Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Joe Rogan presidential debate?


GROOT

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I also think if I'm managing the Biden campaign, this debate talk with Rogan would scare me to death.

I would expect the Trump side to continue emphasizing the 4 HOUR aspect of it. That's a vulnerability of course for Biden.

All the messaging I've seen has been very clear to make sure to include that 4 hour detail. Which is interesting. Nobody ever talks about how long a debate would go. But for this from the Trump side, it's in every mention. And for good reason. It's very clear what they're doing. 

I'd also start managing Harris with the same focus I'd be managing Biden. I'd have her visiting the ambushed Los Angeles policewoman mom and not just tweeting about it. I'd be making the case she would be an exceptional president to counter all the Trump messaging toward Biden. 

1. There’s a zero percent chance either of them would do a four hour interview with Rogan

2. nobody would want to listen to four hours of word salad.  It’s tough to listen to Trump for more than 5 minutes and Biden isn’t that much better

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

 

2. nobody would want to listen to four hours of word salad.  It’s tough to listen to Trump for more than 5 minutes and Biden isn’t that much better

Interesting.

Let's say a normal Joe Rogan show draws a viewer/listener rating of 100.

What do you think the rating would be if Rogan did a 4 hour interview with Trump and Biden? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Interesting.

Let's say a normal Joe Rogan show draws a viewer/listener rating of 100.

What do you think the rating would be if Rogan did a 4 hour interview with Trump and Biden? 

Oh - I was being hyperbolic saying nobody would want to watch it but you make a better point - it would be his highest rated podcast ever.  Since I have listened to many of his podcasts in the past I would be inclined to try it but would also consider waiting for it to get dissected by others.  With the way Rogan does his show he would let them go on and on and I guess my point is it really wouldn’t be a quality listen.  Just nonsensical ramblings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Can you elaborate?

Is this like "If you're not for us, you're against us?"

Trying to understand what you mean there. 

Fwiw I'll say up front I've listed to Rogan and enjoyed his show. He does let people go on uncritically, which can be good or bad. 

As to my point, no I do not mean that at all, really almost the opposite in that it effectively comes out as 'they're all the same'. Anti-anti-Trump IMO comes down to be being so opposed to traditional US institutions - especially and as embodied in the two party system - that such people will not acknowledge the serious differences in Trump as a person, ideologically or in his administration from Biden, other Democrats or what sort of policies they would bring. Often such people do as a matter of practice vote for Trump but often they do not, they either abstain from the political process or vote 3rd party.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I also think if I'm managing the Biden campaign, this debate talk with Rogan would scare me to death.

I would expect the Trump side to continue emphasizing the 4 HOUR aspect of it. That's a vulnerability of course for Biden.

All the messaging I've seen has been very clear to make sure to include that 4 hour detail. Which is interesting. Nobody ever talks about how long a debate would go. But for this from the Trump side, it's in every mention. And for good reason. It's very clear what they're doing. 

I'd also start managing Harris with the same focus I'd be managing Biden. I'd have her visiting the ambushed Los Angeles policewoman mom and not just tweeting about it. I'd be making the case she would be an exceptional president to counter all the Trump messaging toward Biden. 

Four hours is too long for any human being to debate, and the audience, for that matter. Biden is no more vulnerable than Trump in that regard.

Has a four-hour debate between presidential candidates ever transpired? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Oh - I was being hyperbolic saying nobody would want to watch it but you make a better point - it would be his highest rated podcast ever.  Since I have listened to many of his podcasts in the past I would be inclined to try it but would also consider waiting for it to get dissected by others.  With the way Rogan does his show he would let them go on and on and I guess my point is it really wouldn’t be a quality listen.  Just nonsensical ramblings.

what's your point?

-Duncan Trussell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Personally, I love it as a concept.

As someone who wants Joe Biden to win, I hate the idea.

Another thought for Biden supporters.

If the Rogan show were to be hypothetically a 2008 Barack Obama vs 2020 Donald Trump, would you still say don't do the show?

No on the Q of Rogan doing Obama/Trump (any year version of them).

If it was up to me League of Women Voters would still be doing it. I'm all for separate interviews of Trump and Biden by Rogan (or really almost anyone), but a debate would be a ridiculous display IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No on the Q of Rogan doing Obama/Trump (any year version of them).

If it was up to me League of Women Voters would still be doing it. I'm all for separate interviews of Trump and Biden by Rogan (or really almost anyone), but a debate would be a ridiculous display IMO.

Thanks. 

As someone who wants Biden to win this year, I would hate to see Biden do the show.

In the hypothetical Obama / Trump show, if I wanted Obama to win, I would love to see Obama do the show. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

If the Rogan show were to be hypothetically a 2008 Barack Obama vs 2020 Donald Trump, would you still say don't do the show?

For me, the issue isn't that Rogan is pro-Trump or anti anything, because every debate moderator will have some personal bias.  Although I haven't listened to an entire Rogan show, I've heard many segments over the past month or two where Rogan has stated as fact that Biden's mental faculties are failing, essentially openly accusing him of suffering from dementia or at least significant mental decline.  Putting the 4 hour thing aside, why would Biden's people allow that?  That's a significant difference with Obama, who would at least have the respect of most moderators who don't agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Interesting.

Let's say a normal Joe Rogan show draws a viewer/listener rating of 100.

What do you think the rating would be if Rogan did a 4 hour interview with Trump and Biden? 

I think the first 30-45 minutes would be 200+....then down to 25 for the remainder of time.  It would ONLY serve as the soundbyte treasure trove it is guaranteed to be...for both sides unfortunately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. 

As someone who wants Biden to win this year, I would hate to see Biden do the show.

Why?

I think Rogan's show would be a good fit for Biden's folksy rambling. Rogan might ask "tough" questions, but he'd also allow Biden to give stock answers without questioning the rhetoric. I don't think the show would be much of a "debate" as it would be "two old men talking past each other" — and that would be good for Biden, IMO.

Also, from a strategic point of view, if you are concerned about Biden's mental capacity, then wouldn't you rather have him do a debate on a podcast (featuring an audience that skews towards Trump anyway) vs. doing a debate on national television? There's a lot more to lose if Biden blows it on live TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joe Summer said:

Why?

I think Rogan's show would be a good fit for Biden's folksy rambling. Rogan might ask "tough" questions, but he'd also allow Biden to give stock answers without questioning the rhetoric. I don't think the show would be much of a "debate" as it would be "two old men talking past each other" — and that would be good for Biden, IMO.

Also, from a strategic point of view, if you are concerned about Biden's mental capacity, then wouldn't you rather have him do a debate on a podcast (featuring an audience that skews towards Trump anyway) vs. doing a debate on national television? There's a lot more to lose if Biden blows it on live TV.

As I understood the Rogan offer, it was to be live so it's the same worry. 

And I don't know a lot about the demographics for Rogan's audience other than it's a huge number of people. He was pretty adamant about supporting Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure it's an audience skewed towards Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s anti-anti-Trump. In the end it’s the same damn thing.

It’s really just a snarky way of calling people that do not support Trump “pro-Trump.”   
 

You can’t reject all the historical revisionism that has gone on the past few years, the aversion to accountability for Hillary Clinton’s loss, the complete refusal of establishment to acknowledge its failure, the monomaniacal focus on dumb capers like Russiagate and palace intrigue, or criticize their awful presidential candidate without being smeared as a secret Trump supporter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

1. There’s a zero percent chance either of them would do a four hour interview with Rogan

2. nobody would want to listen to four hours of word salad.  It’s tough to listen to Trump for more than 5 minutes and Biden isn’t that much better

1. Well, Trump committed to it anyway.  Biden should at least acknowledge it.  
 

2. I’d listen. 🤷‍♂️ 
 

It’s guaranteed to be brutal but it’d be a damn sight better than carefully managed corporate news “debates.”  Also they should get Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins in there.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ren hoek said:

1. Well, Trump committed to it anyway.  Biden should at least acknowledge it.  
 

2. I’d listen. 🤷‍♂️ 
 

It’s guaranteed to be brutal but it’d be a damn sight better than carefully managed corporate news “debates.”  Also they should get Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins in there.  

Id rather have this than an 90 minutes of trump being interrupted and biden saying "Come on folks"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

As I understood the Rogan offer, it was to be live so it's the same worry. 

And I don't know a lot about the demographics for Rogan's audience other than it's a huge number of people. He was pretty adamant about supporting Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure it's an audience skewed towards Trump. 

That's an interesting question - he probably gets a decent mix of folks.  His viewers probably don't fit neatly in to any demographic, although if I had to guess it's probably a mostly white group.  And I'm not suggesting anything by that (that it would lean right/left, etc.)  Just my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

That's an interesting question - he probably gets a decent mix of folks.  His viewers probably don't fit neatly in to any demographic, although if I had to guess it's probably a mostly white group.  And I'm not suggesting anything by that (that it would lean right/left, etc.)  Just my guess.

90% male

100% bro

  • Laughing 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Personally, I love it as a concept.

As someone who wants Joe Biden to win, I hate the idea.

Another thought for Biden supporters.

If the Rogan show were to be hypothetically a 2008 Barack Obama vs 2020 Donald Trump, would you still say don't do the show?

Trump would never agree to debate Obama.  He'd get embarrassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

It’s really just a snarky way of calling people that do not support Trump “pro-Trump.”   
 

You can’t reject all the historical revisionism that has gone on the past few years, the aversion to accountability for Hillary Clinton’s loss, the complete refusal of establishment to acknowledge its failure, the monomaniacal focus on dumb capers like Russiagate and palace intrigue, or criticize their awful presidential candidate without being smeared as a secret Trump supporter.  

No, I really said the opposite. I said they are substantively different, my point is the effect is the same.

And some such people do vote for Trump. They claim they're 'forced" into it,  or because Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy drove them into it, or some such.

I agree with you (assuming your points to be true, FTSOA), that would not make such a person a Trump supporter. However just those very points are used as props by some to either justify for voting for Trump (yes that happens) or to abstain from the process altogether or to vote 3rd party. And I'm saying the effects of that - the chipping away at institutions, even existential ones like democracy itself, the furtherance of Trump having a better chance of getting elected - are indeed the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Personally, I love it as a concept.

As someone who wants Joe Biden to win, I hate the idea.

Another thought for Biden supporters.

If the Rogan show were to be hypothetically a 2008 Barack Obama vs 2020 Donald Trump, would you still say don't do the show?

As for the concept: 4 hours? I get the angle, and what a certain side wants to be able to claim now by mentioning this detail over and over. But 4 hours of anything with just 2 guys answering questions and talking isn't what anyone wants. 2 hours? That's still pushing it. Believe me, I get the "4 hours!" part of it and why it is being mentioned every time. 

Obama vs. Trump? Same thing. 2 hours max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

As for the concept: 4 hours? I get the angle, and what a certain side wants to be able to claim now by mentioning this detail over and over. But 4 hours of anything with just 2 guys answering questions and talking isn't what anyone wants. 2 hours? That's still pushing it. Believe me, I get the "4 hours!" part of it and why it is being mentioned every time. 

Obama vs. Trump? Same thing. 2 hours max.

I see a lot of people saying ‘nobody wants that.’  Well don’t watch it then.  I have zero intention of voting for either of them and I would watch the whole thing.  

The 4 hour mark is kind of arbitrary, but it would ameliorate people’s concerns that Biden’s brain isn’t what it used to be. 

More importantly, it would set up a real debate where the candidates have to engage with each other for extended periods of time instead of being interrupted by 90-second buzzers and commercial breaks.   The current “debate” format is horrible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

One huge reason they'd allow it is they felt Rogan was wrong that Biden's mental faculties are failing.

 

I view it as the exact opposite.  For example, if there were a popular podcaster who repeatedly stated as fact that Trump is a white supremacist, would it be wise for Trump to spend 4 hours on that person's show for the purpose of proving him wrong?  This is like a "how long have you been beating your wife" trap question.  By responding to it, you give it more legitimacy than it deserves.  Would Trump be wise to participate in a forum moderated by Maddow so he could refute her claims about him?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

More importantly, it would set up a real debate where the candidates have to engage with each other for extended periods of time

What?? :lol:

Have you ever seen Rogan's podcast? It's not like a PBS show where the guests actually engage each other with real debate.

Rogan has neither the interest nor the capability of wrangling these two old men into a real debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I see a lot of people saying ‘nobody wants that.’  Well don’t watch it then.  I have zero intention of voting for either of them and I would watch the whole thing.  

The 4 hour mark is kind of arbitrary, but it would ameliorate people’s concerns that Biden’s brain isn’t what it used to be. 

More importantly, it would set up a real debate where the candidates have to engage with each other for extended periods of time instead of being interrupted by 90-second buzzers and commercial breaks.   The current “debate” format is horrible.  

There would never be a real debate, no matter what format, if Trump is involved.  He is, quite simply, unable to discuss substantive policy issues without devolving into name-calling, making things up, and throwing a tantrum.  Granted, most other politicians, Biden included, aren't capable of substantive debate either, but at least most of them probably aren't going to act like six-year olds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I see a lot of people saying ‘nobody wants that.’  Well don’t watch it then.  I have zero intention of voting for either of them and I would watch the whole thing.  

The 4 hour mark is kind of arbitrary, but it would ameliorate people’s concerns that Biden’s brain isn’t what it used to be. 

More importantly, it would set up a real debate where the candidates have to engage with each other for extended periods of time instead of being interrupted by 90-second buzzers and commercial breaks.   The current “debate” format is horrible.  

I'm definitely in favor of changing how we do debates. The most informative media event during the Dem primary was the climate town hall where each candidate could give long, thoughtful answers. You could tell who knew their stuff and who didn't. The current debates are much more of an entertainment product -- watching Elizabeth Warren pants Mike Bloomberg on live TV is a lot of fun, but you don't learn as much from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I view it as the exact opposite.  For example, if there were a popular podcaster who repeatedly stated as fact that Trump is a white supremacist, would it be wise for Trump to spend 4 hours on that person's show for the purpose of proving him wrong?  This is like a "how long have you been beating your wife" trap question.  By responding to it, you give it more legitimacy than it deserves.  Would Trump be wise to participate in a forum moderated by Maddow so he could refute her claims about him?

 

Those are completely different accusations. Biden can easily refute what Rogan is saying by simply talking coherently. 

Arguing policy turns into a he said / she said never ending back and forth. 

I also don't know exactly what and how often Rogan has criticized Biden. Or Trump. Rogans offer sounds very different from what you're describing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zoonation said:

Trump would never agree to debate Obama.  He'd get embarrassed.

Yes. If I were in charge of Trump's campaign, I wouldn't want him to debate Obama. For that reason. But I wouldn't say that of course. I'd say people wouldn't want to watch it or the moderator was mean or a lot of other things like we're seeing with this. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Yes. If I were in charge of Trump's campaign, I wouldn't want him to debate Obama. For that reason. But I wouldn't say that of course. I'd say people wouldn't want to watch it or the moderator was mean or a lot of other things like we're seeing with this. 

Agree.  I am very worried about Joe in the debates.  I think he is in obvious decline.  The debates will likely expose that.  But, like I said in another thread, I would vote for Uncle Bernie (Weekend at Bernie's) before I would vote for Trump (if I was American, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Agree.  I am very worried about Joe in the debates.  I think he is in obvious decline.  The debates will likely expose that.  But, like I said in another thread, I would vote for Uncle Bernie (Weekend at Bernie's) before I would vote for Trump (if I was American, of course).

I'm only slightly worried.  I thought Biden did mostly OK in the primary debates.  I'm sure he'll make a few blunders and people who weren't going to vote for him anyway will try to make a big deal about them.  But Joe can still talk and he'll be prepared.  His decades of experience and breadth of knowledge of multiple branches of the government help.  The expectations will also be low since his opponents have painted him as senile and stuck in a basement.  It will be easy to impress, relatively speaking.

Plus, he's debating Trump.  That's can't be very hard.  And Trump now has to defend his own record instead of just telling us how great he'll be and attacking others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'm only slightly worried.  I thought Biden did mostly OK in the primary debates.  I'm sure he'll make a few blunders and people who weren't going to vote for him anyway will try to make a big deal about them.  But Joe can still talk and he'll be prepared.  His decades of experience and breadth of knowledge of multiple branches of the government help.  The expectations will also be low since his opponents have painted him as senile and stuck in a basement.  It will be easy to impress, relatively speaking.

 

Agreed. I thought he did fine in the primary debates. And especially in the last one with Sanders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

I see a lot of people saying ‘nobody wants that.’  Well don’t watch it then.  I have zero intention of voting for either of them and I would watch the whole thing.  

The 4 hour mark is kind of arbitrary, but it would ameliorate people’s concerns that Biden’s brain isn’t what it used to be. 

More importantly, it would set up a real debate where the candidates have to engage with each other for extended periods of time instead of being interrupted by 90-second buzzers and commercial breaks.   The current “debate” format is horrible.  

"Engage" is doing some massive lifting here. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Agree.  I am very worried about Joe in the debates.  I think he is in obvious decline.  The debates will likely expose that.  But, like I said in another thread, I would vote for Uncle Bernie (Weekend at Bernie's) before I would vote for Trump (if I was American, of course).

I'm not as worried.  Obviously, the flailing from Trump sure looks more like he's going off the rails.  Also seems to be rubbing off on many of his people too.  Curious if he's going to use his shtick walking behind Biden continuously like he did with Clinton.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, [scooter] said:

What?? :lol:

Have you ever seen Rogan's podcast? It's not like a PBS show where the guests actually engage each other with real debate.

Rogan has neither the interest nor the capability of wrangling these two old men into a real debate.

Ever seen a presidential debate?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'm only slightly worried.  I thought Biden did mostly OK in the primary debates.  I'm sure he'll make a few blunders and people who weren't going to vote for him anyway will try to make a big deal about them.  But Joe can still talk and he'll be prepared.  His decades of experience and breadth of knowledge of multiple branches of the government help.  The expectations will also be low since his opponents have painted him as senile and stuck in a basement.  It will be easy to impress, relatively speaking.

Plus, he's debating Trump.  That's can't be very hard.  And Trump now has to defend his own record instead of just telling us how great he'll be and attacking others.

I believe that Trump will do very poorly in the debates. 

First, the bolded.  How does Trump defend his pandemic response without looking foolish or being exposed as a liar ..or just plain incompetent?  How does he negate all the instances of insulting the military ..and women ..and minorities?  How does he defend his "day one" goal of repeal/replace Obamacare?  Or to build a wall that Mexico would pay for?  Trump has had successes (Supreme Court; the recent Middle East news?).  But Trump isn't eloquent or disciplined enough to articulate those well and stick with a positive message.

Second, his campaign rally schtick won't fly now.  He got away with the background stalking of Hillary, but I don't think that stuff will work again.  He can rant and rave about socialism and the suburbs, but either the mods or Joe can call him out by asking for specifics.  

Third, we'll have smiling, happy Uncle Joe against brooding, ranting Trump.  Highlighting his failures and foibles is likely to 'push his buttons,' and he is bound to go off-script (assuming he even has one).  I suspect this could be the kind of contrast we had 60 years ago with Kennedy-Nixon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2020 at 5:50 PM, Joe Summer said:

This would be good for Biden, I'd think. Rogan doesn't challenge his guests, so he would let Biden tell story after story after story until the 4 hours was up.

 

Rogan asking probing follow up questions about CornPop would make for great TV

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Commish said:

I don't think questions have ever really been a significant problem in debates.  It's all the non answers.  That wouldn't be different here that I can tell :shrug: 

I think most people would completely agree with you on the non answers being the problem. I think what folks are thinking is Rogan does a pretty good job of challenging guests and following up. Which would be exactly the solution for all the non answers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think most people would completely agree with you on the non answers being the problem. I think what folks are thinking is Rogan does a pretty good job of challenging guests and following up. Which would be exactly the solution for all the non answers.

I understand that....I don't have any confidence that it would be any different than any of the others who've tried to do that in the past and it just ended up being arguing between the moderator asking the question and the candidate refusing to answer in any meaningful way.  This is what I think the primary issue is in all these debates and why I don't see them being worthwhile at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I understand that....I don't have any confidence that it would be any different than any of the others who've tried to do that in the past and it just ended up being arguing between the moderator asking the question and the candidate refusing to answer in any meaningful way.  

That's where we disagree then. I think Joe Rogan is far from the average debate moderator. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...