On Thursday night, comedian Chris Gethard watched the first G.O.P. debate of the 2016 presidential election—not as someone evaluating the political viewpoints of the candidates, but as an improv teacher watching a freshman class of would-be performers and judging them accordingly.

Gethard, the host of The Chris Gethard show on Fusion and a veteran instructor at New York’s Upright Citizen’s Brigade Theater, quickly realized that the debate had two broad things in common with improv: “Way too many white dudes, and sycophantic cheering.” But, more important, he deduced that each of the men fell into a specific archetype of improv performer and was even able to determine which candidates would be good at improv, and which would be terrible.

Donald Trump

“Donald Trump would not be good at improv, but he would bring down the house. He wouldn’t listen to his scene partners very well and he’d talk over other people to get his own ideas out. That being said, he’d ultimately be an asset in class because he’d be unapologetically funny.”

Improv class archetype: “The guy you kind of hated in your class because he was a steamroller, then he’d get on a house team and you’d be pissed more thoughtful people were passed over for him, then he’d be the first guy from his generation to get a commercial agent and you’d be pissed. Then, like, a year later you’d be more secure and you’d see him perform and you’d be like, ‘Technically he’s not polished, but I can’t deny that he’s fucking funny.’”

Would he be a good improviser? “He’s just on the good side of yes. Like 51 percent good and 49 percent bad.”

Rand Paul

“One of those whiny, know-it-alls who huffs and puffs when you give him notes on his scene work. Definitely leans into arguments way too much for improv scenes to move forward, and thinks fights are funny instead of counterproductive. Ultimately, he’d either quit improv or move to a city like Canton, Ohio, and be a bull in a china shop in their local scene, holding it over everyone’s head that he took two classes at U.C.B., even though those people would have no idea that he was given like C grades by his teachers.”

Archetype: “Kid who was the best one in his shitty semi-misogynistic improv group in college who loudly proclaims he’s going to be on Saturday Night Live someday in week two of his level-one class.”

Would he be a good improviser? “Nope.”

Dr. Ben Carson

“Vague and wishy-washy with his ideas. Needs firm initiations. It would be very hard for his scene partners to say ‘yes, and’ to his ideas because he’s hesitant and unclear coming out of the gate with them. My guess is that he’s a guy who would send me a late-night Facebook message asking for harder notes, but by the end of the message it weirdly gets into details of his personal life I don’t want to know.”

Archetype: “Dude who stops coming six weeks into an eight-week class. Other students do bits about him until they get to level three and forget about him.”

Would he be a good improviser? “No.”

Marco Rubio

“He’s good at playing himself, but needs to expand his range of emotions and characters. He’d be the guy who thought about his initiation in full before he started the scene, then if his scene partner didn’t react how he predicted, he’d have no idea where to go from there. Might be good if he could roll with a crew that could get him drunk and loosen him the fuck up.”