Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have now squared off on their three scheduled debates and America and indeed the world now waits on their November 8 date with destiny.

The debates have been acrimonious, perhaps unlike any that has been seen for the US presidency. Both hopefuls have spent a considerable amount of time trading barbs and seeking to denigrate each other in a manner that some have said more resembles election contests in some Third World countries. Indeed, anecdotally, the comments heard here in Jamaica have tended to significantly reflect a commonly held view of surprise about the manner in which the candidates vying to lead the strongest democracy in the world have conducted themselves.

Each of the debates has taken the shape and form of emphasis on personal insults similar to those that normally reverberate on political platforms here in Jamaica where candidates are known to freely express their views about their opponents. The expectations were for greater substance and a clearer focus on issues, but these were largely relegated to side banters without any consistent articulation, and as a result the critical issues that the world wanted to hear more about were lost as each candidate traded insults and heaped accusations on each other.

To be sure, the debates have been unlike any that I have witnessed amongst presidential hopefuls in my time of following the developments leading to the election of the president of the United States. In this context, was there a winner? Did any candidate do enough to enhance their chances of winning the election on November 8? An evaluation of polls conducted post-debates from the 1970s speaks decisively about the impact or otherwise of debates on the voter sentiment and actual change in voting intention. But let us first look a bit more at the debates.

The ability to withstand pressure and show fortitude in the face of challenges is one of the qualities that Americans have extolled over the years in their leader and one which the people wish to see demonstrated by their leader. In the face of the intense pressure that was brought to bear on each candidate by the other, this was one of the characteristics that I looked for. Who would show signs of snapping under pressure? To be sure, each candidate said enough damaging things about the other that was either designed to unsettle and create “cracks in the armour”. Indeed, in the very first debate it seemed clear that Trump’s strategy, unrehearsed as it was, was to pile pressure on Clinton on the assumption that she would not be able to withstand his onslaught. There were times when it looked like she might very well have fallen to his. What kept her in good stead was the practice and preparation she had; the reinforcement that under no circumstance can she display less than a firm control of her emotions. She did this during the first debate and succeeded in replicating this firmness in the second and third debates.

Trump’s comfort on the television stage born out of his years of experience on his various reality television shows actually worked against him. His insistence on little or no planned preparation, preferring instead to ad lib and go ad hoc, opened him to inappropriate reactions when prodded. These led to a consistent reiteration of statements generally regarded as unstatesmanlike, and often undiplomatic and unbecoming of a candidate seeking to enhance his reputation amongst undecided voters. In essence, Clinton showed more of the resilience and fortitude that Americans want to see in their president. If one should sum up the scores for the three debates, it would be that neither really distinguished themselves and or significantly enhanced their credentials to become the president of what they both call a great country. But as the post -debate research that I alluded to earlier has shown, the performance of candidates in these debates has rarely really served to garner fresh support for the candidates. Instead, data has shown that candidates are more likely to lose support through gaffs and unfortunate comments than any they might gain from articulating their position through the debates.

DEBATES DO NOT MATERIALLY GROW SUPPORT

Historically, the research has shown that the most critical of the debates is the first, where the voters and undecided look to see what character traits will emerge. This it has been shown is the really formative and influential period. This is where the greater pool of undecideds emerge; it is at the stage where these people constitute a significant percentage of those making up the voting public. The general feedback from both the Clinton and Trump campaign corners emerging from this first debate is that Trump, by virtue of going into the ring largely unprepared or unpracticed, failed to impress, and that this is where he began to lose support. The second and the third debates was more of the same, a demonstration of who could “hurt” the other more.

For a moment in the third debate it looked like we might very well have exchanges in keeping with our expectations of greater focus on issues. But that debate turned after 35 minutes, as both candidates excelled equally for the first time into a free for all cuss out on personalities and sins of commission on either side. The difference was that in that environment, Clinton showed greater temperament for withstanding pressure, whilst Trump again lost the plot and seemed to believe he was once more on the set of his reality television shows. He made a precipitous fall off after that, culminating in his angry outburst and his denigration of Hillary as being a “nasty woman”. Presidential language? Certainly not. Does he need the female vote? Maybe not.

So for sure, an evaluation of a wide range of poll results coming out of presidential debates going back to the john F Kennedy era, has shown that by the end of the first debate, most minds have been made up and there is very little change thereafter. Even gaffes do not impact unless a significant number recognise it as such. In 1976, Gerald Ford claimed that Poland was not under the Soviet’s sphere of influence. This went largely unnoticed and hence had very little impact.

Further the post-debate polls have shown that these debates may not win new support, but could cause a candidate to lose support.

AN EARLY LOOK AT VICTORY PROSPECTS IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION

The Presidential elections are approximately 18 days away, but despite the expectation of a significantly ramped up campaign on either side, there are some clear indications as to how the elections could go, based on the historical voting patterns by state.

Let us look at the last four elections — 2012, 2008, 2004 and 2000 — and examine the patterns of voting by each state. There has been a noticeable consistency with which 80 per cent or 41 of these of the states have voted over these four elections. Twenty-two of these have voted Republican in all four elections, whilst 19 of these have voted Democrats in all four of these elections. Bearing in mind that there are 538 electoral college votes up for grabs and that to win the presidency, one candidate has to garner a minimum of 270, the contribution of each of these states to the overall count is extremely important.

The 22 states that have voted consistently Republican over the past four elections account for and would give Trump a total of 185 electoral college votes, assuming they vote the same way in November.

The 19 states that have voted for the Democrats only over these last four elections account for and would give Clinton a total of 242 electoral college votes, assuming they vote the same way in November. That would place her much closer to the magical number of 270 required to win the Presidential.

Arguably, some of these were won only marginally by Barack Obama in 2012 and could become the battleground seats over the next 30 days. These are:

Ohio (50% and 18 electoral college votes),

Florida (50% and 29 electoral college votes),

Virginia (51% and 13 electoral college votes),

Iowa (52% and six electoral college votes),

Nevada (52% and six electoral college votes),

Pennsylvania (52% and 20 electoral college votes) and

New Hampshire (52% and four electoral college votes)these are the states won only marginally by Obama last time and which Trump will surely be tackling.

On the other hand there is only one really marginal seat won by Mitt Romney in 2012, This is North Carolina (51% and 15 electoral college votes). Here, however, Trump is said to be trailing Clinton in the polls.

In the following states the voting patterns make interesting reading.

(1) Colorado — Normally vote republican, but voted Democrat last 2 times (9)

(2) Florida — Normally vote Rep, but voted Dem last 2 times (29)

(3)Nevada — Normally vote rep, but voted Dem last 2 times (6)

(4) Ohio — Normally vote Rep, but voted Dem last 2 times(18)

(5) Virginia — normally vote rep but voted Dem last 2 times(13)

(numbers in bracket represent electoral college votes)

If these states vote Democrat as they did in the last two elections this would give Clinton another 75 electoral college votes and an unassailable total of 317 votes and the presidency,

There are two other states worth looking at.

(6) Iowa-Trending Dem (6)

(7) New Mexico -Trending Dem (5)

New Mexico and Iowa are battleground seats but both have voted Democrats more in the last four elections than they have done Republicans and should Clinton be able to maintain this momentum she could collect another 11 electoral college votes, already assured of the presidency.

It will be very interesting to see where the candidates will now put their emphasis.

With 17 days to go before the election, one never knows how the American minds will respond to the campaign messages as the campaigns crank up the rhetoric and the emotions. The polls have indeed shown a widening of Clinton’s lead which is now approaching double-digit figures. Will this prevail? The indications are that it will, but this is politics after all and we here have the benefit of the experience of February 26th.

Don Anderson, CD, is chairman and CEO of Market Research Services Limited, and has successfully conducted market research and political polls in Jamaica and throughout the Caribbean countries over the last 40 years.