I think that framing is a real problem in relaying political information to the public and that if the populace had enough motivation and attention, it would be much more useful to require presidential candidates to put their ideas in an essay with graphs and supporting evidence. Debates just present a fraction of the information and  lead people to weakly supported opinions.

I think it is unfair to cast political scientists as an impractical ivory tower elite. Theory is an important dynamic of any discipline, and political theory is still grounded in a potential application to improve society. There is a limited range of political ideas in practice and I think it is important to have highly specialized  people speculate on novel solutions to problems.

Unlike hard sciences, you cannot repeat an experiment many times with slight modifications to certain variables. Having some kind of model system to test theories is wishful thinking and impossible because of the infinite variables in social situations but it would just be nice to run simulations of certain welfare programs

Beyond finding "Boots are superior to Pushkin" amusing, I think it is important to consider the state of one's basic living conditions on the interpretation of freedom. The article previously acknowledges the many nuances of personal interpretation of freedom. Nobody living in complete squalor will care about analyzing possible restrictions on their freedom when primary needs are not meant.

It is somewhat intuitive that careful modification of language can enhance an argument. We have already seen Frank Luntz use test groups to determine which phrases evoke the greatest sense of emotional reaction and persuasion for republican causes.