Crowded gubernatorial debate format sows confusion

All five Republicans and all five Democrats running for governor in their party's primaries were on the same stage last week for a debate billed as unique in state politics. No question the format was unusual. An ETV spokesman said primary candidates from both parties hadn't shared a statewide stage before. But don't expect many, if any, repeats.

Sponsored by the S.C. Natural Resources Society and broadcast from the Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College, the 90-minute debate, held one year before the 2010 general election, did provide an interesting overview of all the contenders. It also required the candidates to air their views on a variety of environmental issues.

But if these joint primary debate appearances continue, they could well prove to be far more confusing than educational.

Don Fowler, a longtime political science professor and former state and national Democratic Party leader, succinctly pinpoints the problem.

According to Fowler, the joint venture doesn't realistically reflect the two-party system and could well confuse the selection process.

Some already find the primary selection process confusing enough due to the fact that there is no party registration in this state.

You can vote in the Democratic primary one year and in the Republican the next. But you can't vote in both on the same day. Rather than voting in either primary, some independents opt to wait until the parties select their nominees for the general election.

There will be no primary ballot, for example, that includes all 10 gubernatorial candidates. Neither can primary voters pick both the Republican and Democrat they like best for governor.

Some post-debate primary straw polls do allow partisans to weigh in on candidates in both parties, an obvious flaw.

A primary ballot has only one party's slate of candidates, not both. There's little doubt that it won't be long before the savvy candidates are concentrating on appearances before groups most likely to vote in their primaries and to convince voters that they are the better choice than the four other candidates with whom they are actually competing.

That said, was last week's debate also premature? Is it too early to expect voters to start really focusing on what will be the most heated gubernatorial primaries in several decades?

Fowler thinks so. At this point, he says, only the most died-in-the-wool political types are geared up and 'they already know who they are for anyway.'

After the first of the year, he does expect the parties to sponsor gubernatorial debates that will be limited to the contenders in their primaries.

Berkeley-Charleston Republican Rep. Jim Merrill, a public relations consultant who has been involved in a number of political campaigns, agrees with Fowler about the lack of voter interest at this point. According to Merrill, those who benefit most from these early debates are the candidates rather than the general public. They get a chance, he notes, to see how their rhetoric resonates and 'to get ready for what's coming up'

Charles T. 'Bud' Ferillo, another longtime political consultant and Democratic activist, found the debate a bit more interesting than he had expected, given the problematic format. It did serve, he noted, as a basic introduction to the personalities of the candidates for both parties.

But he didn't like the format set by the sponsor, an environmentally focused public interest group. Instead, he says a broader format would have allowed the candidates to outline what they think are the major issues, a more proper focus for the first statewide debate.

He also is concerned that the more well-organized and well-financed public interest groups will see the debate as a model and attempt to use narrow formats as a way to elevate their issues, giving them somewhat of an unfair advantage.

From a political-strategy standpoint, the debate may have been most notable for what wasn't said. While the need for more job creation occupied much of the conversation, the Democrats didn't lambaste Gov. Mark Sanford's lack of action on that front as has been the case in months past.

There's little doubt that the state's recent landing of Boeing, the biggest industrial catch since BMW, has taken some of the steam out of that aspect of the Sanford bashing.

A number of long-time observers, across party lines, also believe the sour economy has made economic development the No. 1 issue in the campaign, trading places with, but closely tied to, education concerns.

But what still is in doubt is whether all 10 candidates on the stage last week will still be in the race next year. It's believed that will be influenced by the next quarter's fund-raising tally.

While all still sound committed to running for the top spot, keep in mind that they don't have to actually put their names on the line until filing opens in the spring.

By then, some of those other constitutional offices on the ballot next year that don't have quite so much competition may look a lot more attractive.

Barbara S. Williams, editor emeritus of The Post and Courier, may be reached at bwilliams@postandcourier.com.