Hillary Clinton won the 'after debate,' and that's what matters

The effect of political debates on actual voters is both limited and indirect. The media coverage afterward is in some ways more important. 

Mike Blake/Reuters
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets a room of supporters following the first official Democratic candidates debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton may – or may not – have won the first Democratic presidential debate. But she definitely won the immediate aftermath, and that’s probably more important.

What does that mean? It means this: Yes, Mrs. Clinton looked strong on stage in Las Vegas. She was relaxed, her answers were crisp, and she talked a lot about Social Security, family leave, and other issues important to key Democratic constituencies.

This led lots of pundits and electoral experts to declare her the night’s winner.

“Clinton went into the debate the frontrunner and she came out exactly the same – probably strengthened in that role,” judged University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato and the crew at his “Crystal Ball” newsletter, for instance.

But the notion of anointing debate “winners” and “losers” is odd, when you think about it. There aren’t important numbers involved, like votes. It’s all judgment. If the same thing applied to baseball, playoff series would be decided by a panel of CNN experts watching batting practice and anointing a winner based on style points.

The truth is that the effect of political debates on actual voters is both limited and indirect. In general, they confirm preexisting strong attachments. Bernie Sanders core voters think he did great. So do Clinton’s proponents.

And most voters don’t watch from start to finish, taking notes, as if debates were civics class. They experience the debates over a period of time following the actual event, via news clips, broadcasts, opinion columns, Facebook posts, and all other manner of stuff that makes up the modern media.

This rolling ball of pixels – the after-debate, if you will – is in many ways the most consequential aspect of the event. Sheer extent of media coverage, and media conventional wisdom, can shape electoral outcomes.

“Pundits and commentators take on the role of theater critic, and the consensus that forms can shape how voters respond,” write political scientists John Sides of George Washington University and Lynn Vavreck of the University of California at Los Angeles in their book on the 2012 election, “The Gamble."

(Yes, we quote that book a lot. It’s really good. You should read it.)

That may be happening now. Clinton was at a possible turning point in her campaign. If she’d faltered – fumbling an answer about her e-mail controversy, say – Democratic elites might have started to panic. Calls for Vice President Joe Biden to jump into the race could have increased.

That now seems unlikely. And a Biden-less race would indeed be a big short-term Clinton win. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.