Why the Presidential Debates Matter
What can the numbers tell us and are they deceiving?
In the polls-heavy world of politics, it has become popular to say that the debates don’t matter, that they’re over-hyped spectacles that do little to affect the outcome of the election. Other than a few outliers, the poll numbers before and after elections normally show very little change. And yet, we still give the debates a considerable amount of weight in coverage of candidates. In part because they provide 90 minutes of soundbites from candidates standing in audience-pleasing lighting that can be played again and again. To say that we put too much stock in the debates, however, is to ignore the shockwaves that occur in the days after the events.
Take the first Obama-Romney debate of the 2012 election. Obama has professed numerous times that he despises debates. It’s not his forte and, while he is an excellent public speaker, the debates against a well prepared Romney posed as his greatest opportunity to lose support. He entered the debate with a solid 4-point lead. By the end of the hour and a half Jim Lehrer-moderated debate, that lead evaporated, resulting in a much tighter race for the remainder of the election than many had predicted.
There wasn’t any major gaffe that pundits could point to as the “moment” that Obama lost the debate. But the room containing his staff watching the debates quickly turned from an aggressive war room to one of subdued surrender. While Obama certainly under-performed in the debate, his actual performance isn’t the reason he lost. He lost because everyone on Twitter decided he lost five minutes into the debate.
Dan Pfeiffer, host of the podcast “Keepin’ it 1600,” compares it to the apocryphal Nixon-Kennedy debate. While the story has no real evidence to back it up, it is a common remark heard in high school government classrooms that television viewers thought Kennedy won while radio listeners thought Nixon was the winner, the difference being due to Nixon’s constant sweating under the studio lights. In the 2012 election, Pfeiffer remarks, those who watched the debate without twitter saw very little of interest while those who watched it with twitter seemed to think that Obama had “self-immolated on live TV.”
Obama learned from his mistake, he made some adjustments, and went on to win the next two debates and, of course, the election. But he had to work much harder than he otherwise would have. It helped, however, that there was not some huge slip-up that resulted in his loss, merely a weak performance next to a Romney who presented himself as a much stronger candidate than he had previously been perceived.
In most election cycles, the debates have large impacts due to specific gaffes. There is the long, drawn-out sighing of Al Gore. The blasé attitude of Michael Dukakis in his response to a hypothetical about his wife being murdered. The blank look on Rick Perry’s face as he realizes he has forgotten a well-rehearsed talking point in the middle of a primary debate. The shift in public opinion is not only due to the prevalence of these clips on mainstream media throughout the next week, but also because of the ruthless treatment they receive on comedy shows like Saturday Night Live or Comedy Central’s late night lineup. These shows, more than the coverage by news organizations, play an important role in shaping public opinion.
Think of the “lock box” skit on SNL that dragged Gore down a few crucial points. Or the evisceration of the McCain camp in the 2008 season. These are shockwaves rippling out from the debates themselves and they affect public opinion beyond what the polls immediately after the debates show.
The debates matter. The problem is, it’s not what is being debated that matters. The coverage following the Trump-Clinton debates will not mention policy points (barring an off the rail policy improvisation by Trump) but will instead focus on posture, on presentation. Did Hillary seem too robotic? Did Trump maintain his composure for 90 minutes? Did Hillary come across as a teacher’s pet, eager to give detailed but boring answers to each question? How many times did Donald make his duck face?
The debates shouldn’t matter. I think that’s why we’re so determined to use mathematics to show that they don’t. We wish we didn’t live in a nation in which a person can seemingly win a debate simply by not flying off the handle for an hour and a half. So we find polls that fit that and call it good. We want an election in which policy is king, but that simply isn’t the case. The nation will watch Hillary and Trump debate each other and will come to a consensus based on visuals, on tweets, on sighs and slip-ups. And unfortunately that consensus will matter a whole lot.
