That's ridiculous. Perry went from 35% to 6% precisely because of the debates
Sigh.
I clearly said "presidential debates."
Don't conflate the presidential debates with the debates in the primaries. They are two completely different animals.
Yes, when you have a large field in the primaries, including newcomers, the primary debates can change votes.
But by the time we get to the presidential debates, the GOP nominee has been, well, NOMINATED.
That means that a whole bunch of Republicans have already voted for him in the primaries. The GOP voters already know their nominee's strengths and weaknesses, and many have committed to vote for him in the general regardless of how he does in the presidential debates.
There's no psychological quid pro quo here (as per your previous post). Even in the primaries, we have seen people who sincerely thought Rick Perry was the best candidate, and they were more than willing to support him despite his lack of debating skills.
The point is the presidential debates feature two NOMINEES whose supporters, many of whom have already voted for the nominee in the primaries, will not be swayed in large numbers by their debate performance. And I have already addressed why, in my view, the same is likely true for independents.
Again. I disagree. Debates matter. They matter increasingly as time goes by and the is more obviously an arm of the DNC. People want to see debates, they expect to see debates, and enough of them form their opinions from the debates to make a significant impact.
McCain lost the debates. So did Kerry. So did Gore.