Candidates Tend to Not Dodge Questions

In an analysis of 14 presidential debate transcripts, two thirds of accusations of question-dodging had no merit. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This campaign season, there's been plenty of name calling and lots of accusations. David Clementson, a PhD candidate at The Ohio State University, has been keeping tabs. "I mean there was one debate where Rubio and Cruz were just all over Trump, accusing him of dodging questions." 

[DEBATE CLIP: Rubio: "But that doesn't answer the question." TRUMP: "He didn't answer…" // Rubio: "You have yet to answer a single serious question about any of this."] 

Clementson wanted to see if claims of question dodging actually held up, historically—not necessarily in the unique case of Trump. So Clementson analyzed the transcripts of 14 presidential debates, from 1996 to 2012. Overall, he found 51 accusations of question dodging—26 by Dems, 25 by Republicans.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A third of the time, the accused candidate did in fact go off-topic. But in every single case, the accused candidate still mentioned the question topic. Meaning that most of the time, he says, candidates are unfairly accused of question-dodging. The results are in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology. [David E. Clementson, Why Do We Think Politicians Are So Evasive? Insight From Theories of Equivocation and Deception, With a Content Analysis of U.S. Presidential Debates, 1996–2012]

Clementson's advice for the next debate? "Just because a politician of your partisan affiliation or your party ID is telling you that the other guy can't be believed, doesn't necessarily mean that that politician is accurately detecting deception." In other words, don't trust 'em. Because the politician doing the accusing may be the one telling lies.

["Lying Ted.. he's a liar."]

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe