In point of fact, the current status of this race indicates that the debates will not be decisive for several reasons.
First, history tells us that most presidential debates have not had a major impact on the election results. They’re usually seen as validating voters’ preconceived judgments of the candidates’ positive or negative qualities. The voters wisely consider them in context with everything else happening in the campaign, including other speeches, paid media, news stories and the candidates’ records.
There have been two exceptions. In 1960, the lesser-known John Kennedy benefitted enormously from his encounters with Richard Nixon. Kennedy was able to introduce himself to America as a young and dynamic newcomer. By contrast, Trump and Biden are both well-known at this point. Their portraits were painted long ago. The other exception is 1980, which could have more relevance but does not change the fact that the vast majority of these encounters have not been decisive to the final outcome.
Second, the record of an incumbent president seeking re-election is always the focus of these encounters. That makes sense, since that record is the biggest factor in how voters cast their ballots. The last three incumbents who were re-elected—Clinton (1996), Bush (2004) and Obama (2012)—successfully focused on their first-term accomplishments as their primary reason for re-election and amplified those messages in the debates.
Because the voters believe overwhelmingly that the country is headed in the wrong direction, Trump is focusing almost exclusively on Biden’s shortcomings, a conversation that will be difficult to sustain for long periods of time in three separate encounters. Biden will bring the discussion back again and again to the things that are worrying Americans: high unemployment, racial strife and especially the COVID-19 pandemic. This is tough for the president, but just as incumbents benefit from good news, they also absorb the blame for what has gone wrong.
Third, good debaters in the presidential space can carry and amplify a theme. They focus on two or three issues or beliefs that they want to leave with the public and weave them into every answer. Voters do pay close attention to what is said, but understandably make more generalized judgments on the candidates and their performances. Things like knowledgeability, likeability, focus and especially the candidates’ identification with their concerns and feelings are key to voter perceptions of a strong performance. What candidates stress in these encounters should be part and parcel of what they’re saying in other campaign appearances.
This is not the president’s strong suit. He has exhibited a talent for turning a phrase, making news himself and always being forceful, but thematic emphasis is not a strong point. Candidates who are prone to going on tangents and not being precise in their answers do not provide the focused messaging that is critical for swaying voters.
Fourth, Biden’s past performances haven’t exactly reminded anyone of Abraham Lincoln. He is prone to gaffes, and his focus is not always the best. In the primary debates, his performances have been uneven, and he has failed to take advantage of opportunities when presented. For instance, he could have given a much stronger response when Senator Kamala Harris leveled her “racial insensitivity” attacks in one of their early encounters. Biden’s record on racial justice issues was far better than he was able to articulate at that key moment.
Yet by attacking him as not mentally up to the job, Trump is lowering the bar for how the public judges Biden’s performance. Even a mediocre showing could be judged to be “acceptable” if he comes across as engaged and able to answer the questions precisely with some factual basis. If the issue, in the end, is whether Biden is up to the job, it is fully in his power to demonstrate that he is.
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter focused almost exclusively on challenger Ronald Reagan’s “extreme” views and by implication his advanced age. (Note: Reagan was 69, quite a bit younger than both candidates in 2020.) Carter had endured a difficult four years, could not run on his record and hence focused on Reagan’s unsuitability for office. Reagan turned that aside, speaking with assurance, focus and humor (“There you go again”). And by the time Reagan asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” he had breezed past Carter’s suitability test and won.
Debates always bring surprises and create opportunities and pitfalls for each candidate. However, if history is any guide, they will not be decisive in themselves this year. The public has far more available information than three 90-minute encounters to render an informed and final judgment. By contrast, the candidates’ public records and views on how to address the many challenges our country will face in the next four years will be the key factor that bears watching.
Frank Donatelli served as assistant for political affairs to President Ronald Reagan and as deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
