1/ A lot of people seem to think there is something wrong with this sort of analysis*, but it seems like the only important thing to me. https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1194830580896145408

2/ * I say “this sort of analysis” because I’m not taking a view on whether it’s right that the hearings *did* fail to capture public attention. Just that this is the right question to ask.

3/ Whatever Democrats’ goals are here—whether it’s the slim chance of conviction and removal or the much more plausible goal of affecting the 2020 outcomes—the only way they’ll accomplish them is by moving the public.

4/ This is orthogonal to the question of whether the point Democrats are making is true. The truth needs to be performed effectively to be believed, too.

5/ It would be political malpractice for Democrats not to think carefully about how to stage the hearings to move the public. And so it is perfectly acceptable as analysis of the hearings to ask whether they are thus far succeeding in that.

6/ I should add (consistent with point 2) that maybe “pizzaz” is the wrong way to think about effective public performance here. Maybe what will best move the public is the performance of sobriety and seriousness. I’m not entirely sure.

7/ But asking what sort of performance would be most effective with the public is the right question to be asking here.

8/ I should also add that one reason to do closed depositions before open hearings is so that you can effectively stage the open hearings. If Dems are smart, they’re thinking in terms of dramatic arc, which would perhaps suggest that day 1 fireworks would’ve been inappropriate.

9/ Anyway, at some point I probably should post my “Congressional Overspeech” paper on SSRN. Thank you for coming to my tweet talk.