I'm guessing the odds are now about 50/50 that Trump will be "too busy" to do any more debates.
You're up next, Pence, and you only look smart compared to Trump.
We'll see. Doing more debates will likely hurt him, but so will dropping the debates. Beyond the practical concerns, it's all about the ego - can he admit how badly he did by dropping out?
The vice-presidential debate will likely be more traditional and not nearly so much of a blow-out. It also matters far, far less.
It will be interesting to see if this shifts the polls. I suspect it will, but not dramatically. Stopping Clinton's apparent decline and starting a slow rise seems most likely to me. At least until something else dramatic happens.
If he doesn't do the debates, he will just claim as proof that the debates are rigged against him and he would rather spend the time talking to voters. Or argue for some new venue with an overly friendly moderator, and when Clinton won't change the schedule use that as grounds to criticize her
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an undecided, I think Trump walked all over Hillary in this debate. His facial features at times when she was talking was hillarious, while hers when she was in the hot seat indicated she was clearly mentallly screaming "oh crap, oh crap, oh crap".
She appealed to the audiance too much, "read my book, oh you can find it in book stores or purchase it online" was immature, and her blatant attempts to beg groups for votes she knows do not support her came off as very pandoring and teenage high school politics.
It also seemed that between their attempts to bait each other, Trump came off as strong, focused, and able to turn the tables easily, while she retracted into a shell and either reverted to name-calling or lost focus, hoping to change the subject, or contradicting herself.
Far too often, she attempted to use outside references rather than dealing with what was happening at the time, or spouting statements without anything but the suggestion that her people had discovered the real numbers.
Trump likely got the majority of military, law enforcement, and related professions as well by mentioning his discussions with them. I think Clinton basically just brought a knife to a gun fight, while she was better prepaired she didn't seem to know she was in a debate and not a tele commercial.
His inyerupting, or otherwise using every moment to his advantage is indicative of a refusal to back down or give up, while she could barely muster a rebuttal, often backing herself into a proverbial corner.
Between the two, Clinton didn't really seem to have any clue what she would do and displayed a lack of being able to think on her feet or handle hard situations, despite being better prepaired, and as an undecided, between the two, Trump owned the debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You sure about that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the fact that trump didn't answer a question had no effect.
Seems like Hillary had a better idea then Trump, who didn't seem like he had any idea on what he was talking about at all.
I want to state that I am voting for Hillary Clinton, because I want to prevent the Apocalypse from coming in my lifetime. Donald Trump + Nuclear Codes in a Black Briefcase = End of World! It's as if the Republican Party decided to pick the worst possible candidate for President...oh wait, they did. My hope is that a majority of Americans will see in the debates just how unqualified Trump is to become President. Of course, hope can be lost...I've said it before, either way we make history. 1st woman President or Last President of America. Ever.
It's not the end of the world either way. We survived a senile Reagan and an out of touch Bush. if Trump wins, it'll be a Pence Presidency, much like a Cheney Presidency with perhaps slightly less evil. Trump will be the carefully stage-managed figurehead since he's not really big on the work the job entails
Hillary is just talking in circles. She says one thing then contradicts it. Now she does this in a very general and vague way. I just dont trust anything she says. She really does not care if American lives are lost "What difference at this point does it make" (paraphrased of course). It makes a huge difference. She has spent a career in obfuscation and subterfuge and I just dont trust her. She has yet to present any policy and only presses the vote in a poor way. This vote for me because he is bad, is a piss poor reason. She really does not have much to hold her up based on her record. I see her as little more than a failure being pushed as a quasi Manchurian candidate.
Just my .02 worth. You dont have to agree with me and you dont even have to like it. But you do have to respect my right to say it.
Personally I dont like to see real world politics in my gaming. Gaming is my escape and distraction from real world issues, I dont need the arguments where I go to relax. I cant stop anyone from expressing an opinion here but I can ask to keep it to a minimum. Make the debates elsewhere please.
Thank you for your time
Raven
Then why did you post in a political thread about the debate? No one harpooned you into it. If you don't want responses to your opinions... than don't post them. You do have a right to your opinion. But once you post it, we have that same right to our opinions about your opinion.
You sure about that?
People will see what they want to see. Trump supporters will see the
commanding "Trumpiness" of the man. They will see leadership in his bombastity, and cleverness in his gaming of the law. They will look at Clinton and see the witch crone hag that the Fox News people have been presenting her for decades.Tragedy is... many of her supporters will be seeing the same thing.
|
|
You sure about that?People will see what they want to see. Trump supporters will see the
commanding "Trumpiness" of the man. They will see leadership in his bombastity, and cleverness in his gaming of the law. They will look at Clinton and see the witch crone hag that the Fox News people have been presenting her for decades.Tragedy is... many of her supporters will be seeing the same thing.
And for someone who doesn't support either?
And for someone who doesn't support either?You sure about that?People will see what they want to see. Trump supporters will see the
commanding "Trumpiness" of the man. They will see leadership in his bombastity, and cleverness in his gaming of the law. They will look at Clinton and see the witch crone hag that the Fox News people have been presenting her for decades.Tragedy is... many of her supporters will be seeing the same thing.
That depends on that someone. There really isn't any common demoninator among people who reject both, any more than there is between the Libertarians and the Greens.
|
|
So the fact that trump didn't answer a question had no effect.
Such as? Do you have examples, or is this more of a baseless accusation, as honestly I remember it being the reverse, with Clinton saying she had a bunch of lofty ideas, but no specifics and kind of all over the place, which hurts because she is publically known for swapping her allegiance at the drop of a hat and trying to convince herself and the world she was always that way. While Trump talked about his desires for handling regulations, taxes, to handle the very laws he slips through the cracks of, etc. . .
Not a specific point by point plan, but at least a focus.
|
|
That depends on that someone. There really isn't any common demoninator among people who reject both, any more than there is between the Libertarians and the Greens.And for someone who doesn't support either?You sure about that?People will see what they want to see. Trump supporters will see the
commanding "Trumpiness" of the man. They will see leadership in his bombastity, and cleverness in his gaming of the law. They will look at Clinton and see the witch crone hag that the Fox News people have been presenting her for decades.Tragedy is... many of her supporters will be seeing the same thing.
I disagree, at least in a general sense. Undecided is really an inappropriate description, as we generally actively dislike both, and are probably going to vote 3rd party or not at all, and it tends to be less a question of "who do I like more", and more of "who do I absolutely not want the most".
Unfortunately for her, Hillary has essentially in all but name already been President, and has already also had years of experience, and its not in any way helping her campaign to know to expect more of the same, which leads me to think a gamble on Trump might be the better option, at least based on last night.
I disagree, at least in a general sense. Undecided is really an inappropriate description, as we henerally actively dislike both, and it tends to be less a question of "who do I like more", and more of "who do I absolutely not want the most".That depends on that someone. There really isn't any common demoninator among people who reject both, any more than there is between the Libertarians and the Greens.And for someone who doesn't support either?You sure about that?People will see what they want to see. Trump supporters will see the
commanding "Trumpiness" of the man. They will see leadership in his bombastity, and cleverness in his gaming of the law. They will look at Clinton and see the witch crone hag that the Fox News people have been presenting her for decades.Tragedy is... many of her supporters will be seeing the same thing.
You asked me to give you a blanket answer about all folks who as you said "do not support either". That's not the same as "undecided", after all there might be people who have decided on Stein, on Weld, or Slovotsky. I'm not going to make that kind of conclusion that they all are of a piece. There will be people who reject Clinton because she's not liberal enough, or that she's a woman, just as there are mainline Republican types who literally can't stomach a man who glories over the fact that he cheats his way to win by stiffing the people who contract out to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an undecided, I think Trump walked all over Hillary in this debate. His facial features at times when she was talking was hillarious, while hers when she was in the hot seat indicated she was clearly mentallly screaming "oh crap, oh crap, oh crap".
She appealed to the audiance too much, "read my book, oh you can find it in book stores or purchase it online" was immature, and her blatant attempts to beg groups for votes she knows do not support her came off as very pandoring and teenage high school politics.
It also seemed that between their attempts to bait each other, Trump came off as strong, focused, and able to turn the tables easily, while she retracted into a shell and either reverted to name-calling or lost focus, hoping to change the subject, or contradicting herself.
Far too often, she attempted to use outside references rather than dealing with what was happening at the time, or spouting statements without anything but the suggestion that her people had discovered the real numbers.
Trump likely got the majority of military, law enforcement, and related professions as well by mentioning his discussions with them. I think Clinton basically just brought a knife to a gun fight, while she was better prepaired she didn't seem to know she was in a debate and not a tele commercial.
His inyerupting, or otherwise using every moment to his advantage is indicative of a refusal to back down or give up, while she could barely muster a rebuttal, often backing herself into a proverbial corner.
Between the two, Clinton didn't really seem to have any clue what she would do and displayed a lack of being able to think on her feet or handle hard situations, despite being better prepaired, and as an undecided, between the two, Trump owned the debate.
As a Clinton supporter I agree with all of this. The debates aren't about the facts, the debates are about the room, the show, the presence. From her opening comments Clinton was visibly nervous, and throughout the night only landed three or so good counter-punches. Every time she lead out on attack it fell flat, and most of her prepared quips to refute his statements also didn't land well. He was in command of the stage last night.
And that's kind of the point. Anyone who was going to choose based on policy chose already. We are into the dog show/beauty pageant part of the race now. And Clinton lost last night on those grounds. We can squabble all we want about who won the intellectual debate (Clearly, Clinton) but that wasn't what last night was about for anyone who was still undecided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the end of the world either way. We survived a senile Reagan and an out of touch Bush. if Trump wins, it'll be a Pence Presidency, much like a Cheney Presidency with perhaps slightly less evil. Trump will be the carefully stage-managed figurehead since he's not really big on the work the job entailsI want to state that I am voting for Hillary Clinton, because I want to prevent the Apocalypse from coming in my lifetime. Donald Trump + Nuclear Codes in a Black Briefcase = End of World! It's as if the Republican Party decided to pick the worst possible candidate for President...oh wait, they did. My hope is that a majority of Americans will see in the debates just how unqualified Trump is to become President. Of course, hope can be lost...I've said it before, either way we make history. 1st woman President or Last President of America. Ever.
Look into Pence a bit, he's actually more evil, just way better at hiding the depths of it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting, seeing how different people interpret the same things in different ways. Trump got angry and heated pretty much right after the debate began, and did everything he could to shout Clinton down - and she basically ignored him and just kept on talking. The ability to ignore an antagonist's barbs and focus on the job is a trait I think the President needs.
...And then he had the gall to say she was being 'holier than thou', and that she was the rude one when it came to debates, when he was constantly interrupting and going over his time. He said that he had a good temperament (after those outbursts? Did he think we forgot?), and that she didn't have the stamina necessary to lead.
I've said this before, but a lot of Trump's strategy seems to be accusing others of having his problems, while trying to take credit for everything that goes well.
As a Clinton supporter I agree with all of this. The debates aren't about the facts, the debates are about the room, the show, the presence. From her opening comments Clinton was visibly nervous, and throughout the night only landed three or so good counter-punches. Every time she lead out on attack it fell flat, and most of her prepared quips to refute his statements also didn't land well. He was in command of the stage last night.
And that's kind of the point. Anyone who was going to choose based on policy chose already. We are into the dog show/beauty pageant part of the race now. And Clinton lost last night on those grounds. We can squabble all we want about who won the intellectual debate (Clearly, Clinton) but that wasn't what last night was about for anyone who was still undecided.
I disagree completely. She was ready. She stayed calm and controlled and baited him into losing what little cool he had.
None of that contradicts what I said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting, seeing how different people interpret the same things in different ways. Trump got angry and heated pretty much right after the debate began, and did everything he could to shout Clinton down - and she basically ignored him and just kept on talking. The ability to ignore an antagonist's barbs and focus on the job is a trait I think the President needs.But yeah, if someone likes angry and heated and think those are good, strong traits, then it's easy to see how they could see Trump as the clear winner.
He got up in her face and yelled and she didn't yell back - that means he's the dominant one. Basic primate socialization.
Yeah. Dog Show. I said that. If you think that the American populace is above that, you are deluding yourself.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't control the American public's reactions - I can control my own. And my standards are higher than basic primate socialization. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to state that I am voting for Hillary Clinton, because I want to prevent the Apocalypse from coming in my lifetime. Donald Trump + Nuclear Codes in a Black Briefcase = End of World! It's as if the Republican Party decided to pick the worst possible candidate for President...oh wait, they did. My hope is that a majority of Americans will see in the debates just how unqualified Trump is to become President. Of course, hope can be lost...I've said it before, either way we make history. 1st woman President or Last President of America. Ever.
looooooooool
I can't control the American public's reactions - I can control my own. And my standards are higher than basic primate socialization. XD
Sure, and as I said earlier, she was the clear intellectual winner. However, that isn't how we grade these things. The winner is who grabs more undecided voters. Anyone who is undecided at this point doesn't give a flip about issues. Trump won the dog show and I predict that will translate to a bump in the polls.
|
Look into Pence a bit, he's actually more evil, just way better at hiding the depths of it.It's not the end of the world either way. We survived a senile Reagan and an out of touch Bush. if Trump wins, it'll be a Pence Presidency, much like a Cheney Presidency with perhaps slightly less evil. Trump will be the carefully stage-managed figurehead since he's not really big on the work the job entailsI want to state that I am voting for Hillary Clinton, because I want to prevent the Apocalypse from coming in my lifetime. Donald Trump + Nuclear Codes in a Black Briefcase = End of World! It's as if the Republican Party decided to pick the worst possible candidate for President...oh wait, they did. My hope is that a majority of Americans will see in the debates just how unqualified Trump is to become President. Of course, hope can be lost...I've said it before, either way we make history. 1st woman President or Last President of America. Ever.
Its true. Cheney may be a heartless and shrewd customer, but he could get things done. Pence is a member of that talk radio intellectual discount circuit and will be a complete disaster. The worst part of this Trump candidacy is its got these talking heads bolstered and running for seats all over the country. For example, that schlep Jason Lewis in MN.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting, seeing how different people interpret the same things in different ways. Trump got angry and heated pretty much right after the debate began, and did everything he could to shout Clinton down - and she basically ignored him and just kept on talking. The ability to ignore an antagonist's barbs and focus on the job is a trait I think the President needs.But yeah, if someone likes angry and heated and think those are good, strong traits, then it's easy to see how they could see Trump as the clear winner.
He got up in her face and yelled and she didn't yell back - that means he's the dominant one. Basic primate socialization.
If she had yelled back, then she becomes the shrill female dog. In the eyes of someone who supports Trump, there was no way he could lose and no way she could win.
But as one MSNBC commentator said, Clinton wasn't there to win over the Trump supporters but to reassure her own. That she accomplished with margin to spare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't control the American public's reactions - I can control my own. And my standards are higher than basic primate socialization. XDSure, and as I said earlier, she was the clear intellectual winner. However, that isn't how we grade these things. The winner is who grabs more undecided voters. Anyone who is undecided at this point doesn't give a flip about issues. Trump won the dog show and I predict that will translate to a bump in the polls.I don't think it's quite as simple as she was the intellectual winner and he won the dog show. It could easily have gone that way and some will certainly see it that way, but most of those voting purely on "alpha male" grounds are already behind Trump.
By baiting him and getting him to react on cue, while not getting flustered or backing down herself, she played a subtler version of primate politics. She showed him up as just a blusterer with no control and not actually able to control her.
People value different things. Some value control and others value bluster and dominance. Because he yelled at her and HE DID fluster her a bit, people will see Andrew Jackson style dominance. They'll also take the fact that he didn't pay any taxes as a victory over the system. It so much depends on what viewpoints you're coming into the debate with. Neither pretty much did anything that was going to win over anyone but the choir that they've been preaching to all along.
Some of us do miss the days when Congresspeople would just cane each other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read that most folks decide early on in the election cycle and are pretty solid one way or another by the debate. The study also found that folks almost always assume their candidate won the debate. Seems to be ringing true this morning with folks I know in both camps. Pretty much Hilary "kept it together" and Trump proved he's a "tough guy."
If there is really 16% undecided I definitely want to hear more of their opinions.
I read that most folks decide early on in the election cycle and are pretty solid one way or another by the debate. The study also found that folks almost always assume their candidate won the debate. Seems to be ringing true this morning with folks I know in both camps. Pretty much Hilary "kept it together" and Trump proved he's a "tough guy."
If there is really 16% undecided I definitely want to hear more of their opinions.
It's the Silent Minority.
I didn't bother to watch. Anything dramatic enough to effect my position ("Clinton outed as a lizard person") would have been plastered all over the news.
Incidentally, I wonder if Trump's comment about being "smart" for not paying income taxes is a de facto admission that he hasn't...? What do the rest of you think?
Incidentally, I wonder if Trump's comment about being "smart" for not paying income taxes is a de facto admission that he hasn't...? What do the rest of you think?
That there is a reason beyond being audited behind his not releasing his financials, which he has made clear is not going to happen ever given the conditions he's put on doing so.
Given how little Trump cares about what he says and how little it seems to be influencing his run, you know there has to be some pretty damning material in those tax returns to be so stubbornly resistant to releasing him.
Given how little Trump cares about what he says and how little it seems to be influencing his run, you know there has to be some pretty damning material in those tax returns to be so stubbornly resistant to releasing him.
Well, IF there's nothing in them and IF he's smart (I know, two very big "if"s) then it's actually a good move to keep them hidden until later. The longer they stay hidden, the more Clinton's campaign focuses on them as a point of attack, which means she's losing out on time when she could be attacking him for other blunders. Then if need be he could release the return statements, showing that there was nothing to see, gutting a major argument from his opposition. Again, this is all wild speculation, since we don't actually have any tax returns off of which to base an opinion.
|
So in polisci it's pretty broadly accepted that there aren't that many genuinely "undecided" voters. While many millions of people claim to be undecided, their voting patterns don't really reflect that. See the above quote, where we have a person who has claims to dislike both...and then proceeds to explain that Trump did everything right and nothing Clinton did was strong or good. Even that framing! Trump interrupting Clinton and arguing with the moderator is offered as a clear sign of assertive strength. His inability to actually answer any questions is apparently irrelevant to the analysis, even though CLINTON's answers to questions are brought as a mark against her! I deliberately didn't quote the person because I don't want this to come across as personal, and my apologies if it does, but this sort of phenomenon is pretty well established as a common behavior.
Moving on to purely personal opinion, I think that a lot of the "undecideds" we're seeing are people who have just predetermined their dislike of Clinton. Doesn't matter that Trump is an ignoramus who can't answer even basic questions like what the friggin' nuclear triad is... To make an overly long point shorter: it's sexism. Not really able to prove that because the US has never had a woman make it as far as Clinton has in our political sphere, but that's my assessment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how little Trump cares about what he says and how little it seems to be influencing his run, you know there has to be some pretty damning material in those tax returns to be so stubbornly resistant to releasing him.Well, IF there's nothing in them and IF he's smart (I know, two very big "if"s) then it's actually a good move to keep them hidden until later. The longer they stay hidden, the more Clinton's campaign focuses on them as a point of attack, which means she's losing out on time when she could be attacking him for other blunders. Then if need be he could release the return statements, showing that there was nothing to see, gutting a major argument from his opposition. Again, this is all wild speculation, since we don't actually have any tax returns off of which to base an opinion.
Which is why she poked him on it, claiming he pays no taxes.
- Either he admits he pays no taxes, which 1) undermines his own position on "making NATO members pay", 2) looks very bad to the working poor and middle class ("Why are we busting our asses to get by, when he's a billionaire and pays nothing?!")
- Or, he claims he does pay taxes, which immediately prompts calls for proof: releasing his tax returns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton's strong performance and Trump's increasingly desperate loud flailing served it's purpose. People who have already chosen a candidate were probably unmoved from their decision. People who had decided to protest vote Stein or Johnson are also unlikely to be swayed.
I think some truly undecideds will see Trump's performance and decide to vote Clinton to keep Trump out. I think some women hold-outs will have watched Trump repeatedly try to talk over Clinton, watched her soldiering on, and vote for her in solidarity. I also think some Republican-leaning hold-outs who can't bring themselves to ever vote for Clinton will have seen Trump, and will now stay home election day.
- Either he admits he pays no taxes, which 1) undermines his own position on "making NATO members pay", 2) looks very bad to the working poor and middle class ("Why are we busting our asses to get by, when he's a billionaire and pays nothing?!")
- Or, he claims he does pay taxes, which immediately prompts calls for proof: releasing his tax returns.
A nimbler debater could probably thread that needle. Trump is a spoiled angry toddler in a China shop.
Or saying that he pays no taxes is a demonstration of how good and clever a "businessman" is compared to a "politician", which plays on the outsider who knows how to get rich and run a business angle.
The right wing appeal to the working class, and it's worked more than not, is to demonstrate that prosperity is waiting for them if they just get rid of the "moochers" and follow that Golden Path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah I think the "paying no taxes" would maybe not hurt him as much as us on the left likes to think
If I were to make a guess:
The taxes show that Trump is by far not nearly as rich as he claims, which Trump may fear will hurt long term business goals
And/or
The documents provide a lot of angles that investigative journals can/will follow up on, which might show some outright illegal activities that could result in severe business and legal consequences.
It would take a truly amazing scandal to shake his base, but his base isn't powerful enough if he loses the election to protect him from legal fallout from anything that gets revealed from his tax documents. The republican party might be going along with him now but will happily throw him under the bus once his usefulness is over.
A nimbler debater could probably thread that needle. Trump is a spoiled angry toddler in a China shop.Or saying that he pays no taxes is a demonstration of how good and clever a "businessman" is compared to a "politician", which plays on the outsider who knows how to get rich and run a business angle.
The right wing appeal to the working class, and it's worked more than not, is to demonstrate that prosperity is waiting for them if they just get rid of the "moochers" and follow that Golden Path.
Right, that's the eye of the needle, but Trump can't ignore a jab long enough to try and make that argument. And I think most actual businesspeople know that at least some taxes and fees are necessary to build and maintain infrastructure, to maintain that social safety net for workers who aren't being paid a living wage, to educate the next generation of workers, etc.
