The televised presidential debates are the mega-events of the fall campaign.  Stakes are high as the candidates face each other, across a single stage, within a month of the election, before a television audience of tens of millions of people.  A debate can reveal the candidates' differences and ability to think on their feet or it can devolve into a scripted exercise bordering on a joint press conference or an exchange of soundbites. 

The Commission on Presidential Debates

Controversy Over the CPD

Critics charge that the CPD is a bipartisan rather than a nonpartisan organization, and can scarcely be expected to be fair to third party and independent candidates.  They also question the CPD's reliance on corporate money and maintain that it lacks transparency.

Clearly some limits must be set as to who will appear on the debate stage, for with too many candidates these events will become unmanageable.  Starting in 2000, the CPD has used three simple criteria.  (In earlier cycles, the CPD used a complicated set of "objective criteria" that drew much criticism).  To participate in the debates, candidates must:

(a) be constitutionally eligible;

(b) have ballot access in enough states to win a majority of electoral votes (at least 270); and

(c) have a level of national support of at least 15 % as measured in polls done by five selected national polling organizations.

Third party candidates have raised strong objections to their exclusion from the debates.  They argue that the 15-percent threshhold is arbitrary and too high.  (1, 2)

In addition to who participates in the debates, there is the question of whether the full range of issues and ideas are addressed in a meaningful way.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has challenged the substantiveness of the CPD-sponsored debates.  (See here for an example of how a debate might be conducted).  In an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa on Aug. 12, 2005 he called for an end to the current tightly formated presidential debates saying they "trivialize the whole process."  Instead, Gingrich said, the candidates should engage in a straightforward dialogue without a moderator for 90 minutes.  During a "Lincoln at Cooper Union" dialogue held on Feb. 28, 2007, Gingrich stated "I propose that we challenge every candidate in both parties to make a commitment before the nominating process begins that if they become the nominee they will agree from Labor Day to the election to nine 90 minute dialogues, one a week for nine weeks..."

Another critic, Ralph Nader, has argued that 21 presidential debates should be held, organized by communities around the country. 

Challenges to the Commission on Presidential Debates and its criteria have proven unsuccessful.  There was considerable legal activity by minor party candidates in 1996, 2000 and 2004.  In Nov. 2001, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) introduced a resolution in Congress that sought to lower the threshhold for participation to 5-percent (H.C.R. 263) but it did not go anywhere.  In 2004, Open Debates, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit "committed to reforming the presidential debate process," established a Citizens Debate Commission in an effort to replace the CPD.  The Citizens Debate Commission proposed five presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, what it termed "real and transparent" presidential debates as opposed to "stilted and deceptive events proposed by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)."  (August 16, 2004 letter)  Open Debates took several other actions.  On Feb. 14, 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the FEC alleging "that presidential debates sponsored by the CPD are controlled by the major parties in violation of FEC debate regulations."  The Open Debates complaint sought to have "the FEC prohibit the CPD from staging future corporate-sponsored presidential debates."  And on April 2004 Open Debates filed a complaint with the IRS in an attempt to revoke the tax status of the CPD.  Given the lack of success of the various legal efforts it is not surprising that there was no noticeable legal activity in the 2008. 

In 2012 the campaign of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson decided to have another go at it, employing a new argument in a Sept. 21 lawsuit charging the CPD with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (press release).  The Johnson campaign's effort failed.  Green candidate Jill Stein weighed in with an Oct. 22 lawsuit charging that the CPD and others had "deprived her of her constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, as well as her statutorily protected civil rights" (press release). That too failed.  Excluded candidates and their supporters are left with generally ineffectual protests.  This cycle, for example, Occupy the Debates sought to encourage an alternative conversation and activities.

Negotiations

There is no requirement that presidential candidates participate in debates, but it would be quite damaging to be seen as avoiding or blocking the debates, particularly since the candidates have, at least until recently, taken federal funds.  When it comes to the number, timing and formats of the debates, as well as who will participate, there is a lot of discussion, but invariably the major party candidates and their campaigns have the final word.  The CPD proposal is on the table and serves as a starting point, but each campaign acts in its own best interest.  The goal is to create the most favorable possible set of circumstances for their candidate.

In past cycles there had been a ritual debate over debates.  For several weeks the two major campaigns jockeyed back and forth haggling over details big and small—everything from the number and format of the debates to the podium height and shape and who is or is not acceptable as a moderator.  (See the Memorandum of Understanding [PDF] from 2004).  Closed-doors meetings alternated with pointed public pronouncements, but eventually the two sides reached an accord.  In 2008 the Obama and McCain campaigns reached an agreement quickly and without posturing. In 2012 the campaigns again carried out their negotiations out of the spotlight (+)  (Time magazine's Mark Halperin has posted the 21-page memorandum of understanding) >. 

Format

The format of a debate has a critical impact on nature of the exchanges that occur or do not occur and on the amount of information viewers are able to learn.  The most obvious parameter to consider is who is on the stage and who is not, but there are many other factors.  Is there a live audience and are they controlled or disruptive?  Is the subject matter confined to one area, such as the economy, or is it more wide-ranging?  What is the time limit on candidate responses and on rebuttals?  Finally, who asks the questions?  The 1960 and 1976-1988 presidential debates exclusively used the panel of reporters.  More recently the single moderator and town hall formats have come into favor.  The town hall format was first used in the Richmond, VA debate in 1992.  Having an audience of undecided voters pose the questions likely results in a broader range of questions, but on the downside this format does not foster follow-up.  One format which has not been attempted is to have the candidates question each other directly.

Prep

In the lead up to the debates, the candidates undergo intensive preparations.  Briefing books are put together, and the candidates engage in mock debates.  The media sometimes provide glimpses of these rehearsals.  There are also efforts to set expectations (1, 2, 3).  For example, a Romney campaign memo states, "President Obama is a universally-acclaimed public speaker and has substantial debate experience under his belt."  An RNC memo notes, "President Obama is undoubtedly a gifted political orator, whose eloquence can obscure his lack of substance."  An Obama campaign memo states, "[W]e expect Mitt Romney to be a prepared, disciplined and aggressive debater."  Further, the Obama memo states that the Romney campaign has "confidently predicted for months that he will turn in a campaign-changing performance such as Ronald Reagan’s in 1980."  Romney is more in practice having gone through 19 debates during the primary season (+).  In the background, the campaigns' and the parties' rapid response efforts ramp up and issue various communications to set the stage as well as prebuttals rebutting points that they expect to be made.  Closer to the debate, the candidates may be seen engaging in public displays of confidence such as throwing a baseball, jogging, or giving a thumbs up. 

Making Sense of the Debates

During the debate, citizens watching on television or the Internet form initial impressions of the candidates based on their claims, assertions, gaffes or awkward moments and body language.  (People who listen on the radio may form very different impressions).  An ongoing and vibrant discussion unfolds in the social media (+), as Tweets, Facebook postings and the like amplify key moments.  Not all the claims and assertions are true.  The social media and traditional media will bring misstatements to the fore, but some have argued that a fact checking role should be integrated into the debates as they proceed (+).  In addition to its work organizing the debates, the CPD has also undertaken efforts to enhance the viewing experience.  Starting in 1996, the CPD ran a Debate Watch program to encourage debate-watching groups around the country.  This year the CPD announced "The Voice Of..." internet initiative. 

Spin

The rapid response units go into high gear during and after a debate, working feverishly to produce rebuttals to various claims; these documents are e-mailed out throughout the evening.  Following each debate occurs one of the most unique and fascinating scenes in American politics.  Top campaign staff, campaign surrogates and party leaders gather in the media filing center and spin reporters, telling them what they have just seen.  On opposite sides of the filing center chairs are set up for Democratic and for Republican partisans to do satellite interviews with local stations around the country. 

Media

After the debate pundits and commentators weigh in.  Spin soundbites form an integral part of post-debate coverage.  Many media outlets assemble a groups of undecided voters to watch debates and then interview participants for their reactions.  The media also fulfills its fact-checking role.

Third Party Debates

Several third party candidate debates typically occur.  Although C-SPAN does cover some of these, they usually receive virtually no attention.  One organization that has done work on such events is the Free & Equal Elections Foundation.  In 2012 the Foundation organized two debates.  The first in Chicago on Oct. 23 brought together Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson (+); Johnson and Stein advanced to the second, in Washington, DC on Nov. 5 (+).  Additionally, Ralph Nader hosted a third party candidate debate with the four candidates in Washington, DC on Nov. 4 (+).

Dates and Locations of Past Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates

2008 McCain-Obama	Sept. 26, 2008 Oxford, MS	Oct. 7, 2008 Nashville, TN	Oct. 15, 2008 Hempstead, NY	Palin-Biden Oct. 2, 2008 St. Louis, MO
2004 Bush-Kerry	Sept. 30, 2004 Coral Gables, FL	Oct. 8, 2004 St. Louis, MO	Oct. 13, 2004 Tempe, AZ	Cheney-Edwards Oct. 5, 2004 Cleveland, OH
2000 Gore-Bush	Oct. 3, 2000 Boston, MA	Oct. 11, 2000 Winston-Salem, NC	Oct. 17, 2000 St. Louis, MO	Lieberman-Cheney Oct. 5, 2000 Danville, KY
1996 Clinton-Dole	Oct. 6, 1996 Hartford, CT	Oct. 16, 1996 San Diego, CA	.	Gore-Kemp Oct. 9, 1996 St. Petersburg, FL
1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot	Oct. 11, 1992 St. Louis, MO	Oct. 15, 1992 Richmond, VA	Oct. 19, 1992 East Lansing, MI	Quayle-Gore-Stockdale Oct. 13, 1992 Atlanta, GA
1988 Bush-Dukakis	Sept. 25, 1988 Winston-Salem, NC	Oct. 13, 1988 Los Angeles, CA	.	Quayle-Bentsen Oct. 5, 1988 Omaha, NE
1984 Reagan-Mondale	Oct. 7, 1984 Louisville, KY	Oct. 21, 1984 Kansas City, MO	.	Bush-Ferraro Oct. 11, 1984 Philadelphia, PA
1980 Carter-Reagan-Anderson	Reagan-Anderson Sept. 21, 1980 Baltimore, MD	Carter-Reagan Oct. 28, 1980 Cleveland, OH	.	none
1976 Ford-Carter	Sept. 23, 1976 Philadelphia, PA	Oct. 6, 1976 San Francisco, CA	Oct. 22, 1976 Williamsburg, VA	Dole-Mondale Oct. 15, 1976 Houston, TX
1960 Nixon-Kennedy	Sept. 26, 1960	Oct. 7, 1960	Oct. 13, 1960	Oct. 21, 1960