Blog

Debates Don’t Matter: The Case for a Presidential Leadership Test
By admin October 16, 2019

So, you made it through the 3-hour Democratic Debate on Tuesday night. Well done. Have some Gatorade to rehydrate. Our guess is you’re now asking yourself this question: Just why do we use debates as a key indicator when determining “Presidential readiness?” Do we really learn anything, especially when you have 12 candidates on stage (each speaking for about a total of 10 minutes)? Do the debates give us any indication as to how the candidate will function when they’re in office? Does a debate give us any insights into a candidate’s capacity as a leader or their management experience? Does it shed light on their crisis management skills and temperament (perhaps the most important quality)? And would you select new employees on the basis of debates?

The answer is a resounding “no”. Debates are useful in understanding a candidate’s framing of certain issues but they are not necessarily all that helpful in judging fitness for the highest office or capacity to do the job. Moreover, voters have not been tuning into debates for some time as indicated in the graph below. So, why do we persist anyway? Is it simply that we have not developed a better tool/system to assess candidates? Or is it sheer routine and laziness? I would suggest that it is a combination.

So, what to do? One idea is to organize a 3-day Presidential Leadership Test @Google HQ, in which all of the candidates are tested on the basis of individual and group-based exercises, including quizzes, initiative tests, crisis simulations and teamwork/ collaboration projects. Furthermore, an independent panel would be enlisted to develop a psychological profile of each candidate. The Presidential Leadership Test could take place during the primaries as well as the general election. The candidates would be assessed by a judging panel comprised of leadership experts from business and academia and the results (free of any bias) would be published on Google for all to see.

The candidates who sign on willingly would obviously bolster their campaigns while those candidates who skip out would have to deal with increased skepticism and scrutiny. The predictable excuses (e.g. “I would love to do it but I need to be on the campaign trail.”) could be easily dismissed at the outset given the short duration of Test. There is no question that we need to improve the candidate assessment beyond debates, voting histories, election platforms, websites and public disclosures. The question is this: Will candidates commit to a better system? So, Google, what do you think? Ready to shake up the system? What about you voters and media companies out there – any thoughts?

For more information on the debates, political analysis and news on of the presidential race, click below:

ATLANTIC
AXIOS
BBC
BUSINESS INSIDER
BUZZFEED
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHICAGO TRIB
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNBC
CNN
DAILY BEAST
DAILY CALLER
DAILY WIRE
ECONOMIST
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES
FOXNEWS
FRANCE 24
HUFFINGTON POST
MARKETWATCH
MEDIAITE
MOTHER JONES
NATION
NATIONAL REVIEW
NBC NEWS
NEW REPUBLIC
NEW YORK
NY TIMES
NY TIMES WIRE
NEW YORKER
NEWSBUSTERS
NEWSMAX
POLITICO
REAL CLEAR POLITICS
REASON
ROLL CALL

#Google #Debates #DemocraticDebate #DNC #DemocraticNationalCommittee #PresidentialDebates #ElizabethWarren #Warren #SenWarren #JoeBiden #VPBiden #Biden #BernieSanders #KamalaHarris #SenHarris #CoryBooker #SenBooker #PeteButtigieg #MayorPete #Buttigieg #Klobuchar #AndrewYang #JulianCastro #TomSteyer #TheBassiouniGroup #TheBassiouniGroupBlog #TBGBlog #CurrentAffairs #News #BreakingNews #CNN #ABC #NBC #CBS


Thanks for sharing !


Comments are disabled.