- Messages
- 1,945
This 100%. The first time I recall people making “exceeding low expectations” as the standard for winning a debate was when George W. Bush was running for president (as you mentioned). The Bush campaign had a very sound strategy of talking Gore up as a formidable debater prior to the first debate, despite the fact that Gore had never really earned such a reputation. The Bush campaign painted Bush as the underdog, which is a good way to get people rooting for you. After setting high expectations for Gore and low expectations for Bush, Bush pretty much came out the “winner” based on exceeding people’s expectations, while at the same time Gore didn’t live up to the expectations that the Bush campaign worked to set for him.
We saw it again 8 years later with Sarah Palin. The bar was much lower for her. I don’t think anyone with any level of objectivity thought she won her debate with Biden, but for many, their assessment of her performance was relatively favorable due to her having surpassed extremely low expectations.
Then there came Trump. Outside of those deeply entrenched in his cult, expectations for him could not be lower and he doesn’t disappoint in that regard. As bad as people outside of his cult expect him to be, he is even worse. And he’s so bad, that for many, his performance doesn’t even factor into the equation. The focus is therefore entirely on his opponent and every little detail about the opponent’s debate performance becomes scrutinized. The thought is, “We all know Trump is bad, so we won’t even discuss him, so let’s just talk about [insert name of opponent].”
