Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[EnglishEdward]

Trumps incoherence and reliance on insults more obvious since the switch to Harris.

Yes, and it will backfire on him.

Consider politics as a branch of the entertainment industry.

Thing is people crave novelty, they get bored of too much of the same thing.

They got bored of Joe Biden and IMO many may be thinking to themselves
that another four years of Donald Trump would be just far too boring.

Been there, done that etc etc.

Growing old and rambling is forgivable, but being boring isn't.

 

[Core Imposter]

Trump did a press conference yesterday and it was strong, very strong. Some say his best press conference ever.

 

[Gori the Grey]

People are saying.

 

[Hygro]

Everyone says.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Everyone wants a Slinky!

 

[Sommerswerd]

But at present, I worry more about what may happen in the wake of Trump's sentencing on September 18th.

There may not be any sentencing on September 18th. Judge Merchan is going to deny Trump's request to toss his 34 felony convictions based on the SCOTUS immunity and then Trump is going to appeal that, so the sentencing may be delayed by the Judge, either in the form of just postponing the sentencing entirely, or by issuing a sentence, but staying the actual serving of the sentence until after the appeals are exhausted.

Either way, Trump will not be going to jail on September 18th.

 

[Bamspeedy]

They should have picked Kennedy, he at least wrestled with a dead bear.

Cant believe i actually did see one house with 'kennedy for prez' signs in my town.

My guess is the demographic of kennedy supporters are schizophrenics and Putin fanboys. A worm eating a part of his brain explains a lot.

 

[Sommerswerd]

He's right to be pissed. This was Trump making the press dance to his tune. Each TV outlet eventually bailed, for what it's worth. (I lurk on a site that is more active than this one for following events like this in real time, and various posters indicated when NBC dropped it, when ABC did, etc.). Remorseless is right. He didn't actually do himself any favors. One poster reported the posts on Fox, and viewers there were shocked by how incoherent and crazy he was. But (as is easy to say in retrospect), it should not have been covered at all.

This has been the case with Trump since the 2016 race. When he originally announced his candidacy it was widely regarded as a joke, a publicity stunt, a mockery and similar... but the news media covered it breathlessly nonetheless, because it was highly entertaining and was drawing big ratings. It was a ridiculous spectacle that the media just couldn't get enough of.

It was that non-stop coverage of Trump at the beginning which elevated him from a joke/novelty act, into a legitimate candidate and ultimately the frontrunner, taking center stage in all the debates. The news media created the monster... and then he ate them. If the news media had acted with a shred of integrity from the beginning, they would have largely ignored Trump and his antics and his candidacy would have likely petered out.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And that's a big part of O'Donnell's point: that the press should know better by now.

But he's exploiting vulnerabilities in the press that they can't easily correct for.

If he calls a presser, each outlet has to send someone, because you don't want to have not covered it if there does happen to be some news.

There's no question you can ask to get him. He answers however he wants, and you can't follow up, because he'll just call on a different reporter.

So whatever you ask him just ends up being the pretext for what he wanted to say anyway.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Voters don't have to vote according to the news media.

If USA voters follow that, well that may be a local problem.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And that's a big part of O'Donnell's point: that the press should know better by now.

Now really I want to see O'Donnell's segment... maybe I can start another YUGE fight with @Gorbles over it

But he's exploiting vulnerabilities in the press that they can't easily correct for.

If he calls a presser, each outlet has to send someone,

No they don't. They can just ignore him... and they should.

There's no question you can ask to get him. He answers however he wants, and you can't follow up, because he'll just call on a different reporter.

So whatever you ask him just ends up being the pretext for what he wanted to say anyway.

This echoes part of what Hillary Clinton was trying to warn everyone (the Biden campaign, mostly) about debating Trump. It's pointless to do what she did, do all this prep work, filling her head up with facts and figures to be ready to fact check all Trump's lies and misrepresentations real time, or argue with him about policy positions, trying to highlight his lack of knowledge or substance. That doesn't work with Trump. Biden was old and muddled confused in the debate, and nothing would have fixed that, but a big part of his problem was that he had obviously crammed a bunch of facts and statistics and such to confront Trump, but it was so much that he was struggling to recall it all. It reminded me of when beauty pageant contestants get tripped up with the "final question" portion where they're supposed to answer something absurd like what they would do to fight climate change or global child hunger, or end Middle Eastern conflicts... They have some canned answer about "world peace" prepared in their head that they've practiced, and they stumble and bumble through their response, trying to somehow segue into their prepared statement... and you end up with this.

In any case, intense preparation with canned facts and figures doesn't seem to work well with Trump. Some new approach is needed. Biden just telling him to "shut up man" was probably the best response anyone has given to Trump in a debate. I'm thinking that what Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in the 2016 race is probably something that would work well with Trump. Tilting him by predicting his statements then mocking him when he says what you predicted, would probably short circuit Trump into frustrated silence, because he wouldn't want to keep making you right, but he wouldn't be able to shift gears and say something different... so he'd probably just brood quietly.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, people say Harris will "mop the floor with him." I'll be pleasantly surprised if that turns out to be true, but I kind of doubt there's much anyone really can do. If anyone he's faced can, she can. But he just gives his answer, indifferent as to whether it answers the question, indifferent as to whether it is consistent with his other positions, indifferent as to whether it is internally coherent, indifferent to its veracity, indifferent to whether it is syntactically coherent, indifferent to whether or not it is comprehensible. It's invulnerable to refutation. You can mock him. She'll probably do a good bit of that. You can really easily get under his skin. But what he belches out when you get under his skin is pretty much his talking points anyway, so you don't gain terribly much.

Maybe she'd do best to joyously talk about what she plans to do on behalf of the American people. Ignore him. Let the mood-contrast between her joyful optimism and his dour anger speak for itself. Treat him like he's yesterday's news.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Why should Kamala Harris debate with Donald Trump at all ?

Much better that she should be positive about what she and her team will do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, people say Harris will "mop the floor with him." I'll be pleasantly surprised if that turns out to be true, but I kind of doubt there's much anyone really can do. If anyone he's faced can, she can. But he just gives his answer, indifferent as to whether it answers the question, indifferent as to whether it is consistent with his other positions, indifferent as to whether it is internally coherent, indifferent to its veracity, indifferent to whether it is syntactically coherent, indifferent to whether or not it is comprehensible. It's invulnerable to refutation. You can mock him. She'll probably do a good bit of that. You can really easily get under his skin. But what he belches out when you get under his skin is pretty much his talking points anyway, so you don't gain terribly much.

What I am expecting, is for Trump to be especially prepared with a zinger specifically designed to neutralize/attack Harris' famous debate catchphrase... "I'm speaking". His response will probably be something like "Well, you're speaking, but you're not saying anything... you just blablablah that's why I call you Ka-ma-bla, because you bla-bla-blah..." or something along those lines. He's definitely been setting something up with recently starting to refer to Harris in tweets as "Kamabla". I don't think its a typo, because he keeps doing it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's intentional. It probably means what you think it means. It's hard to deliver in speech, though, and get it to land. Not just sound like you yourself are tongue-tied.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why should Kamala Harris debate with Donald Trump at all ?

She shouldn't. I think debating Trump is a tactical error. Trump needs the debate to change the narrative, she doesn't.

 

[Cutlass]

Why should Kamala Harris debate with Donald Trump at all ?

Much better that she should be positive about what she and her team will do.

Mostly, it's expected. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily the right move.

 

[Voidwalkin]

She shouldn't. I think debating Trump is a tactical error. Trump needs the debate to change the narrative, she doesn't.

Refusal to debate Trump would change the narrative all on its own.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"Well, you're speaking, but you're not saying anything... you just blablablah that's why I call you Ka-ma-bla, because you bla-bla-blah..." or something along those lines.

Well Mr Trump that sounds like the doggerel that a four year old child might say. "Are you sure you are not entering your second childhood ?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

This has been the case with Trump since the 2016 race. When he originally announced his candidacy it was widely regarded as a joke, a publicity stunt, a mockery and similar... but the news media covered it breathlessly nonetheless, because it was highly entertaining and was drawing big ratings. It was a ridiculous spectacle that the media just couldn't get enough of.

It was that non-stop coverage of Trump at the beginning which elevated him from a joke/novelty act, into a legitimate candidate and ultimately the frontrunner, taking center stage in all the debates. The news media created the monster... and then he ate them. If the news media had acted with a shred of integrity from the beginning, they would have largely ignored Trump and his antics and his candidacy would have likely petered out.

Thank you.
The fundamental political irony of our time.
Can we sticky stuff on this board?