talkpolitics | All the hype about the debates

Here's a thought. Is it just me, or the influence of the presidential TV debates looks overly pumped up? I mean, those debates are presented as if they're somehow expected to turn everything on its head before the election. As if nothing of what had happened over the last months is of any importance any more. Well, when was the last time a TV debate caused a complete 180'? And, while we're at it, when has any VP debate affected the main battle between the presidential candidates?

OK, in all fairness, there are a few very notable exceptions from the rule. Probably the only VP candidate that made such an impact was Lyndon Johnson in 1960. But neither Dan Quayle, nor Geraldine Ferraro, not even George HW Bush (as Reagan's VP) had such a significance for their respective campaigns. And Sarah Palin only confirmed what everybody already knew in 2008: that there was no way Obama would've lost.

Come to think of it, it's too difficult to say for sure what exactly affects the undecided voters during a campaign. Even in a presumably polarized election like this one, where both candidates have said that "we're standing at a very clear choice". I.e. two contrasting ideological concepts. But let's face it, the media debates in their current version are a pale shadow of what they used to be in 1960, and they're fast losing of their significance. Today, when most of the media is about spin and talking points, pretending that two separate press conferences of the two candidates (where the main points are watered down, perfumed and served in a neat, pre-rehearsed package) constitute a "debate" in any way, is a farce. Most discussion elements are stripped down. The candidates are concerned more about appearing presidente-ey, rather than presenting something of substance.

And the same applies to this type of TV duels where each of the candidates recites pre-written stanzas in response to a pre-selected set of questions. Not to mention that very often they're forced to squeeze their positions into tiny 1-2 minute bits where such complex subjects like the economy, health care, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Iranian nuclear program are impossible to dig into. They only scratch the surface of the issues, they don't have time to get to essentials (like Clinton did in that speech at the Democratic convention), and they certainly don't dare to stray too much into tangents or paddle into dangerous waters where they could potentially do some stupid mistake and extend their list of gaffes. (And the gotcha-journalists are sure to stalk for those as soon as anyone opens their mouth).

It's become clear that such a debate format gives little opportunity for a nuanced elaboration of positions. It all boils down to an "express" exchange of remarks, and the repetition of well rehearsed soundbites, designed for a single purpose: hitting the subject right on the head, and staying on course, with no chance of deviations, and no potential slip-ups.

That said, we-the-public who for the most part behave like virtual vultures, are just waiting for any of the candidates to "discover" a non-existing country somewhere in the world, or add 7 new states to the list of US states, or forget the name of the department they mean to shut down, or to shock the audience by proclaiming themselves the ultimate expert on the history of the Soviet Union. And all that explains why ever since 1960 when the famous Nixon v Kennedy debate happened, the public's fascination with these presidential TV duels has steadily declined. Even despite all the showbiz-style efforts of the TV anchors to turn it into some kind of reality show.

But still, I have no doubt that millions of Americans (and even people in Europe who'll have to stay awake until the small hours) will be watching the first debate today. Maybe hoping to witness a major meltdown of one (or both) of the candidates, while pretending to be listening "because we care about the issues".

Why is that? Because this election will be very closely contested, that's why. And in such situations, it's natural to expect that the final outcome would be at least partially affected by the debates. There's a sense that even the tiniest remark, or the smallest but very smart rebuttal, could get overhyped and "go viral" to an extent that it'd sway the vote. We've seen what a small Youtube video could do, after all. There's also this: maybe those who still haven't decided how they'd vote (if at all) are still holding some hopes that they'd see what Romney is really about, whether his policies are really as dangerous as some are presenting them to be, and whether he has the necessary economic competence that's expected of a president. In other words: does he look like a presidential material or not.

And lastly, but most importantly, the TV debates on October 3, 16 and 22 could have some importance only if the two candidates are still close in the polls by that time. If one of them (probably Obama) takes a too big lead, the effect could be like an avalanche of withdrawn support from Romney. There was a sense of doom about McCain's candidacy back in 2008, mostly due to Obama's irresistible aura of Hopey-Change. Now that there's no trace from that hype remaining, it's all about Jobs Jobs Jobs, etc.

The super large poll margin was the reason why nobody cared particularly much about the TV debates between Reagan and Mondale in 1984, or the Dole v Clinton debates in 1996. By the time the debates came, the press was already writing obituaries about the doomed candidacies and odes to the winners, long before the poll stations were opened. But if this month Romney puts a dent in Obama's rhetorical armor (which would equal a miracle), then maybe I'd be prepared to stand corrected.