Sunday, November 4, 2012

Debates…Why Experts Argue They Have Little Impact


Through reading different articles it is clear to see that the majority of scholars feel that that Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates have no real impact in the outcome of the election. Scholars from The New Yorker, Huffington Post and ABC News all agree that the debates come to late in the year to have a big impact in the election. The New Yorker states that at “this point in the campaign, most voters have made up their minds about who they will support. They generally come into the debates wearing their partisan jerseys and cheer for the candidate they’ve already picked.” The best way to understand why scholars feel this way is to take a look at how the debates have impacted the election in the past, which gives a gimps into why the Obama and Romney debates will have no impact.
            ABC News’ article reports that Gallup Politics says that historically “election polling trends since the advent of televised presidential debates nearly a half-century ago reveal few instances in which the debates may have had a substantive impact on election outcomes." The historical trend is that polls after a debate are remarkably close to where they started before the debate was even held. With the exception of 1976, The New Yorker posted this graph from Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien’s new book, The Timeline of Presidential Elections, which uses data from ten elections showing how small the changes are the week before and after the debates.
 
Even though history shows voters that the debates have no real impact in the election, does that mean that the Obama and Romney debates follow this trend? Both President Obama and Governor Romney came into the debates well prepped, rehearsed, and skilled, and did not stray from their talking points (Huffington Post). With the amount of work candidates put into these debates, their answers tend to be information voters have already heard and expected each candidate to say. Even though commentators of debates said they thought one candidate did better over another, the Huffington Post reminds voters that once that, “dust settles, the Obama and Romney debates will do little to change the minds of most voters. They will simply further convince Obama's backers that their guy is the right choice for the White House. They will do the same for Romney's backer.”
The debates have no real impact on the election but have become a validation to voters that they have chosen the right candidate. While polls can show slight fluctuation, history shows us that voters will remain with the same candidate they agreed with before a debate after the debate is over. John Sides from Washington Monthly puts the debates into an interesting perspective when he states that, “what history can tell us is that presidential debates, while part of how the game is played, are rarely what decide the game itself."











1 comment:

  1. Aren't debates just an opportunity for folks to assert that their candidate won, regardless of what actually happened? :) Seems like by the time October rolls around, people have their minds made up. Given the way we're inundated with political communication, little can be said to help the so-called undecideds. In the words of a great poet, "if you ain't got it by now, you just ain't gettin' it."

    ReplyDelete