Tuesday evening, many will have remembered the punchline by Jordan Bardella, who took pleasure in replying that each of his opponents was not “his teacher”, repeating a response from candidate Nicolas Sarkozy against Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2002. Although there is no shortage of subjects – like pensions, dual nationality and debt – the substance is only addressed through talking points without a real debate taking place.
Impact marginal?
Former Republican strategist, Frank Luntz has analyzed dozens of debates across the Atlantic. In a column published in the New York Times, he emphasizes: it is more the style than the substance that counts. “Well-worded sarcasm has a more lasting effect than a litany of facts; the visual is often stronger than the verbal.” The strategist remembers the performances of great statesmen John Kerry and John McCain. Both had participated in presidential debates in 2004 and 2008. They had made no mistake, but above all they had “left nothing memorable”. The voters were unmoved by their performance. For Frank Luntz, it appears that the expectations of the media, experts (pundits) and political scientists are certainly not the same as those of the general public.
The impact today of a televised debate risks being very marginal. As for Joe Biden and Donald Trump, there are few undecided people. The conditions of the debate were fiercely negotiated. After everyone’s intervention, the microphones will be cut. In 2020, the insults uttered by the Republican about Joe Biden went down very badly with the female electorate. This year, substance will not be at the heart of the debates either. Attention will be focused on the energy of the two candidates, on the formulas that “slam”. Like that of Trump in 2016 against Democrat Hillary Clinton, when he declared that once president, his opponent would be incarcerated.
Whether in France, the United Kingdom or the United States, televised debates during electoral campaigns no longer appear to be a means of finding out about the real issues of the election. They will not necessarily strengthen democracy. Above all, they will strengthen the chapels and offer teachings which could be limited to punchlines. After the first Attal-Bardella debate, analysts all agreed that the former clearly had a better grasp of the issues. But public opinion saw it differently, believing that the latter had won. By his formulas, by his presence, by his nerve.
