Someone owes me money - Trump is planning to lose the debates

[credoconsolans]

Here we go.

As predicted, Trump is already planning the damage control for when he loses the debates.

He thinks there should be no moderators.

Because apparently in a debate he actually has to follow rules and can't shout down the moderator without getting in trouble and that annoys him and he thinks that's unfair.

So since they will be moderated, he's primed the pump by saying they're biased and unfair before they even start

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-calls-debates-clinton-no-moderator-article-1.2789119

 

[RavenSky]

I thought Sarah Palin was a self-involved twit, but Trump out does her by miles.

 

[Ford]

Here we go.

As predicted, Trump is already planning the damage control for when he loses the debates.

That depends on how you define "losing."

Look at his quote about the Commander in Chief forum:

"The system is being gamed," Trump said. "They all said I won and that Matt Lauer was easy on me. Well, he wasn't. I thought he was very professional, I have to be honest. I think he's been treated very unfairly. "

He did win. Not because of his treatment by Lauer, but because he garnered the most media coverage afterwards. I didn't watch the forum live, as it was on when i was driving home from work, but I followed the coverage after the fact. Clinton may as well have not even shown up, because nothing she said made the news the next day. Or the day after. Or the day after that. She lost not because she gave worse answers, but because nothing she said was repeated or reported upon.

Trump understands that controlling the media narrative is key to "winning" the debates, and he's already started. He's not planning on besting Clinton on policy points or by hving the better answer. He's betting on the news coverage of the debates being focused on his performance. If the networks talk about him more the following day, he wins. Even if he crashes and burns.

 

[credoconsolans]

That depends on how you define "losing."

Look at his quote about the Commander in Chief forum:

"The system is being gamed," Trump said. "They all said I won and that Matt Lauer was easy on me. Well, he wasn't. I thought he was very professional, I have to be honest. I think he's been treated very unfairly. "

He did win. Not because of his treatment by Lauer, but because he garnered the most media coverage afterwards. I didn't watch the forum live, as it was on when i was driving home from work, but I followed the coverage after the fact. Clinton may as well have not even shown up, because nothing she said made the news the next day. Or the day after. Or the day after that. She lost not because she gave worse answers, but because nothing she said was repeated or reported upon.

Trump understands that controlling the media narrative is key to "winning" the debates, and he's already started. He's not planning on besting Clinton on policy points or by hving the better answer. He's betting on the news coverage of the debates being focused on his performance. If the networks talk about him more the following day, he wins. Even if he crashes and burns.

With that sort of logic we can argue that Hillary gained points by everyone talking about her pneumonia for the last 3 days.

Matt Lauer didn't call him out on his lie about supporting the Iraq war. That's what got him attention. That he lied and wasn't called on it.

He won't get off so easy in this upcoming series of debates and he knows it.

 

[Ford]

With that sort of logic we can argue that Hillary gained points by everyone talking about her pneumonia for the last 3 days.

While it wasn't planned, the fact is that for a few days the news was talking about Clinton, not Trump.

For Trump, that's bad. He wants to dominate the news.

Matt Lauer didn't call him out on his lie about supporting the Iraq war. That's what got him attention. That he lied and wasn't called on it.

Emphasis added.

Look, Trump has never been a winner on policy. People don't look at his plans and say "wow, that's a guy I'd vote for," because he doesn't really have any plans. He's got slogans and hats and rallies where his supporters happily punch protesters.

Trump is putting on a show, and the most important thing you can do for your show is to get people to watch. He doesn't care how he comes across in a debate or a forum or whether someone calls him out on his lies after the fact, because if they do, that's another few minutes of branding opportunity for Trump.

This is what he's been doing - on purpose - since he announced his candidacy. That's how he beat out all the other Republican candidates. Most of them were more qualified. Most of them had more concrete policies. Most of them spent more money. Most of them had experience campaigning. None of it mattered because Trump wasn't campaigning. He was putting on a show.

I'm looking forward to the debates, but watch the coverage. It is pretty much guaranteed that Clinton will come off as composed, prepared, and Presidential. Trump will be Trump, and the news networks - with an eye to ratings, are more likely to cover the show that's more interesting. Even if it is cringe-inducing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know if Trump is so much "planning" on losing the debates as he is "realizing" that he'll lose the debates.

Given how badly Lauer was pilloried throughout his industry for his horrific failure to do his job during that last bullshit-fest, I can't see the debate moderators just giving him a pass on outright lies or changing the subject.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Trump has already won the election. He destroyed the Republican party from within and handed the presidency to one of his friends. And he got a ton of media attention to further build his brand and make him even more rich and famous than he already was. This was what he wanted from the outset.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump understands that controlling the media narrative is key to "winning" the debates, and he's already started. He's not planning on besting Clinton on policy points or by hving the better answer. He's betting on the news coverage of the debates being focused on his performance. If the networks talk about him more the following day, he wins. Even if he crashes and burns.

We should just have the debates in a football stadium and whoever's fans cheer the loudest wins the debate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump has already won the election. He destroyed the Republican party from within and handed the presidency to one of his friends. And he got a ton of media attention to further build his brand and make him even more rich and famous than he already was. This was what he wanted from the outset.

From the GOP's POV, that would be the best case scenario. If the Trump candidacy is the result of some external event as opposed to some systemic internal problem, it's simple for them to recover from this December. Adding some new rules to create some superdelegate-type positions at the convention will allow the establishment to overcome this type of outsider interference with their primary without much issue.

If, however, the Trump candidacy is the end result of several decades worth of the party catering to the lowest common denominator so that the ideas and attitudes which Trump represents and has tapped into are a fairly accurate reflection of a large part of their party, then there's no quick fix which will have their next primary be anything all that different.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think Trump is mentally preparing himself to lose. A way so it won't be his fault.

 

[Bronzeage]

Trump has already won the election. He destroyed the Republican party from within and handed the presidency to one of his friends. And he got a ton of media attention to further build his brand and make him even more rich and famous than he already was. This was what he wanted from the outset.

From the GOP's POV, that would be the best case scenario. If the Trump candidacy is the result of some external event as opposed to some systemic internal problem, it's simple for them to recover from this December. Adding some new rules to create some superdelegate-type positions at the convention will allow the establishment to overcome this type of outsider interference with their primary without much issue.

If, however, the Trump candidacy is the end result of several decades worth of the party catering to the lowest common denominator so that the ideas and attitudes which Trump represents and has tapped into are a fairly accurate reflection of a large part of their party, then there's no quick fix which will have their next primary be anything all that different.

It's not so much a "large part of their party," it's what's left of their party. When the GOP welcomed the religious right into their tent, some very serious compromises had to be made. One of them was accepting the idea that government power could be used to regulate and control public morals, or at least the appearance of public morals.

This was something contrary to traditional American conservative politics, but it lead them down an inevitable path.

The religious right cites the Bible as their ultimate authority, but can't agree on what it means. This is why in the past 2000 years, give or take, a small Jewish spin off group has become something in the order of 50,000 separate sects, each practicing their own interpretation of the Gospel. There is a lot of overlap, but somewhere back in time, there was a large enough disagreement to cleave the group into two parts.

The result of this splintering of absolute inviolate authority is plain to see when anyone tries to use the appeal of science in a political argument. Imagine if there were 50,000 slightly different versions of atomic theory. One sect believes electrons are positively charged, another says negative, and a third say electrons are neither. This leaves them vulnerable to anyone who can state their case in absolutes. It's simple for someone to say, "Cut taxes on the wealthy and they will invest their money, and everyone will benefit." It sounds so clear and clean, but it doesn't work. There is no ear in the GOP that can hear failure. The problem is always in the execution, not the concept. The problem was not an incorrect assumption, it was a lack of faith and commitment.

This is where the GOP finds itself today. There is no authority because there is too much authority and their only model for dealing with disagreements is to leave and form a separate group of true believers and each time there is a split, a lot of people simply drop out and don't attend either church.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if Trump is so much "planning" on losing the debates as he is "realizing" that he'll lose the debates.

Given how badly Lauer was pilloried throughout his industry for his horrific failure to do his job during that last bullshit-fest, I can't see the debate moderators just giving him a pass on outright lies or changing the subject.

Second this. It's damage control, not a planned throw.

 

[credoconsolans]

I don't know if Trump is so much "planning" on losing the debates as he is "realizing" that he'll lose the debates.

Given how badly Lauer was pilloried throughout his industry for his horrific failure to do his job during that last bullshit-fest, I can't see the debate moderators just giving him a pass on outright lies or changing the subject.

Second this. It's damage control, not a planned throw.

Agree.

Your wording is more correct.