http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/difficult-questions-how-much-the-clinton-trump-debates-matter.html 2016-09-26 01:36:31 Difficult Questions: How Much the Clinton-Trump Debates Matter Whether bloopers and snappy retorts are presidential game changers has been disputed since the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon faced off in 1960. === Forty years later, a moment in the annals of presidential debates remains a classic, worth recalling as “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” President Gerald R. Ford “I’m sorry,” Mr. Frankel said. He continued: “Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a Communist zone?” Undeterred, Ford went on to say that several Eastern European nations he named did not think of themselves as Soviet-dominated and that “the United States does not concede” any domination exists. His misstep and the panelist’s instant response are recalled in an examination of presidential debates by Then, too, the scheduled moderator for a third Trump-Clinton debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News, has “Truth-squading,” even if it was not called that, became the most enduring memory from that 1976 debate. Actually, Mr. Frankel thought he was tossing the president a lifeline, not a gotcha line. “My giving Ford a chance to clarify was instinctive,” born of journalistic tradition, he said in a recent email exchange. “We do not trap a president with trick questions or acquiesce in confusion. We aim to explain policy, and should follow up if he has left his meaning unclear.” Across the years, presidential debates have tended to be remembered less for their intellectual heft than for their gaffes and one-liners, be it Ford’s stumble, or Ronald Reagan’s “ But whether bloopers and snappy retorts are game changers is a question that has dogged presidential election debates since the first one, held on another Sept. 26, in 1960, between Their encounter is Retro Report’s main focus, notably the story line that swiftly took root. It held that Kennedy won on good looks alone, that against a light backdrop he appeared crisp and commanding in his dark suit while Nixon, recovering from an injury, looked pale and sweaty, his bearing hardly improved by an ill-chosen gray suit. Those who saw none of that and only listened on radio — a far more common situation in 1960 America than today — believed Nixon had triumphed. So the story went. Many scholars have debunked that narrative, among them (Whatever the reality, Nixon felt burned by the experience and came to view television warily — until he ran again for president in 1968, this time successfully, tutored in the art of the camera by a young producer named Roger Ailes. Mr. Ailes, When it comes to substance, and not just a stumble here or a clever line there, can a debate make or break a candidacy? Experts have long been divided. Some consider the debates decisive. That view was offered last month by Gary May, a University of Delaware historian, who Well, maybe not, suggests another academician, John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University. Even blunders may not be self-evident right away. Mr. Frankel acknowledged that he himself had not immediately recognized the damaging potential of Ford’s “no Soviet domination” remarks. Many other Americans also failed to see it until newspaper and television analyses shaped their consensus that a serious presidential slip had occurred. These days, voters no longer need to wait for received wisdom to form. They can get it, or at least what passes for wisdom, in real time by watching squiggly lines on their television screens that represent focus group impressions of the candidates, or by following an avalanche of opinions put forth by the commentariat on As a share of the United States population, the television audience for debates has declined. The In decline or not, “debates are important,” Mr. Frankel said, “because we normally get so few opportunities to meet the candidates and confront them with difficult questions.” For Professor Greenberg, the merits of what the candidates say onstage may not be as important as the mere fact that they stand there, subjecting themselves to a grilling before millions of eyes and ears. “Debates draw strength from their status as important rituals,”