Bogus "game-changer" debate hype

Washington Post:

The Post asked John Podesta, Newt Gingrich, Mary Beth Cahill, Peter J. Wallison and Stuart E. Eizenstat what could make tonight a game-changer.

The real answer: Almost nothing. Obama is up by eight points in the Pollster.com estimate -- there's no evidence of a debate ever causing a shift of that magnitude.

PS Along the lines, check out the way the New York Times describes Reagan's debate performance in 1980:

Mr. Reagan struggled until he met President Jimmy Carter in their only debate at the end of the campaign and voters decided they were comfortable enough with Mr. Reagan to take a chance on a relative newcomer to politics.

Compare that with Jim Stimson's smoothed trajectory of the polls in that race (and two other competitive races):

As Stimson concludes, Reagan's performance might have helped to nudge him over the top at the end of the race, but there's little evidence that "voters decided" en masse to support him as a result of the debate.

Comments

[Sean-B]

This is a weird argument. A game changer really is momentum related to a campaign. Could McCain generate momentum, or stop Obama's? And though Brendan seems to think someone believes that debates have a tremendous effect on elections, I don't know of anyone who feels that way.

Regardless, whether the second debate in 1980 had an effect on an election has nothing to do with whether the third debate in 2008 has an effect on an election. Debates aren't held in a vacuum to where you can say that the format can't influence people.

There also could be external elements that cancel out momentum. A candidate could perform really well in a debate and then make a huge gaffe the next day that erases that little bit of momentum. Candidates do not perfectly match voters preferences, so some people change day to day as to what they feel is significant.

I think debates have an effect on polls, but I don't know what Brendan thinks is significant. I mean .1% of voters (assuming 2004 numbers) is 120,000 people. Depending on where they live, even that small amount swayed could affect an election. And who knows what down ballot elections are affected.

Brendan seems to be arguing that no debate has ever caused a landslide, instead of affecting an election. I look at campaigns as living, changing entities, constantly changing the views of the populous. I'd like to see more research done as to what influences voters, including debates.