0

Cemal Özgür

5/01/16

The Effects of

Presidential Debates on

Fringe Candidates

Boston College Class of 2017

Prof. Hopkins, Party Nominations

1

America’s campaign finance system makes it excruciatingly difficult for newcomers to

have a decent shot in the presidential bid. Massive sums of money, name recognition, and

party backing are all required on gigantic levels. Yet, newcomers always enter the race and try

to make a splash in it. The debates give newcomers a way to make their voices heard. They give

newbies a chance to introduce themselves and argue their case. These newcomer politicians, if

they prepare enough, can make huge gains at these debates.

Debates serve as a plateau for candidates, newcomers and established faces alike, to

fight one another in a test of wit, cunning, preparedness, and intelligence. The ability for these

candidates to get exposure throughout the entire nation is a massive opportunity for them.

Their faces are seen, their physical stature is observed, and their words are heard. They have

the chance to enter the minds, and perhaps even the hearts, of those that listen. In the words

of Jimmy Carter strategist Patrick Caddell: “(the debates are) the vehicle of challengers…they

are the best device for a challenger to reach and cross the Acceptability Threshold.” Alan

Schroeder, author of “Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV”, goes on to say that

“until Bob Dole took on Bill Clinton, one could argue that just such a threshold was crossed by

every upstart candidate.”

This essay will explore debate tactics, strategies, and other important factors. They will

be explained in a general sense and then applied to past, or hypothetical, scenarios to show

how upcoming candidates have used said tactics to bolster their status.

2

To clarify, a “fringe candidate” is a candidate that, prior to excelling in the election cycle,

did not enjoy massive popularity in the political scene. Perfect examples of this are Vermont

senator Bernie Sanders and retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson. Bernie, despite being in the

political scene for some 40 years, never made a major claim to fame. He remained, like most

senators, in relative obscurity in terms of national fame. Dr. Ben Carson, despite being a

medical genius and a brilliant surgeon, was in the same boat. He certainly went down in history

as an exceptional doctor. However, Dr. Carson was not a household name for most people. The

case could also be made for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Out of all of these five

men Trump enjoyed the most public recognition at the start of the election season largely in

part because of his successful TV show The Apprentice. But, he should still be considered a

fringe candidate due to the fact that he never once ran for a public office in his entire life.

The presidential debates are a magnificent opportunity for the American public, along

with the rest of the world, to see presidential candidates duke it out with each other in real

time on a stage. The debates are much like verbal cage fights: candidates often butt heads on

various issues, clash with one another, argue, make distinctions, call each other out, and

sometimes even insult each other. These interactions allow voters, undecided and decided

alike, to compare and contrast their options. In the words of Bill Clinton, “(the debates) give

people a feel for what kind of leader the debater would be, how much the person knows, and

how they approach the whole idea of being president.” It is true that debates do not often tend

to have pivotal influence on the election cycle. But, it is not true that their influence is minute

or small enough that it can be written off completely. These debates are neither timesinks nor

moneysinks. The debates have three main effects on voters; they can prime them to various

3

issues, persuade them to join a candidate’s side, and/or inform them about candidates, their

character, and their viewpoints. These effects will now be explained since they are very

important to understanding how fringe candidates can appeal to voters.

Concerned citizens and voters, at any given moment, have a list of issues that they

deem most important to them. They place priority on these issues and want to hear about

them the most. Candidates can prime voters at presidential debates. This means that

candidates are able to give certain issues much more priority and thus convince voters that

they are more important. They can open up their eyes to issues that they did not believe

existed, did not deem important, or did not know enough about to really make a concrete

opinion. This is important because it allows candidates to sway voters in their favor. Candidates

will often play to their strengths and try to focus on issues and topics that they excel at

discussing. Trump tends to talk about how bad Obama’s administration is, the need for a wall at

our Mexican/American border, and how great of a deal maker he is. Trump has been able to

bring people into his fold by elaborating on how severe he believes the immigration problem to

be, going so far as to call emigrating illegals rapists and drug dealers. He has made people

aware of these problems, convinced them that are important, and then sold himself to them as

the right man to solve these issues. Trump is an example of priming done properly.

Let us return to the simile of the debates being much like verbal cage fights. The

candidate’s main purpose in these debates is to come out on top in these brawls. The

candidates will often call each other out, point out past mistakes, past lies, and other flaws in

an attempt to discredit them in front of the audience. They may even sometimes deliver great

4

one-liner “knock out punches” that could be the line of the night thus leaving the other

candidate feeling defeated. All of these attempts are made in order to persuade voters that

candidate X is better than candidate Y. Candidates can also persuade voters by touting past

accomplishments, showing off knowledge, and being physically dominant.

The above two effects, the priming of voters to be aware of issues that matter along

with the capacity to convince voters that a candidate is best fit for the job of presidency, are

the main two ingredients that are needed to complete the alphabet soup of getting a voter to

join a side and eventually vote for said candidate. Making voters aware of problems and then

convincing them that they are best fit to solve these problems is why candidates spend hours

battling each other on the stage.

The last effect of the presidential debates on voters, and most likely the least focused

on from the candidate’s perspective, is that of informing voters about current issues. Various

issues are mentioned and discussed throughout the night. Voters may or may not be aware of

these issues or may not fully grasp their importance. These issues, just by being discussed, help

to inform voters that they exist. Whether or not this turns into priming is entirely up to the

voter. The main difference in between priming and informing, since they are very similar, is that

priming causes a voter to feel that an issue is very dire and that it demands an answer, in this

situation a strong president, to solve the problem very soon. [1]

There are two main categories of policy strategies that presidential hopefuls can adopt

when going into a debate: heresthetics and “playing to the crowd”. Heresthetics, a strategy

coined by Riker (1996)[2], involves a campaign playing to its strengths and avoiding its

5

weaknesses. Any viable candidate excels in certain areas of policy while, naturally, lacking in

other areas. Hillary Clinton has experience in foreign policy and working with the senate. It is

for these reasons that she often touts her experience in these fields since she has achieved

success in them. Her record on more social issues such as black activism and gay rights are

much more wishy-washy and questionable. Thus, she avoids these topics and dances around

these questions when asked about past comments or decisions. Donald Trump sells himself as

an exceptional businessman that makes amazing deals, is a nonstop “winner”, knows how to

generate lots of cash flow, and is somehow able to make people bend to his will and do what

he wants them to do without giving anything in return. In debates he sticks to the same lines of

how incompetent Washington is due to all of our “stupid” trade deals, how badly America

needs to build a giant wall along its southern border and that Mexico will pay for it, and that

China is repeatedly ripping us off. He sticks to these selling points because his voters agree that

they are problems and that Trump is the best candidate to fix these problems. He avoids topics

such as his many divorces, questionable business practices, and bankruptcies because they do

not bode well with his image. Heresthetics is about avoiding and dismissing weaknesses as

opposed to conquering them. Such a strategy is very logical and is very reasonable.

The second strategy, dubbed “playing to the crowd”, involves just that: playing to the

crowd. The location of the debate is very important to campaign strategy because different

areas of the country are prioritized with different issues. Playing to the crowd requires that a

candidate focus on the issues that the audience is most intensely interested in. Both Hillary

Clinton and Bernie Sanders adopted this strategy at the debate in Flint, Michigan (details of

debate). The city, at the time of the debate, had been undergoing a major crisis: lawmakers

6

intentionally switched public water supply sources in order to save money and thus poisoned

the most of the city’s water supply with toxic amounts of lead. The city was rightfully infuriated.

There was also lots of tension regarding race since most of the lawmakers were white and most

of the affected citizens were black. Clinton and Sanders stuck to race issues since this was what

the audience wanted to hear the debate be about. If the debate had been barely about race

issues then this surely would have been insulting and disrespectful to the citizens of Flint.

Candidates must be exceptionally mindful of the economy whilst deciding which debate

strategy to pursue. This is because the economy is virtually always the most important issue to

the general public. Gas prices, job prosperity, the minimum wage, gender disparity, and race

disparity are all hot topics. The main reason on why the economy is so hot a topic is rather

obvious; it affects the average citizen’s daily life the most and on the most consistent basis. The

state of the economy dictates whether or not people can reliably obtain the necessities that

they need to survive and provide for those that they love. Even defense and terrorism pale in

comparison to how important the economy is. It would most likely be a very poor idea for a

candidate that normally excels on the topic of gun control to spend most of a debate talking

about gun control instead of, say, a looming economic recession. This would probably come off

as self-centered, distant, and routine in a form of a broken record. The general public is more

likely to worry about other issues once their economic needs are satisfied for the most part.

Candidates also have to pay lots of attention to the current topic salience of their

audience and the rest of the country. Topic salience is the number of topics that are currently

discussable. A salient debate would be one where candidates will have to talk about a plethora

7

of topics ranging from the economy all the way to foreign affairs. Topic salience is very

important because it negatively affects candidate’s ability to control the flow of the debate

since there are so many different topics that they have to discuss. Candidates usually win

debates by focusing on the topics that they shine best on. Therefore, having to address a large

multitude of topics restricts them from focusing on the topics that they deem most important

and most advantageous. The heresthetics strategy is especially beholden to topic salience.

Candidates that ascribe to this strategy will try to keep the discussion on the topics that they

shine on however topic salience may dictate that discussion be based around topics less

advantageous to said candidate. For example: a Democrat that is very experienced and popular

with handling gun issues will wish to keep the debate on gun control. However, a recent major

earthquake or flood on American soil may prompt the debate to largely be about disaster

prevention and readiness. It is sometimes advisable for candidates to go off topic or dismiss

questions that are not salient or advantageous to them: this is not one of those situations. The

urgency of this problem requires the candidate’s attention. Users of heresthetics must be ever

watchful of the world news and hope that no sudden, major events get in their way.

Presidential hopefuls have a limited amount of control when it comes to setting the

agenda for the debate. They have some power over which questions will be asked. Candidates

will agree with moderators on some of the questions that will be asked. Moderators, and the

voters, often get more of what they want thus giving these two groups a significant amount of

agenda setting power. Despite this, each candidate is trying to control the agenda in a way that

suits them and their message best. Candidates have three main tools at their disposal to try to

affect the agenda in a way that suits them best; agenda setting, framing, and tone.

8

Agenda setting during a debate means using certain tactics to answer questions, or

avoid them, during a debate in a way that suits that candidate best. One technique is to avoid a

certain question altogether. This is a risky maneuver that does not often payoff. It pays off only

if the voters believe that the question is not worth answering perhaps because it was silly,

irrelevant, or a waste of time. Ignoring or denouncing such a pointless question, to then move

onto talking about a very pressing matter such as public safety or the economy, can be a smart

move that could pay off. This can show that a candidate understands what the public deems

important and that they are not debating to waste time on frivolous topics. Also, the playing to

the crowd technique can reap big rewards if a specific topic is currently very hot and pressing.

An example of this would be responding to a question about terrorism in light of a massive

terror attack on a major city just days after it had taken place. This allows candidates to

capitalize off of the heat of the moment as opposed to sticking to their normal rhetoric. These

are a few of the tricks that candidates have to control the agenda: however, in the end their

ability in this regard is very limited.

Framing is a very potent technique that allows candidates to answer a question in a way

that suits their interests. It involves interpreting a problem differently and providing a solution

that fits their agenda. A candidate who happens to be a national war hero and a veteran would

probably be very wise to keep the agenda on war and defense as much as possible. Suppose

this hypothetical candidate was asked a question regarding how he plans on fixing a faltering

economy. He can use framing by answering the question but then explaining that war has

historically shown to boost economies. This tactic is very successful since it does not come with

the risk that directly dodging a question tends to bring. It is a reasonable balance in between

9

answering the question and allowing the candidate to agenda-set by giving an answer that he

deems more productive to his campaign.

The last technical tool at the candidate’s disposal to help set the agenda in their favor is

that of tone. Candidates will explain their answers and make accusations in varying tones; this

is intentional because these tones have different effects on the audience. This technique, as

opposed to of the above two, is entirely under the candidate’s control because no one else can

directly control how a candidate says what they want to say. There are three kinds of tones;

positive tones, negative tones, and moderate tones. Positive tones are uplifting and help to

raise feelings of hope, faith, and rebirth. The speech tends to be uplifting and powerful. The

slogan is optimistic and looks to a greater horizon: Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” motto and

horizon logo are perfect examples of this. They are used mostly by leading candidates that want

to rally their followers under a “can do” banner. Negative tones are the exact opposite of

positive tones; they use anger, tension, loudness, and condemning vocabulary. Candidates that

use negative tones wish to stir people up in frustration. They agitate people so that they fall

under the candidate’s banner because the candidate promises newfound greatness and glory.

Donald Trump’s campaign is the embodiment of negative tones and negativity. He bashes the

establishment and Obama’s administration very often for their “stupidity”, inept trading skills,

and failure to defend the country. He promises to “make America great again” because it lost

its touch. He places blame, makes accusations, and even insults people for their decisions. It is

no wonder why his supporters are always so riled up and agitated.

10

Another very important factor that candidates must take into consideration is their

physical appearance. The rules and norms of all social speaking events apply to presidential

debates as well. Debaters must look clean, professional, and appealing. We humans, whether

we like it or not, are naturally gravitated towards other people that are attractive and have

positive attributes such as confidence, strength, intelligence, and leadership. JFK knew this and

used this to his advantage during the debates. He presented the image of a young, intelligent,

handsome, witty, and classy man that appealed to many people. It is because of this that

popularity sore after his first debate with Nixon in Chicago. JFK was also very popular on the big

screen because of his charisma. He had some trouble connecting to viewers on a deeper,

personal level but the charm and charisma was certainly present. This is largely because

Kennedy treated the event as a TV show and portrayed himself as a star. Barack Nixon, on the

other hand, had an exceptionally poor display in the first debate. His appearance was that of a

“skeleton visage”. (Schroeder, 139) He was underweight and later embarked on a “milkshake

diet” (Schroeder, 139) to get back to normal weight. He also did not wear makeup in the first

debate: this affected his appearance. Trailing candidates can use their physical appearance and

other physical attributes to sell themselves as viable candidates because of how important

these factors really are. Barack Obama also contained much of the same youth, energy,

charisma, and confidence that boosted Kennedy up. It’s one thing to hear about Obama and to

read his policies on a sheet of paper: it’s another to hear him speak, often very eloquently and

pleasantly, on live television in front of millions. Obama partially helped America to decide,

through his presidential debate showings, that it was his face, his eloquence, and his stature

that would become the next leader of America.

11

Debaters must project their character in a positive light if they wish to steal the

spotlight. One of the most important qualities that voters are looking for is that of strong

leadership. Physical appearance, as recently mentioned, is paramount when it comes to

displaying strong leadership. Leadership can be shown through rock solid confidence,

authenticity, firm knowledge, and an imposing figure. Photos of two candidates standing side

by side, one looking imposing and powerful while the other looks frail and insecure, can leave a

lasting image on the minds of voters. George W. Bush, in the first two 2004 debates, was very

“…fidgety and ill at ease…”. This only undermined his appearance as a man that was not ready

for the world stage.

Another attribute that candidates must be even more mindful of is likeability.

Presidential hopefuls must be able to connect with voters on a human level. They cannot come

off as rude, distant, apathetic, and disinterested. Failing to connect with voters causes them to

question the debater’s loyalty: “If he cannot connect with me then does he really care about

me?”. Ted Cruz has been under lots of fire due to his coldness, rudeness, and all-around awful

candor. He did not help his vice presidential pick, Carly Fiorina, up once she fell off of a stage

after introducing him. He merely went around shaking hands while Fiorina picked herself up

and pretended that nothing had happened. This is the polar opposite to Bernie Sanders: a man

that had paused multiple rallies and interviews due to people collapsing or falling over. In one

instance Sanders rushed from the podium to help a man that had fainted during one of his

rallies. The reason why likeability and empathy are so important is rather simple: it is because

humans do not enjoy being treated like robots.

12

Candidates must be experienced in debating and must be comfortable in front of

massive audiences. A lack of preparation, feelings of insecurity, or discomfort will always show.

These flaws attribute greatly towards projecting a negative image of a candidate. Admiral

James Stockdale is an unfortunately legendary example of how being “flustered and

unprepared” in a single debate can permanently ruin a candidate’s shot at the presidency. His

performance was “excruciating” for many reasons; he cut a healthcare question short by saying

“I’m out of ammunition”, he missed a question because he had turned his hearing aid off, and

often failed to engage in the discussion. He was visually “flustered and unprepared…the clear

loser of the evening”. His only appeal was that he resonated with Americans that felt like they

were being left out of the discussion. Stockdale later said to supporters, “What I saw last night

was an art form, an art form I’ve never been near before.” Ross Perot, Stockdale’s presidential

running mate, later sent Stockdale around the country to meet with various newspaper

editorial boards in order to contain the damage. But, the damage had already been done: his

performance was so poor that it was nothing like the audience had ever seen before.

It is a common strategy for candidates that are behind to go negative on the leading

candidate. Trailing candidates will try to tear down the leading candidate and show, due to

their weaknesses, that they are not fit to win. They will then present themselves as suitable

alternatives. This was the case with Bernie Sanders for a lot of the democratic nomination

process. He would constantly portray Hillary Clinton as an untrustworthy, selfish, servant to

Wall Street that would only help to serve America’s top 1%. He then presented himself as an

alternative: a considerate, morally upright, public servant that has always had the nation’s

interests at heart.

13

The beauty of the presidential debates, despite being extremely rehearsed and

practiced, is in their impromptu glory. Candidates must be creative and sometimes daring if

they wish to appear dominant over their adversaries. A hallmark example of this is in the very

opening of 1980’s first presidential debate in between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Jimmy

Ronald Reagan unexpectedly strode up to Carter for a handshake: Carter was subsequently

caught off guard and confused. He was displayed as weak, unready, and frail: communication

scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson described Carter’s response as a “…look of surprise suggested

that he thought he was about to be knifed.” (Schroeder, 48) In hindsight this may not seem like

that big of a deal. But, the reality is that these tiny moments can brand a lasting image into the

minds of viewers. The stakes are so high when men and women are competing on live

television for, arguably, the most powerful seat of office in the entire world. Candidates will

come up with clever tactics to sabotage their opponent’s image and to thus boost their own.

Fringe candidates are completely able to do this and should be entirely encouraged to do so.

They should think outside of the box in order to find ways to portray strength and confidence to

their audience without having the attempt backfire. A contemporary example of this was

Donald Trump strangely declining to put his hand over his heart during the opening of the first

Republican debate. Some saw this move as a rude act of anti-patriotism while others saw it as

bravely revolting against the establishment and not identifying as a traditional politician.

The randomness, spontaneity, and impromptu nature of the debates make them very

difficult to prepare for. Candidates may feel like they are wandering into the dark with a dim

torch: the possibilities are endless. One then wonders how they can best properly prepare for

them. Candidates tend to solidify and rehearse the parts of the debate that they have the most

14

control over; their viewpoints, go-to lines, strong topics, physical appearance, positive tactical

moments. Preparedness and practice helps to chop the variables down to much less scary level.

It’s important for candidates to not hope that the will strike gold through an unplanned quip or

complete stroke of luck. Nay, the candidates must work hard to refine their pickaxes and

digging techniques so that they know how to find the gold as opposed to aimlessly digging for

it. The authors of “Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV” put it best: “The savvy

debater does not wait for the high points to occur naturally; he manufactures them, polishes

them, and finds a way to deploy them.” (Schroeder, 49)

Debaters are likely to be interrupted or cutoff while they are speaking during most of

the debates. The main exception to this rule are the opening and closing statements where

candidates can make long remarks, sometimes up to a minute and a half, and not risk being

interrupted or cutoff. It is in these oases of control that candidates can try to deliver very

powerful one-liners. Reagan thought it would be best to give one-liners to the audience, as

opposed to lengthy policy explanations, since they would be more likely to remember the short

blips. He zinged the incumbent Carter especially well with his closing statement in the same

debate that he humiliated him with his handshake ploy: he rhetorically asked, “Are you better

off now than you were four years ago?” Upcoming candidates should use their opening and

closing statements wisely. They are a time to challenge the status quo and try to tear down the

frontrunner while propping themselves up. Candidates have to also be mindful that they could

fall prey to these tactics from other candidates. Their response and reaction is as important as

the line itself. A powerful rebuttal to a strong one liner turns the tables on its heads just as

15

getting zinged and feeling defeated is a clear loss. The debate is a very cold, strategic, and

calculating game of a cat and mouse.

Newcomers to the national political scene have to make a name for themselves if they

wish to have any chance of actually becoming their party’s nominee and winning the general

election. This is imperative to their success since popularity and name recognition garners party

attention, money, influence, and votes. Newcomers absolutely should use many of the tools

that were previously described in order to catapult themselves into the minds and hearts of the

world. Bernie Sanders’ campaign built up a decent amount of momentum prior to the first

democratic nomination. But, he was always ignored by the media or portrayed as an unviable

alternative that was not worth any time or attention. The early democratic debates helped to

dispel these myths; he dueled her and showed that he too can debate policies, is in this race to

win it, and that he possessed the charisma and leadership that the nation searches for.

On the flip side, established politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, have to use the debates

for other purposes. The debates should help to complete two main objectives; to maintain face

and remind voters that they are the same person that they were four, eight, or however many

years ago and to dispel negative perceptions. Ronald Reagan used the debates to dispel the

perception that he was just a “dumb actor” that didn’t know how to “use his brains.” People

understood him to be a warmonger that was emotionally distant from his constituents. Reagan

thus strode out onto the stage; confident, without notes, thoughtful, and insightful. He

suddenly appeared wise and learned: a knowledgeable and careful world leader as opposed to

a talented but inept Hollywood star. People were blown away to say the very least. A candidate

16

must be honest with themselves so that they can understand their flaws and the

misconceptions that the public has about them. This is because the stakes at the debates are so

ridiculously massive. Reagan’s 180 degrees turn around in style and wisdom forever changed

the public’s perception of who Ronald Reagan was. He accomplished this maneuver in a single

debate! The potential for massive failures is exceptional high as well: take the previous example

of Admiral Stockdale, a man that appeared frail, nervous, and unprepared. Voters were left

asking themselves: How could this man possibly serve as the leader of my nation for the next

four years? In the words of Alan Schroeder, “Candidates triumph in debates when they manage

to overcome a bad rap. Candidates lose when they fail to shake off unfavorable stereotypes…”

A trademark of the presidential debates is the fighting, attacking, and aggressiveness

that takes place in between candidates. Candidates constantly attack one another on policy

issues, past decisions, and sometimes even character defects. Attacking an opponent is a

maneuver that must be done properly. The attack has to be grounded: it would be ludicrous to

claim that a candidate is anti-abortion while that candidate has been highly vocal for the pro-

life movement for most of their political career. It also cannot come off as too aggressive or

savage: it should be respectful yet dominating. Responses must also be made and executed

very strategically. Word structure matters immensely. Responses should be respectful and

polite but on the same token firm and unyielding. In the words of Theodore Sorensen, a debate

counselor that counseled Jimmy Carter in 1976, “At all times be courteous, respectful, friendly

in manner, even when vigorously disagreeing or criticizing, even when unfairly attacked…do not

call your opponent names or slur his character or criticize his wife. But beware of appearing too

agreeable to the point of passivity; be vigorously assertive and positive; take the initiative,

17

avoid being on the defensive.” (Schroeder, 61) Upcoming candidates must make attacks on

their opponent’s title as the clear frontrunner if they wish to overtake them. But, the attacks

must be properly executed so that they pose real questions to real issues. After all, the only

way to claim the reigning champion’s belt is by beating them at their own game.

Democratic adviser Tom Donilon advised Michael Dukakis that the best way for him to

win the debate was to be the “appropriate aggressor.” An appropriate aggressor is one that

goes “…on the offense without being offensive; making moves that are bold but not reckless;

appearing confident but not condescending.” Candidates and their coaches must do their

homework and know where to best hit their opponents. Circumstances have to also be taken

into consideration and worked with. For example, George H. W. Bush was very complacent in

his first incumbent debate against Bill Clinton. This subsequently allowed Bill Clinton to pull off

a move that would dominate post-debate coverage: Bush questioned Clinton’s patriotism to

which he responded “Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to

attack my patriotism.”, thus leaving Bush scribbling notes as Clinton stared him down.

Politicians must, at all costs, avoid coming off as an inappropriate aggressor. The

inappropriate aggressor tries to make attacks on their opponent but fails spectacularly. Al

Gore’s infamous blunder in a town hall debate of 2000 is the embodiment of inappropriately

aggressing. Gore stood up from his stool and slowly walked over the Bush while he was

answering a question. He wanted to show that he was powerful and imposing on Bush: but,

Bush responded appropriately by giving him a strange look and dismissing him as a loon. The

audience went on to laugh and thus dismissed Gore for the rest of the evening. Behavior such

18

as Gore’s is overly reckless and unnecessary in order to appear as the dominating figure.

Debate scholar Diana Carlin found that voters do not mind attacks from one candidate to

another. However, people start to feel uncomfortable when politicians begin to attack one

another’s character or personal boundaries. The attacks should be used against their ideas, past

votes, past decisions, and old soundbites. These attacks are the safest but still have vast

potential for massive rewards with much less risk than a ploy like Gore’s.

Word structure for debates, and for campaigns in general, matters immensely.

Candidates must be mindful of two factors; their audience and how they want their audience to

feel after hearing their message. A message can then be crafted once these two variables are

known. There is no golden rule for describing the perfect way to word messages. It is

sometimes advantageous to make short, memorable statements as Reagan often did. These

pieces of info are easy to consume, not hard to remember, and often make for nice soundbites

for the media to play over and over. However, there comes the risk of talking down to

constituents and/or not fully being able to get the entire message across. On the flip side, giving

lengthy explanations to voters can be a strong tactic since it can show knowledge, inform

voters, and allow them to learn more about a candidate then they would learn through a short

soundbite. This can backfire too though: voters can feel lost, confused, left out, or even feeling

like the candidate is a bragging know-it-all. Donald Trump also has a penchant for making very

short and simple statements to get his main points around. The brevity of these points has

allowed the media to pass around his rhetoric nonstop. Finally, regardless of speaking style

most debate scholars and strategists agree that debaters should relate virtually every point

back to one of their “main messages”. Bernie Sanders tries to relate every argument be it on

19

healthcare, defense, gay rights, or energy back to the 1% and corporate greed. These are the

most fundamental pillars that his campaign is built around.

Audience members and voters pay very close attention to the debates and what the

politicians are saying. Debaters practice immensely for these debates; they go over scripts,

memorize policy stances and insane amounts of numbers and data, and always have a fallback

line to go back to. Voters can easily tell when a debater is reciting as script from memory. This is

an almost seemingly harmful pitfall that is easy to fall into. Debaters must avoid this because it

makes them come off as fake and robotic. People may feel that a politician is saying their words

merely because they believe they are the best words to say as opposed to the words that came

from their heart. Politicians must improvise during debates and not be afraid to stray a bit from

their scripts. If this is done properly, with confidence and strength, then the result is a leader

that knows how to correctly think on the fly and improvise. Such qualities are imperative in our

world because of the fact that world shaking events can take place overnight.

Humor is another tool that public speakers use to try to engage their audience and

better convey their message. But, it is very risky to employ humor since it requires that the

humor is actually funny, the audience is receptive, and that the environment is conducive.

Poorly executed humor can be awkward and annoying. Many of TED’s most popular talks are on

the top of their “Most Watched” list because of how funny the speeches are. Yet, politicians

rarely use humor in presidential debates. This is because the environment is not conducive by

any means. The matter is exceptionally serious and not to be mocked. Bob Dole tried to use

humor in his 1976 vice presidential debate and it backfired. Bob Dole later said that the only

20

time you should use humor if “It’s…self-deprecating or it can be terminal, fatal, if you’re out

there just slashing away at someone else.” Presidential hopefuls would do best to altogether

avoid humor since its risks seem to greatly outweigh its potential rewards.

The debates, despite their serious demeanor, must also be manipulated to be dramatic

and entertaining. “A winning debate strategy hinges in large measure on how well a candidate

apprehends the experience as televised drama.” Debaters try to reasonably put on a show for

their audience. It has to be engaging and memorable. Otherwise, debaters risk losing voters in

the drone of policy talk despite how near and dear these issues are. Plus, the media only plays

soundbites if they are entertaining to listen to. Donald Trump knows this and has been using

this to his advantage. He has made many outlandish comments during the debate. All of these

have given him immense media coverage.

The presidential debates are the best opportunity that new candidates have to sell their

campaigns to the general public. They are the proving grounds of politics: the competitors will

battle one another, leaving one victories and one defeated. The gains that could be made are

astronomical. Presidential hopefuls must employ many debate coaches that help them employ

all of the right techniques while avoiding certain traps and mistakes. The candidate that

prepares the most for the debates is far more likely to succeed than the candidate that wings it

and hopes to have an amazing soundbite all over TV the next day.

Bibliography;

1. Boydstun, Amber. Playing to the Crowd: Agenda Control in the Presidential Debates Online. This

text was used for all info on priming, framing, tone, and agenda setting.

2. Riker , W. H. 1996. The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution, New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

21

3. “THE DEBATERS”. “THE DEBATERS”. Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-risk TV. 2nd ed.

Columbia University Press, 2008. 135–176. Web... Used for all info on debate physique and

other tactics below that of agenda setting.