But wait. Let me read this. It's possible that Reines will soul search and admit that he failed to figure out what Trump was doing that worked and that his contempt for Trump led him to portray a beatable Trump and caused Hillary to practice the wrong way.
To prepare myself for her grueling debate prep, I watched the 15 Republican primary debates and forums in which Trump participated three times each: once the whole way through; a second time focusing entirely on the exchanges he was part of; a third time with the sound off to watch his mannerisms and body language. I might know his debating style—if you want to call it that—better than anyone on the planet (aside from Hillary Clinton, of course).So... there's a false confidence! Better than anyone on the planet. But if you understood it all wrong, you might be more wrong about Trump's debating style than anyone on the planet. (Note the use of a superlative with a weasel word. We were talking about that in connection with Scott Adams yesterday, here.)
These are the qualities that make Trump such a tough opponent in a debate, despite the fact that he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history....Okay, now, I'm creating a new tag, "superlative + weasel word." This is perhaps the greatest tag in the history of blogging.
The bluster, vulgarity, innuendo and refusal to admit he’s wrong.... [I]magine if you didn’t care whether you got the job. Or worse, imagine if you’ve gotten every other job simply by being your obnoxious self, with no filter. A malevolent George Costanza. That guy is Donald Trump....He assumed Donald Trump is malevolent?! That was the key?!! I can see trying to deliver that message to viewers of a debate, but to have that as your background understanding of what's really going on inside Donald Trump? That strikes me as disastrous. George Costanza might be a helpful idea, but if you add malevolence, you've got George Constanza all wrong. Hey, Hillary, here's what you do: You know George Constanza? Yeah, that, but here's the twist: He's malevolent! Now, get out there and have a glorious debate.
Having thus established his credentials as just possibly the world's greatest expert on debating Donald Trump, Reines offers his advice:
Democrats need to be able to communicate and attack in the same kind of blunt language that has until now been inappropriate in national politics—or at least not get caught flat-footed when Trump makes a typically rude or crass comment. Blunt and direct does not, however, mean juvenile or immature....Why should Trump's opponents adopt Trump's style? I guess you could say that's not what Hillary did and she lost, so what the hell? Do the opposite...
As I slog through the nether regions of this column, I see that Reines is displaying his woeful inability to comprehend what Trump did that was effective. With no glimmer of understanding of how this dismissive, contemptuous attitude disserved the candidate he was hired to help (Hillary Clinton), Reines tells us Trump doesn't admit he's wrong and Trump lies.
So who is best able to call out his lies in real time, while standing a mere 10 feet away from him?Reines makes a sudden descent into sexism! Here's how the column ends, outrageously blaming Hillary's failure on her gender:
Like it or not, many people associate Trump with strength—and they find it appealing. He knows that, too, which is partly why he loomed over Hillary during the October 2016 town hall-style debate. For at least some people, that menacing show of physical size made him appear the dominant candidate.... Recently, Sen. Cory Booker said his testosterone, “sometimes makes me want to feel like punching Trump.” Biden has said that he “would take Trump behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.” Both men—probably to the eye rolls of many across the country—might try to out-muscle Trump on a debate stage. It’s also worth noting—no matter how unlikely a matchup—that at 6 foot 5, de Blasio would tower above Trump. (Watching the Republican debates, it seemed to me Jeb Bush’s height advantage unnerved Trump.)Yeah, that worked out well for Jeb.
पोस्ट्स
१४५ टिप्पण्या:
Philippe. ‘nuff said.
Reines tells us Trump doesn't admit he's wrong and Trump lies.
Describes Hillary better than it does Trump. Actually, you could pretty much use this sentence to characterized nearly every politician on this planet.
Phil, you are letter perfect. Keep up the good work.
Reines
The King/Queen’s style?
King Philippe?
Are you going to fix the duck/ducks tag from yesterday? You've said you don't like making new tags and "duck" has only one entry but "ducks" has plenty. It could very well be your greatest tag.
Do you get the feeling Phillippe has spent the last three years in the phreezer?
Let Reine's idiocy reign. How to beat Trump? Send in all the corrupt Hillary hacks to bloody him up.
FIFY
Like it or not, many people associate Hilkary with ......... - and they find it/her.......
The debates didn't lose the election for Hillary. Her laziness, stupidity, corruption and unlikability did. That is, her entire life.
Bill told her to campaign in WI and she refused and just sent her daughter.
Isn't Phillipe the guy who got the Russian "reset" button that had the wrong word for "reset" Russian on it?
Trump found talented people to help with his campaign. Hillary? Not so much.
Indeed. The whole height thing for example evinces a contempt for the voters. At least for those who voted Trump. So the spiel is: racist, sexist, heightist?
This guy is said to be the heir to the Massengill fortune...
I think he’s a douche too.
Trump likes to campaign. He gave kids in Iowa helicopter rides.
Generally speaking, Trump tells the unvarnished truth.
He recently did so in calling out Rep. Cummings for ripping off the poor in Baltimore and allying himself with black gangs in racketeering scams.
Hillary was his BOSS(he must have been "good" not to get FIRED out of /with/ gun)
- Philippe Reines is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State & Senior Advisor to Hillary Clinton,
https://images.app.goo.gl/Prv1CNBgnS44vJH69
I never wear suit pants when I’m on tv. No point. And I get hot easily. Pretty sure I’ve tweeted photos of myself not wearing pants.
If this was widely known to all
Q: How much R-E-S-P-E-C-T is appropriate confronting such debate opponent
It never occurs to them that the substance of Trump's campaign rather than the form is what appealed to the base.
Yeah, I read that earlier this morning and had almost the exact same reaction. Reines does, though, have one good point though he tried to turn it into a negative for Trump- Trump doesn't back down. Romney would have lost the election in 2012 no matter how well he did in the debates, but for me the most lasting impression of Romney was how supinely he reacted to Candy Crowley's intervention in his debate with Obama- and Romney was in the right, but still couldn't stand up for himself.
For $100 million, Trump would have played himself in Hillary’s debate prep sessions. Hillary pissed away over $1 billion. Would have been well worth the money.
Trump understands his opponent’s weaknesses.
Desperation is a stinky perfume.
Is it just me or does it always come off that their entire strategy is 'fooling' the voters?
"You closed the door on swing voters."
- Rahm Emanuel
Well, when you've lost Rahm...
Reined didn’t bring Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Wiley to the debate prep sessions.
That was his first mistake.
This is from Reines wiki page.....
A scathing piece by Politico in March 2009 highlighted Reines's responsibility for one of Clinton's early gaffes as Secretary of State – an erroneous Russian translation of the word "Reset" on a gag button presented to Clinton's Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.[
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!
"Reines didn’t bring Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Wiley to the debate prep sessions."
We have a thread winner!
"...in the same kind of blunt language that has until now been inappropriate in national politics..."
Dems have never been as classy as they like to think they are. And now they own the 'everything is racist' meme. They own it. They can wear it around their necks until the 2020 election. See how that shines. See how it looks on everyone tonight as they declare how they're going to beat Trump.
Remember- all they had to do to beat Trump was to not be crazy. They can't even do that.
Hi there!
I played General Robert E. Lee in war games against Union General George B. McClellan.
Let me tell you the secrets in how to defeat General Lee.
Trump has his finger on the pulse of those who share his bluntness. Those who are blinded by the hate they have for Trump and his "basket of deplorables" have their fingers somewhere else. Trump speaks truth to power for which he and the rest of us who understand and voted for him, are labeled YAWN...racists and other epithets that fall flat at their feet as the Trump train has already left the station. Reminds me of the outrageous behavior of some of the citizens of Milwaukee awhile back who engaged in AHEM; the same type of beyond the pale behavior we are witnessing now. Clear to me this is their behavior right out of Alinsky's rules for radicals. I encourage Trump to charge ANTIFA types with a domestic terrorist charge.
overconfidence is the best confidence
The inability of Trump's critics to ever, any of them, honestly look at what Trump is doing astonishes me. How many times can they take his bait, miss his point, lose to him, and yet insist that he is dumb? Don;t they realize what they are saying about themselves when they do this? (Actually, the obsession of the left with calling their opponents stupid is a mystification all its own.)
To be fair to Reines, Trump is a REALLY hard character to imitate. One of his best talents is meme magic: Nasty Woman, Worst Trade Deal Ever, and Sounds Good, Doesn't Work were pretty memetic. By contrast, Hillary looked and sounded like Broken Robot Rubio. Even if she had anyone on her staff that could improv "You'd be in jail" successfully, they'd promptly be in a bloody garbage bag on the curb. You can't save arrogant psychotics from themselves no matter if you got a debate prep from Harvard back before Harvard debate was a bunch of preppy Affirmative Action types pretending they know Ebonics.
And to be unfair to this feeble Hebrew who is clearly not where he is on merit, what the FUCK? So you're going to double down on My Opponent is a Liar and Cannot Be Trusted? Visit HillaryClinton.com? Do you feel safe, Liberals? Is a repeat of the FAILED 2016 strategy really your plan?
If someone has to tell you how to act cool, tough, and confident chances are you will never be able to pull it off. For the most part it is probably something that can't be taught and I suspect the actions that work are going to be different for different people.
I'm reminded of the 2000 debates, when Al Gore got away from his podium, and stood a few feet from George W. Bush and stared at him with a look of shock on his face. I have no doubt this was a planned occurrence on the Gore debate team. I assume they thought it would unsettle Bush, and make Gore look tough and commanding. But Bush simply glanced at Gore out of the corner of his eye, gave him a slight nod and said, "Hey how you doing?" dismissively. And from that point on Bush won that debate. It didn't matter what had been said or would be said. Bush was the confident tough guy. Bush was the leader between the two.
I am also surprised there hasn't been a bigger fallout in the political campaign advisor industry since the 2016 elections.
This person is hilariously clueless. He purports to know Trump's debating style "better than anyone on the planet" and then procedes to completely misunderstand Trump's appeal.
Democrats need to be able to communicate and attack in the same kind of blunt language that has until now been inappropriate in national politics—
I can tell you right now that would be Big Mistake®. Don't try to out-Trump Trump. If one of these candidates tries, it will come off as inauthentic, silly, and pandering.
he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history....
Not a master debater.
"Reines didn’t bring Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Wiley to the debate prep sessions."
Ya think, if there are debates at all, the Dems will submit a list of do not admits to CNN and MSNBC? (Dems won't debate on FOX, obviously) Always seem like they're fighting the last war, like this election's a do over, or something...
Trump has a trademark style, but he's constantly learning and adapting.
Reines' mistake is viewing Trump as static, and he is preparing Democrats to refight the last battle using stale tactics.
"Are you going to fix the duck/ducks tag from yesterday? You've said you don't like making new tags and "duck" has only one entry but "ducks" has plenty. It could very well be your greatest tag."
Dave, I don't know how to thank you enough. I throw so much thanks your way that you might need to duck.
@Yancey Ward ..
Q - Could/should Romney have walked off the stage and debate
- or at least till they removed Crowley and found substitute?
I would have respected that
One of his best talents is meme magic: Nasty Woman, Worst Trade Deal Ever, and Sounds Good, Doesn't Work were pretty memetic.
They give him so much material to work with. It’s easy.
@The Vault Dweller
Exactly. Their whole strategy is like the Steve Buschemi meme, "Well hello there fellow kids!"
There strategy is equivalent to Elizabeth Warren drinking fire water live on vine or Kamala and her magic technicolor-rubic's-cube dreamcoat.
"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. So I'm qualified to give you medical advice. Here's what I suggest you do . . ."
Yipes. Reines must be a plant from the Trump campaign.
Thanks for referring to Booker's and Biden's foolish threats of physical violence against Trump. How old are they? Trump would give them both noogies.
The idiocy is running deep these days, and the Dems are trying a market corner on stupid.
This stuff Philliippee has such contention for sounds like what the Oxford kids are taught at Union.
The ducks tag has 38 posts. Isn't that interesting? By clicking the tag you can get my ducks in a row.
By clicking the tag you can get my ducks in a row
More of a column. Ducks all the way down...
(Sorry for the bad link on the ducks tag... The 9:27 comment has it right and I've deleted the wrong one. I have to tell you this, because it's all about getting my ducks in a row.)
What we need is more Reines.
Glad he's in charge of the Dem Reset.
Tomorrow they'll have an assistant coach to the Washington Redskins explaining how to win the Super Bowl.
"More of a column. Ducks all the way down..."
The old rows and columns distinction....
You know, I have never once used a spreadsheet... except to try to read one that someone else made. I've never created a spreadsheet document of my own, and in fact, I write the word "spreadsheet" so rarely that every time I try to write it, I typo "spreadshit."
Well, Reines did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Has the liar liar pants on fire debate gambit ever won anywhere? Maybe that SCOTUS justice scored a point but that's about it.
Don't forget what McCaskill and her staff were caught saying live on video, that they had to lie about their support for gun rights and regarding gun legislation to get elected.
Their coaches and strategists are going to help them wave their arms, and that's about it as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, Biden needs great debate prep. Have the same people who prepped Robert Mueller get Joe ready.
The 2020 election is going to be a cakewalk.
I typo "spreadshit.
A someone who makes a living with spreadsheets: not a typo.
Hard to tell where these people are more lacking in insight - in their evaluation of Trump, or in their understanding of themselves and of how they appear to others.
Do they really believe their own delusional bullshit about how they're the competent adults in the room, upholding a standard of dignified, adult public discourse? E.g.:
"Democrats need to be able to communicate and attack in the same kind of blunt language that has until now been inappropriate in national politics—or at least not get caught flat-footed when Trump makes a typically rude or crass comment. Blunt and direct does not, however, mean juvenile or immature...."
How can you travel in a clown car and believe that about yourself?
"Watching the Republican debates, it seemed to me Jeb Bush’s height advantage unnerved Trump".
Well, if you can believe that Jeb Bush can intimidate anybody, let alone Trump, I guess you can believe anything. But to be fair to the guy, Reines is far more likely a clear-sighted flim-flammer just trying to make a living peddling hokey "expertise", like any other hard-working political "consultant".
Reigns is an extremely unctuous slimeball. How does Hillary manage to find the most disgusting male creatures that she hires? The Podesta Brothers? Robbie Mook? Harold Ickes?
And when they lack the ability to slither the way Hillary wants them to they get the Seth Rich treatment.
I'm reading my old "ducks"-tagged posts, and I ran across something from last August, "Am I not all excited about the 'constitutional crisis' — me, a former constitutional law professor?" Ha ha. What was the "constitutional crisis" of last August. I knew it was bullshit at the time, so I'm pleased with myself for not shouldering that particular burden. But how were ducks involved? The question was asked of me in this context: "Asked the lawyer friend I'd run into on the way back from my walk over to check the after-the-deluge water level of Lake Mendota." And I had a photograph of Lake Mendota, and there were ducks.
This Phillipe guy is so toast. He doesn't have the whole picture but he does have part of it, even though IT IS SOOOOO 2016.
The Dems have moved on. They'll end up hiring Blasey-Ford's legal team to coach the winning primary candidate.
It's the only way to ensure a message that's indelible in the hippocampus!!!
What blather!
Trump is effective because despite the BS and bluster he says what needs to be said. Democrats are disadvantaged by this because either: a. They don’t know what needs to be said; or b. What needs to be said is politically disadvantageous.
Thank you, Philippe, for this wonderful bit of writing. It is emblematic of all the thought processes that we have come to expect from you wonderful Ivy league men.
The old rows and columns distinction....
Have you ever heard a hard disk access row-major arrays in a column-major language??
I hope the Democrats just keep doing what they've been doing.
If they want an insight into the Clinton/Trump debates, they should watch that video where the actor and actress performed the candidates' debate lines but switched genders - he did Hillary and she did Trump. (Unfortunately, I've never been able to find a video of the whole thing.)
Ah Phil ' peregruska' reines, who Michael hastings once challenged over Benghazi
But you never won any debates did you?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/eric-felten-the-mifsud-mystery.php
I remember before the 2016 election there were photos of Trump with George Costanza quotations circulating online. "Thick lustrous hair is very important to me." "It's not a lie if you believe it." "This woman hates me so much, I'm starting to like her." "I always know when someone's uncomfortable at a party." "Well, I just stomped some pigeons in the park." Etc. As with so many things that were intended to be anti-Trump, they didn't work as intended. They were funny and endearing.
That's the kind of show I bail out of immediately. Joke laughtrack joke laughtrack ...
True even when there's no laughtrack.
The Dems best hope is to nominate a WNBA player to tower over Trump at the debates.
I wonder if Trump and the Democratic candidate will have a debate at all, in 2020.
The trend in election propaganda is that Trump is a cosmic evil, and that his voters are just as bad. One does not debate Satan. To speak with him, and them, is the route to spiritual corruption, and, worse, to appear on a stage to argue with him simply exposes your own innocent followers to evil thoughts.
This strategy has been growing in recent years. At one time debate was popular in mass media, but it is no longer the case. Debate is avoided, and shut down where it exists, and opposition media shut down where it can be.
I'm reminded of the 2000 debates, when Al Gore got away from his podium, and stood a few feet from George W. Bush and stared at him with a look of shock on his face.
Gore was wooden and that hurt, plus his sighing.
Not mentioned (I didn't read the piece) is the fact that Hillary walked over into Trump's space in one debate I saw. It looked like she was trying to intimidate this amateur.
The Buddhist monks that immolated themselves with gasoline during the Vietnam War seemed to get a lot of sympathy for their cause from around the world. Perhaps the Democrats can try that. "No borders, no walls, no USA at all." WHOOSH!
A few hundred of the candidates and Deep Staters should do the trick.
Trump is being a President Gone Wild on the stunned Dems ass. And they think they can counter that by acting like The SNL Church Lady and oh woo wooing his impure style. Boy are they dumb.
Trump's Army are following their straight talking and blasphemous General Patton rolling to total victory. The Dem idiots should play Hitler in the April 1945 Berlin Bunker TV specials for real. No subtitles needed.
And when Trump's Army gets there they will reveal the horrors of murders done by The Deep State to innocent children all over the world.
Debate is avoided, and shut down where it exists, and opposition media shut down where it can be.
This is plausible. Martha McSally refused to debate Sinema in Arizona in 2018 and lost. I think her unwillingness to do so hurt her badly.
Yes but that was because the press was on sinema side, ths age old problem, has mcsally done anything of note since she was appointed?
Have you ever heard a hard disk access row-major arrays in a column-major language??
I'm getting a hard disk just thinking about it!
In 2016 Trump's reality TV persona was enough to get him over the finish line. He is now the reality President. I would be suprised if he doesn't win in a electoral landslide with the experience he has gained in 4 years. Season 5 coming up! A crashed economy or major war is the only way he loses.
Trump supporters will hope this genius is involved. He still doesn’t know what happened and he’s sure he’s right.
I might know his debating style—if you want to call it that—better than anyone on the planet (aside from Hillary Clinton, of course).
So, he doesn't think it is a debating style
but he understands it!
BETTER!!
than Anyone! aside from President Hillary Clinton!!!!
He's GOT a point! NO ONE got Trump better than the lady that destroyed him in the debates, and ended up beating him by fifty points!
Article seems a year early.
I think the word "expert" means blinded by confidence into abject stupidity, but I'm no expert.
Their hatred of Trump continues to blind them. The challenge they have is not to understand Trump, but understanding the people who voted for him.
Despite Trump's incredible success so far, I am not confident. I'm reassured by the fact that I know of nobody who voted for him in 2016 who will not in 2020, except some who have died and will of course now become reliable Democrat voters.
The problem is the stubborn stupidity of the public, at least in what I see in polls, where half the country doesn't approve of Trump's handling of the economy. If you can't see the best economy in your lifetime as a good thing, then what the hell is wrong with you? Any generic president would have great approval ratings with Trump's numbers. It's like refusing a winning lottery check because the guy giving it to you is wearing a MAGA hat. People, get your heads out of your asses.
"It's not a lie if you believe it."
This illustrates what I hate about Seinfeld. Why is that supposed to be such a clever and funny line? Of course it's not a lie if you believe it. If I said my brother drives a Ford, and I was mistaken because it's actually a Mercury, is that a lie? Maybe the Seinfeld writers should have invested in a dictionary.
The show was never funny, at least not when I tried to watch it. The jokes and dialogue were badly written, the "music" was unlistenable, and that tall, thin freak with the bizarre hair is a one-note "comic" actor, unbearable to watch more for than a few minutes. Jerry is an even worse actor who couldn't even convincingly portray himself. He hit his marks and read his lines, not quite making me believe that he was that character. Also, I was easily able to curb my enthusiasm for that other Larry David show, and only watched it a short time on a friend's recommendation.
“I might know his debating style—if you want to call it that—better than anyone on the planet (aside from Hillary Clinton, of course).”
That parenthetical is the textbook example of a toady kissing his boss’s ass. What a contemptible worm.
Article seems a year early.
Democrat primary is in full swing. I suspect the primary motivation for writing this piece wasn't to enlighten the audience, but really for this guy to put his resume out in the field so he can hopefully get hired by what whatever democrat campaign comes out on top. That is why he included the fake praise for Hillary. He is labeling himself a democrat, who's previous work included the Hillary campaign, and also indicating he won't break bad on any Democrat who hires him, even if they lose. It wasn't Hillary's fault she lost, after all she knew Donald Trump better than ANYONE!
Blogger Char Char Binks said... Seinfeld Sucks
What did you think of CHEERS?
GatorNavy said...
"Thank you, Philippe, for this wonderful bit of writing. It is emblematic of all the thought processes that we have come to expect from you wonderful Ivy league men."
Yes, a man that grew up on the Upper East Side of Manhattan ( the Silk Stocking Dist.) who went to an expensive prep school, fucked around with no sign of employment, then went to Columbia and finally found employment by ingratiating himself to national democrat politicians. He's a guy that clearly has the pulse of the voters of America.
Seen him on the news, he's an idiot.
I like Trump, and I don't understand him. I'm absolutely sure this guy and the rest of the Never-Trumpers don't have a clue, and they prove it every day.
"Cheers" was okay at times, but not my idea of hilarious.
I barely remember it, but maybe the worst thing about it was that it spun off "Frasier", a weak, mediocre comedy, with one-note characters that was inexplicably popular. People even seemed to think "Frasier" was sophisticated comedy, maybe because the Crane brothers were "sophisticated". Maybe "Gilligan's Island" was sophisticated because it had a millionaire, a movie star, and a professor.
Blogger Char Char Binks said... Seinfeld Sucks
Char Char could work a little on his Jebidiah Atkinson
I'm getting a hard disk just thinking about it!
It ain't over until the stepper-motors sing!!
So far as I can remember, there was never a debate where afterwards the pundits said Trump won. The post game analysis was always comments about how this time Trump went too far or how Carli Fiorina really demolished him. I don't understand Trump's appeal. Neither does Reince, but, at least, I understand that Trump has appeal.
The Trump deranged often accuse Althouse of defending Trump, but in fact, if you listen carefully, you will see that she is giving you keys to defeating him. Your problem, trolls, is that you are so disciplined in your messaging that you don’t allow yourself to think creatively, and now, during the primaries, is your time to do this.
All these super smart anti-Trumpers have been working overtime to first defeat him in the primaries, then defeat him in the general election, then get him removed from office. They have so far failed, spectacularly. He just wins. I don't have a link handy, but there is a video of Trump stopping his motorcade along a road so he can get out and greet and banter with a bunch of firefighters. In short order they are all talking and laughing and poking fun at each other and with Trump. He appeals to wide swaths of Americans, and has won over quite a few, such as me, not least of which because of the ravings of dopes like this Reines guy.
And malevolent? Someone will have to enlighten me about his malevolence because I can't think of an example. And tweets don't count.
@Char Char Binks,
So what you're saying is you have lousy taste in comedy.
Dissing Seinfeld, Cheers, and Frasier? What shows did you like? The Facts of Life? Three's Company? Alf?
I have a rule about ducks, never count the ducklings as they swim past the dock in a little. row, because there are always fewer the next time you see them.
"Someone will have to enlighten me about his malevolence because I can't think of an example.”
He beat a Democrat.
And malevolent?
We were promised apocalypse if he won. Another leftie lie...
Why should we not re-elect Trump? Best economy in 50 years and the "world" respects us again. Here much from IRIS, Syria, or Rocketman lately? No new hot wars like under the last 3 clowns
"This illustrates what I hate about Seinfeld. Why is that supposed to be such a clever and funny line?”
There was more to that line than that. Obviously he knew he was lying and was looking for a loophole in typical George Castanza fashion. Who reassures themselves that something that they PLAN to say won’t be a lie if they believe it?
Objectively speaking, Trump's debates with Hillary were not a victory in the objective sense. There was one in particular where he almost seemed to be having a meltdown, and just released all sorts of verbiage. "Rosie O'Donnell," etc. But he was playing an entirely different game. Hillary arguably won at least one debate, possibly all of them, but it really didn't matter. Even when Trump said peculiar things that he got criticized for, he was sucking all the life and energy out of her campaign. It was as if the entire political reality had changed, and Trump was the only one who realized it (in part because he created it).
Having said that, nothing bothers me more than post-debate analysis. I thought Biden came off as a complete a-hole in his debate with Ryan, but everyone was praising him afterwards.
Sorry for the double "objective" in my first sentence. Lousy writing.
Blogger rehajm said...
I typo "spreadshit.
A someone who makes a living with spreadsheets: not a typo.
As someone that makes a living with a manure spreader. I agree.
"Someone will have to enlighten me about his malevolence because I can't think of an example"
Sticking his arm up Hillary's ass and using her like a sock puppet wasn't very nice.
Phillipe Reines had a job--and failed miserably. It's all your fault, you blithering idiot! You were supposed to help that sack of potatoes in a pants suit across the goal line.
A smarter man might have avoided writing that piece.
In the Seinfeld episode, Jerry is scheduled to a take a police lie detector test on something that he has lied about to his girlfriend. He is asking George to teach him how to lie to like George does- easily and convincingly- what is George's trick? George tells him- he believes his own lies.
Philippe Reines is described in "Shattered" as being one of the few people on the planet who could get away with being nasty to Hillary. In other words, he was cast to play Trump because he was the resident "asshole-in-chief" and the Hillary campaign saw Trump as being primarily an asshole. History later showed that assumption about Trump's nature to be woefully simplistic.
The Podesta Brothers? Robbie Mook? Harold Ickes?
You forgot the worst, Sidney Blumenthal.
I agree that Seinfeld sucks, one or two full episodes was enough. The standup bit at the end was nails-on-chalkboard bad. I can no longer abide shows with either canned or studio laughter.
From a truly objective classic scholastic debate point of view, Clinton won every debate fairly handily. I think I said as much at the time. However, audience expectations matter in the true measure of effectiveness of political debates- Trump's team played down expectations before every debate, and guess what- his opponents aided him in this endeavor. And when Trump's carcass wasn't dragged off the stage by the clearly triumphant and brilliant Hillary!, that audience said to themselves, "Trump held his own when he should have been slaughtered."
Looks like Democrats are going to once again help Trump set expectations.
@Andrew: I think you are on to something. Winning the debate doesn't advance the campaign. They aren't really debates, in the sense that there is a policy or issue that they argue about the best way to address. What they are is a performance to show the voting public that the candidate possesses what they want, whatever that may be, and policy positions don't really matter - they are already well known. Trump wins by losing because all the post debate talk, after a short spin cycle of "Hillary won", is about him and what he did or said or didn't do or say, or how he behaved. Thus he gets more air time and more effectively shows more to the voters.
You might consider a "how you get more Trump" tag.
"Alf?"
ALF is hilarious.
If you win the debates AND the popular vote, you are the President. I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution somewhere, or at least some penumbra or emanation thereof. Or maybe the UN Charter.
Knowing what we know about Madame Clinton, it's pretty obvious to me that, even had Reines been capable of accurately emulating The Real Donald Trump, there is no way in hell he would have been permitted to best her in argument.
Maybe they can convince one of the players to use the following quotes from Mayor Pete against Trump:
via Charlie Spiering at Breitbart:
White Nationalist violence has killed more people on American soil than any other source of terrorism. We got to name that, confront that and say that is not us. It could be the lurking issue that ends this country in the future if we don’t wrangle it down in our time.
He [Trump] is failing to protect us from the clear and present dangers that white nationalism poses. I think the moment you come on board with a project like the Trump campaign or the Trump-Pence administration, you are at best complicit in the process that has given cover for the flourishing and the resurgence of white nationalism in our midst.
We need to acknowledge this threat too and redirect appropriate resources to combat right-wing extremism and violent white nationalism. You can see it in the simple fact that someone convicted of the same crime is more likely to face the death penalty if they are black. Not to mention the very ugly history of the way that judicial and extra-judicial killings have been used to enforce white supremacy through American history.
Ga6: Considering that I never heard of "white nationalism" or "alt-Right" or any of those buzzwords until the day after Trump was elected, I have no doubt that this was the boogeyman created to explain Trump's victory.
Their strategy is influenced by Goebbels' "big lie" theory, that if you say something long enough and strong enough, people will begin to believe it. Especially if they make it difficult for their opponents to criticize them for lying.
Yes, there's always been idiots like that out there, but like leftists who wish to destroy this country, they are a minority.
it's a strategy they tried with goldwater in the 60s, distilled Frankfurt school, now this latest fellow, is apparently 1/4 Iranian, according to social media accounts,
Reines=Loser. Reminds me of what Talleyrand said about the Bourbons; Reines forgot nothing and learned nothing.
The real question is, why did Politico run with this? Whose interests or agenda is being served?
"From a truly objective classic scholastic debate point of view, Clinton won every debate fairly handily. "
That's like thinking you won a basketball game by ball handling circles around your opponent while he dunks it over your head at will. Clinton didn't seem to even know what the game was about, and still doesn't.
99.99% of the voters have no idea how to score a scholastic debate, but we all know what the winner looks like in a political one. And I have to ask again: "What about the Dingell-Norwood Bill?"
what did twain say about the truth:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/30/former-federal-prosecutor-confirms-rep-john-ratcliffes-role-in-holy-land-foundation-case/
A fool is somebody who plays a game for high stakes when they don’t know the rules. Often they figure them out right at the end.
despite the fact that he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history....
They still don't see it, do they?
"despite the fact that he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history...."
What does that say about the 16 Republicans and the 1 surviving champion of the Dems debates who were all vanquished by him. Can there be a whole bunch of "worst debaters"? Were they super duper uber worst?
"if a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex?"
It seems that the 16-year old girl does have the constitutional right to have sex with an older man.
Has there ever been a young girl prosecuted for giving her consent?
It is the man that is legally forbidden from having sex with a minor.
A formal debate is something like a Marquess of Queensbury-ruled prizefight.
This is an effective way of regulating competition while isolating such factors ruled to be extraneous and outside of the consensus of the audience. Limited means are also voluntarily adopted because the competition is over a limited prize. Innovation is also frowned upon, as that introduces unpredictability, not desired by the punters.
That is, this is a form of intraspecific competition. A pseudo-war, or a limited war, between sides that recognize some larger unity between themselves. Consider prizefighting as in a continuum with medieval jousting, or even 18th century European warfare.
Various writers on warfare have noted a distinction between forms of war fought within unified or related cultural contexts, and those between societies with little connection. The latter sort of war tends to be much more brutal, have unlimited varieties of tactics, and unlimited stakes. That sort of war works much more like animal predation.
As US societies break down into separate "tribes", with disappearing commonalities, power struggles between them become much more like that second sort of war, a total struggle, or predation.
Jim at said...
"despite the fact that he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history....
They still don't see it, do they? "
No they do not. lets use that to our advantage.
Great post. Yeah, lets listen to the LOSER! He knows all about it. Maybe Hillary can write a "How to defeat Trump" column.
Trump is sui generis. He combines humor with obnoxious bluster. Strength with caring. He engages in puffery and exaggeration but its not offensive. And he can speak simply, yet sound intelligent.
Most important of all, he speaks the truth on most issues, and is an American patriot who stands where most Americans stand. That's the D's real problem. Their concern for the American people is Fake. They wouldn't support globalism and open borders if it wasn't.
rehajm said...
By clicking the tag you can get my ducks in a row
More of a column. Ducks all the way down...
That looks like a list.
Column/Row infers 2x matrix.
Trump destroyed Hillary because Hillary was a immensely flawed candidate. The problem is that no R except Trump had the guts and skill necessary to point it out - and win. Cruz would've attacked Hillary and come off as creepy and obnoxious. Jeb would've wimped out - and not have the guts to take her on. Only Trump had the right combination.
By saying he would enforce the immigration laws, secure the border, negotiate better trade deals, and stay out of useless foreign wars Trump was promising what the American people wanted.
And the all the D's could do, is screech "racist, racist, you dirty rotten racist" over and over and over again.
“I’m not a doctor, but I played one on TV.”
What an idiot.
Oh never mind:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=382574
They say Hillary won the debates but I disagree. I used to debate and some of the strong teams had a large pile of index cards containing their various points. As they listened, they had this ploy of getting out the cards refuting their opponents' points and smirking. They did well but they weren't at the top because, usually, they weren't really answering the exact point, they'd spent too much time looking for the cards, getting out the cards, arranging the cards and smirking; and they weren't ever likable or interesting, being all smirk and memorized argument. Hillary was like that.
PS I'm not sure that any Dem I've seen can debate even as effectively as Hillary any more. It's name-calling all the way down.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
In the Seinfeld episode, Jerry is scheduled to a take a police lie detector test on something that he has lied about to his girlfriend. He is asking George to teach him how to lie to like George does- easily and convincingly- what is George's trick? George tells him- he believes his own lies.
7/30/19, 11:28 AM
IIRC, it was about whether he watched Melrose Place. Funny episode of a funny series.
So does the Trump campaign need to declare this op-ed as in kind donation?
I'm a little sad my duck down joke fell flat...
...you know- like in a fluffy pillow.
reines was able to get away with a heck of a lot,
https://saraacarter.com/nunes-the-fbi-and-cias-actions-overseas-must-be-investigated/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug
This is perhaps the greatest tag in the history of blogging.
The quip that truly brightened my day. Many thanks, Althouse.
What an idiot. He thinks Trump won because he was obnoxious and crude. The fact is that he won despite being obnoxious and crude.
So, is he claiming he beat Clinton in their mock debate? I'm way too tired to read his stuff.
If you want to help someone win the Presidency, don't imagine yourself in the position of the winner of the last election: Imagine yourself as an undecided voter, and ask what the candidate would need to do, to say, to promise, to get you to decide to vote for him/her. Hillary didn't do that, obviously (remember the deplorables?). Trump did, and he guessed right (it was a near run thing, though). I don't see any sign that ANY of the current crop of Democrat candidates are doing that.
If Biden and Booker want to punch out the president, what do you think they'd do to the rest of us? They'll be herding us into the death camps.
"He is asking George to teach him how to lie to like George does- easily and convincingly- what is George's trick? George tells him- he believes his own lies."
Now I get it.
It's the same trick Sgt. Dietrich pulled on "Barney Miller" when he claimed he was born a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, to prove the unreliability of polygraph tests, and that several psychopathic murderers have used to pass them, as recounted in at least one Ann Rule book, only not as funny.
@Char Char Binks:"He is asking George to teach him how to lie to like George does- easily and convincingly- what is George's trick? George tells him- he believes his own lies."
Now I get it.
Well, George convinces himself that the lie deserves to be true is maybe a better way to put it (can do it under time pressure too). Jerry really did not understand the tip.
There's a little more. George's ability to lie does him very little good. Jerry has known George all his life and doesn't seem to make the connection that lying like George isn't going to turn out any better than it does for George.
hat tall, thin freak with the bizarre hair is a one-note "comic" actor, unbearable to watch more for than a few minutes.
Kramer is the smart one. He always has a scheme or an angle or knowledge that the others don't have. That's why they go along with him even though it never works: they know he's smarter and they can't really argue with him.
And like George's lying, Kramer's superior intelligence doesn't even really do Kramer that much good. Kramer's victories are usually more about being in the right place at the right time mostly through luck and not being tied to a job.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा