The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Do Debates Matter?
September 26, 2008 8:35 AM
The presidential debates are scheduled to start tonight, inevitably portrayed as potentially decisive. Is it so? Do debates change things?
Directly and measurably, generally not. But indirectly or more subtly, likely so. And there are plenty of reasons to think that this year’s campaign could be especially sensitive to the candidates’ debate performances.
Debates have been held in nine presidential contests since 1960. We find just one after which the lead changed hands by a clearly significant margin: In 1980, when Ronald Reagan uttered his "are you better off" line. He gained 7 points in a post-debate poll.
But there are other cases in which debates (or post-debate evaluations) may have had a more subtle, less measurable effect on the dynamics of the race. They are, after all, an essential window on the candidates’ styles and grasp of the issues alike. After Richard Nixon’s pasty-faced performance in the 1960 debates, John Kennedy went from 46 percent support to 49 percent; Nixon, from 47 to 45. Those changes are not large enough to be significant given polling tolerances. Nonetheless, the numerical "lead" switched, and collective memory maintains that the debates spelled Nixon’s narrow defeat (either that, or Richard Daley).
Nor did polls show significant movement immediately after the 1976 debate in which Gerald Ford said Poland was free (and news reports pounced on the misstatement); Jimmy Carter gained a single point, Ford lost 3. Again, though, the gaffe may have had the more subtle effect of halting what had been a slide in Carter's lead.
Then 73-year-old Reagan’s teasing jibe in 1984 about 56-year-old Walter Mondale’s “youth and inexperience” didn’t change the numbers, but perhaps helped put aside questions about Reagan’s age. And in 2000, Al Gore's technocratic debate performance saw him go in at +2 and leave at -3, although again within sampling error.
Our polls in 2004, 1996 and 1988 showed no significant movement, nor a change of numerical “leads,” around the debates. In 1992 there was more movement, though never enough to change Bill Clinton’s advantage. (There’s also the question of missed opportunities in debates, as in Mike Dukakis’ bloodless answer to what he’d do if his wife were raped and murdered.)
This year, the elements for impact seem ripe. Rather than a hold-your-nose, low-turnout election, this one’s a barn-burner, with two popular candidates and a highly engaged electorate. Attention to the race is the highest we’ve ever measured; 91 percent of registered voters are following it closely, 55 percent “very” closely. That suggests big audiences for the debates, as there were for the nominating conventions.
We’ve been seeing significant poll-to-poll movement among key swing voter groups, notably independents; they’re less rooted in partisanship, and they see appealing features – as well as weaknesses – in both candidates. That makes it hard to decide. The debates well may help.
The potential importance of the debates this year is enhanced by the candidates’ personal attributes. John McCain’s age is a serious issue; a record-high 48 percent of registered voters say it’s an important factor in their choice, and those voters currently favor Barack Obama by a wide margin. Obama, for his part, faces ongoing questions about the depth of his experience, his readiness for office and his suitability as commander-in-chief of the military. The candidates’ grasp and acuity will be on stage at the debates as nowhere else. And that holds for the vice presidential debate as well.
CHANGE – In instant reactions, at least, past polling has found that debates mainly reinforce preconceived notions rather than change them; most of each candidates' supporters say it's their guy who won, and precious few say their minds were changed.
Still, while debates rarely prompt immediate, measurable change, post-debate evaluations can. In 1992, right after the first debate, 24 percent of viewers said Ross Perot had won. By the very next night, amid positive reviews of Perot’s performance, that perception had grown to 37 percent among people who either had watched it, or heard or read about it. And Perot’s support did advance, from 6 percent before the debates to 17 percent after them.
Measurements of immediate post-debate reactions are suspect for a number of reasons. Some are callback polls, made late at night to previously recruited respondents and subject to serious sampling and weighting limitations. Some ask who “won,” others who “did the better job”; some accept “tie” as an answer and some don’t. Instant reactions, also, bypass the role of considered judgment; sometimes people actually need a little while to think about things.
Worst, someone somewhere is sure to run an online pseudo-poll, in which people can click in their “vote” for the winner. In 2000 Jim Nicholson, then-chairman of the RNC, sent around a mass e-mail telling supporters to go to online click-ins at CNN.com and ABCNews.com, “log on tonight: Vote after the debate and make your voice heard!” Voila: The ABCNews.com click-in had Bush “winning” the debate. Aaagh.
RUNDOWN – Here's a rundown of the measurable debate effect (or lack thereof) in each election since 1960. There were no debates in 1964, 1968 or 1972.
1960 - Gallup had Nixon +1, but that was 12 days before the first debate; it had Kennedy +3 after it. Twelve days is a long time and 4 points is a small number. Gallup didn't poll between the remaining three debates, but showed Kennedy +4 after the last one.
Gallup:
Kennedy Nixon
Pre-debate poll 9/14/60 46 47 Nixon +1
1st Debate 9/26/60
Post-debate poll 10/2/60 49 46 Kennedy +3
2nd Debate 10/7/60
3rd Debate 10/13/60
4th Debate 10/21/60
Post-debate poll 10/23/60 49 45 Kennedy +4
1976 - News reports jumped on Ford's misstatement of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in the second debate. Carter's lead had been diminishing, and that did stop after this debate. But the measured change after the second debate was tiny - Carter gained 1 point, Ford lost 3.
Gallup:
Carter Ford
"Late August" 51 36 Carter +15
1st Debate 9/23/76
Post-debate poll 9/27/76 51 40 Carter +11
Pre-debate poll 10/4/76 47 45 Carter +2
2nd Debate 10/6/76
Post-debate poll 10/11/76 48 42 Carter +6
Pre-debate poll 10/18/76 47 41 Carter +6
3rd debate 10/22/76
Post-debate poll 10/25/76 49 44 Carter +5
1980 – This one looks to have mattered: Gallup's pre-debate poll had Carter +8; post-debate, Reagan +3. (John Anderson did not participate.)
Gallup:
Carter Reagan Anderson
Pre-debate poll 10/26/80 47 39 9 Cart +8
Debate 10/28/80
Post-debate poll 11/3/80 43 46 7 Reag +3
1984 – Mondale crept up, but Reagan stayed ahead by double digits nonetheless.
ABC and ABC/Post:
Mondale Reagan
Pre-debate poll 10/2/84 35 52 Reagan +17
1st Debate 10/7/84
Post-debate poll 10/9/84 39 54 Reagan +15
Pre-debate poll 10/16/84 41 53 Reagan +12
2nd Debate 10/21/84
Post-debate poll 10/23/84 41 54 Reagan +13
1988 - We don't have an ABC poll done right before the first debate; in a Gallup poll it was George H. W. Bush +8. Our poll after the second debate showed no meaningful movement.
ABC and ABC/Post:
Dukakis Bush
1st Debate 9/25/88
Pre-debate poll 10/11/88 45 51 Bush +6
2nd Debate 10/13/88
Post-debate poll 10/18/88 45 52 Bush +7
1992 - Perot moved up 5 points in ABC News polling after the first debate and 4 points after the third debate. Before the debates he had 6 percent support; after the last debate he was up to 17 percent. Clinton moved up by 5 points after the second debate, Bush down by 6, then Clinton down by 6 after the third. But Clinton led throughout.
ABC News:
Clinton Bush Perot
Pre-debate poll 10/10/92 49 35 6 Clin +14
1st Debate 10/11/92
Post-debate poll 10/13/92 45 35 11 Clin +10
Pre-debate poll 10/14/92 44 37 11 Clin +7
2nd Debate 10/15/92
Post-debate poll 10/17/92 49 31 12 Clin +18
Pre-debate poll 10/18/92 49 30 13 Clin +19
3rd Debate 10/19/92
Post-debate poll 10/21/92 43 32 17 Clin +11
1996 - The race looked perhaps slightly tighter after the second debate, but Clinton maintained a double-digit lead throughout.
ABC News:
Clinton Dole Perot
Pre-debate poll 9/29/96 52 37 5 Clin +15
1st Debate 10/6/96
Post-debate poll 10/8/96 54 38 5 Clin +16
Pre-debate poll 10/15/96 55 38 4 Clin +17
2nd Debate 10/16/96
Post-debate poll 10/18/96 52 41 5 Clin +11
2000 –Gore went in +2 and came out -3 – a change of lead, but within sampling error. And a week after the last debate it was back to a dead heat, 47-47 percent.
ABC and ABC/Post:
Gore Bush Nader
Pre-debate poll 10/1/00 48 46 3 Gore +2
1st Debate 10/3/00
Post-debate poll 10/9/00 45 48 3 Bush +3
2nd Debate 10/11/00
Post-debate poll 10/15/00 44 48 4 Bush +4
3rd Debate 10/17/00
Post-debate poll 10/20/00 45 48 3 Bush +3
2004 – There were some wiggles in the debate period – a 6-point lead for George W. Bush before the first debate was a dead heat before the third – but when all was said and done the race after the debates looked a lot like the race before them.
ABC and ABC/Post:
Kerry Bush Nader
Pre-debate poll 9/26/04 45 51 1 Bush +6
1st Debate 9/30/04
Post-debate poll 10/3/04 46 51 1 Bush +5
Pre-debate poll 10/7/04 47 50 * Bush +3
2nd Debate 10/8/04
Post-debate poll 10/11/04 46 50 1 Bush +4
Pre-debate poll 10/12/04 48 48 1 =
3rd Debate 10/13/04
Post-debate poll 10/16/04 46 50 2 Bush +4
September 26, 2008 in 2008 General Election | Permalink | User Comments (80)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
McCain has been screaming about wanting debates all over the country. However, McCain was able to sit on his butt while the Democrates duked it out over the primaries.
Now, McCain wants to postpone the debates so he can showboat!
I want to hear what both presidential candidates have to say! America deserves to have the debate scheduled for tonight!
Get your behind in gear McCain!
Posted by: Shay | Sep 26, 2008 8:49:31 AM
Do debates matter...NO! Town hall style where the people get to ask the questions, maybe.
Posted by: samhiguchi | Sep 26, 2008 8:51:59 AM
Yes, debates matter. Town Halls matter too. But most questions asked are questions voters want answered. I don't think they should know the questions a head of time either. I need to know how they will react on the spot.McCain wants only Town Hall meetings so he can plant people and grand stand. I'm not interested in his repeating his talking points. I want answers to important questions. This debate should go forward. It's important.
Posted by: Miki | Sep 26, 2008 9:19:31 AM
McCain needs to show the world he can do more than one thing at once. All he is showing is he can not even do one thing at once.
Posted by: Paige | Sep 26, 2008 9:26:56 AM
I agree that the debates are important and I support them but I also think that tax payers dollars are paid to have McCain and Obama in Washington to do their job first, campaign secondly. I am proud of McCain for pushing that first, Obama had no intentions until Bush called and invited him. I understand from the news this morning Obama was very quiet, no questions, McCain rolled up his sleeves and at least attempted to get answers to questions we all have. I support the debates, don't get me wrong but what is wrong with pushing it out a few days. Everyone wins, we get hopefully a 'reasonable' bail out without all the 'tagged on' stuff, its thorough and not just a blank check and where the debate is held, they get more income because the town businesses will receive more revenue.
Another alternative - do them Sunday night when we hope all dust has settled from the bailout and hopefully all our leaders in Washington have stayed to do their jobs.
Posted by: Jenn | Sep 26, 2008 9:30:07 AM
I agree that the debates are important and I support them but I also think that tax payers dollars are paid to have McCain and Obama in Washington to do their job first, campaign secondly. I am proud of McCain for pushing that first, Obama had no intentions until Bush called and invited him. I understand from the news this morning Obama was very quiet, no questions, McCain rolled up his sleeves and at least attempted to get answers to questions we all have. I support the debates, don't get me wrong but what is wrong with pushing it out a few days. Everyone wins, we get hopefully a 'reasonable' bail out without all the 'tagged on' stuff, its thorough and not just a blank check and where the debate is held, they get more income because the town businesses will receive more revenue.
Another alternative - do them Sunday night when we hope all dust has settled from the bailout and hopefully all our leaders in Washington have stayed to do their jobs.
Posted by: Jenn | Sep 26, 2008 9:31:14 AM
The debate should go on tonight, if McCain do not show up that means he put politics first and not country first. We women multi-task on a daily basis and I expect our candidates to do the same. If they cannot multi-task then they should not run for president.
Posted by: Randy | Sep 26, 2008 9:37:37 AM
McCain's a chicken.
McCain - Palin '08 "Bawk, Bawk, Bawk, Bawk"
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | Sep 26, 2008 10:06:44 AM
MCCAIN LIED ABOUT SUSPENDING HIS CAMPAIGN.
PROVE ME WRONG
Posted by: watching | Sep 26, 2008 10:08:47 AM
McCain is stonewalling! He has a plan! Don't show up tonight so that this debate will be postponed and the VP's will not have to debate. Where is Palin going to be without her teleprompter and her memorized Karl Rovian one liners. Wait! Maybe she can vie for Last Comic Standing.
Posted by: imnotspoonfed | Sep 26, 2008 10:30:21 AM
I can't believe someone said that John McCain is a chicken. Barack would not meet him in town hall meetings because he wants to know the questions up front because he wants to continue to trick the middle class into voting for him. Barney Frank just said on tv. that this was caused be no deregulations but I saw a video yesterday on cnn of him in 2005 when the Republicans wanted to regulate Freddie and Fannie that he didn't see anything they where doing wrong. They were only lining his pockets with contributions. the one thing the Democrats are right about is changing our educational system so maybe people won't be so stupid and believe these liers and thieves.
Posted by: Pam storts | Sep 26, 2008 10:33:11 AM
We need debates! Especially in this election! Mccain is just stalling and losing the respect of the American people.
Posted by: marie | Sep 26, 2008 10:38:07 AM
At this moment, debates are not important to me. Multi-tasking of talks is useless. We need actions.
Posted by: Judy | Sep 26, 2008 10:41:04 AM
I THINK THIS DEBATE IS VERY IMPORTANT SINCE OUR ECONOMY IS VERY SOUR, LET SOMEONE TELLS ME THAT ITS NOT IMPORTANT, I BELIEVE MCCAIN WANTS TO DODGE SO THAT HE CAN GET ALL THE QUESTIONS FIRST, NO WAY, NO HOW, WHAT IS HE SAYING ABOUT THE VP'S DEBATE? YOU KNOW HE WANTS TO COVER PALIN FROM DEBATING TOO. HE KNOWS THAT PALIN CAN'T TALK WITHOUT READING WHHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED DEBATE. I HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A DAY OFF TO WATCHTHIS DABATE, OBAMA CAN DEBATE WITH THE AUDIENCE IF MACCAIN DOESN'T SHOW UP. WE NEED DEBATE HOW OUR CANDIDATES ARE GOING TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS. COME ON MACCAIN
Posted by: joyce kudjoe | Sep 26, 2008 11:23:03 AM
Depends on whether you think you'll win the debate or lose it, doesn't it?
Posted by: ordinary taxpayer | Sep 26, 2008 12:03:21 PM
McCain wanted to postphone the debate to work on a very serious crisis--Obama was showboating and only promoting his own agenda as usual!
Posted by: StLouisMan | Sep 26, 2008 12:55:54 PM
Angie - perhaps you should find a reliable source. CNN is one of the most liberal, major reporting agencies in this country. It's laughable and pathetic.
Any relatively informed and educated individual is aware of this. In previous election years CNN would put a spin on their reporting to favor the Democratic nominee. This year - they are actually reporting false and partial information in attempts to show the Democratic party in a favorable light.
So, before calling others liars, try finding an unbiased news agencey that reports actual facts for both parties - as the media is supposed to do.
Posted by: Deborah | Sep 26, 2008 1:39:26 PM
The debates have always mattered to me. I is a raw snapshot of people at their worst or best. It can change the whole game instantly.
Posted by: Momuv2 | Sep 26, 2008 1:58:22 PM
How true is the rumor that Biden will step down to give way to Hillary? I heard this will happen after the VP debate, supposedly due to "health reasons".
Posted by: kandule4u | Sep 26, 2008 2:44:43 PM
Obama can debate foreign policy with a cutout of McCain and still lose!
He will wax eloquently with prepared remarks then stammer, hem and haw at everything else.
Then he will wrap it up by saying "I am the change agent of hope, for hope springs within me and where there is hope there is change." And a few plants in the audience and members of the press will swoon and feint.... and the rest of us will just tilt our heads and squint our eyes.
Posted by: Diamond Lou | Sep 26, 2008 2:59:00 PM
Post a comment
