No. It's just going to be Trump making an ass out of himself with no guarantee it would hurt him in the final result. In retrospect, I regret watching all the 2016 debates.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Will you watch the Presidential debates in 2020?
- Thread starter SaviourMK2
- Start date
Are they X-Men mutants? If so, I'm gonna stan for Magneto sooo hard.
Of course I would, if there even are debates. Trump probably won't show up to any debates because he can't handle any journalistic grilling as sitting president - he hasn't had a press conference in forever because they won't just kiss the ring
I honestly think he'll accuse MSM of feeding lines to the Dem candidate prior to the debates and do his usual fake news schtick and not go. Plays to his base and he doesn't have to do work. When the MSM/candidate takes shots at his absence, Trump will just vent on Twitter or his campaign rallies. He's a coward that can't take criticism face-to-face.
Based on the ratings of the previous debates, yes. Hopefully the money made can go to a good cause rather than the fake news media.
I'll watch because I like to form my own opinion rather than being fed carefully selected snippets later on.
I'll watch because I like to form my own opinion rather than being fed carefully selected snippets later on.
I doubt Trump would even show up. He'll claim some bullshit about being too "busy" as President and hide on Twitter and rallies because he is a complete coward.
I guess we're assuming that Trump won't get primaried and lose, of which there's a decent chance of happening.
But yeah, those debates will be the most inconsequential debates ever. I'll definitely be voting for the democrat, so it really doesn't matter to me. Most voters will have (or have already by now) decided that they will or will not support Trump, so it'll really just be theater for political junkies and historians at that point.
What will be interesting from a data perspective is how many actual undecideds will there be by then. If there's a sizable population of them, they'll have to be the dumbest, most ignorant people on Earth. Hopefully they won't be engaged by the media as "the most important group of voters" the next cycle. Ugh.
But yeah, those debates will be the most inconsequential debates ever. I'll definitely be voting for the democrat, so it really doesn't matter to me. Most voters will have (or have already by now) decided that they will or will not support Trump, so it'll really just be theater for political junkies and historians at that point.
What will be interesting from a data perspective is how many actual undecideds will there be by then. If there's a sizable population of them, they'll have to be the dumbest, most ignorant people on Earth. Hopefully they won't be engaged by the media as "the most important group of voters" the next cycle. Ugh.
I could only tolerate 15 minutes of each debate before switching to something else.
The very idea that there were "undecided" voters by even the second debate in 2016 made my blood boil.
A word of advice to his next opponent though. Don't try to "gotcha" Trump. He's an idiot, we all know this, but he's the kind of aggressive idiot that just loudly states the opposite of truth to get away from any accusation. It works for his supporters, because they do the same thing, and they love him for it. Stick to the issues. Give America a sample of what you would be like as President by showing how savvy and experienced you are, without attacking the obvious moron. When you attack the moron for being a moron, his supporters feel like your attacking them too. Which they deserve, I know, but (like Trump) they just want to be told they're smart. Attacks only harden them more, and fulfill their persecution complex.
The very idea that there were "undecided" voters by even the second debate in 2016 made my blood boil.
A word of advice to his next opponent though. Don't try to "gotcha" Trump. He's an idiot, we all know this, but he's the kind of aggressive idiot that just loudly states the opposite of truth to get away from any accusation. It works for his supporters, because they do the same thing, and they love him for it. Stick to the issues. Give America a sample of what you would be like as President by showing how savvy and experienced you are, without attacking the obvious moron. When you attack the moron for being a moron, his supporters feel like your attacking them too. Which they deserve, I know, but (like Trump) they just want to be told they're smart. Attacks only harden them more, and fulfill their persecution complex.
Yep, I agree that the candidate should not directly engage Trump, but should instead use the debates as a platform to get his or her positions across, and try to pull other democrats up with their coattails by talking about the party's platform.
I mean, they could throw a quick quip in response to whatever asinine stuff comes out of Trump's mouth, but they should keep it to 10 seconds or less and move on. Boarderline belittling, approaching a pat on his head type of response. The objective is not to turn his supporters into potential voters (they should be assumed as lost), but to energize the democratic base into turning out for you and, especially, others down-ballot.
In 2016, the concept of a well-knowledged Secretary of State having a debate with a guy who probably couldn't find Italy on map seemed like it'd be better entertainment than the Super Bowl. But after seeing how commentators gave Trump a pat on the back (especially by the 3rd debate) for putting a subject and a verb together nearly 70% of the time, I realized that there is absolutely 0 interest from the American public on the context of the words being spoken at the debate. Clinton had a lot of policy talk stuffed into her answers, but the only thing playing on CNN 24/7 was "Clinton attacks Trump for being a puppet." or "Trump strikes Clinton on her emails". No one pays any attention to the actual solutions being offered. It's just about the soundbites.
I guess deep down I knew that's how it always worked. But seeing the end result of Clinton vs Trump has probably ruined any enjoyment I could possibly get from watching these debates. And it's not like I'm going to need to figure out who to vote for next election. So I'll likely be skipping the 2020 debates.
I guess deep down I knew that's how it always worked. But seeing the end result of Clinton vs Trump has probably ruined any enjoyment I could possibly get from watching these debates. And it's not like I'm going to need to figure out who to vote for next election. So I'll likely be skipping the 2020 debates.
Im not convinced that Trump will do them again. He knows they don't really matter and that he will likely lose them based on the content of his answers. Plus, its a chance for him to look like a tough guy who is in charge if he just refuses to show up to them.
I'll watch them certainly. They likely won't have much of an effect on the outcome though.
I would definitely vote for a Winfrey/Stewart ticket as I feel they're both capable of the critical thinking and people skills that the job demands. And if Dems need to be entertained to get off their lazy asses and vote then so be it.
I would definitely vote for a Winfrey/Stewart ticket as I feel they're both capable of the critical thinking and people skills that the job demands. And if Dems need to be entertained to get off their lazy asses and vote then so be it.
The bar has been set so low for 45 that I don't think I can bring myself to watch the debates. I'll watch the Dem primary debates to determine which candidate I want to support, and I'll read up on policy positions to make an informed decision. I live in a deep red state, and there's no way in hell I'm voting for the fascist fuck who is currently in the office of President, so it's all relative I guess.
I will vote and then drink myself into the new year. I have never had a drink of alcohol before but it seems like that would be the best time to start.
I plan on watching the primaries, but not the general. Primaries will help to inform my decision of which Dem to back. In the general I won't need any extra evidence on who to vote for and I don't need to spend any extra time listening to Trump shit from his mouth.
I won't make plans to watch it. Its literally pointless as long as Trump is apart of them. There was a point to watching obama and romney debate. There was a point to watching ryan and biden debate. Trump will not be there to debate because he would lose even if they set it up for the moderation and the questions to literally throw him softball questions the whole time. Hes just that bad at it. And it seems to me his goal wont be do to anything but to turn it in to a circus which is the only enviroment he could thrive in. I'll watch for other candidates for office but not that moron. He doesn't even explain his policies now with a modicum of sense, he just does whatever he feels like right now.
Exactly. It's all about the decision-making, and it's about who you appoint.
Presidential elections are about the match-ups. If we elected only the most qualified, then Hillary would've won the Electoral College in addition to winning the popular vote.
But people vote based on emotions & beliefs. There's always preference for the outsider who tells it like it is. That's how Reagan beat Carter, how Clinton beat Bush, how Bush beat Gore, how Obama beat Hillary, how Obama beat McCain, and how Trump beat Hillary.
Trump's strength, I guess, is his charisma and cult of personality. You're not going to counter that strength with someone like Elizabeth Warren, a courageous and brilliant person, but one who lacks the kind of winning charismatic personality that often decides these things.
Trump, Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, and Reagan were all the more charismatic candidate of their elections.
If Trump's qualification — to the mysterious type of person (millions of people) who voted for Obama and then Trump — is "I was good at business, I can be president", then Oprah beats it. She's had an empire for decades, and unlike Trump, never needed sham steaks and colleges and countless bankruptcy claims.
Trump's other strength is he's a comedian. Jokes play to emotions and beliefs, which again, is what matters to voters in elections. He's not a GOOD comedian, but be real — before it was a horror show, everyone treated Trump as a comical entity when he was embarrassing the Republican stiffs in the primaries.
Stewart is the far better comedian. He's sharp, he's brutal, and he's just a far more talented and skilled comedian than Trump. He beats him in the reality star sense, which is necessary, as well as in the policy sense.
Anyone could be better than Trump in the policy sense. Not everyone can be better in the charisma match-up.
Also, Oprah/Stewart is a black woman and a Jewish man. That's a big deal. We'll see attacks from the racist right, which will only expose themselves more, and more clearly worthy of total rejection by any sane person. But mostly it will be a cause of celebration and motivation for voters who care about the oh-so-smeared "identity politics" while not being the focus of the campaign enough to trigger the people who complain about "identity politics."
We'll all complain about the fact that it's all TV hosts running.
But guess who's going to have the better perspective on that fact? Oprah and Jon Stewart. They don't want to be doing this. Who would want this job now, with how much of a disaster this guy has already made? It's like buying a house that is actively on fire, burning to the ground. "Hot deal!" Yeah okay.
Unlike a career politician, Oprah/Stewart would be running because they're being called into action. It is their civic duty, as citizens and TV hosts (an equally valid type of person as mechanic or plumber), to bring the heat and end this insanity. Reset. Reassess. Rebuild.
Oprah & Stewart also can run on the universally agreed upon idea that "We need to communicate better." Trump is incapable in this arena. He is almost physically unable to go more than 2 sentences without slamming someone, or blaming someone, often for something he actually did.
Oprah for the compassion and listening an unity. Stewart for the slap in the face, cold dose of reality. Things are messed up but they can be fixed, when we understand what and why we're doing things.
Trump has been the Twitter president, and for as horrible as it's been, we can see the new impact and paradigm that comes with social media. Oprah and Jon Stewart are capable of doing daily shows that update the public on policy progress, in entertaining ways, and while also being open to responding/communicating to people's comments.
I'm a fan of Waters, Warren, Bernie, Biden, but they should be in the cabinet. They are all great. But they don't clearly dominate the charisma / communication categories against Trump like Oprah/Stewart do.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump refuses to do them, claiming he's too busy keeping America great.
I don't think at this point I really have to watch Trump debate anybody but I will definitely be tuning into the Democrat debates.
I don't think I have it in me but I'm gonna try.
Watching Trump just leaking diarrhea from his mouth and seeing all the news channels talk about what he must have had for dinner took its toll on me. Nobody had the backbone to say Trump was literally spewing shit when he talked and I don't see that getting better.
Watching Trump just leaking diarrhea from his mouth and seeing all the news channels talk about what he must have had for dinner took its toll on me. Nobody had the backbone to say Trump was literally spewing shit when he talked and I don't see that getting better.
I know I should, but I'm not sure I can stand watching Trump run his dumb fucking mouth anymore.
Yup this. You think after years more of this shit show he is gonna debate people and risk a hostile or even slightly negative confrontation??
No way folks.