Underdogs In Election History

Jimmy Carter grinned his way to victory over a gaffe-prone Gerald Ford, only to have Ronald Reagan take revenge in the next election, asking voters in a soon-to-unmistakable husky baritone,"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Tonight, John F. Kerry joins the realm of challengers to presidents, called upon to establish their fitness on the field of debate, in what history shows is a would-be president's best chance to prove he belongs in people's living rooms.

Kerry's opportunity is real: Since presidential debates resumed in 1976, three challengers have gone on to win the election and two have lost. In both cases the losers were thought to be too far behind when the debates began to have made up the difference.

Carter, Reagan, and Bill Clinton stood up against sitting presidents and soon became incumbents themselves.

Kerry does not come into tonight's debate with quite the same standing as those three. Carter's first opponent, Ford, was not a true incumbent, having taken over after Richard Nixon's resignation. Clinton was a fresh face after 12 years of Republican rule. And only Reagan in 1980 was arguably behind in the polls when he debated Carter.

But the history of presidential debates strongly confirms that such events provide Kerry's best chance to energize his campaign and raise fresh doubts about President Bush. With a few exceptions, such as Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1996, debates have helped the lesser-known figure more than his better-known rival.

"This is the challengers' chance to put themselves forward and say, 'You can put your trust in me. I can stand up at the same level as the incumbent can,'" said Boston University history professor Michael T. Corgan, who has observed presidential debates since 1960.