Home » The great debate switcheroo

Comments

The great debate switcheroo — 12 Comments

  1. Seems to me that the people who hate Trump hate him much, much more than those who hated Clinton (not that they liked her just not as much hate) so there was probably nothing he could have done or no way he could have presented himself that would have convinced these people to even give him a little credit. So the switcheroo shouldn’t be that surprising.

    The pathological hatred of Trump is very fascinating to me. There has never been a politician that I have remotely hated like some people hate Trump. Mentioned to a distraught relative a couple days after the election that their life was really no different than before but just wouldn’t buy it. Don’t get turning over one’s happiness to such a distant force. Seems sad.

  2. What surprised me the most was that the clip and the results ever saw the light of day! It seems like it would have been shelved and forgotten.

  3. One of the producers said the audience was quite put off by the effeminate mannerisms of the man playing Hillary: “I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.” Perhaps if an actor played the part without those mannerisms, the result would have been more pro-Hillary.

  4. This election was about who America hated least. There are die hard Trump and Hillary lovers, but not many.

    As for hating people, I’ve held some serious grudges over the years. I’ve mostly gotten over them, but the level of the feelings I had scare and make me ashamed today. Hatred and anger can be addictive. People also like looking down on others to make themselves feel better. The great danger of comparing yourself to others is not feeling bad, but feeling good.

  5. To a large group of voters (like the NYU crowd here), Hillary was an emblem of female progress and thus could not be viewed critically, particularly when contrasted with a boorish, genital grabbing, chauvinist from central casting. Reversing the sexes of the participants drains the ideological charge from the encounter and reveals the snarky, supercilious, and substance free presentation so beloved of red state America. An interesting illustration of how stereotypes cloud one’s ability to see what is in front of you.

  6. Matthew Says:
    March 10th, 2017 at 6:38 pm… The great danger of comparing yourself to others is not feeling bad, but feeling good.
    * * *
    In a corollary, I’v seen the caution that you should be very careful if you “discover” that God hates exactly the same people you do.

  7. I couldn’t watch the debates at all because I found both of them loathsome. I voted Libertarian for the first time ever, but the reaction to Trump’s win – breaking windows, starting fires, beating people up – has completely changed my mind. I’m glad he won and will be voting for him in 2020.

    I’ve been reading Scott Adams’ blog recently and a lot of the stuff he says makes sense; that a lot of the stuff I’ve heard Trump say in the past is just part of his persuasion. He’s not just being a jerk.

  8. A commenter at Althouse said it was amusing watching progressives have to smell their own shit.

  9. I found this a very fascinating exercise – not the least of which is the diff between the idea and the execution…what seems smart and simple suddenly becomes complicated and a bit confounding.
    My reaction had much of what “Ann” commented on above: I personally preferred Trump in the actual debates., but my major reaction to the ‘male Hillary’ was about how ‘Gay’ he came across. Maybe that makes me a misogynist brute or something? Or does it suggest that Hillary is a female who over-signals ‘maleness’??…..to complicate it, I felt the actress ‘overdid’ her Trumpness – especially the bending forward toward the floor, which struck me as a caricature.

  10. delta6 wrote:

    … but my major reaction to the ‘male Hillary’ was about how ‘Gay’ he came across.

    I had the same reaction. But then, given the left’s victim-based calculus, shouldn’t this presentation of Hillary’s views be given a few “bonus points” because it’s delivered by what appears to be a gay man rather than some disfavored, generic heterosexual white-guy?

    Instead, in a prior comment Ann quoted “one of the producers” of this experiment as saying, “… People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.”

  11. re ‘The Other Gary’…
    …TOG, if I may name The Other Gary that, makes great points here!….mostly, imho, in support of the idea that this noble experiment, as brilliant as it was in conception, simply raises even more issues and questions!!…which would be fun if it wasn’t also so frustrating..ha! …So one gender’s words do not have the same impact as when ‘spoken’ by an opposite gender? Or does one gender simply seem incapable of credibly speaking in the fashion of the opposite gender???? Or are there simply a lot of bad actors out there….has any male ever played a female well since Shakespeare’s day..or vice versa, ever?? I’m getting a headache. …. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>