Biden and the no-debates movement: the Democrats are testing the gullibility of the American public
You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Ah, but you don’t have to. You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
The Democrats are in trouble with their presidential nominee, even though the MSM is heroically and energetically covering for them and for him. I don’t know what will ultimately happen to Biden in terms of whether he will remain the nominee, but I do know that, if he does, the Democrats are desperate to keep him as quiet as possible. That includes, of course, the elimination of challenges such as tough questions from the press – easy to eliminate when the press is fully on your side – and avoidance of traditional presidential debates.
The latter is a bit tricky, in the sense that debates have long been a required part of running for president. I’ve never been a big debate fan because I think they tend to be a superficial string of “gotcha” sound bites as well as being skewed by the media for the Democrat. However, what they are and always have been is a test of the ability to verbally express ideas at least somewhat spontaneously. Candidates practice answering all the questions that can reasonably be anticipated, but there is still a factor involving thinking quickly on one’s feet, under pressure.
That’s an important skill, too. And it’s one that in this case is even more important than usual, since one of the candidates gives every indication of being in the early-to-mid stages of senility. If that’s the case, then a debate would be a format that might be particularly likely to expose that fact. And if so, the Democrats are highly motivated to make sure that a debate will not occur.
But the dilemma is how to do that without arousing a great deal of suspicion that the reason for avoiding a debate is that Joe Biden’s advancing senility would be too nakedly revealed. That would be damaging, too. So the solution the Democrats and their handmaidens in the MSM seem to have arrived at is to pooh-pooh the necessity and value of debates themselves. Debates, who needs them?
What sort of fool would be convinced by arguments such as this?:
Longtime Democratic strategist and former Hillary Clinton senior adviser Zac Petkanas agreed with calls for Biden to back out of any and all debates with Trump in the coming months. As it stands currently, there are three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate scheduled between September 29 and October 22.
“Biden shouldn’t feel obligated to throw Trump a lifeline by granting him any debates at all. This is not a normal presidential election and Trump is not a legitimate candidate,” Petkanas tweeted last week, expressing his “opinion that no one asked for.”
Trump is president, but not a “legitimate candidate.” That’s been the Democrats’ mantra since Day 1.
Or how about this in the NY Times from Elizabeth Drew (whose articles I remember from years past in The New Yorker) [emphasis mine]?
The debates have never made sense as a test for presidential leadership. In fact, one could argue that they reward precisely the opposite of what we want in a president. When we were serious about the presidency, we wanted intelligence, thoughtfulness, knowledge, empathy and, to be sure, likability. It should also without saying, dignity….
This, by the way, isn’t written out of any concern that Donald Trump will prevail over Joe Biden in the debates; Mr. Biden has done just fine in a long string of such contests. The point is that “winning” a debate, however assessed, should be irrelevant, as are the debates themselves.
That effort by Drew would be funny if it weren’t so sad. I wonder who Drew thinks she’s fooling. Unfortunately, I think I know the answer: an awful lot of people who read the Times and the rest of the MSM and just follow the meme du jour, nodding sagely and not remembering all the years the MSM felt the debates were ultra-important, and when they skewed their coverage to favor the Democrat.
Who sometimes was Joe Biden. Well do I remember his awful debate performance against Sarah Palin in 2008, when he at least supposedly had all his marbles.
Columnists such as Drew know exactly why they are now trashing the debates, but they hope the public doesn’t notice the obvious. Perhaps it doesn’t even matter. Many of the people who will be voting for Biden don’t care that he might belong off the world stage. They know that other people, particularly from the Obama administration and to the left of it, will actually be in control and Biden will only be a ceremonial figurehead, something like a modern-day monarch. That state of affairs is worth it to get rid of the “illegitimate” candidate, Donald Trump.
[NOTE: While I was looking for that post on the Biden/Palin debate, I came across this one from December of 2008 with the curious title of “Biden’s Bin Hidin’.” I couldn’t recall what I was referring to, but here it is:
…Joe Biden has been unusually invisible, even for a Vice-President elect.
Usually, Vice Presidents are forgotten after their terms in office. Biden seems to be on track for being forgotten before he even takes office. His profile has been so low it’s underground…
A strange foreshadowing of the present. Could it be that Biden was already showing signs of mental deterioration? There’s also this:
…[Biden’s] been kept under wraps post-election in a manner that’s reminiscent of the McCain team’s early handling of the Alaska governor:
“Still, being number two in the Obama campaign and then the transition has made the public persona of Washington’s most loquacious, happy-go-lucky politician nearly unrecognizable.
“The lack of interviews alone is an about face. Biden was the most frequent guest on the Sunday news shows – in just 10 months, from August 2007 to this past June, he appeared on the shows at least 13 times. His interview with Stephanopoulos will be his first Sunday news show junket since joining the Democratic ticket – and he is only on for half of the hour-long show.”
Interesting.]
[ADDENDUM: Elizabeth Drew herself was a panelist and moderator for some presidential debates during the 70s and 80s.]
Howie Carr ran audio today of Jill Biden guaranteeing that
Joe will be up there on the stage debating Trump.
If the debates come off I’d like to see one moderator from the MSM to question Trump and Rush, Mark Levin, or Mark Steyn to question Biden. It’s only fair to do that. That would actually be worth watching.
I’m wondering what will happen if Biden becomes the official nominee and then goes totally over the line of coherence before the election. What sort of fast one will the dems then insist we go along with? An out-of the-hat nominee currently not in the running? A redo of the election sometime later?
How did the dems get to this point? They have no viable candidate. They evidently are not in a scramble. Who will pull the plug on Joe if he stars drooling after their “convention”?
We’ve already been told—by Biden himself!—that a Black person who doesn’t vote for Biden is not a Black person.
Now we know that debates are totally unnecessary and probably unethical (i.e., if they do anything to help Trump’s chances).
Figures….
I’m waiting for Biden or his handlers to tell us that if we don’t vote for him, then we’re not really human beings AT ALL. That we have no compassion.
That we’re INHUMAN.
That we LACK HUMANITY.
Yep, a vote for Trump means you’re inhuman.
It’s about as convincing as anything they’ve come up with up to now.
Biden was known for saying stupid things off the cuff throughout
his career. Hence the early fear of him in debates/interviews/etc.
It’s another indication that the establishment press take dictation from the Democratic Party or that they’re all worker bees in the same hive. What this also suggests is that people of the sort who participate here aren’t suffering from confirmation bias; the opposition senses they’ve got a problem.
Well, if he doesn’t want to debate, how about this format:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dg6yfOpYYY
Neo neither confirms nor denies her mother was on one of these panels.
Biden was known for saying stupid things off the cuff throughout
his career. Hence the early fear of him in debates/interviews/etc.
Getting his family history mixed up with Neil Kinnock’s was priceless.
After the 2008 election, Biden was under wraps because The One would not tolerate sharing the spotlight.
I guess my feeling at the moment is that, if this move to stiff-arm the debates has the effect of getting us away from the notion of these types of canned-talking-point/gotcha-game “debates” down the road and toward a more long-form type of some sort (Lincoln-Douglas being the obvious historical template, of course, but surely there are others – how about the Oxford sessions, or something?), or a mix of formats, then this might be a silver lining. But that is only true provided that we don’t at the same time end up in this quasi-monarchical form of government that Neo fears. And of course it would be the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I think it would still be the right thing nevertheless.
I’m not sure when I started to conclude firmly that the current “debate” format for these elections was silly. I’m fairly sure it was before 2008, but can’t pin it down exactly. I wonder, if we were to track the MSM’s history of being for or against these “debates”, how it would map against their partisan preference. But is it even a question worth asking at this point? Possibly – for a given commentator or publication, one could get some idea of his/her/its integrity by noting whether the position is a constant, principled one or merely changes with the candidate’s polling strength or similar considerations. For some representatives of the media, the answer will be clear without even looking.
“…principled one…”
Here are (just some of) the principles:
1. Why have a debate if WE ALREADY KNOW for whom we MUST vote?
2. Why have a debate if Trump wants it?
3. Why have a debate if it MIGHT benefit Trump?
4. Why have a debate with someone who’s totally illegitimate?
5. Why have a debate if your candidate is aphasic and can’t even remember where he is from one moment to the next?
6. Why have a debate when debating is such a fossilized activity and the Democrats are the Party of the future?
7. Most importantly: We are TELLING you, NO DEBATES!! So why are you even talking about this??
(And many more where these came from…)
The ‘Presidential Debates’ aren’t actual debates. They are more like shared Press Conferences. They do, however, highlight a candidate’s ability to communicate in an unstructured environment.
If you’re an independent voter – I’m not as I support President Trump 100% – how would you respond to an ad stating … “If he’s afraid to just talk with me for a few moments me how will Joe Biden deal with Putin or Kim or Xi or Khamenei?”
And the PACs will go wild with references to cowards like Chamberlain and how millions will die because of Biden’s fecklessness.
And President Trump could pile on … “If Biden won’t confront me he’ll surely fold when challenged by big Pharma and other plutocrats.”
Jill Biden doesn’t seem to have gotten the message.
No doubt she should be prosecuted for spousal abuse:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6178126112001#sp=show-clips
Hey, maybe the talk about this:
https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2020/08/04/sounds-like-durham-is-done/
Personally, I’m still expecting them to play the Torricelli Gambit.
Maybe Biden should study the Peter Sellers film, “Being There,” and memorize some gardening metaphors.
Stay away from dog-faced Pony soldiers…
“I’m wondering what will happen if Biden becomes the official nominee and then goes totally over the line of coherence before the election. What sort of fast one will the dems then insist we go along with?”
Easy peasy…covid! He’ll get sick, and who knows….might even die – depending on how the Dems want to manage things.
Sharyl Attkisson:
https://justthenews.com/podcasts/sharyl-attkisson-podcast/whats-behind-continued-media-campaign-against-hydroxychloroquine
Tuvea has the right of it. A refusal to debate Trump will be only a bit less disastrous than actually debating Trump. The dems are between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.
But then the more astute dems realize that beating Trump in the electoral college is at best, a long shot. Whereas, holding on to the House majority and gaining a few more Senate seats may well be possible. Preventing Trump from placing another real conservative on the S.C. has to be the dems highest priority. Trump becoming a lame duck President from day one of his second term is the only way to achieve that goal.
How long until the first “Weekend at Bernie’s” meme featuring Biden as Bernie appears?
Art Deco on August 4, 2020 at 4:45 pm said:
It’s another indication that the establishment press take dictation from the Democratic Party or that they’re all worker bees in the same hive.
Technically, they all take dictation and orders from the Bilderberg meetings they tend to have. The kind of “journolist” type shenanigans. And Trilateral Commission plus what’s that other name, Council on Foreign Relations.
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Ah, but you don’t have to. You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Then there’s Fooling Ymar, which is something in the Divine realm of difficulty.
46 Minutes Of Joe Biden Talking Nonsense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0dOuEra_g8&feature=emb_logo
I wonder if others here remember Biden’s performance against Paul Ryan in 2012. He didn’t really debate the wonkish Ryan – he just openly mocked him as many a working class guy might mock any overly self-serious person. Biden’s technique is not at all unrelated to how Trump mocks all those whose poo does not pong (Australian slang for stink). I think Trump knows how to channel this working class point of view because when he was building his skyscrapers the one group he could not simply bribe where the actual onsite workers who could make sure the building actually functioned. Or didn’t. He had to do more than bribe them, like the mafia, or the building inspectors, or the politicians. etc. – he had to understand them well enough to keep them happy. So Trump’s opponents in both parties, in addition to being overly sure that their superior knowledge is the only view possible, are incensed at being mocked by Trump and people like us of obviously lesser quality. So let me be the first to take a knee and honestly confess that we are all less than human. In a word – deplorables.
Let’s remember that as bad as Biden’s mental state may be, what’s worse is the process that gift wrapped him the nomination. Other Democratic candidates in the primaries questioned Biden’s mental fitness. He struggled to raise money. He didn’t poorly in most of the debates and got destroyed by Kamala Harris in one. Yet not only did the Democratic establishment and the media all rally behind him, they were able in the space of just a couple of weeks to stampede Democratic primary voters into supporting Biden.
What does it say that in a field featuring Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, seven U.S. sitting Senators, three sitting Governors, the mayor of New York City, and two billionaires that BIDEN is who they desperately had to drag across the finish line?
What does it say that in a field featuring Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, seven U.S. sitting Senators, three sitting Governors, the mayor of New York City, and two billionaires that BIDEN is who they desperately had to drag across the finish line?
That the culture of the Democratic electorate stinks. If you look at the competitive candidates in Democratic nomination donnybrooks, you’ll generally notice a dearth of people with executive experience and a dearth of people with an occupational life outside of politics. This year, they did better than usual. Note, though, that their best entry was a 38 year old small city mayor whose biography contains not one element that isn’t contrived and whose performance in the mayor’s chair was mediocre. Last time, they had Bernie Sanders (who, unlike Booty-gag, was a seminal figure in Burlington politics) and Hellary, i.e. a not-really-quondam Trotskyist (whose life before politics is an embarrassment) and a crook whose entire legal career was derived from being married to a politician (recall she was fired for cause from her first law job before the ink was dry on her diploma; her supervisor of the time said she was one of just three lawyers he’d ever employed for whom he’d never give a reference). In 2008, they gave us three lawyers without executive experience, two of them crooks and a third a dilettante. In 2004, you had two experienced executives who had satisfactory non-political careers; both lost to a low-rent lawyer; one of the two thought it professionally beneficial to him to behave like a raving lunatic. Prior to that, you had a pair of wonks without executive experience, one of whom was in the middle stages of secular characterological decay; the other might be your model of a non-executive candidate, however. In 1992, they had three experienced executives and a fourth candidate who had some original ideas. Of these, one had prospered in business before going into politics. Rank-order these guys according to quality, and they chose number 4, a man who had spent minimal time outside the world of politics and who was manifestly corrupt.
Prior to 1990, you could argue the Democratic nominees were the best of the field, or at least of that portion of the field that could attract the attention of the voters. Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter were experienced executives and you could argue the same of Walter Mondale. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s 3d career. If they overpromised and underdelivered on that front, they were still ethically head-and-shoulders above what came after. No one they ran against was indisputably better and a few were indisputably worse (Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, George Wallace, Frank Church).
It’ll go one of two ways:
Option 1: Biden overperforms, making only a few stumbles that can be written off; and, simultaneously, Trump wanders off-message in ways that turn off suburban women.
Option 2: Biden comes across as sufficiently-confused to make moderates seriously concerned about his mental competence (and Trump has a better-than-average night).
If Option 1 happens, the excess stress that Trump supporters have placed on Biden’s dementia will backfire: For the rest of the campaign, he will be bulletproof on the topic of mental competence, and if a Trump supporter raises the topic, they’ll be told, “Ah, nobody’s worried about that any more. Didn’t you watch the debate? That issue has been put to bed.” Trump supporters will have gained nothing, and will have lost the opportunity to stress some other Biden weakness.
If Option 2 happens, expect the Dems to pull a Robert Torricelli Maneuver.
What To Do
Either way, Trump’s supporters should stop wasting time trying to paint Biden as cognitively-disintegrated.
First, it has the effect of lowering expectations at the debate: And in presidential debates, the person who “wins’ isn’t the person who wins but the person who exceeds expectations.
Second, it only works if Biden does something in public that obviously and undeniably proves he’s mentally unfit. BUT…if it happens, it’ll happen whether or not the pro-Trump crowd continues to push the issue. If it happens, great! …but if not, any time spent emphasizing it is wasted time. Stop waiting for Godot! Better to move to other issues (like the difference between violent SJW chaos where Dems govern vs. economic prosperity and orderly society where the GOP does) so that, if the mental competence issue fizzles, there’s another issue already in play.
Third, if it happens, the Dems will just replace Biden. Trump will then have a very short time to persuade the public that the new candidate is bad, for some reason other than mental incompetence (unless they replace him with Maxine Waters).
Better, therefore, to paint Democrats, full stop, as dangerous panderers to violent neo-Marxists. That issue will play regardless.
R.C.:
From what I’ve seen so far, the GOP ads plan to emphasize a lot more than Biden’s cognitive problems. His policies, for example, and those of the Democrats in general. I don’t think they’re putting all of their eggs in the “Biden is senile” basket.