This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 19, 2012 - If you watch a baseball playoff game – as some in St. Louis have been doing -- and switch to post-debate coverage, the language can seem strikingly similar.
Scoring a debate point is like singling up the middle. On Tuesday night, both President Obama and Gov. Romney had their weak moments. Romney whiffed on giving details about his tax plan. Obama popped up when asked about his failure to propose comprehensive immigration reform or a ban on assault weapons.
When Romney threw a high hard one about the failed promises from 2008, Obama strongly defended his record. But he could have elaborated on the type of recession he inherited which makes recovery more prolonged and the interdependency of the global economy. Nonetheless, there is consensus that Obama was much stronger than in the first debate and pulled out a win.
Now the fun begins. Pundits will look for polls taken after the debate to again gauge who’s ahead. Little snippets will be replayed frequently. Binders, anyone?
Partisans on MSNBC and Fox will expostulate on what each candidate has to do to be ahead.It’s all a game; perhaps it has always been a game. But the consequences can be huge.
How we deal with the deficit, entitlements, and the tax code will affect us all. Whoever is president will name new justices to the Supreme Court with perhaps the most lasting effects.
Do we need all the polls? Do we need all the ads? Do we need a two-year campaign cycle? Are we better informed than voters were sixty years ago? Or, are we surfeited with style and the superficial? Even though the playoffs are perhaps too long, I’d rather watch a ball game.
What have we learned from the three debates so far in this presidential season? First, a poor performance can affect the polls. Second, winning and losing in the debate context owes more to style than substance. Indeed, the candidates prepare responses to plug in as appropriate so as to make their points, regardless of the question.
Such things as eye contact, excessive smiling or pushiness seem to take precedence in the minds of professional observers. It’s all a part of the great horse race that is a presidential election. Timothy Crouse chronicled the 1972 campaign in “The Boys on the Bus” and noted that correspondents did not examine candidates’ claims but focused continuously on who’s ahead.
That is the case now more than ever. We have new polls daily. Speculation focuses on several swing states. The presidential campaigns are not active in states seen as definitely red or blue.
Races down the ticket fill the airwaves with simplistic, often erroneous, 30-second negative ads. Serious discussion of the economy is reduced to sound bites. For the dedicated student of politics, this is not a problem. He or she will seek out multiple sources of information and can take a discussion to a higher level.
However, most Americans do not spend a great deal of time seeking out election information. And the ads are more likely to affect them, even if they profess their dislike of the negative bursts.
Are they really aware of how various policies could directly affect them, assuming they know what the policies in fact were? How do they decide for whom to vote? Perceived self-interest based on their circumstances is one cue. But the nonrational component -- the emotions, long-held beliefs, personal history and peer pressure – also joins in.
To return to the baseball analogy: A careful reading of the infield fly rule can support the call made in the wild-card game. How many fans, particularly Braves fans, care about the details? It looked wrong, and some reacted by throwing things on the field. How many voters are going to study the issues or decide based on their feelings after debates or ads?
Lana Stein is a professor emerita of public policy at the University of Missouri St. Louis.