Best and Worst 2020 candidates to debate Trump

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Sanders is a terrible debater, Trump would eat him alive.

The best debater would be a woman who's personable, witty and solid on policy. Gilibrand? IDK.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Honestly, I think we should pull a Trump and refuse to debate him.

Hmmmm . . .

This could actually be a good strategy.  The devil would be in the details of how to pull this off and what narrative to lean on.

The debates are not debates, and Trump got that.  He was as skillful as could be in the debates.  Folks don't get that, but Trump used nasty, throwaway debate lines to communicate what he wanted:

When Trump said, "Such a nasty woman!"  in debate, he was communicating to folks a sentiment many voters (including many undecided voters shared.

When Trump said, "I LOVE eminent domain!" in the primaries, he followed it up by saying, "Your Keystone Pipeline wouldn't be 10 inches long without eminent domain!" (or something like that), he conveyed to voters that he was for something they wanted and thought of an obstacle the others didn't.

Trump attached monikers to folks that stuck.  "Little Marco".  "Lyin' Ted".  "Crooked Hillary".  These monikers have stuck, and have hurt these folks in the estimation of the public.  He downright humiliated Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham. 

All of this happened because conventional wisdom doesn't apply to Trump.  The normal rules of normal politics don't apply to Trump.  In challenging Trump, it's "Game on, Wayne!", and Trump's both OK with that and ready for it.  There are still a gaggle of pols scratching their head asking, "What just happened?" after 2016. 

I think this is a strategy the Democrats ought to consider.  Debates that are not debates put Trump onstage.  Where he always wins.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Honestly, I think we should pull a Trump and refuse to debate him.

Hmmmm . . .

This could actually be a good strategy.  The devil would be in the details of how to pull this off and what narrative to lean on.

The debates are not debates, and Trump got that.  He was as skillful as could be in the debates.  Folks don't get that, but Trump used nasty, throwaway debate lines to communicate what he wanted:

When Trump said, "Such a nasty woman!"  in debate, he was communicating to folks a sentiment many voters (including many undecided voters shared.

When Trump said, "I LOVE eminent domain!" in the primaries, he followed it up by saying, "Your Keystone Pipeline wouldn't be 10 inches long without eminent domain!" (or something like that), he conveyed to voters that he was for something they wanted and thought of an obstacle the others didn't.

Trump attached monikers to folks that stuck.  "Little Marco".  "Lyin' Ted".  "Crooked Hillary".  These monikers have stuck, and have hurt these folks in the estimation of the public.  He downright humiliated Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham.  

All of this happened because conventional wisdom doesn't apply to Trump.  The normal rules of normal politics don't apply to Trump.  In challenging Trump, it's "Game on, Wayne!", and Trump's both OK with that and ready for it.  There are still a gaggle of pols scratching their head asking, "What just happened?" after 2016.  

I think this is a strategy the Democrats ought to consider.  Debates that are not debates put Trump onstage.  Where he always wins.

Except Clinton won the debates in 2016 as all the post-debate polls showed. Trump might have got in a few zingers which energised his base, "You'd be in jail" etc., but they were washed out by the damage his demeanour did with educated Republicans and horrified liberals.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Honestly, I think we should pull a Trump and refuse to debate him.

Hmmmm . . .

This could actually be a good strategy.  The devil would be in the details of how to pull this off and what narrative to lean on.

The debates are not debates, and Trump got that.  He was as skillful as could be in the debates.  Folks don't get that, but Trump used nasty, throwaway debate lines to communicate what he wanted:

When Trump said, "Such a nasty woman!"  in debate, he was communicating to folks a sentiment many voters (including many undecided voters shared.

When Trump said, "I LOVE eminent domain!" in the primaries, he followed it up by saying, "Your Keystone Pipeline wouldn't be 10 inches long without eminent domain!" (or something like that), he conveyed to voters that he was for something they wanted and thought of an obstacle the others didn't.

Trump attached monikers to folks that stuck.  "Little Marco".  "Lyin' Ted".  "Crooked Hillary".  These monikers have stuck, and have hurt these folks in the estimation of the public.  He downright humiliated Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham.  

All of this happened because conventional wisdom doesn't apply to Trump.  The normal rules of normal politics don't apply to Trump.  In challenging Trump, it's "Game on, Wayne!", and Trump's both OK with that and ready for it.  There are still a gaggle of pols scratching their head asking, "What just happened?" after 2016.  

I think this is a strategy the Democrats ought to consider.  Debates that are not debates put Trump onstage.  Where he always wins.

Except Clinton won the debates in 2016 as all the post-debate polls showed. Trump might have got in a few zingers which energised his base, "You'd be in jail" etc., but they were washed out by the damage his demeanour did with educated Republicans and horrified liberals.

TRUMP won the debates.

Trump WON the debates.

Trump won THE debates.

Trump won the DEBATES.

No matter where you put the emphasis, Trump won the debates.  Why?  Because he's sitting in the White House listening to Hillary Clinton whine on TV.

"Winning the debates" is a step to the goal of "Winning the White House", is it not?  So how does a candidate lose the debates in the manner the media said Trump lost them, and still get elected?  There are only 3 possibilities:

1.  Trump really did win the debates in the eyes of those that voted.

2.  The debates don't matter; winning them is not really a step toward getting elected.

3.  The debates aren't really debates; they are just another talk show.

My wife was a debater in high school and college, and understands what a debate really is.  Trump would look terrible under those circumstances; he'd be cut off and removed for not following the rules.  But the debates of 2016 were not debates at all, and displays of bias on the part of the media and moderators only helped reinforce Trump's narrative of a biased media, however unwittingly.   Folks lived in this dream world that Trump would be exposed, once and for all, as a buffoon in the debates.  It didn't happen; folks who didn't like Trump already thought he was a buffoon, and folks who were undecided thought less of Hillary after the debates. 

How could that last sentence be?  Simply by the fact that Trump has been an open source of news and entertainment for decades now, whereas Hillary has been the female Sphinx, closed and guarded, making mistakes when cornered because she then has no choice but to be at least partially candid, and then comes off as being phony and/or having something to hide.  I think everyone underestimated just how much of an albatross that particular characteristic proved to be for Hillary in 2016.

[mcmikk]

Franken and Biden. Both personable and funny and could probably humiliate Trump in a debate to some degree. Anyone remember the 2012 VP debate?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Winning the debates doesn't automatically win you the Presidency. Kerry won the debates in 2004.

If Trump won, how do you explain all the post-debate polls showing voters thought Clinton won by double digit margins?

[UWS]

I agree that Biden would be among the bests. I remember during the 2012 vice-presidential debate that Biden performed well while Paul Ryan sometime looked a few intimitated. In addition, the "Now you're Jack Kennedy " line was remarkable.

[President Johnson]

How about Stephen Colbert? I think he would destroy Trump with humor really really big league, to put it in Trump's own words.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Best - Booker, Harris, Brown, Biden
Worst - Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand

Why Sanders would be among the worsts? In the Democratic debates in 2016, most of the time, he performed better than Hillary Clinton.

LMAO.

The debates convinced me to support Clinton over Sanders. Sanders can off as unprepared and out of control.

Hillary had the questions ahead of time.

Was that for all the debates or just the CNN one?

I don't know which ones, but three of the debates involved CNN. In any case, if there was fair debate, I don't think she would have gone to it. PBS ended the debate right after Bernie was attacked. Univision played some out of context attack video on Bernie from 30 years ago during the middle of the debate.

[Shadows]

Best - Booker, Harris, Brown, Biden
Worst - Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand

Why Sanders would be among the worsts? In the Democratic debates in 2016, most of the time, he performed better than Hillary Clinton.

I mean there's a reason a lot of Sanders supporters don't bring up Sanders debate with Ted Cruz.

A debate that he won & performed very well. I don't think anyone who is not a hack will say Ted Cruz won. At best, Cruz did as good as Sanders, which is a stretch.

BTW Ted Cruz is a 10 times better debater than Hillary. Lyin' Ted was a national level champion debater back in his day. He is not just one of the best debaters currently, but in the last few decades.

Best - Booker, Harris, Brown, Biden
Worst - Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand

Why Sanders would be among the worsts? In the Democratic debates in 2016, most of the time, he performed better than Hillary Clinton.

LMAO.

The debates convinced me to support Clinton over Sanders. Sanders can off as unprepared and out of control.

This. Also, Sanders managed to embarrass himself in front of Ted-freaking-Cruz.

This is embarrassing & stupid. Given not a Single Democrat said Cruz won convincingly. Everyone (Democrats & Republicans) in the thread said it was tie, Sanders was better, Cruz was better but more of a stalemate.

Very few people said anyone destroyed anyone. But you have a history of making false statements in these threads.

[Shadows]

When the Sanders vs Cruz debate happened, liberals were like Sanders won, conservatives were like Cruz won. Most people were this is a likely stalemate but Sanders did great in many areas & pummeled Cruz hard in many while Ted Cruz did fantastic in other areas arguing against 1 payer (mostly by showing fake data, lies & anecdotal evidence which is impossible to counter on the spot).

And now it has changed to Cruz (who is likely the best Debater today) actually beat Bernie convincingly.

It seems people will say anything & everything to oppose Bernie

[JosephMI]

Here's the thing... Trump lost all three debates to Hillary. Frankly, he didn't win any of the primary ones either. Those were won by candidates like Rubio, Kasich, etc. Just ask the Trump supporters now who will win the 2020 debates, they already have their minds made up.

When it is Trump, all that matters is who will be on defense more, who has better zings, and who brings a more memorable, confident "performance." Trump will try to bully and belittle the other on the debate stage, instead of finding holes in their policy and arguments. The opposing candidate will have to not only have good policy arguments but also attack and keep Trump on the defensive.  It's theater with Trump.

[Tekken_Guy]

Someone with a good sense of humor like Franken or Colbert. He could easily get under Trump's skin. Unlike more conventional politicians a comedic candidate would be able to play mindgames with him. Instead of just acting calm before the storm they deflect Trump's brashness back at him.