U.S. Presidential debate predictions

Sun, 2016-09-25 11:36

Misfit

I don't like the idea that the moderators will not be fact checking during this debate, but will leave it as a free-for-all for the candidates to fact check one another instead. With a compulsive liar like Trump, it becomes a he said she said type of banter and many people will not know who to believe. Clinton's challenges of Trump's lies will come off as a mere Democratic interpretation of events rather than exposing Trump for his dishonesty. This alone can ruin the effectiveness of the debate for Clinton. So I say that moderator apathy will balance the debate in favour of Trump.

Sun, 2016-09-25 17:58

#3

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
This alone can ruin the effectiveness of the debate for Clinton.

Possibly, but the degree to which that changes anything is dependent on how many Americans are tuning in to try to learn something, and how many are tuning in to watch their team win.

Also, if Trump says that Wisconsin has more pine trees than all of Canada, should the moderator pause the debate and say "we're just going to go to commercial so that I can Google that"?

Sun, 2016-09-25 18:36

#4

Michael Moriarity

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Also, if Trump says that Wisconsin has more pine trees than all of Canada, should the moderator pause the debate and say "we're just going to go to commercial so that I can Google that"?

No, I think most people would be satisfied if the moderator only pointed out obvious lies like these.

Mon, 2016-09-26 07:52

#5

abnormal

Does anyone actually believe that Trump's supporters really care about "facts"?

[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vR6UGVCBjWzIwMg/giphy.gif[/img]

More like that here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imTzpI8_nqk

Mon, 2016-09-26 12:35

#6

Misfit

Wow!!! That's totally screwed up! I didn't know they let people like that out in general circulation.

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:18

#7

6079_Smith_W

You knew this was coming:

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:24

#8

6079_Smith_W

And for those who care:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/presidential-deba...

Wonder if they stream online.

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:27

#9

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Also, if Trump says that Wisconsin has more pine trees than all of Canada, should the moderator pause the debate and say "we're just going to go to commercial so that I can Google that"?

Bear with me for a minute, I don't know if anything like this has ever been done before, I don't want to blow your mind or anything, but maybe they could have a fact checking team in the back that can do the googling and report to the moderator via audio earpiece.

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:42

#10

Mr. Magoo

"Okay, folks, if you can all just mentally rewind to about ten minutes ago, I've just received confirmation that Canada, not Wisconsin, has more pine trees. If everyone could just redact all debate points that followed from that claim, we can continue."

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:51

#11

6079_Smith_W

Considering how many whoppers have been given a pass, and cases where journalists by some miracle have managed to catch candidates in a lie, and hold them to task, I think that scenario might be a bit over the top.

It isn't that hard a job, really. Especially with someone who has made a career on habitual deceit.

And I am talking about Donald Trump.

Mon, 2016-09-26 16:53

#12

6079_Smith_W

Considering how many whoppers have been given a pass, and cases where journalists by some miracle have managed to catch candidates in a lie, and hold them to task, I think that scenario might be a bit over the top.

It isn't that hard a job, really. Especially with someone who has made a career on habitual deceit.

And I am talking about Donald Trump.

Or maybe your point was a moral or procedural one:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updat...

Mon, 2016-09-26 17:45

#13

Mr. Magoo

I think that if we really need "real time" fact checking, it's not because one of the candidates is a habitual liar, it's because if we fact check after the debates, nobody will actually read that fact-check and correct their opinions based on it. It'll be too late

But I would actually endorse this if they were to fact check ALL claims.

"I've done more for this country than my opponent has".

"My opponent doesn't care about you the way I do".

"My opponent will lead this country down the path to ruin".

It would, actually, be kind of fun to have Maury Povich pop out and say "Based on a Wikipedia article, we've determined that that was a lie".

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2vhxfdl.jpg[/IMG]

Mon, 2016-09-26 17:56

#14

6079_Smith_W

Real Time Fact Checking.

Otherwise known as ""doing an interview".

Mon, 2016-09-26 18:22

#15

Mr. Magoo

Here's the first problem. What happens if Trump mentions Hillary's health?

The fact checkers can either speak up, and confirm once and for all that she's got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, and is unfit for office. Or, they can not speak up, and by their silence confirm once and for all that the whole sordid thing has been rigged in her favour.

Here's the second problem. Fact checking the debates serves only to perpetuate the fallacy that facts have anything to do with the debates. If Trump wins, even after his huge whopper about Wisconsin pine trees was summarily debunked, some folk will simply never be able to wrap their heads around the idea that that didn't matter one little bit. The debates aren't about what some fact-checker says is true, it's about what voters FEEL is true.

Mon, 2016-09-26 20:13

#16

6079_Smith_W

You know, if the moderators are doing their jobs I think there will be more than enough real stuff to deal with without worrying about left field stuff like space aliens and bigfoot and how many diseases Hillary is dying from, and whether they are human or lizard diseases.

Same goes for concerns about Trump bulldozing the debate.

You only have to look at the way Matt Lauer did NOT do his job (and talked over the candidate who happened to be a woman) last time the two candidates shared a stage.

Keeping order and calling bullshit is not THAT high an art.