WI: no presidential debates

FDW

Banned
Well, that would really change the nature of elections, and would probably deprive voters of a good chance to vet candidates. No debate in 1960 would mean that Nixon would likely win. However, I don't think that you can institution of the debate from not emerging, as all it takes is one determined (and/or desperate) candidate to pull it off.
 
Yeah, this is a non-starter in the sense they will happen sooner or later; the only reason there weren't debates in '68 and '72 for example was because of Nixon. The challenger(s) is(are) always going to want to have a debate as an opportunity to try and win points against the incumbent, and sooner or later there will be an incumbent who will feel comfortable about his chances to do the reverse.
 
Yeah, this is a non-starter in the sense they will happen sooner or later; the only reason there weren't debates in '68 and '72 for example was because of Nixon. The challenger(s) is(are) always going to want to have a debate as an opportunity to try and win points against the incumbent, and sooner or later there will be an incumbent who will feel comfortable about his chances to do the reverse.

Don't forget '64. Johnson didn't want anything to do with a debate and Goldwater didn't have the clout to get the president to concede to one. There was a 16 year gap between the first televised presidential debate and the second. It wasn't until the League of Women voters got heavily involved and there was outside pressure that debates became the norm. That was further aided by the fact that it was around the same time that Reagan was running, and he wanted to be on camera as much as possible.

Possibly no Watergate scandal might tamp down the desire to see candidates debate; less of a "you answer to us" type atmosphere would do that. Different candidates, ones who are less charismatic, would also have an adverse effect. But you can't really stop them forever. I'd say 1984 would be the latest conceivable election which wouldn't feature a debate.
 
Don't forget '64. Johnson didn't want anything to do with a debate and Goldwater didn't have the clout to get the president to concede to one.

I think, not sure but I think it was because of how poorly Johnson performed in that debate with Kennedy during the '60 primaries.

Goldwater and Kennedy had intended to debate each other, I remember that much.
 
- Nixon might squeak by in 1960
- Ford would win in 1976.
- Possibly slightly smaller landslides in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
- Much closer race in 1992, but less attention on Perot.
- Might help Gore win 2000.
- No effect on 1996, 2004 or 2008.

Most of these butterfly each other a lot of course.
 
If we count primaries debates, things would be even more different. 2012 could have easily been President Hillary Clinton vs Governor Rick Perry without any debates in 2008 and 2012 (though one could certainly argue Romney's money advantage in 2012 was insurmountable.)

1980 was incredibly close until the debates. Carter could win.

You've fundamentally altered America's political landscape if you can find a way to completely and totally remove debates from the equation.
 
Top