Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who won the debate?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    To play Devil's advocate (and considering these two candidates I think Satan would probably be a good write-in candidate), her calls for him to release his taxes seems pretty legit a concern.

    Indeed, it would be highly hypocritical of a man who pestered Obama for his birth certificate to then negotiate about the release of his own relevant personal data, even if (like Obama's birth cirtificate) it is entirely unimportant and irrelevant.

    I mean we have to remember that according to Trump tonight, he was pretty much single handedly responsible for the idiocy that was the birther movement.
    Trump was a late arrival to the birther movement, which was strated by Clinton supporters, most notably Sidney Blumenthal.

    Trump ended the birther movement twice. First by goading Maobama into releasing a more authentic birth certificate and then by trolling the media into free air time a couple of weeks ago.

    Trump's ability to troll the other side does not constitute an ethical requirement to troll himself on behalf of the other side.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      What, you think Trump had more to lose in this debate and it was Hillary who could afford the status quo? Gee whiz, what sort of dirt do you know about Trump that Hillary didn't use in this debate? Because considering all the slime sticking to her, I shudder to imagine how dirty Trump would have to be to be the one at risk.
      Trump only needed to beat public expectations to win. He only needed to beat MSM expectations to win decisively.

      From the initial coverage, it appears that he beat MSM expectations.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #78
        He lost. Get use to it.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
          He lost. Get use to it.
          If he lost, it will show up here over the next week...

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

          Comment


          • #80
            Hillary won hands down. She was articulate, energetic, and intelligent. Trump came out guns blazing but by the end seemed tired and incoherent. If there is a question of stamina, it may actually go against him. At first he seemed almost hysterical and later he was disjointed in his speech, like his sand was running out.

            All of the pundits say that she was prepared and he was not. I agree.

            It was interesting that they ordered the crowd to keep quiet. Do they always do that at Hofstra? I have always felt that he is energized by a raucous crowd.

            When Trump began to attack Hillary on the e-mail thing, she apologized and said that she has said several times that it was the wrong thing to do. And then she turned the attack on him. She is not afraid to mix it up with him.

            Re: Clinton’s smiling and almost laughing at Trump—in the Commander and Chief thing she was criticized for not smiling: So damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. He was the one that came off sullen.

            At least I did not fall asleep during the debate and even applauded Hillary a time or two.
            Homo homini lupus

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Jannie View Post
              [...]

              All of the pundits say that she was prepared and he was not. I agree.

              [...]
              "All of the pundits"?
              Monday, September 26
              • Clinton, Trump Dive Directly Into Attacks in Debate McCormick & Niquette, Bloomberg
              • What Worked in Primaries Failed Trump vs. Clinton Dana Milbank, Washington Post
              • Clinton Stays on Offense, Trump Sticks to the Issues Howard Kurtz, FOX News
              • Clinton Proved Trump Is a Man You Can Bait Jeet Heer, The New Republic
              • Clinton Clings to Myth of Systemic Racism in First Debate Edmund Kozak, LifeZette
              • Krauthammer: Spirited, No Knock Outs, Debate Was a Draw
              • Carville: Trump Lost Badly, Almost Wanted to Throw Towel In For Him


                http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?mobile_redirect=false

              Maybe all of the pundits who used to work for the Clintons...

              In the meantime...

              CNN: Trump Takes 1 Point Lead in Colorado, Trails by 1 in Penn.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Trump only needed to beat public expectations to win.
                Which is why she needed something more than him - she was behind while he was riding that status quo boom.

                He only needed to beat MSM expectations to win decisively.

                From the initial coverage, it appears that he beat MSM expectations.
                MSM expectations?

                Comment


                • #83
                  http://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-...was-1474950380
                  Hillary needed either to convince them that Donald Trump is unfit or induce Mr. Trump to do it for her by “scaring” these crucially important voters.

                  Donald Trump needed to give these same people a “get out of Trump jail” card—a reason to look past his flaws and just vote for him rather than the other three options available—her, a Libertarian, or stay home—all votes they really don’t want to cast.

                  And the winner of the first abominable debate is?

                  Trump. In what was—shifting metaphors—a photo finish. It shouldn’t have been close. If we know anything, it’s that this is a change election. I couldn’t hear a single element of change in Hillary’s outpourings. “Investments” means familiar spending. ISIS? Drop more bombs.

                  I think the most important part of this is that "shouldn't have been close" line because, as before, Trump had so much on Hillary, he should have blown her out of the water. I mean, it was Hillary ******* Clinton. The attacks write themselves.

                  Though the WSJ piece I linked had a number of different contributors for their views. Here are a few more:
                  But Mr. Trump needs to overcome public doubts about his candidacy and character, and while he didn’t choke like a dog, he made no forward progress beyond asserting that temperament was his “strongest asset.” Then again, the Clinton campaign is predicated on the idea that he is uniquely unfit, and Mrs. Clinton didn’t even bring herself to enforce her own narrative. She demanded that the fact checkers “turn up the volume,” whatever that means, and assailed his economic program as “Trumped-up trickle-down”—as if he was no different than a typical Republican. Mr. Trump’s best shot to win is if he convinces voters that he is.
                  ...
                  Ironically, the businessman was least effective when making the economic case against the slow growth and declining opportunities offered by the Obama-Clinton agenda. He might have explained the Tax Foundation analysis showing that his tax plan would boost the economy between 6.9% and 8.2% over a decade, while under Hillary Clinton’s plan the economy would shrink under the weight of new federal burdens.

                  Mr. Trump was most effective in making the case for law and order—especially in minority communities in inner cities wracked by rising violence. His anguish over the wave of shootings in Chicago was a contrast to the cool Mrs. Clinton, who didn’t seem to think the problem was significant enough to force a reconsideration of any long-held liberal positions.
                  ...

                  Debates are about pressing an advantage, and Donald Trump’s biggest going into Monday night’s event was the issue of Hillary Clinton’s ethics. Nearly two-thirds of the country views the former secretary of state as untrustworthy, the result of endless shenanigans from her email server, to her family foundation, to decades of other Clinton immorality.

                  Yet in the entire exchange Monday, Mr. Trump barely mentioned the Clintons’ long history of scandal, and even then did so only as a retort. Hillary had delivered a compelling critique of the billionaire’s failure to release his tax returns. Mr. Trump’s response was to claim that he would make public his returns when Mrs. Clinton released the 33,000 emails that she deleted from her private server rather than turn over to the State Department.

                  A lot of this repeats what I said earlier: Trump squandered his advantages in this debate, and it left him looking less the firebrand revolutionary and more the angry uncle after one too many gin and tonics.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    Which is why she needed something more than him - she was behind while he was riding that status quo boom.



                    MSM expectations?
                    The MSM expected Trump to do little more than hurl insults at Her Hagness.

                    He blew away their expectations.

                    Prior to 9/11/16, the MSM expected Her Hagness to be the most formidable debater since the Lincoln-Douglas debates. After 9/11, they lowered their expectations to her remaining conscious for 90 minutes. She fell short of the former and beat the latter.

                    The polls over the next week will reveal how they fared against the only expectations that mattered.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      http://www.ibtimes.com/who-won-debat...conomy-2422221
                      Analysts and media leaders quickly declared Clinton the winner for her poise and analytic talking points, but many noted that she had won largely because Trump had done so poorly.

                      "Clinton remains in the lead after a feisty second round," The Los Angeles Times declared.

                      BuzzFeed News tried to shame Trump for making up facts. "Republican candidate Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of 'fighting ISIS your entire adult life,' which is literally impossible since the group only came into existence after the invasion of Iraq," the site wrote.

                      GOP pollster Frank Luntz tweeted that Clinton was winning. "Tonight Hillary is coming across as presidential," he wrote.

                      CNN correspondent Jake Tapper said Trump started off strong, before sinking with each round of insults. "He took the bait every time Hillary Clinton tried to tempt him into talking about something he really shouldn't have been talking about," Tapper said.

                      There were some compliments for Trump's performance. The New York Times praised Trump's consistent attacks: "After a weak start in the debate, Donald J. Trump recovered his footing with a badgering onslaught against Hillary Clinton, interrupting her repeatedly and shouting over her to blast her as a career politician with bad ideas on trade. With his hectoring attacks, Mr. Trump appeared to seize the terms of the debate... Mrs. Clinton kept her composure but did not match Mr. Trump in volume or intensity."

                      The Washington Post marveled that Trump had actually put in some effort: "Whatever the merits of his argument, it does seem like the Republican nominee put some time into studying the issues before his appearance tonight."

                      Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump supporter, said the GOP nominee "knocked it out of the park."

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        http://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-...was-1474950380
                        Hillary needed either to convince them that Donald Trump is unfit or induce Mr. Trump to do it for her by “scaring” these crucially important voters.

                        Donald Trump needed to give these same people a “get out of Trump jail” card—a reason to look past his flaws and just vote for him rather than the other three options available—her, a Libertarian, or stay home—all votes they really don’t want to cast.

                        And the winner of the first abominable debate is?

                        Trump. In what was—shifting metaphors—a photo finish. It shouldn’t have been close. If we know anything, it’s that this is a change election. I couldn’t hear a single element of change in Hillary’s outpourings. “Investments” means familiar spending. ISIS? Drop more bombs.

                        I think the most important part of this is that "shouldn't have been close" line because, as before, Trump had so much on Hillary, he should have blown her out of the water. I mean, it was Hillary ******* Clinton. The attacks write themselves.

                        Though the WSJ piece I linked had a number of different contributors for their views. Here are a few more:
                        But Mr. Trump needs to overcome public doubts about his candidacy and character, and while he didn’t choke like a dog, he made no forward progress beyond asserting that temperament was his “strongest asset.” Then again, the Clinton campaign is predicated on the idea that he is uniquely unfit, and Mrs. Clinton didn’t even bring herself to enforce her own narrative. She demanded that the fact checkers “turn up the volume,” whatever that means, and assailed his economic program as “Trumped-up trickle-down”—as if he was no different than a typical Republican. Mr. Trump’s best shot to win is if he convinces voters that he is.
                        ...
                        Ironically, the businessman was least effective when making the economic case against the slow growth and declining opportunities offered by the Obama-Clinton agenda. He might have explained the Tax Foundation analysis showing that his tax plan would boost the economy between 6.9% and 8.2% over a decade, while under Hillary Clinton’s plan the economy would shrink under the weight of new federal burdens.

                        Mr. Trump was most effective in making the case for law and order—especially in minority communities in inner cities wracked by rising violence. His anguish over the wave of shootings in Chicago was a contrast to the cool Mrs. Clinton, who didn’t seem to think the problem was significant enough to force a reconsideration of any long-held liberal positions.
                        ...

                        Debates are about pressing an advantage, and Donald Trump’s biggest going into Monday night’s event was the issue of Hillary Clinton’s ethics. Nearly two-thirds of the country views the former secretary of state as untrustworthy, the result of endless shenanigans from her email server, to her family foundation, to decades of other Clinton immorality.

                        Yet in the entire exchange Monday, Mr. Trump barely mentioned the Clintons’ long history of scandal, and even then did so only as a retort. Hillary had delivered a compelling critique of the billionaire’s failure to release his tax returns. Mr. Trump’s response was to claim that he would make public his returns when Mrs. Clinton released the 33,000 emails that she deleted from her private server rather than turn over to the State Department.

                        A lot of this repeats what I said earlier: Trump squandered his advantages in this debate, and it left him looking less the firebrand revolutionary and more the angry uncle after one too many gin and tonics.
                        Trump, like Reagan in his debate with Carter, did exactly what he needed to do. Unlike Reagan, Trump has two more debates. The fact that he held his own with virtually no debate prep, should scare the schist out of Team Clinton.

                        Her Hagness has exactly one path to victory: Successfully paint Trump as a racist, mysoginistic madman... So far, she has failed miserably.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          The MSM expected Trump to do little more than hurl insults at Her Hagness.

                          He blew away their expectations.
                          Really? Where was that said?

                          Prior to 9/11/16, the MSM expected Her Hagness to be the most formidable debater since the Lincoln-Douglas debates. After 9/11, they lowered their expectations to her remaining conscious for 90 minutes. She fell short of the former and beat the latter.
                          Again, where was that said? Considering the scope of the sentiment, surely there must be some documentation: a tweet or blog post to said effect. Indeed, I'd love to see which major business outlet's employee made the comparison to Lincoln.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            Trump, like Reagan in his debate with Carter, did exactly what he needed to do. Unlike Reagan, Trump has two more debates. The fact that he held his own with virtually no debate prep, should scare the schist out of Team Clinton.
                            So the argument now is "Trump did poorly because he didn't prepare for a national debate". That doesn't fill me with confidence for his eventual presidency, and sounds more like something a petulant child would say after losing a game of checkers.

                            "I lost cause I wasn't really even trying."

                            Her Hagness has exactly one path to victory: Successfully paint Trump as a racist, mysoginistic madman... So far, she has failed miserably.
                            So far that sort of labeling has depended on Trump playing ball. Ever since his handlers demanded he start acting more PC, it has cut back on such tidbits as the whole Khan episode. It still could come out in the future, though, especially if he really is incompetent enough to not even prepare for a presidential debate.

                            Truly, it feels like this election has two candidates who are running less on their own merits and simply on how terrible their opposition is. Not a ringing endorsement for the principles of democracy, that's for sure.

                            Hillary is such a weak candidate that she should have been crushed by the GOP at this point. It says a lot about Trump's own failings that he hasn't been able to deliver the coup de grace against a woman dirty enough to offend Pigpen.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              Really? Where was that said?



                              Again, where was that said? Considering the scope of the sentiment, surely there must be some documentation: a tweet or blog post to said effect. Indeed, I'd love to see which major business outlet's employee made the comparison to Lincoln.
                              All over the place...
                              Former Michigan governor and Clinton surrogate Jennifer Granholm and former George W. Bush senior aide and White House Political Director Sara Fagen agreed that expectations for each candidate are drastically different —primarily because of Trump's political inexperience and Clinton's gender.
                              The real estate mogul can only benefit from lowered expectations, Granholm said.

                              https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc....ts-debate.html

                              Team Clinton just figured this out last week...
                              The Clinton campaign made the case that her opponent — with an assist from media coverage — has such a low bar to clear that it would make it easy for him to exceed expectations.

                              “I’m very concerned that Donald Trump will be graded . . . on a curve,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on CNN. “Just because he doesn’t fly off the handle in the middle of this debate doesn’t mean that he’s prepared to be president of the United States.”

                              https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bos...4Tx5H/amp.html
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                So the argument now is "Trump did poorly because he didn't prepare for a national debate". That doesn't fill me with confidence for his eventual presidency, and sounds more like something a petulant child would say after losing a game of checkers.

                                "I lost cause I wasn't really even trying."
                                He won because he wasn't really trying.



                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay
                                So far that sort of labeling has depended on Trump playing ball. Ever since his handlers demanded he start acting more PC, it has cut back on such tidbits as the whole Khan episode. It still could come out in the future, though, especially if he really is incompetent enough to not even prepare for a presidential debate.

                                Truly, it feels like this election has two candidates who are running less on their own merits and simply on how terrible their opposition is. Not a ringing endorsement for the principles of democracy, that's for sure.

                                Hillary is such a weak candidate that she should have been crushed by the GOP at this point. It says a lot about Trump's own failings that he hasn't been able to deliver the coup de grace against a woman dirty enough to offend Pigpen.
                                "That sort of labeling" was Her Hagness' only path to victory... However, Trump stopped cooperating a few weeks ago.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X