Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

Winning the SpinAl Gore has already won the post-debate analysis.

By Richard J. Tofel
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker

When the first presidential debate concludes on Tuesday evening, an orgy of spin and instant analysis will ensue. None of it will matter at all. (Except, of course, Slate's instant analysis, which will be available Tuesday evening in "Ballot Box .")

And when the spinning is over, Al Gore will likely be the consensus "winner" of the debates—almost regardless of what happens during the actual encounter.

Why? Because the inhabitants of spin alley, and the TV reporters who serve as their echo chamber, have been overwhelmed by the speed of modern polling. While professional Democrats and Republicans in Boston will drone through their talking points, TV commentators will vamp for 20 or 30 minutes as the networks' pollsters conduct telephone surveys about who debate viewers thought "won" the contest. Then the commentators will adopt the poll results as wisdom, and the "losing" spinners will be left spitting into the wind. That's the way it was in the past two elections and the way it will be again.

There was a time—in 1976 certainly, but in 1980 and 1984 as well—when the post-debate spin actually helped shape journalistic opinion, even public opinion. But reaching a conclusion on which candidate is ahead, or has performed better, has always made ostensibly neutral reporters uncomfortable, and they're very happy to seek refuge in the apparent objectivity of polls. Knowing that this is their plan, they simply kill a half-hour or so until the poll results are available. (Wouldn't want to "go with your gut" only to find a few minutes later that 63 percent of other people's "guts" went the other way.) The rest of us can use this time to visit the bathroom or raid the fridge.

Here's where the Gore advantage comes in. The post-debate polls are affected by two key factors, both of which move in the same direction in this campaign. First, you don't have to have been a psychology major to know that most poll respondents will conclude that the candidate they favored before the debate performed better during the debate. If Gore's leading in the polls come Tuesday, he is that much more likely to come out ahead.

But even if Bush is slightly ahead, as he is today in some surveys, this factor will be outweighed by a second: Gore polls much better among women than among men, and substantially more women will likely watch the debate than men. In 1996, 54 percent of the three-network debate audience was female. This year the gender gap could be even wider, thanks to the male-oriented Fox network's decision not to broadcast any of the debates and the fact that at least three of the four debates will be competing against major-league baseball games, including one on some NBC stations Tuesday.

None of this, of course, rules out a Bush "win" Tuesday night. A dramatic moment at Gore's expense could easily overcome these factors. But in seven election cycles of televised presidential and vice-presidential debates—22 encounters in all—there have been perhaps only four such moments: Nixon's make-up crisis, Ford's "I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union," Reagan's "There you go again," and Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy." Absent a fifth, the deck is stacked for Al Gore.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Richard J. Tofel is vice president, corporate communications, of Dow Jones and Co.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:

[Note from the Fray Editor: The point about women grabbed most people, including someone who said "I'm sure my statements will make most women angry, but so what? It's just their emotions again." Mark Poyser wrote a splendid review of the debate 24 hours before it happens--check back afterwards to compare. And there were some questions about the methodology of the polls:]


Actually, Gore could have another advantage, though polling experts will need to weigh in on this. What counts in phone surveys is not who is called, but who responds. A lot of people don't, either because they are not home or because they don't want to answer the pollster's questions (a third possibility: they may mistake the call for a telemarketing solicitation and cut it short for that reason). Would this skew the results of post-debate polling? Sure it would if, for example, men were less likely to be home or more likely to hang up than women. I don't know whether they are or not, but it will be interesting to see if this element of uncertainty is acknowledged by any of the network talking heads whose employers pay so much for the debate-night polls.

Postscript: Tofel forgot to include Reagan's "age and inexperience" zinger against Mondale in 1984 in his short list of big debate moments. I really miss the old man.

--Joseph Britt

(To reply, click here.)


In the most recent debates--and one would assume the same will be true here--polls are more sophisticated than you suggest. About 30 minutes prior to the debate, calls are made to determine who will be watching and for whom these people will vote. After the debate, calls are made again to ask who won. In this way, the pollsters attempt to eliminate any bias and determine the actual opinion of viewers. I'll grant that the system isn't perfect, but I object to your claim that debate polling is inherently favorable to one party.

--Christopher Baird

(To reply, click here.)


I am reminded of a Eastern European cynic of 20 years ago warning his fellow males not to criticize Socialism if they wanted to get laid. Women ardently embraced big government solutions, and a wise man might want to be discreet concerning his conservatism.

Why are many women so gung ho for Al Gore? It is my theory that women are innately and overwhelmingly driven to seek security for themselves and their family. The subtle lies of big government solutions are thus perceived more appealing than the truthful vision of democratic capitalism. The latter makes no false promises of guaranteeing economic success and a utopian society. Democratic capitalism is premised upon the understanding that there are certain economic rules and principles if adhered to are far likelier to achieve positive results. This proven economic system makes no absolute promises whatsoever. One the other hand, the quasi-Socialist policies of Al Gore sound comforting and subtly, if not explicitly, guarantee a better life

--David Thomson

(To reply, click here.)

(10/2)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
What's Fair Game?
Anne E. Kornblut | What questions would Hillary Clinton have to answer if she were in Sarah Palin's shoes?
Editorial: Disappointment '08
PLUS » Stumped: More Nonsense From McCain