Us Predidential Debates: Do They Make A Difference?

Do Candidate Debates make a difference?

Since the first televised debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, when an estimated 60 to 65 percent of the adult population of America watched, the presidential debates have been an important fixture and the most watched event in the election campaign. The debates - as they are so highly publicized - are seen as make or break events, so the preparation that goes into them starts months ahead of time for the candidates, with aides coming up with every possible question that may be asked of them. Also the amount of media attention they receive shows how seriously the debates are taken by the whole country. But does this mean that the debates really make a difference? This essay will look at this in relation to the incumbent and their disadvantage and whether or not they should debate, the public and how they are influenced by the candidate's image and performance, and finally whether the debates make a difference in the polls.

Firstly, this essay will look at how debates make a difference to incumbents and how they are now obliged or expected to debate. Challengers have everything to gain in debating, such as "to demonstrate their knowledge of issues and their presidential qualities to a large nationwide audience" , yet incumbents or frontrunners have everything to lose as they become equal with the challenger when debating. "The aura of the presidency seems to be temporarily removed from the incumbent as he faces his opponent one-to-one on a sparsely furnished stage." Incumbents or frontrunners are most at risk, because the fact that they have the most experience and knowledge, they have more expected from them. In terms of debating, because of this, candidates will often try to raise the expectations of their challengers and lower their own. Before the debates in 2000, Bush and his team described Al Gore as a "world class debater" to help their cause. Although it hasn't happened in a while, there was a time when it was thought that candidates, especially incumbents or frontrunners should not debate. If a candidate is well in the lead then there is not much incentive for him to risk shooting himself in the foot! This is a risk though for the candidate as they can be perceived as being afraid, or hiding and any candidate refusing to debate "could risk losing votes." This isn't necessarily true though as there are examples of candidates who choose not to debate, winning elections by a landslide which suggests that not debating doesn't make a difference. In 1964, the incumbent President Johnson, decided that he had everything to lose by debating and very little to gain as he was already experiencing high popularity. So he decided against debating and still won the election by a landslide. He didn't appear to lose any favour amongst the public from choosing not to debate. Debates have now become a permanent fixture in election campaigns though and it seems they will be there for the long term.

Since the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, there has been the issue of image playing a large part in who wins debates and public support. During debates, issues such as height and illness have been thought to have lost debates. In the 2004 election, John Kerry was about five inches taller than George Bush who seemed to peer over the rostrum and in the 1976 election Gerald Ford was around three and a half inches taller than Jimmy Carter. "Throughout this century the taller of the two major party candidates has been the safer bet to win the election." This is probably the reason such a big deal can be made out of making the shorter of the candidates taller, Carter allegedly wore lifts in his shoes to remedy his problem. Both Carter and Bush, shorter than their challengers won their elections.

In terms of a candidate's image on television determining who wins the debates, it can be seen that this is a highly controversial topic. There are instances when it isn't what is said that matters, but how the candidate's image comes across to the viewers on screen and this can be a huge disadvantage to many candidates. "Sober-minded debaters like Dukakis, Carter and Gore operate at an automatic disadvantage in such a universe, where winning smiles and clever ripostes are the coin of realm." Henry Steele Commager stated that the greatest presidents of the United States, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would all have lost TV debates had they existed then and he criticized them for highlighting "the glib, the evasive, the dogmatic, the melodramatic [over] the sincere, the judicious, the sober, the honest in political discussion." One example of image losing a television debate is the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Nixon had been in hospital and as a consequence he was pale, sweating and had a five-o-clock shadow. In quite a contrast on the other side of the stage was John F. Kennedy, looking tanned and healthy. Also because of a miscalculation by aides in the colour of the background, Nixon blended into the set in a grey suit, which was baggy and loose due to lost weight whilst in hospital, making him look frail, whereas Kennedy stood out in his dark suit. The picture that this gave on television was a strong image of weakness for Nixon, yet Reuven Frank had a different view. "I caught some of it [debate] on BBC RadioÐ'...and thought Nixon had clearly run away with it." This is evidence that viewers don't listen to the content of the debates, but simply see an image. This means that a candidate who is visually attractive has "an advantage not related to their competence or command of the issues" and that the public are putting image before substance.

Demeanour also is part of the candidate's image. Viewers and the public expect their potential leaders to be calm, relaxed and focused and a good example of showing the difference this can make is the first debate between Bush and Kerry in 2004. George Bush the incumbent went into the debate blatantly not wanting to be there and "appeared to be fidgeting and grimacing" On the other hand "Kerry had been cool and calm. Dignified. Presidential." Yet again, as in the debate of 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy, the image of a restless and impatient George Bush was not seen by radio listeners and these people thought Bush had won the debate where the television watchers had given a definite win to Kerry.

There is an argument for all these points made about image being more important than issues and substance in the debate and this is that the debates have been shown to teach people about the party's policies and issues. The debates are a last minute opportunity