Some think-tank minds may know proper rhetorics very well - but they also know that it may not necessarily suit individual interests. Once you know principles of proper rhetorics, you may twist or foul the principles to your own advantage, especially if you know human mind well.

Today, the only good opportunity for real debate are televized presidential debates - and boy, those debates are formated to make proper debating very difficult. You "cannot" address the opponent directly, for example. Even worse, the trend is to allow still less time for argumentation, with stiffer restrictions still. Progressive politicians are too submissive in following the rules, both agreed or "unwritten" - while the other side knows very well how to proceed and wait out.

Sure, people have short attention spans and could be annoyed by statistics, pedantic logic. But these pitfalls are overemployed and overstressed, to detiment of progressive politicians. As the "anti-intelectual" culture is being strenghtened continuously, debates are easier to manipulate by those with certain powers.

Progressives need to reverse these trends. You can't do much at once, or openly. Preparatory measures are needed. But the goal must be a more rationality-friendly media. Proper debating principles are out there, but they need to be imposed (at least partially). It may take an ongoing "fight", but the progressives need more weight of rationality.

Making up one-liners and talking points is important, especially now; the progressives should learn and use that reasonably well. But they must feel more comfortable with talking out their arguments properly and fully, and confronting right-wing nonsense directly. The point is to inspire and bring your idea or message to other people - it does not matter much whether you do that following implicitly optimal rules (perceivably "accepted" by everyone), or whether you succeed in a "too brainy" way. You also do not have to convince absolutely everyone.