It is likely true that the "undecideds" are more accurately described as undeclared, as you suggest, and some of them are also undercover and not in a good way. A number of them are also undeclared because they don't want to offend or rile anyone up. What this particular cohort seems not to understand is that citizens in a democracy shouldn't excuse themselves from having an interest in politics or from studying the issues so they know where they stand.
During the debate, I kept wondering how the League of Women Voters would have handled moderating the debate. They did a highly professional job of it for years, and things turned more partisan after they were no longer in charge. Or put a couple of top high school debate coaches in charge of moderating. Sadly, we no longer have Gwen Ifill to moderate. So that's one of my thoughts.
I also wondered if Trump was being so over the top (even for him) in an attempt to get Biden to stutter so that he (Trump) could make fun of him (Biden). Some critics were giving low points to Biden because of the pauses he took, but I wondered whether that was to keep his speaking steady. My guess is Trump would leap at the chance to mock Biden's if he could.
Finally, another thought was regret that Biden didn't take the opportunity to mention that the forests in California are something like 97% under federal control, so it's not the Democratic governor of California who has mismanaged these forests, it's Trump's own administration.
Somebody suggested that Wallace be given a taser to keep order in the debate. I know that won't happen but it seemed amusing enough to share. John, I think what you're saying in this essay is exactly right. Also, Mr. Biden was exactly right to tell the current president to shut up. But he's not going to shut up as long as he thinks people are listening; and it's possible even if not probable that he knows the only people who want to listen to him are those who want to live in a fascist country.
Excellent column. I keep in mind a column by Tim Wise in the Washington Post a couple of years ago in which he shared the lessons he learned defeating David Duke in Louisiana. He said it is wrong to debate issues with a racist candidate; he said they didn't talk issues, didn't make a big deal about Duke's adultery and tax evasion, but focused on Duke's KKK leadership. The question before the voters was "Are you choosing an avowed racist or are you choosing our candidate?" I get very frustrated with the press wanting to cover issues in this race. That is what opens the door to taking these so-called "undecided voters" seriously. If you don't know which side you are on, you are taking a side. Same thing with the super-Left that wants to push Biden about GND and Defund Police. This is not the time for issues. The only issues are blatant racism and looming fascism.
It is likely true that the "undecideds" are more accurately described as undeclared, as you suggest, and some of them are also undercover and not in a good way. A number of them are also undeclared because they don't want to offend or rile anyone up. What this particular cohort seems not to understand is that citizens in a democracy shouldn't excuse themselves from having an interest in politics or from studying the issues so they know where they stand.
During the debate, I kept wondering how the League of Women Voters would have handled moderating the debate. They did a highly professional job of it for years, and things turned more partisan after they were no longer in charge. Or put a couple of top high school debate coaches in charge of moderating. Sadly, we no longer have Gwen Ifill to moderate. So that's one of my thoughts.
I also wondered if Trump was being so over the top (even for him) in an attempt to get Biden to stutter so that he (Trump) could make fun of him (Biden). Some critics were giving low points to Biden because of the pauses he took, but I wondered whether that was to keep his speaking steady. My guess is Trump would leap at the chance to mock Biden's if he could.
Finally, another thought was regret that Biden didn't take the opportunity to mention that the forests in California are something like 97% under federal control, so it's not the Democratic governor of California who has mismanaged these forests, it's Trump's own administration.
Yes, enough is enough. Let's be intolerant of the intolerant.
Somebody suggested that Wallace be given a taser to keep order in the debate. I know that won't happen but it seemed amusing enough to share. John, I think what you're saying in this essay is exactly right. Also, Mr. Biden was exactly right to tell the current president to shut up. But he's not going to shut up as long as he thinks people are listening; and it's possible even if not probable that he knows the only people who want to listen to him are those who want to live in a fascist country.
Excellent column. I keep in mind a column by Tim Wise in the Washington Post a couple of years ago in which he shared the lessons he learned defeating David Duke in Louisiana. He said it is wrong to debate issues with a racist candidate; he said they didn't talk issues, didn't make a big deal about Duke's adultery and tax evasion, but focused on Duke's KKK leadership. The question before the voters was "Are you choosing an avowed racist or are you choosing our candidate?" I get very frustrated with the press wanting to cover issues in this race. That is what opens the door to taking these so-called "undecided voters" seriously. If you don't know which side you are on, you are taking a side. Same thing with the super-Left that wants to push Biden about GND and Defund Police. This is not the time for issues. The only issues are blatant racism and looming fascism.
exactly
Interesting take but makes sense.