Political debates: Why so critical now?
The primary debates have primarily one purpose: to weed out the field. There is no other vehicle in which all of the candidates can be seen at the same time, on the same stage, talking about the same things.
Among the GOP candidates, have you seen any exchanges that rise to the level of ‘critical moments’?
I don’t think so yet. Whether or not people will actually vote for somebody else, or withhold their vote for a candidate because of something they’ve seen so far – I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence on that.
How critical are moderators in these debates?
It’s hard work, particularly in the primary debates. The moderators are really earning their keep out there. You’ve got so many candidates. You’re trying to maintain order, fairness, and the perception of fairness.
Why else is it such hard work?
Today you’ve got everybody with a tweet and a twitter and a whatever, adding yet another element to the debates. The important thing is to do the job in such a way that all the attention is on the candidates. Nobody’s going to vote for the moderator.
What are you looking for in these debates?
One consideration that’s going to begin to override these GOP debates is less about the differences among the potential Republican nominees and more about who would be the best candidate against Barack Obama.