Hot mess–>dumpster fire–>train wreck
The reviews are harsh.
Then Dana Bash says that was polite, she’s just gonna say it like it is: that was a shitshow.
Why are tv news personalities moderating these debates anyway? None of this is a good idea.
Tip Jar
People should stop calling it a debate.
My husband and I usually watch the debates, but I can’t stand to watch Trump. There isn’t enough anxiety medicine in the world to induce me to sit through his rambling, disjointed nonsense, and his voice annoys the hell out of me. I prefer to read transcripts.
But my husband continues to watch. He said last night’s ‘debate’ was nearly impossible to watch, and wishes he hadn’t. I mean, it’s not like it’s going to change his vote anyway. During the primaries, we watched the debates because we wanted a good feel for the candidates. But now? No contest.
I posted this to a Facebook group:
It’s a large group, but still it’s amazing and more than a bit depressing to see how many familiar bells it’s rung. A lot of women are comparing Trump’s behavior to an abusive partner.
Ikn @2 I should have known better and went to bed too. The rambling disjointed nonsense, interrupting and hammering Biden with “3.5 million” a dozen times (in reference to Hunter’s alleged kickbacks), the fingernails-on-chalkboard, head tilted back, smug, contemptuous, arrogant, Northeast-style sewage spewing. It was really stupid of me to watch it. Biden wasn’t any better, Donnie flustered him several times and derailed him from any point he was about to make. Biden foolishly called him “unpresidential” at one point, which I cringed at, Donnie has always been unpresidential, he makes no argument to the contrary, but Biden wasn’t even vice-presidential, he might have had a better time of it with Pence, the battle of the VP’s, in which he might of had a chance of sounding at least vice-presidential? Biden couldn’t help himself but respond to every little bullshit comment Donnie made. It was hard to watch. Donnie orchestrated the whole trashy scene like a spoiled 3rd grade virtuoso. Anyway, I’m convinced, and like OB predicts, I’ll know better next time (I hope).
I wonder if there will even be another one, Wallace is inept and couldn’t moderate jack squat. I hope Kamala has it in her to rip Pence a new one, but I’m thinking that won’t be worth watching either.
Sadly, a significant part of the country thinks that this WAS a debate. They believe that the way you “win” a debate is when the other person falls silent, which obviously means they have nothing left to say, and therefore you win.
I’m reminded of the scene in the comedy Old School, where the fraternity started by the middle-aged lead characters has to undergo a series of tests to prove they should be allowed on campus. For the “debate” test, James Carville is brought in to lead the opponents. Will Ferrell’s character promptly rips off a long monologue of impressive-sounding but vague bullshit, to which Carville, after looking helplessly at his teammates, can only shrug and say “we have no rebuttal. We agree with all that.” Ferrell then shouts “YEAH! THAT’S HOW YOU DEBATE!” and the audience of course cheers at the dopey Ferrell character somehow “beating” James Carville at debate.
Or if you want a real-life example, consider how proud creationists were (probably still are, I haven’t plunged into that world in a while) about that interview with Dawkins where the interviewer (who Dawkins thought was a serious documentary maker) asks some typical creationist question about “where does the information come from in a new mutation” and Dawkins is silent for about ten seconds as it dawns on him that he has unknowingly inviting creationist jackasses into his home. Of course, in the creationist community, this is taken as proof that Dawkins was stunned into silence by their question and had no answer, and therefore evolution is false and praise Jesus etc. etc.
None of this is to say that I think Trump “won” the debate, or made a smart strategic choice. I didn’t watch it, but from what I can tell he didn’t succeed in what he set out to do. But it’s not a surprise that a dumb bully adopted bully tactics that dumb people think are what debating is about.
I still see this in court occasionally, where not-very-good lawyers (or, sometimes, lawyers who know better but are trying to put on a show for their clients) will keep talking and talking, and demanding a chance to respond to the other lawyer’s response to their rebuttal to their response to … etc., until the judge finally says “I’ve heard enough.” These folks really think (or the clients they’re performing for do) that it’s a sign of weakness to stop talking.
Back in high school when I was in the FFA parliamentary procedure was followed, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, and meetings and debates were coherent and respectable (and we were teenagers!) What those clowns were doing last night wasn’t even civil.
There needed to be harsh rules in place. Mostly because Trump is a loudmouth with the self-restraint of a tired toddler, but applicable to each just for fairness:
– Each person is seated in a sound proof booth with a microphone controlled by the moderator.
– By default, their mics are off at all times.
– Each is only turned on when that candidate is specifically asked a question.
– It is left on for a specific amount of time, varying according to the complexity of the question asked. As an example, a yes or no question will result in the mic being switched on for 3 seconds.
– The moderator can interrupt at any time in order to direct the candidate to stop dodging the question. For the duration that the moderator is directing them to get back to the question, that candidate’s mic is turned off. The candidate’s timer for speaking time counts down even while the moderator is interrupting.
– There is live fact checking, with candidate’s counter-factual statements corrected on a display, or verbally by the moderator.
– The moderator needs to be someone with a spine.
Holms,
The thing is, no sane candidate is going to agree to those rules.
It puts an enormous amount of power in the hands of (1) the moderator, and (2) the appointed fact-checkers. I just don’t know who you could find who both parties would trust in those roles. The GOP, having felt “burned” by the moderator in the second Romney-Obama debate “fact-checking” Romney, is not likely to agree to any fact-checking, and certainly not by anyone other than Fox/OAN/Daily Caller/Etc. And no sane Democrat is going to agree to anyone from those organizations as a fact-checker. Hell, even some of the “better” fact-checkers seem to bend over backwards to quibble with Democratic statements while giving Republicans broad leeway for hyperbole.
There may be a chance that the moderator gets control of the microphones, but if it happens at all, it will be more of a last resort kind of thing. And there’s nothing that stops Trump from walking off the stage if his microphone is cut. His surrogates will then be on every channel (which, after all, still have air time to fill) declaring that Biden is afraid of what Trump has to say, etc. And the entire post-debate discussion will be about whether it was “fair” for the moderator to turn off Trump’s microphone, and so on. Again, this may be a perfectly fine result for Biden — Trump is the one who needs to catch up, and to do that he has to do more than perform for his base — but I don’t know that it will improve the quality of debate.
What I would like to see, instead of a debate, is a written statement of their platforms, their thoughts on whatever, and their reasons for thinking they would be the best president. I know most people wouldn’t read it, but you then give it to Sarah Cooper, and she could read it and the podcast made available to everyone. Now that would be worth watching.
This is how it should be done: https://youtu.be/_pyhiAntIPc?t=162