What I saw was a very spirited, very personal, and very entertaining debate for about the first half hour to forty five minutes. The moderator (Lester Holt) asked good policy questions, and allowed both candidates leeway to engage the topics and each other without much interruption. If anything, I found Trump to be slightly more engaging, at least as knowledgeable, and more forceful with his beliefs. I only wish this debate on the issues could have continued.
But then Lester Holt ran off a string of questions that went something like this:
- Ask Trump a personal question designed to put him on defense.
- Ask Clinton a question about policy.
- Ask Trump a personal question designed to put him on defense.
- Ask Clinton a question about policy.
- etc etc...
This pretty much went on till the end of the debate:
- Trump asked about his taxes - Clinton not asked about medical records.
- Trump asked about the birther situation - Clinton not asked about FBI investigation.
- Trump asked about his supposed support for Iraqi war - Clinton not asked about her support.
- Trump asked about a comment he made about Clinton's looks - Clinton not asked about calling Americans deplorable.
Holt also got heavily involved in calling the birther issue racism (it's not). He ignored all of the factual information that it started with Blumenthal and a Clinton staffer long before Trump ever talked about it. He interrupted Trump to fact check several times, while not interrupting Clinton once. The favoritism displayed by Holt was obvious and it became a tag team event on Donald Trump down the stretch. Literally the last half of the debate was set up to make Trump defend things, while giving Clinton a free rebuttal to attack.
Now if you are a Clinton defender and you believe differently. Ask your self this question. How would debate number two go, if it was determined that none of the subjects brought up tonight could be brought up again? If you had to choose completely different topics, and this time there had to be at least three specific questions about Clinton's behavior, and there could be no questions about any Trump behavior.
Given the circumstances, I was surprised to see that two of the three professional polls showed the watchers were fairly split (PPP had it 51-40) and Democratic pollster Pat Caddel said their poll showed a 48-43 advantage for Clinton. A couple of focus groups showed that while they believed Hillary probably won the debate, it moved very few people one way or the other. Only the CNN Poll showed a wide victory for Clinton, but that poll came with the caveat that they admittedly had a large Democratic bias to the sample (somewhere near fifteen points higher than otherwise might be expected).
Oh, and of course, every online poll I saw showed huge advantages for Trump. Showing that he still has his loyal following of rabid internet trolls willing to back their man.
Oh, and of course, every online poll I saw showed huge advantages for Trump. Showing that he still has his loyal following of rabid internet trolls willing to back their man.
65 comments:
And then there are all the people who tuned in for curiosity sake but weren't going to stay to the end. They saw Trump in a very favorable light.
I have a theory related to your analysis. Holt kept it about policy and objective early to see how Trump would do. If he implodes, he'd stay that course. But if Trump is dominating, he had his go to list of anti Trump questions.
That ge actually asked about a 40 year okd lawsuit snd some meaningless beautg pageant thing while doing none of this to Hillary is clear evidence.
Actually, in the last half of the debate, Hillary cleverly goaded Trump into making statements that hurt him.
On purpose, she got under his thin skin.
He bit the bait.
LOL
Look at the last line of Ch's analysis. "Rabid" is a fitting description of die hard Trump supporters.
Your opinion is not qualified, as you didn't even bother to watch it.
I'm disappointed by that. It definitely calls into question, your credibility.
I watched every single minute. I didn't go in loving Hillary. Just as an adult, who has been an observer of politics since I was old enough to understand what was happening. I intentionally kept my mind on observing, not only the words, but the body language and the facial expressions.
I gave Trump the first part on the economy, jobs and trade agreements, some of which I agree. Free trade agreements have had a negative effect on jobs and wages in the working middle class. Manufacturing companies that require manual labor, follow the money to overseas countries with much lower labor costs.
But even then, he restated the lie on the auto industry. The CEO of Ford, tweeted that Ford is not cutting jobs.
Then CH, it was unbelievable that a man who wants to be our President, had not prepared for this debate. On issue after issue he didn't have even a basic understanding of the policy issues, and his facial expressions and body language, could see that he didn't know any details.
On the other side, Hillary Clinton, was calm, focused and prepared to answer questions specifically. Trump's expressions showed he was uncomfortable and defensive. She was very well prepared and answered with specific responses. She looked prepared to be our President. Donald Trump, simply did not.
Pp
Blaming the moderator,is a cheap way to excuse his terrible judgment and preparation.
"Democrats woke up on Monday to a spate of bad polls for Hillary Clinton, which brought Donald Trump to perhaps his closest position yet in the Electoral College. They had reason to go to bed feeling a lot better. Clinton bested Trump in the first presidential debate according to a variety of metrics, and the odds are that she’ll gain in head-to-head polls over Trump in the coming days."
--Nate Silver
read more here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/
pay too much in taxes "
So Jane, calling you out on your stupidity is a daily task which I do with great glee.
You now believe that we workers in the USA are, as you put it, "Pay too much in taxes", I agree, what will Hillary do to drop the tax rates paid ?
don't run .
I guess that if Clinton doesn't do well in the polls that means she's lost the debate.
Ignoring KD isn't running.
It's ignoring KD. :-)
I guess if Trump declines in the polls, that means he's lost the debate.
Lester Holt won last night. He pleased the people who he needed to please and he doesn't give a damn about the people he doesn't need to please.
The funny thing is that Trump is not declining.
And I don't think he's going to have a significant drop based on this debate.
He did enough to give people a reason to vote for him.
TRUMP'S OWN OPINION
Taegan Goddard's Bonus Quote of the Day
“Yeah, she did a good job.”
— Donald Trump, caught on camera in a candid moment with his son after last night’s debate.
Trump Didn’t Just Lose, He Did Lasting Damage
John Podhoretz: “By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking. Most important, he set ticking time bombs for himself over the next six weeks.
“As she hammered him on his tax returns, he handed her an inestimable gift by basically saying he pays no federal taxes despite his billions — and moreover, that if he had done so, it would have been ‘squandered’ anyway.
“That’s not going to go away, nor is her suggestion that his refusal to release his returns is the result of his either not being as rich as he says or not being as charitable as he claims.”
Isn't there also a strong likelihood that he has extensive investments in Putin's Russia that he doesn't want people to know about?
No wonder he embraces Putin. Putin helps fill his pockets.
Your opinion is not qualified, as you didn't even bother to watch it.
Did you bother to actually read the post, Roger?
"I watched the debate on tape delay "after" hearing some of the reaction"
Was the very first line I wrote?
I think regular people saw the debate very differently than the mainstream media and the elite class in Washington and New York did.
Kudos to the New York Post.
How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats
Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy, sat beside him. At 28, she has never voted before, and she is now thinking it might be a good idea to start.
Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
“Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.
Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. “I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me,” he said.
I would also offer Roger that my analysis was based on facts... not on opinion. Who won or lost would be an opinion.
But both you and James admitted that Trump won the first half of the debate. In fact nearly everyone agrees with that assessment.
But...
Neither of you can repute the reality that after the first 30 minutes or so... Lester Holt decided to ask about Trump's taxes, Trump's birther stance, Trump's Howard Stern interview, and Hillary Clinton's look...
You cannot deny that those were his actual questions to Trump. They didn't come from Hillary, and she didn't "bait him into them". They were actual questions asked by Lester Holt...
On the other hand, Lester Hold did not ask Hillary Clinton anything about any of her scandals or issues from this campaign. She faced none of those questions. That is also not an opinion. It's a fact.
You also cannot deny that Lester Holt interrupted Trump several times (and never interrupted Clinton once).A fact. You cannot deny that he also asked follow up questions of Trump (and none of Clinton) when he decided he didn't like the answer.
You cannot deny any of that. But what you can to is give the opinion that despite the moderator asking several personal questions of Trump, while asking none of Clinton, and interrupting Trump several times, and never interrupting Clinton... that he still acted "fairly".
I would offer that the "facts" lend itself to a much different reality.
Trump interrupted Hillary 51 times. Hillary only interrupted him 17 times.
SO insecure was The Donald feeling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
You now believe that we workers in the USA are, as you put it, "Pay too much in taxes", I agree, what will Hillary do to drop the tax rates paid ?
don't run .
Jane had to run, it is what she does best, like HB, they are not smart enough to actually debate the talking points they lift and bring here, the are great little parrots. That's all.
The loser of the debate is quickly becoming Lester Holt.
More analysis now shows that he asked 15 questions exclusively to Trump and only 2 to Clinton.
He doesn't ask about the Clinton foundation but asks Trump about a 40 year old lawsuit??
Only if Holt valued his credibility. He obviously doesn't value it above all those invitations he's going to get for those upper east side soirees.
First, I misread your line, you did watch it on a delay. That's fine, my error. But your constant attempt to blame the moderator is pathetic. He interrupted Trump because Trump was spouting talking points, not responses to the question. He did it to Clinton too, but she didn't lie as he did, repeatedly. One that you discount but the truth does snot bear you out.
Trump on the Iraq War
Trump: "I did not support the war in Iraq ... I was against the war in Iraq."
Grade: False
Explanation: Trump expressed support for the invasion of Iraq before expressing some reservations.
Asked by Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002, if he was "for invading Iraq," Trump at the time answered, "Yeah, I guess so." He lied.
But by Jan. 28, 2003, Trump expressed some concern about the possibility of an invasion, telling Fox Business' Neil Cavuto that President George W. Bush "has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet, and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know." On March 21, 2003, soon after the invasion of Iraq began, Trump told Cavuto that the war "looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint." While Trump now portrays himself as having been an outspoken opponent of the invasion, his public statements in the lead-up to the invasion tell a different story.
http://abc7.com/news/debate-fact-check-how-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-stack-up/1527957/
Only a pro Clinton hack would say "Yeah, I guess so." was a statement of unqualified support for the Iraq war.
While Hillary Clinton made a clear, concise and unqualified statement of support for the Iraq war by actually voting to put young men and women in harm's way.
And then ten years later. she flipped-flopped by saying oops, she made a mistake after 5,000 of them have already died. And acted like it was no more a bigger deal than tripping over her shoelaces.
She is unfeeling and uncaring of the people she wants to command to the point of being a sociopath.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/voters-nationally-say-clinton-won-debate-5140.html
Voters Nationally Say Clinton Won Debate 51/40
Roger -
Again... tell me what I stated about Holt is incorrect?
Did he not bring up everything I mentioned about Trump, and nothing about Clinton?
Would it not be accurate to say pretty much every question the Clinton camp wanted brought up about Trump... was brought up... while pretty much ever question the Clinton camp wanted to avoid, was avoided?
_____
Or another way to look at it... say, as everyone agrees... Trump was going along quite well for the first third or so... and then instead of four of the next six questions being about 40 year lawsuits, 15 year old Shock Jock videos, birther, etc... Lester Holt had spent the last 45 minute or so asking Clinton to defend Benghazi, her Email Server, asking her about the five aids who got criminal immunity, etc.. etc...
Do you still think people would have seen Trump as defensive and Clinton as the aggressor down the stretch?
I think your inability to debate on the substance here is telling... deep down you agree with me, but are afraid to admit it.
Voters Nationally Say Clinton Won Debate 51/40
About where I would have expected it be, all things considered. The Gravis poll was a little closer at 48-43 (and showed Trump gaining slightly with undecideds).
All the online polls (regardless of which website) showed Trump won... but I take those with a grain of salt.
The CNN poll at this point (which was highly touted by 538 and everyone up front) seems to be the outlier, and even they admit that it was overwhelmingly Democratic.
PPP is a dem polling org. Everyone knows that.
While Hillary Clinton made a clear, concise and unqualified statement of support for the Iraq war by actually voting to put young men and women in harm's way. " CS
Yep, fantastic how they bend over forward and take it up the old pooper HB, Jane and odopiey are part of the brown hole club.
The TV ratings are in 81.4 million on regular tv. Not counting PBS or on line.
One thing that may come out of this. Because there are more Democrats than Republicans according to Gallup. This interest in this election, may work to the advantage to Clinton.
Roger - you have still not answered the question regarding what I got wrong about Holt?
Seems that is quite the buzz in many circles.
The fact that he hit every single talking point that the Clinton camp would have wanted about Trump... without having to answer a single question about any talking point that the Trump camp would have wanted...
and still approximately four in ten thought Trump won?
Seems like she required a ton of "help" to squeak out a small polling win. I think we both know that if Holt had run this like any other debate, sticking to relative issues or factoring in an equal amount of "gotcha questions" for both candidates...
The entire debate would have gone the way the first third/half went and Trump would have been seen as the winner by most.
I offer if Holt had been Sean Hannity and he would have simply hit Clinton on four or five of Trump's talking points, and left Trump alone (as Holt did for Clinton) - we would have seen Hillary flailing around and would have struggled much worse than Trump did.
Do you still think people would have seen Trump as defensive and Clinton as the aggressor down the stretch?
No, I think she knew that she had pushed the buttons that set him off and the smile never went away, for the last hour. He stumbled, looked and was unprepared, and was not "Presidential". She was.
She knows her shit, inside and out. That will impress a lot of undecided, and Trump's failure to be prepared, will not lead people like you to wonder if he's qualified. But to those who' were not sure, will be more likely to vote for Clinton than they had before.
And to add to that, when he questioned her stamina, she reversed it brilliantly and turned it her way. That will be what is most remembered in this debate.
HB, you can't be as dumb as you post, or are you?
Sean Hannity is super partisan and will never, and I mean never, be the moderator in a debate. For good reasons.
I still find your complaints, shallow and ridiculous. He tried to keep lying or talking points, instead of answering the damn questions. Clinton answered them because she knew what the hell she was talking about.
I heard today, that the Clinton campaign hired psychologists to study Trump and find ways to set him off. It worked like a charm. Do you seriously, want someone with those kinds of character flaws to negotiate on our behalf?
k'putz, I have 50 points on my IQ over yours.
That's possible Roger, that wider interest could favor Clinton. Because of the historic negative polling of both candidates I am wary of any traditional categorization of likely voters, so I don't think there is any way analytically to get a handle on that. However, my political instinct is Clinton has stalled, she is starting her dive and I don't see how she's going to pull out.
This debate, judging from the transcript and spot checking reactions, isn't going to do it for her.
#holtwrongoneconomy
I thought only HB was a economic retard , he is not, so is Holt.
,
FWIW, I didn't see in the debate transcripts much evidence of a strong grasp of policies, nor much of anything else, from Clinton. Shoot, she didn't even get the population of the US vs World right.
Thanks you never ever disappoint,,,, want to tell us how Janet Yellen lowering prediction for the third time this year squares with your "booming Economy".
Your net work life has amounted to less then $162,000 , so very sad, by the way, your words not mine.
The total bill was $162,000. I would have been bankrupt " HB
I really do feel sorry for you.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Drudge polling shows Donald Trump won by 86%
Wow... a new low in your bias, CH. LOL
Roger -
Keep changing the subject (it's why we know you lost the debate).
The reality is that you simply ignore the fact that it was Lester Holt asking the questions about Trump's taxes, the birther issue, the interview with Howard Stern, and statements about Clinton's looks.
None of that was Hillary. All she had to do was wait her turn and jump in.
You also ignore the fact that Clinton was not asked even one uncomfortable question during the whole debate.
This is called cognitive dissonance Roger. It's more evidence that you are simply brainwashed to the point where you cannot possibly provide a cognitive argument.
WP - I believe that there "may" be some movement, as Lester Holt and Clinton piled on Trump during the last half hour or so. You'd have to watch it. Trump was literally debating both of them at one point, with both Holt and Clinton interrupting him.
That being said, this probably doesn't bode well for the next two debates for Clinton. No way does Anderson Cooper get away with more Lester Holt. Asking the same questions about tax returns, 40 year old lawsuits, or 15 year old interviews with Howard Stern will simply not go over. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see him try.
But there are plenty of questions that Hillary has not answered. If Cooper refuses to ask them, then Wallace will in the final (and possibly most pivotal) debate. It probably would have been beneficial for Clinton to have answered some of them last night...
Wallace is a registered Democrat.
"Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She's tough. She doesn't back down. Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads. That's beneath our national dignity. When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet."
--The ARIZONA REPUBLIC which since 1890 has never endorsed a single Democrat for President. Until now.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/trump-online-polls/
Many polls appear to have been rigged by trolls from 4chan and Reddit.
So who won the presidential debate on Monday night? Not surprisingly, supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton believe she won, and say they have the polls to prove it. Trump supporters, meanwhile, are convinced he won, and have their own polls that say so.
So in other words, this is just the usual argument between two candidates over which polls are more accurate, right? Not quite. There appears to be a bit more to it than that.
It’s relatively common for polls about something like a debate to vary when it comes to the outcome, sometimes widely. But the difference between polls like CNN’s after-debate survey and some of the online polls that media outlets created goes well beyond the usual variance.
"This is called cognitive dissonance "
You toss this out, every time you lose an argument.
Hillary Clinton has gained the support of yet another high-profile Republican political figure: former Virginia Sen. John Warner, Clinton aides confirmed.
The now-retired five-term senator is opting to back Clinton over his own party’s nominee, Donald Trump, as a signal to voters in the swing state of Virginia of who he believes would be best suited to be commander-in-chief.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/john-warner-hillary-clinton-228819#ixzz4LYBSPt2N
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
But the difference between polls like CNN’s after-debate survey and some of the online polls that media outlets created goes well beyond the usual variance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the irony here, which is obviously lost on you, is this is exactly why we dismiss your beloved survey monkey ONLINE polls.
online polls are easily manipulated.
kinda like your beloved page views.
"You toss this out, every time you lose an argument."
you get your clock cleaned every single time you waddle over here.
there's a reason why you were banished to the kiddie blog, and it's your cog dis that prevents you from seeing why.
Here are the latest state polls from the presidential race:
North Carolina: Clinton 38%, Trump 35%, Johnson 6% (Meredith College)
https://politicalwire.com/2016/09/28/state-poll-roundup-wednesday-8/
I see both blogs are being scummed up by the unable to answer questions leftist.
Jane and HB, two retarded economic/financial peas in the same stupid pod.
This from the Hillary webpage:
"If your paycheck doesn’t stretch as far as it used to, you’re not alone. For the first time in more than four decades, the middle class is no longer the majority in America—and in terms of wealth, working families are falling further and further behind..."
Well, that sounds a lot like Trump and Yelping Yellen then it does retarded Waterboy Holt, Hb and Jane.
Roger -
I provide facts:
- Lester Holt asked Trump several personal question about his tax returns, birtherism, Howard Stern, etc...
- Lester Holt did not ask Hillary even one uncomfortable question.
These statements cannot be reputed. They are simply true facts. But because it goes against your "emotional response" regarding how you felt about the debate... your brain shuts them off.
I know this (and everyone knows this) because you continue to ignore the questions regarding it. I have asked you very specifically to comment on this fact, and you refuse.
It's not really your fault, Roger. Weak minded people are especially prone to cognitive dissonance. It simply takes over, and at a subconscious level the information is not allowed to take hold at your conscious level. If you were more capable of thinking for yourself and being able to see things objectively... it wouldn't be a problem for you.
So your only response is to change the subject or simply declare victory (when you never even challenged the assumption). It's like a runner not competing in the race, but still claiming he won. You haven't even challenged my post, my argument, my logic. You simply declared it wrong (when it's 100% factually true) for subconscious emotional reasons.
Why doesn't Trump release his tax returns like any other Presidential candidate?
Trump’s plan calls for a fairly radical simplification of the tax code that would create four brackets—0%, 10% 20%, and 25%—and give just about everyone a dramatic tax cut; Clinton’s relatively modest plan, meanwhile, would leave income tax rates unchanged for all but the wealthiest Americans, who could see effective rates climb by as much as five percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center."
The next debate, with all the tough questions out of the way for Team Trump, it will be Hillary's turn.
Hillary, you released your tax return for 2015, in it , you show that you gave the Clinton Foundation $1,000,000 and stuck the us tax payer with the bill, as President will you continue this kind of behavior?
What is Trump hiding?
Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs"
Hillary's Web page.
That is in direct conflict with what has been reported by WaterBoy Holt.
What is Trump hiding?" James
Nothing, there are you happy.
IRS Laws protect the secrecy of every ones tax return. Unless your a conservative attempting to raise money for political reasons, then the IRS Hacks will at the direction of O'Hillary attack your group.
James why don't you post yours here and now?
- Lester Holt asked Trump several personal question about his tax returns, birtherism, Howard Stern, etc...
Gee, I guess you bought into the fact that being audited prevents his release of the returns, something all his predecessors have done. What's he hiding. On a personal basis, you say its a personal question, I say you are full of it. His birtherism was the basis of him running for POTUS. He claimed he did the country a service. I say bullshit to that. Howard stern is an entertainer with a cult following which whose show trump went on so it became a record of what he said. Nothing personal about that CH. The only fact that remains is you are complaining like a child, just like trump and want a do over. LOL Trump got trumped big time. The real polls confirm that. Oh well. Keep supporting him after the blow out. That is fact, your bs is opinion.
Gee, I guess you bought into the fact that being audited prevents his release of the returns, something all his predecessors have done.
Well it is a fact that his lawyers advised him to not release his returns while they are being audited.
What is not a fact is that it's "something all his predecessors have done". In fact it's a fairly recent practice. Prior to 1970 almost no candidate released their tax return.
And even though some candidates have released their returns they have withheld other information that may be critical to a voter's judgement.
For example: Barack Obama has never released his college transcripts even though it was common practice to do so.
And Hillary still hasn't release her full medical history even though there are legitimate concerns about her health.
even though it was common practice to do so.
Common practice by who/?????
a common myth in the birther debate is that all presidents have released their school/college records. this is false. none of the presidents have released school records with one exception, george w bush....... or so i thought. early in the birther debate i had read that bush had released some of his college records after others had been leaked out thru the new yorker. recently i've been trying to confirm exactly what those records were and can find no actual evidence of the white house releasing any college records. there are several mentions online of bush releasing them but these seem to be being confused with the leaked records from the new yorker
The Talk of the Town: Dept. of Aptitude (w/Alexandra Robbins) : The New Yorker
Idiot.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1748784-did-george-w-bush-release-any.html#ixzz4Lec27x6r
Well it is a fact that his lawyers advised him to not release his returns while they are being audited.
So, there is nothing that prevents him from releasing the records. He's hiding something.
John Kerry released his transcripts. So did Al Gore, Bill Clinton, HW Bush.
We could go on and on, but you get the point.
Or maybe you don't
What does Trump have to hide?
Business dealings with Russia?
The fact that he is not nearly so wealthy as he claims?
The fact that he has money stored overseas?
The fact that he finds all sorts of bizarre ways to avoid paying taxes?
The fact that he has paid no taxes at all year after year?
What is he hiding from the American electorate?
Post a Comment