The DEBATES are Coming! 3 Pres.& 1 VP debate Scheduled

Truth to tell it would probably throw Trump off stride if for once he encountered a moderator who was not blatantly in the bag for the Dem Party candidate. Trump is geared for dealing with opposition. The more opposition the better he functions. In 2016 he had to beat both Hillary and the debate moderators to win . . . and he managed it just fine.

 

That's pretty ironic, wouldn't you say? Another way to look at it, though, is that 44% of Independents may watch. I've read that the expectation is that this will be the highest viewership for a Presidential debate, ever. And, considering that we get what, 65% voter participation in a Presidential race, makes me think that most of the 56% of Independents who DON'T watch, probably won't be voting. And the majority of Independents, in that case, who end up voting, would then watch at least one of the debates.

I agree that oration skills, alone, do not make someone a good leader. This depends much more on a person's character, their intellectual approach to problems (i.e., open-mindedness), their viewpoint, ideas, inner-resolve, & sincerity, to name a few. But, what better opportunity will one get to try to judge these attributes, in relation to the other candidate(s), than a debate? That is, if you don't watch the debate, how are you going to rate a candidate on those 100 other important criteria on your list?

 

Which journalists do you think are not biased?

 

To add on to that observation (which has been noted elsewhere in this thread, as well), I was stunned to see, while investigating how the betting community was handicapping this contest, that odds have already been laid on which candidate CNN and FOX will say won it. For FOX, you'll need to lay $400 to win $100 on Trump being declared the winner (& you get 5-to-2 on Biden). For CNN, it'll take $1200 to win $100 on Biden as their judged victor (& you get 11-to-2 odds on Trump).

 

Actually we get around 55% of eligible voters who vote during a presidential election. Not 65%. The last time we hit 60% was back in 1968 when 60.8% voted. Since then we hit a low of 49.1% voting in 1996 to a high of 56.8% in 2008. The last time we hit 65% was in 1912. I suspect Teddy Roosevelt had a lot to do with that.

Having the highest viewership is definitely possible, if not probable. But that will include around 80% who belong to both major parties. They already made up their minds. I suspect a lot of independents who tune in also have their minds set on who they'll vote for.

Do the debates make a difference, probably to some.

In 2016 Hillary had a 3 point lead prior to the debates, she won by 2.
In 2012 Obama had a 4 point lead prior to the debates, he won by 4
2008 Obama had a 5 point lead, he won by 8. Was it the debates or was it McCain's choice of Palin?
2004 G.W. Bush was tied with Kerry, Bush won by 3.
2000 Gore had an 8 point lead prior to the debates, Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 of a point. So the debates could have made a difference. But I don't remember anything in the debates that would have caused Bush to narrow that gap by so much. But it is possible.
and so on.

I still think only the 1960 and the 1980 debates influence enough folks to change their voting habits. Perhaps G.W. Bush coming across as being a down home boy to Gore's statue played a lot in Bush's narrowing the gap and final win. Who Knows.

 

LOL, I'm not a betting man, I don't even play the lottery. Wife does, but not me. You can bet the ranch that the spin doctors will be out in force come the day after the debates. From what I've been hearing, almost everyone expects Trump to win them. Then too everyone is looking for Biden's gaffs and Trump's name calling.

I do think how they appear on stage will be much more important than what they have to say. If Biden comes across as the adult on that stage, he wins. If Trump can goad Biden into acting like a spoiled four year old with name calling and temper tantrums, Trump wins. That is my prediction.

 

Here's another thought, I've already voted, sent my mail in ballot in three days ago. I wonder how many have voted already in states that either allow early voting in person or have sent their main in ballot in prior to the debates. Some states allow early voting 2 months prior to the election. So the debates in the final month means nothing to those who voted already.

Even if one of the debates is a game changer, there is no way to retrieve ballots already cast. Early voting didn't begin until 1992 which means in both 1960 and the 1980 debates were held before anyone actually voted. which brings up another question, has early voting actually helped turnout voters? From 1972 through 1992 an average of 53% voted in presidential elections. I chose 1972 as that was the first year the voting percentage dropped below 60% when we had but a single day to vote. Turnout was above 60% from 1952 through 1968. Between 1992 through 2016 we had an average of 53.5% turnout. Just a half point difference.

Another question, should early voting not begin until after the first debate? That is if one thinks the debates are of importance, then early voting should coincide with the debate schedule.

 

I think debates can be critical in years with large groups of undecided voters at this stage.

Poll Finds 11% Of Voters Still Undecided As Election Nears

An interesting poll in its own right. I'm a little surprised there are that many undecideds out there still, and 11% is a significant amount, but Trump would need to win virtually all to barely overtake Biden, if not tie. That is not going to happen with the debates. The debates will sway some of these voters, but I doubt it will move the needle one way or the other.

 

To someone who already knows who they're voting for, of course there's no necessity to watch the debates though, as you noted, most of the viewership is there to root their candidate on, & maybe be reassured that they hadn't picked a goat. I'd been responding to the hypotheticals in your inital post about people who were undecided. Still, it doesn't hurt to get a look at your choice in action.

But the suggestion that they are, nationally, of no importance, I think is off the mark. Since I'm guessing, from your handle, that you voted for Perot in '92 (as did I), I have some degree of confidence in your possessing common sense. So let's accept your judgement that debates only made a difference in 1960 & 1980. Then which of these 3 options logically follows:
A) Therefore, there will never be another instance when debates will play a noteworthy role.
B) So they're unlikely to be a major factor but, if they potentially could, that's something that would be easily recognized in advance.
C) There's a real chance they may may take on that importance again, some election, but we probably won't really know it until after that vote has passed.

I see no problem w/ early voting for those who wish to avail themselves of that option. But I think having debates, for the undecided, is very important. I'm not someone who believes that the more people that vote, necessarily the healthier is our democracy, if those voters had no real idea of what they were voting for. Ideally all would take their voter participation seriously enough to try to be informed. But that's just not the way it is. So I'm not going to make someone feel guilty about not voting if they knew they were uninformed & didn't want to throw a random monkey-wrench in to skew the result of those who had been paying attention.

 

Enjoy!! Ordinarily, I would flip it on for at least some of it, but it would violate my personal No-Trump rule. Don't remember the exact day I started, but it was in December 2018

I will probably watch Kamala take down the Q-tip on the 7th...

LOL at your concept of 'moderated debate'.... Good one...

 

I don't see anything here to disagree with. There's always the possibility the debates can be a deciding factor. Now I think a fairly close race would have to be in the offering. Nixon had a 1 point lead prior to his first debate and as I stated, Reagan a 3 point lead. The problem is exit polls don't ask the question if the debates change who you were planning on voting for. So that is a SWAG.

I was looking at the 2016 exit polls from CNN. 73% of those who voted decided who they were voting for prior to any of the debates. Now that leaves 27% and who knows, perhaps the debates had an effect on on some of those. I'm suspicious of those numbers though, as RCP showed prior to the first debate 94% of those being polled planned on voting for a certain candidate. 43% Clinton, 40%, Trump 8% Johnson, 3% Stein rounding off. But we have no idea of the strength of commitment of those being polled to the candidate they stated they would be voting for. So there's quite a lot left up in the air. Is it 27% who hadn't decided or was it 6%. Probably the polls showed a lot of folks leaning toward a candidate, but not sure about voting for that candidate. The truth, as usual, somewhere in-between 6% and 27%. We do have to keep in mind the polling question is usually, "If the election were held today, who would you vote for?"

 

So you have a No-Trump rule that started so long ago you cannot remember.
Interesting how you continue to complain about what he says and does. Where exactly do you draw your No-Trump news from?

 

TV, various websites, PF.com, Wife...

If it helps, I'm pretty sure it was around his shutting down the government for no real reason... So @ 12/22....

Stupid **** like that tends to cement attitudes...

Amazed it took me that long frankly... I should have left after Helsinki, when I became convinced he was 100% Russian bought and paid for...

 

Thank you. That explains a lot.

 

Is there a line on how many times Biden will call the riots mostly peaceful?

 

It's probably longer odds than Trump saying he's paid accurate taxes over the past 15 years...

 

Perhaps the betting odds are more accurate than the polls!
I this day and age, it must be a very few that haven't made up their minds. It's night and day. Only those that can be bought are probably available.

 

What makes debates indispensable from the Presidential race, or any politically consequential race, I think, is that they add a degree of accountability & give us the opportunity to SEE what we're getting w/ any candidate. It's no guarantee that the, "Google Gazelle," or the, "Exxon Tiger," doesn't become President, but it makes that a bit more difficult.

In 2016 it was an automatic disqualifier, for me, when one of the candidates failed to show us if there were any potential conflicts of interest, by releasing his tax returns. If the Democrats win all 3 branches this year, I think a law requiring that disclosure (which all candidates had voluntarily made, up until 2016) is a sure bet.

 

Say wist43, would you mind clarifying something for me (I've never read the Marxist author Antonio Gramsci)? What was Gramsci right about? The ends justifying the means? And were you agreeing with that thesis?

 

I'm a libertarian, and a strident anti-communist, anti-marxist. Gramsci was a Marxist.

I agree with him only insomuch as his prescription for destroying America was, at least in part, the correct approach.

Just as I agree with Lenin as he was not a doctrinaire Marxist, he was in fact more correct in understanding power. If the goal was power, Lenin was correct, and Marx was wrong.

Combine those baselines with modern day Alinsky tactics as practiced by the Democratic Party and all American leftists today - and it's quite obvious we have a major battle on our hands.

These people control our institutions - which was at the heart of Gramsci's writings. They control our schools, the curriculum, the courts, the media, our governmental agencies, finance, etc.

In short, they control almost all of the levers of power. The only thing between us and outright authoritarian rule is our Constitution. And they're coming for that soon enough.

 

And is there something you prescribe to beat it: fighting fire with fire?

 

Good preparation requires mock debates. Biden is preparing. Trump is campaigning.

 

At this late stage there is only one way to beat them - force.

That cannot happen, however, as so few people understand how we got here, where we are, or where we are going.

That so few people understand what is truly happening is a testament to the correctness of Gramci's strategy, i.e. "win the culture, indoctrinate and dumb down the citizenry".

There are people like myself who have been trying to warn our fellow citizens for decades - we were, and are, ignored and dismissed. Again, more evidence in support of Gramsci's approach.

Had Americans understood what was being done to them over all these decades, they would have moved swiftly to stop it; but, of course the left had captured their minds, captured the culture.

There is no stopping the process now. America will not survive as the Constitutional Republic we inherited.

The next goal on the left's checklist is to get rid of the Constitution. Once that happens, America and freedom will officially be at an end.

For about 40 years now, I've thought this would play out sometime between 2020 and 2030. That still seems about right.

 

There is a great likelihood that despite his best efforts, even a sanguine, rather unbiased moderator like Chris Wallace will lose control of what will rapidly turn into a no-holds-barred 'cage-match'.

It may start with Trump's first remarks accompanying a printed sheet with results from a drug test that Trump will voluntarily undergo a short time before the first debate.

Trump may say, "Well, Joe -- here's MINE... now, where the hell is YOURS?!" Then the axe-fight will follow shortly.... Make sure you have plenty of beer in the 'fridge and pizza in the microwave!

Still... Trump would do well not to underestimate ol' Joe's handlers! After all, these Democrat schemers kept Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully on life-support while she 'phoned it in from home' for over two years! And, they only need to get a few months out of ol' Joe before everything can legally be turned over to Kamala-la-la....

 

The choice of Palin helped RINO McCain.

None of those Democrat candidates above had early dementia.