Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Presidential Debates: What Politicians Don't Understand, Why Oddsmakers Are Wrong Presidential Debates: What Politicians Don't Understand, Why Oddsmaker...

NEXT :
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

Podcast

Presidential Debates: What Politicians Don't Understand, Why Oddsmakers Are Wrong

+

President Barack Obama speaks during the first presidential debate with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at the University of Denver, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012.(AP Photo/David Goldman)

The Political Landscape is a weekly podcast where we discuss the news of the day with leading experts.

The first presidential debate was this week, and consensus in the media and in polling data is that Mitt Romney beat out Barack Obama going away. On this week's podcast, we explore some of the reasons that incumbent presidents suffer from unrealistic expectations in debates, and how presidential candidates have misused the debate platform over the years.

 

Alan Schroeder is a journalist, presidential debate historian, and the author of the book "Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk Television." In the first half of this week's podcast, Schroeder explains that presidential debates are mostly about appearance over substance. Every politician thinks that if you read a transcript of their debate that they won on substance. But as history shows, winning on substance is a false victory. As Schroeder writes in his book, "Winning a debate on points is one thing; giving the voters some music to dance to is another." The line is in reference to the debates between John Kerry and George Bush in 2004. Kerry won on points. Bush understood the theatricality of the situation. Schroeder thinks both Romney and Obama can learn some lessons from past politician's debate shortcomings. 

Missing in much of the hyperbolic post-debate coverage is any historical context. National Journal's White House reporter George Condon is our resident historical expert on the president and has covered Washington for decades. The Thursday before the debate, George wrote a piece, "Why Incumbents Lose Presidential Debates." Oddmakers had Obama as the favorite, but Condon knew that oddsmakers have made that mistake before. He joins us in the second half of the podcast to explain why.

Check out last week's episode on the protests in the Middle East. 

 

Check out all past episodes of The Political Landscape.

Subscribe on iTunes Subscribe on iTunes

Find us on Stitcher Find us on Stitcher

 

DON'T MISS TODAY'S TOP STORIES

Sign up form for the newsletter
Comments
comments powered by Disqus
 
MORE NATIONAL JOURNAL