2016 First Presidential Debate

[Justus]

 

Her response to the stamina comment though was pretty epic.

Agreed. Her real world reply was the giant stepping on the ant moment of the campaign.

[Driver]

 

Again, I think that's your dislike for all things Democrat leading you to say that. It wasn't a blow-out by any means, but when she stuck to policy she was fine. The stamina come back and the retort about preparing for the debate-- that was her beating Donald at his game.

Sure, against Trump. But her zingers fell painfully flat for the most part (Trumped-up trickle down anyone?) and she rather stumbled through her answers. Were she not being graded on the Trump curve, it would be a performance somewhere around Obama's first debate four years ago.

 

And I actually think the stamina thing, is your bias in the way. I know that's what you wanted her to say, so yeah, you considered it good. But the side-by-side where Clinton felt the need to suddenly overdo it with the smile as soon as stamina was brought up was rather terrible optics.

I won't claim to not have some bias-- I'd lose that. But I think you're plain wrong.

 

Trump made a weak, nebulous comment on her inability to lead based on nothing. He kept it nebulous cause he was smart enough to not just outright say he thinks a woman wouldn't be taken seriously as a leader. He used the word stamina as he was clearly waning himself.

 

Her response was a controlled recap of her history of service. She shut him down and presented facts. That's debate 101.

 

Your bias shows in that you don't want to give her any credit. Her obvious wins you say are obvious answers, and you give Trump more credit for harming himself.

 

I don't expect you to like Hillary, ever. I'm not saying you're wrong generally speaking about the debate-- but the fact you won't give her credit where it might be due seems like bias to me.

[Guest]

I didn't watch, but it sounds like Hillary probably did better, but it isn't exactly a net loss for Trump. She won, but she had to win. Trump needed a win, but even more he needed to just not be completely incompetent.

[monkeygirl]

I know I'm a grammar Nazi (and very poor typist) and in most cases, it doesn't matter. But to watch a man who is running for President not be able to string two ****ing words together in the English language is ****ing ridiculous. Can't he be disqualified on this, alone??

 

This was, at least, a debate-more than recent debates have been. It wasn't very boring and there was an attempt at fact-checking. They each lied their faces off regarding things that are easy to check, but Trump interrupted at an epic level. I can't see one redeeming quality in him. He presented himself as he has always; a big, narcissistic, misogynistic, illiterate waste of hair.

[Poe Dameron]

He kept it nebulous cause he was smart enough to not just outright say he thinks a woman wouldn't be taken seriously as a leader.

 

Now that's DEFINITELY reading into it something that's not there. This is the same guy who took down Jeb Bush for being "low energy"? Add in a health scare and this is par for the course for Trump based on whoever his opponent is.

 

 

Your bias shows in that you don't want to give her any credit. Her obvious wins you say are obvious answers, and you give Trump more credit for harming himself.

 

I think the bottom-line what I'm saying is that if she'd turned in that same performance against Romney or even Bush 43, she would have come out well behind. It wasn't a strong debate from her. The answer you're leaning on really didn't come off all that well. It WAS Trump self-destructing that pulled her through. And even that had to wait until Trump got tired and made a series of mental errors.

 

An experienced debater could have easily put her on her heels.

[Driver]

Out of curiosity, who's the best Dem debator in your opinion?

[Marc DuQuesne]

Online polls all have Trump as the winner. Guess she didn't cover the spread. People so dumb.

[Darth Krawlie]

Online polls are easily rigged. Are you new to the Internet?

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

Out of curiosity, who's the best Dem debator in your opinion?

 

In my lifetime for presidential candidates? That's a pretty easy one: Bill Clinton by a rather large lead. After that, Kerry I suppose followed by Obama and Gore. Can't say I've particularly thought about it.

[Marc DuQuesne]

Online polls are easily rigged. Are you new to the Internet?

I know they are. I also know that people are dumb enough to think Trump won.

 

There were so many times somebody who was prepared could have roasted her. I would listen to him start talking then start shaking my head asking the TV "why?".

 

The Iraq War question - he chases his tail for two minutes barely even mentioning Clinton. Why not "First, listen to the Cavuto interview and you will here me say 'maybe we shouldn't be doing this yet, maybe we should wait for the U.N.' Second, I was a businessman working hard to grow my companies. I did a few interviews for PR. I was not a U.S. Senator with access to the pertinent intel and the duty to make a responsible decision about sending our young men and women into harms way. Hillary Clinton had that duty, I did not. She voted to destabilize......." so forth on that vein. Spend 10 seconds on defense then attack.

[Carrie Mathison]

Tank, I'm loathe to defend Poe, but his comments have been pretty fair. From a more non-partisan, objective standpoint, there's nothing particularly objectionable about anything he said. I think you're just getting a little wrapped around the axle since Poe is talking about Clinton in a detached way, and not fawning over her performance. He did give credit to the things she did well in his first post, when he discussed how she was better in maintaining debate composure and pivoting (both true points). I'm not detecting any subtle jabs here; I think you're reading a little too much into it.

 

The fact is, he is sorta right about this. This debate was more of "Trump losing" than "Clinton winning," if that makes sense. Clinton has never been known for her debate prowess and I suspect, behind closed doors, she'd even be willing to admit as such. If you go back and watch some old 08 debates, it's pretty obvious that Clinton is just not in the same league as someone like Obama. But here's the thing, she didn't need to be a debate superstar, and she knows that too. It's not as if she was going up against Christie or Gingrich. Clinton had to maintain composure, appear presidential, and bait Trump enough in the hopes that eventually he would take it and go off on tangents and get off message. And that's exactly what happened.

 

Clinton won the debate, not decisively, but she won. Trump won the first half, when he was sticking to message and the issues that he wins on (trade), which perhaps not coincidentally, are probably the issues he cares most about (maybe even the only issue that he truly cares about, based on decades of interviews from him). Clinton is also very weak in that area, from both the left and right, so you know she was probably searching for ways to get out of that ASAP. Around the tax returns portion, the momentum started shifting. From this point on, Trump starting getting flustered, too defensive and routinely got off message, which allowed Clinton basically 45 min to appear above-the-fray. The openings for Trump were certainly there- for example, with tax returns, Trump could have easily pivoted quickly to Clinton's Goldman Sachs speaking fees, while adding a finishing touch of claiming to be the only candidate that's not bought by Wall Street. Or take another example, the cybersecurity question was basically a slow pitch right over the plate that Trump could've used to go off for a good few minutes on Clinton's email scandal. But not a word was said...

 

So that was the story of the second half. Trump got put off his game and then started missing the easy points. A lot of missed opportunities that would've put Clinton in some tricky spots. Trump did have the better first half though, so at the end of the day, the effects of the debate will be something of a wash. As I said before the debate though, that helps Clinton. Trump probably won't lose support from this, but he was a couple points behind Clinton going into the debate, and desperately needed this to propel him into the lead. Clinton won't gain a ton, maybe a couple points... I'd be shocked to see anything more than 3-4, but either way, Clinton didn't need anything more than a draw, and so she's in good shape coming out of this.

 

As I said before this debate, I believed it would be decisive, and I still think so. Trump needed to win it, and had he done so, the momentum was already on his side, so we would've gone through an exciting October that would probably come right down to the wire. Since that didn't happen, this is now Clinton's race to lose. There simply isn't enough time in six weeks for Trump to regain the momentum and then get a lead, absent something unlikely happening, like a complete meltdown of Clinton in the next two debates.

[Driver]

Online polls all have Trump as the winner. Guess she didn't cover the spread. People so dumb.

Correction-- polls on conservatives sites claim their guy won. Every site I go to, and almost equally informative, all of social media says Hillary won.

 

Links?

 

Tank, I'm loathe to defend Poe, but his comments have been pretty fair.

 

Despite my disagreeing with everything Poe believes, be it politics or opinion on what makes for good Star Wars, I have no problem conceding to him when I know he's right. He's one of the only people I am diametrically opposed to that doesn't assume because we disagree on everything that I am stupid. It's very rare to see that I think. And for all the ways I think he's wrong on an intrinisic level, I don't think he is stupid either. So I will generally listen to what he has to say.

 

That said, even when he's right, that doesn't mean I can't wind him up a bit. I think ol' Hil did okay. Again-- not a shut out by any means, but she didn't win by default because Donnie got in his own way. We can all hate her, but she has a crap ton of political experience and education Trump doesn't and that shouldn't be discounted because Trump's failing was more grandiose than her succeeding.

[Justus]

 

Online polls are easily rigged. Are you new to the Internet?

I know they are. I also know that people are dumb enough to think Trump won.

 

There were so many times somebody who was prepared could have roasted her. I would listen to him start talking then start shaking my head asking the TV "why?".

 

Prepared? He--and his ever-changing team--never thought that was necessary. Most of his platform is based on fueling the fear and resentment of voters who believe the States were "captured" by some Super-Skrull-like Muslim/African/atheist/Black Liberation Theology mouthpiece.

 

For that voter, he did not need to say much else, and certinly not prepare. That's why his supporters said nothing about the 90 seconds he spent proving he still does not know what the Nuclear triad is, contradicting himself in the same sentence. But that horrifying lack of knowledge for one running for president does not matter. His supporters see him as the Male who will put women and violent minorities in their place, build The Wall, and hit ISIS "hard," yet not get the U.S. involved in more middle east conflicts.

[Ms. Spam]

HAHAHA! Fox News tells it's talking heads not to be so freaking stupid for pretending online polls are legit.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9

[Marc DuQuesne]

So, the fact checking by Holt bother anybody else? Hillary asks for it so he starts giving his opinions?

 

The one that irritated me the most was stop and frisk. If I were Trump I would have asked him if he wanted my podium when he kept arguing. I decided to look it up to make I sure I had my facts straight.

 

Here is paragraph 2 of the Executive Summary of Sheindlin's opinion.

 

"The Fourth Amendment protects all individuals against unreasonable searches or seizures. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to “stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” “Reasonable suspicion is an objective standard; hence, the subjective intentions or motives of the officer making the stop are irrelevant.” The test for whether a stop has taken place in the context of a police encounter is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter. “‘To proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous.’'

 

She never ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional (she affirms that it is early in her decision), she ruled that the NYPD was applying it unconstitutionally. The judgement was against the NYPD and the City, not stop and frisk. If Holt had said "It was ruled that Stop and Frisk was applied unconstitutionally in New York" I would be cool with that, if it were part of his question.

[Poe Dameron]

Yeah, Holt was definitely playing 2 on 1 against Trump there. No doubt. His questions for Clinton were basically policy-based. About 1/3 of his questions for Trump were about controversies. Zero of those types of questions for Clinton. I hate to go back to the media is unfair well, but dammit if they don't keep proving it's true.

 

At this point, I'm with the people calling for the complete abolition of moderators for presidential debates. If they can't be professional, then we can do without them. Agree on half a dozen broad topics per debate and let them fight it out from there. Give strict time limits and cut off mics between their appointed times.