Fact-Checking Failures and Lying Politicians Make Political Debates Useless
It was a civil debate between the vice presidential candidates, Governor Tim Walz and Senator JD Vance. But that doesn’t mean that one candidate either has a faulty memory or believes in MAGA – created alternate facts of what happened when Donald Trump was president. It was because of Senator Vance looking into the camera and telling some major lies (specifics later) that I thought that Governor Walz was the winner, even though he didn’t answer the question about why he said he was in China during the Tiananmen Square student protests, when he wasn’t.
Big deal. So what? Vice president Harris outperformed former President Trump during their debate by so large a margin that if people were keeping score they would need a calculator to determine the point spread. And what was the result. Polls showed that it didn’t make much of a difference to voters.
With the exception of the Trump-Biden debate, during which President Biden appeared to be on another planet and ultimately withdrew from running for re-election, history shows that debates don’t move the needle, especially vice presidential ones..
There are several reasons for the above: 1) People are skeptical that candidates really mean what they say during the debate; 2) It’s not really a debate, just candidates answering questions on topics that they have been discussing for months; 3) the so-called debaters are largely restricted to answer questions; and 4) because of the ubiquitous 24/7 political news coverage on cable TV, people already know the candidates positions on issues.
Thus, while millions of people tune in to watch what is ballyhooed as a debate, only a small percentage of the audience may be influenced by what the candidates say and those who change their minds might do so not because one candidate clearly outperformed an opponent, but because they believed the quarter truths, half truths, three quarter truths and outright lies that a candidate says without the moderators challenging them. (During the Harris-Trump debate only four of Trump’s 33 lies were corrected on the spot by the ABC-TV questioners, which meant that viewers who do not keep up with politics, and don’t stay up for the after debate analysis programs, could have been swayed by the former president’s other lies.
CBS-TV, which televised the debate between the two vice presidential candidates did not allow its moderators, CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell and Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, to fact check answers. The network said its own misinformation unit, CBS News
Confirmed will provide real-time fact-checking during the debate on its live blog and on social media and on the air during post-debate analysis, a step back from the rules of the ABC-TV debate. By not allowing on the air spot corrections of mistruths by the moderators, CBS is allowing a large percentage of its audience who only tuned in for the debate to not know when they are hearing lies. Instead of CBS acting like a news organization, it was left to Walz and Vance to pin point the others’ misstatements. And it wasn’t until the second half of the debate that Walz reacted to Vance’s mistruths.
In addition, reported the New York Times, “A QR code — the checkerboard-like, black-and-white box that can be scanned by a smartphone — will appear on screen for long stretches of the CBS telecast. Viewers who scan the code will be directed to the CBS News website, where a squad of about 20 CBS journalists will post fact-checks of the candidates’ remarks in real time.” The downside is that the code will only appear on CBS, while the debate was televised on multiple other networks.
There’s no doubt that Senator Vance, mimicking his presidential candidate running mate, was a virtual lying machine throughout the debate. Just a few of his major falsehoods:
He said Kamala Harris was the “border czar.”
He said that he never supported a national abortion ban.
He said that the Biden Administration unfroze $100-billion of Iranian assists that were returned to Iran.
He said that Donald Trump saved Obama Care.
He said that there was a peaceful transfer of power when Trump lost the election.
Governor Walz’s major fib was saying that Project 2025 said that people will have to register their pregnancies.
Regardless of the outcome of the debate between Governor Walz and Senator Vance, I don’t think it will have much of an influence on voters. (But it certainly will provide new material and talking points for pundits to opinionize on for many days.)
So even though I thought Governor Walz, (who as of Tuesday afternoon had a sizable favorability lead over Senator Vance, 40 percent of Americans view Walz favorably compared to 34.8 percent for Vance, according to 538), won the debate, I still think that Ms. Harris made what might be a fatal mistake in choosing him. Her saving grace might be that Donald Trump choice was worse.
Here’s why
From what I’ve read Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota seems to be a caring, nice person. So does Vice President Kamala Harris.
Ms. Harris said one of the reasons that she chose the Minnesota governor as her running mate was because she felt comfortable with him. And, importantly, he appeals to rural voters.
For years, I’ve been writing that the Democratic Party strategy of focusing on big city voters, while neglecting rural voters, was a mistake because rural voters felt neglected. Republican politicians didn’t neglect rural voters, and most switched their allegiance from Democrat to Republican. That often led to GOP Electoral College victories, even though Democratic candidates led in the popular vote, as Al Gore did in 2000, when he gained more votes than George Bush, or Hillary Clinton in 2016, when losing to Donald Trump.
I salute Ms. Harris for choosing a running mate who appeals to rural voters. The Democrats should have done that years ago. But gaining back the allegiance of rural voters will take many years. And, in my opinion, with Donald Trump, an autocratic-like fraudulent candidate, who is most notable for lying, creating divisions in our society and instigating an insurrection, this was not the year to begin doing so. That’s why I believe that Ms. Harris made a major mistake when she selected Tim Walz has her Veep choice
In an election as close as this one appears to be, I would have reverted to a strategy of selecting a vice presidential candidate from a battleground state with the necessary Electoral College votes that can decide the presidential winner. And the Democrats had two governors and one U.S. senator from states that could determine who will be our next president – the governors of Pennsylvania and North Carolina and a senator from Arizona.
The two governors are Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Roy Cooper of North Carolina.
Here’s why I would have chosen one of them:
Pennsylvania: Mr. Shapiro, whose state has 19 Electoral College votes, is one of the few candidates who appeals to moderates, conservative, rural and big city voters, with the exception of far left Democratic ones. It was the objections of far left Democrats, many political operatives believe, that he was not Ms. Harris’ choice. Most political insiders believe that had she selected the moderate Governor Shapiro it would have guaranteed her victory, because it would have blunted the opinion of voters who believe Ms. Harris is to far left and secured the state’s 19 Electoral College votes. (Nearly half of voters in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll said that the vice president was to far liberal/progressive.) In addition to Pennsylvania’s 19 Electoral College votes, selecting Mr. Shapiro could have provided a more moderate voice to the ticket that would have helped the vice president with voters on the fence.
North Carolina: The Tar Heel State, with 16 Electoral College votes, has often broken Democratic presidential hearts by barely voting for the GOP presidential candidate. But in non presidential years, the state has often elected Democratic governors. Its governor is Roy Cooper, who would have been my first choice for Ms. Harris’s running mate. Here’s why I feel that way: Choosing a white man from a southern state could have accomplished several things: It would have balanced the ticket, provided an opportunity for the Democrats to win a southern state or two, and appeal to rural voters. It also would have blunted the criticism that Ms. Harris is to far left.
Arizona: Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona would have been my third choice because he represents a border state and has a resume’ that would appeal to conservative voters -- a retired astronaut, and United States Navy captain. In addition to delivering 11 Electoral College votes, Senator Kelly as a running mate would have shown that Ms. Harris is serious about controlling the border, a major issue that Mr. Trump has been campaigning on for years.
In some ways, Ms. Harris’ choice of Governor Walz is what often happens in our business. Often, people are promoted because their supervisor’s feel comfortable working with them, even though better choices for important positions are passed over.
In choosing Governor Walz of Minnesota, a state that has less Electoral College votes than Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Arizona, and is not considered a battleground state, Ms. Harris gambled that her “folksy nice guy” running mate would appeal to voters in rural sections of North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, areas that have been a problem for Democratic presidential candidates since the early 2000s.
Mr. Walz’s mission is to convince rock-solid rural Republican voters that the Republicans have done nothing to help them and that Ms. Harris will, a difficult task considering that the economy is still the major reason that so many voters in those states believe Mr. Trump can better solve economic problems because of his background as a business person.
My first public relations job was with a political shop, where I worked on local, statewide and presidential campaigns, before jumping the fence to the corporate side. Even though that was a long time ago, one thing hasn’t changed. A candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to be elected. That’s why I think Ms. Harris made a mistake by not being pragmatic and selecting either Govs. Cooper or Shapiro, two governors who could have delivered Electoral College votes to her, as could Senator Kelly. So can Governor Walz, but with a big difference: North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arizona Electoral College votes are up for grabs; Minnesota votes are considered safe for Democrats.
We won’t know until the votes are counted on Election Day if Governor Walz helped Ms. Harris by lessening the GOP vote in rural areas. And even if he did, we won’t know. The only sure way to know is to have a redo of the election with Mr. Harris choosing another running mate.
The same is true in our business, when a celebrity is used to hawk the message of a client. The only way to know if the celebrity made a difference is to repeat the same campaign without the celebrity.
For decades, various measurement tools have been devised by people in our business to determine if a campaign was successful. Remember, there are many versions of measurement tools – but not one based on proven scientific evidence. The same is true for political polls.
