serious Pundits?
JPL
Glossop is being read by Alito… shit
Elizabelle
Hanging out with y’all for USSC’s latest and last of this year.
Randy P
Years ago, SCTV had a skit where in the Ricardo Montalban School of Acting, everyone was learning to dress and speak like Montalban, complete with accent.
I’m imagining a stage full of grifters trying to find their zinger line to stick in the voters’ memories, all of them wearing Reagan wigs and practicing saying “there you go again” in front of mirrors…
MattF
I’ve read that the powers-that-be in the Republican party desperately want Fiorina to be in the debate– apparently, the current situation, with Trump in and Fiorina out makes them wanna cry.
Fair Economist
There’s more than 16; there’s another 10 or so totally fringe candidates, most of whom have never held any office nor been celebrities in any sense. Normally there’s some kind of cutoff (like minimum polling, actually) to keep these people away from a microphone but by the current rules it seems they get a seat at the kiddie table (if, as you say, they can pay for gas and take the time off work). These people have nothing but incentives to throw bombs – they’re either nuts or just in it for the notoriety.
Punchy
@Elizabelle: Looks like they ruled in favor of continuing to use questionable chems for death row executions.
How they got around “cruel and unusual” will be an interesting read, methinks.
OzarkHillbilly
“Hold my beer. Watch this!”
Fair Economist
@MattF:
No doubt. They probably think Fiorina might help them with vagina-Americans as a Veep candidate and failing that hope she might get Feinstein’s seat in 2018. Having the American voter think she’s even less suited for office than Trump doesn’t help either of those goals.
Matt McIrvin
I’ve been thinking of the field as basically being two groups: one containing Bush, Walker and Rubio (the ones with a chance), and then everyone else.
Ben Carson is a special case, because he’s never going to get the nomination, but he seems to have enough of the conservative extremist vote sewn up to make him look like a major player at this stage. I think I actually see more bumper stickers and signs and such touting him than anyone else right now. If we have to designate a (highly imperfect) Republican analogue to Bernie Sanders, it’s Carson, not Donald Trump, who almost nobody actually likes.
Omnes Omnibus
@Punchy: It it appears to be a fairly narrow ruling though. They did not hold that the drug is okay. They held that the district judge did not commit clear error when he found that the prisoner had not shown that the drug does cause pain.
JPL
@Punchy: States rights, I guess.
I don’t mean to take the case lightly, because I’m truly disgusted.
Fester Addams
The polling-based placement is perfect for encouraging TV-ad spending.
I wonder if Fox considered (wait, I’m sure they considered) just plain auctioning off places at the big-candidate debate. What true republican could object to that?
debbie
@Punchy:
Kasich’s not planning to announce until July 21.
burnspbesq
There is an interesting side-battle being fought in the opinions in Glossip.
Breyer’s dissent apparently calls for a fundamental re-think on whether the death penalty is constitutional in any form. Scalia and Thomas both wrote concurring opinions responding to Breyer.
Elizabelle
@Punchy: May not work out as they wish. A few more more ghastly than usual executions might turn public opinion. And good luck getting the drugs, right?
I don’t know, though. Didn’t read any links and CNN is talking anything but Supreme Court right now.
different-church-lady
@Punchy:
I’ll take Never for $600, Alex.
Elizabelle
New SCOTUS thread.
burnspbesq
Because of the procedural posture of the case, the ruling in Glossip is fairly narrow. All the court said is that the district court was not wrong in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction. That means that the case goes back to the district court for discovery, and then probably cross-motions for summary judgment. Meanwhile, the state can still kill people.
JPL
And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. After all, while most humans wish to die a painless
death, many do not have that good fortune. Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether.
From the majority opinion.
burnspbesq
It’s a pie-fight, Supreme Court style. Scalia is reading from his concurrence, responding to Breyer.
different-church-lady
Why don’t they just use a double-elimination bracket?
Gin & Tonic
@burnspbesq: SCOTUSblog says that reading a concurrence from the bench is exceedingly rare.
bystander
@Punchy: Nothing to ignoring inconvenient words in the Constitution. Look how well they’ve managed to ignore “well regulated militia” in the Second Amendment.
rikyrah
Glad you tried to explain it all…..that you had to give brain cells for this is sad. ….the Clown Car does not deserve your consideration.
Jeffro
Where is Cruz in all of this (speaking of embracing the GOP’s id)?
He’s going to be something to behold during the debates.
Richard Mayhew
@Jeffro: He is currently in but marginally so, so every incentive for him is to embrace the crazy in order to get to 10% or better in September to survive the next cull.
Jeffro
@Richard Mayhew: Hmm…Cruz embracing the crazy…why am I not seeing that as much of a stretch? lol
You can almost see Nixon, McCarthy, and Goldwater looking up at him in sheer admiration & awe
MattF
@Jeffro: There’s a distinction that Cruz is undoubtedly aware of– ‘forensic’ debate is not the same thing as, say, ‘scientific’ debate. For forensic debate, i.e., debate in a courtroom, it’s entirely OK to try to damage your opponent’s credibility– that’s just the way the game is played; if you persuade the jury that your opponent is an untrustworthy liar, you win. This presents all sorts of enticing possibilities for Cruz.
Fred
No doubt the conservatives would think the execution in Braveheart would be OK. Nobody can objectively prove that live evisceration is painful. You can’t get anybody with first hand knowledge to testify and even if you could why would anybody believe a low life like that?
As to the subject of this post: Are the Republican debates cruel and unusual punishment? Listening to Walker, Trump, Rubio and especially Cruz all at once is enough to make me consider the Braveheart way out.
Jeffro
@MattF: Oh absolutely. There’s no way for anyone to get to the right of him, and none of these guys can out-crazy him. I know Huckabee is busy making noise about how religious folks can resist last week’s SCOTUS rulings…Cruz is the one who said it was “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history”. That’s a whole ‘nother level.
Not sure if it was yesterday or today when Cruz deflected questions about his stance on gay marriage, saying that liberals – including the media of course – were fixated on asking him ‘sex questions’. That’s some mad genius there. I mean, the sheer audacity, the constant best-defense-is-a-mind-blowing offense…the guy will answer nothing while pushing every fear button in sight. He’ll easily be the slipperiest person up on that stage.
shell
Damn, talk about the Dog Days
catclub
@MattF: There was a huge long interview of Cruz on NPR – with more to come this afternoon.
I am not sure it actually helps him any. Remember Giuliani? The more people heard him, the less they liked him.
For example, Cruz criticizing all the Harvard/Yale justices, right before Inskeep mentions he went to Princeton and Harvard law, and was a supreme court clerk.
catclub
Also Cruz is not in the friend making business. Apparently he has a chapter on the Senate Republicans ( ex him, I guess). It is titled “Mendacity”.
Waldo
Embrace the crazy? They’re totally f*cking crazy.
David Robinson
@bystander: Oh no, they don’t ignore it at all. They claim that essentially EVERYBODY is in the militia and that, since almost everyone is in it, it’s also, by definition “well-regulated.”
True, it’s a series of absolutely crazy claims that are unsupported by law, but they’re not ignoring the clause
Snarki, child of Loki
I think that the BIG question for the GOP debates are:
Will they be ‘open-carry’? and
Will there be rapid-fire rebuttals?
Survivors, if any, get to advance to the next round: hand grenades, and after that, the final round: flame-throwers.
RATINGS GOLD, PEOPLE! RATINGS GOLD!
Lurking Canadian
@Punchy: if you do it to enough prisoners, it’s not unusual.
Lurking Canadian
@David Robinson: My favorite argument is the one that says “well-regulated” was an 18th century synonym of “well-equipped”, so actually the first bit is encouraging MOAR GUNZ!
LarryB
@different-church-lady: Even better, a reality-TV series. Every week, someone gets voted off the podium. I’d be surprised if this wasn’t seriously discussed at Fox HQ.
catclub
@LarryB:
But like the English soccer leagues, both relegation and elevation to the majors.
Alex S.
They should have simply divided the huge field into two equally big halves. Now, crazy candidates 11-15 (16, 17?) will have more airtime per person than the first ten. The winner of the secondary debates will probably get some momentum out of this which pushes him into the top ten, as they all try to outcrazy each other. Even debate nr. 1 will have to prepare for the craziness coming from debate nr. 2.
@MattF:
Hmm, ok, so she runs because someone paid her and suggested to her to simply have a good time, because as the only woman, the narrative will not allow her to fail.
karen marie
I don’t see how Huckabee can be considered a serious candidate any more than Carson or Trump. He’s flamethrowing to increase the take on his grift.
catclub
@karen marie: He was an elected governor of Arkansas. He won the 2008 Iowa primary.
Alex S.
@Snarki, child of Loki:
Ha! Are guns allowed on the stage? I could imagine the candidates of the second debate out-shooting each other Yosemite Sam-style.
jl
Run the the con as your only line of business long enough, and sooner or later the con runs you.
Even despicable monsters with a horrible string of despicable crimes like Whitey Bulger can retain enough humanity and soul to realize that, though sadly far too late to change a wasted life.
In my mind, that is a comment on what is happening to the GOP.
If clowns like Trump and Paul stay popular enough, they will either make the debates into a circus that alienates most of the electorate, or the RNC will try to fiddle with and corrupt the selection process in a way the creates a lot of ill feeling. As commenters have noted, to the extent the GOP is now the reactionary authoritarian party, ill feeling will make less of a difference in the general than I would like, but it doesn’t help.
Fox News’ incentives depart somewhat from RNC here, since lots of splash and nonsense will be helpful in boosing rating for their endless panels of obscure and crazy experts and commentators spouting BS that their geriatric audience likes to hear. That may not be in line with getting the best GOP candidate for the general.
jl
@Alex S.: Oh Lord, if they were true to their stated beliefs, they should at least have a gun show and tell on stage. If a candidate is not packing heat, why not, and which candidate will be revealed to have the smallest… uh… pistol with the shorted barrel and smallest wimpiest caliber? Sanity would dictate having trained assistants actually handle the weapons and ammo, but the GOP base would be outraged by that unconstitutional precaution.