Who Won the Debate?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Again 1st impressions mean everything

 

Yes, they do. I think that's one of the more interesting things in this election. The candidates don't need to make first impressions. You would be hard pressed to find someone who has never heard of either Trump or Hillary. 

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yes, they do. I think that's one of the more interesting things in this election. The candidates don't need to make first impressions. You would be hard pressed to find someone who has never heard of either Trump or Hillary. 

There is a difference between never hearing of Trump or Hillary and never seeing them speak in person.

The media has demonized Trump to the nth degree; but when you really look at it, Trump himself hasn't actually been seen speaking much.  Sure 5 min. here and there and in the Rep. debates. But there are still plenty of voters who never get involved in the Primaries who vote.  The number of people who watched the Repub. debates max 20 million. People who watched the Pres. debates close to 100 million. That's a huge difference.

Political junkies are already familiar but not joe blow.  He is familiar with what he's been told by the media, but not how the actual candidates speak.

My thesis is if joe blow came away from the debate thinking Trump is aggressive, bold, etc. but not the evil demon the media makes him out to be-he won. If he had unloaded on Clinton it would have played into Clinton's hands.  

Now, if at some point in the debates he doesn't unload on her, I will change my mind and scratch my head. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

and scratch my head. 

I've been doing that since the republican primaries! This election cycle is just so surreal. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Of late?  You mean, you've been happy with them the past 12 years?

I don't know what i believe anymore.  I adore George W., McCain and Romney as good men, men of God.  While I support the moral portions of the Republican agenda, i am deeply uncomfortable with the party's drift further and further to the right.  I do believe there is such a thing as being "too capitalist", just as there is such a thing as being "too socialist".  What is more, i am deeply uncomfortable with a perceived unwillingness of the far right of the republican party to listen to democrats or even moderate republicans.  I sometimes feel there is an allegiance to political party rather than the nation.

Granted, democrats do these things too.  But, i am decidedly a republican, and i believe introspection and some reform of the republican party is in order.

Edited September 27, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[Larry Cotrell]

The problem is that some republicans are becoming more liberal while others want to remain more conservative. Think of two people pulling on opposite sides of a piece of paper. Pretty soon, it will rip. This is exactly what is happening to the Republican Party. Republicans are playing tug of war and someone is going to lose.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I don't know what i believe anymore.  I adore George W., McCain and Romney as good men, men of God.  While I support the moral portions of the Republican agenda, i am deeply uncomfortable with the party's drift further and further to the right.  I do believe there is such a thing as being "too capitalist", just as there is such a thing as being "too socialist".  What is more, i am deeply uncomfortable with a perceived unwillingness of the far right of the republican party to listen to democrats or even moderate republicans.  I sometimes feel there is an allegiance to political party rather than the nation.

Granted, democrats do these things too.  But, i am decidedly a republican, and i believe introspection and some reform of the republican party is in order.

Well, saddle up.  It is happening right before your very eyes!

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

There is a difference between never hearing of Trump or Hillary and never seeing them speak in person.

The media has demonized Trump to the nth degree; but when you really look at it, Trump himself hasn't actually been seen speaking much.  Sure 5 min. here and there and in the Rep. debates. But there are still plenty of voters who never get involved in the Primaries who vote.  The number of people who watched the Repub. debates max 20 million. People who watched the Pres. debates close to 100 million. That's a huge difference.

Political junkies are already familiar but not joe blow.  He is familiar with what he's been told by the media, but not how the actual candidates speak.

My thesis is if joe blow came away from the debate thinking Trump is aggressive, bold, etc. but not the evil demon the media makes him out to be-he won. If he had unloaded on Clinton it would have played into Clinton's hands.  

Now, if at some point in the debates he doesn't unload on her, I will change my mind and scratch my head. 

 

Good job yjacket!

I have been following politics since I could stand on a table and sing for a campaign.  THIS election cycle is different.  And it is a welcome change.  This time, political junkies and negative ads don't get to define the politician.  The politician gets to define the politician.

Case in point... avid followers of politics would look at the debate last night and determine that Clinton won.  That's because they would look at it through the prism of traditional politics - where the delivery matters more than the content.  George W was thought to lose his debates because he speaks like a backwater illiterate cowboy except for the one where Gore lost because he was too condescending with his sighs and chest bump posture that even the left got appalled by it.

In the world of traditional politics, Ted Cruz will always win against everybody that has graced that debate podium this year with a little bit of challenge by Marco Rubio.  Clinton and Bernie can't hold a candle against those 2.  

And I never thought Trump won a single debate.  Yet the next day comes along and Trump gains more supporters and junkies even say he won all the debates.  And so I started looking at the debates in a different light.  I started to look for what connects with voters.  Hence, I looked at yesterday's debate and thought Trump did not win it because his supporters would have expected him to just MMA-style-knockout Hillary. 

Then you post this and I'm thinking, hmm... you got a point.  So, now I'm not so sure about my analysis.

Edited September 27, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Hmm... the results of the snap polls are interesting.

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hmm... the results of the snap polls are interesting.

Yeap, very interesting.  Robots filling the polls or are they a somewhat accurate gauge?? 

For me personally, the most off putting thing about Clinton is her smile; something about it just oozes ick to me.  I already don't like her, but man that smile is horrible.

It is very similar to my dislike of Cruz's smile (after every "applause" line, he would crack a small grin).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwix0Inho7DPAhUG7iYKHcRTBhsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2016%2F09%2F27%2Fclinton-wins-debate-stops-trumps-momentum-commentary.html&bvm=bv.134052249,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEAnvm_9gPpSB3A5k4rgqxnttpyQA&ust=1475090835646209

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9qcT0o7DPAhWFOCYKHUPHDcgQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macleans.ca%2Fpolitics%2Fwashington%2Fhillary-clintons-subversive-debate-smile%2F&bvm=bv.134052249,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEAnvm_9gPpSB3A5k4rgqxnttpyQA&ust=1475090835646209

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, yjacket said:

For me personally, the most off putting thing about Clinton is her smile; something about it just oozes ick to me.  I already don't like her, but man that smile is horrible.

 

I'm gonna go on a limb and say... it may not be the smile that is ick... it's the vacant eyes with the smile that is the ick... like a puppet waiting for the pull of the puppetmaster... what do you think?

P.S.  She also did the unstable-sway (some would say seizure twitches) last night that made her really look like a puppet held up on a string.

Edited September 27, 2016 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sticking with my two-month old analogy--because this debate underlined it.  HRC is the hated vice principal.  She's educated.  She always says, "We have to, we need to..."  She looks and sounds condescending, smug, and dismissive.  Trump is the schoolyard thug.  He's brash, knows how to irritate the school administrators, and he knows how to make his allies laugh and nod.  Most of us (students in this analogy) don't care much about the VP or the thug.  Some of us are irritated enough at the way the school's run that we're tempted to give the thug a day to shake things up.  Others (maybe the fearful ones, wanting safe spaces and trigger warnings) prefer the mildly oppressive dullness of the educational establishment.

For Trump supporters, the big good news is that he did not misstep, and thus overcame the biggest fear--that he really was not up to facing a formidable female Democratic opponent.  He did so, despite the moderately-biased moderator.  So, debate whether Trump won or not, but I'd argue he did not lose.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Yeap, very interesting.  Robots filling the polls or are they a somewhat accurate gauge??

I don't know about robots.  There are a whole slew of polls including those you would consider from left-leaning sources (Slate for crying out loud!) for it to be robots.  I mean, yeah, Trump's campaign could possibly seed these polls with their own subjects, but so can Clinton.  And Clinton is, hands down, the bigger and more experienced political machine.

Here's a longer list of these snap polls.  All of them except CNN's polls show Trump won.  So yeah, just like the primaries... I'm stumped.  All the debates I saw, I thought Trump did poorly... then he wins the next election by a mile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

Then, of course, the political commentators this morning all said Clinton won.  So, it's the primaries all over again... the pundits say the career politician won and the people say Trump did.  The people, of course, are the ones who cast ballots.

Edited September 27, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Here's a longer list of these snap polls.  All of them except CNN's polls show Trump won. 

I'm not even slightly surprised that the Clinton News Network would be the only one to produce a poll showing Clinton as the winner. 

In the break room at the office where I work, the TV is usually tuned to CNN.  I'd say 95% of the time I walk in there, the headline is about something bad Trump (or someone associated with him) did.  Most of the time, it isn't even anything important, but they're just so desperate to find negative news to tell that they'll report anything they possibly can.

TRUMP BELCHES AND DOESN'T EXCUSE HIMSELF AT A DINNER LAST NIGHT

TRUMP'S FLY WAS OPEN WHEN HE GOT BACK FROM USING THE BATHROOM (PROBABLY DIDN'T WASH HIS HANDS EITHER)

TRUMP'S CAR GETS LESS THAN 27 MPG

It's breathtakingly silly now and almost Orwellian.

(I made up those headlines, but the real ones aren't much better.)

[Jojo Bags]

9 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I thought Clinton did a pretty good job of keeping Trump on defense, but Trump had some great lines as well. Who did better?

The debate was blatantly skewed in Hillary's favor with the moderator coming to her rescue several times.  The liberal media is nothing more than Hillary's propaganda machine.   The media is dishonest and biased towards Hillary and a truly honest debate is not possible.  The media ignotes the Clinton crime foundation,  Hillary's pay for access as Secretary of State,  Benghazi,  her refusal to acknowledge Islamic terrorism,  and her many verifiable,  blatant lies. If she gets elected this country is beyond redemption. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't listened to the debate yet--was working late last night, and couldn't find a good recording on YouTube when I got home--but having listened to Limbaugh for the last couple days, I rather think that Hillary exceeded expectations just by not keeling over on the podium last night. 

@yjacket's take seems very similar to what I've read from Scott Adams.  We shall see . . . frankly, the only silver lining I saw in the Trump nomination was that we had a candidate who would go toe-to-toe, no-holds barred with Hillary on the debate stage.  It sounds like maybe that hasn't really happened yet--at least, not in the way we've been led to expect.

 

[yjacket]

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

@yjacket's take seems very similar to what I've read from Scott Adams.

It is; I used to think a lot of bad things about Trump, he was a horrible person etc.  He was never my guy in the primary (my guy was Rand Paul) . . .but somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd debate I saw something.  I still don't know what exactly I saw, what action or thing he did, I can't even put a finger on it; but there was something that happened that made me say to myself wait just a second-there is more to this guy than meets the eye.

I started really thinking and analyzing his moves and what he did and I decided he was actually extremely smart, and a very talented persuader. Whether it is natural, trained, calculated or spontaneous I don't know, but I do know he has a knack for being able to persuade others to his view point. He does it in a very different way than most politicians, probably b/c he recognizes a few key aspects of leadership.

A lot of leadership is BS.  I'll give a quick example, a study done revealed that on average leaders take around 7 min. to make a decision. Now if you think that a leader is that much wiser that they can make a really well-informed decision in 7 min. you're fooling yourself.  They do that b/c they a) trust their gut and b) others expect them to take decisive action. A good leader #1 acts like a leader (i.e. he acts like he knows what he's doing, even if he really doesn't), some of those qualities end up being commanding qualities, i.e. they don't ask-they tell.. A leader gets things done, they work extremely hard.  And ultimately a good leader has to have the ability to persuade others to his position. This persuasion is done by a) when attacked attack back, never give an inch and b) once the battle is over and you've won let bygones be bygones quickly b/c you never know when you will need an "enemy" be your friend

You don't get to be the head of a multi-billion dollar company without those qualities (if you do-it will quickly go under). Is he the best leader out there, absolutely not, but he is the best leader running. The servant leader model has some similarities but is also very different-it works very well in the Church; it doesn't work quite as well in business.

Once I started picking up on this, I started doing more reading and I later found Scott Adams and he articulated a lot of what I was thinking very well.

I am very libertarian, more anarco-capitalist,  and I really want to vote for Johnson . . .unfortunately I think the guy has smoked too much weed.  He was a much better candidate 4 years ago than today.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, yjacket said:

unfortunately I think the guy has smoked too much weed.  He was a much better candidate 4 years ago than today.

PREACH! 

Perfectly said. 

[Larry Cotrell]

5 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

The debate was blatantly skewed in Hillary's favor with the moderator coming to her rescue several times.  The liberal media is nothing more than Hillary's propaganda machine.   The media is dishonest and biased towards Hillary and a truly honest debate is not possible.  The media ignotes the Clinton crime foundation,  Hillary's pay for access as Secretary of State,  Benghazi,  her refusal to acknowledge Islamic terrorism,  and her many verifiable,  blatant lies. If she gets elected this country is beyond redemption. 

I think Sean Hannity should moderate the next debate to even it out. That will never happen.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I think Sean Hannity should moderate the next debate to even it out. That will never happen.

Ug, I can't stand that guy. He makes me look humble and well adjusted. 

[unixknight]

Yeah I have to concur with the NeverHannity point of view.  That guy has precisely -zero- credibility in my mind.  Just because he's Conservative doesn't mean he's honest or smart.

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Yeah I have to concur with the NeverHannity point of view.  That guy has precisely -zero- credibility in my mind.  Just because he's Conservative doesn't mean he's honest or smart.

He's lost credibility from me too. He's not really that conservative and was key in supporting Trump on the Republican side even though there were 16 better candidates.

[Guest MormonGator]

30 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

He's lost credibility from me too. He's not really that conservative and was key in supporting Trump on the Republican side even though there were 16 better candidates.

Like Trump, he's an authoritarian populist with conservative tendencies. 

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

He's lost credibility from me too. He's not really that conservative and was key in supporting Trump on the Republican side even though there were 16 better candidates.

I don't like Hannity either - not because of his conservative bonafides, but because his radio show is nothing but a "gang up on the democrat" show.  The guy just can't shut up!  I mean, if you're going to have guests on your show, one on the left, the other on the right... let them duke it out without you interrupting every 5 seconds making it into a beat-down-fest on the left who can barely put a word in edgewise because you own the microphone!

Anyway, that said, I disagree that Hannity gave preference to Trump in the primaries.  He had all the candidates in his show (at least the radio one, I don't watch the TV one) offering equal time amongst them.  Those who didn't get time refused the offer, not that they weren't offered.  When it came down to Kasich, Cruz, and Trump, Hannity gave equal time to all 3 but Kasich only accepted a few so it was only mostly Cruz and Trump on the show.  Now, what I have noticed is that Hannity and Cruz have a personality mismatch although they're ideologically aligned.  Hannity and Trump had a better relationship even though they're not as ideologically aligned as Hannity-Cruz.  But this is not a surprise.  Hannity is a strong Type-A in the same manner as Cruz and Trump.  But, where Cruz was more like a condescending professor on the show, irritating Hannity, Trump was more of a best buds on the show.  Trump and Hannity, of course, have a personal relationship waaaay back in the early days before Cruz was even on the Senate.  But Hannity never endorsed Trump over Cruz until Cruz suspended his campaign.  He had an analysis done on his show over who got the most time on his radio+tv slots and Cruz had the most time by a margin of about 10 minutes over Trump.  One of the negatives I put on the Cruz column is his inability to get along.. you can't lead if nobody is inclined to want to follow.  On this criteria, Trump is a better candidate.  Trump can sell ice to an eskimo.

As far as Hannity not really that conservative... I disagree with that.

By the way, I was put on the radio show back in... was it 2003?  When Bush was trying to get concensus from the UN to invade Iraq.  I called his show telling him it is a BIG mistake to go into Iraq.  Hannity dismissed my points without addressing any of it... he just called me a blooming liberal.  That is how "open-minded" that guy is.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by anatess2

[Larry Cotrell]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As far as Hannity not really that conservative... I disagree with that.

Maybe I am just more conservative than most. When Bernie fans ask me why I don't like Trump, I say he's too liberal and they don't even know how to respond-somewhere between anger and confusion.

[unixknight]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't like Hannity either - not because of his conservative bonafides, but because his radio show is nothing but a "gang up on the democrat" show.  The guy just can't shut up!  I mean, if you're going to have guests on your show, one on the left, the other on the right... let them duke it out without you interrupting every 5 seconds making it into a beat-down-fest on the left who can barely put a word in edgewise because you own the microphone!

By the way, I was put on the radio show back in... was it 2003?  When Bush was trying to get concensus from the UN to invade Iraq.  I called his show telling him it is a BIG mistake to go into Iraq.  Hannity dismissed my points without addressing any of it... he just called me a blooming liberal.  That is how "open-minded" that guy is.

Agreed.  I used to listen to his show back around 2009 and I noticed the same thing.  It was like he was afraid to let someone with an opposing view make any points at all. 

This was also about the time when there was a big controversy over a couple of border guards who had shot a Mexican who had crossed the border illegally.  They'd both been found guilty of attempted murder (the Mexican guy survived... I think they only shot him in the backside) and were sentenced to prison.  Hannity was screaming about it, outraged, that these guys were only defending the border and the Mexican guy got what he deserved.  He called upon the President to issue a pardon.  Well, one day he had on a guest host and on that same day, the show's guest was the Federal Prosecutor who had tried the case.  He explained that the reason these border guards were found guilty was that they'd falsified their report on the incident and hid evidence.  This, combined with the fact that the Mexican guy was shot from behind and unarmed, resulted in the guilty verdict.  The only reason we learned these facts was because Hannity wasn't there to shout them down or twist them.