WHO SAYS THE DEBATES DON'T MATTER

WHO SAYS DEBATES DON’T MATTER?

            It seems that many voices in the media are downplaying the importance of the upcoming presidential debates, claiming that voters don’t make decisions based upon debate performance. Indeed, even the candidates are attempting to create lowered expectations of their respective performances. Why would these candidates warn voters not to expect too much, if there was not already an expectation in the mind of the American voter?  While I agree that debate performances matter most when they tend to reinforce an already existing perception of that candidate, I disagree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that these televised debate performances do not significantly influence voters.

            Let’s look at some examples from my own lifetime, starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960, the first nationally televised presidential debate. Those who heard that first debate on the radio thought that Nixon outperformed Kennedy, while those viewing on television gave the win to Kennedy. Nixon, now famously, refused make-up, and his perspiring 5 o’clock shadow was uninspiring. Kennedy, on the other hand, sought out tips from his, then brother-in-law, actor Peter Lawford. He understood the power of performance and perception, and how reality can be manipulated to produce the desired perception. He was, after all, the son of Joe Kennedy, movie producer. Some still say that it was style over substance that gave Kennedy the advantage, but what style and charm he did have; as well as the ability to understand unspoken communication and use this understanding to maximize his potential.

            It was, again, a masterful performance, by a trained and skilled professional performer, that created the image of a strong and self-confident Ronald Reagan, versus the somewhat beleaguered image of President Carter. Although, intellectually, Reagan was no match for Carter, it is not always about being the smartest guy in the room. It is a performance, and the debater who outperforms the other does so, not by intellect or charm alone, but by being able to understand, and deliver, the whole package – intelligence, wit, charm and confidence.

            My favorite, and in my opinion the most distinguishing and revealing, moment in presidential debate history, came in 1992, during the Town Hall style debate between President Bush and challenger Bill Clinton. This debate also reveals yet another key ingredient in assessing debate performances, and that is the format. Different people have different styles that work better with certain formats; and Bill Clinton’s style fit this format like a glove, with his folksy and familiar, yet professionally credible, charm and above-average people skills. First of all, there was President Bush’s very telling gesture of looking at his watch a couple of times, suggesting that he was dying to get out of there. But the most game-changing moment in a presidential debate that I have ever witnessed was that moment when a young woman asked both candidates how they had been personally affected by the recession. This is where the silver-spooners are clearly at a disadvantage, when it comes to understanding the everyday lives of middle-class, mainstream Americans.

            President Bush looked dumbfounded, as he seemed groping for words and finally said, “I don’t get it.” I was actually stunned that a man of such sophistication and decades of public service could not come up with something better at that moment. But that was only the beginning of the end. When Clinton’s time came to answer, I could almost see him lickin’ his chops. First, his body language was 180 degrees to that of H.W. Bush, as he repositioned himself to move closer to the inquiring mind that asked the question. Then he lowered his tone of voice and spoke directly to the young woman, explaining how he understood the pain people were experiencing, and how he knew most of the people in Arkansas who had lost businesses. His answer, in all ways that perception can be measured, was an absolute grand slam! I remember watching this whole thing transpire with my mouth gaping open, as I said to myself, “Bush just lost this election.” In less than 10 minutes, President Bush, a man of considerable intellect and experience, destroyed his chances for re-election. I don’t think he ever recovered from that one question.

            So, who says the debates don’t matter?  Why would 60 million viewers tune in to something that doesn’t matter? Why would networks and advertisers give the viewers this opportunity if it didn’t matter?

            I think these debates this year will matter more than ever, especially with the advent and proliferation of social media, which can send zingers and bloopers across the universe in an instant. Sometimes, like that debate in 1992, a moment is captured and frozen in time before another, and overriding image can debunk it. And we know that the twitter-verse will be working overtime, exchanging perspectives and images, and influencing whomever they can. I’ll be watching. I can hardly wait to see what history is made this year.