General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm apparently a terrible, awful person. [View all]markpkessinger
(8,871 posts)... And I will share with you a point made to me the other day by a good friend. He pointed out something we all know: that these "debates" aren't really debates at all, but elaborate pieces of political theatre. They aren't even about swaying voters. Rather, they are about establishing allegiances. They are an opportunity for a candidate to light a fire under his or her base such that they will be inspired to get out of bed and vote come election day. Let's face it, on that score, at least, Romney scored big, and President Obama didn't.
I would qualify my friend's point in one respect. That is, there are a small number of voters who can and will be persuaded by how candidates perform in these theatrical exercises we have the conceit to call "debates." There is a certain portion of the electorate that will claim to support whichever candidate appears to have the upper hand. "Everybody loves a winner," as they say. Unfortunately, these "fair weather" voters can make a difference in a tight contest. So, whether we like it or not, when it comes to these debates, winning on style is just as important -- maybe even more so -- than winning on substance.