Televised debates between presidential candidates are often regarded as the exemplar of persuasive communication. Yet, recent evidence from Le Pennec and Pons (2023) indicates that they may not sway voters as strongly as popular belief suggests. We revisit their findings through the lens of the persuasion rate and introduce a robust framework that does not require exogenous treatment, parallel trends, or credible instruments. Instead, we leverage plausible monotonicity assumptions to partially identify the persuasion rate and related parameters. Our results reaffirm that the sharp upper bounds on the persuasive effects of TV debates remain modest.

This paper examines a commonly used measure of persuasion whose precise interpretation has been obscure in the literature. By using the potential outcome framework, we define the causal persuasion rate by a proper conditional probability of taking the action of interest with a persuasive message conditional on not taking the action without the message. We then formally study identification under empirically relevant data scenarios and show that the commonly adopted measure generally does not estimate—but often overstates—the causal rate of persuasion. We discuss several new parameters of interest and provide practical methods for causal inference.