Tonight’s Republican presidential debate is being promoted by CNN as the greatest show on earth. Even the New York Times breathlessly described it as “the most consequential” one yet held. The reason for the heightened expectations for this latest gathering of the crowded GOP field is that it is the first to be held since the San Bernardino shooting that brought terrorism to the top of the national agenda. With this national security billed as the main agenda for CNN’s moderators, in theory, this ought to give us a good opportunity to thoroughly vet each candidate’s foreign policy bona fides. But the notion that this debate or any other that will be held during this election cycle can or will be decisive may be yet another piece of conventional wisdom that should be ignored along with the predictions about a certain outlier candidate fading.

The assumption that debates would be decisive stems from our experience in 2012. In that cycle, the Republicans held more than two-dozen debates, and the result grew to resemble a reality TV series more than anything else. In a largely undistinguished field, the debates became a crucible for failed candidacies as, one by one, politicians that were considered serious contenders suffered epic gaffes.

Tim Pawlenty choked when asked to call out Mitt Romney’s record on health care to his faith. Rick Perry forgot the names of one of the federal departments he wanted to abolish (an “oops” moment for the ages) and Michele Bachmann squandered what was left of her credibility by sounding cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs about school vaccinations. Though we didn’t learn all that much about detailed policy, it was both informative and entertaining as the debates winnowed the cast of characters even before the voters narrowed the choices down to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. Romney’s ability to thrive in the debates ensured his victory, and the others who lasted could also point to them as reasons for any success they might have had.

But while journalists have watched each of the debates held this year hoping to see the same kind of disasters that made the 2012 edition so much fun to cover, they’ve been largely disappointed. It’s true that Jeb Bush has lacked energy and whiffed just about every time he took a shot at rivals like Donald Trump and most specifically Marco Rubio. Both Trump and Ben Carson have tended to fade when the discussion turns to policy specifics. But to date, the debates have lacked an “oops” moment that would sink a serious candidate.

Part of that stems from the fact that on the whole this is a much stronger group of candidates than the ones who turned up in the 2012 debates. You may disagree with them, but they are generally a smart bunch that isn’t likely to implode when put under pressure.

More importantly, we’ve also seen that moments that might be considered gaffes if uttered by other candidates at other moments have been interpreted very differently by much of the public. Of course, I’m referring to Donald Trump, who, if he was an ordinary political mortal, might have faded from view after the first debate when he was cornered on his history of abusive remarks about women and responded by threatening Fox News’s Megyn Kelly. But instead of cratering, Trump gained strength. The same is true every time he says anything that most people think is outrageous. In a year in which anger with the establishment and political correctness rules the hearts of many voters, there may not be any such thing as a gaffe for an outlier candidate.

So if you take the chance that a candidate will blow up before our eyes out of the equation, what do we have left of the notion of the debates being decisive factors in the GOP race?

It’s true that some of the candidates have burnished their reputations in the debates. Certainly, Carly Fiorina’s campaign largely centers on the fact of her good debate performances and her oft-repeated promise that she would be Hillary Clinton’s worst debate nightmare if she were nominated. Others, like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and even Chris Christie have also had generally strong performances.

But Fiorina’s post-debate performance surge (including a stare-down of Trump that one might have thought would hurt him but didn’t) was short-lived. She’s hanging on in the low single digits along with the rest of the pack despite being hell-on-wheels in each debate. Nor can one credit the Cruz and Rubio surges solely to the debates, as both have waged smart campaigns that highlighted their strengths. Bad debates would have derailed their efforts but, again, in the absence of a Rick Perry-like meltdown on camera, these TV shows haven’t proved decisive.

So for all the hoopla and high expectations, I don’t see tonight’s debate as being any different from their predecessors. We’ll remain on alert for a candidate catastrophe, but I don’t expect this group of smart and generally savvy politicians (and, yes, that term now applies to Trump and Carson) to give us one. Instead, what we’ll get is a mix of slogans and quips along with some serious policy proposals from the more sober-minded contenders. That will be interesting and voters ought to take what is said into consideration when they finally start voting in seven weeks. But the idea that this or any other debate is going to decide the course or even the composition of the field is almost certainly a mistake.