In preparation for the first 2004 presidential debate tonight,
the Daily Bruin spoke with political science Professor Matthew Baum
to get an idea of what to expect.
***
Daily Bruin: What demographic should we expect the
candidates to appeal to during the debate? What issues will they
press to appeal to this demographic?
Matthew Baum: I don’t think there’s one demographic
the candidates will be particularly trying to appeal to. The bottom
line is that they’re trying to appeal to the relatively few
remaining persuadable voters. These voters are more likely to be
independent ““ they are not likely to be partisans, that is,
clear Republicans or clear Democrats. If they are undecided this
late in the game, they’re probably also not the most
politically engaged members of the public. So these are people that
are less likely than highly politically engaged folks to focus on
the nuances of arcane policy debates. They are much more likely to
be responsive to their visceral reactions to the way the candidates
present themselves. This doesn’t mean that content
doesn’t matter; it just means that the folks that are most
likely to be persuadable at this stage of the campaign are
relatively less likely than their more engaged counterparts to be
focused on the specific policy issues the candidates are debating.
Things like body language, who appears more confident, more honest
““ these are the things that will be more likely to loom large
to these voters.
DB: What issues do you think Sen. John Kerry should
emphasize in order to draw support away from President
Bush?
MB: Everything I just said suggests that there’s no magic
formula for that in policy discussions. Kerry has a difficult task
in front of him. To draw the types of policy distinctions that are
likely to be noticed in a meaningful way by the people who are
still persuadable would require that Kerry draw stark and dramatic
contrasts with Bush’s policies. And that means attacking the
president and his policies directly and aggressively. Doing that
has the disadvantage that it can make you appear mean-spirited. For
people who are more likely to be responsive to their visceral
reactions to the candidates, you, as a candidate, want to seem more
likable. Many people think this may have been Gore’s problem
in 2000. So the bottom line is that Kerry faces a bit of a
catch-22.
In terms of specific policies, the best-case scenario for Kerry
would be to successfully separate the war in Iraq from the war on
terror in the minds of voters. He would probably also like to draw
the most direct linkages possible between the resources that have
been expended in Iraq ““ with arguably less than the promised
degree of success ““ and the president’s performance in
various domestic social and economic policy areas, such as
reforming health care and social security, tax policy and the
budget deficit. That’s what Kerry would like to accomplish,
but it’s a very tall one.
DB: Likewise, what issues should Bush emphasize?
What Bush really wants to emphasize is his strength and resolve
as a leader. He also needs to cement the link between Iraq and the
war on terror. He will play on his perceived strength as a leader
in the war on terror, and that’s much easier than
Kerry’s task. The highly structured debates that we have seen
in recent elections are much better suited to communicating
visceral messages than to exploring the nuances of public policy
issues, including the differences between the candidates on the
issues.
DB: Is it important for us to watch the debates? Will they
be educational?
They will be somewhat educational, especially if you
haven’t been paying much attention to the campaign thus far.
It’s a chance for candidates to articulate their positions
before a mass audience in greater detail than is possible in
campaign ads. If you are someone who is not paying a lot of
attention to the campaign, that can be educational. It’s also
good theater.
DB: What kind of impact do the debates have on the
presidential election?
Usually not a tremendous one ““ they typically solidify the
status quo. The first debate is Kerry’s last best chance to
move a substantial number of people, because the audience typically
decreases for each subsequent debate. Bush is playing the role of
the typical front-runner ““ he is trying to solidify his
position and not make a mistake. The other candidate, Kerry, is
trying to catch up. Bush has an advantage here because it is much
easier to avoid a mistake than to shake up the race. Of course,
every once in a while, a debate can make a significant difference
in a campaign. One famous example was a 1976 debate between Gerald
Ford and Jimmy Carter, where Ford mistakenly stated that there was
no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Many people have argued
that this turned the tide in Carter’s favor. The argument
goes that this was such a huge gas that it caused people to
re-evaluate Ford downward relative to Carter. This is among the
clearest examples of a debate having a large impact, but it is
still a controversial question. Some scholars have disputed whether
the Ford gaffe really made all that much difference. Regardless, as
I said, more often than not, debates don’t radically change
things, so much as solidify them. In this instance, it’s a
lot easier to play defense.
DB: Why are third-party candidates not allowed to
participate in the debates? How would it affect the debates if they
were allowed to participate?
It is not the case that they are literally “not
allowed.” Basically, the two major parties don’t want
them in ““ or typically at least one of the two parties
doesn’t want them in. So, the two sides generally agree to
set a high bar for letting a third party candidate into the
debates. You have to have a certain amount of support in the polls,
maybe 15 or 20 percent. It’s a high hurdle. We have primarily
a two-party system; allowing third parties to participate can
change the dynamic of the debate. Depending on who the third
candidate is, he or she might introduce topics that others
don’t want to discuss, thereby perhaps pressuring the
candidates to address those issues. However, it is difficult to
generalize. It could make a significant difference or it could make
no difference at all. It all depends on the context, most
importantly, the dynamics of the individual election campaign and
the candidates involved.
DB: How is the first debate set up? Does the structure
imposed allow for a real debate?
For the first debate, the candidates won’t be able to
question each other. By not allowing them to question each other,
and more generally, by tightly controlling the interaction between
the candidates, it becomes more like a bilateral press conference
than a true debate in the classical sense of the term.
Interview conducted by Colleen Honigsberg, Daily Bruin
Senior Staff.