I expect they'll be interesting. They'll take place within the context of the zeitgeist, which this cycle means people will be watching for the somewhat intangible signs of personal qualities consistent with an ability to break with recent political history and tone down, if not kill off, the hyperpartisanship. I'd expect a superficial wonkiness, but I suspect that people won't have much patience with it this year. I don't chalk it all up to "intangibles" as you do, in part because you're using "intangible" to imply that unquantifiable forces don't count, but also because I think that the electorate's grown cynical about the promises implicit in proposing programs and solutions during an election campaign. They rarely come to pass anyway, so perhaps the electorate's wise to discount apparent wonkiness as merely a stylistic refinement on the usual empty campaign promises of politicians.

Remember when Republicans made "character" the centerpiece of their electoral rhetoric? That's a pure intangible. It was an attractive weapon when Republicans were out of power with little record to examine, but you notice it's nowhere to be found in this year's debate after eight years of Republicans in power. Republicans know they'll be laughed off the stage if they try that one again.

Your final paragraph hints at something that I've observed in many places, and which I'm sure you'd really rather I didn't draw much attention to, so I'll keep this brief. I think you know which way the wind is blowing, and how the story will turn out this year for Republicans. In that paragraph you're beginning the process of laying the groundwork for a comforting narrative about why Republicans lost (will lose) in November, distilled to its essential message: "The American people are stupid", or its close cousin, "The Democrats fooled the American people".

Ahem. And you call Obama an elitist?