THE HUTCHINSON REPORT: If nothing else, debates provide good entertainment 

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Contributing Columnist

The first in a possible series of presidential debates Sept. 10 was — as expected — a ratings bonanza for the network broadcasting it. In this case the network was ABC. 

There was the usual instant analysis by teams of network commentators afterwards. There were the usual intense back and forth debates among the public over who won. There were the inevitable polls asking the same question: who won?

Vice President Kamala Harris pounded former President Donald Trump as an ultra-right existential threat who would usher in authoritarian, corporate and Wall Street giveaway rule to America. Trump pounded Harris as “comrade Harris” who would usher in a far out leftist, socialist style soak the rich big government rule to America. This all made for good drama and cheers but not much more.

In 1987, former President Richard Nixon had a late life reflection on what went right and wrong in his long and checkered political career. He had this to say about presidential debates: “In the television age, a candidate’s appearance and style count far more than his ideas and record.”

Two Monmouth University polls on the 2020 and 2016 presidential debates backed Nixon up. A paltry 3% of those polled said that they might find something one of the candidates said in a debate to sway their vote. and 87% said it was not likely. 

It was about the same in 2016. Ten percent gave a cautious, tentative possibility of something said that might influence their vote. Nearly 90% said they did not expect to hear anything that would change their mind about a candidate. Other surveys on presidential debate have found pretty much the same thing. Debates don’t sway voters.

Nixon’s alleged debate wash out with John F. Kennedy in 1960 sealed the belief that an afternoon shadow, mussed hair, a malapropism and a gaffe during a debate will make or break presidents and their challengers. That’s a myth.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford’s bid for a full elected term supposedly went down the tubes when he blurted out that Poland wasn’t under Soviet domination during his debate with Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter. Presumably, that gaffe shot to pieces Ford’s credibility on vital foreign policy issues. 

But Ford could not shake Republican blame for the Watergate scandal, and his pardon of Nixon. That, more than his debate miscue, did him in.

In 1980, it was thought that Republican challenger Ronald Reagan’s carefully scripted and rehearsed “There you go again” retort to Carter when he accused him of wanting to slash Medicare so befuddled Carter that his re-election bid came unglued. But by the time of their debate, Carter’s presidency was badly tattered. Voters blamed him for high inflation, unemployment, waves of business failures and the bungled Iran hostage rescue mission.

In 1988, Democratic presidential contender Michael Dukakis’ automaton-like answer in his debate with Vice President George H.W. Bush to the loaded question about the death penalty supposedly blew his presidential bid. But Bush carried Reagan’s imprimatur. 

The Reagan administration gave the appearance of fostering an economic boom, had stunning foreign policy successes marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and stratospheric public approval ratings.

In his debate with Democratic challenger Bill Clinton in 1992, Bush repeatedly glanced at his watch and seemed impatient to get the debate over. That allegedly soured voters on him. 

That did not torpedo his re-election bid. Bush’s inability to resuscitate the economy and urban racial turmoil badly hurt him. What really nailed him was the insurgent campaign of Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. 

He siphoned off thousands of potential Republican votes. That cost Bush more than 100 electoral votes in 13 key Southern and swing states that Republicans had either won during Reagan’s presidential triumphs, or had strongly run in.

In 2000, George W. Bush came off as personable, witty and conversational in his debate with Democrat Al Gore. By contrast, Gore was perceived as stiff, arrogant and condescending. 

Yet, many experts believed that despite Gore’s personality glitches, he still beat Bush on the issues. Gore went on to win the popular vote. It took the Florida vote debacle and a Supreme Court ruling to settle the matter for Bush.

In 2008 candidate Barack Obama and then in 2012 President Obama won and lost in some debate rounds to first John McCain and then Mitt Romney. However, Obama’s favorables were already high with a wide cross section of voters. So, even his occasional stumbles on camera during the debates didn’t damage him.  

Then there’s the polarization in American politics. It is so wide and deep that even those voters who truly have not made up their minds before the debates and can be influenced by a debate performance have dwindled too almost nothing.

Harris or Trump will win the White House if voters really feel that one can better handle crucial issues such as the country’s illegal immigration crisis, inflation surge and guaranteeing a better future than the other. That won’t come from the presidential debates between Trump and Harris. But they do make for good entertainment and ratings.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is the author of “Kamala!” and the forthcoming “President Trump’s America” (Middle Passage Press). He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Hot Topic Sunday Facebook Livestream.