This article first appeared in University of Utah Magazine.

For nine decades, Kingsbury Hall has been the University of Utah’s center stage, hosting VIPs such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Maya Angelou, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. But on October 7, its curtains will open to its biggest audience ever as the 2020 vice presidential candidates square off in their one and only debate. “We predict 100 million people from all over the world to tune in,” says Jason Perry JD’99, director of the U’s Hinckley Institute of Politics. “And hundreds of student volunteers will get experience in the political process that you cannot get any other way.”

And while hosting the first national debate in Utah’s history is a big deal, one might say that every debate and election at every level this year has extraordinarily high stakes. We are, after all, battling a pandemic amid economic and social upheaval. Politicians are making the arguments of their lives, and Americans should be listening closely.

“Debates give voters the opportunity to cut through the campaign rhetoric,” says Nena Slighting BS’86 JD’91, executive director of the Utah Debate Commission. “They get to actually see candidates discussing the most important issues of our time.”

A national debate seems like a critical opportunity for candidates to convince us that they have the ideas and character needed to lead our country, but the golden question is, do debates change people’s minds? In a moment when partisanship holds powerful sway over voter decisions, could anyone be persuaded to shift opinion? And if not, why hold debates at all?

Political science professors and the U’s resident champion debate coach help answer these questions and more as they explain the role of debates, how to measure their impact, and ways we can recognize our own biases.

The partisan pull

“Debates are the most balanced presentation of each candidate’s arguments,” says U associate professor of political science Juliet Carlisle. “In a very polished manner, candidates articulate their platforms, issue positions, and arguments.” This would appear to be the ideal setup for candidates to persuade voters to align with them.

But that’s not how it usually plays out. “Most people are driven by their partisan orientations,” Carlisle explains. “Moving somebody from one camp to another just isn’t likely.”

Surprisingly, even though both major parties are less popular than at any other time in history, party loyalty is actually at a record high. And it’s not just because voters are attached to their party; it’s because they’re increasingly opposed to the other party. Political scientists call this “negative partisanship.”

“People aren’t just saying ‘I like Democrats or Republicans,’ they’re saying ‘I really don’t like the other side,’ ” says U professor Matthew Burbank MS’86, co-author of Parties, Interest Groups, and Political Campaigns. In 2016, for example, many Republicans didn’t vote for Donald Trump, they voted against Hillary Clinton. People take that same negative partisanship with them when they watch debates. “They decide they don’t like this candidate or any candidate from that party,” Burbank adds. “And that’s a hard mindset to change.”

On the flip side, when party lines aren’t drawn, as in primary elections, debates have more of a chance to make a difference at the ballots. “Voters have to figure out which candidate they like without a party label to guide them,” says U political science associate professor James Curry. “This creates more uncertainty for voters, and more opportunity for candidates.”

Meanwhile, campaigns are getting longer, with contenders declaring their bids sometimes two years before an election. “Most voters already have strong opinions about the candidates by the time we get to the general election,” says Curry. “We saw this in 2016, when it was hard to find many people who didn’t have strong opinions about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. These are folks who have been in the public eye for a long time.”

But what about the 38 percent of the electorate who are unaffiliated with a major party? Some are disengaged from politics, but if they’re planning to cast a vote, they tend to have their minds made up by this point. “Most voters go into a general election for the presidency preferring one of the major parties to the other, even if they don’t formally identify with either,” Curry says. “A lot of people who call themselves independents still strongly prefer one party.” Only 7 percent of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, according to the Pew Research Center.

Even with all these forces solidifying voters’ opinions, there is still a small percentage who may be swayed by a debate. If a candidate is clearly dominant, the polls can shift by a percentage point or two. “We refer to that as a bump for the winner,” Curry says. The bumps tend to be fleeting, though, usually just for a few days, he notes. “Campaigns move on very quickly to the next event or controversy.”

The real purpose of debates

Despite the evidence that political debates generally don’t change the opinions of the electorate, experts agree that they still play a critical role in choosing our leaders. “Debates are important,” says Burbank, but not because voters are listening to the details on policy positions. “The conventions and the debates tend to be the defining events for most campaigns.” In short, debate performances can change the course of a campaign.

In 2012, when Mitt Romney faced President Barack Obama in their first debate, the incumbent was favored to win easily, but it didn’t unfold that way. “Mitt Romney comes out on top as Obama stumbles in first debate,” reported The Guardian. “Does Barack Obama really want to be president?” asked a Washington Post op-ed. A Gallup poll showed that 72 percent of debate watchers believed Romney was the clear winner, and he jumped ahead in the polls for the first time in his campaign.

The upset had consequences for the campaign. “That kind of debate performance impacts how people generally perceive candidates,” says Burbank. “Romney demonstrated that he could criticize the president and stand there as an equal.” Republicans rallied around Romney after that, and Democrats had to rush to their candidate’s aid. “It changed what happened in subsequent debates,” adds Burbank. Ultimately, Obama stepped up his performance and secured his second term.

“The number one thing presidential campaigns do is remind people why they like their party and their candidate,” emphasizes Curry. In this way, debates are great motivators. “They get people to show up and vote for their party on election day.”