I thought Rachel Maddow’s article, “The Triumph of Style Over Substance,” accurately portrayed the debate, not because of her political views, but because of her emphasis on the theatrics of presidential debate. She describes how both candidates are viewed more as actors than as “candidates for the nation’s highest office,” and that citizens often judge them accordingly. Debate “performances” are evaluated based on “who knew their lines and delivered them more effectively.” Especially for undecided voters who may not know very much about each candidate’s stance on key issues, this debate offered very little substance and critical analysis of possible solutions for the problems facing our country. Instead, it was treated as yet another opportunity for the candidates to sell themselves and chase ratings – which is, of course, their ultimate goal, but not at the expense of substance and accuracy in a debate that is supposed to involve citizens in the democratic process.
Article: The Triumph of Style Over Substance