Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Debate Reaction – Who won?

Debate Reaction – Who won?

My quick reaction.

I think any fair assessment of the details would say Hillary won the debate points. She was better prepared on issues and had her punch lines lined up. Just like when she debated Obama in 2008. And she did score some good punch lines, because NBC brought up issues that are tough on Trump, like the tax returns and the Obama “birther” issue. Hillary’s email problem was barely an issue, and received none of the pushback from Lester Holt that Trump received on other issues like the Iraq War.

But as I mentioned this morning, this was Trump’s chance to show 100 million people he’s not the “Hitler” the media portrays, and that merely being on the stage normalizes him. I think he succeeded in that. He didn’t make any huge gaffes, and didn’t have any blow ups. He hammered the issues of jobs in the midwest — constantly referred to Michigan. To the extent Trump was able to stay on message, the message was one of feeling the pain of people left behind in the economy.

In a sense, the debate set up the choice — the better prepared career politician and symbol of the status quo, versus the less prepared but more emotional outsider representing the change agent. The debate may have rendered that change agent acceptable.

Will be interesting to see if this moves the polling needle at all.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Tactically a tie. Strategically Trump wins, not because of what happened or what was said but because of what didn’t happen and what wasn’t said. Only one question: can u see DJT in the White House?

A lot more do tonight than did a few hours ago.

I think you should recheck your post. You’ve got a ton of typos.

Dear Trump, it’s called deflection. If shrillary calms you racist, you point out her husbands efforts to toughen laws that imprisoned more. If there’s a question on how to improve cyber security, you say don’t have a server in your bathroom. If there’s a question on tax returns, ask how many loopholes she’s using to protect assets from estate taxes.

    SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to c bomb. | September 26, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    When she accuses you of supporting the war in Iraq, you remind her that she voted for it as a Senator.

      Exactly He supported it–except when he sometimes didn’t–from Trump tower as a private citizen who bought political favors, and not as a member of the Senate who peddled influence. It’s also worth pointing out that in a GOP primary debate he claimed that President Bush lied about WMD for the express purpose of going to war in Iraq. If he believes that (and I think he does), then he could have hit Hillary with that, too, since she, as a Senator, had more access to intel than did Trump, and still made the “wrong” decision with her vote for the war: she’s either naive and gullible or in cahoots with Bush’s “lie.” Trump’s statement about Bush lying to go to war is right in line with hard-core Bernie supporters and other progressives who think Hillary is too hawkish. I wonder why he’s abandoned that line of attack?

Just to point out. Hillary had another “chai” moment.
hard to gather my thoughts at this moment. I thought Trump did extremely well. I think Holt had a hard time hiding his bias.

Of course we know that MSM will say Hillary won.

I think Boogs got it right about people feeling more at ease with a President Trump now.

Sometimes it is hard to tell how people did. For example, Trump mentioned Sidney Bloomenthal looking for evidence of Obama’s unnaturalized citizenship. But did he tie that back to Hillary. Do people know Blumenthal’s relation to Hillary?

So for that reason, the people who matter the most in deciding who was more effective are going to be hard to read for me.

    DINORightMarie in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2016 at 12:20 am

    What do you mean by a “chai moment”?

    I don’t have TV, and was in class tonight, so I missed the debate entirely.

    Did she have a “siezure” or whatever the heck that was when her head bobbed and nearly threw her off her feet, then made that lame crack about “cold chai”?! Video?!?!

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2016 at 2:59 am

    Hillary was blinking like a set of trailer lights through the entire debate. Then she had that shimmy-shake and the “Whew! Okay!” big smile and laugh, rockin’ and rollin’ sideways, her eyes were kind of out of whack at that point and she closed them. I just wonder if she’s hooked up to a self-injection pump of some sort for a drug to control brain seizures or whatever is wrong with her brain besides being a hideous, lying libtard and had just given herself a jolt. She was also spaced out, speaking in broad generalities, and reaching for words when she was spouting a rehearsed answer.

      It has been suggested that she is on an automatic pump – like an insulin pump – for her meds. And, that keeps her on a more even keel.

      Now if they could just give her an antidote for smugness and condescension.

As I said over at Professor Reynolds’s place:

If Trump were really the smartest man in the room, as he thinks he is, he could have boned up on some history, e.g., the beginnings of the real estate bubble/financial crisis way back when with Jimmy Carter, pumped up by Bill Clinton, and with Franklin Raines and his Fannie Mae buddies, all Democrats, making out like bandits and taking the economy down with them. Although he grazed it, he could have talked more about corporate inversions and repatriating capital. It wouldn’t even have hurt him to use an occasional big word or two to show something other than bluster. He could have even come straight out and said it’s Democrat policies that are hurting the inner cities, which have all been governed by Democrats since time immemorial.

So many missed opportunities.

    Trump was no completely out of control, as Hillary probably hoped, but the temper showed. He came off as unprepared, most of all. College educated whites, especially suburban white women who are probably going to decide this election are not going to like it. Is it enough to get them to the polls?

      As a Suburban white woman I have to disagree. While Hillary scored more debate “points”, and Trump missed many opportunities to lunge and parry, he was appealing as real – frustrated and defensive, but sincere. Women like a strong, honest, but vulnerable man. She is that smug, scold teacher/aunty/DMV clerk/ex-wife/Student Council Pres/mother-in-law that we all can’t stand!

      During debate I was texting with family across the country. All expressed frustration at opportunities missed by Trump to reply effectively – but they were ROOTING for Trump. Even the Dems. (note to Prof Jacobson: my Cornell son’s final contribution before signing off to watch football was “dumpster fire!”)

        Floridamom in reply to Floridamom. | September 27, 2016 at 10:12 am

        Accidentally uprooted myself (trying to see if it was women who up voted me!)

        SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Floridamom. | September 27, 2016 at 10:28 am

        As a suburban white woman I agree he appeared unprepared. There were many moments where Hillary said something outlandish, false, or gave Trump an opening wide enough for an aircraft carrier and he failed to pounce. There were several times he could have ripped out her jugular, but failed. Preparation, preparation, preparation.

          Trump’s cognitive style will never appeal to detail oriented folks. I’m not crazy about it. But It has to be assumed that he’ll hire the people who can do the drill down as required, and listen to them. Its easy to forget Trumps first, and best score. He called out her 30 years experience as void and she and her boss as hacks, in no uncertain terms. In his mind, I’m guessing that this answered 25 questions and he hopped on. This is her core lesion, she is a poser surrounded by posers, her delegated hiring of an incompetent IT firm being a massive example.

          I find this an incredibly insightful point, Jack. For my part, I do tend to be detail-oriented and to prefer logic to emotion when it comes to politics and politicians. Your point makes me think about how much Trump’s off-the-cuff, sweeping and often inaccurate statements, and general hyper-sensitivity to criticism influence my opinion of him as a person (I dislike him immensely on this level and have for decades, finding him petty, vindictive, bombastic, inarticulate, and generally too emotional and reactive for my tastes).

          That said, I also dislike Hillary immensely, just for different reasons. I don’t find her to be as grating and obnoxious as Trump (most of the time, anyway), but I do think she’s amoral, equally vindictive and petty, and completely devoid of self-awareness. That latter point is best illustrated by her “why aren’t I 50 points ahead” comment. Well, d’oh. Maybe because you’re a corrupt say and do anything pol who has no moral or principled center (the same, I think, is true of Trump).

          I’m not alone in finding both candidates highly objectionable on these levels, and the more worrying thing to me about this presidential election is that we’ve found ourselves in a place where these amoral, unlikable people are running for the highest office in the land. It just makes me sad.

          Fuzzy, thank you, you have witnessed what may be my first and last insight. I think that Trump may have an ADHD variant given his cognitive style, temper, level of activity, and apparently contradictory swings to intense feelings of compassion and empathy, the last not being entirely consistent but not entirely inconsistent either. So, no, very detail oriented may never get him unless they get intimate exposure, as I suspect is the case with Dr Carson. On the one hand, he seems to inspire loyalty and devotion from those closest to him, including his employees. Can he generalize that to a debate audience, maybe. Hillary on the other hand, while having the appeal factor for detailed folks, comes off as hollow, mechanistic, and regally dismissive. Her treatment of minorities and women is cynical given both her behavior and her statements.
          Nuff said, not feeling that great. Thanks again.

          You often make insightful comments, Jack; this one just hit close to home for me. Trump inspires loyalty and devotion in those close to him–or seems to–because he forces everyone close to him to sign nondisclosure agreements about anything negative they may think, feel, or believe. This results in the only things being heard about him are glowing, fawning reports of his greatness. Kim Jong-un has a similar policy, though, admittedly, Trump doesn’t have his detractors eaten by dogs; he just sues them into submission (until he can get the First Amendment repealed or amended, anyway, by “loosening” libel laws to silence anyone who says anything “horrible” about him.).

          Hillary doesn’t actually appeal to detail-oriented people (like myself); she’s cagey, defensive, dodgy, and deceitful. She is indeed dismissive of women and minorities, as are most Democrats.

          But then, so is Trump. On all counts.

          I’m not going to put my face into “assuming” that he will hire good people because time after time Trump proved that he makes bad personnel decisions.
          It’s not simple lack of attention to detail that’s offputting. Trump showed himself unable to speak in complete sentences. Who can forget his bumbling, stumbling response to the question on nuclear weapons, of all things. In case you forgot, it’s here:
          https://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/heres-trumps-full-incomprehensible-answer-about-nukes-iran-a?utm_term=.nwRq4Xqn1#.rk30dB0Kw
          What bothers me the most, however, is lack of respect for the American people. If you are running for Prsident of the United States, at least have some decency to prepare for the debate.
          And yes, there were plenty of missed opportunities, and he was facing an uncharismatic opponent whose personal flaws (understatement here) are well-known. Anyone else would wipe the floor with her. Kasich even.
          Additionally, going into the debate, his strong quality was stamina. Debate showed lack of stamina – he started of fairly strong, but lasted about 15 minutes. Hillary, on the other hand, was able to put the health issue behind her.
          Anyhow, I look forward to voting out Hillary in 2020.

          Fuzzy, yikes!, Kin Jong Un? I’m time constrained and would respond in more detail but let me just say that. while I don’t dismiss your observations re his tyrannical tendencies, I doubt that the likes of Ben Carson or Jeff Sessions had to sign loyalty oaths and they seem to be honest men. If I had to state my biggest reservation with Trump is that he is in the real estate biz and I am not a fan of covering the planet with cement. The internet magnifies our exposure to everything and consequently magnifies a public figures flaws and Trump probably has more than most. However, those of us who are gagging on the intrusions of the nanny state and social engineers need to find a way to call a halt to them. Enough. Its a cliche, but Trump is an agent of possible change and in my case, that makes him the only game in town.

      inspectorudy in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | September 27, 2016 at 11:27 am

      This is the first, and probably the last time, that I agree with you. To a person like myself who thinks about the questions asked, I could not believe how many opportunities he missed at skewering her. She actually said HE had something to hide! She has hidden more stuff than is in the Library of Congress! And her smug cackle and wobbling should have made him ask if she was ok and needed a stool. The things that I heard him say he said in the primaries. The words “Very, very, very”, “Great” and “Beautiful” should be removed from his next debate. And please lose the “China is a monster” comment on any issue. He came across as a human being and she a robot but he needs to prepare a little better for the next one. And if he thinks Lester Holt was bad he ain’t seen self-proclaimed leftist radical Raditz in action yet!

Reposting what I said from the other thread since it seems more apropos here: “The issues favor Donald (duh), but I think Hillary did better tonight. Donald rambled, didn’t respect the moderator, gave clichés and canned answers, sounded like a boor at times, was frequently off-topic, and was very repetitive.”

To add, Hillary sounded like she might sing in your local village choir which is a polished, sophisticated middle-class image I think she wanted to project. She wisely avoided picking fights. Her lies are nauseating from this perspective, but she clearly didn’t alienate her base or current independents any.

Since the MSM has her back, it looks like it’s going to be hard for the average non-political hack viewer to peel through the layers of her rotten core.

    I didn’t watch. One of the pleasures of no TV. Trump didn’t respect the moderator? Okay. From what I’ve read, the moderator was working for his opponent. So, why exactly SHOULD he have respected the moderator?

Charles Krauthammer said something like it was a tie with the win going to the Challanger. I think he did better.

But again he ahs my vote, what about the undecided? I can’t tell. When she was spouting about cybersecurity, were they thinking like me: not run a private server with classified documents run by some guy who goes on reddit for advice. But were the undecideds thinking that too?

The most important result.
I think Lester Holt beat Hillary.

I agree with Professor Jacobson’s assessment with a prediction: Hillary has been sliding in the polls because of health concerns, he had no coughing fits or seizures/collapses so that will probably at least temporarily stop that trend.

I have a hard time assessing these two objectively, Hillary is nails on a chalkboard for me whether she’s talking or not and I never got Trump’s appeal so I wasn’t impressed with him tonight. For example, he started well with the response on the email server being a mistake by saying it wasn’t a mistake when two of Hillary’s lackeys have to plead the 5th but he could have done so much more with the email scandal.

This debate at times just got too boring. Some of the questions were the type that most Americans don’t care about like Obama and birther issue. Saying that I think possibly Lester Corwley won this debate.

I’m anxiously awaiting the opinion of a highly respected poster

The gbiggest loser. The people who had to listen to Hillary for an hour and a half.

When the dust settles, Hillary is going to be viewed as Al Gore in a pantsuit. Trump for the win.

Trump was probably sufficiently prepared for what this was, as was Slick Clinton’s wife.

The problem is this: one cannot change the habits of a lifetime in a few months.

Slick Clinton’s wife was a lawyer and through her husband’s political career has been used to expository oral presentations that use full sentences and complete thoughts. What she expresses may be vile, vile policy, repugnant, and lies, but whatever point she is making, her presentation usually hangs together.

Trump is used to dealing with people who are already very familiar with whatever deal, project he is working on. As such, and as the boss, and by natural tendency, he speaks in incomplete sentences, only occasionally finishing a thought. He doesn’t, and likely has never, had to engage in expository oral presentations that have complete thoughts, sentences, and well expressed points for any extended period of time. That sort of thing, especially in a debate of this sort, is unnatural to him.

The problem is illustrated, as RodFC noted, by the birther thing. If one already knew that Sid Vicious and the woman worked for Slick Clinton’s wife’s 2008 campaign, and that they fed the birther issue to the press and got it started, Trump’s, basically incoherent, remarks were understandable. But for those who didn’t already know that, i.e. undecided voters, their response was likely: Huh?

There is a lot to be said in favor of standard English and complete sentences and thoughts when trying to persuade and explain. Trump needs to work on that.

    jack burns in reply to Sam in Texas. | September 27, 2016 at 1:05 am

    Absolutely true, but the current occupant of the WH is a smooth talker and look where he has taken things.

      Take him off his teleprompter and he stammers like a moron. And yes, he’s made an utter shitshow out of his time in office. History will not be kind to him.

        gospace in reply to Paul. | September 27, 2016 at 1:36 am

        You’re right. Off the teleprompter, he’s not that polished.

          Estragon in reply to gospace. | September 27, 2016 at 5:41 am

          Frankly, Obama’s not that great even with a teleprompter. He does have a good voice, with the deep sounding cadence that lends some authority, but he is neither a riveting speaker nor a particularly good persuader.

          He’s not so intelligent as he thinks or the media/Democrats pretend, either; he’s only smart in the sense of knowing the leftist talking points on most issues and being glib enough to make snarky comments at liberal arts faculty cocktail parties. Obama is a caricature of what academic leftists think a President should look & sound like. The reality is pretty much an empty suit beyond that.

        4fun in reply to Paul. | September 27, 2016 at 8:46 am

        Well, maybe history won’t be kind or maybe it will be kind. Depends on who wins elections, which direction they take and who writes up the history books that are accepted as accurate.
        Personally I think he’s replaced jimmy carter as worst president the country has ever had, but the writers will spin like mad. And the schools and colleges will decide which history books are course mandated. And if you saw the video posted here a couple days ago asking college students at Georgetown if the Constitution is relevant you might want to worry a bit.

      inspectorudy in reply to jack burns. | September 27, 2016 at 11:32 am

      Actually Jack, he is a smooth reader. When he speaks off the cuff he is a mumbler and an “UNH” sayer constantly.

Trump did bring up the emails, but when Clinton said that his failure to release his tax returns meant he was hiding something,he should have directly asked what she was hiding deleting her work emails.

Loved the way Trump snubbed Holt at the end. Misssed that the first time.

One of the core tenets in the Democrat’s Trump-is-a-pathological-liar theme was his supposed unequivocal support of the Iraq war and his subsequent lying about it. Since he mentioned an interview with Neil Cavuto wherein he did not express support for the war, Cavuto produced the interview after the debate and it was true, Trump did not express support for the war in 2003 and, while being somewhat equivocating, concluded that domestic issues were more important than waging that war. So, Lester got caught out, as did the Clinton campaign.

    inspectorudy in reply to jack burns. | September 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    The “Trump supported the war” meme came from an interview with Howard stern where Trump was asked if he agreed with the invasion of Iraq. He responded with “I guess so” which to me is not the same as saying I am for the war. Also, he did not have all of the intelligence that hillary had and she DID vote for the war. So that is their claim and if Trump had thought about it, he could have said that he was just some businessman answering a question on something that he had no info on but hillary was a US Senator and had read all of the secret reports on it. But just like his answer about his taxes he made too much of his denial and not enough of attacking her for much worse. I think that his ability to not have any debating skills reflects on the fact that he has ALWAYS been his own boss and has never had to debate anyone.

      True. Trump also was enthusiastic about the surge. But then he was enthusiastic about a Hillary presidency (she’s so “terrific,” after all) and her great (his word was “amazing”) job at State during the Benghazi attack. What struck me most back then was why on earth would anyone in the world care what Trump thought about anything? He was just some big dog millionaire buying and selling politicians (by his own admission at a GOP primary debate) and using his political influence to buy imminent domain deals and otherwise destroy the lives of Americans.

      As for Trump’s debating skills . . he has none as he showed in every single GOP primary debate and again last night. When the ground is firm beneath his feet, as it was on trade in the first 20 or so minutes last night, he appears confident and speaks relatively well (given his limited vocabulary); however, he wilted like a hot house flower after that.

      There’s a reason he thought it best to bail on the Iowa debate for a fake vet fundraiser. Debates are not his forte; he’s dim-witted, incapable of thinking on his feet, and essentially a deer in headlights when someone with half a brain (i.e. Hillary) scores a point. He’s the kind of guy who wakes up at 2 a.m. with “the” perfect rebuttal . . . which he then shares on Twitter. He should be on a Kardashian “reality” show, not in the White House.

      Commander in chief and leader of the free world?

      Not so much.

Yet again the “moderator” shows their obvious bias for the Democrat.

    yourmamatoo in reply to randian. | September 27, 2016 at 7:36 am

    Msm is the arm of the Democratic Party. That was proven last night , especially after Holt debated Trump. He was also wrong on the stop & frisk point. He should be fired from NBC.

Gotta remember the goals of each campaign:

Hillary is trying to show Trump as arrogant and incompetent. At this debate, he seemed forceful and at least semi-competent. Semi-win for Team Trump.

Trump is trying to show Hillary as a tax-raising, lying, power-hungry troll. Hillary showed that without Trump having to raise a metaphorical muscle. Semi-win for Team Trump.

My evaluation: Trump (although the press will be filled with hymns of praise for Saint Hillary and Her Divine Crusade against the Evil Trumpster tomorrow.)

Since there is no force in reality or mythology which could get me to vote for the Wicked Witch, there’s no useful information to be gathered from this show. So I skipped it.

Much as I like to see someone—anyone—bitch-slap Hillary, that’s probably not what Trump has to do at this point. His challenge, right from the start, has been judging the best time to change gears, shifting from being the noisy, annoying guy one can’t ignore—a necessary phase, without which he’d have remained an unknown at the back of the candidate pack—to a more suave specimen who won’t scandalize the country by using the wrong fork at state dinners. In other words, when should he start acting “Presidential”?

Some NeverTrump types insist that he can’t manage that; I suspect otherwise, but we’ll see. Of course I could be wrong, and maybe he’s the new Lyndon Johnson, a man so crude he’d whip it out and urinate on the bushes in the Rose Garden whenever he felt like it; but my guess is that Trump isn’t nearly so primitive.

If he’s decided that about now is the point for the shift, then he can’t pummel Hillary the way she deserves; but if he lets her pummel him, then he looks like, well, Romney. If Hillary doesn’t do us all a favor by having another health crisis in public, Trump will have to feel out the proper line to dance.

Well, that’s politics.

The press will adapt its attacks after the show; miraculously, wherever Hillary seemed to be strong will be declared important. If some wonkish stuff was involved, and Hillary managed to come across as Jeopardy-contestant material, then they’ll claim that whoever appeared to be “on top” of basically low-level facts was the “winner”, even though the Presidency isn’t about that sort of trivia; that’s what the hired help is for.

And that’s politics, too.

I think its worth mentioning that Trump advocated at least two policies in the debate that set the Republican party on a completely different trajectory then it has ever been before.

1. First, there’s no question that Trump has signed on for a trade war. His policy that US companies would not be able to produce in Mexico and sell here without taxes is 100% terra incognita. First, that’s a tariff, and last I checked, tariffs are taxes and Republicans didn’t want more taxes. Second, that’s a regulation – every product will have to have its percentage of foreign manufacture calculated, and the goal of the regulation is to get US MNCs to restructure which may create some jobs here, but will be costly in the short term.

Third, it’s anti-growth, because its a certainty that other countries would respond with tariffs, quotas, etc. US companies would find themselves locked out of some of the largest markets int he world while a comparable European or Asian company would not be. (And honestly, are we to believe that Trump knows that Mexico is the 3rd largest trading partner of the US or should we just assume that he doesn’t have a clue?)

2. Second, so now the entire post-WWII / Cold War security framework is now up for grabs, or to make it more explicit, for sale to the highest bidder. Trump says countries will pay the US for protection. But what happens if Russia, Iran, etc offer them a better deal? And what monetary windfall are we expecting from Syria or Afghanistan? Sending troops and hardware to some dictatorship in exchange for conflict diamonds or mineral rights sounds like something Russia or China would do, but I guess we’re in the game now. In a decade we went from nation building to strip mining.

Yes, I fully understand that free trade deals and peace treaties have been handed out like Halloween candy to many countries that don’t deserve them and aren’t ready for them. Still, call me naive, but I thought the endgame was to that the US would lead a community of free, prosperous countries mutually bound through trade and security pacts, and that these agreements could even be incentives to these companies to reform.

And call me even more naive, but I actually thought until recently that’s what most conservatives believed. But Trump obviously believes free trade and the post WWII and Cold War defense pacts were a mistake. Tonight has been an eye opener, and I hope Republicans fully understand what they signed on for.

    girlpower in reply to tyates. | September 27, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    I have to disagree.

    1. There will be no trade war that is harmful to USA jobs. Your reasoning falsely assumes that countries like Mexico, South Korea, Japan and China would rather give up untaxed access to the huge USA markets than renegotiate the trade deals with us or conform their behavior to proper standards regarding currency manipulation and VAT tax exemptions on imports from USA. It is exactly that kind of thinking that has allowed political hacks from both parties to get us in the job killing mess we have been in for 30 years. One can’t negotiate better deals if one doesn’t try. The political hacks are in the don’t try it makes me want to go wee wee camp.

    2. Trump thinks we should not sacrifice our treasure, go further into debt, and risk the lives of our military protecting WEALTHY nations unless they pay for the costs of same. You argue we should do it for free. Then you make the ridiculous assertion “worry” what if Russia out bids us to protect these countries. So if Russia goes to Japan and says we will protect you from China and North Korea, we will respect and protect your sovereignty and territory, and we will do it for less money than the USA, you think that is a bad thing. LOL. If Russia and China want to get into the protect world peace business you think that is a bad thing for the world and the USA. I think you need to get your priorities straightened out.

I doubt this will move many voters. Trump didn’t do much to win over college-educated white voters or suburban white women, but he didn’t look crazy, either. The frequent interruptions don’t help him.

Hillary didn’t sparkle, but neither did she stumble or have a coughing fit. She’s a pretty consistent debater: never good enough to win many converts, but well-enough prepared not to hurt herself.

– –

Holt was a blah moderator. Not the worst, but no Lehrer, by a long shot. Typically the first debate is the one people watch, unless it gives them a reason to watch the next. Think Reagan’s shaky performance in ’84 or Obama’s in ’12 – both came back to perform much better & win reelection, but the stories out of the first ones were alarming for their fans.

    Floridamom in reply to Estragon. | September 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    I replied above, but this suburban white woman and all of her suburban white women friends are voting Trump. Outside the city bubble, we see her for what she is. Opportunistic, smug grifter with no principals except power. It’s the 30 something women (single women) who idolize her without knowing anything about her.
    Us older women – with sons who are forced to their knees at the alter of “white guilt/rape culture” that will vote Trump into office.

ABC, CNBC, Drudge, Breitbart all have trump up significantly with only time magazine having them tied at 50/50.

It went about as well as I expected given Trump was up against two debaters.

Mailman

So then , what did you think about Lester Holt debating Trump?

I am not committed to voting for either of these two people. I watched the entire thing, popcorn ready, and wanted to get some sense of direction.

Trump won the first 30 minutes, just by keeping his cool. Hillary will always be better prepared, but she is a terrible politician and she has few successes to speak to for all the time she’s been in the Beltway. The first 30 minutes may have been enough to win over most voters if they tuned out after that.

Hillary won the rest, with help from Lester Holt. The debate became a cat fight , and far too personal. It was stupid at times and brought up too much needless old baggage. That being said, Trump lost his cool and looked like an unprepared fool.

The issue will come down to an experienced failure or a contentious upstart. Who would you rather have running the country?

How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats. “Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her resume” http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/

One thing I’m kind of looking forward to is how Trump prepares for and does in the second debate. I expect he and his advisors will go over this debate and adjust as needed.

The second debate might be the more important of the two just because Trump hasn’t as much experience with these debates as hateful hitlery. So he could do much more with her lies, omissions and outright hateful personality.

So with luck, he stomps hateful hitlery into the ground on the second debate knowing what her tactics in the first were all about and I don’t see her changing much for the second debate.

And nice job on Twitter Kimberlee, Valerie and the rest. Stayed with you for about an hour before I decided to check out other things.

Trump allowed himself to be taken off of the scents of some of the big hitters like illegal immigration, emailgate and its implications, domestic terrorism, but he did land some haymakers. Brazenly calling her experience a null set because she is a hack among hacks is something that needs to be a recurring theme. His comment about minorities being relevant to Democrats every 4 years and forgotten in between may have scored. She did a good job of damage control by personalizing her attacks and exposing his vulnerability to them. As far as she goes, she wandered in to ‘we have to examine our consciences’ mode regarding race relations and I can’t endure a Saul Alinsky knockoff channeling for Ta-Nehisi Coates. Some mention of Trump ignoring the thriving black businesses in the nations ghettos, my god. Has this woman ever been to the likes of East St Louis or the South Side? Then her Russia baiting which is now at the Mad Magazine level. We’re at a sensitive time with Russian relations to put it mildly and her inflammatory rhetoric reminded me of just how great an idea land wars in Asia have proven to be. Trump impressive, at times, but generally needs to get out of ADD mode. Clinton, scripted, rote, with a cynical agenda of exploitation. Got to stick with Trump as the agent of change.

I am not a trump fan I believe he is totally unqualified for the presidency and his debate performance showed that lack of qualification

Likewise with Hillary and her 30 years of public service has lots of experience – but it is all bad experience. Not a single positive accomplishment and tons of bad results, The russian reset, supporting the muslim brotherhood in the egyptian arab spring, overthrow of kadafi and the subsequent take over of libya by isis, same with Iraq, Syria, The nuclear cave-in with IRan, etc. Her dishonesty, corruption would disqualify any candidate, though the entire democratic party demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Back to my debate comments – Lester Holts opening line dispelled any myth of hiding his progressive bias
first question to Hillary – “we have had 8 years of unprecedented job growth”

Drudge is reporting that holt interupted Trump 41 times vs 7 for clinton.

2nd Ammendment Mother | September 27, 2016 at 11:34 am

IMHO…. while the polls will have some movement, we haven’t seen it all yet. At the end of the 1st debate in 2012, Romney had completely set Obama on his heels. He solidly beat Obama like a rented mule.

Hillary pretty much took 2 whole weeks (and then some) off of the campaign trail and before that they were all very limited small events and fundraisers – nothing physically challenging except rest and recuperate before the debate in order to appear as fit as possible. She really thought she would have a very comfortable lead at this point and not need to do much more than phone it in from now until the election.

It turns out the polls are entirely too close for comfort and she doesn’t have the luxury of going dark before the next 2 debates and surrogates just won’t cut it.

Trumps best play is to do what he does best….. keep a really high profile, high energy schedule and point out Hillary’s health and lack of energy. That get’s one of 2 results – forces Hillary to attempt to keep up with him or highlights that she can’t keep up with him. Either one works in his favor and puts the spotlight on her shortcomings.

Like I have claimed here many times, I will vote for anyone but hillary. I was disappointed in Trump’s performance. He resorted to his primary tactics of just using a ton of adjectives and never really saying anything that we haven’t heard many times before. He didn’t seem to hear her many lies and distortions and talked right over them. She said she was going to RAISE TAXES and he didn’t respond! She said she was going to appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to go after big business! She said she was going to offer free COLLEGE! He didn’t mention the 500,000 muslim immigrants that she wants to allow in. She said she had a plan to defeat ISIS and he did call her on it but was not tough enough. But then she went after his tax return and he didn’t mention her foundation’s IRS problems and the back taxes they had to pay or the corruption at the State Dept. He didn’t mention the transcripts from her $250,000 speeches she gave to Wall Sreet. IMO, he was reactive all night and never led the charge.

My one big scream at the TV was when hillary said “I have met many of the people you have cheated in business” and Trump should/could have said and “I have met the parents of the Benghazi four”!

Owwwwwaaa…

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/breitbart-post-debate-poll-clinton-won-4843/

Puuuurrrr, puuuuurrrr T-rump suckers (and you know who you are).

    girlpower in reply to Ragspierre. | September 27, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    That’s the poll that said Trump won big on Leadership and was plus 2% on undecideds, Hillary gained no voters only Trump in that poll. With losses like that Trump is on the way to giving his first state of the union speech.

    Also TED CRUZ and Paul Ryan came out today talking how great Trump did and that he won the debate. I mean Ted Cruz couldn’t be wrong RIGHT?

I could have watched the debate but decided to have an unnecessary root canal instead.

I would suggest that you take a look at the Smoot-Halley tariff. Within 2 years all of our trading partners also had tariffs of 30-40% and US exports were down by half and we were in the thick of the great depression. It’s considered the worst piece of legislation in the 20th century. I’m sure you do realize that Trump has proposed a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, and from the debate it appears Mexico gets the same treatment.

Also, take a look at WWII and the Marshall Plan. The USA rebuilt Europe after WWII and the cost was comparable to $120B in today’s dollars. We didn’t do it for the money, we did it because it was the right thing to do, and because if we didn’t, the entire continent would have all been speaking Russian by 1950, erasing everything we accomplished in the war.

Yes, Trump’s bold new ideas – protection and isolationism – were discredited decades ago.

    girlpower in reply to tyates. | September 28, 2016 at 11:10 am

    I suggest you consider this isn’t the 1930s and the great worldwide depression; that Smoot Halley was protectionism for protectionism’s sake and not part of a strategy to renegotiate trade deals and/or eliminate the effects of bad behavior on the part of our trading partners. Our trading partners weren’t offered the option of stopping their bad behavior to avoid the tariffs.

    Also why under your analysis is the USA the only country in the world whose economists say ignore our trading partners cheating, taxes, and currency manipulation don’t try to renegotiate the trade deals and just allow them free access to USA markets whether they allow us free access to their markets or not. Why aren’t or wouldn’t the economists in the other countries tell their leaders don’t react to USA threats of tariffs and demands we stop cheating and renegotiate our trade deals with tariffs and a trade war against USA. Instead let’s negotiate with USA and maintain untaxed access to the USA ‘ vast markets that are much much larger and more beneficial to us than is continuing our cheating on the current deal.

      Ragspierre in reply to girlpower. | September 28, 2016 at 1:52 pm

      You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Name a nation that does not “manipulate its currency”.

      Name a nation that does it worse than we do.

      T-rump is full of shit, right up to his fake hair. And idiots BUY his shit.

tyates – I agree with your comments especially regarding the anti free trade and the effect of smoot halley. My guess is that if trump gets elected, he will have surrounded himself with enough smart people that will quietly point out the issues and the idea will quietly die. If not, then congress will kill it. Same with the immigration, but at least with immigration, he wont be inviting the illegal immigrants.

    girlpower in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 28, 2016 at 11:20 am

    My guess is you are wrong. Trump means what he says and will use his voters and the bully pulpit to bring GOP congress in line. If the GOP congress doesn’t support Trump’s major policies his voters will take revenge on them in 2018. Trump could also use vetos that threaten a government shutdown to whip the sissy boys in GOP in line. Has worked every time for Obama.

    The wall will be built. Trade deals will be renegotiated.

    After Trump is elected the transformation of the GOP at all levels into a conservative nationalist/populist party will be in full swing as candidates at all levels will follow the Trump method as their best shot for electoral victory.

      Ragspierre in reply to girlpower. | September 28, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      “After Trump is elected the transformation of the GOP at all levels into a conservative nationalist/populist party…”

      Those are contradictions in terms. You don’t have a clue what you’re bloviating about.

    You’re probably right, especially about the protectionism – difficult to see Paul Ryan and Rand Paul voting for tariffs. OTOH maybe we get a repeat of this year where Trump is endorsing GOP leader’s primary opponents.

    Honestly I never thought MFN status for China (Most Favored Nation) before they had really reformed was a good idea. But if we stopped trading with them, their role as a relatively stable low-cost manufacturer would just go to someone else – Malaysia and Thailand for example. And extricating ourself from 20+ years of business deals with them isn’t going to be any economic windfall, there’s going to be higher costs, higher prices, and higher interest rates in the short term and any real benefit would be strategic rather than economic.

The debate is not a real debate. Obviously.
It’s an opportunity to reach the people.
It’s an opportunity to win over hearts and minds.
It is clear from CNBC, Time, and other polls that Trump won the debate.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend