The United States is hurling deep into presidential election season with just over four months to the elections due on November 5.
From experience over past presidential elections, as Election Day approaches, the respective candidates and parties step up various strategies aimed at getting maximum votes.
This year one of the traditional strategies, the debate between the presidential candidates for the main political parties, Democrat and Republican, is taking place much earlier than usual. In past presidential election cycles, a series of three debates began after the candidates were officially nominated at the respective party conventions. The first presidential debate this year is being held even before the party conventions are held, although, as of now, it’s most likely the presumptive nominees of both parties, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump will be duly nominated.
In past years, presidential debates were coordinated by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). For the past 30 years the CPD set dates, times, locations, themes, and rules for a series of three debates between the presidential candidates, and one between the vice-presidential candidates. But this year, although the CPD had tentatively scheduled four debates for between September 16 and October 9, both presumptive presidential candidates criticized the CPD’s schedule and format for the debates. Last month, both campaigns agreed to bypass the CPD and hold alternative presidential debates on July 27 and September 10, and the vice-presidential debate at a date to be announced.
But why these debates?
Ostensibly, the debates should provide a platform for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to discuss their policies and ideas, allowing voters to compare them and their policies as they appear side by side. Theoretically, the presidential debates can influence undecided voters and shape public opinion, making the debates a significant part of the election process. However, their format, impact, and relevance are ironically the subject of public debate, especially in the context of changing media and communication strategies.
These debates are essentially not debates in the true sense of, for example, high school and college debates, but basically are political theater where candidates try to outdo each other with snark remarks, ‘gotcha’ moments, and even how they look and carry themselves on the debate stage.
Traditional debates center around themes or moots, but most presidential debates have become weak on policy. Even when there are themes set for the debates a candidate, or both candidates, often find ways to dodge a policy question and stray into irrelevance. There are several intangibles that usually make one of the debating candidates declared winner or loser of the debate.
Back in 1960 when the first TV presidential debate was held between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon, Kennedy was widely declared the winner because he looked more comfortable, more charismatic, and his face better made-up than Nixon who reportedly looked uneasy, nervous, and his face too shine. It wasn’t the debate on prevailing policies that characterized the debate, but how the men looked.
Also, in the first debate between Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama in 2012, Obama was widely said to have lost because he appeared unfocused as if he didn’t want to be participating, impatient to leave for a date night with his wife. Not much tribute was given to Romney for how he handled debate on policies.
In reviewing these debates, the media, especially social media, seem to seek opportunities to highlight the ‘gotcha moments’, gaffes by the candidates, the candidate’s physical appearances, and other intangibles, instead of focusing on actual policies discussed.
The jury is out if the presidential debates really influence how voters vote. In 2016 Democrat Hillary Clinton was believed to have won all three debates with Trump based on her knowledge of key policies. But she subsequently lost the election to Trump. Although the presidential debates since 2016 have drawn large TV audiences surpassing 70 million viewers, it seems, except for the possibility of a relatively small percentage of undecided voters, most voters decide who they’ll vote for irrespective of the debates.
Some political analysts, however, are of the opinion that the 2024 debaters could have more influence on voters because the election is poised to be an extremely close contest. But these analysts also suggest voters will be more interested to see how these two aging candidates perform physically and mentally for the duration of the debates, rather than assessing the candidates’ views on policies of interest to voters.
There is a growing opinion that the presidential debates should be disbanded entirely and replaced by a series of sponsored equal-time TV segments allotted to each candidate to elaborate on specifically identified policy issues prior to Election Day. This alternative strategy would ensure the candidates have a platform to articulate their stance on policies of interest to American voters, rather than waste time on political theater that does little to influence how they will actually vote. There are too many issues impacting Americans to subject them to meaningless political theater.
