With Trump’s disastrous performance in the first debate (and likely in the next two debates to come as well,) and also Trump’s ignorance of the world and many things in general, I would like to pose the hypothetical of how well the average American college graduate would fare in a presidential debate against the Donald. No master’s degrees, no PhDs; bachelor’s-level only. Any major or field of study. And we’ll say that Hillary was swapped out for this college grad on several months’ notice, giving the graduate plenty of time to prepare to go up against the Donald in front of a television audience of 50 million.
Probably Trump actually. I don’t think that the average college graduate has any more ability to pay attention to debate prep than the Don does, nor any more knowledge of national or international affairs. On the other hand, Trump has much more experience in public speaking and much more charisma.
The thing about perceived lightweights in the political sphere like, Quale, GW Bush, Palin and Trump, isn’t that they are incompetent relative to the average person, its that given the high office they are pursuing we expect them to be among the 0.01% of potential applicants. They are smarter than the average Joe, but the average Joe isn’t usually running for president.
I think the average college grad, prepared and studied, would smoke Donald on basic knowledge and presentation of the issues. Would the public perceive that as a win? Probably not. Donald would bully and interrupt as usual and depending on how many zingers he got in, the public might perceive him to be the winner.
I watched a college debate championship video and I couldn’t make out a single coherent train of thought the hyperventilating people were trying to say. Even Trump can do better than that.
That’s not really the same thing. Competitive debating has its own set of rules and customs which are not geared toward “convince the average person you’re right”.
I think Trump wins against a randomly-selected college graduate. Being effective in the presidential debates is about more than simply delivering a cogent argument, in the same way that being a trial lawyer in a jury trial is about much more than devising and presenting a legal argument.
Trump wins. Trump has real-world experience and has gone nose-to-nose with hundreds (thousands?) of businessmen, union leaders, and politicians who have had much more on the line than getting a passing grade from a (possibly biased?) history professor.
On a side note, over the years I’ve had three discussions with senior college students who argued that George Washington was not the 1st President of the U.S.A… Three students from three different universities. And they had all passed their history classes without actually knowing U.S. history. Amazing and sad at the same time.
A political science major from a top college could smoke him. A basket weaving major from Party U, not so much.
But the average college grad from a good college could focus a lot better than Trump. The article in the Times today on preparations for the next debate said that a problem with the last one was that Trump couldn’t stay focused, spent valuable time with Ailes chewing the fat, and got tons of contradictory advice. His ghost writer for Art of the Deal also said that he couldn’t focus for even five minutes.
Now, you could really defeat him by getting a smart hot co-ed.
Were they thinking of John Hanson, who was the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled (Articles of Confederation)? Or of the fourteen presidents of the Continental Congress? Some people overthink things.
Not that I don’t think it’s possible to find people who just don’t know.
You know who had a bachelor’s degree in PoliSci? John Kasich, who picked up all kinds of debate experience to spend eighteen years serving in Congress before he got himself elected Governor. And who else had a bachelor’s degree in PoliSci? Marco Rubio, who went to law school before debating against people who stood between him and the state legislature, and then the US Senate. And then there was Ted Cruz.
I think there is too much variance in the category “average college graduate” to make a reasonable prediction. As somebody above posted, a pretty decent political science graduate could do well. Probably history major. But how about some poor computer scientist? Well, maybe, it depends on how well informed they are. A lot will come down to their ability to communicate orally and that’s not something predicted so well by just being an average college graduate. Overall though, if we assume a reasonably well informed graduate who is fairly comfortable speaking in front of millions of people, it is probably a slight edge to the graduate because I think Trump’s inner dialogue hurts him.
If you announced a snap debate tomorrow between one of the better SDMB members and pretty much any politician, no prep or coaching beforehand, most Dopers would wipe the floor with politicians. Politicians don’t succeed by knowing things, they succeed by memorizing their lines. That’s why actor is such a good preparation for the job, but scientist is not. and the people who actually know stuff about foreign relations and domestic issues don’t run for office, they run things FOR the people who run for office. And a rather high percentage of the people doing the real policy work are under 40.
Try it yourself. Intercept a politician on the way to some event and ask him questions having nothing to do with what he’s been prepared for. He won’t know shit, guaranteed. Film it. Others have.
When comics have canned put downs for hecklers, it doesn’t mean they are not funny. Sometimes it makes sense to prepare answers in advance. Sometimes giving the politically expedient answer doesn’t mean you don’t know the real answer.
Obama and Bush Sr. knew their stuff. Sarah Palin didn’t.
As for winning, a lot depends on charisma also. Nixon knew at least as much as JFK. People listening to their debates on the radio thought Nixon won. But on TV JFK came across as much cooler.
It doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t know, but much as an actor can play a genius convincingly, most of them aren’t. Same with politicians. A politician’s preparedness in debate is directly proportional to the quality of their staff, not necessarily the quality of the candidate’s mind. Take two Congressmen, give one of them a Presidential staff and the other a mere Congressional staff and guess who is going to win that debate?
Now if the public already knew how ignorant these folks were, and that decisions were made basically by getting a crash course in the issue they had to make a decision about, that would be one thing. But most people seem to think that they sound informed because they actually have a deep understanding of issues from years of experience, which is usually not the case. We talk about this stuff because we’re interested in it. Most politicians aren’t interested in any of this, it’s the art of politics rather than the substance of governing that interests them, and those that rise to the top master the art of politics first and foremost. None of these guys come up as experts in any particular field, they came up by building the right relationships, meeting the right people.
Now Clinton’s an outlier, she’s actually that smart and her husband is too. I’ve listened to wide ranging interviews with both of them on stuff they could not possibly have been coached on and they do very well. Trump is the opposite extreme, doesn’t know anything, doesn’t care. Any Doper would smoke him in a debate, although I don’t know about an average college educated American, since many or even most Americans go to college for the credential rather than the education and regard the things they learn as stuff they need just to get past the next exam or paper. The “cram” culture is pretty much the norm among successful people who aren’t in the hard sciences or who don’t have a passion for learning. Politicians especially have made an art form of learning the Cliff Notes of issues. Matt Yglesias actually wrote a great article about it not that long ago:
Needless to say, this is not a recipe for taking on a denizen of this board and winning.
I am reminded of Sarah Palin’s infamous “How was your day, Governor?” word-salad response. Ye gods, that was bad.
If the recent debate has influenced my opinions of the candidates at all it has reinforced the view that Clinton, while a stilted speaker, is a serious workhorse who came prepared with facts, figures, strategies, defences and the odd zinger (although I think we all agree “trumped-up trickle-down” was a major dud). Conversely, Trump either thought he could wing it or otherwise failed to prepare for and against some fairly obvious attacks, and paid the price for it.
This doesn’t mean your average college debate champ would win against Trump - presentation and preparation are key - but he or she could certainly land a few blows.
Well, Trump himself is an above average college graduate so I’d say the answer to the OP is simply “no”. Trump may not have been prepared, but he knows business and was comfortable talking about business and how public policy affected business. But that was the extent of his knowledge. Your typical pyschology major wouldn’t really even show that much knowledge.
I’m not even sure you can acquire knowledge of political issues in college. EVen political science doesn’t really cover much that would get you through a debate.
Well, if your average college grad had not just the time but also the Clinton team to do debate prep with them AND was reasonably competent at public speaking, there’d be a decent chance of coming out ahead. Your average college grad prepping themselves - not much chance at all.
If Gary Johnson had Clinton’s staff he’d not only easily beat Trump, but wouldn’t be coming up blank every time someone asks him about something foreign policy related.
