Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 15:47 last edited by
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 15:52 last edited by
Define winning.
-
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 16:02 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 16:35 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
Great. So go back to the NYT/Sienna poll. Trump 48% - Harris 47%. How many of that 48% do you think changed their mind? Do you think that a single person that responded they were going to vote for Trump switched their vote?
That leaves “undecided” and non-responsive. Trump has always outperformed in these groups. Donald outperformed polls by over 3% in each of the last two elections do you expect any different this time?
A ridiculously small sample size, but Reuters interviewed 10 undecided voters before and after the debate. Almost all agreed that Kamala won, but 6 said they were closer to voting for Trump after the debate, 3 towards Kamala, and 1 unmoved by either.
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 16:46 last edited by
@Mik said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Define winning.
I'm pretty sure I won the debate. I watched Kaos on Netflix.
-
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 17:16 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
Good summary
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 17:18 last edited by
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Well, maybe some people changed their minds...
I saw the video, it was actually pretty nice. Biden (wow, he looks even older now) was having a fun convo with a guy in a Trump hat. He asked if he should sign a Presidential hat and the civilian says "hell no, you can't even remember your name" or something like that, which Biden jokes "yeah I'm pretty slow" but then they swap hats. Anyway... he's embracing the IDGAF mentality now.
-
@Mik said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Define winning.
I'm pretty sure I won the debate. I watched Kaos on Netflix.
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 17:43 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes I'm down wit' that.
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 18:22 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Rove in the WSJ: “There’s no putting lipstick on this pig.”
Go hang your hat on Rove. He's as relevant as Carville.
-
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
Good summary
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 18:27 last edited by@89th said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
Good summary
Perception is reality.
People in the city we're talking about believe that story. There's enough smoke, that a lot of people in similarly affected places believe that story.
It matters not one red rolling rat's ass if Jon's neighbors believe that story or not.
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 19:45 last edited by
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 19:48 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Dec 2024, 20:00
I think the one aspect on which the two candidates converged is that questions should be thought of as topic suggestions for your next round of talking points.
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 19:56 last edited by
You don't become a viable national politician by answering questions directly or honestly. The talent is in seeming to have answered while not actually answering. Neither of those two made a good show of seeming to answer.
-
You don't become a viable national politician by answering questions directly or honestly. The talent is in seeming to have answered while not actually answering. Neither of those two made a good show of seeming to answer.
wrote on 12 Sept 2024, 20:05 last edited by Renauda 9 Dec 2024, 20:07You don't become a viable national politician by answering questions directly or honestly. The talent is in seeming to have answered while not actually answering. Neither of those two made a good show of seeming to answer.
Nailed it.
I believe that is an indispensable, albeit despicable, talent or trait for successful politicians at all levels of government regardless of nationality, culture or race.
-
You don't become a viable national politician by answering questions directly or honestly. The talent is in seeming to have answered while not actually answering. Neither of those two made a good show of seeming to answer.
Nailed it.
I believe that is an indispensable, albeit despicable, talent or trait for successful politicians at all levels of government regardless of nationality, culture or race.
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 01:24 last edited by@Renauda said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Nailed it.
+1
Read the transcript of the debate. It was a spaghetti of talk - almost never answering the question asked.
-
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 03:14 last edited by
BTW, anybody mention ABC's female moderator was Kamala's sorority sister?
-
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 03:32 last edited by jon-nyc
In the sense that they were in different chapters in different universities in different states more than a decade apart?
-
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 08:18 last edited by
Still an unreported conflict of interest.
-
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 11:13 last edited by
Yeah, I rolled my eyes at that one. I don’t see that as being any kind of conflict of interest. I bet there have been a lot more egregious examples in the past.
-
wrote on 13 Sept 2024, 12:21 last edited by Doctor Phibes
That being a conflict of interest is like me saying as a Manchester physics alumnus I was involved in splitting the atom.
Which of course I was.