Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

Did the Democrats’ debate on Saturday evening matter?

There is ample evidence that voters, especially the uncommitted, find such debates politically useful, i.e. these debates help voters make choices. The formats of televised debates, however, do not allow for much depth of presentation. Instead, these debates are a platform to demonstrate message and image control.

Such debates, then, give voters a “feel” for the candidates’ abilities to perform under pressure–to look and sound presidential. I watched the re-broadcast on C-SPAN yesterday. I saw three potential presidents: 1) Dick Gephardt, 2) John Kerry, and 3) Joe Lieberman. (Bias alert: Like Gephardt, I am from Missouri. This may be playing a role in my estimation of his performance. Politically, I’m much closer to Lieberman.)

Does this mean Gephardt won? Hardly. The formats used in these debates are not structured to create a specific win-lose outcome. The concept of winning here is entirely a matter of individual interpretation. I liked the way Gephardt looked and sounded relative to the others.

What does all of this mean? A predictive model developed by Professor William G. Mayer¹, of Northeastern University, suggests that the coming months are the most critical for the Democrats–long before many Americans begin paying close attention to the campaign. He contends that the nomination process will be over before the Iowa caucuses. Indeed, the eventual winners were the frontrunners in the polls a year before the caucuses in 7 of the last 10 contested nominations.

The model is simple and has two indicators. The first indicator: The candidate who leads in the last poll before the Iowa caucuses wins the nomination (Mayer confined his research to data gathered by Gallup). The second indicator: The most effective fundraiser wins the nomination (this does not necessarily mean the candidate with the most money).

According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken in late April, Joe Lieberman leads (22%) followed by John Kerry (18%) and Dick Gephardt (16%). The rest of the challengers register single digits.

Mayer draws these conclusions from his model:
1- The current system favors frontrunners.
2- Momentum is an over-rated factor in the process.
3- The frontrunner often stumbles, but these incidents are rarely fatal.
4- The longer we live with this system, the more we learn about it–and this works to the advantage of frontrunner.
5- Money is important, but it’s not “the whole ball game.”

These conclusions suggest that “campaign strategy” is an oxymoron. The candidate’s ethos and past political performance have already made the argument, the message, and the image. As long as the frontrunner avoids disaster, he/she simply must maintain ethos. Mayer says:

And if campaign strategy doesn’t matter, presidential nomination races will be decided more and more on the basis of such fundamental factors as popularity and money–resources that frontrunners, almost by definition, will have in greater supply than their competitors.

The race is not quite over, but, if Mayer is correct, it soon will be. That makes these debates extra important. The lack of live TV coverage, then, becomes not simply an anoyance to political junkies but a detriment to our democratic process.

Second-day coverage from:
Washington Post
The New York Times

¹ Mayer, William G. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations or, My Model Worked Just Fine, Thank you.” PS: Political Science & Politics. APSA. 36(2) 2003: 153-57.