View on the news

How to win and lose a presidential debate

By Christopher Curran
Posted 9/28/16

Since 1960, televised presidential debates have brought to fore images of competitors for the crown in their best light and in their worst. For those of us obsessed with politics and history, we have seen every moment in these television debates as they

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

How to win and lose a presidential debate

Posted

Since 1960, televised presidential debates have brought to fore images of competitors for the crown in their best light and in their worst. For those of us obsessed with politics and history, we have seen every moment in these television debates as they occurred. The drama of a presidential debate not only lies in the content, but also in the image and histrionics of the candidates.

Studied extensively in communications and political science programs throughout the nation’s universities, the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960 showed how appearances resonate in the viewer’s mind perhaps more than the extent of a nominee’s knowledge of issues.

The lessons learned from this much studied forum in American political history have become the barometer for evaluating televised presidential debates ever since.

By the time of the publication of this editorial, the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, will have met for the first time at Hofstra University in New York to debate.

What does each candidate have to prove in their individual debate performances? What can voters and the candidates learn from the history of televised debates? And in examining the mistakes, the triumphs, the memorable lines of dialogue, how can the electorate become better evaluators and how can candidates present themselves and convey their messages in the best fashion possible?

Prior to the 1960 presidential election, canned addresses in a commercial form were the only televised manner in which political campaigns could reach the voter. Following the four debates between Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon, the tide of the election had turned and JFK gained ground in the polls – so much so that Kennedy came from seven points behind before the debates to a virtual tie after them.

Nixon’s initial mistake was refusing a makeup artist in the first debate after he had heard Kennedy refused makeup. However, Kennedy was suntanned and youthful in countenance while Nixon looked aged beyond his years and washed out in his pallor. Those listening on radio overwhelmingly said Nixon had won handily. Television viewers overwhelmingly said the attractive Kennedy won the debate. If one examines the text of the debate, the vice president’s answers were much more substantial. Furthermore, Nixon eyes were adversely affected by soundstage lights and as a result darted around in a seemingly elusive manner. He fidgeted in his seat in what seemed like a reaction to Kennedy’s responses and was actually uncomfortable due to a recent hand and arm injury, which made him appear shifty or nervous.

Political science professor Jamie Druckman of Northwestern University states the danger of investing too much credence in appearance: “Television primes its audience to rely more on their perceptions of candidate image. At the same time, television has also coincided with the world becoming more polarized and ideologically driven.” This begs the question, does a televised debate pervert needed information when looks and body language eclipse facts and policy?

The next televised presidential debates were in 1976. Accidental President Gerald R. Ford, the Republican nominee, debated the Democratic nominee, former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter. Three debates transpired and Ford prevailed in two of the three. After the domestic policy and open question debates, Ford increased in the poll numbers. Unfortunately for Ford, in the foreign policy debate he made a statement that defied reality: “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there will never be under a Ford administration.”

Of course, Ford misspoke and meant to express he wish for freedom in Soviet oppressed Eastern Europe, but it did not come out that way. Carter gained in the polls and eventually won by two points in the popular vote. One can speculate if the outcome might have been different if it was not for that verbal trip.

In 1980, Carter faced “The Great Communicator,” former California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Carter used the ploy of not wanting a third party candidate, Rep. John Anderson, to share the stage, so he withdrew from the first scheduled debate. Reagan and Anderson debated without the president. The second scheduled debate was cancelled as the president still refused to appear. As a result, Reagan excluded Anderson for the third scheduled debate and Carter agreed to show up.

The combination of Carter playing politics with the first two debates and his substandard performance in the third debate prompted a surge in Reagan’s poll numbers. Our eventual 40th president went from dead even in the polls to seven points up after the debate and never looked back. News programs played Reagan’s response to Carter’s accusations during the debate with his classic “There you go again,” referring to the president’s taunts and aggressive manner. Reagan appeared smooth, unflappable, and comfortable. Carter came across as what the Daily News described as “just plain mean.”

In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale’s most successful polling issue was Reagan’s age. His campaign justified ageism and questioned Reagan’s mental solvency and capacity. Reagan diffused the issue and destroyed any hope of Mondale’s aspirations with one line during the presidential debate: “I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis arguably lost the presidential race by his lack of expected emotion when posed with a question from CNN’s Bernard Shaw about capital punishment and the stark scenario of his wife Kitty being sexually assaulted and murdered. Dukakis’ “cold as ice” answer was discussed repeatedly and was viewed as lacking normal human feelings.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush was damaged by a glance. During Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s and independent candidate Ross Perot’s answers, he looked at his watch. He was depicted as being diffident to the whole affair when in reality he was measuring the time of responses. He seemed out of touch during the debates. The town hall setting put the president ill at ease, while Clinton was relaxed and relatable.

If possible, what Clinton and Trump need to succeed in doing is channeling the communicability of a Reagan, to project the comfortable demeanor of a Bill Clinton, and to put there best appearance forward like John Kennedy did.

What both candidates should be wary of is conveying poor histrionics like Nixon, or seeming indifferent to the gravity of the event like Bush, or coming across as stoic and unfeeling like Dukakis, or projecting disdainfulness like Carter, or making a colossal verbal blunder like Ford.

Specifically, the most likely pitfalls for Clinton in my view are appearing imperious and condescending toward Trump. Trump is a wildcard rabble-rouser and he will attempt to rock Hillary with casting doubts about her veracity and citing her propensity for falsehood in her public life. Hillary needs to convey responses that are dignified but not acerbic. She needs to keep her cool with a competitor who could explode unpredictably with any possible line of attack.

Similarly, Trump needs to control himself should Clinton challenge his degree of wealth, his intelligence, and his business acumen, because those are his proven hot triggers. Trump also needs a command of the facts and he needs to show a grasp of policy. Hillary has an encyclopedic and lawyerly knowledge of the issues while Trump tends to speak in vague generalities. Hillary can come across as too dense and Trump can come across as too light in substance.

Whether either of them has succeeded will be for the individual voter to decide. If both candidates are prudent they will learn from the mistakes and triumphs of their predecessors in the televised debating past.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here