|
Edited on Thu Nov-19-09 02:04 AM by Drunken Irishman
Especially in extremely close races.
From my memory, there has been one major debate moment that has changed the foundation of a race.
2008 - Pres. Obama and McCain were really in a statistical tie entering the debates. Obama's worst issue - foreign policy - turned out to be his first debate win and it helped seal the deal because Americans became comfortable with the thought of him on the international stage. That was McCain's biggest trump card and when it was taken from him, he had to resort to bullshit character attacks that didn't stick with the American people. As the debates continued, Obama's lead slowly expanded.
2004 - This one is often overlooked, but Kerry was out of this race prior to the debate. Bush was piling on and opened up essentially a double-digit lead heading into the three debates. After the first debate, which Bush stumbled badly, Kerry erased a nine-point margin and pretty much found himself tied with Bush. That would not ease up for the rest of the campaign. Granted, he eventually lost, but had he performed poorly in that first debate, the race isn't even close and Bush probably wins re-election by a wide margin.
2000 - This was significant because Gore had slowly chipped away at Bush's massive lead he built throughout the summer and then the debates rolled around. Rightfully or not, Gore bombed. He might've won on substance, but in terms of style - he took a huge hit. The sighing really hurt him because it cemented the belief he was a bit out of touch and pompous. Then he invaded Bush's space in the town hall format and it just looked extremely awkward. Bush's response, a nod, played well to many Americans and it pretty much cost Gore any momentum he had gained out of the convention. Moreover, there weren't a ton of mistakes by Bush in that debate. Which isn't hard to see, because the media lowered the bar so low that he only needed to step over it to win the debate. Regardless, Gore stumbled and if it weren't for last-minute campaigning and Bush's social security flap (saying it wasn't a government-run program), along with that leaked DUI, the race probably is won by Bush by a comfortable margin.
1996 - There wasn't a moment I can think of. Dole handled a question about his age well, but Clinton followed it up better and negated any gain Dole could have received from it. Other than that, the debates were pretty uneventful, since Clinton was cruising to victory.
1992 - There was the watch moment, where Bush glanced at his watch. That stands out because it gave the perception he was going through the motions and really didn't want to be doing this. The worst thing you can do is have apathy toward running for president. I won't say it did him in as Clinton held a steady lead entering the debates, but it didn't help. And he clearly didn't succeed enough to erase the gap between the two.
1988 - Dukakis' death penalty question hurt him. Not sure if that did him in, but it didn't help.
1984 - There was one debate where Reagan did badly against Mondale. I'm not sure if it was the first or second (if there was a third, if not, it was the first). In that debate, he looked lost and rambled with his final answer. Polls showed a huge surge for Mondale that pretty much got him back into the race. Then the second debate came and Reagan delivered his zinger on how it wasn't about his age, rather the age of his ideas. That went over well and Reagan took hold of the race and won in a landslide. Had that debate not happened, who knows what the hell happens in the '84 election. Mondale certainly held his own with Reagan, but it was an uphill battle and Reagan prepared for the second debate far better than the first.
1980 - Carter didn't want to debate Reagan. Reagan talked Carter into it and then delivered the line, "there you go again..." and it sunk the Carter campaign. Reagan, like Obama, faced questions about his leadership ability on the international stage and in that debate was able to ease American worries and it was enough to take Carter's biggest issue away from him.
1976 - This race was probably different than any in modern American history. For starters, there was Nixon and Ford's pardon of Nixon. That didn't sit well with Americans and appeared to have doomed Ford from the start. Carter opened up a huge 20+ lead early in 1976 and looked like he'd coast to a landslide win.
However, Ford had a brilliant campaign strategy. Instead of going out and actually campaigning, he was just going to show the country what a stable leader he was. It worked. Especially with the Bicentennial. Carter's lead slowly evaporated and as fall rolled around, that once 20+ lead was down to single digits. By the time the debates rolled around, it was pretty much a tie and Ford had taken all the momentum into the final stretch.
Then he badly bumbled a question about Poland and the Russians - saying there was no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. That moment halted any momentum he had gained throughout the summer. It stalled his campaign and Carter was allowed to eek out a victory. Had he not said that, Ford wins that election. There is no doubt in my mind he wins that election because everything was going his way until that debate.
Of course, '76 was the first presidential debate since the Kenendy-Nixon debate in 60. You already mentioned that.
So, no, I think they are important. It just depends on the race and the context of it all.
|