SCBills

What do you think of Bret Weinstein? Intellectual thinker who hasn’t gone the way of Jordan Petersen. Bret was just on Chris Williamson’s podcast, where he’s a regular .. it’s worth a listen if you’re open minded.

😬

So this election is truly going to be men & married women vs unmarried women, isn’t it…

Its not just that one focus group though.. There are alot of focus groups by various political lean outlets. A lot of them portray the same narrative.. Kamala won the debate, but they didn’t hear enough from her to know where she stands & at least they know what Trump is.. and their life was better under him. It could very well be that Trump is such a known commodity that nothing about his performance mattered. Undecideds needed to be won over by Harris .. and they weren’t.

Betting markets saw Trump getting destroyed online over his debate performance resulting in a Kamala jump, but now realize everyone thinks the debate was a joke and no one was moved.

I'm so unbelievably sick of this story. Everyone involved should've handled it better. At my office, turn on WGR and we're getting a play by play of it, again, by Maddy Glab with Cameron Wolfe. Good stuff. Fun times.

He did lose. Where do you see people here stating otherwise? Politics don’t always shift based on a debate. Most recently, Trump losing his debate with Hillary in 2016. The debate is over. Now the focus is on what, if any, effect did that debate have on the electorate. Polling may pick up any trends, or lack thereof, in the next few days/weeks… but today is about focus groups: -Dems are THRILLED -R’s are angry at the moderators -Undecideds seem unmoved from their leans heading into the debate Thats all we’re really seeing today.

They didn’t need to do that. And they shouldn’t have done that. Kamala had bait ready to go and by all indications, he would’ve taken it all night. The moderators junked up the debate and in doing so, blunted her debate momentum by making it about them. Undecideds also wanted to hear what she stands for. The moderators never pushed her for substance and focused far too much on topics only those in wealthy NYC high rises & DC suburbs care about. That seems to be to her detriment as focus group after focus group are starting to portray a similar theme .. and one that’s not positive for the Harris campaign, despite her clearly coming across better than Trump on optics last night.

Already seeing lib thinkpiece articles bemoaning the litany of undecided focus groups admit Kamala won the debate but that they are leaning more towards Trump. Again, this likely means they leaned Trump but were willing to be won over by Harris. Which doesn’t seem to have happened based on snap reactions, at least. If, big if.. she loses this election, one could wonder whether the extreme moderator bias was a net negative for her given the main complaint undecideds have for her is that they still don’t know where she stands on much of anything. A substantive debate that forced her to flesh out those stances could’ve doomed her… but it also could’ve won those people over. Thats not what we got. What we got was a feel good night for those already voting for Kamala with undecideds left disappointed. And that disappointment is all due to ABC News and how they chose to handle this debate.

Well.. Pat’s wife (and from people in the know) Pat himself, are MAGA, so, there’s that. And fwiw, some people on this board aren’t ready for the Josh Allen conversation. Thankfully, like Pat, he’s not one to ever discuss his political views.

Achane sounds iffy based on reports, but as you said.. I wouldn't sleep on Wilson and Wright.

A lot of what I’m seeing today indicates that 60%ish of undecideds aren’t truly undecided. They lean Trump but are uneasy about it.

This man used to have so much drip, now look at him…

I try to be pretty open minded.. I have my views but try to call things as I see them. I’m open about my dislike of Trump and where he falls short. I’ll be honest.. nobody outside the MSNBC bubble agrees with your post here. It doesn’t mean they love Trump, it doesn’t even mean they’ll vote for him, but much of what you say here is delusional and clouded with bias.

Will be interesting to see if polling reflects this… Im voting Trump, but he very clearly lost the debate. Anyone saying he won is not being honest. The moderators were also, very clearly, a major story out of the debate. I see this sentiment from alot of independent voices today. “Trump didn’t come across well, but omg… those moderators…” I think Kamala probably could’ve got him off his game without their help. He very clearly fell for her crowd size bait like 5 minutes in. But with the moderators being so over the top, it blunts much of his poor performance.

This music thread is clearly not in sync with my tastes 😂 Current track starting off my workout playlist…

This is a separate topic - more of a political one, as opposed to moderator bias which I am discussing with the other poster. However, in relation to you question.. Trump doesn’t have a good answer on any of this. Mainly because the pro-life movement is very hardline and he needs them. But he also needs to expand his base to the undecideds. It also doesn’t help that he’s forced by the moderators to answer as to whether he supports a ban, but Kamala gets saved by the mods when pressed on if she supports any protections for the baby at all. As someone who loves politics in general as an observer… when the debate went abortion in Question 2, right after Kamala was able to put Trump on the defense over the friggin economy of all things Question 1.. I figured it would be a long night for him.

A fact check would be to point out what we’re discussing - not to blanket fact check the entire content of Trump’s comments under the guise of a fact check. But Linsey Davis is unaware of what’s going on in a few states - as it seems you were prior to an hour ago - and could not provide an accurate fact check. If you are incapable of providing context on such a nuanced topic in which Trump discussed multiple aspects of this issue, a blanket fact check with zero depth is unacceptable.

You're suddenly very concerned with the accuracy of verbiage on a complicated and nuanced topic in a debate format that allows you two minutes to discuss multiple issues at a time. This topic should be left to folks like you and I discussing what’s happening and deciding who and what we want to believe .. not being forced to digest a blanket fact check that requires this level of discourse to determine the veracity of such a claim. The fact of the matter, and the crux of Trumps point, is that under prior Minnesota law, life-saving care would have been provided that infant. Fast forward to Tim Walz changing the legislation, those babies were only given comfort care as they died. This is hardly acceptable to have Linsey Davis injecting her opinionated fact check into a live debate. And you know it.

Here’s some context on the topic. Linked below. And regardless, it was an incorrect fact check. We can discuss the nuance, but Trump wasn’t wrong & her fact check was quite literally incorrect. https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/06/under-gov-tim-walz-babies-born-alive-in-botched-abortions-were-left-to-die-then-he-removed-reporting-requirements/amp/

Linsey Davis fact check on abortion was wrong. Trump referenced letting the baby die after they’re born. This has happened 8 times in Minnesota since Tim Walz changed language in their legislation to require only comfort care to be provided to a baby that survives an abortion, instead of life-saving care.

Politically, yea. I think they’d be fairer to her than you think .. similar to the CNN debate. Also, I don’t think you know what free speech means.. not sure why you keep bringing that up in this context.

“Deal with these networks” = Don’t agree to debates/interviews with people who hate you. I forgot, there’s libs in here, and your first inclination is an authoritarian wielding of power.

Republicans need to be smarter moving forward. If they don’t blacklist ABC after this, then they deserve outcomes like we saw last night. Theres bias.. and then there’s egregious bias. We saw the latter. I won’t mince words. Last night went about as well as it could for Harris. Trump came across poorly and she never had to deviate from platitudes and attack lines. The GOP needs to take a long hard look at the political landscape and how they deal with these networks moving forward.

Well… That was an ambush. Trump took the bait and was off his game all night. Came across defensive & angry as the debate was somehow a referendum on a man who hasn’t been in office for four years. Kamala was on the offense, made very easy by the line of questioning from ABC, along with the absolutely unprofessional actions of the moderators. One of the most disgraceful performances by a news network at this level I think I’ve ever seen in my life. Republicans would be wise to blacklist ABC News from this moment forward. That said… what happened, happened.. and Trump needs to hope the news cycle moves on quick and he can get back to having the momentum he had pre-debate. Kamala didn’t do much of anything to educate voters.. nor was she ever pressed to by the moderators. But she came across far more coherent in her answers. My only critique of her is I have no idea who coached her to be so emotive with her facial cues as Trump was speaking. Extremely off-putting to anyone who isn’t predisposed to root for her. The Abdul line was classic Trump, but unfortunately the rest of the debate - for him - was him arguing with David Muir and having to deal with botched fact checks from Linsey Davis in real time. Especially egregious out the gate with the abortion fact check where Northam is on video saying that and Tim Walz did remove protections in Minnesota to save babies born alive after attempted abortions - leading to 8 documented cases of them being made comfortable as they died, as opposed to being required to be given life saving medical treatment. This is what Trump dealt with all night. But he didn’t handle it well. Remains to be seen how polling changes, if at all. The betting markets have.