Deep breaths everyone — as I pointed out last month, debates rarely matter as much as people think. Jim Stimson, who I quote in that post, argues the following in Tides of Consent:

What we have seen is perhaps some influence. The evidence is inconclusive to say either that debates matter or that they do not. But if they do matter at all, their influence is vastly smaller than, say, the conventions. The reelection landslides [1964, 1972, 1984, 1996] show that once voters have decided, debates will not change the outcomes.

There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates. But in elections that were close at debate times, there are cases (1960, 1980, 2000) where the debates might have been the final nudge.

UW-Milwaukee’s Tom Holbrook reiterates this point in a blog post showing that there is very little evidence of substantial swings in the polls due to debates. Of course, since the race is close, anything could affect the outcome, but it seems clear that the debates will be covered far out of proportion to their importance.

At a more meta level, to the extent debates matter, it’s likely that the media narrative that’s created (i.e. Gore’s “sighs” in 2000) is far more important than the actual content of the debates since most people do not watch the debates and most of those who do watch are supporting one of the candidates. In this sense, people should worry less about their campaign’s performance and more about the performance of their campaign’s spin room after the fact. It’s a sorry spectacle.