First presidential debate (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Since we usually have a separate thread for these
=================

NEW YORK (AP) — President Joe Biden begins an intense period of private preparations Friday at Camp David for what may be the most consequential presidential debate in decades.

The 81-year-old Democrat’s team is aware that he cannot afford an underwhelming performance when he faces Republican rival Donald Trump for 90 minutes on live television Thursday night. Biden’s team is expecting aggressive attacks on his physical and mental strength, his record on the economy and immigration and even his family.

Trump, 78 and ever confident, will stay on the campaign trail before going to his Florida estate next week for two days of private meetings as part of an informal prep process.

The former president’s allies are pushing him to stay focused on his governing plans, but they’re expecting him to be tested by pointed questions about his unrelenting focus on election fraud, his role in the erosion of abortion rights and his unprecedented legal baggage.

Thursday’s debate on CNN will be full of firsts, with the potential to reshape the presidential race. Never before in the modern era have two presumptive nominees met on the debate stage so early in the general election season. Never before have two White House contenders faced off at such advanced ages, with widespread questions about their readiness.

And never before has a general election debate participant been saddled with a felony conviction. The debate-stage meeting comes just two weeks before Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on 34 felony counts in his New York hush money trial.

“You can argue this will be the most important debate, at least in my lifetime,” said Democratic strategist Jim Messina, 54, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

PRESSURE ON BIDEN


The ground rules for Thursday’s debate, the first of two scheduled meetings, are unusual.

The candidates agreed to meet at a CNN studio in Atlanta with no audience. Each candidate’s microphone will be muted, except when it’s his turn to speak. No props or prewritten notes will be allowed onstage. The candidates will be given only a pen, a pad of paper and a bottle of water.

There will be no opening statements. A coin flip determined that Biden would stand at the podium to the viewer’s right, while Trump would deliver the final closing statement.


The next debate won’t be until September. Any stumbles Thursday will be hard to erase or replace quickly.………..

How Biden and Trump are taking very different approaches to preparing for next week's debate

President Joe Biden is beginning an intense period of private debate preparations at Camp David. His trip comes as officials in both parties scramble to set expectations for what may be the most consequential presidential debate in decades.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

If Biden performs well at the debate or holds his own, none of this circus is happening right now. Hell, if Biden would have refused to debate at all......he would have taken heat, but could have survived. It's only my opinion, but I think the debate was very consequential. I think it was a game changer in this race. It went from me feeling pretty good that Biden would beat Trump in November to I don't think Biden can win now (feeling).

I'm just hoping in the next week or so, some clarity is found. Either we are sticking with Biden and fully supporting him or replacing him and fully supporting that candidate. It's imperative that we get away from wavering. America has 4 months to make sure Trump is defeated.

I can understand this. I am comforted by Lichtman, who knows a thing or two about Presidential campaigns, who came out immediately and said that poor debate performances have never made a difference before. And I agree this wavering is horrible. I have been watching Biden closely since, and have been reassured. He is not a good debater, and not even a good speech maker. Never has been. But he is good with his decisions, he’s keeping up a very strenuous Presidential calendar, and I think the polls are starting to normalize. I also think Biden beats Trump in November.

 

[Incumbent]

[…] but I believe this swing is more anti-Trump, than pro-Biden.

I strongly agree but I also believe this would have to be the case no matter the Democratic candidate, at this point. This election will be decided by how many people truly fear another Trump presidency. (And that’s already a diverse coalition of people.)

 

[Heathen]

Well, none of this is going away just because Trump loses. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have been laying the groundwork for decades. Trump is the useful idiot figurehead of something far more entrenched and insidious. The people behind Christofascism saw early on, in Trump, somebody narcissistic and gullible enough to be used for their means. Trump has no guiding principles or evolved belief system; it’s all just self-interest, greed, and celebrity-seeking. He doesn’t actually care about anybody but himself.

So, yeah, we will likely be voting on our survival every cycle until a time should ever come that the people needed to take all of this down are elected into office in scale-tipping numbers. A democratic president with a dysfunctional congress isn’t ever going to be able to do the real work necessary to dismantle the systemic threats to our nation.

Right. Completely agree with every bit of this. I’m just saying that if it gets worse ie Biden loses, Dems lose more seats, etc — a comprehensive postmortem should be done. Even if it doesn’t get worse, I think this is a good thing to do. We need to understand how and why it’s this close. Why the choice between the two isn’t an obvious one for so many.

I find it hard to believe that a country where more people subscribe to Democratic Party ideals than GOP, that party can’t consistently win over voters. I don’t believe it’s because people are just so extreme, at least not in large part.

That’s where I circle back around to it being a party platform issue as well. Just forget the labels for a minute or assumptions of what I mean here politically. I’m saying that the brand isn’t doing a great job of selling itself, and we can’t rely on the other side being so rabid that “there isn’t any other great choice” for some voters. Ideally, the party is heads and shoulders better.

And yes, I’m fully aware that this isn’t a process that will be quick or even take place over an election cycle.

I argue that the first part of resolving a problem is admitting that there is one. I think if more people were open to that, we’d get a lot more done — instead of just “existing” outside of the right wing echo chamber as a second option of “we keep things the same”. With inflation, endless war, job scarcity, etc etc etc people want some answer, any answer, that both parties in my opinion increasingly don’t provide.

 

[Lapaz]

But it also means sticking the nominee with a VP they might not prefer. Typically, a VP selection is also a strategic electoral move. I don’t think that should be relinquished.

Having the VP be democratically elected, with an emphasis on swing states, would be historically strategic. It is true that it would deviate from the standard practice of a president selecting his VP based on internal polling and debates of the most strategic choice, but that process can't be nearly as accurate as an actual democratic vote.

 

[MT15]

Having the VP be democratically elected, with an emphasis on swing states, would be historically strategic. It is true that it would deviate from the standard practice of a president selecting his VP based on internal polling and debates of the most strategic choice, but that process can't be nearly as accurate as an actual democratic vote.

The president and VP have to work extremely closely together and should have the same vision. The nominee should get to choose their partner in this work. This should be the nominee’s choice, IMO.

 

[Lapaz]

Again, pointing out the potential consequences of doing something isn’t the same as saying demands are being made. And I’m fine with you seeing those potential consequences differently. You’ve never been in a situation where you understood somebody could do what they want but expressed to them you thought it might be a bad idea and explained why?

I have had many occasions in my life where I have advised one course, but another was taken. I believe in the vast majority of cases I was proven right. I didn't say demands are being made to remove Biden. I don't know, but I know many people are advising him to step aside. If he doesn't, 99.9% who planned to vote for Biden will still back him over Trump. Not speaking out against his running, when the evidence is mounting that he will lose, is malpractice. Nearly everyone is giving Biden accolades for what he has done. The only thing the vast majority are voicing is concern that he can't do another term, and that many are going to either vote against or not vote at all, so the party has a better chance with someone that can finish a term, and that will motivate them to vote.

 

[MT15]

This seems contradictory to me:

If he doesn't, 99.9% who planned to vote for Biden will still back him over Trump.

many are going to either vote against or not vote at all, so the party has a better chance with someone that can finish a term, and that will motivate them to vote.

 

[Lapaz]

The president and VP have to work extremely closely together and should have the same vision. The nominee should get to choose their partner in this work. This should be the nominee’s choice, IMO.

Do you think Biden and Obama had the same vision? I don't think they did initially. Neither did Reagan and Bush. They all governed differently, and disagreed behind closed doors. I think Harris was closer to Biden, which makes her a good candidate to grow his legacy. The president and VP must be able to work together and cooperate, but they don't have to share the same vision. I wouldn't mind Harris choosing the potential candidates from which the voters can choose. That would allow her polling and opinion to be part of the process, but electing a VP would be less alienating and would be exciting to voters.

 

[MT15]

 

[Bayouboy]

We need to understand how and why it’s this close. Why the choice between the two isn’t an obvious one for so many.

So much this ^^^^^

 

[LA - L.A.]

I strongly agree but I also believe this would have to be the case no matter the Democratic candidate, at this point. This election will be decided by how many people truly fear another Trump presidency. (And that’s already a diverse coalition of people.)

I'd add the very-angry-at-Trump-and-afraid-of-Republicans majority of women who are a very determined and impactful block of voters. Nothing is going to get the majority of them not to vote against Trump. Nothing.

 

[Incumbent]

Right. Completely agree with every bit of this. I’m just saying that if it gets worse ie Biden loses, Dems lose more seats, etc — a comprehensive postmortem should be done. Even if it doesn’t get worse, I think this is a good thing to do. We need to understand how and why it’s this close. Why the choice between the two isn’t an obvious one for so many.

I find it hard to believe that a country where more people subscribe to Democratic Party ideals than GOP, that party can’t consistently win over voters. I don’t believe it’s because people are just so extreme, at least not in large part.

That’s where I circle back around to it being a party platform issue as well. Just forget the labels for a minute or assumptions of what I mean here politically. I’m saying that the brand isn’t doing a great job of selling itself, and we can’t rely on the other side being so rabid that “there isn’t any other great choice” for some voters. Ideally, the party is heads and shoulders better.

And yes, I’m fully aware that this isn’t a process that will be quick or even take place over an election cycle.

I argue that the first part of resolving a problem is admitting that there is one. I think if more people were open to that, we’d get a lot more done — instead of just “existing” outside of the right wing echo chamber as a second option of “we keep things the same”. With inflation, endless war, job scarcity, etc etc etc people want some answer, any answer, that both parties in my opinion increasingly don’t provide.

I agree with a lot of this and wrestle with the same ideas.

I don’t know the answers other than we rarely have the pieces in place all at the same time to ever fully effect sweeping positive changes. It’s why I’m so opposed to any efforts to suppress enthusiasm for Democrats, even when those candidates are far from what I’d prefer. I do understand the argument that looks at that differently.

Any post mortem has to include the loss of Clinton when all indications were present that a Trump win would be a disaster for progress, and not one we would ever easily recover from. We’re living it now. People can fairly criticize her candidacy, but then we should be honest in recognizing that Sanders has also been a failed national candidate because he’s been unsuccessful winning over voters when he’s run. That’s not said to aggravate pressure points, but we have to make a comprehensive examination if we want to make sufficient inroads.

Certain progressive policies poll well in the abstract but then meet voter resistance in real scenarios. Progressive candidates don’t typically do well enough to win outside of progressive strongholds. I don’t know how we bridge the divides.

 

[MT15]

Certain progressive policies poll well in the abstract but then meet voter resistance in real scenarios. Progressive candidates don’t typically do well enough to win outside of progressive strongholds. I don’t know how we bridge the divides.

This is my observation as well. i don’t have a clue how to bridge it either.

I will say this: on Twitter, and I know this isn’t representative probably, but people pushing a very progressive policy typically get very impatient with any pushback at all. I’ve experienced it myself. Their response goes right to something like - why don’t you want to do {insert the topic}. You must hate {insert the topic subject}. Or a sarcastic “excuse me for wanting to {accomplish this goal}”. Which implies that because you didn’t agree with everything they said, you don’t want to accomplish whatever is being discussed.

I want to make clear I am not accusing anyone in here of these tactics. However the very online Bernie Bro used to do that schtick. I think it turned many people off. It definitely turned me off.

 

[Lapaz]

This seems contradictory to me:

They are not contradictory. 99.9% of those that plan to vote for Biden today, will still vote for him after this debate about staying or going is resolved, even if he remains in the race. While most that were already voting against Biden due to his age or were planning not to vote, will still take that course of action. Something needs to be shaken up. If Biden remains, he will probably have to hold many interviews, including with adversaries, and have press conferences where he takes multiple questions. He may need extra debates to dispel the first one. Even then, he's so far behind that he MAY even have to share a cognitive test. All of those have to go well for Biden to make up the ground. His hill is steep despite his intellectually weak and uniquely horrible opponent, that's why I think any decent and healthy democrat would beat Trump.

 

[SamAndreas]

Thanks for posting that. I hadn’t seen it yet. As I said before, I have been trying to pay attention to his appearances more closely since the debate. And this confirms what I have thought since the debate, which is that he seems the same as before the debate. I haven’t seen any more performances thaf were like the debate.

Yes, I think he's fine considering his age. One does have to consider his age.

I really liked the way Berrine explained that being old part when he was questioned about it, and the way he did it seemed to go away. By that I mean the age part.

And there is another thing all of the legislature people are being harassed by reporters, which is usual, but if one doesn't think about that factor while reading, they won't think about how that factor could color the answers they do give when cornered and pressed by a reporter.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I agree with a lot of this and wrestle with the same ideas.

I don’t know the answers other than we rarely have the pieces in place all at the same time to ever fully effect sweeping positive changes. It’s why I’m so opposed to any efforts to suppress enthusiasm for Democrats, even when those candidates are far from what I’d prefer. I do understand the argument that looks at that differently.

Any post mortem has to include the loss of Clinton when all indications were present that a Trump win would be a disaster for progress, and not one we would ever easily recover from. We’re living it now. People can fairly criticize her candidacy, but then we should be honest in recognizing that Sanders has also been a failed national candidate because he’s been unsuccessful winning over voters when he’s run. That’s not said to aggravate pressure points, but we have to make a comprehensive examination if we want to make sufficient inroads.

Certain progressive policies poll well in the abstract but then meet voter resistance in real scenarios. Progressive candidates don’t typically do well enough to win outside of progressive strongholds. I don’t know how we bridge the divides.

I think the thing to do is look at the pillars of society that were attacked or corrupted to get us here. The fascists didn't just randomly pick what to focus their efforts on. They knew those things had to be undermined first. So you start by repairing that damage and one of the most important pilars to fix right away is public education, with a heavy emphasis on Civics.

Providing effective emotional counseling in schools would be great as well. We've got to educate and emotionally heal our children to protect democracy in the long run. One of the reasons fascists always abuse children in some way, is because abused children grow up to be easier to manipulate adults.

 

[MT15]

One of the reasons fascists always abuse children in some way, is because abused children grow up to be easier to manipulate adults.

I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but I suspect you are correct here.

 

[Lapaz]

Well, none of this is going away just because Trump loses. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have been laying the groundwork for decades. Trump is the useful idiot figurehead of something far more entrenched and insidious. The people behind Christofascism saw early on, in Trump, somebody narcissistic and gullible enough to be used for their means. Trump has no guiding principles or evolved belief system; it’s all just self-interest, greed, and celebrity-seeking. He doesn’t actually care about anybody but himself.

So, yeah, we will likely be voting on our survival every cycle until a time should ever come that the people needed to take all of this down are elected into office in scale-tipping numbers. A democratic president with a dysfunctional congress isn’t ever going to be able to do the real work necessary to dismantle the systemic threats to our nation.

I've heard several make this argument, and I think it is possible, but I think Trump is hard to match. They will have a hard time finding someone that garners the same cultish following. It may take another generation, which may give us enough time to put in protections against another such person, which the founders didn't envision could go unchecked. It will take a long time to undue the damage that the Supreme Court has done, but that starts with a decade of democratic rule to rebalance the power of the presidency and strengthen democracy. If we come through this, and enact legislation to prevent another existential threat to democracy from being able to succeed, then we may become a stronger nation.