I’m baffled that people think Trump won. Clinton won handily. Of course, despite that, I actually think neither of them came out of the night looking that good. Heck, Trump may have come out looking better as all he really needed to do was not look like a complete buffoon and he sorta did that. Comparatively, Hillary needed to present herself as likable and she really didn’t do that at all especially with that creepy smile plastered across her face.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
CNN's poll gives the edge to Hillary by a massive margin.Apparently lots of the polls giving it to Trump were flooded by trolls.
Evidently, yeh. There's loads of reasons the online polls are unrealistic. People from any nation and any age can vote, it's not actual voters. It also requires people to actively be searching for the winner of the debate, which tend to be people who didn't even watch it. Then you have youth bias etc....
The CNN poll had its flaws too, but if you had to pick which was more reliable, the CNN one would win by far.
I thought a debate was where you point out the flaws/inconsistencies with anothers response, find the holes in their arguments, cite facts/previous events to base your policy positions, and outline substantive policy ideas off the aforementioned. Neither of them really seemed to do that and the fact that we're basing our perspectives off of the comments that Trump made, and that Hillary seemed to look maniacal is pretty sad.
Originally posted by carthage
I thought a debate was where you point out the flaws/inconsistencies with anothers response, find the holes in their arguments, cite facts/previous events to base your policy positions, and outline substantive policy ideas off the aforementioned. Neither of them really seemed to do that and the fact that we're basing our perspectives off of the comments that Trump made, and that Hillary seemed to look maniacal is pretty sad.
Didn't see the debate; any truth to this comment?
"Trump did pretty well considering he was debating two opponents. No questions on pay-for-play, Russian uranium, private server, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, refusal to hold press conferences, her interventionist militarism, "Basket of Deplorables, etc. While Trump was asked the most ridiculous questions. BUT this is what we have come to expect from mainstream 'journalists'"
Originally posted by carthage
I thought a debate was where you point out the flaws/inconsistencies with anothers response, find the holes in their arguments, cite facts/previous events to base your policy positions, and outline substantive policy ideas off the aforementioned. Neither of them really seemed to do that and the fact that we're basing our perspectives off of the comments that Trump made, and that Hillary seemed to look maniacal is pretty sad.
Except that would be a simple debate of Right vs Left, conservatism vs liberalism. It's more effective politics to try and erase your own weaknesses while keeping your opponents, than point flaws in their plans. Anyone who knows what Trickle Down Economics is is either for or against it, Clinton explaining the flaws she sees is merely a waste of time, vote for vote, compared to showing Trump lacks a good temperament.
I'd enjoy an actual policy debate much more, but it's simply not good politics.
Originally posted by TrocityTwo opponents is right, as in Clinton and himself.
Didn't see the debate; any truth to this comment?"Trump did pretty well considering he was debating two opponents. No questions on pay-for-play, Russian uranium, private server, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, refusal to hold press conferences, her interventionist militarism, "Basket of Deplorables, etc. While Trump was asked the most ridiculous questions. BUT this is what we have come to expect from mainstream 'journalists'"
Originally posted by Trocity
Didn't see the debate; any truth to this comment?"Trump did pretty well considering he was debating two opponents. No questions on pay-for-play, Russian uranium, private server, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, refusal to hold press conferences, her interventionist militarism, "Basket of Deplorables, etc. While Trump was asked the most ridiculous questions. BUT this is what we have come to expect from mainstream 'journalists'"
Semi, it's true that a lot of that didn't come up. Problem is, most of the "questions" people fault the moderator for asking were introduced by Clinton. The questions were general, if a candidate wanted an avenue of attack they brought it up themselves. The only direct questions were supposed to be from recent news, IE the Birther scandal which Trump himself brought back into the limelight.
As Ziggy so gracefully points out, Trump just missed every opportunity to attack on the issues you mentioned. Who on earth would ask a question about refusing to hold press conferences given the topics, same with the Clinton Foundation. She even explained her "interventionalist" tactics in the debate, Trump just didn't push her on it.
(Side Note: Yes, your quote outright lies. She was asked about her email server, and unlike Trump, didn't drag out the question and simply admitted she was wrong.)