Gyroscopic Investing

Let's get this party started!

CNN Pre-Debate Poll Shows Biden Clearly Won Debate

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:04 pm Let's get this party started!

CNN Pre-Debate Poll Shows Biden Clearly Won Debate

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, was there any margin of error?

Vinny

I suspect that poll result is more about CNN's viewers than about the actual debates. Anyone even remotely pro-Trump forsook CNN long ago. It's physically painful to watch unless you are deep into TDS land.

I thought both candidates were extremely annoying and just parroted their most-used talking points for the most part. I doubt very much that the debate changed anyone's mind. Except, Biden started out playing by the rules and Trump broke them almost from the word go, and it was all downhill from there. Biden could have handled that situation much better but he didn't do so badly either. I wonder if it was Trump's intention, to throw him off balance and get him to start stumbling.

Over at the National Review everyone is agreeing that the debate was "unwatchable" and Trump was awful but Stanley Kurtz disagrees and I share his opinion. I think it might have been the first and only presidential debate I have watched to the end.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... ut-issues/

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:47 pm A good summary of salient takeaways (IMHO) from the debate:

https://www.bookwormroom.com/2020/09/30 ... en-debate/

tl;dr Trump was bad, Biden was worse (and lied repeatedly), and Chris Wallace was an unmitigated disaster.

No right bias to that site...

But, you didn't need to read past the first paragraph:
--------
Biden was on his game. A friend who took care of an aging relative with dementia says he almost certainly was on Adderall. Biden on his game is slippery, stupid, and dishonest, but he came across as functional, which was all that mattered. That was a win for Biden.
--------

All the speculation on being on a drug, don't know what to say to that. If he is declining and it is true, he should take himself out.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:38 pm I suspect that poll result is more about CNN's viewers than about the actual debates. Anyone even remotely pro-Trump forsook CNN long ago. It's physically painful to watch unless you are deep into TDS land.

For you and anyone else who may not have clicked on the link in my OP, it’s a Babylon Bee article. Clearly a pre-debate poll can’t show who “won” the debate (past tense).

pp4me wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:54 pm Over at the National Review everyone is agreeing that the debate was "unwatchable" and Trump was awful but Stanley Kurtz disagrees and I share his opinion. I think it might have been the first and only presidential debate I have watched to the end.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... ut-issues/

The viewership peaked at 9:30 PM and during the last 15 minutes was only 2% off that peak. The last 15 minutes were equal viewership to the beginning which implies that most people watching it from beginning to end.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:36 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:54 pm Over at the National Review everyone is agreeing that the debate was "unwatchable" and Trump was awful but Stanley Kurtz disagrees and I share his opinion. I think it might have been the first and only presidential debate I have watched to the end.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... ut-issues/

The viewership peaked at 9:30 PM and during the last 15 minutes was only 2% off that peak. The last 15 minutes were equal viewership to the beginning which implies that most people watching it from beginning to end.

Vinny

Wow, I had to turn it off after about 30 minutes. I couldn't take it anymore. I feel like that debate undermined our national security by displaying how idiotic we have become.

Actually I spotted several incidents of Biden looking confused, going off on the wrong track and not following the debate points correctly. But then I'm a neurologist so probably more attuned to these things.

Also, during those incidents Chris Wallace instantly reacted to help Biden out of the awkwardness. For example once he gently redirected him to the topic at hand, another time he re-explained to him the debate format and that it was time to switch topics, etc. Whereas he simply fought Trump throughout. That was annoying, but it may have simply been his irritation with Trump who came across as rude/obnoxious, compared to Biden who was acting more polite. I don't think Wallace did a good job moderating at all though...a moderator needs to not lose his temper or favor one candidate over another, both of which he clearly did.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:04 am Actually I spotted several incidents of Biden looking confused, going off on the wrong track and not following the debate points correctly. But then I'm a neurologist so probably more attuned to these things.

Also, during those incidents Chris Wallace instantly reacted to help Biden out of the awkwardness. For example once he gently redirected him to the topic at hand, another time he re-explained to him the debate format and that it was time to switch topics, etc. Whereas he simply fought Trump throughout. That was annoying, but it may have simply been his irritation with Trump who came across as rude/obnoxious, compared to Biden who was acting more polite. I don't think Wallace did a good job moderating at all though...a moderator needs to not lose his temper or favor one candidate over another, both of which he clearly did.

Obviously the mental issue is not going to go away in a lot of people's minds, but the ferocity of interruptions Trump did would throw anyone off their game. I am surprised he didn't just blurt out more than "would you shut up man."

I know I couldn't have handled it as gracefully as Biden. There would have been some swear words at a minimum, but that's why I'm not in politics.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:04 am Actually I spotted several incidents of Biden looking confused, going off on the wrong track and not following the debate points correctly. But then I'm a neurologist so probably more attuned to these things.

Also, during those incidents Chris Wallace instantly reacted to help Biden out of the awkwardness. For example once he gently redirected him to the topic at hand, another time he re-explained to him the debate format and that it was time to switch topics, etc. Whereas he simply fought Trump throughout. That was annoying, but it may have simply been his irritation with Trump who came across as rude/obnoxious, compared to Biden who was acting more polite. I don't think Wallace did a good job moderating at all though...a moderator needs to not lose his temper or favor one candidate over another, both of which he clearly did.

Agree, but then again my mother frequently lost her temper with me because I was clearly the more obnoxious sibling. Trump brings that out in people. He's been involved in more than 3000 lawsuits in his life. Can you think of any other business person with that much conflict in their life? Biden is old, and clearly having trouble keeping up. Honestly, he can fall asleep during press briefings as far as I'm concerned it would be an improvement....but that's just my perspective.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:48 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:04 am Actually I spotted several incidents of Biden looking confused, going off on the wrong track and not following the debate points correctly. But then I'm a neurologist so probably more attuned to these things.

Also, during those incidents Chris Wallace instantly reacted to help Biden out of the awkwardness. For example once he gently redirected him to the topic at hand, another time he re-explained to him the debate format and that it was time to switch topics, etc. Whereas he simply fought Trump throughout. That was annoying, but it may have simply been his irritation with Trump who came across as rude/obnoxious, compared to Biden who was acting more polite. I don't think Wallace did a good job moderating at all though...a moderator needs to not lose his temper or favor one candidate over another, both of which he clearly did.

Obviously the mental issue is not going to go away in a lot of people's minds, but the ferocity of interruptions Trump did would throw anyone off their game. I am surprised he didn't just blurt out more than "would you shut up man."

I know I couldn't have handled it as gracefully as Biden. There would have been some swear words at a minimum, but that's why I'm not in politics.

Someone reviewing the debate made the observation that Biden was the first one to interrupt. I haven't watched it again and don't intend to but somebody can correct me if that's wrong.

Biden was graceful? Gimme a break. He gets a pass from the media like all liberals do because he's pure of heart by definition but he said some of the nastiest things I've ever heard in a presidential debate. The part at the end where he talked about the empty chair at the dinner table and blamed it on Trump was right there on par with telling black people that Bush wanted to put them back in chains. He says things like that all the time and gets away with it. I may have to buy Donald Jr's book "Liberal Privilege".

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:25 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:48 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:04 am Actually I spotted several incidents of Biden looking confused, going off on the wrong track and not following the debate points correctly. But then I'm a neurologist so probably more attuned to these things.

Also, during those incidents Chris Wallace instantly reacted to help Biden out of the awkwardness. For example once he gently redirected him to the topic at hand, another time he re-explained to him the debate format and that it was time to switch topics, etc. Whereas he simply fought Trump throughout. That was annoying, but it may have simply been his irritation with Trump who came across as rude/obnoxious, compared to Biden who was acting more polite. I don't think Wallace did a good job moderating at all though...a moderator needs to not lose his temper or favor one candidate over another, both of which he clearly did.

Obviously the mental issue is not going to go away in a lot of people's minds, but the ferocity of interruptions Trump did would throw anyone off their game. I am surprised he didn't just blurt out more than "would you shut up man."

I know I couldn't have handled it as gracefully as Biden. There would have been some swear words at a minimum, but that's why I'm not in politics.

Someone reviewing the debate made the observation that Biden was the first one to interrupt. I haven't watched it again and don't intend to but somebody can correct me if that's wrong.

Biden was graceful? Gimme a break. He gets a pass from the media like all liberals do because he's pure of heart by definition but he said some of the nastiest things I've ever heard in a presidential debate. The part at the end where he talked about the empty chair at the dinner table and blamed it on Trump was right there on par with telling black people that Bush wanted to put them back in chains. He says things like that all the time and gets away with it. I may have to buy Donald Jr's book "Liberal Privilege".

Even using the words clown and fool and shut up and yapping, etc. Biden seemed reserved comparatively. Which is scary.

Any normal debate, he would have been hit more on those words. Debating Trump, though, he at least is one guy who has the balls to say those things directly to Trump, regardless of his standing.

What are the phrases? What goes around comes around. Reap what you sow. An eye for an eye. And so on. I was happy to see it.

I'm seeing speculation that in future presidential debates, the moderator may be given control to cut a given candidate's mic at his or her discretion. That seems like a really bad idea since moderators can be (and often are) biased.

It would be better simply to wire the candidates' mics so that both of them are never on at the same time, and give the candidates only well-defined time slots in which to make their initial arguments followed by one or two rounds of rebuttals. No interactive round in which the candidates and moderator can continually interrupt and talk over each other.

It would be much more orderly than the current format and would help mitigate the effects of any moderator bias.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:12 pm I'm seeing speculation that in future presidential debates, the moderator may be given control to cut a given candidate's mic at his or her discretion. That seems like a really bad idea since moderators can be (and often are) biased.

It would be better simply to wire the candidates' mics so that both of them are never on at the same time, and give the candidates only well-defined time slots in which to make their initial arguments followed by one or two rounds of rebuttals. No interactive round in which the candidates and moderator can continually interrupt and talk over each other.

It would be much more orderly than the current format and would help mitigate the effects of any moderator bias.

How about wiring them so that only one of them is on at a time, and it's the one that's loudest? That would be cool to see.

Watched Scott Adams last night and he announced that Trump lost his vote because of they way he answered the white supremacist question. He isn't going to vote for Biden and says Trump can earn it back but that's his thinking now.

To each his own but I'm surprised that he reacted that way as an astute observer of how the media works. The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy. If memory serves me correctly, which it might not, I don't believe Biden was asked to condemn Antifa or BLM.

Just as surprising as Scott Adams (well, maybe not), FoxNews, the hard news part, took the ball and ran with it too. Trump's "failure" to condemn white supremacists appropriately was the lead story on the 6:00 news with Brett Baier. I also read that the FoxNews white house reporter asked the press secretary in a press conference if Trump would "unequivocally" condemn white supremacy. I think she said he has already done that.

I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

I'm sorry gang. That was almost a useless debate and if Trump does that again I'm voting for Biden purely out of spite. During mix it up time, go for it. During answer/2 minute, shut up and be polite, period. It is not too much to ask.

The R media stooges were all pre-announcing how tough Trump was going to be...so zero surprise at least for me. I wasn't expecting him to turn on radio squelch for 2 hours and I did not appreciate it all.

For the record here's how you answer the have you stopped beating your wife question. "It seems you are gravely mistaken. I have not beaten my wife and I would never beat my wife." Not hard to do.

And OBTW, Biden got the same question about BLM, Antifa and big city violent protests and answered it the way it should have been answered.

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 pm The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy.
[...]
I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

Yes. Scott Adams actually discussed this in more detail in today's show, and he pointed out that asking an opponent in a debate to say something using a specific phrase (in this case, "I disavow white supremacists") rather than in their own words is a power move. Whatever the phrase is, if the opponent says it as requested, it makes him look weaker than the other guy. It reduces his perceived power.

Trump is an expert at the persuasion game, so he knows all about power dynamics. So he would probably never parrot a specific phrase demanded by his opponent, even if the phrase is something he agrees with 100%.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:53 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 pm The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy.
[...]
I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

Yes. Scott Adams actually discussed this in more detail in today's show, and he pointed out that asking an opponent in a debate to say something using a specific phrase (in this case, "I disavow white supremacists") rather than in their own words is a power move. Whatever the phrase is, if the opponent says it as requested, it makes him look weaker than the other guy. It reduces his perceived power.

Trump is an expert at the persuasion game, so he knows all about power dynamics. So he would probably never parrot a specific phrase demanded by his opponent, even if the phrase is something he agrees with 100%.

Yea watching the clip again, I'll bet he would have done it if Biden hadn't been saying, "Yea, do it. Say it. Do it. SAY IT." Can't tell if Biden just got lucky or was waiting for that.

Looks like Scott changed his mind already. Or rather had it changed by some Democrats.....

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:53 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 pm The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy.
[...]
I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

Yes. Scott Adams actually discussed this in more detail in today's show, and he pointed out that asking an opponent in a debate to say something using a specific phrase (in this case, "I disavow white supremacists") rather than in their own words is a power move. Whatever the phrase is, if the opponent says it as requested, it makes him look weaker than the other guy. It reduces his perceived power.

Trump is an expert at the persuasion game, so he knows all about power dynamics. So he would probably never parrot a specific phrase demanded by his opponent, even if the phrase is something he agrees with 100%.

There is no lack of advice to Trump about what he should have said but I would offer "Are you also going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife, Chris? I've already condemned white supremacists on many occasions and I don't need to do it again".

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:33 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:53 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 pm The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy.
[...]
I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

Yes. Scott Adams actually discussed this in more detail in today's show, and he pointed out that asking an opponent in a debate to say something using a specific phrase (in this case, "I disavow white supremacists") rather than in their own words is a power move. Whatever the phrase is, if the opponent says it as requested, it makes him look weaker than the other guy. It reduces his perceived power.

Trump is an expert at the persuasion game, so he knows all about power dynamics. So he would probably never parrot a specific phrase demanded by his opponent, even if the phrase is something he agrees with 100%.

There is no lack of advice to Trump about what he should have said but I would offer "Are you also going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife, Chris? I've already condemned white supremacists on many occasions and I don't need to do it again".

What's been missing in this discussion is Trump doing the same when he was badgering Biden about saying Trump's exact words regarding "Law and Order". I believe that Biden responded by saying, "Yes, I believe in law and order and [something else]. Therefore, Trump could have given some form of answer to the question as posed to him.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:26 pm What's been missing in this discussion is Trump doing the same when he was badgering Biden about saying Trump's exact words regarding "Law and Order". I believe that Biden responded by saying, "Yes, I believe in law and order and [something else]. Therefore, Trump could have given some form of answer to the question as posed to him.

Yes, the power move to try to make the opponent parrot a specific phrase came from both sides in that debate.

It's just another example of why an interactive session in which both candidates are allowed to speak at the same time isn't a great idea. If you're expected to respond to an argument or request immediately, within seconds, it doesn't allow you to take the time to form a thoughtful rebuttal or response to be given in a few minutes during your next time slot.

Weird Al!!! His usual highly creative self!

Vinny

WE'RE ALL DOOMED - Trump vs. Biden ft. "Weird Al" Yankovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un9x-Dj ... 0vHlE53-AE

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:26 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:33 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:53 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 pm The white supremacist question was nothing more than a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha kind of question that served no purpose other than to tie Trump to white supremacy.
[...]
I'm guessing Trump thinks to himself they should take the white supremacy question and stick it up their you know what because he knows very well how the game is played by now.

Yes. Scott Adams actually discussed this in more detail in today's show, and he pointed out that asking an opponent in a debate to say something using a specific phrase (in this case, "I disavow white supremacists") rather than in their own words is a power move. Whatever the phrase is, if the opponent says it as requested, it makes him look weaker than the other guy. It reduces his perceived power.

Trump is an expert at the persuasion game, so he knows all about power dynamics. So he would probably never parrot a specific phrase demanded by his opponent, even if the phrase is something he agrees with 100%.

There is no lack of advice to Trump about what he should have said but I would offer "Are you also going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife, Chris? I've already condemned white supremacists on many occasions and I don't need to do it again".

What's been missing in this discussion is Trump doing the same when he was badgering Biden about saying Trump's exact words regarding "Law and Order". I believe that Biden responded by saying, "Yes, I believe in law and order and [something else]. Therefore, Trump could have given some form of answer to the question as posed to him.

Vinny

Good point and I think Biden's response was handled no better than Trump's white supremacy response. As I recall he said something on the order of, "of course I believe in law" but left out the word "order" which seemed kind of strange. Not sure what point he was even trying to make.

Big difference to me is that the headline in the next day's news cycle was all about Trump's response and not Biden's. Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Just par for the course.

Also, Trump had to pose the "gotcha" questions because he knew Chris Wallace wasn't going to do it. At least that was my observation.