Ted Sorensen had “an op-ed”:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26sorensen.html in yesterday’s NY Times about myths surrounding the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. In two cases, however, the myths may be true.
Here is myth #1:
bq. “Nixon won on radio,” where the audience could not see his haggard, tense appearance (resulting from his recent hospitalization for a knee injury), his perspiration-streaked face and his nervously shifting eyes.
We do not have, and will never have, the appropriate data to address this — e.g., high-quality surveys of those who watched or listened to the debate. However, political scientist Jamie Druckman did a study (“pdf”:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjsu.edu%2Fpeople%2Fmelinda.jackson%2Fcourses%2F195A%2Fs1%2FDruckman%25202003%2520-%2520Experiment%2520example.pdf&rct=j&q=james%20druckman%20power%20of%20television%20images&ei=9sCgTKiYEMOblgfV-pntAg&usg=AFQjCNFxteMjAguHi4cgsnQE0_I8x-PJXw&sig2=V1ek3IAE8KtkAgxBVDJBfg&cad=rja) several years ago that randomly assigned subjects either to watch or listen to this debate. He found that:
bq. …television viewers were likely to be more pro-Kennedy in their overall evaluations. Indeed, television viewers were significantly more likely to think Kennedy won the debate than audio listeners. This is compelling evidence that television-by enhancing the impact of image-can make a difference in overall candidate (debater) evaluations. It also is the first clear empirical evidence consistent with the widespread assertion of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate.
Of course, this is hardly dispositive, as the study was conducted years after the actual debate. But it constitutes evidence that deserves to be taken into account. Certainly it is more evidence than Sorenson provides.
Myth #2:
bq. “The debate did not change enough votes to make a difference.” By emphasizing that “the question is which point of view and party do you want to lead the country,” Kennedy did firm up his support among Democrats previously dubious about his age and religion, especially in the South, and increase his standing among independents who knew too little about him.
If Sorenson is correct about “firm up his support” and “increase his standing,” then presumably the debate should have shifted the polls in his favor, since the myth is that it didn’t “make a difference.” Let me “pass the mic”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZYBL0KYdI to Jim Stimson, p. 133 of “Tides of Consent”:http://www.amazon.com/Tides-Consent-Opinion-American-Politics/dp/0521601177:
bq. …Kennedy’s winning margin did not come from the debates with Nixon. Kennedy was by a trivial amount further ahead on the even of the famous first debate than in his Election Day margin. And these data suggest that the trend that carried him to the finish line originated in late July, two months before the first debate.
This is based on a close reading of the available tracking polls.
Ultimately I am more confident that myth #2 is in fact true. Debates rarely lead to significant changes in public opinion about the candidates. They occur too late, and too many people have already made up their minds.