IMHO, at the next debate(s), the microphone of the candidate being asked the question should be the only candidate with an active microphone. This would prevent interruptions, instead of stopping interruptions after the fact. It would also eliminate any accusations that the moderator used biased decision making in whose microphone needed to be turned off.
Disclaimer: I did not watch the debate live, as I expected the debacle. Sometimes I hate it when I’m right.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Pretty good article in WaPo about how the NBA is translating its corporate and player advocacy into action. I'm always skeptical of how much "so what" is there when businesses take up issues. Plenty of greenwashing, virtual signaling, corporate patriotism/nationalism that's full of empty promises and mostly designed to sell. Seems like the NBA as an enterprise, as well as many of the players, is doing a pretty good job of actually doing some real stuff. There's also some interesting information in there about player apathy and voting engagement prior to this election.
Teams have held drive-in registration events, installed ballot drop boxes on their privately owned sites and scheduled Nov. 3 as a paid day off for employees. And while other leagues, notably the NFL and WNBA, have promoted voting, the NBA has pooled its resources for what will be the most organized and largest political effort executed by a professional sports league, with 22 of the league’s 30 teams turning either their arenas or practice facilities into polling places.
On Wednesday, More Than A Vote announced it had attracted approximately 10,000 volunteers.
Amway Center, the 875,000-square-foot arena in downtown Orlando, will also open for early voting. When it does, Bamba will be there, volunteering as perhaps the nation’s most towering poll worker.
An oldie-but-goodie solution for the next debate. The added benefit would be that we wouldn't hear them either.
cone-of-silence.jpg
Last edited by camion; 10-01-2020 at 11:04 AM.
However, since this is a basketball site I will give a bad basketball analogy.
A team is down 2 at the end of the game, is on defense and needs a stop. The ball goes into the post and two of your best defenders have to double the ball...This is like Kayleigh McEnany and Jim Johnson having to make statements like they just made regarding Trump's taxes.
The ball is passed out to the wing and VP Pence has to come out and defend the Covid questions.
The ball is rotated to the best 3-pointer for the dagger shot at the end of the game and the only defender left is your worst 3-point defender (Trump). While this happens the bench then yells out (Mitch McConnell) oh no that guy can't defend the 3.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Nate Silver has now moved Biden out to an 80/20 favorite. He opines that the debate may have cost Trump a little (not a lot), but that the squandered opportunity hurt most since Trump has to change the trajectory quickly.
I think I read somewhere (heck, maybe on this thread) that Nate thinks Trump would only have about a 9% chance if the election was today and all else was as is. Time is Trump's enemy.
(At least, to the extent the actual vote determines who is president this time around).
It's been a disturbing campaign so far. If you find yourself struggling with repressed emotional trauma, this video may help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvIPiomE6I
That takes me back 32 years! I think you've got a solution to the debate problem. Give both Trump and Biden a buzzer. When they think their opponent is lying, they may given them an electric shock.
If either candidate lives through the debate, they get to be President.
Yes, as of yesterday, Silver posted an article noting that if the election were held yesterday Trump would have only a 9% chance to win. The 21% (as of yesterday; as you note it's dropped to 20% as of today) takes into account uncertainty over the next 5 weeks. But each day that we get closer to the election and the polls don't move, the chances for Trump to win go down.
Caveat emptor: this assumes a "typical" election in which voters aren't suppressed more than is historically common (the fivethirtyeight model takes into account the uncertainty between polling data and actual votes based on historical data) the model will hold as useful. If additional shenanigans come into play, who knows?
If they officially implement the mic mute rule, I wonder if one of the candidates will bring one of those foam earplugs and spend an intentional few seconds rolling it up and putting it in his opponent-side ear when his mic-less opponent shouts out an interruption anyway?
"We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust