From
Holly MathNerd's Substack:
If Trump has the sense to refuse another debate and simply run ads from this one, he will probably win decisively. He should release a statement referring to the Axios report in which Biden staffers describe Biden as only cognizant from 10am to 4pm and stating simply: “President Trump’s commitment to fair play precludes him from debating President Biden after sundown. If President Biden’s team would like to schedule a daytime debate to permit him to participate during his hours of best cognizance, we are amenable to that.” It would have the predictable seismic effect without risking any need to actually have a second debate.
More hot takes:
Politico cited this "
research" as concluding that
President Biden was hurt badly by the debate, but Donald Trump didn’t benefit on any measure, except the vote.
This after roughly 100% of the MSM reported the debate as a kind of bad night for the incumbent, but one marked primarily by a million unidentified lies from the ex-President. To be fair, it was hard to tell whether most of the gibberish emitted from the incumbent could be fairly described as a lie, or even an opinion, but it would have been reassuring if the MSM had been capable of criticizing the startling claims that no servicemen had died under the incumbent's watch, and that the Border Patrol supports his policies. Luckily, however, his poor debate performance affected nothing but the "vote"--apparently to be distinguished from "the official ballot count we plan to announce later."
5 comments:
Couple random thoughts.
Biden's assertion that no servicemen died during his term was an especially despicable lie sic by Biden. That the news personalities in the main let that slide is their own dishonesty, separate from, if parallel to, Biden's dishonesty.
Biden's claim that the Border Patrol supports him/his policies actually is partially correct. The management team of one of the border-related unions (I don't recall if it was the Border Patrol in particular) did actually endorse Biden. It was the union rank and file who came out against him.
To be clear on a related matter, Biden emitted not a syllable of gibberish during the debate; he was entirely coherent and considered in everything he said, including his odd phrasing, deliberately done dictions, and his strategically placed pauses for thought (not losses of trains of thought). His supporters say he was fine; thus it must be so.
From that, his words were carefully and deliberately done lies in all their altered glory. Rule No. 4.
Eric Hines
The Border Patrol Union was going public as early as the night of the debate itself, saying it had never supported him and would never support him.
Today I'm seeing a lot of "one bad night" spin, evidently set in motion by former Pres. Obama's jolly statement to the effect that anyone can have one. For instance, one 90-minute non-stop excruciating embarrassment shouldn't undermine four fabulous years, which was today's spin. Even granting that the four years haven't been a disaster and a disgrace, surely the question is whether that horrifying 90 minutes won't convince an awful lot of people that, whatever happened in the last 4 years, the next 4 are looking pretty iffy. Dementia generally gets worse, not better.
The "vote" is the entire point of the debate. We don't make policy from debate but from legislation and orders, though debates may suggest to us where the latter will go.
So if "only" the vote is affected, how is that a criticism? What did they expect?
Yes, that's been befuddling readers all week. How desperate were they for good news to pull out of that disaster, that they'd include such a boner line in their summary? And Politico quoted it with a straight face and without comment. "Except for losing the election, the campaign was a roaring success!"
Post a Comment