If it’s the original meaning of meme it’s trivially true. If your ideas spread then that’s a sign you won the debate. Plus people tend to just remember good lines or comebacks. How many people really remember the substance of the Obama-Romney debates? But everyone remembers, “Please proceed, governor.”
I was thinking of the modern internet shit post / troll meaning of meme, like gifs, macro images, or Youtube channels like Can’t Stump the Trump and Super Deluxe, both of which have videos with millions of hits. Obama was the meme candidate in '08 and '12, unfortunately Trump is the meme candidate this time. I don’t think anyone’s going to make videos like this in favor of Hillary. I’m not sure how much of an effect this has on the real world, though.
Most “can’t stump the Trump” or SuperDeluxe videos have 200-300K views, a couple got to 2 million. Meanwhile Clinton’s “Between Two Fern’s” video got 30 million views in 24 hours. Sorry my friend, Trump is not the only one to use the power of kek.
This article excoriates the current presidential debates as nothing more than choreographed propaganda designed to freeze out all third-party candidates:
No, sometimes someone says or does something so perfect (or a few things so very well) or the opposite that everyone on both sides agrees that they “won” the debate. (“youth and inexperience,” “you’re no Jack Kennedy,” etc.) But technically, the idea isn’t that someone wins the debate; the idea is that the candidates present their positions about the same subjects at approximately the same time and we can evaluate whose ideas we like best.
If you “fuck” what the pols agree on, there is no debate. I’m sorry if reality doesn’t align with your preference, but there isn’t much we can do about that.
All the networks will have such panels, and all the panels will come up with a winner. FoxNews will say that Trump won, everyone else will say that Hillary won. There are not many debates in which one candidate clearly won, and that does not guarantee a win in November. Reagan clearly won his first debate with Carter, and he won, but Romney won his first debate with Obama and Quayle lost his with Bentsen.
On the SDMB, if Hillary wins, draws, or loses closely, it will be nearly unanimous that Hillary wiped the floor with Trump. If Trump wins overwhelmingly, it will be nearly unanimous that debates don’t matter.
IMO whoever won the debate is whoever pulls ahead in polls of likely voters.
Fuck the third parties. When they meet the threshold, they get to be included. John Anderson was, George Wallace would have been. If they don’t meet the threshold, they don’t deserve to get in.
Both sides will spin victory. If you want to know who wins, turn the sound off and watch. Whoever looks presidential will be deemed the winner. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that reasoned presentation of issues will prevail, Americans aren’t capable of that level of participation.
Honestly I have no idea why anyone would entertain any answer other than this.
The reason Trump and Clinton are debating is to try to win the election. The winner of the debate is whomever can influence the most people to vote for them.
It doesn’t matter what the talking heads say, and it especially does not matter what the two campaigns say because of course they’re going to both say they won. What matters is what the voters say. If three or four days after the debate you see one candidate look better in the aggregate polling predictions, that candidate won the debate.
I agree but the media will declare a winner and go with that narrative. Clinton has to pull off a clear takedown of Trump or she is done. Anything less and the media, left and right, will be talking for the rest of the week about Trump’s upset and how Presidential he looked. Even a tie is a Trump win. Watching the pundits on MSNBC this morning and they are already setting up that narrative. I can only guess how they are framing it on Fox and the other news channels.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The idea of MSNBC setting up a narrative to spin something to DJT’s advantage is far-fetched. I hope you’re right, but I’m extremely skeptical. Was there a particular quote from a particular pundit that made you think this is the case?
Trump could skip the debate, and be replaced by a steaming pile of dog turds named “Hitler Mcmuffin” with a little Nazi flag stuck in it**, and half the press corps would be talking about how presidential he looked.
** stolen from a post here - can’t find it at the moment to give credit
Up until about a month ago, this question had an answer: whoever three of the five panelists on The McLaughlin Group agreed upon won. However, with John McLaughlin’s death and the subsequent decision not to continue the show in his absence, this option is no longer available.
Who won the debate? You tell me. Your opinion counts just as much as anybody else’s. Just don’t use “who won more debates” as a guideline when you vote. Positions on specific debate topics, yes, but not “Candidate X more debates.”
Beschloss was who I noticed in particular. I don’t recall a specific quote but the general gist was that given how HRC has been losing ground the last couple of weeks Trump just needs to survive without stepping on his dick. IOTW he was setting the bar very high for her and extremely low for him. And no one was really calling out how stupid that is.