I watched the VP debate but was not impressed by neither party. Since I did not remember most of the contents, I borrow from this report heavily. Here are my thoughts:
First of all, know your true audiences. This is not always obvious during the debates. One may think the mediators are the audience, or treat the other party as the audience. Biden and Harris both did well on this by looking straight into the TV camera and speaking directly to the American people watching the debate. These people are the true audiences and nobody else matters as much as they do.
Secondly, avoid direct, simple and straightforward answers to sensitive questions if you can. The problem with those answers is that they tend to be oversimplified, easy to memorize but hard to defend later. Public affairs are highly complicated and anytime you want to simplify your position with succinct words or sentences you would have to sacrifice crucial details. A good example is George H Bush in his crystal clear sentence that “Read my lips, no more taxes!” It later became a joke in the political arena.
The danger of simple statements is known by all politicians, but the trick is to make the impression that you are not dodging sensitive questions. Neither Pence nor Harris did a good job during the debate last night, because both had made it obvious that they dodged questions.
Let’s consider the V.P. succession question from the debate. Susan Page of the USA Today asked if they had talked with their running mates about potential plan for replacing the president in case of age related incapacities. Neither offered a clear answer. Granted, this is a pointed question but Americans deserve a clear question. To the extent that they both avoided the question, neither received a passing grade.
There are smarter ways of handling sensitive questions. One is what I may call “Big cap, small body” strategy. That is, they should begin by saying something like: “Certainly! I understand American people are concerned about continuity of the presidency and they certainly have the right to know.” This part is an assuring “big cap,” which creates a good and positive impression on the audience. What goes under the cap however can be trivial and elusive, which makes the “small body.” You obviously do not want to say for example how and when Biden will be replaced by Harris under what circumstances. What you can say however is to emphasize how qualified you are as the V.P., like Harris has stated. This way, you offer the comfort the citizens desired without offering too much detail to make yourself vulnerable. The truth is, people are not that smart and often have short attention span. They often remember you saying “Certainly” but do not remember whatever followed.
The other strategy for answering sensitive questions is to make it contingent on what the other party will do. This applies to packing the Supreme Court. Harris did not say whether her team would do that or not, even after Pence pressed her on the issue. This question is not that bad. One way to answer is to say: “We believe American people want to balanced power, including judicial power, after four years of Trump administration pushing us to the extremes. Given they are rushing to fill the court with conservative judges, we will keep it an open option to expand the court so we have more balanced judicial power.” I think the slogan of “rebalancing our country” is a good one and works well with most citizens except Trump’s base. Under such a slogan packing up the court suddenly makes sense and sounds rational.
Third, the speed of speech from last night was slower than from the first one between Trump and Biden. The two VPs should have talked faster, given how much they want to share with the audience. They both had plenty of time to practice because it is no secret each question has two minutes to answer. Between the two, Harris deserved higher score because I have a feeling that she could speak faster but chose to speak slower but clearer to drive the message home.
Fourth, organizing your answer to the question tightly. A bad example is Harris. When Page asked whether presidential health should be transparent, Harris started with a strong yes but then somehow switched to Trump tax returns. Switching topic is a big no because people will judge you as an opportunist, working on favorite questions but avoid less favorite ones. Worse, this is a good question that Harris should have grabbed, so people would have a good impression how Trump was not transparent about his real body situation. Perhaps she was not familiar with what Trump did after hospitalized, which again is not excusable.
Fifth, the China strategy. This is one of worst moments for Harris, who left an impression that the Biden/Harris team did not prepare a China strategy of their own. Given how much Americans worried about China, leaving this blank is not excusable. If I were Harris (obviously I am not), I would answer as follows: “Biden and I have a strategy called ‘Smart fighting’, while Trump’s strategy is ‘Dumb fighting’ that has led to Americans suffering more than China. We will fight the Chinese communists, but we will make sure America wins…” The nice thing about this opening statement is that it is still about “fighting,” which I believe any serious American politicians must say it these days, when China seems to be the “enemy of the humankind.” The trick of course is in the word “smart,” which allows the Biden /Harris team to define anyway it sees fit. The term is easy to remember, flexible to implement, and most of all, it avoids the problem of not offering a China strategy of its own, above and beyond criticizing Trump’s.
Finally, know your goal. Trump was aggressive during the first debate and part of the reason I believe is that he is trying to satisfy his base, maintaining an image as the fighter for these people. The problem is that the debate is really for those “fence riders,” people who have not made up their minds. By being too aggressive at Biden, Trump only confuse those people and drive them away even, because they would think him as bullying.