= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jobe_smith comments on How big of an impact would cleaner political debates have on society? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (85)
Seems reasonable for general elections but what about primaries? A lot of people changed their mind about Rick Perry after his debate performances in the 2012 republican primaries. If better debates during the primaries produced better candidates from both parties, that seems like it would be a win.
This is a good point. My argument is kind of specific to high-profile elections with very-well-defined tribes.
But was that because of substantive policy issues, or was it because of Perry's lack of public speaking skills?
I think it was more a perception of a general lack of competence on the part of Perry during the debate then either one of those things.
People aren't just voting on the issue, at least not for president; trying to find someone who will intelligently and competently run a large bureaucracy and make decisions about new issues and foreign affairs on the fly is probably just as important. If someone seems like they're not competent enough to do the job properly, then that seems like a rational reason to vote against them.
(Now, if Perry is actually incompetent or if he just came across that way is an issue that could be debated, but I think it's a rational thing for voters to consider.)