Well, the MSM would call it in Biden's favor regardless of Trump's performance, right?
Given these circumstances, in my opinion, what matters is what happens "here and now" during the debate, hence my points about the immediate perception by an uninformed third party, etc.
The longer I look at it, the more it looks like Trump was trying to go for the kill, rattle Sleepy Joe past the point of no return, make him humiliate and destroy himself.
Objectively, this was not possible to do with Clinton, as she was dumb and vile, but lucid -- but here this is an attainable goal.
This didn't quite work out yet (although Joepedo did snap at least twice with "shut up" and "clown" remarks), but realistically it is unlikely Joe can do even another hour under such immense pressure.
I guess I should've said the same logic applies to the independents, i.e. to the clueless.
As to appeasement -- no, that is absolutely not what I am saying.
I agree, this would be a losing strategy.
I'm only saying that Trump didn't talk about his accomplishments enough, and Biden did surprisingly well.
Biden's lies likely do not matter, as the MSM won't cover them.
I then surmise that an average clueless person who votes based on an emotional response would think Biden won.
Moreover, I'm not implying Trump should've done anything differently -- I simply don't know his game plan.
He changed his tactics during the debate quite a bit, and probed both Biden and the moderator. I think he's looking for a crushing blow, something that'd rattle Biden so much, he'd start rambling about corn pop.
It looks like it's all about the definition of what constitutes a win.
Imo it's not about you, I, or any pedes here. We know what's going on.
In your eyes or mine -- Joe's anything didn't matter.
In the eyes of a typical democrat who can maybe still be swayed because they thought Joe wasn't there favorite and was losing it but doesn't know any actual facts?
I wouldn't be so sure.
He didn't poop his pants, remained relatively collected -- and rebutted Trump's attacks with breathtaking lies, but nobody cares about that last part because the MSM won't talk about it.
Yup, and he also called him a clown.
And did so extremely nonchalantly and dismissively.
Compare that to Trump getting visibly angry at times.
Now imagine your average lefty who has literally no idea what is going on from a factual standpoint.
I think they would say "Trump is a bully, he got what he deserved, Biden was calm and collected! SEE, HE IS LUCID! (insert mad Cage face)"
All of these are fair points, truly, -- if, that is, people engaged in thinking, even a little bit. But then again, they wouldn't be democrats our undecided.
I don't think they do.
I don't think Biden voters connect riots to the democrats' open endorsement of BLM, and promised tax hikes to their taxes going up.
No GND? There's the "Biden plan." Phew!
And so in and so forth.
All Biden had to do was stay coherent and deny everything affirmatively. He -- shockingly -- pulled it off, so in my opinion, the masses would think he won.
I'm not against aggression. However, unlike Jeb, Trump has ammunition. Lots of ammunition.
In a minute he could actually answer the questions (e.g. why Blacks should vote for him) -- and go after Biden's bullshit during the other.
Ultimately, I think he's playing a long game, and he was probing different tactics.
That being said, the general population doesn't give a fuck. And appearances-wise -- and that's all that matters for them -- Biden won this debate. That's all.
I certainly hope so. He was definitely testing JoePedo's defenses.
He looked like a boxer pacing around his opponent, trying to engage from multiple angles, not caring for occasionally opening up and taking a hit.
Huh... that might just be it, come think of it.
Trump finished very strong, his tactic changed dramatically by the end of the debate. Very interesting.
Edit: by "won the debate" I mean "in the eyes of the inert, inept, undecided, touchy-feely public" -- those whose votes these debates can still sway.
You're getting shit for this, but you're on point.
Biden won this debate (see edit above) by (1) being "pseudopresidential", (2) mostly calm, and (3) lying brazenly and openly.
Trump helped Biden by (1) being aggressive, (2) not answering the question (e.g. about race) even when he has tons of ammo, (3) constantly arguing with Wallace.
Trump is used to controlling the narrative, he's good at making long, winded, seemingly unrelated statements, that ultimately make perfect sense -- but this just doesn't work in the context of the debate with a hostile moderator.
Katie Camero butchered the numbers.
From the paper:
... Black newborns die at three times the rate of White newborns.
Further from Camero's article:
A separate paper published in July revealed that Black children were about 3.5 times more likely to die following surgery than white children.
Finally, even the claim that "But when treated by white doctors, Black newborns’ survivability drops by a third" is not quite true.
The paper states:
Under the care of Black physicians, the mortality penalty forBlack newborns is only 173 fatalities per 100,000 births aboveWhite newborns, a difference of 257 deaths per 100,000 births,and a 58% reduction in the racial mortality difference.
Thus, when treated by White doctors, Black newborns survival drops by 42%, not 1/3.
The paper is rather complex, and it appears to be trying to hide the true meaning of the data behind walls of text, obscure methodology, and by not publishing the raw data.
For example:
The estimator is an ordinary least squares (OLS) to avoid interpretation issues associated with nonlinear estimators like logit regression.
Uhm, it would seem like in mid-2020, when certain conclusions might start nothing short of a civil war, an ethical scientist would be very careful in choosing the statistical approach -- or, hell, even try all of them to ensure complete transparency.
But that's what an ethical scientist would do.
At the same time, the data appear to be quite interesting, and they could provide interesting insights if made available.
Get this: they don't even work on surgeons.
Well, aside from protecting them from "splashes of blood and other bodily fluids" (CDC Guidelines for Surgical Site Infections, 1999).