All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JCAll]

Drinking contest, a shot every time Trump lies. Everyone is drunk 5 minutes in.

WBE's liver has suffered enough.

[worstblogever]

WBE's liver has suffered enough.

[Tami]

Who is planning to watch the debate?

[Tami]

“Trump Is So Saturated”: Anti-Trump Attack Ads Might Actually Be Helping Him, Democratic Group Finds

For almost a year a group of tech-minded Democratic operatives has quietly been probing those questions, in hopes of creating a method of advertising that actually persuades voters—and steering the Democratic Party away from the cartel of entrenched consultants who charge top dollar for evidence-free wisdom about how persuasion advertising is supposed to work. The outfit, called Fellow Americans, was launched without public fanfare in early 2020 to develop a data-driven testing model for campaign ad making—to prove which messages actually move the needle against President Trump with important groups of voters. Over the spring and summer, as the coronavirus pandemic choked off the economy and racial unrest took hold across the country, one lesson became abundantly clear from its testing: Ads that directly attack Trump, using his voice, news clips, or even just his face, have the effect of turning off not only persuadable voters, but also the Democratic-base voters whom Joe Biden needs in November. “The scary, doom-and-gloom, negative campaign spots that you typically see in an election year not only aren’t working with people that we want, they’re causing backlash among the people that we need,” said Jess McIntosh, a veteran Democratic communications strategist. “Trump is so saturated. You can make the case that you want to make without even saying his name. The point of ads that seem to work is not centering him, either with audio or visually. And that’s how people seem to be most receptive, which is sort of the exact opposite of what you saw in 2016, and even so far in 2020.”

“We assumed it would be a mover spot, and it just wasn’t,” McIntosh said. The video had the adverse effect of pushing away not just moderate voters, but also many Democratic-base voters, particularly young people, who find politics tiresome and irrelevant to their lives. “The folks who are younger, they’re more skeptical. They’re oftentimes just kind of like, Oh, I haven’t had the best luck in life. They don’t make a ton of money. They haven’t got a college degree,” said Samarth Bhaskar, a consultant for the group. “So with those groups in particular, we’ve seen when you put something in front of them that looks like a political ad or a political video, they get turned off right away. And so we tried our best to find other ways to, like, talk to them about these topics.”

What did resonate? A spot called “Protest & Vote.” The video featured upbeat music, brightly colored graphics, and images of nonviolent protests, with former president Obama urging activists to both register to vote and take to the streets. The ad made no mention of Trump or Biden. The spot worked, its creators said, because it adopted a series of themes and images that have been shown to resonate among young people, African Americans, and a subgroup of disengaged voters they call “struggling skeptics.” It was optimistic, showcased diverse faces, tied current fights to historical struggles, and avoided the Beltway political debates that consume a news media growing ever more detached from the voting public. On Twitter the video about Trump in Lafayette Square received only 194 views. “Protest & Vote” got over 12,000.

[Joker]

Who is planning to watch the debate?

I have such a hard time even hearing him speak at this point I’m sitting it out.

I don’t think I can hear him lie about Covid deaths, let alone EVERYTHING ELSE.

Has there been any word on live fact checking during the debate?

[Panfoot]

Same, just can't stand to listen to the man, I'm looking forward to reading up on them tomorrow but for my own sanity I'm gonna skip watching it.

Though I'm gonna be real disappointed tomorrow when he get the "Trump did okay!" articles for him hitting the low bar of not crapping his pants live on stage or using the n-word.

[JCAll]

Who is planning to watch the debate?

I will. This one seems too important not to, no matter how much listening to Trump lie turns my stomach.

But the whole time I'll probably be thinking about how Trump spent so much time in the 2016 debates randomly sniffing that Carrie Fisher accused him of being on coke. That always makes me laugh, I miss her.

[Kusanagi]

I'll catch the highlights, Trump's too infuriating to listen to for any extended period of time.

[babyblob]

Who is planning to watch the debate?

I am watching it. my dad and I have been watching every presidential debate for as long as I can remember. Lucky for us My Trumper aunt who will also be watching will do so in her bedroom. But I know she will talk about how great Trump did. She already wont shut up about about the ear piece Biden is going to be wearing.

This debate will in the end change no ones minds. Trumpers are already talking about how great he is going to do. And Biden supporters are talking about how bad Trump is going to do and how he is going to lie. Everyone will see what they want to see no matter what happens.

[Ragged Maw]

“Trump Is So Saturated”: Anti-Trump Attack Ads Might Actually Be Helping Him, Democratic Group Finds

Yeah. Sounds like "hope and change" is still a relevant strategy. Not saying playing on resentment or "going low" wouldn't work, but to do so in this case may require a level of unscrupulousness that would make many a Democrats remove every mirror in their homes afterwards.

[numberthirty]

Krystal Ball laying out some "Basics 101" on just how clueless that recent "Bill Maher Again Blames Voters..." bit actually was once you take a couple of minutes to think it over -

[InformationGeek]

My mom really wants to watch the debates, so I'll be joining her for them. I'll probably be posting a lot here whenever something really bad jumps out at me.

[Mister Mets]

BUT YOU REMEMBER IT. That's the point.

Legitimately, I only know the tan suit story because people on the left keep bringing it up as a legendary partisan attack, typical of how the Republicans treated Obama.

Although the way it's remembered so much undercuts the idea that it's representative of anything.

Nixon is, I will admit, the only real parallel, but as you said, he resigned in disgrace within two years. Trump is running for reelection.

Trump has ruined the economy. Trump has ruined our standing in the world. Trump has divided the nation in a way not seen since the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, you could almost say Trump has caused a second Civil Rights movement. Trump has caused 200,000 deaths through incompetence and inaction. And do we really need to move on from that last one? 200,000 dead and the GOP and Trump are no closer to resolving this fucking situation. In fact, they're trying to get closer to TAKING AWAY HEALTH CARE from American Citizens in the middle of a PANDEMIC they won't make any effort to deal with.

Two. Hundred. Thousand. Dead. Americans. From the party that says all lives matter. The pro life party.

How is your party not a complete disgrace in your eyes? What leg do they stand on with you that you're still willing to help them along? Are you a racist? Do you hate women having the right to chose how they manage their own bodies? Do you hate poor people? Do you hate people having affordable health care? Do you just LOVE insurance companies? Are you a "Fiscal Conservative"? (Because they tank the goddamn economy every time they're in charge, so that's wildly laughable.) Do you just hate taxes? You're a teacher, but the GOP don't value education. So what is it? What is it about Republicans that you find worth supporting with your vote? Not Trump, because I know you don't like him, but the GOP in general? What is it Mets?

I am genuinely curious how you can still sit there and support them. You said once that you vote GOP because their policies "benefit the most people". Is it the 200,000 and counting, dead through inaction? Is that the "most people" being benefited? Is it the people they're trying to take health care away from while American's are still dying at unheard of levels? Who is it? What GOP policies benefit the "most people"? I'm glad you're not voting for Trump, but Trump happened and is still happening because your party support him. So how can you still support that party?

I am asking this as a genuine line of questioning,, because I don't get it. At all. I cannot wrap my head around it anymore.

There are a lot of points to respond to here.

I don't like Trump, although he's hardly the reason for divisiveness.

I don't think 200,000 people would be alive if we had a generic Democratic President in the White House.

Ross Douthat looked into this a few weeks ago, asking how many lives would be saved by a normal President.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/o...-19-trump.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/o...ronavirus.html

Much of what went wrong in the US during COVID is not Trump's fault. A Democratic President wouldn't have prevented Andrew Cuomo from sending patients who tested positive for Coronavirus back into nursing homes. She wouldn't have fixed the bureaucratic sclerosis at the FDA where standards for COVID treatments result in tests that take too long and cost too much, or allowed young people to take potentially necessary risks in order to stress-test potential vaccines during challenge trials.

This is a two party system, so you can bring up the shortcomings of Republicans, but the alternative is the Democrats. And while I would prefer Joe Biden in the White House to another term of Trump, I'm not ready to say that I prefer a generic Democrat in the Senate to a generic Republican. The Republicans were still a party that nominated two decent men for President in McCain and Romney. It's a weird fluke that they lost and a scumbag won, but it doesn't mean someone decent can't win the nomination next time. It also seems to me that Democrats see Trump more as an opportunity than a threat, so I shouldn't take him more seriously than they do.

If you want to discuss specific policies on race, I'll be glad to do so. It's hard for me to be swayed by Democrats calling for the police to be defunded when 80 percent of African-Americans polled on the question want to maintain or increase the current levels of policing in their neighborhood.

On abortion, it does seem that both sides are extremists, with Democrats taking unpopular positions on late-term abortion.

I certainly don't hate poor people. I want less of them (by encouraging them to work.)

Health care costs have been rising a lot, so it's absurd to say we have affordable health care. I get Democrats want subsidized health care, but that's a different argument.

I don't like taxes, although if the money is spent well, I'm okay with it. I think there is a moral obligation to spend confiscated money damn near perfectly.

Education policy is a mess, but I think a big chunk of the problem is various restrictions on what schools and districts can do. Granted, I don't like talking about my own experiences, because I never thought anecdotal evidence was particularly useful.

[Mister Mets]

Who is planning to watch the debate?

Yeah, it seems important.

I'm likely to see a lot to make me cringe no matter what happens, be it an incompetent Republican President or a Democrat I like screwing up.

Also, I got my copy of "It Was All A Lie" the other day. and it mentioned one thing that often doesn't get talked about when discussing the party realignment that happened after 1964. Everyone talks about how the GoP nominated Barry Goldwater (whose Republican opponents openly called him a bigot) but what isn't mentioned very often is that was the same election cycle that saw the Democrats reject George Wallace. So it was a one-two punch of the Republicans embracing a racist while the Democrats rejected thiers. Of course, this was followed in the next few years by LBJ's initiatives and then by Nixon's Southern Strategy followup.

It isn't typically argued that Goldwater and Wallace were equally racist.

Wallace did also have the disadvantage of running against an incumbent President on the verge of a major landslide.

It's worth noting that Wallace also did pretty well in the 1972 Democratic primaries, until he was paralyzed in an assassination attempt.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Legitimately, I only know the tan suit story because people on the left keep bringing it up as a legendary partisan attack, typical of how the Republicans treated Obama.

Although the way it's remembered so much undercuts the idea that it's representative of anything.

That was just business as usual with Fox News while Obama was president, they also tried to make a scandal when he put dijon mustard on a hamburger.

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obam...ox-fake-623643

The story was featured on Sean Hannity's show, Hannity's America, as a screen showed a photoshopped image of Obama surrounded by bottles of mustard with the words "PRESIDENT POUPON" plastered on a red and white banner.