berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,473
- 21,436
- 2,320
If you’re a typical American voter in any party, allow me to let you in on a little secret: What matters most to you in a presidential debate probably isn’t the same thing that gets the most attention from the candidates, the campaigns and their allies in the immediate aftermath of those big televised showdowns.
I’ve learned this from studying American reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. I’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice-presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. Yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home.
As the first scheduled debate between President Biden and Mr. Trump unfolds this Thursday, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to Americans. Viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. From Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980 to Barack Obama emphasizing hope and change in 2008 to Mr. Trump telling Mrs. Clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, I think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; I certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. These moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe.
www.nytimes.com
There are a wide variety of lies Trump could accuse Biden of during the debate. I suspect most will be ones Trump is guilty of. Like taking money from foreign governments. Or weaponizing the government.
The House GOP’s effort to rip the lid off what it sees as the “weaponization” of the U.S. government hasn’t exactly gone well. The theories remain thinly constructed. The allegations have often gone well beyond the available evidence or even been contradicted by it. Conservative grumbling about the work product began early on.
The good news is that, to the extent that the House Judiciary Committee’s new “weaponization” subcommittee and Oversight Committee are intent on good-faith efforts to root out examples of the government being turned against political adversaries, there remain some great and still-unexplored targets dating back just a few years — from the Trump administration.
On Friday came merely the latest evidence of President Donald Trump possibly wielding the levers of the government against his foes. The New York Times reported that Trump’s former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly said in a sworn statement that Trump had floated having the IRS investigate two key figures in the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
One hopes the audience will be impartial enough to see the facts for what they are. Or do research on them if they are unsure.
I’ve learned this from studying American reactions to almost every general election presidential debate since 1992. I’ve sat with small groups of voters selected from pools of thousands of undecided voters nationally, watching more than two dozen presidential and vice-presidential debates in real time, and it still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. Yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home.
As the first scheduled debate between President Biden and Mr. Trump unfolds this Thursday, the key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to Americans. Viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective. From Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” in 1980 to Barack Obama emphasizing hope and change in 2008 to Mr. Trump telling Mrs. Clinton in 2016 that she would “be in jail” if he won, I think those key debate moments made a meaningful difference in shaping the opinions of undecided or wavering voters who related to what they heard; I certainly saw it in my focus groups and public opinion research. These moments mattered more than any candidate flub or gaffe.
Opinion | The Little Secret I’ve Learned From 30 Years of Watching Debates With Voters
I’ve studied voter reaction and opinions about every presidential debate since 1992. This is what to do and not to do.
There are a wide variety of lies Trump could accuse Biden of during the debate. I suspect most will be ones Trump is guilty of. Like taking money from foreign governments. Or weaponizing the government.
NEW CONGRESSIONAL REPORT: TRUMP BUSINESSES RECEIVED $7.8 MILLION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY
All the ways Trump, not his foes, sought to ‘weaponize’ the government
The House GOP’s effort to rip the lid off what it sees as the “weaponization” of the U.S. government hasn’t exactly gone well. The theories remain thinly constructed. The allegations have often gone well beyond the available evidence or even been contradicted by it. Conservative grumbling about the work product began early on.
The good news is that, to the extent that the House Judiciary Committee’s new “weaponization” subcommittee and Oversight Committee are intent on good-faith efforts to root out examples of the government being turned against political adversaries, there remain some great and still-unexplored targets dating back just a few years — from the Trump administration.
On Friday came merely the latest evidence of President Donald Trump possibly wielding the levers of the government against his foes. The New York Times reported that Trump’s former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly said in a sworn statement that Trump had floated having the IRS investigate two key figures in the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
One hopes the audience will be impartial enough to see the facts for what they are. Or do research on them if they are unsure.
