Allen said he was confident that Virginians would allow him to continue serving them if the election was decided on "issues, ideas, and his proven record of performance."  If this is a hint of the "game plan" for the upcoming debate, the two-minute ad suggests a few directions the plan might take.

Allen's short speech contained far more references to the "record" of performance than it did to either new ideas or issues.  Much of it was a recounting of some of his accomplishments as Governor, such as abolishing parole and setting academic standards.  William Benoit, professor of communication at the University of Missouri, has noted that Senate debates tend to emphasize policy over character.  But if a candidate spends time recounting what he has done in the past, is that a policy claim or a character reference?  Allen's listing of "policies" and programs he's been connected with constructs a different character impression for his audience, one that underscores without directly saying so the difference in governing experience he has over his opponent.

Traditional wisdom has it that challengers gain more in debates with incumbents because just appearing on the same stage as the incumbent gives the challenger a boost.  The tables might be turned a bit in this case.  It's Allen who gets a boost by putting himself alongside a challenger who has a far less extensive record in elected public office.  If the "proven record of performance" does emerge as one of his debate themes, Allen also puts himself in position to mitigate some of the negative impressions of his character that have emerged in recent weeks by showing that there is more to him than what has been in focus as a result of the controversies concerning questions about racial and ethnic insensitivity.  

So, we might expect to be "reminded" about what Allen has done along with hearing about a few of his ideas for the future.  Without much detail, of course, because his record and ideas will serve more to help restore character by stressing competence as a means to defuse questions of insensitivity.

For Webb, the risk is letting Allen have the high road all to himself in the debate.  Webb's standing in the polls - recent ones show the race to be a dead heat - may have more to do with questions about Allen than with support for what Webb has to offer.  The debate is his opportunity to strengthen his case by showing that there is more to his candidacy than an ability to successfully take advantage of Allen's missteps.  

How does he do that?  Well, by stressing issues, ideas, and a proven record of performance, perhaps!  But in his case, the formula will have to be different since Webb has a different record than his opponent.  He can use this debate to reach many viewers who will be relatively unfamiliar with what his ideas and issues are.  Whereas Allen needs the debate to remind voters that there is more to him than what the recent news coverage has focused on, Webb needs to use the debate to reveal what he stands for and why he is deserving of support.

Allen's two-minute ad suggests that some of the issues we might expect in this debate are, not surprisingly, homeland security and the Iraq war.   In mentioning these, Allen's stressed that early withdrawal from Iraq was "a risk we cannot afford."  Is this a signal of another part of his debate strategy?  If so, he might heed the history of televised debates.  As an embattled incumbent locked in a close race in 1980, Jimmy Carter used his televised debate against Ronald Reagan to stress, repeatedly, that Regan's ideas were risky and dangerous.  Reagan, however, skillfully sloughed off these charges by calmly answering them and by appearing to be anything but dangerous in the debate.  In his pursuit of his debate agenda, Carter looked tense by comparison and never established control of the proceedings.  

Of course, Allen is a different speaker than Carter, and the problem for him may be much less one of looking stiff than it is a problem of being too aggressive as he seeks to characterize his opponent's policies as risky.  In one of Allen's debates in the Governor's race in 1993, his approach was quite feisty and his inaugural address in 1994 was hailed at the time as unusually confrontational for that sort of a speech.  If his debate performance is too aggressive, that might benefit Webb.  

And Webb might himself learn from debate history as well.  The occasions when challengers have fared unexpectedly well in television debates have sometimes involved cases where the challenger took advantage of an opening and then did something unexpected.  Walter Mondale in 1984 did quite well in his first debate against Ronald Reagan by, among other things, showing a willingness to admit that Reagan had done some good for the country (which caught his opponent off guard) and by stressing one issue (the deficit) and an almost unthinkable policy toward it - a tax increase.  That, combined with Reagan's questionable decision to show mastery of detail by citing statistic after confusing statistic, gave the challenger the opening to succeed.  Mondale was widely viewed as a big winner in this debate.  Even though he lost the election, for a short time after this debate, his campaign gained momentum, Reagan's lead narrowed, and the race was joined.

The October 9 debate will not decide the Virginia Senate race, but it will undoubtedly influence what that race becomes in its next stage.  Campaigns, like debates, are a series of moves and counter moves - and sometimes a campaign has to move to either counter or seize advantage of something that happened in a debate.  Even if the talk about the ideas and issues in the October 9 debate fails to be fully invigorating that night, watching how that the results of that debate influence the next steps each candidate takes should be interesting at least.  

John Morello, University of Mary Washington