Harris relents on muting debate microphones

[durangodawood]

Debates are not just about ideas. Nor is writing.

What else are you looking for in the debates?

 

[dzheremi]

I could take Trump a lot more seriously if his 'sources' for any of his claims were anything more substantial than "Everybody knows", "People tell me", "The top economists say", and so on. All these phrases are basically the politician's equivalent of "Trust me, bro", which, no, I don't think I will.

And I could take Harris a lot more seriously if it didn't feel like she was primarily using the debate to point out Trump's personality flaws (which are obvious to everyone who is not already 100% on the Trump train) and previous instances of making far-out claims, and instead focused more on how it is that her policy ideas directly contradict what is being claimed about them (e.g., "It has been claimed by Trump that I a 'Marxist' because of who my father is, but would a Marxist propose ________ [idea that obviously runs counter to Marxist thought]?"). There was instead a very noticeable streak of 'mean girl'-ish eye-rolling, which believe me, when it comes to dealing with Trump I totally get it (I couldn't even finish watching the debate because I didn't want to risk my eyes rolling out of their sockets from the excessive amount of eye-rolling I myself was doing), but which I don't think did anything to truly provide an answer to the claims of Trump and his team that she really doesn't have a platform. In other words, if it is so obvious that Trump is peddling untruths and half-truths, answering with whole truths is better than standing there with a look on your face like he just passed wind and is denying it, which is what it seemed like she was doing throughout much of the debate that I saw. We get it: he's not good, but why are you someone anyone should vote for? Because you're not him? I'm not him, either -- maybe I should be president!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I could take Trump a lot more seriously if his 'sources' for any of his claims were anything more substantial than "Everybody knows", "People tell me", "The top economists say", and so on. All these phrases are basically the politician's equivalent of "Trust me, bro", which, no, I don't think I will.

And I could take Harris a lot more seriously if it didn't feel like she was primarily using the debate to point out Trump's personality flaws (which are obvious to everyone who is not already 100% on the Trump train) and previous instances of making far-out claims,

They are legion. You and I and most of the posters on this section of CF pay a lot of attention to politics and current events. Unfortunately there are plenty of people, even voters, who have not paid attention to any of it yet. (I was one of them for several election cycles. Only paying enough attention to pick and cast a primary ballot and then staying away from it until fall.) The MSM tends to "normalize" the crazy* things he says. A wild rant about electrocutions and sharks becomes something like "Trump discussed the perils of vehicle electrification". They may remember the crazy times of his last year, but given the general craziness and societal anxiety, the extent to which he made that aspect worse may be lost. (Who wants to remember that anyway?)

For those voters, the ones who haven't necessarily decided whom to vote for or whether to vote, introducing herself, demonstrating that she is more "presidential" than the ex-president, and sharing a few basic plans were the most important goals to make, and she did.

and instead focused more on how it is that her policy ideas directly contradict what is being claimed about them (e.g., "It has been claimed by Trump that I a 'Marxist' because of who my father is, but would a Marxist propose ________ [idea that obviously runs counter to Marxist thought]?").

It was probably easier to talk about her own (non-Marxist) economic proposals (like a small business start up tax credit), than to try explaining how her father is a post-Keynesian economist which is not Marxist.

There was instead a very noticeable streak of 'mean girl'-ish eye-rolling, which believe me, when it comes to dealing with Trump I totally get it (I couldn't even finish watching the debate because I didn't want to risk my eyes rolling out of their sockets from the excessive amount of eye-rolling I myself was doing), but which I don't think did anything to truly provide an answer to the claims of Trump and his team that she really doesn't have a platform. In other words, if it is so obvious that Trump is peddling untruths and half-truths, answering with whole truths is better than standing there with a look on your face like he just passed wind and is denying it, which is what it seemed like she was doing throughout much of the debate that I saw.

It turns out that having "competing truths", even when one is false, doesn't help much in enforcing reality. ("Fact checking" is largely useless.) She did counter some of his lies about her and needed to do that, but countering his lies about external facts or his record or plans is not going to get very far in the "convincing game". In general it is far better to attack his motivations, etc.

We get it: he's not good, but why are you someone anyone should vote for? Because you're not him? I'm not him, either -- maybe I should be president!

She spent about 1/3 of her time making arguments for her plans, etc. and the rest demonstrating how more fit she was for office. If there are voters concerned that a woman can hold up to a blustering autocrat, she gave them a demonstration with one right there on stage with her.

*not a clinical asssessment

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I could take Trump a lot more seriously if his 'sources' for any of his claims were anything more substantial than "Everybody knows", "People tell me", "The top economists say", and so on. All these phrases are basically the politician's equivalent of "Trust me, bro", which, no, I don't think I will.

In some cases, yes. They're falsehoods that politicians are trying to substantiate by "appealing to a non-specific authority".

In other cases, that's just the way some people talk (in non-literals and figures of speech), and pedantically fact checking those tends to erode confidence in the fact checkers in some peoples' eyes.


...because it comes off looking like:

"Everyone was talking about how great that new episode was last night"
Our rating: False. Neilson records show that only 27% of households watched the new episode last night, and of them, only half said they liked it

"I had deal with, like, a million emails this morning"
Our rating: False. Records show that Steve only received 1,562 emails this morning

 

[dzheremi]

In some cases, yes. They're falsehoods that politicians are trying to substantiate by "appealing to a non-specific authority".

In other cases, that's just the way some people talk (in non-literals and figures of speech), and pedantically fact checking those tends to erode confidence in the fact checkers in some peoples' eyes.


...because it comes off looking like:

"Everyone was talking about how great that new episode was last night"
Our rating: False. Neilson records show that only 27% of households watched the new episode last night, and of them, only half said they liked it

"I had deal with, like, a million emails this morning"
Our rating: False. Records show that Steve only received 1,562 emails this morning

If the things he is talking about are as inconsequential as those examples, then sure, but from what I saw, this was his method of trying to substantiate or rationalize his policy positions. 'Professional fact-checkers' aside, that doesn't cut it with me. I need something more than "Everybody knows" that XYZ is the case, therefore Trump's approach to whatever the topic is is the one that I should be supporting. I don't accept that from Kamala or anyone else on the other side, either (though she didn't do that in the portion of the debate that I watched before deciding to turn it off).

 

[durangodawood]

.....We get it: he's not good, but why are you someone anyone should vote for? Because you're not him? I'm not him, either -- maybe I should be president!

I would definitely vote you for president over Donald Trump on that basis.

 

[zippy2006]

I could take Trump a lot more seriously if his 'sources' for any of his claims were anything more substantial than "Everybody knows", "People tell me", "The top economists say", and so on. All these phrases are basically the politician's equivalent of "Trust me, bro", which, no, I don't think I will.

And I could take Harris a lot more seriously if it didn't feel like she was primarily using the debate to point out Trump's personality flaws (which are obvious to everyone who is not already 100% on the Trump train) and previous instances of making far-out claims, and instead focused more on how it is that her policy ideas directly contradict what is being claimed about them (e.g., "It has been claimed by Trump that I a 'Marxist' because of who my father is, but would a Marxist propose ________ [idea that obviously runs counter to Marxist thought]?"). There was instead a very noticeable streak of 'mean girl'-ish eye-rolling, which believe me, when it comes to dealing with Trump I totally get it (I couldn't even finish watching the debate because I didn't want to risk my eyes rolling out of their sockets from the excessive amount of eye-rolling I myself was doing), but which I don't think did anything to truly provide an answer to the claims of Trump and his team that she really doesn't have a platform. In other words, if it is so obvious that Trump is peddling untruths and half-truths, answering with whole truths is better than standing there with a look on your face like he just passed wind and is denying it, which is what it seemed like she was doing throughout much of the debate that I saw. We get it: he's not good, but why are you someone anyone should vote for? Because you're not him? I'm not him, either -- maybe I should be president!

Yep. Everything is either ad hominem or its inverse, an argument from the candidate's authority. There are no real arguments on offer. It's internet culture come to Washington.

 

[eleos1954]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/04/harris-trump-debate-muted-microphones-00177420

The vice president made an unsuccessful push to have Donald Trump’s microphone left on when it wasn’t the former president’s turn to speak.

Vice President Kamala Harris agreed to ABC News’ rules, relenting on her campaign’s demand that both candidates’ microphones be unmuted for all 90 minutes they are on stage.

In a letter to the network, Harris’ senior adviser for communications Brian Fallon wrote that he believed the format “fundamentally disadvantaged” the vice president, denying the former prosecutor the opportunity to fully cross-examine the GOP nominee, according to a person familiar with the missive.

The muted mic, Fallon wrote, “will serve to shield Donald Trump from direct exchanges with the Vice President. We suspect this is the primary reason for his campaign’s insistence on muted microphones.”


It's an odd turn of events. The reason they went to muted mics before was because of Trump's non-stop interruptions in the 2020 debates and Biden's team was asking for it, while Trump's team was criticizing the muted mic rule claiming it was "tilting it in favor of Biden"

Now they seem to have switched positions, Trump wants them muted, and Kamala wants them unmuted.


Perhaps I'm a tad cynical, but am I the only one who thinks that the argument and party-switch on the "muted vs. unmuted mics" has nothing to do with decorum (pertaining to interruptions) and/or "being able to cross-examine the opponent", and has everything to do with Kamala wanting to make sure there's ample opportunities to use her "I'm speaking" catchphrase that people are wearing on t-shirts now (and Trump not wanting her to be able to use it).

Quite honestly I like the muted microphones ... it is often difficult for a person to not interrupt ... so it limits that from happening which I think is a good thing.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I could take Trump a lot more seriously if his 'sources' for any of his claims were anything more substantial than "Everybody knows", "People tell me", "The top economists say", and so on. All these phrases are basically the politician's equivalent of "Trust me, bro", which, no, I don't think I will.

And I could take Harris a lot more seriously if it didn't feel like she was primarily using the debate to point out Trump's personality flaws (which are obvious to everyone who is not already 100% on the Trump train) and previous instances of making far-out claims, and instead focused more on how it is that her policy ideas directly contradict what is being claimed about them (e.g., "It has been claimed by Trump that I a 'Marxist' because of who my father is, but would a Marxist propose ________ [idea that obviously runs counter to Marxist thought]?"). There was instead a very noticeable streak of 'mean girl'-ish eye-rolling, which believe me, when it comes to dealing with Trump I totally get it (I couldn't even finish watching the debate because I didn't want to risk my eyes rolling out of their sockets from the excessive amount of eye-rolling I myself was doing), but which I don't think did anything to truly provide an answer to the claims of Trump and his team that she really doesn't have a platform. In other words, if it is so obvious that Trump is peddling untruths and half-truths, answering with whole truths is better than standing there with a look on your face like he just passed wind and is denying it, which is what it seemed like she was doing throughout much of the debate that I saw. We get it: he's not good, but why are you someone anyone should vote for? Because you're not him? I'm not him, either -- maybe I should be president!

I will vote for you over Harris.

 

[dzheremi]

I will vote for you over Harris.

Alright! I'm up to two!

 

[RileyG]

Alright! I'm up to two!

And third! Me too

 

[dzheremi]

Man...no wonder politicians get entranced by the lure of having all these people supporting them! This feels great!

And don't worry, friends: I have heard your concerns and want to reassure that I too am against those things that everyone dislikes, and for those things that everyone likes. And I believe in America first, not fourth, so that's why I will make it a priority to convince Afghanistan, Albania, and Algeria to change their names to something else that will fittingly place them after us in alphabetized lists of the world's sovereign nations.

 

[durangodawood]

Man...no wonder politicians get entranced by the lure of having all these people supporting them! This feels great!

And don't worry, friends: I have heard your concerns and want to reassure that I too am against those things that everyone dislikes, and for those things that everyone likes. And I believe in America first, not fourth, so that's why I will make it a priority to convince Afghanistan, Albania, and Algeria to change their names to something else that will fittingly place them after us in alphabetized lists of the world's sovereign nations.

If diplomacy fails we could change our own name to AAAmerica, like companies used to to back when we had "phone books".

 

[dzheremi]

If diplomacy fails we could change our own name to AAAmerica, like companies used to to back when we had "phone books".

AAAmerica. I like that. It conveys the idea that America is always there to help any of those loser countries get back on 'the road', but also that it's gonna cos 'em, and that we'll get around to it when we get around to it, so calm down. We're busy inventing new foods to put in bowl form and finding new ways to say the ABCs so that our dull, dull children don't become confused thinking that "Elemenopee" is the name of a letter.

Say, would you like a cabinet position? I could use a Minister of Snappy Names.

 

[zippy2006]

Declared, "you haven't answered the question, so before we move on, the record will show you didn't answer the question, are you sure you don't want to answer?"

Even if it gives the perception of the moderator "overpowering" the candidate, so be it. The moderators are often times members of the media/press (who act as a quasi-check on the power of government). It's their job to ask tough questions and demand answers (and expose people when they don't give answers)

Now that I have watched some/enough of the debate, I think my points were borne out. The moderators asserted their authority in a way that was partisan and unhelpful. The CNN moderators were much better.

This was particularly clear in the woman moderator's first "fact check" where she just declared on her own authority that Trump is wrong about the problematic "partial birth abortion" sort of phenomena that has been occurring for some time. Where did the woman receive such authority as the mouthpiece of truth? I don't even know her name! Muir, on the other hand, gave an authority for the second fact check, which was much more appropriate. But in any case, having the moderators climb into the ring and start wrestling is never a good idea, and the possibility that they can do it without bias is probably non-existent.