What would it take for you to say that Biden/Trump won the debate?

[Dill]

(09-28-2020, 06:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Tomorrow brings us the first of 3 planned presidential debates between Biden and Trump.

Most of us in here are pretty much decided on who we're going to vote for, correct? And for most, if not all, of us it would take something no one could conceive of to get us to for the other guy, correct?

With that in mind, I got to thinking, since we know who we're voting for and we're all pretty biased, for those of you voting and biased in favor of Biden, what would it take to say that Trump won the debate (and be honest; don't just say "nothing" or some impossible standard)?

And for those of you voting and biased in favor of Trump, what would it take to say that Biden won the debate (and, again, be honest)?

A couple things. First Trump has to 

1. Show that he has a more detailed knowledge of the issues under contention, especially their history as policy. And to

2. Credibly answer charges/objections regarding his actions as president--e.g.--mismanagement of the pandemic response, disruption of the post office, obstruction of justice --with logic and credible counter-factuals ("if I had not done this, then . . .").  I don't mean he would have to convince me that his actions were correct, only that they were good faith efforts to act rationally, to respect data and expert counsel, and to put the national interest above his own.

3. No ad hominem.

Doing 1-2 would require sustained, step by step presentations/answers, remaining on message--NOT meandering from topic to topic via free association, and not vaguely claiming "my health care plan will cover that, and cover it better" promising it will be ready in two weeks rather than explaining how it would actually work, its interface with existing insurance and Medicare. "It will be great--the greatest" won't do. 

That alone might not create a "win" though. Biden would have to do his part:

1. reveal that he has less detailed knowledge of issues, and how government works, than Trump.

2. be unable to competently answer charges/objections regarding his actions as vice-president and candidate--e.g., his role in the '94 crime bill or his supposed firing of a Ukrainian AG to protect his son.  "Incompetency" here includes not only not knowing enough about an issue, but also addressing/deflecting questions actually asked, and being unable to go beyond sound bites.  Laughing and shaking his head at a Trump misstatement or lie will not cut it.

3. pivot to ad hominem when in trouble.

For either candidate, "whattaboutism"* will be a serious negative. By this term I mean an effort to deflect responsibility or change the subject; any reference to past precedents/policies/persons is not whattaboutism if it speaks to the issue at hand (e.g., the way legal precedents illuminate a case in dock). 

"Misstatements" will also subtract points from either candidate, but lies more so.

I (like most Democrats) agreed that Obama lost his first debate with Romney because he did not meet the above standards. I also thought that Biden lost his debate with Paul Ryan, in part for "laughing" and shaking his head at points made rather than actually answering them.

*I know some are still not clear on what "whattaboutism" is.  If I am on trial for hijacking a car, and my defense is "whattabout Philhos? He hijacked a car too and nobody arrested him!" That is whattaboutism. If a prosecutor refers to another carjacker, whose case serves as a precedent for my sentence recommendation, that is not whattaboutism.  If Trump accuses Biden of corruption in Ukraine, and Biden says "Whattabout YOUR corruption in Florida" that is whattaboutism. If Biden explains why what he did in Ukraine was not corruption--i.e., if he answers the charge--then it's not whattaboutism, even if thereafter he pivots to Trump corruption.