Personality Contest #3 on Wednesday

[A18]

Is there really a point to these things? It's not as if they're really debates.

[J. J.]

Yes, you get to compare and contrast their styles, and see if they're really as bad as the other guy says they are.  You get to see how the respond to challenging questions.  You get some idea of the challenger's temperment.  Somethimes you get to hear an explanation of policy (though not this year).

I've tried to make the point that the effects are ephemeral (my word of the week).  The "winner" gets a boost for a week to ten days, then it's back to where everybody was just before the debate.

My historical question is, if the 1980 debate had happened exactly as it did in 1980, except three weeks prior to the election, would Reagan have won a ten point victory?  My answer is reluctantly, no.

[Gabu]

They're definitely mislabeled, but they do have a point, as J. J. said.

[J. J.]

I'm really interested in their political effect.

What do we remember about presidential debate in 1960?  Nixon looked bad.

1976?  Ford liberating Poland?

1980?  "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

1984?  Reagan looking confused.

1988?  Dukakis looking like he'd be mildly depressed if Kitty was raped and murdered.

1992?  Bush looking at his watch.

1996?  Clinton trying to look like Reagan in 1980 (which was good tactic).

2000?  Gore looking weird,  and sighing.

2004?  Bush grimacing or Bush being fiesty (the verdict is still out)

All of these things moved numbers, but not major policy decisions.

[MODU]

I don't think debates change anyone's mind on who they are voting for any more, but they solidify a persons reason for voting for the person they've already chosen in the back of their mind.  If their candidate blows the debates, they aren't going to switch their vote, but are more likely not be interested in voting. 

[opebo]

Are there any historical cases where a third debate was the most important one?  Or is it usually the first?

[zachman]

Are there any historical cases where a third debate was the most important one?  Or is it usually the first?

1984 certainly fit that mold.

[Shira]

I don't think debates change anyone's mind on who they are voting for any more, but they solidify a persons reason for voting for the person they've already chosen in the back of their mind.  If their candidate blows the debates, they aren't going to switch their vote, but are more likely not be interested in voting. 

Kerry picked some 4% thanks to the first debate. About zero from the second debate.

[Rococo4]

Are there any historical cases where a third debate was the most important one?  Or is it usually the first?

1984 certainly fit

I think there was only 2 deabtes in 84

[Blue Rectangle]

1988?  Dukakis looking like he'd be mildly depressed if Kitty was raped and murdered.

I can never see a replay of that question without thinking of The Simpsons:

Birch Barlow: Mayor Quimby, you're well-known, sir, for your lenient stance on crime.  But let's suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by thugs, your family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths.  You try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob--
Quimby: What is your question?
Barlow: My question is about the budget, sir.

[MODU]

I don't think debates change anyone's mind on who they are voting for any more, but they solidify a persons reason for voting for the person they've already chosen in the back of their mind.  If their candidate blows the debates, they aren't going to switch their vote, but are more likely not be interested in voting. 

Kerry picked some 4% thanks to the first debate. About zero from the second debate.

Many polls show any bounce Kerry picked up has already faded.  No "new supporters" were created . . . just backers feeling better about Kerry.