While Americans often associate political debates with the advent of television, what may be the most celebrated of all debates occurred long before this era, and while it was not a debate between presidential candidates, it is now meaningful to us, in part because the two participants would soon become rival candidates in the subsequent presidential campaign, and in a sense, even though they were not running for president at the time they met in debate, it is widely believed that they were even then preparing themselves for that larger stage. It was during the 1858 Senate race in Illinois when Republican Senate nominee Abraham Lincoln engaged in a series of seven debates against Democratic incumbent senator Stephen Douglas—prefiguring their contest for the White House two years later. These debates took place in congressional districts around their home state, and the candidates debated such wide-ranging and substantively critical topics as the abolition of slavery and the Mexican-American War. The format was unusual, involving extended and erudite speeches combined with each candidate posing several questions to the other. While Lincoln lost his race for the Senate to Douglas, the popularity he gained throughout the North during these debates effectively launched his successful run for the presidency two years later, with Douglas this time on the losing end.
Between the election of George Washington in 1788 and the latter half of the twentieth century, no debate was held between presidential candidates from the major parties. Candidates and their surrogates and operatives would rhetorically respond to each other, but from the Washington administration through the Eisenhower administration, there was no event in which the two major candidates joined in formal debate on the same stage or in the same forum. In the modern era, the first presidential debate, which happened to be nationally televised, was held during the Campaign of 1960, pitting Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy against incumbent vice president Richard M. Nixon. On September 26, 1960, Nixon and Kennedy faced each other in the studios of station WBBM in Chicago, Illinois. CBS News reporter Howard K. Smith moderated the debate. Sixty-six million viewers tuned in to watch the candidates speak. Democratic nominee Kennedy appeared youthful and healthy, projecting a relaxed demeanor in front of the camera. His manner was confident and knowledgeable, and his personal charm was evident to those who viewed the event on their television screens. Most importantly, Senator Kennedy seemed at ease answering difficult questions regarding foreign and domestic policies. Prior to the debate, political observers had wondered whether the young senator’s political inexperience might prove a liability. Equally important, Kennedy used the forum as a means to allay concerns that as a Roman Catholic, he would be obligated to follow the decrees of the pope—effectively, as the suspicion presumed without evidence, giving the Vatican control of the White House.
Exhausted by a long campaign tour and recovering from a recent illness, Vice President Nixon was tired, and he looked it; he was drawn and pale in comparison to Kennedy, with perspiration clearly visible on his forehead throughout the debate, and an unflattering five o’clock shadow and shifting eye movements caused the vice president’s aspect to appear vaguely sinister. It did not help that the vice president allowed only minimal application of ineffective makeup to his ashen, whisker-stubbled, and wearied visage prior to the broadcast; that and the heat from glaring studio lights cast a most unflattering image for the Republican hopeful, an image that would be received over millions of televisions nationwide. While both candidates were younger than the typical presidential candidate—at the time Sen. Kennedy was forty-three and Vice President Nixon was forty-seven—the vice president did not exude the same youthful vibrancy exhibited by his Democratic rival. And, while both candidates were well prepared and responded equally with intelligence and confidence, in the end, Senator Kennedy prevailed in the minds of the majority of those who watched the first debate on television, owing to the striking difference in the images they projected. Interestingly, over the years a stubbornly popular folklore has grown around claims that the majority of those who listened to the debate on the radio either considered Nixon’s the better performance, or at least concluded that the outcome was even between the two candidates. According to a 1987 study by scholars David Vancell and Sue Pendell, this familiar and universally accepted account is in reality a potent and yet ultimately anecdotal assessment, there being little empirical evidence to support the conclusion that television helped Kennedy while radio either favored Nixon or formed the impression that the two competitors had debated to a draw. There is only one poll conducted after the debate that supports this, a poll in which the television audience did in fact significantly prefer Sen. Kennedy while a radio audience overwhelmingly favored Nixon, but there is little evidence beyond that. Be that as it may, it is a fact that Sen. Kennedy’s performance in the debate, any comparison to the vice president aside, did boost his image both in the media and among the electorate, and it’s also reasonable to conclude that the debate did not help the vice president. In any event, after the debate the Kennedy campaign was buoyed, and Nixon himself felt disappointed and deflated, at least temporarily. Most importantly, it is this first debate that loomed the largest in importance as the campaign proceeded. Even though three more debates between Kennedy and Nixon followed, and Nixon actually performed better than Kennedy in at least one of those debates and held his own in the others, this first debate contrasting the vigorous Democrat against the haggard Republican—and which enjoyed the highest viewer ratings and stimulated the most conversation and analysis—had the biggest impact and to this day remains one of the more memorable moments in the history of presidential debates. It certainly is the one debate that people still discuss, even though Vice President Nixon managed to win significant debating points in the following debates, especially through his tough response to the serious conflict in East Asia over the disputed islands of Quemoy and Matsu, a response that when contrasted to Senator Kennedy’s more hesitant approach to the crisis made the senator, perhaps unfairly, appear green and weak in his attitude toward Cold War enemies such as Mao’s China. And yet the first debate is the one that is more consistently remembered as an important Kennedy triumph and, again unfairly, as a setback for Nixon. Kennedy went on to narrowly defeat Nixon in both the popular and Electoral College vote in what remains the closest election in recent history.
Sixteen years would pass before the next presidential candidate debate. In that long interim, President Lyndon Johnson, during the Campaign of 1964, had refused to give the Republican nominee, Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, a platform that would guarantee him equal time to explain his conservative positions and ideas. Moreover, President Johnson realized that a debate would more likely hurt than help, as he himself had been impressed by images of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, and he was not willing to put himself in a position in which the television glare might convey the wrong persona. The president held a solid lead in the polls over his Republican rival, and a debate could risk at least some of that lead. Still feeling burned by the 1960 debates, Republican nominee and front-runner Richard Nixon refused to debate Democratic nominee and incumbent vice president Hubert Humphrey or the American Independent Party candidate, Alabama governor George Wallace, during the Campaign of 1968. Far ahead in the polls, President Richard Nixon saw no strategic or tactical advantage in debating Democratic nominee George McGovern during the Campaign of 1972.
Nixon’s resignation in 1974 as a result of the Watergate scandal (and the resignation of his initial running mate, Spiro Agnew, after he was indicted on tax charges) catapulted Michigan representative Gerald Ford into the presidency. Two years later, Ford, the only unelected president in the nation’s history (he was neither elected as president nor as vice president), was running for election to a full term, and in doing so he gladly agreed to participate in a series of debates against the Democratic nominee and a comparative newcomer to the national political stage, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. These debates were sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. Both candidates were heavily dependent on public funding for their election bids, and thus they were eager for whatever free media coverage was available. The most memorable moment in the Ford-Carter debates occurred during the second debate on foreign policy issues. New York Times reporter Max Frankel asked Ford a question about the Soviet Union’s domination of eastern Europe. To the surprise of everyone watching (including Carter), Ford responded, “There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe.” Ford was then given an opportunity to clarify his remarks, yet he still insisted that the Soviet Union did not dominate Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia. It took more than a week for the Ford campaign to make an effort to explain Ford’s comments. Ford’s gaffe taught future presidential candidates an important lesson. Candidates needed to prepare for almost every question and stick carefully to a script when answering debate questions. Similar to Sen. Kennedy in 1960, the 1976 debates helped Carter overcome public doubts over his ability to deal with complex foreign policy and domestic issues. Equally important, Carter was able to convince voters that he looked presidential. Carter went on to narrowly defeat Ford on Election Day.
During the Campaign of 1980, President Jimmy Carter, adopting a Rose Garden strategy similar to one that was at least temporarily assumed by his predecessor, President Ford, initially refused to debate the Republican nominee, former actor and former California governor Ronald Reagan, much as President Johnson had refused to debate Sen. Goldwater in 1964. The Carter campaign defended its decision by arguing that President Carter needed to remain in the White House to deal with pressing international and domestic problems, including the ongoing Iran hostage crisis. Carter’s strategy backfired; the public came to perceive Carter as a hostage in the White House, the Rose Garden strategy giving the appearance that the president was wary of debating his personable Republican challenger. As the polls tightened between Carter and Reagan, the Carter camp decided that the president had no choice but to debate former governor Reagan. Reagan had already debated independent candidate John Anderson (a moderate Republican who had lost his party’s nomination to Reagan). Presidential historians credit Reagan’s performance in the October 28 debate as crucial to his landslide victory over Carter. Reagan delivered a number of carefully rehearsed sound bites to remind voters of the nation’s severe economic problems and the declining standard of living for millions of Americans. Particularly noteworthy was the question Reagan posed to his viewing audience: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”—a line that instantly defined the governor’s challenge to the incumbent president.
Riding high in the polls and having attained a reputation as the “Great Communicator,” President Reagan did not shy away from debating the Democratic nominee, former vice president Walter Mondale, in the Campaign of 1984. To the surprise of many observers, Reagan uncharacteristically fared rather poorly in the first debate, looking awkward and uncharacteristically bland. Speculation swirled over whether Reagan’s age might be slowing him down. Yet, in the October 21 debate, Reagan returned to form, raising the volume on the famous Reagan charm and brushing aside any doubts about his age by quipping that he would not “exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” a stylish moment dispelling any doubts that he had lost his touch with the American people. Vice President Mondale would later reveal that he knew he had lost the election at that exact moment. Reagan would go on to defeat Mondale in what has become (at least for the books, as it currently stands) the last landslide in the chronicle of presidential elections.
During the Campaign of 1988, Republican nominee Vice President George H. W. Bush was initially reluctant to debate Democratic nominee and Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. By the first debate on September 25, Bush had come back from a double-digit deficit in the polls to hold a small lead over his opponent. Neither Bush nor Dukakis committed any major gaffes during the first debate. By the second debate on October 13, Dukakis found himself trailing in the polls by a significant margin. The Bush campaign had successfully defined Dukakis as yet another Northeastern liberal who was soft on crime, eager to raise taxes and impose new and needless federal regulations, and unrealistic about the motivations of rival leaders abroad. In one of the most controversial questions in presidential debate history, the moderator of the debate, Bernard Shaw of the Cable News Network (CNN), asked Dukakis whether he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife “were raped and murdered,” an oblique reference to the Bush campaign’s Willie Horton ad. Dukakis responded with a tepid, emotionless, and obviously scripted answer that, while meaning to reflect his long opposition to the death penalty, conveyed the appearance of a bloodless bureaucrat. “No, I don’t, Bernard,” the governor responded, “and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We’ve done so in my own state. And it’s one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America.” Dukakis’s lack of emotion when offered such an intimate hypothetical—the rape and murder of his beloved wife—was not well received by political commentators or the public at large, and it represented one of the low points of the Dukakis campaign.
Not only was it a low point for the governor, but it was also a low point in the history of presidential debating. When one objectively examines the substantive quality of the Kennedy-Nixon debates, as well as the Ford-Carter and Carter-Reagan contests, one is struck by the way in which these debates were largely about issues, policies, and ideas. And while the 1984 debate between President Reagan and his challenger, former vice president Mondale, was defined less by substance and more by personality, for the most part the participants were committed to the issues and their ideas about them. In the 1988 debates, a trend away from substance and toward style seemed to become increasingly evident, to the frustration of the voting public. A question such as the hypothetical one involving the governor’s wife would not have been tendered even four years earlier, let alone during the more serious debates between Kennedy and Nixon or, for example, Ford and Carter. Owing to this circumstance, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the final debate of the 1988 campaign, declaring that “the demands of the two campaigns would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” League president Nancy Neuman noted, “It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades, devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.” In particular, the League objected to the sixteen-page negotiated agreement between the candidates demanding control over questioners, the composition of members of the audience, and access for the press, among other things. The candidates refused to debate under any other conditions, and the League backed out of the debate.
In the aftermath of the League’s decision, the major political parties established the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Because the major parties control the composition of the CPD, it is not a nonpartisan group. The presence of independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992 created problems for the commission. While they would have liked to exclude Perot, he had strong support in public opinion polls and therefore could not reasonably be excluded. The CPD also made a major change in the format of the debates by permitting citizens in the audience to directly ask the candidates questions in a format known as the “town hall meeting.”
The first debate using the town hall meeting format took place on October 15 at the University of Richmond in Virginia. President George H. W. Bush received considerable criticism for appearing bored or distracted, even looking at this watch several times during the debate, giving the appearance that he would rather be somewhere else and was not interested in the questions being posed by the audience. In sharp contrast, Bill Clinton welcomed the opportunity to directly interact with members of the audience, and he demonstrated an ability to identify with their concerns. Perot also made a strong impression in the debate, showing a mastery of information about the budget deficit that helped to increase his standing in the polls. Perot’s running mate, Admiral James Stockdale, a highly decorated naval officer and former prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, did not fare as well in the vice presidential debate, unfortunately appearing disoriented, confused, and unfocused. The admiral was certainly out of his element, while his competitors, incumbent vice president Dan Quayle and Tennessee senator Al Gore performed comfortably and confidently.
During the Campaign of 1996, Democratic incumbent Bill Clinton debated Republican nominee Bob Dole on two occasions, once with a single moderator and once when citizens directly asked questions of the candidates. Ross Perot, again running as a candidate for the newly created Reform Party, was excluded from the debates and unsuccessfully sued to have the CPD eliminated on the grounds that as the sole vehicle for the debates, it was inherently biased against third parties. Both Clinton and Dole were well informed and able to express their ideas and experiences with confidence. The debates had little effect on the larger campaign.
During the Campaign of 2000, once again, a popular third-party candidate (Green Party nominee Ralph Nader) was excluded from the debates. By this time, the CPD had formulated specific criteria to limit third-party participation, including requiring that candidates have a reasonable chance at earning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, and that they demonstrate (through at least five independent national opinion polls) public support of at least 15 percent of the electorate. Democratic nominee and incumbent vice president Al Gore faced the Republican nominee, Texas governor George W. Bush, in three separate debates. Prior to the October 3 debate, Gore held an eight-point lead in the polls. However, during the debate Vice President Gore sighed audibly at several points, sighs that were at times punctuated by the vice president rolling his eyes (which he later claimed was the result of an asthma attack) in response to comments made by his opponent, thus creating a poor impression of a bored, self-satisfied, and conceited know-it-all, shaking his head as his opponent spoke, and at times he appeared to sneer at some of the governor’s comments. This in turn helped Gov. Bush, who was able to convince television viewers that he was engaged and enthusiastic about the office of the presidency, someone who was both competent and down-to-earth in his sensibilities. The vice president was certainly capable, but his smug debate performance obscured his genuine abilities, considerable experience, and impressive credentials behind a persona that conveyed a haughty, pretentious posture. Additionally, the vice president at one point actually left his lectern and approached the governor as he was answering a question; Bush, upon noticing the vice president approaching him, nodded reflexively and continued speaking. This was an obvious attempt on the part of the vice president to look assertive, and it may even have been a subconscious effort at intimidation. In the moment it had the effect of making Gore look aggressive and discourteous, and it won some sympathy for Bush, who managed the incident with a noticeable degree of grace. Post-debate polls showed the gap between Gore and Bush narrowing. Viewership for the final two debates dropped sharply, suggesting that voters did not feel that additional useful information would be gleaned from the later debates. The vice presidential debate between Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Dick Cheney focused on foreign policy, an area of strength for both candidates, and the collegial atmosphere created by the candidates and their knowledgeable responses were assets for both of their running mates, who were generally perceived to be less experienced in this area. Vice presidential debates are typically, and understandably, less interesting; but in this case both Liebermann and Cheney appeared (at least at this point in time) more appealing than their running mates at the top of the ticket.
During the Campaign of 2004, very little of note occurred during the debates of Republican incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry. Both candidates were careful not to stray from well-crafted responses, and they broke little new ground. Once again, Mr. Nader, mounting another third-party bid for the White House, was excluded from participating in the debates and was even arrested and removed from the audience, despite possessing a ticket to attend (for which he later sued).
In the Campaign of 2008, the presidential debates between Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama and Republican nominee Senator John McCain probably benefited Obama far more than his opponent, in that they provided the younger Obama with an opportunity to demonstrate his intellect, confidence, and presidential demeanor to the general public. McCain made no substantive gaffes; rather, he simply stood to benefit less, as voters were already familiar with his background from his long time in the Senate and his earlier, unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination for president in 2000. McCain was already a known (and well-respected) quantity. However, at one point McCain inexplicably wandered around the stage, a lapse in form that was noticed and, predictably, lampooned.
The most eventful debate of the Campaign of 2008, and also the most viewed, involved the vice presidential candidates Delaware senator Joe Biden and Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin’s political experience prior to the debate consisted of her two years in Alaska’s governor’s mansion and her previous time spent as mayor of the tiny Alaska town of Wasilla. She was a complete political unknown prior to being tapped by the McCain campaign. Sen. Biden, on the other hand, had a long career in the Senate and had run in the primaries against Sen. Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton; so, like McCain, he was a known quantity. Biden was placed in a difficult position—should he respond to the barrage of attacks delivered by Palin, or would it look more dignified to ignore them? Palin tended to avoid the questions asked by the moderator, instead giving folksy, scripted replies on themes that she wanted to emphasize. At one point, Palin used a thinly veiled reference to President Ronald Reagan when she responded to a comment by Biden by saying, “There you go again, Joe.” On several occasions, Palin winked at the camera. Palin explained her role in the campaign in a pitch to Middle America: “One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let’s commit ourselves just every day [to the] American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars.” The debate appeared to be a draw; pundits were wondering if Palin would commit a major mistake, and she did not, largely because she relied on rehearsed answers to questions that were not necessarily asked of her. Obama went on to easily defeat McCain, in large part because voters blamed the Republicans for the poor state of the economy. Palin’s role is more controversial. Some analysts argue that she was critical in mobilizing the evangelical Christian base of the party, who tended to be lukewarm about McCain. Others note that Republican voter turnout overall was down in 2008, potentially because some Republicans found McCain’s choice of a running mate too unattractive. Several notable conservatives, including Christopher Buckley, Andrew Sullivan, John Dean, and Colin Powell, expressed support for Obama in 2008, and many of these individuals were critical of the selection of Palin.
Some excitement was generated in the 2012 campaign season debates between incumbent president Obama and the Republican nominee, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Leading his challenger in the polls going into the first debate in Denver, the president was caught off guard and unprepared as Gov. Romney managed to step up and win the evening. In retrospect, both candidates managed to substantively address issues and policy differences, and compared to some of the presidential debates in the recent past, they were able to sustain their discussion of policy in an intelligent manner. Nevertheless, the president was not himself; in past debates he was fluid and confident, but in this debate he seemed halting and somewhat edgy, even slightly irritable. According to an account detailed by Sides and Vavreck in The Gamble, during the post-debate analysis:
A consensus quickly developed in the news media that Romney had not only won the debate but completely dominated. The National Journal’s Ron Fournier said that Obama was “peeved and flat” while Romney was “personable and funny, and relentlessly on the attack.” Washington Post reporters David Nakamura and Philip Rucker perceived Romney’s victory in spin-room body language: Republicans like Marco Rubio “paraded triumphantly” while Obama’s advisor David Plouffe looked “tired and uncertain” and needed a “handler” to guide him into the room. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast [described] Obama’s performance [as] “meandering, weak, professorial arguments . . . effete, wonkish lectures.” . . . MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wailed, “Where was Obama tonight?” And “What was he doing tonight?”
Romney’s strong performance, combined with the president’s “professorial” and “flat” presentation, seemed to give new life to the Republican effort, and a noticeable blip in the governor’s favor did appear in the polls subsequent to the Denver debate, a post-debate bump for Romney that caused alarm for many in the Obama camp. While the polls did indicate that the Romney campaign was injected with new energy, in due course those numbers began to shift downward, the bump receding as the second debate approached, a debate wherein the president reasserted himself. Perhaps drawing upon renewed confidence owing to recent favorable news about the unemployment rate, and perhaps simply determined to answer more forthrightly, the president was more energetic and assertive throughout the town hall forum in the second round. The governor also had his better moments, but for the most part it appeared that the president came away with at best a narrow victory and at worst a draw, thus regaining some ground lost in the first debate. By the third debate, which concentrated on foreign policy, the president was stronger still, with post-debate polls indicating a clear victory for Obama. The vice presidential debate, while lively, had little effect in the polls, but it did restore confidence among Democrats due to Vice President Biden’s solid performance against a well-prepared challenger, Congressman Paul Ryan. In the end, the 2012 debates did have more influence on the campaign than the debates in 2008 or 2004, and they may have been the most politically meaningful debates since 1992. These debates by themselves did not change the outcome of the election; however, they did help to sustain the Romney challenge and maybe even allow him a fighting chance, especially after the first debate. As with most presidential debates, the debate of 2012 did change the dynamic of the campaign, but in the end it was not a principal factor in the final result on Election Day. As Sides and Vavreck conclude,
The sum total of the debate season, then, was to create a tighter race but not put Romney in the driver’s seat. This was consistent with history and the academic literature: debates have moved the polls but rarely determined the winner of the election.
In additional to the actual debates between presidential nominees, in recent campaign seasons “debate events” involving multiple candidates seeking their party’s nomination have drawn considerable attention. Intra-party debates during the primaries are not new, and a few notable moments even have occurred during such affairs, such as Gov. Reagan’s refusal to be silenced during a debate among Republican candidates during the 1980 campaign. For the most part, though, the intra-party debates among candidates seeking nomination have been viewed as more preliminary events, not receiving the sort of press coverage that has apparently become the new practice in campaign coverage. In 2012 numerous debates between Republican candidates were held, often contributing to the cycle of surge and decline among various candidates who each in sequence emerged as a temporary (in some cases ephemeral) principal challenger to the party front-runner, who, in the final analysis, was Gov. Romney throughout 2012. In the 2015/2016 campaign season, the Republican Party debates—divided into two tiers, a “first card” set and “second card” set for which candidates would qualify based upon their current position in the national polls (a poorer showing in the polls directs a candidate to the second card event)—have drawn unprecedented interest, due largely to the astonishing ascent of Donald Trump combined with the media’s promotion of these pre-primary season exhibitions. Through these debate showcases, Mr. Trump has managed to seize the day by dislodging the presumptive front-runner and scion of the Bush dynasty, Jeb Bush, whose tepid debate performances have opened opportunities for energetic challengers, and by sheer force of will soaked in bravado and bombast, Mr. Trump has grasped that opportunity and dominated the earliest phase of the Republican nominating process. This is not to claim that Mr. Trump has captured the allegiance of the party insiders upon whom the direction of the “invisible primary” depends, but it is nevertheless an observation that through these debate showcases, Mr. Trump has boldly commanded the attention of the media and, consequently, the viewing and voting population. Another candidate and comparative political outsider, Carly Fiorina, has recently succeeded in making her own move toward the upper tier among the candidates, through her skillful performance in the first two debates. During the second debate, Ms. Fiorina appeared to gain the upper hand, outperforming the rest of the field. However, none of the candidates in the second debate fared poorly; mistakes were avoided and gaffes minimized. Mr. Trump held to his previous strategy, and while he did not overwhelm the event as he had in the first round, he emerged from the second debate with his front-runner status intact. Dr. Ben Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio were also well received, and Rubio in particular began to show the stirrings of momentum as a result. Gov. Bush, while not as ineffective as he appeared in the prior event, nonetheless was unable to regain lost ground, still running with the middle of the pack and as yet unable to demonstrate the same conviction and focus as some of his opponents. Both Ms. Fiorina and Gov. Bush were, in the end, unable to use the debates as a means to gain or sustain momentum.
Sen. Rubio continued to make headway during the third debate, primarily at the expense of Gov. Bush, whose lame attempt at criticizing the senator’s work ethic backfired, the governor appearing petty, and the senator justly indignant. In a later debate performance, Sen. Rubio performed less effectively as Gov. Chris Cristie mocked as robotic Rubio’s tendency to repeat phrases verbatim. Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson did just enough to protect their position in the polls, and Sen. Cruz managed to shift some momentum by scolding the debate moderators for their perceived attempts at provoking personal conflict among the candidates. Cruz built on this momentum in the fourth debate, where both he and Sen. Rubio proved more forceful and focused compared to the rest of the field. Mr. Trump returned to his more aggressive form, and Gov. Bush seemed more animated, while Dr. Carson’s overall performance was by far his weakest. The field again targeted Mr. Trump’s immigration proposals, with Gov. Bush at one point dismissing Trump’s plans as “impossible” and reflecting that any attempts to implement such a radical proposal would damage local communities and compromise American values. Sen. Cruz, while not agreeing with the details of the Trump proposal, did express visible sympathy to the sentiment behind it, while Sen. Rubio remained reticent on the immigration issue. The candidates also shared heated observations about foreign policy, Mr. Trump criticizing the presumption that the United States should serve as the “world’s policeman” and Gov. Bush responding that “Donald is wrong on this. He is absolutely wrong on this. We are not going to be the world’s policeman, but we sure as hell better be the world’s leader.” At the end of the fourth debate it was clear that Sen. Cruz had gained considerable momentum, Sen. Rubio had maintained credibility, Mr. Trump had reasserted himself, and Gov. Bush had, at least for the moment, shown at least some signs of life. In the Democrats’ first debate, which involved five candidates, the main focus was on former First Lady, senator, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders; additional candidates present were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Jim Webb of Virginia, and Martin O’Malley of Maryland. Debate analysts generally agree that each of the candidates performed well for the most part, or at least there were no noteworthy mistakes committed. Former secretary of state Clinton exuded the confidence of a front-runner, frequently drawing on her long record of public service while defining herself—perhaps to both make the comparison and mark the contrast with Sen. Sanders—and said that she had long been a “progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done.” Senator Sanders remained true to his form, unabashedly referring to moral principle in his ongoing efforts to overhaul a system rigged to the advantage of wealth.
In large part due to the performances of Mr. Trump and Ms. Fiorina in the early debates and senators Rubio and Cruz in the later debates on the GOP side, as well as skillful efforts from both Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders on the Democrats’ side, the 2015 debates have drawn significant interest and have proven important—far more important than similar multicandidate, intra-party debates held in previous years—in these early days of the campaign for the 2016 nomination. Four years earlier, the busy and heavily populated debate season did draw some attention, mostly because the candidates were generously supplying plenty of grist for the gaffe mill as well as fueling the surge and decline of the favorite candidate du jour who happened to fill the order “Anyone but Mitt.” In the end, very little is remembered about those debates, other than the more comically embarrassing moments, and in retrospect it is clear that Gov. Romney, in spite of the many candidates that emerged to challenge him only to quickly fade, was the front-runner from the beginning. In 2016 the debates have been, at least to this point, far more influential to the direction of the campaign, at least on the Republican side, and while in both substance and style they are not too different from the 2012 events, in outcome the 2016 debates have proved to be far more influential and thus significantly more important.
The ongoing concerns of the League of Women Voters have been borne out by the character of modern debates. With candidates eager to avoid damaging gaffes, presidential and vice presidential debates have become heavily scripted and constricting events, with candidates rarely straying from talking points, even if those talking points are not responsive to the questions that are actually being asked. While debates remain a ritual for all presidential and vice presidential candidates, whether they contribute much useful information to voters is questionable. Polls tend to show that voters feel that their own party’s candidate had the strongest performance, regardless of the actual content of the debate.
Commission on Presidential Debates. “Debate History.” http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-history. Accessed October 12, 2015.
Greenberg, David. “Rewinding the Kennedy-Nixon Debates: Did JFK Really Win Because He Looked Better on Television?” Slate, September 24, 2010. http://www.slate.com. Accessed October 12, 2015.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Marietta, Morgan. “The Absolutist Advantage: Sacred Rhetoric in Contemporary Presidential Debate.” Political Communication 26, no. 4 (2009): 388–411.
Minow, Newton N., and Craig L. LaMay. Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Northern Illinois University. “The Lincoln-Douglas Debates.” http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/index.html. Accessed October 12, 2015.
PBS. “Debating Our Destiny: The 1976 Ford-Carter Debates.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/1976.html. Accessed October 12, 2015.
Schroder, Alan. Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
Sides, John, and Lynn Vavreck. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Stokols, Eli. “Rubio and Cruz Shine at Fourth Debate.” Politico, Nov. 10, 2015. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/fourth-2016-republican-debate-milwaukee-215694#ixzz3wHtHaf8x.
Vancel, David L., and Sue D. Pendell. “The Myth of Viewer-Listener Disagreement in the First Kennedy-Nixon Debate.” Central States Speech Journal 38, no. 1 (Spring1987): 16–27.