Trump/Biden 2020 Presidential Debate #1 Discussion Thread
This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.
Watch on YouTube
Other viewing options
Debate starts ~10 minutes from the time of this posting.
Info from The Washington Post:
Location: Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. (This was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame withdrew, saying the fact that it would have to limit student attendance and volunteer opportunities because of the pandemic erased the reason to host a debate at the university.)
Moderator: Chris Wallace, anchor of “Fox News Sunday”
Details: The debate will be 90 minutes long and have no commercial breaks. There will be no opening statements. Wallace will dive right in with the first question to Trump. It will be divided into six 15-minute segments that Wallace has chosen. They are:
- the Trump and Biden records
- the Supreme Court
- the coronavirus pandemic
- the economy
- race and violence in cities
- the integrity of the election
Trump flat out refused to condemn white supremacists. He was given the opportunity outright, twice, and he wouldn't do it.
There has been a whole lot of noise in this debate, but that moment should stand out as a point of clarity. Trump, when speaking to the nation, would not oppose white supremacists, even when directly asked, and even when pushed.
I'm not going to lie, I laughed my butt off when Biden and the moderator said "Do it then" and he just pursed his lips, but that's a dark moment.
I don't have the exact quote handy from this debate right now, but it'll no doubt be in transcripts and recap clips going up soon. When it does, compare his language in the debate here to his various refusals to condemn well-known white supremacist and former KKK grand wizard David Duke. This is not a one-off for him.
EDIT: The Proud Boys have already adopted his statement.
And somehow both Biden and Chris Wallace let that moment just roll by.
I assume he mentioned Big 10 football to appeal to the midwest.
Didn't work for this Midwesterner. We're pretty annoyed with how some of the Big10 schools are handling COVID as is. The announcement they were actually going to have a season, even if only on TV, was not warmly received by many.
Well I'm glad! I'm a CFB fan, so I've been following the situation closely and about lost it when he mentioned the Big 10. I think Trump greatly overestimates how important CFB is to midwesterners with that comment. I've gone to school and lived in the midwest (Ohio) as well as various states in the southeast, and although there were plenty of OSU football fans around me up north, the fervor and ingrained culture wasn't at the same level.
I was hoping to have an undefeated season, as a Purdue fan.
Why isn't that the default for presidential debates? Turn off all other microphones while one person is speaking.
Even if there's a valid reason for it not being the default, they should have learned after the first debate in 2016 that they need to do it whenever Trump is on stage.
(Actually I suspect the reason is that a civil debate would be less entertaining and thus less profitable for the TV channels airing the debates.)
Well said. The debate really highlighted just how much bad faith tactics erode any genuine discussion. It was basically an in-person version of the internet bickering that's now commonplace enough that it's able to masquerade as the standard form of discourse. Wallace, as the fraught moderator attempting to maintain impartial order while also subject to very partial public scrutiny, is also an analog for anyone who's ever tried to put out those fires.
It’s at least possible that the problem is democracy itself. Look at switzerland. Successful, pluralistic societybwith generally closed governance.
Switzerland is only plural among the groups codified into the governing system. But it is emphatically not pluralistic in the way the US is, with a total mish-mash of immigrant groups and subcultures from all over. Swiss immigration restrictions are extremely strict and, in some cantons, you need to be approved by an actual community assembly. In some cases, they even have a requirement that you go through some number of years in the Swiss school system. There was news recently when they removed the rule that meant Swiss women marrying foreigners would lose their citizenship.
Which makes me wonder. If back in the beginning when Trump was making a circus of the Republican debates they had thrown him off stage for not behaving himself, we would be in this position at all.
The last 4 years have shown me how true this is for pretty much the entirety of US Politics.
My one major hope right now is that the voters are waking up, make their voice heard in November, and then we're able to actually put some rules in, instead of just counting on politicians good faith.
Record numbers of voters are making their voice heard already through early voting! I'll be joining them on October 14th. Definitely a positive piece of news to take from the last week.
Same! Early voting starts October 15th. I watched the debate with my partner last night who's less politically engaged than me and as soon as it ended she asked "When do we get to vote again?" I'm hoping other people felt the same way!
I can't freaking wait! Early voting is so legit. Although I live in a deep red southeastern state, we have surprisingly democratic voting laws. Two full weeks of early voting prior to every election day going Monday-Saturday with a bunch of locations and one very convenient to me that has me there and back home in 15-20 mins. There are a lot more on the actual election day and one within 2 blocks of my house. I would usually go the first Saturday morning so we could vote as a family (my son loves a sticker), but my wife and I just felt compelled to go as soon as possible. And all the campaigns coming out and urging people to do that in recent weeks reinforced the decision. I want to help us keep breaking early voting records too!
Don't worry, plenty of Trump supports complaining online about him being biased against Trump anyway.
I don't know. I like to at least try to be sort of moderate in terms of how I get my news. I'll check out /r/conservative sometimes just to see what they're saying and just leave upset. They're not discussing policy or anything, just fawning over Trump and attacking anyone on the left.
Tinfoil (not really): Yeah, they want the debates to be a mess so both sides can get their sound bytes and tweet their favorite clips. Everyone thinks their guy won.
Idiocracy was prophetic.
I wish you had moderated.
EDIT: In hindsight, this was unfair to Wallace, who I think did the best he could in the moment, and who probably didn't even have muting capabilities anyway. Still, I think you, Loire, have qualities that would suit you well for a role like that.
Commission on Presidential Debates vows 'additional structure' to prevent repeat of Tuesday night's fiasco
This probably won't be very popular, but I gotta' wonder. Why are people watching something like this? Are they trying to become "more informed" about issues and the candidates? Everyone knows what Trump is like. The false pretence of a "debate" needing to be had to determine candidate viability and policy pales in comparison to just how much of a sleazy, gross, failed businessman and lying pseudo-dictator Donald J. Trump has been exposed as for the past several years.
I would imagine a lot of people's minds are already made up, and they're either on the teflon-Trump-train/want to own the libs or they're so fundamentally disgusted by this caricature of a human that they're voting for literally anyone else.
Televised debates seem like a relic of ye olde' times where civil discourse actually mattered and the factualness of statements was important—even Romney v. Obama in 2012 feels almost quaint in comparison. All holding debates does is to try and shallowly reinforce a false impression that the increasingly-failed democracy of the United States is still intact. It isn't, and it's frankly embarrassing.
Morbid curiosity. It's like watching a train wreck, only I'm stuck on the train.
It's my homework.
My sympathies. I got 20 minutes in and couldn't take any more of it. Make sure to bill your teacher/homework assigner for the healthcare costs of any heart attacks you may have in the future as a result of this.
There's actually a significant amount of the populace that is undecided. 538 put it at 5-6% of the vote is up for grabs still (and not planning on voting for 3rd parties). 5-6% is like twice the margin of the usual presidential victory.
I honestly do feel like I'm living in a separate world. Because in my own "bubble"—which consists of primarily international news, a few U.S. news outlets like The Atlantic, NYT, Five Thirty Eight, and LA times, a handful of podcasts, and of course Twitter (yes, yes)—I cannot possibly imagine any meaningfully large proportion of voters being "undecided". Who the fuck, after four years of what this person has done, can possibly be a swing voter here? How low-information are these people? Why is an election being decided by low-information people?
Our regularly scheduled, national news bulletins quite literally make fun of Donald Trump. Americans should feel genuinely embarrassed that this citrus golem holds the highest office in their land.
Perhaps all of this speaks to my own mistaken assumptions more, because all I can see is two very clear, and very inflexible camps, and lots of polling that shows DJT has perhaps one of the most rigid and unchanging approval-disapproval ratings of almost any president in modern history, which to me indicates nothing but a high degree of ideological partisanship. Televised debates feel like a veneer over the inciteful hatred both sides now have for each other.
Apologies for the—probably misguided—rant.
If you’re interacting with people who think about or talk about politics at all outside of a few months ahead of an election, you’re already in pretty weird territory.
Most people simply do not care. Trump is an outlier in the extent to which he forces people to pay attention by being terrible. But it’s still not surprising that 6% of people wouldn’t know enough to have a real opinion.
Also lots of people are undecided because they’re cross pressured. The first guy CNN interviewed on their panel of undecided voters was a Black police officer. Talk about conflicting priorities!
So I don't mean to sound facetious, but how would that guy have conflicting priorities?
Either he votes for the guy who might beat the literal white supremacist or he doesn't. Surely there's no possible way a person of colour could support Trump, no matter what their job is. Dude might be a cop now but he's been black his whole life. I'm not 100% up on Biden's platform but I'm fairly sure it doesn't involve doing away with the police force.
While Black voters overwhelmingly support Biden, Trump still has 5% or 6% of the Black vote supporting him. That's at least 2 million people! They must see something in him I guess.
Once you get into low single-digit percentages on any survey you have to assume it includes the crazy, the confused, and trolls. I am reminded of Scott Alexander's blog post estimating that Lizardman's Constant is 4%.
I suspect the troll contingent is higher these days.
As long as you remember to prioritize your own sanity. Years ago my brother was in the habit of visiting Stormfront for essentially the same reason... probably too often for his own health. I watched as he grew more and more cynical and hostile, and trust, for me to call someone cynical takes some doing. The more you "keep track" of the toxic elements, the harder it is to recognize the goodness there is left in the world and even in those same people. There is still quite a bit, despite appearances.
It’s scary what they believe. They intertwine religion with politics often, creating a “faith” with their elects. They’re always “chosen by God”. This all despite Trump probably literally being one of the least religious Presidents this country has ever seen.
Another good reason for not unfollowing them is that they're a good deterrent to using social media entirely. Negative reinforcement.
A fair share od trumps non-wealthy (>$1m), non franklin graham supporters are not true partisans, I suspect. I think instead they are depressed and hopeless, feel nobody understands nor has any meaningful way to address their concerns. Trump does nothing to help them, but at least he makes all the people they are jealous of (upper middle class in the us) squirm and sweat, and in some cases, economically suffer.
Who knew it was going to be such a cluster fuck?
You are thinking about swing voters. Who don't pay attention. There are also voters who may or may not bother to turn up. That is why attack politics is so effective. You can be interested enough to tune in, but can lose interest in turning up on the day.
America has been sick for a while. Germany became a stronger democracy, because of Hitler. The world did. Trump isn't anywhere close to Hitler, but Trump might actually make democracy stronger. Haven't you noticed less tolerance for blatant bullshit in New Zealand politics? I wonder if Boris Johnson would even have a chance after this debate.
Trump sure made me about 1000% more politically involved. I think he is having that effect for people who have been generally apathetic voters before he took office (me).
Anybody who's been paying attention the last ~5 years.
Debates have always been a bit of a circus, but recently the clowncar has been running the show and not the ringmaster.
The similarities are deeper than you'd think. I can't find the article, but their underlying psychology is likely similar as well. They didn't see themselves as evil, but their immaturity and insecurity fostered evil things.
I've certainly been paying attention the last five years and this was still worse than I thought it would be. Trump was about on par with my expectations, though I am still reeling from the lack of white supremacy condemnation, and was surprised by the number of personal attacks he made on Biden. And Biden just lacked the edge I want to see in a president. It wasn't even a debate. Biden just answered some questions while Trump made ridiculous off-hand comments in the background. I really thought it would go a least a bit better than it did.
The debate with Hillary was nothing close to this one, this debate was shockingly bad.
I've heard it argued that losing the Presidency is basically an existential threat to him. Without the power of the office and the executive privilege it provides, he has no protection from prosecution for any of his financial crimes. Not as President nor prior to taking the Presidency. So he's likely quite a bit angrier and more desperate now than he was in 2016, when his only goal was to post a strong enough showing to run his own grifty right-wing media station after losing.
Maybe a good argument for promising a full pardon should Biden win?
Absolutely not. I can think of no worse precedent to set than to insist there should be a bipartisan consensus that the President gets to be irredeemably corrupt and above the law.
Wasn’t that precedent already set with Nixon? Possibly Reagan too...
With Nixon it was at least the same party, so history has largely chalked it up as an act of political corruption that shouldn't be repeated. We just ignore it because, as a culture, America prefers to 'move on' from painful things rather than resolving them or having any sort of reckoning/reconciliation.
Also GWB, et al.
Hmm... I'm seeing a pattern, here.
If it lessens the risk of some Civil War type situation then I think that's a sacrifice worth making. People > ideals.
The reason we're in the mess we're in is because this sort of criminal behavior went under prosecuted for too long.
We're in for Troubles whether Trump is pardoned or not. In fact, letting him run around continuing to flagrantly violate the law and rile up insurrectionists makes that risk higher, not lower.
There would absolutely not be a civil war if Trump were brought to charges. In this hypothetical situation, once he's out of power the majority of his supporters shrug their shoulders and go about their day. As bad as things may seem, now...they're certainly not that bad.
There would be political ramifications, though. New presidents don't like to take former presidents to task for the precedent it may set and the political backlash that may entail.
an aside.
do you think the actual Civil War should not have been fought, as the human cost was too much and not worth the ideals that were ostensibly (freedom for slaves) being fought for?
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Many of the White Nationalist militia types, and their more 'normie' suburban sympathizers, voted for Trump as a last ditch effort to turn back the ascendant liberal cultural forces. They aren't going to stop being riled up when Trump is gone, if anything oncoming Federal crackdowns will make them lash out again they way they did against Obama. Remember the Bundy Standoff? Or even going back to the '90s, with the Oklahoma City Bombing and Waco.
A civil war today wouldn't look like the 1800s. It would look like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And it's unavoidable. It's going to happen whether Trump wins or loses, but Trump winning or losing will determine who comes out on top of it and how violent the outcome gets.
I wonder, would the democrats go after him? Even if Trump remains a divisive figure, I can't imagine the democrats have the cojones to rile up the right wing base.
Perhaps Trump simply hates the idea of losing.
That's a pretty bold statement to make and I would argue that this doesn't line up very well with history. Not long after WWII ended, Germany was quite literally divided in two through the construction of the Berlin wall, with those on the eastern side of the wall falling under the close surveillance of the Stasi, all because of the Cold War. That wall divided the population until 1989 and was fully demolished around the end of 1991. That's a decades-long period after the war ended that German democracy still was not truly established. The end of the war simply traded one form of oppressive government for another. A stronger democracy didn't come until much later after both of those governments were removed from power.
Democracy doesn't strengthen because of oppressive governments. It becomes further and further eroded until enough people get sick of it that they force those governments out of power and hopefully establish non-corrupt governments in their place. Then democracy is restored, either in a better or worse state than it was before, and the people engage in it actively while those memories of oppression are fresh until a collective apathy inevitably takes over and the cycle of democracy's rise and fall repeats itself.
Germany's democracy seems strong now because their wounds are still fresh. Give it enough time and it's almost a certainty that they will also be facing issues with their government once again. Perhaps not to the extent that they experience yet another Hitler or GDR, as ideally living under such oppressive governments teaches valuable lessons in how they might avoid such a repeat, but they will almost certainly have their own version of Trump or Boris later down the line.
I think we are saying the same thing
Most of humanities worst behavior is a result of thinking that you are in the right, and everyone else is wrong.
There is this wonderful moment in Falling Down where Michael Douglas asks "Am I the bad guy?"
There is the UK comedy sketch, where they imagine the Germans asking, "are we the baddies?"
Sadly, I don't think America is anywhere near close to that.
And you are definitely right, it wasn't an easy or instant change, but then I don't think I implied that it was.
That is quite a statement. Germany had to get flattened by bombing and vivisected by two competing empires before it could be cobbled back together into a "stronger democracy" many decades (and a collapsing global superpower) later.
And that's just the bad stuff that happened to the German "Herrenvolk." That's not even getting to all the people they victimized.
I was not thinking economically strong, but democratically strong. They have extremely low tolerance for people like Trump.
I don't know who in their right minds would think World War II and the Holocaust is a reasonable price to pay for that.
That's because of a DeNazification campaign imposed on them by the USA and the USSR. Who is going to destroy us, conquer us, and reconstitute us as something better if we go fash?
And even despite that AfD still gets seats in the legislature, so it's pretty clear that as the living memory of the holocaust has faded, the moral repudiation of it is fading too.
I think @MonkeyPants was looking for a silver lining, rather than trying to justify the Holocaust. We've already got Trump, nothing we can do to un-do it. But maybe we'll learn something because of it? I'm not optimistic though, to your point, no other country has the ability to rub our nose in our mistake and make us change something to prevent it from happening again.
Have you visited Germany recently?
If we're making Hitler comparisons, Germany today is much less relevant than Germany in the 1940s.
My two cents is, I tuned in to see why I should be supporting Biden. Obviously, I will vote for anyone who's not Trump. But at this point there's literally millions of people in this country who are qualified to run on that platform. So I tuned in to hopefully make a transition from "voting for my only viable option" to "being excited about a Biden presidency."
And to be quite honest? I wasn't too impressed. Biden delivered a great energy during his DNC acceptance speech that I feel was missing here, probably due to the distraction of being shouted over, but regardless it did not give me the impression that Biden has a firm plan for the future and can take charge on the "hot button" issues of social justice while simultaneously trying to please wall street and "suburban white america." Maybe he needs some uninterrupted time to articulate those thoughts, but as a first impression this debate did not get me very jazzed.
Now, the Harris/Pence debate? That one I'll mostly be watching for entertainment value.
Opinion polls suggest 90% of Americans have already made up their mind on who to vote for and the debate may well have made little difference.
That said, I still think debates have a motivating effect that outweighs the impact the undecided. The undecided mostly either don't follow politics, or have wildly different political views from the two main candidates.
I watched it for the same reason I've been watching groups of players stream on Twitch, entertainment. Honestly, part of it was to understand the candidates better, as I don't typically watch speeches or debates, but it was like 80% because I knew it would be a hoot.
I'm also trying to take our country's politics more seriously, so I plan to watch the Pence/Harris debate hopefully with a more serious eye, but I simply expected this to be entertaining. I also think this is a disturbing sign of the times that I'm sitting through my first presidential debate for laughs and chuckles.
The inability to look away from a slow motion trainwreck. It's glorified rubbernecking. I gave myself a 10 PM cut-off to maintain sanity though. Ended up turning it off after Biden's point about accomplishing things by bringing people together.
I'm pretty sure 99% of people will come across this as snippets that get shared online and reported by news media. It's the reason everything is so superficial and preformative, both candidates know it and prepped for just that.
I told my friend I'd sooner perish than watch this debate, yet here I am. It's a cluster fuck. As has been said, turn off Trump's mic. He's a belligerent child. Also, yo, climate change? I don't know if I hope they talk about it or maybe I don't actually want them to talk about it. My soul ain't ready for that or for the current talk about race.
ANGRY EDIT: I'M SO FUCKING PISSED ABOUT TRUMP TRYING TO DRAG BIDEN'S KIDS INTO THIS. FUCK YOU DUDE, LEAVE THEM OUT OF IT HOLY SHIT.
They tried to ask about climate change but the candidates talked about jobs instead. Someone put me out of my misery.
As frustrating as it is for those of us who care deeply about fighting climate change, it's actually important from a strategic perspective to link the jobs discussion to the climate discussion. Poll after poll shows that the economy is the number one issue for voters by a good margin while climate change is nowhere near the top, so if you can make the climate about the economy, you'll get more voters on board with the candidate advocating for legislation to address climate change.
I don't know enough about politics and how voters think to have a real say in this, but I wonder how much of this is a chicken vs the egg thing. Is the economy more important because we talk about it more, or because deep down that is what voters really only care about? Time and again we've seen election cycle wedge issues that get a lot of media and voter attention, but then fade away after the election. Remember the ground zero mosque in 2010, or the caravan in 2018? If a candidate or political party repeatedly stressed how important it is to avoid a climate catastrophe, would it make a difference in polling? I don't have time to check the numbers, but I'd be interested to see the public support for something like Medicare For All and how it changed after Bernie Sanders's rise to fame. I don't mind tying jobs to the solution, but it would be nice to see them work in a little justifiable fear.
Fucking right!? Holy moley alive, it was so hard to have to see people dance around the actual crux of the issue.
It's important to remember that Biden is still to the right of the majority of the populous, just not as far right as Trump is.
According to every Trumpette, Biden is the most Left Lefty that has ever been Left. “He’s sure to enact communist rule the second he takes office!”
Old white and black Dem voters love moderate Biden. That’s why we couldn’t get Sanders...an actual lefty.
Even Sanders wasn't an actual lefty, just an actual centerist. The old Dems would have voted for any Democrat over any Republican. And the constant attacks from the Right don't stop just because they aren't true.
Bernie would have been better posed to fight Trump, if only because he has a lower scandal surface area.
Look I mean we’re talking about the US here and as a viable candidate who is more “radical left” than Sanders? Obviously in the grand scheme he’s still pretty tame.
I’m still pissed we didn’t get him.
I think the only reason real lefties don't have much of a chance currently is because it's been framed out of the discussion.
Guess it makes sense in a nation where socialism and communism have been framed as toxic rather than noble ideological goals.
I find that very hard to believe. The left leaning populous online? Very much so. But in real life most people are much more moderate. If people were really so left wing, why would there only be two "progressive" candidates, half of one of whom's base voted for Biden and other moderates after she dropped out?
Oh believe me, I am Incredibly aware of this fact. I have no illusions to Biden's political stance and wherein he lies on the spectrum.
Biden talked up his version of a green new deal and how many jobs that would make, along with the benefits, then they got sidetracked.
It was inevitable that he'd try to drag Biden's kids into it. I'm annoyed that Biden didn't have a prepared line of attack about the rampant nepotism and tax fraud Trump is engaging in with his own kids.
I prefer that he took the moral high road here and wanted to disengage from that topic completely. I feel like the interaction you describe would have only enabled Trump to stoop to lower attacks and denigrated the integrity of the whole debate, personally. But yeah, now that you say that, that seems like a strategy they probably considered at some point.
It's not really a moral high road here. Trump is blatantly funneling resources to his family and friends. This is not some far-fetched low-blow.
Sorry, I should have articulated better. My point is, regardless of the truth content of either person's accusations, being willing to engage in discussion about each others' families would have opened the debate to new lows. Not that Trump wasn't trying to bring it there already, I'm just saying I'm glad Biden didn't want to start slinging that mud back. In my opinion that would have shown severe character weakness, very much like that which Trump is displaying in trying repeatedly to steer the conversation in that direction.
Whether the net gain would be a positive for Biden if he had brought it up, I don't claim to know. But it certainly would have lowered my view of him, at least. There's a time and a place for those things, and this debate was neither.
I'm glad he didn't stoop that low either. The average undecided debate viewer wants to see a sane and calm adult who seems like they can lead a nation. This is an instance where I agree with taking the high road. After all, Biden is the one leading in the polls, and he doesn't have to come out swinging or take unnecessary risks to shake things up.
Remember who the audience for a televised debate is. It's not anyone who has actually paid attention. The only people around who can be swayed at this point are people who hate thinking about politics, have completely inchoate and incoherent opinions on it, and only follow along out of some grim sense of obligation.
Such a person does not want to see someone dragging someone else's family. They don't know anything about the families, so they have no basis to judge whether the dragging is justified. All they see is "Man, that guy sure is being a dick about his daughter." They don't like seeing people throw out vicious zingers either. They don't know very much about these people and their opinions on them are extremely malleable. Their main benchmark is "Does he seem like a nice guy I could get a beer with?" Dunking on someone like an insult comic doesn't make you look like that guy.
Engaging with politics feels to such people like Elvish rope feels to Gollum. Their baseline is for this to be painful and confusing and annoying. They don't like either person. The way to win them over is to make simply being there as pleasant as possible. They make decisions based on vague feelings and gut instincts so you need to exude good, non-threatening, cozy vibes. The best way to make someone's gut instinct suspicious of you is to look like you're too smart or condescending, which is how dunking on someone makes you look.
This is why late deciders in the Iowa caucuses all went for Pete Buttigieg. When in doubt, they'll break for the blandest and most inoffensive seeming person.
Buttigieg spent more time and money in Iowa than any other candidate. He also dumped all his resources into Iowa and didn't put much towards the states that came after. Not surprising late deciders broke for him.
The ad blitz approach was also attempted by Steyer and Bloomberg who didn't see nearly as good results though. Buttigieg actually had a lot more edge when he started and consistently moderated his positions and turned up the anodyne folksiness over the course of his early campaign because that's what seemed to be working for him.
There is no template undecided voter, and your attempt to characterize millions of people who haven't made a decision yet with so many specific, negative adjectives and characteristics is harmful. At best it's still extremely reductive, and at worst, it makes you come across as being a jerk of some variety, whether it's interpreted as smugness or hostility towards the undecided.
I'd argue it's a fair deal less harmful than having to pretend anyone who has trouble making a choice between liberalism or fascism has a perspective worth taking seriously.
Because we live in a democracy politicians are obliged to court their support, but nobody who isn't a politician is obliged to pretend willful ignorance and an inability to take civic duties seriously is anything but a personal failing.
Also, my comment isn't all undecided voters. It's specifically the target person who can be swayed by a TV debate. Most self-described "undecided" voters aren't actually undecided, they just want someone to listen to them hem and haw before they go do exactly what they were always going to do. They're not really persuadable in any meaningful way, they're just looking for an excuse to validate whatever they see as problematic in the choice they want to make.
I might make this into a t-shirt. I think this accurately summarizes my thoughts on the matter better than I could.
Well they talked about it, and the best line Trump could get out was when Biden said he didn't support the "Green New Deal" in place of "Biden's proposal", to which Trump remarked "he's losing his far-left base!" as if anyone on the left would prefer to see their world destroyed around them under a Trump administration.
...sigh...this was supposed to be one of the most important debates in modern history and it was an utter shitshow. I've lost hope for this country and the fate of rest of the world. Time to try and enjoy the wild ride into hell, I guess...
It will certainly be a wild ride, a straight slam dunk to hell. Honestly, it's very despairing to see the people in the highest places just... Ignore the issue and act like we can take a slow pace that we could have ten, twenty years ago.
You'd think it was a slogan. But that's exactly it, he never had them and they're only voting for Biden because he's not Trump, unless they're bowing out or going third-party.
That's a little unfair, the Sanders work group genuinely did change Biden's platform and towards the left.
Sure, but that doesn't mean Sanders got his entire base to enthusiastically vote for Biden. The main thing about Biden, and the one thing that will get him elected, is that he's not a very progressive Democrat. He's worked with the further left elements of the party (or I guess not, since Sanders is still independent), which means he can still court the more centrist/slightly left American voter.
Wallace moves to the subject of race... what's the first card Trump plays? Law enforcement. He's not even remotely trying to appeal to anyone other than his base.
Parting thoughts before I sign off for the night:
I should have known it was going to be as bad as it was, but for whatever reason my faith hadn't been completely extinguished.
At this point, I almost think giving Trump airtime is like giving a fire oxygen. His lies, bullying, and whataboutism were on full display, but they make him look confident and powerful, so he looks like he's winning.
Clearly the format needs to change for the next debate, but I don't know if anything can fix it. Cutting mics would be a start but ultimately not enough because Trump can still flat out lie unchecked when he's speaking.
Trump refused to condemn white supremacists, refused to accept the election results, and openly encouraged voter intimidation. These, to me, supersede anything else discussed. No matter what you feel about Biden, his performance, or the Democratic Party in general, please do not lose sight of those. Trump did that all out in the open, with the world watching. His character is on full display. Believe him when he shows you who he is.
One positive thing: Absolutely zero audience "participation." No clapping, cheering, booing.
You could tell Trump missed it, too. Plenty of times when he went rambling off (especially during LAW AND ORDER) where he made these grand gestures like he was expecting the scant audience present to disregard the norms and burst into some grand display of support. You could see he was thrown. Frankly, I'm surprised he agreed to these terms. Although Wallace did specifically say "his campaign" agreed to the terms, so it would actually not surprise me if he had only skimmed them and was genuinely surprised in the moment.
Also, my wife pointed out that he tried starting his own clap when he was leaving the stage, trying to eat Biden's applause -- you know what, Trump? Biden earned that applause because real people hug, they don't give a little informal "shake on the upper arm," that's what you do to a work colleague who you're afraid might take your ass to HR if you get a little too ogle-y.
I did actually really appreciate that. I didn't even realize there was more than staff in the room until the end and the C-SPAN feed caught some idiot from the audience yelling "woooo Trump" or something.
Trump's advisors told him he needed to break Biden train of thought and interrupt his talking point monologues and it had worked remarkably well. Why the moderator doesn't get involved and shut off his mic is beyond me (though unsurprising since Fox). And why Biden keeps taking the bait and debating Trump's ridiculous distractions is mind boggling.
It is especially maddening since Biden's only talking point should've pivoted every question to HIS TAXES.
It's the 100% easiest way to be accused of political bias. Also, I might be mistaken and he might have just mouthed words, but I swear at one point when it got really heated that they did turn off Trump's mic for just 2 seconds. I'll have to go back and check to be sure though.
I cannot agree more. Though, I'm sure it's hard to block him out with how loud he can bellow across a room. He can drown out a helicopter on a condenser mic for fuck's sake.
Let him accuse. It's not like he hasn't repeatedly claimed media persecution of him for reporting facts. I'd like him to try to blame Fox of liberal bias.
I know I definitely couldn't. It requires an iron will or a sharp tongue and Biden possesses neither. I would have loved to see Sanders or Warren on that stage ripping into him.
Would that really have happened though, or is it basically wishful thinking? Months ago I was skeptical about Warren handling Trump, and from the little I've watched of the debate so far I can't imagine she or Bernie would have managed to not get dragged into the circus with him... perhaps with marginally better composure, but 'owning Trump in a debate' is Democrat fantasy. He knows they'll want to stick to the issues and his entire approach is to disrupt and devolve things to a shouting match, because that makes him appear strong to his base. He'd do it just as much with those two if not more, and just as effectively.
From what I've seen of Sanders, he knows how to bang the populist drum a lot better and more elequently than Trump does. He would've thrown the hypocrisy of the supreme justice nomination back in his face and chant about his taxes until his face is blue. I have no idea why Biden shied away from this. And I wholeheartedly disagree with you about Warren - I have watched countless interviews with her and she had a much sharper tongue than Trump. Whole I agree she would hardly get to talk about the issues, but honestly who watched the debates to be informed about the issues anymore? Harping about 5 of them in incessant repetition would've been enough.
EDIT: As many have said, I think the issue here is that of expectations. Nobody expects anything from Trump - as long as he comes to the debate sober and strings two libelous sentences together, he's beat expectations. But if any of the democrats so much as stutter, it becomes this huge gaffe.
Currently, after the debate yesterday, my fantasy is that next debate Biden goes on stage and every time Trump interrupts or goes wildly off topic, he jangles a ring of keys at Trump and says "shush, watch the shinies while the adults talk". He then continues talking into the camera or at the moderator, ignoring everthing Trump says while constantly jangling keys.
Sadly, this has happened more often than you know. Chris Wallace recently (within the last few months as I recall) interviewed Trump at the WH and was accused of representing a "fake news" network with "liberal bias" because he wouldn't accept Trump's obviously made up statistics.
If you haven't yet heard of One America News, it's the new "real news" for the alt-right. It's Trump's preferred network. It makes Fox look like NBC, from the little I've seen of it.
When he wasn't being needled by Trump he had some good answers. Unfortunately, he was almost always being needled by Trump.
I'm worried that the dominant narrative that comes out of this will be that they both shouted at each other all evening as if each candidate was as egregious an offender as the other.
That's exactly the narrative that's coming out and I don't understand it. Just got a BuzzFeed alert with a title beginning "Donald Trump and Joe Biden talked over each other". No they did not. Trump talked over Biden.
Even the BBC was disappointingly even handed.
Despite the fact that Fox News was fairly clear..... “Well, frankly, you’ve been doing more interrupting than he has,” Wallace retorted to Trump.
I'm probably the example of the worst sort of person, sort of the litmus test of a country's health. I watched this because I knew it was going to be hilarious. It may as well have been D.E.M.D.H. Camacho up there from where I'm sitting.
Biden's not my first pick, but I also don't doubt he could run the country fairly well by pre-Trump standards. I think he's also showed surprising maturity in his nomination to the Democratic party, such as assembling a taskforce to get policy ideas with his former competitors. It's not ideal, but it's at least good enough to hold this country together for a few more years, I think.
In this debate, I unfortunately didn't think either candidate handled themselves particularly well. They bickered back and forth like my twin brother and me when we completely lose our shit at each other periodically, and they both had a tendency to ramble a bit when they wound down. Unfortunately, I saw a lot of myself in Trump, as the one who typically made things worse (we've both gotten better, but the similarity is there). If I had to pick a winner, it would be Biden who, many times, just stood there and bit his tongue, let Trump say his piece. Trump did too much interrupting to try to flavor Biden's time, and honestly should've just had his mic yanked a few times.
On the topics, I didn't learn anything new about either person, and I think Biden did a good enough job distancing himself from the left of the Democratic party to play to the everyman. That's not to say we should take the progressive (by extension my) vote for granted, but he does have a strategy he has to play.
Twenty minutes in and this is already a complete mess. Trump is debating the moderator, they're all speaking over one another, and everyone's patience, including mine, is sapped. I don't know why I expected anything different.
I'm seeing this narrative everywhere. I don't agree at all. Trump talked over Biden constantly, but Biden mostly let Trump speak when it was Trump's turn.
Emphasis mine.
Look, I'm still voting for the guy at the end of the day. And I don't hold him to a higher standard than human. Frankly, I would want to stick it to Trump too, if he spent my entire two minutes talking over me. But there were two distinct moments I remember where I said internally "goddamn it Joe, you had the high ground!" Would have been much more effective for him to eliminate the above bolded qualification, in my opinion.
Like I said, at the end of the day he's still my guy. But I had hoped for maybe just a little bit better, that's all.
One hour in, and I hate everything about this. Shame on me for expecting better. I should have known.
I'll comment about something I haven't heard much discussion on anywhere: Biden saying the vast majority of police officers are good people. I don't necessarily believe that, but I also think to say otherwise would only have hurt him. Police brutality and systemic racism are dire issues; however, they aren't winning issues. You don't see those near the top of lists of the most important issues to voters with the likes of the economy and healthcare, and it's probably because most voters aren't impacted by them in their daily lives.
It's not going to help him to attack police in that moment, especially when tensions are already running high, as much as I believe in sweeping law enforcement reform. Here's the full quote:
Isn’t it fair to believe most officers are generally good people? They’re part of a system that has policies and trains them to be assholes in the field. Even in diverse precincts they’re still racist and shitty. It’s a culture and I’m wary to call all individuals in a bad culture evil. A lot of that shit is drilled into them unconsciously.
No need to attack officers as a profession or individuals. You need to attack the system, the training.
Most? Maybe you have an argument. The vast majority? Absolutely not. I can't watch this video of Buffalo police/fire fighters applauding the 2 officers released after clearly assaulting a protester and think that most police officers on the average police force are generally good people.
Also if it is being drilled into them un/subconsciously, that sorta reinforces my assertion that it is changing who they are and making them into bad people (or exploiting low intelligence citizens to mold a certain type of police officer).
It's not exactly the same, but as a teacher I have some experience being in a career that is a public service that is highly scrutinized and often strongly negatively characterized. The "bad teachers" narrative was what has driven some of the worst educational reforms demanding accountability for us do-nothing taxpayer leeches, and it was a compelling narrative because there are some genuinely truly awful teachers. I have worked with some of them.
My entire career I've had to fight against characterizations that portray me as represented by the worst elements of those who share my position. This then gets held against me, as if I am part of the problem, when in fact the problem exists above me. Most bad teachers are not indicative of teacher quality, for example, but administrator quality. People think that firing teachers is an incredibly difficult process, and it's certainly not immediate, but there is a process. Administrators who fail to do their part of that process allow bad teachers to persist in positions, but that is held against us laterally rather than against leadership above us, who are the ones with power in this situation.
Even then, it's not that simple, because administrators often won't let go of our worst teachers because there aren't adequate replacements. Teacher shortages in the US are a definite problem and have been since they started gathering data on it in 1990. Furthermore, retention is plummeting (this article is pre-COVID -- currently it is probably even worse). So, not only do bad teachers stay simply because there isn't exactly anyone lining up to take their place, but we're at the point where teaching isn't even attracting and keeping great candidates in the first place.
So, with this in mind, is it fair to criticize all teachers for being bad -- that it's our shared character flaw? No, and that's true even if a large number of teachers are genuinely bad, as that is an effect of all of the pressures that allow bad teachers to achieve and sustain employment (to say nothing of the systemic problems eroding good teachers into bad ones over time). Their presence is an indicator that something is wrong systemically, and it's not as simple as getting rid of them. Education is considered an essential part of society, so if we do succeed in clearing them out, what's our replacement strategy? Where do we go from there?
Police officers are not the same as teachers, but there is a substantial overlap. If we step back from the particulars of America at the moment and think strictly of ideals, police officers are also an essential part of society, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with their existence. In fact, most would argue that the existence of people who have the power to enforce laws and protect and serve their communities are all good things. Zooming back in to the situation in America, however, it's clear that we have deep systemic flaws with how policing is conducted and with leadership and oversight for police officers. For every officer who has killed someone and gotten away with it or kept their job, there is someone above them who has acted favorably on their behalf. Let's ensure they're included in our scrutiny as well, especially because their reach is so much greater. A bad officer is one bad person; a bad leader or system will enable many bad people.
I understand the want that many people have to discard the entire profession, and I readily admit that with everything that has and continues to make the news about police officers, it's hard not to feel that way sometimes. Understand though what hasn't been captured. There are many police officers who joined the force with the noblest of intentions and actively work to live out those ideals day in and day out. Many of them demonstrate significant bravery and selflessness, putting themselves in situations the rest of us can't even imagine, for the sake of others' safety and protection.
As a teacher, I know a little bit about the emotional toll that comes with interfacing with some of the worst elements of humanity. Part and parcel of working with a wide swath of kids means witnessing the effects of child abuse and neglect, as well as things like child self-harm and suicide. It's draining. In my early years of teaching I would often drive home in a stupor and just cry on my couch for a while when I learned about one of my students' horrifying home lives or individual struggles. There's a human toll to human darkness that is not evenly distributed, and police officers willfully take on more than their share so that the rest of society doesn't have to. Furthermore, they not only have to experience that darkness themselves, but also often do so under an accompanying threat to their lives and personal safety. It's harrowing in a way words can't describe.
When you think of police officers, it's easy to think of the worst examples of them that make the news, but consider the police officers breaking up sex trafficking rings or testifying against child abusers. Those officers are out there too, and many of them are paying an incredibly high personal price to ensure quality of life for others -- especially many who have had much quality taken from or denied them. This kind of work doesn't always make the news, but it too is happening, and it is usually thankless and extremely taxing. I consider work like that to be essential to a society, because I believe that the alternative is to allow human darkness free reign, and that is unconscionable to me.
I say all of this to assert that I genuinely don't think it should be controversial to say that there are good officers, because I believe there absolutely are. Many of them. And I think bad officers, while a problem in and of themselves, are not the problem here -- they are a symptom of things larger than just themselves. Even if we could hypothetically wave a wand and all bad police officers were suddenly removed from their jobs, we wouldn't have solved policing in America because the conditions that allowed those officers to hold their positions, or potentially even created them as you pointed out, won't have gone away.
How can anyone see this utter boor and think him worthy of their vote?
I thought I'd tune in out of morbid curiosity, this is a tremendous mess. Trump won't let Biden get a word in. Neither Biden or Wallace can get him to rein it in. Kinda sad to see Biden letting him under his skin but I can't really blame him.
As a Brit I've become all too used in recent years to the feeling of being embarrassed by one's country but this evening I'm bloody glad I'm not an American. The juxtaposition of the props of proud statesmanship - the crisp suits and the Declaration of Independence - against this farcical 'debate' would be darkly comic if its implications weren't so serious.
Although more apparent with this debate, the usefulness of the debates as a tool for getting to know and understand candidates probably vanished decades ago. Starting with the first televised debate it became more and more a combination beauty pageant and sports competition. With the rise of the internet, the need for it to contain any substance all but evaporated. And now with Trump bloviating on stage for the entire time to a silent audience, ignoring the both the agreed on rules of the debate and social decency, the farce is stripped bare.
Well, both of them now have my vote of no confidence, that's for sure.
But let's not give the impression that both of them are equal choices.
Actually, yeah, that's the exact impression I have. Neither one of those people is a leader capable of getting us through the eye of the needle that's looming. Failure is failure, the flavor matters less to me than the important part - failure. No sane human being would ever vote for them if there was another choice. Our political system in America is an abject failure and it's never, ever been more clear.
I do give slightly better odds to Biden under the assumption that he's at least willing to follow facts/evidence, but that does not mean I still don't see him as just another corrupt politician ready to sell us out over lunch. I'm sick of voting for clueless old white men.
If that viable third choice appears by some miracle it'll have my attention. Until then I'm stuck voting for Biden. Really, though, this is far more about the downballot races. I'm going into this election with the mindset of voting against every single incumbent on the ticket unless they've got a solid nonpartisan track record.
Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power; in fact, his rhetoric last night suggested that he doesn't even consider the democratic process valid. Trump aspires to autocracy; Biden doesn't.
Down-ballot races will be irrelevant when democracy leaves us.
All of his hot air about not leaving doesn't bother me in the slightest. We have military police for this. If he refuses to leave, he can be carried out the door. Frankly, if I were a general in the US military, I'd want the satisfaction of marching down there, grabbing him by the scruff of the neck, and throwing him out the door all for myself.
Be thankful there are still some adults in the room over at the pentagon.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, has already asserted that the military will have no involvement domestic political disputes.
That's probably for the best because the military getting itself involved in civilian matters without lawful order is absolutely NOT a precedent that ought to be set under any circumstances. If anyone is going to have to forcibly remove him from the White House, it'd probably be the Secret Service or U.S. Marshals. In any case, whether or not Trump locks himself in the Oval Office, he loses all legal authority once Biden is sworn in, and then Biden would be the one who'd have to issue the command to evict Trump.
I'm not concerned about Trump refusing to leave office. As you say, if the votes are counted and Biden prevails, Biden will be President January 20 (even if the Secret Service has to drag Trump out kicking and screaming).
I'm concerned about Trump bending democracy such that he can't lose. And we already see him laying down the groundwork by espousing discredited nonsense about mail-in ballots. I have no doubts in my mind that Trump will claim victory on election night , even though we'll be nowhere near finished counting ballots, and then sue to preclude mail-in ballots in Democratic-leaning counties because of BS reasons x, y, z. I mean, I hardly even consider that speculation; he practically said as much last night.
No Presidential candidate in American history has been so brazen about disenfranchising voters. That's the most important difference between Biden and Trump.
A healthy society should be taking active steps to avoid promoting people with this sort of temperament to being generals. It's a very dangerous precedent to set. It may be necessary under some very dire circumstances, but if someone has to get their hands dirty I don't want them to enjoy it.
The US military has no role in the transition of government or elections. There is no constitutional basis for that.
Well this is a shit show.
Edit: I guess CNN saw my post and agrees.
Well that was way more of a mess than I even anticipated. They need to isolate the candidates and simply cut off their mics when it’s not their turn to speak.
This was a cringeworthy thing to watch. I wish they had adopted measures to prevent Trump from constantly derailing and interrupting the conversation. I can only imagine how hard it must’ve been for Biden to get a coherent thought across with someone constantly shouting over you with wild accusations and worse.
The way Trump dodged condemning the far right groups was a dark thing to witness. I hope Biden is right and he will be forced to concede his office if he loses.
I, for one, couldn’t be more happy about not being an American right now. I am right there with you hoping for a change, though!
538/Ipsos has some post-debate polling and analysis.
Unsurprisingly, it doesn't look like it changed very many people's minds. Biden might have had a very slight uptick, and respondents' confidence in Biden's chances of winning went up a bit.
Biden was rated higher in terms of performance and policy by a large margin.
Supporters' of both candidates likelihood of voting are roughly equal and did not change much after the debate.
Finally, Trump's net favorability dropped 3 points while Biden's grew by 5.
Didn't watch the debate the night of, I'll watch it some time later today though. In the mean time, I've noticed pretty much every big media outlet is pushing some consistent, five word soundbite narrative of the debate, which helps exactly no one. There's no way you can reduce 90 minutes down to "candidates scream at each other", "Wallace attacks Trump, assists Biden", or "Trump's 'army' to enforce voting".
The cover story from the Washington Post sums up what I saw as I watched: "Debate plunges into fiery squabbling." It definitely got heated and most topics totally derailed. From early on this was obvious. For example, Trump's monologue about being elected for four, not three years, was so irrelevant regarding the Supreme Court selection.
I actually thought the monologue made sense in the context of the GOP's position. Sure, the position is a hypocritical 180 from 4 years ago, but I've always felt that the argument that the sitting president should appoint justices, even if they are nearing the end of their term was sound. They were elected, and salaried for a full 4 year term, during which they should be able to serve the people. I also think lame duck periods spanning multiple months do a disservice to the people - my local judiciary doesn't get to take three months off and stop hearing cases in November.
"Oh, my sweet summer child,"
I listened to the entirety of the "debate" during my walk this morning. Suffice it to say, I have a headache.
Twenty minutes in, and it's already a mess.
I think Trump was a pretty clear winner here. Biden needs to be more aggressive. He's doing nothing to dispel the image of senile, helpless old man.
I wouldn't call him a winner. He didn't engage in the process. It's like saying a contestant won a foot race because said contestant was already standing past the finish line when the gun went off. Calling him a winner in this debate is to reward his behavior, which was simply out of place for someone who is a world leader. Saying Trump won is to acknowledge that he made up his own debate rules, then because Biden wouldn't play by them, Trump de facto beat him.
Biden wasn't the most energetic, but he laughed at Trump and his absurd comments all night long, and certainly jeered back. "Will you shut up, man?" is printed on the front of the Washington Post today.
With earnest curiosity, how so? I thought the number of times Trump interrupted everyone involved pointed towards a loss on his part, pointing towards a lack of maturity.
It's about the image he projects, which is what really matters in the context of "winning" a debate. He just seemed way more confident, genuine, energized, etc., even if it was all bullshit in substance.
I suppose it's all in the eye (or, in my case, ear) of the beholder, as I felt Trump was mostly utilizing grade-school power moves by attempting to talk over the moderator and Biden in many instances. A sign of weakness, to me. Biden, while occasionally stumbling on words, generally came across as more calm and measured with an actual "message", as moderate/status-quo as that message may have been.
Very few people think bully-ish behavior exudes confidence -- most people see it for what it is -- gaping insecurity.
As much as I see it the same way as you, I do think there is a sizeable contingent of people who will see that type of behavior as "alpha" and as behavior to be lauded. ...Unfortunately.
If you think Trump won, you should check out some of the pages of his supporters. For example, on his main Donald J Trump page on Facebook, it is swarmed with people urging him to act better to not lose the election.
Here are some examples:
https://imgbox.com/MVzZrQbV
https://imgbox.com/cKeIt5jo
https://imgbox.com/evAC3Cjd
Just a heads up, imgbox has some pretty NSFW ads on the interstitial and on the page itself.
Well darn, here I was looking for something lighter and not as crappy as imgur has become. Any suggestions?
Sadly not. Imgbox has been what I've been using, actually. Didn't realize it was so bloated with ads til I found myself on a computer without an adblocker. Kinda surprised by the NSFW nature of them given that they force selecting either SFW/NSFW for each upload.
Ah, I use an adblocker myself so I wasn't even aware it had ads.