The US presidential election was described as pivotal, but polling data suggests it was barely a blip on the radar.
On September 10th, the US had their presidential candidates debate. On the lead up to that, the mainstream media spent weeks hyping it up as this massive event. Their sales job was quite good. They argued that this event was a hugely pivotal moment where this one debate can make or break a presidential campaign. Another argument was that this was the moment for undecided voters to finally get a really good look at the candidates they are voting for. Those who tuned out politics, but understand the importance of voting, generally hold off until they see this debate to make their decision on a candidate.
These arguments were something I was always skeptical. This is because if American’s want to get to know their presidential candidates, they have the world of knowledge at their fingertips. They can go online and look at polling data, read through the news, or search through topics that they really care about. Analysis is all over the place and where candidates differ has been present and accessible all along.
About the only value I can possibly see is that you can get the real time reactions of presidential candidates. If you are wondering what Harris thinks of Trumps comments about visible minorities eating dogs, you got to see her reacting by laughing and putting her hands up in the air at the absurdity of such comments. Even then, it’s kind of hard to really put a whole lot of value in such a reaction because, duh, the comments are ridiculous and any sane person is going to give a “WTF?” reaction. What’s more, Harris was always going to respond by saying that there is no truth to such comments and that such comments are both ridiculous and harmful. Did you really need her real time reaction to understand that? Probably not.
One thing I will note is that in the immediate hours of the debate, and the next day for that matter, was that the mainstream media was talking about how they are interested in seeing what the aftermath would be in the polls. They were hyping this up as this massive difference maker in the election and that the electoral picture would become more clear who has the momentum.
So, what was the immediate analysis of the debate in general? Ultimately, it was Trump getting an absolute beat down by Harris. Even more, Trump rejected having a second debate with Harris, a move that was generally seen as an act of cowardice because his performance was so horrible. Utilizing weapons grade copium, Trump tried to rewrite history and say that he won the debate and that there was no need for a second one.
Of course, this article has less to do with who won the debate and who lost, but rather, whether or not it really had a major impact on the overall campaign. In looking at FiveThirtyEight, you can see the trailing polling data for around the last three months. In the below screenshot, I’ve highlighted the day the presidential debate occurred so you can see the results after the debate happened:
As you can see, things were pretty much tied up in July before Harris started to pull away from Trump. It was a gradual process over time, but as American’s familiarized themselves with the relatively new candidate, Harris, they started realizing that they have a preference for her over Trump. Now, you’d think that if the debate itself was hugely critical for an election campaign, the Harris beat down of Trump would have had a very noticeable change after the 10th. Instead, it didn’t even really register on the radar in the grand scheme of things. What is also noticeable is how much the mainstream media (at least the ones I’ve been observing, anyway) have fallen silent on the polling data following the debate. Chances are, this is precisely why. The debate was ultimately a massive dud in making a difference on the campaign trail.
All of this raises a pretty interesting question: is the presidential debate massively over rated? Is it interesting to watch the two at the top of their respective tickets directly interact with each other? Sure. Is it the big difference maker that the mainstream media made it out to be? As it turns out, not really.
Sure, back in the day when the internet wasn’t a thing and traditional media outlets were king for information distribution, the debates were probably important. In the era of black and white television, it was arguably much more true that such debates were a huge way for people to get to better know their presidential candidate. The problem is, today, thanks to the internet, people have many more convenient ways to better understand their presidential candidates. They can access the candidates social media accounts or check out different sites to get a better understanding of their candidates. They really don’t need this big presidential candidates debate to get a general understanding of who they are voting for. Also, it’s no secret that there is a block of voters who don’t even really decide until they are at the voting booth.
What’s more, there are numbers to back up the notion that people are increasingly turning to the internet for their information as well. Yesterday, we noted how the majority of UK residents have turned to the internet as their primary source of news. The picture in the US is much more clear that the internet is the clear winner when it comes to where people get their news from. For instance, a survey just last month suggests that close to half of TikTok users get their news from TikTok:
Keeping up with politics or political issues. For 48% of TikTok users ages 18 to 29, this is a major or minor reason why they’re on the platform.
By comparison, 36% of those ages 30 to 49 and even smaller shares of older users say the same
Additional research shows that a majority of news consumption happens on the internet. Here’s a study done last year:
The transition of the news industry away from print, television and radio into digital spaces has caused huge disruptions in the traditional news industry, especially the print news industry. It is also reflected in the ways individual Americans say they are getting their news. Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans get news at least sometimes from digital devices. Explore the patterns and trends that shape the platforms Americans turn to for news below.
A large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say they often or sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet, including 56% who say they do so often. This is more than the 49% who said they often got news from digital devices in 2022 and the 51% of those who said the same in 2021. The portion that gets news from digital devices continues to outpace those who get news from television. The portion of Americans who often get news from television has stayed fairly consistent, at 31% in 2022 and 32% in 2023. Americans turn to radio and print publications for news far less frequently than to digital devices and television.
When asked which of these platforms they prefer to get news on, nearly six-in-ten Americans say they prefer a digital device (58%), more than say they prefer TV (27%). Even fewer Americans prefer radio (6%) or print (5%).
Here’s an interesting picture that really hammers the point:
So, the data really shows that people have increasingly tuned out from traditional sources of news and are increasingly moving (if they aren’t already there) to digital sources. What’s more, the trend is very likely to continue.
The question is, what does that mean for things like the presidential debates? Well, in all likelihood, those debates are increasingly becoming a relic of the past. For many years, the mainstream media was the ultimate gate keeper of information and news. Their role in that has increasingly diminished over the years as people can find other sources relevant to their interests.
I know some people look at something like this and freak out because of whatever talking point they were fed to tell them that the internet is this dystopian place where it’s nothing but lies, but the reality is that larger media outlets, as well as credible smaller sources, are also on there as well. If anything, this stresses the point of how we, as a society, need to push for better technological literacy. What are good ways to use online sources? How do you tell if a source is there to inform you as opposed to trying to push lies and conspiracy theories? It really stresses the importance of basic critical thinking skills.
What mainstream media doesn’t like to talk about is how there are actually a number of good credible sources online. Yes, there are nonsense peddlers out there, but the sources actually attempting to do a great job out there also exist as well. Further, there are certainly nonsense peddlers using traditional mediums to push their propaganda and conspiracy theories as well.
For that Canadian perspective as well, this also highlights why there is a need for traditional media outlets to adapt. Canadians are also increasingly tuning out simply because traditional outlets are either expensive or inconvenient. Using things like the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act to prop up the past is not going to “save” journalism. If anything, it punishes those who are trying to adapt to a modern era and rewards those who think that business as usual for the last several decades is the way to go. As a result, Canadians are worse off thanks to that.
As for the American presidential debates, it’s looking like these debates are growing increasingly irrelevant in the grand electoral picture in general. Is it interesting for some political junkies to watch? Sure. Is it going to make or break a campaign? Probably not.
