Debates and Their Impact on Voter Perception

Some historians contend that debates generally reinforce existing opinions rather than sway voters. Historical examples include Gore's perceived arrogance through body language and Ford's blunders regarding Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. These instances did little to shift the narratives surrounding the candidates.

However, the 1960 debates are often cited as a pivotal moment when a confident John F. Kennedy outperformed a visibly anxious Richard Nixon. Yet, historians still debate the debates' overall impact on the election and their contribution to establishing television as a key news source.

In the current fragmented media landscape, with both candidates well-known, some argue that the 2024 debates may have even less potential to influence outcomes. While it's simplistic to assume that the "winner" of a debate will automatically secure the presidency, there is a chance that some undecided voters may be influenced by what occurs on stage. Current forecasts suggest that only a handful of votes could determine the election.

Examining the 2016 Debate Dynamics

In 2016, Hillary Clinton held a significant lead over Trump in the polls for much of the election season. During their first two debates, Trump appeared disorganized, often straying from relevant topics. Critics pointed out that he lacked the presidential demeanor needed to attract undecided voters.

However, in the third debate, held on October 19, many observers noted an improvement in Trump's presentation. His responses became more structured and coherent.

From the last debate to the election day on November 8, Trump's national polling numbers increased by 3%, while Clinton's remained stable, only slightly dipping after the FBI's announcement regarding her investigation. In a race decided by a few thousand votes in key states, it seems plausible that Trump's performance in the final debate helped persuade enough voters of his capability to govern.

Analyzing Trump’s Debate Behavior

Observers noted a marked change in Trump's physical demeanor during the third debate. A detailed examination of his movements revealed that he was significantly less fidgety compared to the first two debates, where he averaged 42 movements per minute. This dropped to just 13 movements in the final debate. In contrast, Clinton’s behavior remained consistent.

Trump's actions align with symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), characterized by excessive restlessness and impulsivity. The demands of the debates were consistent, and the substantial reduction in Trump's hyperactivity during the final debate suggests an intentional effort to suppress these behaviors.

Stimulants have been shown to effectively mitigate hyperactivity in individuals with ADHD. When individuals with this condition focus on controlling their movements, they often succeed.

I also assessed verbal coherence, recording logical connections between sentences. Trump's coherence improved significantly from 64% in the first two debates to 85% in the third. Clinton consistently outperformed him across all debates.

A notable observation was Trump's dilated pupils during the third debate. In the earlier debates, his pupils covered only 10–15% of his iris, but expanded to 45–50% during the final debate. This sustained dilation is atypical for an elderly individual and indicative of potential stimulant use.

Recognizing the Signs of Stimulant Use

The most common cause of pupil dilation is low light conditions, but Clinton’s pupils remained unchanged throughout the debates, indicating that lighting was not a factor. Trump's squinting during the third debate further suggested discomfort due to his dilated pupils.

Increased emotional states can cause temporary dilation, but such reactions are brief, not sustained over long periods. Aging diminishes the ability to dilate pupils, making prolonged dilation in older adults a strong indicator of drug influence.

Stimulants known to cause pupil dilation include Adderall, Ritalin, and other amphetamines. Given the observable changes in Trump's presentation, the evidence suggests he may have used stimulants to enhance his performance during the third debate.

The Implications of Stimulant Use in Politics

I conducted a similar analysis of Trump's speeches during his presidency, particularly those deemed significant, such as the State of the Union. His pupils were consistently dilated, he exhibited less hyperactivity, and demonstrated improved coherence compared to less important speeches.

This indicates that Trump may have used stimulants on various occasions during his presidency. Whether this was a conscious decision remains unclear, but the evidence aligns with reports of widespread stimulant access during his time in office.

The perception that Trump's impulsive behavior stems from stimulant use is misleading; in reality, he appears more composed and articulate when using these drugs. Stimulants can be viewed as tools for enhancing performance rather than as a form of cheating.

The public deserves transparency regarding the medications their leaders use and the health conditions they face, not to discriminate but to gain a clearer understanding of who they are selecting for office.

The Debate Over ADHD and Leadership

ADHD should not automatically disqualify a candidate. Many individuals with ADHD possess qualities beneficial for political roles, such as enthusiasm and innovative thinking.

Biden, too, may exhibit traits associated with ADHD, evidenced by his history of gaffes and lengthy speeches. However, without public access to cognitive assessments, discerning the extent to which aging, ADHD, or dementia affect either candidate’s cognitive abilities remains challenging.

Even dementia should not exclude individuals from office, as its progression is gradual, and early detection tests are emerging. Ultimately, cognitive function is more critical than diagnostic labels.

The public should be informed about their leaders' health conditions and treatments. While candidates may not readily share this information, debates provide insight into their current cognitive functioning and potential stimulant use, which could be revealing.