I was fascinated, but not surprised by the research about the effect of political campaign debates in the Op-Ed “Moving on from presidential debate expectations,” in the Post-Dispatch on Thursday, April 26, 2024. In the article Stuart M. Brotman suggested that time and money allotted for Presidential debates would be better spent on promoting conditions that matter in elections, i.e. voter turnout, voter registration and early voting, where it is allowed. I heartily agree.

The premise that debates no longer matter was also indicated by a study of undecided and committed voters in 2019 by researchers Vincent Pons and Caroline LePennec. And, in polling following the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Clinton was agreed to have won, yet the election went to Trump.

At the time of the first televised presidential debate in 1960, the outcome of the election reflected the outcome of the debates, both favoring John F. Kennedy. Yet the consequences were considered less in the arguments and more in the television charisma of Kennedy and the lackluster style of Richard Nixon, including his unbecoming five o’clock shadow. Hardly what we expect from debate analysis.

Americans were more interested in Kennedy’s superiority in the medium than his message,” to use the famous phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan in 1964.  That explanation makes sense more than the claim that the debate did not matter at all, but it does not explain why recent debates have no impact on election results.

So I will offer another theory: President Trump’s style of debating was to offer bluster and unsupported facts, whereas Hillary Clinton offered carefully documented. That pretty much continued in media appearances until the election. Donald, the forceful “can do” man; Hillary, the bloodless, academic type.

Whether voters watched or not, they responded to the personas of the candidates more than the accuracy of their claims.

What do we remember from the Reagan- Carter debates of 1980? “There you go again,” said Reagan, essentially nullifying Carter’s arguments. Who remembers what Carter was saying when he was crumpled by a “There you go.”

From the 1988 debate between George W. Bush and Michael Dukakis we remember Willie Horton, the released prisoner who committed rape while furloughed from prison under a Massachusetts program when Dukakis was governor. There was no analysis of crime statistics indicating a pattern of  such violence under the program. That would get too deep into the weeds. But the vivid example of Willie Horton was decisive to many voters. The medium  . . .”etc.

Proven facts or authoritative evidence no longer matter in campaign debates, whether in debate performances or in other media appearances. Everyone has conflicting studies or statistics that support their claims.  To get into the validity of sources of evidence or the reliability of statistics, requires more time and patience than the average voter can schedule.

As a result, former President Trump can confidently claim, “Blacks love me,” without citing a single source.  Sources don’t matter; they don’t translate into soundbites of nightly news or the conversational style of social media. Besides everyone has conflicting statistics, so who do you believe? Social media are not a platform for close analysis. The medium, etc.

The lack of refined debate means that policies are always dualistic: pro-choice or pro-life; pro- or anti-immigration; pro or con validity of elections. There’s no middle ground or nuanced policies that take into account conflicting positions. It is ineffective to say, “I think immigration policy needs reform, but it needs more efficient naturalization than preventative measures.” So that means you’re “pro-immigration,” right? Not really. It doesn’t translate into a trope

This turns elections into confidence schemes. You sell your personality, not your political platform. We don’t know if the car we’re buying is good, but we like the approach of the salesperson. Seems trustworthy, sounds confident.  The car is endorsed by some organization we don’t know, but it sounds impressive.  We take a test-drive, it feels good. Reliable? Who knows? But it looks good in a fifteen-second TV ad.

We learn very little from presidential debates or town forums, because they are staged presentations. They are either a good con or a suspicious personality. The evidence? Too complicated. The candidate’s record? Easy to fake. The  candidate’s reliability?  Just a sales job.   We are the victims of the media of shallow thinking.

That is why the candidate’s record or the argument no longer matter. It is why every campaign appearance is merely a sales job. We are left with subjective impressions, and that’s all that matters.