Effect of Presidential debates?

[Patler]

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

[sheepshead]

Re: Effect of Presidential debates?

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

Its difficult to say. Reagan did well. Quayle got killed, still won. I do think dubya was slightly better than Gore and Kerry and it helped him in close elections. Cheney beats all comers.

[hoosier]

Re: Effect of Presidential debates?

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

Personally I've never been influenced to change my mind based on a presidential debate, but that's probably because I've made my decision before the debates begin. But not everyone decides early; if that were the case we probably would never see significant fluctuations in polling in teh weeks before national elections (polling inaccuracies notwithstanding). For those who don't make up their minds early, how do you know the "I was leaning" isn't just some peoples' way of explaining their decision making process after the fact? The decision is a leap that Kierkegaard called a form of madness. But looking at things retrospectively, nobody wants to see madness. We like to think that we were always leaning in the direction that we have now taken.

[Patler]

Re: Effect of Presidential debates?

For those who don't make up their minds early, how do you know the "I was leaning" isn't just some peoples' way of explaining their decision making process after the fact? The decision is a leap that Kierkegaard called a form of madness. But looking at things retrospectively, nobody wants to see madness. We like to think that we were always leaning in the direction that we have now taken.

I certainly don't have a scientific approach, but in most things I tend to not ask the focal question. So I never ask how they were leaning. I ask about issues, impression, etc. without asking which candidate they thought they preferred. I ask what they learned from the debate and from which candidate, etc. What you find is that their beliefs aligned with the one candidate even before the debates. They simply used the debate to confirm it.

Basically, I hate the debates because they don't DEBATE. If they really debated we might all learn something. But they don't, so we don't.

[SkinBasket]

It seems the debates do more to rile the base into actually going out and voting than changing anyone's mind. Of course, there's a large segment of liberals that have glommed onto the title of "independent" who will claim that they've been swayed by the democrat arguments, but they're usually pretty transparent.

[hoosier]

Re: Effect of Presidential debates?

Basically, I hate the debates because they don't DEBATE. If they really debated we might all learn something. But they don't, so we don't.

I think that is a reflection of the way the media, television and more recently the Internet, have reshaped political discourse over the past four decades. TV and youtube are mediums of the short sound bite, and the "debate" becomes a staging ground for the candidates to try to launch a memorable phrase image (Reagan's "There you go again") instead of comparing ideas, which take much longer to develop and substantiate. McCain's apparent proposal for the fed gov to "buy up bad mortagages" and renegotiate based on revalued home prices was case in point: nobody really knew what he was talking about and he wasn't able to explain it well, at least not in the two minutes alloted at that point.

[LL2]

I don’t really think the debates really change the outcome of the debate, and they certainly are not helping McCain. I actually do not think McCain is going to win this election. If he does it will be a miracle. The issue of the economy is what is going to propel Obama into the Whitehouse, and it’s not because he’s a genius on the subject (neither is McCain for that matter). It’s because McCain is from the party that is in the Whitehouse, and for no other reason. I think every incumbent should be thrown out on both sides of the party from Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank to Hagar, Lugar, and Shelby. Start over! Unfortunately the start over we will probably get is the most socialistic form of government, bordering on that of communism, from Obama.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't go by the debates, I get my views from bumper stickers.

[mraynrand]

I go by intestinal cramps. Dems are better at relieving cramps. If I have a cramp on election day, I vote Democrat. The first candidate who offers free pepto gets my vote.

[Zool]

I think they have very interesting things to say sometimes.

[Partial]

That naughty, naughty girl

[texaspackerbacker]

The bottom line is that the message of the candidates is UNFILTERED--direct from the candidates' mouths to voters' ears.

This fact INHERENTLY favors the party and candidates which is in tune with the views, values, and positions of the vast majority of the people. It also enhances the cause of the party and candidates that try to appeal to class warfare emotions.

Back as far as Reagan, Republicans have benefited thusly--a net positive of getting their overall views across outweighing the Democrat tactic of excessive taxing of the rich. In 2000 and 2004, in particular, the late comeback wins by Bush were likely attributable in large part to the debates. In fact, in 2004, Bush surged after the debates and then slid back to almost even as the debates effect wore off and media bias began to bring Kerry back.

Will it work this time? The major difference this time around is this "crisis" which seems to be dominating people's thinking and inexplicably (other than media bias) seems to favor Obama. I honestly think the entire economic mess is contrived and overblown. It would be a stretch to conspiratorially blame the start of the whole thing on pro-Dem/pro-Obama motivation, but the hyping of it and dragging it out by the media indeed does seem to be for that reason.

[rdanomly]

I don’t really think the debates really change the outcome of the debate, and they certainly are not helping McCain. I actually do not think McCain is going to win this election. If he does it will be a miracle. The issue of the economy is what is going to propel Obama into the Whitehouse, and it’s not because he’s a genius on the subject (neither is McCain for that matter). It’s because McCain is from the party that is in the Whitehouse, and for no other reason. I think every incumbent should be thrown out on both sides of the party from Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank to Hagar, Lugar, and Shelby. Start over! Unfortunately the start over we will probably get is the most socialistic form of government, bordering on that of communism, from Obama.

I'd like to put my two cents in about the thrown out list. Lugar is worth keeping. There were some people at my office here that thought he would have been a great VP choice for Obama.

[mraynrand]

There are some eerie parallels to Balck Wednesday, when the Pound rapidly devalued in '92 - the British govt. spend something like 50 billion propping up the pound and George Soros made at least a billion. ( some, including Paul Krugman, aka Elsworth Toohey, believed Soros helped to stage the fall of the pound by selling short). The conservative party took a real beating right before elections, since under Thatcher, they had put in the mechanism to control the valuation of the pound in the first place.

[GoPackGo]

Re: Effect of Presidential debates?

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

I use the debates to help make my decision. I want to see the how the candidates handle the pressure of debate because I feel it is an overlooked quality when choosing a leader.