***Official*** The Super Official Debate Feedback Thread. ***Confirmed***

[K1052]

I think Pete has a very solid chance in 28, especially if he moved up the cabinet a bit in the next term. But I think he'd have a better shot at the general with a longer lead in, so people can get a bit more familiar with him. If he stepped in now I think you'd really anger the black voters pushing Kamala aside and replacing her with another white guy, and IIRC black tend to be the most anti-gay part of the democratic coalition.

If Biden decides to quit Kamala is the nominee. She’s on the ticket, is the VP, and only one who can utilize the campaign accounts.

 

[Muse]

How many times can you say the same fucking thing? Keep it up, maybe the thousandth time the next slight variation on this post will make a difference to somebody somewhere.

He's really trolling this (Squished). To be sure, a lot of other people are too. Joe thinks on his feet, believe it or not. He doesn't just memorize one liners. He was zoned out the other night. It was part of his speech difficulty complex (also, he was sick). Doesn't mean he can't function as POTUS. What it does mean is he can't be relied upon to be good at PR reliably, but that's not his job. He can't be relied on to debate effectively, especially when confronted by a bombastic serial-lying sonofabitch like Donald Trump. Squished.

 

[Zorba]

Nope!

Again, it’s really weird how people think Trump has this unshakable hold on people when he lost in 2020 specifically because people switched from him.

He got MORE votes in 2020 than 2016. You can deny it all you want, but his poll numbers don't move no matter how much more crazy shit he's done. The people that support trump don't care what he says, or they he is convicted, or that he stole and gave away classified information.

 

[pmv]

If you're listening to a bunch of politically tuned-in people analyze Biden's performance in the debate while not discussing Trump, you're going to get a different reaction than to people who don't pay attention to politics. So of course all the reactions to politically-tuned people is to immediately close their eyes and just start shitting in place as hard as they can.

Meanwhile, there are presumably people who don't pay attention to politics who may have just listened to Trump rant and rave about nonsense and consider that a bigger downside to Biden not doing cartwheels or whatever.

A plausible argument. But the trouble with those "people who don't pay attention to politics" is that in many cases they either aren't going to get round to voting (and were never likely to do so), or they are as liable to be inspired by Trump's brand of nonsense and lunacy as to be turned off by it.

It's just tragic that the Democrats have hit this drought of political talent, just at the point where the stakes are highest and the Republicans are at their craziest (why has an entire generation gone AWOL?). Though I am academically curious as to whether that's coincidental or if both are somehow a consequence of the same socio-economic trends.

 

[pmv]

He got MORE votes in 2020 than 2016. You can deny it all you want, but his poll numbers don't move no matter how much more crazy shit he's done. The people that support trump don't care what he says, or they he is convicted, or that he stole and gave away classified information.

Yeah, his supporters seem to get more enthusiastic the crazier he gets. Making sense is purely optional for him.

The counter-argument is that more people voted _against_ him in 2020. Experiencing a Trump administration motivated people to go out to vote for someone else. I just am not convinced that "Trump appearing nuts in a debate" will have the same kind of motivating effect as "Trump actually being in the Whitehouse" on those hard-to-reach voters.

 

[fskimospy]

He got MORE votes in 2020 than 2016. You can deny it all you want, but his poll numbers don't move no matter how much more crazy shit he's done. The people that support trump don't care what he says, or they he is convicted, or that he stole and gave away classified information.

The only person in denial here is you. Voter turnout was higher so both Trump and his opponent got more votes.

The percentage of 2016 Trump -> 2020 Biden voters in 2020 exceeded Biden’s margin of victory in the crucial states. If you would like to explain how that’s compatible with your theory that voters don’t switch no matter what Trump does I’m open to hearing your explanation.

 

[soulcougher73]

The only person in denial here is you. Voter turnout was higher so both Trump and his opponent got more votes.

The percentage of 2016 Trump -> 2020 Biden voters in 2020 exceeded Biden’s margin of victory in the crucial states. If you would like to explain how that’s compatible with your theory that voters don’t switch no matter what Trump does I’m open to hearing your explanation.

Can you explain how more voter turn out means people did switch? Just because more people voted doesn’t mean anyone switched who they voted for. Just means more people were motivated to vote, for various reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you explain how more voter turn out means people did switch? Just because more people voted doesn’t mean anyone switched who they voted for. Just means more people voted.

I didn’t say greater turnout meant people switched, I said greater turnout is why Trump got more votes.

As to vote switchers they polled people who voted for Trump in 2016 and asked them who they voted for in 2020. Pretty simple.

 

[soulcougher73]

I didn’t say greater turnout meant people switched, I said greater turnout is why Trump got more votes.

As to vote switchers they polled people who voted for Trump in 2016 and asked them who they voted for in 2020. Pretty simple.

So he gained more votes than he lost for his antics basically?

 

[fskimospy]

So he gained more votes than he lost for his antics basically?

You could look at it that way but that would be ignoring how elections work.

If I do something that gains me one vote but gains my opponent two votes that’s a very bad strategy! So sure, Trump’s antics gained him votes but gained his opponent more votes, which is of course why he lost.

 

[soulcougher73]

You could look at it that way but that would be ignoring how elections work.

If I do something that gains me one vote but gains my opponent two votes that’s a very bad strategy! So sure, Trump’s antics gained him votes but gained his opponent more votes, which is of course why he lost.

Or dems were more active that election cycle from Trumps danger to the country. Seems like there are many ways to look at the vote count that cycle. Hard to focus on Trump lost some of his voters while he also gets record votes for himself.

 

[fskimospy]

Or dems were more active that election cycle from Trumps danger to the country. Seems like there are many ways to look at the vote count that cycle. Hard to focus on Trump lost some of his voters while he also gets record votes for himself.

Why would Democrats think Trump was a greater danger to the country in 2020 than in 2016? His antics of course, which was exactly my point. Similarly, his antics made some people who supported him in 2016 switch their vote in 2020.

Trump’s behavior cost him the 2020 election, plain and simple.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why would Democrats think Trump was a greater danger to the country in 2020 than in 2016? His antics of course, which was exactly my point. Similarly, his antics made some people who supported him in 2016 switch their vote in 2020.

Trump’s behavior cost him the 2020 election, plain and simple.

Because they got a good 4 year look at what he did to the country. So more motivated to vote against him. I do agree his behavior lost him the election. Just don’t 100% prescribe it to he lost previous Trump voters, ignoring how he had more votes. Sure he lost some, but he obviously gained a ton.

 

[fskimospy]

Because they got a good 4 year look at what he did to the country. So more motivated to vote against him. I do agree his behavior lost him the election. Just don’t 100% prescribe it to he lost previous Trump voters, ignoring how he had more votes. Sure he lost some, but he obviously gained a ton.

I mean okay I guess but again the fundamental point here is when people say nothing Trump does matters they are very obviously wrong.

 

[soulcougher73]

I mean okay I guess but again the fundamental point here is when people say nothing Trump does matters they are very obviously wrong.

I agree with that.

 

[eelw]

A plausible argument. But the trouble with those "people who don't pay attention to politics" is that in many cases they either aren't going to get round to voting (and were never likely to do so), or they are as liable to be inspired by Trump's brand of nonsense and lunacy as to be turned off by it.

It's just tragic that the Democrats have hit this drought of political talent, just at the point where the stakes are highest and the Republicans are at their craziest (why has an entire generation gone AWOL?). Though I am academically curious as to whether that's coincidental or if both are somehow a consequence of the same socio-economic trends.

But this requires support from people on the right. We need the Adam Kinzingers that say I'm holding my nose and voting D because my party needs to be torn down to save it. Nope the majority are the Pences and Hogan's, I hate our candidate so I'll write in Reagan. Or the chicken shits like Barr and PC geek. Yes I don't condone Jan 6 but I wont be caught dead voting for a D so I'll reluctantly vote for him again.

 

[Brainonska511]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1807411370863865963

This twitter thread pretty much covers my thoughts on the post debate coverage. Media personalities acting like they can't shape the narrative, but then they generate a self-feeding freakout, and they never use their powers to do the same against the very real threat of Trump.

 

[Zorba]

The only person in denial here is you. Voter turnout was higher so both Trump and his opponent got more votes.

The percentage of 2016 Trump -> 2020 Biden voters in 2020 exceeded Biden’s margin of victory in the crucial states. If you would like to explain how that’s compatible with your theory that voters don’t switch no matter what Trump does I’m open to hearing your explanation.

He recovered the switchers from previous non-voters. The people that care about him being crazy loon already stepped away from him in the last 8 years. No one that was planning on voting for trump Thursday morning is going to see his performance on Thursday night and change their minds.

 

[Zorba]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1807411370863865963

This twitter thread pretty much covers my thoughts on the post debate coverage. Media personalities acting like they can't shape the narrative, but then they generate a self-feeding freakout, and they never use their powers to do the same against the very real threat of Trump.

I started thinking it at about 8:15 pm central time. I haven't watched any people on TV talking about it. Biden looked fucking terrible and basically confirmed the number one attack against him. Further he did nothing to capitalize on one of the few major opportunities he has to change minds.

 

[Brainonska511]

I started thinking it at about 8:15 pm central time. I haven't watched any people on TV talking about it. Biden looked fucking terrible and basically confirmed the number one attack against him. Further he did nothing to capitalize on one of the few major opportunities he has to change minds.

Major opportunity of an event few people actually watch, especially so called undecided and political disengaged voters?

The entire debate format is so disengaged from the actual job as president, it makes me wonder what value these things even have. Especially when the format is zero push back from moderators and no addressing elephants in the room (34 felonies, etc).

 

[K1052]

Major opportunity of an event few people actually watch, especially so called undecided and political disengaged voters?

The entire debate format is so disengaged from the actual job as president, it makes me wonder what value these things even have. Especially when the format is zero push back from moderators and no addressing elephants in the room (34 felonies, etc).

Most of the Democrats watching this would be the ones already pre-disposed to loading their drawers at the sign of any trouble. That's not to say that the debate wasn't bad overall but the people screaming that it necessarily means electoral disaster are running on sheer emotion. Clinton and Kerry walked all over their opponents in their debates and still lost.

 

[Brainonska511]

Most of the Democrats watching this would be the ones already pre-disposed to loading their drawers at the sign of any trouble. That's not to say that the debate wasn't bad overall but the people screaming that it necessarily means electoral disaster are running on sheer emotion. Clinton and Kerry walked all over their opponents in their debates and still lost.

I agree. I don't think it was a good debate performance, but I think a) people are blowing it out of proportion, b) media taste makers are completely abdicating their role in shaping public opinion, and c) elite politics knowers are also just shooting themselves in the dick as they publicly crap their pants.

 

[IronWing]

I agree. I don't think it was a good debate performance, but I think a) people are blowing it out of proportion, b) media taste makers are completely abdicating their role in shaping public opinion, and c) elite politics knowers are also just shooting themselves in the dick as they publicly crap their pants.

It gets clicks. That is all that the pundits care about.

 

[K1052]

I agree. I don't think it was a good debate performance, but I think a) people are blowing it out of proportion, b) media taste makers are completely abdicating their role in shaping public opinion, and c) elite politics knowers are also just shooting themselves in the dick as they publicly crap their pants.

Yes, the cycle this has kicked off is going to be more damaging than the debate itself.

 

[Brainonska511]

It gets clicks. That is all that the pundits care about.

Yes, for pundits, it gets clicks. But then it's on those pants-shitting insider sources to not go running to those groups to publicly shit yourself and give them the ammunition that feeds the cycle.