Gyroscopic Investing

Simonjester wrote:
i am not sure that it wins anybody over ..ever.. but when you see the endless apoplexy it causes the unthinking radicals its hard not to grow to find it amusing after a while.... the ideal candidate would have a rand/ron Paul ability to understand and explain the political philosophy of their policy, paired with the verbal brawler, hard trolling, push back against the constant onslaught, tough side of trump...

doodle wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:29 pm What a sorry choice. The Democrats really suck as a party. They actually had some inspiring individuals in the primary...Gabbard, Buttigieg, Sandars....and this is what we get...soggy porridge.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:23 am This was a much better debate than the presidential one, for sure. In that I was able to watch the whole thing without wanting to run away.

I thought Pence did very well, in fact I came off the debate liking him a lot more than I did before. I also had been squeamish about his religious right take on things. He came across as a thoughtful, calm person with well considered views and a respectful way of presenting them even while being highly critical. We sure need more of that in Washington!!

]Harris was a bit of a mess, I thought. She made some very good points, but on several of her responses she wandered off track and was not very convincing. At times she looked nervous and anxious. Also she had this nasty, sarcastic way of answering Pence that I REALLY hate dealing with on a personal level. It's one thing to be strong and aggressive, but that was more passive aggressive and "mean-girl" than anything. I can see why she did not shine during the primaries. And, that suggests to me that she'd have just as many problems leading a group of people to a consensus as Trump - not good at all

glennds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:45 pm My goodness, Pence is a skilled debater. Even if his techniques are disingenuous, they are effective nonetheless.
For example, I don't think there was a single case where he answered the moderator's question. Often, experienced debaters will at least touch the question and then deflect to a related but different subject that might be more advantageous. But Pence can drive right by the question without even so much as a look out the window.

The first question directed at him was for him to explain why the rate of Covid death as a % of the population in the US is higher than any other industrialized country. His answer was to talk about how foresighted President Trump was for shutting down travel from China, and how marvelous the sacrifices of the American people have been.

His other technique is to talk without inflection and without stopping, well past his time cutoff, and without any regard to the moderator's attempt to interrupt him. He can do this effectively with reporters too. He doesn't come off as rude because he hasn't raised his voice, and can pull of the impression that he hasn't heard the moderator or reporter attempting to redirect him.

The brilliance in the combination of these two techniques is that he can basically ignore the moderator's questions and answer the questions he would wish her to ask, and as he talks on and on, the public will basically forget what was originally asked because he's talked long enough to break the mental connection.
I saw him do this in one of the WH Coronavirus pressers where Trump himself marveled at it. A reporter asked a question, and Pence droned on about inspiration at Trump's leadership, the power of private industry saving the day, etc. Trump comes to the mic and says "Mike, that was amazing, you talked for five minutes non-stop and never even touched his question", and everyone in the room got a chuckle.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your preference, but I'm only saying as a matter of debate technique, what he does is very effective and his skill at implementing it is deft to say the least.