The Debate Multiverse

I can't tell who actually "won" a debate because that requires shared agreement of the facts on the ground

Wow, did you see the vice presidential debate last night? I didn’t, but I can tell from the responses I see that someone most definitely won and, if I read between the lines, I’m pretty sure the winner was either JD Vance or Tim Walz.

Which makes me think back to the last debate and the question of who won that one. Both sides claimed victory, demanding that it was clear to everyone who the real winner was.

I've been contemplating the question of who is winning the debates not because I actually care who "won" any debates but because there seems to be an informational existential crisis over this topic.

Wait. Let me back up.

First, does it matter who won the debate? Many people seem to think it does matter because they seem to think that it impacts who will win the presidency. In the past, “winning” a debate seems to correlate with electoral success, so it must be important to win them because the end goal is, of course, electoral success.

Isn’t it?

I remember reading that in 2016, Hillary Clinton won all three debates against Trump and, if you look at the “Debate winner“ polling, this is true.

But then Hillary lost the election. The purpose of the debate is not to poll as the debate winner. It is to win more votes than the other person. If Trump won more votes, doesn’t that mean he won the debates?

In the debate over the debates, I find that people will say their preferred candidate won the debate because they feel that being able to control the narrative that “our guy” won will actually move votes one direction or another. Jonathan Chait mocked Matt Taibbi for arguing that liberal talking points were being migrated over into news headlines and, while I’m sympathetic to Chait’s argument, it also seems quite obvious that a lot of people are either lying to me about what they saw in a given debate or they are so myopically captured by their desire to drive their preferred narrative that they are incapable of admitting to themselves what their own eyes have told them.

I see this everywhere.

Pundits and the terminally online seem aware that their words can have impact on the opinions of others. This terrible knowledge seems to drive them into a form of introspective insanity where they imagine themselves as modern-day conjurers who can bring their desires into reality by repeating the appropriate words to make it so.

It’s a devils mix of coarse rhetoric and weak persuasion, pop psychology and just plain old cynical manipulation. They seem aware that their words might have impact and that causes them to say words they don’t believe because they want to drive the narrative. They want to make an impact for the noble cause and the truth and genuine thought can be damned if the lie moves 10 votes in the proper direction.

All that matters is the impact. All that matters is the votes. Votes cast for the right person for the wrong reasons or under a pretense of lies are still cast for the right person. Nothing else matters.

Survey says…

A long time ago, I thought polls would bring clarity. Who won the debate? Let’s go to the polls and compare the pre-debate polling to the post-debate polling.