Sean Spicer: The Democrats’ Debate Debacle

Candidate proliferation and a Fox News ban mean the Democrat Party will fail where the GOP succeeded in 2016 

Presidential primary debates are increasingly must-see TV. Voters tune in to watch candidates answer (or dodge) questions, and each debate typically drives national news the next day. Recognizing the growing role of debates in shaping the race, the Republican National Committee in the 2016 election cycle asserted more control over their structure. Now Democrats are trying to do the same, but they’re likely to fail where the GOP succeeded.

Before the 2016 cycle, neither party had a voice in when or where the debates took place, or who hosted them. The media organization hosting a specific debate determined how it would be conducted, who would serve as moderator, and which candidates were eligible to participate.

Reflecting on the disarray of the 2012 Republican primary season, party leaders decided to step in. That year saw 20 GOP debates with no predictable schedule, and in 2015 the Republican National Committee decided to restructure the format. That July we laid out the three main objectives for the presidential primary debates to improve outcomes for the candidates, the party and, above all, the voters.

First, we set a schedule of 12 debates: one a month from August through December 2015, two the following January and March and three in February. A predictable timetable allowed candidates and campaigns to plan more effectively and efficiently, maximizing the time and resources spent meeting voters rather than flying from one debate to the next.

Second, we spread the debates across a more varied range of states, unlike previous years which emphasized the earliest primary states. This allowed candidates to reach voters directly in all communities.

Third, we refocused the debates on Republican voters’ priorities. By joining with right-leaning journalists and outlets like Mary Katharine Ham and Salem Radio, we addressed concerns that prior GOP primary debates had ignored issues important to conservative voters.

In addition, the host organizations limited participation to ensure that viewers would see the most popular candidates on stage together. The official debates consisted of the top 10 candidates in a mix of national polls, with a minimum of 1% support. As the number of top-tier candidates grew to 17, the host organizations adapted by adding a second debate for those not in the top 10. In order for a debate to be sanctioned by the RNC, we asked the hosts to agree that any candidate who attended an unsanctioned debate be excluded from future official debates. And because we initially included all major networks and cable outlets, the media had an incentive to work within this new system.

The system wasn’t perfect, but it was fair and it worked. All the key players—the RNC, the campaigns and media partners—had a stake in its success. Now the Democrats are seeking to restructure their primary debates. They are unlikely to achieve the same success.

The Democratic National Committee has proposed 12 debates, each taking place over two nights. The top 20 candidates can make the stage on one of the two nights by achieving at least 1% in three different approved polls or by receiving contributions from at least 65,000 individuals, including a minimum of 200 contributors in at least 20 states. Once candidates qualify, they will be randomly selected for either the first or second night.

The proliferation of candidates is the DNC’s first problem. At the current pace, the party is on track to have many more than 20 candidates meet at least one of its criteria. Excluded candidates will loudly challenge the new format from the beginning. Another controversy is likely to occur when top-tier candidates object to being on stage with those at the very bottom of the polls, who will attack the front-runners in hope of generating their “viral moment.”

How important is it to candidates to squeeze onto the debate stage? Former Rep. John Delaney, who is barely registering in the polls, has pledged to give $2 to charity for each of the first 100,000 donations of $1. In effect he’s trying to buy a spot on the stage.

The biggest threat to the DNC’s plan will likely come from an unexpected source: Fox News. The DNC has excluded Fox from hosting a debate, which means there is no incentive for Fox to work within the DNC framework. Fox already has held multiple highly rated and well-received townhalls with Democratic candidates, including one last week with Sen. Bernie Sanders. It may not be long before Fox announces it will host a debate independent of the DNC. With 2.4 million prime-time viewers, it would be near impossible for many candidates to say no, especially those near the bottom looking to break out.

If the DNC system breaks down, countless left-wing groups will seize the opening to host debates on their particular cause. Candidates looking to cater to these groups would find these invitations hard to resist, and since the DNC lacks any meaningful penalty to deter media outlets or candidates from participating in such debates, any attempt to shore up the official series would likely fail.

While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the serious flaws in the DNC’s plan will ultimately doom its ability to match the RNC’s success from 2016.

Mr. Spicer has served as White House press secretary and chief strategist of the Republican National Committee, and is a senior adviser to America First Action.