1st Presidential Debate (9/26)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:00 am

Smutly wrote:Latest polls post debate.

You're aware that almost all (if not all) polls at this point were conducted pre-debate (since it just happened 1.5 days ago? So it's misleading at best to refer to "latest polls post debate" at this point.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:07 am

El Guapo wrote:
Smutly wrote:Latest polls post debate.
You're aware that almost all (if not all) polls at this point were conducted pre-debate (since it just happened 1.5 days ago? So it's misleading at best to refer to "latest polls post debate" at this point.

Latest pre-debate post-debate polls?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:08 am

About those polls Trump and Rip are citing...

My favorite part is when he tells his audience that he won a non-existent poll.

In one case on Tuesday, Trump even cited a poll that did not exist. "I won CBS," he said on "Fox & Friends."

CBS correspondent Major Garrett took to Twitter to clarify: "We did not conduct a post-debate poll."

TheMix wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Smutly wrote:Latest polls post debate.
You're aware that almost all (if not all) polls at this point were conducted pre-debate (since it just happened 1.5 days ago? So it's misleading at best to refer to "latest polls post debate" at this point.
Latest pre-debate post-debate polls?

And look what happens if you dive into the data by clicking on the most recent results.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:14 am

The more he convinces himself that he won, the less likely he will be to change anything for the next debates. And I'm okay with that.

Now if he's just trying to convince the rest of us that he won, while recognizing the truth... Happily, I don't think that is how his mind works. I think that he's the first person that he'll convince.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:14 am

El Guapo wrote:
Smutly wrote:Latest polls post debate.
You're aware that almost all (if not all) polls at this point were conducted pre-debate (since it just happened 1.5 days ago? So it's misleading at best to refer to "latest polls post debate" at this point.

I'll correct. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:16 am

hepcat wrote: My favorite part is when he tells his audience that he won a non-existent poll.

He wins in all the best non-existent polls! Hillary comes in fifth in them in a four way race. Sad!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:22 am

Trump announced that he won the Venusian and Lilliputian polls this morning on Fox and Friends. Fox and Friends congratulated him.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:25 am

hepcat wrote: And look what happens if you dive into the data by clicking on the most recent results.

Even those don't reflect the debate at all. Only one (the USC poll) goes beyond this past Sunday, and I strongly doubt that the USC poll, while it has a date of up to yesterday, reflects the debate much if at all.

That said, that is a potentially useful baseline to compare once the post-debate polls do start coming in, late this week and early next week. Given the instant polls and what 538 has indicated about the correlation between those and horserace polls, it would be a disappointment if Clinton has less than a 4 point lead next week.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:26 am

Smutly wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Smutly wrote:Latest polls post debate.
You're aware that almost all (if not all) polls at this point were conducted pre-debate (since it just happened 1.5 days ago? So it's misleading at best to refer to "latest polls post debate" at this point.
I'll correct. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

No worries. As a side note, I'm also trying to quit cold turkey from constantly refreshing the 538 models, at least for a week or so. Let's see how long I last!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:26 am

El Guapo wrote: Even those don't reflect the debate at all.

I agree, I was just pointing out that the page he linked to doesn't even support what he was trying to throw out there.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:29 am

On Trump saying during the debate that he doesn't pay people because they didn't do a good job:

Tesoro answered Trump’s Monday night assertion that “maybe he didn’t do a good job” by providing a letter of recommendation that Trump wrote for him in 2006 when the job was completed. In the letter, Trump praised Tesoro as a man of vision and energy and said that he would recommend him to anyone who needs a “top-notch architect” for their project.

“Did he pay you on time?” asked anchor Craig Melvin.

“No, he didn’t. He paid partially along the way and the project snowballed over a four year period and our role in the project snowballed as well,” Tesoro explained. “We became very much involved in interior design and construction stage work. We made many supplemental agreements as we went along and in the end those agreements were not honored.”

link

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:31 am

I am only worried that Hillary was able to get under Trump's skin but not to crack his bubble of personality. Trump will be more willing to fight at the next debate, which presents more risk but also an opportunity.

On substance, Trump's trade policy would result in economic chaos -- Americans won't be able to afford Apple iPhones and other consumer goods if Trump embargoes or taxes Chinese imports. If Hillary can make the disaster of a Trump presidency relevant to a voter's daily life, undecideds should break in her favor.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:45 am

I was frustrated by that too - tariffs would definitely lower the standard of living and wouldn't necessarily keep jobs here. But that is just too hard to convey. This isn't the time to get into a nuanced discussion about how globalization is here to stay which is why I think she ceded it to him. He even pretended to be wonky here (mentioning a VAT) and it sounded smart but didn't make sense. A more efficient sales tax keeps jobs in Mexico? Come on. It is actually a cost to do business there.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:32 pm

YellowKing wrote:I saw a short post-debate interview with undecided voters and one older lady said, "I'm voting for the conservative party, and if Trump is the jackass pulling this mule train, then so be it." So yes, party for some people trumps (no pun intended) character.

It saves you a lot of thinking.

When I was a wee nipper (did I say that right A-B?) I asked my parents if we were Democrats or Republicans because it was an election year and all my little friends were declaring. I was sweet on a girl who liked Humphrey so I hoped we were Democrats. I suspected a copout when my parents said "We're neither -- we vote for the man, not the party" and then wouldn't tell me which man they were voting for because it was none of my damned business and they didn't want it blabbed around the school. Naturally, I became a Humphrey man because that's what Julie wanted and god, was she ever cute.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:09 pm

Another poll (one of the real polls) show's Clinton winning the debate 49-26.

(Looking at the numbers, it actually looks like those who were undecided are probably those who didn't watch the debate, though at least a few of those who didn't watch had an opinion.)

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:17 pm

Main stream media lies again.

Default · Post by **Default** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:24 pm

Kraken wrote: Naturally, I became a Humphrey man because that's what Julie wanted and god, was she ever cute.

Yes, but was she liberal with her affections?

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:44 pm

They're both just lucky they didn't have to debate this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8RB7UZHKI

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:49 pm

Defiant wrote:Another poll (one of the real polls) show's Clinton winning the debate 49-26.

(Looking at the numbers, it actually looks like those who were undecided are probably those who didn't watch the debate, though at least a few of those who didn't watch had an opinion.)

I suspect the 26% didn't watch the debate either.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:02 pm

Fox News internal memo: Hey dummies, online polls are nonsense and you should stop bringing them up.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:32 pm

Latest Election Polls

(Sorry, couldn't resist. I didn't get the memo.)

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:42 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:The mind truly boggles.
Then let's see what Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) thinks:

Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn’t at 100%.
Delusional doesn't even begin to describe his observations.

I looked through his other posts. The guy may draw a funny little cartoon strip, but he's an idiot.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:50 pm

Yeah, one thing I learned this election season is that Scott Adams is a giant idiotic douchenozzle. I wonder how all this has impacted his web traffic.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:28 pm

I imagine his strip mostly appealed to white men of a certain age, anyway, so it's probably not cutting into his core audience.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:No worries. As a side note, I'm also trying to quit cold turkey from constantly refreshing the 538 models, at least for a week or so. Let's see how long I last!

*slaps money on counter* I'm out!

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:36 pm

Fireball wrote:I imagine his strip mostly appealed to white men of a certain age, anyway, so it's probably not cutting into his core audience.

Dilbert does appeal to those 400 pound IT nerds, so maybe it will.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:35 am

This could also fit in the R&P picture thread, but seemed more appropriate here:

Mouseover: Networks: I am prepared to direct this pilot at a moment's notice.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:11 am

I read a good article (that I can't find now) about how Trump was furious with staff "conceding he lost the debate" by making suggestions on how to improve his performance in the second debate. The gist of it is that it's very likely that he will not only NOT take suggestions on how to improve his performance, he may double down on the stuff that lost him the debate in the first place. I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.

The article also pointed out that Trump doesn't understand the need to bring in people outside of his base, so he's not heeding warnings to appeal to women and minorities. He believes he can win off of angry white people alone, which we all know is false.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:16 am

YellowKing wrote: He believes he can win off of angry white people alone, which we all hope is false.

FTFY

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:29 am

Full frontal on the debate

Also, in a different clip, she pointed out this happened:

And then after leaving the stage, the Republican candidate made Hannity his first stop in the debate’s Spin Room.

Because Fox News normally follows debates with at least half an hour of coverage from their news team, Kelly may have been a little unhappy about tossing to Hannity.

“We’ve got Trump speaking to our own Sean Hannity,” she explained. “We’ll see if he speaks to the journalists in this room after that interview.”

Oh snap.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:30 am

YellowKing wrote:I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.

It baffles me that Trump seems to think bringing up Bill is some kind of magic arrow that will hurt Hillary and her campaign. The only real way it makes sense at all is if you subscribe to Josh Marshal's dominance theory of Trump... that if he feels he was humiliated by someone that he has an overwhelming compulsion to somehow bring them down and show his dominance over them.

I welcome him to try it, but beyond being an ineffective tactic on it's own, I'm sure Hillary has practiced scores of different responses to his bringing it up.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:44 am

Sepiche wrote:
YellowKing wrote:I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.
It baffles me that Drumpf seems to think bringing up Bill is some kind of magic arrow that will hurt Hillary and her campaign. The only real way it makes sense at all is if you subscribe to Josh Marshal's dominance theory of Drumpf... that if he feels he was humiliated by someone that he has an overwhelming compulsion to somehow bring them down and show his dominance over them.

I welcome him to try it, but beyond being an ineffective tactic on it's own, I'm sure Hillary has practiced scores of different responses to his bringing it up.

This issue is a land mine for Trump. If he steps on it Hillary simply has to point out that she worked on her marriage and is in fact still married (Maybe add in that their marriage is now stronger for it), whereas he cheated on several wives and then divorced them. Case closed.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:45 am

YellowKing wrote: I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.

The idea that Drumpf feels he wasn't Drumpf-y enough and will come out full Drumpf for the next debate is delicious. Whatever happens in the election, Drumpf is a giant buffoon and I sadistically enjoy watching him make an ass of himself.

EVERYONE knows Hillary stuck around when Bill went philandering. What can Drumpf add to that?

"Hillary, your husband was unfaithful and that's your fault".

While that might appeal to every cheater out there, I suspect anyone who could be swayed by that sort of logical leap is already in Drumpf's camp.

At this point I don't think Drumpf cares what happens as long as he hears the cheering of his fans. We could probably get rid of him just by hiring 20 people to surround him and constantly congratulate him on how awesome he is.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:48 am

He could argue that she's a doormat because she stayed with a man that cheated on her, but I can't see that making any headway either.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:50 am

GreenGoo wrote:
YellowKing wrote: I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.
The idea that Drumpf feels he wasn't Drumpf-y enough and will come out full Drumpf for the next debate is delicious. Whatever happens in the election, Drumpf is a giant buffoon and I sadistically enjoy watching him make an ass of himself.

EVERYONE knows Hillary stuck around when Bill went philandering. What can Drumpf add to that?

"Hillary, your husband was unfaithful and that's your fault".

While that might appeal to every cheater out there, I suspect anyone who could be swayed by that sort of logical leap is already in Drumpf's camp.

At this point I don't think Drumpf cares what happens as long as he hears the cheering of his fans. We could probably get rid of him just by hiring 20 people to surround him and constantly congratulate him on how awesome he is.

The main argument, as I understand it, centers around Hillary (and other people in the Clinton orbit) saying mean things about Clinton's accusers during the 90s. I think she called one of them looney-toons, or something? In any event it evidently means that Hillary isn't a real feminist, and so women should vote for Trump.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:15 pm

Right, I remember Rip trying something like that.

If you could prove she knew about the affairs, you might be able to make some headway with that sort of argument. Slandering women for telling the truth is never a positive quality (unless you're Drumpf, somehow). If she didn't know about the affairs and was just defending her husband? I gotta tell ya, that's some first class loyalty, although she probably should have apologized publicly afterward.

In any case, the idea that that is a fatal sin while Drumpf is running around doing his Drumpf thing is mind boggling. I guess it gives Drumpf supporters something to blow up out of proportion, but then who cares about them anyway. They've shown they are lost causes.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:33 pm

Scraper wrote:
Sepiche wrote:
YellowKing wrote:I fully expect he'll go for Hillary's throat this time bringing up infidelity and everything else nasty he can throw, and I can't wait to see the meltdown.
It baffles me that Drumpf seems to think bringing up Bill is some kind of magic arrow that will hurt Hillary and her campaign. The only real way it makes sense at all is if you subscribe to Josh Marshal's dominance theory of Drumpf... that if he feels he was humiliated by someone that he has an overwhelming compulsion to somehow bring them down and show his dominance over them.

I welcome him to try it, but beyond being an ineffective tactic on it's own, I'm sure Hillary has practiced scores of different responses to his bringing it up.
This issue is a land mine for Trump. If he steps on it Hillary simply has to point out that she worked on her marriage and is in fact still married (Maybe add in that their marriage is now stronger for it), whereas he cheated on several wives and then divorced them. Case closed.

Yeah, this entire 'angle' that Trump seems to think he has, just seem really really dumb.

And his congratulating himself over and over for NOT doing it.... what an infantile way of actually doing it.

I hope he does it too, it will help show how horrible he is.

AND WTF - the man himself is riddled with infidelity.... HOW on earth does he think this doesn't reflect on him. Baffling.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:58 pm

Let me tell you one of the most striking differences I saw in the debate. I was sitting here thinking about the possible attack vectors Trump had on Hillary for round 2, and it suddenly clicked.

When Trump attacked Hillary, she either ignored the attack (if it was minor, like the super-predator comment), or she responded simply and succinctly (like when she apologized for the email server). It basically took all the wind out of his sails, since he had no way to escalate the argument when she refused to respond in kind.

On the flip side, when Clinton attacked Trump, he went into rambling defenses. "Getting in the weeds" as many of the commentators said. This not only served to eat up debate time, it gave ample opportunities for Lester Holt to challenge him.

The Clinton team understood perfectly how to deal with a bully/troll, and Trump never caught on. He was completely tone-deaf to her strategy.

I don't see any reason why the same tactic won't work again. Trump is way too thin-skinned to let those attacks slide, and that's really the only way he's going to be able to stay on message.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:02 pm

Trump also buried many of his attacks in a lot of word salad and unexplained Breitbart-esque references, which dulled their effectiveness, and allowed Clinton to pick which part to respond. I recall him starting one point by hammering Clinton about deleted e-mails, but then it meandered into bizarre nonsequitor territory and basically let her ignore it.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:08 pm

YellowKing wrote:
I don't see any reason why the same tactic won't work again. Drumpf is way too thin-skinned to let those attacks slide, and that's really the only way he's going to be able to stay on message.

At least he has a good temperament. He said so himself.