Do Debates Matter?

It’s good to show that presidents are accountable to the public.

Pretty much all political scientists agree that debates hardly ever affect election outcomes.

This makes sense: the people who are most likely to watch debates are political junkies who have already made up their minds about who they’re going to vote for. It’s like with sports games; you’re unlikely to tune in unless you already know the game and are rooting for someone. People who haven’t made up their minds are generally those who have little interest in politics, and therefore are very unlikely to tune into a couple of hours of people debating politics.

The 2024 debate is likely to have even less effect than other debates, if possible. Debates are usually held in late September or October, right before the election, since that’s when most people are following the presidential election. Biden and Trump both wrapped up their nominations early and decided to debate now for their own reasons Biden wants to change the narrative of the election; Trump…I have no idea why Trump does what he does.

But in any case, whatever the reasons the candidates want the debate early, an early debate means that fewer people are paying attention.  More, Trump and Biden have both been president, and are both very well known. It’s hard to imagine anyone watching is going to be surprised by the debate performance or change their minds much.

Reporting on the debates sometimes tries to finesse this, arguing that debates can drive media narratives and therefore change votes at second hand. There’s some possibility that the debate coverage will remind people the election is happening and convince them that, yes, these are the candidates. I think, though, that media insisting debates matter is more about media wanting the debates (and media narratives) to be important so people will tune in and boost ratings.

So if debates don’t matter, why bother with them? Debates aren’t an essential part of the political process. The first television debate was in 1960, and the presidential debate commission was only established to regularize them in the 1980s. Biden and Trump have bypassed that commission, but not debates altogether. Would it be so bad if they did?

Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues, halfheartedly, that it would be at least a little bad. Bernstein points out that debates are “among the best-known US rituals of democracy, and retaining such things is even more important now that democracy is under fire.”

Bernstein acknowledges that the debates to some extent normalize Trump. But, he says, “Trump’s participation in a debate would itself be a form, however weak, of accepting the legitimacy of the upcoming election, and that too can perhaps be a meaningful signal to be sent, even if Trump doesn’t really mean it.”

I think that makes sense. I’d add that debates are a ritual not just of democracy, but of democratic accountability. Debates are a hoop that presidents are supposed to jump through. Candidates have to stand up in front of the American people (or however many of the American people want to watch) and answer questions about policies, visions for the future, scandals. Biden and Trump have to confront their opponents and treat those opponents at least briefly, within minimal bounds, as if they are a legitimate part of the democratic process.

Monarchs aren’t required to submit to semi-hostile press questioning before they get their crowns. Dictators don’t have to shake their opponent’s hands and smile for the camera while they’re doing it. The iconography of debates is intentionally deflating and humbling; those in power are forced to go out there and ask you (and you!) for the job. They have to prepare. They have to risk looking silly. They have to acknowledge that the media, and the public, have a legitimate role in evaluating them and their opponent. Those are all good things.

A couple weeks back I pointed out that Trump hates voting precisely because voting holds politicians accountable, and Trump doesn’t think he should be accountable to anyone. That’s why he’s spending his time before the debate spreading nonsense conspiracy theories and lies and trying to undermine the event’s legitimacy. Nonetheless, in agreeing to the debate, Trump has—provisionally, reluctantly, admitted that he owes something to the public and to democracy. I wouldn’t say that makes the debate worth watching. But it does mean I’d prefer they exist.