If you're a typical American voter of any political party, we'll let you in on a little secret: What matters most to you in a presidential debate is probably not the same thing that will get the most attention from the candidates, their campaigns, and their allies immediately following that epic televised showdown.
I learned this by studying Americans' reactions to nearly every general election presidential debate since 1992. I've sat with small groups selected from thousands of undecided voters across the country and watched more than 20 presidential and vice presidential debates in real time, and I'm still amazed at how small moments, slip-ups, and misremembered details can have such a profound effect in the newsroom and for partisan pundits afterward, but often have little or no noticeable effect on the opinions of many watching at home.
To be fair, some of the debates I watched with voters didn't have a huge impact on voter mood, such as the 1996 debate between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. But others, like the 1992 town hall debate between Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot, the first debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000, and the three-way showdown between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, were history-changing.
As the first debate between President Biden and Trump, scheduled for this Thursday, unfolds, the moments that will have the greatest impact on remaining undecided voters will be those in which both candidates attack each other in a crucial way or undermine the political argument each wants to present to the public. Viewers will be quick to judge whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. From Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980, to Barack Obama’s emphasis on hope and change in 2008, to Trump’s remark to Clinton in 2016 that she would “go to jail” if he won, I believe these key moments in the debates made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who resonated with what they heard. I have certainly seen that in focus groups and polls. These moments mattered more than any gaffe or gaffe by the candidates.
And sometimes the emotion matters more than the specific moment. The best examples of this are John Kerry in the 2004 debate and John McCain in the 2008 debate. Both men were accomplished public servants with impressive personal stories, and they didn't say anything wrong in the debates. But they also didn't say anything particularly memorable right. Many voters were left unmoved and unaffected.
At the risk of offending every high school debate coach in America, many voters respond to style over substance. A well-told joke sticks longer than a list of facts, and visuals often take precedence over words. It’s not just because voters tend to gravitate toward younger, more attractive candidates (think Obama, Clinton, or John F. Kennedy) or candidates with a more imposing stage presence (Reagan had it more than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale, and George H.W. Bush had it more than Michael Dukakis). While Trump’s 2016 and 2020 debates certainly upended our shared expectations of what a presidential election should be, listening to what voters say about each debate and their intuitions about the candidates can teach us more about the eventual winner of the election than being swayed by the propaganda and pundits.
Perhaps the best example of the discrepancy between voter opinion and that of politicians and pundits is the 1992 town hall debates. Immediately after the debate, Bush was criticized by the professional class for checking his watch during the debate, but my focus group of American voters missed this moment entirely. Their biggest takeaway was Bush's failure to explain what the federal deficit meant to him, and Clinton's Oscar-worthy performance in which he deftly rose from his chair and approached the audience with empathy and sympathy, who nodded in agreement with him throughout the dialogue.
A similar misconception about debate performance emerged during the first debate between George W. Bush and Gore. While many political analysts praised Gore for his mastery of the facts and complexities of presidential decision-making, many Americans seemed pleasantly surprised (actually shocked) by Bush's ability to string together competent, coherent, and persuasive complete sentences. Voters in my focus groups were impressed by Bush's poise and mastery of the debate, disappointed by Gore's stiffness, and upset by what they saw as his disdain for his opponent.
In nearly every presidential debate since 1992, voters' expectations of the candidates' performance also played a large role in determining perceptions of success and failure. Expectations were low for Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016 (and now Biden). The fact that they did not completely fail led at least some voters to view these candidates as surprisingly successful in the debates.
Many election observers believe that the incumbent starts with some advantage because he has national debate experience and has a grip on politics. In Thursday's debate, both candidates have that experience, so voters will look at other factors, perhaps those related to energy, sharpness, and impression. Although the specific circumstances are different, I recall the shock I felt watching Obama and Mitt Romney in the first debate in 2012. The general view was that Obama's grace and charm would easily overwhelm Romney's stiff, businesslike approach. However, Obama's approach was so calm that it came across to many voters as cold and indifferent. His performance was criticized by my focus groups as lacking his usual passion and conviction, a surprising assessment from a politician who is so popular for those qualities.
But here's a surprising development: Over time, many voters came to view that first encounter with more nuance than that momentary reaction might suggest. In focus groups I conducted on Election Day 2012, voters told me they felt that Obama really understood them and their concerns, but didn't have the answers or solutions to their problems. Conversely, they felt that Romney had better solutions to the challenges they faced, but didn't fully understand their problems. Certainly, policy solutions are important in a presidential debate. But personality, empathy, and dignity are more important.
It is not just the candidates’ personal performance that makes an impression. Intangible forces, such as debate rules, can also play a major role in determining the outcome. The length of time given to answer questions from the moderator can either reward or punish candidates, depending on their personal style and ability to communicate concisely. As my focus groups showed, nothing infuriates rank-and-file voters more than a candidate who speaks beyond the allotted time. Most professional debate observers ignore candidates who linger, but voters punish them mercilessly. This was the main reason why many undecided voters turned strongly against Trump after his undisciplined performance in the first debate of 2020.
The most influential debate in living memory left many voters and political experts with roughly the same conclusion: Trump entered the debate trailing Biden by just a few percentage points, but his questionable strategy of insulting, hounding and bullying Biden left him looking very badly to the women in my focus group, who were just as harsh as Trump was toward Biden.
In contrast, there was one moment in the Trump-Clinton debate where voter opinion really surprised me: Trump's casual remark that Clinton should go to jail. Many pundits and political experts hated it. My focus group loved it. To them, it was an exercise in accountability for someone as important as her, a former Secretary of State. Indeed, many political experts noted the moment as a striking example of a presidential candidate threatening to weaponize the justice system against his opponent. But I think what they missed was the desire of some voters to see high-ranking officials held accountable and exonerated by a system that is perceived to protect insiders.
This week could be the most consequential since the Kennedy-Richard Nixon debate. Anticipation is already building for Trump, who has challenged Biden to debate whenever and wherever he wants. It's entirely possible that Trump will regret making such a public challenge, and that Biden will regret accepting the offer.
To shape and sway voter opinion, the two candidates will need to use the debates to do what Reagan, Obama and Trump did best: clarify the stakes of their campaigns and their choices in November with memorable one-liners that speak to the emotions, instincts and maybe even fears of many voters about America today.
Viewers have been conditioned to see the 2024 debates as a mix of television entertainment and a war for America's future, so they will want to see passion, energy, even anger, for the good of the country. A restrained Trump or a grown-up Biden will not be remembered the same way Kerry and McCain were not. With so much at stake, both candidates need to be uninhibited to make a lasting impression, but not in a way that alienates key groups like suburban women and swing voters.
In the end, it won't be the facts, policies or even the stances that Biden and Trump put forward in the debates that matter — it's how they make voters feel.
Frank Luntz is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who has worked for Republican candidates in past elections.
The Times is committed to publishing diverse letters to the editor. We want you to tell us what you think about this story and our others. Here are some tips: Email us at letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp. X And threads.
