- On the National Scale, the ABC/Wash Post poll came out with the headline that the race was a virtual tie (Clinton led by one).
- Morning Consult now shows Trump ahead (by one), as does a new Bloomberg/Selzer poll (by two).
- Trump increased his lead in the latest Rasmussen poll (now up five) and the LA Times tracking poll (back up to four).
- Quinnipiac is now showing a one point race (Clinton up).
- The only poll moving in Hillary's favor was the YouGov/Economist poll, that shows Clinton gaining one point (now up by three).
- Previously, some people were confused by the NBC/WSJ and Marist polls, that both showed Clinton up by six (believing this was good news for Clinton), not realizing that even those two polls were showing dramatic improvement for Trump.
On the state level, Trump is also gaining.
- In Pennsylvania CNN shows Trump closing to within one, and Morning call shows it within two.
- In Colorado CNN shows Trump ahead by one, Gravis shows Trump up by four, while Quinnipac and YouGov both show Clinton with a one point lead.
- Trump appears set to pick up Maine CD2, and is still showing consistent leads in Georgia, Iowa, with another poll (Suffolk) showing him with a small lead in Florida.
All this means is that as of right now, the race is razor thin, with the tipping points being Florida and Colorado, both of which are within one point of being a virtual tie.
_______
So the stakes for tonight's debate couldn't be higher. Although I might suggest that both candidate are looking to accomplish something different.
For Clinton, she needs to show Americans that she is the clear cut choice. Her entire campaign focus so far is to suggest that Donald Trump is simply not fit, not qualified, not up to the job. This would suggest that in something like a Presidential debate that she should wipe the floor with him. Anything less than a resounding win for her tonight, probably works against the overall narrative of her main campaign message. If the debate (polling) results are muddied by one of those plurality wins, or something within ten points, I don't think she would have accomplished what she needs to.
Meanwhile, Trump needs to show that he is capable of looking Presidential, at least for most of 90 minutes. Earlier in the race it was suggested by her own campaign that he would garner credibility by simply standing up on stage with the former Secretary of State. That is an odd dilemma for Clinton. Quite literally Trump could gain by just being in the same forum and acting like a credible alternative. While I am convinced that there is almost nobody in the main stream media that will admit that he wins the debate (regardless)... I think his upside is much higher if he performs well tonight.
_______
Three things to watch for that could be game changers.
First, if Trump loses his cool and starts to behave less like the more disciplined Trump and more like the boorish troll that dominated the GOP debates. Specifically, this will be about his demeanor, more than about what he actually says. He can say pretty much anything he wants, as long as he looks in control, states it with confidence, and stands behind it. The problem comes in when he becomes visibly irritable and looks impulsive and less than in control. This is what the Clinton camp is looking to induce, looking to exploit, and hoping it can be the topic of discussion moving forward.
I am not actually "expecting" either of these things to take place. I believe that Trump will remain fairly disciplined and I doubt you will see any big medical issues from Hillary Clinton. But it would be interesting to see how the public reacts to either.
Lastly, there has been speculation that Lester Holt has been planning to be "more engaged" in the process than Matt Lauer. However, in an interview over the weekend, the executive director of the commission that rules over the Presidential debates stated that she did not feel that it was the moderators place to be deciding which facts to check, who's data to use for fact checking, and suggested that each candidate be allowed to basically fact check the other.
So the moderator could be come the story, especially if it appears that Holt is playing favorite by being hard on Trump (and not so much on Hillary). This could actually work for Clinton (depending on the effectiveness) or for Trump, if it looks like he has to take on Hillary and the moderator and still performs well.
19 comments:
Kellyanne Conway, the campaign manager for Donald Trump, claimed Monday that some embedded network producers following the GOP presidential nominee are overwhelmingly “negative” in their coverage.
“Start looking at the Twitter feeds of ‘objective’ reporters, particularly our embeds,” Conway said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “These are not profiles in courage and this is not journalism. There are people who cover our campaign who actually just slander our candidate on Twitter.”
Conway said she found 92 percent of the tweets posted by at least two embeds to be negative. “Why are they on our campaign plane?” she asked. “Why are they covering our campaign?”
Throughout the nearly 14-minute interview, Conway suggested the Trump campaign was the victim of media bias and said her biggest worry regarding Monday night’s debate with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was “not being treated fairly afterward” by the press. “I’m worried some of the headlines are already written,” she added.
Conway’s swipe at the reporters who doggedly cover Trump’s presidential campaign around the country ― and tweet about it ― came in response to persistent questions Monday over her boss’ false claim that NBC News anchor and debate moderator Lester Holt is a Democrat.
“Lester is a Democrat,” Trump said last week on Fox News. “It’s a phony system. They are all Democrats.”
Actually, they aren’t.
Roger - are you suggesting that Lester Holt is a Republican?
I'm saying he's neutral. NBC said he's not a registered Democrat or Republican. He's an old fashioned journalist.
Well I am not a registered Democrat or a registered Republican, either.
Apparently I am a neutral blogger, by the logic of NBC.
Number one, that's plagiarism Roger, lol.
Old fashioned journalist like Dan Rather?
David Gregory is registered indy too.
That means he's not biased?
Trump has a very low bar — just go onstage and don't look completely unhinged,
Clinton faces sky-high expectations. She's an experienced debater, But given the overall mood of the country, with a substantial percentage of the voters are not happy with the day to day routine of Washington DC. She's going to have to address that. Her weakest point is how she handles questions on her past, if that comes up.
Bottom line, one of the two will have that "deciding moment", positive as in Reagan addressing the lack of experience. I don't think she will give him that opportunity. Will it be Clinton with a negative mistake? Probably not, she's too experienced to do that. But she could fail to sell herself and that will close the deal for her.
As to Trump, we shall see. He's unpredictable and impulsive. Even though Roger Ailes is probably telling him to "look" Presidential. But I really think that if there is a gaff of record proportions, it will come from his mouth.
IT's no secret as to how I feel. But what do I know will happen? Nope. But my 'gut' tells me that Trump will be Trump at some time tonight. If there will be the big moment, it will come from him.
One added thing. If you being honest, and take a shot of your favorite intoxicating beverage, every time Trump flat out lies, you will not feel very good tomorrow morning.
Please let this one show.
Loretta, I read a LOT of stories, from different sides, and when I'm done, I write what I get out of it. Sometimes some of the same words, that apply, I use because it's what I want to say. I don't c/p and lie about it like a couple regulars here. I write my own stuff. Like it or not. I write fairly well for someone without an advanced degree.
FYI, I was reading at the college level when I was 13 years old. About 750 words a minute, and have a far above average memory. It came in very handy, many times.
Hillary will make Al Gore seem likable. Much of the country can't stand her.
Have I mentioned this cycle how much I dislike presidential debates? These things appear to be designed to portray our candidates in the worst possible light, and primarily serve to bring their lack of detailed knowledge into stark relief. Watching, one also despairs of the candidates' ability to think quickly and react, the person deemed to have "won" is whoever most adroitly answered with memorized statements from their platform. Any candidate, of any party, any election cycle.
I don't see how the bar could possibly be set any lower than that for Trump, or for Clinton for that matter. I therefore proactively judge this one a tie on substance and the winner based on demeanor.
WP - I agree. The problem with the debates is that they are much like an oral quiz. You have to memorize things and simply rehash them. It's rare that they ask the candidates anything that they would not be expecting. The fact that many times the debates are specific to a subject, makes it even easier on the candidates to memorize.
In the real world, it's not like Russia is going to warn anyone... hey in thirty days we are going to do A B & C - you now have thirty days to prepare your response. Things happen (the 3 AM phone call) and you have to react.
To a degree, this is really counter-intuitive, since much of what is discussed (domestic policies for instance) are not really even part of the job description. Much of what they ask the Presidential candidates are regarding things that should be handled by Congress. I would offer that many Americans choose a President based on things that Presidents cannot control and have no authority over, rather than choosing a President based on whether or not they can actually handle the job as it is.
Maybe they should have them play a nice game of Chess?
I predict Lester Holt wilk ask about some obscure world leader that Hillary probably met but Trump might not be familiar with.
CH, I've been watching some things.
First, out of the six polls out today, two of them show Trump in front, the other four show Clinton is holding onto her narrow leads.
Second, the top spokeswomen for Trump are raising the expectations, "Babe Ruth" and more. I don't think that's too smart.
Roger - all but one of those polls shows movement towards Trump. The other shows a one point gain for Clinton. Many (on the left) suggested that once the 9/11 health scare was yesterday's news, that she would start picking things up again. She hasn't.
Nate Silver wrote on Friday 19th that if things still looked the same in a week that it was time for Hillary and the Democrats to panic. It's arguably gotten worse for her since then. Only the "timing" of the Marist and NBC/WSJ polls (both previous double digit leads dropping down to 5-6) made it "appear" like things had stabilized. But the truth is that even those polls were not technically "good news' for her, considering the massive closing of those gaps in a short period of time.
Apparently I am a neutral blogger, by the logic of NBC.
No you are not and NBC did not suggest that at all. The fact remains is trump declared him a Dem in spite of not knowing that as fact, which made it Okay with kelly ann the double speaker and not a lie. Almost as good as your double speak. LOL
The real issue here Opie...
Is how many people are naive enough to believe that just because a particular journalist (who has shown bias in the past) is not biased, simply because he registers as an independent.
You could certainly call me a Republican, and not many people would question you based on my historical writings. Does the fact that I am not a "registered" Republican really matter?
Smart people would understand that Democrat is used as a description of someone who votes and supports that Party... only petty people (like the grammar police) would actually disagree because of how a person registers.
The big question tonight. Will Lester Holt play it straight or will he want to keep those Georgetown and upper east side invitations rolling in?
He is going to be a good boy , keep his job and toe the Media bias line, he is all in for Hillary.
I have been watching a few interviews and interactions with him over this campaign year, he looks dumb struck.
Calm, logical analysis...
"Roger - all but one of those polls shows movement towards Trump. The other shows a one point gain for Clinton. Many (on the left) suggested that once the 9/11 health scare was yesterday's news, that she would start picking things up again. She hasn't."
This is why your emotional rants and so-called "analytical" projections are a waste of time.
Sorry, but I'm right about this.
Post a Comment