Presidential Debates Do Matter
38:21 Share

Church's Original Recipe is back! You can never go wrong with Original. Still tastes the same like back in the day. Right now get two pieces of chicken starting at only $2.99 or ten pieces starting at only $10.99. Church's. Offer valid at participating locations.

We got a podcast full of singers? Yeah. What part do you sing? I'm a first tenor. Usually first alto. Okay, well, we can create our own a cappella group right here on the 538 podcast. We should come up with a song to do. 538.

Okay, we're not talking about love. We're talking about... Data. Seasons of data. Nice. We can keep thinking. It doesn't have to be that, but that's... We don't have to make a commitment today. It's a good starting point, though.

Hello and welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druk, and it is debate week. Welcome to one of the most consequential weeks remaining on the election clock. Former President Trump and Vice President Harris will face off in their only scheduled debate on Tuesday night at 9 p.m. Eastern on ABC. After a supercharged end of the summer for Democrats, there's some indication that Harris's support has softened since the convention.

And a relatively large group of voters still say they want to know more about Harris. 28% of likely voters, according to a recent New York Times-Siena College poll. Only 9% of voters said the same about Trump.

The debate is, at the moment, the only opportunity of the cycle for voters to compare the two side by side. So today we're going to talk about what the candidates' strengths and weaknesses are heading into the debate and what they might be trying to accomplish. We're also going to take a look back at historical debates to give some indication of how much these kinds of events can change the dynamic of a race, at least in the short term. And we're going to do that with a game of trivia.

And we'll also check in briefly on the latest jobs report. If it is the economy's stupid, what does the data show in this final stretch? Here with me to discuss it all is senior elections analyst Jeffrey Scali. Welcome to the podcast, Jeffrey. Good morning, Galen. And also here with us is senior researcher Mary Radcliffe. Welcome, Mary.

Hey, Galen. We're going to get to the debate. Let's talk about the jobs report for a minute first. So last Friday, we got the August jobs report. The economy added 142,000 jobs and unemployment ticked down to 4.2%. The Financial Times called the report, quote, weaker than forecast. The report adds even more.

greater intrigue to the can't-miss event of the financial season, which is the Federal Reserve's September meeting. I know, we're all going to be calling in sick for that. The Fed is expected to cut interest rates at the meeting, but by how much is unclear. Basically, a quarter point or a half a point is the big question. What's also unclear is whether any of this will matter in November's election.

There was a time, folks, I'm talking about back in 2012, when the fall jobs reports were a marquee part of the election. The media treated them as if they were as important as the polls or maybe even more important. So starting off, Jeffrey, do you think that this jobs report

or any other economic data that is going to come out between now and election day, is going to matter to who ends up winning in November. I think it could matter very narrowly at the margins. The whole idea of the jobs report being an event was silly. The way voters...

take in economic information and the way they feel about the economy is not like a rapid process unless you have some sort of huge event in the economy, like, I don't know, Lehman Brothers collapsing and like the economy falling apart in 2008, for example. But it has to be something pretty drastic for that to matter. And at that point, you've already got a lot more going on there that's going to be problematic for the party that's in power. It ain't otherwise not

crazed economic environment, if you will. Voters, they have sentiments about how things are going. They tend to care more about the national picture than their own personal financial, not to say that their personal doesn't matter at all, but they tend to think more about the national picture when it comes to their voting. It's called sociotropic voting. The issue for Harris and maybe the good news for Trump is that I think at this point, it's September, the election's in less than two months.

economic views are pretty baked in. So it would take something pretty drastic, I think, for there to be a dramatic shift. And I think the hope for Harris is that things just kind of marginally get better. They've ticked up a bit over the last couple of years, like economic sentiment, but not drastically and still well below where it was pre-COVID, of course. It's really kind of, I mean, like a football analogy here, it's like three yards in the cloud of dust, kind of, but which direction?

And I think for the Harris campaign, their best hope is that it's in their direction slightly while the Trump campaign is probably going to have this as an advantage going into the election regardless at this point.

To that end, Mary, you worked on a piece earlier this year that suggested that the normal indicators of how people are feeling about the economy have been turned upside down since COVID. You know, for example, in the past, increased car buying meant that sentiment was usually on the rise. And that just wasn't the case post-COVID. People were maybe buying cars, but they were mad about it, mad about the interest rates that they were paying in order to get those cars.

loans. I think the expectation here now is that the Federal Reserve is going to cut interest rates, and the debate is maybe over by a quarter point, by a half point. A worse jobs report would have suggested that it's more like half a point, a better jobs report, maybe closer to a quarter. Jeffrey's suggesting that

marginal changes between now and election day probably aren't going to impact sentiment all that much. But if voters are pretty mad about the expensive costs of borrowing and say we do get a half a point interest rate reduction, is that the kind of thing that can change voter sentiment in, say, like a month and a half? I don't think so. To

To get a sense of what a 25 basis point cut versus a 50 basis point cut looks like, I went and looked up the mortgage rates as they are now and just did crunch some numbers. So the median home price is about $412,000. If you financed a $400,000 loan, fixed rate, 30-year standard thing, the current average rate you would pay is 6.53%. If you cut a quarter point off of that,

Your monthly payment goes down by $65 from $2,536 to $2,471. So we're talking about a $65 difference in a typical mortgage. I don't think that's the kind of thing that voters are going to be like, whew, it's solved. I've saved 70 bucks. But...

I just don't think that matters. And so, you know, every quarter point you drop the rate, you're going to save another 65 bucks on your mortgage payment. But I mean, I don't think we're talking about some earth shattering difference here. The other thing that that I think is worth considering is what factors voters say are important in the economy.

So if you look at Economist, YouGov, they have this really fascinating poll. They ask periodically about what is the best measure of how the national economy is doing. They offer respondents four options, which is the price of goods and services, the unemployment rate and jobs reports, just like we're talking about, personal finances and the stock market index.

If you look pre-COVID, it's pretty well tied between the price of goods and services and the unemployment rate as the most important factor. During the shutdowns, the unemployment rate as the most important factor sort of shut up because people didn't have jobs. The economy was shut down.

But since around April or so of 2021, the price of goods and services has been the thing people say is the best measure of how the national economy is doing. And that hasn't changed at all.

Even as inflation has come down, the last time they asked this question was in early August. And we had 55% of respondents said the price of goods and services was the best measure of how the national economy is doing compared to 16% who said it was unemployment and jobs.

So, like, I'm frankly a lot more interested in the CPI numbers that the Fed will be releasing later this month than I am in the jobs report. The jobs report, while it may make the difference between a 25 and 50 basis point cut for the Fed, I don't think that's going to impact voters. What voters are feeling is inflation. Well, and even so, it sounds like, you know, even if inflation remains sub 3% annually, that voters are reacting to the fact that prices have increased dramatically.

20% or at this point, slightly more since 2019. And it kind of doesn't matter because they don't restart their brains at the end of every year and say, now let's just focus on how much prices increase in the next 12 months, as much as that's how economists focus on the data. What you feel can be slightly different. So is there anything really that could happen between now and election day 2020?

other than, you know, as Jeffrey suggested, a crash that could really shake up how people are feeling. I mean, with respect to the economy, I think Jeffrey's right. Like short of an exogenous shock, I don't see anything really changing voters' opinions on the economy significantly. And I mean, if we did have an exogenous shock, it's most likely to be something pretty devastating. So I am not hoping for that.

Yes. As Americans, I think we can all agree that we don't want that. But it's...

But it sounds like the economy, as far as the election is concerned, the cake is pretty much baked. Yeah. And I think Mary, you know, Mary was getting at something there, too, which is obviously people have been very worried about inflation. That gets at something which is another potential positive for the Trump campaign and obviously potential detriment for the Harris campaign, which is that.

When they think about the economy and they think about – like when this comes into play as a factor in people's voting behavior, you're thinking about – somewhat about what things will look like going forward. And so maybe they have a positive association with Trump because the economy was in pretty decent shape when he was president.

And they may have a more negative association with Harris because she's part of the Biden administration. And if you're thinking retrospectively, this idea called retrospective voting when it comes to the economy, you're thinking about how has the economy been over the last year or so, two years. And if you're thinking about where prices are, you're probably not terribly pleased. And so I think that's another problem here for the Harris campaign is that there's just not a ton of positive association with the economy anymore.

She's polling better than Biden did.

uh, in terms of head to head with Trump on who would handle it better. Uh, but generally Trump is usually ahead still on that question. And, and again, I think that's just sort of baked in at this point. And then if, if Harris is going to win, it's not going to be on the economy necessarily. Maybe it's on the economy, not being terrible, uh, while other issues are potentially a better advantage for her, like abortion, of course. Yeah. And the one silver lining, I think in the jobs report with respect to inflation is that, um,

Wage gains have continued to outpace inflation. They have for like about a year or so. So that's good. I mean, that maybe helps a little bit with voters. But the problem with that is that it takes a lot of time for voters to just get past the sticker shock. So even though they have more buying power, you know, we've seen those increases increase.

in wages outpacing inflation, it doesn't feel good to know things are expensive, even though you can afford more. That is a silver lining, maybe that will help ease some of this pain in terms of the inflation, that wages are rising faster than inflation now. But I think it probably is going to be a longer time horizon than two months.

All right, we've already started to lay out here some of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. So let's talk more about that as pertains to the debate. But first, a break. Today's podcast is brought to you by Shopify. Ready to make the smartest choice for your business? Say hello to Shopify, the global commerce platform that makes selling a breeze.

Whether you're starting your online shop, opening your first physical store, or hitting a million orders, Shopify is your growth partner. Sell everywhere with Shopify's all-in-one e-commerce platform and in-person POS system. Turn browsers into buyers with Shopify's best converting checkout, 36% better than other platforms.

effortlessly sell more with Shopify Magic, your AI-powered all-star. Did you know Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. and supports global brands like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen? Join millions of successful entrepreneurs across 175 countries, backed by Shopify's extensive support and help resources.

Because businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Start your success story today. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash 538. The number is not the letters. Shopify.com slash 538.

Today's podcast is brought to you by GiveWell. You're a details person. You want to understand how things really work. So when you're giving to charity, you should look at GiveWell, an independent resource for rigorous, transparent research about great giving opportunities whose website will leave even the most detail-oriented reader busy.

GiveWell has now spent over 17 years researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the highest impact opportunities they've found. Over 100,000 donors have used GiveWell to donate more than $2 billion. Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations will save over 200,000 lives

and improve the lives of millions more. GiveWell wants as many donors as possible to make informed decisions about high-impact giving. You can find all their research and recommendations on their site for free, and you can make tax-deductible donations to their recommended funds or charities, and GiveWell doesn't take a cut.

Go to GiveWell.org to find out more or make a donation. Select podcast and enter 538 politics at checkout to make sure they know you heard about them from us. Again, that's GiveWell.org to donate or find out more.

At the time of this recording, Harris and Trump are separated by about half a percentage point in the likeliest tipping point state, which is Pennsylvania. In other words, this is an extremely close race. In a recent YouGov poll, 70% of registered voters said they plan to watch the debate. We'll see if that actually materializes, if history is any indication. It won't, but nonetheless, this is likely the most eyeballs these candidates will get between now and Election Day.

We were just discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the polls on the issues. For example, Trump leads on the economy, immigration. Harris leads on health care and abortion. When it comes to perceptions of the candidates' qualities, more Americans say Harris understands the problems of people like them and has the mental sharpness to be president, while more Americans say Trump is a strong Democrat.

leader. We're going to record a reaction podcast on Tuesday night, so we won't go too far down the speculation rabbit hole. But I do want to ask about what the candidates are trying to accomplish on Tuesday night. So, Mary, I

What are the goals of these two candidates, maybe understanding some of their strengths and weaknesses and that this is going to be a very visible event? I mean, I think the goals for Harris are pretty clear here. This is perhaps her only opportunity to present herself to a bipartisan audience of Americans.

We know conventions are mostly watched by partisans. So the DNC wasn't really that. This is her opportunity to put herself out there, have a chance to define herself and her policies and her vision for America. You know, you mentioned that that New York Times poll. I have the registered voter numbers in front of me. 31 percent of registered voters said they wanted to learn more about Harris. And it was similar. Twenty eight percent of likely voters. OK, perfect.

They asked them a follow-up question, right? So of those people who said they wanted to learn more, they said, what do you want to learn? And 63% volunteered that they wanted to learn more about Harris's policies and plans. I think they may be lying a little bit. I think... You're accusing the voters of lying? I think specifically...

Specific policies and plans are probably less impactful than understanding that this is a person with a vision and that there are plans. Or that they're not radical, right? The perception of Harris in that poll was also that more Americans view her as too far to the left than view Trump as too far to the right. And so perhaps a question that those respondents have is more like, is this a mainstream candidate or

Or is this the boogie woman that Republicans have made her out to be as a San Francisco liberal who said all of the things she said back in 2019 when she was running for president? Yeah, yeah, exactly. So what people really mean, I think, in my opinion, what people mean when they say they want to learn more about her policies and plans is that they want to see that she has a plan. It's not crazy.

And that she has a vision for moving forward for this country. Because I think those are the pieces you really need, not necessarily like the nitty gritty of what exactly is your housing policy or whatever. With respect to Trump, I think he needs to continue to project the strength. One of the things about him that appeals to a lot of voters is this idea of like a very strong leader. He has a tendency to like ramble word salad.

He needs to avoid some of that, although it's not really clear to me how much voters actually care about his word salad rambles. All right, Jeff, what are your thoughts in terms of the candidates goals for the evening?

I think for Harris, it's interesting. This campaign to me is going to come down obviously to like turning out your base, but your base is probably going to turn out pretty well at the end of the day. And so I think back to sort of the 2022 midterms when the difference maker in a lot of important sort of Senate races and governor's races were some actual independents trying to convince voters that, you

She is a mainstream choice that she is offering competence and less drama than Trump, who, of course, people view as a combustible figure. Either they view him positively for that quality or very negatively for that quality. And I think for Harris, it's a contrast of showing competence and an indication of her sort of ability to do the job and.

in a way that is going to move the country forward and appeal to some of the voters who are probably like, hey, you know, things were better with the economy during Trump's presidency, but it was also just a mess. And, you know, I'm worried about abortion because this issue keeps coming up and like it affected my vote in the midterms, that kind of thing. And of course, the electorate will be different in a presidential election, much higher turnout overall than a midterm. But I do think that

that factor in 2022 was telling in a lot of races. And I think it could be something that comes into play here. And so conversely for Trump, yeah, I think avoiding too many crazy soundbites, if he actually has a debate somewhat similar to the one he had with Biden, obviously everybody was very focused on Biden during that debate, right? But I think if he has a debate somewhat similar to that,

People will sort of say he met expectations. It'll be sort of an uneventful thing for him. Whereas if he has maybe a moment where he gets too personal and attacks Harris in some way, that could become a leading story in a way that is negative for him. And so that's sort of to me what sticks out as important.

You know, you just made me think of something, Jeffrey, so I was looking at the crosstabs of that New York Times-Siena poll and also some other polling related to how voters view the two candidates. And some of the softness in Harris's numbers is coming from the youngest voters, including in that New York Times poll, you know, looking at need to learn more about Harris. 52% of 18 to 29-year-olds said they wanted to learn more about Harris.

Some of those people may not actually remember the drama from the Trump years, right? Like, I mean, if you're 18 years old,

You were 14 when Trump left office. You're like a freshman in high school. You don't know about all of this drama. Yeah, I mean, to that point, exactly. We have seen a trend in the cycle. I mean, it was more exacerbated under Biden, but I think we're still seeing it with Harris, is that there's softness amongst young voters and Democrats seem to be holding up decently well with older voters. And

And, you know, if we're thinking about, oh, what do people remember about the two parties? Well, a huge event was COVID, during which the two parties made very different arguments about what we should do and the arguments that Republicans made.

perhaps increased the risks for older Americans, but definitely provided more value for younger Americans and the reverse for Democrats. They were pitching a regime that would reduce risk for older Americans, but the costs were largely on younger Americans. And so...

Maybe that's not at the top of mind today, but it was a really big event that perhaps started to jumble some voters' perceptions of the two parties, and then perhaps they've found other openings to continue to feel that way or whatnot.

That's an area where I think policy made a really big impact on people's lives and the differentiation between the two parties was really clear. So when people ask, oh, this is weird or why is this happening? Why are older voters sticking with Democrats while younger voters are a bit softer? I mean, that's one potential answer that was a pretty big life changing event.

You know, to that point, we've seen in polling, even when it was Trump-Biden, that a lot of voters who didn't vote in 2020, which is going to include, obviously, a lot of young people who are just have come of age to be able to vote and some, you know, some people who don't regularly show up but do plan to vote this time.

that Trump tends to do better with them, or at least relative to his overall standing or among people who voted in 2020, he tends to do better among those who didn't vote in 2020.

The non-voter or less likely voter universe historically has been viewed as favorable to Democrats, but maybe it's not as much as it used to be or is even potentially favorable to Trump. And so just sort of getting I just think that's worth noting is that we saw that we've seen that in the numbers in a way that may may be surprising to some people. All right. Well, we will be back with you soon enough talking about that debate. Let's move on to the trivia portion of today's podcast. But first, a break.

Today's podcast is brought to you by Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI. AI might be the most important new computer technology ever. It's storming every industry and literally billions of dollars are being invested. So buckle up. The problem is that AI needs a lot of speed and processing power. So how do you compete with costs spiraling out of control? It's time to upgrade to the next generation of the cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI.

OCI is a single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. OCI has four to eight times the bandwidth of other clouds. It offers one consistent price instead of variable regional pricing. And of course, nobody does data better than Oracle. So now you can train your AI models at twice the speed and less than half the cost of other clouds.

If you want to do more and spend less, like companies Uber, 8x8, and Databricks Mosaic, take a free test drive of OCI at oracle.com slash 538. That's oracle.com slash 538. The numbers, not the letters. oracle.com slash 538.

As we talked about last week on the podcast, debates can have an impact on horse race polling, at least in the short term. In fact, two and a half percentage points on average. It's unclear whether those changes are durable, but nonetheless...

We're about to see a debate in what is by all accounts a very close race, and a shift of a couple points could change who's leading. So we're going to play a game. We're going to test your knowledge of notable moments in presidential debate history, specifically how much the polls changed following a high-profile debate moment. So grab your pen and paper and get ready because we are going to begin in 1984.

Oh, goodness. Somehow I knew that that year was going to come up. I am very confident that Jeffrey is going to beat me in whatever game this is. I don't know. Don't be too confident. Don't be too confident. We'll see.

Reagan is running for re-election, and he holds a commanding polling lead over Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. In fact, an 18-point lead before the first debate. But Reagan stumbles during the first debate performance, often rambling and losing his place. Post-debate polls showed Mondale as the clear winner, and many in the press started raising concerns about Reagan's fitness for office. So here's the question. By how many points had Reagan's polling lead slipped?

before the second debate two weeks later. Oh, it's 1984. There's only like three pollsters active. Four, baby. Serious national pollsters. All right. Three, two, one. Reveal. I have 8%. 11. We got 11 from Jeffrey. Mary wins it. It is his lead declined by 7 percentage points to an 11.8.

lead and some more context here. Reagan, of course, recovered in that second debate, delivering one of his most famous debate lines of all time. I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. He went on to a commanding victory with 49 states and nearly 60% of the popular vote.

All right, so that's one point for Mary. We're going to fast forward quite a few decades to 2012. It is October.

Heading into the first presidential debate in 2012 in Denver, Obama was leading Romney in an average of national polls by three percentage points. But the consensus was that Obama lost the first debate. Many criticized his performance for being too subdued and not matching Romney's aggression. Politico wrote, quote, President Obama looked like somebody had slipped him an Ambien.

Rough. A week after their debate performance on October 10th, by how many percentage points had the national polls swung towards Romney?

All right, three, two, one, reveal. I wrote 5%. I said four. Wow, and Jeffrey said four percentage points. I mean, on really, really a technicality, Mary wins. It was a total swing of 4.6 percentage points. So Mary, you got that by a tenth of a percentage point. I did.

I think Jeffrey and I should share that one. Can we each have a half a point? You each get half a point. Yeah, I think that's only fair. Only fair. Thank you, Mary. That's very generous of you. Jeffrey got the first number right, which is four. We were both right in spirit. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, that's very much in the modern political era. And we saw basically a five point shift after that debate.

So, you know, polls can move. And it wasn't even as if in that debate something crazy dramatic happened. It just didn't seem like Obama had his fastball. Yeah, what's interesting there is that actually there's a lot of academic debate over whether those poll movements were real or not, or if they were just an indication of...

Essentially more Republicans response, like response rates. Partisan response rates. Yeah. So essentially more Republicans responding and Democrats feeling down about the debate and not responding as much. There's like a famous paper about that. It involved using Xbox user data, which was really interesting, but essentially found with a bunch of controls that

That there may not have actually been any movement at all among voter sentiment, but that the polls did move. The polling averages did move. And I think pollsters are a little bit more sensitive to differential non-response. Than they were in 2012. Now it is. To be clear, yes, they're definitely, I think, more sensitive to it.

Anyway, the 2012 race is very interesting for the debate over that. If anyone ever wants to go down a Google Scholar rabbit hole, it's interesting. All right, we'll save that for another day. Maybe I'm alone on that front, but I think it is interesting. Speaking of being nerdy, Mary, you have one and a half points, and Jeff, you have half a point. We're going to motor right along to 2016. Okay.

Clinton's six-point polling lead that had held through most of August of 2016 was shrinking in September, down to 2.3 percentage points on the day of the first presidential debate in September of 2016. Clinton was generally perceived to have won that debate, with one Gallup post-debate poll finding 61% of respondents favoring Clinton's performance. A week later, on October 3rd, how much had Clinton's polling lead increased by?

Three, two, one, reveal. I have 2.5%. Oh, we're getting specific. I did three. Okay, all right. Wait, you both are giving extremely close responses. Neither of you are that, that close. But Mary gets it again. It was 0.9 percentage points. So one percentage point shift towards Clinton a week after the debate. So Mary... I was thinking it swung a little bit more than that. It...

It ultimately did. It ultimately swung quite a bit by the conclusion of the third debate. Ah, maybe that's what I was remembering. By the conclusion of the third debate, Clinton had a healthy lead and a lead that probably would have won her that election had the ensuing leaks and Comey stuff not. I mean, who knows? It was so close. Who knows? She might have lost anyway.

But there was definitely movement on those in those final days. OK, so two and a half points to half a point. We're going to keep motoring right along. We're now in 2019. It's the second night of the first Democratic primary debate in

In 2019, if you remember, those debates were split up over two nights randomly. During that debate, Harris and Biden had a heated exchange over Biden's opposition to federally mandated busing in the 1970s, with Harris saying, quote, There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.

Harris was widely viewed as the winner of this debate. The gap between Biden and Harris the day of the debate was 25 percentage points, Biden leading. Of course, there are other candidates in this race, but that was the gap between Biden and Harris. How much did that gap shift towards Harris a week after the debate?

I literally wrote a piece about Harris's poll movement. And that was how many years? Yeah, five years ago now? Like, jeez. All right. Three, two, one. Reveal.

I have nine. I want 14. Whoa, Jeffrey, it is exactly 14 percentage points. I wrote nine. And as soon as I wrote it, I went, oh, it's not enough. Primaries are more volatile than this. Primaries are very volatile, folks. So it went from Biden leading Harris by 25 percentage points to leading Harris by only 11.

percentage points. And that was basically her peak. That was definitely her peak. And by the time of the second debate, I remember talking about this. I remember Dion ABC saying, yeah, you know, actually, for as much as we made of the aftermath of the first debate, the polls had reverted almost to where they had been before by the time of that second debate.

debate. All right, so it is two and a half points to one and a half points. This is our final question, although if it ends up as a tie, I'll come up with some kind of bonus question, or everyone can win. So here we go. And this is a little more complicated. I want you to order these first presidential debates by viewership numbers from most to least.

They are Carter versus Reagan in 1980. Are we doing raw viewership or? Raw viewership, not as a percentage of the country. But I love the nerdiness in that question. Carter versus Reagan in 1980. Clinton versus Dole in 1996. Obama versus Romney in 2012. Clinton versus Trump in 2016. And Biden versus Trump in 2024.

So this is worth quite a few points. You get a point for every correctly placed debate. If you're thinking, well, the population has only grown since 1980, and we're going to do it based on that, you would get this very wrong. If anybody gets this fully right, you get like an extra prize of just being quant of the year. It's like winning the Nerd Olympics. Exactly, exactly.

We're going to start a 538 decathlon. But it's just this. But it's just this. It's just election data. And we're going to bring it to high schools around the country. So get ready, folks. And with that, I'm going to ask you to reveal 3, 2, 1.

Go. Mary, you read it first. I have 1980, 1996, 2012, 2024, and 2016. Okay. You got the placement of 2012 and 2024 correct. So that is two points for Mary. Jeff, read yours. I went 1980 first.

is the most, then 2016, then 1996, then 2012, then 2024. Okay. I'm sorry, Jeffrey. None of those are correct. Here is the actual answer. The most watched of those debates was Clinton versus Trump in 2016. Damn, really? With 84

4 million views. I was thinking Reagan Carter might have beat it out. In close second, in close second, was Carter versus Reagan in 1980 with 81 million views. Which Jeffrey and I both had first. Yes, yes, exactly. Yeah, because we were thinking about it. But I knew 2016 was watched. I just didn't think it beat that one, though. That was the only debate between Carter and Reagan in 1980. The only one.

Third is Obama versus Romney in 2012 with 67 million viewers.

Fourth is Biden versus Trump in 2024, earlier this year, with 51 million viewers. Finally, Clinton versus Dole in 1996 with 36 million viewers. You know, that's where I was thinking about the TV ratings as just like who would actually be watching TV because I knew 1996 famously, I mean, it was like the joke was like it was the Seinfeld election. Like, what is this even about? Yeah.

It had much lower turnout in 1986 than in 1992. And yeah, it was just not an election where people were particularly glued in. So I'm not really that shocked that it was last. I should have trusted my instincts on that and put it last. Yeah. And thinking about it now, I mean, the earlier you go in time, I would expect, although you said, Galen, there's not really a correlation here. I would expect higher viewership simply because of like limited options on television. Yeah.

But by 1996, we got cable. Yeah, I mean, if you maybe looked at a data set of all presidential debates in time, you might see some sort of clear trend. But for these debates specifically, well, it was a mix of notable debates. And so not a clear trend line. But Mary, ultimately, you have 5.5 points. Jeffrey, you have 2.5 points. Thank you.

I don't have any prizes to mail you, but I hope you feel happy about your win, Mary and Jeffrey. There's always next time because we're bringing election nerd decathlon to a high school near you. We will see you on the other side of this presidential debate. Thank you, Mary and Jeff. Thanks, Galen. Thank you, Galen.

My name is Galen Druk. Our producers are Shane McKeon and Cameron Tretavian, and our intern is Jayla Everett. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts at 538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at us with any questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, you can leave us a rating or review in the Apple Podcast Store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.