What is most decisive to the outcome during a presidential election?

[Politics_Guy25]

One would think that with all of the attention that the conventions get (24/7 round the clock cable news coverage) that they are the most pivotal moment but I disagree. John Mccain and Al Gore got huge convention bounces but lost their lead in the polls just weeks later. The immediate gallup poll post RNC in 2008 had Mccain/Palin up by 10 points. They lost by 7. Al Gore had one of the most successful conventions of modern times, turning a 17 point deficit to George W. Bush into a 17-point lead but by October George W. Bush had a 5 point lead in the polls. It was the final weekend that saw a resurgent Al Gore take back the lead. The VP selections have had somewhat more of a lasting impact. Joe Lieberman probably won Al Gore Florida and Sarah Palin cost John Mccain several swing states at least and wrecked his message during the final months of the campaign. Al Gore in 1992 provided a tremendous boost to the ticket but it was probably helped by the withdrawal of Ross Perot from the race at the same time. Bentsen, Ferraro, Quayle, Kemp were all non-factors really.

I would say that the debates have historically played the far more decisive role. They were a turning point in the 1980, 2000 and 2004 campaigns but even there, the last person to really deliver a knock-out performance in the debates was Ronald Reagan. He surged ahead in the polls and won in a landslide after that debate. George W. Bush was perceived to have "won" the debates in 2000 but still lost (if the votes had actually been counted) and John Kerry lost as well. His debate performance just wasn't enough to overcome the 9/11 sensationalism of the Bush campaign although it could be argued that Kerry's third debate performance which was nowhere near as good as it should have been stripped him of the momentum that he had gained by cleaning Bush's clock in the first 2 debates so maybe that's why the debates weren't decisive in 2004. The debates solidified a solid lead for President Obama in 2008 but I'm not sure that they were nearly as important as 2000 and 2004. President Obama won because of extraneous unforseen circumstances, i.e., an unexpected global economic meltdown, his personal and political appeal, and the disaster that was and is Sarah Palin. The 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996 debates did next to nothing to change the dynamics.

In the end though it always seems like presidential election outcomes come down to extraneous outside factors and for all the hoopla surrounding them the debates, conventions and VP selections don't matter much. Would you agree? Would you say that it is factors beyond the spin control of the media and the two parties that are decisive or do you think the 3 "milestones" of the campaign are far more decisive? It really seems like it is the campaign itself and events that occur in its context that decide the outcome.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Conventions played a bigger role than they do now.

With the internet and cable news, politics is now at the forefront. Prior to the 90s, the conventions acted as a way to introduce each candidate to the American people. By the conventions today, we already know who the candidates are. The only difference this year is that no one actually had any idea who Sarah Palin was and it probably helped the Republicans because her initial introduction wasn't a bad one. She gave a decent enough speech, seemed down to earth and wasn't pressed on any issues.

It only unraveled when we got to see who she was.

So, conventions are more pomp today than anything else. They kind of really died out after the 1992 presidential election. I think 1992 was the last convention that really had a huge impact on a candidate. Clinton really opened up a huge lead after the 1992 convention and he wouldn't relinquish it the rest of the way - even though Bush held his convention AFTER Clinton's.

[Politics_Guy25]

3. One could say....

That Clinton's bounce came just as much from Ross Perot's exit from the race at the same time as it did from his convention. I'm not old enough to substantively remember it so I'm not sure if that's correct. I definitely agree that Bill Clinton/Al Gore put un SPECTACULAR conventions. All 3 of theirs were stunning. Your mention about Bush in 1992 is a sobering reminder. I was getting quite comfortable in assuming that any bounce that the RNC gave the republican nominee in 2012 would be erased by the DNC in 2012 and President Obama wouldn't look back afterwards but I guess I shouldn't totally count on that and be complacent. Actually, that's 1 reason to dial way back on the President's media exposure. If he's on TV every day, the convention won't have the same effect. He should disappear for most of the summer of 2012 and then burst back onto the scene cheerleading America at the olympics which then will lead into his convention. Let the Republicans have July/early August. It's not like they can define him. He's already well defined.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Bush did get back into it somewhat after the convention.

He was getting blown out prior to the convention and after Clinton's 16-point bounce. He did dip into that somewhat and narrowed the margin a bit more as the summer/fall went on (Clinton won by six or eight points, I recall).

Kerry actually saw a decrease of support after the Democratic Convention in 2004 and Bush didn't see a significant bounce, either (+2).

Which tells me the convention bounce isn't much of anything in modern politics.

So, I won't worry about it in 2012. If the Republicans are down 10+ by their convention, they'll lose. If they're down by only a slight margin, the race will be up for grabs for a good portion of the fall. If the Republicans are up heading into their convention, it'll mean Pres. Obama is in trouble and it might not matter how spectacular his convention is - it won't do a damn thing.

I'm guessing it'll be the first one.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. A good convention can help out the candidate who is behind, even today

What it can't seem to do is really help the frontrunner a whole lot. Obama had the best convention that money could buy. It didn't really do a thing.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. I think it's because there is really nowhere to go but down when you're at the top.

Obama did see a bounce, but it was erased because his convention ended a few days before the Republican Convention started. There was not room to expand. But you're right, rarely is there a dramatic bump from the favorite.

And it isn't a surprise because the favorite is the favorite for a reason

In 2012, Americans will know Obama. They might not know the Republican nominee as well as they know Obama. He won't see a significant bump because he'll already have his supporters and opponents.

[smalll]

2. As I see it, the two biggest variables: the economy, and relative candidate hotness.

For the economy, if it's going well, the incumbent party has the advantage, and vice versa.

Candidate hotness: this goes back all the way to 1952 - the first TV campaign:

'52 and '56 -- Eisenhower vs. Stevenson. Both baldies, but Stevenson was a pretty funny looking guy. Ike wins.

'60 - of course, JFK beats Nixon.

'64 - the greatest exception: of course Goldwater was better-looking than LBJ, however, LBJ was running on a "let us continue" stand-in for JFK, so that's why he could win.

'68 and '72. Nixon, hot?!? Of course not. But both Humphrey and McGovern were VERY funny-looking men -- especially Humphrey.

'76 The young Carter of the blinding, toothy grin beats an old Ford

'80 Movie-start Ronald Reagan beats a Carter who aged so much in 4 years as president.

'84 Reagan's aging, but he's still more glamorous than a Walter Mondale.

'88 G.H.W. Bush -- relatively young, in that year -- and tall -- beats the short, beetle-browed Greek (Dukakis.)

'92 of course, the Big Dog will beat G.H.W. Bush!

'96 Clinton vs. Dole? Dole never had a chance.

Now we come to '00. Yes, this is DU, but I remember during that campaign, women seemed to be pretty evenly divided as to which major candidate they found more handsome. And it turned out to be the closest election since, what, Hayes vs. Tilden? Makes sense!

'04 -- Bush beats Kerry. Now I know, I know, it's distasteful. Kerry was a good-looking man when he was young, but by '04, he looked like Lurch.

'08 -- McCain never had a chance.

[Politics_Guy25]

4. LOL XD excellent post and probably right on

Actually both replies were awesome.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. I don't know if it's looks.

I'd go more with charisma.

Looks are subjective and when it comes to male candidates, I'm not sure that plays a role in MEN voting (though I'm assuming there is a group of females out there who voted for Clinton/Bush/Obama because of their looks).

But if you look at that list, you see charisma in nearly every candidate who won. At least more charisma than the candidate they beat.

2008 - No contest. McCain lacks any charisma. He walks like a tree and talks like he isn't sure of what he's saying.

2004 - Kerry lacked charisma. Not his fault. He's just a dude who knows a lot about everything and sounds a bit too wonkish.

2000 - See Kerry.

1996 - See Obama/McCain

1992 - See Obama/McCain, though to a lesser extent.

1988 - The rare election where both candidates had about as much charisma as a broken lamp. Bush won because Dukakis decided to go drive a tank.

1984 - Reagan was the king of charisma.

1980 - Reagan was the king of charisma and Carter's folksy southern attitude wore thin.

1976 - Carter's folksy southern attitude won the day because he wasn't all about politics as usual. He was the definitive outsider and that showed in his different charisma.

[Mz Pip]

5. I don't think McCain was ever up by 10

but he didn't win any of the debates, either.

The conventions to me are long, boring pep rallies. Endless speakers, all leading up to the final performance by the candidate. Jon McCain's convention speech was distracting because of that ridiculous green background. sarah Palin may have gotten good press but to me she came across as snarky and sarcastic.

The debates today rarely allow for any unscripted moments. They are so rehearsed and staged to the point that it's really hard to get a sense of who these people are. I'm not sure the debates even matter as much as they should. Kennedy - Nixon was the first televised debate and who "won" was perceived differently by those who listened to those who watched.

Sarah Palin was a calculated and cynical move. I always thought it was kind of a Hail Mary pass and that McCain's internal polling was showing a fate far worse than was being put out to the general public. He may have actually gotten a few more votes from the base than he would have otherwise, but Palin turned off moderates. It was a Hail Mary pass that was fumbled before it left the quarterback's hands.

So extraneous factors do matter. 2008 it was obvious. But in retrospect 2006 was sort of a forshadowing of things to come.

2012. Who the hell knows. The Democrats need a couple of big wins to seal the deal. The GOP has nothing but that didn't stop them in 2000 from making it as close as it was. They don't need much but they do need something. I seriously believe that 2000 wouldn't have even been close if it hadn't been for that impeachment issue. Guilt by association cost Gore votes. It shouldn't have, but it did.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. I do think the debates are important.

Especially in extremely close races.

From my memory, there has been one major debate moment that has changed the foundation of a race.

2008 - Pres. Obama and McCain were really in a statistical tie entering the debates. Obama's worst issue - foreign policy - turned out to be his first debate win and it helped seal the deal because Americans became comfortable with the thought of him on the international stage. That was McCain's biggest trump card and when it was taken from him, he had to resort to bullshit character attacks that didn't stick with the American people. As the debates continued, Obama's lead slowly expanded.

2004 - This one is often overlooked, but Kerry was out of this race prior to the debate. Bush was piling on and opened up essentially a double-digit lead heading into the three debates. After the first debate, which Bush stumbled badly, Kerry erased a nine-point margin and pretty much found himself tied with Bush. That would not ease up for the rest of the campaign. Granted, he eventually lost, but had he performed poorly in that first debate, the race isn't even close and Bush probably wins re-election by a wide margin.

2000 - This was significant because Gore had slowly chipped away at Bush's massive lead he built throughout the summer and then the debates rolled around. Rightfully or not, Gore bombed. He might've won on substance, but in terms of style - he took a huge hit. The sighing really hurt him because it cemented the belief he was a bit out of touch and pompous. Then he invaded Bush's space in the town hall format and it just looked extremely awkward. Bush's response, a nod, played well to many Americans and it pretty much cost Gore any momentum he had gained out of the convention. Moreover, there weren't a ton of mistakes by Bush in that debate. Which isn't hard to see, because the media lowered the bar so low that he only needed to step over it to win the debate. Regardless, Gore stumbled and if it weren't for last-minute campaigning and Bush's social security flap (saying it wasn't a government-run program), along with that leaked DUI, the race probably is won by Bush by a comfortable margin.

1996 - There wasn't a moment I can think of. Dole handled a question about his age well, but Clinton followed it up better and negated any gain Dole could have received from it. Other than that, the debates were pretty uneventful, since Clinton was cruising to victory.

1992 - There was the watch moment, where Bush glanced at his watch. That stands out because it gave the perception he was going through the motions and really didn't want to be doing this. The worst thing you can do is have apathy toward running for president. I won't say it did him in as Clinton held a steady lead entering the debates, but it didn't help. And he clearly didn't succeed enough to erase the gap between the two.

1988 - Dukakis' death penalty question hurt him. Not sure if that did him in, but it didn't help.

1984 - There was one debate where Reagan did badly against Mondale. I'm not sure if it was the first or second (if there was a third, if not, it was the first). In that debate, he looked lost and rambled with his final answer. Polls showed a huge surge for Mondale that pretty much got him back into the race. Then the second debate came and Reagan delivered his zinger on how it wasn't about his age, rather the age of his ideas. That went over well and Reagan took hold of the race and won in a landslide. Had that debate not happened, who knows what the hell happens in the '84 election. Mondale certainly held his own with Reagan, but it was an uphill battle and Reagan prepared for the second debate far better than the first.

1980 - Carter didn't want to debate Reagan. Reagan talked Carter into it and then delivered the line, "there you go again..." and it sunk the Carter campaign. Reagan, like Obama, faced questions about his leadership ability on the international stage and in that debate was able to ease American worries and it was enough to take Carter's biggest issue away from him.

1976 - This race was probably different than any in modern American history. For starters, there was Nixon and Ford's pardon of Nixon. That didn't sit well with Americans and appeared to have doomed Ford from the start. Carter opened up a huge 20+ lead early in 1976 and looked like he'd coast to a landslide win.

However, Ford had a brilliant campaign strategy. Instead of going out and actually campaigning, he was just going to show the country what a stable leader he was. It worked. Especially with the Bicentennial. Carter's lead slowly evaporated and as fall rolled around, that once 20+ lead was down to single digits. By the time the debates rolled around, it was pretty much a tie and Ford had taken all the momentum into the final stretch.

Then he badly bumbled a question about Poland and the Russians - saying there was no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. That moment halted any momentum he had gained throughout the summer. It stalled his campaign and Carter was allowed to eek out a victory. Had he not said that, Ford wins that election. There is no doubt in my mind he wins that election because everything was going his way until that debate.

Of course, '76 was the first presidential debate since the Kenendy-Nixon debate in 60. You already mentioned that.

So, no, I think they are important. It just depends on the race and the context of it all.

[slackmaster]

11. The electoral vote count

Nothing else matters.

[depakid]

12. "turning a 17 point deficit to George W. Bush into a 17-point lead"

Think about what you just posted.

If there's THAT large a swing, then just how much of the polled population is flakey?

Or to put it another way- how much and what sort of difference did the people who purportedly were polled see between the campaigns?