Debate this

Ah, the Great Debate!  One down, two to go.  I'm still reading about it, at leisure; it is what it is.  Or is it?

There is something very strange going on, we are not witnessing the democratic process in action.  This is some kind of manipulative theater, directed by forces unknown.

Consider the polls.  Legitimate polling used to reflect what has already occurred, but now they are used to affect future action and are no longer passive observations.  You can design a poll to give whatever result you want by juggling sample size, target demographic, method of contact to the pollee (is that even a word?), or any other kind of variable.  Once you get the result you want you can jump on your soapbox and proclaim the wonderfulness of your endeavors.  Uncle Ken has stated that the Big Girl is polling higher, but there are many other polls (of questionable validity, to be sure) that state otherwise.  You can believe what you want to believe, as there will be plenty of evidence to back you up regardless of your point of view.

-----

How we receive information can be just as important as the information itself.  After the first televised debate in 1960, folks that watched the debate thought Kennedy won but those that heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won.  This is why I don't trust the validity of televised debates.  Too many things can manipulate the outcome; lighting, camera angles, and audio mixing are hidden persuaders.  The goal seems to be good television as opposed to good public service.

It get worse once the debate is over.  Little snippets can be edited to reflect whatever message you want to send.  A freeze-frame at the proper moment can show the candidate as a dignified statesman or a slack jawed mope.  Look at all the images of Hillary as a crazed, wild-eyed loon...a quick freeze-frame, taken out of context, but that's the image that will stick in your head.

It's enough to drive one to drink, and make it a double, my good sirs.

-----

Since I didn't watch the main show on Monday night, I thought the best way to learn about it would be to read the transcript, which I did, for the most part.  The NPR site did a fine job, with many fact-checking annotations.

It started normally enough, with coherent statements from both sides.  But as it progressed, one candidate's ramblings devolved into near jibberish, as if two thoughts couldn't be linked in an intelligent manner.  I need not say who it was...

-----

Much has been speculated about possible Russian links to the Fat Boy, and I would not discount it all out of hand.  But what about his links to organized crime in the New York construction trades?  Is that his driving force, was he made an offer he couldn't refuse?