During Tuesday's debate against Kamala Harris, Trump boasted, again, about his crowd sizes and even went as far as to accuse Haitian immigrants of eating people's cats & dogs — in other words, he did exactly what Republican pollster and former strategist Frank Luntz wanted him not to, The Daily Beast reported. Now Trump will pay for his poor performance in November, Luntz said Wednesday. “It was a pretty negative performance — pretty pessimistic, cynical, contemptuous,” he said, adding: “And I think that this will cost him, yes.”Following the debate, polls, focus groups, and most TV commentators concluded that Harris did better during the debate, in part by successfully baiting Trump. Meanwhile, Trump seemed surprised that the ABC News moderators were interested in fact-checking his many false claims.During the conversation with Morgan, Luntz said: “I’m trying to decide if I want to go on record, and the answer is yes: I think that he loses because of this debate performance.” The GOP pollster added that Trump’s refusal to look at Harris during the debate will only hurt his cause, especially with women. “Donald Trump reminds women of their first husband’s divorce lawyer,” he said. “That is just absolutely disastrous.” He predicted that the full effect of the debate would be felt in polls within a week, HuffPost reported.Of course, the former president left the debate wholeheartedly believing a completely different truth: that he beat Harris.Later he wrote on Truth Social: “People are saying BIG WIN tonight!” He added in another post: “I thought that was my best Debate, EVER, especially since it was THREE ON ONE!”The vice president immediately challenged the former president to another debate, which he admitted to Fox News on Wednesday morning he was now "less inclined” to take her up on.https://www.salon.com/2024/09/12/absolutely-disastrous-pollster-says-trumps-debate-performance-will-cost-him-the/
>>1341416>salon.comYou're only encouraging them to post Breitbart and Dailywire
>>1341418you can cope all you want, but it happened, and this guy is a very well respected pollster for the GOP.https://www.thedailybeast.com/longtime-gop-pollster-frank-luntz-says-trumps-campaign-is-over-after-bad-debate
>>1341419*whoosh*
>>1341419>Lunz>a very well respected pollster for the GOP.
>>1341419If you want the entire board covered in Breitbart, Daily Mail, Daily Wire, and Daily Caller stories in retaliation then by all means keep posting far left sources.
>>1341416Your man made vagina is going to tear open when Trump wins 2024.
>>1341434Trump has less of a chance of winning now than he ever did before. He's going to prison.
>>1341418Salon is legit. Breitbart and Dailywire both shilled Trump's Big Lie
>>1341442https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/Salon is less truthful than MSNBC and to the left of The Atlantic and Vox. It's about on par with Anderson Cooper's CNN show according to adfontes.
>>1341443>Breitbart that high upHow much did they bribe Adfontes for that?
>>1341444Breitbart reports on more than just politics. They have tech reports and movie reviews. That ups their truth score.
>>1341433>Anything that disagrees with me is a far-left source!Enjoy your election loss. You only have yourself to blame.
>>1341446I'm voting for Harris and it's comical that you don't seem to know how far left the source is.
>>1341447You don't have basic media literacy. Salon didn't conduct the poll. They wrote an article reporting on the poll. If you can't tell the difference between a source of information and an article reporting on a source of information then your brain is made of wet tissue and you have no business engaging in a conversation about media bias.
>>1341449You could have posted the nice neutral Reuters or the AP version of the Frank Luntz story but instead you chose a source that will trigger the /pol/cunts into spamming the board for the next few days. Congrats.
>>1341450>instead you chose a source that will trigger the /pol/cunts into spamming the boardThat was probably always the intention. Lots of larping and false flagging happening on this board.
>>1341450If we're being real, right-wingers consider Reuters and AP to be left-wing too. They consider any source that isn't explicitly right-wing to be left-wing.
>>1341454i know what reuters is.
>>1341454That might or might not be true but Reuters and AP are among the least biased sources you're going to find on the planet. The point is to not play partisan arms race /lowest-common-denominator shitflinging with the reactionaries who see >salon.com and think they have to spam NYpost and DailyWire to compensate.
>>1341445I'm sure they find ways to lie about those too. Also your credibility should be tanked by the Big Lie alone.
>>1341450>You could have posted the nice neutral Reuters or the AP versionThis is why I say you have no media literacy. If Reuters or AP writes an article linking a source to a poll and then Salon writes an article linking the same source to the same poll then the news outlet reporting that source makes no difference. If you can't tell the difference between an OpEd and source reporting you shouldn't be having a conversation about media bias. You should to sit down at the kids table and eat your popsicle and let the adults talk.
>>1341461>f Reuters or AP writes an article linking a source to a poll and then Salon writes an article linking the same source to the same poll then the news outlet reporting that source makes no differenceBait.
>>1341461>that source makes no difference.It makes a difference to the posters here whether you want to acknowledge that or not.>If you can't tell the difference between an OpEd and source reporting you shouldn't be having a conversation about media bias.This has nothing to do with OpEds.> You should to sit down at the kids table and eat your popsicle and let the adults talk.Where do you think you are right now? Substack?
tRump's back will look like a pin cushion come this ides of march
Luntz is a GOP shill and the pollster equivalent of Rasmussen.
>>1341469don't insult julius caesar like that
he just said he's not going to do any more debates. He's so finished.
>>1341416lmao
>>1341475Kamala should still set up another debate so she can get a free prime time slot.
>>1341475>>1341479Champs dont ask for rematches.
>>1341481yes, he's such a champion when debate polls have 50%+ saying Kamala won and only 25% for Trump.
>>1341485Champs dont ask for rematches. You saying "but she won" does not counter the very simple premise: champs don't ask for a rematch.
>>1341416Howard Dean got excited for ne second and it was over. Donald sperged like a retard over trans aliens in prison and dogs and cats, and all it gets are funny memes. If ANYONE else said that shit they'd be in the looney bin.
>>1341486this is presidential politics, not your gay wwe fanfiction
>>1341490>Donald sperged like a retard over trans aliens in prisonThis is something Kamala actually endorsed. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-transgender-operations-illegal-aliens-debate-claim/story?id=113584635
>>1341491I see you still cant deal with the basic premise.
>>1341493>This is something Kamala actually endorsed.She didn't. There was no special plan to give illegal immigrants sex change operations. The healthcare for all inmates is tax payer funded. There is no lesser amount of healthcare you're entitled to as a prisoner because you're an illegal immigrant. The question was posed as basically IF there's a transgender inmate and IF they're an illegal immigrant and IF their medical team somehow decides that transgender care is necessary would you be okay with the state covering that. Her answer was yes. However, the dishonest and culture-war-laced way Trump proposed it was as if Kamala came out of nowhere and proposed some special plan to fund sex changes for illegals. That's false. Its also such a comically insignificant issue that Trump only rails on because morons like you only care about outrage, not meaningful policy that impacts the public. Less than 0.4% of the entire U.S. population identify as trans. Less than 30% of that 0.4% ever get bottom surgery. If you also add the number of people incarcerated with the number of people who are also undocumented and also transgender there's a solid chance 0 people a year are getting this surgery. There's only 5000 trans people in all of the U.S. prison system period, never mind which ones are illegal or qualify for surgery. Meanwhile, people can't afford houses and retirement but Donald Trump wants you to be outraged over this microscopic culture war issue that has 0 impact on your life.
>>1341481Trump literally asked Biden for a rematch after their last debate numbnuts. He's coping hard, and I don't blame him. If I were bent over in front of all of America I'd be butthurt too.
>>1341490That's really interesting. Can you explain why the democrats imported 20,000 haitians into a town of 38,000 people?
>>1341513>democratsCould you be any more vague and nonspecific if you tried?
>>1341514Could you answer the question please?
>>1341494That she wants to make him look like a pussy for turning down a second debate?
>>1341516No one here is going to entertain your fantasies about unspecified "democrats". Sorry. If you can name a specific politician who imported 20000 Haitians then you might get an answer.
>>1341490It turns out the media has a conservative bias and Republicans would let Trump get away with anything.
>>1341481This isn't a sport kid. And if it was Trump would have been forced to retire after getting TKO'd.Also the fact Trump is too scared to debate again is leverage to demand it for free air time.
>>1341527>Trump is too scared to debate againNot only is he scared of debating Harris againTrump is so much of a pussy he's actively afraid of being eaten by immigrants
>>1341517>>1341527>Trump: lets do three debates>Harris: No! Only ABC >*does ABC*>Harris: I need more debates! Uh huh.
>>1341519Are there some of you against it?
>>1341533I never thought I'd see the day when Trump was scared to debate a woman.
>>1341569Harris should have agreed to three debates when she had the chance. She declined. There was one debate, we like the outcome so we dont feel the need to have another. A deal is a deal. If you dont like the outcome, make better deals.
>>1341570He couldn't even look her in the eye lol. What a cuck.
>>1341571Okay.
>>1341533>Kamala saw Trump's trap of first having an ultra rigged Fox 'News' run debate where it would be Trump preforming in front of his hand picked MAGA crowd and taking questions from his personal propagandists.>Kamala ignores that trap and forces Trump to do the debate on neutral ground>Trump humiliates himself >Now Kamala can demand that 2nd debate Trump was demanding
>Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_LuntzBush Republicans are enemies of the people who collude with Democrats.Every single time there's a to tie every single "Republican" who is against dRumpf to the Bush administration because Democrats are Bush Republicans.
>>1341701Enjoy residing in history's waste recepticle
>>1341732It's almost like you're universally hated
>>1341742(((((((
>>1341742They chant “Vote blue no matter who” and will disown their own family members if they don’t agree with them 100%The lies are right from the very start>https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/>Democrats are the party of inclusionDisingenuous turds, all of them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-harris-debate-third-truth-social-b2611940.html'Donald Trump has revealed he will not participate in a third presidential debate this election cycle.Trump declared, “THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE” in a Thursday afternoon post on his social media platform Truth Social'Welp, there's the Trumptards' opinions just as destroyed as he is.
>>1341732>>1341742Being mutually opposed to a particular politician doesn't mean you are aligned politically. Nixon and Lee Harvey Oswald were both opposed to JFK, but I'm pretty sure they had zero overlap whatsoever in terms of their political views.
>>1341903Did Oswald endorse Nixon or vice-versa?
>>1341910I didn't say/imply Oswald endorsed Nixon. In fact, I said the opposite. Lrn2readingcomprehension
>>1341919>Lrn2readingcomprehensionI comprehend your argument. Hence I was able to wreck it with a very simple question.
>>1341871Based, give no quarters to fascists. If there's one thing real Americans have learned over the past 50 years is that conservatives don't understand the open hand, only a closed fist.
>>1341930I'm pretty fucking sure Oswald didn't vote for or endorse Nixon in 1960 (Oswald wasn't even in the United States in 1960; he defected to the Soviet Union). Yet, they were both mutually opposed to JFK, in that Nixon was JFK's opponent in the election, and Oswald was JFK's assassin. How were they politically aligned outside of their mutual dislike of JFK?
>>1341969So there is a difference between Oswald and Nixon and, say, a necon ENDORSING Kamala?
>>1341971The original claim was that Rage Against the Machine and Green Day were politically aligned with Dick Cheney. My counterclaim was that despite being mutually opposed to Trump, they are not politically aligned whatsoever, much like how Nixon and Oswald being mutually opposed to JFK doesn't make them politically aligned.
>>1341486the fight isnt over until november, Trump pussied out after one punch
