Lessons from past debates make worrying reading for Clinton supporters - Polidicks

[url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-0[/url] [QUOTE]In their first take on the Reagan Revolution, this reporter’s predecessors highlighted one other big thing, too: [B]a television debate in which the Democrat tried and failed to portray his opponent as a “simpleton” and hard-right war-monger, offering what Mr Carter deemed “extremely dangerous” policies. Instead, we noted, Mr Reagan came across as “calm and reasonable, a decisive achievement for him with many undecided voters.” As a “controlled, humourless” Mr Carter offered a welter of statistics, he was undercut by his opponent’s amiable manner[/B] (though our report does not include what would later become the best-remembered Reagan line from that debate: “There you go again.”) Jump to the issue dated October 27th, 1984, and we reported that President Reagan had just pulled off a “relaxed” second debate against his opponent, the former vice-president Walter Mondale, including an “eye-twinkling one-liner” about not exploiting his opponent’s “youth and inexperience”. [B]A good performance in the second debate was “indispensable”, we added, because a first debate had seen the president floundering after being urged by “zealous staffers” to show off a mastery of technical policy details, only to seem overwhelmed, weary and “reduced to frail mortal dimensions.”[/B] Sure, the president made mistakes in his second outing, but this did not matter, not least because of a new tactic which, we explained, involved a score of high-ranking presidential insiders fanning out across the press room at the debate site to press their verdict on reporters, namely that the second clash had ended in a draw that was “tantamount to victory for Mr Reagan.” This technique, we reported with some dismay, had even been given a nickname within the Reagan White House: to “spin”. Readers bracing for the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, to be held at Hofstra University on Long Island, may see a pattern emerging, and one that is more alarming for the Democrats than for the Trump camp. For the lessons of the Reagan debates, visible moments after they ended, was that a candidate can mangle facts and botch details and still win if a debate performance conveys a far simpler message: this is someone presidential. The historical parallels do not end there. One last dive into the archives of The Economist’s Washington offices—if that is not too grand a name for a wall-full of bound copies dating back to 1931—produces the issue dated October 14th 2000, and our report of a TV debate between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice-President Al Gore. In this debate, the second of two, “both candidates seemed to be fighting not so much against each other as against negative stereotypes of themselves,” we wrote. Mr Bush’s foe was “the idea that he knows nothing”—a charge that he did much to vanquish by sounding as knowledgeable as Mr Gore on foreign policy. [B]Meanwhile Mr Gore had a trickier enemy to fight, namely: “the idea that he is obnoxious”, and specifically that he is a liar or at least “serial exaggerator”[/B]. True, we said, some of the achievements that Mr Gore claimed were trifling. But any hint of untruth tended to remind voters about “the scandals of the Clinton administration”.[/QUOTE]

The hilarious part about this is that Carter was almost 100% right about Reagan.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51099714]The hilarious part about this is that Carter was almost 100% right about Reagan.[/QUOTE] the not so hilarious part of this is that it didn't matter in the end

I'd be worried if it wasn't for the fact that Trump couldn't even handle the softballs during the Lauer town hall without gushing over Putin. The moment anyone prods even the slightest into his statements, he absolutely loses it. Also Reagan and W. Bush were both governors who'd been actively involved in politics for decades. Trump may be able to feign being 'presidential' if he's not too heavily attacked, but you can't feign policy knowledge.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51099714]The hilarious part about this is that Carter was almost 100% right about Reagan.[/QUOTE] [quote] a television debate in which the Democrat tried and failed to portray his opponent as a “simpleton” and hard-right war-monger, offering what Mr Carter deemed “extremely dangerous” policies.[/quote] [quote=wikipedia] He joined numerous political committees with a left-wing orientation, such as the American Veterans Committee. He fought against Republican-sponsored right-to-work legislation and for Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950, when she was defeated for the Senate by Richard Nixon. Reagan spoke frequently at rallies with a strong ideological dimension; in December 1945, he was stopped from leading an anti-nuclear rally in Hollywood by pressure from the Warner Bros. studio. He would later make nuclear weapons a key point of his presidency, specifically his opposition to mutual assured destruction,[/quote] Hardly seems like a "hard-right war-monger" to me. As for "extremely dangerous policies", the only ones that really struck us hard was the deregulation of the financial institution. He did improve the economy temporarily with his tax breaks afaik, but they weren't lasting because of the recession he set up with the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act"]GLBA[/URL].(Which came into existance from the momentum his deregulation policies had gained at this point)

[quote]For the lessons of the Reagan debates, visible moments after they ended, was that a candidate can mangle facts and botch details and still win if a debate performance conveys a far simpler message: [b]this is someone presidential.[/b][/quote] Yeah...

If Trump can keep his calm and basically not shit his pants on stage, the story will be "TRUMP was very PRESIDENTIAL at the debate!", which is a win for him, even if he in reality just did something (that being: nothing) largely anyone could do. My guess is the first debate is gonna be called for Trump if he can just keep his posture and basically make non-stories about whatever he decides to say.

[QUOTE=space1;51099747]Hardly seems like a "hard-right war-monger" to me. As for "extremely dangerous policies", the only ones that really struck us hard was the deregulation of the financial institution. He did improve the economy temporarily with his tax breaks afaik, but they weren't lasting because of the recession he set up with the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act"]GLBA[/URL].(Which stemmed from the momentum his deregulation policies had gained at this point)[/QUOTE] He also escalated Cold War tensions for a good half of his presidency, throwing years of detente out the window because he wouldn't stop running his mouth. The Iran-Contra Affair certainly didn't help with that either.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51099783]He also escalated Cold War tensions for a good half of his presidency, throwing years of detente out the window because he wouldn't stop running his mouth. The Iran-Contra Affair certainly didn't help with that either.[/QUOTE] I was about to dispute whether that is a bad thing, but I think yet another Reagan debate is basically derailing The question is whether Trump can do the basics right, because anything not retarded will be spun as good

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51099783]He also escalated Cold War tensions for a good half of his presidency, throwing years of detente out the window because he wouldn't stop running his mouth. The Iran-Contra Affair certainly didn't help with that either.[/QUOTE] Still, war-monger is an extreme exaggeration.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51099773]If Trump can keep his calm and basically not shit his pants on stage, the story will be "TRUMP was very PRESIDENTIAL at the debate!", which is a win for him, even if he in reality just did something (that being: nothing) largely anyone could do. My guess is the first debate is gonna be called for Trump if he can just keep his posture and basically make non-stories about whatever he decides to say.[/QUOTE] people are hypothesizing that the stories about "trump not doing any debate prep" are being started by his campaign to lower expectations

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51099773]If Trump can keep his calm and basically not shit his pants on stage, the story will be "TRUMP was very PRESIDENTIAL at the debate!", which is a win for him, even if he in reality just did something (that being: nothing) largely anyone could do. My guess is the first debate is gonna be called for Trump if he can just keep his posture and basically make non-stories about whatever he decides to say.[/QUOTE] There is also the factor if he stays perfectly calm and diplomatic, like during his visit to Mexico, is how Clinton compares to him. If Clinton is visibly losing her marbles during the debate, or is showing signs of physical or mental difficulties, her campaign will be in utter shambles from that point onward. Given how Kennedy got the edge over Nixon from the first debate onward because Nixon sweated a bit during the first debate in 1960 on television, it wouldn't be out of the question that the Democrats are holding their fingers crossed that Clinton doesn't visibly run into issues, especially since she did cancel most of her public rallies over the past few weeks.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;51099798]people are hypothesizing that the stories about "trump not doing any debate prep" are being [B]started by his campaign to lower expectations[/B][/QUOTE] That might be something that is going to work against Hillary, since her campaign practically bragged about spending time coming up with zingers against Trump. She's raising expectations on delivering a good burn. Then again no one should be expecting anything competent in that regard.

You defeat Trump by attacking his ego and calling him a liar. His insecurity is too great to allow him to let anything slide, and the angrier she succeeds in getting him, the more he's going to look the fool. I hope she and the staff helping her prep for the debate realize this. Rile the man up, and he'll fuck up royally.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51099983]You defeat Trump by attacking his ego and calling him a liar. His insecurity is too great to allow him to let anything slide, and the angrier she succeeds in getting him, the more he's going to look the fool. I hope she and the staff helping her prep for the debate realize this. Rile the man up, and he'll fuck up royally.[/QUOTE] This runs the risk of Trump controlling himself, leaving Clinton looking like the childish one.

Unless Hillary plays on a very passive-aggressive stance, she'll almost certainly lose the debates in the practical scheme of things. If she acts to aggressive, most people will see her as being to bitchy. If she acts to defensive, she'll be seen as someone with to many secrets to hide. Not to mention, Trump may have some cards up his sleeve regarding Hillary's husband. If he were to bring up the Lolita Airlines incidents on national television, and Hillary cannot rebuke, she's fucked.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51100053]Unless Hillary plays on a very passive-aggressive stance, she'll almost certainly lose the debates in the practical scheme of things. If she acts to aggressive, most people will see her as being to bitchy. If she acts to defensive, she'll be seen as someone with to many secrets to hide. Not to mention, Trump may have some cards up his sleeve regarding Hillary's husband. If he were to bring up the Lolita Airlines incidents on national television, and Hillary cannot rebuke, she's fucked.[/QUOTE] if he decides to bring that up I guess he better pray she doesn't respond with the accusations of actual child rape against Trump [url]http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/[/url]

Eyup. It'll be a shit-throwing contest from there on out.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51099983]You defeat Trump by attacking his ego and calling him a liar. His insecurity is too great to allow him to let anything slide, and the angrier she succeeds in getting him, the more he's going to look the fool. I hope she and the staff helping her prep for the debate realize this. Rile the man up, and he'll fuck up royally.[/QUOTE] it's a high-risk high-reward gambit. if her jabs aren't sharp enough he'll come off much better for taking them in his stride than had she just acted normally, but if they work then even Clinton at her worst won't compare with the big orange manbaby Trump will reveal himself as - doubly so if Lester Holt gets aggressive with him too. personally i can see why she would play it like that, but i don't know if it's a risk i would take.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51099983]You defeat Trump by attacking his ego and calling him a liar. His insecurity is too great to allow him to let anything slide, and the angrier she succeeds in getting him, the more he's going to look the fool. I hope she and the staff helping her prep for the debate realize this. Rile the man up, and he'll fuck up royally.[/QUOTE] Yeah nah, that's not how Trump works. You think he'd even be in the race if his ego was as fragile as you believe?

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51100249]Yeah nah, that's not how Trump works. You think he'd even be in the race if his ego was as fragile as you believe?[/QUOTE] It's as strong as it is because of how echo chamber like his world must be. If you break him out of that, i'm not sure how long he'd really last if he didn't have yes men sucking his dick at every opportunity [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] Lets not forget the "small hands" incident. Mention his hands, and he goes into a 20 minute tirade about how great his hands are. Are you sure his ego is as strong as [B]you[/B] think it is?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51099983]You defeat Trump by attacking his ego and calling him a liar. His insecurity is too great to allow him to let anything slide, and the angrier she succeeds in getting him, the more he's going to look the fool. I hope she and the staff helping her prep for the debate realize this. Rile the man up, and he'll fuck up royally.[/QUOTE] Is anyone else shocked that the US elections have boiled down to who can be the better troll?

[QUOTE=space1;51099747]Hardly seems like a "hard-right war-monger" to me. As for "extremely dangerous policies", the only ones that really struck us hard was the deregulation of the financial institution. He did improve the economy temporarily with his tax breaks afaik, but they weren't lasting because of the recession he set up with the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act"]GLBA[/URL].(Which came into existance from the momentum his deregulation policies had gained at this point)[/QUOTE] he provoked the soviets until they nearly launched a suprise attack in 1983, afterwards regan switched to bringing down tensions. talk of 'evil empires' did make them needlessly worried.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51100322]It's as strong as it is because of how echo chamber like his world must be. If you break him out of that, i'm not sure how long he'd really last if he didn't have yes men sucking his dick at every opportunity [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] Lets not forget the "small hands" incident. Mention his hands, and he goes into a 20 minute tirade about how great his hands are. Are you sure his ego is as strong as [B]you[/B] think it is?[/QUOTE] 20 minute tirade? You mean one quick joke he made at a Republican debate? Let's face it, Trump is the most demonized and hated presidential candidate in modern history, yet strolls about his life happily and confidently. Trump does not have thin skin. I'd like to see how well you'd take being called literally Hitler everyday.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;51100564]20 minute tirade? You mean one quick joke he made at a Republican debate? Let's face it, Trump is the most demonized and hated presidential candidate in modern history, yet strolls about his life happily and confidently. Trump does not have thin skin.[/QUOTE] You mean how it became a topic of interest for him to use for almost an entire month after the comment was made even moving on to "I have a big dick".

[QUOTE=space1;51099794]Still, war-monger is an extreme exaggeration.[/QUOTE] It's not actually. The Iran-Contra Affair aside and all the problems that it caused for the Middle East and Central America (not to mention the fact that it was fucking illegal for him to do in the first place), his administration previously sent [i]chemical weapons[/i] to Iraq/Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. They also received satellite imagery and general intelligence from the United States, in addition to military equipment, weapons, ammunition, as well as supplies and medicine. There was also his entrenchment of American involvement in Lebanon and other Central American countries with the CIA. Carter and the Democrats called him out as a warmongering cowboy in the 1980 election, because that's what he tried to be. He wasn't a warmongering cowboy in the way that Bush was; he talked the same tough game, but he just had a lighter hand when it came to actually doing stuff later during his administration. Even so, his actions still caused a lot of people to die needlessly. The chemical weapons he sent to Iraq for example weren't just used to kill Iranians, they were the same ones that Hussein had his brother use against their own Kurdish population. Reagan was not a good president. In fact, the gigantic rift that existed between his rhetoric and his actions easily makes him one of the worst in modern history. But that fact doesn't matter to people who like him; his popularity came from his ability to deliver to conservatives the classic right-wing "big government bad, bring Judeo-Christian morality into the system, let's destroy the Commies" rhetoric that they wanted to hear. He spoonfed them bullshit, and they ate it up. It's proof that in the battle for hearts and minds, you'll do better in the long run fighting to win over people's hearts. Because most people are suckers who operate based off of feelings and not facts. And this isn't even touching on the consequences of his economic policies. Reaganomics did nothing good for anybody except the rich; they got richer, the rest of us got poorer-- same thing that's happening today with the income and financial gap. Deregulation had consequences that are also still being felt, from contributing to the housing market crash in 2007/2008 to mass outsourcing and the loss of American industry. I don't think he was deliberately malicious and egotistical the way Trump is. Having studied his life and what people said about him, I think he was just a people-pleaser. He wanted everybody to like him, he wanted their love and attention and approval, and he wanted to do great things for the country and be somebody for it. But he had no fucking clue what he was doing. He wasn't a horrible person, he was just a wholly-incompetent president and should never have been made a leader. He had no idea how to lead; all he knew was how to be an actor who [i]looks and sounds[/i] competent. All shine, no substance.