Trump

[A5PECT]

It's not But this is America. How can it not be ?

Seriously though, that raises the question what is the point of these debates? Are they just fluff for the television or they meant to give people info for the voting later?

Both. If you're a cynic you'll say it's more the former than the latter.

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not But this is America. How can it not be ?

Seriously though, that raises the question what is the point of these debates? Are they just fluff for the television or they meant to give people info for the voting later?

They are a part of the electoral process. For many Americans they are a very important part because they ignore a lot of the other parts. Someone who avoids political news generally but tunes in to the debates for the spectacle could be strongly influenced by that ninety minutes.

They also provide the fuel for negative ad campaigns. Despite an overwhelming majority who say "I hate negative ads" the reality is that when interviewed carefully a majority of voters reveal that their major themes that they base their choice on were formed by negative ads. Clips from last night of Trump saying stupid or unconscionable things are going to be a TV staple for the next couple months.

[brucewarren]

Thanks.

Now that's interesting. It ties in with the idea that the campaigns being far too long to hold people's attention or interest.

[Timsup2nothin]

Thanks.

Now that's interesting. It ties in with the idea that the campaigns being far too long to hold people's attention or interest.

An interesting question is:

Is there any reason the campaign should hold people's attention or interest?

My fields of study are economics and marketing. One could say that the marketing of economics is politics, so I avidly follow the campaigns from start to finish, and even participate. But for the average voter, why bother?

The campaign runs long to reach every voter, not to drag every one of them along every step of the way. I knew who had my vote for president long before the debate last night, and nothing short of an emotional breakdown calling for paramedics and sedatives would have changed my mind...but I was not the reason there needed to be a debate. I'm not the reason there will be millions of dollars spent on advertising in the next month and a half.

[brucewarren]

I don't have your experience of course, so I have to make my answer as best I can. My answer is that it matters.

It matters because for democracy to function the electorate ought to understand the issues. Candidates should be elected based on issues.

Otherwise you risk the situation where the candidate wins because

a) They is black/female/sjw group of they week
b) They have good hair.
c) They can hold their shit together for 90 minutes and do a good speech/set of soundbites whether or not they have any actual understanding.

We all know the story of Nixon and his failure to shave. In a sane world this should not have cost him the presidency yet by some accounts it did. Kennedy was more handsome on the day and thus won the vote. Had Mr Kennedy been as ugly as I am I put it to you he wouldn't even have been selected as candidate.

Contrast that to Mr Michael Foot a few decades back. Widely ridiculed for being the worst dressed man in the country, but people still voted for him. Not enough to put him in power, but enough to demonstrate that a portion of the country understood what he stood for.

In the UK at the last elections people supposedly voted according to the issues. Maybe they voted for party but we generally had an idea what people stood for.

People didn't vote for Mr Cameron because they thought he was better looking than Mr Milliband. Nor because the latter can't eat a bacon sandwich for all the lulz the Fail got out of it. People voted for the party they believed would fix the economy or implement policies they believed would best help the country.

Of course in political matters the UK is becoming more like America with each passing year, and to my simple mind it's not an improvement

[Timsup2nothin]

It matters because for democracy to function the electorate ought to understand the issues. Candidates should be elected based on issues.

Question: Does this really have anything to do with following the campaign?

I could have made my choice in the presidential election based on the Republican and Democratic party policy positions before the primaries started, hidden under a rock for the duration, and showed up on election day and checked the ballot to see who had been nominated to get my vote. I could crawl out from under a rock the day before the election and even without considering party affiliations done a website reading all nighter cram session on their different policy positions and made an informed decision. Any one voter can make a policy based decision by devoting a single day, or maybe two, at any point in the campaign.

No one is going to get educated on the issues any better by spending days, weeks, or months following the campaign, because the issues don't change. The grinding length of the campaign is a function of giving all those individuals their various opportunities to examine the issues, not to deepen the opportunity for any one of them.

[Morkonan]

I don't have your experience of course, so I have to make my answer as best I can. My answer is that it matters.

It matters because for democracy to function the electorate ought to understand the issues. Candidates should be elected based on issues.

The problem is that the candidates and parties largely control what the "issues" are. And, in the last few decades, the media have also been contributing a great deal towards creating their own set of "issues", usually highly inflammatory, ratings-boosting, subject matter.

Otherwise you risk the situation where the candidate wins because

a) They is black/female/sjw group of they week
b) They have good hair.
c) They can hold their shit together for 90 minutes and do a good speech/set of soundbites whether or not they have any actual understanding...

B and C contribute a great deal towards getting elected. A contributes much more during primaries if the candidate is a minority or member of an outlying group.

...Contrast that to Mr Michael Foot a few decades back. Widely ridiculed for being the worst dressed man in the country, but people still voted for him. Not enough to put him in power, but enough to demonstrate that a portion of the country understood what he stood for...

There is always a somewhat "endearing" quality about someone who dresses... "frumpily" or has a particular wardrobe affectation. Wardrobe gaffs are only particularly dangerous for candidates that have purposefully set higher expectations.

...Of course in political matters the UK is becoming more like America with each passing year, and to my simple mind it's not an improvement

I would agree with you. But, I will also say that it may just be that UK Politics has become more apparent to a certain group of people as candidates ramp up their rhetoric. As candidates attempt to "one-up" each other and purposefully seek "issues" that can gain headlines, simply because they're controversial, it probably is becoming more apparent to the observant UK voter what election politics is all about. (Though, obviously, not all voters are this astute, but I'd wager many of them acknowledge, at least to themselves, that they're aware they're being manipulated in some way by the candidates they support. Crazy, ain't it?)

"Election Politics" has always ever been about winning the support of the people. That is, after all, what it is defined by. In that arena, "facts" and "issues" only matter if the candidate can make them matter to the electorate.

Sure, a candidate should attempt to address concerns the electorate may have. However, how the electorate forms those concerns is the real issue. If a somewhat trusted neighbor tells you your house is burning down, what are you going to do? Are you first going to check to see if it is really burning down or are you going to react as if it is? If the media runs a story on your house burning down, what then? Now, what if all of these people had a vested interest in convincing you that your house is burning down?

Too often, voters act as if the candidate of their choice has no vested interest in the "issues" they're bringing the table. Instead, they choose to believe that the candidate is raising these issues because they're a true concern and one that, luckily, they have a solution to...

I have a solution to "your house is burning down!" Elect me and you will magically discover that your house has not burned down because I have a solution to the issue! (Which, after the election, is largely then telling people that their house isn't burning down...)

[Masterbagger]

I tried to drink whenever Trump said "believe me" and I couldn't keep up. It wasn't humanly possible to consume beer that rapidly and sustain it for the whole debate.

[Timsup2nothin]

I tried to drink whenever Trump said "believe me" and I couldn't keep up. It wasn't humanly possible to consume beer that rapidly and sustain it for the whole debate.

Respect for the effort though. Did you recognize the realities of the situation in time, or did you have to get your stomach pumped?

[Masterbagger]

I tried to drink whenever Trump said "believe me" and I couldn't keep up. It wasn't humanly possible to consume beer that rapidly and sustain it for the whole debate.

Respect for the effort though. Did you recognize the realities of the situation in time, or did you have to get your stomach pumped?

I could have done better on a Friday. Monday was a terrible night for a debate. I believe regardless of political affiliation when it comes to debate drinking games that sentiment can be universal.

[Timsup2nothin]

I tried to drink whenever Trump said "believe me" and I couldn't keep up. It wasn't humanly possible to consume beer that rapidly and sustain it for the whole debate.

Respect for the effort though. Did you recognize the realities of the situation in time, or did you have to get your stomach pumped?

I could have done better on a Friday. Monday was a terrible night for a debate. I believe regardless of political affiliation when it comes to debate drinking games that sentiment can be universal.

For a Monday it would have been safer to go with "every time he says something true." Drinking game for nights before work.

[felter]

"every time he says something true."

Does he ever actually do that.

My favourite part was when he was asked about tax and he said, he couldn't release his tax details as he was being audited, even though the IRS have said he can release them at any-time it doesn't effect the audit. Then he goes on to say he would release them when the audit was over, before mentioning that the audit had been going on for 15 years, so I suspect he doesn't expect it to end any-time soon and has no intention of ever releasing his tax details. Meaning he has something to hide, that he does not want anyone to know about.

[A5PECT]

Before the debate the organization hosting it announced the moderator will not be responsible for fact-checking, which I didn't like the sound of at the time. But as I watched it happen, I realized it was actually a very prudent move because:

1) Media outlets all over television and the internet would be fact-checking in real-time anyways. Debate organizers didn't need to spend time and resources doing something others would inevitably do and do better.

2) If the moderator had to interject every time a candidate made a blatantly false claim, it wouldn't have been a debate between Donald and Hillary: it would have been a debate between Donald and the moderator.

[mrbadger]

Is that normal? Checking if presidential candidates are lying during a debate?
Or is it normally just to correct mistakes.

I mean, it seems a bit sad.

[muppetts]

It is not normal to check but then most either over state or understate or just make mistakes, I don't think anyone has gone as far as to just lie on a constant basis without any connection to reality at all.

It seems most of his cult of personality don't care that he is 1000x worse than the person they obsess over i.e Clinton.

[Timsup2nothin]

Debates don't generally lend themselves to fact checking because when a candidate says something that isn't true usually it takes some researcher some time digging through records and such to completely nail it down. That's why things like Politifact exist.

Thing with Trump is that he will tell these whopping lies where the moderator can say "Yeah, you said that last week. The fact checkers have already done the investigating. That's a lie, straight out. You know it, I know it, anybody that has been paying attention knows it, so I have to call you on it."

[Bishop149]

Debates don't generally lend themselves to fact checking because when a candidate says something that isn't true usually it takes some researcher some time digging through records and such to completely nail it down. That's why things like Politifact exist.

Thing with Trump is that he will tell these whopping lies where the moderator can say "Yeah, you said that last week. The fact checkers have already done the investigating. That's a lie, straight out. You know it, I know it, anybody that has been paying attention knows it, so I have to call you on it."

Yeah there's also the fact that the exchange usually goes like this:

Hilary: "Donald Trump has stated the following opinion. . . . "
Trump: "I never said that"
Hilary: "Seeing as I was the one that brought it up don't you think I might have ALREADY checked and verified that you did say it"
The internet ~10s later: "Here is a video of Trump saying the thing he just denied saying"

Trump is either:
a) Very very stupid
b) Still thinks he's living in a pre-digital age where such obvious lies might have had some chance of flying / failing to be shown false.
c) Has an actual problem with his memory
d) All of the above

[A5PECT]

Trump is either:
a) Very very stupid
b) Still thinks he's living in a pre-digital age where such obvious lies might have had some chance of flying / failing to be shown false.
c) Has an actual problem with his memory
d) All of the above

I feel South Park's characterization of Eric Cartman very accurately illustrates the type of logical processes that govern Donald Trump's mind. (Opens up with an ad, if the video doesn't work you probably have to disable adblock.)

[Timsup2nothin]

That's actually not unique to Donald Trump. The Romney campaign was notorious for his "bus tour barnstorming" where he would stop in three or four towns to give speeches. The speech would be generally the same, but tailored to fit local issues, and frequently the 'tailoring' in one town would directly contradict what he had said just a couple hours before in the previous town.

People would be saying "Dude, we were live streaming your speech from this morning while we waited for you. You can't just say whatever the people in front of you want to hear."

[Morkonan]

Is that normal? Checking if presidential candidates are lying during a debate?
Or is it normally just to correct mistakes.

I mean, it seems a bit sad.

It is normal to check politicians during election campaigns for "lies", yes. This has been done for a few decades, now. Candidates tell some aweful whoppers, but not lies they can be convicted for, of course. All they have to say is "Oops"... AFTER the elections. (But, none ever do.)