And yet, in the polls taken immediately after the debate, 37% thought Trump had "won."
Which makes me question the value of these debates - is everyone just watching to see if their candidate can score against the other candidate? or to see if their candidate completely flubs it? It's portrayed more like a sports team matchup than a policy discussion.
And don't get me started on the panel of "undecided voters" on CNN - really? In September 2024 you still don't know who would be the best leader for the U.S.?
Modern political debates are NOT the place for detailed policy discussion. It’s really not the format, as real policy involves detailed facts and figures of demographics, budgets and legislative pathways.
I’ve seen two reasons for debates that I agree with. The first is focused on the smallish sliver of “undecided” and “waivering” voters, most of whom seem to be on a low information diet where they really aren’t aware of each candidates demeanor and positions on a briad array of issues.
The second reason for the debates is to generate enthusiasm / turnout (or conversely, to depress the opponents turnout). It’s supposed to be about the ra-ra moment.
Given recent levels of support I find it notable that Trump
“only” had 37% who said he “won”. That’s terrible IMO.
I will say this. The debate's format was 10,000% better and more watchable than the open-mic shouting and interruption competitions of the past several presidential elections. Those past debates looked more like the Jerry Springer show from the 90's than a formal debate like you'd see in college or even high school.
Trump changed certain things for the better. No only is it now normal for journalists to fact check, but debates now have mics that will cut off and moderators who will go after a candidate if they try to dodge a question. BRAVO! I say.
Was it unfair to Trump? It certainly disadvantaged his preferred style of interrupting, shouting slogans, and making up weird stories and conspiracy theories to draw attention away from his opponents' facts, reasoning, and civility.
The format change was like telling the pigeon it could no longer shit on the chessboard. It's only unfair if the chessboard is not for playing chess, and was actually for shitting on. But Trump still had a chance to be reasonable, bring facts, and articulate a message, so he was on an equal footing even if he failed to develop the talent needed to excel in the new format.
Hopefully the debate format changes are the first of a series of broader cultural changes where we no longer assume a laissez-faire approach will cause problems to work themselves out automatically. They won't work themselves out automatically, and a whole generation may be learning that there is a greater need than ever for referees, gatekeepers, curators, decorum, precedent, fact-checkers, real investigative journalists, laws, norms, regulations, and enforcers who are willing to keep things within the boundaries that served the United States so well over the decades.
If that's bad for chess-pigeons, then so it must be. Let's hope that real debates return to Congress too, and that the American people start expecting more from their political system, engaging more with policy issues than political tribalism, and generally expecting some semblance of order, dignity, and professionalism from those who they elect. As for the undecided people sitting on the sidelines of all this? Maybe they need to see more than yard-signs, social media posts, and tilted advertisements to make a decision? That's what debates are for.
