Previewing the debates

Al Louden offers his preview of the first debate

By Kerry M. King ('85)
Office of Creative Services

The first of three presidential debates is scheduled to be held Friday night at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. But John McCain has called on Barack Obama to postpone the debate because of the growing economic crisis. Associate Professor of Communication and veteran debate watcher Allan Louden, who writes the Debatescoop blog, gives a preview of what we can expect from the debate.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) »

What if there isn't a debate?

There must be some very nervous folks on the Ole Miss campus. I'm reminded of 2000 when (George) Bush bucked the CPD's stranglehold on the debates, threatening the presidential debate scheduled for Wake Forest. Students griped, hanging signs on campus. Bush caved to larger pressures and Wake Forest hosted the debate.

There is no guarantee, however, that scheduled debates will happen. In 1988 George H.W. Bush refused the first debate on the Naval Academy's Annapolis campus just days before the event, leaving Wake Forest with the first of two debates held that year.

Nearly always the "show-goes-on;" too much is invested by host institutions, media, campaigns and voters to overcome momentum. My prediction in this remarkably unpredictable election year is that McCain will debate.

McCain's move may be judged as political, but his maverick image is alive and well. Politically the jury is out. Is McCain's move bold, or as banking chair Barney Frank claimed "the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of either football or Mary's?" May the best narrative prevail.

What do you think of the CPD's new format?

The CPD's debate format calls for nine-minute segments: two-minute opening statements, followed by five minutes of open discussion. Depending on what happens, the debaters may find openings for more than whistle-spot statements. This "groundbreaking" format — "a free-flow conversation/ discussion" as the CPD describes it — is an improvement over inflexible turn-taking, but it won't assure real interaction. If you are looking for real debate in five minute segments, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The debate commission has also partnered with MySpace to create mydebates.org, providing widgets that allow viewers to stream the debate live on their computers. Viewers can also send in questions for the second debate, to channel through the moderator. Neither of these "innovations" seems all that inventive. The debate will be streamed by many sources, and moderators are still gatekeepers leaving these changes pretty 1990s.

What does Barack Obama need to accomplish Friday night?

The loquacious Illinois senator might find sharper sound bites useful. What takes Obama minutes to say needs to be said in 30 seconds. Can he do this without surrendering part of his appeal, a thoughtful, albeit ponderous, mode? Likely.

How about John McCain?

Can McCain find the balance between reforming much of what he oversaw for decades and crusade as the outsider to the very political party he needs to win? Tightropes can be walked more easily by a quasi-doctrinaire maverick.

Do you expect both candidates to just play it safe?

Yes. There are simply too many audiences and too much on the line. But a storyline of some sort will emerge from the debate. The press needs a "winner," and the campaigns post-spin and bloggers are more than willing to cooperate. So why not take the initiative and force the story that is to be written. Surely each candidate should not be risky, but they need to take some risks. It is the spontaneous genuine moments that separate. Reagan claimed (after the debate) that his statement referencing Mondale, "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," wasn't planned. It just fit; it was the election.

The third debate will have a "town hall" format; does that favor either candidate?

Conventional wisdom suggests McCain is advantaged. He has a wealth of experience with live audiences, is seldom stumped, and can on occasion "connect." Obama's typecast suggests a more distanced persona. Yet I'd hesitate to default to these expectations. More likely, both will do well. Live audiences tend to mellow answers, requiring politeness and interpersonal deference. Both candidates have worked many audiences. No advantage.

How attuned are your students to the election?

Students appear much more interested in this election. The reasons are many, including readily available information (the first real Internet election), the epic Hillary/Barack primary battle, no incumbency, and new demographics enjoying more than spectator roles. But then again, everyone is more engaged; it is unusual to find folks who don't have a surprising repertoire regarding the election. That is not to say students are well informed, their real lives still trump, and rightly so.

Do debates really matter?

Debates matter less for young voters than more seasoned observers. There is no context for their importance, yet younger voters live in an online world, with news coming 24-7. If nothing else the Saturday Night Live summary, surely to air on the weekend, will make the debates important.

Can you give us some examples of when the debates really made a difference?

Debates make a difference in almost every election, even when there is not a polling bounce. Two examples took place on the Wake Forest campus in 1988 and 2000. Neither debate had the "wow" factor of Ford's Poland blunder in the '76 election, yet materially changed the trajectory of the election narrative.

1988 debate at Wake Forest University

In '88 Dukakis came to campus with a 17 point polling advantage. He won the "issue" debate on stage, yet lost the "political" debate when George H.W. Bush quoted Dukakis' words, " 'I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.' That was what he said. He is out of the mainstream." With this and other frames, the press coverage was set for a week, and the election cast in a liberal vs. conservative choice.

2000 debate at Wake Forest University

In 2000, Al Gore sat down on the Wake Forest stage and engaged in a cooperative love-fest with George W. Bush, a persona in contrast with his aggressive Boston performance in the first debate. When George Stephanopoulos and others, broadcasting live from the Wait Chapel balcony, underscored Gore's multi-persona, distrust was cemented.