Debate Prep for the Rest of Us
Bracing ourselves for disaster, no matter where we land on the political spectrum.
The first presidential debate of the 2024 election will be on Thursday, June 27. The candidates are doing their debate prep, so maybe we, as good citizens, should do our own prep.
But first, a little detour into what we might call the rhetoric of political debates. Oddly, presidential and vice-presidential debates rarely have a significant impact on the election. Unless something unusual happens.
So, what might happen in the upcoming debate that could potentially influence the election?
A candidate could simply look bad. The 1960 debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon is the most famous example. Nixon was the more experienced politician, and many voters were not sure that they should take young Kennedy seriously. It was also the first televised presidential debate. Nixon’s suit blended into the background and sweat formed on his upper lip. Kennedy wore the right shade of suit, and he seemed comfortable in the relatively new medium.
No candidate would repeat Nixon’s mistake. It is hard to imagine a visual image, like Nixon’s sweaty upper lip, that will affect the outcome of any election. Even a fly parking on the top of Pence’s head in his 2020 VP debate against Kamala Harris did not seem to have much impact. Pence himself didn’t seem to notice the fly feeding on his forehead for what seemed like minutes.
In terms of optics, Trump might slur his words or ramble incoherently enough for viewers, especially swing voters, to believe the conjectures that he is in the early stages of dementia. Biden might come across as physically frail and confirm, as many voters already believe, that he is too old.
A candidate might do something right. Usually, this is nothing more than a zinger, like Lloyd Bentsen’s “You’re no Jack Kennedy” line. Or, when Reagan said, in his debate against the younger Walter Mondale, that he wouldn’t “exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Mondale was fifty-six. Reagan, who was considered old 1984, was seventy-three, considerably younger than both Trump and Biden.
Candidates now prepare zingers in advance, but the lines usually come across as rehearsed, awkward, and inauthentic. They rarely seem to have an effect, even though our political discourse has been reduced to sound bites. Any zinger will be lost in a sea of Tweets.
I think we are more likely to see an old-fashioned zinger from Biden, but it won’t resonate. Trump will almost certainly hurl insult after insult, almost with no effect.
A candidate might make a blunder that resonates with the public, like Ford’s blunder in the 1976 debate against Carter. Defending his support of the recent Helsinki Accords, Ford said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” When asked to clarify his position, he said, “I don’t believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union.” Many believe this gaffe cost Ford the election. Now, I cannot image a comment like this vibrating in our collective memory for more than a few seconds.
Actually, I cannot imagine that any blunder will even be recognized as a blunder. Trump will almost certainly be making stuff up on the fly. Biden will almost certainly have trouble with a few names. Whatever is said, blunder or not, will be distorted and spun on social media platforms. The spin doctors, surrogates who attempt to influence how reporters write about the debate, will be about as effective as a maniac murmuring into a gale force wind in the desert. They will not be able to compete with the nut jobs and bots on social media.
There will likely be blunders, many of them significant, judging by the standard of Ford’s 1976 gaffe. None of them, I expect, will be significant.
A candidate can exceed or fail to meet expectations. In 1992, James Stockdale, a retired Vice Admiral and war hero, was Ross Perot’s running mate on a third-party ticket. The expectation was that he wouldn’t be as good as Gore, Clinton’s VP candidate, or even Quayle, Bush’s VP, the one who had trouble spelling “potato,” but most reporters thought Stockdale would muddle though, especially when VP debates matter even less than presidential debates. However, Stockdale, who was apparently in the early stages of dementia, was simply incoherent. It was painful to watch. He didn’t even meet low expectations.
Most voters, I believe, have rather low expectations for both candidates. If Biden exceeds this low mark, as he did during his last State of the Union address, that could make a difference. If Trump shot one of the moderators, on stage rather than on Fifth Avenue, I don’t think it would change many votes.
These are the exceptions that might move the needle—the zinger, the blunder, and significantly violating expectations, up or down.
As I wrote at the beginning of this post, debates rarely do much more than give a candidate a slight and fleeting bump in the polls. Throughout this post, I have been downplaying the importance of presidential debates. I am certain that we will not witness something like the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Alas. But, this year, the debate might actually have an impact. We could witness a single disaster for one of the candidates or parallel disasters for both of them, something like what we saw with James Stockdale squared.
Trump will almost certainly rant and ramble, probably nonsensically. Less predictable is how he will find his flow without an audience or how he will react to having his microphone cut off when his time is up. Trump’s best strategy might be to control his anger.
The setting and the set of rules for the debate do not favor Trump’s style. It will be nothing like a MAGA rally. If he tries to speak as if he were in a MAGA rally, his words might not be received in the same way.
Biden will probably be more knowledgeable and reasonable, but none of this will likely matter. If he has a bad moment or two, a mental lapse or a long blank stare, he might lose the presidency. Biden’s most effective strategy might be to simply come across as normal.
What will be different about this debate, regardless of our politics, is that most of us will watch eyes wide, jaw clinched. We will be fearing disaster for our candidate and, if we are honest, hoping the other guy falls apart. Not that he makes a simple gaffe, but that he disintegrates before our eyes and has to be led offstage. This is undemocratic.
I don’t want to watch, but I will. I hope that can listen to both candidates with an open mind, but I might not pull it off. This, too, is undemocratic.
So, how should we prep for the first debate? Gather friends around for emotional support and stock up on alcohol. Practice slow breathing and learn the following phrase: “Serenity now.”
But seriously, how do we prep ourselves?
On this site, I have been arguing that we need to revive and maintain democratic discourse. Too many of us, myself included, have avoided talking about politics because it is too volatile. We say that we want to save our democracy, but we fail to engage those who do not share our beliefs. This, too, is undemocratic.
I wrote “engage”—not argue with. This is what I would like to suggest as a way to prep for the debates, especially if you will be watching with some friends or family who do not share your beliefs.
Don’t bother to study facts or policy. Instead, spend time journaling about your fears, your values, and the life events that have formed who you are, now, at this point in your life.
I would also listen to some past presidential debates on YouTube. We need to remind ourselves of what a normal debate looks like and how far we have departed from it.
After the debate, don’t worry about correcting the facts or discussing policy. Speak from the heart. Talk to your family and friends about your fears. Discuss your values. Share some life stories, little brief anecdotes, that will help them to relate to where you stand. Talk to them like you respect them and love them. Begin with “I”. Avoid “you.”
The most important debate will not be televised. It will happen with family and friends.