SmilingJack
Honored Member
- Messages
- 883
[MOVED]
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I hope they keep it up. Complacency on their side is fineI tortured myself this morning by watching some Fox News just to see what they were talking about and the overall narrative is that Harris is slipping in the polls and Trump is really ahead in the race. Basically saying that the public has now seen enough of Harris and are running back to Trump.
If they play it right, and I think they will, it could easily be double that.Long way to go. KH needs to get at least a 2-3 point bump from the convention,
I’ll be worrying about left-wing protesters mucking up the works for Democrats all this week in Chicago.If they play it right, and I think they will, it could easily be double that.
What else would Fox say? They have to supply that dopamine or they lose viewers.I hope they keep it up. Complacency on their side is fine
This 100%. The first time I recall people making “exceeding low expectations” as the standard for winning a debate was when George W. Bush was running for president (as you mentioned). The Bush campaign had a very sound strategy of talking Gore up as a formidable debater prior to the first debate, despite the fact that Gore had never really earned such a reputation. The Bush campaign painted Bush as the underdog, which is a good way to get people rooting for you. After setting high expectations for Gore and low expectations for Bush, Bush pretty much came out the “winner” based on exceeding people’s expectations, while at the same time Gore didn’t live up to the expectations that the Bush campaign worked to set for him.I think unfortunately, that who really does better in debates is much less important these days than who outperforms their expectations (largely by the media sphere). I mean, in the first debate Trump was hot garbage, but he's rarely ever made any actual rhetorical sense and so there are no expectations for him to do so in any debate or public forum. It's incredibly frustrating, but the media basically sets the bar for Trump in a place where he'd have to literally piss his pants mid-debate in order to get the kind of negative attention that Biden got after the first debate (not so different from how the bar was laid on the floor for Bush during debates). The only source of optimism I have for this years debates is that the Harris-Walz team has already shown that they're savvy to how the meme-like messaging is more important than winning some sort of high school debate contest. I would hope they will use the debates to hammer home how weird and creepy Trump and Vance are.
And this is not even remotely the same.Jimmy Carter was expected to eviscerate Ronald Reagan in their debates in 1980.
They don't have to - Trump hasn't done better in any of his debates with Clinton or Biden and it doesn't matter. He didn't beat Biden in the first debate in any real debating sense, but Biden lost it by seeming to be mentally out to lunch for the first half-hour or so. If Harris or Walz get any facts wrong or Trump or Vance hit them with a good one-liner and they can't respond then you can bet that the news media will be all over it. I certainly feel far better about Harris doing well against Trump than Biden, and Walz should certainly be able to more than hold his own against Vance, but if this campaign has shown us anything so far it is to expect the unexpected. My own guess is that they'll both do fine, but I'm not counting on anything in this crazy campaign year until it actually happens.No way Trump and Vance do better in the debates than Harris and Walz. Harris being a woman of color dominating Trump is going to bring out the worst of him in the debates.
^All of this.I think unfortunately, that who really does better in debates is much less important these days than who outperforms their expectations (largely by the media sphere). I mean, in the first debate Trump was hot garbage, but he's rarely ever made any actual rhetorical sense and so there are no expectations for him to do so in any debate or public forum. It's incredibly frustrating, but the media basically sets the bar for Trump in a place where he'd have to literally piss his pants mid-debate in order to get the kind of negative attention that Biden got after the first debate (not so different from how the bar was laid on the floor for Bush during debates). The only source of optimism I have for this years debates is that the Harris-Walz team has already shown that they're savvy to how the meme-like messaging is more important than winning some sort of high school debate contest. I would hope they will use the debates to hammer home how weird and creepy Trump and Vance are.
Hey, guess what there are a ton of in the Research Triangle in North Carolina!?
many people are saying!Do they know she has since "turned black?"
I think you're giving Trump way too much credit. Harris will mop the floor with him. Trump is going to get so flustered having to deal with a woman of color like Harris.They don't have to - Trump hasn't done better in any of his debates with Clinton or Biden and it doesn't matter. He didn't beat Biden in the first debate in any real debating sense, but Biden lost it by seeming to be mentally out to lunch for the first half-hour or so. If Harris or Walz get any facts wrong or Trump or Vance hit them with a good one-liner and they can't respond then you can bet that the news media will be all over it. I certainly feel far better about Harris doing well against Trump than Biden, and Walz should certainly be able to more than hold his own against Vance, but if this campaign has shown us anything so far it is to expect the unexpected. My own guess is that they'll both do fine, but I'm not counting on anything in this crazy campaign year until it actually happens.