When Vice President Joe Biden and Paul Ryan face off Thursday night, they'll be the latest to take part in a long line of election debates on the national stage.
The first televised presidential debate was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy met Vice President Richard Nixon in front of an audience of 70 million viewers. Kennedy was smooth, tanned, and calm as ever. Nixon was sweaty, sick, and refusing makeup. Maybe you can guess who came across more agreeable to viewers at home.
At that early stage, it was perhaps hard to imagine how much of an impact televised debates would have on national elections. Actually seeing the candidates made not only what they said important, but how they looked while saying it. Can you imagine Joe Biden or Paul Ryan refusing makeup before stepping on stage tonight? Though this history of televised debates is a relatively short one, there is no shortage of gaffes, zingers and impressive performances.
Looking back, one of the most common debate criticisms is when a candidate seems unaware or out of touch. In 1976, for example, Gerald Ford claimed, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." It was a declaration so inexplicable that moderator Max Frankel of The New York Times had to interrupt: "Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence?"
This same criticism was leveled at George H.W. Bush in 1992, when he repeatedly checked his watch during a town hall debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. It looked like Bush had other places to be, like the debate didn't warrant his time.
On the other hand, candidates should be careful of seeming too aggressive. Al Gore sighed several times during his debate with George W. Bush in 2000, and the sound was picked up by his microphone. It came across to some viewers as being arrogant, a feeling that was reinforced when Gore seemed to invade Bush's personal space in the following debate.
In 1980 and '84, Ronald Reagan landed a few memorable zingers on his opponents Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. In response to a question about whether he was too old to perform the duties of president, Reagan said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Such wit and comedic timing Reagan no doubt learned during his years as an actor.
A strong performance can warm you to the electorate and a bad performance can do the opposite. Though, debate performances are not always decisive of who will win the election. Take, for example, John Kerry's strong showing in 2004; he might've "won" the debates, but he ultimately lost the election.
With an estimated 60 million people tuning in this time around, it's a unique chance to make an impression.
Leave a Comment:
Seems to me you are setting your hopes that the electorate is guided more by style over substance, O'Donnell. Your guy does has style...but lately it has been as much disdainful and disinterested as well as lacking in any substance. The days of getting elected on platitudes such as HOPE and CHANGE, are well behind us. The Obama guy that can only seem to show an interest in being relected when he is before a crowd of non discerning youth or union members cheering his every word mechanically is unable to promote his record of failures and lack of any credible plan for the future, so future debates between he and Romney are going to go the same way as the First Debate last week.
So you are saying that Mitt R. will come up with another stack of lies or maybe he is telling the truth and has duped all of conservative base. Don't be too sure. He played the same game in Mass where he developed Romney Care.
Hmmm...highly reminiscent of those coal miners who were told to stand behind Romney during a stump speech, giving the impression that they support him. The mine owner told them they had to do it, but without pay for the day. Look at their wooden expressions...that tells the whole story.
Or...how about David Siegel, founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts who threatened to fire some of his 7,000 employees if Obama is reelected? And his company is doing so-o-o well these days, too. Is this an example of the Republican version of democracy or voter integrity where the boss tries to influence how you vote? My, my...
Seems to be the case in some circles...
Oh...Keith...I'm still waiting for you to post some proof of your allegation that a couple of economists at the BLS cooked the latest unemployment numbers in favor of Obama. It's been the better part of a week now, and you still have offered nothing to support the assertion that you stated multiple times.
I guess I'm just going to have to assume that you tried to spin yet another lie.
Have you seen the polls in Southeastern Ohio Counties, and throughout West Virginia and Kentucky and Tennessee where coal is mined, fool? I believe I know where the majority of coal miners and the other residents of those economically stricken counties by the policies of "War on Coal" of this pie in the sky dreamer of "green energy" Obama will be placing their support at the election polls. And Siegel never said anything about firing workers, he stated that he would not put himself and his hard earned money at risk in any further expansion if the "raise the taxes on the rich to redistribute the wealth fool" presently in the White House gets reelected, but would prefer to harbor his resources and retire to a pool side chair in the sun, and live the good life instead. That would certainly be a loss for those who hoped to be working for Westgate Resorts, but hell, Obama will take care of them with extended Unemployment Insurance, free Medicaid health care, and Food Stamps, at least until the Chinese stopped loaning money to him, just as he has with the other huge group of of unemployed during his four years in office. Whoopee! Its the good life for all!
The only polls that count are the ones after the election, so you can spout all you want about certain polls...it means nothing. And you still didn't refute the image of those miners standing behind Romney or the reason why they were there...because you can't. Hard to fight facts with your opinions, isn't it?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/28/coal-miners-say-they-were-forced-to-attend-romney-event-and-donate/
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-camp-donor-accused-racketeering-we-lot-charges-away.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/05/966981/coal-workers-say-murray-energy-coerces-them-to-make-gop-donations-if-you-dont-contribute-your-jobs-at-stake/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mitt-romney-to-donor-accused-of-racketeering-we-get-a-lot-of-charges-this-will-go-away/question-3235585/
As for Siegel, the facts are different from your attempted spin, but what else is new? You can mince details with what words were used, but in the end, it's all the same.
http://money.msn.com/politics/post.aspx?post=9c5331b5-72e8-4657-bccc-a3d84c72ff29&ocid=ansmony11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/david-siegel-email_n_1951801.html
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/10/wealthy-resort-developer-tells-employees-reelection-president-obama-will-endanger-your-job/pCSHNpK8I2dxtSSdSqJ0yJ/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-10/why-david-siegel-told-his-employees-to-vote-for-romney
You probably won't read the info contained in the above links as it runs counter to your ideology, but perhaps before the next time you come sputtering out like a little wet conservative hen, you should read them. That way, you'll actually have a clue to some basic reality concerning these "upstanding" Republicans and their dubious ethics.
Still no support for your rant about the BLS economists, eh? Your "reputation", meager to begin with, continues to sink more and more each day in direct correspondence to the lies you toss out.
Zero credibility...zero factual supporting documentation. I'm beginning to think your self-professed ability to "synthesize" the news has crashed...if you really ever had it.
And you being such a "learned man" and all...reminds me of that saying about Romney..."he shoots first and aims after".
Can't research the info for yourself? Try economists Harley Frecais of Betheseda, Maryland and Stephen Peterson of Washington, D.C. both BLS employees named as contributors to Obama campaigns of over the small donators of under $200 which got them listed, and in the case of the former, $9,000 to the DNC over the last three election cycles
See...that wasn't so hard was it? You should try it more often. But, as usual, you're all wet as far as accuracy goes with your response. The names you wanted were "Harley Frazis" and "Stephen Phillips"...geeesh...are you always this poor in your "synthesizing"? Searching on the names YOU gave returned the same amount of "proof" that supports your theory...nothing.
Noted that your source(s) is/(are) purely right-wing, and that's probably why you didn't bother to list them (I noted where you copied their text from), but the fact that they've donated money to Obama does nothing to prove that they "cooked the books" on the unemployment numbers, as you contend. That's a stretch...but maybe not so much for you. Seems to be just another FOX conspiracy theory that got you all mavericky and stupidly made you think you held the high ground, so you're left with...no proof...absolutely none at all. Gee-whiz, Keith...and you thought you were so-o-o close!
What's this??? It seems that one of the people you noted isn't even a BLS employee anymore! Oh, what will you ever do now?
But let me offer a little something of my own for you to gnash your teeth on:
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/10/05/conservative-media-add-obama-donations-to-their/190420
Better luck next time...ol' "learned man".
Just trying to make it hard on you to find the information. So I see it wasn't so hard for you to look it up yourself, fool! LOL!
And mediamatters? That George Soros fifth collumn? You've got to be kidding me! You read that Soros propoganda spin?
It was your story...you defend it, which you still haven't done and don't seem capable of doing. All you've offered is conjecture...not a single bit of substantive proof whatsoever to support your...theory, but then, you couldn't even get the names correctly. Are your "cut-and-paste" skills eroding along with your hearing?
You can argue with the messenger all you want...it doesn't change the message. You lied about the fudging of the BLS numbers...and your lie died.
Keith goes down in flames...again.
What can we learn from past Presidential Debates, that were then to have substantial bearing on their Presidencies?
I think it would be quite foolish to have these distracting performances, to vote on them, and to assume all will be well.
How much longer can the economy follow such a fool's errand before we don’t have an economy to fool with.
*