Do Debates Determine Election Winners? Only On Likeability


I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the American voter can be pretty superficial sometimes, but I still find this disheartening.

Turns out, candidates who “won” past presidential debates didn’t always win the elections that followed, but candidates who were found more “likeable” in the debates did. Andrew Romano of Newsweek points to unlikeable put well-prepared debaters who went on to lose in November and then says:

In 1984, Reagan struck voters as about 20 percent more likeable than Mondale. Bush defeated Dukakis largely because he “triumphed in the congeniality competition”–and later lost to Clinton largely because he didn’t. After the Oct. 17, 2000 debate, voters rated Bush the more likable candidate, 60-30; four years later, Dubya whipped Kerry 52-41 in the same department. In other words, the candidate who won the debates may not have won the subsequent election–but the candidate who came off as most congenial almost always did.

Romano adds that all of this bodes well for Obama. “According to the CNN poll, viewers found the Illinois Democrat more likeable last night by a margin of 65 to 28 percent–a far larger spread than either Reagan, Bush, Clinton or W. ever enjoyed in similar surveys.”

This information does not suggest a direct correlation between likeability in debates and election victories (ie people aren’t saying, “He was a nice dude in that debate I remember watching three weeks ago, I’m voting for him.”). Instead, it suggests that candidates who know how to appear friendly in the debates, regardless of their command of the issues, also know how to win voters over the course of a campaign.

I don’t know why I’m startled by this. We lived through eight years of George W. Bush after all, a man who took the White House because his debate opponent sighed too loudly…

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.