What Can Happen When Bush Meets Kerry
The incumbent president, besieged by a lagging economy and a major Middle East crisis, holds onto a small but sustained lead in the latest presidential election polls. The challenger, portrayed by his opposition as potentially dangerous to American security, seeks to prove to the nation that he has the leadership and vision to serve as
president. Finally, the candidates prepare for their first debate.
A description of the 2004 presidential campaign? Yes, but also a description of the 1980 presidential campaign. And that's good news for John Kerry as he and George W. Bush approach their first head-to-head debate on Sept. 30.
Nothing is more important in close presidential campaigns than televised debates. For Kerry, they offer an invaluable opportunity at exactly the right time to do what Ronald Reagan was able to do in his 1980 debate with President Carter: define himself and his positions, establish a presidential presence in a high-tension environment and reassure undecided voters and those slightly leaning against him that he'll responsibly and effectively defend American security.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter debated Ronald Reagan only once, just a week before the election. Polls indicated that Carter's lead, which had steadily grown to eight points a few weeks before the debate, was eroding. During that debate, Carter sought to picture a Reagan administration as dangerous to amplify Reagan's reputation as a belligerent ideologue. Similarly, Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other leading Republicans have tried to portray a Kerry presidency as unsafe because of Kerry's reputation for indecisive passiveness.
But in 1980 Reagan's debate performance, highlighted by his delivery of the now familiar electoral query, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" left millions with the impression of Reagan as a reasonable and informed man who could inspire confidence. This critical impression played a major role in propelling Reagan to a commanding 51-41 percent victory.
Other examples of how presidential debates have played an enormously influential role in American elections offer more hopeful evidence for Kerry that debate success could quickly boost his chances for victory. They also warn that weak debate performance would likely seal his defeat.
In 1976, polls found Jimmy Carter ahead by six points immediately before his first debate with Gerald Ford in late September, though that lead had dramatically dwindled from a 33-point margin in early July. Ford's momentum was then halted by his puzzling insistence that "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Carter won the election and later recalled, "If it hadn't been for the debates, I would have lost."
If Bush pulls a Ford-like blunder, Kerry will need immediately to take advantage of the unequaled power presidential debates pack in affecting the polls and ultimately determining the outcome of close elections. A clear and articulate rebuke to a glaring Bush gaffe would allow Kerry to craft an image as a poised and commanding leader while simultaneously strengthening doubts about Bush's competence and credibility.
Here's another example. In 1988, polls showed only a six-point lead for George H.W. Bush after his first debate with Michael Dukakis. Their second debate began with Dukakis fumbling a question about whether his opposition to the death penalty would change if his wife were raped and murdered. Post-debate opinion focused on how his response to that question reinforced his image as a passionless "ice man." Within a week, Bush's lead was 15 points, and he soon cruised to an easy victory.
For Kerry to win the debates and this election, it's essential that he not repeat Dukakis's mistake of reinforcing negative feelings already associated with him by voters. Above all, that means avoiding equivocations and long-winded, incoherent responses.
Let's take another example. Immediately prior to their first debate in 2000, the polls showed Vice President Gore with a two-point advantage over George W. Bush. After the debate, many pundits and viewers noted Gore's audible sighs and eye-rolling expressions during some of Bush's responses. These reactions damaged Gore's already tenuous likeability and within a week polls showed Bush with an eight-point lead. Though that lead evaporated in the final three weeks to the point where Bush actually lost the popular vote, it was close enough for him to win the election.
Instead of the exasperated huffiness of Gore, Kerry had better emulate other successful debaters such as John F. Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton, who conveyed a lively and genuine sense of enjoyment throughout the course of what are essentially ninety-minute job interviews in front of 40 to 50 million bosses.
If Kerry learns these lessons and emerges from the debates as the perceived winner, he will be able to count himself among other presidents of the electronic age who owe much of the credit for their victory to the unrivaled impact of televised debates.
A description of the 2004 presidential campaign? Yes, but also a description of the 1980 presidential campaign. And that's good news for John Kerry as he and George W. Bush approach their first head-to-head debate on Sept. 30.
Nothing is more important in close presidential campaigns than televised debates. For Kerry, they offer an invaluable opportunity at exactly the right time to do what Ronald Reagan was able to do in his 1980 debate with President Carter: define himself and his positions, establish a presidential presence in a high-tension environment and reassure undecided voters and those slightly leaning against him that he'll responsibly and effectively defend American security.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter debated Ronald Reagan only once, just a week before the election. Polls indicated that Carter's lead, which had steadily grown to eight points a few weeks before the debate, was eroding. During that debate, Carter sought to picture a Reagan administration as dangerous to amplify Reagan's reputation as a belligerent ideologue. Similarly, Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other leading Republicans have tried to portray a Kerry presidency as unsafe because of Kerry's reputation for indecisive passiveness.
But in 1980 Reagan's debate performance, highlighted by his delivery of the now familiar electoral query, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" left millions with the impression of Reagan as a reasonable and informed man who could inspire confidence. This critical impression played a major role in propelling Reagan to a commanding 51-41 percent victory.
Other examples of how presidential debates have played an enormously influential role in American elections offer more hopeful evidence for Kerry that debate success could quickly boost his chances for victory. They also warn that weak debate performance would likely seal his defeat.
In 1976, polls found Jimmy Carter ahead by six points immediately before his first debate with Gerald Ford in late September, though that lead had dramatically dwindled from a 33-point margin in early July. Ford's momentum was then halted by his puzzling insistence that "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Carter won the election and later recalled, "If it hadn't been for the debates, I would have lost."
If Bush pulls a Ford-like blunder, Kerry will need immediately to take advantage of the unequaled power presidential debates pack in affecting the polls and ultimately determining the outcome of close elections. A clear and articulate rebuke to a glaring Bush gaffe would allow Kerry to craft an image as a poised and commanding leader while simultaneously strengthening doubts about Bush's competence and credibility.
Here's another example. In 1988, polls showed only a six-point lead for George H.W. Bush after his first debate with Michael Dukakis. Their second debate began with Dukakis fumbling a question about whether his opposition to the death penalty would change if his wife were raped and murdered. Post-debate opinion focused on how his response to that question reinforced his image as a passionless "ice man." Within a week, Bush's lead was 15 points, and he soon cruised to an easy victory.
For Kerry to win the debates and this election, it's essential that he not repeat Dukakis's mistake of reinforcing negative feelings already associated with him by voters. Above all, that means avoiding equivocations and long-winded, incoherent responses.
Let's take another example. Immediately prior to their first debate in 2000, the polls showed Vice President Gore with a two-point advantage over George W. Bush. After the debate, many pundits and viewers noted Gore's audible sighs and eye-rolling expressions during some of Bush's responses. These reactions damaged Gore's already tenuous likeability and within a week polls showed Bush with an eight-point lead. Though that lead evaporated in the final three weeks to the point where Bush actually lost the popular vote, it was close enough for him to win the election.
Instead of the exasperated huffiness of Gore, Kerry had better emulate other successful debaters such as John F. Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton, who conveyed a lively and genuine sense of enjoyment throughout the course of what are essentially ninety-minute job interviews in front of 40 to 50 million bosses.
If Kerry learns these lessons and emerges from the debates as the perceived winner, he will be able to count himself among other presidents of the electronic age who owe much of the credit for their victory to the unrivaled impact of televised debates.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
Related Links: