Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who won the debate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...htmlstory.html

    "Scorecard: Times political writers unanimously declare Clinton the winner of round 1"
    So what?

    The MSM would have declared Her Hagness the winner even if she spent the entire 90 minutes coughing.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Because I didn't want waffling - I wanted people to have to pick a winner. If someone were to actually believe this was a literal 50-50, then I expected them to justify that. Otherwise, someone won.


      Force people to make decisions... Good job...
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #33
        http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-...al-debate.html

        CNBC has Trump ahead by 8% on this snap poll - but this (like many others I've seen while searching) is terrifyingly inept. One can vote again and again by just refreshing the page, which suggests these sorts of polls are going to be seen as highly suspect from whatever side "loses".

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          So what?

          The MSM would have declared Her Hagness the winner even if she spent the entire 90 minutes coughing.
          And ACG conservatives would declare she lost even if Trump molested a child on stage. Partisanship is partisanship.

          Didn't Trump spend the 90 minutes sniffling?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            On Google.
            I was referring to actual polls, not Internet votes.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              And ACG conservatives would declare she lost even if Trump molested a child on stage. Partisanship is partisanship.

              Didn't Trump spend the 90 minutes sniffling?
              That is why I want to see actual polls.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #37
                http://theweek.com/speedreads/651363...cnn-poll-finds
                Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had a number of ups and downs throughout the presidential debate, not necessarily making it entirely clear who "won" and who "lost." But according to a CNN snap poll, there was no question about the matter, with Hillary Clinton "winning" 62 to 27. That number needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as CNN reports the crowd skewed 10 points more Democrat and two points less Republican than a truly representative electoral audience but it's still a rather overwhelming agreement.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-...al-debate.html

                  CNBC has Trump ahead by 8% on this snap poll - but this (like many others I've seen while searching) is terrifyingly inept. One can vote again and again by just refreshing the page, which suggests these sorts of polls are going to be seen as highly suspect from whatever side "loses".
                  Yep. That's an Internet vote, not a real poll.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/marke...st-debate.html

                    "Markets declare Hillary Clinton the winner of first debate"
                    This is idiotic. It's based on the assumption that stock market futures would have crashed if Trump had won.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      That is why I want to see actual polls.
                      I'm most interest in the nation polls tomorrow / later this week, but also on more objective analysis of the debates themselves.

                      I think it's obvious that plenty of people already knew who "won" before either candidate opened their mouth, and their opinions are worthless to me. From my position, I saw Hillary defeat Trump with a predictable but stable performance, her plethora of non-answers (how many figures and set pieces of data did she actually use?) and her focus on being composed and attempting to be likeable effective if uninspiring.

                      Trump was a mess to me. If he wasn't wandering around, going over time or off topic, he was bungling easy layups one after another. Hillary is a by the TelePrompter politician with more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein. Instead she came off as the more rational and sane candidate - which considering her history is just shocking.

                      Hillary didn't win big, but Trump was just incompetent enough to leave me a little surprised. To quote someone I was watching the debate with: "Right now Trump is probably thinking that third scotch was a bad idea."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        http://theweek.com/speedreads/651363...cnn-poll-finds
                        Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had a number of ups and downs throughout the presidential debate, not necessarily making it entirely clear who "won" and who "lost." But according to a CNN snap poll, there was no question about the matter, with Hillary Clinton "winning" 62 to 27. That number needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as CNN reports the crowd skewed 10 points more Democrat and two points less Republican than a truly representative electoral audience but it's still a rather overwhelming agreement.
                        CNN surveyed its own "crowd" and only measured a 2:1 margin for Her Hagness?

                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          This is idiotic. It's based on the assumption that stock market futures would have crashed if Trump had won.
                          Which I found very, very funny an idea and thus just had to share.

                          Though I guess the fact that Wall Street is solidly Pro-Hillary plays into their reasoning.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            I'm most interest in the nation polls tomorrow / later this week, but also on more objective analysis of the debates themselves.

                            I think it's obvious that plenty of people already knew who "won" before either candidate opened their mouth, and their opinions are worthless to me. From my position, I saw Hillary defeat Trump with a predictable but stable performance, her plethora of non-answers (how many figures and set pieces of data did she actually use?) and her focus on being composed and attempting to be likeable effective if uninspiring.

                            Trump was a mess to me. If he wasn't wandering around, going over time or off topic, he was bungling easy layups one after another. Hillary is a by the TelePrompter politician with more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein. Instead she came off as the more rational and sane candidate - which considering her history is just shocking.

                            Hillary didn't win big, but Trump was just incompetent enough to leave me a little surprised. To quote someone I was watching the debate with: "Right now Trump is probably thinking that third scotch was a bad idea."
                            Watch the LA Times/USC daily tracking poll. Nate Silver says it skews toward Trump; but the relative movement is instructive.

                            I fell asleep before the debate started and woke up about an hour ago. I'll have to watch the replay.

                            The media coverage I have seen, so far, is consistent with Clinton losing badly... but I am biased against Her Hagness and the media.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              What I saw was Clinton held her ground for the most part. I really think her continued smiling and almost laughing at Trump was a mistake. Sure, her supporters ate that up, but it comes across as arrogant and petty to those less convinced about her electability.

                              On the economy, Hillary got hammered.

                              The tax return issue, she should have let it go. Trump's I'll release my tax returns if you release your 33,000 e-mails was a major slam.

                              On race and race relations neither scored any major points. It was a rehash.

                              I think Hillary made a mistake calling Trump a racist over the birther issue. Trump may be a loon on this but I doubt he was being racist about it. This was a lose for both candidates, and Hillary lost by going low. She could have had the high ground on this issue.

                              On cybersecurity Hillary danced carefully around the subject. You could tell she was avoiding the obvious: Her e-mail server.
                              She was handed a draw when Trump didn't bring that up on this subject.

                              At 1 hr 35 minutes, Hillary went vicious personal attacking Trump on women. I don't think it bought her anything.

                              On the whole, a draw.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                Which I found very, very funny an idea and thus just had to share.

                                Though I guess the fact that Wall Street is solidly Pro-Hillary plays into their reasoning.
                                It's a data point.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X