In electoral politics, there is only one thing above all others that the candidates, parties, and their supporters ultimately care about.
They aren't standing up in front of millions for some lofty ideal. Their desire isn't to spread truth to the masses, just merely for the sake of it.
Both sides have ONE goal.
And that goal is to WIN OVER VOTERS.
When Romney and Obama get off the stage tonight, their first questions to their staff aren't going to be, "so, on a technical academic standpoint, who won the debate on a point by point basis?"
They are going to be asking about the numbers.
It doesn't make any sense to judge a game by a criteria that the candidates themselves are not judging themselves by.
They are going up on that stage tonight to GET voters. That is their primary, (and possibly only) goal.
If 100% of the population says someone won, (on the merits) but all say they still aren't changing their mind on who they are voting for, then the debate might as well not have even happened. It ends up being meaningless.
So, if you want to be a policy nerd and discuss who won on a technical standpoint, by all means, write your thesis. But in doing so, realize that you are judging an entirely different game.
When we discuss who won the debate tonight, remember:
It is not the one who said the most facts
It is not necessarily the person who performed the best
Or the person who was the most confident
It was not the person that stumbled less than the other
It's not the one with the most zingers
The only question we should be asking is:
Did X win voters, did X hold steady with voters, did X lose voters.
Everything else is just for fun.
They aren't standing up in front of millions for some lofty ideal. Their desire isn't to spread truth to the masses, just merely for the sake of it.
Both sides have ONE goal.
And that goal is to WIN OVER VOTERS.
When Romney and Obama get off the stage tonight, their first questions to their staff aren't going to be, "so, on a technical academic standpoint, who won the debate on a point by point basis?"
They are going to be asking about the numbers.
It doesn't make any sense to judge a game by a criteria that the candidates themselves are not judging themselves by.
They are going up on that stage tonight to GET voters. That is their primary, (and possibly only) goal.
If 100% of the population says someone won, (on the merits) but all say they still aren't changing their mind on who they are voting for, then the debate might as well not have even happened. It ends up being meaningless.
So, if you want to be a policy nerd and discuss who won on a technical standpoint, by all means, write your thesis. But in doing so, realize that you are judging an entirely different game.
When we discuss who won the debate tonight, remember:
It is not the one who said the most facts
It is not necessarily the person who performed the best
Or the person who was the most confident
It was not the person that stumbled less than the other
It's not the one with the most zingers
The only question we should be asking is:
Did X win voters, did X hold steady with voters, did X lose voters.
Everything else is just for fun.
