Clara Duggan
Contributing Writer
Nearly 63 million people watched it live. Over 4 million have watched it on YouTube. It was the most tweeted event in political history.
It was the First US Presidential Debate in these 2012 elections. And, like it or not, it did not go how people thought it would.
The big question is, does it matter? Will it matter and will it have contributed to the result of this Presidential race?
This election is unlike any other in America’s history, it is the first since the boom of Twitter and Facebook. This could make all the difference in the world.
In the first televised US Presidential debate in 1960, between JFK and Nixon, it was reported that the debate is what won the election for JFK. With his tanned and relaxed exterior, in contrast to Nixon’s pasty and sweaty face, everyone who watched it said JFK won the debate. However, what people may forget is that JFK was actually ahead in the polls before the debate.
Wlezien, a Political Science Professor at Temple University, has said that his research into the last 50 years of elections suggests that ‘where you started debate season is pretty much where you end the debate season’. Furthermore, he found that no candidate who was leading in the polls six weeks before the election has lost the popular vote since Thomas Dewey in 1948. Poor old Dewey!
In the tightest elections to date, the candidate who was most popular before the debates, was the same candidate who won the popular vote on Election Day. Even in the 2000 Bush / Gore election, one of the closest elections ever, Gore had a slight lead over Bush before the debates and went on to win the majority of votes. Unfortunately, he lost the Electoral College tally that determines the Presidency. Even then the debates did not have any significant effect on the outcome of the election. This is in line with what the experts tell us.
History and political analysts tell us that Presidential Debates are ‘rarely game-changers’, even in the closest elections.
To the extent that they do matter, it has been noted that it is rarely the substance of what the candidates say that matters to voters. Their style, appearance and mannerisms are the things which voters pay attention to. Nixon’s appearance in 1960 (people who listened to the debate on the radio thought he won) and George Bush Senior checking his watch during his debate against Bill Clinton in 1992, in both instances these things affected people’s perception of the outcome of the debate. There is even data from MIT’s Lenz and Lawson which suggests that ‘attractive candidates disproportionately benefit from debates, especially among less informed voters’. This debate series may yet be determined by a ‘gaffe’ by one of the candidates, whether it determines the debate series or not is irrelevant, as I’m sure John Kerry would tell you (considering he won all three debates in 2004, and still lost the election).
What has proven to influence voter opinions on candidates is the media. In 2004 Arizona’s Fridkim, along with her colleagues, proved that the spin put on a debate matters to how voters perceive how the candidates debated. This is not to say people don’t think for themselves, it’s just hard not to believe what the commentators tell you. Furthermore, in Princeton University, Kugla found that being exposed to other viewers reactions to the debates greatly influenced voters perception of how the debate went. So, not just supposedly unbiased commentators on TV influence voters, the views of those around them can greatly impact their perception of the candidate’s performance.
On their own, each of these research studies is in line with the proposition that debate effects on election outcomes are weak at best. However, when put together and added to the ‘boom’ of social networking sites it seems unlikely that the game will not change. The playing field has changed, and fundamentally so.
Twitter addicts were busy at work from the get go on the 3rd of October. This, in and of itself was a change. Previously analysis of the debate and how the candidates fared was not widespread until after the closing statements. Twitter allowed people to get their opinions out there. Not to use a cliché, but Twitter gave the politically minded a voice, and a loud one at that. There were strong reactions, both ignorant and informed, to what was happening in Denver. People had access to a plethora of opinions, criticisms and reviews. By the end of the debate a web analytics firms found 47,141 tweets stating Romney had won, and only 29,677 proclaiming Obama victorious. One might say this is not good news for Obama, particularly considering his alleged popularity among young people, the same young people who are more likely to be among those people active on Twitter.
Will this matter? Does social media have the power to change the course of this Presidential race? I believe it will. The sheer ease of access to so many more viewpoints and opinions of one’s fellow citizens could impact hugely on how this election turns out. Whether this impact is good or bad for the political process remains to be seen, though, I would venture that more interaction and communication between voters can only mean good things for the political process.
Recent polls vary in their statistics. Some place Obama and Romney neck and neck, others place Romney ahead. Some state people have more confidence in Romney’s economic plan than in Obama’s. However, a more recent, if a little quieter outburst on Twitter relates to how Romney won the debate. People are saying he lied, something Obama did try to allude to during the debate. Politically astute tweeters are wondering where the economic plan Romney has been advocating for the last 18 months has gone? Has he decided, now, four weeks before Election Day to change his economic policy? Probably not. This movement on Twitter is not as loud as the one that declared Obama the loser in the first debate, but it is there and whether Romney likes it or not, it will be heard in the Twittisphere.
