Making Sense of the Debates

We have now sat through three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate. After each debate the news media, pundits and focus groups will haggle over who won. Facebook becomes swarmed with memes from partisans trying to tear down the opposition for some gaffe or quote some zinger from their own candidate. Again, they will trumpet how their candidate won the debate.

It seems to me that all of this back and forth on who won is using the wrong standard of measurement. We want to score it like we would score a high school debate competition or even a presentation of a case before a jury. When I hear all of this analysis I can’t help but think of the movie line where the hero says something along the lines of “he thinks we are playing chess, but I’m playing poker.” Elections are not decided by debate points, but by persuading voters to show up at the polls and cast their vote for your candidate.

There are three kinds of elections, the base election, the choice election, and the referendum election. If we are to correctly analyze a candidates’ debate performance and determine a “winner” then we must also correctly analyze the type of election that we are facing. The base election is when the country is closely divided. Generally things are going well, and the winner will be determined by which candidate gets their core constituencies out to the polls to vote. A choice election is where the country is at a crossroads and needs to determine which direction the nation will go over the next term. A referendum election is where an incumbent has not performed well or has performed well and needs to persuade the voters that he deserves another term in office.

I would categorize then 1994 midterms as a base election. Clinton had defeated George HW Bush in 1992, which had upset conservative voters. Clinton failed to reach 50% of the popular vote and had tried to govern from the left. This energized conservatives who managed to seize control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. The job of a candidate in a base election is to energize their base voters. Republicans want to energize conservatives and Democrats want to energize liberals. When analyzing a debate in a base election, we must look at the effect the candidates performance had on their core constituency. Did the candidate come out aggressive? Did he score some hits and zingers? Debate points are not as important as how energized the base is.

The 1996 Dole/Clinton election would be an example of a choice election. Clinton had been soundly defeated in the 1994 midterms and was facing a GOP that was chomping at the bit to regain the White House. Clinton was very astute and pivoted to the center following his defeat and was successfully able to frame the 1996 election as a choice between a forward looking Bill Clinton, building a bridge to the 21^st century, or a return to the policies of the past. The fact that Republicans nominated Bob Dole didn’t help much to dissuade the electorate of this narrative. In the debates, Clinton continued to provide a clear narrative of where he wanted to take the country in comparison to his opponent. In choice elections, the traditional debate scoring model is more important. The candidates must be able to clearly articulate a vision and direction for the nation as well as persuade voters that his is the correct course.

The 1980 Reagan/Carter election is an example of a referendum election. In these election years, the incumbent is challenged by either a domestic crisis (such as a bad economy), a foreign policy crisis (such as the Iranian Hostage Crisis), or both. Carter was presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression (and yes, though politicians love to use that phrase, the late 70’s and first couple years of the 80’s have that honor) while American citizens were held hostage in Iran for over a year. The nation did not want another 4 years of Jimmy Carter, but they were uncertain about Reagan. Carter spent much of his campaign maligning Reagan as a cowboy and reckless, both economically and in foreign affairs. In a referendum election, the debate serves as means for the challenger to show himself to the electorate as an acceptable alternative. Winning on points is irrelevant. The question voters are asking is “Do I feel comfortable with the challenger as President of the United States.” Reagan showed himself to be intelligent, reasonable, and Presidential. He was not the warmonger that Carter tried to make the electorate believe. Reagan won in a landslide.

In looking at the debate performances over the past month, I have heard partisans on both sides try to analyze who won on points. What we need to do is analyze it based upon the kind of election we are facing. This is base election to a point. Obama realizes that his only hope is to energize his own base and depress Republican turnout. This is NOT a choice election. Obama has failed to lay out an agenda for a second term. He has not provided a reason to believe that the next four years will be any different than the last four years. He has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to define his opponent as a greedy, heartless, corporate executive who cares only about the rich. He has attached Romney on Bain Capital, his taxes, and he has tried to link Romney to George W Bush.

This is not a choice election. It is partially a base election, but it is mostly a referendum election. 56% of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track. The U-6 unemployment figures have been in double digits since he took office. He has increased the debt to $16 Trillion. We have suffered a downgrade in our nation’s credit rating for the first time in history. The fiscal cliff is looming with no credible plan from the President. The recent attack on our embassy in Libya, leaving 4 Americans dead, including our ambassador, has left many of us scratching our heads, wondering if our President is up to the job. By and large, the American electorate has decided that the want a change in the White House.

In the debate, Mitt Romney had to answer the question, “Is Romney and acceptable alternative.” In the first debate, Romney established himself as credible on the economy. He appeared Presidential, showed himself to be a caring and compassionate person, and dispelled months of negative attacks by the Obama campaign. In the second and third debates, Obama performed better, but did nothing to change the new narrative that Romney is a credible potential President. While Obama may have won that third debate on points, it doesn’t matter when analyzed from this perspective. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. He showed himself to be intelligent and capable. He has a plan to revive the economy. While not as experienced as Obama on foreign policy, he showed himself capable of handling the job. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. Obama’s job in these debates was to disqualify Romney from office. He failed to do that. By this measure Romney won all the debates. It is about votes, not points. Of course we will see come November 6 who is right.