Presidential Debates, "Zingers" and Client Development

Tonight we get to watch the political equivalent of a 15 round heavyweight world championship fight. The sad thing is it will be reported and analyzed the same way. Instead of reporting and analyzing how each candidate will create jobs, reduce the debt, deal with Iran getting a nuclear bomb, deal with terrorists and a variety of incredibly important issues facing the country, the pundits will tell viewers whether either candidate:

was able to get in a “zinger,”
had a “Rick Perry” moment,
looked more “Presidential,”
appeared ”thin skinned”
was more likable.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that in the end, voters will not get the substantive answers they seek from the candidates or the analysts.

That kind of analysis even started before the debate. US News reported: 6 Best ‘Zingers’ From Past Presidential Debates. The New Yorker, in what it apparently thought was humorous, published PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT, suggesting that the Romney team was having him practice the 6 zingers from the US News article. Vanity Fair reported: Presidential Debate Prep: The Drinking Games, the Zingers, and Lowered Expectations!. I could go on with link after link from respected publishers writing about debate style rather than substance.

If either candidate tries a zinger, it had better be a good one. If, not, viewers will almost always side with the candidate on the receiving end. If you want an example, watch this short clip from one of the Bush-Gore debates. In this short clip, when Jim Lehrer asks Bush what the difference is between the candidates, Bush answers “I can get it done” and gets a small response from the audience. Al Gore does not make a verbal zinger. Instead, he moves in on George Bush’s space in an apparent effort to intimidate him. Gore’s move and Bush’s nod received greater coverage than anything substantive the candidates said.

I suppose there are some clients who want to hire lawyers who have a knack for one line zingers to use in a tough negotiation or trial. After all, we have all heard of clients looking for a lawyer who is meaner than a junkyard dog. But, I believe most clients are looking for lawyers with good judgment and innovative ideas to deal with problems.

A very high percentage of voters have decided whether they will vote for Obama-Biden or Romney-Ryan and whatever happens in the debate will not sway them to change. For those undecided voters who watch the debate, do you think a candidate’s performance will make a difference? If so will it be demonstration of good judgment and ideas to deal with problems, or the candidates zingers and debate style?

Randi Klein

I don’t know if the American voters view the debates as which candidate can throw the best or meanest punches. I do enjoy watching the debates, even if I have already decided on a candidate. However, I find the debates most helpful when I am undecided.

I do remember attending a live debate, years ago, between two people running for District Attorney in Los Angeles. It was a debate between Gil Garcetti and Steve Cooley, and it was sponsored by one of the local bar associations. The person who MCed the debate, did introduce each candidate as “on my right, and on my left.” He introduced them as though he was introducing people in a boxing match! He even made a joke about it and noted that was how the campaign had been conducted, up to that point.

Yet, the candidates did discuss the substantive issues. I remember back then, the death penalty and the implementation of “three strikes” was one of the major issues being debated between the two candidates. Each had a very different approach. I was undecided before I viewed the debates. That debate did help me make my decision. I wound up voting for Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate, even though I have been a life long Democrat. The main reason I voted for Steve was because I thought his view of the death penalty and three strikes was fair and better thought out than the views of his Democratic opponent, and then incumbent, Gil Garcetti.

Steve Cooley won the election. He was re-elected for two or three terms thereafter. He has been one of the most popular DA’s in LA. People have always voted for him across party lines. In fact, he once told me that if he had a nickle for every person who told him that he was the first Republican for whom they had voted, that he would be a rich man.

Steve Cooley is retiring this year. There were previously 5 or 6 people running for LA DA. Now it is down to two. Steve supports Jackie Lacey, his chief Deputy DA. He feels she is best qualified to run the office, and that there is no close second. Jackie Lacey is a life long Democrat.

So, the moral of this story is that, at least in LA, people vote for the best and most qualified candidate, rather than voting along party lines.