Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

"Men are mutts; Women are mixed Pedigree"

Quoted by VT

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

Thanks - that does sound a lot nicer!

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

well... hope y'all have your popcorn and (adult) beverages all ready,
for The Most Important TV and likely Most Watched program in US History?
(and no, its not the NFL's january bread n circus show)

it ought to be a beaut.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, c'mon! Doesn't anyone have an opinion on the debate? I fell asleep halfway through and my Tivo didn't record the last half hour. Nobody's nose grew two feet long, nobody burst into flames. Disappointing, really...

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I accidentally deleted the recording before watching it; must be some sort of inner mind event that did not want to watch.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, c'mon! Doesn't anyone have an opinion on the debate? I fell asleep halfway through and my Tivo didn't record the last half hour. Nobody's nose grew two feet long, nobody burst into flames. Disappointing, really...

my $0.02

trump won the first half hour, which began with a question about the economy. hillary gave a boilerplate speech, obviously prepared and rehearsed in advance, which was so dull and full of platitudes that it left me unable to listen to what she was saying. trump just talked about trade, made unrealistic promises about bringing jobs back that have already left, and essentially endorsed a significant tariff wall. at least he seemed on topic and made sense- you could listen and understand his point, whether or not you thought it realistic or agreed or disagreed.

for trump, it was downhill from there. by the end he was repeating the same [brief] points or phrases at least 3 times in every answer. he digressed in kind of bizarre and off-putting ways. best example- asked about cybersecurity he told us how good his 10 year old son was with computers [congrats donald, and nice to know you like to brag about your son, but not quite relevant unless you are suggested your son is a hacker prodigy], and then said the dnc hacking could have been done by the russians, the chinese, or some guy sitting on a bed who [which?] weighs 400 pounds. [wtf?] i think it was the guy who was supposed to weigh 400 pounds, not the bed, but i don't recall the pronoun.

he also said he had prepared some horrible personal attack on hillary but ultimately felt like he couldn't bring himself to do it. not sure what that was supposed to convey- perhaps it was a testimonial to his own self-restraint.

hillary appeared to get more relaxed and happy as the debate wore on. donald got more disorganized.

his lack of preparation and lack of knowledge showed. whether that means much for the election is, however, an open question.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

my $0.02

trump won the first half hour, which began with a question about the economy. hillary gave a boilerplate speech, obviously prepared and rehearsed in advance, which was so dull and full of platitudes that it left me unable to listen to what she was saying. trump just talked about trade, made unrealistic promises about bringing jobs back that have already left, and essentially endorsed a significant tariff wall. at least he seemed on topic and made sense- you could listen and understand his point, whether or not you thought it realistic or agreed or disagreed.

for trump, it was downhill from there. by the end he was repeating the same [brief] points or phrases at least 3 times in every answer. he digressed in kind of bizarre and off-putting ways. best example- asked about cybersecurity he told us how good his 10 year old son was with computers [congrats donald, and nice to know you like to brag about your son, but not quite relevant unless you are suggested your son is a hacker prodigy], and then said the dnc hacking could have been done by the russians, the chinese, or some guy sitting on a bed who [which?] weighs 400 pounds. [wtf?] i think it was the guy who was supposed to weigh 400 pounds, not the bed, but i don't recall the pronoun.

he also said he had prepared some horrible personal attack on hillary but ultimately felt like he couldn't bring himself to do it. not sure what that was supposed to convey- perhaps it was a testimonial to his own self-restraint.

hillary appeared to get more relaxed and happy as the debate wore on. donald got more disorganized.

his lack of preparation and lack of knowledge showed. whether that means much for the election is, however, an open question.

This pretty much sums up my impressions as well.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary looked healthy and sane. Donald was sniffling and eye rolling and looked like he had stamina problems.

Donald got a little wacky at the end, mostly while taking Hillary's bait.

I'd say she won on points, but not a knockout or anything.

I suspect it's still a very close race, despite what any polls say. Ripe for some scandal to influence. (Why does wikileaks tease so far in advance? Just tell us what you have.)

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Just being on the stage legitimizes Trump as Presidential. He missed great opportunities to hit Clinton on issues in the 2nd half.

The moderator was a bit biased as you'd expect from the press.

Neither of them are likable so that makes it hard to choose.

Independents will not decide primarily on issues; they will decide on how they feel about who can bring the country out of the morass we are in.

Trump has a major advantage by being an outsider, and people may simply be tired of Clinton.

The best quote I heard was from a friend named Jeff: "I'm with neitHER"

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

would concur with jk and lazyboy here.

methinks the donald isnt quite upto dealing/debating with pro political hacks like hitlery on this level.

and she gave him PLENTY of openings to throw BIG rocks at her, which - quite disappointingly - he failed to volley back with (not the least of which was her bringing up his tax returns, whereupon he should've fired back with: 'i'll show my tax returns if you'll show your 'charitable' foundation records')

all in all, quite a disappointment - all we can hope for now is that he's saving the best stuff for the next debates

like who - besides GS - are her biggest campaign contributors, bill's signing of repeal of glass-steagall, their allowing osama bin laden to walk away in the 90's when they had him jailed in the sudan, why they didnt return to AR in 2001, instead moving to NY, how she managed to become a NY senator with such short residency, how she and obozo - the nobel peace prez - launched 3 MORE WARS - continue to 'double-down' in the quagmire of afghanistan, WITH NO VITAL US INTERESTS 'at stake' - while they abandoned iraq, the loser/fraud of a deal with iran, the failure of the obomba dept of juicetess to put anybody away after 7years of documented financial crimes - involving those very same campaign contributors?

yeah, any luck at all, he'll get some balls going on the next one...

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

OTOH, Scott Adams thinks losing the debate won Trump the election.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077...e-first-debate

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

OTOH, Scott Adams thinks losing the debate won Trump the election.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077...e-first-debate

do you think if trump WON the debate adams would say that that lost trump the election?
it seems to me that adams is saying that trump won by virtue of not looking crazy: a low bar to clear, but perhaps it is indeed all he needed.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

do you think if trump WON the debate adams would say that that lost trump the election?
it seems to me that adams is saying that trump won by virtue of not looking crazy: a low bar to clear, but perhaps it is indeed all he needed.

A grizzled old veteran around these parts once told me the Republican Party is a machine that get a monkey elected if they decide that's what they need to do. But the Democrats only win the White House when they have a serious policy wonk (Bill Clinton, Obama) heading up their ticket.

This time the Democrats most definitely have an experienced policy wonk. But those credentials do not seem the slam dunk with voters it has been in the past.

And the Republican Party can't seem to decide if it really wants to throw its machinery behind its own nominated candidate.

FWIW, here's a quick Garry Trudeau take on things:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e80b1ba2ecdc

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

would concur with jk and lazyboy here.

methinks the donald isnt quite upto dealing/debating with pro political hacks like hitlery on this level.

and she gave him PLENTY of openings to throw BIG rocks at her, which - quite disappointingly - he failed to volley back with (not the least of which was her bringing up his tax returns, whereupon he should've fired back with: 'i'll show my tax returns if you'll show your 'charitable' foundation records')

all in all, quite a disappointment - all we can hope for now is that he's saving the best stuff for the next debates

like who - besides GS - are her biggest campaign contributors, bill's signing of repeal of glass-steagall, their allowing osama bin laden to walk away in the 90's when they had him jailed in the sudan, why they didnt return to AR in 2001, instead moving to NY, how she managed to become a NY senator with such short residency, how she and obozo - the nobel peace prez - launched 3 MORE WARS - continue to 'double-down' in the quagmire of afghanistan, WITH NO VITAL US INTERESTS 'at stake' - while they abandoned iraq, the loser/fraud of a deal with iran, the failure of the obomba dept of juicetess to put anybody away after 7years of documented financial crimes - involving those very same campaign contributors?

yeah, any luck at all, he'll get some balls going on the next one...

Did not watch. Insomnia and shoulder pain got me up at 3:00 to read the msm commentary and the Trump-sided press. Bar was set pretty low for Trump and by the commentariat, more or less made it.

Trump was himself and HRC was herself and neither surprised us. No minds changed, but it does seem the ones most critical of Trump's less polished "performance" is the Trump hard corps.

For fun, I have to recommend Andrew Sullivan's live blogging as exemplary of the best and most hilarious #NeverTrump over the top, pearl clutching freak-outery, beginning at "9 p.m. Take a deep breath." and ending with "10:39 p.m. ...I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now."


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...al-debate.html

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Trump to win?

A grizzled old veteran around these parts once told me the Republican Party is a machine that get a monkey elected if they decide that's what they need to do. But the Democrats only win the White House when they have a serious policy wonk (Bill Clinton, Obama) heading up their ticket.

This time the Democrats most definitely have an experienced policy wonk. But those credentials do not seem the slam dunk with voters it has been in the past.

And the Republican Party can't seem to decide if it really wants to throw its machinery behind its own nominated candidate.

FWIW, here's a quick Garry Trudeau take on things:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e80b1ba2ecdc

The recent Atlantic Article speaks right to this.

The reason is that both party machines have been put out of commission by various legal reforms, including:

1) restriction on financial contributions to parties
2) increased transparency of congressional committees
3) election rules weakening the power of party kingmakers.
4) crackdown on pork, making it harder to punish disruptive behavior/reward cooperative behavior

In the past, the likes of Trump would never have made the ballot, in either party. The state and local
party chairmen would not have allowed it, regardless of what the voters wanted.

Related to that, the republican primary represents only a small minority of total voters, hence it's ability to choose
Trumps.

The "rogue candidates" of the past, such as Goldwater and McGovern, were not what the kingmakers wanted,
but they were not disruptive like Cruz. They had been in office for years, owed favors and were owed, did not interfere with the normal function of government.