Debating The Debates
“4:00 to go in the fourth quarter.” Joe Buck drawls, emotionless as always. “Team Biden has the ball and leads Team Trump 27–17.”
“I don’t know what Trump was thinking Joe.” Troy Aikman responds, slightly more emotional. “This late in the game, you need a stop. Timeouts are precious, and the Orangebadmen wasted one on that boneheaded challenge. The Biden Boomers are jumping with glee on their sideline.”
If the election were a football game, that would be the commentary.
The president is behind and needs a few solid plays to shift the momentum. According to the RealClearPolitics general election spread, he trails by 8.9 points.
As of Saturday night, Election Betting Odds gives him a 36% chance to win. Although if you ask political science professor Helmet Norpoth, he has a 91% chance.
“Right Troy, when trailing by ten….” Buck searches for emotion and doesn’t find any. “You can’t be allowing easy first downs and blowing challenges.”
“Donald Trump will Donald Trump.” Aikman chuckles.
Regardless, not having the 2nd debate might hurt him. It’s sort of like trailing by 10 and allowing an easy 1st down conversion.
Instead, we got dueling town halls. Interestingly enough, about 600,000 more people watched Mr. Biden’s than Mr. Trump’s: 14.1 million to 13.5 million viewers. For the so called ratings king, that hits both the ego and the standings.
“Offsides.” Buck’s voice has a hint of surprise. “These mental errors…”
“1st and five.” Aikman shakes his head. “The absolute last thing this campaign needs right now.”
Was a town hall a better use of both candidates’ time? In terms of ratings, no. The first debate pulled in at least 73 million viewers.
So a debate would have been preferable?
Oh you sweet summer child, it’s never that easy!
According to journalist and teacher Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute, debates don’t affect elections much.”
Leaning on Harvard Business School research done in nine countries, including the US, 72% of voters make up their minds at least a couple of months before an election. As of late September per Gallup, party affiliation is as follows: 28% Republicans, 42% Independents and 27% Democrats. The two major parties claim 55% of the electorate. Assuming that a nominee achieves 85% or more approval from their party, as most do, it’s not hard to see how most make up their minds before the debates take place.
At most, the debates can persuade up to 28% of voters. However, according to Professor Tompkins, many who change their minds in the weeks coming up to the election do so for other reasons: new information, policy changes or the like.
Well, there you have it, right? Debates aren’t a huge factor in elections. Signed, sealed and delivered.
It’s never that easy….or simple, as much as we’d like it to be.
“I remember Coach Tony D’Amato’s wise words.” Buck reverts to robot form. “Life is a game of inches.”
“As is football.” Aikman shifts back and forth in his seat. “Any Given Sunday, one hell of a movie.”
Politics is no different.
Take the 1960 presidential election between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon, one of the closest in American history which featured the first televised debates. As Gallup wrote in 2008:
“Gallup trends show that Kennedy and Nixon were about tied among registered voters in August and September polls leading up to the debate. Immediately after it, Kennedy was ahead by 3 percentage points, and ahead by 4 points by the time the fourth debate was held in late October. Given Kennedy’s ultimate margin of victory in the popular vote of only two-tenths of a percentage point, it is clear the debates didn’t produce a major shift in the structure of the election, but this debate-period boost in his support could have very well accounted for the outcome.”
Politics is a game of inches. 112,857 votes determined the leader of the free world in 1960. The debates arguably pushed Mr. Kennedy over the edge.
Imagine our dynamic broadcasting duo narrating that thriller.
“Well Troy, we came into the fourth quarter tied at 21.” Buck’s whistle even sounds lifeless. “It has been an unbelievable ending to the matchup of the week.”
“Injuries, missed assignments….” Aikman chuckles again. “After three overtimes and several booth reviews, Kennedy takes it. But we won’t see the last of Nixon.”
Students of politics can hardly forget President Gerald Ford’s epic mistake from in the ’76 debate: “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.” Mr. Ford actually meant that the Soviets had not dominated the will of the peoples in Eastern Europe, but the damage was done. While other issues played important roles, such as Mr. Ford’s pardoning of Mr. Nixon after Watergate, and a weak economy this gaffe’s impact should not be overlooked.
“Ford didn’t have it easy in this one….” Robot-Buck spits out. “But how can you not know that the game ends in a tie if no one scores in overtime?!”
“Again, Joe, I don’t know what he was thinking.” Aikman glows brighter than a 1600 Lumen light bulb, proud of his catchphrase. “No excusing it.”
The 1980 presidential election presents an interesting ‘what-if’ scenario. Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan disagreed about including Independent John Anderson, leading to a first debate between only Mr. Reagan and Mr. Anderson. Their second debate and the VP debate were cancelled. The two party nominees met head to head only once, in which Mr. Reagan coming on top, due to his experience behind the camera.
“Carter was always going to lose the battle of image.” Buck announces in a crisp monotone.
“He needed a gaffe, and he didn’t get one.” Aikman responds with sadness.
Gallup concludes that the one head to head contest did little to alter the outcome, in which Mr. Reagan won the popular vote by 9.7 points and 489 out of 538 electoral votes. This is probably correct, but it’s worth considering what could have happened if there were two more meetings between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Carter, along with a VP debate. Mr. Carter benefitted from a gaffe four years earlier, and could have benefitted from one a second time.
Pew Research studied recent debates and elections from ’92 to ’16, (omitting ’96 and ’08, which bordered on landslide victories) finding that 10–17% of voters used them to influence or strongly influence their votes. While certainly not the majority, 10–17% is nothing to sneeze at in presidential politics. 138 million Americans voted in 2016. 10% of 138 million is 13.8 million.
Looking at the rounded difference in votes between those elections, plus ’96 and ‘08:
’92: 5.8 million
’96: 8.2 million
’00: 543,816 thousand
’04: 3 million
’08: 9.5 million
’12: 5 million
’16: 2.9 million
In all those elections, the 10–17% could have changed the outcome.
As Gallup concludes about the controversial 2000 election:
“Gore had been consistently ahead in the race (among registered voters) for most of September and October prior to the first debate, whereas Bush generally remained in the lead in most Gallup polling after the third and final debate. (The race tightened up before Election Day, with Gore moving into a 1 to 2 point lead amongst registered voters.) Gore won the popular vote, but he might also have won the Electoral College vote had his 8-point pre-debate-period lead had not slipped away in the last weeks of the campaign.”
Imagine having a commanding eight point lead reduce to a slight one to two point margin or tie in the six weeks prior to the election. The debates were part of the shift.
“Bush’s surge reminds me of Frank Reich’s 32 point comeback.” Buck mentions the greatest comeback in NFL history as if he were reading a grocery list.
“Gore’s collapse…maybe he played for the Oilers in ‘93.” Aikman sniggers. “I don’t know-”
“What he was thinking, Joe.” Buck finishes, a wee bit of irritation creeps into his voice. “I know.”
The 2004 election illustrates a similar phenomenon. President Bush enjoyed a nine point lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in polling before the debates, then that eroded into a two point lead after the first, with Pew reporting that 66% of respondents believed Mr. Kerry to be the winner. The race devolved into a tie after the second. Mr. Kerry closed a nine point gap in two debates by “improving personal image than growing strength on the issues. In particular, the Democratic challenger has virtually erased Bush’s advantage for honesty and having good judgement in a crisis.”
After the third debate, President Bush rebounded to a third point lead, which was close to the 2.5% popular vote margin and a close 286–251 electoral victory. Although Mr. Kerry lost, it’s obvious that his strong debate performances help make the election quite a bit closer.
“Before you say it!” Buck holds up a hand, using exclamation for the first time in his life. “I don’t know what Kerry was thinking.”
“I actually wasn’t.” Aikman mumbles. “But it is a good quote.”
The 2012 election has parallels to 2004 and is the best what-if argument for the debates’ impact. 129,085,403 people voted. Per Pew, 10% of the electorate used the debates to inform their decision. 10% of the total votes cast is about 12.9 million. Governor Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama by almost five million votes.
Prior to his the debates, he trailed by 5+ points consistently. His strong first debate performance, in which 66% of registered voters said he did a better job, “erased Obama’s lead” per a 2012 Pew study. Considering about 25–30% of registered voters are Republican, those are amazing numbers.
Mr. Romney faltered in the 2nd and 3rd debates based on exit polling. Look at what happened with Mr. Kerry- a nine point lead dropped to 2.5 points in several weeks due to three powerful debate performances. If the Governor had done the same, making a couple of million Independents switch, we would have had a President Romney.
“A game is four quarters.” Buck states. “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
“Romney stopped playing sometime in the third.” Aikman blinks and wipes a tear from his eye.
Here we are, eight years later. Our loveable commentators pick up where they left off.
“The Orangebadmen are trailing 27–17 without the ball, four minutes to go.” Buck clucks his tongue. “They need a few solid stops and the ball back.”
“A tall order. First, avoid costly penalties.” Aikman shakes his head more vigorously than when Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones had their falling out. “Second, a few inches, ten yards and a few first downs. Third, get the field goal. Only after can the Orangebadmen attempt a touchdown.”
We all know that 2016 was an anomaly. President Trump lost those debates based on public reaction. However, he is no longer the outsider, and needs every inch he can get.
Politics is a game of inches.
Remember the ’60, ’76, ’80, ’00 and ’04 elections.
While it’s easy to say debates don’t matter that much, the fact is they matter. In a game of inches, you take whatever you can get.
Underestimate them your own peril.