This is exactly why I defined the right approach through doing and involvement. If anything you just sit in front of the camera and start dissecting spins with your political experience (you can do that in the basement whole day). Or if possible take the TV crew to the road and show xy directly. In my country the classic fact checking doesn't really exist in political sphere exactly since it is weak talking point in most cases. While people prefer more concrete and direct info if they can have it. Therefore go to a swing state and promise you will solve some genuine local problem (like iconic water problems is in Flint). Or at least talk about it often since there is a pandemic going on.
I've actually thought, many times, that if I had the means I'd love to take some of the Trump supporters I've known for a long time and travel to these supposedly dangerous areas. And video the reaction of them realizing the Big Bad they hear so much about just isn't there. (Like taking them to one of the immigration facilities and asking them to point out these "bad hombres" that we're supposed to be so afraid of - ceecee just referenced the height of that hysteria). Or potentially video my own reaction at finding out it is (which I don't believe, but I try to never say never). This was before the pandemic, obviously, although it would still be possible with masks. I'm currently not even mobile enough to travel into Chicago to video the "riots" (read: mostly peaceful protesting) for those I know who are convinced there's more rioting than protesting. So this
is something I've previously considered might be helpful. The problem is, at this point, there's *so much* crap on Youtube that people generally dismiss actual footage that doesn't support their views by reasoning that exceptional examples don't prove something is more often true than not. It's possible to get a full hour of footage of peaceful protesting and it doesn't prove there isn't a lot more rioting than there is protesting. Where I landed (because this really is something I've thought about, ha ha) is that it would require taking a relatively famous person with an established political leaning - actually several people would be better - and catching their reaction to what's actually going on in a place that's yielding wildly different reports. It would have more credibility than the nameless/faceless "reports" currently on Youtube. Lots of celebrities are posting their opinions about what's going on - but they're not doing it from the ground, they're doing it from their own homes, and it's based on reports they believe. That's not good enough.
Anyway, yeah, I'm mostly with you on this. (With the stipulation that there's already a lot of this going on around Youtube and most of it is completely unreliable, so additional measures need to be taken to give it credibility).
eta: I guess, to be clearer, I'm thinking of shows like The Daily Show, or Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Instead of having Jordan Klepper going out to interview people at a Trump rally and airing the stupidest possible answers, I would have them use those resources to take Trump supporters to these "dangerous, violent riots" (read: protests) and go around asking the protestors questions to prove that it's not some Marxist conspiracy and that most people really are out there protesting racism. Stuff like that, to get rid of fear (of 'other') and divisiveness, instead of stoking it. /eta
The second thing where I disagree is that in these elections it is important where Trump fans stand. What isn't true since they stand where they stand and 90% of them probably wouldn't move an inch. However you still have a huge pool of people that don't vote or don't vote for most part. Plus there is also probably a huge chunk of confused independents that aren't political junkies ... etc.To understand this just compare 2016 numbers with the actual number of grown up population in the country. Therefore by being clear, factual, present and transparent you will attract huge amount of such people in these messy times ... and that is basically a win. What you wrote is basically exactly why you have to keep it serious and factual, because if it gets personal, messy and "intuitive" Trump wins by default. While "You are a threat to this country! is basically very good example of this. Instead it is better to throw something like "How's the federal deficit Donald?". The general intention is the same but it is much more factual approach (and it sounds both serious and professional).
I don't think we're actually disagreeing so much as focusing on things from different angles.
I agree about the rabid fans, the ones who absolutely reject anything that doesn't support what they believe. But I think there are a significant amount of people on the edge - who believe the crap Trump has been fear-mongering about (e.g. Biden having full fledged dementia, that Biden is extremist left with one foot on a banana peel and the other foot is in hardcore communism, etc), but only because solid contrary information hasn't reached them. This is why I was saying I think a debate could be beneficial if Biden could pull off exemplifying mental acuity (being steadfast, calm, not letting anything Trump says wind him up or make him lose composure) <- I think that's more important than sticking to fact-checking, although some admixture of the two would be ideal. Because that would effectively work on an 'intuitive' level to discredit all of Trump's fear-mongering about Biden and dementia. All of the fear-mongering Trump has done has been 'intuitive', and to some degree, it can only be undone 'intuitively'. The only point I'm trying to make about debates (and how they could be a good thing vs. how they could fail) is that it's important Biden not lose his composure.
A debate probably isn't the best place to try to corner Trump (and I'm aware I'm saying this as an armchair pundit, not a professional) into answering something like, "How's the federal deficit, Donald?" because time is very limited and it would be too easy for him to throw deflection long enough to get out of answering - that's what he's most skilled at. (The exception would be if Biden were to throw this out as some 'touché' moment - like if Trump tried to paint Biden badly in some capacity that he himself is clearly in no position to be critical of anyone else, it would be helpful for Biden to throw out some succinct indication of that). But I do wish there were more interviews with Trump like the one Jonathon Swan did a few weeks back; he pressed Trump to clarify for more specific answers when Trump was being vague. Like when Trump said "a lot of people are saying...", Swan asked "who? who are these people?" Trump didn't have an answer, of course, and I don't think Swan pressed hard enough - but he did press harder than most interviewers do. We need *a lot* more of that. I'd love to see someone corner Trump and make Trump explain EXACTLY what makes current Democrats "extremist", exact and specific details about how Biden is "socialist" - maybe even asking Trump to explain what socialism is, etc. We need for someone to interview him and press him 10x harder than Swan did for specific answers, to reveal that most of his claims are nothing but hot air to generate fear.
I feel like those people on the edge - who might very well determine the results - could be swayed by it.
This clip from Legion is coming to mind:
I think that a lot of the fear Trump has generated to garner support for himself is actually nebulous and relatively baseless, and there are
enough people who would be able to shake it off if they were exposed to contradictory information. But Democrats are currently presenting contradictory evidence the wrong way. Because the fear was cultivated in an intuitive way, the contradictory evidence needs to be 'intuitively' undone. If that makes any sense.
