I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

Hey look a nicely put reddit comment. What we already know, but succinct and relevant to the debate because his confident tone is unlikely to waver and that's all much of the population will focus on when they assess how he performed.

[–]HBlight [score hidden] 5 hours ago
He is a salesman first and foremost, and he does not want you to care about the product, he just wants to sell it, he wants you to buy a feeling in order to make the sale. So if he wants you to buy the idea that something is good or bad, he is going to load his speech with everything he can to leave you with the impression that the thing feels good or bad. He speaks bluntly and with absolute confidence even when not making sense, because making sense is not the goal, you buying the feeling is the goal.

every time Trump attacked a woman in the debates it went poorly for him (Fiorina, but also Megyn Kelly), Lazio leaving his podium to wave his papers in Hillary's face also failed/backfired, I'm sure there's other examples - also fyi Sanders didn't win

xp

I'm sure there are other examples I'm forgetting at the moment but in general yeah that is not a winning tactic for a man

trump criticizing HRC's looks would be a lot different, sure, than him just in general being dominating or even condescending (though i don't see how the latter is possible given the knowledge gap between the two...). i assumed we were talking about the latter

Xpost that is really well put

(The Reddit comment)

this format is just so terrible for him compared to the rowdier, crowded GOP debates where he had the advantage of being viewed as a novelty (until it was too late). I can definitely see him doing decently because he's so good at deflection and if the moderator doesn't call him out on that he'll do fine. I can also see him losing his marbles if he gets dressed down a bit, especially since Hillary is pretty unflappable in a way his GOP opponents weren't.

Hillary Clinton has never been mad

she gets mad but i don't think she'll lose her temper during the debates. she's been listening to assholes like trump her entire life and she knows what is at stake in remaining poised and calm. it's not like he's going to be able to catch her off-guard - she's already assuming he'll mention monica lewinsky.

is this the kind of debate that allows vigorous booing and cheering from the audience? some of the GOP debates were just bonkers in that respect, very surreal.

If Trump does shout over or interrupt Hillary during the debate, he'll probably do his projection move and claim afterward that's what she did to him, and attack her temperment.

Jim Lehrer used to promise he'd end the debate should anyone applaud a nominee – and deduct time from the nominee.

on balance i think booing/cheering is bad for hillary if allowed, but it does seem to encourage trump to say particularly stupid things

is this the kind of debate that allows vigorous booing and cheering from the audience? some of the GOP debates were just bonkers in that respect, very surreal.

no - they're asked to remain silent. Trump definitely knows how to play a crowd - it's one of his few legitimately great political skills - and without any response he's not gonna know how to modulate his message

yeah it'll be interesting to see whether trump can get the crowd on his side/break the applause rules

i mean who am i kidding i'm not going to watch the debate

He doesn't have any great skills.

FWIW he's also been progressively isolating himself from face-to-face encounters with anybody not on board with his campaign. Very limited interview contact, lot of softball chats with weak followups (Lauer, Fallon), the press isn't on the bus/plane, that thing where only camera-people were allowed to follow him around for what was hyped as a big event, etc. Clinton's surely in a bubble of handlers and selected crowds too, but I expect he really just isn't warmed up for defending himself when someone's right there pointing out that he's changing the subject. Clinton meanwhile just needs to get more people to commit to voting for her, so they'll stop feeling like they have to run to the Libertarians of all people in order to express their dissatisfaction. Given how high she was post-convention, there are plenty of people out there who are not constitutionally averse to voting for Hillary Clinton. Apparently a lot of them are skittish or easily-swayed but I don't think anything that's happened between then and now would indicate she's lost them forever and it's doomed to be this super-tight race until the end.

Thankfully in a few days I can stop writing fanfic versions of this debate in my head but I do think there's a strong chance it hurts Trump - certainly not driving away his long-term fans, but maybe shedding soft support as someone said above.

He doesn't have any great skills.

― Treeship, Friday, September 23, 2016 12:51 PM (eleven seconds ago)

no, he's gotten this far purely out of luck

His success is a measure of the breakdown of our political culture, not of anything positive on his part. A broken system behaves in chaotic, random ways: this one spit up Trump.

re: not warmed up for the debate

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/779346098389417984

Like, maybe his "skill" is shamelessness. People admire the fact that he is a giant blemish on the face of a system they resent, or something. But anyone could act like a racist asshole and refuse to take responsibility for anything they've ever said or done. Unique, sure, but hardly a skill

"chaotic, random ways"

idk i think it was just a matter of time before the GOP cooled it with the dog-whistles and went explicitly racist

i'm not suggesting his "skills" are virtues, but...he's done a lot of things right to get to where he is. to suggest otherwise is essentially to imply that he doesn't represent the values of a frighteningly large percentage of the electorate

or, what will said

Sure, he was able to pick up on the latent racism within the GOP electorate and pander to it. I am just not sure this was skillful or even smart. It was mostly just reckless: a risk that paid off big, but that anyone could have thought of.

All Hillary has to do is trick Captain Squintie.

"My opponent is so callous that he has yet to comment on the attacks earlier this week in Lafarce"

'That is a lie! I have a meeting scheduled with their Prime Minister'

"There is no such country."

"a risk that paid off big" - i certainly can't argue with that

no - they're asked to remain silent. Trump definitely knows how to play a crowd - it's one of his few legitimately great political skills - and without any response he's not gonna know how to modulate his message

― frogbs, Friday, September 23, 2016 11:50 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is a very good point. At his rallies, he can assume the temperature of the room going in, and he can* modulate his response based on the response of the crowd. Without anyone to bounce his message off of, without anyone to validate his chaotic spew of half thoughts, he's going to be lost in the woods.

* (I say 'can' but what I really mean is 'will, because he is a completely reactive nullity of narcissistic flesh, automatically and unconsciously'.)

Without anyone to bounce his message off of

this will be hillary clinton.

Clinton's success is a measure of the ongoing glories of our political culture, mainly familiarity and raising billions from billionaires

xpost and lester holt, who he already called a biased democrat for some crazy reason (holt is actually a registered republican fwiw)

i mean, everyone's right that he's going to be out of his element if it really is a silent auditorium and he's expected to expound on his "ideas" and "policies" and stuff. but in that environment, he'll just turn his attention to trying to mindgame the only other people in the room allowed to speak.

I don't know that it's at all clear that both candidates would get at least 40% of the vote - senior Republicans have been tripping over themselves to not endorse Trump, and a month ago it looked like all Clinton needed to do would stay the course.

And the last month has involved everything going wrong for her and reminding people why they don't like her. There are also record numbers of undecided and third-party voters, and the candidates are unpopular to record levels - so variability abounds.

And of course the number's meaning is a little hard to pin down - they're not going to run the election 100 times so we can see whether Clinton wins 65 times, or 55 or 95. And I'm sure you appreciate that whatever happens, voices on ILX will insist it was always going to happen :)

Shoulda bent the 15% threshold and let Johnson in, no better way to get the Berniebros to defect faster than having them actually look at the platform of the dude they blindly endorsed.

Sanders himself has started speaking out against Johnson and pointing out the stark and terrifying differences in platform, but hasn't been given too much of a microphone for it.

"lester holt, who he already called a biased democrat for some crazy reason"

because he's black, I'm guessing

Gary Johnson :P

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/779292864043855872

@goole - I really enjoyed the two articles you posted. Thanks.

xpost akm, yep, i think that's definitely it

Platform examination won't change anybody's mind; we tend to pick our candidates in ways different from that and rationalize it ithru platform after

That's pretty cynical.

schwantz, you are welcome

Almost every decision people make is made through opaque means and then justified post hoc through rationalization, imo, nobody sits down and thinks through anything

My thoughts on the upcoming debate, gathered in one spot for convenience:

Trump's gonna look really stupid on Monday night. He's got several major problems going in:

1) He does well in a group situation where he can let other people do most of the talking and every once in a while, interject a mean jab at his chosen victim for the evening (Rubio, Jeb(...), Cruz, etc.). In a one on one debate, where he's gonna have to talk a lot more, he won't do as well because

2) His speeches, if you watch them at full length (they're on YouTube), are terrible and boring. He has a couple of big lines, which are the bits that get picked up by the nightly news, but they're stuck in the middle of 45 minutes of rambling, empty bluster. Yes, he draws biggish crowds, but there's plenty of reporting documenting the fact that a lot of people leave halfway through the "show." On debate night, he's not gonna have the video editor on his side to pluck out the one halfway-cogent (in a horrible, racist, thuggish sort of way) bit and spotlight it. It's gonna just be word salad upon word salad. And

3) If he goes straight at Clinton on the stage, he's gonna look like a bullying asshole, for several reasons, including the fact that he's about a foot taller than she is. If he pulls some shit like Rick Lazio pulled during her Senate campaign, actually entering her physical space, he'll fuck himself completely.

4) Also, as has been repeatedly stated here, a major part of his act is feeding off the crowd. There are TONS of call-and-response bits in his usual act - everything from asking the crowd who's gonna build the wall to his repeated refrains of "Believe me!" The debate audience is under STRICT orders to remain completely silent at all times. Without that sounding board, Trump is gonna flounder, and will probably have at least one "lost-in-the-weeds" moment not that far from when Rick Perry forgot which parts of the government he wanted to shut down.

x-post I feel like everyone says that but secretly thinks they are the exception.

didn't realize it was monday night. maybe i'll watch atl-no instead

Phil OTM.

yea good post 誤訳侮辱

"Donald Trump: How many branches of government are there, what are they called and what do they do?"

"Donald Trump: How many Senators can each state have?"

"Donald Trump: What is the name of the first ten amendments to the Constitution?"

"Donald Trump: If the government started supporting one religion over another, it would be in violation of which amendment?"

"Donald Trump: What amendment gave African Americans citizenship?"

"Donald Trump: The rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition are often grouped together under what term?"

lol

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584