Real-World Rules for the Debate

In the aftermath of the first two presidential debates, I keep hearing (from pundits as well as ordinary people) that the candidates “didn’t answer the questions” or that they “kept saying the same thing over and over again.” Some people have even suggested that perhaps the candidates weren’t smart enough to give thoughtful, nuanced answers to the questions put to them. But these people fail to understand certain fundamental rules of politics.

To a candidate and his advisors, debates are not about nuance and they’re not about responsiveness and they’re certainly not about impressing the Jim Lehrers and Charles Gibsons and Bob Schieffers of the world. Like a party convention, a televised debate is an opportunity for a candidate to have the focused attention of the electorate and to deliver his message in his own words, unfiltered by the media, to millions of people.

Frankly, it would be foolhardy to let a moderator’s questions get in the way of that.

During the long pre-debate practice sessions, this is drummed into the candidates’ heads. They are told that every question is -- and should be -- an opportunity to drive the message directly home with voters. The goal is not to answer Jim Lehrer but to talk to Americans -- in Cincinnati, Miami, Seattle -- and to tell them what you want them to know about you and about your opponent.

Mastering the art of staying with your message while deflecting the questions from reporters and interviewers that could put you on the defensive is an essential part of winning debates and, ultimately, of winning elections.

There are a few key rules for handling tough question-and-answer sessions that may not make pundits happy but that candidates ignore at their own peril:

1. Remember who the audience is. The question may be posed by your opponent or a moderator but the person you are really communicating with is the voter at home. When Sen. John F. Kerry said: “I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are,” he spoke to America, not the moderator.

2. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Just because you have said it doesn’t mean they have heard it. Hammer your message again and again.

3. Answer the question your way, not theirs. You don’t want to seem evasive, but don’t take the bait. When Sen. John Edwards slammed Vice President Dick Cheney on Halliburton, Cheney knew the issue was really about his personal integrity. So instead of defending his record or explaining, he pivoted immediately and attacked Edwards for rampant absenteeism from his Senate committees.

4. You don’t have to accept the premise of the question; it is often a trap. If you disagree with the premise, say so, and then bridge to your message. When President Bush was asked what the effect of a Kerry presidency would be on terrorism, he deftly rejected the premise by simply responding that such a situation would never occur -- and that he would win reelection because he knew what it took to lead.

Of course it sounds simpler to execute these rules than it really is, especially under the pressure of a live debate. But armed with the proper research about one’s own record and one’s opponent’s, a skilled candidate can consistently drive his key messages without sounding evasive or repetitive or inarticulate.

This may sound cynical on paper, but the fact is that the system, however imperfect, works. The debates brought to the fore clear differences in policies, and they demonstrated clearly where each side thought the other was weaker.

The messages got through. After the first debate, the public believed Kerry’s message more than Bush’s and the polls shifted, even if only temporarily. Round two was a draw. Now we go to round three. But don’t expect any knockout blows. And if they do their job right, you probably won’t hear much that you haven’t heard before.