1. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
Jason A. Cohen
Monmouth University
December 1, 2015

2. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
Abstract
Every four years, candidates bombard the American people with campaign messages from in their
pursuit to be the President that will lead the country into the future. During the frenetic pace of a
campaign, candidates have many ways of getting their messaging to their audience. Whether it is through
placing ads on television, leveraging social media platforms to promote their agenda, a personalized web
site, public appearances,town halls, or through canvassing there are ample methods for them to employ.
However,perhaps one of the most high profile and personal opportunities that a candidate can
differentiate themselves from their opponent is through a live debate on national television. Ever since the
first debates in 1960, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, there have been times that debates
have been a make or break moment for a candidate’s chances of ascending to the office of the Presidency.
In the documentary “Debating our Destiny: 40 Years of Presidential Debate,” which ran on PBS, we hear
directly from Presidential candidates and Vice Presidential candidates about their experiences leading up
to the debate and in subsequent debates. Their candor also provides valuable insight into their
communication strategies. This contrasts well with the parody video clips from Saturday Night Live
sketches which provides a humorous look at some of the mistakes that were made during the debates that
came back to haunt the candidates.
Debating our Destiny
In the PBS documentary, “Debating our Destiny”, Jim Lehrer provides a clear history of
Presidential debates going from the first debate in 1960 all the way through to 2004. The candidates who
he speaks with give the viewer a behind the scenes look at the strategies, communication styles,
preparation, and emotions that come into play during these highly pressurized events. It is apparent that
severalthemes exist in the numerous campaigns that have occurred since 1960. The major themes are
that debates are a mental battle, you cannot say anything too controversial because it will leave you
vulnerable to attack,and it is important to know the issues and have a good running mate.
The first takeaway is that every candidate said that debates were grueling mentally. Each of the
candidates must be on their toes and prepare rigorously not just for the questions that will come from

3. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
moderators, but also to have responses to rebuttals from the opponent they are facing. It is not enough to
know your own agenda, but to have an understanding of how the opponent will position their agenda
while calling attention to weaknesses in your agenda. The importance of being mentally sharp was
apparent when Gerald Ford made a massive blunder during the 1976 debate when he was talking about
foreign policy issues and misspoke about Russia’s stronghold on severalEastern European countries. This
gaff was one of the main reasons why his campaign for re-election failed. Similarly, severalother
candidates appeared to be visually uneasy or rattled during the debate process with Richard Nixon being
an example during the 1960 election where he miscalculated his opponent and appeared not as relaxed
and confident compared to John F. Kennedy. Perhaps the most egregious misstep came when George
H.W. Bush was seen checking his watch as if the process was boring, tedious, and unimportant to him
during the town hall debate with Clinton in 1992.
Another point to emphasize from the documentary is the importance of not saying anything too
controversial. Lehrer speaks with Michael Dukakis who made the mistake of saying he would not support
the death penalty even if his wife was raped and murdered. Dukakis notes he mistakenly did not take into
account that many voters were seeing and hearing him speak for the first time so his comments could
come across as callous and nonchalant. He adds that politicians answer questions like this all the time so
he did not see what the big deal was and why his comments garnered such a negative reaction. Another
example came in the 1976 election when the moderators asked Jimmy Carter about his interview with
Playboy magazine in which he claims other women tempt him at times and he has lust in his heart. This
interview, and his comments, could have created a much bigger issue for him had he not taken ownership
of the situation during the debate by saying if he had an opportunity he would not have given the
interview since it is unbecoming of a Presidential candidate. These are just a few examples, but during the
documentary Lehrer notes in each of the elections that were included a candidate lost points because they
were too afraid of saying something controversial.
The final points that are worth commenting on are the importance of knowing the right issues to
focus on and choosing the right running mate that can help champion your narrative while also staving off

4. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
attacks. In every election that was covered, the candidates said they did not feellike they won the election
because of a debate. However,many of the candidates did note they felt as though the debate delivered a
blow to their campaign because they made a lapse in judgment on the issues. One such lapse is not
appearing to be strong on the issues that are important during that campaign cycle can be a major
disadvantage to a candidate. This is evident in the 1992 election when Bush had a massive lead because
of his success in Dessert Storm, but ultimately lost to Clinton who came across as more in tune with the
pulse of the American people. While Bush was more of an expert on foreign affairs, he struggled to
identify with voters who were concerned with the economy and domestic issues and this became evident
in Clinton’s messaging during the debate. Clinton said, “For 12 years you had it your way… you had your
chance… and it didn’t work. It’s time for change.” This is a powerful message to the people who were
looking for a leader that would help to improve the economy and bring new jobs. It is not just important
to have the right messaging, but you also have to choose a running mate who will add credibility to your
campaign. When Vice Presidential candidates began to have their own debate many times it was
necessary for them to attack the other candidate for President rather than the Vice Presidential candidate
and to protect their candidate from attacks as well. This was evident in severalelections but most notably
during the 1988 debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen. Quayle was being questioned about his
experience and made an idiotic statement about having as much experience entering the election from his
time in the Senate as John F. Kennedy had entering the Presidential race in 1960. Bentsen famously
refuted his statement by saying, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” While this did not affect the election
negatively for Bush, it shows that having an experienced running mate is important because of the amount
of questions Quayle received about whether he was a worthy candidate to fill in for the President if Bush
was incapacitated.
Saturday Night Live Clips
Saturday Night Live (SNL) has been a staple on national television for forty years and the
sketches that are acted out tend to resonate and capture the attention of the American public. This is no
more evident than in their parodies of Presidential hopefuls in mock debates. In most cases,the actors

5. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
who portray the candidates are performing hyperbolic imitations that are drawn upon from real life
examples. In the parody of the 1976 debates between candidates Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, Chevy
Chase and Dan Akroyd provide whacky antics that almost assuredly had some level of impact on the way
the candidates were perceived by the American people. In the parody of the 2000 debate between George
Bush and Al Gore, Darrell Hammond and Will Ferrell provide a similar caricature of the candidates by
relating how the candidates came across during their first debate.
In the 1976 debates,Chase and Akroyd bring to light the amount of effort that candidates expend
to avoid giving direct answers on controversial issues. An example comes when the moderators ask
“Ford” and “Carter” to provide their stance on abortion. Both of the candidates danced around the
question and did not provide a concrete answer for fear of alienating voters. In fact,during “Carter’s”
response he said he was interested in being “sufficiently ambiguous.” It is apparent that SNL was trying
to drive home the point to the candidates that American citizens are smart enough to see when a candidate
is not apprised on the issues and that failure to provide a coherent response will cause the candidate to
appear weaker than their opponent. A moment in the video that was amusing, as well as accurate,came
when both candidates began to deliver their final statements in unison. All too often candidates will
attempt to rattle their opponents or gain additional time to speak by interrupting or talking over the other
candidate and the 1976 SNL skit does a great job of capturing the tension that goes along with a
Presidential debate.
In the 2000 debate, Hammond and Ferrell build on the antics that transpired between Bush and
Gore in the first debate of the election by mimicking the mannerisms and communication styles of the
candidates. The video portrays Gore as being monotonous, lacking passion, and repeating himself a lot
about issues that do not make sense. Ferrell delivers a memorable impersonation of Bush by being
demonstrative and playing into the idea that Bush is a moron. An example comes when the moderator
asked “Bush” about a highly nonsensical quote that was attributed to him and he responded by saying
“Pass.” At this point, “Gore” puts his foot in his mouth by attempting to explain what he believes “Bush”
was intending to say, to which “Bush” replies “Yes,that’s what I meant.” The video does not paint a

6. DEBATING OUR DESTINY: ANALYSISOFPRESIDENTIALDEBATESAND THEIR IMPORTANCETO ELECTIONS
pretty picture for either candidate and did provide the candidates with an opportunity to see how they
were being perceived. If that was indeed the case,and either candidate adjusted their tactic or
communication style as a result of the parody, it shows that television and debates themselves can have an
impact on the results of the election.
In conclusion, Presidential debates have become an integral part of the campaign process. While
there were no debates from 1960 until 1976, every four years since the 1976 election there has been at
least one debate between the main candidates for the Presidency. As we move into a digital age, where
information disseminates in the blink of an eye,debates will continue to be an important piece of the
puzzle for aspiring candidates. History has shown that mistakes made during debates can come back to
bite a candidate and future politicians must be sure to recognize the mistakes that have been made so they
can avoid a similar fate. During the interviews, some of the participants in the “Debating our Destiny”
documentary, namely President George H.W. Bush disparaged the importance of debates because they
were not comfortable and felt they were too contrived and lacking in spontaneity. However,others like
Bill Clinton were able to excelin debates and took advantage of the real value and importance of
connecting with the American people. It is clear from viewing “Debating our Destiny” and the SNL clips
that the American people have a certain perception about candidates leading up to and after a debate.
Therefore,it is important for a candidate to be sufficiently knowledgeable on the issues they stand for,
able to articulate what differentiates them from their competitor, and can relate to the issues that are
paramount to voters.
References:
Lehrer J (2000). “Debating our Destiny: 40 Years of Presidential Debate.” Film. PBS.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSkA5sRCreE