A common complaint about presidential debates is that they change few minds.
This year, with anywhere between 3% and 6% of likely voters undecided in early September and the closeness of the race, especially in the battleground states, that is more than enough to swing an election if a sizeable portion favor one candidate over the other as a result of the debate.
If anyone doubts the power of a debates, the June 27 match between President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump should end the argument, even though there are other examples to support a debate’s impact.
While the Biden-Trump debate did not affect the outcome of the 2024 election directly, it created doubts about Biden’s ability to serve another term and left us without historical precedent in the last 108 days of the race after Biden dropped out July 21. The entire campaign dynamic and Democrat ticket changed.
Since I was a graduate student in 1980, I have researched, observed, commented on, and written about presidential debates. I describe myself as a four-year cicada. My research consists of argument analysis, often applying statistical methods to sentence-by-sentence coding of arguments, focus groups of likely voters, surveys to gauge the impact of the debates on learning and leaning, and the ways the debate shapes future campaign arguments and strategies.
A summary of those findings makes the case for why it is important to watch the Sept. 10 debate between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, even if your mind is made up, and how you might consider watching and analyzing it yourself.
First, the question of who won or lost is the least important.
There is no single way to judge a debate, and “winning” does not guarantee winning an election as Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004 proved.
Decided voters almost always think their candidate won. Rather, the debate should answer the questions “Who better represents the leadership qualities I want in a president?” and “Who better upholds the values I support?”
The debate showcases both issues and candidate image. That doesn’t mean that arguments and policy positions are not important, because they are. As hundreds of focus groups revealed, policies and issues candidates choose to discuss are windows into their priorities for the American people and their leadership style.
A candidate’s conduct in the debate is a window into character for many voters, as focus group members in 2000 told us in response to Al Gore’s eye rolling and sighing at George W. Bush’s responses when he thought he wasn’t on camera.
They wondered how Gore would treat someone with whom he disagreed while in the Oval Office. Volumes were said about Trump’s interruptions in 2020, when focus group members of both parties were shocked by the behavior and friends emailed me that they sent their children out of the room lest they be influenced by the bad behavior.
Second, don’t expect much new information — but there are always unexpected questions and answers.
While this year is different because of the short time Harris has campaigned, most of her major positions have rolled out. On the other hand, we have not heard many details. Most candidates have campaigned for more than a year and participated in primary debates to lay out their agendas. Harris has not had that advantage. The debate needs to provide depth, but what history shows is that issues raised in debates are clarified and expanded on in the aftermath, even by long-term candidates.
Thus, watching a debate is more a first step for undecided voters than an event that seals the deal. Trump is an anomaly as a candidate, but everyone knows what they are getting in terms of leadership style and personality. In this election, he has changed positions more than in the past, and it is likely he will be asked to comment on the shifts.
