On presidential debates
First let’s talk about what happened last night.
I didn’t watch the debate, because – as I’ve said many times – I hate presidential debates and they make me very nervous as well. In this case, I expected Trump to do fairly poorly. I’ve watched clips of him in previous presidential debates, as well as watching some of the Republican primary debates during the 2016 campaign, and I’ve never thought he did well in any debate. It’s just not his thing at all.
On the other hand, although many people expected a giggly, airheaded Harris, I did not. As I’ve said before, she’s not stupid, although sometimes she sounds inarticulate and spacey, and she’s usually not direct in her answers. But for last night she was going to prepare within an inch of her life. Plus, she’s a lawyer with some courtroom experience, and almost all lawyers know how to debate, and those who have been courtroom lawyers must know ways to prevent themselves from succumbing to nervousness when needing to perform.
Because of the unusual schedule of this campaign season, there is no plan for the ordinary three presidential debates with the candidate (Biden no longer counts). That means much more was riding on this particular debate – way too much, because it may be the only showdown between Trump and Harris.
But even though I didn’t watch it, I got a sense that things weren’t going well for Trump because about twenty minutes into the debate I got a text from a relative that hinted at it. When I went to other blogs to look at comments there, I saw that most people were saying that Harris was doing rather well and that Trump was being goaded and getting angry; and besides, that the moderators were extremely biased. This seems to be the basic perception on the right, although some say it wasn’t all that bad and Harris didn’t score points on the “likability” factor.
Later I watched a few clips and was surprised that I was more in the “it wasn’t all that bad for Trump” camp. Obviously, what I saw was selected, and perhaps involved his better moments. But not only was he not that bad but Harris was mouthing meaningless and vague platitudes. In the clips I heard, she didn’t sound ditsy but she actually said nothing of any substance and didn’t answer the questions. It was like language as smokescreen.
The whole thing reminds me (not that I needed reminding) of why I detest debates and have detested them almost as far back as I can remember. Maybe the only one I was okay about was the very first I ever saw (and I believe it was the first televised presidential debate), Kennedy/Nixon. Did I really watch it on TV, or have I just seen so many photos and clips that I think I watched it? No matter. I was very young and already was biased towards Kennedy, since I came from a family of Democrats. But even then there was something about the format that seemed forced and phony to me and caused a sense of vague unease.
And come to think of it, I can’t remember the next debate I watched. Maybe a few minutes here and there of Reagan? Same for Clinton? I actually don’t remember watching any debates until 2004. And looking 2004 up just now, I discover that my third blog post, just a couple of days after I began writing this blog, was about a 2004 presidential debate between Kerry and Bush. Here’s the link, and I see from the content that I’m nothing if not consistent. The beginning of the post goes like this:
“When is a debate not a debate?”
When it’s a Presidential debate.
I’ve always hated these things, from the Kennedy/Nixon days. They make me nervous and they perplex me. Debating seems to be a skill that has nothing–absolutely nothing–to do with being an effective president. And of course these debates have nothing in common with actual debates, which are rhetorical contests with certain rules and regulations and have nothing whatsoever to do with action and decisionmaking, and everything to do with argument.
It’s twenty years later and I feel exactly the same.
I ended the post back then with this paragraph:
Bush seemed to be angry, though–not visibly, but underneath, and it made him rush his sentences more than usual, especially in the first half of the debate, and it made him seem confused and forced. And while it seems to me that Bush will be evaluated on his job performance by most people, I think this anger is a wild card in people’s reactions. Those who are annoyed by Kerry will probably wonder that Bush wasn’t even angrier, and will give Bush points for forbearance. But those who find Kerry okay will wonder what got Bush’s goat. As for me, I think I know.
The large question is : why would I (or anyone) care much about how good a presidential candidate is at debating? To me, it’s a very specific and lawyerly skill, but one that doesn’t translate into right action. And it’s decisive action, good judgment, and leadership we want in a president, as well as the ability to negotiate and persuade, using force when necessary and compromise when necessary.
Debates also can turn on things like charm and physical attractiveness, and/or the ability to get in a sound bite or a memorable phrase. And although I like a good turn of phrase as well as anyone (Churchill and Lincoln were masters, for example), there haven’t been many memorable candidates of that sort in a long long time.
But perhaps worst of all is the role of the press. They are given far too much opportunity to put their thumbs on the scale, and they are adept at doing it and more than willing to do it to help the Democrat. Always to help the Democrat. The first time I realized the strength of their ability to do that and their shamelessness about it was in the second debate in 2012 between Romney and Obama, the one in which Candy Crowley was a major player. I wasn’t watching that one, either, but I was listening to it on the radio in real time in a car because I was with someone who wanted to hear it. Later, I went back and studied the transcript and the clips and I was flabbergasted. Not only had Crowley intervened to help Obama and back up what he was saying, but it turns out that he was wrong (or lying) and that she was wrong (or lying).
I wrote several long posts analyzing the whole thing because I was so incensed; you can find the main posts here and here. I came to feel, after closely studying what had happened, that it was even possible that it was a pre-arranged setup between Crowley and Obama.
And Romney was not even Trump, of course – that is, he was not as hated by the MSM. But nevertheless they wanted to make sure he would not become president, and coverage of him was quite vile and of the “binders of women” type. Now the media and the Democrats are far more desperate to stop Trump from getting elected again. As for Trump, he can often be his own enemy. I would say “his own worst enemy,” except Trump has so many extremely passionate and ruthless enemies that the competition is fierce.
Then there is the question of how much presidential debates actually affect people’s voting decisions. Darned if I know. They have never affected mine, but the same isn’t necessarily true for most people. I have little doubt that they don’t change the votes of the committed voters for either candidate, but what of the undecideds? What are they looking for, what matters most to them, and did they find it last night?
I did not watch the debate; but Megyn Kelly did.
Here is what she said:
https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1833729138567295198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1833729138567295198%7Ctwgr%5E0da91dd811ce3762010160ea56a183bcff62bc8f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2024%2F09%2F11%2Fmegyn-kelly-goes-scorched-earth-on-the-abc-modertors-n2179176
Your last point first: are people, especially undecided ones, persuaded or influenced by debates? From what I have seen today of follow-up reporting from undecideds, they were NOT persuaded to move to the Harris column. I’m surprised by that, but I have to admit Kamala’s melodramatic body language was truly off-putting. Well I certainly hope that is the case, anyway.
“And Romney was not even Trump, of course – that is, he was not as hated by the MSM. . .” I’ve thought about this over the space of the past 20-30 years, and I’ve concluded we don’t remember just how much the MSM hated every single presidential candidate on the Republican side. Even Reagan and GHWB were vilified contemporaneously by the legacy media, as benign as they were. They were all “the devil incarnate,” until they exited the office, then the press begins to compare subsequent Republican nominees as so much worse than Reagan or Bush sr. It’s all very duplicitous.
F:
I actually do remember, because I wrote about it. They hated them all in terms of vilifying and trying to destroy them politically. But some they hated more in the personal sense. Trump they hate in every way.
My theory continues to be that Trump hatred is a unique phenomenon when compared to the general Republican presidential candidate hatred. I think it goes deeper for a number of reasons.
1. His apostasy. People forget, he was very much one of them for years and years. Plus he was a fixture in the entertainment industry. He would do talkshows all the time, had his own reality show. He was one of them. But he turned on them. He left the faith. No true believer despises anything more than an apostate.
2. His stuborn insolence and belligerence. No other Republican candidate has ever come close to demonstrating the level of disrespect that Trump has shown to all sorts of figures who have elevated opinions of themselves. This not only includes members of the media, but all sorts of powerful creatures of the Deep State.
3. His overall demeanor and appearence. This really doesn’t need explanation. Trump is Trump.
It’s for these reasons that I think the level of hatred expressed towards Trump far outstrips the levels that were demostrated against Romney, McCain, and even Bush (and they really hated Bush, but not as much as they do Trump)
Nonapod:
Agreed.
The Republican candidate team will never learn its always a set up 3 against 1. Harris got away with all the Sundowner lies and not called on one.
We will see if the polls start showing the fraud, ie plausible Harris win due to increased poll numbers.
The absolute worst thing Trump does is show how wrong the intelligentsia are about everything.
And he does it a brash and disrespectful way that the most common trailer trash denizen might adopt.
How very DARE he mock them and show them up like that?!? And give the rabble someone to rally around?!
He must be stopped before the natives get restless. And his kind must never, ever rise again.
And his little dog, Elon, too!
*cue Wicked Witch of the West theme
Let us remember, in 2016 Trump the billionaire came down the escalator and volunteered for service to the nation. Democrats have made his life a living Hell ever since, with phony “dossier” produced by the Democratic Party HQ and Hillary, phony link alleged with Putin, vicious persecution by Democrat-run judicial system in NYC.
He has been shot at, figuratively and literally, and he still stands with what I believe are morally and politically correct positions.
I tell my friends, “You can call me any dirty name in the book, but do not dare call me a Democrat.”
Nonapod:
And 4: He beat Saint Hillary! As unlikeable as she is for most of the world, to the true believers in the progressive Democratic Party, it was unthinkable that anyone would do that. And on top of that, he really didn’t beat her, to hear them tell it, except for the assistance of the Electoral College, which they want to do away with.
Neo: Trump they do, indeed, hate in every way. On top of that, there’s the issue of recency. “We hate them all, but he’s right here right now, and for that we have a burning hate!”
Nixon and Kennedy debated because there was no incumbent. And because the election was felt to be close. And it was considered undignified for a sitting President to debate a challenger.
If it’s not close, there’s no incentive to the favorite to debate. No debate in 64 (not close), 68 (don’t remember if it was proposed, but Wallace running might have something to do with it), 72 (not close). 76: Ford was so far behind in the polls that he, despite being a sitting President, had to debate to shake things up. Since then, it’s been hard to not debate.
And for crips skake, I don’t care if debates are not Trump’s thing, if he wants to be President he better make it his thing. It’s the least his voters can expect of him.
Two friends, one being my “Other Brother”, nominal Rep, watched the debate (I go with Neo, never watch them). Their take was pure perception, Trump the buffoon, repeating himself, going over the same things, etc. And Harris, well she LOOKED Presidential, spoke well. As for the moderators, they weren’t really that biased. And they didn’t fact check either one of them.
They both voted for Trump before, but believe J6 was an insurrection. No amount of talking will change their minds.
I frequently tell my Friend, the OB, that “A Closed Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste”.
I watched and was concerned at Trump’s reactions. He was far too defensive. She obviously exceeded expectations but was mugging quite a bit when he was talking. I remember Gore making the same mistake in 2004. Bush, on the other hand, impressed me by winking at a friend while Gore was pontificating.
I will take issue with one idea: that debates have no real effect. My one contrary data point is the Trump Biden debate. It knocked Biden right out.
How this one will play out with Trump and Harris remains to be seen. I said in another thread that I think he did not do well. And, despite Karmi, it was 3 against 1. Megan Kelly certainly popped a gasket over it.
She will retreat to the basement strategy and wait out the remaining time while the media gives her total cover.
The hatred they have for Trump is perhaps just a preview of their hate for all ” MAGA”. Look at the comments sometimes on places like Yahoo News or the leftist that venture onto the Fox News website.
I am not Catholic, but some years ago I remember, perhaps on this site, a quote from some Catholic leader along the lines that his successor’s successor would be martyred on the street in the U.S.
I doubt the debate changed many voter’s minds, but their minds don’t matter to the outcome of the election.
The minds that matter are the people in the deep blue precincts in MI, PA, and WI who will decide which ballots get counted and how many. No debate has changed their minds.
A vote for Harris, Biden, or “insert Democrat here at last minute in purple crayon” is a vote for the Deep State. People voting that way are totally comfortable with the rule of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. And they’re the ones counting the ballots.
Their hate for Trump blinds them from grasping that he is the final barrier protecting them… from us. His defeat, if it comes and however achieved will embolden them to revoke our fundamental and inalienable rights and, that’s when they will reap their fate. Far better for them that Trump be allowed to steer our ship of State away from the rocky shore they are too blind to see to which they are steering us.
All we truly need is for us to be left alone, to live our lives as we see fit. The more we resist, the more fiercely they shall insist. Compelled speech is just the beginning for their ideological worldview requires that we wear the mark of the beast and bend our knee to Moloch (“a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice.”)
And that is “a bridge too far”.
I am not Catholic, but some years ago I remember, perhaps on this site, a quote from some Catholic leader along the lines that his successor’s successor would be martyred on the street in the U.S.
==
It was Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago. IIRC, he said he expected to die in bed, expected his successor to die in jail, and expected his successor once removed to be executed. Sad to say, his actual successor is the very model of a Regime prelate.
Geoffrey states @6.27PM, “All we truly need is for us to be left alone, to live our lives as we see fit.”
That was once upon a time the constitutional essence of America. It shows that true America is losing to takeover by the Progs. Probably has already lost it. A cry to be left alone indicates its evaporation.
I think he showed remarkable restraint considering the unending stream of lies and omissions he faced
On her watch there is bloodshed in kabul kiev and the kibbutzes we know what side she has taken on the first and third matters, shes for the two state solution that is the end of israel aa a functioning
entity
‘You will not allowed to be uninvolved’ someone said some years ago i noticed they conjured up a new whitmer plot
That involved telegram shazbot what a coincidence, instead of actual crime they engage in thoughtcrime at Minitrue
The problem with the debates is that they’re not really debates. That would be two candidates expressing their opinions and policy preferences on specific subjects so the watchers could decide with which they agreed more, or who was more persuasive. Harris managed, with ABC’s help, to avoid specifics. We didn’t know, before the debate, what her policies would be, and in most cases we still don’t.
The interesting thing is that the debacle last night doesn’t seem to have changed many minds at all. If Kamala hoped to move undecided voters in her direction, she seems to have failed.
The problem with these debates is the donkeys and their vile supports lie, cheat and steal. Their party exists on election fraud and money laundering. The moderators demonstrated what they are. Trash.
I think a massive gross receipts tax on all things entertainment oriented is in order. Start with Taylor Swift.
Boy. It appears I’ve overestimated Trump, debate-wise at least.
I really thought he would be smarter, that he would step back, make Harris speak and explain her positions — to her detriment. Surely that’s what his advisors were advising.
Instead he went for every piece of red meat Harris dangled in front of him. Including that horrible bit about illegals eating cats and dogs. Kamala had the most wonderful smile when he took that bait.
The good news was that Trump didn’t Go Beast on Poor Li’l Kamala. The bad news is that Trump didn’t do himself any favors either.
Of course, the ABC deck was stacked against Trump. But complaining after the fact wasn’t impressive either.
I call it a draw. Both live to fight another day. In the long run I still say that favors Trump.
Trump can’t help himself, and his performance was terrible. That said, I agree that this so-called debate won’t have changed any minds except perhaps among the weakest-kneed Trump “supporters.” But the minuscule portion of the electorate that “vibes” to the Harris/Walz “mean girl” campaign was surely delighted with a mediocre performance from their candidate, a performance being judged as much better than it was only because her opponent was so bad.
Just Lily @ 4:56pm,
Great comment!
Re the hatred of Trump: I’ve always thought that apart from the general rich trash vibe that surrounds Trump (gold-plated jet etc etc), what really sent Democrats around the bend was that his election as Obama’s successor was what the victory of the anti-Christ would be for Christians: the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not, as the KJV has it.
Obama’s presidency was supposed to signal the end of resistance to the progressive program. He was the ultimate Magic Negro, treated as almost literally semi-divine. He was here not to govern us but to heal and enlighten us. And along came this vile usurper, sullying the temple. That alone enraged them beyond description. Then added to that was the humiliation of Her Entitled Majesty.
Do not underestimate the extent to which contemporary progressives are acting as adherents of a religion. It explains an awful lot.
I agree with you 100% mac. After Obama the progs thought they had it in the bag. Look up Ruy Teixeira, a leftist who predicted the rise of Obama but now realizes where they went wrong.
Perhaps it was;
I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.
? Cardinal Francis George
As the debate fades and I reflect on it a bit more, I understand that the smirk Kamala Harris steadily directed at Donald Trump was also (and actually) directed at roughly half the country. Those voters saw it, and so did many independents. Harris’s “Deplorables” moment?
Breitbart has a slew of debate posts up today.
One of them addresses the question of how undecideds reacted.
Admittedly, it’s a small sample size, but that’s what focus groups are.
Will the polls show the same thing?
Does anyone still believe the polls?
https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/09/11/abc-news-debate-causes-undecided-voters-vote-or-lean-trump/
On Harris’s demeanor, which was distinctly different in the clips I saw from any previous outings.
Tulsi Gabbard blows the whistle, and I believe her.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/09/11/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-took-acting-lessons-with-hollywood-advisors-before-abc-debate/
One thing that Trump could have benefitted from (among others) is getting a coach to refine his facial expression. He really did look like a sullen frog most of the time, and I know he has done much better in rallies. I suppose someone advised him to look serious and presidential.
Looking over the Breitbart posts about the biased “fact checking” of the moderators, I move that we quit using that particular term.
Firstly, it implies that there are indeed “different facts” — otherwise, what are they “checking”?
Secondly, it implies that the “checkers” actually are spouting the true facts (not the different ones), when most of the time (on all sides) they are merely justifying their candidate’s position.
Thirdly, it leads to laugh lines like the one from Snopes, on a topic not yet touched by Neo & Company, although it’s making the rounds of the punditry.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-earpiece-earrings/
I’m more likely to believe any claim that Snopes decrees false or unfounded, but the technical details are explained better in the following post, which may also be biased but is not so blatantly clueless.
https://www.laptopmag.com/headphones/airpods-earbuds/did-kamala-harris-wear-these-nova-h1-audio-earrings-during-the-presidential-debate
Ann Coulter recalls the Crowley incident, and also another interesting follow-up to the Trump-Clinton debate, which I believe Neo covered at the time, where actors presented the exact words and actions of the two candidates, but reversed their roles: a woman gave Trump’s answers, and a man gave Clinton’s.
The response was fascinating. I would love to see he experiment repeated with the Trump-Harris debate.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/11/ann-coulter-the-debate-about-the-debate/
Art Deco and Mary Catelli,
Yes, that was the quote.
@ Nonapod > “I think the level of hatred expressed towards Trump far outstrips the levels that were demonstrated against Romney, McCain, and even Bush (and they really hated Bush, but not as much as they do Trump)”
They hated them at the time, and McCain famously supported ObamaCare over Trump, and the remaining two of them have come out in favor of Biden and Harris at various times, while their staffers publicly moved to the Democrat column in 2020.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/27/mitt-romney-staffers-support-joe-biden-402408
“Bush, McCain and Romney presidential staffers unite behind effort to elect Joe Biden — “We know Mitt and Joe share those same essential, presidential traits,” Romney staffers write in an open letter.”
(In hindsight, that reads like a Babylon Bee satire.)
So: did the hated Republicans take the venomous insults personally, or write off the rhetoric as “politics” and ignore it?
It seems that much of what is said in DC is like the speeches of many Islamic politicians (such as Abbas), who give one speech in English and a totally different one in Arabic and expect everyone in the Middle East to know which pronouncements they really mean seriously.
My one contrary data point is the Trump Biden debate. It knocked Biden right out.
I disagree. Biden was terrible but no worse than he’d been at anytime in the past year. What knocked Biden out was the media’s carefully orchestrated, probably pre-planned response to his performance, after they’d spent years assuring us he was sharp as a tack. (CNN even fact checked Biden when he spewed the “fine people” crap IIRC. Kamala repeated it last night. Crickets.) They media wanted Biden gone and therefore gone he was.
Focus groups and polls are IMO not very reliable indicators of the electorate, but the markets are a strong indicator of how the candidates’ proposed policies are interpreted by people who would be very directly impacted by them.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/09/11/the-cost-of-kamala-stocks-plunge-after-presidential-debate-and-higher-core-inflation/
“The Cost of Kamala: Stocks Plunge After Presidential Debate and Higher Core Inflation”
Punctuation counts: I read the URL and wondered what “kamala stocks” were.
Fact checking the “fact checking” of the moderators.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/10/21-kamala-harris-false-claims-hoaxes-that-debate-moderators-did-not-fact-check/
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2024/09/11/nolte-time-issues-humiliating-correction-admitting-kamala-supports-taxpayer-funded-gender-surgery-for-illegals/
AesopFan (11:37 pm) said: “One thing that Trump could have benefitted from (among others) is getting a coach to refine his facial expression.”
Does Trump listen to anyone other than Trump? About anything?
The Haitian Cat Crisis came up in the debate: Not the Bee had a good story “fact checking” the claims that pets and geese were ending up in the illegal’s cooking pots. It’s the most complete I’ve seen this week on that topic.
https://notthebee.com/article/this-youtuber-is-on-the-ground-in-springfield-and-the-things-hes-discovering-about-the-haitian-migrant-crisis-is-unreal
The main point of the post, however, is that the dietary debacle is the LEAST of the problems that have hit the town due to the massive infusion of illegals brought there BY THE BIDEN administration.
IMO The best of the many cited tweets was this one giving the responses of the local citizens:
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1833655909593276444
However, J. D. Vance had a good response as well:
https://notthebee.com/article/jd-vance-sums-up-kamalas-debate-performance-perfectly
Vance said this about the debate:
Fortunately for humble hermit Down-ballot Voting me, my fairly new Fiber Internet went down last night just after I finished reading some of the deranged & false comments about me (Bauxite also) towards the end of ‘The debate’s tonight’ post. My Self often does such for me…
Talk about Cult of Personality disorders. Talk about a deranged LOVE of Trump. Talk about the MAGA right’s serious TDS issues!?!?!
Oh, let me apologize to physicsguy for suggesting that his “TDS was showing” – physicsguy certainly doesn’t fall into the MAGA mob of commenters—& owner who suffer from it.
Like many other commenters here, physicsguy can state his view whilst also listening to other views without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. physicsguy, and the other non-MAGA mob commenters are even able to deal with my harsher points without resorting to such.
In closing – Harris won the Tuesday’s night Debate. I had first called it a tie, and clearly stated both did good. The Debate proved too me – that my decision to not vote for either of the two (Down-ballot Voting) was the correct decision for me.
I share Our Gracious Host’s dislike of so-called “Presidential Debates.” They are nothing of the sort. To use the word, “debate” in the context of what specifically transpired between Harris and Trump is to expand the definition of the word beyond any meaning whatsoever. What ABC aired was not a “debate,” which implies a rational discussion of ideas, but rather a show trial in the nature of those put on by the soi disant judiciary in totalitarian states. That is, a defendant is put on the stand, subjected to accusatory questioning, decried and belittled until declared guilty as charged. The outcome is never in doubt and the process is not designed to do anything other than set the stage for the imposition of sentence. In this instance, Trump was in the docket and the prosecutors were employees of ABC as well as Kamala, who were alternately assuming the same position. The questioning of Trump was of the “When did you stop beating your wife” variety, and Kamala was asked questions along the line of, “How did you become so very wonderful?” When a substantive question was posed to her, she responded (I cannot say “answered”) with a scripted piece of hifalutin fluff, and was never challenged. When Trump answered, he was continually “corrected” and harangued to “answer the question.” The estimable V.D.Hanson astutely analyzed the process in his post on X. I suspect he is correct when he states that nobody will remember what the candidates said and nobody’s position will have been changed. It is also well to remember that the typical “undecided” voter (the only ones likely to be influenced at all by the “debate”) has the attention span of a flea, and there are still fifty days until election day. Many things can happen during that period, and probably will, to effect a greater impact on the outcome. The election will hinge, as these things usually do, on the turnout of white, working class voters. I suspect they will be more motivated by the state of their personal finances than anything else. Or at least, I shall hope so.
Were Kamala’s pearl earrings really pearls? Or was she getting fed answers by the latest greatest wi-fi ear buds?
Speculation has been rife, causing Just The News editor in chief, John Solomon, to reach out for comment from the device makers.
They replied we cannot tell for sure, but the look a lot like our product.
–Solomon podcast intro, September 11.
Itd bet there a report in the works.
Kamala Harris debate earrings twist as mystery company behind stealth bluetooth jewelry responds and vows to even the playing field for Trump
Pic showing what she is wearing looks like the Tiffany earrings…
Its ecclesiastes that says put away foolish things we can also refer to kiplings if
Trump brought to the fore front the things that concerned us inflation invasion crime
She fed the peanut gallery with chinese takeout there lies the different
Why shouldnt be calm this sad state of affairs is what she wanted but why does sbe want a second debate if it was a tko
The Just The News story on it is up, HERE
Was Kamala wearing remote audio devices disguised as pearl earrings? Just The News Reports on what the product maker says. https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/company-responds-theory-harris-wore-audio-earrings-pres-debate-resemblance-striking
Quote from the company spokesman: “We do not know whether Mrs. Harris wore one of our products. The resemblance is striking and while our product was not specifically developed for the use at presidential debates, it is nonetheless suited for it,” Malte Iversen, managing director at Icebach Sound, told Just the News on Wednesday.
Further into Solomon’s podcast yesterday, pollster Scott Rasmussen says he polled likely voters about the debate on Monday. Only 61% even know about it. Only 29% of total likely voters were going to watch, which fairly well matches the viewership of 0.33 share by ABC.
Rasmussen adds that the propaganda media’s celebration will not persist because its consequences will be brief and too affect a narrow voter group, mostly already committed.. Focus groups from two sources show undecided voters either unmoved or else negatively affected by Kami’s “win.”
Debates are about appearances, and apparently, the more people are into politics the more they care about appearances. People who rely on what they’re paying for groceries and paying in taxes may have been better judges than people who were up on the “inside politics” angles and judging performances.
It’s said that voters want somebody they can have a beer with or engage with in other friendly situations. That may account for the Democrats’ and the media’s reaction to Trump. They had to attack and demean Romney because Romney was the Republican candidate, but they could imagine sitting down with Romney after the election and sharing some friendly chit-chat and whatever beverage Mitt is allowed to drink, so there wasn’t the real hatred of Romney that there is for Trump. For some reason and in some way, the Democrats and the media have convinced themselves that they can’t ever have that friendly beer with DJT.
I wonder about those “earpiece” rumors. Presidential debates are stressful for the candidates. Having someone in your ear talking over the other candidate and talking over the moderators, and talking over you might make it hard to concentrate and might not be as helpful as just having solid preparation (and maybe a heads-up on what the questions will be).
When people say Harris looked “Presidential”, I think back to the glory days of Bill Clinton, staring straight into the camera, wagging his finger and claiming he “did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.
Was Harris “presidential” when she stared straight into the camera and told America Joe Biden was absolutely fit to run for reelection?
I would rather have a beer with Trump than Romney, it would be a hell of a lot more interesting and entertaining. Let alone Kam …
Vice President Kamala Harris’s support among Jewish voters is at its lowest level for a Democrat since the 1988 election, when former Gov. Michael Dukakis (D) lost to George H. W. Bush. Harris’s diminished support suggests Jewish voters are uneasy about the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the Hamas/Israel war and its management of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Harris’s support among registered Jewish voters is 65 percent, Pew Research found this week, the lowest mark for a Democrat since Dukakis lost to Bush with only 64 percent support among the demographic. Trump has 34 percent support among Jewish voters
“Trump has 34 percent support among Jewish voters“
Might be much higher given that many of the people who have asked are not Jewish and many of the people who won’t answer Tend to be orthodox
If the question was asked only of those who were exclusively Jewish Grandchildren will be 95%Trump