Well, every other piece in the op-ed section of the NYT today is indicating that it does. Polls have gotten notoriously unreliable. Witness Brexit. Witness the Governor's race here in Maryland. It is still all about turnout on election day and Americans are frightened. Period.
The article makes it sound like a 2.5 point boost from the debate would be de minimis. In a race that was arguably a statistical dead heat going into the debate, a 2.5 point bump would be huge.
2
Clinton was coming into the debate after some bad weeks. The emails were beating her to death and then she got sick. Those things made everyone think that she can't be trusted and the media kept beating that drum. There was a lot riding on the debates for her.
She had to appear strong. She had to look healthy. She had to modulate her voice and control any body-tics that might offend. She had control herself not to react to Trump's insults. And she had to sound knowledgeable about a wide range of issues.
She did it all. And still, conservative pundits opined that Trump "won" the first 20 minutes because: 1. He's the change candidate. 2. He didn't immediately appear totally out of control.
In fact, during the screed about countries stealing our jobs, he didn't offer meaningful proposals for fixing the problems. He also resorted to distorting the truth right from the beginning. It's hard to see how that's winning and anyone who stayed tuned saw the debacle at the end. Even Melania must have cringed.
After the debate ended, it occurred to me that, instead of people secretly voting for Donald Trump even as they decry his excesses, more people might become Clinton converts and cast their ballots for her even as they continue to say she's a flawed candidate. That may or may not show up in polls, how much do polls really matter to those of us who are not campaign strategists.
She had to appear strong. She had to look healthy. She had to modulate her voice and control any body-tics that might offend. She had control herself not to react to Trump's insults. And she had to sound knowledgeable about a wide range of issues.
She did it all. And still, conservative pundits opined that Trump "won" the first 20 minutes because: 1. He's the change candidate. 2. He didn't immediately appear totally out of control.
In fact, during the screed about countries stealing our jobs, he didn't offer meaningful proposals for fixing the problems. He also resorted to distorting the truth right from the beginning. It's hard to see how that's winning and anyone who stayed tuned saw the debacle at the end. Even Melania must have cringed.
After the debate ended, it occurred to me that, instead of people secretly voting for Donald Trump even as they decry his excesses, more people might become Clinton converts and cast their ballots for her even as they continue to say she's a flawed candidate. That may or may not show up in polls, how much do polls really matter to those of us who are not campaign strategists.
6
I doubt that most fanatic Trump supporters will be swayed by the outcome of this debate or subsequent debates. Why would they? Nothing's changed. He hasn't demonstrated anything new or different from who he's been since he fought for and, incredulously, won the nomination.
Many of his supporters in all likelihood did not even watch the debate or, if they did, may have concluded Trump won.
As to the "undecideds"...really? At this stage of the campaign, who, what kind of voter can possibly be undecided? There are no subtleties about this election. It's perhaps the most traumatically different choice the voter can make in the history of our nation.
Many of his supporters in all likelihood did not even watch the debate or, if they did, may have concluded Trump won.
As to the "undecideds"...really? At this stage of the campaign, who, what kind of voter can possibly be undecided? There are no subtleties about this election. It's perhaps the most traumatically different choice the voter can make in the history of our nation.
7
About Trump's tax returns--I wonder if the Russians have them, would give them to Wikileaks, who would then disseminate them to the world? Then the question would be moot. The returns would be out and available to all. Would Julian Assange go for it?
3
My concern is that a lot of voters who want to vote for "change" are looking for reasons to vote for Trump. In fact, an article in the Times quoted one of them yesterday. She wants to vote for Trump, but can't justify it when he acts this way.
If Trump does badly in a debate, then voters like that will keep an open mind. If Clinton does badly in a debate, then they will enthusiastically get behind Trump. In other words, the debates can only help Trump. I'll be glad when they're over.
If Trump does badly in a debate, then voters like that will keep an open mind. If Clinton does badly in a debate, then they will enthusiastically get behind Trump. In other words, the debates can only help Trump. I'll be glad when they're over.
2
I take stock with the author's assertion. The first televised debate has changed the momentum in the run-up to November 8th election day. Hillary won and Trump lost.
The best metaphor for this election --as far as television executives are concerned -- is " the circus is back in town and the lion is the main attraction." Donald Trump is a byproduct of American entertainment television industry.
Trump's reality shows helped him to craft the art of bullying people in public. That craft was successfully used during the GOP primaries.
To lose a televised debate to an intellectually superior Hillary must be psychologically devastating to Trump's ego. He might not recover from this defeat easily, among other things because the role played by the mass media,
Let's not forget a fundamental point. Trump is not facing Hillary Clinton only. He is facing the American establishment's power which is translated into an Aleppo-type merciless attack from the mass media from now 'til November 8th, 2016. He cannot win.
The best metaphor for this election --as far as television executives are concerned -- is " the circus is back in town and the lion is the main attraction." Donald Trump is a byproduct of American entertainment television industry.
Trump's reality shows helped him to craft the art of bullying people in public. That craft was successfully used during the GOP primaries.
To lose a televised debate to an intellectually superior Hillary must be psychologically devastating to Trump's ego. He might not recover from this defeat easily, among other things because the role played by the mass media,
Let's not forget a fundamental point. Trump is not facing Hillary Clinton only. He is facing the American establishment's power which is translated into an Aleppo-type merciless attack from the mass media from now 'til November 8th, 2016. He cannot win.
2
We treat major league and college football games with much more seriousness than we are treating our presidential election. Somehow we have been cornered into accepting this uneducated, narcissistic idiot as a candidate for the office of president. In football games, when a player does something that goes against the rules, he is penalized. Well, it is against our commonly held rules to lie in the way that Trump is doing.
It disturbing that we have to accept an alternate reality because a flim-flam man has managed to take over a political party and play reality TV with our election.
I become almost sick over both scenarios; that we are accepting as "normal" and "acceptable" constant, intentional, and conspicuous lying; and that this pretense of a competent human could become president.
Over my lifetime, lying was always thought to be wrong, a sin, something you could be jailed. Why have we allowed that to change because of one person?
We need a way to insure this never happens again. I suggest at the very least candidates need to pass a test on government, law making, and current events to be able to enter the field.
We certainly have shown that the consequence of lying is being given an eminent place in our presidential race.
Does anyone else have ideas as to how to prevent this from happening again?
It disturbing that we have to accept an alternate reality because a flim-flam man has managed to take over a political party and play reality TV with our election.
I become almost sick over both scenarios; that we are accepting as "normal" and "acceptable" constant, intentional, and conspicuous lying; and that this pretense of a competent human could become president.
Over my lifetime, lying was always thought to be wrong, a sin, something you could be jailed. Why have we allowed that to change because of one person?
We need a way to insure this never happens again. I suggest at the very least candidates need to pass a test on government, law making, and current events to be able to enter the field.
We certainly have shown that the consequence of lying is being given an eminent place in our presidential race.
Does anyone else have ideas as to how to prevent this from happening again?
9
You mean outside of re-vamping the entire G.O.P ??? -- No. That's probably the best way to go.
Are pollsters asking voters how they feel about having Clinton as president versus Trump as president? I suspect that, in light of the debate, most Americans wouldn't like Trump as president. Most Americans don't want their president to be an arrogant, condescending loudmouth.
2
I've noticed a pattern. Hillary's poll numbers tend to go down when she's out of the public eye, as when she's privately courting donors or prepping for the debate. It's then that she allows others to define her and the "bad Hillary" meme takes over - largely a Republican and conservative-driven negative media construct almost 25 years in the making since her husband first declared his candidacy.
And then she appears in a high-visibility forum, whether that be a Congressional hearing, the convention or a debate, we are re-introduced to the real Hillary and once again we are reminded of her poise, skill, intelligence and talent. Her numbers go up as she is correctly seen as the only truly qualified candidate running in this election.
She needs to be the public face of her campaign every day from now until November 8.
And then she appears in a high-visibility forum, whether that be a Congressional hearing, the convention or a debate, we are re-introduced to the real Hillary and once again we are reminded of her poise, skill, intelligence and talent. Her numbers go up as she is correctly seen as the only truly qualified candidate running in this election.
She needs to be the public face of her campaign every day from now until November 8.
11
Thank you for pointing out some of Hillary's excellent qualities. I would add courage and backbone.
I would also like to strongly object here to the media (CNN, MSNBC, POTUS on serious radio being the main ones I've listened to) and most of their guests constantly bringing up some inexplicable poll numbers in my mind that the two candidates are equally unpopular. Their doing this is just reinforcing this idea. It would be much more helpful if they want to bring this up at all is to try to figure out the source(s) of what has made people dislike/distrust Hillary, particularly since her popularity ratings were quite high in 2012 at the end of her stint as Secretary of State. While Bengazi and the e-mail problem are oft cited, it seems like most reasonable people would understand that the first was not her fault and that the second was an understandable mistake. While some attention has been given to the real reason for her negative rating, it's been minimal as far as I can see.
I would also like to strongly object here to the media (CNN, MSNBC, POTUS on serious radio being the main ones I've listened to) and most of their guests constantly bringing up some inexplicable poll numbers in my mind that the two candidates are equally unpopular. Their doing this is just reinforcing this idea. It would be much more helpful if they want to bring this up at all is to try to figure out the source(s) of what has made people dislike/distrust Hillary, particularly since her popularity ratings were quite high in 2012 at the end of her stint as Secretary of State. While Bengazi and the e-mail problem are oft cited, it seems like most reasonable people would understand that the first was not her fault and that the second was an understandable mistake. While some attention has been given to the real reason for her negative rating, it's been minimal as far as I can see.
I read somewhere that CNN's debate poll sample was slanted with Dems. Who knows if that is true. It could be though because it didn't seem like that big of a margin between the two.
It's not the polls that ultimately dictate the margin between the two -- it's their performance.
You may want to watch it again -- the difference is extrmely clear.
You may want to watch it again -- the difference is extrmely clear.
2
Sometimes, just to get some energy via blood-boiling, I lurk on the conservative alt-right conspiracy-based websites to see what they are saying. According to them, Donald won the debate as judged by online polls, and "he destroyed her". He also had a rigged microphone, a biased moderator, and Hillary was slipped the questions ahead of time, according to these sites. I don't know if these truly delusional people can prevail, but I am not reassured by Hillary's good performance. And these deplorables would not recognize a debate winner if it bit them in the basket.
5
Understand your concern. I'm just not ready to concede that this country is going to hell in a handbasket by the name of Donald Trump.
Of course sitting here in a very Blue New York City & State, there's still every reason to remain hopeful -- but I do admire your ability to withstand ANY amount of time on alt-right websites.
The 'performance' and the election is for us, not for them.
They won't make America great again ... or ever.
Of course sitting here in a very Blue New York City & State, there's still every reason to remain hopeful -- but I do admire your ability to withstand ANY amount of time on alt-right websites.
The 'performance' and the election is for us, not for them.
They won't make America great again ... or ever.
1
Why one need college degree in the first place? I believe college degree is optional for People with real talent and self-confidence, such as Steve Jobs who attended Stanford for less than 5 months total.
The tech world is filled with famous dropouts. David Karp, for instance, ditched high school at 15 and never graduated. Instead, he created Tumblr, which he later sold to Yahoo for $1 billion. Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard University in his sophomore year, mirroring another famous Harvard dropout, Bill Gates. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel has also been a vocal critic of college, famously offering selected students $100,000 to drop out of college and instead focus on developing their ideas.
You can get a computer science degree and after four years you're $110,000 in debt and you still don't know everything you need to code.
The tech world is filled with famous dropouts. David Karp, for instance, ditched high school at 15 and never graduated. Instead, he created Tumblr, which he later sold to Yahoo for $1 billion. Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard University in his sophomore year, mirroring another famous Harvard dropout, Bill Gates. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel has also been a vocal critic of college, famously offering selected students $100,000 to drop out of college and instead focus on developing their ideas.
You can get a computer science degree and after four years you're $110,000 in debt and you still don't know everything you need to code.
...amously offering selected students $100,000 to drop out of college and instead focus on developing their ideas.
How many Two or three million? Or a hundred? The fact that a hundred or a thousand students are helped by a single donor is irrelevant to national policy. How many people are like Steve Jobs? Or Gates? Or Zuckerberg? And how many super-talented super-entrepreneurs does the country need? All chiefs and no braves? Does that make for a successful nation? To imagine that there are 10 million Steve Jobses out there being held down by taking Freshman English is really to have a vivid imagination. A good education makes it possible for the average American to succeed in society and provides some continuity with our cultural history. Those who are among the 1% in talent and ambition will make it regardless what diplomas are hanging on their walls, that's true. What about the rest of us?
How many Two or three million? Or a hundred? The fact that a hundred or a thousand students are helped by a single donor is irrelevant to national policy. How many people are like Steve Jobs? Or Gates? Or Zuckerberg? And how many super-talented super-entrepreneurs does the country need? All chiefs and no braves? Does that make for a successful nation? To imagine that there are 10 million Steve Jobses out there being held down by taking Freshman English is really to have a vivid imagination. A good education makes it possible for the average American to succeed in society and provides some continuity with our cultural history. Those who are among the 1% in talent and ambition will make it regardless what diplomas are hanging on their walls, that's true. What about the rest of us?
2
Not everybody has the desire or the aptitude to go into Computer Science...and might not have the luck of Mr. Karp, Mr. Thiel, or Mr. Zuckerberg.
There is still a very serious technical divide in America, where some communities don't even have access to computers or the internet.
There is still a very serious technical divide in America, where some communities don't even have access to computers or the internet.
The debate affect in the public realm may indeed have little to do with the election outcome, but I would venture to say it is still an important factor to a majority of the voters. I realize that Trump devotees will choose to twist the first debate into victory. They have no choice.
All debate factors considered, Donald didn’t bring his total repulsiveness to this debate and his apparent effort to not go into his full insult, name-calling, derisive debate mode, so I am reading, will disappear in the next one.
This step will of course, be what Trump supporters are looking for and I have spent some time considering how Clinton can defuse or blunt an attack on her husband and family.
In the first debate, I thought her immediate admission that the email “scandal” was a mistake, took a lot of steam out of Trump’s attack. She has a strong bank of advisors who can lead her to verbally quash an attack on the Clinton past: successfully done, will act to deflate the Giuliani-encouraged siege.
Also, I can’t help but wonder if there is any moderator alive who can bring Trumpis interupus to a halt. His habit of talking through and over the other people on the stage is appalling even though it is obviously his favorite tactic.
Mr. Cohn, I believe this troll/princess debate charade is going to play a far more important role that you are anticipating. The expectations make the debate a Prime Time event.
All debate factors considered, Donald didn’t bring his total repulsiveness to this debate and his apparent effort to not go into his full insult, name-calling, derisive debate mode, so I am reading, will disappear in the next one.
This step will of course, be what Trump supporters are looking for and I have spent some time considering how Clinton can defuse or blunt an attack on her husband and family.
In the first debate, I thought her immediate admission that the email “scandal” was a mistake, took a lot of steam out of Trump’s attack. She has a strong bank of advisors who can lead her to verbally quash an attack on the Clinton past: successfully done, will act to deflate the Giuliani-encouraged siege.
Also, I can’t help but wonder if there is any moderator alive who can bring Trumpis interupus to a halt. His habit of talking through and over the other people on the stage is appalling even though it is obviously his favorite tactic.
Mr. Cohn, I believe this troll/princess debate charade is going to play a far more important role that you are anticipating. The expectations make the debate a Prime Time event.
4
Only way to shut him up is turn off his microphone. If that happened he'd probably walk away.
1
@toner
And you'd have to shut down his twitter account as well.
And you'd have to shut down his twitter account as well.
1
Cohen's skepticism about shifts "in race" is skepticism about enduring shifts in race and, in particular, final outcomes. He's not dead wrong. but he's misleading.
Perceptions of debate victory yield shifts in subsequent polls on actual horserace. Horse race due to debates can't be assumed to be less important than other shifts just because the former may not endure, because no shift is sure to endure. If impoverished shift up Two or three points for Clinton over the next week. that shift --looking forward-- is most reliably assumed to be as go0d as any other: helpful for Clinton but subject like any shift to moves both up and down.
Perceptions of debate victory yield shifts in subsequent polls on actual horserace. Horse race due to debates can't be assumed to be less important than other shifts just because the former may not endure, because no shift is sure to endure. If impoverished shift up Two or three points for Clinton over the next week. that shift --looking forward-- is most reliably assumed to be as go0d as any other: helpful for Clinton but subject like any shift to moves both up and down.
The New York Times needs to keep pressing Donald Trump on the release of his tax returns. To not follow through after the Op-ed of a few days ago is journalistic negligence. Come on New York Times do your patriotic duty and hold the con man Donald Trump accountable. Trump is running for president, not auditioning for another reality show.
16
Economy and jobs for middle class Americans are my #1 concern.
Trump accused Clinton of selling out American workers and shipping jobs to Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. That is a pretty harsh (and true) indictment.
Yet I didn't hear any rebuttal from Clinton. Maybe she has none. She clearly supported unhindered free trade, NAFTA, and TPP.
She also supports 15 MILLION low-skill illegals staying and competing for the same jobs that lower-skill American workers want.
Trump accused Clinton of selling out American workers and shipping jobs to Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. That is a pretty harsh (and true) indictment.
Yet I didn't hear any rebuttal from Clinton. Maybe she has none. She clearly supported unhindered free trade, NAFTA, and TPP.
She also supports 15 MILLION low-skill illegals staying and competing for the same jobs that lower-skill American workers want.
Did you somehow miss the fact that Clinton could hardly get a word in edge-wise?? -- Trump was on auto-pilot during this particular segment of the Debate, either accusing Clinton of selling out, or crowing about his business acumen.
She actually did try to explain that she's no longer really on board with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but that got lost in the wash.
It's interesting to note that all of Trump's logo-gear is made in China, India, or somewhere other than the USA.
That's how he's making America Great Again.
She actually did try to explain that she's no longer really on board with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but that got lost in the wash.
It's interesting to note that all of Trump's logo-gear is made in China, India, or somewhere other than the USA.
That's how he's making America Great Again.
18
Trump manufactures his products overseas and imports foreign workers from Europe through the visa program to work at his resort in Florida.
I'm sure many Americans can do all of those jobs, so why doesn't he bear any blame for that? After all, it's his company and he directly profits from cheap labor.
Can you answer that?
I'm sure many Americans can do all of those jobs, so why doesn't he bear any blame for that? After all, it's his company and he directly profits from cheap labor.
Can you answer that?
5
I thought the number of folks here without authorization was 11 million, among whom we have children, teenagers & elderly folks. But the main point is that adding more folks to our population increases the number of jobs. We started out as a nation of a few million people and now we're up to 300 million but the number of jobs has increased proportionally. If we had a situation of only able-bodied folks coming in there could be an effect but that's not what's happening by & large, there are a lot of children among our immigrant population.
If you want to think seriously about our labor problems chew on this: I've read that we currently produce as much steel as ever (not sure how that's measured, perhaps in dollar value, but I don't see a problem with measuring it that way) but we do it with something like a quarter of the number of workers. Technology & automation have destroyed the jobs. Well why haven't we had enough retraining & such? Could have something to do with the fact that Republicans only want to spend money on the military.
If you want to think seriously about our labor problems chew on this: I've read that we currently produce as much steel as ever (not sure how that's measured, perhaps in dollar value, but I don't see a problem with measuring it that way) but we do it with something like a quarter of the number of workers. Technology & automation have destroyed the jobs. Well why haven't we had enough retraining & such? Could have something to do with the fact that Republicans only want to spend money on the military.
3
You want to know who lost and who won? This says it all: "Trump Lashes Out, Calling Debate Unfair". Whoever acts like the crybaby is the one who lost.
Hillary lost by appearing on stage with Trump. The media had portrayed him as a lunatic clown but sharing the stage made him a peer. Hillary also portrayed herself as the defender of the status quo and allowed Trump the more powerful position as a change agent.
The worst part of the debate was both candidates referring to Lester Holt as Lester instead of Mr Holt as if he were the house servant in the movie "The Help."
The worst part of the debate was both candidates referring to Lester Holt as Lester instead of Mr Holt as if he were the house servant in the movie "The Help."
Any parent, any responsible, morally awake adult should be able to get the overwhelming reality that, far from being a "change element," Mr. Trump remains a petulant, dishonest, uncontrollably weak and whiney mama's spoiled little bad boy, pulling little girl's hair.
5
Solid research shows that presidential debates rarely change the outcome of the subsequent election. That's because of confirmation bias -- our tendency to attend only to facts that support our pre-existing beliefs. The same research also shows that such debates do have one effect: they educate voters about candidates with whom they are unfamiliar. That's why it's a shame that the Commission on Presidential Debates elected to exclude other candidates.
All I could think of during the debate was how much more interesting and useful it would have been had it been Trump-Sanders. That would have been so much better. I blame Hillary's primary voters for this nonsensical debate between two narcissists.
As it was, Hillary was the out-of-touch, smug and arrogant policy wonk (I have a policy for that! Read my policies on my web site!) and Trump was the out-of-touch, smug and arrogant predatory capitalist. This is the best we can do?
How do we end up with both agreeing that nuclear war is more of an issue than climate change? Do they live in the 1950s? Yes they do. They are old, they live in billionaire bubbles, they both protect the banks, they do not care about anyone else and they are a disgrace to our country.
Let's do a reset and start thinking about 2020 and how best to keep either of these politicians from doing too much harm in the meantime.
As it was, Hillary was the out-of-touch, smug and arrogant policy wonk (I have a policy for that! Read my policies on my web site!) and Trump was the out-of-touch, smug and arrogant predatory capitalist. This is the best we can do?
How do we end up with both agreeing that nuclear war is more of an issue than climate change? Do they live in the 1950s? Yes they do. They are old, they live in billionaire bubbles, they both protect the banks, they do not care about anyone else and they are a disgrace to our country.
Let's do a reset and start thinking about 2020 and how best to keep either of these politicians from doing too much harm in the meantime.
Want to blame someone?? -- Blame yourself, and everyone like you who didn't get Sanders on an Independent ticket where he belonged, because he's certainly not a Democrat.
This is just more proof positive you why you Bernie-supporters and third-party types don't have it together -- instead of starting Grassrotts movements, you just sit around and complain.
Think you can float Johnson & Stein a few months before the election and get far??
Think again.
This is just more proof positive you why you Bernie-supporters and third-party types don't have it together -- instead of starting Grassrotts movements, you just sit around and complain.
Think you can float Johnson & Stein a few months before the election and get far??
Think again.
1
Sanders supporters seem to remain in denial about what he would have faced had he won the primary- what McCaskel termed the "hammer and sickle" adds that the GOP had waiting on the wings to unleash had their dream of Sanders as opponent -a dream they nurchered by not criticizing Sanders-- come true.
Of course, GOP desire for a Sanders opponent might have been misplaced because a "hammer and sickle" vilification of the opponent might have been no more effective than the "dishonest/crooked Hillary one. But those pre-convention Trump-Sanders horse race polls were pretty meaningless while the GOP-Fox machine was on Clinton's case every day while giving Bernie a Machiavellian pass.
Of course, GOP desire for a Sanders opponent might have been misplaced because a "hammer and sickle" vilification of the opponent might have been no more effective than the "dishonest/crooked Hillary one. But those pre-convention Trump-Sanders horse race polls were pretty meaningless while the GOP-Fox machine was on Clinton's case every day while giving Bernie a Machiavellian pass.
10
Dean,
Given the Clinton machine's entrenched, brutal power, if Clinton wins there is zero chance to limit the harm she does or for a reset in 2020. Trump, who lacks institutional power, is obviously the better choice if you want to achieve those ends.
Given the Clinton machine's entrenched, brutal power, if Clinton wins there is zero chance to limit the harm she does or for a reset in 2020. Trump, who lacks institutional power, is obviously the better choice if you want to achieve those ends.
1
If you like pain, watch the debate again. The results seem less certain. Each side could plausibly claim victory (by their own lights), which is to say, neither side should. It also makes you realize how much debates have become spectacle.
Let’s wait until the next polls come out… I’ve heard all the Media analysis, problem is he did not attack her the way they expected, I’m sure he’ll take the time to prepare after seeing this … Remember Obama lost the first debate against Romney and it didn’t mean anything. They figure she won on Points, but fail to forget she is the Establishment Candidate and the country is in a CHANGE mode…. Don’t count your chickens yet …
Heavenly days! He certainly did attack her even if he didn't call her "Crooked Hillary" or bring up Bill's peccadilloes,but he folded when she just kept smiling and zinging right back.
I keep hearing conservatives talking about how he's the change candidate, but it's the "trust me" kind of change. It seems ironic that Clinton's ideas might actually help people who have problems with our economy while Trump's pie-in-the-sky might actually make their lives worse.
I keep hearing conservatives talking about how he's the change candidate, but it's the "trust me" kind of change. It seems ironic that Clinton's ideas might actually help people who have problems with our economy while Trump's pie-in-the-sky might actually make their lives worse.
This article begs to ask: what constitutes a "victory" in the debates if the polls don't change?
The whole purpose of the political debate is not to have something to be rated by pundits, but rather to help voters make their choice in an election. If the people who give informal score to the candidates claim a "victory" for one of the participants, but the polls don't move, is there a victory at all, or the people with scorecards are too self-important?
The whole purpose of the political debate is not to have something to be rated by pundits, but rather to help voters make their choice in an election. If the people who give informal score to the candidates claim a "victory" for one of the participants, but the polls don't move, is there a victory at all, or the people with scorecards are too self-important?
I am not being prone to depend on polls, but this margin is nevertheless a relief....Even when no guarantee of the final outcome of this election.
That said, the Debate last night only proved what most voters already know.
Donald Trump tried and failed to "look Presidential", by failing to keep his temper in check.
Clinton, still not warm & fuzzy for those who demand it, managed to walk the tight line between showing her mastery of the game, and not coming across arrogant.
Clinton still knows Foreign Affairs, hand s down.
Trump is still a racist willing to deport Latinos and incarcerate Blacks at light-speed.
Winners and losers??-- Depends on who you ask.
But will there be second debate?? -- That's the one worth betting on.
That said, the Debate last night only proved what most voters already know.
Donald Trump tried and failed to "look Presidential", by failing to keep his temper in check.
Clinton, still not warm & fuzzy for those who demand it, managed to walk the tight line between showing her mastery of the game, and not coming across arrogant.
Clinton still knows Foreign Affairs, hand s down.
Trump is still a racist willing to deport Latinos and incarcerate Blacks at light-speed.
Winners and losers??-- Depends on who you ask.
But will there be second debate?? -- That's the one worth betting on.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between the pundits and the voters. Virtually all the online polls gave the debate to Trump by large margins. http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/
While these polls are not by any means scientific, they clearly show that Trump inspires far greater enthusiasm than Hlllary. I would take a consensus of these online polls over any pundit's scorecard.
The same thing happened when she debated Bernie Sanders. All it shows is that Trumps supporters are online and using social media, etc. Clintons base of voters show up at the polls and could care less about online polls. Just ask Bernie Sanders.
She wants the base, but doubt she will pick up the undecided based on left leaning pundits/Hillary "shills"!
@RJS
Polls mean nothing. Votes matter.
Just ask Bernie Sanders.
Polls mean nothing. Votes matter.
Just ask Bernie Sanders.
2
Two things. It is not over yet. Let's wait for the regular polls rather than the on line polls to see if either of them won the debate.
Before last night’s debate, I don’t know whom I am going to vote. After last night, I decided not vote for Trump for sure. That doesn’t mean I will for Clinton in Nov.
That said, I must confess I do agree with at least one Trump’s assessment on US economy: “We are in a Big Fat bubble right now......”
The entire US economy doesn’t make any sense anymore: US Car loan, US Student Loan, US consumer credit cards debt and US national debt are ALL at ALL time high. More than 93.4 million Americans are not working right now. Yet US poverty rate is declining. This just doesn’t make any sense!!
That said, I must confess I do agree with at least one Trump’s assessment on US economy: “We are in a Big Fat bubble right now......”
The entire US economy doesn’t make any sense anymore: US Car loan, US Student Loan, US consumer credit cards debt and US national debt are ALL at ALL time high. More than 93.4 million Americans are not working right now. Yet US poverty rate is declining. This just doesn’t make any sense!!
One reason why debt is up is that the economy is improving on several dimensions: unemployment has dropped significantly, though not by half since the Great Recession, because those not looking for work are not counted. By the way, the numbers of Americans not working is not an indicator, as it includes retired, or disabled, or imprisoned. The official unemployment rate is around 5%, of a population of over 300 million. Home prices are up, foreclosure rates are down, manufacturing is up, so more people are borrowing, which is a sign of confidence in the future. Poverty rates are also beginning to trend down, but not by much. Trump is badly overstates the reasons for unemployment when listing foreign countries where jobs have gone: according to several economic studies, only 13% of jobs are lost abroad, most due to increased productivity, which means fewer workers to produce an item. He also fails to note that some countries have exported jobs to the U.S., as in Alabama, where German, Japanese, and Korean auto makers have opened factories. But, for Trump, it is much easier to demonize "foreigners" than to acknowledge that American firms themselves are responsible for much more unemployment than foreigners.
I wonder why this article does not mention the likely gains Hillary can make with third-party and undecided voters. It seems to me she has a higher ceiling to realize and that her strong performance, coupled with Donald's near-self-immolation, would put her further ahead than usual.
Trump will NOT win and we will deal with the aftermath of this horrible Trumpism. Do not buy into every scribble n' blog from any person or poll or publication. And then there is going out and fighting for every vote like Michelle, Barack and Joe asked us to do. And listen to Bernie too.
Republicans rejoice when we take the defeatist position. They never do. They pray to win, vote like crazy and then prey on the people. Remember how shocked they were when Obama won in 2012? That is cause they believe, fight and follow.
Listen to any interview with a Trump or GOP surrogates. They refuse, with unbound tenacity, to face defeat (or the truth or facts) and we quiver with fear and react politely and quietly.
Democrats, stop it and fight!
Republicans rejoice when we take the defeatist position. They never do. They pray to win, vote like crazy and then prey on the people. Remember how shocked they were when Obama won in 2012? That is cause they believe, fight and follow.
Listen to any interview with a Trump or GOP surrogates. They refuse, with unbound tenacity, to face defeat (or the truth or facts) and we quiver with fear and react politely and quietly.
Democrats, stop it and fight!
Well said!
3
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton was gracious, knowledgeable, respectful and strong last night just as she has been during her entire political career. She also proved she can be tough as nails when needed. We saw the real woman last night. She has what I look for in a leader and that is why SHE has my vote and should win by a landslide
To me she seemed very rehearsed and a bit smug. The rehearsed part does bother me. As a leader of anything, you never get an answer handed to you on a printed card to be memorized. Leadership requires on your feet thinking. I just didn't see that from her all. Quite robotic. Signed, Independent voter
For Trump to have won, he had to show up without satanic horns or a KKK hood.
For Hillary to have won, she had to transmogrify into a likeable and trustworthy person, a much more difficult task—an impossible one, actually.
Any objective observer—(is there any objective observer?)—would say that Trump accomplished his mission and Hillary did not.
Horns, hearts, hoods and trust aside, the debate was won and lost in the last few minutes.
Clinton, smug and robotic, squeezed in that nasty, scripted gender-card non sequitur, exposing a particular viciousness along with the compulsiveness.
Trump didn't take the bait. He could have nailed the two women-abusers in front of their daughter, Chelsea, but he said he couldn't do that to her.
No wonder Trump is winning all the online polls.
Scoring traditionally doesn't capture the bottom line: For all her wonkiness and canned answers at the ready, she was exposed as unfit—smug (that plastered expression wasn't a smile), "irredeemably" retro, robotic, injudicious, corrupt, mean…and ultimately clueless.
"Go to my website to learn my plan for ISIS." Like REALLY? Clinton cannot help herself. She puts our national security in the public domain reflexively.
No wonder the world on Clinton-Obama's watch is imploding. Vote for her, vote for an Obama 3rd term, at your peril. And that of your kids.
For Hillary to have won, she had to transmogrify into a likeable and trustworthy person, a much more difficult task—an impossible one, actually.
Any objective observer—(is there any objective observer?)—would say that Trump accomplished his mission and Hillary did not.
Horns, hearts, hoods and trust aside, the debate was won and lost in the last few minutes.
Clinton, smug and robotic, squeezed in that nasty, scripted gender-card non sequitur, exposing a particular viciousness along with the compulsiveness.
Trump didn't take the bait. He could have nailed the two women-abusers in front of their daughter, Chelsea, but he said he couldn't do that to her.
No wonder Trump is winning all the online polls.
Scoring traditionally doesn't capture the bottom line: For all her wonkiness and canned answers at the ready, she was exposed as unfit—smug (that plastered expression wasn't a smile), "irredeemably" retro, robotic, injudicious, corrupt, mean…and ultimately clueless.
"Go to my website to learn my plan for ISIS." Like REALLY? Clinton cannot help herself. She puts our national security in the public domain reflexively.
No wonder the world on Clinton-Obama's watch is imploding. Vote for her, vote for an Obama 3rd term, at your peril. And that of your kids.
Trump had the horns and hood on as soon as he was asked about Race.
Didn't see them??
One can only guess why.
Didn't see them??
One can only guess why.
You make the same mistake that Mr. Trump makes. Online voting is not constrained by the scientific principles that turn them into valid polls. The real immediate post debate polls showed that Sec. Clinton won handily.
N. Smith,
Trump was simply deconstructing the inner-city plantation, i.e., Ds have controlled inner cities for generations—Chicago/85, Milwaukee/108 yrs, i.e., black VOTES Matter
Trump's appeal to blacks will resonate. An aspirational force exists in all of us. Inner-city captive Ds may be downtrodden/dependent, but the spirit survives. Like all of us, they dream about success, security & happiness for themselves & their children.
Hillary's superpredators/Firewall"/drag & drop, virulent, insidious, dehumanizing racism/vote-stealing/vote-denial disguised as voting rights. The NAACP suing Clintons for intimidating blacks at polls. Clinton crime bill. Rwanda… How to explain Rwanda?
"Be Careful…Genocide finding could commit USG to do something"
nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/
When deconstructing reflexive black support for Clintons, Randall Robinson asks—"For God in heaven what for?"
"There is such a thing as a lesser evil & Hillary is not it."—Michelle Alexander
The Nation: "Why HC Doesn’t Deserve Black Vote"
Trump was simply deconstructing the inner-city plantation, i.e., Ds have controlled inner cities for generations—Chicago/85, Milwaukee/108 yrs, i.e., black VOTES Matter
Trump's appeal to blacks will resonate. An aspirational force exists in all of us. Inner-city captive Ds may be downtrodden/dependent, but the spirit survives. Like all of us, they dream about success, security & happiness for themselves & their children.
Hillary's superpredators/Firewall"/drag & drop, virulent, insidious, dehumanizing racism/vote-stealing/vote-denial disguised as voting rights. The NAACP suing Clintons for intimidating blacks at polls. Clinton crime bill. Rwanda… How to explain Rwanda?
"Be Careful…Genocide finding could commit USG to do something"
nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/
When deconstructing reflexive black support for Clintons, Randall Robinson asks—"For God in heaven what for?"
"There is such a thing as a lesser evil & Hillary is not it."—Michelle Alexander
The Nation: "Why HC Doesn’t Deserve Black Vote"
Interesting article, but in comparing 2012 to 2016, two questions arise.
First, how many viewers watched each debate. I doubt that there were as many viewers in 2012, so the impact may have been smaller.
Second, did Obama really perform as badly as Trump? I doubt that he lied or was that incoherent, but I don't recall.
And one other point. How will Trump react in the next debate. He is not a gracious loser. Will he even show up?
First, how many viewers watched each debate. I doubt that there were as many viewers in 2012, so the impact may have been smaller.
Second, did Obama really perform as badly as Trump? I doubt that he lied or was that incoherent, but I don't recall.
And one other point. How will Trump react in the next debate. He is not a gracious loser. Will he even show up?
As I remember it, Obama in his first debate in 2012 was simply a bit boring and lacking in passion - that was the consensus. So he allowed Mitt Romney to dominate the debate. In the following two debates, Obama came better prepared and performed much better.
Listening to Trump's word salad responses is quite hard to comprehend, people need to actually listen and parse each sentence and ask themselves, what was his point and solution. His supporters seem to cherry pick his statements and sentences and this shows that the American people that there is a large portion of the population that lack critical thinking and sanity.
Is Trump's call for "law and order" deliberately a way to sound like Richard Nixon?
Not sure about Nixon. But "law and order" definitely hearkens back to the 'Stop-and-Frisk' days of former NYC Mayor Rudy Giulliani -- when just being Black was considered a crime.
Now it's part of Trump's dog-whistle act.
Now it's part of Trump's dog-whistle act.
Yes it is David; he and his campaign have flat-out admitted this more than once. They are specifically trying to model the '68 Nixon, which would explain why they're trying to present a vision of America that makes it look like 1968 again.
Actually, it was George Wallace more than Nixon whose failed presidential campaign invoked the "law and order" slogan as a rallying cry for blatant racism, much like the republican candidate and his cohorts are doing today.
So the ivory tower media elites are trying to spin this embarrassment into something acceptable, presumably to sell more ads for the second debate. I suspect the polls will be massaged to validate this ludicrous claim.
He has zero solutions and tries to make up for it by complaining about the same three things over and over again.
He has zero solutions and tries to make up for it by complaining about the same three things over and over again.
Nonsense. These are the same media elites who declared a Romney victory in his first debate. The left wing websites were equally in denial and also published bogus online surveys that they passed off as "polls" in order to obviate Romney's obvious win in scientific polling. Debate 1 for 2016 flopped the other way, and now the Right is reacting just like Obama supporters did. Suck it up. There are two more debates to go.
@rico
There may be two more debates to go, but there's no guarantee that Mr. Trump will show up at any of them...he's done it before.
There may be two more debates to go, but there's no guarantee that Mr. Trump will show up at any of them...he's done it before.
Richard Nixon believed that the first 1960 debate performance did not cost him the election. It was the recession of that year. If my memory serves me correctly, he also noted that a breach of national security occurred--the downing of a spy plane in Soviet Russian territory in May 1960, a U2 plane--and that was also a factor.
Whatever the case might be, in the end it was TV that lost Nixon the 1960s Debate and the election.
And why? -- Because he didn't "look Presidential".
And why? -- Because he didn't "look Presidential".