Do the presidential debates cause any real ripples?

By Elaine C. Kamarck

Monday, Oct. 10, 2016 | 2 a.m.

Editor’s note: In advance of the Oct. 19 presidential debate at UNLV, The Sunday and the Brookings Institution, in partnership with UNLV and Brookings Mountain West, are presenting a series of guest columns on state and national election issues. The columns will appear weekly.

The first Trump-vs.-Clinton debate was watched by millions and analyzed by even more. But when all is said and done, you have to wonder if these contests matter.

A quick run-through of the history of presidential debates yields no example of one causing a dramatic reversal of fortune. Data show that after debates, tight races remain tight, and those with a lead going in tend to retain it.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan held an enormous lead over former Vice President Walter Mondale from the beginning of the race until the end. Even a debate performance in which Reagan seemed seriously old and out of it didn’t hurt his polling numbers. The 1996 debates didn’t make much difference either; President Bill Clinton led Sen. Bob Dole throughout the fall, with little to no change in the polls post-debates.

Through much of the race in 2004, President George W. Bush had a narrow lead over Sen. John Kerry and won even though he had a lackluster first debate against a clearly in-command opponent. In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama’s lead over Sen. John McCain grew throughout the fall, not because of debate performances but because of the fallout from the growing world financial crisis and McCain’s inability — off the debate stage — to appear prepared to handle the disaster.

There are two presidential debates, however, that loom large. The one-and-only debate between President Jimmy Carter and Gov. Ronald Reagan seemed to turn a narrow Reagan lead into a landslide. President Carter had some problems in 1980; a bad economy and a failed hostage rescue mission, to name just two. But prior to the debate, Reagan was seen as a dangerous radical, too far to the right and liable to start a nuclear war. The amiable uncle who appeared on the stage with President Carter, though, was not in the least bit scary. Reagan used his debate performance to overcome, rather than reinforce, voters’ concerns, giving them a strong reason to buy into the Reagan Revolution. On Election Day, he won 44 states and carried the popular vote by nine percentage points.

The other notable debate falls into the “what if” category: the 2000 matchup between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. It is universally acknowledged that Gore’s performance in the first debate was the worst kind of disaster, the kind that ends up a popular skit on “Saturday Night Live.” Many, including his close advisers (I was one of them) thought it cost him the election. But polls showed a tight race through the end of the historically close election in which Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Had Gore been more likable in the first debate, it’s possible he might have opened up a lead. But that can be said about many debates and belongs in the land of alternate realities.

The reason these debates don’t tend to change the direction of the race goes back to one of the fundamentals of political psychology: By the time they occur, many people have made up their minds and watch through a partisan lens. So in the 2016 debates, many Democrats will see in Hillary Clinton a steady, knowledgeable commander in chief, while many Republicans will see in Donald Trump as a tough leader who can get things done. The narratives have long been established, and most people will fit their reactions into whatever side they’ve chosen.

Still, debates are unique moments. Nominees can beat back pre-existing notions about their candidacy (see Reagan in 1980) or reinforce voter sentiments (see Gore in 2000). They can seem entirely in command, ready to swear an oath and preside over the world’s most powerful military, or they can be at their most vulnerable and reveal weaknesses. While debates tend not to change the underlying dynamics of a race, they always have the opportunity to do so.

Nonetheless, odds are that millions will watch the final debate Oct. 19 and flood the internet with their opinions — most of which could be written beforehand.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of “Why Presidents Fail … And How They Can Succeed Again.” Kamarck worked in the White House in the Clinton-Gore Administration.