The most common, notable characteristic of leaders debates is that they influence the outcome of elections hardly at all.
There are the obvious exceptions Kennedy-Nixon, Mulroney-Turner, MacLellan-clock but those are few and far between.
Yet, its the exceptions that stick in the mind and cause us to imbue political debates with a power few have attained the power to move votes.
We, the unrecovered political junkies, are drawn to the debate in anticipation of the exceptional a moment, a line, a performance with the power to change everything, or at least the course, if not the outcome, of the election. We are disappointed more often than not.
The political operatives coaching the leaders of Nova Scotias three major political parties for Wednesday evenings debate (6 p.m. on CBC), while fully aware of the unremarkable norm, prepare their guys for the exceptions.
Parties running behind want their leader to land a line on the favourite that will stop him in his tracks and elevate the audiences opinion of he who threw the well-aimed political dart.
Brian Mulroney did just that to John Turner in 1984.
Neophyte PM Turner sputtered a pathetic defence I had no option for paying off the patronage debts prime minister Trudeau (the original) left behind when he pirouetted out of 24 Sussex for the final time.
Mulroneys memorable retort you had an option, sir (you could have said no) put Turner on his heels, made him look weak and subservient to his larger-than-life predecessor. It catapulted Mulroneys Tories to a massive majority.
Frontrunners are prepped to parry opponents more predictable thrusts and nudge the debate toward a level of excitement that in this high-summer campaign would send all but the most hopelessly hooked back to the barbecue.
The three parties with a chance of winning the election chances ranging from strong to slim know where they stand with the electorate and the debate could offer some hints about where that is. Frontrunners, for example, dont start fights. Fierce partisan attacks generally betray desperation. That kind of stuff.
The campaigns one-third over, but its still too early to risk all with big, sudden moves that could frighten away voters. Big risks carry the potential for a big political payoff, or a campaign-killing backlash.
So, if youre tuning in hoping for some political bloodletting, stick around for the full 90 minutes because you never know, but the odds are better than even that this will be mostly a bloodless event.
And the controversy swirling around Robyn Ingrahams cancelled Liberal candidacy is the wildcard that could change the tone and tenor of the debate, and maybe the election.
Another reason to stick around is that theres always a chance of something completely unexpected, like the several (most claim seven, it felt longer) seconds of silence that live on in infamy for some, and Nova Scotian political folklore for most.
During the 1998 leaders debate, then-premier Russell MacLellan stuck assiduously, and disastrously, to the rules. Because of those rules, MacLellan didnt respond to a question from PC leader John Hamm. The camera stayed trained on MacLellan who remained speechless. Whether it was seven seconds or seven minutes, it felt like an eternity.
MacLellan, effectively, lost the debate to the clock and his Liberal government nearly lost the election to the NDP.
MacLellans deer-in-the-headlights moment is an extreme example of how non-verbal cues can leave an indelible image with the voters long after everything thats said is forgotten.
In other words, appearances matter.
The famous Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960 the first televised presidential debates are generally cited as the best example.
Nixon appeared with a heavy five-oclock shadow and sweated uncomfortably under the hot TV lights, while Kennedy, the handsome young senator from Massachusetts, appeared calm, cool and in control.
The verbal vs. non-verbal divide was wide that night. TV viewers reportedly felt Kennedy won, while those who tuned in on radio gave the debate to Nixon.
In this latest debate, each of the leaders Liberal Iain Rankin, Tory Tim Houston, and New Democrat Gary Burrill will arrive for the debate with their partys pitch perfected, their platforms etched in their memories and a few attack lines and deflections prepared.
The format of the debate allows for give-and-take among the three, so a good-old-fashioned political donnybrook isnt outside the realm of possibility. Some of us harbour a deep, secret until now desire to see and hear exactly that.
History, however, suggests a more orderly affair, but it will have its moments, and they, along with the simple fact that one of the three men will lead Nova Scotias next government, are reason enough to take it in.
Read the original post:
JIM VIBERT: Decisive debates are few and far between | Saltwire - SaltWire Network
