Do Memes Matter?

After every presidential debate -- hell, after nearly every major event -- we have memes going viral on the Internet.  Last night's debate is no exception, especially based on the "binders full of women" line from Mitt Romney.

Which begs the question -- do memes matter?

A meme, according to that source of all info (wikipedia), is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."  Here's a Politico story on the memes about women binders.  You've probably seen them on Facebook and Twitter already (the Bill Clinton one, damn funny).  I'm not going to repeat them here.  Instead, I go back to the question above.

Yes, memes are funny.  But do they matter?

As far as I can tell, in my cursory search, there are almost no studies on whether political memes influence opinion.  I'll try a more in-depth search later, but we're probably stuck relying on the larger base of research on the effects of political humor -- specifically on political satire.  The guidance there is slim because memes are so ephemeral, so easily laughed at and forgotten.  Yes, so are Stewart and Colbert, but to me the masters of political and news satire are more substantive, more long-lasting, and therefore the effects we know about humor (it persuades, some) are of little use when talking about memes.

Here's my theory.

If a meme reinforces widely held beliefs about a candidate, then it's likely to have some small effect.  The "binders full of women," that doesn't really fit Romney.  If Bill Clinton had said it in, say, 1996 -- oh hell yes, an effect.  No, for a meme to work about Romney, it'd probably need to be about money.  If he'd said something about binders full of cash, then the memes might have influenced some undecided voters, or pushed the mildly decided just a bit more to Obama.

If I come across a meme study or two, I'll post them here and discuss further.  Otherwise, just sit back and enjoy the memes.

Who "Wins" Wednesday's Debate?

The pundits and the public will, of course, reach some kind of consensus over whether Obama or Romney wins tomorrow night's prez debate.  But why wait?  The latest Quinnipiac poll has folks predicting an Obama debate victory -- by about a 2-to-1 margin.

Here's the lede:

An 18 point lead among women puts President Barack Obama ahead of Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 45 percent among likely voters nationwide, and voters expect 54 - 28 percent that the president will win the debates, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. 

That pretty much says it all.

Except, of course, it's probably wrong.

Usually the challenger "wins" the first presidential debate with an incumbent (think John Kerry against George W. Bush not so very long ago).  Why?  Because the incumbent is on the same stage, looks presidential, and assuming no goof comes off ahead merely by not seeming as kooky as some people thought.

That's Romney's mission.  Not to look kooky or scary, to seem, well, as Ronald Reagan did so well in 1980 -- to seem reasonable.

Can people predict the winner?  Are they right?

No.

In part, the expectation comes from people choosing their preferred candidate to win.  It's called wishful thinking.  There's a long body of social science research to back it up.  But that doesn't explain the 2-to-1 margin, much greater than Obama's poll advantage.  No, I think this is a function too of Romney's faltering campaign, of stumbling from gaffe to gaffe (47 percent), from a smooth Democratic convention compared to Clint Eastwood mumbling at an empty chair.

So I suspect the public has it wrong.  Romney will "win" Wednesday night -- for what little that's actually worth -- but unless Obama makes a huge blunder it won't really matter in the numbers.  Yes, they'll tighten a bit in Romney's favor, but the math for him, in a state-by-state comparison, needs to significantly improve for him to win the electoral count.

Prez Debates and Political Learning

Let the pundits argue about this week's presidential debate and whether it persuades voters.  Let's ask a different question -- do people learn from such debates?

As always, there's the short answer and the long answer.

Short Answer:  It depends.
Long Answer:  It depends, with a whole bunch of caveats and academic nuances and all the stuff that gets in the way of a simple answer (unless, of course, you do talk radio or cable news, where everything is simplified to the point of meaninglessness).

Stay with me here.  It's worth it.  

One study, for example, examined five presidential election years (1976 to 2000) using ANES data, which the authors admit "is not optimal for conducting this sort of research."  But this is key: they found learning about incumbents to be minimal, but learning about challengers to be more significant.  That fits this upcoming debate between Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. 

The former Massachusetts governor, as pundits have noted for several weeks, has so much to gain from being on the same stage as an incumbent president.  This study suggests people will also learn more about Romney.  What they learn, that's of course of import, but the research suggests Romney gains a great deal from Wednesday night's debate.

Tomorrow (or maybe later today), what else research tells us about this week's debate.

People Lie

I've written about this extensively, research into how people lie (or fib, or fudge, or exaggerate) in surveys.  The most recent issue of Public Opinion Quarterly has a study that examines viewing of U.S. presidential debates. 

The finding? 

People lie.  Or, at least, they exaggerate about their viewing, not unlike previous studies that find people say they voted when they didn't, or that they inflate how often they consume the news and so on.

In the POQ study, Marcus Prior compared survey questions about debate exposure with, as a benchmark, Nielsen ratings of the vice presidential and presidential debates from 2000 through 2008.  Between 47 and 63 percent of voting-age residents said they watched the presidential debates, about double what the Nielsen ratings say is the more likely number.

But is Nielsen a good benchmark?  Probably so, and Prior addresses this by examining data in different ways to make clear his point -- that surveys make for a lousy way to evaluate exposure to a major political event.  It may be all we have, but one filled with error and inflation, so much so that it may affect studies that seek to understand the consequences of viewing on opinions and voting preferences.


 

Debate Summary - Who Won

Who won the McCain-Obama debates? Summing up the USAToday/Gallup polls, the numbers for Obama were 46, 56, and 56 percent for debates 1, 2, and 3. McCain had 34, 23, and 30 percent, respectively.

So Obama improved from #1 to #2, then held his ground in #3. McCain's performance, even GOP loyalists have to admit, was far from inspired. He had flashes, his moments, but for a guy who is supposed to be a good debater he was a disappointment to many.

What's more interesting, from a what people know perspective, is responses across all three debates to a question asking if people's impressions were more or less favorable about the two candidates after the debates. For McCain, kinda a random walk, but Obama improved after each debate: 30 percent favorable, then 34 percent, and finally on the third debate, 37 percent.

Keep in mind that for about half of all respondents, nothing really changed despite the debates. The response to Obama is not unlike that to Reagan in the 1980s. At first people were suspicious of this former actor and California governor. Did he have the seriousness to be president? He did well in the debates and people grew more comfortable with him. Obama enjoys a similar debate effect.

God-less Debates

I noticed the absence of God and religion in the 2008 presidential debates, especially compared to the devoutness battle waged by Bush and Kerry in 2004, but this article sums up Godlessness from the McCain vs. Obama meetings. If you're interested at all in the intersection of religion and politics, it's worth the quick read.

Religion plays a major role in how many people make sense of their world, including their political world, but they got little if any guidance from the debates. Why? I suppose a lousy economy trumps religion, or at least trumps "moral values" type of issues. Which candidate this helps or hurts is hard to say.

McCain, Debates, and Hospitals

What do people know from watching the televised presidential debates? If nothing else, John McCain always opens by telling us who's in the hospital. I'm not sure anyone measures political knowledge via the health status of noted political figures, but if they do, the public sure is informed.

Of course I'm being picky, but it's either that or actually attend to the debate.

Debates and Drinking Games

A CNN poll has Barack Obama winning last night's debate. Fifty-four percent said Obama won, 33 percent went with John McCain. If my math is right, 13 percent called it a tie. Yada yada yada.

Let's get to what really matters -- drinking games.

For the VP debate it was "maverick" as the signal to down or chug or shoot or whatever the hell it is people do, depending on what they're drinking. Last night it hit me what the right word/phrase would have been -- "my friends."

By the fifth or so time McCain used it, I realized that was the key phrase of the night. Not as good as a wink, but still it came often enough that you'd get a serious buzz if you followed through with the downing or chugging or shooting.

What did people learn, though, from last night's festivities? Obama is smooth, McCain can have his moments but seems outclassed, or out-presidentialed. They disagree on some key fundamental issues. We got to hear the same talking points again, in case you missed them in the previous debate. And we learned that the town hall format can surprise you with the quality of the questions and how well the candidates respond.

Political Smears and Learning

Both the McCain and Obama camps have gone negative. It must be October.

There's an old line about negative advertising -- people hate it, but it works. Obama "palled around" with domestic terrorists, or so says Sarah Palin. McCain palled around with the guy behind the huge savings and loan scandal many years ago, or so say recent ads. Tonight is yet another debate, and everyone wonders if the McCain and Obama's heels will go on and their gloves come off.

Political smears are old school presidential politics. They have a pedigree stretching back to some of the earliest presidential campaigns. Nothing new, nothing surprising, and we know they can sometimes influence voters.

But do they affect learning?

Yeah, kinda. How's that for a PhDweebish answer? Negative information grabs the attention, breaks through the indifference of some voters, energizes others, and generally can lead to some political learning. Advertising has become a key factor in what people know about a campaign, in part because the ads invade their entertainment programming and are harder to escape than straight news stories.

So tonight, if the heels are on and the gloves are off, we might not only see great political theater, we may have some people learn more than from a wonky policy discussion.

The Polls and the Debate

Two polls report more people saw Barack Obama as the winner in last Friday night's presidential debate. One poll was of general voters, another of undecided voters. What we sometimes see is a self-fulfilling prophecy here. One candidate is anointed the winner and that has a small, yet significant, positive effect on overall poll results.

If Sarah Palin crashes and burns this week, the Republican ticket will be in serious trouble.

Let the spin begin. GOPers will be downplaying expectations. I'm not sure they can get quite that low in the downplayed expectations game, because no one really expects her to do well. Speak in complete sentences and she comes out ahead. Joe Biden is in a tough spot. No one expects her to do well, and he's got to avoid piling on.

If Palin crashes, the combination may be enough to solidify in enough people's minds that the election is over. That's an interesting effect, because sometimes that works against a ticket or candidate. The base takes a break, doesn't show up on election day.

If people know it's over, then that can make all the difference, and not the way they intended. Gonna be an interesting week.

The First Debate

I've little time today to blog on this as I busily cab kids to various Saturday activities, but ya just can't let the first presidential debate slide by unblogged.

My sense? Obama wins first half, McCain wins second half. Edge to McCain, as if it matters. I'll be more interested in studies of what people learned from the first debate. I doubt very little since the two of them kept close to their script, though it's surprising how few people have been keeping up so some of what they said will be new to viewers.

There were a few points scored, but the only people who noticed were pundits and partisans, people who need to get lives and focus on more important topics -- such as the Georgia-Alabama game tonight. Failing economy? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Presidential election? Pfffft. Football!

I'll look for any snap polls later today, perhaps comment on them, depending on the football game.

Presidential Debates and Learning

Do people learn from presidential debates?

Yes. A majority of studies show a connection between watching the debates and campaign issue knowledge. Now this gets tricky. Are politically interested folks drawn to watch debates and therefore do better on such tests? Obviously yeah, but often these studies statistically control for many of the factors associated with what people know (education, age, etc.). In a few, controlled experiments attempted to tease out the effects.

However, a few studies have failed to find a connection between learning and viewing debates. In some cases, to use doctoral PhDweebspeak, "it depends." It depends on the kind of campaign, the kind of candidates, the kind of questions one asks. It's a difficult area to study.

In general, if one carefully reads the literature, you'll find televised debates do improve issue knowledge, issue salience (how important certain issues are to you), and evaluations of the candidates (from likability to perceptions of competence and character).

Okay, but how about those irritating post-debate analyses?

One of my first studies as a graduate student was of the 1988 debates and I remember sitting in a room as students watched the infamous Lloyd Bensen/Dan Quayle vice presidential debate.

Students had a thingie where they signalled emotional response to whatever the candidates said. Fun, especially when the famous "you're no Jack Kennedy" line spilled out. Crazy data.

But what we were interested in was not infamous quips but the effects of the analyses after the debate.

Students watched and were then assigned to either watch the analysis or a filler program. We found that analyses damped partisan reactions, which kinda worked opposite of what we expected. With selective attention we figured hearing about the debates would lead to more extreme feelings either way, depending on your predispositions. Theory said so. Instead we found hearing people from both sides talking about the debate actually reduced extreme opinions.

Needless to say this was opposite what most others found and a book later on debates attacked that study. Hell, we were grad students, making it up as we went. The research ended up as a conference paper but never in publication. Probably best for all.

Younger and Smarter

According to the Pew Center for the People and the Press, younger voters are bucking the trend when it comes to campaign knowledge. Usually age is a positive predictor of knowledge, which means the older you are, the better you tend to do on the various ways we measure the concept.

Not so much, this year. In fact, just the opposite.

Sixty percent of voters 18-29 correctly identify Obama as being pro-choice, while only 51 percent of voters ages 50-64 got it right. Only 41 percent of those 65 and older nailed the question.

Most everyone did better in identifying candidate positions on Iraq than they did on abortion.

So what's going on?

In part this is an Obama Effect. He energized young voters, enough so that they were a little more likely to pay attention and get the answer right. I'm frankly surprised that they pulled ahead of older respondents instead of merely pulling even. That's damn surprising given the usually significant age effect we see on knowledge. Maybe there's something different about abortion as an issue. Maybe something else is at work here.

Coming Soon to a Blog Near You

In honor of the upcoming presidential debate, I'll write tomorrow or the next day on what we know from the research on debates and post-debate analysis. Do debate performances change minds? Do people learn from the debates? Do zingers matter, as in "you're no Jack Kennedy" in 1988 or President Ford's infamous freeing of Poland in 1976? And how about those talking heads who later tell us what we just saw, what effect do they have on public opinion?

More later.