243
Tuesday 9/10 Presidential Debate Megathread!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
243 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1665 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Outsider view from across the pond:
It appears from the outset that the Trump camp is tripping over it's own feet and stepping on landmine after landmine. Literally all Harris seems to have to do is stay on message, bat off anything too controversial, and let the opposition's trousers fall down by themselves.
It'll be interesting either way. The only real surprise to me will be whether I'll learn about key moments from news outlets or from mad memez first.
The bar is so low for him, he could literally shit himself on stage and his supporters would crow that it was a power move to own the libs.
Reasonable doesn't win elections here, vibes do. Its madness.
He did shit himself during the debate with Biden.
I wish that was all she needed to do, but Trump is still a slight favorite in a lot polls that account for how the electoral college votes will be divided.
She can’t just stay on message, she needs to drive a lot of turn out in very specific parts of the nation because, sadly, the American president isn’t picked by the majority of voters.
Republicans often win the electoral college and lose the popular vote.
Losing the popular vote and winning the EC has fortunately only happened twice (or once if you instead count 2000 as stolen by SCOTUS by stopping the recount) but it unfortunately seems to be the way modern elections trend. We really need to get rid of the stupid voting system
Put a different way, republicans have only won the popular vote for president once since the 1980s.
That's my favorite way to talk about it as well. They've won one population vote in the past 35 years.
Side note: holy hell, I just realized Carter has his 100th birthday in a few weeks
I can see where it looks that way, but you have to understand that Trump's fanbase literally does not care.
Trump could start the debate by dropping trou and laying a turd live on stage and MAGA would go on about how he's "owning ABC and the libs!"
The media would cut away and claim "Trump opened the debate by declaring his disdain for the process..."
I get it - I think at this point Trump could empty an AK47 magazine into an orphanage and his core voters wouldn't give a fuck.
I'd imagine there is a good chunk of silent "left-of-Republican" market though - people who have voted red because that's what they've always done, maybe because their household is overwhelmingly Republican but they're ready to break ranks, or even those who boarded the meme train in 2013 or 14 but are ready to get off.
I suppose an awkward analogy is being in a group of twenty people trying to get in to a bar with one or two cunts who are beyond mangled - the sensible ones looking at them and thinking "yeah I've stuck with them this far, but maybe I can make a change and enjoy the rest of the night with people who are largely sensible".
If the Cheneys of all people can jump ship, there’s hope.
Agree, however if debates do have any impact on an election (Biden dropping out being an exception) it's to sway disengaged and swing voters. So Trump just plays to his base I think that would qualify as a loss for him.
Disengaged voters aren't watching the debate, similarly I don't see how anyone is undecided between Trump and Harris. Maybe undecided between voting and not voting, but there's no way someone looks at two radically different candidates and goes "You know, I could really vote for either one..."
Don't think of them as undecided, think of them as indifferent. Like if I had to vote in a poll for my favorite NBA team. I don't really follow the NBA, so I might pick a team if I was forced to but I don't really care. If there was a player witn particular charisma, though, maybe I might adopt that team.
People who are just focusing on getting by might think of politics as just too much noise, stuff that doesn't affect them at all. These voters are not watching the debate, but they are seeing five-second sound bites on social media. The right little quip might be just enough to convince one of these low-engagement voters to show up.
They won't watch, but the debate can attract the attention of people who don't ordinarily think about politics but start to realize there's an election coming up. It's a broad group that I don't think you can generalize as broadly as you are (unless you're using the term "disengaged" to describe only the "refuse to participate in any way" camp).
Similarly, undecided is more likely to describe people who haven't decided if they will vote or not - either side winning and otherwise forfeited vote is a good thing for their campaign. But I also think it's incorrect to assume there's people not still on the fence about the candidate - plenty of "I like Harris but I am not sure if she's good for the economy" voters, etc.
A lot will depend on the “fairness” of the moderators. They often lob softball questions at Trump and then let him talk over everyone else.