Presidential candidates need to continually energize their political bases. And debates can be a useful tool for getting the job done.

They can educate voters on a candidate’s platform, and are home to many memorable moments. And although a lot of preparation goes into them, the taste of victory is not the be-all, end-all. 

An ugly performance can put an entire campaign on defense. That’s because the goal of a debate is not necessarily to win – it’s to avoid losing.

“I think it’s part of the American institution that we are expected to face our opponents and be able to have discourse,” said Craig Hennigan, interim director of UNLV’s award-winning debate team. “We’ve seen a rise in public debates in places such as Twitch streams, which shows young people are interested in that discursive confrontation.”

Are presidential candidates required to have debates? How much influence do these verbal matches have on elections? How do the debate styles of this cycle’s presidential nominees Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stack up against past contenders? And what do younger generations think — will the need for debates eventually fizzle out?

We turn to Hennigan for the answers.

Who Decides Debate Formats and Rules 

If we go back to the first televised debates in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, they had four debates – each only an hour long. 

In more recent history, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, as well as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, debated three times. And they spent 90 minutes on stage.

I think an influence on how many debates and their formats are greatly affected by the lack of an actual authority. Back in the 1980s and 90s, the League of Women Voters organized debates. This was followed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was run by the parties. Now, it’s more so the media companies inviting and negotiating rules with the campaigns. 

As it gets more and more in the hands of the campaigns, I think candidates are having less interest in having debates. Voters desire to have public discourse and see how candidates handle themselves in front of the camera and each other, but there’s never been a requirement.

The True Power of Political Debates 

Debates among candidates for president influence elections a lot and a little at the same time.

The amount of people who watch a debate is a small sliver of the electorate. However, when you have very tight races in battleground states, they can make a difference. A 1-point swing could be the difference between winning 27 electoral votes in Pennsylvania or losing the entire election.

On the other hand, vice presidential debates don’t really move the needle. 

They don’t have a big impact on elections because people don’t vote for vice presidents. Even though they’re on the same ticket, we don’t typically think about the vice president in our decision when we go to vote.

If 81-year-old incumbent President Joe Biden were still in this year’s race, maybe there would have been the opportunity for a VP debate featuring his younger running mate to influence the election based on Biden’s age. But if we look at history — even when Sarah Palin, a controversial vice presidential nominee, squared off in the 2008 race, there was no recorded post-debate bump.

Trump vs. Harris

Trump is highly media trained. He’s going to say things that are going to be replayed over and over again, and succeeded in doing so in their debate.

Harris’ style is very story-reliant. She’s good about telling a narrative in order to relate to voters. She’s done a good job at not raising her tone or getting angry at her opponent.

A lot of the criticisms she had concerning awkwardness did not come through at all in their debate. That’s why people generally have said she performed very well.

J.D. Vance vs. Tim Walz

Vance was really well media trained. The way he worked the camera was exceptional. 

A lot of this plays into the expectations game. Vance didn’t have a high likability or approval at the time of the debate, so all he really had to do was go on stage and not commit errors. Low expectations from the outset makes it easier to go above and beyond. 

The nonverbals were interesting. When Walz was answering questions, Vance would occasionally look at the camera with a confident expression — which is a great way to take the attention away from who’s speaking.

They were good about being amicable toward each other. We want to believe that even though they’re at odds, they are on the same team as Americans. And both did a very good job of projecting that.

Both told stories about their backgrounds and upbringings. Walz reflected on his successes as governor of Minnesota, which was a good strategy because it distanced him from criticisms of the current Biden administration. 

His team doesn’t want to be looked at as the current administration. Both Harris and Walz walk a tightrope of being able to promote the good things that have come out of Biden’s presidency, while also trying to be a platform of change.

Prepping for a Debate 

The campaigns want to create a situation that is similar to what would happen in the real world. 

They study film of their opponents and have practice debates against people on their own campaign teams – trying to get their rhetoric and talking points ready.

Presidential candidates try to arrange practice debates with people who know their opponents well. In 2012, Obama had Massachusetts native and former candidate John Kerry play the role of Mitt Romney. 

In the most recent presidential debate, Tulsi Gabbard stood in for Kamala Harris for the Trump team. Gabbard actually ran as a Democratic presidential candidate and performed well debating against Harris in 2016. 

Having practice debates is even important for our debate team here at UNLV. I tell students we can try to prepare them for arguments, but we learn far more by actually being in the debate and performing. 

This is the same with a presidential debate. All the research and knowledge a candidate can do before the debate is no substitute for actually engaging in arguments in front of an audience.

Future of Debates

Trump went through the entire Republican primary this time and did not show up to a single debate. In that sense, he doesn’t have as much of an interest in having a debate when he doesn’t need to. 

If we go back to a system where there’s more of an authoritative body, we might get back to having at least three presidential debates per election cycle and they might be closer to Election Day.

My dream would be to have at least three shorter debates on one particular issue apiece. Climate reform, gun legislation, identity and equality issues – we could narrow the focus so people can get a better handle on where the candidates stand.

More than half the viewers of a presidential debate turn it off after the first hour. A move like this might keep them engaged.

Youth and Debates

We see a subsection of the online streaming site Twitch where there are people, such as the streamer "Destiny," who regularly have online debates with a variety of people on many different subject matters. 

The promotion of these styles of debate are more similar to a public boxing match than issue education, with the videos carrying inflammatory titles such as "Destiny Destroys Prager's Gotcha And Leaves Him Speechless." The popularity of these videos with millions of views and subscribers shows that many young people do have interest in debate. 

In 2008, CNN and YouTube partnered to host presidential primary debates, with some questions coming from young voters on YouTube. 

Earlier research on using emerging platforms, such as YouTube, showed that when younger voters watched presidential debates they generally had more positive reactions toward democratic attitudes, but they also would have those same reactions in a journalist-led debate format as well.

In an era when over 1 in 10 young voters are getting their news from Instagram and TikTok, it would make sense to utilize platforms that would expose them to political debates. 

Creating positive attitudes toward democracy may increase voter turnout, especially among the 18- to 24-year-old demographic that has always lagged behind the general public. There are more indicators that youth voting is going to decline in 2024, as they had declined in the 2022 midterm elections. 

Fewer youth are accessing newspapers, many have 'cut the cord' with cable media, and more diversity in information media has made youth very savvy and critical consumers of news.