I have to watch it? I don’t want to be a policy wonk anymore.”
watched it. If you must know, I thought
Obama won, but not in a blowout – not be enough to really change anything. Also, the questions seemed pretty stilted to
Obama – disaffected Democrats asking to be inspired.
hard look at policy positions? I doubt
it – people have a pretty good sense of the candidate’s policy positions and,
more importantly, the broad policy preferences of the two parties. Individual’s fundamental prejudices (not a
negative thing – just their understanding of how the world works) don’t tend to
change much and the debate gives little opportunity for it to do so.
job. The debates are that final
interview question: “Is there anything you would like to tell us about
effort to figure out, quite simply, if you are crazy.
illness) but are you a person who has difficulties that are going to introduce
a negative factor into the workplace – say not do the job, feud with co-workers, steal etc?
they are a chance for us to get a really good look at the people who want to lead us and get a sense if they are “okay.” That’s why the 1984 debates, for example,
were so important. Reagan had had an
impressive first term, but in the first debate he seemed pretty off. He pulled it together for debate two – but if
the President had actually become senile, well that’s the kind of thing we’d
want to know.
the candidate can perform. It may seem
shallow, but sometimes surface matters.
The 1960 debate famously highlighted handsome, youthful Kennedy with the
awkward Nixon. Shallow, yes, but it
turned out to be pretty right – there was something off about Nixon – as we
learned a bit later.
perform well enough to show that they weren’t way off. Interestingly there were no debates between
1960 and 1976 – elections won by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Off-hand these were two of the most deeply
flawed individuals of the modern Presidency.
Shallow judgments perhaps, but not valid nonetheless.