Are debates pointless now?

[Drunken Irishman]

It seems, the last two election cycles, debate performance has barely moved the needle. It's a far cry from the polls tightening after Obama's widely panned first debate in 2012 or Gore's sighs in 2000. Yet I think it's a valid question: do debates matter anymore?

I will be 100% transparent: I don't think BIden has done as bad as some think - certainly, I have seen far worse debate performances over the years. But he hasn't been as strong as I expected, or liked. Yet, on the whole, he continues to remain the front-runner, despite now, four (or is it five?) debate performances that have ranged from passable to critical.

In that span, other candidates have had standout moments in the debate. Harris in the first, which proved fleeting, Castro in one, Booker in a couple - and yet, their numbers, on the whole, have remained stagnant. Even Warren, off the heels of a strong debate a few debates ago, didn't see a monumental jump. And Biden, who is often panned, hasn't cratered.

Do we put too much stock into the idea that debates actually impact an election?

Think back 2016. How many people felt Hillary, in all three debates, wiped the floor with Trump? Certainly the polls did. At least the debate polls.

Overall, 52% who watched tonight's matchup thought Clinton did the best job, to the 39% that thought Trump did. That's a tighter margin than in the first two debates. After the first debate, 62% of those who watched said Clinton won, 27% Trump, followed by a 57% Clinton to 34% Trump margin for the town hall debate held October 9.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/hillary-clinton-wins-third-presidential-debate-according-to-cnn-orc-poll/index.html

Hillary was the winner in all three debates by a sizable margin.

Yet her poll numbers actually started taking a turn after the last debate.

Only after the first, and only temporarily, did Hillary see a post-debate bounce.

So, what are we gaining from these debates and are we putting too much emphasis on them? I've leaned into the idea that debates do matter - but after watching Trump sniffle and stammer through three presidential debates in 2016, and watching Biden fail to stand out as a front-runner, I'm starting to believe the debates aren't going to change opinions all that much.

I guess we'll see. But it's really hard for me to get invested in the idea right now that any debate is going to be a game-changer.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. Debates as structured are pointless.

I do think seeing 2-4 candidates actually debating an issue would be helpful. But what we are treated to today is pushing the definition to call them debates.

[NurseJackie]

9. Agreed! These smile-and-wave pageants aren't useful at all...

Agreed! These smile-and-wave pageants aren't useful at all, and I often feel like the moderators speak more than the actual candidates. It seems to be just a competition to see who comes up with humorous one-liners and gotcha-insults.

The qualification criteria should have been more rigorous and more exclusive sooner than this. Things won't become very interesting or informative until the debate has 5 or fewer candidates.

[beachbumbob]

2. I don;t need any debates to know of the 15 or 20 announced candidates that almost all of them

would have trouble winning states Hillary should have won, except for one of the candidates.


mostly blah blah, blah any ways

[TidalWave46]

3. I think the days of "Great performance, you are going to move up!"....

are over.

Taking a hit for your performance is more likely, even if you did well. The spin rooms afterward have really watered down how the debates are discussed the next day. For the few who actually discuss them.

[crazytown]

4. 10 people on stage, 90 second answers are not debates.

eom

[ritapria]

5. The Debates don't move the needle very much , if at all

When Kamala went after Biden she got a big bounce that quickly faded …. Sustained positive press coverage for a candidate is a far more important factor in moving the numbers ……. Warren got great press for months and she zoomed up to the status of co-frontrunner ……..The media is now giving her hell on MFA and her numbers have dropped about 4 % from it's previous high ……………. Mayor Pete is the current Media Fav and he's now moving up - particularly in IA and NH …….. PS ….Emerson College (A-) has Bernie and Joe tied at 27% ….Elizabeth at 20% ….I know it's inaccurate but I want to enjoy the outlier - for a few minutes nonetheless …….

[SWBTATTReg]

6. I think they are. Debates are almost too much, especially w/ such a large cast of interested ...

in-running-for-president candidates. The lack of money of course has thinned the ranks out (an unfortunate thing that happens all of the time), and lack of money will probably cause more to drop out.

In a perverse way, the lack of money kind of tells me about a particular candidate, that perhaps the fundraising that they anticipated didn't occur/materialize, and that they failed to see this in advance, thus didn't plan very well? They know that the field is crowded already and the odds of standing out in a crowd to raise the monies needed to run for this office are pretty high (against them).

Of course IMHO, money follows those w/ the best sound bites and the best responses to situations and / or questions that do arise on the campaign trail.

I don't know how you can increase audience enthusiasm or participation, other than perhaps a Roman gladiator type of event, where each candidate has two Velcro flags, and at the start of the contest, the candidates will
all go running across the field trying to pull each other's Velcro flags off. The top five candidates (with the Velcro flags remaining) at the end are our winners for the upcoming primary season! I say this with tongue-in-cheek, since it seems like UNreality TV has taken over the airwaves and people are more interested in how 10 people are living on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere, vs. trying to make a better life for all of us in the real world.

[BuffaloJackalope]

7. I'd like to see them just sit down & talk to one another w/ a moderator.

Having 8-10 of them might be unwieldy, But when it gets down to 4-5, it would be fine & informative.

[loyalsister]

8. I would rather see town hall meetings

The debates have become a pursuit of zingers and conflict. Everything wrong with infotainment is embedded in the debates.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. The short answer is YES. It's performance art. People watch to see who "has the best line...

of the night", or who got in the best zinger. As stated, they don't move the needle that much, and when they do, it seems to be temporary. Donald Trump was possibly the worst debater in American politics, but he was bright enough to realize that people tune in for the entertainment aspect of the alleged "debates".

If the ratings have dropped off so dramatically from the first one, then most people have made up their minds, and come to the conclusion that the "debates" aren't worth the time.

[judeling]

11. No

Without the Debates only the media narrative would matter. Do you really think Warren would have risen so far without her first two debates? Or Buttigieg for that matter. Yes they are political entertainment, but they manage to give a real time check to it.

Without the debates we would be dominated by money only a few well known and/or rich candidates would have any shot at all. Castro stayed around as long as he did because of his first debate performance.

I understand the desire to just get on with it. But the field is narrowing differences and contrasts have emerged and soon enough the field will be small enough. Miles and Miles to go before we should even think of sleep.