The Debates

Quote: AZDuffman

I get the concept. Perhaps because I am a little older than you and grew up seeing the last remains of a time when neighborhoods had a dominant ethnicity. That part of town was polish, the other part german. We still have one of the densest Jewish areas outside of Israel here. The Catholics joined the Knights of Columbus so it was full of Italians. It is just how it was, so when the same group is in the same school and same churches they get that ethnic pride. How many arenas did Bruno Sammartino sell out because the Italians came to watch him win?

This started weakening by the 1980s as "new" suburbs mixed thing up as well as intermarriage between certain groups. You were in a minority if you were not some Irish-German mix where I grew up, but Italians of full blood remained common. My Irish blood and name got me a few tips when I was a paperboy. I will root for Notre Dame if they are playing.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Tribalism by any other name would still be strength in numbers and association.

I tend to eschew, "Belonging," to any group of any kind. I almost hate to even describe myself as, "Libertarian," but it's the closest thing to being correct. I don't even like to promote causes, even completely inoffensive ones, excepting blood donation.

Blood donation only because I don't understand why anybody who (medically) could donate blood wouldn't do so.

Quote: Mission146

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Tribalism by any other name would still be strength in numbers and association.

I tend to eschew, "Belonging," to any group of any kind. I almost hate to even describe myself as, "Libertarian," but it's the closest thing to being correct. I don't even like to promote causes, even completely inoffensive ones, excepting blood donation.

Blood donation only because I don't understand why anybody who (medically) could donate blood wouldn't do so.

Like I said, you grew up different.

Quote: AZDuffman

Denouncing is easy. Saying it in such a way as to tell the moderator they are being an idiot for asking is harder.

I guess that's true, but Trump has previously demonstrated a penchant for sarcasm. Either way, it's a softball. I think if all he said was, "Yes, I denounce White Supremacy," he literally would have gained votes from people on the fence. For both candidates, (though in different ways) I really do believe the bar is set that ridiculously low. Still couldn't clear it.

Quote:

I agree say what you want. I am saying be very careful where and when you say it as they have a history of violence towards saying All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter.

It won't be the first fight I've won or lost.

Quote:

Bruce Cuttler tried to argue the same thing. The problem is when you use a group for intimidation. Just a few might be the main agitators but they are powerless with that group behind them. Say 1-2 people stop in a small shop and ask for a donation to BLM. When the owner says "no" they allude that everyone in the neighborhood is donating and it would be a good thing. Owner still says no. Next day there is a BLM march and a few random people throw a brick thru the window while the rest chant slogans an bother the customers. The whole group is causing the problem, even if the leaders do not throw the brick.

Without RICO the mafia would still have their control.

You either threw the brick or you didn't. In some cities, The Mafia did kind of an okay job. Them or The Government, horse apiece, in any case. It seems that the police selectively enforce various laws, in some areas, and they don't even necessarily have a financial motive.

Quote:

Not a valid comparison.

How not?

Also valid: I don’t think the notion of BLM is meant to imply that other lives matter less, or not at all.

Quote: Mission146

How not?

Because when he said "I AM BLM" he was making a huge defense of the group while denying their violence and racism. He gave other support for it up and down the line, still denying when BLM did violence. IOW, he did not say he was a member of the group, he said he WAS the group. He said it in such a way as to pledge 100% allegiance.

Then add in "conservative" is not an organized group. BLM is.

Quote: Mission146

Also valid: I don’t think the notion of BLM is meant to imply that other lives matter less, or not at all.

That is what they want you to think. Do they ever demonstrate for anyone else? Or just when something happens to a black?

The ratings for the debate are down 36% over
the ratings for the first debate between Trump
and Hillary. This means that people have made
up their minds who they're voting for and they
could not care less who wins the debate.

Quote: Evenbob

The ratings for the debate are down 36% over
the ratings for the first debate between Trump
and Hillary. This means that people have made
up their minds who they're voting for and they
could not care less who wins the debate.

Yup.

Means Donny did nothing to affect the 7% polling deficit he’s running against Biden.

Or the 23% surplus you think he has. lol!

Rule Changes


It looks like there might be some changes to the rules for the next debates; with the most relevant being that the moderator(s) might be able to kill the microphone if someone is continuously interrupting.

Of course, there's not supposed to BE continuous interrupting in the first place, pursuant to the rules already agreed to for the previous debate. Chris Wallace took a lot of flak for not maintaining control of the debate, but what's he going to do, go up on stage and smack President Trump in the face? Anyway, the microphone-kill thing is probably mostly due to the fact that the rules of the previous debate (that both sides agreed to) stipulated that both sides would begin each question with two uninterrupted minutes to answer.

Anyone watching could acknowledge that the rule was technically broken, multiple times, by both sides...though Donny Boy was the chief rule breaker.

Some seem to be suggesting that Trump would not agree to any new rules, but I'm not certain that is the case. Quite frankly, it's nearly impossible to believe anything from any source. Even then, he agreed to the rules the first time...so who the hell knows? Would you really put it past Trump to saunter over to Biden's podium and just speak into Biden's mic if Trump's is cut off? I'd say there's at least a 1% chance of that. After all, Trump agreed to the rules the first time and broke all of those.

Personally, I think the Commission on Presidential Debates would actually be doing Trump a favor.

My opinion is that this is an even more aggressive version of Trump than we saw in 2016, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. This sort of aggression made sense (in a weird way) that year because many of the Republican candidates---and certainly Hillary Clinton---were not widely perceived as being all that likable.

Compared to Clinton, polling would suggest that Joe Biden has lower unfavorable numbers across the board:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/08/11/biden-trump-clinton-favorability-2020-polling/

But, perhaps most notably, amongst Independents who only score him 31% unfavorable.

In terms of net favorability (disregards neutral) individual polls for Biden range from +9 to -9, but his average is better than -2.

Another thing is Independents (on net) don't seem to think Trump is really doing a good job on anything except the Economy.

Nationally, (irrelevant, I know, but swing states tend to have a higher than average percentage of Independent voters) Biden appears to be leading amongst Independents by about 10 points.

Therefore, Trump should simply stop interrupting and follow the rules. Since he's possibly not capable of doing that because he is a nine-year old, the microphone cut will give the Moderators the option of forcing him to follow the rules...unless he just starts yelling at the top of his lungs (possible).

But, they're doing him a favor. Independents, which Trump is going to need at least some of, currently favor Biden to roughly the same tune (based on polling) that he's favored nationally, overall.

More than that, Biden seems to be slightly net favorable amongst independents. In other words, more people see Biden as a likable person than perhaps they did Clinton.

Because of that, constantly interrupting, insulting and trying to shout down a person that many Independents may think is a, "Nice guy," and would like to hear speak might not be a winning strategy.

Besides, Biden is prone to gaffes. I wouldn't want to stop him from speaking; I'd want to put him in a position where he has to speak as often as possible.

Quote: Mission146

Rule Changes

Someday when I have the time
I might read this wiki entry.
But not today. Never seen
anybody that can go on
and on and on like Mission.

Quote: Evenbob

Quote: Mission146

Rule Changes

Someday when I have the time
I might read this wiki entry.
But not today. Never seen
anybody that can go on
and on and on like Mission.

Rule change---good Trump---should embrace---look better if not interrupt---let Biden screw up by talking.