(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There are two ways of looking at the presidential nomination system. The most common one is to focus on candidates. The other – just as important, if not as obvious – is to focus on the party, and how it defines itself over the course of the campaign.
Nomination debates like the Democratic gatherings on Wednesday and Thursday are important for both.
As far as the horse race is concerned, the effects on public opinion and voter choice have been studied carefully, and we have a pretty good idea of how it works. Julia Azari has a must-read detailed look at what political scientists know. The short version? Debate effects are minimal, but still can be important. Changes in voter choice are far more likely in nomination debates than general election debates, and there’s some evidence that debates can matter more when there’s a large field; more generally, the less voters know about the candidates, and the more loosely their opinions are held, the better the chance that debates may matter.
That’s all mostly about voters – either directly, from the relatively small number who will watch, or indirectly, from the larger number who are exposed to media discussions, see clips that go viral, or may be affected in the longer run by new media attention for candidates deemed to have “won” the encounters.
We can also look at it from the point of view of the candidates. For those who are doing well so far, debates are mainly a risk: If something goes wrong, it can turn press coverage negative for at least a short while. For those not doing as well, debates are a major opportunity: Voters may not tune in, but party actors and the media will, and that makes it a chance to attract attention from them, which in turn can lead to badly needed resources.
Indeed, all presidential candidates are desperate for useful resources. Money, in particular, is always scarce no matter how much they bring in, because they tend to spend it (in advertising, expanded staff, and other expenses) when they have it. Tim Pawlenty in 2012 and Scott Walker in 2016 dropped out after disappointing debate performances (or, at least poorly perceived performances) despite having raised more money than several other candidates. By the time of the debates, they had run through the money they had and couldn’t afford setbacks in fundraising.
The key here is that debates can have significant effects on candidates even if they don’t really move voters, or if the public opinion changes are limited and temporary.
The other big effect of debates on candidates is more straightforward. Debate prep takes time off the campaign trail. It also requires candidates to actually prepare policy answers. Of course, they have to do that to some extent in the rest of their campaigning, but it’s a lot easier to give a placeholder answer in an Iowa living room or an interview with a local reporter than in a national debate. That, too, puts pressure on candidacies; it’s a lot easier to prepare for debates if a candidate has enough money and strong enough party ties to hire and have access to the party’s roster of policy experts.
And giving answers also matters for representation. After all, one of these candidates might wind up as president. If so, he or she will be constrained by promises made and positions taken, and more constrained by those promises made in high-profile appearances than by those made less publicly.
Nomination debates are also about the party.
The Democrats will be making a strong statement about who they are when their demographically diverse candidates take the stage on both debate nights. This is no cabinet designed to “look like America,” as Bill Clinton once put it: These candidates represent exactly who the Democratic Party is. And it’s what no political party in U.S. history has ever been before. That alone is a pretty big deal.
There are also other symbolic elements. Democrats at all levels learn how to talk about politics, policy and even the nation from watching top party politicians in action.
The policy element of it is important as well. Debates prompt candidates to differentiate on policy, looking for any small niche they can get. The more important incentive tends to be finding the sweet spot within the party that all party actors can live with. That’s done, to a large extent, by forcing all of the candidates to actually take positions and seeing where they differ, and then organized groups within the party push them toward what the groups find acceptable. That process doesn’t depend on debates alone, but the highly public nature of these events is helpful, because it makes it harder for candidates to just tell each group what they want to hear.
It also helps the party resolve questions of priorities. We’ll see whether, for example, Washington Governor Jay Inslee can emerge from the crowd by insisting on bringing every question around to climate – or if that winds up just sounding foolish to Democrats tuning in. If Inslee does that successfully, you can bet that the leading candidates will rush to reassure Democrats that they, too, consider climate the top issue. If not? Then perhaps health care, or income inequality, or something else will move up.
All of that matters a lot because even if Democrats do win unified party government in 2020, it’s unlikely they can make progress on everything they care about. The campaign in large part will inform both the president, if they have one, and members of Congress (and for that matter state and local elected officials as well) about which of the many potential policies the party wants action on the most.
Again: None of this is unique to nomination debates. But they are some of the few times, especially when the White House is occupied by their opposition, that party politicians talk and party actors, and even some voters, are listening.
It’s not all about the horse race.
See also anice itemfrom David Byler.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.