Who won depends on us, not them
It’s one of the most famous moments in American politics. The youthful, cool challenger takes on the swarthy, sweating insider. John F Kennedy debates Richard Nixon. The beginning of the television age.
JFK’s narrow victory in the 1960 election is commonly attributed to that first TV debate, with Nixon’s five o’clock shadow taking much of the blame. As is well known, while TV viewers gave the debating laurels to Kennedy, those listening on the radio thought Nixon the winner.
Much of the excitement about Monday night’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can be traced back to this first TV encounter. In almost every televised debate since, there has been a ‘‘moment’’. An action, a sentence or two on which, in retrospect, the battle, and perhaps the presidency itself, turned. Gerald Ford claiming there was no Soviet influence in eastern Europe, the first George Bush looking at his watch, Al Gore sighing and rolling his eyes.
So when looking at the instant polls and the punditry it’s worth remembering: most of this stuff is a myth.
Take Kennedy and Nixon. Yes, most watching on TV just about thought JFK did better in the debate, although there is no robust evidence those listening to the radio thought any different. This debating edge did not, however, win him the presidency. He was slightly further ahead on the eve of the encounter than on election day.
Ford’s gaffe? Carter’s lead fell between the debates and election day. Bush’s watch? He gained a little ground before the vote. Gore’s sigh? It was so close before and after the debate it is hard to tell, but Gore still won the popular vote.
Debates take place too late in the campaign to change many minds, are watched almost entirely by people who already know what they think, and don’t reach those whose indecision is a reflection of their disengagement from politics.
It is far better to consider the exchanges as pictures to accompany the underlying story of the election. If, in years to come, a clip from Monday, or one of the subsequent debates, becomes famous, it is far more likely to be a visual way of telling the story of 2016 than a real explanation.
So this election is a toss-up and the debate probably hasn’t changed that. Which leaves this question: why is Donald Trump doing so well?
The first part of the answer is he isn’t. Political scientist John Sides, and Lynn Vavreck, in their book The Gamble, produced the best analysis of the 2012 election. They used statistical modelling to predict the outcome. This ignores the ups and downs of media coverage and, using past elections, concentrates on the fundamentals.
How is the economy doing? What are the president’s approval ratings? How long has the incumbent party been in office? These are the fundamentals. A strong economy favours Democrats. But history suggests that after eight years there is a good chance of a party turnover.
The fundamentals makes 2016 a good year to be the Republican candidate. The Sides and Vavreck model suggests it is slightly more likely that the GOP nominee will win than that he will fail. Most forecasters now believe the race is too close to call but Clinton has a slight edge. So Trump is very competitive, and might well win, because he is the Republican nominee and, in that capacity, is doing no better and probably slightly worse than he should be.
This is not a completely satisfactory explanation. How can someone as acerbic and inflammatory, as ‘‘shoot from the hip’’, as much the braggart, as Trump be doing even roughly as well as a standard nominee?
Let’s return to the myth about Nixon and radio. The reason this idea took hold is that in the main poll, after the 1960 debate, a small, statistically unreliable sub-sample were radio listeners and thought Nixon the winner. It wasn’t because they thought Kennedy looked better than he sounded. It was because rural voters without televisions tended to vote Republican. In other words, it’s impossible to understand anything in American politics unless you appreciate the demographics. People see things differently depending on who they are.
American politics are more polarised than ever. Eight years of an African-American president has also, sadly, racialised party politics. Donald Trump is the candidate of white American males. His biggest appeal is to less well-educated people in rural areas.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of African-Americans and women. The gaps are huge.
You don’t like Trump? You regard him as a menace and think his behaviour outrageous? Of course you do. Think who you are and what your interests are.
His job, however is to motivate ‘‘his people’’ and Clinton hers. You wouldn’t select Trump if you wanted to expand the range of people tempted to vote Republican but you wouldn’t choose Clinton to expand the range of those tempted to vote Democrat either. She is at least as polarising as he is.
The breakdown of demographic groups favouring either side is so even it suggests the election will be won by the candidate who gets their voters out on the day.
When Trump and Clinton clashed on race and policing on Monday, you couldn’t pick a winner on debating skill. Clinton was trying to motivate AfricanAmericans and Trump was appealing to policemen and white males.
Whether you think Clinton is unbearable or Trump appalling depends less on them than on you.
And that’s beyond debate.