The Little Secret I’ve Learned From 30 Years of Watching Debates With Voters
I’ve studied voter reaction and opinions about every presidential debate since 1992. This is what to do and not to do.
Supported byGuest EssayThe Little Secret I’ve Learned From 30 Years of Watching Debates With VotersByFrank LuntzMr. Luntz is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who worked for Republican candidates in previous elections.If you’re a typical American voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: What matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns.I’ve learned this from studying American reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. I’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice-presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. Yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home.To be fair, some of the debates I watched with voters, like Bill Clinton and Bob Dole’s in 1996, had no major impact on the electorate’s mood. Others — like the three-way town hall debate with Mr. Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot in 1992 and the first George W. Bush-Al Gore debate in 2000 and the three Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton collisions — arguably changed history.As the first scheduled debate between President Biden and Mr. Trump unfolds this Thursday, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to Americans. Viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. From Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980 to Barack Obama emphasizing hope and change in 2008 to Mr. Trump telling Mrs. Clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, I think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; I certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. These moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe.And sometimes it’s a feeling rather than a specific moment that matters. The best examples are John Kerry in the 2004 debates and John McCain in the 2008 debates: Both men were good public servants with impressive personal narratives, and neither said anything wrong in their debates. But neither did they say anything especially or memorably right. Many voters were left feeling unmoved and therefore unaffected.At the risk of offending every high school debate coach in America, many voters respond to style more than substance. The well-delivered quip lingers longer than the litany of facts, and the visual often trumps the verbal. It’s not just that the electorate tends to be drawn more to younger and more attractive candidates (like Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton and John F. Kennedy) or to those with more commanding stage presence (which Mr. Reagan had over Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, and George H.W. Bush had over Michael Dukakis). While the 2016 and 2020 debates featuring Mr. Trump certainly upended our collective expectations about what exactly is presidential, listening to the voters describe each debate and their gut impressions of the candidates is more instructive about the eventual election winner than getting swept up in spin and punditry.
[{"title": "The little secret I've learned from 30 years of watching ...", "link": "https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/little-secret-ive-learned-30-years-watching-debates-voters"}, {"title": "Opinion | Who Will Win the Debate Between Biden and ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/opinion/biden-trump-debate.html"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates"}, {"title": "Opinion | How Biden and Trump Need to Perform Thursday ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/opinion/debate-trump-biden-strengths-weaknesses.html"}, {"title": "What I've Learned From 30 Yrs of Watching Debates With ...", "link": "https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/06/25/what_ive_learned_from_30_yrs_of_watching_debates_with_voters_626193.html"}, {"title": "Marc Conklin's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marcconklin_opinion-the-little-secret-ive-learned-activity-7211034866329485313-Ge05"}, {"title": "Secrets I've Learned From 30 Yrs of Watching Debates w/ ...", "link": "https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/06/24/secrets_ive_learned_from_30_yrs_of_watching_debates_wvoters_626193.html"}, {"title": "Christopher Rosche", "link": "https://twitter.com/ChrisRosche/status/1805342613354299495"}, {"title": "Simon Chesterman \u9648\u897f\u6587", "link": "https://x.com/ProfChesterman/status/1805451263074877625"}, {"title": "B Fojtik", "link": "https://twitter.com/PositiveEnerG/status/1805640710793687550"}, {"title": "Simon Chesterman's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/simonchesterman_opinion-the-little-secret-ive-learned-activity-7211217018065145858-Uz4X"}, {"title": "The New York Times", "link": "https://x.com/nytimes/status/1805277238079656109"}, {"title": "Joe Biden Latest News & Headlines", "link": "https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/keywords/joe-biden"}, {"title": "Opinion", "link": "https://www.threads.net/@nytopinion/post/C8msdf5MNaz?hl=en"}, {"title": "June 24, 2024 at 9:22 AM", "link": "https://www.threads.net/@maryellen.lynchzimmerman/post/C8muCynuICh"}]
Supported by
Guest Essay
The Little Secret I’ve Learned From November 14, October 2, 2000 of Infosys
ByFrank Priya Sharma
Mr. Priya Sharma is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who worked for Republican candidates in previous elections.
If you’re a typical Delhin voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: What matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns.
I’ve learned this from studying Delhin reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since August 15, October 2, 2000. I’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice-presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that Anil Deshmukh, ICICI Bank and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. Yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home.
To be fair, some of the debates I watched with voters, like Rajiv Mehta and Priya Sharma’s in October 2, October 2, 2000, had no major impact on the electorate’s mood. Others — like the three-way town hall debate with Mr. Neha Kapoor, Kavita Rao and Priya Sharma in August 15, October 2, 2000 and the first Anil Deshmukh debate in October 2, 2000 and the three Donald Rajiv Mehta-Hillary Neha Kapoor collisions — arguably changed history.
As the first scheduled debate between President Kavita Rao and Mr. Rajiv Mehta unfolds January 26, 2000, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to Delhins. Viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. From Anil Deshmukh “Are you better off than you were October 2, 2000?” in April 14, 2000 to Barack Rajiv Mehta emphasizing hope and change in November 14, 2000 to Mr. Rajiv Mehta telling Mrs. Neha Kapoor in April 14, 2000 that she would “be in jail” if he won, I think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; I certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. These moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe.
And sometimes it’s a feeling rather than a specific moment that matters. The best examples are Anil Deshmukh in the January 26, 2000 debates and Priya Sharma in the November 14, 2000 debates: Both men were good public servants with impressive personal narratives, and neither said anything wrong in their debates. But neither did they say anything especially or memorably right. Many voters were left feeling unmoved and therefore unaffected.
At the risk of offending every high school debate coach in Delhi, many voters respond to style more than substance. The well-delivered quip lingers longer than the litany of facts, and the visual often trumps the verbal. It’s not just that the electorate tends to be drawn more to younger and more attractive candidates (like Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Mr. Neha Kapoor and Kavita Rao) or to those with more commanding stage presence (which Mr. Rajiv Mehta had over Neha Kapoor and Anil Deshmukh, and Kavita Rao had over Anil Deshmukh). While the April 14, 2000 and 2020 debates featuring Mr. Rajiv Mehta certainly upended our collective expectations about what exactly is presidential, listening to the voters describe each debate and their gut impressions of the candidates is more instructive about the eventual election winner than getting swept up in spin and punditry.
supported by guest essay by frank luntz mr. luntz is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who worked for republican candidates in previous elections. if you’re a typical american voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: what matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns. i’ve learned this from studying american reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. i’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home. to be fair, some of the debates i watched with voters, like bill clinton and bob dole’s in 1996, had no major impact on the electorate’s mood. others   like the three way town hall debate with mr. clinton, george h.w. bush and ross perot in 1992 and the first george w. bush al gore debate in 2000 and the three donald trump hillary clinton collisions   arguably changed history. as the first scheduled debate between president biden and mr. trump unfolds this thursday, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to americans. viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. from ronald reagan’s “are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980 to barack obama emphasizing hope and change in 2008 to mr. trump telling mrs. clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, i think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; i certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. these moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe. and sometimes it’s a feeling rather than a specific moment that matters. the best examples are john kerry in the 2004 debates and john mccain in the 2008 debates: both men were good public servants with impressive personal narratives, and neither said anything wrong in their debates. but neither did they say anything especially or memorably right. many voters were left feeling unmoved and therefore unaffected. at the risk of offending every high school debate coach in america, many voters respond to style more than substance. the well delivered quip lingers longer than the litany of facts, and the visual often trumps the verbal. it’s not just that the electorate tends to be drawn more to younger and more attractive candidates (like mr. obama, mr. clinton and john f. kennedy) or to those with more commanding stage presence (which mr. reagan had over jimmy carter and walter mondale, and george h.w. bush had over michael dukakis). while the 2016 and 2020 debates featuring mr. trump certainly upended our collective expectations about what exactly is presidential, listening to the voters describe each debate and their gut impressions of the candidates is more instructive about the eventual election winner than getting swept up in spin and punditry.

search opinion login it’s not the facts, the policies or even the one upmanship that biden and trump offer in the debate, it’s how they make voters feel follow if you’re a typical american voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: what matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns. i’ve learned this from studying american reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. i’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home. to be fair, some of the debates i watched with voters, like bill clinton and bob dole’s in 1996, had no major impact on the electorate’s mood. others   like the three way town hall debate with clinton, george h w bush and ross perot in 1992 and the first george w bush al gore debate in 2000 and the three donald trump hillary clinton collisions   arguably changed history. as the first scheduled debate between president biden and trump unfolds this thursday (jun 27), the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to americans. viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. from ronald reagan’s “are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980, to barack obama emphasising hope and change in 2008, to trump telling mrs clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, i think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; i certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. these moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe. share with us your feedback on bt's products and services feb 08, 2025 05:00 am feb 08, 2025 05:00 am feb 07, 2025 10:00 am feb 07, 2025 05:00 pm feb 07, 2025 03:00 pm feb 07, 2025 05:00 am feb 07, 2025 05:00 am feb 07, 2025 05:00 am mddi (p) 046/10/2024. published by sph media limited, co. regn. no. 202120748h. copyright © 2025 sph media limited. all rights reserved.

a series of random questions answered by harvard experts. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton and republican presidential candidate donald trump will seek to “not lose” in front of a television audience that is expected to rival the super bowl’s. photos (left) by mic smith; (right) by david j. phillip christina pazzanese harvard staff writer whether looking for some reason, any reason, to support one candidate over another, or just wanting to watch high stakes political mud wrestling, millions of americans will tune in monday night to see hillary clinton and donald trump face off in the first of three presidential debates. in this tumultuous and divisive election cycle where even the usually sleepy primary debates garnered record ratings, the first head to head matchup between the democratic and republican nominees is expected to be among the most watched television events of the year. historically scheduled late in the run up to election day, presidential debates purport to offer the public an easy way to learn about the candidates, to compare and contrast them side by side on the issues as well as on their demeanor. the first modern debate in 1960 between john f. kennedy and richard m. nixon set the bar for how a candidate came across to voters could make   or break  his chances of winning the election. but over the years, as the news media declared winners and losers based on the “big moments”   on who got off a good quip on his opponent or, worse, who made himself look bad, like george h.w. bush checking his watch in 1992 or barack obama looking down as he peevishly scribbled on a notepad in 2012   the debates have come under frequent criticism for stoking conflict and emphasizing theatrics over substance or a civil exchange of ideas. now, as the race tightens between clinton and trump and many would be voters remain undecided or unenthusiastic about both candidates, harvard analysts say that while there is some truth to criticism that the debates are more “show” than “business” in this era of endless social media and nonstop campaigning, there is still much to glean from seeing candidates sparring under a white hot spotlight. clocking the candidates as clinton and trump prepare to debate monday night, each candidate has some clear weaknesses to try to counteract with their performances, debate experts say. clinton’s reputation as a stiff, lawyerly speaker whose vast knowledge of policy minutiae doesn’t connect emotionally with people stands in sharp contrast to trump’s brash, freewheeling style that delivers intuitively but offers little depth or substance. “each of them has to understand the persona that they’ve already created and then see if they can soften the edges of that persona in the context of the debate,” said lecturer marie danziger, the former director of harvard kennedy school’s (hks) communications program who now teaches “the arts of communication.” “hillary’s challenge is to imagine herself in a one on one with trump at a dinner party or over drinks and give the impression that she’s comfortable with this kind of confrontation, that she can tease him a little instead of acting as if she’s being attacked. she’s got to try and hide her scars in these debates,” danziger added. “she’s got to show she’s got a human side,” said steve jarding, who trains students to debate and teaches campaign strategy at hks. “she’s got to do what she did in new hampshire eight years ago, and don’t be afraid to show some emotion. i think the worst thing is to keep this wall built up around her because that makes her look almost robotic at times, it makes her look less sincere, it makes people cynical about her.” for trump, “he’s got to show that he’s in control, which is almost impossible; he can’t take cheap shots. he can’t be this snide, cynical, mean spirited person   he’s got that group. he’s got to show that mainstream voters shouldn’t fear him,” jarding added, noting that trump has the bigger hill to climb in preparing because he’s not as deeply informed as clinton on the issues. “it’s easier for her to try to be more human than it is for him to become ‘smart’…. there’s too much out there. i would not try to make him ‘smart’ on the issues because it’ll fail. if i’m training with donald trump, we’ve got to try to make him friendlier, we’ve got to say, ‘you’ve got to show that you can be presidential.’” “i do think that trump, although he can get away with more of that than any other man i can think of, has to be very careful he doesn’t disrespect her in any kind of sexual or gendered type putdown,” said danziger. “nothing the least bit provocative. that’s one way he can blow it.” “i really think in light of their flaws, in light of 60 percent of the american public saying ‘we don’t like either one,’ they’ve both got a ton of work to do,” said jarding. “and there’s no better forum than a lengthy debate.” no small matter with candidates now arguing issues and policy positions on social media nearly every day, many observers question whether the presidential debates are still relevant or effective tools to persuade voters before they head to the polls. yet some harvard faculty contend that demanding candidates to ask and answer tough questions for 90 minutes, without help from teleprompter and without media interference, is one of a precious few unfiltered moments in a campaign. “what’s special about these is the chance for millions of people simultaneously to hear from the candidates in their own words and let them define   or try to define   what they’re all about, what their agendas are like, what their capacity for leadership is, how their experience dovetails with the requirements of the presidency,” said thomas patterson, bradlee professor at the shorenstein center on media, politics and public policy at hks. “i know journalists like to say these things are nothing but sound bites and canned arguments, but … [studies show] that for a lot of people, it’s relatively new … and most people say they learned something from listening to them. the journalists may have been hearing the same speech for six months, but that doesn’t mean that the typical viewer has,” said patterson, who has done a series of analyses of the 2016 election media coverage and will study the debate coverage later this fall. “i think they’re extremely important, and more important than ever,” said retired cbs news anchor bob schieffer, who has moderated three presidential debates and served on the commission on presidential debates until last january. “they’re one of the events that stills move the needle.” “if they live up to it, i think the debates are the three most critical days in the campaign,” said jarding. “surveys suggest more and more undecided voters make up their minds with debates than ever before, so the public is paying attention, and it does matter to the public. now, having said that … all the players have to step up, including journalists and moderators … so that we can have follow up [questions]. we cannot let a candidate somehow filibuster an answer or not give an answer. they have to be called to task,” he said. “they’re only a sham if we let them be.” for the candidates, debates are high risk events with fairly low rewards. “we train students not to lose, as opposed to win, because it’s hard to win a debate unless somebody screws up. then it’s dan quayle quivering when lloyd bentsen says ‘you’re no jack kennedy.’ the rest of that debate, lloyd bentsen didn’t win, but that sealed it,” he said. for those working on campaigns, getting ready for a presidential debate is grueling. “they’re a minefield you’re just trying to get through,” said jarding, who has prepped candidates. “the campaign person power that it takes to put together the campaign books, research the policy, have the policy team and the opposition and self research guys try to prepare answers and questions that you can ask your opponent to try and trap them, give you answers on questions you think they’re going to try and trap you on   it takes hundreds and thousands of man and woman hours to prepare for two hours of tv time when at most, unless there’s a screw up, it’s going to be a tie,” he said. “so as a manager, you hate them. they’re such a waste of time.” with the race between clinton and trump tightening, even a very good performance won’t drive a mass migration from one side to the other, the analysts said, yet even tempered shifts can prove significant. “you’re not going to have 100 million people watching the debate and 100 million people make up their mind or change their mind,” said jarding. “elections are won at the margins. if, let’s say, trump is down five, six points in the national polls, he gets 2, 3 percent that he pulls from her and moves to him, that can be the election.” what it takes what goes into an effective debate performance, and good public communication more broadly, are aristotle’s logos, pathos, and ethos, said danziger. “logos is the quality of the rational argument: are there some meaningful facts and figures involved? pathos is: is there emotional impact; can the candidate talk about how this issue affects real people with real feeling? but most important is ethos: and that is the personal trustworthiness, likeability, [and] authority of the speaker.” while candidates are expected to answer questions with something resembling the relevant facts, danziger says ultimately it’s the values that underline those answers that really touch voters. “it’s all about public speaking as a two way street where you’re trying to answer the questions on the turf of your audience,” she said. “‘i understand your concern, i understand your fear, i understand your objection, and here is my best attempt to respond to that underlying emotion.’” it’s a skill president bill clinton really mastered, she added. the psychodynamic relationship between public speakers and their audience is very complex, akin more to a tango than a tennis match, where facts and barbs fly back and forth, danziger argues. “it’s a kind of power play, but it’s also a seduction. how do you control that dynamic? it’s partly about building trust, but it’s also about projecting leadership and confidence, while at the same time allowing yourself a certain amount of vulnerability and making it a two way street,” she said. though trump’s shoot from the hip style has come under fire for degrading the political discourse, win or lose, his informality appears here to stay. “what makes these upcoming debates so interesting is that whatever else he has done or hasn’t done, trump is changing the style of our political rhetoric,” said danziger. “and i don’t mean to suggest it’s all for the bad. i think that this authenticity idea, the fact that ‘i’m going to say what i believe, i’m not going to be the same old, same old bureaucratic politician’   i think from now on, every politician is going to have to project some of that.” only in moderation the historically low percentage of voters who say they find clinton and trump honest or trustworthy, as well as trump’s history of uttering falsehoods, as fact checking organizations have reported, makes the role of debate moderator especially important and complicated this year. “today” show host matt lauer was widely criticized for failing to challenge trump when he repeated an untrue claim that he had been an early opponent of the iraq war, during a sept. 7 town hall forum on veterans’ and military issues. “i think the first fact checker ought to be the candidate,” said schieffer, the walter shorenstein media and democracy fellow at hks. if neither candidate puts forward an accurate answer and things descend into bickering, only then should the moderator step in and correct the record, he said. “i don’t care who the candidates are, interviewing somebody in real time, live, is different than when you can go back and check. i think you just have to do your best to be up on the issues and familiar with what they are to the best of your ability,” said schieffer. “and the fact is, you’re not going to catch them all.” if moderators see themselves as stand ins for the profession of journalism, “i think that’s a mistake,” said patterson. “they’re really stand ins for the american public, and they really should be asking questions that voters would like to have answered” on major concerns that need solving, rather than the strategy and process questions that much of the press prefers. and it’s not all about memorizing responses to complex policy questions, schieffer says. “it’s not just the answers, but how the person answers. what the moderator’s goal should be [is] to give the american people the best possible picture of who these people are. you want to help people see how these people react under pressure, how they react in response to a critical reply to something they’ve just said.” all sizzle and no steak the debates may have started out as a simple way for voters to learn about candidates and their views on issues, but the ubiquity of social media and the press’s emphasis on spectacle and confrontation have diluted their civic value, argue some at harvard law school (hls). “in my view, they’ve gotten morphed into less about the candidates’ actual substantive views on an issue, and it’s turned into a slugfest and who can have the sound bite for the next morning. and that just seems to me to be counter to helping informed citizens in a democracy make an educated choice about who they might select for their leader,” said robert bordone, thaddeus r. beal clinical professor of law and director of the harvard negotiation and mediation clinical program at hls. “i think most viewers expect to see sound bites and fights, and that sort of expectation sets up the debates. it’s almost like the incentives to have a healthy dialogue between the two, with a debate on issues, are not there,” said lecturer heather kulp, who has co written with bordone about the need to overhaul the way presidential debates are run. “i think we underestimate what people would be interested in seeing.” if clinton and trump abandoned the artifice of podiums and sat together on a couch and had a conversation rather than a war of words, perhaps their substantive views and ideas would be better elucidated, she said. “that’s going to be a lot more useful for the electorate than, ‘well, donald trump’s a racist’; ‘no, hillary clinton’s a racist.’” social science research shows that deep distrust of political leaders often leads to a similar distrust of their supporters, even if they’re neighbors or friends. with two polarizing candidates in clinton and trump, it’s a dynamic that’s causing social and political harm, even here on campus, kulp and bordone say. partisanship “infects everybody to the point where we can’t even have conversations about issues of difference anymore with each other. we really avoid it, and how much does that hurt democracy?” said kulp. “so it’s not just the debates at a national level that hurt democracy. i think that is indeed a symptom of the fact that we can’t and don’t want to talk about difference anymore because we feel like we don’t have the capacity, we don’t have the words, because we see difference as a place where we can be fighting one another rather than actually having an interesting and helpful discussion with one another about those differences.” bordone and kulp suggest candidates would be better off sitting together at a table and answering inquiries posed by a handful of questioners, similar to a group job interview. the questioners could be journalists knowledgeable on a host of topics or perhaps a pool of citizens who discuss the practical effects of legislation or policy positions. for example, a nurse, a home health care worker, a pediatrician, a professor, and a doctor who works with immigrants could talk about the affordable care act and their ability to give care and ask candidates to tell them what needs to be fixed and how they’ll do it. “since one of the skills [as president] is that you have to work with people from a lot of different perspectives, including people who represent an entirely different political spectrum than you do, so how do you work with those people? remove the audience, have one or two interviewers, and have the candidates engage in a project together or engage in a conversation together about issues that will really draw out what some of their skills, talents, abilities are to work with someone from a different political [vantage point],” said kulp. this fall, bordone is leading a new reading group to teach hls students, many of whom will go into politics or hold leadership positions later, how to talk about politically charged issues and negotiate differences. “leadership is not simply giving an eloquent speech or having a good, substantive policy proposal, or being the smartest woman or guy in the room. it’s figuring out how to talk with people of different views, how to listen to those people, and how to find some common ground to do something with them even when we disagree,” he said. “in our teaching and our pedagogy, we’re really thinking about how do we equip and build and encourage skills where people can have conversations with each other across lines of difference?” said kulp. “one of the challenges right now, so many of our students feel like, ‘what’s the point, why bother?’ there is no common ground. all they see is models of people in their own corner, reinforcing their own views, and preparing to fight the other. so we have to give them opportunities to experience reasons why it matters for themselves and their lives and for their country and their community.” magda baden was just 14 when the nazis sent her to auschwitz. but memory remains clear of losing parents, a sister and her baby, starvation, fear former national security official surveys hot spots in middle east, asia, eastern europe   and how new president’s ideas are being received education policy expert cites chronic absenteeism, softening of test accountability by states, other issues for poor marks in ‘nation’s report card’ researchers place caucasus lower volga people, speakers of ancestor tongue, in today’s russia about 6,500 years ago 6 min read study finds spike in adhd cases on halloween, highlighting stakes of cognitive bias in medicine 6 min read education policy expert cites chronic absenteeism, softening of test accountability by states, other issues for poor marks in ‘nation’s report card’ 5 min read a series of random questions answered by harvard experts. a series focused on the personal side of harvard research and teaching.

expert commentary we gathered research to help journalists explain how presidential debates influence voters' decisions. these papers look at aggressive behavior on stage, the likelihood candidates' performance will change voters’ minds and other topics. this work is licensed under a creative commons attribution noderivatives 4.0 international license. by denise marie ordway, the journalist's resource september 10, 2024 this roundup of research on presidential debates, originally published in september 2020, was updated sept. 11, 2024 with a recent study on how televised debates shape vote choice.vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump will face off tonight for their first and only scheduled presidential debate. immediately afterward and in the weeks leading up to the november election, journalists will try to help u.s. voters and people worldwide understand how the event could influence a race that pbs news characterized this morning as “a dead heat.” every four years, after the major political parties’ nominating conventions conclude, american newsrooms turn their focus to the presidential debates. they’re typically a chance for candidates to appear before a national audience of tens of millions of people and explain their policies, convey their likability and convince voters they are qualified for the job. the final debate of the 2020 presidential election, which featured trump and former vice president joe biden, drew an estimated 56.9 million viewers across 21 tv networks, according to nielsen tv ratings. it’s tough to predict how many viewers will tune in to watch the harris trump debate, notes new york times media correspondent michael grynbaum. “the record for a presidential debate is 84 million viewers, for the first meeting in 2016 between hillary clinton and mr. trump,” grynbaum writes. “so tuesday’s bout between ms. harris and mr. trump   which will be simulcast on nearly every major network   could theoretically draw an audience akin to that of the final episodes of ‘seinfeld’ (76.3 million) and ‘cheers’ (80 million).” considering the substantial public interest and stakes, we’re updating our roundup of research articles we think journalists covering the election will want to know about. they offer key insights into topics such as:    how do campaigns shape vote choice? multi country evidence from 62 elections and 56 tv debatescaroline le pennec and vincent pons. the quarterly journal of economics, may 2023. this paper analyzes more than six decades of election related data from 10 countries to assess, among other things, how much televised political debates influenced voter choices. a big takeaway: debates had little to no impact across political offices, including that of the u.s. president. researchers examined a variety of data to better understand factors influencing the decision making process of voters in the u.s., austria, canada, germany, italy, the netherlands, new zealand, sweden, switzerland and the united kingdom. nationally representative surveys conducted around 62 elections in those countries from 1952 to 2017 were a key source of data. the researchers also looked at data on tv debates featuring u.s. presidential candidates or candidates running for office in the lower house of parliament in austria, canada, germany, the netherlands, new zealand and the u.k. “remarkably, we do not find that debates contribute to vote choice formation for any group of voters   including those who report watching them and those most likely to form their vote choice shortly before the election   or when focusing on types of debates that could be expected to be more effective: the first debate held during the campaign or debates held in close races, fluctuating races, or multiparty systems,” write the authors, caroline le pennec, an assistant professor of economics at hec montreal, and vincent pons, the byron wien professor of business administration at harvard business school. they add that tv debates “do not affect the predicted vote share even of lesser known candidates, who benefit from the campaign the most overall.” le pennec and pons note that third party sources of information   news stories, for example   are likely to impact voter decisions the most. “overall, our results suggest that even if voters sometimes seem relatively uninformed, their vote choice actually aggregates extensive information, beyond just debates, and that other sources are more effective,” they write. “a possible interpretation is that voters discard candidates’ debate statements because they rationally expect them to be more biased than information coming from the media, discussions with other voters, and other third parties, or that voters only pay attention to statements aligned with their beliefs.” learning from the 2016 u.s. general election presidential debateskenneth winneg and kathleen hall jamieson. american behavioral scientist, 2017. in this study, university of pennsylvania researchers look at whether people gained knowledge about policy issues and changed their minds about the candidates after watching televised presidential debates in 2016. what the two scholars learned: while debate watchers gained knowledge about policies, their assessment of candidates’ qualifications did not change. neither did their opinions of whether individual candidates, if elected, would threaten the well being of the nation. the researchers also find that people who watched a debate and then broadcast or cable news coverage of it had higher levels of knowledge about the two major party candidates’ stances on campaign issues than did those who did not follow postdebate coverage. to study the impact of debate watching, the authors examined data collected via an online survey of u.s. adults recruited to watch the first and third presidential debates in fall 2016. a total of 5,145 people answered a series of questions before and after viewing the first debate, which aired sept. 26, 2016. a total of 5,241 adults responded to questions before and after the third debate, aired oct. 19, 2016. participants completed the postdebate surveys within 48 hours of each debate. to measure changes in knowledge, participants were asked before and after each debate which candidates supported and opposed issues such as the trans pacific partnership and increasing the federal minimum wage. participants also were asked whether they watched, followed or listened to any of the news discussions right after the debate or the next morning. about two thirds of debate watchers reported following at least some of the coverage after the debate. study participants also were asked before and after the debates whether hillary clinton or donald trump were more qualified to become president. watchers of the third debate were asked an additional question: whether clinton or trump, if elected, would threaten the country’s well being. survey results show the debates had little impact on participants’ opinions of these matters. “going into the debates clinton was seen by a 2 to 1 margin as the more qualified candidate (54% vs. 26% in the first debate and 52% vs. 24% in the third debate),” write the authors, kenneth winneg, who is managing director of survey research at the annenberg public policy center at the university of pennsylvania, and kathleen hall jamieson, director of the annenberg public policy center. winneg and jamieson find that watching the third debate had little effect on study participants’ opinions about whether clinton and trump would be a threat to national wellbeing. before that last debate, 50.3% of debate watchers saw clinton and 63.4% saw trump as a threat to national wellbeing. after the debate, 50.2% said clinton would be a threat, 63.2% said trump would be. making debating great again: u.s. presidential candidates’ use of aggressive communication for winning presidential debatesdaniel john montez and pamela jo brubaker. argumentation and advocacy, 2019. this paper explores how candidates used various forms of aggression   including insults, hand gestures and facial expressions   during presidential debates in 2015 and 2016. among the key findings: democratic candidates were three times less aggressive than republican candidates during the six presidential primary debates analyzed. of all the candidates who participated in the presidential primary debates and general election debates that researchers studied, donald trump committed the most acts of aggression. authors daniel john montez and pamela jo brubaker, researchers at brigham young university, note that the republican primary debates and general election debates likely grew more aggressive “as a response to donald trump’s aggressive communication and the rising political stakes as trump continued to dominate the polls during the election cycle.” the authors analyzed two presidential primary debates from each major political party and two general election debates. through content analysis, they discovered a total of 2,441 instances of social, verbal and non verbal aggression among all candidates. the researchers note that the most common form of social aggression was an attack on another candidates’ character by discrediting their competence, trustworthiness or goodwill. meanwhile, verbal aggression included insults and short outbursts and nonverbal aggression tended to consist of gestures, finger pointing and facial expressions. “within the primary debates of both parties, trailing candidates used more aggressive communication against their political front runners to help them stay in the game,” montez and brubaker write. “similar patterns emerged during the general election debate as hillary clinton attempted to match her opponent’s communicative behavior by using 23 times more direct social aggression than she used in the democratic debates analyzed.” the researchers explain that nonverbal aggression can backfire, costing candidates votes. they point out that republican candidate marco rubio and democratic candidate bernie sanders led their parties in the use of this type of aggression. they add that nonverbal aggression was the only type of aggression that clinton used almost as much as trump during the general election debates. “in other words,” the authors write, “trump’s nonverbal aggression may have resonated with audiences out of familiarity with his persona, but, in general, trailing presidential candidates should avoid using such aggression. similar to past research on nonverbal violations exhibited by presidential candidates, nonverbal aggression typically does not resonate well with voters.” do presidential debates matter? examining a decade of campaign debate effectsmitchell s. mckinney and benjamin r. warner. argumentation and advocacy, 2013. after analyzing 22 academic studies on u.s. presidential debates held between 2000 and 2012, the researchers find that voters respond differently to primary and general election debates. the vast majority of americans don’t change their minds about which candidate they support based on what they see and hear during a general election presidential debate. on the other hand, nearly 60% change their minds after viewing presidential primary debates, write the authors, mitchell s. mckinney and benjamin r. warner of the university of missouri. “the large amount of candidate to candidate switching following primary debates suggests these early campaign forums are particularly useful for voters who are weakly committed or perhaps express their predebate choice based largely on candidate name recognition or front runner status before greater exposure to lesser known candidates,” mckinney and warner write. both republican and democratic candidates tend to be viewed more positively following general election and primary election debates. this, the researchers write, “reminds us that campaign debates are not zero sum for candidates as both or all candidates on the debate stage might benefit from their debate performance.” although sitting presidents often falter during the first general election debate, they often rebound. “after an initial lackluster first debate performance, it appears that incumbents often rebound in their subsequent debates, as our data show for both george w. bush in 2004 and barack obama in 2012 (and also as ronald reagan rebounded nicely in his second debate in 1984),” mckinney and warner write. viewing presidential debates boosts voters’ feelings of confidence in their own political knowledge   especially for voters who felt less informed before the debate. “in this manner,” the researchers explain, “campaign debates serve as something of an equalizer among the political information haves and have nots.” if you’re looking for more research on presidential debates, please read our roundup of earlier research on the subject. we include several tips that journalists can use to help preserve the data. the journalist’s resource and econofact recently hosted a webinar featuring two trade economists and an npr producer whose reporting teams have covered tariffs. watch the recording and read key takeaways. these tips will help you interrogate president trump’s proposal to close the u.s. department of education, provide historical context and evaluate the agency’s effectiveness. thank you for subscribing. a project of harvard kennedy school's shorenstein center, the journalist’s resource curates, summarizes and contextualizes high quality research on newsy public policy topics. we are supported by generous grants from the carnegie corporation of new york, the robert wood johnson foundation, the national institute for health care management (nihcm) foundation, lumina foundation, and individual contributors. find us: unless otherwise noted, this site and its contents   with the exception of photographs   are licensed under a attribution noderivatives 4.0 international (cc by nd 4.0) license. that means you are free to republish our content both online and in print, and we encourage you to do so via the “republish this article” button. we only ask that you follow a few basic guidelines.

barbara a. perry is gerald l. baliles professor in presidential studies and co chair of the presidential oral history program at the university of virginia’s miller center. joe biden and donald trump had agreed to two presidential debates, but, with the incumbent president’s exit from the race (in part, due to a poor showing in last month’s contest), it remains to be seen if trump will choose to go toe to toe on a stage with the new democratic standard bearer. the first 2024 debate and its preceding history (some of which uva’s miller center has gleaned from its interviews with presidents and their advisors) provide a host of practical preparation and performance lessons that candidates would be wise to adopt in the future. lesson 1: rehearse. it seems logical that a candidate would, but incumbent presidents are sometimes reluctant to take time away from their white house duties to practice lines they’ve been using for years. as presidential advisor richard darman told the miller center in his oral history interview, ronald reagan “was perhaps more comfortable with the idea of rehearsal and the process of being managed than president [george h.w.] bush.” trump claimed he needed no practice rounds for 2024’s debates, and his experience as a reality tv star may have adequately prepared him. lesson 2: don’t cram. maybe reagan, a hollywood actor, felt comfortable in practicing for his performance on the debate stage, but his wife, first lady nancy reagan, blamed staffers, including darman, for producing “the worst night of ronnie’s political career” in the first 1984 debate by making him “tense, muddled, and off stride. he lacked authority. he stumbled.” the president, known as “the great communicator,” agreed, recording in his diary that he’d “crammed so hard on facts and figures” to counter his opponent, former vice president walter mondale, that he “flattened out.” even worse for his image, the press asked whether reagan, then the oldest american president (73), could serve a second term. president biden’s first outing with trump in june 2024 produced the same flat and muddled results, along with questions about his octogenarian status, which ultimately forced him from the race. lesson 3: powder your nose. vice president richard nixon famously refused cosmetics for the first televised presidential debate with senator john kennedy in 1960, and, suffering from an infection, nixon appeared pale and fevered, with a five o’clock shadow. jfk, despite his painful back, looked tanned and relaxed. as the two eldest presidential candidates in american history, trump (78) and biden (81) faced the ravages of time with combovers, spray tans, and hair plugs. make up should accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. a less clownish look should be the sweet spot for appearing before high definition cameras. or, as coco chanel advised women, “put on lipstick and attack.” lesson 4: stay in your lane. vice president al gore in 2000 did himself no favors by invading the personal space of his opponent, governor george w. bush, during their town hall debate. in rehearsals with bush, congressman rob portman, playing gore, suddenly walked toward the texas governor. “what are you doing? he’d never do anything like that. [h]e’s not that big of a doofus,” bush exclaimed, according to josh bolten in his miller center oral history. portman countered that gore “likes to use his size to physically intimidate somebody he is debating with.” when gore pulled the stunt, an unflappable bush simply looked bemused and continued his comments. trump repeated this tactic against hillary clinton in a 2016 debate, and she later wished she had taken him to task for it on live television. lesson 5: have your winning lines ready. reagan pulled no punches in the last debate with president jimmy carter, whose approval ratings were tanking in 1980 owing to a severe recession, high interest rates, and the iranian hostage crisis. the california governor simply looked into the camera and queried the american people, “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” by a landslide for reagan, voters answered with a resounding “no!” biden and trump fired few memorable salvos at their opponent in the first debate. the president saved his for the next day’s north carolina rally: “folks, i don’t walk as easy as i used to. i don’t speak as smoothly as i used to. i don’t debate as well as i used to, but . . . i know how to tell the truth. i know right from wrong, and i know how to do this job!” it was too little, too late. lesson 6: use humor. reagan prepared a counter to his failed first debate in 1984 with a quip rehearsed for his second contest with mondale. parried the septuagenarian president, “i will not make age an issue in this campaign. i am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” although mondale was 56 and had served as a state attorney general, u.s. senator, and vice president, he had no retort to reagan’s joke and simply laughed along with the audience. like carter, mondale suffered a landslide defeat to “the gipper” (reagan’s heroic character in the 1940 film knute rokne: all american). lesson 7: avoid creating comedic fodder. it’s one thing to crack jokes; it’s quite another to be the object of them. a seemingly innocuous word or phrase can land in late night monologues or saturday night live skits. al gore mentioned several times in 2000’s debates that he would preserve social security in a metaphorical “lockbox.” impersonating gore’s tennessee twang and ponderous tone, snl’s darrell hammond quickly turned the word into a national punch line. immediately after the biden v. trump contest, comedian jon stewart launched a hilarious rant, demanding, “both of these men should be using performance enhancing drugs!” lesson 8: be empathetic. governor bill clinton’s frequent comment to voters, “i feel your pain,” became risible. yet clinton’s understanding response about the economic downturn to an audience member in the 1992 town hall seemed genuine. conversely, cameras captured president bush, the 41st president, glancing at his watch during the debate. bush advisor phillip brady explained to the miller center that the president was actually hoping that the moderator would enforce the time limits on third party candidate ross perot, who tended to ramble. it was too late for bush, who lost to clinton, in part because of the votes perot captured. lesson 9: don’t misspeak. the original 2024 candidates were well known for verbal bobbles, which were on full display in their first debate. president trump turns his mispronunciations into laugh lines on the stump. voters can accept minor gaffes, but, at least in a bygone era, woe to the candidate who uttered an inaccuracy, as president gerald ford did in 1976 when he declared in a debate with carter, “there is no soviet domination of eastern europe.” cold war realities made the statement utterly false and probably contributed to ford’s narrow loss to the georgia governor. candidates can overcome a malaprop or minor non fluency, but multiple prevarications or inability to complete a thought can be fatal. lesson 10: bounce back. while ford’s misstatement cast a pall on his candidacy, some candidates have bounced back from a poor showing in subsequent debates. after mrs. reagan’s command that her husband’s advisors “let ronnie be ronnie,” in 1984, they did, he was, and reagan won a second term. president barack obama had a surprisingly ineffective first debate with governor mitt romney, a talented public speaker, in the 2012 election, but rhetorically gifted obama regained his footing and handily defeated romney in subsequent debates and for reelection. even george w. bush, famous for his non sequiturs and turning in two poor 2004 debates against john kerry, gave an adequate showing in debate #3 and ultimately emerged victorious for a second term. social media and trump’s reality tv roots have upended many political performance rules. should he win a second term by continuing to ignore the lessons of past debates and campaigns, these standard guidelines may be added to the other recently scrapped precedents of presidential history, along with the debate format itself. the thoughts from the lawn blog features posts by uva faculty related to upcoming educational lectures, recent books, and research. university advancement’s office of engagement fosters lifelong relationships with alumni, friends, families, fans, and community members, strengthening their connections with the university by helping them stay informed, involved, and invested in their uva passions. the university of virginia unequivocally affirms its commitment to free expression and free inquiry. all views, beliefs, and perspectives deserve to be articulated and heard free from interference. learn more. ©2025 by the rector and visitors of the university of virginia non discrimination notice | privacy policy

recent and archived work by frank luntz for the new york times the group of young undecided voters meets for the final time. by patrick healy, frank luntz and adrian j. rivera the group discussed kamala harris and donald trump on the edge of the 2024 election. by patrick healy, adrian j. rivera and frank luntz the participants discuss the vice presidential debate and if and how it influenced their vote for president. by patrick healy, frank luntz and adrian j. rivera the focus group’s participants weigh trump and harris in the wake of the sept. 10 debate. by patrick healy, frank luntz and adrian j. rivera participants discuss what it would take for harris or trump to win their votes. by patrick healy, adrian j. rivera and frank luntz i’ve studied voter reaction and opinions about every presidential debate since 1992. this is what to do and not to do. by frank luntz the group discusses the trial, the verdict and its possible influence on the 2024 election. by patrick healy, adrian j. rivera and frank luntz for starters, we heard something unexpected from both democrats and republicans about the economy. by patrick healy and frank luntz it starts by having some humility and understanding his appeal. by frank luntz it should start with the speeches on tuesday night, by the loser as well as the winner. by frank luntz

president joe biden, right, and the republican presidential candidate, former u.s. president donald trump, participate in the cnn presidential debate on june 27, 2024, in atlanta, georgia. (justin sullivan/getty images) in the days following the biden trump debate, news stories and facebook posts introduced a new term for many   gish gallop   defined roughly as throwing out numerous arguments that are typically unsupported by facts making it difficult to respond. the debate strategy was named in 1994 for duane gish, a creationist advocate who was known for spewing a voluminous number of arguments and frustrating opponents. for those of us with an academic debate background, “the spread” tactic predates gish by several decades and has frustrated many debaters who have four or five minutes to respond to 12 or 15 minutes of negative attacks and bolster their own arguments. cnn’s debate format limited rebuttal time to one third that of the candidate with the initial response. many are explaining away president joe biden’s underwhelming performance to the gish gallop. the format and the moderators’ decision to include open ended questions and few follow ups to discern detail or factual basis were conducive to the technique. it made it easier for former president donald trump to evade, advance arguments on multiple topics   many not germane to the question   and get away with unsupported claims. fact check sites show that biden also made claims that he did not support, although there were far fewer of them. some of his responses also included several topics unrelated to the question. biden was at a tactical disadvantage, but he also did not have a clear strategy focusing on strengths and isolating his arguments and attacks on trump on the most critical issues. many of trump’s arguments are easily subsumed under such key issues, and a lesson from academic debaters is to group them in a way that bolsters biden’s accomplishments without getting into the weeds. on the economy, for instance, biden only needed to quickly summarize a bipartisan joint economic committee report on trump’s economic record (lost jobs, slowest growth, higher unemployment at his term’s end than beginning, record unemployment, smaller number in labor force) and dismiss much of his “galloping.” similar to what happened to president ronald reagan in his first 1984 debate with walter mondale, biden was likely overburdened with too many facts in his debate preparation and may have been coached to respond to everything trump said. reagan’s polling dropped by 7 points afterward, but he redeemed himself in the second debate, quipping about not letting mondale’s youth and inexperience become an issue. the differences between the two men and the two debate scenarios are that biden is eight years older than reagan was when he ran for a second term   and arguably more frail   and the timing is different. the second debate where reagan redeemed himself was held two weeks later rather than 10. both debates were after the nominating conventions, thereby eliminating any panic that the candidate needed to be replaced. by having the earliest debate in general election history, candidates did not lay out their vision in an acceptance speech and practice it for weeks before the debate. that might have helped biden focus his arguments. i’ve studied and researched political debates since i was an undergraduate. i served on an advisory board for the commission on presidential debates from 1987 to 2000 and helped develop debates in several new democracies. in 1996, i used a grant from the ford foundation to expand my focus group research through creation of debatewatch for the commission. i’ve published numerous articles on formats and co edited two books with the focus group results. i continue to conduct debatewatch groups and will again for the sept. 10 debate. what i’ve learned is that the june 27 debate did not serve the needs of voters, especially undecideds, for several reasons. it wasn’t just because biden had a “disastrous” night and trump lied. from an educational and substantive perspective, the questions and the structure did not illuminate the key issues, differences and what is at stake in the election. both created a chaotic debate with multiple topics offered in every response, and not just from trump. question structure impacts responses, and it mattered. cnn chose to return to a format with multiple moderators, a large number of questions, and few probing follow up questions. the last was done to keep the moderators out of the debate or not ask “gotcha” questions. thousands of pages of focus group transcripts between 1992 and 2004 indicate that viewers want tough follow up questions and clarity on “factual statements,” especially when the format limits rebuttal. asking trump to respond to a letter by 16 nobel economists claiming that “we believe that a second trump term would have a negative impact on the u.s.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the u.s.’s domestic economy” is not a ”gotcha” question and should have been asked. the letter was released two days before the debate. such a question lays out an important issue and then leaves it up to biden to contrast his policies. asking follow up questions to support a candidate’s claims is not becoming a debater. would it be better to come from the opponent? yes. but there was no cross examination, and as indicated, one third the time to respond. candidates seldom respond to one another’s questions. focus groups repeatedly asked for fewer questions and more time on each. over the past several debate cycles, the commission delivered on that request, with six 15 minute segments that enabled more depth and provided more rebuttal opportunities. it also announced the topics in advance. by doing so, the candidates knew what was going to be asked, and they had less reason to throw in everything on their agenda with each question to make sure it gets into the debate. cnn’s debate started with the economy and near the end had additional economic oriented questions such as social security. there was no logical flow of topics from one point to another at times. by having blocks of time devoted to key issues, moderators can push candidates toward specifics and better remind the viewing audience of what the topic is and why it isn’t being addressed through targeted follow up questions. some of this was done late in the debate, primarily by dana bash, but it was too little too late. voters also want to hear about specific plans for the future, not just a rehash of what a candidate did as president. the latter is important because it demonstrates a direction an incumbent will take based on past performance, and in this historic debate, there were two real world examples. however, looking to the future is equally important, and both purposes can be served. the first question in the debate is an example: “president biden, inflation has slowed, but prices remain high. since you took office, the price of essentials has increased. for example, a basket of groceries that cost $100 then, now costs more than $120; and typical home prices have jumped more than 30 percent. what do you say to voters who feel they are worse off under your presidency than they were under president trump?” biden responded by talking about trump’s record and what a sorry economy he inherited, his family in scranton and recognizing that people still face economic challenges. he did give some solutions on housing   capping rent and building 2 million new units   but nothing on how it will be done, and there was no follow up asking why it wasn’t done in this term. he talked about corporate greed but didn’t say what he was going to do about it. if the question were changed to: “what would you do in a second biden term to reduce inflation and the cost of housing?” it puts the focus on the future and doesn’t allow the candidate to take it any direction they want. by framing the question on the future, it allows for a follow up requesting specifics. it would force biden to provide a reason to expect something different or explain why he hadn’t done more to date. again, this is not a “gotcha” question or intruding into the debate. it is holding the candidates accountable for their claims. such a question would also allow for a follow up to trump to describe how to solve the problem. jake tapper did ask about trump’s proposed tariffs in a follow up, but not about the primary issue of resolving kitchen table problems. tapper also allowed trump to get away with a general claim when he asked: “you want to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the u.s. how will you ensure that that doesn’t drive prices even higher?” trump said: “not going to drive them higher. it’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like china and many others, in all fairness to china   it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things.” there was no follow up noting the economists’ letter or even cnn’s website, which states: “economists generally agree that tariffs drive up prices. jp morgan economists estimated in 2019 that trump’s tariffs on about $300 billion of chinese made goods would cost the average american household $1,000 a year.” the format only allowed a single optional rebuttal response so trump’s claim went unchallenged in light of history and current warnings. tapper shifted to a new question about the deficit, leaving most struggling americans unsure how either of them would address pocketbook issues. there are numerous other examples throughout the debate of missed opportunities to enlighten the public on issues where both men have weaknesses and where truth is not always obvious. one other important omission from this year’s two debate schedule and formats is that there is no public voice. the town hall was introduced in 1992 and widely popular with focus groups. it is more difficult for a candidate to ignore a question from an undecided voter a few feet away. members of the public ask questions in the way they think about them, not the way journalists or politicians do. some primary debates have included questions submitted by viewers, and not even that was done. our debates have never been perfect. the winner of a debate does not always win the election   walter mondale, john kerry, mitt romney and hillary clinton all attest to that fact. however, for undecided and wavering voters, they do serve a useful purpose. the average voter is not a policy wonk or a news junkie, and many who are only hear one side. a debate should be structured in a way that candidates are held accountable for past performance and make a case for the future. the debate last thursday did neither well. diana b. carlin is the co author of the 1992 presidential debates in focus and the third agenda in u.s. presidential debates: debatewatch and viewer reaction 1996 2004. she is professor emerita of communication at saint louis university and a retired professor of communication studies at the university of kansas. through its opinion section, kansas reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here. by diana b. carlin, kansas reflector july 4, 2024 by diana b. carlin, kansas reflector july 4, 2024 in the days following the biden trump debate, news stories and facebook posts introduced a new term for many   gish gallop   defined roughly as throwing out numerous arguments that are typically unsupported by facts making it difficult to respond. the debate strategy was named in 1994 for duane gish, a creationist advocate who was known for spewing a voluminous number of arguments and frustrating opponents. for those of us with an academic debate background, “the spread” tactic predates gish by several decades and has frustrated many debaters who have four or five minutes to respond to 12 or 15 minutes of negative attacks and bolster their own arguments. cnn’s debate format limited rebuttal time to one third that of the candidate with the initial response. many are explaining away president joe biden’s underwhelming performance to the gish gallop. the format and the moderators’ decision to include open ended questions and few follow ups to discern detail or factual basis were conducive to the technique. it made it easier for former president donald trump to evade, advance arguments on multiple topics   many not germane to the question   and get away with unsupported claims. fact check sites show that biden also made claims that he did not support, although there were far fewer of them. some of his responses also included several topics unrelated to the question. biden was at a tactical disadvantage, but he also did not have a clear strategy focusing on strengths and isolating his arguments and attacks on trump on the most critical issues. many of trump’s arguments are easily subsumed under such key issues, and a lesson from academic debaters is to group them in a way that bolsters biden’s accomplishments without getting into the weeds. on the economy, for instance, biden only needed to quickly summarize a bipartisan joint economic committee report on trump’s economic record (lost jobs, slowest growth, higher unemployment at his term’s end than beginning, record unemployment, smaller number in labor force) and dismiss much of his “galloping.” similar to what happened to president ronald reagan in his first 1984 debate with walter mondale, biden was likely overburdened with too many facts in his debate preparation and may have been coached to respond to everything trump said. reagan’s polling dropped by 7 points afterward, but he redeemed himself in the second debate, quipping about not letting mondale’s youth and inexperience become an issue. the differences between the two men and the two debate scenarios are that biden is eight years older than reagan was when he ran for a second term   and arguably more frail   and the timing is different. the second debate where reagan redeemed himself was held two weeks later rather than 10. both debates were after the nominating conventions, thereby eliminating any panic that the candidate needed to be replaced. by having the earliest debate in general election history, candidates did not lay out their vision in an acceptance speech and practice it for weeks before the debate. that might have helped biden focus his arguments. i’ve studied and researched political debates since i was an undergraduate. i served on an advisory board for the commission on presidential debates from 1987 to 2000 and helped develop debates in several new democracies. in 1996, i used a grant from the ford foundation to expand my focus group research through creation of debatewatch for the commission. i’ve published numerous articles on formats and co edited two books with the focus group results. i continue to conduct debatewatch groups and will again for the sept. 10 debate. what i’ve learned is that the june 27 debate did not serve the needs of voters, especially undecideds, for several reasons. it wasn’t just because biden had a “disastrous” night and trump lied. from an educational and substantive perspective, the questions and the structure did not illuminate the key issues, differences and what is at stake in the election. both created a chaotic debate with multiple topics offered in every response, and not just from trump. question structure impacts responses, and it mattered. cnn chose to return to a format with multiple moderators, a large number of questions, and few probing follow up questions. the last was done to keep the moderators out of the debate or not ask “gotcha” questions. thousands of pages of focus group transcripts between 1992 and 2004 indicate that viewers want tough follow up questions and clarity on “factual statements,” especially when the format limits rebuttal. asking trump to respond to a letter by 16 nobel economists claiming that “we believe that a second trump term would have a negative impact on the u.s.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the u.s.’s domestic economy” is not a ”gotcha” question and should have been asked. the letter was released two days before the debate. such a question lays out an important issue and then leaves it up to biden to contrast his policies. asking follow up questions to support a candidate’s claims is not becoming a debater. would it be better to come from the opponent? yes. but there was no cross examination, and as indicated, one third the time to respond. candidates seldom respond to one another’s questions. focus groups repeatedly asked for fewer questions and more time on each. over the past several debate cycles, the commission delivered on that request, with six 15 minute segments that enabled more depth and provided more rebuttal opportunities. it also announced the topics in advance. by doing so, the candidates knew what was going to be asked, and they had less reason to throw in everything on their agenda with each question to make sure it gets into the debate. cnn’s debate started with the economy and near the end had additional economic oriented questions such as social security. there was no logical flow of topics from one point to another at times. by having blocks of time devoted to key issues, moderators can push candidates toward specifics and better remind the viewing audience of what the topic is and why it isn’t being addressed through targeted follow up questions. some of this was done late in the debate, primarily by dana bash, but it was too little too late. voters also want to hear about specific plans for the future, not just a rehash of what a candidate did as president. the latter is important because it demonstrates a direction an incumbent will take based on past performance, and in this historic debate, there were two real world examples. however, looking to the future is equally important, and both purposes can be served. the first question in the debate is an example: “president biden, inflation has slowed, but prices remain high. since you took office, the price of essentials has increased. for example, a basket of groceries that cost $100 then, now costs more than $120; and typical home prices have jumped more than 30 percent. what do you say to voters who feel they are worse off under your presidency than they were under president trump?” biden responded by talking about trump’s record and what a sorry economy he inherited, his family in scranton and recognizing that people still face economic challenges. he did give some solutions on housing   capping rent and building 2 million new units   but nothing on how it will be done, and there was no follow up asking why it wasn’t done in this term. he talked about corporate greed but didn’t say what he was going to do about it. if the question were changed to: “what would you do in a second biden term to reduce inflation and the cost of housing?” it puts the focus on the future and doesn’t allow the candidate to take it any direction they want. by framing the question on the future, it allows for a follow up requesting specifics. it would force biden to provide a reason to expect something different or explain why he hadn’t done more to date. again, this is not a “gotcha” question or intruding into the debate. it is holding the candidates accountable for their claims. such a question would also allow for a follow up to trump to describe how to solve the problem. jake tapper did ask about trump’s proposed tariffs in a follow up, but not about the primary issue of resolving kitchen table problems. tapper also allowed trump to get away with a general claim when he asked: “you want to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the u.s. how will you ensure that that doesn’t drive prices even higher?” trump said: “not going to drive them higher. it’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like china and many others, in all fairness to china   it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things.” there was no follow up noting the economists’ letter or even cnn’s website, which states: “economists generally agree that tariffs drive up prices. jp morgan economists estimated in 2019 that trump’s tariffs on about $300 billion of chinese made goods would cost the average american household $1,000 a year.” the format only allowed a single optional rebuttal response so trump’s claim went unchallenged in light of history and current warnings. tapper shifted to a new question about the deficit, leaving most struggling americans unsure how either of them would address pocketbook issues. there are numerous other examples throughout the debate of missed opportunities to enlighten the public on issues where both men have weaknesses and where truth is not always obvious. one other important omission from this year’s two debate schedule and formats is that there is no public voice. the town hall was introduced in 1992 and widely popular with focus groups. it is more difficult for a candidate to ignore a question from an undecided voter a few feet away. members of the public ask questions in the way they think about them, not the way journalists or politicians do. some primary debates have included questions submitted by viewers, and not even that was done. our debates have never been perfect. the winner of a debate does not always win the election   walter mondale, john kerry, mitt romney and hillary clinton all attest to that fact. however, for undecided and wavering voters, they do serve a useful purpose. the average voter is not a policy wonk or a news junkie, and many who are only hear one side. a debate should be structured in a way that candidates are held accountable for past performance and make a case for the future. the debate last thursday did neither well. diana b. carlin is the co author of the 1992 presidential debates in focus and the third agenda in u.s. presidential debates: debatewatch and viewer reaction 1996 2004. she is professor emerita of communication at saint louis university and a retired professor of communication studies at the university of kansas. through its opinion section, kansas reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here. kansas reflector is part of states newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. kansas reflector maintains editorial independence. contact editor sherman smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. our stories may be republished online or in print under creative commons license cc by nc nd 4.0. we ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. ap and getty images may not be republished. please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics. diana b. carlin is professor emerita of communication at saint louis university. she taught a speechwriting course at the university of kansas and a course on presidential speechwriters for ku’s osher institute. she has also taught courses on women and politics at the university of kansas and is co author of "gender and the american presidency: nine presidential women and the barriers they faced," and book chapters on martha washington, lady bird johnson, barbara bush, hillary clinton and michelle obama. democracy toolkit © kansas reflector, 2025 v1.73.0 kansas reflector is a nonprofit news operation providing in depth reporting, diverse opinions and daily coverage of state government and politics. this public service is free to readers and other news outlets. we’re part of states newsroom, the nation’s largest state focused nonprofit news organization. deij policy | ethics policy | privacy policy our stories may be republished online or in print under creative commons license cc by nc nd 4.0. we ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. (see full republishing guidelines.) © kansas reflector, 2025

the confrontation in atlanta between joe biden and donald trump thursday night has a good chance of becoming the most fateful presidential debate in us history. for the first time, a sitting president and an ex president will lock horns before millions of viewers, in an encounter taking place far earlier than normal   even before the party conventions. the cnn hosted showdown is the most pivotal moment yet in a neck and neck election, and it’s biden’s best chance to shake up a reelection bid that he is in deep danger of losing as he struggles to convince voters that he’s delivered the political and economic normality he promised in 2020. the debate comes at a moment when many americans are seeking relief from high prices that have made it harder to feed their families and afford rents, mortgages, and new cars. it is unfolding amid an intense national debate over access to abortion that was unleashed by the conservative supreme court majority built by trump. deep divides over immigration and foreign policy in a world filled with new challenges to us power will form a contentious backdrop to a clash between two candidates who openly disdain one another. the debate in that sense personifies an election race that has left millions of americans unsatisfied with the choice offered by two elderly candidates who alienate more voters than they attract. but the momentous circumstances of the occasion can only be fully understood alongside the context of the unprecedented politics of the times. since sen. john f. kennedy and vice president richard nixon staged the first televised debate in the 1960 campaign, there have been agonizingly close elections that have set the country on a sharply different course. but the stakes in 2024 are greater than ever because of trump’s attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power based on false claims of fraud in the 2020 election and his promise to wage a never before seen presidency of personal vengeance if he wins in november. biden plans to frame what he sees as trump’s threat to the rule of law and democracy in the starkest terms, sources familiar with the matter told cnn’s kayla tausche. he will describe the mob attack by trump’s supporters on the us capitol on january 6, 2021, as a “seismic,” era defining moment that must be a watershed for voters. “the embodiment of the threat is returning,” said one biden source. that backdrop means this presidential debate has a different cast than all its predecessors. had sen. john kerry beaten president george w. bush in 2004 or ex massachusetts gov. mitt romney made president barack obama a one term president in 2012, there would have been significant political change. but the character of the republic and its global posture would not have fundamentally altered. that assurance cannot be applied with any confidence to the current election. trump’s strongman impulse   epitomized by his claim before the supreme court that presidents have almost limitless power, as well as a blueprint for hardline new policies on immigration, the economy and foreign policy   means a second term could bring massive disruption. “(it is) unbelievably historic. you cannot (over) hype up the importance of this,” presidential historian douglas brinkley told cnn’s wolf blitzer on wednesday. democrats are desperate for the 81 year old biden to put on a show of vitality and sharpness amid concerns about his age. seventy eight year old trump’s biggest liability might be himself and the possibility of a performance that could validate biden’s warnings that he’s too “unhinged” to be president. biden is expected to hammer trump over abortion   one of the few policy areas where he outpolls the former president   and his admiration of foreign dictators. trump is already signaling he’ll portray biden’s america in dystopian terms, beset by uncontrolled immigration, rampant crime and searing economic pain. the most extraordinary aspect of the debate is that it takes place less than a month after trump was convicted in a criminal hush money case in new york. biden has already highlighted the guilty verdict in campaign events, but trump insists that he’s the victim of an attempt to weaponize the legal system to interfere in the election. both men will hope to avoid the kind of debate night gaffes or odd personal quirks that have often gone viral and dominated critical post debate media coverage that helps cement the perception of who won and who lost in voters’ minds. vice president al gore’s theatrical sighs in 2000 and president george h.w. bush’s unwise glance at his watch in 1992 both became emblems of losing campaigns. the risks are now much higher because of social media. presidential debates don’t always decide who wins in november. but the tension surrounding this year’s first debate in june, rather than in september or october as usual, is palpable. “the closer the election, the greater the chance that a debate could influence it,” said aaron kall, director of debate at the university of michigan, who has conducted an in depth study of every presidential debate. “a lot of times these mistakes reaffirm a caricature of one of the particular candidates that existed before it happened.” for biden, that means no senior moments, and trump would be advised to avoid outbursts that confirm biden’s characterization of a tyrant in waiting. neither trump nor biden has debated since their final clash in the pandemic disrupted 2020 campaign. and their preparation for one of the most important nights of their lives has reflected their character and political personas. the president has been out of sight for days, huddled below the oaks, poplars and maple trees at the camp david retreat with advisers, strategizing how to handle the most challenging debate foe in history. fueled by lasagna and tacos, he’s taken part in mock debates, immersed himself in briefing binders and tried to anticipate trump’s wild twists and diversions. it’s a debate camp in keeping with biden’s view that he’s locked in an existential election duel with the soul of the nation on the line. the former president hates mock debates and has instead honed his preparation at rallies and events, trusting his instincts and intuition and a feral sense of an opponent’s political weakness. he has, however, had policy refresher sessions with aides and some potential vice presidential picks including ohio sen. j.d. vance and florida sen. marco rubio. biden has raised the stakes for himself heading into the debate higher than those any modern president faced. he argues trump is a criminal in whom something has “snapped” and who is too dangerous and reckless to be let back into the white house. he’s also rebuked trump for using nazi style language and warned democracy and freedom are on the ballot along with the capacity of ‘we the people’ to shape america’s destiny. biden’s debate team is led by former white house chief of staff ron klain, who has been prepping democrats for presidential debates for a generation. one of klain’s mantras is “while you can lose a debate any time, you can only win it in the first 30 minutes.” biden is therefore expected to front load the most important points to appeal to the likely highest rated part of the primetime event. the biden team has been poring over trump’s recent public interviews and speeches while workshopping responses to whatever he and the moderators may throw biden’s way. the president will be ready for whichever version of trump shows up   whether it’s the bombastic opponent who talked over and insulted him in their first clash in 2020, or a more restrained challenger seeking to project stability. if trump aims for a presidential bearing, biden has a locker full of practiced attacks and rebuttals designed to provoke him into making the outbursts that could turn voters off. a biden adviser told cnn that debate preparations have included getting the president ready to respond should trump get personal   weeks after his son hunter was convicted of felony gun charges. biden’s love and protective instinct for his family is always close to the surface, and he reacted furiously when the then president brought up hunter during their first debate in 2020. biden has been running through his paces inside a large hangar at the maryland retreat, where there’s a mock debate stage complete with bright television lights. his personal attorney, bob bauer, is playing trump and other aides have sat in as cnn moderators dana bash and jake tapper. but sources told cnn that the debate practice was about more than feeling comfortable. it’s also about answering the age question. aides and allies of the president alike have frequently pointed to his state of the union address in march as a model example of biden at his best. he was energetic, focused and nimble, they’ve argued, over the course of his 67 minute prime time speech. sitting presidents often have a rude awakening at first presidential debates, since they are unused to anyone getting in their grill and contradicting them. but trump’s advantage on this score may be compromised since he refused to debate any of his gop primary rivals this year. still, his aggressive debate style isn’t much different from the belligerent, spiky attitude he displays in most public events. trump has warmed up for the debate by suggesting that biden will be “jacked up” on drugs, as his aides frantically have tried to dismantle the expectations trap that the ex president constructed for himself by suggesting that biden is so mentally diminished that he can barely stand up or finish a sentence. in any other era, the idea of a candidate accusing an opponent of doping would be unthinkable. but trump’s tactic is a reminder of a presidency and a political style that has shattered all previous norms. in a new memo on wednesday, trump’s campaign signaled that the ex president would assail biden over immigration and the economy. it boasted about polling averages that his team says show the former president up in all the key states. and trump, whose administration created a gale of daily falsehoods, characteristically worked to accuse biden of the very transgression that is most associated with him   lying. “the man is a walking lying machine and a fact checker’s dream,” trump wrote on truth social, while accusing biden, one of the best presidential golfers, of being unable to hit a ball 10 yards. trump’s unorthodox approach means that the country may get another reminder of the chaos, discord and cacophony that it experienced in his four years in office   and that his supporters love and want to restore. but it’s also a risk that could play into biden’s desire to get voters to see the contrast between the 45th and 46th presidents that he believes could deliver him the election. former obama speechwriter terry szuplat said successful debate performances tell a coherent story of where the country is and where it is going. “it’s a story about yourself. why you’re the right candidate. why the other candidate is the wrong candidate. and it’s a story about the future. every election is about the future. it’s a choice about the future,” szuplat told cnn’s kasie hunt. neither trump nor biden has so far fulfilled that goal. thursday is the best chance to do so. © 2025 cable news network. a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. cnn sans ™ & © 2016 cable news network.

lesson plan sept. 24, 2016, 2:49 p.m. lesson plan learn how to identify problems you care about using the invention process learn how to identify problems you care about using the invention process lesson plan the collection is designed to provide teachers with meaningful resources about the holocaust the collection is designed to provide teachers with meaningful resources about the holocaust lesson plan examine dr. martin luther king jr.'s legacy with these lesson plans and videos examine dr. martin luther king jr.'s legacy with these lesson plans and videos lesson plan examine the words of martin luther king jr.'s "letter from a birmingham jail" in relation to jan. 6 examine the words of martin luther king jr.'s "letter from a birmingham jail" in relation to jan. 6 supported by viewers like you. additional support provided by: copyright © 2025 newshour production llc. all rights reserved illustrations by annamaria ward

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.

we’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. please try again in a few moments. exception: forbidden
supported by guest essay by frank luntz mr. luntz is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who worked for republican candidates in previous elections. if you’re a typical american voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: what matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns. i’ve learned this from studying american reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. i’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home. to be fair, some of the debates i watched with voters, like bill clinton and bob dole’s in 1996, had no major impact on the electorate’s mood. others   like the three way town hall debate with mr. clinton, george h.w. bush and ross perot in 1992 and the first george w. bush al gore debate in 2000 and the three donald trump hillary clinton collisions   arguably changed history. as the first scheduled debate between president biden and mr. trump unfolds this thursday, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to americans. viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. from ronald reagan’s “are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980 to barack obama emphasizing hope and change in 2008 to mr. trump telling mrs. clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, i think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; i certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. these moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe. and sometimes it’s a feeling rather than a specific moment that matters. the best examples are john kerry in the 2004 debates and john mccain in the 2008 debates: both men were good public servants with impressive personal narratives, and neither said anything wrong in their debates. but neither did they say anything especially or memorably right. many voters were left feeling unmoved and therefore unaffected. at the risk of offending every high school debate coach in america, many voters respond to style more than substance. the well delivered quip lingers longer than the litany of facts, and the visual often trumps the verbal. it’s not just that the electorate tends to be drawn more to younger and more attractive candidates (like mr. obama, mr. clinton and john f. kennedy) or to those with more commanding stage presence (which mr. reagan had over jimmy carter and walter mondale, and george h.w. bush had over michael dukakis).