2024 US Presidential Election

[Psy-Fi]

[DJChameleon]

Trump AND Biden lies fact checked

Here is some fact checking in video form if you don't wanna read through the link.


Also Trump saying "let's not act like children" after acting like a child is just eye roll worthy.

It screams "I know you are but what am I?"


Kyle Clark should've been the moderator. He did extremely well during the Colorado one that happened a month ago.

[Lisnaholic]

^ Yes, that Kyle Clark does a great job of putting the candidates on the spot with the kind of questions we would really like straight answers to.

An excellent point raised at the end of your fact-checking video clip is this: the pre-agreed policy that the debate moderators would not call out falsehoods led to a bunch of lies being uncontested and broadcast to 51 million viewers. As the journalist says, "The American people deserve to know when a presidential candidate is spreading falsehoods." I couldn't agree more, and wonder if, at the end of the debates, there should be a quick fact-check run down, like we've be doing here: "Ladies and gentlemen, you have just been lied to 16 times during this program..."
 

Thanks Lisna!

Suprisingly, there's very little here I'd disagree with you on. 

^ Thanks to you too, SGR: I see it as a good sign when we can come to an agreement. There's so much talk about the "far-right media bubble" and the "fake news" of the channels I usually watch, that it's reassuring that, sifting through all the bias, it's still possible to agree on some facts.

Trump's whole 'greatest this, best that' schtick is sort of on brand with him. Probably 90% of the time, whatever he is talking about is not the 'greatest this' or the 'best that', but he's a salesman in nature.

^ TBH my reaction to this comment was (i) does anyone want their country to be run by someone with a salesman mentality? (ii) you seem to have a much more forgiving, greater tolerence when it comes to lies-per-minute from Trump than I do. Using the AP figures I posted, and assuming Trump talked for half or the debate time, that would work out to a lie every four minutes.  

[Jwb]

@SGR


Did you watch RFK's version?

If they don't introduce a new candidate during DNC. Trump is winning in November.

RFK should have absolutely been at the debate imo. I don't even support him but there's no justification in keeping him off the stage when both of the main candidates are this weak.

[SGR]

^ Thanks to you too, SGR: I see it as a good sign when we can come to an agreement. There's so much talk about the "far-right media bubble" and the "fake news" of the channels I usually watch, that it's reassuring that, sifting through all the bias, it's still possible to agree on some facts.

Absolutely.

^ TBH my reaction to this comment was (i) does anyone want their country to be run by someone with a salesman mentality? (ii) you seem to have a much more forgiving, greater tolerence when it comes to lies-per-minute from Trump than I do. Using the AP figures I posted, and assuming Trump talked for half or the debate time, that would work out to a lie every four minutes.  

The underlined is a thought-provoking question. I think it really depends on the big issues the president in question is tackling. There are certain issues that we might find benefit in having a president with a salesman mentality (international trade agreements, military defense agreements, certain foreign policy) and certain big issues that we'd find not benefit, but detriment in having a president with a salesman mentality (like COVID and the pandemic). It's sort of similar to a military president (one who has served in the military) and a career politician president would each have pros and cons depending on the issues you're tackling.

I didn't double check your math, but if Trump only lied once every four minutes of speaking time, I'd be greatly surprised.  I'd expect the number to be much bigger.

But yeah, I suppose you could call it a 'tolerance', but I'd characterize it more as an 'understanding'. Not just with Trump, but also with Biden. These guys are politicians, and they will lie. Sometimes, not even purposely. What I mean is, any time Trump and Biden start talking numbers, there will probably be a 'lie', even if it wasn't intentional.

Biden just had an optics disaster at the debate. The Democrats, assuming they're going to stick with Biden (and I think they will), need to find some kind of message to counteract or blunt the effect of that optics mess. So saying "Biden had an awful debate, but Trump lied more" is a valid way to play it, but I just doubt it's going to be very persuasive to anyone who was on the fence about who to vote for - I have massive doubts there are any swing-voters out there who upon hearing that message will have a moment of revelation and say: "Wait, really? Trump lies more than Biden?!" 

I would note though, if there was one new big lie by either candidate, that might make a difference, but looking through the AP link, the lies listed are essentially the same (or in the same ballpark of lies) they've both told many times over in the past.

This kinda goes back to a previous discussion you and I had which essentially boiled down to: do voters vote with their hearts or with their minds? I leaned towards heart, and you seemed to lean towards mind. I think people will largely vote on how a candidate makes them feel. Here's an interesting article on the subject:

Bringing this back to elections, results like ours — especially when they are combined with other research on the importance of the cultural underpinnings of preference — strongly suggest that the usual evaluative benefits of a side-by-side comparison virtually disappear when the options themselves invoke strong emotions. Wilson and I called this "value neglect." The emotional signals sent out by the alternatives themselves are so powerful that we neglect to consider the objective information that should help us to distinguish the pros and cons of the options in the first place.

This isn't good news from the standpoint of voters who claim they are voting for one candidate over another because of where each candidate stands on the issues. In reality, these voters are probably making their selection based in large part on the emotional connections they forge with the candidates themselves.

In other words, voters prefer Donald Trump — or Hillary Clinton, for that matter — because of the emotional connection they (or the parties they represent) have forged with the electorate. So, in a democracy where people are almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's hardly surprising that people don't take the time to look more closely at the issues. Put another way, when it comes to political ice cream flavours, people are either partial to Donald or Hillary; how much or — in Trump's case — how little they actually receive in their proverbial cup or cone barely registers. The best evidence for this is that, in spite of the key differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (not to mention between countless other candidates and initiatives that can be found further down the ballot), they find themselves uncomfortably close to one another in terms of the expected popular vote, where Clinton right now leads Trump by a flimsy 5-point margin.

So my argument essentially is that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, know that their optics and how they make the voters feel is more important to winning votes than any running fact-check/lie count between the candidates, and often times, even more important than specific policy differences between the candidates. It's why liberal media was ablaze after the debate, and even the New York Times has formally called on Biden to step down. It's also why Trump, with the aforementioned 'salesman schtick' goes out and says he had 'the greatest economy in history', rather than 'the greatest economy since Clinton'. It's all about how it makes the voters feel.

[DJChameleon]

RFK should have absolutely been at the debate imo. I don't even support him but there's no justification in keeping him off the stage when both of the main candidates are this weak.

the justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

[SGR]

the justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

I'm pretty sure the polling threshold for independents to do general debates used to be much lower. Fact check me on it, but I'm pretty sure they raised it after Ross Perot in 92. It's the Democrats and Republicans colluding to ice out their competition.

[SGR]

And another.

[Jwb]

the justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

what were the specific criteria? He's polled well enough to at least give him a shot.   And he is doing so mainly as a reflection of how unsatisfied people are with the options on offer. So that's more of a reason to throw him in there. If not to give him an actual shot at winning, then at least use his presence to punish the existing candidates for putting us through another round of this cursed match up.

[DJChameleon]

what were the specific criteria? He's polled well enough to at least give him a shot.   And he is doing so mainly as a reflection of how unsatisfied people are with the options on offer. So that's more of a reason to throw him in there. If not to give him an actual shot at winning, then at least use his presence to punish the existing candidates for putting us through another round of this cursed match up.

He's not polling well enough though.

This is what I found.

Under the 2024 Criteria, to receive an invitation to debate, a candidate must: (i) be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (ii) appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College; (iii) have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. The CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.

[DJChameleon]

I'm pretty sure the polling threshold for independents to do general debates used to be much lower. Fact check me on it, but I'm pretty sure they raised it after Ross Perot in 92. It's the Democrats and Republicans colluding to ice out their competition.

Yeah Ross Perot only had 7 percent and attended all three debates. After him they rose the minimum to 15 percent.

[SGR]

Yeah Ross Perot only had 7 percent and attended all three debates. After him they rose the minimum to 15 percent.

Sounds right. If RFK had qualified, they'd have raised it to 20% or 25% next year.

[Psy-Fi]

We just witnessed the end of Joe Biden's presidency

[DJChameleon]

The rally he had the next day after the debate.

[Lisnaholic]

The underlined is a thought-provoking question. I think it really depends on the big issues the president in question is tackling. There are certain issues that we might find benefit in having a president with a salesman mentality (international trade agreements, military defense agreements, certain foreign policy) and certain big issues that we'd find not benefit, but detriment in having a president with a salesman mentality (like COVID and the pandemic). It's sort of similar to a military president (one who has served in the military) and a career politician president would each have pros and cons depending on the issues you're tackling.

Yes, quite right that any President brings to the job character traits from previous jobs - but most of them don't just stay like that. A US President who is ex -military doesn't then run the country like a military junta. With Trump, there are two probs: (i) as you yourself said he can't shug off his salesman attitude and (ii) as Trump University and other scams have proven, he's more conman than salesman. I don't think many of the issues facing the US today are best resolved by having a conman choose the option that will work best for him (and eff the consequences to the people without power). Even negotiating on the international stage, where you might think a salesman's approach would strike a tough bargain, hasn't played out well for Trump: the Mexicans didn't pay for the wall, NATO survived his bullying about payments, etc. Trump's legacy has been to denegrate the standing of the US, while he profited from deals with shady Saudi leaders and blew through all the "emoluments" safeguards that prevented other presidents from blatantly declaring "President for sale here."

I didn't double check your math, but if Trump only lied once every four minutes of speaking time, I'd be greatly surprised.  I'd expect the number to be much bigger.

^ Yes, I just read another fact-checker who (instead of 11 lies), declared that Trump lied 30 times in the debate. If accurate, it's a pretty sad reflection that he's considered the winner. It's a triumph of style over content.

But yeah, I suppose you could call it a 'tolerance', but I'd characterize it more as an 'understanding'. Not just with Trump, but also with Biden. These guys are politicians, and they will lie. Sometimes, not even purposely. What I mean is, any time Trump and Biden start talking numbers, there will probably be a 'lie', even if it wasn't intentional.

Biden just had an optics disaster at the debate. The Democrats, assuming they're going to stick with Biden (and I think they will), need to find some kind of message to counteract or blunt the effect of that optics mess. So saying "Biden had an awful debate, but Trump lied more" is a valid way to play it, but I just doubt it's going to be very persuasive to anyone who was on the fence about who to vote for - I have massive doubts there are any swing-voters out there who upon hearing that message will have a moment of revelation and say: "Wait, really? Trump lies more than Biden?!" 

I would note though, if there was one new big lie by either candidate, that might make a difference, but looking through the AP link, the lies listed are essentially the same (or in the same ballpark of lies) they've both told many times over in the past.

This kinda goes back to a previous discussion you and I had which essentially boiled down to: do voters vote with their hearts or with their minds? I leaned towards heart, and you seemed to lean towards mind. I think people will largely vote on how a candidate makes them feel. Here's an interesting article on the subject:

So my argument essentially is that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, know that their optics and how they make the voters feel is more important to winning votes than any running fact-check/lie count between the candidates, and often times, even more important than specific policy differences between the candidates. It's why liberal media was ablaze after the debate, and even the New York Times has formally called on Biden to step down. It's also why Trump, with the aforementioned 'salesman schtick' goes out and says he had 'the greatest economy in history', rather than 'the greatest economy since Clinton'. It's all about how it makes the voters feel.

^ You make some good points about the way the Dems can or should move on from the debate fiasco.

As you say, we've talked before about voters - are they governed by their hearts or heads? I suppose the reality is that at this stage, Biden are Trump are new to nobody: they've both been in the public eye for so long that they carry a whole bunch of associated baggage with them. Everyone has an opinion of them based on memories of past speeches, actions, rumours both true and false, video clips etc. It is as all the pundits declare: most of America is already firmly in one camp or the other.
To influence that small percentage of undecided voters, the optics are important, as you say. Luckily for the Dems, though, there isn't a very solid correlation between winning a Presidential debate and winning the election. So I think this talk of ditching Biden will blow over, (especially as there are real probs about changing a candidate at this stage, with no time, afaik, to go back and redo all the Dem Primaries.)

If I was Joe Biden, I think I'd get Gavin Newsom to be my running mate, then I could campaign on the slogan, "If I die in the Oval Office, Gavin will take over and do a decent job."
(*apologies to Kamala Harris*)