A Model for How to Evaluate Presidential Debates

[@maximumkorb]

In a classical debate, this should be the format; however, Presidential Debates are way more about optics: - which candidate looks better - which candidate sounds and looks presidential - which candidate would you personally relate to/believe in Should a debate be a popularity contest? Of course not, but that is how these are. It's optics more than anything else. When Trump says something like, "I've cut taxes more than any other president in history," of course that's not true. But it tells the viewer that he is interested in cutting taxes, which is something they actually want. This has been Trump's strategy for his entire campaign: hyperbolic expressions to make him look like the candidate that will do something for the people. Did I actually believe he was going to lock up Hillary Clinton in 2016? Hell no. But the rhetoric, the hyperbole, the overdramaticness of it - it tells me that he does have some interest in locking up criminals - doing something to fix crime. Even if it is something extremely minimal, he has shown he has an interest. It's an optics show, and Trump very much understands that. It's not about listing evidence - it's about looking good. Joe Biden, on the other hand, when he attempts to comfort the American people and wants us to put our faith in him, it's really REALLY R E A L L Y bad optics to stumble on your words, become incomprehensible, and lose your train of thought when answering questions. Now, does Biden always stumble? No. He has made coherent statements, but do I believe in him because of those statements? No. It's hard to really put faith in Biden. Even if he wants his record to do the talking for him, he is remarkably bad at showing off his capabilities. When I have to look up Biden's achievements and successes as President because he can't really echo them himself, that is not a good reflection on him.

[@Rundvelt]

Hey, read yours, agree entirely. What did you think about my reply? I think we're saying roughly the same thing, just slightly differently. :D

[@Junkyboyniichan]

I have been trying to years to explain to my friends and family precisely why it is that I find Presidential debates so useless, and I have never been able to put it as succinctly are you have here. The optics you listed--who looks better, who sounds presidential, who do I relate to--are extremely valuable in a popularity contest, which is exactly what elections are. They're also irrelevant to the task of governing. Presidential debates enshrine all the qualities required to win an election, and none of the qualities required to serve in the office the candidate has been elected to. Thank you for helping me find the words to state that clearly.

[@maximumkorb]

@Rundvelt Yours is definitely more food-themed, but yes: pretty much the same point. It's not about listing evidence to support a claim in these debates. It's about, as you put it, who can make the more desirable smoothie. Trump's smoothie certainly has some odd choices in it, but Biden's doesn't even look edible.

[@maximumkorb]

@Junkyboyniichan No problem. Presidential campaigns in general are all about optics. While it would be nice for our leadership to be decided on the actual merit/evidence of a candidate, the truth, at the end of the day, has always been: which candidate would you want to share a beer with.

[@Rundvelt]

So, let me say I appreciate your viewpoint, however I disagree with your model for presidential debates. And that's because they're not your typical debates that deal with analyzing a single concept or question. Let's think of these debates as sort of like an apple (or any other singular fruit or vegetable). You got the skin of the apple as the claim and the interior the evidence and argumentation that rounds it out. And while people's tastes may differ, generally speaking, the best tasting apple will win out. However, presidential debates are to determine who is the best leader for the country, and this touches upon a wide array of topics and suggestions. Let's think of these debates as sort of a smoothie. Some of the food items that go into this smoothie follow the structure you outline. The fruits and vegetables. But others are things like peanut butter (Personality), chocolate (strength), etc. Attributes the majority would ascribe to being a good leader. The reason people aren't talking about the fruits and vegetables in the smoothies for the Trump Biden debate is because of the smoothie that Biden was crafting. Biden being frail, being absent minded, having dementia, these are all ingredients were very unpalatable. I'd suggest bitter, rotten, sulfurous tastes. And even in very small doses, these flavours can ruin the smoothie. But as the debate goes on, the candidates keep adjusting their smoothies, trying to cancel out bad flavours, amplifying good ones or adding flavours the other person isn't. Maybe adding a few more fruits and vegetables. Maybe adding some honey. The problem however, is that Biden was incapable of doing much except adding more bitter, more rotten, more sulfurous. And the taste was so horrid that this is the only "taste" the audience remembers. That's why I think most people don't view the debates the way you do. Hopefully this makes sense.