I think people recognize when they’re out of their depth and when things are important and sacred.
Put an atheist in a church with people all around, praying with deep sincerity, and regardless that he knows that its all nonsense, he’s not going to say it and he’s going to treat the location like its sacred.
Remove all of that and there’s nothing to clue people in that they’re dealing with something more consequential than your average Instagram post. Trappings matter.
Being a woman and black and Asian may be too much to overcome. Not fair at all but there are a lot of people that would freak out.
*Gretchen
Maybe by focusing on how policy affects them personally.
Biden tried that tonight, with mentioning how nobody making less than $400,000 would pay any more than X% in tax. He made sure that diabetics’ cost of insulin was capped. Such things would resonate with people who are personally affected by these, and other, policies.
Trump spoke in generalities. So many illegal migrants invading. Sure, Donald, but how are they affecting the average American? Are they taking Joe Lunchpail’s job? Are they displacing residents of New Hampshire or Montana or Wisconsin? No, it was “They’re in luxury hotels in New York,” when I’d venture to guess that most Joe Lunchpails aren’t anywhere near New York, and likely would never stay in such hotels anyway.
Put Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, Steve Bullock, or any number of non-progressives that would be palatable to pretty well everyone in the land and you’ll sweep the states.
If you’re obese, using a juice cleanse isn’t the answer. The slow and grueling solution is the one that’s going to get you where you want to get to. Trying to push faster than that never works.
Even if you could change that horse midstream, (you can’t) I would seriously vote the Dem. ticket with tears. I would wonder why an actual Democrat wasn’t on the ballot.
Not sure the names of the moderators in the debate, but it was curious that the female always referred to Trump as FORMER President Trump, whilst the bloke dropped the FORMER in favour of just Pres Trump. Was this intentional?
It makes one wonder why we end up with the ticket of Trump and Biden.
Something is broken.
It is the accepted form of address in this situation:
When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well. When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it’s appropriate to say, “former President LastName.” This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as “Governor Tom Smith,” while you’d introduce an ex-governor as “former Governor Jim Bell.” - SOURCE
When you put the guy on the bridge to single handedly fight off the encroaching hoard, you’re not doing it thinking that he’s coming back home.
Some things are important enough to not play games and to fall on your sword for.
Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
That’s kinda what I’m hoping for; that this will give the America-hating fuckstick confidence that he can dominate a second debate (closer to November), and that Biden will be able to perform better and will mop the floor with him.
He’s not smart, though, so we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.
I didn’t get to watch the debate live but asked my sister about the candidates’ answers to questions. She said, as someone wrote above, that the President tried to answer most of the questions with facts and Trump may have changed the subject after every question. My sister said of course Biden couldn’t change the subject each time in turn because it would stymie the debate.
As other posters wrote above, they liked the technique of identifying Trump’s three main webs of lies and confronting him continuously in those areas. I liked the part about practicing with the mikes.
Are there any other techniques you think Biden could use? The reason I’m asking is my neighbor, a communications instructor at a college, is writing an email on the White House web site about what he thinks Biden could do.
I thought I could mention any further techniques you can think of to include in my neighbor Neil’s email. My neighbor you see is quite determined to put his thumb on the scale for the Democrats in this cycle in any way possible.
BTW, the America-hating fuckstick didn’t name his running mate, did he?
We mentioned this upthread, but it bears repeating. Biden has been on TV many times before, handling press conferences and such, but when he is asked a question, he responds to the questioner. That’s fine in a press conference, with lots of cameras and reporters and Biden looking every which way.
But in this instance, it was one network and two moderators. Biden did answer the moderators’ questions, looking at the one who asked the question all the while. As a result, he did not look at the TV camera. He was always looking off to the side, because he was looking at the moderator whose question he was answering.
Trump looked at the camera. We speculated above whether it was because he was an experienced TV host, but regardless, he appeared to be talking to the viewer, not the moderator. Thus, his points would hit home with viewers, while Biden is looking away at a moderator.
Suggestion: Teach Biden to answer to the cameras, not the moderators. Especially in a debate such as this was, with no audience, and muted microphones, Biden must address Americans directly, as Trump did. He can answer the moderators’ questions, but he is not answering the moderator; rather, he is answering to the American people. And they are on the other end of that camera.
I am more worried that he didn’t have a stroke yet still came across as though he had had a serious one. I’m watching on DVR and only 34 minutes in, but so far, Biden has come across very poorly.
If you didn’t watch, I thought this take was a fair summary:
Biden: look, the fact is, we can’t… we don’t… look. Here’s the deal. And this is no foolin.
Trump: there are ten billion guatemalans attacking the lincoln memorial right now.
Even when republicans still had ethics and ideals, I didn vote for them. Their ideas had been tried often and thoroughly, said ideas don’t work.
Like I said, I would vote the ticket. It would set us back a long way, just not as far back as dump. It’s not a game to want to move forward.
Which totally didn’t answer my question. Why did the moderators address Trump in two different ways, one addressing him as FORMER President Trump, the other just as President Trump.
Remembered something from my experience that your friend might find useful, and relates to my above post.
I’ve done radio, and still do voiceovers and liners when the opportunity arises. Some years ago, I took a “broadcast refresher” course at a local college. I was only interested in the voice part of the course, because I’ve got the perfect face for radio, but the course included video as well. Oh well, I could deal.
One of the things that we learned in the video module was to watch a sports broadcast, especially the pre-game show, or the halftime show. Why? Because two or more sportscasters would appear to be chatting amongst themselves, but including the audience in their conversation by looking at the camera:
(Andy looks at Bill.) “Bill, what did you think of that fourth-and-long that Dallas tried in the second quarter?” (Andy looks at camera.)
(Bill looks at Andy.) “It was a desperation play,” (Bill turns to look at camera) “And I don’t know why Dallas tried it so soon. It’s a great play, but maybe one for later in the game. Now, Denver knows what to expect.” (Quick look at Andy.) “Your thoughts?”
(Andy, quick look at Bill.) “Good point.” (Andy back to camera.) “But I should note …”
And so on. But in this way, by speaking to the camera while ostensibly talking between the two of them, both sportscasters are bringing the viewer into their conversation, making the viewer feel a part of it. That’s what Trump did, and that’s why he did it. And that’s what Biden missed.