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.)
See this Newsroom clip.
Basically, their news network is trying to change the way political debates work by having the moderator force the candidates to answer the questions that are asked of them, not interrupt each other, justify arguments that are based on obvious falsehoods etc.
How big of a positive impact do you guys think that this would have on society?
My initial thoughts are that it would be huge. It would lead to better politicians, which would be a high level of action. The positive effects would trickle down into many aspects of our society.
The question then becomes, "can we make this happen?". I don't see a way right now, but the idea has enough upside to me that I keep it in the back of my mind in case I come up with a plausible way of implementing the change.
Thoughts?