As I write, the first presidential debate is just hours away. And
with virtually every poll showing the race a toss-up, this first round
of verbal sparring is pivotal. Each candidate knows the presidency is
his to lose -- or win -- if he can solidify the 10 percent of voters who
say they might be willing to change their mind.
While performance is key, it is far from the only factor that can
contribute to a candidate's demise -- or rise in the polls. How do we
know this? Polling, of course.
Oftentimes, analysis of the debate is more important than the debate
itself. A noteworthy example is the reaction to the Ford-Carter debate
in 1976 in which both candidates were neck and neck in the polls. In the
last half hour of the forum Gerald Ford committed a huge gaffe by
commenting that the Eastern Block was not under Soviet domination.
Polls taken immediately following the program revealed two things.
Firstly, the majority of Americans thought Ford had won the debate and,
significantly, they did not remember the foreign policy mistake.
Over the next three days the situation turned against Ford as the
media focused on his mistake in assessing the debate. Polls following
media analysis showed the opposite results than the first round. The
majority of Americans now felt that Carter had won the debate based on
Ford's gaffe!
In that case, clearly the analysis was more important than the debate
itself.
In assessing the debates themselves, you've also got to be careful
about the interpretation of post-debate polling. Most supporters of a
candidate say that their man won no matter how he performs. This means
that the results are skewed by political affiliation and do not
necessarily reflect an individual's assessment of a candidate's
performance. What makes post debate polls significant is when large
groups of decided voters feel the opposite candidate won.
By the way, since women are more likely than men to watch the
debates, this may skew the results in Al Gore's favor since Gore leads
among women while Bush wins among men.
The second factor in this category is a technical one. Some polling
companies call people to ask if they will be watching a debate. If the
answer is yes, they ask if they may call after the debate for their
opinion. While the technique is valid, the results should be interpreted
carefully. After all, the individuals called will watch the debate much
more closely than the rest of the electorate. Unlike the majority of the
population, they know they will be quizzed on it and watch with that in
mind.
When all is said and done, the best way to measure the effect of the
debate is to check the polls over several days after Tuesday's main
event. Whichever candidate moves ahead in the polls is the real winner
of the debate.
By the time you read this, you'll already know all the spin from the
debate -- and some of the fallout. As for me, writing before the first
word has been uttered by moderator Jim Lehrer, I think one of the
candidates will strike an issue chord that resonates with the public
during this debate. He will begin to develop a modest but growing lead
and will be safely ahead by early next week. Of course, that's just a
guess and we'll keep on polling to find out what really happened on
Tuesday night in Boston!