Sociologists' worst nightmares may have just come true. I've had this subject simmering on the backburner for a while, and it has been prompted to the front by an earlier comment in kos's diary describing the President Obama's post debate bounces.
Prior to the debates Romney's campaign strategist, 'Eric F', was asked what Romney could do to define himself at such a late stage in the campaign, since the Obama campaign had already done such a masterful job of defining Romney in the minds of Americans:
Strategists in both parties say Romney made a serious error in neglecting to respond quickly to Obama ads trashing his record as the leader of Bain Capital, the Boston investment firm that he founded. The millions of dollars spent by presidential candidates on TV advertising in battleground states can be hugely influential with voters, and Romney gave Obama a three-month head start in defining him.
"In those voters' minds, they're starting to fill in — choosing colors from the palette — who Romney is, and the Romney campaign didn't offer them any colors to choose from," said John Weaver, who was a top advisor to Republican John McCain, the 2008 nominee. "I don't think it's been wise to wait this long to deal with it."
His answer, that Romney still had three debates where Americans could get to know him, seemed hopelessly naive. (That is such ancient history by now that it has fallen off the archive cliff, so you'll have to take my word for it). How could someone define themselves in 90 minutes, and worse, how could anyone make such an important decision based on so little information? But the poll swings after every debate show this to be the case. The Romney campaign either judged the electorate very cannily, or were the recipients of some very fortuitous luck.
Even before the final debate the Wall St. Journal noted:
The presidential debates this year have been more consequential than such debates have ever been.
They've been historic, shifting the mood and trajectory of the race. They've been revealing of the personalities and approaches of the candidates. And they've produced a new way in which winners and losers are judged. It's a two-part wave now, the debate and the postdebate, and you have to win both.
In a way this has always been true. That's why there are spin rooms. But this year it's all more so—more organic, more spontaneous and powerful. And everyone knows what spin is. They're looking for a truth room. Through a million websites and tweets they're trying, in some rough, imperfect way, to build one.
The influence of social media and popularity of shows like American Idol have conditioned Americans to evaluate a performance and instantly pick a winner. The electorate is the audience that texts 1 for Obama or 2 for Romney, while the pundits are the judges, overruling voters.
The debates set historic viewership records. But they have been reduced to sound bites and takeaway 'zingers'. The second debate spawned its own Tumblr, bindersfullofwomen.com. Anyone remember that? The final one had 'horses and bayonets' which is already fading. These soundbites overshadow important discussions of deeper significance, like the nature of evil.
Media critic Bob Mondello considered how reality shows, where viewers have been conditioned to pick a 'winner' have transferred this mentality to the serious subject of presidential debates that aim to help select the leader of the free world.
During the debates, networks all but beg us to kibitz in social media, which makes instant judgment universal. We're encouraged to watch for the purpose of reacting.
And the stories we like best? Underdogs triumphing, last minute comeback, a real horserace. Blowouts are less fun to watch than games that go into extra innings, which is why American Idol doesn't give out weekly vote totals. The show is manipulated to make things seem close because no one would watch week after week if the outcome weren't in doubt. In political races, the media are often accused of doing something similar, hyping polls that suggest a tightening contest.
So, no wonder we react in a big way after a televised debate, declaring winners and losers, swinging polls three or four points. We've been conditioned. But the things reality shows have conditioned us to look for — polish, brashness, engagement with the camera — are all surface, not things that have much to do with governing.