-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The universities don't run it, it's mostly self-organized and run by post-grads. Using the facts is encouraged because it's just good sportsmanship and most of the circuit judges are well-informed so if you get caught out, you'll do badly, which adds an element of risk to making up bullshit; but judges don't have time to look up all the facts of a case during adjudication and you can get away with a surprising amount of shenanigans on some of the more obscure topics, so people do. For example, how many if you would be able to call me out on anything involving Gabon without resorting to Google? Nobody knows anything about Gabon. It's the least memorable country in all of Africa.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You need to be very careful with it. I was on the university debate team (yes, yes, but I competed internationally and all), and fact-checking is dangerous. The judge (in this case, the American public) doesn't know the facts. If both sides present different facts, the judge will go with who they trust more, which means just reaffirming the judgements they already had. You can't just say to Trump "you're wrong about this; the case is this". Doesn't work, won't work. If she does, Trump will spout off some bullshit about "Crooked Clinton is lying to you again, this is actually the case!", be fundamentally unchallenged, and we'll be waking up to maximum bedwetting with the next set of polls.
Instead, you need to give the audience some sort of independent reason to trust your case. The trick I always found worked was "even if"; where you give two separate rebuttals. The first is just the usual "you're wrong about this; so this instead"; but the second is "but even if you were right, here's why your policy is so bad". It's much more effective for two reasons. Firstly, the fact your case stands in both worlds gives you the independent credibility to lever people towards your world, secondly, it gives the people not in your world something to persuade them with well. This is really easy to do for Trump because e.g. even in his own world where Mexicans are pouring over the border, building a wall does almost nothing and costs a huge amount of money that could actually have been spent on more border enforcement staff; Trump's just out to waste your money.
I'm always reminded of this cartoon:
and I'm amazed this point isn't made seriously more often. Okay, even in the world where global warming was a hoax... we've got more efficient power sources that are totally renewable and lead to less air pollution, so what did we really lose?
Basically, flip Trump's own table on him. That's how she'd win.
Really? Is a stupid point considering one has to believe said actions would contribute to that, end goals are desirable for the person, and there are no negative effects the person might be concerned about.
Liberals inability to release thought processes are different between them and conservatives and they have different animating goals is why they often can't get things done. People like Feingold and Hillary are actually pretty good about relizing this and not pretending everybody wants the same thing while still getting things that both want done. Obama has been especially bad at this.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
But I'm not single OR looking to mingle. What do *I* do?
I need something to listen to on my walks and keepin it 1600 is only on twice a week. Everything besides 1600 that I've tried listen to has been pretty awful.
Don't give Johnson more exposure than he deserves. Same with Stein.
The bold is why it's bad. It would give Trump a place to hide when he gets cornered, we don't want that.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
crab, no!!!!!!!!
Letting Johnson into the debates gives undecideds MORE options, and in fact a conservative option that isn't racism gone wild! We're trying to get 3rd party voters to come back to Hillary, not letting them stay with Johnson! Also, we want Trump to have MORE airtime, because having less airtime was what propelled him through the primaries!
You're trying to prove a point, right?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No. He plays nice with a lot of the concerns of younger folks who really dont care about the crazier views
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why? Johnson is doing well because he does not get exposure. He's the perfect empty mould to pour your political desires into, the Kristen Stewart of politics. More exposure isn't going to make him do better, as we know from his counter with a leppo. He'll go down. Which is great for Clinton!
And unlike you guys, the less one to one Clinton has to have with Trump, the more comfortable I am.
whyamihere
Banned
Jill Stein's favorable are -8. lol.
The entire reason Trump did well in the primary debates is because he wasn't on the spot the whole time. He was able to duck behind the others and take time outs to regroup.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, I'm exaggerating for comedic effect, but it's largely true. If I gave you a test on Gabon right now - President, political composition, main ethnic groups, civil war history, socioeconomic trends - I'd be surprised if you got even one question right without being able to use the internet or whatever.
All four candidates are in the negative. Pence is +1.
@Gabon: I thought it was proving a point because no way it's the least interesting/known country in Africa. But since people know jack shit about the continent, nobody will contradict you. Which was your initial point.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Giving third parties more exposure would be dumb. The best thing Clinton could do is make this a clear choice between herself and Trump - reminding people that there's a third option could easily backfire.
People who say they're voting for Johnson/Stein now are either people she can win back through smart campaigning and debating, or people who hate her on a fundamental level but see Trump as a worse alternative (or at best, the same). Either way, getting down and dirty with them would only give them the exposure and credibility they'd need to have serious spoiler effects.
People who say they're voting for Johnson/Stein now are either people she can win back through smart campaigning and debating, or people who hate her on a fundamental level but see Trump as a worse alternative (or at best, the same). Either way, getting down and dirty with them would only give them the exposure and credibility they'd need to have serious spoiler effects.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I just assumed Harry Enten was gay before he decided to use Twitter to get dates with women. I also made this mistake with Alton Brown.
No such thing as gaydar for me. I'm clueless.
Anyway, I didn't want to post "guys, demographics, money, and ground game point to Clinton being fine and probably out-performing her poll numbers on election day" during the little freakout some folks had here, but I've never not believed that she would win and win big. I said that she'd win by ten points months ago, and I'll hedge that a bit - she'll win by between eight and ten points and carry the Senate along with her. They're going to target and get their votes out, and the people who tossed the toys out of the pram after Sanders lost aren't going out of their way to vote for Trump because he sucks and everyone around him is odious in the end.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think so. Trump laps up attention. He eats it. As the number of candidates dropped, Trump started doing better, not worse. His best performances were later on, not earlier, in the primary debate season. He gets lost with multiple people, can't exert himself as easily.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I think Cybit's right that there are a fair number of young liberal-ish protest votes filed under Johnson right now, and arguably they'd peel off if they saw him in a debate.
But then I think they'll peel off anyway and vote for Clinton in the end (or not vote at all) because no one goes to the polls to blind vote for a guy. So on balance it's safer if he isn't in the debate.
Edit: crab so many of your observations seem to come from opposite world
What's Aleppo?
Yeah - I think Conway realized that the only way for Trump to win this election was to let Clinton lose it rather than Trump try to win it, and the Clinton's camp strategy of trying to run out the clock was the exact wrong strategy (since it would just energize anti-Clinton voters and de-energize Pro-Clinton voters). I think Clinton and her camp have realized that their path to victory isn't trying to shame Trump voters, it's trying to give voters someone to vote for instead of against Trump. (Despite the moral superiority one gets from shaming Trump supporters, it has been politically ineffective the entire time, and has simultaneously raised his floor)
whyamihere
Banned
This is very wrong. He could do better because he could duck out when the questioning got tough and the other people attacked each other and wasn't under the spotlight for the entire debate. Putting Johnson in there would allow Trump to sit back while Johnson and Hillary sparred.
Putting Johnson in the debate to help Hillary is a really silly idea.
He'd disappear for large swaths of debates while the smaller field debated, we all commented on this at the time. By limiting the time he's under the spotlight you allow him to give canned answers he can't back up. You want to force him to dig deeper because he's completely incapable of doing so.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think this is really dangerous and severely underestimates the apathy people have towards Clinton.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Man, I want to give Johnson exposure. As soon as he says, "Oh, and fuck Social Security," he immediately becomes non-viable to practically the whole country. We can stop pretending that the Libertarian Party is somehow a reasonable conservative alternative to the GOP.
MassiveNights
Banned
This guy is a laughing stock in my circles, wouldn't put much stock into what he says.
whyamihere
Banned
You are literally giving people an outlet for their apathy in Johnson by putting him on stage.
Yea but then the next day that becomes the story and not Trump saying he wants stop-and-frisk across the entire country, because you gave him that seat.
Exactly. You want them to see that they only have two choices and that one of them is insane.
Johnson being on the stage would tank his numbers. Besides seeming like he's permanently high, he has the presence of a frog. He's completely unappealing to hear speak, is not a good debater and his flaws to the increasing amount of Liberals backing him would become more obvious.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I work for SSA now so I am hypervigilent to any fuckery with it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, okay. We'll see at this point. Personally, I think giving Trump more attention is a pretty disastrous idea. I don't think he was hiding with lots of people; I think he was floundering. He couldn't seize control as easily. I'm pretty apprehensive about the debate. I think that everyone in this thread, while the debate is going on, will be busy going YAS QUEEN and whatever other PopGAF phrases you feel like appropriating, but then next batch of polls to come out will show that people thought Clinton was inauthentic / robotic / dislikeable / smug, whereas Trump will have seemed commanding / honest / straight-talking. Because that's how they work. So we'll wait and see.
Clinton's best performances against Bernie weren't the ones where she attacked him. They were the ones where she outright ignored him.
Clinton's best performances against Bernie weren't the ones where she attacked him. They were the ones where she outright ignored him.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I see your point, but I can't agree with it. I find it hard to worry that Trump won't find a way to say or do something absurdly shitty that won't take the spotlight right back from Johnson.
We get Johnson to self-immolate and then Trump doubles down on stupidity to get some attention. Win-win.
Her best performance was when she went after Bernie in FL for support for Castro.
Subsequently she destroyed him in Florida.
whyamihere
Banned
She wouldn't be able to ignore anyone, because it'd be a 2 vs 1 debate because Clinton is winning! Both Trump and Johnson would spend most of their time attacking Clinton.
But it's very nice of you to suggest that no one in this thread has the ability to judge the debate on its merits and that we're all "appropriating" (really, guy?) PopGAF phrases like some sort of partisan sheep. Apparently this can only be rectified by putting a 3rd party spoiler that saps more of Clinton's base from her on the stage because reasons.
I think Johnson is an outlet for young people who largely have world views that are largely created by their parents. So weird views that are not tenable don't necessarily hurt him with those that are swinging his way. You might pick off a few Bernie supporters who are over there with him sounding stupid, but if they were actually paying attention they would already realize Johnson is an idiot. So, it's a protest vote.
Or it's an outlet for conservatives who can't vote for Clinton for ideological reasons and won't vote for Trump because they aren't insane. So they don't care what batshit stuff comes out of his mouth because it's their protest vote.
I think the last week or two of tightening polls is the only thing that's going to get some of those Swing State Johnson voters over to Clinton. I'm sure a lot are sitting over there because they assumed she had it in the bag, and this may make a few of them reconsider.
Johnson being up there would give Trump someone to look morally superior to. Johnson didn't even know what Aleppo was, Trump would know something like that. Johnson would make Trump look smarter than he really is. By having only him and Clinton up there you make him look even dumber than he really is by nature of having Clinton up there, completely able to rattle off answers without memorizing them off of flashcards.
.
I think Hillary having a pretty consistent five point lead but a few polls here and there that make it look tighter to get Dems to freak out and get more mobilized and energized to vote is ideal actually.
Too many polls with Hillary having huge leads could lead to complacency.
Too many polls with Hillary having huge leads could lead to complacency.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He only saps her support if he outperforms her. Are we suddenly lacking in confidence again? I thought Clinton was going to smash the debates?
I really doubt that would happen. Johnson never attacks Hillary when offered the chance. Why, I don't know.
He doesn't want Trump to be president most likely.
Fenderputty
Banned
That would be a rad name haha
eBay Huckster
Member
probably because he, too, is an establishment shill
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked