Greta Van Susteren suggests that the Presidential debates are testing the wrong things:
Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.
Smart and successful problem-solving involves considering all the consequences and consulting with others. It is not demonstrated by one’s ability to instantly react to a surprise question with a one-minute answer. After all, no one walks into the Oval Office and says, “Mr. President, you have 60 seconds to address the North Korean nuclear weapons program that has been active for 30 years and has bedeviled the last three presidents for all eight years of their respective terms. The clock starts now.” If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? [WaPo]
And she’s right, of course. So why did I just shake my head here?
If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.
Because I have no faith that debates change that many minds. There’s very few pundits – and I doubt any that lacked an axe to grind – who thought then-candidate Trump was defeating his opponents, from Rubio to Clinton, in the debates. In particular, Clinton is thought to have simply overwhelmed Trump in their one on ones.
Yet, it was Trump who won the upset in the election.
Of course, there’s a million variables in play here, so how do we tease out the affect of the debates? Beats me. But it seems to me that the campaign rallies, the email campaigns, and the television ads have far more effect than debates that are, for the most part, on subjects on which a very small fraction of the electorate has any sort of expertise; their opinions may be welcome, but they’re not really relevant.
But, if Greta is right, then perhaps by making the debates more relevant in the manner which she suggests, maybe they’ll have some influence.
I just don’t have the faith.
