In the #SCOM342 class that I teach in @JMUSCOM, some of the core points we make about presidential candidate debates are (THREAD):

-The candidates' main target audience is media commentators. Those commentators will (a) reach more people than the debate itself, (b) form the conversation around the debate and its meaning for the campaign and (c) will even shape the views of those who saw it.

-Media commentators strongly dislike analyzing the argumentative quality or truth value of arguments. They strongly prefer addressing the optics, measuring outcomes by worn-out, unsubstantiated cliches ("looking presidential"), and harp on minor gaffes or errors.

-The analysis of commentators is not based on any evidence but on gut feelings, speculations, and with a strong bias to their own perceptions of person-in-the-street views. There is no accountability for their accuracy.

-Tone, behavior, norms, confidence, 'looking presidential' etc. are all apolitical, non-falsifiable points that adhere to commentators and journalists fear of getting into the truth-value of political perspectives.

-Journalists and commentators don't mind influencing elections. They WANT to influence them. But they avoid influencing them on true-value issues, which unfortunately means they make commentary not about truth but about surface level appearance.

That's why the love "gaffes"--they see those as apolitical but also job relevant. Yet, TV and video media means that small things (H.W. Bush watch checking) can be repeated over and over and distract from the actual issue.

In that famous H.W. Bush moment, where he checks his watch, he actually uses a bunch of dubious, quasi-racist stereotypes. YET EVERYONE IS INTERESTED IN THE WATCH CHECK. Show it over and over and you'll ignore that he stereotypes black people extensively.

-Subsequently, our public generally does not actually want debates that consist of arguments. They aren't told they matter, aren't taught about them from a young age, and instead are entirely based on perception. They focus on contrived notions of "presidentialism" and tone.

-This, ironically, disconnects politics from policies. Campaigns, commentators, journalists, and even the people understand politics as purely about image, show, posturing, quipping, etc. instead of about whether the POLICIES--what we elect people to do--matter.

-Non-policy qualities like leadership do matter, of course, but what do terms like 'leadership' mean? Our commentators do not help the audience understand what this might mean and feel little or responsibility to promote positive notions of these terms.

-Very rarely they evaluate the qualification or qualities in any meaningful way. After all, at every essential point, most want to be able to say "Hey, I'm just analyzing how OTHERS might see it" while at same time basically making up how others might see it on the fly.

-Last the whole analysis process is polluted two factors:
(a) Few commentators understand the value of debate for a democracy beyond pieties.
(b) Much of the commentary is done by partisan cheerleaders, making it wholly dishonest and untrustworthy.

Yuck.