Closing arguments: do presidential debates matter?

This is it: the home stretch. If there is still anyone out there who has not decided which way to vote, the debates are one of the final chances to see both candidates, side by side, talking about their visions, their hopes, their plans for the future.

And while viewing figures might have declined since the golden days when there was nothing else on, tens of millions of people will still be tuning in, ready to make some kind of relatively informed judgement.

At least, that is the idea. Except just like everything else in modern politics, the debates have become part of a highly nuanced strategic game, where each side talks down their own chances and promotes their opponent, just to show how well they can defy expectations on the night.

Take Karl Rove, uber-strategist, back in 2000, when he described George W Bush’s rival Al Gore as “the world’s most pre-eminent debater, a man who is more proficient at hand-to-hand debate combat than anybody the world has ever seen”.

Against that benchmark, Gore’s stiff guestures – the eye rolling and all the guff about his lock-box – could not even hope to compete.

This year, the Barack Obama folks have been busy briefing about how unprepared the president is, seeing as his mind has been on other things. Like running the country. Whereas poor old Mitt Romney has been coming under all kinds of pressure about this being his “make or break” moment.

“A break even or a so-so performance would subject Romney to a self-reinforcing cycle of criticism and pessimism,” thundered Politico, while the ever helpful Newt Gingrich declared that the first debate would be “the most important single event in Mitt Romney’s political career”.

But political scientists who have conducted exhaustive surveys of every debate since 1960, when the televised encounters first began, have found not a shred of evidence showing they make any difference at all to an election outcome.

“There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates,” admitted James Stimson after ploughing through data going back 40 years.

A character thing

But what debates have done is help voters understand more about the candidates: how they interact with each other, how they cope under pressure, how they engage with the public and think on their feet.

And, of course, there is always the hope that they will provide one of those magic moments that will go down in political folklore for decades to come. We have been mining our archives and have posted reports from some of those golden years on our website – just click on each link to go straight through to the videos.

Starting with that very first formal debate between Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy, when, according to popular legend, television viewers who saw Nixon’s five o’clock shadow and sweaty face thought Kennedy emerged the winner, whereas those who merely listened on the radio thought Nixon aced it.

It could be coincidence, but Kennedy managed to surge ahead of Nixon right afterwards: perhaps he had just managed to reveal his character to millions who had no idea who he was, perhaps this was just the beginning of a political era which would prize image far above substance.

When the TV debates resumed in 1976, Gerald Ford’s blunder certainly lost him face, if not actual votes. If you are too young to remember, Ford managed to get his foreign policy facts completely wrong, declaring: “There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and there never will be, under a Ford administration.”

By 1980, though, the tables were turned, and the wry humour of Ronald Reagan left Carter trailing in the likeability stakes. Reagan was at it again in 1984, teasing Walter Mondale about the age issue: “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue in this campaign,” deadpanned the president. “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

It was in 1988 that things got even more memorable. First, the hapless Michael Dukakis, felled by a question from George Bush about whether he would approve of the death penalty for someone who had raped and murdered his wife.

Dukakis insisted he did not endorse the death penalty under any circumstances. It is what he believed, but voters did not like him for it. However this was also one of those rare years when the vice-presidential candidates became newsworthy.

Faced with the hapless Dan Quayle routinely comparing himself, somewhat ludicrously, to John F Kennedy, his veteran Democratic opponent Lloyd Bentsen was devastating: “I know Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was my friend. And Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

The debate of 1992 was the first to feature a third candidate, when independent Ross Perot appeared alongside Bill Clinton and George Bush, who spent most of the time attacking each other, while Perot won plaudits for appearing above the fray. Not that it helped him win many votes.

Like this current election year, the incumbent Bill Clinton was keen to play down the importance of his 1996 debates against Bob Dole: riding comfortably in the polls, his advisers felt there was nothing to gain from giving Dole more prominence on the national scene, while the Republicans were hoping their man would push Clinton into slipping up. It did not happen.

Like ’em or lump ’em

With two new candidates facing each other in 2000, things got a lot more significant. This time, it was the down-home, aw-shucks familiarity from George Bush that sent a signal to voters that he was a guy they could be comfortable with, whereas Al Gore came across all aloof and uncomfortable.

John Kerry, already fighting off an image of a rich, patrician elitist, could not hope to compete on the likeability stakes four years later. Despite the fact that his a grasp of detail that was hazy at best, it was round two to George Bush.

Which brings us to Barack Obama: he debated John McCain three times in 2008, appearing cool and confident, especially when he was talking about the economic collapse. More than 40 million people watched their encounters on TV, although there was no real “zinger” moment for anyone to get excited about.

This time you can expect a deluge of instant analyis, as pundits and voters race to their smartphones to live-tweet or comment on the debates as they happen. Already, we are told, most voters expect Obama will win. Tough news for his advisers, who have been desperate to damp down expectations.

As for Romney, he is adopting a rather risky strategy of his own, according to the New York Times: “Mr Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorised and has been practising on aides since August.”

Rehearsing jokes since August? Whatever happened to the sponteneity of natural wit? No place for that, it seems, in these image-obsessed times. And for that, you might have televised debates to blame.

Felicity Spector writes about US politics for Channel 4 News.