A bit of history (woo)
Presidential debates go back a lot further than the UK debates, which were first held for the 2010 election (all together now – ‘I agree with Nick...’!). The first televised US Presidential debate was in 1960, and that one remains perhaps the most famous meeting. Nixon (then Vice President to Eisenhower) met Kennedy and, so the folklore goes, the VP performed better for those listening on radio as he appeared pale and nervous for the viewers on TV after a long campaign and a recent hospital trip. This isn’t actually supported by evidence but it does make a good story. The 4 debates in 1960 weren’t actually pivotal to Kennedy’s election win but they drew in massive audiences and helped the people better understand the candidates.
Presidential debates then stopped until 1976 when they became a regular feature of campaigning. Heaven only knows why they came back in 1976 – neither Ford nor Carter were great debaters and both suffered. Carter lost their first meeting, but in the second President Ford famously stated "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration". Couple that with his pardon of Nixon and his campaign stalled.
Since then there have been several memorable moments in the debates, including Reagan quipping about his opponents age, Al Gore rolling his eyes at Bush and McCain referring to Obama as ‘that one’. Overall though the debates remain noteworthy for how unnoteworthy they are. The candidates answer predictable questions with equally predictable answers. And Americans seem to understand this with viewing figures have noticeably fallen – 55% Americans watched Kennedy v. Nixon, close to 40% watched Bush v. Kerry in 2004, despite a rise in both population and in the availability of TV sets.
So, there have now been ten Presidential debates and it is mostly recognised that they are not THE event that wins swing voters. Instead they act to gee-up people already committed to a cause and to encourage them to convince those who still remain undecided. They are soapbox speeches to an entire country
Format
So how do they work? Well, they have varied so much that I won’t run through all previous formats but I bet it will be no surprise to hear that they are subject to their own regulating board, the Commission on Presidential Debates, who make sure everything runs smoothly.
There will be 3 Presidential debates and one VP debate (which could really spark interest as people listen to Ryan. Biden will have to pull something out the bag to be remotely compelling). For tonight’s debate there will be no opening statements but both Obama and Romney will get 2 minutes to make closing comments. The debate will last 1-and-a-half hours and will be on domestic policy. There will most likely be around 6 main questions with each candidate having about 2 minutes to speak before deferring to the other. In contrast the second debate will be a ‘town-hall format’ with questions from the floor on both domestic and foreign policy, whilst the third will revert back to the debate format but be on foreign policy alone. Each debate has a moderator to field questions and make sure the candidates keep to their timings.
So what about tonight??
As mentioned above, tonight’s debate will be solely on domestic policy. There will be 4 main issues debated under various questions:
- The economy - Obama remains the President under whom the US debt rose more than all his predecessors combined. He sees growth in the statistics, Romney sees a country which desperately needs an economic overhaul to deal with its problems. He has published a full economic plan to heal the US and will be hoping to really catch Obama out. The President will need to reassure the People that his plan is working and that the US will rise out of the mire under his leadership.
- Healthcare – Obama is rightly proud of Obamacare, which will come into force slowly over the next 6 years or so. He hopes to show that people are better off under the new scheme than under the old, with better personal protection through universal insurance cover. Romney will aim to discredit the plan though he will have to do so carefully as he initiated a similar state-wide plan in Massachusetts when he was Governor there. He has to protect his image whilst not losing the Tea Party extremists who don’t like ‘socialist’ government interference. He still hasn’t definitively said what he’d do to Obamacare if elected, giving out different answers at different times.
- Immigration – Obama has consistently been supportive of the DREAM Act, which (in brief and if passed) would allow the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants currently in the country to claim citizenship. Seen as a liberal act of mercy to his friends and as a vote-grabbing tactic by his opponents, the decision could affect Obama’s popularity with swing voters. A recent scandal also won’t help the President. The death of a border agent was linked to a gun secretly smuggled into Mexico with Federal funding as part of a wider scheme to catch drug dealers. His Attorney General was held in contempt by the House of Representatives and Obama winced. Romney on the other hand must not appear to be a rich white man who hates Hispanics and Blacks. In places such as Florida he needs the Hispanic vote to win, whilst many are increasingly aware of his Mormon faith’s reluctance to accept Blacks into leadership positions until 1978.
- The role of government – this seeps into the other 3 but is crucial for all involved. It is very simple to water it down to Obama being in favour of big government and Romney wanting less government power and more States rights, but that simply won’t do. In reality, they are a mixture. Romney wants more Federal legislation on things like abortion and gay marriage, whilst he would need to get Federal approval for his opening the oil pipelines in Alaska. Obama would actually be in favour of small government on abortion and gay marriage, viewing them as individual and state issues before they are national ones (it deflects the blame) whilst he sees no need for the pipeline when the area is already protected by a National Park. So there is more to this one than meets the eye.
Finally...
So the debates are predictable events with
dipping viewing figures. It must therefore be asked, ‘Why are they important?’
(and ‘why have you read this far?’!). Well, as I mentioned before they will
mobilise supporters, both to get people behind their candidate and (especially
for Democrats) to get them to register to vote in the first plact on top of this they will also be a bit
of drama, a bit of theatre to supplement the campaign schedule. Both candidates
need to appear strong and coherent (neither want an ‘oops’ moment like Gov.
Perry in the GOP primaries) and so have gone into lots of debate prep sessions
against friends playing their opponent to form clear answers that deal with
issues well.
But on top of this they will also be a bit
of drama, a bit of theatre to supplement the campaign schedule. Both candidates
need to appear strong and coherent (neither want an ‘oops’ moment like Gov.
Perry in the GOP primaries) and so have gone into lots of debate prep sessions
against friends playing their opponent to form clear answers that deal with
issues well.
We will have to wait and see if Obama has
a shocker (a tradition for incumbents in the first debate), if Romney can
pounce on weakness, if Obama can mess up Mitt’s sums without confusing people
or embarrass him with social policy. I won’t be able to watch the debate but I
will watch a rerun tomorrow. The debates may not win either Romney or Obama the
election but they are too exciting to miss!!!
**Reminder – my good friend Joe 50 (http://wordsof50.blogspot.co.uk/) and I will publish state-by-state predictions on Friday. We're getting excited, even if no one else is!!!**
No comments:
Post a Comment