Interactives Who cares? What matters? Who are these people? Student Bureau The student vote Web resources allpolitics coverage
	What matters? The candidates Backgrounders Lesson plans Unit plan National Mock Election CNN NEWSROOM Web resources allpolitics coverage
	Latest News Archives Back to mainpage

Understanding Televised Presidential Debates

October 16, 2000
Web posted at: 5:55 PM EDT (2155 GMT)

Historical Background

Televised debates between the presidential candidates have been held in the election years of 1960 (Kennedy-Nixon), 1976 (Carter-Ford), 1980 (Carter-Reagan), 1984 (Reagan-Mondale), 1988 (Dukakis-Bush), 1992 (Bush-Clinton), and 1996 (Clinton-Dole). There have been five vice-presidential debates as well. In 2000, as set forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a non-governmental entity funded by corporations and foundations, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore will debate three times - October 3, in Boston, Mass., October 11, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and October 17, in St. Louis, Missouri. A vice-presidential debate will occur on October 5, in Danville, KY. Millions of American voters will tune in to these debates, for these presentations have become a traditional and expected part of American presidential politics.

Debates-Pros and Cons

What do these debates accomplish? First, they provide the electorate with an understanding, however imperfect or incomplete, of how the candidates differ on key campaign issues. Second, the debates allow voters to judge the temperament, knowledge, communication skills, and personalities of the candidates. Do they appear "presidential"? Third, debates increase political interest in the campaign, and therefore may excite normally apathetic citizens so that they will actually vote on election day (November 7). What do these debates not accomplish? First, they probably do not change the minds of a substantial number of voters, as suggested by scholarly studies. Debates reinforce existing candidate preferences for most voters. However, in a close, dramatic election, even the shift of a few percentage points caused by debate performances could spell the difference between victory or defeat. Second, viewers are unlikely to understand the scope or complexity of solutions to the nation's problems after the relatively brief debating time (usually ninety minutes or less). Third, critics argue that these meetings are not true debates, in that neither candidate can directly question the other. Typical debate formats have included panels of journalists, single moderators, or undecided citizens in "town meetings" asking the questions. Fourth, candidates are so afraid of making a mistake that they have strenuously rehearsed their pre-packaged answers and even their so-called "jokes." True spontaneity is lost.

The Performance of the Candidates

What do the candidates themselves wish to gain from these debates? First, a challenger hopes that he will demonstrate presidential qualities by doing exceptionally well when confronted by a presidential incumbent in the debates. He wants the incumbent to perform poorly. Jimmy Carter accomplished this goal in 1976 against President Gerald Ford, and so did Ronald Reagan against President Carter in 1980! But Senator Bob Dole did not attain this objective in 1996 against incumbent President Bill Clinton, nor did Walter Mondale against the telegenic Ronald Reagan, President in 1984. Second, neither candidate wants to commit a serious error in judgement or misstatement on national television. Hence, Ford's statement in the 1976 debate that Eastern Europe was not under the domination of the Soviet Union clearly hurt his re-election chances. Conversely, a clever one-liner or slogan can enhance a candidate's stature. Ronald Reagan's question in 1980-"Are you better off today than you were four years ago"-clearly resonated with voters who were confronting an economy with high levels of inflation and unemployment. Third, candidates want to project a winning image on camera, in both the physical and emotional sense. For Richard Nixon, everything that could have gone visually wrong did in the first televised debate of September, 1960 against Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy. Vice-president Nixon had been ill prior to the debate, had subsequently lost weight, had a poor make-up job which failed to cover his perennial five-o-clock shadow, and perspired heavily under the bright studio lights. Furthermore, he did not look directly into the camera, continuously darting his eyes back and forth between the camera and his opponent. By contrast, Kennedy was rested, relaxed, tan, fit, and maintained eye-camera contact. A majority of viewers who watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy had won the contest. Ironically, most radio-listeners believed that Nixon had won. The result of the first debate was that Kennedy's lagging campaign was given a major boost, resulting in his paper-thin electoral victory over Nixon in November. After the Nixon debacle, candidates in future presidential debates were given special instructions by their TV advisors on how to look and sound effective on camera. Finally, the proper emotional tone must be set. In 1988, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, was asked what his reaction would be to accepting the death penalty (he had previously stated that he was opposed) if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered. Dukakis responded unemotionally and in a flat monotone, perhaps convincing many voters that the Massachusetts governor was too cold and unfeeling to warrant his election.

Debates and Third-Party Participation

A fourth issue is that of third-party candidate participation in televised presidential debates. Should these candidates be admitted to the debates with the two major party contenders? In 2000, it appears very unlikely that this will occur. The CPD has ruled that the 2000 debates will be limited to those presidential candidates who receive an average of 15% or more voter support as reported by five national polls by the end of September. In addition, presidential candidates must be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of gaining the minimum electoral college majority of 270 votes. It is highly unlikely that any third party candidate -- be it from the Reform Party, Libertarian Party, or Green Party -- will be able to meet these two eligibility standards. Third party representatives have bitterly complained about these "elitist" two-party criteria (the CPD is headed by two former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican national committees; there are no third party representatives included), claiming they are undemocratic, discriminatory, exclusionary, and conspiratorial. They also point to the example of Ross Perot, who after being allowed to participate in the presidential debates of 1992, inspired enough voters to gain 19% of the national popular vote. A third-party candidate may rank low in the polls initially (Perot was at 7% before the debates), but exposure in the debates can change those survey figures. Many feel that to deny minority party presidential candidates national TV time is inherently unfair and shortchanges the process of political discussion in the nation. For example, 75% of the electorate wanted Perot to participate in the 1996 debates, but to no avail. Furthermore, the courts have not supported the legal claims of third parties in the past, so it appears that the 2000 debates in October will only feature the Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.

Debate Reforms

How can TV presidential debates be improved? As implied above, one repeated suggestion is to allow direct cross-examination by the candidates, without any intermediaries. In other words, Gore, without journalists, could question Bush about issues, philosophy, political ads, etc. and vice-versa. This approach would revive the spirit of the 19th century Lincoln-Douglas debates. The downside is that direct questioning might generate more personal attacks and negativism, unless the interrogation process was controlled by strict rules of procedure. Second, the candidates could answer questions on live TV called in from around the country (or even by e-mail). This technique might generate greater voter interest, but there is no assurance that questions would be of better quality than those generated by the town meeting format. Finally, advocates of third party candidate participation urge that the "biased" CPD be abolished and that new federal election rules establish a 5% eligibility level, rather than the CPD's 15% figure mandated in 2000. Proponents of these reforms will work for their implementation before the next presidential election year of 2004.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How do televised presidential debates affect voter interest in the election?

2. How can a debate "mistake" affect a presidential candidate's chances of winning the election?

3. Should third party candidates who have a 5% support level from voters, according to polls, be automatically invited to the presidential debates? Why or why not?

4. What is accomplished and not accomplished by televised presidential debates?

5. In your opinion, are the CPD's criteria regarding the 2000 debates fair? Why or why not?

6. What improvements have been suggested for presidential debates?

Lesson plan: The Debates