Remember the first Bush/Kerry debate in 2004? I watched that thing and thought “Oh, this is over. After that, there’s no WAY is the country gonna reelect this guy” (I was pretty naive back then, I guess).
Of course, Bush did better in the second debate and went on to win the election.
How about the first Obama/Romney debate? Democrats were wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth. “Where did the President go?!?”
And then in the second debate he was all “Please proceed, Governor.” Then the narrative became “He’s back! Kickin’ ass and takin’ names!” And then he won the election decisively.
Is this a strategy? Lowering expectations in the first debate and then bringing your A-game to the second? I mean, if you’re incumbent and at least semi-popular (or a member of the ruling party), you run the risk of looking like you had it in the bag from the get-go, which is boring at best and off-putting at worst. Seems like it might work to your advantage to “underdog-ize” yourself for a bit, then stage a “big comeback” story.
So… should we look for Clinton to hold back a little on Monday? To save something for the second debate? And is that a good reason not to freak out if she doesn’t absolutely clobber him right away?
The debates are probably a bit overrated, especially when both candidates are well known (including this election). Obama’s internal polling in 2012 showed barely a blip after the 1st debate, even though national public polling took a big dive, and quickly recovered. I think it’s very likely that the vast majority of voters have made up their minds already, and barring extremely weird events in the debate, the only thing that it can change is a slight bit of motivation and enthusiasm.
I understand that the debates aren’t as big a deal as some people make them out to be, but when it’s close, every little bit helps, right? Who can say if a “slight bit of motivation and enthusiasm” could end up making the difference?
And I’m not imagining a candidate “taking a dive” in the debate or anything like that. More like, thinking of the three-debate schedule as one long argument, where you don’t want to peak too early. Maybe you rope-a-dope a little, and then come back hard when your opponent least expects it.
People can look in hindsight and say that the debates don’t matter, but people are looking at the poll numbers and not considering what moves them.
When you have an incumbent that is strong but somewhat vulnerable, like Bush and like Obama, they can’t just show up. They stumbled in the first debate and it had consequences, probably because the voters listened to a good week’s worth of “OMG, did you see how badly Bush / Obama got owned in the debate?!” So it hurts their poll numbers and people react to it, but the campaign moves on to other events and news cycles. You can only talk about the first debate for so long.
Still, they’re not meaningless. Bush and Obama got back on track because they were perceived as performing better in their 2nd debates – but what if they hadn’t? What if Obama had to endure another news cycle of reporters talking about a second listless debate performance. Then people start getting the impression that perhaps Obama’s worn out and that Mitt is fresher, more energetic and innovative. In short, the incumbents did what they were expected to do, and what they had to do in the second debates. They performed better.
But I don’t see any advantage for a candidate not performing well. I think these debates will matter, and a segment of the current batch of undecided voters will probably come away with a more permanent impression of the candidates.
If you’re Trump you don’t want to wait until the 2nd or 3rd debate – too late then. He needs to convert on his opportunities now. Hillary doesn’t want to fall behind either.