from coast to coast we connected 850,000 miles of wire. we broke speed bare yes, delivered one gig speed turnover customer, and now with mediacom mobile is offering the fastest, most reliable network on the go. mediacom. decades of dedication. decades of deliver, decades ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span ong with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. l mckinney, dean of the college of arts and sciences at the university of akron paid welcome to the program. we were just talking in the last segment do debates matter.

what do you think of that? guest: certainly we can analyze a couple of ways going back to late june one's performance on the debate stage can be very consequential in terms of their candidacy and of course with joe biden and his debate with donald trump. but also we ask that question quite often i think were wondering do they change minds or affect the outcomes of elections and typically what we have found certainly in close races, we have seen where debates and candidates performance in debates can sway i would say voters. it's usually the case anywhere from 90 to 95% of those debate viewers coming into the debates have made up their mind they are using the debate to reinforce their decision, yet debates have the reach we will likely have 50

or 60 million viewers tonight. we've had debates of 70 to 80 million viewers. debates reach those voters that haven't been following as closely, they are still leaning undecided and even if that affects when you're looking it's likely to be decided in the margins and we know the polls have been shown consistently now one or two points either way. that certainly the potential is there for this to be quite a consequential debate. >> let's go back to that june debate between president biden and former president trump we will play a portion of it and i will have you comment on it. >> after a jury convicted you of 34 felonies last month you said if reelected you would have every right to go after your political opponents. you just talked about members of the select committee on january 6 going to jail.

her main political opponent is standing on stage with you tonight. can you clarify what it means about feeling you have every right to go after your political opponents? >> i said my retribution will be success. we will make this country successful because right now it's a failing nation. my retribution will be a success but when he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon at a high level. he will be convicted numerous other times. should have been convicted before but his justice department that the statute of limitations laps on the most important things but he could be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office. joe could be a convicted felon with all the things he's done. all the death caused the border, telling the ukrainian people that we will want $1 billion to change the prosecutor otherwise you're not getting on billion dollars paid if i ever said that that's quid pro quo. were knocking to do anything, were not to give you a billion dollars must you change the prosecutor. this man is a criminal.

this man, you are lucky. i did nothing wrong. we have a system that was rigged and disgusting, i did nothing wrong. host: what do you make of that exchange? guest: i think that's a very good example of the benefit of the debate where it is the only moment in a campaign where the two candidates meet face-to-face. we heard tonight this will be the first meeting ever between kamala harris and donald trump. and it's in that moment that we learn a great deal in terms of how candidates respond to their opponent, interact with their opponent, certainly we know from debates there is a great deal of issue discussion. and i've often pointed out there's really two levels of what i would call learning that's happening. issue learning.

debate on the candidates issue position but there's also a great deal of image or character learning, of understanding how the candidates again the temperament, their demeanor and we see that through quite often how they interact with each other, how they respond to each other. how they address one another. and again that only happens on the debate stage because it is the only time in campaign with the two candidates are together. >> with the muted microphones they will not able to >> talk with each other. they will not be able to interject and talk over, to interrupt, now again in the clip we just saw donald trump was a direct -- directly addressing joe biden. and we had, this is another i think feature of debate dialogue

that is unique against the debate stage. as i analyze and say this. as soon you make your point, make your attack, it is your opponent's turn. how will they respond and therefore that's much like what we heard from kamala harris in her stump speeches. what she said when she was eager to join, too beyond the debate stage that her opponent had been calling names, taunting and she said say it to my face. that is what the debate will afford. certainly with the muted microphones. we've only had two presidential debates in the history of presidential debates with muted microphones. the second debate in 2020 and then the debate between donald trump and joe biden at the end of june. that feature does control the candidates ability to have a

more freewheeling uninterrupted exchange. but of course the muted mics were brought about because of what happened in that first debate in 2020 where it simply was so chaotic particularly donald trump strategy to try and befuddle joe biden every time joe biden had his turn speaking we had a great deal of talking over and attempting to control dialogue. so they went with the muted microphones. in the habit again tonight. and so therefore it does bring some semblance of control to the debate. host: at that last debate president biden's age, his shaky performance was a major factor in that debate. do you think that there will be renewed scrutiny now on mr. trump's age and mental acuity. guest: certainly i think it

could be a line of questioning, perhaps even a line of attack that he would be the oldest president to assume the presidency should he be elected. it's interesting on that age question, it certainly was a feature in the late june debate and actually the age question was less explicit and more implicit in terms of how would joe biden perform because the expectation been set up by donald trump that joe biden would simply not be able to and in many ways joe biden his performance enacted, verified that question that some voters had. we had the age question in the 1960's when we started televised

presidential debates, the age question was put to john kennedy as an he looked to be too young and inexperienced. we sought again with ronald reagan's election, would he be too old to continue serving as president. so that question and really i would interpret it or frame it as fitness of the candidate. whether it's their level of fitness to perform their duties and again, we see that address and enact that on the debate stage. >> if you would like to join our conversation with mitchell mckinney he is a national scholar on presidential debates. you can do that on our line for democrats. 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002.

we will get to your phone call shortly. mitchell mckinney there's also knocking to be any audience in the studio, what impact do you think that has on the debate? >> certainly i think again that is another feature or element of structuring this debate that is intended to bring a more focused discussion of the issue. a crater if you will decorum, what we've seen taken place over the years now in some ways this is a back to the future presidential debates because the original presidential debates in 1960 there were four of them all took place in tv studios with just candidates in the journalists. we moved away from that when debates resumed. over the. of several decades, more so in

primary debates than it started to drift into our general election debates and particularly in 2016 continuing in 2020, where the audience became a participant in the debate dialogue. and much more so when candidates were playing to the audience for their approval, their jeering. much like attempts to turn the debate stage into a rally. now again in 2016, we saw moments of where particularly donald trump was referencing the audience getting applause and adulation from the audience again that sort of creating that rally atmosphere that detracted from a more sober focused discussion of the issues.

so that we see with removing the audience from the debate moment and then focusing with the two candidates, their interaction with each other, their discussion of the issues without the live audience. >> in your opinion do you think the addition of the audience has been a good thing or a bad thing? >> i sometimes will reference the primary audience. that primary audience is the 50, 60, 70 million viewers who are tuned in to focus and learn from these candidates. rather than in the whole audience that again as i said quite often are there, we know this as supporters of one of the other candidates and that becomes a distraction to the primary audience. i think in many ways it is

certainly beneficial feature now. for those candidates who look to use the debate stage something like a rally it might work to their disadvantage just as we've talked about the meeting -- the muting of the microphones. if someone wishes to use that strategy to interrupt interject, to control, the muting of the microphones eliminates that. host: we have some callers who to talk to you. in virginia, a line for democrats good morning. caller: good morning. i have a friend that's in secret service. if trump, with his background could he apply for secret service job?

host: do you have something specific about the debates grover? caller: yes, they have seen this man does 2016 and from 2016 if they don't know what he's saying -- they had people break into the capital and the american people didn't believe that he had that done so the debates, the american people need to check themselves back. >> we will hear from roger in north carolina, republican. good morning. >> how his trunk be able to address the line the democrats do. how does he get that out in the debate. get somebody to change their

mind. thank you. guest: certainly as we noted, it is the debate form is likely not the form that one is appealing to their party faithful to try and change minds. it is again that small slice that comes to this moment really unsure undecided wanting to learn and in that regard i would say in tonight's debate, kamala harris has work to do in terms of introducing herself and ideas and i say that certainly she has served as vice president in terms of voters looking at her as potential president the ones coming out of the democrat national convention, that audience again was very much the party faithful to mobilize and energize.

now it's a much larger audience. where there will be many members uncertain and unsure, this is the moment to demonstrate one's fitness, to discuss the issues. to the callers point of donald trump changing minds. i think less so on his side again those who support him are with him and will not change their minds, of those who don't support him are not with him and will not change their minds based on what happened in this debate. yet does one man use this opportunity to try and appeal to those again small slice of undecideds, in that regard i think kamala harris has more opportunity simply because she is less known in terms of her

presidential bid. >> we have a question on text from dell in florida abo t role of the moderators. saying professor miny is it fair to have only well-known left-leaning moderators tonight. there shoulbene from fox and one from abc to ket fair. lack of hard follow-up questio to kamala harris are likely as in dana bash's interview last week. guest: the role of the journalists, the moderator in setting the agenda and asking the questions is very significant in terms of influencing the debate, the discussion in the debate and i would also say the ability to follow up, to press the candidates on their responses, those elements are very significant. now in terms of left-leaning, right-leaning, where you select the journalists.

this is one of the most contentious issues in the history of presidential debate. leaving candidates to bulk and not participate, leading them to when we had independent debate sponsors with the league of women voters it is always the case that in the negotiations the candidates will agree to participate, they are not required. it's only by their willingness to agree to participate it oftentimes comes back to the question of who will be selected to question, to interrogate candidates and to the point the trying to influence that decision we've seen over and over now the caller mentioned if you had so-called left-leaning and fox news as well i concluded it doesn't seem to matter what

network, where the journalists are selected from their going to be questioning or attacking the journalists. we have had this with donald trump questioning and attacking fox news journalists. chris wallace for example is moderated presidential debates and others in the primary. so in some ways i think it is used by some candidates as a strategy to try and work the rest if you will that they are biased against me so expect that. that question is always there in terms of will the journalist be fair. i think it's important for us to look at what sort of issue discussion, issue agenda do they bring to the debate and then when the candidates are responding, do they press the candidates to respond to the question, to clarify those are important issues and can be very

difficult for journalists. >> might, youngstown ohio. independent line you are next. >> good morning to you. i'm a democrat and i'm proud to be a democrat and donald trump he spews hatred. i never heard a politician, i think he's out of his mind. the last debate he didn't answer any questions or he did not do anything. just starting trouble, everywhere he goes he wants to start trouble. he doesn't want to debate on the issues he wants to start trouble. and i really don't understand what the people see in him. host: your comments on that and about the idea if a candidate doesn't answer the question. guest: certainly what we

typically have seen on the debate stage is the opportunity for candidates to enact sometimes i refer to it as the presidents reality, do they come across, are they able to persuade voters that they are presidential, they are performing on the stage now. to the question we generally see differences in terms of their discourse on the stump speech at the rallies, how they will attack, the claims that they make. but that is usually papered somewhat when they get to the debate stage. usually that has not always been the case. i would say i said earlier, harris has it is incumbent upon her to introduce herself, to

discuss the issues that she believes are important. voters have that question in terms of who are new to the scene. with donald trump will he be able to get back to the mike funds being controlled will he be able to perform at a level where those who are questioning his temperament, his demeanor again character will he be able to control that in a manner and is presidential. to your question in terms of responding to the question. we saw some of those attempts in the late june debate with jake tapper and dana bash. it was clear after a line of questioning that quite often the

candidates could simply ignore the question put to them, respond to again what their agenda was and quite often that agenda was to attack their opponent. and so, the journalists must be willing to again remind the candidates this is the question and follow-ups. but they're also in those moments reminding the voters and listeners they evaded the question put to them. that is important i think for those in the debate, can the candidates address in a substantive way what is largely issued based questions and so in some ways that's up to the journalists to see their performance tonight and their ability to hold the candidates to addressing the question. >> on the line for democrats in silver spring maryland, barbara

you are next. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i was just listening the gentleman before me really made a lot of very good points braden my thought is i don't know if abraham lincoln already had the nickname honest abe before his debates, but as long as the candidate can stand up there and perform instead of actually answering questions as the gentleman before me said. when asked a question, if they could just evade answering, that really doesn't give us any kind of information. i think that unless there are fact checkers with our technology nowadays, i don't see why there could not be a red

light go off for every lie that is told because otherwise we are just -- and that's all i've got to say. >> professor mckinney. >> even in her pointing out that voters are detracted or inability to learn, when the candidates will evade the question. and i noticed she concluded that what that means about the candidates. and so therefore i would suggest we find this quite often, those viewers do learn something about the candidates when they consistently evade and will not answer questions and it is at that level of learning about their preparedness, their temperament, their ability to serve as president, either they

don't know something or they are unwilling to stake a position on the issues so there is some level of learning even when they evade the questions. the issue of fact checking certainly and i would say here all of the postdebate spin and we have media outlets that will do postdebate fact checking, 80's quite difficult in real time to offer that level of fact checking as the candidates are speaking. there have been some attempts. there has been some attempts in terms of overlay on the screen, of whatever the issue is. to provide context or additional but it is quite difficult. on this point i would suggest that perhaps the most important fact checkers on the stage are

the two candidates. and what i mean by that is what i said earlier about imminent rebuttal is one candidate makes claims, as one candidate offers their version of facts. then do we hear in response the opponent point out inconsistencies or point out where there's no basis for the claims just made. that can be difficult as well because if a candidate spins -- spend their entire time trying to clean up or respond to their opponent than they are off message, they are not getting their message out but still we expect some level of that response to one's opponent when let's say claims without any basis, outlandish claims exaggerations are made. and then as i said earlier and followed up by journalists for

clarificationopportunity, we'vet happening today for the tax on the journalist in terms. all of these elements are important to help viewers, voters understand the debate dialogue. host: virginia, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to know about these debates. it these people aren't being their true selves anyway. we get all these promises of what they want to do, and we see hardly none of this. they don't tell us how it is going to happen. they say i'm going to give you this much money which i don't think they will ever be giving anybody any money. if they need food, they need to give them food or shelter or whatever but they don't need to

be handing out money. but anyway, i don't put much confidence in any of these today. thank you. guest: they are raising a good point in terms of duty get the true candidate, their true self? certainly in terms of their ability to provide an in-depth issue position on how they would enact policy, and a 90 minute debate, we can get some level of detail. we can some level, some sense of their position. yet is this the true candidate? acton point out, and we ask voters futility of debate and what they get from the dictates. so here's a moment where the candidates come to the stage without a teleprompter, much

like it is a planned event. not so on the debate stage. it is just them, the opponent with no handlers. no prepared text, no teleprompter. and voters do find the debate moments as perhaps one of the more authentic moments. now, we can question what we are hearing from the candidate, but i think on that level we then make an assessment of ok, to go back to the earlier question, they responded to that question. voters are able to make those assistant and again, from the debate performances, unlike in

the other moments where the candidates control messaging and communication. postot this in text. my observation that day's debates are not debates, but rather, a double interview which adds to the percentage of biased on behalf of moderators. where is the give-and-take? what do you think of that? guest: we hear this quite often in terms of what we regard as true debate. someone made reference earlier to lincoln and douglas debates, where for example, yes it was just the candidates on the stage. just the candidates on the stage for three hours, and the first speaker had one hour to give a position followed by a 30 minute rebuttal. now, certainly that format is not going to be appealing to the

american public. often times in the true debate some reference to something like a collegiate or forensic debate of a rapid back-and-forth just between someone who takes the affirmative and then the negative side of one single position. on the presidential debate stage, you tried some instances of the moderators and journalists offering up a topic and then just letting the candidates go back and forth. that was tried and some vice presidential debates. for example, with al gore. that experiment did not work because instead of interacting with each other, to candidates would simply try to filibuster and just talk and talk over. this is what led to the muted mics. i think one can regard whatever

notion of the debate, yet what we have is the ability for rest to hear from the candidates, to also see the candidates interacting with each other, responding to each other, and therefore we consistently find debate viewers come away much more informed, they know more about issue positions, they form an assessment of a candidate character from the debate performance, so these debate moments are quite useful for voters. host: diane in ohio, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking the skull. there was a reference to i think two callers back now that made this statement that trump just bladders and bladders and this

stuff. he does have that kind of personality but he doesn't mean half of it. they talk about what he's doing out in the open, but they don't know what biden is doing behind closed doors. my god, this country in so much trouble, it's unbelievable. it's not just kids hungry in the united states these days, my god. this is just basic middle income that is getting killed and shot down for everything going up so high. and him doing nothing and him keeping the gates totally open. and my god, they just are flooding in. and now for example, sheridan is wanting us to become a sanctuary state. i've got family that live in those states. a woman was killed, a

16-year-old two years ago. host: so is your question about the debates regarding how immigration might be handled? is that what you wanted? go ahead. caller: i think -- guest: i think that raising number of important issues in terms of cost of basic things, immigration. but we find in that debate encounter as i said earlier, 90 minutes, these debates typically cover a range of issues. the question is, they usually will >> we will leave this here now for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can continue watching online at c-span.org.