Should Biden Debate Trump?

[RiverDog]

I say no. First of all, there's no need to. The candidates get plenty of exposure via their own paid for advertising and through countless interviews and coverage via network and cable TV. Donald Trump gets more exposure than any other human being on the planet, with Biden not far behind. Voters have all the information they need to know about the candidates in order for them to make their decision.

Secondly, Biden could never win a debate because Trump isn't a fair fighter. He lies and makes things up on the fly. Biden would either have to know enough about Trump's lie to be able to correct him on the spot or have to come back in some other venue and counter the misconception that Trump had already planted in the minds of the viewers. Trump did this repeatedly in his 2016 debates with HRC by saying blatant lies like "We're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it!" He'll use the debates as a means to throw raw meat to his base. No sense giving him that opportunity.

And thirdly, appearing in front of a microphone in a debate setting exposes Biden to his greatest weakness: His habit of putting his foot in his mouth. He's ahead in the contest, so there's no reason why he should agree to give Trump an opportunity to turn things around. Although it's been a political tradition for decades, there is nothing that says that we have to have a presidential debate.

Comments?

[I-5]

Totally agree. He has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by getting in the ring with someone who bites ears and plays dirty. Of course, he's going to do it anyway. However, in the end I don't think it will hugely move the needle either way. People are entrenched, and both sides want to see blood. See my post about polling and predictors.

[RiverDog]

Totally agree. He has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by getting in the ring with someone who bites ears and plays dirty. Of course, he's going to do it anyway. However, in the end I don't think it will hugely move the needle either way. People are entrenched, and both sides want to see blood. See my post about polling and predictors.

Biden needs to just clam up. He gave a reporter a whole raft of crap over a question as to whether or not he was going to take a cognitive test as Trump supposedly has done. It was a completely fair question and Biden really went off on the poor guy and made it personal. He's also stepped in it by suggesting that Hispanics are more diverse than African Americans. It's as if he can't stand prosperity.

[Aseahawkfan]

Does Biden have a choice? Has a president ever avoided direct debate in a presidential election?

Trump is much better than Biden in front of a crowd. His greatest strength is his salesmanship. The man can sell himself, ideas, products, or what not to a crowd. You let him get in front of a crowd against Biden, he's going to look a lot stronger. He'll get his slogans going. Say what you will about Trump and his lies, his ability work a crowd is way up there. It's served him well over the years.

But can Biden afford to not debate? It will make him look very weak if Trump is calling him out to a debate and Biden is completely avoiding it. If Trump is already calling Biden "Sleepy Joe", how does it make Biden look to avoid Trump? Trump will go after that like gangbusters. We'll never hear the end of Trump saying, "Joe is scared to debate me. Look at him, Sleepy Joe won't face me because he's weak." For Americans looking for a confidence booster, it will look very weak if Biden hides out avoiding head to head debate with Trump. It will look very pathetic. We'll see how it moves the polls, but I think it would be a highly risk move to avoid debate.

Biden doesn't have to win. He just has to stick to a vision of America that isn't a divided America with no plan to beat the corona virus. If he can somehow challenge Trump's corona virus response and his divisiveness, then he can put Trump on the defensive on issues that the American people consider important. People want to vote for Biden because they believe he will do a better job handling the corona virus and calming all this crap down. He won't project that very well hiding from the incumbent.

The Democrats look like they might give Trump some good PR if he uses an executive order to extend unemployment benefits.

On a side note, it looks like Chauvin is going to escape jail or at least the murder 2 charge in Minnesota. The prosecutors should have went for Murder 3 Manslaughter. Going for a murder 2 charge based on the commission of a felony looks bound to fail. America bill burn again and more cops will be targeted when Chauvin is found not guilty. No idea why they went for the murder 2 charge given the evidence. Looks like a bad mistake to me.

[RiverDog]

Does Biden have a choice? Has a president ever avoided direct debate in a presidential election?

Yes. Jimmy Carter refused a debate in 1980 because it included John Anderson, an independent that cut into Carter's base. But Carter did go on to debate Reagan one-on-one.

Trump is much better than Biden in front of a crowd. His greatest strength is his salesmanship. The man can sell himself, ideas, products, or what not to a crowd. You let him get in front of a crowd against Biden, he's going to look a lot stronger. He'll get his slogans going. Say what you will about Trump and his lies, his ability work a crowd is way up there. It's served him well over the years.

Don't confuse a debate, where he's on a neutral field, with that of his home stadium, ie his rallies that are composed strictly of adoring supporters.

But can Biden afford to not debate? It will make him look very weak if Trump is calling him out to a debate and Biden is completely avoiding it. If Trump is already calling Biden "Sleepy Joe", how does it make Biden look to avoid Trump? Trump will go after that like gangbusters. We'll never hear the end of Trump saying, "Joe is scared to debate me. Look at him, Sleepy Joe won't face me because he's weak." For Americans looking for a confidence booster, it will look very weak if Biden hides out avoiding head to head debate with Trump. It will look very pathetic. We'll see how it moves the polls, but I think it would be a highly risk move to avoid debate.

Sure, there's a risk by not having them. But that has to be weighed against the risk of going on with them. Personally, I think that if Biden and his campaign manager frame it right, show how Trump doesn't fight fair, that he throws out lies and misstatements at such a rate that Biden couldn't hope to correct them and that a traditional debate under the previous formats would be unacceptable unless there's some type of moderator that immediately fact checks and corrects misstatements made by either candidate.

As I-5 said, voters are pretty entrenched. The number of undecided voters is relatively very low. They're fighting for less than 10% of likely voters.

Biden doesn't have to win. He just has to stick to a vision of America that isn't a divided America with no plan to beat the corona virus. If he can somehow challenge Trump's corona virus response and his divisiveness, then he can put Trump on the defensive on issues that the American people consider important. People want to vote for Biden because they believe he will do a better job handling the corona virus and calming all this crap down. He won't project that very well hiding from the incumbent.

The Democrats look like they might give Trump some good PR if he uses an executive order to extend unemployment benefits.

The power of incumbency. Trump can look presidential.

On a side note, it looks like Chauvin is going to escape jail or at least the murder 2 charge in Minnesota. The prosecutors should have went for Murder 3 Manslaughter. Going for a murder 2 charge based on the commission of a felony looks bound to fail. America bill burn again and more cops will be targeted when Chauvin is found not guilty. No idea why they went for the murder 2 charge given the evidence. Looks like a bad mistake to me.

I haven't heard much about that, but I seriously doubt that Chauvin walks. I can't imagine all 12 on any jury voting to acquit based on the evidence I've seen (and I admit that I haven't seen all of it).

[Aseahawkfan]

I haven't heard much about that, but I seriously doubt that Chauvin walks. I can't imagine all 12 on any jury voting to acquit based on the evidence I've seen (and I admit that I haven't seen all of it).

Maybe you know more than I do, but for what they are trying to prove I doubt they can convince a jury of 12 on that. They are trying to prove 2nd degree murder using the unintentional murder section during the commission of a felony, that felony is assault. They have to prove that Chauvin was committing felony assault to 12 people and that is what caused his murder. If you watch the video footage including the body cam footage, you see Floyd is extremely distressed and having trouble at the beginning of it all. He is also talking while Chauvin is pinning him with his leg.

And the real problem for the prosecution will be the methamphetamine and fentanyl found in his system. Both exacerbating the respiratory problems and possibly causing respiratory arrest.

They may get Chauvin on something else. He will be fired for certain. But from my reading on Murder 2 in Minnesota, he is unlikely to be convicted on that with an impartial jury. But we will see.

They should have went for Murder 3.

Two of the other cops may get off. One did not have visibility on what was occurring, Kueng I believe. Thomas Lane asked Chauvin if they should move him due to excited delirium, but Chauvin said keep him as is and the ambulance is en route. Lane at least tried to do something, but was overridden by a senior officer as Chauvin was the 18 year vet.

Then there is this: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/10/an-emotional-crisis-more-than-150-minneapolis-police-officers-filing-for-disability-attorney-says-most-suffering-from-ptsd/

The aftermath of when your politicians turn on your police force siding with rioters and people who want to get rid of the police.

[RiverDog]

The DA was driven by the public to charge him with the highest possible crime. Many were highly upset that he didn't go for Murder 1. In any event, life is essentially over for Chauvin no matter what happens in the courtroom. Someone will take justice into their own hands or he will be so vilified that he'll never be able to live a normal life.

It's probably best that we start another thread if we want to discuss this further

[Aseahawkfan]

The DA was driven by the public to charge him with the highest possible crime. Many were highly upset that he didn't go for Murder 1. In any event, life is essentially over for Chauvin no matter what happens in the courtroom. Someone will take justice into their own hands or he will be so vilified that he'll never be able to live a normal life.

It's probably best that we start another thread if we want to discuss this further

I heard he was driven to charge him with that. Another stupid mistake on the mob's part.

Chauvin has been tried by the public and ruined. Doubt he'll be killed though, but maybe. So far Zimmerman has been wandering around without incident.

I just wanted to alert you so you'll be ready when the riot and burning starts again. Us old folks remember when the Rodney King's cops got off and this will likely be worse and more widespread. For those that don't remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

[Hawktawk]

Yes Biden should debate trump. Hes agreed to 3 debates.He'd look ridiculous backing out. Joe was never the best debater and he's lost his fastball which was Jamie moyer to begin with. But Dumpster has so lowered the expectations for Joe with his "sleepy joe,they wheel him out, he has no idea what hes saying cant put two sentences together, they wheel him back to the basement. "crap that when Biden puts 3 or 4 together he's a winner.Same as the "Biden is a radical leftist who hates america and god". People aren't buying that. Even republicans know it's not true.

Beyond that this isn't Trump 2016 with his *refreshing* blunt vulgar talk. This is Trump 2020, 4 years more mentally unhinged, terrible track record, particularly on togetherness and empathy. 5 years of constant BS, employee churn, scandal after scandal, pressured speech, thousands of Tweets to glean from. Hes being attacked with devastating ads by republicans.
Oh and by the way while Trump was waddling his fat arse around New Bedminster golfing and signing executive orders it was sleepy Joe and his entourage on bicycles riding around the neighborhood being stopped and interviewed interviewed by Faux News. Maybe Joe should challenge him to a bicycle race

My point is dont count out Joe Biden in a debate. I cant say he won a democratic debate but he didn't knock himself out despite devastating attacks from all sides.

His recent one line press releases have been devastating" When I'm president you won't have to worry about my tweets" loved that .

"when I'm president I'll be standing beside our doctors and scientists looking for ways to beat this pandemic, noty attacking them on twitter" . Mr president stop your whining"
I could go on. If he can bring forth any semblance of that anger, righteous fury he will do just fine and it may well be trump getting pummeled even further than he is already. Joe is not Hillary and DJT isn't who he was 4 years ago.

[Hawktawk]

Chauvin has been tried by the public and ruined. Doubt he'll be killed though, but maybe. So far Zimmerman has been wandering around without incident.

I just wanted to alert you so you'll be ready when the riot and burning starts again. Us old folks remember when the Rodney King's cops got off and this will likely be worse and more widespread. For those that don't remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Chauvin is crushing Floyds neck with his knee and smirking.Its on film. He tried and convicted himself. Not fair to the other cops who were just watching this brutal pig with 18 previous complaints of excessive force.

But yes here we are again. I dont think Chauvins problems are the fault of anyone but himself any more than I thought Big Mike Brown's death was anyone's fault but his own. But this cop started a riot over the whole country, totally accentuated by the fascist wanna be racist who had peaceful protesters gassed and shot with rubber bullets so he could have a bizarre dog whistle to the base photo op.Like everything else there is no middle. I support good cops, not bad cops and I'm coming to believe there are more of the latter than I previously thought. I support peaceful protests but not rioters and looters and I think there are a lot less rioters and looters as a percentage of protests than the racist or Faux news wants you to believe.

There's just no middle ground.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yes Biden should debate trump. Hes agreed to 3 debates.He'd look ridiculous backing out. Joe was never the best debater and he's lost his fastball which was Jamie moyer to begin with. But Dumpster has so lowered the expectations for Joe with his "sleepy joe,they wheel him out, he has no idea what hes saying cant put two sentences together, they wheel him back to the basement. "crap that when Biden puts 3 or 4 together he's a winner.Same as the "Biden is a radical leftist who hates america and god". People aren't buying that. Even republicans know it's not true.

Beyond that this isn't Trump 2016 with his *refreshing* blunt vulgar talk. This is Trump 2020, 4 years more mentally unhinged, terrible track record, particularly on togetherness and empathy. 5 years of constant BS, employee churn, scandal after scandal, pressured speech, thousands of Tweets to glean from. Hes being attacked with devastating ads by republicans.
Oh and by the way while Trump was waddling his fat arse around New Bedminster golfing and signing executive orders it was sleepy Joe and his entourage on bicycles riding around the neighborhood being stopped and interviewed interviewed by Faux News. Maybe Joe should challenge him to a bicycle race

My point is dont count out Joe Biden in a debate. I cant say he won a democratic debate but he didn't knock himself out despite devastating attacks from all sides.

His recent one line press releases have been devastating" When I'm president you won't have to worry about my tweets" loved that .

"when I'm president I'll be standing beside our doctors and scientists looking for ways to beat this pandemic, noty attacking them on twitter" . Mr president stop your whining"
I could go on. If he can bring forth any semblance of that anger, righteous fury he will do just fine and it may well be trump getting pummeled even further than he is already. Joe is not Hillary and DJT isn't who he was 4 years ago.

If Biden focuses on the corona response and is ready for that, he can go after Trump on that alone. He just has to stand his ground and not give the Repubs too much ammo to keep his spot in the polls.

[RiverDog]

If Biden focuses on the corona response and is ready for that, he can go after Trump on that alone. He just has to stand his ground and not give the Repubs too much ammo to keep his spot in the polls.

Agreed, but I'll add to that Trump's response to the racial unrest we've been experiencing. He's even had military guys like Mattis and Kelly come out against him on that issue. So long as Biden doesn't stick his foot in his mouth and display some of his own biases, it's a winning issue for him. A man that doesn't even attend church uses pepper spray and tear gas on a peaceful assembly so he can clear out a space for a photo op of him holding up a Bible in front of a church?

[Aseahawkfan]

Agreed, but I'll add to that Trump's response to the racial unrest we've been experiencing. He's even had military guys like Mattis and Kelly come out against him on that issue. So long as Biden doesn't stick his foot in his mouth and display some of his own biases, it's a winning issue for him. A man that doesn't even attend church uses pepper spray and tear gas on a peaceful assembly so he can clear out a space for a photo op of him holding up a Bible in front of a church?

I don't know if he wants to go after that. I think people are very mixed on their viewpoints of BLM, defund the police, the rioting, and the Dem reaction to the rioting. That would give Trump lots of ammunition to fire back given how poorly Democrats and Democratic governors have done responding to the defund the police and the rioting.

I highly disagree it is a winning issue. I think it is in fact a losing issue. If Bidens shows much support for defunding the police and attacking the police, he will divide the Democratic base. The Republican base is firmly behind the police and against the defund the police movement. The resistance to the left who are attacking the police and the BLM movement will unite the Republicans and the right on an issue against Biden, while at the same time the Democrats are not firmly behind the defund the police and BLM movement. I think it risks dividing them.

You don't want Trump getting to hammer Biden and the Democrats with, "What did you do in Washington and Oregon? BIden's going to allow lawlessness across the nation. He's going to let them build CHOPs and lawless zones in every city. He's going to support the Democrats defunding the police. He's going to allow criminals to vandalize your businesses and drive you off the street, while treating our fine police officers like they are criminals. This is what Joe Biden stands for."

Sorry man, most people have forgotten that photo op or Trump's tweets because the Dems have been so focused on attacking the police and dismantling them while allowing rioting and other bad behavior. The defund the police and BLM push to attack the police has taken their movement from the American people backing them to the Republicans fully against them and the Democrats divided on the issue.

You must not be following the issue very closely. It's one thing to want to defund the police, but burning a police precinct down with people inside is not a protest.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/protesters-set-fire-to-police-precinct-damage-businesses-in-north-portland/283-59c6bd42-1bf1-47b9-9e9a-4d7c84f957f5

There are other stories of this kind. I don't even hear them mentioning Trump's actions during that period because the protesters have gone so far that they've divided people on the movement in a very bad way.

[I-5]

When has Biden ever said he supported defunding the police? Never.

I don't really see the ammo Trump will bring against Biden except Hunter (boring) and being VP for Obama, who he hates. Unfortunately for Trump, a lot of people who didn't like Obama miss him now, including republicans. Trump just keeps circling the drain tighter and tighter, appealing to no one but his hardcore base, his staff, and his surrogates Hannity/Tucker/Ingraham/Limbaugh. The Harris birther thing just shows how clueless he is about how to go after her. He's throwing anything he can at the wall and to see what sticks, and it looks desperate.

What I find interesting now is how Fox is trying so hard to say that Harris is not really a moderate, while progressive circles are saying at the exact same time that she's not really progressive. Talk about walking a tightrope, she seems to be right down the middle!

[RiverDog]

When has Biden ever said he supported defunding the police? Never.

You're right, but he has flirted with it in the form of withholding funds if departments don't adhere to certain guidelines or standards.

I don't really see the ammo Trump will bring against Biden except Hunter (boring) and being VP for Obama, who he hates. Unfortunately for Trump, a lot of people who didn't like Obama miss him now, including republicans. Trump just keeps circling the drain tighter and tighter, appealing to no one but his hardcore base, his staff, and his surrogates Hannity/Tucker/Ingraham/Limbaugh. The Harris birther thing just shows how clueless he is about how to go after her. He's throwing anything he can at the wall and to see what sticks, and it looks desperate.

Biden's age, for starters. Sleepy Joe isn't doing himself any favors by refusing to take a cognitive test. Secondly, he's a Democrat, and despite his moderate reputation, will have to fend off accusations that he'll cave into the liberal agenda, especially if the Dems take over the Senate. It's a powerful motivation, even for a person like me that will vote for almost anyone to get Trump out of office.

What I find interesting now is how Fox is trying so hard to say that Harris is not really a moderate, while progressive circles are saying at the exact same time that she's not really progressive. Talk about walking a tightrope, she seems to be right down the middle!

She's not in the middle. She's expressed support for things like the Green New Deal and reparations for slavery. That's not a moderate position.

[I-5]

She's not in the middle. She's expressed support for things like the Green New Deal and reparations for slavery. That's not a moderate position.

She's right down the middle if you listen to progressives complain about her lack of past support for blacks, not calling for defunding the police, and backing off her support of a single payer healthcare system. I guess it depends where you are looking.

[c_hawkbob]

Riv you're so far to the right you have no idea what the middle looks like.

[RiverDog]

She's not in the middle. She's expressed support for things like the Green New Deal and reparations for slavery. That's not a moderate position.

She's right down the middle if you listen to progressives complain about her lack of past support for blacks, not calling for defunding the police, and backing off her support of a single payer healthcare system. I guess it depends where you are looking.

That be true.

The problem is that most voters have a short attention span, don't bother reading the voters pamphlet, and can't get past a 15 second sound bite in an attack ad, so the simple fact that she's a San Francisco Democrat will be enough to define her politics for most of our citizens.

Fortunately, most voters look at the top of the ticket when they make their decisions, so I don't think she's going to make a huge difference in Biden's electability one way or another. The positives of her nomination will cancel out the negatives and vice versa.

[I-5]

I agree she won't be the winning factor, but she'll probably have a more positive influence on Biden's chances than Palin did with McCain. Palin violated the unspoken 'do no harm' mantra of a VP candidate by being unfocused and unprepared. Would McCain have beaten Obama either way? Not even a chance, but still. If anything, there is a large black female contingent in the democratic voting base that will probably be paying more attention, to make an understatement. You also shouldn't discount the sizable and loyal network of her black alma matter and greek system. It may sound trivial, but she called them out in her speech for a reason, and from what I've seen, they are a very tight and nationwide phenomenon that is like a free campaign team.

[RiverDog]

I agree she won't be the winning factor, but she'll probably have a more positive influence on Biden's chances than Palin did with McCain. Palin violated the unspoken 'do no harm' mantra of a VP candidate by being unfocused and unprepared. Would McCain have beaten Obama either way? Not even a chance, but still. If anything, there is a large black female contingent in the democratic voting base that will probably be paying more attention, to make an understatement. You also shouldn't discount the sizable and loyal network of her black alma matter and greek system. It may sound trivial, but she called them out in her speech for a reason, and from what I've seen, they are a very tight and nationwide phenomenon that is like a free campaign team.

Harris isn't going to change any opinions, nor should she try. Her job is going to be to get out the vote, get their base motivated to get their butts to the polls. If the election is close, which I don't expect, it could be a factor as that's something HRC couldn't do. But the main thing that Biden didn't want to do was to make a bad pick, like Karen Bass, who once embraced Fidel Castro. That would have been a disaster, especially in a key swing state like Florida with a lot of Cuban American voters. Harris was a safe pick, and even though she has a few warts, won't hurt the ticket.

Palin was a horrible choice, and a distraction during McCain's campaign that forced him to play defense, but I doubt that a safe pick would have made much difference in that race. Looking back over the history of VP selections since the turn of the last century, the only VP choice that had a substantial positive influence on the ticket was JFK's choice of Lyndon Johnson in 1960. He was able to deliver Texas. Most elections the VP doesn't even move the needle in their home states.

Anyhow, that's just my opinion. Like I told ASF, I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me. All I'm doing is explaining my logic.

[Hawktawk]

Ok sleepy joe wasn’t so sleepy . His speech drew raves even among some fox commentators . Trump really has let his yap overload his arse with all these insults about Biden’s cognitive ability . Some have called it his best speech in his career . As a commentator said yesterday “ Trump will be running against a candidate , not a caricature “ . Really looking forward to the debates now . Trump has been melting down in all caps during the dnc convention already . Hopefully he will have a fit at the podium . I sure hope so . What a Jackass .

[I-5]

Pretty much same thing I'm saying, Riv. And yes, Palin was a really terrible pick, not that it mattered.

I knew that the 'Sleepy Joe' was going to backfire on Trump. Pretty stupid to set a bar that low, which Joe immediately aced with probably the best speech of his career.

I think a HUGE factor in the debates is the fact that the live audience is very limited. Trump always does best when he panders to a crowd and bullies other candidates, and always does his absolute worst in small interviews...especially when he gets fact-checked. Bullying won't work in this type of format.

[RiverDog]

Ok sleepy joe wasn’t so sleepy . His speech drew raves even among some fox commentators . Trump really has let his yap overload his arse with all these insults about Biden’s cognitive ability . Some have called it his best speech in his career . As a commentator said yesterday “ Trump will be running against a candidate , not a caricature “ . Really looking forward to the debates now . Trump has been melting down in all caps during the dnc convention already . Hopefully he will have a fit at the podium . I sure hope so . What a Jackass .

I didn't see the speech live. I don't often watch/listen to politicians live, even those that I happen to like or agree with. I'm more likely to read the text of their remarks.

Reading from a prepared script in front of a teleprompter is one thing. Debating another candidate in front of a panel of moderators without so much as crib notes is an entirely different monster, especially one that doesn't play by the rules like Donald Trump. Biden is going to have his work cut out for him just being able to refute Trump's lies and inaccuracies. If Sleepy Joe is going to show his face, it will be in the debates.

[RiverDog]

Pretty much same thing I'm saying, Riv. And yes, Palin was a really terrible pick, not that it mattered.

I knew that the 'Sleepy Joe' was going to backfire on Trump. Pretty stupid to set a bar that low, which Joe immediately aced with probably the best speech of his career.

I think a HUGE factor in the debates is the fact that the live audience is very limited. Trump always does best when he panders to a crowd and bullies other candidates, and always does his absolute worst in small interviews...especially when he gets fact-checked. Bullying won't work in this type of format.

"Sleepy Joe" hasn't been completely sidelined. As I mentioned to Hawktalk, we'll see how things go in the debates.

I agree with you about the reduced audiences in this election's debates. It's an advantage for Biden not to have to put up with all the static and distractions that Trump creates.

But the fact checking has to be immediate for it to be effective, and as a rule, moderators don't fact check statements during a debate unless it is in the form of a follow-up question. Biden is going to have to do it himself, and will have a time limit for his response. Plus he won't be able to correct Trump when he responds to a question posed of him.

I also agree with you with your observation about the small, one-on-one interviews. Chris Wallace made Trump look awful a few weeks ago when Trump started making false claims about our coronavirus response. That's the type of format that I wish Biden would have pushed for, although I'm not sure how they could create a debate format out of a one-on-one interview.

[I-5]

We know that if the moderator is Chris Wallace, he will absolutely fact-check Trump in real time, and he did just that a one of the 2016 debates. Wallace is fast becoming my most trusted journalist, and ironically it's because I know he gives dems just as hard of a time. I want that scrutiny on both sides always.

My point about the sleepy label is that 1) it's a non-sensical label based on a caricature, so just by showing up and sounding more intelligent than Trump (not hard to do), it's moot and 2) even if Biden is not the most rah-rah guy, that is literally no one's concern or expectation, nor even a qualification to do the job.

What Biden is projecting is stability and decency, and whether one agrees with his policies or not, no one doubts his ability to function in the job. Trump isn't going to change his stripes now, so he's not going to win on those qualities.

[RiverDog]

We know that if the moderator is Chris Wallace, he will absolutely fact-check Trump in real time, and he did just that a one of the 2016 debates. Wallace is fast becoming my most trusted journalist, and ironically it's because I know he gives dems just as hard of a time. I want that scrutiny on both sides always.

Agreed about Chris Wallace. Fox News Sunday is can't miss TV for me. But I don't think moderators fact check or correct candidates in real time during the debates, that they just ask questions. Or at least that's my impression.

My point about the sleepy label is that 1) it's a non-sensical label based on a caricature, so just by showing up and sounding more intelligent than Trump (not hard to do), it's moot and 2) even if Biden is not the most rah-rah guy, that is literally no one's concern or expectation, nor even a qualification to do the job.

That's not exactly my impression of the handle. IMO "Sleepy Joe" is the Biden that sticks his foot in his mouth by giving people the impression that his brain is stuck in the 20th century. One of his latest was that he said that "I'm going to make sure that we rejoin the Paris Peace Accord on day one.", which were the negotiations that ended the Vietnam War back in the 70's rather than the climate change agreement he intended to reference. He also has a problem when he gets angry/defensive. When asked a very legitimate question by a reporter as to why he hasn't taken a cognitive test as Trump did, he reacted personally, asked the reporter if he would take a drug test. Those are the types of situations he needs to avoid if he wants to put "Sleepy Joe" to bed.

What Biden is projecting is stability and decency, and whether one agrees with his policies or not, no one doubts his ability to function in the job. Trump isn't going to change his stripes now, so he's not going to win on those qualities.

I'm not so sure everyone would agree with the decency part. Biden should probably leave that one alone. Perhaps professionalism is a better term.

In my view, what Biden needs to project is a more effective management style, of surrounding himself with good people, soliciting their advice, weighing the alternatives, then making his decision. Trump surrounds himself with loyalists that tell him what he wants to hear, makes decisions based on his gut instinct rather than listening to an honest debate. He's more likely to make a decision based on Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter's opinion rather than advice from a cabinet member.

[Hawktawk]

I didn't see the speech live. I don't often watch/listen to politicians live, even those that I happen to like or agree with. I'm more likely to read the text of their remarks.

Reading from a prepared script in front of a teleprompter is one thing. Debating another candidate in front of a panel of moderators without so much as crib notes is an entirely different monster, especially one that doesn't play by the rules like Donald Trump. Biden is going to have his work cut out for him just being able to refute Trump's lies and inaccuracies. If Sleepy Joe is going to show his face, it will be in the debates.

I didn't see it live either but when not only Chris Wallace but also Britt Hume of Faux called it a home run Id say it was. Its nothing to pooh pooh whats being called the best speech of Joe Biden's career at the biggest moment in our nations history.

You ever hear idiot try to read off a teleprompter? he sounds like a 5th grade mentally challenged kid. I read an analysis of Trump's debates in 2016 and it was just the squeaky wheel gets the grease that started his rabid cult of racists and white nationalists following him along with disillusioned voters of both parties in swing states. His performances were terrible, ignorant, rude, classless, dishonest but he stood out among 17 candidates and got the worst democrat candidate in history by mile and still lost the votes of americans by almost 4 million votes while squeaking out an electoral win by about 100K votes in several rust belt states.

As GW said at the time the loudest voice isn't always the smartest voice and boy wasn't he a prophet. But in 2016 it got DT headlines, free press coverage to the tune of 2 billion in free media.That act is wearing off now. Everyone has seen it, everyone has heard it, the whining the temper tantrums. It's not going to play in 2020. It already is not which is why the polls are where they are. Even the Faux people are starting to hedge their bets. Even hannity's and Faux and friends producers reportedly detest Trump and are tired of his calling in and tying up airtime whining.

It aint 2016. Joe is not Hillary. Ill predict right now Joe Biden will give trump a dose of his own medicine.He will be just as loud as Trump if needed and infinitely more coherent. He's already been quoted as saying Trump needs taken"out behind the woodshed". Joe Biden looks for all the world like a man that understands the time is now or never for America. Hes righteously furious with this incompetent F#@k who has spent the last 4 years trying to destroy America and it will show in the debates.

[I-5]

Biden needs to project is a more effective management style, of surrounding himself with good people, soliciting their advice, weighing the alternatives, then making his decision.

Biden absolutely projects exactly this when I hear him talk. He is no maverick, and that's a good thing.

In regards to 'Sleepy' meaning stuck in the 20th Century, again, not a strong point for Trump, who is always using 70's-80's references. That's why the man is so obsessed with Time magazine covers, a rag that saw it's golden age back then.

Joe is absolutely a decent guy when you consider what he's done to keep his family together through one tragedy after another. It's just one opinion vs the other, but when you compare him with the idiot who only thinks about himself in every single word and action, there is no comparison. Biden isn't a saint, and he doesn't have to be. He is decent.

[RiverDog]

I didn't see it live either but when not only Chris Wallace but also Britt Hume of Faux called it a home run Id say it was. Its nothing to pooh pooh whats being called the best speech of Joe Biden's career at the biggest moment in our nations history.

But that's not what voters will remember. They remember things like Gerald Ford's gaffe about Poland not being dominated by the Soviets or Michael Dukakis being nonchalant or matter-of-fact when posed with a hypothetical question about the murder of his wife. Impromptu debates/interviews can shape an image of a candidate more so than simply reading from script.

It aint 2016. Joe is not Hillary. Ill predict right now Joe Biden will give trump a dose of his own medicine .He will be just as loud as Trump if needed and infinitely more coherent. He's already been quoted as saying Trump needs taken "out behind the woodshed". Joe Biden looks for all the world like a man that understands the time is now or never for America. He's righteously furious with this incompetent F#@k who has spent the last 4 years trying to destroy America and it will show in the debates.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But we're not the ones that need to be convinced to vote for him.

Biden already has the votes to beat Trump. What he needs to do is not to take the bait and be drug into the gutter with Trump. Stay above the fray and look Presidential, look like that he belongs in the White House. As I-5 noted, people are looking for stability and an end to this perpetual food fight that's characterized the Trump presidency.

[RiverDog]

Biden needs to project is a more effective management style, of surrounding himself with good people, soliciting their advice, weighing the alternatives, then making his decision.

Biden absolutely projects exactly this when I hear him talk. He is no maverick, and that's a good thing.

When he's at his best, absolutely.

In regards to 'Sleepy' meaning stuck in the 20th Century, again, not a strong point for Trump, who is always using 70's-80's references. That's why the man is so obsessed with Time magazine covers, a rag that saw it's golden age back then.

Joe is absolutely a decent guy when you consider what he's done to keep his family together through one tragedy after another. It's just one opinion vs the other, but when you compare him with the idiot who only thinks about himself in every single word and action, there is no comparison. Biden isn't a saint, and he doesn't have to be. He is decent.

Again, I agree. But the issue isn't defining Trump, it's defining Biden. If Biden is to convince the moderate swing voters that he's the man, he can't be making unforced errors that remind people of just how old he is.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with Biden's personality flaws. Like you said, they pale in comparison to those of his opponent. And, even if I don't agree with his decisions, I'm confident that he'll be a lot more organized and deliberate than Trump. But I'm not the one that needs convincing.

[I-5]

RIv, would you call yourself part of the independent, swing-voter bloc, or more of a conservative?

[RiverDog]

RIv, would you call yourself part of the independent, swing-voter bloc, or more of a conservative?

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Since I started voting in 1972, I had never voted for a Dem for national office until 2018. I have voted for Dems for state and local offices, such as Booth Gardner and Gary Locke for Governor. In 2016, I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

In this election, I am 100% against Donald Trump and the far right wing of the Republican party. The only question for me this election, as it was in 2016, was if the Dems could produce a candidate that is palatable for my taste to the point where I can vote for them. Had the Dems nominated Sanders or Warren, I would have sat out this election or voted for an independent/3rd party. I will be voting for Joe Biden in this election and will mail in my ballot the day I receive it.

I am a free trader that believes the best way to avoid military conflicts is to make countries dependent on us for their economic vitality. Trade wars can turn into shooting wars (see Japan in 1941). I don't mind seeing some jobs go overseas so long as our overall job market is healthy and our citizens have plenty of opportunities to pursue the American dream. I do not believe in free college or debt forgiveness, but I do believe in more government funding for higher education and making college more affordable. In general, I do not believe in socialized medicine, but I am open to alternatives in specific situations. I am for decriminalization of drug crimes involving personal use but not for sales or distribution.

I believe in a robust immigration policy that encourages young, educated, law abiding hopefuls to apply for entry and citizenship so long as our economy and infrastructure can accommodate them, but I do not believe in de-criminalization of illegal entry attempts or abolishing ICE. I view Trump's border wall as a hideous waste of money and don't like the message it sends, but I do believe in other, more cost efficient and less obvious methods of securing the border, such as electronic or remote sensing. I believe in enhanced security at ports of entry and intensive vetting of those wishing to visit or immigrate. I believe in international cooperation regarding the resettlement of refuges.

I'm basically a hawk on national defense matters, but I've softened somewhat since the war in Iraq.

I like to think that I view each subject on its own merits rather than by a predetermined position dictated by my mostly conservative values. I'll let you decide what category or voting bloc that places me in.

[I-5]

Thanks. That sounds about right, meaning what I though (my positions aren't that far from yours btw). Who do you think he needs to convince? I know republicans who are sick of Trump are voting for him...who else does he need to go after in your opinion?

Also, what's your stance on China?

[Aseahawkfan]

I wonder who will swing this. I know right now folks like Riverdog think Trump is solely on the hook for the COVID19 response, but I know a lot of people in Washington hate the Democrats for their handling of COVID19. There is more hate in many blue states towards the Democratic handling of COVID19 due to lost jobs and destroying businesses. These lockdowns are causing a massive number of bankruptcies and lost jobs that people seem to be overlooking. Governors like Jay Inslee picked economic winners and losers and then provided very little help to keep small businesses going and jobs in the industries hit the hardest. The lockdown is the sole reason they are gone. How many of those angry folks are looking for revenge on the Dems? I know more than a few.

There are a lot of wildcards out there. I want to see how that goes come November. Because as much as people look at Trump mishandling COVID, I can guarantee that in many states people are angry at their state government for bad handling of COVID19. That hate is going to rev up with job losses, bankruptcies, failed businesses, and lost homes.

I think whoever can sell America on who is going to help everyone get back on their feet best will win a lot of points. It's not just handling COVID19 that is important, it's who is going to help people get back to work and help their businesses recover. It's very bad out there, very bad. One of my buddies is slowly bleeding out businesses as he slowly shuts down. It's all because his blue state governor did an extreme lockdown with extremely low number of cases. Completely destroyed the local economy. I've seen a lot of businesses shutting down in Seattle.

People will be looking for assurances that the economy will recover strongly and be managed better even before a vaccine.

[RiverDog]

I wonder who will swing this. I know right now folks like Riverdog think Trump is solely on the hook for the COVID19 response, but I know a lot of people in Washington hate the Democrats for their handling of COVID19. There is more hate in many blue states towards the Democratic handling of COVID19 due to lost jobs and destroying businesses. These lockdowns are causing a massive number of bankruptcies and lost jobs that people seem to be overlooking. Governors like Jay Inslee picked economic winners and losers and then provided very little help to keep small businesses going and jobs in the industries hit the hardest. The lockdown is the sole reason they are gone. How many of those angry folks are looking for revenge on the Dems? I know more than a few.

I've never said that Trump was 'solely' on the hook for the Covid response. What I said was that he's the one most responsible. There are plenty of other villains, like the Chinese, the WHO, the CDC, various governors, etc. I'm also not completely satisfied with our WA governor's response, although I give him some overall high marks, especially in his initial reaction. But it's been Trump's unwillingness to trust the scientists and his own people within his administration, his blatantly false statements regarding the subject, constant bickering with the governors, his refusal to accept reality (it's a Democratic hoax to embarrass him), his turning mask wearing into a political statement, and so on, that has caused me to hang this one on him.

[RiverDog]

Thanks. That sounds about right, meaning what I though (my positions aren't that far from yours btw).

Except that we differ dramatically on issues like socialized medicine and the defund the police movement, of which I notice that you've (apparently) ditched the thread rather than answer my question.

Who do you think he (Biden) needs to convince? I know republicans who are sick of Trump are voting for him...who else does he need to go after in your opinion?

There's not a lot of voters left to convince. Most have already made up their minds. This election pits two very well known figures in an incumbent President vs a career politician, a former Senator/VP, that has been in the political limelight for over 4 decades. There's not very much that we or the press don't already know about these two men, and as a result, there's only about 6-8% undecided and are likely to remain that way until November. Biden already has a commanding lead in the opinion polls with roughly 50% of the electorate, so there's no need for him to 'go after' any group. The key, at least for Biden, is in getting those that favor him to turn out. It's his election to lose. He doesn't need to do a lot of attacking Trump, at least not him personally. HRC did nothing but and came up empty handed. I'd let Harris and his other surrogates keep Trump's behavior and personal flaws in the crosshairs and for Biden to look presidential by staying above the fray for the most part. Biden needs to keep his lot on the bandwagon and avoid any situation that could make him look bad or reinforce their fears (too old, too liberal, etc). He's not going to win a mudslinging fight with Trump.

Also, what's your stance on China?

I don't mind putting economic pressure on China as far as subjects like intellectual property, human rights issues, arms sales to the Iranians, and so on, but it needs to be done in cooperation with our allies. Trump's trade war was over the wrong subjects. He started out by trying to protect our steel and aluminum industry, which didn't employ all that many people to begin with, and ended up hurting other industries by forcing them to pay higher prices for their raw materials and cut off access to the Chinese market, as happened in this state with agricultural products like apples and cherries. China is the most populous country on the planet and represents a huge market for the products and services we produce here, especially if we enable their people with purchasing power via our trade relationship. Despite losing out in some industries, the net effect of trading with them is positive. Additionally, making them dependent on us for their economic health will help our bargaining position on other issues and reduce the threat of a military conflict.

[NorthHawk]

Regarding China the US has to rejoin the TPP and lead it by making changes that will work.
Also inviting the EU to join as well and possibly add India to it.

The biggest fear of China is a group block against them and the TPP was supposed to be that wall.
The economies of the EU and USA make up around 45% of the worlds GDP. Add in the TPP countries
like Japan, Australia, S. Korea, Canada and others who are all being subjected to Chinese hegemony
and and well over 55% of the worlds GDP is represented. Maybe more than 60% - I haven't added it
up lately. And if India wanted to join as well, they have the 2nd largest population and a building
economy. China could not ignore such a group and would have to change their ways.
But it takes someone who is able to actually lead a group of people, not someone who just wants
to make pronouncements without doing the work. That person has to be respected as well, and
that ship sailed a few years ago with Trump.

[RiverDog]

Regarding China the US has to rejoin the TPP and lead it by making changes that will work.
Also inviting the EU to join as well and possibly add India to it.

The biggest fear of China is a group block against them and the TPP was supposed to be that wall.
The economies of the EU and USA make up around 45% of the worlds GDP. Add in the TPP countries
like Japan, Australia, S. Korea, Canada and others who are all being subjected to Chinese hegemony
and and well over 55% of the worlds GDP is represented. Maybe more than 60% - I haven't added it
up lately. And if India wanted to join as well, they have the 2nd largest population and a building
economy. China could not ignore such a group and would have to change their ways.
But it takes someone who is able to actually lead a group of people, not someone who just wants
to make pronouncements without doing the work. That person has to be respected as well, and
that ship sailed a few years ago with Trump.

There were some flaws in the original TPP, particularly the part that protected patents and copyrights, which had the effect of making drug prices more expensive, although I doubt that was the primary reason for Trump's tearing up of the deal.

But I agree with you that, in general, the collective economic might of freely elected governments would have a profound effect on China's activities.

[NorthHawk]

Trump had an opportunity when he first assumed office to take the lead on the TPP and change it to
the best interests of the US. However, he decided just to walk away from it as it fits into his idea
that everything and everyone is against the US (and him) and he's the only one who can fix it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I doubt the TPP will have an effect on China. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of China by Americans and the West. They don't care about us a whole lot. They don't need us. We're just another group they will slowly take over.

I remember reading on China and was absolutely surprised at how they think and work. China hasn't been a very war-like country for a long time now other than the revolution under Mao. They tend to take a path of least resistance and acquiesce to aggression on the surface, but in reality they are waiting to absorb the other group into the mass that is China. They are 6000 years old. They pre-date Christianity and Islam and even Judaism are nothing to them. Blips on a radar that don't even rate in their world other than to acknowledge their existence and deny them heavy access to China.

China views outside nations as young, capricious, and expects us to fall long before they do. They waited out and absorbed the Mongols. They waited out the Japanese, the British occupation in Hong Kong, the Americans, and just about every aggressor over time.

They will not respond to the TPP. They will just look at it and slowly over time undermine it and defeat it. They are 1.4 billion strong and virtually unstoppable. They know the consumer power they possess and know it is more valuable than military power.

There will be no standing up to them with a TPP. They know Asian culture better than America or Europe. They will continue to slowly expand no matter what speed bumps the West or other nations put up. The Chinese way is patience. They know in time they will win because they have all the cards in their hand and are just taking more and more into China a little at a time.

Any TPP created will further open up Chinese markets to the West likely in favor of big business, not working Americans. The benefit to your average working American will be minimal. I'm still not sure why regular Americans support these trade treaties as they almost always favor business by a landslide over working people by further globalizing the labor market making Americans compete against foreign workers with a combination of immigration and outsourcing undermining wages and employment in favor of business. Then again I don't think the majority of American even understand how wages and labor markets work to see they're getting screwed.

What else can big business do? That Chinese market is too damn attractive. No one cares that China protects its industries heavily and doesn't care one little bit about American workers. They want that money. I can't blame them as there isn't a sufficient number of people in America making enough money to support growth on a national level any longer. And that is likely to be worse following COVID for a while at least.