Tips for contenders in the upcoming election debates

Honesty, believability and character will matter more than what is actually said

One of the deep regrets of Abraham Lincoln junkies is that his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, 160 years ago this summer, pre-date the invention of audio recording. Lincoln’s book-length excerpts of the nine debates were so powerful they are credited with helping him win his presidential nomination.

Interestingly, he strongly defended restrictions on slavery, to Illinois audiences that were at least evenly divided on the issue — but he was universally credited as the winner of the debates tournament nonetheless.

John F. Kennedy, who played a far more hawkish cold warrior than Richard Nixon in his TV debate (a direct political descendant of the Lincoln-Douglas debates), did not reflect the views of liberal Democrats in his strong anti-Soviet rhetoric, designed to outflank Nixon. But he, too, was judged the decisive winner by most viewers and commentators.

Stephen Harper was by all normal measures a terrible debater: stiff, wooden, often surly, and dismissive — clever sardonic zingers never. Yet, arguably, he won most of the debates he contested with half a dozen rivals.

Kathleen Wynne got whomped on the Hydro scandal in her 2013 debates, so badly it was painful to watch her thrashing. Yet many viewers, especially women — perhaps identifying with a woman being humiliated in public — said by her endurance she had won.

Modern televised political debates are a creature unlike any other form of political combat, and unlike any other more traditional form of debate.

Today, the esteem in which politicians are held has never been lower, partisan loyalties have never been narrower or weaker, and cynicism about political messaging spin is at an all-time high — especially among millennials. What is said is worth less today than viewers’ judgment of a leader’s conviction, their honesty, their believability — their character.

There is no shortcut to becoming a successful TV political debater: you must collect the scar tissue of having successfully endured — not necessarily won — a series of contests. You must have studied your mistakes in execution and absorbed their painful lessons. One usually reliable predictor about debate outcomes is that the greenhorn loses.

For many people, their greatest fear, among any other form of human contact, is a public speech. The idea of challenging two opponents in public, on television, in a high-risk confrontation is breathtakingly terrifying. Canadians, as always, default to “fair and reasonable” when they don’t have a view on the content. But they don’t like bombast, bullies, or slippery answer vendors.

So if I were advising Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath I would work on a credible answer to how she can climb from three to one, in her third attempt. Kathleen Wynne needs to strike an apologetic and accepting tone about her government’s failings, and lay out lessons learned, and avoid casting Fordies as deplorable.

But it is Ford’s prep team that has the toughest task. I would video him with a hostile debate coach and force him to understand why and how he keeps stumbling. Then do it again and again.

Finally, I would say, Doug, you are now losing with women voters and you’re facing two women opponents. Do nothing that could be seen as threatening — a la Trump looking over Clinton. Or patronizing, as you were about the many women in your family life.

Or worst of all mansplaining about child care, pay equity or gender discrimination. And if you do all that, and tell the truth, you could win.

If you don’t, for sure you won’t.