Presidential debates: who stands to gain by participating?

[Saint_Cad]

I predict Trump. He is a much better speaker than Clinton (form not content). And Americans as a whole don’t seem to be interested in content. During one debate McCain had a plan for eliminating earmarks and Obama had no plan but said he would get really smart economic advisors to advise him and Obama won that portion of the debate purely on form - McCain looked like an angry old man and Obama looked presidential although contentwise it was “here’s a plan” vs “I have no plan.”

[Saint_Cad]

@JohnGalt

The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would probably get a bump just by being there (if he’s invited), unless people start hearing how non-mainstream his ideas are.

For the record I support Johnson and Stein being given time at at least one debate no matter if they hit the 15%. Johnson claims the polls used for the 15% cutoff are rigged since they mostly ask only about Clinton and Trump. Anyone know if that’s true?

[wolfpup]

A lot would depend on the so-called “moderators” which are really a panel asking questions. I understand the points about form vs. content but Trump is a total know-nothing and it would be trivial to come up with dozens of important policy questions that he would be completely incapable of even understanding, let alone addressing. His strategy under those conditions is to ignore the question and blather about something he’s comfortable with, so you’d need to have panelists that were firm about “you didn’t answer the question”. And to point out that “I’d appoint someone who understood this stuff” isn’t an answer, either. It would not only expose his ignorance, the moron would probably melt down and attack someone.

[Little_Nemo]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Indeed, Gary Johnson would gain the most if he were allowed to participate. There are a lot of voters wishing for a legit 3rd option. Just getting his name out there would help a lot, but if Johnson could present himself as a sane option, he could get some traction.

Clinton would gain more by a Johnson appearance. If Johnson is in the debates and presents himself as a semi-credible alternative, he’ll draw a lot more votes away from Trump than he will from Clinton.

[oft_wears_hats]

@Saint_Cad

I predict Trump. He is a much better speaker than Clinton (form not content). And Americans as a whole don’t seem to be interested in content. During one debate McCain had a plan for eliminating earmarks and Obama had no plan but said he would get really smart economic advisors to advise him and Obama won that portion of the debate purely on form - McCain looked like an angry old man and Obama looked presidential although contentwise it was “here’s a plan” vs “I have no plan.”

Keep in mind that there’s a large difference between

McCain: Here are the basics of my plan to address this problem.

Obama: I plan to pick highly qualified advisers to address this problem.

and

Clinton: Here are the basics of my plan to address this problem.

Trump: That’s a very interesting question. I said way at the beginning that I was against Obama’s policies, way back when I was still on The Apprentice - I made so much money off that show, you wouldn’t believe it, amazing success, amazing - but Obama’s policies have been a disaster. Total disaster. You know I made over $200 million doing The Apprentice? I remember when we started filming and I came onto the set and everyone applauded. Everyone. They must have been clapping for five straight minutes. Tremendous success.

Moderator: Fifteen seconds, Mr. Trump.

Trump: Of course. Back when I was writing The Art of the Deal - which is the best selling business book of all time, sold tens of millions of copies - back when I was writing it I said to my self–

Moderator: I’m sorry, Mr. Trump but we’re out of time.

Trump: Anyway my plan is to hire the best advisers for that problem. People come up to me and tell me how good I am at picking advisers, they tell me–

Moderator: Secretary Clinton, the next question is…

Hillary might come off as too detailed and stiff perhaps. But I just don’t see Trump’s rambling, self-aggrandizing, stream-of-consciousness blather as winning over many moderates. Obama can say “I don’t know that, but I’m going to appoint people who do” and sound smart doing it. Trump will be lucky if he can stay on topic long enough to actually answer the question, and he’s going to sound like an uninformed snake oil salesman doing it.