Trump is digging one hell of a grave by trying to strick to stop and frisk, especially when the question was about solving the racial divide.
Trump is digging one hell of a grave by trying to strick to stop and frisk, especially when the question was about solving the racial divide.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
At this point, Trump would have to look up to see Challenger Deep.
Also: Bad audience! Bad! No cookies for you!
Curious though - who does it hurt more? Trump's always said bad things but Hillary doesn't connect with voters you might run into turn-out issues.Originally Posted by Wraith
Moderator: birth certificate stance?
Trump: ISIS!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
oh god how the fuck did this man get this far? There is something seriously wrong with this country.
And she just dropped that line. Lol
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"Racist lie" hey there you go, one of my other predictions came true.
More property bragging
Did he just mispronounce muslim?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"I built a club. No discrimination. It was a great club." Waaaaht the fuck?
There's the Bernie card!
Also, 400lb bed ridden hackers. That better become a fucking meme.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
He did all right with his 'generals and admirals' line vs. 'political hacks.'
Why do both of them keep calling the moderator by name. I don't get this - do people regularly say the person's name that they are talking to like that? Its one thing if they have an exchange but to just randomly use his name in the middle of likely prepared lines is odd.
Insulted NATO and the New York Times in the same sentence?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Holy shit, named dropped Howard Stern to deflect from his Iraq war flip flop
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Trump: "I have a much better temperament than her."
Quote of the night.
"Call Sean Hannity" x10. Really was it that necessary to say that over and over again?
I hope someone pulls a data is beautiful graph together to see if trump sent more time arguing with the moderator or Clinton.
Trump really fucked himself trying to say he had a better temperament than Clinton. He has been awful nearly the entire debate and Clinton jumped all over his previous threats, even dropped Twitter in there lol
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm not sure, has Trump ever been accused of domestic violence? Because there was credible witness (Secret Service) of Hillary throwing objects at Bill.
Calling the Iran deal good... yeesh I don't think that's a winning line.
Stamina...what is this, a Viagra commercial?
Audience isn't even trying anymore.
And the crowd starts cheering both... live crowd great job keeping your word.
Trump talk about your "Clinton doesn't have the look" comment.
"No, I want to talk about stamina instead."
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The funny part is... if he had originally said stamina would it make any difference pre-Hillary collapse? If you want to play the sexist angle both could be construed that way.
You know that conspiracy theory that Trump is only running to make sure Clinton wins? I'm starting to think there might be something to it. Nobody that could make it this far in the election could be that bad unintentionally, right?
Everyone ABC is talking to are absolutely destroying how badly trump did.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm on CBS and it's the same. Maybe he should have prepared?
I have a few takeaways from the debate:
Trump clearly started out relatively well prepared for him but rapidly fell into his normal patterns. He did land a few punches that I thought were genuine weaknesses for Clinton - her changing stance on trade deals (personally I liked the old ones), the parlous state of world affairs following her run as SoS (not entirely her fault, of course, but a decent point), her emails, etc. Unfortunately for him, he did a lot of rambling that didn't address either the moderator's questions, actual policy proposals, or rebut Clinton's points. He also had very poor discipline over what he said - he gave up a lot of sound bites that can be used against him (more or less admitting he pays no taxes, justifying shady dealings with contractors with legalism, etc.). I think he won't have convinced anyone with his performance, especially the argumentative and rambling nature in which it was presented.
Clinton was clearly very well prepared but came off at times a bit stilted. She also was a bit too passive - I know because of gender issues and other strategic reasons she doesn't want to seem argumentative, but she could have pressed Trump more strongly on some issues where he was particularly weak or foolish; instead she just referred people to the 'fact checkers' repeatedly which is a weak and unconvincing line. She did occasionally show some more fluidity and genuine emotion and those points were clearly her strongest - I liked her discussion of her father on a couple of occasions (especially when contrasted with the $14 million for Trump), her spot-on reassurance to American allies, her answer about racial bias, and a few other points. At other times, though, she went to stilted to outright maladroit. When compared to Trump's stream-of-consciousness ranting it might seem an improvement, but it definitely was far from a stellar debate performance. She did a reasonably good job of handling the biggest issues for her (emails, what connection her '08 campaign had with birther stuff, etc.), mostly by using prepared, brief statements and then ignoring them. I think her performance more or less reinforces the narrative of a policy-driven candidate with modest oratory skills. I think she likely managed to avoid any major moments where she appeared evasive, though, which is important given the additional narratives re 'crooked Hillary' et al.
Does this move the needle much? Probably not, though it certainly reinforces what we all knew. I think that despite the gift of Trump's atrocious sound bites, it won't really change anything - he's said awful things for years now and it hasn't hurt him. Maybe Hillary 'won' on points but I doubt it will change much.
Lester Holt did not do a very good job of moderating IMO; he did press Trump at times to actually answer the question asked, and contradicted him a few times for some of the more egregious falsehoods, but mostly let them talk over each other. I know these are strong personalities, though, so maybe he never had a chance anyways.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Overall Verdict: Clinton won
She put 'Donald' on the defensive and didn't have a meltdown like Trump did. Her ideas were bland and she fails to excite people but she didn't make any major gaffes, she also didn't look unhealthy or 'weak.'
Trump started off badly. His energy came through but it came across as anger not passion. He repeated himself OVER AND OVER AGAIN. He came across as irrational in some cases.
All that being said there were a few interesting things that could work in his favor. He seems to be specifically targeting the rust belt and Clinton didn't have much of a response to how she would keep manufacturing jobs in America. The part about her aides all pleading the 5th is something I doubt many swing voters were aware of it and it may get some play.
Ultimately I see Trump dropping a couple of points in the polls but not a huge swing, the next debate will likely have a smaller audience and he'll need to come across as far more presidential than he did here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote