Presidential debate: what to look for beyond who wins or loses (+video)
Political spin coming out of the presidential debate Wednesday will be fierce. But the savvy viewer looks for more than winner and losers. Here's a guide to viewing the presidential debate.
(Page 2 of 2)
But debates can matter a lot. And, in many ways, seem to be riskier for incumbents, even though conventional wisdom says that an incumbent has an advantage, bringing the weight of the presidency with him to the stage.
Skip to next paragraph
Recent posts
-
06.14.13
Jeb Bush says immigrants 'more fertile.' Is that right? -
06.14.13
Sarah Palin is back on Fox! Why is she reappearing now? (+video) -
06.13.13
Hillary Clinton makes a splash in Chicago, but not an overtly political one -
06.13.13
Chris Christie 'slow jams' the news: How'd he do? -
06.11.13
Edward Snowden: Who is he, and what kind of life is he leaving behind?
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Since 1976 – when debates started to be held every presidential election cycle – three incumbents have been defeated, notes Ms. Olson: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush. In contrast, just two incumbents – William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover – lost their reelection bids in the first three-quarters of the 20th century.
And certain moments have emerged as game-changers.
There's Michael Dukakis's all-policy response when asked whether he'd seek the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife – cementing his "wooden" image. The question, agreed most of the Newseum panelists, was an unfair one – either Mr. Dukakis had to flip-flop on his death-penalty stance or be portrayed as passionless – but he could have criticized the question or showed his passion and anger before explaining why he still opposed the death penalty.
And then there's that indelible moment from the Carter-Reagan debate when Ronald Reagan, who smiled through Jimmy Carter's attack on his Medicare record, responded by saying, "There you go again" – creating what became a defining phrase of the 1980 election.
Afterward, said Vanocur, most voters probably forgot the context of Mr. Reagan's comment. "You only knew it was devastating," Vanocur said.
Reagan's smile also had the effect of casting doubt on Mr. Carter's words even before Reagan responded, said Charlton McIlwain, a New York University professor. On Wednesday, Professor McIlwain says, he'll be watching to see how each candidate comes across as they ake their own attacks and react to each other under pressure.
Will they keep up the angry attacks they've made in ads? And how will they respond (silently, even before they are allowed to answer) to attacks their opponent makes?
With a president of color facing off against a white challenger, there are other minefields both will need to avoid, said McIlwain. Romney needs to avoid appearing arrogant – and refrain from the sort of belittling comment John McCain made in 2008 when he pointed at Obama and called him "that one," which many people interpreted through a racial lens.
And Obama needs to avoid making any sort of reference to race an an excuse for anything – which probably means not broaching the subject at all, says McIlwain.
Previous
Follow Us