What are we to make of the year’s first presidential debate? Listen in as John R. Hibbing, Jonathan Weiler and I discuss this question and others surrounding the 2020 presidential race. Hibbing is a Foundation Regents University Professor of political history and psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He’s been a Guggenheim Fellow, a NATO Fellow and a Senior Fulbright Fellow. He is the author of Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences (Routledge, 2014). Weiler is the director of undergraduate studies and a professor of global studies at the University of North Carolina. He is the author of Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018) Topics covered in this episode include: • How well did Donald Trump and Joe Biden each do respectively in attracting undecided voters, who might slightly favor either a liberal/fluid or conservative/fixed innate perspective. • The role of disgust in affirming a fixed perspective, given Trump emoting 10x as much disgust as Biden in this debate. • What are the prospects, if any, for the two sides to reconcile in an election that could be decided by the Supreme Court, Congress, or in a matter of speaking through the Street in the form of protests and militia-style violence. Dan Hill, PhD, is the author of eight books and leads Sensory Logic, Inc. (https://www.sensorylogic.com). To check out his “Dan Hill’s EQ Spotlight” blog, visit https://emotionswizard.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related