Hanover Economic Debate: A different debate, a similar result.

This debate was different.

I tried and tried and tried to write a post about Bloomberg’s “Hanover Economic” Debate on Tuesday night, but just couldn’t do it. I started watching it late, from the beginning, and by the time I finished, even the pundits had packed up. The immediacy of the event had passed, and any urgency to bloviate and pontificate I might have felt passed, too. Finally, since the format was slower, I decide to spend more time thinking about it, too.

Watching the debate late, combined with the “kitchen table” (as moderator Charlie Rose called it) ambiance, completely changed the dynamics of the debate for me. Candidate combativeness was gone in a setting that felt more like a conference room and less like a game show. The purpose of the debate was the economy. Answers were longer, drawn out, and more in-depth than in past debates. because I was watching a recording and not a live broadcast, I felt more able to absorb answers (instead of spout pithy snark over social media).

My conclusion? The campaign could use more debates like this. As entertaining as it is for candidates to attack each other, it generally takes a discipline that only two or three of the candidates have to actually say something useful during those. A Newt Gingrich to ignore media baiting and assert that “anyone of us” would be better than President Obama.

…and its real hard to swing your fists at your opponent when you’re sitting right next to him, or her, at a table.

Unless, of course, you are the classless Rick Santorum. But he’s a non-starter, anyway.

So the debate was interesting, more sedate, but more useful, I think. There predictable elements of each candidate:

Mitt Romney was unflappable, Jon Huntsman’s jokes fell flat, Rick Santorum went on attack, Ron Paul hit Alan Greenspan and the Fed, Newt Gingrich was diplomatic and on point (“Defeat Obama”), Hermain Cain reminded us of 9/9/9, and Michelle Bachmann reminded us she had 22 foster children. Oh, and Rick Perry–still no plan, still thinks what’s good for Texas is good for America.

Other observations?

With Rick Perry on a trajectory more akin to the rolling hills of Texas than the rising peaks of Colorado, the moderators seemed to treat him like a second tier candidate (h/t to John English). He didn’t disappoint but managed to sink to the occasion. When Charlie Rose turned to Perry to ask why, after being in race for two months, he had yet to produce a plan for the economy (in contrast with Romney’s 59 point plan), Perry sang to the tune of “energy, energy, energy,” which is great in an oil rich state where land is cheap, but doesn’t necessarily help the nation.

He also said he’d be laying out his plan over the next three days. Today is day two since he said that. Have you seen any plan yet? A Google search doesn’t find one, either.

In the other corner of the Tea Party tent, Michelle Bachmann managed to avoid major mischief, but she also managed to avoid distinguishing herself, either. When Mitt Romney tossed her a softball on what, besides tax policy, she would do for the economy, she bunted to her website rather than give any substantive answer.

Herman Cain, who spent the night enjoying his near front-runner status and reiterating, and defending, his 9/9/9 plan, took a hit from Ron Paul on Cain’s support for Alan Greenspan, and Paul reminded everyone why he continues to draw a strong and loyal following. Cain sounded like an insider, and Paul almost sounded like the champion of Main Street. I almost expected him to come out in support of the Occupy Wall Street crowds, but he didn’t go there. Paul is a libertarian, not a redistributionist.

The final observation of the night was how the format benefits a front-runner who has ready answers. Each candidate received the opportunity to ask a question of one rival. As the front-runners, Romney and Cain received question after question, with only Romney wisening up and sending one to Bachmann. As a result, the candidates gave Romney and Cain lots of opportunity to discuss their plans, while the other bottom-feeders languished out of camera. The smart thing to do would have been to ask questions of each other an ignore the front-runners…

But that would have required too much discipline, right? Only Romney could avoid the temptation to take a stab at his opponents with a loaded question, and as such, he benefited disproportionately from the format.

I doubt we’ll see a debate like this again soon, but I hope we do. With the race for the nomination about to start in earnest (New Hampshire is threatening a December 6 primary date) but the actual election over a year away, we have a lot of debates to go. It would be helpful to the American people to hear more in-depth from the candidates than the usual game show format that large debates seem to take.

All that said, the result seemed much the same. Perry and Bachmann continue to fade, Cain and Romney continue to rise, and don’t count Gingrich out.