Kerry is the ultimate beta male pussy. He is still a pussy today. Glad he will never be our pres...

Alright, I'll pivot and say screw the polls!

The Presidential Debates Will Almost Surely Decide the Election

Beginning with the televised debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the perceived winner of the presidential debates has gone on to occupy the White House.

Barring some unforeseen event, such as a serious terrorist attack at home, the decisive event that will determine who wins the 2016 presidential election is almost certainly going to be the series of debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. beginning on September 26 at New York’s Hofstra University.

Since 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon first met in Chicago, no other single moment has been more important in affecting the outcome of our elections. For good or ill, television’s laser-like eye reveals the candidates’ fitness for the presidency—their knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, their ability to answer reporters’ probing questions, their coolness under fire, the image they project—all tell voters which person should occupy the Oval Office.

History tells us so. Vice President Richard Nixon entered a Chicago television studio on Sept. 26, 1960, confident that he could defeat Sen. Kennedy. After all, he had proven himself a master of television, which was already showing its great ability to affect American politics.

When he was a candidate for vice president in 1952, television had saved his career when a potential scandal—the existence of a private fund created by businessmen to defray his travel and other expenses—threatened his place on the Republican ticket. Party officials wanted him to leave and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was leaning in that direction when Nixon decided to take his fate in his own hands. The result was the famous “Checkers Speech” when Nixon, with adoring wife Pat looking on bravely, shrewdly crafted a narrative every American could believe and take pride in. He was everyman: veteran of the Pacific war (“I was just there when the bombs were falling”); devoted husband (“Pat doesn’t have a mink coat… but I tell her she looks good in anything”); father of two darling daughters; public servant barely getting by on his government salary. And borrowing a tactic from FDR, he made his dog Checkers the most famous cocker spaniel in America. In closing, he urged Republicans to write or wire their national committee about whether he should stay or go.

The response was overwhelmingly positive and Nixon, at 39, eventually became the second youngest vice president in history. So he had nothing to fear about debating John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, he was not at his best that September night. Campaigning in North Carolina earlier, he had banged his knee on a car door, ignored the continuing discomfort and wound up in Walter Reed Hospital with an infection that took him from the campaign for several weeks. After recovering, he rushed to catch up, caught a cold, which he ignored, and entered the television studio underweight, pale, and feverish. He looked terrible, especially when contrasted with Sen. Kennedy, who was tanned and rested. Immediately, his advantage as the experienced vice president disappeared, replaced by a man obviously nervous, perspiring, seemingly unready for the presidency.

Narrowly defeated by Kennedy, Nixon learned from his mistakes. As the Republican presidential nominee in 1968, Nixon chose not to debate his Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Instead, under the tutelage of media guru Roger Ailes, he used television brilliantly, appearing in a series of campaign appearance dubbed “the man in the arena,” in which Nixon answered softball questions from friendly audiences. He won. Four years later, running for re-election, he rejected Sen. George McGovern’s call for a debate and never again subjected himself to that kind of format.

Taking office when Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford—the first unelected vice president to succeed to the presidency—could not avoid a debate in the post-Watergate America of 1976. It proved to be his undoing. Stung by his pardon of Richard Nixon and faced with rising inflation and a weak economy, Ford stumbled badly during his second debate with Gov. Jimmy Carter. Discussing Soviet-American relations, he remarked that Russia did not dominate Eastern Europe and never would “under a Ford administration.” Immediately recognizing Ford’s gaffe, Carter, grinning like the Cheshire cat, said that the president’s statement would surprise Polish and Czech Americans whose relatives lived behind the Iron Curtain. In the days that followed, Ford tried to clarify his remarks but the damage was done. Carter was on his way to the White House.

And so it went in succeeding elections—whoever won the debate won the presidency. Political junkies will recall those moments. The year 1988: Michael Dukakis’s tepid response when asked if he would “favor an irrevocable death penalty” for a man who had brutally raped and murdered his wife, Kitty. “No, I don’t, Bernard,” he replied softly to CNN’s Bernard Shaw. “And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all my life.” The journalist Roger Simon later recalled the reactions of his colleagues in the press room: “He’s through.” “That’s all she wrote.” “Get the hook.” They were right: Dukakis, now appearing to be a bloodless technocrat, lost to George H.W. Bush.

In 1992 it was Bush’s turn to stumble. Debating Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, Bush seemed indifferent to a questioner from the audience who had been harmed by the recession. The cameras caught him looking at his watch (he later admitted thinking, “only 10 more minutes of this crap”). Clinton immediately sensed an opportunity and moved closer to the woman, seeking more information about how she was faring in hard times. Clinton’s empathy won the night and the presidency.

But it’s the 1980 campaign that bears the closest resemblance to today’s Clinton-Trump contest. President Jimmy Carter, badly weakened by economic woes and his failure to win the release of the American hostages held captive by the Iranians for almost a year, faced Gov. Ronald Reagan, whom many thought too conservative and hawkish to become president. Carter went further: imitating LBJ’s attacks on his 1964 opponent Barry Goldwater, he painted Reagan as reckless and dangerous, his anti-Russian mania a threat to national security: “Reagan will lead us into war,” Carter claimed as the campaign drew to a close. Carter’s vitriolic rhetoric created another problem for the beleaguered president: The press began to attack him as an extremist, the embodiment of “meanness.”

The turning point came during Carter and Reagan’s debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 28, 1980. As the two men went to their podiums, Carter aide Vernon Jordan became immediately alarmed. “I didn’t like what I saw,” Jordan later recalled. “Reagan looked relaxed, smiling, robust; the President, erect, lips tight, looking like a coiled spring… an over-trained boxer, too ready for the bout.” Each time Carter hurled a verbal barb, Reagan chuckled, and with a gentle toss of the head, remarked, “There you go again.” Reagan’s affability did not fit the image Carter had tried to create.

Later, Carter complained that Reagan, the former B-movie actor, had “memorized” his best “lines, and he pushes a button and they come out.” He was confident that “the issues are more important than the performance.” He was wrong, as the Reagan landslide shortly proved.

If the history of presidential debates proves anything, it is that performance trumps issues. Time and again, Americans have elected the person who demonstrates not just intelligence but strength, stability, and some indefinable quality—empathy, perhaps, or simple humanity.

Hillary Clinton faces a unique challenge when she faces Donald Trump. He is sui generis, one of kind, unlike anyone else who has ever sought the presidency. He has no programs she can attack, only proclamations—a wall will be built, law and order will return, new jobs will appear, terrorism will be defeated—all will be achieved, as if by magic, after he takes the presidential oath. So far, that strategy has succeeded, at least in some Republican circles.

Will attacking such fiats as empty promises offered by an unqualified, even dangerous, opponent create sympathy for Trump as Carter’s attacks did for Reagan in 1980? Only if Trump borrows a page from the Reagan playbook and shrugs them off with a smile. But is he likely to do that? His behavior during the Republican debates suggests that he won’t because he is incapable of dealing quietly with anyone who strikes at the Trump brand. Vanity is his Achilles’ heel. Insulting his opponents is his style—“Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Listless Jeb,” “Crooked Hillary.”

It is thought that Trump’s unpredictability puts Clinton at a disadvantage. How does one prepare to face a man who has broken all the rules of American politics? In fact, however, Trump is very predictable. He has only one response—to insult. It is Hillary who should imitate Reagan, laugh at Trump’s attacks, and insist that her programs, not Trump’s empty promises, can improve the lives of Americans.

Of course, there is the possibility that there will be no debates this year. Late on Friday night, July 29, Trump tweeted, “As usual, Hillary and the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/Bernie. Unacceptable!” In fact, the debate schedule, created by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, has been set for almost a year. Later, Trump denied that he was trying to skip the debates, and yesterday, Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that “Donald Trump is going to participate in all three debates” and that he had been charged to oversee their arrangement. Nevertheless, Trump has warned that “certain moderators would be unacceptable, absolutely. …I will demand fair moderators.”

It’s unlikely that Trump will be able to avoid a face-off with Clinton, but he may be able to reduce the number to the one evening—Wednesday, Oct. 19, which does not conflict with football. There is even precedent for holding only one debate—1980, when Carter faced Reagan. However many do occur, it’s almost a certainty that the person who wins that debate will become the next president of the United States.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … ction.html

misterID wrote:

"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."

These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.

How does raising the minimum wage help unemployment? How does raising the minimum wage help the unemployed computer programmer that was making 65,000 per year? How does paying someone $15 per hour to ring up a .99 burrito at Taco Bell help that Tbell owner?  I think minimum wage should be $10. $15 is black hole stupid. There will be less hires if that is forced.

The current republicans have sucked. No argument here!!

mitchejw wrote:

....and if/when Trump gets elected all of these numbers will suddenly be accurate? All economics problems will be solved?

This just all sounds like someone who made up their minds 8 years ago....that nothing good could possibly happen....ever again....until a Republican is back in office.

I just don't understand any of this....

Republicans....for the last 8 years....have intentionally been doing harm to our economy. INTENTIONALLY! Shutting down the federal government...accomplishing NOTHING.

And what exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish....do you really think the unemployment rate could get down to 0? How would you define that anyway? Are we trying to get back to a time where children ages 12-18 are also employed in some form?

Again, I ask you, what the fuck do you care about the unemployment rate? How does it effect you? Who gives a shit about any of it honestly...it means nothing...other than political talking points....

Generic Republican says, "the unemployment rate is 4.9%...just think about how low it would be if a Republican were in office."

Generic Republican says, "the unemployment rate is 4.4%....just think about how low it would be if a Republican were in office."

Generic Republic says, "the unemployment rate is 7%...and those damn liberals are too lazy to get a job...."

It just never ends....it's circular logic. I honestly believe that Republicans loath public sector/government corruption, but when it comes to private corruption/collusion/monopoly...they will turn a blind eye every time.

It matters because it isn't accurate. It doesn't feel like 4.9% unemployment because it isn't.

You make the mistake of thinking the average voter is as smart as you. He should be polling 20% going by what you hear about him, but he's actually doing alright. He's telling people what they want to hear. Some of it true, some of it less true. Lies don't matter for the Hillary supporters, why would they for Trump supporters? And he's consistent. He never concedes, never stops hammering the point. People like a man that doesn't apologize. It gives an aura of certainty and strength. Our politicians know all about that, only they are limited by the conventional rules of the game. Trump isn't. He can go anywhere, say anything. Appeal to anyone.  Facts? Who cares. Politics has never been about facts. It's about perception.

I believe it. 100 million people are silent voters in the US. Trump is bringing out a lot of those, Hillary is bringing none. Probably losing a fair bit compared to Obama. That picture of her walking up the stairs is a great symbol, she's literally being propped up in every way. That's what the media don't get. People already mistrust them, so any piece on Trump will just gain him publicity. 60% of Americans don't believe the media in the last gallup. With Trump that number has likely spiked.  Who was it that said, 'Barring a dead girl or a live boy, any publicity is good publicity'? He's using their best weapon against hem. Look at those rallies, he's doing a stadium tour. And all the while the media is desperate to show that he is actually losing badly. Protesting a bit hard, no? 3 months left and they're already firing all cylinders. They're scared.

I think fear of admitting you support Trump is a very real phenomenon. Trump is crushing Hillary in anonymous polls. And think about all those people not voting. It's because they have lost faith. Donald Trump is rebuilding that faith by the day. That's more powerful than any political platform. The hardcore democrat or republican core is not deciding this election, nor is the intellectual elite. This is the time for the downtrodden, bitter and angry.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CptvTQ7VMAA2PAB.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpwbipqVMAEbgcj.jpg:large