Table of contents
Child pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
It was not until 1976 that a second series of televised presidential debates was held during the general election campaign season.
At what depth into their reasoning should a candidate dive?
- Explanation: Suppose you have an idea that you want to persuade the audience of (I'll call it "MI" for "Main Idea"). To do this, you want to supply three supporting statements that, when combined, you think make a persuasive case for the MI. Then suppose that you worry that one of those supporting statements may need support or explanation itself. Should you provide support for that statement immediately? Or should you wait until people ask for support for it?
- Check out "Argument Maps" for a good visual example.
- Example:
How much time should a person spend talking about their past / track record?
- It may depend on how you do it.
Keep your comments short
- Presidents should really be training for presidential debates the way MMA fighters train for a fight. Bas Rutten trained twice a day.
- Getting interrupted by the moderator doesn't look good.
- Getting interrupted by other candidates also doesn't look good.
Have someone in the audience to give you live feedback
- It might be useful to have something analogous to a cornerman in boxing / MMA
Don't tell complicated stories
Don't reference things that people won't get
Prepare for questions that ask you about things that you aren't familiar with
- You need to be ready to say, "I'm not familiar with that situation and can't comment on it."
Don't fumble over your words
Don't have such scripted / complicated answers to questions that you'll end up forgetting things
Particular debates
1960 election
1976 election
1992 election
2012 election
Joe Biden is a good debater. A lot of that is probably just because he has been in Congress for so long that he has a really good grasp of the topics.
2016 election
- This is the one that was on CNN, with the Reagan Air Force One in the background.
- The format is a bit messy...candidates are rewarded for butting in, so you end up with a rush of people to try to talk all at the same time.
- My favorites: Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, John Kasich
- John Kasich
- Rand Paul
- He comes across as very intelligent.
- Appearance
- His hair doesn't look good, it looks greasy.
- He also has bags under his eyes.
- Jeb Bush
- I had no idea his wife was Mexican. Honestly that makes him a lot more likable to me, it makes him seem a lot more open-minded.
- Marco Rubio
- He gave a informed answer about what to think about the situation in Syria, immediately after Trump gave a bad answer.
- He gave a really good answer about speaking Spanish to potential voters.
- He was good about not getting interrupted, not speaking too long.
- I'm getting the sense that he must have practiced a lot.
- Ted Cruz
- He comes off as really fake.
- He also also keeps talking.
- Carly Fiorina
- She had a brilliant response (probably the perfect response) to the moderator's question about Trump's comment about "look at that face".
- It was short, so she didn't get interrupted, she was able to speak in a clear, calm way.
- I should really get that quote / video.
- Scott Walker
- "I'm the only one on this stage that ..."
- "I want the people at home to know: if I am Commander in Chief, I will ..."
- "I give you my word, if I'm elected President, ..."
- Mike Huckabee
- "John Kennedy said we'd put a man on the moon within a decade, why can't we ..."
"What would you do right now to deal with the Syria situation?"
- Trump gave a bad answer, empty of any substance. It was clear he didn't have a grasp on the situation.
- Marco Rubio gave a really, really good answer immediately afterwards.
- It made it clear that the way for Trump's challengers to take him down is to get the debate as specific as possible.