Posted (in addition to in the thread) here for greater exposure

[1StrongBlackMan]

It appears that the academic research has studied the effects of debates ...

“Sears and Chaffee (1979) provided a comprehensive review of the research on the 1976 debates and concluded that the debates were successful at communicating candidate issue positions. One additional finding from their review that is particularly relevant to this analysis is that voters appeared to have learned more from the first debate than from the subsequent debates." (Sears and Chaffee, 1979, as cited by Holbrook, Political Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1999., at p. 71 )

http://www.jstor.org/stable/586586?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

So, as is so often the case, our unschooled opinions, conflict with the academic research. In this case, the number of debates are less determinative of election outcomes, than a candidate's performance in the first (few) debate(s) ... unless, of course, each debate has significant numbers of unique viewers.

However, the research also presents great news for Bernie; but, more so, for O'Malley ... while the number of debates do not really matter ...

"... debates are more likely to increase the amount of information voters have about the lesser-know candidates than the better-known candidates." (Holbrook, 1999., at p. 72)

Since, there is no question, Bernie is more widely known than O'Malley.


But, again, as is so often is the case ... the academic research is unlikely to disabuse us of our opinions.

Here is more interesting such, such as:

_____ “On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates” Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication, 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233. Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.” - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup#sthash.U0cxfIpF.dpuf

In other words, debates just reinforce our partisan position; rather than, sway opinions or create converts. And,

“Will the ‘Real’ Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image” Warner, Benjamin R. American Behavioral Scientist, March 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 232-252. doi: 10.1177/0002764210392160. Abstract: “This study of the 2008 first presidential and vice presidential debate builds on past research on viewers’ perceptions of candidate images. Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, image research has been conducted in most presidential election cycles. Findings consistently show that viewers enter the debates with perceptions of candidates’ character and leadership qualities and that the debates tend to reinforce rather than change images unless the viewers are undecided or not well informed about a candidate. The results of the 2008 study confirmed trends from past research but also provided some surprises in that most changes in image perception were for senator Joe Biden, the longest-serving public official in the race. The study concludes that media often assume knowledge about candidates that might not exist and that in the 2008 match-ups, the debates did not provide the “game changer” that the McCain-Palin ticket needed to overcome a growing movement toward the Obama-Biden ticket that began shortly before the first debate.” - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup#sthash.U0cxfIpF.dpuf

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup

[NanceGreggs]

1. I think that many DUers ...

... forget that the average voter is not the political junkie that they are.

They don't seem to grasp that while they might sit through dozens of debates, most people will watch one or two, especially to get a "feel" for candidates they might not be as familiar with as people who participate on political message boards.

In addition, because the candidates want to focus on particular issues they feel it important to clarify their position on, multiple debates tend to become repetitive. That can be a real turn-off for viewers who feel they've "heard this all before" in previous debates.

I believe that for most voters, the first one or two debates are a "hit me with your best shot" deal. They want to know who the candidates are, and what positions they take on a myriad of topics. First impressions, IMHO - negative or positive - are lasting impressions, and are unlikely to be changed by multiple debates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Yep ...

In addition, because the candidates want to focus on particular issues they feel it important to clarify their position on, multiple debates tend to become repetitive. That can be a real turn-off for viewers who feel they've "heard this all before" in previous debates.

One of the articles made that very point.

I believe that for most voters, the first one or two debates are a "hit me with your best shot" deal. They want to know who the candidates are, and what positions they take on a myriad of topics. First impressions, IMHO - negative or positive - are lasting impressions, and are unlikely to be changed by multiple debates.

Yep ... I'm currently scanning the research on the efficacy of debates vs. campaign ads. One of the article touched on it, indicating that campaign ads seem to be more effective at shaping opinions.

But again ... who needs academic research when we have our opinions.

[SonderWoman]

2. Yesterday's debate drew one if the biggest audiences ever.

10 million people, out of a country with 360 million people. So I probably agree that debates don't sway many minds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Agreed ...

this is completely unscientific; but, how many of those viewers were cheering for one candidate and cursing the rest ... does anyone think that viewer's opinion of HIS/HER candidate changed?

And more, how many of those viewers were, like me, watching to hear the crazy ... and rooting for Christie to slap Rand (or, Rand to slap Christie) and/or waiting for them all to pummel Trump.

[SonderWoman]

8. It was probably 50% Democrats, just enjoying the circus.

[winter is coming]

4. You mean the thread where someone pointed out that the articles were

mostly about general election debates? That one?

If primary debates are irrelevant, then why does the DNC have an exclusivity clause this year?

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Yes ... and failed to relate the significance of that comment ...

just like you have.

[winter is coming]

7. If the issues you want to see addressed don't get covered during the minimal number of

debates that the DNC has decreed is good enough for us, then what? They control the schedule and the format. What if someone else, who feels the DNC hasn't/won't address their issues, would like to host a debate?

Six debates for five people to discuss their domestic and foreign policy positions isn't enough, if you want to allow any detailed meaningful answers or actual debate. Which issues shall we ignore?

[SonderWoman]

9. 6 debates at 2 hours per debate with only 5 candidates.

That's almost 2 1/2 hours per candidate. Basically each candidate will have the equivalent of 2 State of the Union addresses each. I wouldn't mind more debates but 2 1/2 hours each seems like more than enough time to hit all topics.

[winter is coming]

11. Why the exclusivity rule? Whom does it serve?

What about the people who don't vote until April, and may not be watching debates as early as January? Why are we limiting candidate exposure in this unprecedented way?

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. What does any of this have to do with the academic research ...

indicating that the number of debates doesn't seem matter as voters appear to learned more from the first debate than from the subsequent debates?

Oh ... I understand:

But, again, as is so often is the case ... the academic research is unlikely to disabuse us of our opinions.

[winter is coming]

14. Who's to say when someone sees their first debate?

The good thing about all the debates we had leading up to 2008 was that voters could tune into debates as they became interested in the process, even if they weren't voting until late in the primary season. Now, apparently, what the candidates have to say is so meager that they're afraid of being caught repeating the same thing over and over.

There is NO reason for the DNC's exclusivity clause, other than to restrict the debates for Hillary's benefit. She's the one who's been ducking interviews and holding carefully screened campaign events. Apparently, she's such a poor campaigner that DWS has decided to extend Hillary's protective bubble to include the debates. Otherwise, we'd be having the handful we've been "allowed" starting now, not two months after the GOP's been giving an uncontested platform to spread their bullshit.

If additional debates are irrelevant, there's no reason not to allow other people to host them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. LOL ...

But, again, as is so often is the case ... the academic research is unlikely to disabuse us of our opinions.

Have a good one!

[winter is coming]

17. In other words, you got nothing.

Screw the people who live in the late-primary states, and screw people who might want other debates to address their particular concerns, or (shudder) other debates that are actually debates instead of beauty contests.

[jeepers]

19. I love being talked down to

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. I wasn't aware you were in the discussion. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Well ...

as one of the links indicated ... the candidates have a few topics they will hit and frame every answer to hit that point. And, they do so in their first (couple of) debates. So it's likely that if they don't hit on the topic in the first 4, they won't touch in the 54th.

Six debates for five people to discuss their domestic and foreign policy positions isn't enough, if you want to allow any detailed meaningful answers or actual debate.

Debates are canned sound-byte responses.

Edited to add: How does/would that "concern" change from primary to the general?

[NanceGreggs]

22. "Debates are canned sound-byte responses."

That's exactly it. They are "commercials" for the candidates to advertize their political wares.

If you can't sell yourself in six debates, chances are you aren't going to do any better with twenty or thirty kicks at the same can. Our nominee for POTUS is going to need very precise communication skills in order to "sell themselves" to the nation's voters, and the "debates" are an opportunity to hone those skills.

I admit to being a political junkie - and six debates is fine with me. People who think the average, non-junkie voter is going to sit through dozens of debates are deluding themselves.

"Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with _______, until I heard him/her say the same thing for the thirty-sixth time" said no one ever.

[ismnotwasm]

13. This is actually a very interesting, very good OP

As well as useful. Thank you--I'm at work right now, so I will pursue more thoroughly later

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. You really should ... there's a lot to think about. n/t

i

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. When it comes to debates partisans will think their man or woman won...

When it comes to debates partisans will think their man or woman won and in the event they think their man or woman lost they will rationalize the loss away by telling themselves debate skills aren't essential to leadership.

[artislife]

20. Some thoughts...

So these were a study of debates from 1976 to 1996.
People learn more from early debates
Campaigns are one of the most important factors to help shape the eventual outcome
It argues that the typical voter is not sophisticated and is in need of information provided by the campaigns

That is what I took from the first link.

The first thing that struck me is the dates of the debates. Prior to 1980, we had only 3 networks, no broad reaching internet and certainly no 24 hour coverage. 1980 came CNN.
and then
In February 1996, after former U.S. Republican Party political strategist and NBC executive[16] Roger Ailes left cable television channel America's Talking (now MSNBC), Murdoch asked him to start Fox News Channel. Ailes demanded five months of 14-hour workdays and several weeks of rehearsal shows[citation needed] before its launch on October 7, 1996.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

Would you agree that the voter is now inundated with information whether it is truthful or not? Would you agree that the crafting of the image of a candidate is at a far superior and thorough job than when Bob Redford made the movie The Candidate?

Could this research be antiquated by these very facts?

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I suspect that because of the amount of info ...

People come in to the debates with, the LESS effect the debates will have.

But yes, the research might be dated ... though in haven't found anything to contradict it ... in fact, the more recent research cites to this study.

[Cha]

24. Thanks for the report, 1StrongBlackMan