Here’s Why I’m a Bad Debate Watcher

Test ticker

Monika Bauerlein,
CEO

Dear Reader,

The next few months are make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising, and we need more online readers to pitch in than have been of late. In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we take a level-headed look at the brutal economics of journalism, why investigative reporting like you get from us matters, and why we're optimistic we can grow our base of support in a big way—starting with hitting a huge $300,000 goal in just three weeks. Please learn more and donate if you can right now.

The next few months are make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising. We need to raise $300,000 quickly, and we need more online readers to pitch in than have been. Please learn more in "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," where we go into the brutal economics of journalism, and what makes Mother Jones unique and worth supporting if you can right now.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Not that anyone cares, but I think I realized tonight why I have such a hard time judging political debates. There are two reasons:

The candidates frequently drift off into mini-stump speeches. When that happens, I tune out. I’ve heard it all before. But for ordinary viewers, this might very well be the part of the debates that makes the most sense to them.
The big “moments” also don’t do much for me. But that’s the stuff that ends up on a 24/7 loop the next day on cable news. By not paying much attention to these highlights, I’m missing out on the things that drive a lot of the post-debate reaction.

This is all in addition to the obvious fact that I react more to policy stuff than to affect and demeanor. Put it all together, and I’m hopelessly out of touch with the common man. Sad but true.