POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[albionmoonlight]

I concede that neither Hillary Clinton nor Jeb Bush have perfect records. I further concede that both of them have made mistakes.

[RainMaker]

I think the best result would be Biden winning the EV but losing the PV to Trump.

[Atocep]

If we eliminate politicians based on stances 20 or more years ago were not left with many politicians. Which I guess may not be a bad thing. And I'm not advocating for Jeb or Hillary btw.

I think most decisions have a statute of limitations, per say, and more recently policy is a better guide than digging up old stuff. I was 100% against the Iraq War and was definitely in the minority of people serving at the time to have that stance. I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the best result would be Biden winning the EV but losing the PV to Trump.

100% agree. We'd likely see the end of the electoral college in a hurry. The months of inevitable lawsuits would be awful though.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Atocep

100% agree. We'd likely see the end of the electoral college in a hurry.

John Kerry was not too many votes in Ohio away from losing the PV but winning the EC.

Coming right on the heels of W. Bush losing the PV but winning the EC, that might have been enough for bipartisan EC reform.

Alas.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I think that both parties are too wedded to the idea that the GOP would generally lose the popular vote.

Who know what would happen if both parties campaigned hard in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If we eliminate politicians based on stances 20 or more years ago were not left with many politicians. Which I guess may not be a bad thing. And I'm not advocating for Jeb or Hillary btw.

I think most decisions have a statute of limitations, per say, and more recently policy is a better guide than digging up old stuff. I was 100% against the Iraq War and was definitely in the minority of people serving at the time to have that stance. I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

We're not talking about a bridge that went over budget or a subsidy that didn't work out the way it was expected. We're talking about one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Something that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of Americans, and cost trillions of dollars. Not to mention the long term blowback we are still experiencing today from that decision.

That should be disqualifying for anyone who took part in it. Can't keep letting politicians fail upwards.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We're not talking about a bridge that went over budget or a subsidy that didn't work out the way it was expected. We're talking about one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Something that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of Americans, and cost trillions of dollars. Not to mention the long term blowback we are still experiencing today from that decision.

That should be disqualifying for anyone who took part in it. Can't keep letting politicians fail upwards.

Where's the line? We could have continued pushing Bob Menendez upward until he was indicted in 2015.

I align with Bernie on most issues, but he was also in the back pocket of the NRA and voted against thr Brady bill and other gun control measures until he was confident enough in his other funding and support to break away from them. He was also for mandatory minimums for non violent and other crimes at one point.

Any politician that's been around long enough has bad decisions on their record. Picking one instead of looking at where they are on a more recent timeline is going to get you better politicians than treating it was an elimination game where the best move is not to play.

[RainMaker]

I think we all make our own lines. Half a million innocent civilians and a few trillion dollars of wasted taxpayer money would be a line for me.

But we were talking about competence. I just don't see how you can look back at Hillary and see a competent politician. She was bad as a Senator and bad as a political candidate. And while she shouldn't be judged for her husband's actions (although she supports his policies), Bill did lead us to where we are with Putin. I can't think of a more incompetent politician than Hillary Clinton in the modern era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I think that both parties are too wedded to the idea that the GOP would generally lose the popular vote.

Who know what would happen if both parties campaigned hard in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc.

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

I mostly agree with this. It's less about convincing people to vote for you and more about giving your base a reason to go out and vote for you.

There are still pockets that you can sway though. Trump is pushing hard on youth voters it seems by bringing up the TikTok ban and such. Biden shifted far right on immigration to try and lure some never Trumpers over. Not sure if it'll work but the campaigns must see something there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not sure if it'll work but the campaigns must see something there.

That's called justifying your existence (and your salary)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

But isn't that the main focus of campaigns? Getting your people to turn out while suppressing the other sides turnout is campaigning. Changing people's mind is always there and nice to think about, but not what really makes campaign's successful. It is trying to get people motivated to show up.

[JPhillips]

There aren't a lot of persuadable voters, but in this environment even one percent of the electorate in one state may be enough to swing the election. I know national campaigns are more likely to try and sway voters than they were.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But isn't that the main focus of campaigns? Getting your people to turn out while suppressing the other sides turnout is campaigning. Changing people's mind is always there and nice to think about, but not what really makes campaign's successful. It is trying to get people motivated to show up.

Not traditionally, IMO that's much more of a fairly modern construct (though we could certainly debate when it became the only real function).

I suspect that the 24 hour news cycle played a huge role

(we can skip any debate over that choice of phrase, I know it ain't "news", I'll happily stipulate it as just a convenient euphemism to identify when I meant)

[Brian Swartz]

I think campaigning still has an impact. The number of persuadable voters isn't most of the electorate, but's it's a significant number and many of them just vote based on 'feeling'. If one candidate spent more time in your area, or you see more people talking about them postively versus the others ... a slight puff of breeze can push you one way or the other.

I don't think that's good. I do think it's real, though I have no hard data to back it up and I think it would be very hard to acquire that one way or another.

There's a non-trivial amount of people who just plain don't consume news media. And yeah, a lot of them don't vote ... but some of them do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think campaigning still has an impact. The number of persuadable voters isn't most of the electorate, but's it's a significant number and many of them just vote based on 'feeling'. If one candidate spent more time in your area, or you see more people talking about them postively versus the others ... a slight puff of breeze can push you one way or the other.

I don't think that's good. I do think it's real, though I have no hard data to back it up and I think it would be very hard to acquire that one way or another.

There's a non-trivial amount of people who just plain don't consume news media. And yeah, a lot of them don't vote ... but some of them do.

In 2022, less than 20% of congressional races had a final margin below 10%, only 9% of races were within 5% margin.

While I don't see nearly as much stuff as I used to, I haven't seen anything in years that suggests anything other than get out the vote stuff actually matters to even move 1% of a vote. And the least effective thing of all is the fool's errand of hoping anyone does that "talking positively", no, you want to move the needle at all then you hope your opponent generates negative conversation. People, en masse, vote against rather than for, and those are also the ones with the best hope of getting them to show up.

Very few candidates are all that bright when it comes to things like campaigning or specifically campaign spending (tho frankly I'm not sure those qualifiers are required, the statement holds pretty well by itself afaic), they typically go with what their high paid handlers tell them to do ... and those handlers by a vast majority have no interest greater than generating revenue for themselves. They want to win, sure, but that's really more to serve to create future jobs than anything else.

Ultimately, my realism rant aside, where we disagree completely is on the persuadable voters in any single election and their quantity being of significance.

[Edward64]

Take it FWIW.

I do agree vast majority of older voters have made up their minds by now (unless Joe has an "Admiral Stockdale" moment in the debates). But there are always the group of independents that haven't finalized their choice and new voters, est. swag of 5% of voters. I also believe there are some issues where the difference is so stark between the candidates but yet so important to some voters, that it'll make a difference (e.g. abortion rights, immigration, Ukraine, saving democracy etc.)

So yeah, IMO campaigning & messaging are still important, but only in those key swing states.

41 Million Members of Gen Z Will Be Eligible to Vote in 2024Â* | CIRCLE

In recent years Gen Z has been a major force in civic life, leading social movements and voting at higher rates than previous generations did when they were the same age. In the next presidential election, 40.8 million members of Gen Z (ages 18-27 in 2024) will be eligible to vote, including 8.3 million newly eligible youth (ages 18-19 in 2024) who will have aged into the electorate since the 2022 midterm election. These young people have tremendous potential to influence elections and to spur action on issues they care about—if they are adequately reached and supported by parties, campaigns, and organizations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But there are always the group of independents that haven't finalized their choice and new voters, est. swag of 5% of voters. I also believe there are some issues where the difference is so stark between the candidates but yet so important to some voters, that it'll make a difference (e.g. abortion rights, immigration, Ukraine, saving democracy etc.)

So yeah, IMO campaigning & messaging are still important, but only in those key swing states.

But if those issues are "so important" then by this point their minds should already be made up. Barring some unexpected turn, nothing in the campaigning will be dramatically different than the established history of the candidate on Topic X. AND if those issues are actual critical enough to determine how someone votes then it seems reasonable to believe those voters aren't only going to check the positions in the final stage of the campaign.

As to the new voters aging in, do you really think by that point -- in our current socialogical climate -- they haven't already picked a side? IIRC I've seen political groups forming as early as late middle school.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But if those issues are "so important" then by this point their minds should already be made up. Barring some unexpected turn, nothing in the campaigning will be dramatically different than the established history of the candidate on Topic X. AND if those issues are actual critical enough to determine how someone votes then it seems reasonable to believe those voters aren't only going to check the positions in the final stage of the campaign.

Take Israeli-Hamas war as an example. There are a bunch of HS & college kids going to vote for the very first time. Using the protests as a measure, many vote against Joe as a "protest" vote but not appreciating that Trump would likely have been harsher (certainly in rhetoric). Can they be swayed with more awareness over the next 4-5 months? or if there is some sort of ceasefire and passions recede some?

Or take immigration. Immigration is a top 5 issue for many independents. Joe is shifting to a more harsh approach and will campaign to win those votes. That shift right may be enough for those on-the-line.

As to the new voters aging in, do you really think by that point -- in our current socialogical climate -- they haven't already picked a side? IIRC I've seen political groups forming as early as late middle school.

Yes, initial sides have been taken already but I believe, as younger generation is more impressionable, they can be swayed either by having more/better awareness or having candidates shift positions, and by actually getting off their butts and voting.

The Swifties may have peaked by now (I hope so, but it is off-season). I don't see Swift telling her groupies to vote for Joe/Trump but I can easily see her telling them to get off their butts and vote. I don't know if that will actually make a difference, but I can see it how it may make a difference if the Swifties thing is still going on during NFL season.

Just so you know ... I am definitely biased to a certain degree. In my profession, there is something called "change management" which is used for big, transformational projects. Essentially, it's an organized campaign to help people accept the change (sustained & targeted communication, training etc.). I firmly believe change management works and many people in the grey area can be swayed. It depends on how well the "campaign" is designed and executed.

[Edward64]

A lot of goodness in latest yougov/CBS poll. No idea how precise it is but have to believe it conveys the general sentiment of the country.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.ne...20240609_1.pdf

There's the question about support for Joe/Trump and a category for "Somewhat strong–I might still change" at 4-5%. See pg 14/15 of 79.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

and many people in the grey area

What we disagree on, it would seem, is whether there's a significant number of people -- and especially that will vote -- IN some grey area.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What we disagree on, it would seem, is whether there's a significant number of people -- and especially that will vote -- IN some grey area.

Agree, this is the question.

[albionmoonlight]

The hardest mindset for me to get into is the not paying attention person who might vote or might not vote and if they do vote they might vote Biden or they might vote Trump.

This board has however many pages of discussion dedicated to politics. We are steeped in it. And however one comes out, I understand that mindset.

But the election will be decided, in large part, by a few thousand people in the Midwest who couldn't name the Speaker of the House or more than two Supreme Court justices.

I just have no idea how those people think (other than to be a little jealous of them:-))

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The hardest mindset for me to get into is the not paying attention person who might vote or might not vote and if they do vote they might vote Biden or they might vote Trump.

I feel the same. I feel pretty disconnected from the news and politics compared to some/most of the folks I know, and yet if you look at the polls regarding how informed the typical voter is, it seems like the typical voter isn't paying any attention at all & I can' event fathom how that is possible in this environemnt. Literally everybody I know and interact with is apaprently more informed than the 'average' voter & I can't get in that mindset because I don't even know how it's possible.

[JPhillips]

Polling shows a decent percentage of folks are convinced it won't be Trump and/or Biden in November. At some point they have to see reality and then which way do they break?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Polling shows a decent percentage of folks are convinced it won't be Trump and/or Biden in November. At some point they have to see reality and then which way do they break?

This was a few months back but I saw someone (maybe Nate Silver) point out that at their ages, there was like a 15% chance that one of them would not make it to the election by either dying or having a debilitating health issue.

You're dealing with people who have top tier health care but still, things can go south in a hurry at those ages.

[RainMaker]

Not a political strategist but torching your electoral chances for this guy and then having him stab you in the back seems like a really bad plan.

BREAKING: Netanyahu attacks the Biden administration in a new video: "I told Secretary Blinken it's inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel" pic.twitter.com/uAZ7RawPz3

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 18, 2024

[Edward64]

Nice.

But both sides give out pork. Thinking the most recent pork I got was from Trump's tax reduction. And before that was Obamacare. I'm not sure I got any pork (of significance) from Joe.

Just a moment...

The latest forecast from the Congressional Budget Office is up from its estimate of $1.6 trillion earlier this year. Four main things are driving that $400 billion increase, CBO said — citing President Joe Biden’s student loan relief policies as the No. 1 cause of the bigger gap between the amount of money flowing into federal coffers and cash going out this year.

New student loan policies will cost about $145 billion during the current fiscal year, which runs through September, CBO predicted. That includes higher subsidies for student loans and the Biden administration’s plan to reduce balances for many borrowers.

The budget office also increased its longer-term deficit forecast, predicting that the budget gap will be $24 trillion over the next decade. That's an increase of $2.1 trillion from its estimate earlier this year. Bills enacted in recent months — including the $95 billion foreign aid package Congress cleared in April for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — are the single largest driver of that multi-year growth in the budget gap, adding $1.6 trillion in projected deficits.

Among other drivers of the bigger projected deficit, spending is also projected to be about $50 billion higher during the current fiscal year because Medicaid payments are exceeding earlier estimates.

Another $70 billion of the increased deficit projection for this year is attributed to delays following recent bank failures, since the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation isn’t recovering payments as quickly as expected.

[JPhillips]

Defining the ACA as pork is silly. Not every expenditure is pork.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Defining the ACA as pork is silly. Not every expenditure is pork.

I'll just go to wiki as my starting point.

I'd say the majority of stuff can fall under the category of pork. But some pork are definitely bigger than others.

Pork barrel - Wikipedia

Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to direct spending to a representative's district.

Typically, "pork" involves national funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

[Edward64]

I guess below is the appropriate diplomatic response but IMO pretty weak.

IMO Joe should challenge Bibi and say to the effect ... "the US government & US citizens have shown continued support for Israel including redirecting domestic priorities (and maybe also ... increasing our debt) for Israel's defense. We welcome some specifics on what Bibi claims was withheld and look forward to responding".

Just a moment...

President Biden's top advisers were enraged by the video — a message U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein delivered personally to Netanyahu in a meeting hours after it was published, two U.S. and Israeli sources say. Then the White House decided to go a step farther by canceling Thursday's meeting.

Driving the news: Speaking in English, Netanyahu declared in the video that it was "inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel."

In public, the White House expressed bafflement. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre noted that only one weapons shipment had been paused since the war began, while billions of dollars of weapons had flowed unimpeded. "We genuinely do not know what he is talking about," she said.

In private, Biden's team was angry and shocked by Netanyahu's ingratitude, according to one U.S. official.

If I had to guess, I'd say Bibi was talking about the months before Congress finally decided to pass the Ukraine-Israel-Taiwan bill. Arguably, a stand alone Israel bill would have flown through Congress.

[RainMaker]

Democratic leadership invited him to cut a campaign speech for Trump in Congress.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In the same quoted summary, the U.S. equivalent of Baghdad Bob noted that a weapons shipment was held up AND claimed to not know what Bibi was talking about.

You can't really write comedy like comes out of the WH these days.

[Passacaglia]

Typically, "pork" involves national funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

"Concentrated in a particular area" is doing a lot of work there to lump ACA and student loan cancellation in there. I think of pork as the first definition, that it's localized in a representative's district. Sure, an expanded definition is fine, but when you take a broad interpretation of that definition, it seems more like "any spending that doesn't benefit everyone" which seems kind of like all of it?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

"Concentrated in a particular area" is doing a lot of work there to lump ACA and student loan cancellation in there. I think of pork as the first definition, that it's localized in a representative's district. Sure, an expanded definition is fine, but when you take a broad interpretation of that definition, it seems more like "any spending that doesn't benefit everyone" which seems kind of like all of it?

This is fair push back and I considered it even before your rebuttal. But here’s my logic …

IMO Trump tax cuts was pork for big businesses and rich people. Minions benefited for sure (source: me) but relatively speaking, not that much.

Also IMO student loan cancellation was some pork (some because apparently Joe fixed some legit mistakes, and I’m okay with that).

If one accepts that those tax cuts & student debt cancellation were pork (and I do), that means ‘localized in representative’s district’ is not relevant to the definition of pork. And therefore, I did take the ‘broad definition’ as you indicated.

If you do not accept that tax cuts & student debt cancellation were pork, then I understand your POV.

[RainMaker]

Presidency looking rough but Dems seem to be crushing it in the Senate races. Have a feeling that we'll see a 50/50 split in the Senate so Presidency will matter a lot.

NEW Emerson swing state polls (B+) 6/13-6/18

President
AZ: 🟥 Trump +4
NV: 🟥 Trump +3
WI: 🟥 Trump +3
PA: 🟥 Trump +2
MI: 🟥 Trump +1
MN: 🟨 TIED

US Senate
AZ: 🟦 Gallego +4
NV: 🟦 Rosen +12
WI: 🟦 Baldwin +2
PA: 🟦 Casey +6
MI: 🟦 Slotkin +4
MN: 🟦 Klobuchar +11

— umichvoter 🏳️‍🌈 (@umichvoter) June 20, 2024

📊 MONTANA GE: @POStrategies (R internal)

Senate
🟦*Tester: 46%
🟥 Sheehy: 46%
🟩 Downey: 2%
🟪 Daoud: 2%
—
President
🟥 Trump: 57%
🟦 Biden: 37%
🟪 Other: 2%
—
Governor
🟥*Gianforte: 54%
🟦 Busse: 33%
🟪 Leib: 5%
—
Attorney General
🟥*Knudsen: 55%
🟦 Alke: 33%
—
#139… pic.twitter.com/Fk0XaN2Ija

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) June 20, 2024

[RainMaker]

I know they've gutted the RNC and such but Trump's campaign seems way more competently run than his previous campaigns. His flip on both Bitcoin and TikTok were smart moves when races in some states will come down to 20,000 voters or whatever.

It's an incredibly low bar but picking these small pockets of voters and making them happy might be the difference. Especially when there is no downside to doing it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

where we disagree completely is on the persuadable voters in any single election and their quantity being of significance.

That's something that we have harder data on. You're right that there are a lot of one-sided congressional races, but where this matters is the closer ones of course; presidential races being among the ones that tend to be close esp. in recent cycles, but a shift of even 5% of House or Senate races has a big difference in most congressional makeups, governor's races matter, etc. Famously, in the 2016 election, almost 1 in 8 were undecided shortly before voting day. It's usually smaller than that, and it's different for different races and all of those factors matter, but there's a reason why major news stories shortly before elections can be such a big concern - because they can and do alter how people vote and if they vote.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I feel pretty disconnected from the news and politics compared to some/most of the folks I know, and yet if you look at the polls regarding how informed the typical voter is, it seems like the typical voter isn't paying any attention at all & I can' event fathom how that is possible in this environemnt. Literally everybody I know and interact with is apaprently more informed than the 'average' voter & I can't get in that mindset because I don't even know how it's possible.

I don't have as much contact with it recently, but in '16 the very typical job I was working at had a number of people not making up their mind till literally the day before. Some of them made their choice based on some statement of a candidate they'd read about from months before and decided it made them acceptable/unacceptable. I had people asking me what was going on with Trump's impeachment when it happened, cause they vaguely heard about it and wanted to know how serious it was/what the reasons were/etc.

There are a lot of people like this who vote. Politics is on the very periphery of their thinking. Most of the time they're more concerned about their groceries, vehicles, jobs, their kids youth sports programs/education, etc. and don't make a clear connection from those things to specific politicians or policies in many cases. They just don't spend the energy/mental bandwidth on the 'horse race', they don't vote in local elections, they vote once every 2-4 years and halfway tune in the weeks or even days before an election, get a few general impressions to add to what they've heard here and there, and pull that lever.

[JPhillips]

I can't believe we're actually going to pretend that an exemption for tips is at all workable. How are tips defined? Wouldn't my roofer just ask for X in tips as payment?

[Edward64]

A Foxnews poll. Somewhat of a welcome surprise

Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May | Fox News

Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May

President Biden is the frontrunner in a hypothetical matchup against former President Trump for the first time since October, as positive views of the economy inch up — hitting their highest level thus far in the Biden presidency, according to a new Fox News national survey.

There was also a 4-point shift in the expanded ballot. When other potential candidates are included, Biden tops Trump by 1 point (43%-42%), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. receives 10% and Cornel West and Jill Stein get 2% each. Last month, Trump was ahead of Biden by 3 points (43%-40%).

And regarding independents

The key is that Independents favor Biden by 9 points, a shift from May when they preferred Trump by 2 points. While equal numbers of Independents say leadership (59%) and integrity (58%) are extremely important to their vote decision, they are more likely to say Biden has integrity by 23 points compared to Trump being a strong leader by only 11.

[Edward64]

RFK did not make the cut for the Jun 27 debate.

A little disappointing, he would have spiced things up a little. I hope he stays in though and maybe make the Sep debate, but article said he was hurting for money.

[Lathum]

https://time.com/6990520/donald-trum...deral-filings/

[RainMaker]

I think RFK not making the debates is probably good for him. The more he talks and the more people know about him, the worse it is for him. He's better off riding the unpopularity of the other two with people thinking he has some semblance to his Dad.

[Ksyrup]

Apparently Trump said Joan Rivers voted for him in 2016. She died in 2014. So... is this yet another example of GOP voter fraud?

[Atocep]

Neil Friske arrest: Michigan state representative held after chasing adult dancer with a gun.

The incident is weird. The campaign response is an example of how everyone on the right is just trying to imitate Trump.

[GrantDawg]

I really would like to see a police report on that. It sounds even from that article that he was chasing a dancer he had a dispute with and he also had a gun on him, not like he was chasing her down with a gun drawn which is obviously a whole level up. Of course, the fact he was at an exotic dance club at all is the height of hyprocracy, considering his extreme right-wing religious beliefs. Distracting by making it an attack on the Second amendment really is an evil genius level spin.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[sovereignstar v2]

Sounds like a plot of a 90s movie with Burt Reynolds and Demi Moore....

[Ksyrup]

Does anyone know what the calculus/optics are for the debate choices they give and why you want one over the other? They did a coin flip for first choice, Biden won, and he chose podium positioning over choosing order of final statement. He choose the right podium.

Is that a proven thing, like being on the right side is some sort of sign that you're "right" or is positioning preferred by viewers? Or is it simply that they chose one over the other because choosing to go last on the closing statements is worth so little because no one expects people to still be tuned in at the end (or that they'll consume the debate altogether through soundbites so the actual debate format doesn't matter?).

I don't even plan on watching - it's not like I don't already have my mind made up, and isn't it the same night as the NBA draft? - but hearing about the coin flip this morning piqued my interest in the decision-making.