DID Thursday’s debate potentially change the lineup? (Shutterstock).

Debates are hard. Ask anyone, especially Joe Biden.

They’re difficult because there are really three opponents: public expectations, the judges (or the press) and the audience (the public).

Presidential debates are not truly debates at all; they are glorified, well-lit arguments that pivot mostly on the intangibles. As John Kennedy proved in 1960 against Richard Nixon, it’s how you look (and sound) that really matters.

As every mass media student knows, voters who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon had done better; the much-larger TV group clapped for JFK, based on a wide variety of factors, including Nixon’s five o’clock shadow and the way he spoke and the color of his jacket (on a black-and-white TV, Nixon’s gray jacket blended into the studio backdrop).

In an academic debate, facts and figures (even those who may be irrelevant) carry the day; in politics it’s all about who can make you feel like he (or she) is somebody you can admire and place confidence in.

That means projecting confidence, but not arrogance. A sense of humor is useful, but the joke better be brief and punchy. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Let’s be frank: On style points; neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden came across well. But Mr. Trump’s brusk manner is liked by his base, while Mr. Biden’s base was, frankly, horrified.

There’s more drama ahead. Biden is not the nominee of his party yet. Would-be “relief pitchers” are lining up – in their imaginations, at least – to come in from the electoral bullpen.

I suspect that Thursday’s debate was not – to paraphrase Winston Churchill – “the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.” 

Many people have said they didn’t want a redo of the last Biden-Trump race in 2020. They may get their wish.