Chris Tomlinson of the Houston Chronicle believes that the debate will not matter to the partisans on either side. Not so clear is the impact of the debate on those not aligned with either party.
He writes:
The Sept. 10 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was must-see TV for people who closely follow politics. For those who love the genre, the candidates delivered an instant classic.
Trump brought his stump speech to national television, while Harris proved up to the task and avoided any major gaffes. But will it make a difference?
The June debate between Trump and Joe Bidendrew 51.3 million viewers, well below the 73 million people who watched their 2016 debate. Overnight numbers, which tend to underestimate viewership, estimated 65 million people tuned in Tuesday night.
Folks who watched the debate live more than likely tuned in to watch their champion do battle with their opponent. While nearly two-thirds of uncommitted focus groups said Harris dominated, Trump’s and Harris’ partisans declared their candidate the winner. No surprise there.
This week, I wrote about Colin Allred’s campaign to unseat Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate. I said Allred was naive to believe he could attract Republican voters. Reader emails confirmed that party affiliation is far more critical than any politician or their policies.
“Many of us would otherwise vote for Allred if control of the Senate was not at risk. As is, we cannot take the chance of losing a Republican Senate seat,” Clay Spires wrote.
“I can’t bring myself to send Chuck Schumer another rubber-stamp vote in that highly polarized environment,” Greg Groh wrote about his ballot. “Only when both parties run moderates will voters have to start thinking again.”
By this reasoning, many Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Trump, no matter what he says. He really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.
If the debate has any impact on independents, it will likely take place on social media, where people who didn’t watch it live will see snippets. The highly partisan editing, though, risks turning off voters disgusted by politics.
The real wildcard came after the debate when Taylor Swift felt compelled to make her position clear to 283 million Instagram followers that AI-generated images of her endorsing Trump were false. The world’s most famous childless cat lady has spoken.
Voter enthusiasm will decide this election, and women will likely make the difference, not the debate.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hyper-polarization is real.
LikeLike
I hope so!!!
There has always been hyper-polarization between a truth and a lie and (hopefully) there always will be. But in the Orwellian future that seems just around the corner, it is possible there will be no “polarization” as there will be no “truth” except what the far right deems to be true.
There is – at least for now – still “hyper-polarization” between those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe it is not. There was always hyper-polarization between those who believe in Aryan White Supremacy and those who do not.
I’m worried about pundits and reporters in the so-called liberal media who counsel those on one side only not to be so “polarized” and lecture them about they should never say anything that would suggest that the earth being flat, or white people being superior, is not an absolutely valid opinion and people holding that opinion must never be disrespected for having an opinion that is completely valid and respectable.
(But it’s okay if flat-earthers and white supremacists demonize the people who don’t believe in a flat earth or in white supremacy, because the folks who do believe in them are being victimized by hyper-polarized non-flat earthers and non-white supremacists who refuse to give their ideas the respect they deserve. How dare they challenge the valid and respectable beliefs of flat-earthers and white supremacists instead of showing unity with them and agreeing to disagree because no one can ever know what is correct. at least until a Republican authoritarian takes over and tells the media what is correct.)
LikeLike
Hyper-polarization is not good.
LikeLike
I agree, but it is unfortunately the ONLY option when one side makes up their own “alternative” facts!
Hyper-partisanship flourishes when one side is empowered to spew blatant falsehoods (or “alternative facts”), and the other side – which believes in real facts, not alternative ones – either has to say “okay alternative facts are just as valid as real facts” or be accused of being “hyper-partisan” for not publicly agreeing to a narrative that just isn’t true.
There are two ways to get rid of it. Have a media interested in reporting what is true (not one obsessed with reporting what “polls say” people believe). The fact that Murrow did this during McCarthyism probably helped alleviate the “hyper-polarization” that came when Joe McCarthy was at his peak power.
The other way is to elect an authoritarian leader who makes sure that “hyper-polarization” doesn’t happen because whatever isn’t approved isn’t spoken out loud.
I remember many decades ago a relative was just returning from a summer program in the Soviet Union and I saw them within hours of de-planing. For that evening, they would still automatically start whispering when they talked about some things – after just 6 or 8 weeks they already internalized that they couldn’t say things out loud when people might be listening. It was truly weird to watch at the time, having not really understood as a twenty-something what it meant to live under that kind of constant oppression even when one is supposedly “free”.
While some folks here believe that Putin’s Russia isn’t hyper-polarized since he was elected with near 90% of the vote, my guess is there would be a lot more “polarization” if people were not concerned about the penalties of having a different view.
I want the first option – a country where the media recognizes the difference between a fact and an “alternative fact” and informs the public about it every day.
But if I can’t have that, I’ll take hyper-polarization over the other alternative.
LikeLike
Hyper-polarization is what causes almost half the country to vote for Trump on the basis that he is not a Democrat.
LikeLike
correct. Why does it surprise you that half the people vote for Trump because he’s not a Democrat?
Trump tells them that Democrats let in criminals, rapists, asylum inmates from other countries who kidnap and eat their neighbor’s pets. Trump tells them that Democrats murder babies after birth and Democrats let schools give sex change operations to trans kids. Trump tells them that Democrats “stole” the election by allowing “illegal immigrants” to vote.
And the Republicans say it is “hyper-partisan” for a moderator or journalist to inform the public that any of those are false.
Trump tells them that he has a plan to fix everything and the media agrees that Kamala won’t tell voters what her plans are, because to do anything else would be “hyper-partisan”.
I find it weird that you would NOT expect hyper-partisanship and hatred of Democrats since voters are told by PRESIDENTS that Democrats murder babies after birth and Democrats let schools give sex change operations to trans kids and Democrats stole the election from Trump.
And anyone who tries to tell them otherwise is “hyper-partisan”.
You’ve been brainwashed to think this is a both sides issue. But it isn’t.
Only one side is offering blatant falsehoods.
Try to imagine if Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and every single prominent Democrat was telling voters every single day that the most crazy falsehoods that are now maybe said by some marginalized folks on the left were true?
Look how powerful it is when Democrats tell stories about women who can’t get abortions and suffer. And those are fact-based! It helps motivate people.
But the Democrats haven’t embraced the Republican idea of just making sh** up in order to rile up the same feelings in voters. Imagine if they did. Well, first imagine that the media would shut it down, stat, and call them liars. But if the media believed that calling out a Dem lie was forbidden, there are so many lies that Dems could tell. They don’t. If anything, their political leaders distance themselves from those kind of lies.
Whereas the Republicans embrace those lies with a single voice. Any who don’t are ex-communicated with the narrative that those people are the untrustworthy ones who should not be believed. Liz Cheney is a liar. Trump is a truth-teller. And it is “hyper-partisan” that Democrats won’t just acknowledge that an alternative fact is true.
One side foments hate and division. The other sides fights that with truth and you imply they are equally responsible for being too hyper-partisan.
Thank goodness Edward R. Murrow didn’t agree with you. Too bad today’s journalists do.
Nazi Germany stopped being “hyper-partisan” once all the Jews were rounded up. I don’t understand why you think that was an improvement over dissent.
But it does go along with your condoning and even admiring the way the media won’t take the side of truth. Because that would be hyper-partisan.
In fact, that attitude was proven wrong by Murrow and others. Truth and light alleviate hyper-partisanship. Standing back and letting lies gain traction increases it.
So if your concern for this is real, fight for truth instead of defending cowards in the media who won’t.
LikeLike
NYC: Think of it . . . Trump even threatened retribution on Taylor Swift for supporting Kamala Harris. By supporting Trump, it’s like screaming: “Tape my mouth and lock me up!” CBK
LikeLike
Yes, . . . like Trump says he’s going to stop the war in Ukraine but doesn’t say how.
Does anyone NOT know that he means to have peace by handing Ukraine and all of Europe over to Putin? CBK.
LikeLike
“Hyper-polarization is what causes almost half the country to vote for Trump on the basis that he is not a Democrat.”
And your point is? You didn’t like any of my suggestions of how it can be addressed.
How do you stop it if one side believes things that aren’t true about the other side?
You seem to be suggesting that it’s Democrats’ fault that people will vote for Trump on the basis that he’s not a Democrat. Maybe you have some suggestions for how the Dems can convince those people who vote for Trump because he isn’t a Democrat, the party that steals elections, lets immigrants kidnap and eat their pets, gives trans surgeries to kids at school without their parents’ permission, lets doctors kill babies after they are born, etc. etc.?
If I thought all of that was true, I would of course vote for anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. Wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
My point is hyper-polarization is real and bad. Nothing more.
LikeLike
And my point is that hyper-polarization is bad, EXCEPT if the alternative is an authoritarian society where the only truth is whatever the leader says it is.
We are one election away from the very real possibility that our “hyper-polarization” can be eliminated the way “polarization” has been eliminated in Putin’s Russia. 90% majority!!
I’ll take hyper-polarization over that, because as bad as hyper-polarization is – and I agree with you that it’s bad – there are ways to eliminate it that are much worse. I guess we disagree about that, which is fine.
I agree with you that it would be good if our country wasn’t hyper-polarized but only if that hyper-polarization was eliminated through truth, not through authoritarianism. I assumed you’d agree, so didn’t intend to have a contentious argument. If we can’t agree on that, maybe we are hyper-polarized ourselves!
LikeLike
It’s interesting now how the pundits are framing the debate as inconsequential, and just a few short months ago, it mattered so much that Biden was forced to make the decision to end his candidacy over it. Typical MSM whiplash and more neverending deference to Trump. Once again normalizing and downplaying the orange face of hate, division, and insanity on national TV in front of millions of American viewers. That being said, watching Harris wipe the floor with him was worth the price of admission, along with several bags of popcorn.
LikeLike
Great point, Oakland Mom. The June debate led to Biden’s exit. It made a huge difference. But in this case, Trump’s base is unmoved by anything bad that he says or does. They are blindly faithful to him. I read the reactions of the members of the WSJ editorial board, and even they–well-informed journalists–defended Trump. The worst they could say about him was that he missed the opportunity to expose the failings of the Biden administration. No one said, “Alas, we watched the sad performance of an ignorant fraud.”
LikeLike
The media were following the reaction to the debate within the party and longstanding polling showing a majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old. The media weren’t just making up a narrative to sell papers.
LikeLike
donOLD cannot accept the fact that HE IS “A LOSER.” All he does is LIE, LIE, LIE to bolster himself and put others down.
donOLD is DISGUSTING.
LikeLike
He was never in a debate where his opponent confronted him directly and fearlessly, as Harris did.
“You are a disgrace,” she said twice.
“World leaders laugh at you,” she said frankly.
Rattled him.
She dominated him.
LikeLike
She did just what I prayed she would do. She was blunt and direct. She didn’t pull her punches. She spoke the raw truth. And like all bullies, he crumbled.
LikeLike
FYI, the NYT wrote a long story on the very day of the debate about how consequential the debate was for Kamala. That was absolutely the narrative.
Now that Kamala wiped the floor with Trump, they all suddenly decided that the debate wasn’t consequential anymore. And every news story starts with that premise. Trump had a bad performance but it’s not consequential and here’s the news of what Trump’s doing and saying today, and voters still have doubts about Kamala because she didn’t do “enough” to qualm the serious doubts voters have about her.
There hasn’t been even one story yet I have read about how the debate created doubts in voters minds about Trump’s fitness. Or that Trump failed to lessen voters’ doubt about his cognitive fitness with his insane debate performance, with a story every day about how whatever Trump did today was not enough to quell the “serious concern” that the debate raised in many voters’ minds.
Nope, the debate is now inconsequential.
But I have read multiple stories with the narrative “although she outperformed Trump at the debate, voters still have serious doubts and concerns about Kamala and still don’t know enough about her.”
(Newsflash: the media will be writing stories about how voters have doubts about Kamala and how she hasn’t provided enough details of her plans and that is of huge concern to voters right up to election day.)
There might be 1 or 2 stories in the next 2 months about voters still being concerned about Trump, but since the media did NOT think that was newsworthy even after Trump gave a debate performance that showed the world that everyone should have concern about him, I doubt they will ever find it newsworthy.
If Trump had done a decent job, or Kamala had not, the media would declare the race over because the debate was so consequential.
The only time debates are consequential is when the media decides to write 200+ stories about why the debate was consequential. Which they did with Biden.
With Trump, despite the fact that by EVERY MEASURE what Trump demonstrated at the debate was 100x more cognitive unfitness to be president than Biden did, the media is pushing the Republican narrative that they should not judge Trump by his performance on the debate because debate performance is inconsequential. Except when a Democrat does badly.
LikeLike
NYC: I keep remembering that young man being interviewed in a bar in the south (don’t remember which state, I think it was Georgia) just before Obama was elected.
The young man was ABSOLUTELY sure that Obama would lose because no one wanted a black man as president. (What a surprise that must have been for him–twice.)
Like Trump, he thought everyone else thought like he did–for him, a black man COULD NOT be voted into office.
For Trump, no one wants to go to Kamala’s (translation: “a black woman’s”) rally.
I do wonder what things would be like if Trump’s adversary were a white man with the same kinds of credentials that Harris has. (BTW, Rove was right . . . there’s always a first time.) CBK
LikeLike
The most startling thing about the debate to me was Trump’s promise to settle the War in Ukraine before he got into office. This would violate the Logan Act, which says private citizens may not negotiate with foreign governments. Not that the Republican Party cares. Since Nixon promised Thieu a better deal in order to destroy the peace talks underway during the 1968 election, we have seen Reagan’s contact with revolutionary Iran in 1980 (according to Bani Sdar, setting off Iran-Contra. We cannot know what deals Trump has made with Putin either as president or before his election in 2016. What we can say is that the casual reference to breaking the law by this person suggests either that Republicans see Logan as a law that is of a bygone era not to be considered, or that they truly do believe they are not bound by the law.
LikeLike
I agree Roy. Aside from the fact he was called “Mr. President” several times by the moderators, Trump is not the president presently. It was “startling” to me also that he stated he would end the war before he got into office. He breaks all the laws anyway. Pretty bold to make such statements. But to be expected from a felon anyway.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court will say Trump is not covered by law. He has absolute immunity. We the voters must hold him accountable.
LikeLike
Diane: Nixon got a pardon for watergate, but nobody looked to see if he broke the Logan Act. Bush et al got pardons for Iran-Contra that kept us from looking into the matter. Trump is right: he could kill somebody in cold blood and his Supreme Court would give him immunity.
LikeLike
It’s a longstanding convention to refer to former presidents as Mr. President.
LikeLike
As in, “Mr. President, after a lifetime of grifting and sexual predation, what are your plans for the future after you lose this election, you lowlife piece of shit, aside from claiming that it was rigged?”
It’s important to show due respect.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always thought that former presidents were referred to as PRESIDENT TRUMP and PRESIDENT BUSH.
But neither Bush nor Bill Clinton is called “Mr. President”. That is the title for only the sitting president.
Before I get accused of media bashing, I will point out that Emily Post agrees.
“Formally Addressing the Former President
When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well. When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it’s appropriate to say, “former President LastName.” This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as “Governor Tom Smith,” while you’d introduce an ex-governor as “former Governor Jim Bell.”
Now, let’s look a little closer. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either “President Carter” or “Mr. Carter.” In reality, many people ignore this convention and refer to former Presidents as “President Last Name” when they are in settings where nearly everyone would afford them the honor of the title. Technically, this is still incorrect but there are enough former Presidents allowing this that it has become a somewhat common mistake.”
In other words, it is common to say “President Clinton” instead of “former President Clinton”.
But it has never been acceptable to call Bill Clinton or Bush or Trump “Mr. President”, and while people may occasionally make that mistake, it is false to call it a “longstanding tradition”.
The “longstanding tradition” is to call him former President Trump for the rest of his life. Although the fact that Trump is often just called President Trump instead of former President Trump is somewhat acceptable. Although in Fox News recognized that during his trial, his lawyers insisted on calling Trump “President Trump” instead of the more proper “former President Trump” because they were signalling that Trump WAS the “rightful” president who had the election stolen from him.
But even Trump’s lawyers knew that calling Trump “Mr. President” – to signal that Trump was currently the only legitimate and rightful president – was a bridge too far for the court.
The moderators made a mistake. One that Trump fans surely loved and no doubt believe is not a mistake, but is entirely appropriate for the guy whose victory was “stolen” and IS the true sitting president.
LikeLike
Not sure there’s a rule book on this or that Emily Post has a handle on the style guide for how to refer to former presidents. But people have sometimes referred to former presidents as “Mr. President.” Maybe it’s breaking an unwritten rule, maybe it’s not. But there’s a long tradition of it. Here’s Kamala Harris calling Obama “Mr. President” in 2020, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVbMWFGy4HM
It’s not a big deal.
LikeLike
I vacillate between “Former President Trump, Loser,” and the following:
Glorious Leader Who Shines More Orange Than Does the Sun,
He of the Troll-Doll Yellow Hair,
No Show Leader of the Cuckoo Coup,
the Man with No Plan and the Tan in the Can,
IQ45,
Trumpty Dumpty,
The Idiot,
Teflon Don: the Sequel,
Putin the Defenestrator’s Agent Orange,
Moscow’s Asset Governing America (MAGA),
Jabba the Trump,
The Don, Cheeto “Little Fingers” Trumpbalone,
Poster Boy for Malignant Pathological Narcissism,
Dog-Whistle Don, and the Bloated and Boring Bloviator,
though “that POS” works, too.
My mother, when she texts me about him, just uses the emojis for a pile of shit, an orange, and a clown. That’s pretty much perfect.
LikeLike
ha ha I do love Kamala sometimes!
Remember, she knows exactly how to get under Trump’s skin. And that video is from September 2020, when Trump was still president. And no one knew if he would be president another 4 years.
I wonder if she kept calling Obama “Mr. President” and referring to Michelle as “The First Lady” when Biden and Jill had those titles.
If she didn’t, then lol at this subtle dig at Trump and Melania!
Not saying it couldn’t be just an unintentional mistake that dissed Trump and Melania. But it’s funny, so thanks for posting the link!
LikeLike
Biden called Obama Mr. President last year.
My point is not that that is notable. My point is that people call former presidents “Mr. President” routinely, it’s not treated as a massive show of disrespect to “the office,” and there’s no good reason to be bothered when it happens with Trump. Not a big deal.
LikeLike
FLERP, agreed.
LikeLike
“it’s not treated as a massive show of disrespect to “the office”
Did someone say that it was a “massive show” of disrespect to the office? I missed that.
It’s treated as a “massive” show of respect to the person who held the office, as ABC News wanted to treat Trump.
It’s not the proper way, but it is used when folks want to show a lot of respect. Maybe Obama and Kamala and Biden call President Trump “Mr. President” now, too. I am pretty sure that Trump didn’t refer to Obama as “Mr. President” while Trump was president, although kudos to the leader of the birther movement if he did finally go out of his way to show extra respect when it wasn’t required.
As I assume you know, Trump gets needled at what HE believes is massive disrespect. That’s why it was so easy for Kamala at the debate! Her team clearly prepared for this knowing what sets him off. Crowd size! lol!
Trump constantly “disrespected” Kamala — he told her Biden hates her for gosh sake! She laughed it off because it wasn’t “massive”. Trump could have laughed off the crowd leaving comment but it was “massive” to him!
LikeLike
Do you actually find these drawn out disputes between us to be interesting or worthwhile? They’re so stupid and boring.
LikeLike
Yes, the endless nit-picking between you and NYCPSP is stupid and boring. Please ignore her comments. Do not engage. Other readers find it tedious to see how you two clog the comments.
LikeLike
flerp!, I agree! I thanked you for the link to Kamala and Obama, so it confused me why you seemed to want to pivot to a new discussion about whether using “Mr. President” was a show of disrespect. But since we agree it isn’t, I’m glad we are done! I’m sorry you took so seriously my joking (and unnecessary) attempt to insult Trump because he hates Obama’s massive popularity so much, and Kamala in that clip reminded me so much of the Kamala at the debate who needled Trump’s ego with such precision. She’s really fun!
Apologies for boring you (and everyone else!)
LikeLike
Please see my comment to FLERP. Just agree and stop responding.
LikeLike
Flerp: Yes, whatever. However, I still get sick to my stomach when I hear “Trump” and “president” uttered on the same planet as me. CBK
LikeLike
I believe the hyperpartisanship is largely due to gerrymandering.
In down ballot elections, campaign war chests do not require that much money, in most cases. A wealthy donor can threaten someone moderate with a primary opponent to unseat them and then pressure the incumbent to move further right or left.
Since people vote for party more than candidate, this pushes each side further and further to extremes.
If we want more moderate and centrists candidates, we need shorter election seasons and to reduce political donations significantly. That won’t happen (Citizens United) because the wealthy will prevent it.
LikeLike
you are absolutely right. Centrist Republicans have been booted on every level until we are left, especially in red states, with Greene-Bobert clones.
If Harris wins, and the down ballot races are affected by a turnout for her, the Republicans could see a war within their party.
LikeLike
If the sane Republicans don’t take back their party, it will die like the Whigs.
LikeLike
In small sample poll of 25 undecided voters in swing states, 23 potential voters gave the debate to Harris while only 2 gave the debate to Trump. It’s difficult to claim that this result is impactful when the sample is so small, and nobody knows how many undecided voters in swing states actually watched the debate.https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/presidential-debate-voter-poll/
LikeLike
I don’t understand why media orgs put so much faith in focus groups. They are not a random sample. It’s also such a small group that it can’t be
LikeLike
Exactly. It’s theatre, not journalism.
LikeLike
I think it’s partly because it lends an atmosphere of narrative. You have actual people with names and life details, not just 900 slots in a random sample. But agree they are useless or worse in terms of informing readers.
LikeLike
There has been some good detectives on social media who have found that folks in focus groups aren’t quite as “random undecided voters” as they appear. It was interesting that one woman in the NYT Tuesday debate focus group was identified as having voted for Trump in 2020 in an article from a month ago, but in the post-debate article this week, that (irrelevant?) fact was left out. In another instance, the person in a different newspaper’s focus group had been quoted as a neighbor of a mass shooter a few months ago. How do they find these folks again?
But as many media critics have pointed out, WHY does it matter what a focus group thinks when that group at best is comprised of folks so out of it that they cannot yet decide between Trump and Kamala, and at worst is people pretending to be undecided when they are not.
The NYT and other “liberal” media uses focus groups to drive whatever the right wing narrative is. So the focus group post-debate was all about “We STILL don’t know enough about Kamala and not “Wow Trump was really insane and speaking nonsense in that debate.” So instead of writing 300 stories about how undecided voters are concerned about Trump being unfit for office because of that insane debate performance, the media can wrote 300 stories about how undecided voters are concerned about Kamala because they just don’t know enough about Kamala’s policies (sometimes with the added innuendo that Kamala was evasive and thus she could not be trusted).
LikeLike
And as night follows day, superficial “conventional wisdom” has it that debates don’t matter.
It truly is remarkable that debates always have no effect at all. Tell that to Gerald Ford, to name just one candidate who lost the presidency after a huge gaffe during a debate. Gerald! You won!
These solons need to STFU. Especially when “watching” the debate, because they are too busy talking and writing while missing the action on the field.
But I would bet money that if Harris wins, we will be told that “Of course, her debate performance had nothing to do with her victory.”
LikeLike
STFU, solons. ROFL at that!
LikeLike
I listened to Tamara Keith and Amy Walters on PBS Politics Monday this week, and they said that all but 1% of registered voters have made up their mind already what presidential candidate they will vote for. That the debate won’t change that.
The debate may convince some of the 1% of undecideds to vote for Harris. They also talked about the 8-million younger voters who registered to vote since the last election and mentioned how Taylor Swift’s endorsement might influence many of them.
I wonder how many polls include those younger voters who recently registered to vote since the last election.
LikeLike
“By this reasoning, many Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Trump, no matter what he says.“
But will they go home and tell their daughters who they voted for?
LikeLike
“Just” hours after their face-off, Trump called into Fox News to say ABC News should have their broadcast license revoked over the debate.
“To be honest they’re a news organization,” Trump said. “They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.” ” From a news feed.
Trump inadvertently allowed the voters to see what he would do if he were elected. Victor Orban has squelched opposition press in Hungary, and Trump referred directly to him as a reference when Harris pointed out the disdain held toward Trump among world leaders. If he is elected again, he will attempt to shut down opposition.
LikeLike
I really wish that instead of simply quoting their favorite Republican besties/politicians, political reporters would ask the questions that should obviously follow when someone says “the moderator was unfair”.
“Are you saying it was ‘unfair’ that the moderator corrected Trump’s lie about pets being kidnapped and eaten by illegal immigrants and you are angry because you wanted lots of voters to believe something that wasn’t true? Why wouldn’t Trump want to be corrected if he was not intentionally trying to sell the voters a lie the way he sold them a degree at Trump University?”
In fact, the moderator ONLY corrected 3 of the most blatant lies Trump said that only a Republican who was determined to foment hyper-partisanship and division and hate would want people to believe is true — the eating of pets, the killing babies after birth, etc.
The majority of Trump’s lies went uncorrected.
LikeLike
Roy: Blah/blah/blah to Trump. Predictable and oh-so boring. Give him an enema and bury him in a shoebox.
BTW, I agree with Joe Scarborough that the panel caved to Trump’s bullying more than once during the debate giving him more non-split screen time. Someone, make it stop. CBK
LikeLike
This from TruthOut: Trump Calls for Entire ABC News Network to Be Fired Over His Disastrous Debate
“Focus groups and polls conducted after Trump’s debate with Harris show that most voters think she won.” Chris Walker | Truthout
Well, then, everyone, . . . the whole thing . . . MUST be fraudulent. We know this because Trump didn’t like it. CBK
LikeLike