The debate: the supposed intelligentsia versus the commoners
It seems that the Trump-Harris debate really highlighted this already-existing divide. It may even be particularly wide between the media and undecideds. I can’t say I know the characteristics of undecideds at this point, but they exist and they are exceedingly important in a close race (once we put aside the possible fraud factor, which is a wild card).
There are polls in which people say Kamala won the debate but that doesn’t make them vote for her. That’s not so hard to understand, because life in the real world is not a debate, complete with mugging, lies, and moderators who control the questions and the flow. The gist of what I’ve seen is that a great many undecideds were annoyed that Kamala gave out little of substance during the debate concerning her proposals for what she would do as president. They wanted the nuts and bolts, and she didn’t provide it.
Speaking of moderators and control, these guys do a good job of analyzing – in enormous and yet entertaining detail – what happened at the hands of the debate moderators on Tuesday night. When I say “entertaining,” what I mean is that the podcasters all have a good sense of humor, not that the moderator bias itself was the least bit amusing. The video is over an hour, but well worth it (I listened to it speeded up, and you can do that if you like):
Have had disappointing results from polls over the past 4-years or so. This time I am ignoring the Debate results and pretty much all polls—with a focus on Betting Odds sites like:
Polymarket
RealClear Betting Odds
Karmi:
Watch the video.
Ace suggested we start running ads – ideally on ABC – telling how much they lied through their teeth. One question is exactly what the law is about which political ads can be rejected and when. The key is to stick to fact.
Roger Simon, on his Substack, suggests a boycott of ABC and Disney. But Ace’s suggestion of running anti-ABC ads on ABC is enticing. The problem is that I doubt ABC would run them.
Get those ads on X. Millions will see them.
Yes — just a Kate says. Post the ad on X and become a viral sensation! A real Hall of Shame.
For those with a more measured frame of mind, Just The News posted the inevitable Has ABC Killed The Presidential Debate?
I’ve been thinking it was already dead, given the last round in 2020.
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » NEO: The debate: the supposed intelligentsia versus the commoners. There are polls in which people
they are pining for the fjords,
Why would someone waste 90 minutes watching this nonsense. Other than those whose job requires it, there are two groups. Group 1 is those who want to cheer for the home team. Absolutely nothing that happens will change their vote. The Harris home team includes the media which explains the coverage. Group 2 are people trying to figure out who Harris is. Love him or hate him everyone knows who Trump is but Harris is a cipher at least to people who don’t chug politics. Evidently, that group didn’t like what they saw or were put off by the obvious media bias. The second is actually better as it will poison the well of future media takes.
Linsey Davis, the female ABC “moderator” on that debate, is a sorority sister of Kamala Harris and gushed about on inauguration day. The article is titled, “Who Rigged the Debate?”
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/09/12/who-pooped-in-trumps-oatmeal-on-debate-night-the-list-is-long-and-ignominious-n4932451
I watched and thought Trump was not prepared but what else would he do? Rather than refuse another debate, why not demand it be on Fox? Same result.
The gist of what I’ve seen is that a great many undecideds were annoyed that Kamala gave out little of substance during the debate concerning her proposals for what she would do as president. They wanted the nuts and bolts, and she didn’t provide it.
–neo
That’s what I’m reading too:
______________________________________
When I watched the debate on Tuesday, I was highly critical of Trump’s performance, and many of our wonderful readers at PJ Media agreed with my criticisms. But in the days since, I’ve wondered if I was wrong.
To be clear, I still don’t think Trump performed well or won the debate. He was easily baited by Kamala Harris and missed many opportunities. The moderators were terrible, but that doesn’t excuse Trump’s lack of preparation.
However, the debate’s impact may not have been as negative for Trump as initially thought. As we previously reported, a Reuters focus group of undecided voters revealed that six out of ten moved toward Trump, while only three leaned toward Harris, with one remaining unsure.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/09/12/this-focus-group-changed-how-i-look-at-the-trump-harris-debate-n4932460
Sure, debates are largely beauty/sound bite contests. It matters very much how one how one presents oneself. Tulsi Gabbard says Harris didn’t spend debate camp getting head down in policy. Not at all.
_________________________________
“Kamala Harris is being trained like an actress—lights, cameras, memorized lines—so she can ‘win’ the debate and act her way through this election,” Gabbard posted to X on Tuesday. “But we’re not choosing the lead in a movie; we’re choosing our Commander-in-Chief.”
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-trump-debate-preparation-1951593
__________________________________
Money well spent.
Those committed to the D and Orange Man Bad aren’t likely to change their minds, but those undecided may indeed be wondering WTF is happening at the border and with inflation.
Harris out-smirked Trump but provided no answers.
I think all she accomplished was some “sick burns” and making faces at Trump. I’d noticed that by mid-morning my time (which would have been early afternoon on the East Coast) the day after CNN had dropped the joy, joy, joy and were back to wringing their hands over her not outlining her policies. It seems to me that a good bit of the stuff coming out of the DNC the last month or so is mostly aimed at bucking up their own side. Not getting cocky, mind you. But I don’t think the debate really hurt Trump.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mark-penn-calls-abc-news-launch-internal-probe-moderators-fact-checking
They denied Trump’s claims about Springfield, Ohio and its Haitian problems, but read this article and see if it doesn’t make your blood boil.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/09/10/springfield-haitians-explainer-n2644502
This open border is not incompetence or a mistake. The Democrats want these illegal aliens here. When we complain, they laugh at us and tell us they are “refugees” who need our succor, but the objective is clear – create more dependent citizens (voters) for their plantation. That’s why the border must be closed, and amnesty must never be allowed.
Late yesterday Sarah Hoyt did a post on her site (linked it on Instapundit) advancing the same proposition Trump did that Harris’s team thinks she lost the debate.
Essentially, the loser is almost always the one who wants a rematch. Especially given the way Harris has been sheltered from the media it seems highly unusual that if her team thought her performance moved the needle they wouldn’t want to go back to fake rallies and interview by press release. Asking for another debate likely means they know, as noted in the article huxley linked, that she did a bad job of convincing undecideds, and she needs the debate format to avoid her fear of a one-on-one interview.
Hmm
https://x.com/carolmswain/status/1834383291983573038
It was strange that people passionately interested in politics focused so much on style, performance, and appearances, while many who aren’t plugged in to politics recognized that the country is in bad shape and weren’t intrigued or swayed by what the politicians said, how they said it, or how they looked. Doubtless there are low-information voters who are swayed by appearances, but it seems like columnists and commentators and talking heads use those people as an excuse or alibi to disguise their own susceptibility to superficial factors.
Its an illusion of consent not an honest debate
Very few of these policies were honestly presented with their down sides ‘you can keep your doctor’ you wont be taxed under 400,000 yadda yadda
‘The Harris campaign has asked for another debate. Trump, for now, has rejected it:
__________________________________
“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are ‘I want a rematch’,” Trump wrote in a lengthy Truth Social post on Thursday.
“Polls clearly show that I won the debate against comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ radical left candidate… and she immediately called for a second debate,” he added.
The former president held a rally in Arizona on Thursday and gave an interview with Telemundo Arizona backstage. “We just don’t think it’s necessary,” he said of a second debate with Harris. “We think we’ve discussed everything and I don’t think they want it either.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9l9500vg7o
__________________________________
I don’t find this particularly persuasive. I don’t consider the debate a win for Trump beyond that he, apparently, got enough of a result with independents and undecideds not to bother with another debate.
There is more upside for Harris than Trump. Unless Trump is willing to do his homework before debating her again, it’s just as well he doesn’t.
I still say time is on Trump’s side in this election. Enough Americans are upset about the border, inflation, the culture war and the Weaponization of Everything, that the Harris machine can’t win on vibes and empty rhetoric.
Trump did not do this debate for his voters. That’s what his rallies are for. He also did not do this debate for the die hards who wouldn’t vote for him if he was the last candidate on earth, so to speak.
He did this debate to get his message out to people who only know what they’ve been told about his policies and that Kamala is the candidate of Joy.
They saw no joy from Kamala. They saw a nasally Karen who was off putting and whom they had never actually heard because she does not deign to speak to the rabble. And who also refused to actually SAY what she would do to fix things that she has had a hand in for 3+ years.
Trump goes everywhere speaks to absolutely anyone, no matter who, and talks like that regular guy who owns the successful business down the street because he takes care of his customers.
And also these supposed moderators couldn’t wait to prop her up and fact check him. But most people have an inherent distrust of the talking heads based on the last few years. So they aren’t buying it like they might have.
So when Trump mentioned pet eating and the moderators jumped to debunk it, the audience all go, sure, now do covid.
Whenever Dems or the media grill Trump and imply he does not measure up in some regard, he should just say “well, I have never been accused of impregnating my children’s nanny. Best if said directly to Kammy. Multiple times.
Just Lily:
I still say Trump was sloppy and overconfident. If he managed to get more people in the middle, great.
I saw a lot of unforced errors. I still say he could have done better and maybe even got more people in the middle.
You go to war with the Trump you’ve got and not the Trump you would prefer.
huxley,
If polished and prepared was what voters wanted, Romney would have been a 2 term president.
People want someone who sees the current situation for the disaster that it is and is willing to fight all comers to make it better. Trump even cares about pets, and he’s not a pet owner. He doesn’t scoff at the slightest concern. It wasn’t Candy Crowley who took Romney down, it was his smarmy fakeness. As his subsequent behavior has shown.
Trump clearly cares and is an authentic non-politician and is willing to show his emotions on stage for all to see.
If Kamala and all her prep could have been slightly authentic, she might have persuaded more undecideds. But she can’t tell the LIVs what the values she “hasn’t changed” really are or she’s doomed. But even Bernie Sanders knows she’s lying. He’s a commie so he’s fine with it but most people aren’t.
If polished and prepared was what voters wanted, Romney would have been a 2 term president.
Just Lily:
Is that the only choice? I’d settle for unpolished and not stupid.
Trump didn’t have to be Romney. He just had to avoid babbling off the top of his head about illegals eating pets and that sort of thing.
Keep the spotlight on Harris to explain her positions. Policy is her weakness. Baiting Trump to say outlandish things was her strength. Review the way she smiled when Trump went off on a tangent.
That wouldn’t have been hard or smarmy for Trump. I’ll bet such an approach was exactly what his advisors were advising.
huxley (11:52 pm) said:
“I’d settle for unpolished and not stupid. . . . That wouldn’t have been hard or smarmy for Trump. I’ll bet such an approach was exactly what his advisors were advising.”
As I commented only yesterday,
“Does Trump listen to anyone other than Trump? About anything?”
https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/09/11/on-presidential-debates/#comment-2761037
And yet, and yet, people are talking about eating pets and not policy.
Why is that?
Because that’s what it took to get them to notice the policy. Prior to his bringing up the pet thing people had no idea Springfield had 20,000 recent immigrants. And that’s just number anyway. But pets. Pets are a tangible thing that people care about.
She literally laughed at the idea of people’s pets being eaten. She looked souless and evil in that moment.
We may think that’s stupid. But people aren’t believing it isn’t happening. Because they no longer believe anything the press says about anything.
Politicians have been arguing about whose responsible for the price of gas as long as I’ve been alive, but eating pets? Who does that and why is it happening? Now people are paying attention. If he goes to Springfield now, everyone will be watching to see if it’s true and, more importantly, what he’d do about it. And since he fixed the price of gas, back when he was prezzy the first time, well, maybe he’ll save the pets too.
No body ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.
The smart ones already picked a side.
“They saw no joy from Kamala. They saw a nasally Karen …”
A Kamala who spoke through her nose with fake emotion.
And “moderator” Linsey Davis was so nasal I had trouble understanding her words. Pathetic.
On another thread below I pointed out that, the Biden-Harris Administration had added so much to the public debt with their reckless spending, that the amount that the “mandatory interest payments” on that debt was taking out of the Federal budget meant that less and less money is being left for the “discretionary spending,” which is what pays for everything else–running the Federal government, Foreign Affairs and Aid, National Defense, Federal R & D, etc., etc.
Well, linked below is an article which points out that, just so far this year–and for the first time ever–the U.S. government has payed out $1Trillion dollars in interest on the Federal debt, and the year is not even over. *
At some point, our public debt, and the interest payments on that debt, may get so high that default on interest payments or even repudiation of our national debt may be possibilities.
* See https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/09/12/interest-on-u-s-debt-tops-1-trillion-for-the-first-time/
neo
I watched the Debate to avoid biased reviews from either the Left or Right – also rarely watch a video, and couldn’t get past 1-minute of this one…too right wing.
Anyway, the Debate was moving much too fast for me to keep up with and write a Live Review at the same time. I was focused on what Harris & Trump were saying, so wasn’t counting Fact Checking being done by moderators.
This morning I have read Ally of Clintons: ABC Must Probe Whether Debate Rigged
Results of something along those lines might change my mind. However, I listened carefully to much of what Harris & Trump were saying – both were lying at times, but I didn’t count those either.
Was surprised at how well Harris was doing – so well in fact that I find it hard to believe she was in on any ‘Cheating’ done by ABC moderators. Trump pushed for the Debate knowing that ABC would have a biased slant towards Harris, now he whines about it. Another indicator of his bad decision making—and M.O. of underestimating people.
To appease the squeaking wheel – ABC should add some grease by doing ‘a review of internal texts and emails should be done by an independent party to find out whether there was an effort to rig the debate’s outcome,’ IMHO, but that’s up to them, and I seriously doubt any amount of grease can stop a squeak that has gone on almost 24/7 for 4-years or so…
According to the report linked below, out on the campaign trail Walz, in talking about Harris’ record, had a little Freudian slip moment, saying that she started out her career as a “young prostitutor.”
Personally, and reviewing this clip several times, I though that Walz did say “prosecutor” and did not say “prostitutor,” but your opinion may differ.
However, this article also includes a bonus clip, from back in the day, in 1995, of a much younger, and quite pretty Harris, accompanying Willie Brown, it looks like at some sort of party, and being asked by someone if–given the great age difference between them–she is Brown’s daughter, to which Harris replies, no.*
* See https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/09/12/yes-tim-walz-just-called-kamala-harris-a-prostitute-sort-of-n2644711
Biden had a plan to “fix” the economy too. That didn’t work out so well. And he never said he would let in 10 million illegal aliens. But he did claim he would cure cancer, and end fossil fuels. For reasons unclear to me, Democrats won more seats in 2022 than the projected Red Wave, even though the economy was “chaotic”. Economic concerns should win the day, but who knows, we are living in interesting times.