The panelists for the presidential debate between President Jimmy Carter and Republican nominee Ronald Regan try out their seats on the stage on Oct. 28, 1980 at the Cleveland Convention Center. From left are Barbara Walters, ABC News; William Hillard, Assistant Managing Editor of the Oregonian in Portland; Howard K. Smith, the moderator for the debate: Harry Ellis, Christian Science Monitor; and Marvin Stone, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report. At right is Lee Hanna with the League of Women Voters. (AP Photo/Brian Horton)
Journalists and pundits who say tonight’s GOP debate is silliness would do well to look back at history. Even the imperfect format of crowding 10 candidates on a stage has the potential to produce windows into the candidate’s persona. The best post-debate press will go to candidates who make news by being topical and commenting on something in the news. Here are a few ways they might do that:
Humor
Ronald Reagan, for example, showed his endearing sense of humor debating Walter Mondale.
Debate one-liners are best when they are self-effacing or topical. Jokes about Trump’s hair won’t fly. Jokes about Obama might. A great, funny one-liner will get lots of online replays.
The best zingers are the ones that come from dark horse candidates. A sharp one-liner can get them the exposure they need to be heard on more serious topics.
Topical humor can work. Remember when Walter Mondale quoted a famous Wendy’s commercial while debating Gary Hart in 1984?
Factual Whoppers
Fact checking sites like Politifact will have a field day with candidates who shoot from the lip. In 1976, Gerald Ford said to everyone’s astonishment, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.”
Donald Trump, by virtue of being the frontrunner and having a history of spouting dubious facts, will find himself under the fact checker’s microscope. Add to that Trump’s name recognition compared to the others and his campaign claims that he is not prepping for the debate, Trump may have the most to lose from mistakes. Frontrunners don’t benefit from debates but strong challengers can.
Don’t Forget
Texas Governor Rick Perry had a specific plan to cut government, but then forgot which federal agency he was going to abolish if he was elected.
Perry said that moment badly damaged his campaign. Not all mistakes are fatal unless they underscore an existing negative narrative about the candidate. George Bush created the buzz phrase “fuzzy math” to describe Al Gore’s tax plans. The phrase stuck because Gore got repeatedly painted as being loose with claims on other issues.
Stupid statements will get more play than policy wonk soundbites, especially on social media. But journalists have an obligation to get beyond the occasional slip-up to find the context behind it. But slip-ups are not always insignificant when a president of the United States makes them. Voters elect people, not policies, and debates can reveal human tendencies.
Smack Down Hard and Clean
If a candidate decides to take a swipe at another, it can still appear to be strong and presidential if it’s a clean and fair shot. Like Lloyd Bentson did debating Dan Quayle.
Bentson wasn’t mean-spirited when he said “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Bentson sounded like a senior Senator putting a junior senator in his place, not a mean politician.
The front-runners won’t waste time smacking down anybody bold enough to attack them. That would make the attacker seem significant.
Break Out With a Memorable Theme
Ronald Reagan asked a simple question while debating Jimmy Carter in 1980:
“Ask yourself, ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?”
The phrase, “are you better off” gives journalists an opportunity to answer with factual proof that, in Reagan’s case, underscored his point. It’s the kind of meat that washes well into analysis pieces over the weekend.
It will be especially difficult for a candidate in this field to claim some unclaimed territory. The field includes two business executives, five governors, five former governors, one physician, four U.S. Senators and one former Senator.
They have to have an “elevator pitch” that they can clearly articulate but is not so simplistic that anybody could claim it, like “we have to improve education,” or “we have to protect Medicare.”
The Republicans will go after President Obama and stress that it is time for a change. The party that is out of office has to create a demand for change, then convince voters THEY are the one to carry out the change.
First Debates are Not About Issues
Journalists who cover politics all the time will no doubt be disappointed when the candidates tonight don’t get specific about issues. As I often say in my teaching, journalists should remember they are not normal. Normal people do not live and breathe politics and policy and budgets and polls.
Think of this debate as a first date. It is a get-to-know you event, not a time to spell out policies and detailed visions.
Smart candidates will come out of the debate ready to provide more detailed visions on issues that catch fire. On Friday, they will take the Thursday night themes and expand on them to get headlines into the weekend and especially Sunday morning.
Ten candidates on one stage means nobody has time to dive deeply on any topic. They will spend much of their time describing who they are, what they have been doing and why they are a contender. They would be smart to find one or two key issues that they want to be known for, a hot button topic, something to break out, as Trump did with immigration, regardless of how much heat it brought on him for the way he raised the issue.
Big Topics
The most used words in this debate will probably be “immigration,” “ISIS,” “China,” “Mexico,” “veterans,” “jobs,” “education,” “Planned Parenthood.”
Winning candidates will say what they are for more than what they are against. No candidate tonight will say they are for anything that sounds like gun control, but none will have much of an idea of what to do about gun violence. If they did, they would make news. Many will be against Obamacare, but listen for what they would propose to replace it. Post-debate stories should drill down to get beyond broad statements. The candidates have begun working out some details on their issues stances. Here is one place you can find a collection of stances by all candidates. The website OnTheIssues allows you to click on a candidate and see what they have said about a range of topics.
Big complex topics including America’s role in international security, Palestinian statehood, global warming/climate change and race relations would reveal whether a candidate has presidential DNA. We can only hope this debate is not totally focused on domestic issues.
Any candidate who mentions college debt and gives a plan on how to lower higher education costs will get post-debate press.
The Democrats will be watching for soundbites they can use in general election attacks.
Beyond The Candidate’s Control
This debate may well live in funny clips and parodies online. Chevy Chase’s parodies of a Gerald Ford launched Chase’s career but some experts say the parodies cemented the public’s perception that Ford was a bumbler. Debates give late night comedians fuel that can shape public perceptions. It does not usually work in a candidates’ favor to be parodied on SNL.
From Saturday Night Live: Click on image to watch
The Most to Lose
Journalists should avoid the temptation to name winners and losers in this debate. A lowly ranked candidate merely needs to exceed low expectations and a leading candidate won’t have enough time to bury laggards.
Still, Jeb Bush may have the most to lose and prove in this debate. He has raised $100 million, by far the most raised in this race and yet is running second. Bush has family name recognition but remains unknown to lots of people outside of Florida. Bush’s goal should be to get out of this event cleanly and appear presidential, not abrasive, in contrast to Trump. Bush should hope others attack him, which would cast him as a leader and give him more time to build space between him and the pack. Jeb Bush would be well-served to show he has passion and isn’t just running for the CEO job of the Bush dynasty. A feisty Bush would get some post-debate play.
