New York's Debate About Debates
Pataki Has No Reason to Share the Stage with Challengers
By Joseph Mercurio
[This column appeared in The New York Sun on September 23, 2002.]
So far, all of the major candidates for Governor of New York say they want debates. Yet it's not certain that there will be any debates at all. Ever since the advent of television and the broadcast of the Kennedy-Nixon debate, there has been a debate about debates.
Because on occasion debates have made challengers viable or front-runners vulnerable, campaign managers for frontrunners and entrenched incumbents often avoid debates. And when a debate manages to get scheduled, there is a tremendous amount of attention paid to the smallest details -- the size of the podium, the format and questions, the lighting and camera angles, the time of broadcast, and the moderator and questioners.
Given the sterile process, it's not clear that New York's voters would be missing out on much if no debate ends up materializing. Polling and media team preparations tend to homogenize the response of each candidate, and the post-debate chatter by candidates' surrogates can be more important in developing how the press covers what happened than what the candidate said. The press, in turn, spends little time on the subtleties of the public policy debate and instead focuses on the question of who won.
Governor Mario Cuomo, despite the fact that he was one of the most eloquent speakers of his time, avoided debating challenger George Pataki. The calculation was that just letting Mr. Pataki share the stage with the Mr. Cuomo would raise the underdog up to the Governor's stature. Mr. Pataki, like most insurgents, desperately sought that advantage and the opportunity to put Mr. Cuomo on the spot to answer for his record.
Since his election as Governor, however, Mr. Pataki has scrupulously avoided debates for the same tactical reason he was put off by Mr. Cuomo. In this race he has made a disingenuous concession to have debates -- but only if all eight candidates who have ballot positions attend. As the Governor knows, it would be impossible for each candidate, including the front-runner and his two main challengers, to get much airtime in a group debate. Therefore, the Governor is less likely to be cornered or tripped up, and H. Carl McCall and Thomas Golisano would have little opportunity to make their case or attack his administration.
For all the hullabaloo made of the debate over debates, they rarely have the effect of moving large blocks of voters. Audiences are usually quite small, even when you include voters who read about the event later. Moreover, those who do watch are a diverse group with divergent issues in which they are interested. The odds that the candidates will spend a significant amount of time talking about an issue that a large voting block cares about are slim to none.
What debates can do is reassure voters to stay with their candidate, or possibly move ticket-splitters to someone they might not normally support. This was a factor in the Carter-Reagan debate in 1980. Mr. McCall could convince Democrats to come home to his party if he does well -- or to stay with Mr. Pataki should the Governor pull out a surprisingly strong performance. Mr. McCall is a seasoned debater while Mr. Pataki is less practiced.
If Thomas Golisano receives enough support in the polls to warrant a place in a three-way debate the dynamic could be unpredictable. Just being there is likely to give him a boost in the polls. In 1992 Ross Perot gained legitimacy and votes when he was included with President George H. W. Bush and Governor William J. Clinton in the presidential debate. Being left out in 1996 contributed to Mr. Perot's inability to get attention and be taken seriously as a candidate in his second run for the Oval Office.
An additional dynamic would work against the Governor in a three-way debate, as opposed to his preferred eight-way debate. While Mr. Pataki has been successfully triangulating by copping Democratic positions when the race was between him and a Democrat-yet-to-be-named, a three-way debate will force him to answer Mr. Golisano's attacks from the right. That can erode his Republican and right-of-center base and at the same time prevent him from picking up votes on the center-left. Mr. McCall can then pick up voters by positioning himself as a moderate, responsible, accomplished Democrat.
Often more important than the substance of the debate has been how candidates' images are reshaped. The elder President Bush looking at his wristwatch during a debate put forward the image of a president who didn't really care about the office or the democratic process. Cutaways of Richard Nixon sweating profusely with his five-o'-clock shadow contrasted unflatteringly with the clean-cut John Kennedy. Famously, Mr. Nixon played better on the radio.
Sometimes, the debate can turn on dramatic moments, gaffes, or memorable lines, despite the best laid plans. Who could forget Dan Quayle in 1988, comparing himself in age and experience to President Kennedy and Lloyd Benson's sharp response, or Ronald Regan making voters feel more comfortable with his age in 1984 when he said he would not hold his opponent's relative youth and inexperience against him.
In today's media age, we are a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Mr. Pataki, with much to lose and almost nothing to gain, will likely play it safe and opt for a small audience and lots of candidates or no debates at all.
