We've asked John Dickerson for a look ahead.

我們請約翰-迪克森展望未來。

Presidential campaigns are sometimes compared to a job interview.

總統競選有時被比作求職面試。

Voters or the hiring committee debates the in-person office visit, but we already know Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

選民或招聘委員會對親自到辦公室拜訪進行了辯論，但我們已經認識了喬-拜登和唐納德-特朗普。

To learn whether they will protect the Constitution, how they manage a crisis, or whether they have the character and temperament, we can look to their records in the office of the job that they want.

要了解他們是否會保護憲法、如何處理危機，或者他們是否具有這樣的品格和氣質，我們可以看看他們在自己想要的職位上的工作記錄。

So what is the point of this debate? First, debates showcase the job seekers' performance skills, presidential bearing, warmth, and command.

那麼，這場辯論有什麼意義呢？首先，辯論會展示了求職者的表演技巧、總統風範、熱情和指揮能力。

Even though we've seen these two perform a lot, it's a chance for candidates to reverse the stylistic misimpressions among voters who haven't paid much attention.

儘管這兩位的表現我們已經見怪不怪了，但對候選人來說，這也是一個機會，可以扭轉那些不太關注的選民在風格上的錯誤印象。

Plus, the context changes in a presidency.

此外，總統任期的背景也會發生變化。

Ronald Reagan was a well-known incumbent in 1984, but at 73 years old, he was asked about his age, a concern voters tell pollsters they have about the 81-year-old Joe Biden. "I will not make age an issue of this campaign.

羅納德-里根（Ronald Reagan）是1984年眾所周知的現任總統，但73歲的他被問及年齡問題時，選民告訴民調機構，他們對81歲的喬-拜登（Joe Biden）也有這樣的擔憂。"我不會把年齡作為這次競選的一個問題。

I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." The canned one-liner showed Reagan could navigate the shifting public sentiment he faced in office.

我不會為了政治目的而利用對手的年輕和缺乏經驗"。這句話表明，里根能夠駕馭他在任期間所面臨的不斷變化的公眾情緒。

On substance, this debate can illuminate not just what these candidates believe, but what's at the core of those beliefs.

就實質而言，這場辯論不僅能闡明這些候選人的信念，還能闡明這些信念的核心是什麼。

Circumstances will change when they're in office.

他們上臺後，情況就會發生變化。

What hard wiring will guide them?

有什麼硬線路可以引導他們？

What values will guide them as they use the power that they've been given?

當他們使用被賦予的權力時，將以什麼樣的價值觀為指導？

Will any? Every candidate's nightmare?

有嗎？每個候選人的噩夢？

The gaffe that becomes the story.

口誤成了故事。

Like Ford's claim in 1976. "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." The Soviets did dominate Eastern Europe. "I don't believe that the polls..." Ford seemed out of it and repeated himself, insisting on something that was not so. They rigged the presidential election of 2020.

比如福特在1976年聲稱"東歐不存在蘇聯的統治 在福特執政期間也永遠不會存在"蘇聯確實統治了東歐"我不相信民意調查......"福特似乎語塞了，又重複了一遍，堅持自己的觀點，但事實並非如此。他們操縱了2020年的總統選舉。

Donald Trump also insists on something that is not so, that he won the 2020 election, which he lost.

唐納德-特朗普還堅持說，他贏得了 2020 年大選，但他輸了。

Not a gaffe, but a lie.

不是口誤，而是謊言。

Top Republicans in the House and Senate said that lie led to a violent attempt to block the will of the people.

眾議院和參議院的共和黨高層表示，這一謊言導致了以暴力手段阻撓人民意願的企圖。

Trump still tells this lie.

特朗普仍在撒這個謊。

Can you have a debate built on reason to measure reason when a candidate insists on something beyond reason?

當候選人堅持一些超出理性的東西時，你還能進行建立在理性基礎上的辯論來衡量理性嗎？

The analogy collapses.

這個比喻就不成立了。

Not an interview anymore, but a hostile takeover, where the majority of the hiring committee is pushed out of the room.

不再是面試，而是敵意收購，招聘委員會的大多數成員都被擠出了房間。