And someone needs to turn that into an ad against Trump. “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been an ongoing nightmare. But Trump just admitted that Putin told him about his ‘dream’ of invasion [sound bite from debate]. If world leaders respect Trump like he claims [sound bite from debate], and the invasion should never have happened [another debate sound bite], then why didn’t Trump stop his good pal Putin? Because he can’t…or he didn’t want to?”
So many people think the stated reason of an event or institution is the real reason for the event or institution. Concerning political debates, pleasing the moderator or being truthful is not the reason to attend. The reason to attend is to look better than your opposition in the eyes of the total audience.
But let’s not fight your hypothetical too strongly. Let’s examine the details. How would you make them do anything they don’t want to? Have the CIA up there with their waterboarding gear? Fact check them in real time? What if they talk about something like the origins of Covid during the debate? How are you going to fact check that when even the parties who are supposed to be objective seekers of truth have been caught peddling lies?
No, I don’t see it happening. Even college students can’t be kept on topic during collegiate debate where there are no stakes. So, recognize the debate for what it is. A spectacle where you have a chance to outshine your opponents in the eyes of the mass public.
Anyways, if one is looking for informative instead of performative there are other avenues for that and that’s what the general public would need to do if they were so inclined. But as we see, information is just one small set of what the public uses to decide on whom to vote for.
Again - not important. Rationale for that response is upthread.
I wonder if there’s any point asking that question.
On the one hand, we know what Trump and the MAGAts will say: “We’ll respect the outcome of a fair election. Everyone knows there was copious evidence of election fraud, and that the Emperor is wearing the finest silks!”
People living on Earth 1 continue to see Trump doesn’t respect democracy, but those on Earth 2 think he’s a champion of democracy.
Nothing changes.
OTOH I like to believe at least some people somewhat on the fence hear it and say “Just admit you lost, dumbass!”
I agree. And that ad should run no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
I just got online and have about 600 posts in this thread to catch up with. I gather the general consensus is ‘Biden did badly but it won’t matter in the long run.’
I disagree with that assessment. Some here are saying things like ‘today’s rally (in Raleigh) shows the active, engaged Biden, and we just need a few more like that to change the narrative.’ The trouble with that is that the debate had huge appeal, and many of the voters that Biden MUST reach actually watched it or substantial portions of it. I’m talking about the less-engaged voters, the voters who don’t follow political news, the voters who haven’t yet decided between Trump and Biden.
In other words, the people who will never see the Raleigh rally or any other rally or any upcoming speeches Biden gives to labor groups or any upcoming press conferences. They won’t see those things because they’re not very engaged with the news.
But they saw the debate.
And they saw that what the GOP has been selling–'Biden is old and lacks stamina and can’t get through another four years’–was pretty much validated by Biden himself.
And that’s what they’ll remember, when they finally check in and get around to voting. They won’t have seen any rallies or other events in which Biden looked a bit more energetic. They won’t know or care that he does a bit better when reading off a teleprompter to a supportive crowd.
They’ll just remember that slow old guy who kept getting lost in the middle of his answers. The guy who kept looking down, or weirdly, off to the side. The guy with his mouth slack and open. The guy who had a couple of moments of responding to his opponent, but who let most of his opponent’s lies whiz by–not able to respond in real time.
This is a disaster for the nation and the world. Biden’s implacable belief that he is the ONLY person who can beat Trump in 2024 is a disaster for the nation and the world. The idea that the debate will be forgotten after a few more rallies or speeches go by is a disaster for the nation and the world.
As with the other questions that were repeated to Trump, the point was to emphasize that he doesn’t want to answer that question. It shows he either doesn’t have an answer (not even a lie!), or that he knows his answer is a bad one.
Biden made some errors, trump was pants on fire.
It is easy to overestimate the significance of a first debate. People have had years to make up their minds and most already have. Events supervene. The real debate will be closer to the election. It will happen since Trump thinks he can pull the same trick repeatedly, and why wouldn’t he think that?
But octopus is correct. Most Americans are not political. Many Americans rely more on emotion or gestalt or peer pressure than facts and data. Biden was not that hurt by his responses, except perhaps for the spin which will occur due to pauses or phrasing. Biden was more hurt due to his appearance when Trump was speaking, which was not vigorous, and not speaking directly to the camera. But few will change their minds. However, Biden and his preparers need to get the basics right. It is hard to see how this helps his perceptions.
I think you raise a good number of cogent points. Because this particular debate is behind us, I’m going to assume we have a bit of latitude to go off the reservation for a moment.
I think it’s a hugely complicated issue (who watches the watchers, or fact-checks the fact-checkers?), but I think there is a relatively simple – if not easy – approach.
We do what we do about any of these debates: negotiate with the camps of each candidate, and we come to an agreement.
By the time we near debate time, most of us have heard endless iterations of the same basic falsehoods or misleading statements from each candidate.
Make a list. Start there.
Shutting off the microphones is a big step. I’m still a wee bit amazed that the Trump (much more so) and Biden (far less so) agreed to it.
They might have to go two hours or more, or reduce the number of questions. I’m not sure where the breaking point is for the the national attention span, but X% will assuredly stop watching after Y minutes is basically a given.
They have smart people to address that sort of dropout rate.
You don’t answer the question? My hypothetical bipartisan panel of subject matter experts decides – maybe even by anonymous iPads that tally the judges’ take on each candidates ‘response’ (ie, was it actually responsive to the question asked) in real time.
Some agreement as to topics that won’t be allowed without pain will catch a bunch, but clearly not all, of the BS.
There would have to be some mechanism – again: perhaps a separate bipartisan panel of researchers who were – similarly – fact-checking in real-time.
Maybe both groups (the responsiveness of the answer to the question asked and the truthfulness of the answer) are tabulated and displayed by dial testing.
TL;DR; Idunno. But I don’t doubt that smart, motivated, concerned people could come up with enough potentially viable solutions to the problems you thoughtfully raised, and maybe – just maybe – candidates who did not want to be excluded from the debates, for cause, would find ways to say yes.
[Our bipartisan panel of experts rates @DavidNRockies answer as 78% responsive and 66% truthful]
Then explain the SOTU speech only six months ago.
Teleprompters
I remember similar discussions about Biden’s ability around the time of the SOTU speech, and how everyone was surprised at how well he pulled it off. That’s when the whole “He took drugs” thing got started. His performance was so energetic compared to how he had been previously that the R’s were pushing that he had taken something. I don’t remember specifics of what sort of behaviors Biden was exhibiting at the time, but I do remember there was chatter about his declining abilities. It was surprising to me that he gave such a great speech. Not only the speech itself, but how quick he was with coming up with riffs on the R’s who were heckling him. It seemed like he was finally firing on all cylinders that night.
Jon Stewart sums up the “on drugs” debate (2 min)
https://youtu.be/3SJr44m-w1Y?t=822
So teleprompters made his eyes clear and his voice strong and his responses to hecklers sharp? Let’s hear it for technology.
It is hard to overestimate how much this performance will put Biden in a deep hole.
Still. The voters that matter are those who haven’t made up their mind yet, whether it is their mind about who to vote for, or whether to vote at all. And those people both are still mostly not paying much attention yet, and have the memory of goldfish.
IF his horrific performance last night was just an aberration and he is energetic and quick from here, including at the convention and at a next debate much closer to the election, then those low information voters will really only react to that.
But if the energetic Joe is the aberration? We are in deep trouble.
Yes. No thought involved. Nothing to memorize. He just has to read. Unless you think it was a 12 hr miracle cure between last night and today then it’s the teleprompters he used today.
It’s only “amazing” if one insists on spinning him going off to talk to a parachutist while waiting for the photo op to happen as “not knowing what is going on”. Other people might call it “taking an interest”.
As pointed out, yes, Biden is showing his age in a lot of ways. That doesn’t mean he’s the shuffling and vacant dementia patient you keep insinuating he is.
Yes, they said the same thing about Obama. It’s a common excuse used to deflect from coherence in public speaking, something the last few GOP presidents struggled with even when actually using teleprompters.
So all his apparently extemporaneous reactions to the SOTU hecklers both times were written out for him? Neat! I’d be fascinated to read more about it. What’s your source for this revelation?
Oh, and “man felt ill and tired at night but better the next day” isn’t a case likely to make the medical journals.
What makes you think they were spontaneous? You don’t think he was prepped with some zingers? Something better than “Lying dog-faced pony soldier”? Seriously, how stupid do you think his writers and prep team are? In the SOTU all he had to do was read the prompts and memorize a few zingers.
Do you think Churchill just made up his speeches on the spur of the moment? He spent a tremendous amount of time writing them and rewriting them. Modern politicians pay people to write their speeches.
Yes. The polling has not been in Biden’s favor (though it’s been close). The undecided-on-June 26 voters are the ones who may well decide the election–whether they do decide (and it’s against Biden) or just wind up not voting.
The huge opportunity of last night’s debate was that many of those people might expose themselves to it–it was so talked up that they were likely to give it a try even though they don’t pay much attention to news or politics as a general rule.
What they saw will have created an impression on them.
IF they see those things (convention and/or another debate).
Goldfish-memory or not, what they saw last night will remain the impression they have, of both candidates, going forward. Given how little interest the group we’re discussing normally take in politics, the idea that they will put in time to watch the convention or another debate should not be assumed or taken for granted.
What they saw last night will be ‘it’ for many of them.
.
.
.
It’s not necessary that people see Biden as a shuffling and vacant dementia patient, in order to decide against voting for him.
All that’s necessary to incline people not to vote for Biden is a perception that he lacks the stamina and strength to get through four more years of the Presidency.