Elections Hillary v. Trump Presidential Debate Three

[waiguoren]

While I agree that Trump was not beaten as badly in this debate as the previous one, he still did pretty much an awful job, and I would not expect any meaningful tightening. And I will explain why.

Trump has this habit. It is part of his nature and it can not be changed. When at his rallies, it does not hurt him, it might even help him. But at debates, it hurts him. It hurts him really, really bad.

That habit is called saying whatever the fuck pops into your head. And he does that regardless of whether it is relevant to the question he was being asked.

I have explained this to others on here before.

Go back and watch the debate again. No Hillary parts. Just Trump. Listen to the questions he is asked. Then listen to the answers. The vast majority of the time Trump is talking, what he is talking about has nothing, NOTHING to do with the question he was asked. And it's really quite amazing because he jets from topic to topic with lightning speed. He can be asked a question, then within 2 minutes talk about 6 different things, none of them related to the question he was asked.

Now, Trump supporters give zero shits about this. They are fanatics, and the majority of them (not all, but the majority) are poorly educated. But undecided voters, and educated voters, will actually care that you are not able to answer a fucking question.

Even educated Trump supporters are fed up with that. I watched the debate last night with my brother, who is supporting Trump, and it drove him fucking nuts.

He is not going to pull very many people over to his side as a result of last night

I propose to you the same bet I proposed to Jack. Current RCP average is Clinton +6.4. I predict that in one week's time the number will have fallen. Deal?

 

[Gervinho]

This demonstrates the stupidity of people.

She was being incredibly nasty. She is a woman.

He's just saying what everyone was thinking. She was insulting him for no reason at every turn. She is incredibly nasty and mean spirited.

How was she being nasty? She was bringing up the shit he said and used it against him. She set him up saying over and over he has nasty attitude towards women and boom he proved her right. She set him up saying what a paranoid person he is and even moaned about the emmys and boom he proves her right.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

trump's arguments never reach beyond his base. conspiracy theorists, fascists, and then a few legitimate conservatives. thats why this election, and the debates, havent been close.

so many of his claims cant be substantiated. "i gave to this and this charity." ok so how do we know? " no one has more respect for women than me....no one." ok do you have any evidence to support that? all we see is to the contrary. hillary does it too, but he argues like a teenager...or like people in the heavies.

 

[ehtheist]

While I agree that Trump was not beaten as badly in this debate as the previous one, he still did pretty much an awful job, and I would not expect any meaningful tightening. And I will explain why.

Trump has this habit. It is part of his nature and it can not be changed. When at his rallies, it does not hurt him, it might even help him. But at debates, it hurts him. It hurts him really, really bad.

That habit is called saying whatever the fuck pops into your head. And he does that regardless of whether it is relevant to the question he was being asked.

I have explained this to others on here before.

Go back and watch the debate again. No Hillary parts. Just Trump. Listen to the questions he is asked. Then listen to the answers. The vast majority of the time Trump is talking, what he is talking about has nothing, NOTHING to do with the question he was asked. And it's really quite amazing because he jets from topic to topic with lightning speed. He can be asked a question, then within 2 minutes talk about 6 different things, none of them related to the question he was asked.

Now, Trump supporters give zero shits about this. They are fanatics, and the majority of them (not all, but the majority) are poorly educated. But undecided voters, and educated voters, will actually care that you are not able to answer a fucking question.

Even educated Trump supporters are fed up with that. I watched the debate last night with my brother, who is supporting Trump, and it drove him fucking nuts.

He is not going to pull very many people over to his side as a result of last night

I've noticed this too. I mean, Hillary is evasive in that disingenuous politician kinda way, but it's calculated. Trump sort of motorboats across five different topics when asked a question and just occasionally runs over something related to the topic. He also sometimes lands some meme-calibre zingers while he's whipping around and those are, oddly, the strongest element of his debating style - pure style and showmanship, not anything substantive or calculated.

I think she won all three debates in large part because of this... But the zingers might sway the internet generation the other way for at least the second and third. I doubt it on the third - big time - but, who knows?

 

[cooks1]

I propose to you the same bet I proposed to Jack. Current RCP average is Clinton +6.4. I predict that in one week's time the number will have fallen. Deal?

Fuck polls. I predict that Hillary will win the election by more than +6.4

Deal?

 

[Strychnine]

I went in line obama 1 in the morning thinking the same, lines were long AF. Dont care for the presidential voting, I'm in Cali, just ready to reject all ballot measure for the heck of it.

You gotta vote to legalize it bro... It's on the ballot!!!

 

[waiguoren]

Fuck polls. I predict that Hillary will win the election by more than +6.4

Deal?

Deal. Sig bet. Let's move it to the bets thread.

 

[ehtheist]

Fuck polls. I predict that Hillary will win the election by more than +6.4

Deal?

You know, the funny thing is, I think that it’s Trump driving this election one way or another. If it were, say, Hillary VS Cruz I’m betting there would be a very low, perhaps historically low, turnout. Why? Because nobody likes either politician and they wouldn’t be motivated to get off their arses for either one.

Come November, we’re going to see two types of voters beyond those who get out and vote just because civic duty, I’m a Democrat/Republican, whatever, and those two types will be people who love or hate Trump. Hillary doesn’t inspire beyond a dull sense of nausea and a “Damn, do I have to?” Trump is inspiring both passionate hatred and love. Come election day, people will be going out to either bury or show their love for the man – but they’ll be going out to vote because of him, not the unlikeable hag.

I think this puts a different spin on the election than most – but I don’t know where it’ll go.

Anyways, not in for bets. Just sharing thoughts.

 

[Gervinho]

I've noticed this too. I mean, Hillary is evasive in that disingenuous politician kinda way, but it's calculated. Trump sort of motorboats across five different topics when asked a question and just occasionally runs over something related to the topic. He also sometimes lands some meme-calibre zingers while he's whipping around and those are, oddly, the strongest element of his debating style - pure style and showmanship, not anything substantive or calculated.

I think she won all three debates in large part because of this... But the zingers might sway the internet generation the other way for at least the second and third. I doubt it on the third - big time - but, who knows?

She come across so much more articulate and as evasive as she is, she answer the questions partly.....obviously the only part that she thinks you want to hear. But many times he went into whole other subjects. But all 3 debates there were moment he lost his temper and you could see he was fuming. For me he gave away some really big things last night. Like banning abortion, that will give her campaign even more things to hammer home next 3 weeks. When end of the debate all people talk about is you calling her nasty woman and not accepting the election. You have lost the debate big time

 

[drstrangelov]

I thought Wallace did a pretty decent job of not pussy footing around either one of them , in contrast to the rather slanted pussy footing that happened in the other 2 debates . That said , I fully realize that anything short of analingus concerning your canidate will be construed as " bias" . Wallace modestly pushed both of them .

The topic selection was interesting, as this was the first time we saw the candidates pressed at all on previously orthodox conservative talking points like the deficit and roe v wade. With no conservative candidate in the mix, the Fox News perspective did provide a balanced attack on both candidates.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh? How am I rationalizing my emotional reaction?

For example by accusing people who don't buy the GOP narrative of being "horribly biased" in favor of her. Or professing to believe, in the face of the facts, negative claims that have objective answers (such as that she's particularly dishonest for a politician).

The real question is, which one of you is the masculine force and which one is the feminine force?

If you run too far with the analogy. Point is simply that we have both made a lot of predictions, and all of his have been wrong and mine have not. Also, one can see the faults in his positions and his general irrationality in real time.

Can we turn this into a sig bet? Current RCP Average is Clinton +6.4. I bet you that in a week, this number will have fallen.

I'll think about it. I'd be balancing the fact that he was killed in the debate against my concern that he's already bottomed out and has lost supporters who are temporarily embarrassed by him but are normally loyal Republicans and likely to return.

Ed: See that cooks beat me to it. I'd take his side on the final tally (because I think that she'll do a little better than the polls suggest). If @cooks1 wants me to go halfies on the time, I'm OK with that.

You know, the funny thing is, I think that it’s Trump driving this election one way or another. If it were, say, Hillary VS Cruz I’m betting there would be a very low, perhaps historically low, turnout. Why? Because nobody likes either politician and they wouldn’t be motivated to get off their arses for either one.

Here is another example. Clinton's approval (and "enthusiastic support" level) among liberals is normal for a Democratic candidate. Your claim here is simply, objectively false. You believe it because you're rationalizing your own weird hatred.

 

[Rational Poster]

Fuck polls. I predict that Hillary will win the election by more than +6.4

Deal?

This isn't a good bet.

Historically the polls do tighten right before the election, the outcome remains the same but the undecided voters finally start picking something.

It's very unlikely for a good candidate in either party to win by more than 5 points.

This election will likely have record low turnout for both Republicans and Democrats so the numbers are going to get a little wonky.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Nice nitpicking. One lexicographer (whatever the hell that is) claims the terms aren't formal enough for a Presidential debate or aren't widely used.

Everyone knows what he meant. Saying you are going to cut taxes or increase military spending "big league" or "bigly" is not formal or widely used use of the words, but it's perfectly acceptable.

He's been using "big league" since he started running. The worst you can say is that it's slang.

Lexicographer , one who compiles dictionaries

 

[Fight To Win]

Thought Trump won it. He was much more composed and substantive than any prior debate I thought, which isn't to say he didn't get flustered at points but so did Clinton. Clinton was composed for most of the debate as well, I'll give her that much. She still did that forced laugh and smug smile combo a lot too to hide when she was flustered and she even got visibly flustered at times which did not happen in the prior debates.

This one is what I'm talking about:

Reminds me of Professor Umbridge from Harry Potter. Gives me the frigging creeps.

 

[ehtheist]

For example by accusing people who don't buy the GOP narrative of being "horribly biased" in favor of her. Or professing to believe, in the face of the facts, negative claims that have objective answers (such as that she's particularly dishonest for a politician).



If you run too far with the analogy. Point is simply that we have both made a lot of predictions, and all of his have been wrong and mine have not. Also, one can see the faults in his positions and his general irrationality in real time.



I'll think about it. I'd be balancing the fact that he was killed in the debate against my concern that he's already bottomed out and has lost supporters who are temporarily embarrassed by him but are normally loyal Republicans and likely to return.

Ed: See that cooks beat me to it. I'd take his side on the final tally (because I think that she'll do a little better than the polls suggest). If @cooks1 wants me to go halfies on the time, I'm OK with that.



Here is another example. Clinton's approval (and "enthusiastic support" level) among liberals is normal for a Democratic candidate. Your claim here is simply, objectively false. You believe it because you're rationalizing your own weird hatred.

Hrm... So, with all that's going on at the moment, you're still using the term "objectively" to refer to "facts" you're largely getting from either the DNC or mainstream media?...

 

[Fight To Win]

Anderson and co did not pressure Hillary at all in the second debate. Why pretend like they did? They did the best they could to protect her.

It was 3 vs 1 in there.

It was absolutely disgusting how they moderated that second debate. Imagine if they got that Van Jones guy to moderate a debate. That guy makes my blood pressure go up whenever I hear him talk.

You might not recognize his name but I'm talking about this douche from CNN:

He's like the ultra SJW.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hrm... So, with all that's going on at the moment, you're still using the term "objectively" to refer to "facts" you're largely getting from either the DNC or mainstream media?...

Polling agencies are part of the "mainstream media" or the "DNC"?

And if you think that the "mainstream media" is in league with the evil DNC, that would also sound like rationalization of irrational emotions.

Here's the thing: Think about *why* you would believe that polls are fabricated. It's not because there is evidence of such fabrication. And when you consider what is involved in fabricating polls and the risk to major companies of being caught doing that, it is just fantastically improbable. But you just jump to that assumption because you don't like the results. I think in another context, you'd realize how unlikely it is that such thinking would lead you to truth.

 

[cooks1]

You know, the funny thing is, I think that it’s Trump driving this election one way or another. If it were, say, Hillary VS Cruz I’m betting there would be a very low, perhaps historically low, turnout. Why? Because nobody likes either politician and they wouldn’t be motivated to get off their arses for either one.

Come November, we’re going to see two types of voters beyond those who get out and vote just because civic duty, I’m a Democrat/Republican, whatever, and those two types will be people who love or hate Trump. Hillary doesn’t inspire beyond a dull sense of nausea and a “Damn, do I have to?” Trump is inspiring both passionate hatred and love. Come election day, people will be going out to either bury or show their love for the man – but they’ll be going out to vote because of him, not the unlikeable hag.

I think this puts a different spin on the election than most – but I don’t know where it’ll go.

Anyways, not in for bets. Just sharing thoughts.

Yeah. Some people think I am cray-cray for predicting that big a margin of victory. And I have been wrong about shit before. I personally never thought Trump was actually serious about running. I thought he would be out of the race by the Iowa caucus. And I am still not convinced he even wants to be President.

The results of this election are going to tell us an awful lot about the way people make decisions in this country. While certainly taking advantage of technology, Hillary has run a fairly traditional campaign. Lots of advertising. Lots of popular high profile surrogates stumping for her in key areas. HUGE ground network.

Trump has spent very little on advertising. He has no popular, credible, high profile surrogates out there, and virtually no ground network. If this election ends up being really close despite all those things, it will permanently alter the way people run for President. And in an ironic twist of fate, that could actually help take money out of politics.

But if any or all of those things are still germane to getting votes, Trump could be in for a historic beating. And though I would not bet anything on it, I think the conditions are right for (potentially) a 300 electoral vote landslide. In addition to ALL the things I mentioned above, Trump has been catastrophically stupid when it comes to Texas. He has alienated the Bushes, who are popular there. He alienated Cruz, who is popular there. It is closer in Texas than some believe. If HRC gets Texas, it means she would likely pull GA, Iowa, and possibly AZ as well.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

She was insulting him for no reason.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There was a reason, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_(poker)

Worked brilliantly. Kind of unfair, though. Like this:



Starting at 2:48 (couldn't find the English version).