Trump Harris Debate?

[Lamb]

Who watched the debate between Trump and Harris last night?

I started watching it, but went to bed early because neither one of them would answer the direct question. That gets old.

Then there was the hosts debating Trump instead of staying in their lane. It was an insult to the viewers.

 

[Lanman87]

I started watching then had to turn it off because it was cringing so much at both of them. Whatever you think of Trump, you have to admit he is not a good communicator or debater. He lacks focus, misses opportunities, gets annoyed easily, and says some bizarre things. Even his stump speeches are that way.

I really wish Republicans had come to their senses and found a better candidate instead of being so loyal to Trump. I honestly think that any of the other Republicans who ran this cycle would have done way better in a one on one debate with K. Harris and would be 4-6 points ahead in the national polls and would win easily in November.

Trump may still eek out a win. Lots of things can happen in a campaign. Who knows what "October surprise" both campaigns have waiting to unleash that could drastically alter the outcome. But at this point, Trump is running a reactionary and undisciplined campaign.

 

[tango]

I didn't watch it, I'm not really that interested. A while back (shortly before Biden dropped out) I was talking with a guy about the candidates and he made the point that Biden performs badly in debates but the president doesn't necessarily need to be a good debater. Whatever our opinions of the candidates then or now I think he had a good point. Someone who debates well but manages poorly won't be as good a president as someone who manages well but debates poorly.

I'd rather look at someone's political stances than how well they can wrangle words.

 

[NewCreation435]

No, I didn't watch it. Honestly, I'm not sure it matters in this race much. Everyone knows Trump and what he is about. He's been in the public eye for decades and is a former President.

 

[Forgiven1]

I didn't watch it. I had some major dental work yesterday so slept through it all.

 

[Lanman87]

I didn't watch it, I'm not really that interested. A while back (shortly before Biden dropped out) I was talking with a guy about the candidates and he made the point that Biden performs badly in debates but the president doesn't necessarily need to be a good debater. Whatever our opinions of the candidates then or now I think he had a good point. Someone who debates well but manages poorly won't be as good a president as someone who manages well but debates poorly.

I'd rather look at someone's political stances than how well they can wrangle words.

The problem is that a fairly large portion of the population base their vote on who gives them warm and fuzzy feelings. It is not impossible to win without being "likeable" but it sure helps.

The two best candidates, as far as being a good candidate, in my lifetime were Reagan and Clinton. Both were disciplined campaigners, used humor, empathy, were persuasive speakers, and were quick on their feet in debates and with the press. They also both had the ability to deflect attacks like a ninja. I disagreed with Clinton on just about everything and did not vote for him. But I know a lot of people who were "charmed" by him and supported him, even though they didn't understand or support many of his policies. More often than not, it is those type of people who determine who wins a national election. Debates are about trying to convince those "fuzzy" voters to vote for you.

Trump people will support Trump. Harris people will support Harris. Any candidate will need a large share of those "fuzzy" voters to win. It is yet to be seen how the "fuzzy" voters react to K. Harris.

 

[Castle Church]

We watched about....five minutes of it. Both candidates were cringe in their responses and we could not take any more of it. I already knew who I was going to vote for anyway and I don't think my wife is going to vote for either presidential candidate this time.

 

[tango]

The problem is that a fairly large portion of the population base their vote on who gives them warm and fuzzy feelings. It is not impossible to win without being "likeable" but it sure helps.

It's definitely a problem, when you combine the tribal voters who always vote the same way even if they don't know why, and the ones who vote for someone because they have a nice smile, or they are a "good Christian man" or whatever other vague term is thrown around. Perhaps we deserve to be stuck with ever-less inspiring candidates.

The two best candidates, as far as being a good candidate, in my lifetime were Reagan and Clinton. Both were disciplined campaigners, used humor, empathy, were persuasive speakers, and were quick on their feet in debates and with the press. They also both had the ability to deflect attacks like a ninja. I disagreed with Clinton on just about everything and did not vote for him. But I know a lot of people who were "charmed" by him and supported him, even though they didn't understand or support many of his policies. More often than not, it is those type of people who determine who wins a national election. Debates are about trying to convince those "fuzzy" voters to vote for you.

I remember reading an article about Clinton and the way he connected with just about everybody. From what I gather people would say that "Clinton understands people like me" whether "people like me" meant coal miners or hedge fund managers.

Trump people will support Trump. Harris people will support Harris. Any candidate will need a large share of those "fuzzy" voters to win. It is yet to be seen how the "fuzzy" voters react to K. Harris.

The swing voters will ultimately decide, it's just a shame when so much hangs on little more than whether someone gives the warm fuzzies.

 

[Albion]

I watched a little bit of the debate. That was all I could endure. Trump's style of speech is unappealing, and Kamala essentially mouths a script without really answering the question asked.

But after all is said and done, Trump did have facts while Kamala relied on generalities and pious slogans, and the moderators were described by many commentators as biased. So, I can imagine that many viewers came away with mixed feelings.

I saw two polls this morning that sampled people's reactions, and one of them said the respondents felt that she had won, while the other one resulted in Trump having been the clear winner.

 

[Lamb]

If no one legitimately answered the questions, did anyone really win?

 

[Cam]

As someone who has enjoyed watching debates since I was little, these debates have gotten.... Weird. I personally thought that Kamala "won" the debate, but she definitely got some help from the moderators. All of her answers sounded very scripted, while Trump's answers seemed like more natural responses.

 

[Lanman87]

If no one legitimately answered the questions, did anyone really win?

Well, none of us won, that is for sure.

The "winner" of the debate is all about perception, not substance. I remember when George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton debated. People made a big deal because Bush kept looking at his watch, like he just wanted to get it over with. Clinton was "declared" the winner because he was young and engaged and Bush the loser because he looked old and uncomfortable. What they actually said and the positions they espoused really didn't matter. It has been a long time since substance mattered in a debate. I wish they would just be audio only on the radio. That way people would pay attention to what they actually said instead of mannerism and style.

Don't get me wrong. Mannerisms and style are important. After all, the POTUS is a symbol of the USA to the rest of the world. We want to be well represented.

 

[Lamb]

As someone who has enjoyed watching debates since I was little, these debates have gotten.... Weird. I personally thought that Kamala "won" the debate, but she definitely got some help from the moderators. All of her answers sounded very scripted, while Trump's answers seemed like more natural responses.

What did you think about her dramatic theatric movements and facial expressions?

To me, it was a female trying to be dominant by doing things that females tend to do when they want attention. That's not a good thing when it comes to politics because it's just unprofessional.

 

[Cam]

What did you think about her dramatic theatric movements and facial expressions?

To me, it was a female trying to be dominant by doing things that females tend to do when they want attention. That's not a good thing when it comes to politics because it's just unprofessional.

I think that's evidence that public speaking doesn't come natural to her. She's being coached and she was too over the top with that. Unless it's intentional and they're just trying to trend with memes and such? Kind of figure that's why Trump really leaned into pets being eaten.

 

[Lamb]

I think that's evidence that public speaking doesn't come natural to her. She's being coached and she was too over the top with that. Unless it's intentional and they're just trying to trend with memes and such? Kind of figure that's why Trump really leaned into pets being eaten.

I bet he was hoping for shock factor...but in his favor.

I mean, it's been a joke for decades that Chinese food places use cats for their meat and in some Asian countries, people do eat cats/dogs, even though it's illegal.

The US is such a fat country that we can't fathom someone being so poor and hungry that they would eat a cat or dog.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Trump won.

 

[Albion]

The "Haitians killing cats, dogs, and geese" story was in the news several days ago, so readers had no reason instantly to think it was untrue. Now, after Trump's mention of the matter during the debate, the usual TV networks and print media that specialize in denigrating Trump are almost required to report that the claim is "baseless" and "false" and that there is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence, but that doesn't mean it's conclusive.

More than that, it's not the real issue anyway. The federal government dumping 20,000 refugees into a small Ohio city as it did is OBVIOUSLY going to cause problems, not that Kamala or the Administration cares. They have a new attack line to use during the election campaign now that the "Very fine people" and the "Bloodbath" claims have been disproved.

 

[prism]

What did you think about her dramatic theatric movements and facial expressions?

It's those moments I wish I had been tuned in with only a radio.

 

[Lamb]

It's those moments I wish I had been tuned in on only a radio.

That's a really wise answer and now I wish I had done the same!