Washington Monthly - September/October 2012 - (Page 20)

Why are presidential debates so often inconsequential? After all, many voters do pay attention. Debates routinely attract the largest audience of any televised campaign event. And voters do learn new information, according to several academic studies. But this new information is not likely to change many minds. The debates occur late in the campaign, long after the vast majority of voters have arrived at a decision. Moreover, the debates tend to attract viewers who have an abiding interest in politics and are mostly party loyalists. Instead of the debates affecting who they will vote for, their party loyalty affects who they believe won the debates. For example, in a CNN poll after one of the 2008 debates, 85 percent of Democrats thought that Cicero. But Erikson and Wlezien’s anal- salient—evidence that the public needysis shows that across the series of de- ed the news media to point out that Ford bates in any given election year, the can- had made a mistake. More importantly, Ford’s gaffe did litdidates tend to fight to a draw—much as tle to affect the main trend in the fall one would expect two equally matched campaign, which was a declining lead candidates to do. Consider the first Kennedy-Nixon de- for Carter. According to Gallup’s polling, Carter had a 15-point lead before bate, which is remembered as anything but a contest between equals. In Theo- the first debate but only a 5-point lead after the second one. As Erikson and dore White’s famous recounting of the election, Kennedy appeared “calm and Wlezien put it, “Carter’s downward slide nerveless” while Nixon was “haggard- during the fall campaign seems to belie that this debate gaffe did much lastlooking to the point of sickness.” Two Gallup polls suggest that after the de- ing harm.” In 1980, the only debate between bate Kennedy moved from 1 point behind Nixon to 3 points ahead, although it Carter and Reagan occurred a week before the election. Commentators judged is difficult to know whether that shift is statistically meaningful. Both Stimson Reagan’s performance favorably: it was and Erikson and Wlezien find that Ken- “calm and reassuring,” wrote the New Obama had won, but only 16 percent of Republicans agreed. The impact of debates is also limited because the candidates are fairly evenly matched. Each candidate will have read a thick stack of briefing papers and rehearsed extensively. They will stick to their message and won’t be easily rattled. One candidate’s argument will be immediately countered by the other’s. Perhaps one candidate may appear more comfortable than the other. Perhaps one may momentarily slip up while the other does not. But the differences in their respective performances will be small. Candidates sometimes try to lower expectations of their own debate performance by claiming that they are just humble, plainspoken folks while their opponents are the second coming of 20 September/October 2012 nedy’s margin after all of the debates York Times’s Hedrick Smith the next day. was only slightly higher than his margin A plurality of voters (44 percent) judged on the eve of the first debate. Moreover, Reagan to be the victor, while only 26 any trend in Kennedy’s favor began be- percent picked Carter. Leading up to the fore the debates were held. Clearly 1960 debate, Reagan had about a 2-point lead, was a close election, and many factors, based on an average of the polls. He had including the debates, may have contrib- a 5-point lead in the polls in the field on uted something to Kennedy’s narrow the day of the debate or in the two days thereafter. The debate seemed to matter, victory. But it is difficult to say that the but it mainly nudged Reagan even furdebates were crucial. Ford’s erroneous assertion about east- ther toward victory. The 1988 debate between Dukakis and ern Europe in the second debate of 1976 is considered one of the biggest debate George H. W. Bush featured this famous gaffes of all time. On the night of the question from moderator Bernard King: debate, however, none of the debate “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irviewers interviewed in one poll named revocable death penalty for the killer?” the gaffe when asked about the “main things” each candidate had done well Dukakis said, “No, I don’t, Bernard,” and then, in classic politician fashion, or poorly. Only for viewers interviewed the next day did this gaffe become more changed the subject to something he ap- Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images; Getty Images; NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images

Washington Monthly - September/October 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Monthly - September/October 2012