Final Presidential Debate (10/22/2020) (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

I feel like Biden campaign will be okay with this, but I wonder what Trump will say? I can’t imagine he will like it.

 

[efil4]

To be fair though - the First Step Act is probably the biggest piece of criminal justice reform we have seen in at least 25 years.
What I think was more interesting in the exchange was Biden saying we tried but Republican Congress . . . (obviously ignoring the first two years of the Obama Presidency). It is still largely a fact that certain issues can only really be addressed while having a President of a particular party. The old line about reforming entitlements/welfare can only be done by a Democrat or that true cuts to defense projects can only be done by a Republican seems to still be largely true. Obamacare could be argued as something not fitting this rule, but it is about the only thing I can think of not fitting it.

Is criminal justice reform such an issue?

the Private prison apparatus would like a word with the Senator from " insert state here"

Im really hopeful that we get to some sort of middle ground but i just dont think it will ever be realistic with lobbyists holding purse strings.

 

[superchuck500]

To be fair though - the First Step Act is probably the biggest piece of criminal justice reform we have seen in at least 25 years.
What I think was more interesting in the exchange was Biden saying we tried but Republican Congress . . . (obviously ignoring the first two years of the Obama Presidency). It is still largely a fact that certain issues can only really be addressed while having a President of a particular party. The old line about reforming entitlements/welfare can only be done by a Democrat or that true cuts to defense projects can only be done by a Republican seems to still be largely true. Obamacare could be argued as something not fitting this rule, but it is about the only thing I can think of not fitting it.

Is criminal justice reform such an issue?

I suppose - Republicans seem to close-ranks with equating criminal-justice reform with a war on police. It seems that when a party makes an issue a hill to die on, it forecloses bi-partisan efforts. But if a proposal were to come from within, it has a better chance.

The First Step legislative history is interesting. It was bi-partisan from the beginning and had support from think-tank NGOs and public/community groups. Despite his otherwise rigid views on criminal justice, I think Trump was probably won over by Kim Kardashian because's he's easily appealed to by certain elements of his personality.

But the problem all along was a few Republican senators. The fact that it passed with such strong margins demonstrates how easy it is to sink meaningful legislation that carries broad support.

 

[JimEverett]

Criminal justice is also an area where state reform is far more important than federal. There are certainly some problems with the federal system but in my experience the whole federal system is light years ahead of state systems. And the overwhelming majority of people incarcerated for criminal offenses are in state prisons and local jails.

 

[wardorican]

I finally listened to the whole debate.

I think Trump performed well, but his bar was low. The problem is, he lies a lot and goes after petty things. If that resonates with you, then he wins. If it doesn't, then he's a clown. I'd say, he comes off confident, with a touch of being a bull in a china shop. But, he doesn't really answer questions, and I do notice that strongly.

I think Biden did well, but I think we just all expect a lot more. We expect a 'curb stomping' and just don't get it. The bars are not even. I don't think his "gaffe" was much of one. "Yes, I want to transition from Oil" isn't really a gaffe to me.

I think both did well, I think both articulated more, but overall, I'd say Trump avoids direct answers a lot more.

I don't see this moving the needle either way.

 

[Lapaz]

VERIFY: Fact-checking the second presidential debate

Our VERIFY researchers fact-checked what President Trump and Joe Biden said during the second and final presidential debate.

www.wwltv.com

I don't agree with the way WWL assesses claims. What WWL calls false from Biden were mostly just numbers that were outdated per a study they were using, but probably supportable by other studies. Those should not be classified as false. For example, WWL claims the 100k lives saved is false based on the University of Washington model, but the most recent study that pops up on my Google search says 100k would be saved, just like Biden said: https://www.newsweek.com/if-95-perc...lives-can-saved-january-1-ihme-report-1534433

So these studies are constantly being refined, and they say different things. That doesn't make his statement false. Did they ask the Biden team which study they used? It certainly isn't clearly false.

On the other hand, when Trump says that 99% of people recover, that has never been true, based on any study, so that is clearly false statement. Also, I've said this many times, but you should not base mortality on the cases. It has to be on closed cases. WWL said "The Johns Hopkins COVID-19 tracker shows the U.S. at 222,977 deaths and 8.4 million total cases. That’s a death rate of nearly 2.7%. The global death rate is about the same. This calculation would mean that a little more than 97% of people testing positive for the virus recover." No. That is not true. You can't divide 222,977 by 8.4M to determine how many will recover, because 222,977 have died, but less than 5.7M have recovered. The denominator has to be the closed cases.

I think all of their assessments lack context. Even the greenhouse gas claim, which they called false, yet seemed to give some supporting information. It isn't mentioned that any declines are despite Trump, since states have taken the lead, and his administration is trying to sue states for setting higher standards than the Federal government.

 

[Lapaz]

To be fair though - the First Step Act is probably the biggest piece of criminal justice reform we have seen in at least 25 years.
What I think was more interesting in the exchange was Biden saying we tried but Republican Congress . . . (obviously ignoring the first two years of the Obama Presidency). It is still largely a fact that certain issues can only really be addressed while having a President of a particular party. The old line about reforming entitlements/welfare can only be done by a Democrat or that true cuts to defense projects can only be done by a Republican seems to still be largely true. Obamacare could be argued as something not fitting this rule, but it is about the only thing I can think of not fitting it.

Is criminal justice reform such an issue?

The economy was a disaster, and health care was the first legislative priority, so giant criminal justice reform had to wait. When Kennedy died, there was little chance to get anything through congresss. Sentencing reform was attempted during Obama's second term, but the Republican senate blocked the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think Biden did well, but I think we just all expect a lot more. We expect a 'curb stomping' and just don't get it. The bars are not even. I don't think his "gaffe" was much of one. "Yes, I want to transition from Oil" isn't really a gaffe to me.

I think people are missing why Biden's statement on oil is a gaffe.

Trump: "Would you shut down the oil industry?"

Biden: "I'd transition from oil, yes."

The answer is "No, I wouldn't shut down the oil industry, but we do need to start moving toward transitioning from oil."

Or something like that. Responding in the positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" is a gaffe. People don't hear nuance. They aren't going to dissect the "transition" part of his statement. They will hear him responding in positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" It's a gaffe, and a big one with some battleground states (and Texas) being so reliant on the oil industry.

It's not what you say, but how your opponent can leverage what you say.

 

[coldseat]

I think people are missing why Biden's statement on oil is a gaffe.

Trump: "Would you shut down the oil industry?"

Biden: "I'd transition from oil, yes."

The answer is "No, I wouldn't shut down the oil industry, but we do need to start moving toward transitioning from oil."

Or something like that. Responding in the positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" is a gaffe. People don't hear nuance. They aren't going to dissect the "transition" part of his statement. They will hear him responding in positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" It's a gaffe, and a big one with some battleground states (and Texas) being so reliant on the oil industry.

It's not what you say, but how your opponent can leverage what you say.

Do you think that statement will impact the result in those states? I have a hard time seeing that happen.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Do you think that statement will impact the result in those states? I have a hard time seeing that happen.

There are so many variables there. It will depend on if the Trump campaign can use it. The media cycle has already moved past it and the right-wing media is too obsessed with Hunter's laptop to drive home something that may actually help.

So if you ask me right now I'd say no, especially with how much of the vote has already been cast. If he was actually dealing with a competent campaign, absolutely.

 

[SystemShock]

I think people are missing why Biden's statement on oil is a gaffe.

Trump: "Would you shut down the oil industry?"

Biden: "I'd transition from oil, yes."

The answer is "No, I wouldn't shut down the oil industry, but we do need to start moving toward transitioning from oil."

Or something like that. Responding in the positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" is a gaffe. People don't hear nuance. They aren't going to dissect the "transition" part of his statement. They will hear him responding in positive to "Would you shut down the oil industry?" It's a gaffe, and a big one with some battleground states (and Texas) being so reliant on the oil industry.

It's not what you say, but how your opponent can leverage what you say.

If that is the case, that people are so stupid that they don't understand what "transition" means, then we are doomed.

 

[JimEverett]

Do you think that statement will impact the result in those states? I have a hard time seeing that happen.

Based on the state of the race via the polls we are getting, I don't think Biden's statement will come close to changing the race. The problem, though, is that he created a "but, it's possible." It is up to Trump to use that statement to explicitly paint Biden as trying to bring some sort of radical agenda to the White House.

 

[SystemShock]

Based on the state of the race via the polls we are getting, I don't think Biden's statement will come close to changing the race. The problem, though, is that he created a "but, it's possible." It is up to Trump to use that statement to explicitly paint Biden as trying to bring some sort of radical agenda to the White House.

Have you not seen the ads? That's just about all they say, Biden will bring a radical agenda/socialism to the WH. That, and choice edits to make Biden look senile and not able to answer questions.

 

[wardorican]

Have you not seen the ads? That's just about all they say, Biden will bring a radical agenda/socialism to the WH. That, and choice edits to make Biden look senile and not able to answer questions.

Yeah, but this time.. with oil.

 

[JimEverett]

Have you not seen the ads? That's just about all they say, Biden will bring a radical agenda/socialism to the WH. That, and choice edits to make Biden look senile and not able to answer questions.

I have seen one ad. It was a Trump ad about lawlessness and had a mother being attacked or something in her car. IT looked like an SNL skit - really weird.

I guess I don't watch much tv and the little bit I do is usually mostly commercial-free for some reason. Probably also because I live in a state that really doesn't matter in this election.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If that is the case, that people are so stupid that they don't understand what "transition" means, then we are doomed.

Have you met people?

 

[CoolBrees]

I want to quickly point out something.

Obama didn’t have a majority for two years other than on paper.

We must remember that Ted Kennedy only served a brief time due to dying of brain cancer and Newly elected Senator Al Franken was kept out due to a recount in Minnesota.

Without looking I believe he only had the majority for like 46 total days.

 

[Ayo]

To be fair though - the First Step Act is probably the biggest piece of criminal justice reform we have seen in at least 25 years.
What I think was more interesting in the exchange was Biden saying we tried but Republican Congress . . . (obviously ignoring the first two years of the Obama Presidency). It is still largely a fact that certain issues can only really be addressed while having a President of a particular party. The old line about reforming entitlements/welfare can only be done by a Democrat or that true cuts to defense projects can only be done by a Republican seems to still be largely true. Obamacare could be argued as something not fitting this rule, but it is about the only thing I can think of not fitting it.

Is criminal justice reform such an issue?

I think it is a good piece of legislation, but Trump wasn't a real champion of it. He needed to be convinced by Jared Kushner and a number of GOP politicians before he would sign it. And the argument was one of their political expediency.

So, presenting himself as someone who wanted this and sought it out and did it for moral and ethical reasons isn't entirely accurate. It makes for a good narrative, but it's a bit revisionist.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think it is a good piece of legislation, but Trump wasn't a real champion of it. He needed to be convinced by Jared Kushner and a number of GOP politicians before he would sign it. And the argument was one of their political expediency.

So, presenting himself as someone who wanted this and sought it out and did it for moral and ethical reasons isn't entirely accurate. It makes for a good narrative, but it's a bit revisionist.

This is true, but if he wanted to capture that vote (people who want criminal justice reform), he could make a case that it got done on his watch.

But as you said, and in my own opinion, it's not an issue he cares a lot about, so I don't think he even thought to push himself as a champion on that front. However, in terms of strategy he missed an opportunity to cast himself in that light.

Which is why the Republicans are in a bit of jam on this issue, strategically speaking. It seems their marketing strategy has been to frame the issue as criminals getting what they deserve, (ie, respect authority, comply, don't do crime if you can't do the time... that sort of thing) - so, it's hard for them to attack Biden and Harris as being too tough on crime.

There's a case they can make, but I don't think they've set themselves up to make it without giving the voters whiplash.