- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
GOP lawmakers and analysts virtually unanimous that Trump was second best to Harris in first presidential debate
Donald Trump’s campaign was in damage control mode on Wednesday amid widespread dismay among supporters over a presidential debate performance that saw Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, repeatedly goad him into going wildly off-message and missing apparent opportunities to tackle her on policy.
Even with Trump insisting to have won the debate “by a lot”, Republicans were virtually unanimous that Trump had come off second best in a series of exchanges that saw the vice-president deliberately bait him on his weak points while he responded with visible anger.
The Republican nominee – who took the unusual step afterwards of visiting the media spin room, a venue normally frequented only by candidates’ surrogates – was non-committal on Wednesday to the Harris campaign’s proposal for a second debate. Despite widespread opinion to the contrary, Trump suggested she needed it because she had lost. “I’d be less inclined to because we had a great night. We won the debate,” he told Fox & Friends.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve heard a lot of bitching from a conservative I know that “the debate was unfair because they didn’t fact check Harris and thus it was a sham”
The thing that they were mad Harris wasn’t checked for? Her comments on Trump’s “it will be a bloodbath” comment during one of his rallies. Then they whined about Harris not being clear about her policies despite Trump not answering a single question.
If that’s the best arguments they can come up with to defend Trump’s dumpster fire of a debate performance, then they’re really not having a good time.
Business interests, evangelicals, and cops/white supremacists.
Oh yeah, and that 50+ year campaign of gerrymandering, voter suppression (e.g. vote on tuesday, in person, during business hours, no time off work), abstracting the election process away from the ballot, and designing the court system to favor conservative calls in disputed elections.
America has a rather anti-democratic voting system…
Hey now, let’s be fair!
It’s entirely possible he rigorously prepared and that was genuinely the best he could do.
He did say that he watched the news. If he didn’t prepared, how else would he have known about people eating cats? Checkmate liberals.
Didn’t he say “television” and not specifically “news”? For all we know, he most likely saw that on some cartoon show.
Wait until their secrets are threatened to be exposed and then see how they all change their tune in the next couple days.
Kamala’s campaign: we’re going to bait him at the debate.
Trump’s staff: she’s going to try to bait you.
Everyone: Kamala is going to bait Trump.
Trump: LOOK! BAIT! NOM
They specifically tried to prepare him for this, they knew it was coming, and this was the result. How can he possibly be prepared to meet with world leaders?
Well, well, well, if it isn’t the consequences of your own actions.
Unprepared my ass. I watched the whole debate. He prepared his lies and bullshit.
“IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME?!!!”
Your stage whisper is perfect.
First, im no trumpster, i dont like the guy. The MM is really pulling out all the stops on spinning this one. Trump did just fine, Republicans think he did just fine, and some even consider it a win. It’s crazy how strong the MM is pushing it a major Harris win and that Trump did very badly, and that even Republicans think he lost, the headline “Republicans dismayed” is just bullshit, I know a lot of Republicans, and none have claimed to be “dismayed”. That’s the spin. I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I’m just here to tell inform yall that those of us who live in reality don’t consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly. All the big news stations are helping to push that narrative of a MAJOR Harris win. As always, MSNBC, USAtoday, CNN, NBC, NYtimes, Washington Post etc. I know most of yall trust these news outlets and don’t think they have bias, but they most certainly do.
Kamala pissed me off with all the stupid faces she was making, she also just sounded like a whinny B---- several times. My personal opinion is that it was more like a tie than anything, Harris had no content to what she said. But Trump did let her get under his skin. They both lied… and quite a bit.
Anyway, I know where I am, I know the responses I’m going to get in this liberal echo chamber. So come on.
You post a lot of defense for Trump for someone that doesn’t like Trump. You also post a lot of attacks against Harris and Walz.
Trump is at best a misinformed bumbling dumbfuck who thinks immigrants eat pets and children get surgeries in school, whereas Harris’ lies are at worst the typical politician lies about supporting things she doesn’t really support.
It is insane if you think these are on the same level.
Anyway, vote Harris because Trump will try to January 6th us again.
Trump did just fine
“Immigrants are eating people’s pets!”
“Post birth abortions are happening!”
“Children are coming home from school having surgery done to them!”
Saying any 1 of these should be rated as abysmal. Saying all 3 and being considered “just fine” shows what a dumpster fire the Republican party is.
Ok. Thanks for your opinion.
Oh so you’re both You’re stupid and lying…
Very uncivil of you. You are part of the majority here, nothing important or intelligent to add, just ad hominems. Lemme is a trash heap.
nothing important or intelligent to add, just ad hominems.
And you would never do such a thing yourself:
I doubt you’re wrong, but the link didn’t load
First, im no trumpster
Perhaps, but you are clearly thinking and writing like one.
those of us who live in reality
I’m not so sure you do. Trump said some of THE most inane things he’s ever said, yet you are effectively equating that to what Harris had said, which had more substance in a few words than Trump had in the whole debate.
she also just sounded like a whinny B----
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook. And the proper spelling would be “whiny”. Unless you’re comparing her sound to a horse’s neigh.
in this liberal echo chamber
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook.
I wish you luck in your endeavors. This “both sides”-ing doesn’t really work when they are most definitely not the same.
I can play this game…
Perhaps, but you are clearly thinking and writing like one.
That’s an opinion. You sound politically color blind. If praise isn’t being solely given to the candidate you support, sutely, he must be for the opposition.
“those of us who live in reality”
I’m not so sure you do. Trump said some of THE most inane things he’s ever said, yet you are effectively equating that to what Harris had said, which had more substance in a few words than Trump had in the whole debate.
Way to take that quote out of context and then argue something else. This is the whole sentence:
I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I’m just here to tell inform yall that “those of us who live in reality” don’t consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly.
I wasnt talking about the substance here. It was commentary about how it is being claimed that it was a “big loss for Trump” and/or a “major win for harris,” which it was neither. People who actually interact with other people “in the real world” have a better understanding of how people actually perceived the debate.
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook. And the proper spelling would be “whiny”. Unless you’re comparing her sound to a horse’s neigh.
Is it? I don’t ever watch Fox, so I wouldn’t know. Assuming and generalizing, not a good strategy.
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook.
Lol. Again, even. And even if it is, it’s not wrong. This place is a liberal echo chamber. The sooner you’re able to understand/accept this, the better off you will be overall.
It simple they’re either stupid or lying
It can be—and usually is—both.
Concisely put :)
Okay, let’s be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt. What would you consider to be an unbiased, credible source of factual information? Be specific. You’re the one putting out the blame, before you say anything along the lines of “it’s not my job to educate you” or “do your own research”. You’re the one making the claim of bias.
What would you consider to be an unbiased, credible source of factual information?
Oh geez… I don’t think they make those anymore… the best we can do is try to recognize the bias when we see it.
I did find a cool app recently, though. It’s called “ground news”. It attempts to show bias of news articles. Being left, right, or center. It is very useful, I would recommend it.
I did find a cool app recently, though. It’s called “ground news”. It attempts to show bias of news articles. Being left, right, or center. It is very useful, I would recommend it.
I did find this on ground news:
Articles that Harris wasn’t compelling have a strong right bias, are you taking that into account?
Also, articles about Trump losing have a much stronger Central bias. I wonder what we can conclude from this…
Well, everyone can and should come to their own conclusion. One thing…
articles about Trump losing have a much stronger Central bias.
It’s about 1/3 central 2/3 left. I think that is a good way to look at that.
The “it was about equal” has a higher right bias than the “Trump losing” has a left bias.
You are adorable, Colin Robinson.
Congratulations on both inhaling and exhaling successfully despite your condition.
Ah, the first purely ad hominem. I love it. It confirms that many here have nothing intelligent/important to add.
And your ad hominem of saying Kamala was making stupid faces that pissed you off and sounded like a whiney bitch confirms you have nothing intelligent/important to add either.
Sometimes it’s not an echo chamber, and you’re just wrong. Not about the spin put on the headline, just in general.
I see you’re not ready to admit or able to recognize this place is an echo chamber, and that’s fine. It can take time.
Hah, I guess I can’t argue the first part too much. Although, I believe it’s still relevant because who wants want a president making stupid faces and being whinny. Putin would own her. She’s good at staying on script, but I’d like to see her have a conversation about things that she hasn’t been able to rehears.
Have you done your post-birth abortion yet? It would make the world a better place.
Ah, there’s the 3rd. You’re just full of it. Keep’em Coming.
You do realize these are all things said in the debate, that you called normal and sane, right?
Uhg… these things you said were said in the debate, you’re not even paraphrasing. You’re twisting what was said, turning them into personal insults. Secondly, why are you claiming I called them normal or sane, i never said that? You’re using strawman tactics erroneously to try to make a point. So, ad hominems, strawman tactics, and lying about what I said… got anything else to add?
Yea, fuck racists.
Got any dogs? It’s almost lunchtime here.
Lol. Nice, 2 in a row. Got any more?
Nope I can’t post anymore because I’m in jail getting transgender surgery.
Interesting that Kamalas facial reactions bothered you that much, but apparently Trump’s clown faces didn’t even rate a mention. It’s almost like your not nearly as impartial as your pretending.
Trump looked and sounded like a sloppy bafoon.
Concepts of a plan? Eating pets?
Your huffing weapons grade copium my dude.
Lol. Sounds like you’ve already ingested too much propaganda. You’re parroting it perfectly. You’ve mixed stupid personal opinion with the main stream medias rhetoric.
Concepts of a plan? Eating pets?
Go look up the definition of “concept.” Having a concept of a plan like nearly like saying, “I have a plan of a plan.” Which would be redundant. Saying, “I have a concept of a plan,” is like basically saying, “I have a plan.” There is nothing weird or wrong about the phrase, “i have a concept of a plan.” This is English anyway, always flexible. You parroting those talking points indicates to me you are probably incapable of an independent discerning perspective.
‘I have Concepts of a plan, I’m not president’ That’s a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.
‘eating pets’ You gonna defend the ex president repeating easily disproven twitter misinfo on the debate stage too? We both know it would’ve bothered you if Kamala did.
Any major gaffes or mistakes made by Kamala you care to mention? Or was it just her face that you, a paragon of impartiality, object to?
I’m not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.
That’s a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.
… No, it demonstrates that those who share your perspective probably failed English in high school. Your claim of intelligence is fallacious. I’m sorry… fallacious means it was wrong or deceptive. I’ll use smaller words for you.
‘I have concepts of a plan, I’m not president’
This be clearer. But it conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan but not in a position of authority to implement it.
I hope many read this so I don’t have to keep “ELI5” to everyone.
I’m not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.
Translation: I can’t defend the clearly batshit crazy thing so I’m going to try to ignore it.
You’ve been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here, but for some reason responding to the fact that Trump said immigrants were eating pets, post birth abortions are happening, and children are coming home from school having had gender changing surgery forced upon them, well that’s just minor quibbles not worth arguing about…
You’ve been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here
Hah you’re not wrong about that. I’m nearly worn out now.
I haven’t answered those topics for a few reasons. Some are more nuanced/complicated and require more effort, and like you said, I’ve “been wasting a lot of time/energy replaying” already. But no, they aren’t “minor quibbles” and totally worth arguing, but I have enough on my plate already.
Translation: it’s indefensible and should disqualify him, so I’m going to try to keep the conversation on other topics as much as possible and hopefully people will forget the completely bat shit insane things Trump claimed.
That barely holds up if you consider this argument in a vacuum. Brought into the context that Trump said he had better plan than Obamacare since 2016, your argument is utter bullshit.
- It’s not an argument. It’s me explaining a simple phrase. 2. Yes, the phrase does hold up in a vacuum. 3. Why would we consider it in a vacuum?
And then… you say
Brought into the context that Trump said
So… you aren’t putting it in a vacuum, you are putting it in the context of something 8 years ago. (Relevancy here is a stretch)…
your argument is utter bullshit.
My argument…? What was my argument?
Lots of typos for someone championing high school english…
So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:
“concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan”
Lmao, your brain worms must be starving
So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:
“concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan”
Lol, yes! Are you ok? Yes, It means what it means. It doesn’t have to be explained any different. I honestly don’t understand why you and so many others cant comprehend this simple phrase.
He should’ve just said he plan then, or done that in 2016, or in 2020. Reality is he doesn’t have one but understands what a plan is. Hence he “has a concept” of a plan but doesn’t actually have a plan. Luckily he has MAGAts to explain what be REALLY meant.
I hate trump but I agree. This wasn’t a landslide victory for Harris. She won in my opinion but only by a thin margin.
Trump claimed immigrants were eating people’s pets. And doubled down when called on it. How low is your bar?
Rewatch the debate. She rarely actually answered a question. deflected most of the time. I ding a candidate each time they do that.
How often did Trump actually answer a question versus deflection?
Okay, so let’s ding them both equally for deflection and now let’s focus on how they deflected: Did Kamala say anything nearly as batshit crazy as “schools are forcing surgery on children”?Let’s put this on a scale of 1-10
10 is top
Trump was batshit crazy and lied so he gets a 1
Harris just plain deflected on a ton of stuff, so I ding her to a 2. She had ample opportunity to answer and just plain didn’t. So instead of being bat shit crazy, she either wasn’t prepared or wasn’t able to think on her feet. Either way I give her a two for lack of answers.
So Harris was twice as good as Trump?
Again I have to ask how low your bar is. If neither answered questions, but Trump insisted on deranged delusions (he doubled down on the claim that immigrants are eating pets when challenged) how do you consider that only slightly worse than someone who didn’t answer questions but lives in reality?
When Biden had a bad debate Democrats were willing to admit he had a bad debate. It was presented as “we still have to vote for him because Trump wants to be a dictator, but ya, that wasn’t good.”
Trump makes up absolute nonsense and people try to insist that “it was close.”Umm if you go from 1 to 2 then that sounds like it’s doubled. But if you go from 1 to 2 on a ten point scale then exactly how is that doubled? By that logic going from 2 to 3 is also doubled. Yeah no.
Remember when claiming immigrants were stealing and eating pets was enough to disqualify someone from being a president?
… No?
Ah, my bad, this insane new low seems to have never happened before.
Thanks, crazy you’re still getting downvoted. I guess you weren’t extreme enough.
I know. All these down votes makes me sad. Hold me.
Aw sweet. New copypasta just dropped.
Lol. Why do you think that?
( ͡° _ ͡°)…
Mmm glad we had this conversation.
Trump did just fine
I’m curious at the metric that would put that “let’s get you back to bed, Nana” performance as ‘just fine’.
R/conservative is in shambles right now, it’s kinda funny to watch
It’s just the_donald now.
The whole party got taken over by crazies, and all the normal people are realising and getting out.
Guess it’s hard to argue about child starvation being a matter of personal responsibility when the person next to you is wearing a KKK hood with a swastika on it.
and all the normal people are realising and getting out.
No. Unfortunately not. They are just shutting up about it because they’re embarrassed.
Though that was one of the first steps the country took to move past GWB (though unfortunately they moved to the right)… People becoming embarrassed to admit they voted for and/or supported him.
I can speak from personal experience as the first presidential election I voted in was 2004 and at that time I had just begun my deconversion process from Evangelical Christianity, and I voted for Bush.
I still cringe when I think about it. And it was within 4 years that I had become a progressive atheist. So maybe we’re not entirely screwed (though these people don’t seem to have the ability to think rationally that came to me naturally).
I still pine the hornets nest, both becuse it’s funny to see them get more and more angry, and on the very far off chance that it convices those of them left
It really is a cesspool, they’re tripling down now stating immigrants are eating pets, kidnapping kids in pedophile rings and then cannibalizing their victims. Total nutcase stuff.
I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil! You can’t fact check me! I WATCHED IT ON TV!
Is it wrong to poke the hornets nest? Probably. Is it funny, absolutely.
Their dear leader was literally named as someone that participated in a billionaire pedo ring!
What did they expect, he’s so old… why do they make him keep running?
It’s my turn to say it now:
Doesn’t he look tired?
This should be the newest hashtag on that old bird site, and needs to be trending.
OK so BIden had a bad debate, was visibly incoherent for a while beforeheand, and they took him out of the race.
Now Trump has had a bad debate and has been visibly incoherent for years. Is the GOP going to take him out of the race for a stronger candidate?
I don’t want to make a false equivalency, these are different parties and different candidates; Trump supporters are more loyal than usual, and he would take them with him as he’s not likely to accept his exclusion, so the GOP taking Trump out of the race is riskier than Dems taking Biden out of the race.
But, seen from the left, conservatives are the ones with a reputation for ruthless pragmatism when it comes to electoral politics. They’re the ones who sacrifice their values by voting for candidates that do advance their goals.
A lot of leftists, out of idealism, wouldn’t vote for Clinton in 2016 or Biden in 2020; meanwhile evangelicals made the pragmatic decision to vote for Trump, the least christian man in the whole GOP, because he furthers their anti-abortion agenda. I argue that conservatives are absolutely correct in this, voting for a candidate that you don’t like just to advance your goals is the correct approach to representative democracy. My evidence for this is that evangelical voters were rewarded for their vote when of Roe v Wade was overruled thanks to judges from the Trump administration.
So i think, if the GOP replaces Trump but keeps an equally extremist agenda, there’s a world where electoral pragmatism causes those voters to transfer over, leading to better odds of a GOP victory. And a conservative presidency other than Trump would push their agenda more efficiently than the first Trump presidency did or that a second Trump presidency would.
Uh… So DON’T do that. That should not happen. It would be the right thing for the GOP to do, which means it’s the wrong thing and i hope it doesn’t happen.
He really can’t drop out. He could be replaced but the legal maze of local and state deadlines and printed paper ballots that would have to be destroyed would abridge on early voting rights.
Rfk is having that problem right now in a few states. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/north-carolina-robert-kennedy-early-voting-trump-sabotage.html
meanwhile evangelicals made the pragmatic decision to vote for Trump, the least christian man in the whole GOP, because he furthers their anti-abortion agenda. I
Conservatives get abortions as soon as their own daughters get pregnant. They’re consummate hypocrites. Voting republican has always been about keeping workers deprived of rights and wage increases. No conservative gives a shit about the culture war stuff. The culture war is and has always been a distraction from creating welfare states like in EU.
The culture war is an important piece of the conservative agenda- it isolates and eliminates the various groups that will group together to support conservatives.
They cannot swap him out because he will not cooperate. Attempting to swap him out would do nothing but split the vote for them.
Repubs have spent decades propagandizing their fear-addicted voters with racist delusions. Donald has taken over that mechanism.
The sane but sociopathic Repub leadership is experiencing the classic trope of a monster they thought was tame (the racist voters they have been agitating) turning on them (a dementia patient they have no control over blathering about eating cats during the debate).
The thing that allowed the Democrats to switch candidates was that the Democratic National Convention had not happened yet, which is when the candidate is officially locked in as the party’s candidate on ballots for president.
The Republican National Convention was mid July. Trump and Vance are locked in. To swap candidates now would be considerably more difficult for them (not to mention having to fight against a self centered toddler that will refuse to let anyone other than him run).
Swapping out candidates would be good for the Republicans. The process of swapping out candidates would not be.
Oh right, it’s obviously too late to swap. Small detail i forgot lol
I’m wondering if Biden withdrew after the rnc so he would be locked in. Not withstanding the pressure he faced.
Bidens timing nullified the bump Trump would’ve gotten from the assassination attempt. It was well timed
This is my thought as well… honestly, it might be a good thing because you know Trump will cry foul and all the… fine people…who are voting for him will eat it up and follow him into oblivion, thereby splitting the vote and allowing the whole thing to cave in on itself
What kind of lame equivocation is “second best?” If he’s “second best” in a debate with two people, then that means HE LOST.
Are these GOP lawmakers and analysts so spineless and beholden to Trump that they cannot discuss this as just one more - in a long list - of his failures?
It’s worse than that. They think that toeing the line and refusing to deviate is the strong position to take here. Always has been.
I have hope that they will not learn from these mistakes and will therefore keep making them. I hope that hope is not misguided.
I hope the crazies crash and burn and a reasonable, rationale alternative is made available to voters. Then Democrats will actually have to try instead of relying on “if you don’t vote for us the Dictator wins.”
It wasn’t that long ago when Republicans complained about participation trophies and how, at sporting events in schools, the ones who did not win still were acknowledged for their effort. They were complaining that it would make children weak, not want to compete, not give their best effort if they got recognition without being the top dog.
Now they demand their participation trophy and it better come with tendies!
They probably don’t want their inboxes filled with bomb and rape threats from the very domestic terrorists they radicalized.
Are these GOP lawmakers and analysts so spineless and beholden to Trump that they cannot discuss this as just one more - in a long list - of his failures?
Yes :)
Republicans: “What a bad and unprepared debate that was! He didn’t even get to the part about how life begins at conception and guns are more important than children!”
I’m surprised nobody is going after him for how low energy he was at the debate. He looked like he was gonna fall asleep. The only time his eyes opened wide was when she called out his crowd sizes
I’m surprised nobody is going after him for how low energy he was at the debate.
That was the least of his failings.
The blatant lying about pretty much everything is (and has always been) a much more serious problem with him.
Not amongst the crowd that supports him, as they’re are all about how they feel about him, not about intellectually judging the quality of his arguments.
The “He was a weak drained old man in that debate” path of attack should be far more effective on that crowd, specifically on the ones who look up to him as being (in their view) strong, assertive and confident, who are probably the majority.
Like every other strongman “leader” out there, Donald’s strength in impressing a certain kind of voter - the ability to project an image of being decisive and assured for the more “instinctive judgments” and less intellectual crowd - becomes a weakness with age in situations when they’re publicly confronted with a younger and sharper opposing candidate.
I think people are talking about that because it’s one of the criticisms against Biden in the first debate. Now Trump is the old, tired, crazy man who shouldn’t be in this race, never mind running the country.
