USA Politics

Mosh said:
I disagree. Trump is also not a good debater and, like Biden, he did best during the primaries when it was a crowded stage and he could stay in the background. When he got to the general, he looked ridiculous on stage against Hillary. The problem for Hillary was that she decided to get into the mud with him and by that point everybody was used to Trump's shenanigans enough to have an opinion on him. I don't remember him really seizing on slip-ups on the debate stage in either the primary or the general.

They both have similar strengths and weaknesses. I think the biggest question is going to be whether we see high energy Joe or sleepy Joe. We've seen both throughout this process.
Click to expand...

Trump is not a good debater in the traditional debate sense - i.e. rational discussion. He is, however, an excellent verbal combatant. He'll ad hominem you to death if you give him the opportunity. Trump's shenanigans don't have an effect on me, or you, but the whole mindless ridicule shtick he does works very well for him to get an edge over people in the eyes of many voters. He essentially rendered Jeb's candidacy obsolete without any actual substance in the previous cycle, and in this cycle, his ridicule of Warren's Native American slip up threw a monkey wrench into her campaign before it even started.

I do agree that Hillary messed up by trying to play Trump's game, though. Against irrationalists, the strategy is to stay rational and hope people recognize the greater reliability of reason over sentiment. When a rationalist tries to play the irrationalist game, he disarms himself.
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
When a rationalist tries to play the irrationalist game, he disarms himself.
Click to expand...
The only place I'd argue this is that a well-constructed series of ad hominems by someone who is good at planning could theoretically defeat Trump at his own game. Nobody's really tried at the federal level, but we know that for every winning nickname he hits on, he has one that's not great and one that doesn't take off. Batting .333 is pretty good at this game though, but it's because he doesn't really care if it works. He just moves on if it doesn't stick.
 
LooseCannon said:
The only place I'd argue this is that a well-constructed series of ad hominems by someone who is good at planning could theoretically defeat Trump at his own game.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting thought, but it’s hard to make a dent in someone who has no shame and no connection to the truth. Most everyone already knows he’s a liar and a buffoon, and they either hold their nose and support him for policy reasons, or they already oppose him. Maybe you stick to things that hurt his ego and incite him to act out in response, to unsettle him and make folks worry that he’ll do something really rash and dangerous (as if he hasn’t already!)...? I don’t know.

It seems like pointing out his idiocy and lack of knowledge bothers him. Pointing out his business failures bothers him. Saying unflattering things about his penis bothers him. I think that’s about it. There are only so many ways you can ring the bell on those things...
 
I wouldn't want the presidential candidate to do it, but I'd probably get someone pretty high up to go around calling him Dumb Don. Maybe Bill Clinton.

"Dumb Don doesn't understand that if he spends more money and brings in less, the country goes bankrupt, just like his casinos." etc.
 
LooseCannon said:
The only place I'd argue this is that a well-constructed series of ad hominems by someone who is good at planning could theoretically defeat Trump at his own game.
Click to expand...

LooseCannon said:
I wouldn't want the presidential candidate to do it, but I'd probably get someone pretty high up to go around calling him Dumb Don. Maybe Bill Clinton.

"Dumb Don doesn't understand that if he spends more money and brings in less, the country goes bankrupt, just like his casinos." etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good strategy. It could be seen as legitimizing that approach, which hinders your ability to criticise that approach and appeal to people who disagree with that approach. People would recognize the copycat nature of it, too, and that could cause it to backfire pretty badly.

Really, I think the way to go is to attack Trump with sound arguments and evidence expressed in a direct and firm manner. Leave him with no option but to utilize fallacies and mental gymnastics. Then it's up to the people to recognize what has substance and what doesn't, and what having substance signifies when it comes to judgment. Though I doubt Biden is someone who can implement this strategy properly. Hillary attempted to do it, but she didn't sound direct and firm enough and ended up playing Trump's game eventually. Initially it was almost like she was ignoring Trump and speaking to the nation, and then it was her smiling at Trump's responses to belittle him. That's not the way to go.
 
Last edited:
I get what you're saying. I would almost prefer that myself, except I don't think it works against Trump. Because of this:

The Flash said:
Then it's up to the people to recognize what has substance and what doesn't
Click to expand...

I no longer believe the American people are capable of discerning the difference between the two.
 
LooseCannon said:
I no longer believe the American people are capable of discerning the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Many aren't, but the discrepancy will be unignorable if you deliver your arguments effectively. Most people can tell when someone forces his opponent into fallacies and mental gymnastics, and you can always call them out on their fallacies and mental gymnastics as it happens. You have to be direct, rigid and uncompromising, you have to invite them to rational discussion with substantiated arguments and attacks, and call them out when they try to switch off from rational discussion. Doing the call out with a witty insult is especially effective.
 
There are two kinds of trump voters. The first kind is on board with everything Trump, the stereotypical MAGA hat wearers. They’re going to vote Trump no matter what and enjoy his antics.

Then you have independents who either lean right or dislike both candidates And aren’t particularly ideological. These are the people who Trump needs to win and I’m not sure if his style works among these types. I think in a lot of cases they vote for trump in spite of his behavior, given a better option he will lose these voters.
 
I think Trump's perceived non-interventionism compared to Hillary won him a lot of votes among people who disliked both candidates or are generally impartial toward the parties. This may have influenced the decisions made by the more libertarian leaning voters and non-ideological pacifists.

It's also another reason why I think nominating Biden is a huge mistake. He'll lose these votes to Trump just like Hillary did, even though Trump hasn't proven to be nearly as non-interventionist as he claimed to be during his campaign in the previous election.
 
I can see how non-Americans would have that point of view but I really don’t think most Americans care, at least not when it comes to the ballot box. Foreign policy rarely comes up as important issues on exit polling.
 
Unfortunately that's correct, if it weren't, drones would not be killing children every month. False view that Trump isn't "the system", "deep state", etc., won him a lot. A perception that he'll be closer to a common man. What a joke.
 
Zare said:
Unfortunately that's correct, if it weren't, drones would not be killing children every month. False view that Trump isn't "the system", "deep state", etc., won him a lot. A perception that he'll be closer to a common man. What a joke.
Click to expand...
So you're saying a crooked businessman isn't a prime example of a "man of the people"? Get out of here.
 
Mosh said:
I can see how non-Americans would have that point of view but I really don’t think most Americans care, at least not when it comes to the ballot box. Foreign policy rarely comes up as important issues on exit polling.
Click to expand...

I'm not basing it on my own opinion, though - it's what gather from observing people's sentiments on social media over the years. Foreign policy angle may not come to the fore for the average voter in the average election, but I think 2016 was a special example in that regard. I don't think there was any prior American election in which there was such a perceived gap between the candidates when it comes to interventionist foreign policy. There was a lot of "Hillary will get us into a war with Russia and cause WWIII" and "Trump is the anti-establishment candidate who will end wars for Israel" nonsense going on.

Ultimately it still probably didn't rank as one of the more prominent issues of the election for the voters who generally lean toward one party for other reasons, but I think it had a greater impact among swing voters and voters who only care about a limited number of issues with non-interventionism being one of them.

Zare said:
False view that Trump isn't "the system", "deep state", etc., won him a lot. A perception that he'll be closer to a common man. What a joke.
Click to expand...

He pretty much won the election on that + his verbal shenanigans. It was quite clear to me that he wouldn't be that, but people bought the image created for him by his campaign strategists. He pretty much rode the right-wing populist wave and combined it with the support of disengaged voters who wanted to see something different than the familiar politician type. The mindboggling thing is that many people still view him in the same light, despite him renewing tensions with Iran by cancelling the nuclear deal and assassinating their military commander, taking more forward and inflammatory steps in the Israel-Palestine conflict than any previous pro-Israel neo-con did, initiating a trade war with China and continuing the US backing of SDF in Syria and Iraq. Effective perception strategies resulted in people believing in the myth of Trump rather than the actual Trump, and people who are infatuated with myths tend to ignore counter-evidence.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if social media is a good barometer for what appeals to swing voters. People engaging on social media politically are going to be more engaged and, while they may not admit it, have a bias toward one side or the other.

Living in America, not to mention a swing state, the actual discourse here is quite different. Most people are not engaged or really understand about policy nuances/differences between different candidates. Not many people are idealogical. Most people care about what’s going to happen to their healthcare, how much taxes they’re going to pay next year, how they’re going to get out of debt, and, right now, whether they’re going to die of coronavirus. Most people don’t know or care what the American military is doing in other countries.
 
Mosh said:
I don’t know if social media is a good barometer for what appeals to swing voters. People engaging on social media politically are going to be more engaged and, while they may not admit it, have a bias toward one side or the other.

Living in America, not to mention a swing state, the actual discourse here is quite different. Most people are not engaged or really understand about policy nuances/differences between different candidates. Not many people are idealogical. Most people care about what’s going to happen to their healthcare, how much taxes they’re going to pay next year, how they’re going to get out of debt, and, right now, whether they’re going to die of coronavirus. Most people don’t know or care what the American military is doing in other countries.
Click to expand...

Ehh. I'm clearly speaking past you if you are still going on about the hierarchy of political priorities, as if I argued non-interventionism was one of the leading ones overall or was relevant for each voter group to the same extent. Yeah, no shit people care more about those things, very informative and very American-specific indeed.
 
I don’t think American intervention was a factor at all for voters who disliked both candidates, as you stated. You would have to provide data (such as exit polling) as opposed to evidence from social media.
 
Bernie is effectively done after tonight, incredible turn of events.

It’s also incredible that Biden is going to take the nomination pretty much entirely due to his reputation as Obama’s VP. He was lukewarm at best in the debates and actually didn’t campaign much in a lot of the states he performed big in. This isn’t the same scenario in 2016, where Hillary had more competition in Bernie than expected and went into the general weaker. Rather, it’s Biden absolutely destroying a crowded field with impressive levels of turnout. He’s going to be very strong going into the general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top