2939
Comments (89)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
Colonel_Chestbridge 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did they really? I didn’t see that.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be effective, I just think it could have been more effective. The debate kind of turned off some people who I had been convincing to vote Trump, and it was sad to see. Though I think Biden lost far more votes that night.

1
Block_Helen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, and the C-SPAN poll is now up to 69% "Trump won."

It is sad if someone's mind can be changed against Trump based on one debate. Maybe you can get them to see it another way, with Wallace so obviously biased and helping Joe.

1
Colonel_Chestbridge 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes it is sad. And it’s precisely because people don’t pay attention. It’s a harsh reality that we do have to cater to these people to some degree. Unless they truly are right that it’s a base election, which it very well could be.

They still definitely aren’t voting Biden though so I guess that’s a plus.

1
Block_Helen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, that's a plus. Good work!

You can't cater to the middle of the road so much that you get nothing done. Trump was absolutely brutal in the 2016 primary debates. If he hadn't been, he wouldn't have even become the nominee, let alone been elected.

2
Colonel_Chestbridge 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah I agree with that. I don’t think it hurt him by much in the long run, I just wish he would have done a bit better on some things. The first 20 minutes were a total shitshow and it was definitely too much.