Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes early

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

What if it's vice versa and Hill folds under pressure?

As someone who has seen him talk I can tell you that aint happening.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

If Trump feels pressure in the debates, he'll go schoolyard bully and roll out a couple "Crooked Hillary" lines. His face will turn red (oranger?), he'll get a bit louder, but he won't go raving and folk won't be able to claim he was raving mad. Threshold for this to start is pressure of a 5 on a 10 scale.

If Hillary feels pressure in the debates, she'll get loud and right to the edge of offensively obnoxious (see: behavior in Benghazi testimony). But she will look raving mad if it happens. Threshold for this to start however is pressure of an 8 on a 10 scale.

So the question is: When (not if) Hillary pressures Trump to his 5 pressure level, can he use that to push her to her 8 pressure level?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

If Trump feels pressure in the debates, he'll go schoolyard bully and roll out a couple "Crooked Hillary" lines. His face will turn red (oranger?), he'll get a bit louder, but he won't go raving and folk won't be able to claim he was raving mad. Threshold for this to start is pressure of a 5 on a 10 scale.

If Hillary feels pressure in the debates, she'll get loud and right to the edge of offensively obnoxious (see: behavior in Benghazi testimony). But she will look raving mad if it happens. Threshold for this to start however is pressure of an 8 on a 10 scale.

So the question is: When (not if) Hillary pressures Trump to his 5 pressure level, can he use that to push her to her 8 pressure level?

Behavior in the Benghazi testimony...what exactly was that? You mean the one point in like 8 hours of them ranting at her and her saying "*** are you talking about?" You are kidding right? The only ones ranting and raving were the nimrods trying to go after her and being owned.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Behavior in the Benghazi testimony...what exactly was that? You mean the one point in like 8 hours of them ranting at her and her saying "*** are you talking about?" You are kidding right? The only ones ranting and raving were the nimrods trying to go after her and being owned.

All it takes is one exchange like this, that few American voters have seen, during the debate.

Worse? Trump is perceived as ranting and raving all the time. Anything less than that is good for him. Anything like the Benghazi comments and gesticulations harms Hillary on live, national TV.

Do I think Trump can drive her there? Nope. But he'll try.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

So Trump's campaign is worried about his standing in the race as we write, even his own kids, yet he's on the march and about to overtake Hillary?

Huh...

That's not the dynamic I'm worried about. If he holds serve the rest of the campaign and Hillary continues to fade by the slow drip drip drip all it's going to take is Stein and Johnson peeling off enough votes to get him elected.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Behavior in the Benghazi testimony...what exactly was that? You mean the one point in like 8 hours of them ranting at her and her saying "*** are you talking about?" You are kidding right? The only ones ranting and raving were the nimrods trying to go after her and being owned.

Yeah I'm not sure which hearing Sic was watching either. Must have been the Fox News re-enactment. Hillary swatted away 11 hours of BS and left Gowdy sweating like a stuck pig.

Regarding the debates, bombast got Trump where he is now and bombast will continue. I have full confidence in Hillary's ability to turn his attacks back onto him. Trump is about the worst person to try to capitalize on her weaknesses. With multiple bankruptcies, a history of stiffing contractors, discrimination claims, and Mob ties he's not exactly a paragon of virtue on the corruption issue. With a history of infidelity and trading in his wives for younger versions, he really isn't in a position to exploit any Bill Clinton sexcapades from two decades ago. Heck, since he's a year older than her he's the only Gooper candidate who can't play the age card.

Anything can happen and its reeaaal important to set expectations ahead of time. However Trump's going to need multiple strong debates to change his fate.

That's not the dynamic I'm worried about. If he holds serve the rest of the campaign and Hillary continues to fade by the slow drip drip drip all it's going to take is Stein and Johnson peeling off enough votes to get him elected.

How could Gary Johnson possibly cost Hillary more votes than Trump? Liberals (pro-govt) and libertarians (anti-govt) have zero in common outside of limiting the reach of the defense department and surveillance state. If Jill Stein starts hitting high single digits, those votes are coming from Hillary but with her "vaccinations cause autism" schtick among other comments I don't see that happening either. Besides the Greens aren't on every state ballot. The libertarians pretty much are.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Behavior in the Benghazi testimony...what exactly was that? You mean the one point in like 8 hours of them ranting at her and her saying "*** are you talking about?" You are kidding right? The only ones ranting and raving were the nimrods trying to go after her and being owned.

Or the other time when she went 11 hours calmly. But no, it comes down to her getting frustrated one time in almost 20 hours that they kept asking questions about stuff that in no way addressed the causes of and solutions to the security failures that led to the deaths.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

But no, it comes down to her getting frustrated one time ...

In a live TV national debate, all it takes is one time, one slip.

Don't believe me?
"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

 

[joecct]

In a live TV national debate, all it takes is one time, one slip.

Don't believe me?
"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

That side won. I'll bet my taters on that.

Gerry Ford's slip about Poland may have been more damaging.

Things to avoid
snark
fear
loss of composure
clueless
surprised
brow beating/bullying

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

In a live TV national debate, all it takes is one time, one slip.

Don't believe me?
"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Quayle was a moron. That zinger encapsulated everything about him; that's why it was so effective. It was like Christie's take down of Marco.

Neither of those digs would have had nearly that strong an effect if they hadn't been so fitting.

The other thing is a zinger or a flub might hurt a candidate with little prior public recognition, but Hillary may be the only non-incumbent presidential candidate in history who 100% of the public has not only heard of, but has formed an opinion about. I don't believe anyone's mind is going to be changed about either of the candidates because the geological layers of prior impressions go back at least years for the youngins and decades for the rest of us. There's just no room for anything new. We know these people. We know them far better than most sitting presidents. They're already celebs -- they're running for Celebident.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

That side won. I'll bet my taters on that.

Gerry Ford's slip about Poland may have been more damaging.

Things to avoid
snark
fear
loss of composure
clueless
surprised
brow beating/bullying

I only remember 1984 on, but my recollection of debates is that they almost always reinforced pre-conceived notions about the candidates and in some cases put a nail in their coffin because of it. Dukakis was already turned into a cartoon character by the time he underwhelmed in the '88 debates. Bush I was thought be out of touch before he was checking his watch to see how much time was left in '92. Gore's debate performance also reinforced all his negative stereotypes.

Even in cases where someone changed the race initially (Mondale '84, Romney '12) the incumbent righted the ship during the next debate.

I'd say 2004 debates put Kerry back into a race that he was clearly losing at that point but again the end result didn't change. He still lost.

Can't speak to 1960 or 1976 or even 1980.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Behavior in the Benghazi testimony...what exactly was that? You mean the one point in like 8 hours of them ranting at her and her saying "*** are you talking about?" You are kidding right? The only ones ranting and raving were the nimrods trying to go after her and being owned.

Without seeing the video, I know what Sic's talking about. "What does it matter? At this point, what does it matter?" She responded to someone's question that way, raising her voice in an exasperated way. It came off as arrogant to a large number of people.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Without seeing the video, I know what Sic's talking about. "What does it matter? At this point, what does it matter?" She responded to someone's question that way, raising her voice in an exasperated way. It came off as arrogant to a large number of people.

That is what he is talking about...and it was 1 moment in 20 hours of them grilling her. (over the course of the entire investigation) And guess what, it didnt hurt her one bit outside of the people who hate her anyways. Hell I hate her and I completely agreed with her. The committee wanted to pretend she ordered the death of the people who died which was BS. Plus why are those few lives more important than all the people who died in Iraq over full on lies to Congress?

If Sic wants to believe an hour of Drumpf calling her a liar is going to work the same way AND she wont get him to blow his top at the same time I have oceanfront property in Nodak to sell him

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

That is what he is talking about...and it was 1 moment in 20 hours of them grilling her. (over the course of the entire investigation) And guess what, it didnt hurt her one bit outside of the people who hate her anyways. Hell I hate her and I completely agreed with her. The committee wanted to pretend she ordered the death of the people who died which was BS. Plus why are those few lives more important than all the people who died in Iraq over full on lies to Congress?

If Sic wants to believe an hour of Drumpf calling her a liar is going to work the same way AND she wont get him to blow his top at the same time I have oceanfront property in Nodak to sell him

You're talking about the substance of the matter, which doesn't mount to a hill of beans to a great many people during an election. Some news agency or morning show can splice a nasty reply out of the recording and loop it for all to see. It creates a perception of a woman that's unhinged. There's not much you can do to combat such a situation, should she allow it to happen.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Mookie's Rasmussen email today reads that tD has pulled back in front in national poles

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Mookie's Rasmussen email today reads that tD has pulled back in front in national poles

Wasn't Rasmussen the same group that had Romney winning in '12?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Rasmussen is a (R) lean that has them out in front and then pushes the polls to pretty close to equal with everyone in the last week or two before the election.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

I can't fathom anyone predicting she's more likely to meltdown than Trump. She has a history of doing the complete opposite, Trump goes full rerun on nearly every question asked. I don't care for her but I believe she will solidify herself as infinitely more presidential than tDon in the debates.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

I can't fathom anyone predicting she's more likely to meltdown than Trump. She has a history of doing the complete opposite, Trump goes full rerun on nearly every question asked. I don't care for her but I believe she will solidify herself as infinitely more presidential than tDon in the debates.

A ham sandwich could present itself as infinitely more presidential than Donnie boy.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Remember, if we nuke the EC states won't matter at all. One might think the largest cities would be blanketed with ads and appearances, but not necessarily -- those cities tend to be highly partisan and so neither party will really be looking at much expected value there.

Suburban sprawl and smaller (whiter) cities is where most of the uptick will be, and that's not a bad thing -- it is after all where people live. And there are plenty of middle pop density places which get no attention now but which would if we went to straight vote: Cheyenne, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Anchorage, Boise are all ignored now because their states are locks. All of a sudden they'd become very interesting targets with lots of people up for grabs for both parties.

I'm all for the nuking of east coast states.