Trump is weak he got pushed around up against the ropes etc.
He can do no right but I have a feeling he says **** it next time.
He can do no right but I have a feeling he says **** it next time.
Today's analysis
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
To be clear I hope he doesn't go nuts because undecideds don't want to see that. I hope he just takes it on the chin from the Monday morning in PR CNN quarterbacks and goes on his way trying to convince the last 20%
He does need to go after Hillary on her open wounds for sure and I think he will but as far as bluster I don't think he needs to do what he did to little Marco and lyon Ted and low-energy jeb and rand Paul's haircut.
He does need to go after Hillary on her open wounds for sure and I think he will but as far as bluster I don't think he needs to do what he did to little Marco and lyon Ted and low-energy jeb and rand Paul's haircut.
He DOES need to prep better. (This is his bad, it's on him.)
He WILL lay into the open wounds. (The new campaign folks didn't magically forget about all the devastating and low hanging fruit. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.")
Every debate in recent history, with the exception of the 1st Romney-Obama debate, was scored by the media for the Dem.
The question is, how did any of it affect the undecideds?
I used to take Kraut as gospel truth, but in the last 5 years am more discerning on him. But he had a post-game analysis that was pretty spot on....
Hill won debate if measured on tactics (put Trump on defensive) and some policy familiarity. But this debate was ALL about temperament. The over-arching narrative going in is that Trump can't be trusted to be President. He went 90 minutes on stage with a professionally politician without major gaffe or outburst. That naturally elevates him to her level. The draw, then, goes to the challenger. She needed to do more damage, because Trump will only grow stronger in following debates.
Me again: The blowing winds are winds of change. He needs to tighten up his debate message, practice not being defensive, and this is his.
He WILL lay into the open wounds. (The new campaign folks didn't magically forget about all the devastating and low hanging fruit. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.")
Every debate in recent history, with the exception of the 1st Romney-Obama debate, was scored by the media for the Dem.
The question is, how did any of it affect the undecideds?
I used to take Kraut as gospel truth, but in the last 5 years am more discerning on him. But he had a post-game analysis that was pretty spot on....
Hill won debate if measured on tactics (put Trump on defensive) and some policy familiarity. But this debate was ALL about temperament. The over-arching narrative going in is that Trump can't be trusted to be President. He went 90 minutes on stage with a professionally politician without major gaffe or outburst. That naturally elevates him to her level. The draw, then, goes to the challenger. She needed to do more damage, because Trump will only grow stronger in following debates.
Me again: The blowing winds are winds of change. He needs to tighten up his debate message, practice not being defensive, and this is his.
That last paragraph is where I am Cbrad, but He must articulate it.
The silver bullet in the spot where her heart should be is medical marijuana and allowing banks to participate without the fear of federal prosecution. I know we have said it over and over but it's right there for the taking and his campaign handlers need to be shaken and made aware of this. Leaving it on the table is unacceptable.
The silver bullet in the spot where her heart should be is medical marijuana and allowing banks to participate without the fear of federal prosecution. I know we have said it over and over but it's right there for the taking and his campaign handlers need to be shaken and made aware of this. Leaving it on the table is unacceptable.
Thats insane because it's literally being reported by no one (I'm sure Fox will report it). I really don't think some folks can get out of their own way. By not reporting this it's only going to gain more traction with folks that are leary of the media which are folks that are the undecided voters. Each side is going to have their hard core supporters that will vote one way regardless. I'm almost in that category myself and if there was a better option being offered by the D's it would give me long pause but neither HRC or their runner up spoke to me. I'm the most hated demo out there, college educated white male, to most I'm the problem.
I told my wife last night and I still believe this, HRC looked the most like a politician and to me that's why she lost. Talking heads on TV want more politicians because they like the screwed up system. They are the folks that have a desk with papers scattered all over the place but don't want anyone to clean it up because "they know where everything is." The problem with that is it shouldn't be a system where only a few folks know where everything is.
I told my wife last night and I still believe this, HRC looked the most like a politician and to me that's why she lost. Talking heads on TV want more politicians because they like the screwed up system. They are the folks that have a desk with papers scattered all over the place but don't want anyone to clean it up because "they know where everything is." The problem with that is it shouldn't be a system where only a few folks know where everything is.
From what has happened in the past when the internets gets involved there very well may be thirty questions about marijuana.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-two-the-questions-are-on-the-ballot/501791/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-two-the-questions-are-on-the-ballot/501791/
Trump was like a lifetime MMA (mixed martial arts) fighter getting into a boxing match against a skilled and experienced boxer (which removes his street fighting advantages), and an extremely overbearing (and paid off by the mob) ref.
He needs to be better prepared next time.
He has very limited opportunities to speak directly to the American people --- most people's exposure to Trump is limited to short corporate media curated and edited clips / sound bytes aimed at making him look bad.
Maybe none of it will matter though, if people truly want change. (Hillary embodies the establishment, and things continuing on the current path)
He needs to be better prepared next time.
He has very limited opportunities to speak directly to the American people --- most people's exposure to Trump is limited to short corporate media curated and edited clips / sound bytes aimed at making him look bad.
Maybe none of it will matter though, if people truly want change. (Hillary embodies the establishment, and things continuing on the current path)
I work around a few undecideds and one raging Hillary supporter. All of them, including the Hillary hugger, think that the predebate media outburst and the skewed moderation hurt Hillary. The Hillary hugger said that people don't trust Hillary already, and he said it looks like Team Hillary rigged the debate. An interesting take from a die-hard Hillary supporter, but then the three undecideds all agreed.
It will be interesting to see what the polls do.
It will be interesting to see what the polls do.
Most are seeing Hillary as too polished and just another politician.
Many undecideds saw Hillary as snarky and smug. She's in trouble.
Many undecideds saw Hillary as snarky and smug. She's in trouble.
My analysis is that it is nauseating that one of these two jokers will be POTUS.
Mega, you do realize that those are not actually "polls" as polls = a random, representative sample of likely voters don't you?
Even non-citizens (anyone with access to the internet) could simply vote (and by logging off and on) cast multiple votes. On, most of those "polls" their security system did not prevent the use of pre-programmed bots to cast multiple votes.
Those results are about as reliable as Baylor Rivals, conducted a poll as to whether or not Art Briles was "shafted" and should be rehired.
Do you honestly think that those going to Drudge Report to cast their votes are in any way representative of the US voter at large?
Just like the results of Baylor poll would undoubtedly be completely lopsided in favor of Briles, while the overall US population of college football fans would be the exact opposite.
While I agree with your overarching point that these polls aren't scientifically selected, let's not pretend that Drudge was the only one who had an online poll. What about Time Magazine?
Vito, perhaps this well help you understand why these online "polls" are worthless.
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/31
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4
Just common sense should indicate to you that any "poll" which allows one to cast multiple votes, that is not in any way representative of the relevant population and which allows for "self-selection" as a participant is not in any way reliable.
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/31
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4
Just common sense should indicate to you that any "poll" which allows one to cast multiple votes, that is not in any way representative of the relevant population and which allows for "self-selection" as a participant is not in any way reliable.
The Trump campaign was sending out emails to supporters as well as placing ads online, listing all the places where they could go and "cast" a vote online. Do you think that Drudge was the only place where they were motivated to go an vote?
Have you not every been online and see the comments sections, about Joe Paterno being dominated by Ped State supporters? Do you think those websites, while perhaps related to college football but in no way related to Ped State drew an inordinate number of Paterno supporters, who were represented in a number way, way beyond that of the general public who has a negative opinion of Paterno?
I just posted two articles that explain why these types of "polls" are utter bullshit.
You can coll them "polls" all day long, but that does mean that the word used in that context, means that they are scientifically designed polls that have any validity.
- The two "articles" you posted are not put out by a disinterested party
- You're insane if you think the DNC/Clinton campaign wasn't pushing groups to vote in these polls as well
- Have you ever looked at the comments sections on the websites of many of the organizations who did these online polls and viewed how dominated they are by screeching left wing nut jobs (and the same is true for some conservative websites too)?
- I never disputed that the sampling isn't scientific. That Trump could convince enough people to vote online that he won the debate in something like 17 out of 20 online polls and in many cases by a wide margin may not be scientifically valid, but I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think it has any meaning/value
- I don't support Trump, although I'll readily admit I support anyone running over Hillary. I personally think Trump was all over the place and, while he scored some points, he missed some golden opportunities to bust her chops much more.
- My gut tells me Trump is building towards the last debate to unleash a more intense and focused attack on Hillary. I don't claim to know if that's the correct strategy, but that's what this feels like to me. She will likely do the same.
I don't think anyone on this board thinks that these snap polls are necessarily scientific. However, I'm wondering where all of the pro-Hillary snap polls are.
BUT BUT BUT they did matter when Hillary was leading. Now that one says Trump won debate is all lies. The spinning by people in this election cycle has just worn me thin. Hell even those donks on the Morning Animals are talking politics. Is everyone a freaking political reporter now? My god the election is in November a winner will be declared and it is ok and not racist to have a different opinion in life. My god everyone is getting out of control. Dude I need no help with anything this election cycle. Trump got my vote because the media is in the back pocket of hers. I want someone in office the media will rat out if they do wrong doings not help hide their sins.
She may have "won" in an academic sense but the polls tell a di
Of course I do. Do you realize what it implies visa vie voter enthusiasm?
Of course I do. Do you realize what it implies visa vie voter enthusiasm?
Why is @hollywood lecturing?
Welcome to the board Wood. Get to know everybody. You'll find most are a lot more intelligent than you seem to estimate.
Welcome to the board Wood. Get to know everybody. You'll find most are a lot more intelligent than you seem to estimate.
I don't think this debate changed a damn thing.
The polls were trending Trumps way and I expect that to continue now that he is getting ready to unload 150 mil in ads.
A lot of people say he missed opportunities but basically kept his powder dry for the last debate then it will be both barrels.
The polls were trending Trumps way and I expect that to continue now that he is getting ready to unload 150 mil in ads.
A lot of people say he missed opportunities but basically kept his powder dry for the last debate then it will be both barrels.
No, next time he needs to fvck the rules and DDT her ass. Then run after the moderator and choke that sob out. End of discussion.
So I guess only the CNN poll that shows Hillary as winning is the only accurate one?
The more I think about this, the better I feel.
The major advantage Trump has on Hill is trustworthiness. That's odd to hear, but it's as simple as you may not like/trust him particularly as a husband or rich businessman, but he's never violated PUBLIC trust. His "defensiveness" may have been coached...to preserve that trust advantage by providing context to Hills charges.
Keep the trust, win the day.
Side benefit is keeping his best powder dry.
In this instance, his best bet may not have been first-mover advantage:
1. Open by hitting her hard on areas of some policy vulnerability, notably rust belt manufacturing economic concerns. Gives undecideds some policy meat to latch on to.
2. Anticipate that she's going on the attack, she needs to in order to negate his trustworthiness advantage...be prepared with reasonable responses that provide context.
3. Make no major gaffes. Don't lose your cool. Be as presidential as possible.
He was/is never going to win on debate tactics as they unfold play-by-play, as he mentioned, she's a 30 year veteran at this stuff.
Don't try to overpower her by going tit-for-tat arguing over who is worse. Just let her (and Lester) do their thing. Fight round 1 to a draw knowing they largely spent their good stuff by now inoculating you to similar attacks down the road. And you've got your good stuff to lob in round 2 or 3.
The major advantage Trump has on Hill is trustworthiness. That's odd to hear, but it's as simple as you may not like/trust him particularly as a husband or rich businessman, but he's never violated PUBLIC trust. His "defensiveness" may have been coached...to preserve that trust advantage by providing context to Hills charges.
Keep the trust, win the day.
Side benefit is keeping his best powder dry.
In this instance, his best bet may not have been first-mover advantage:
1. Open by hitting her hard on areas of some policy vulnerability, notably rust belt manufacturing economic concerns. Gives undecideds some policy meat to latch on to.
2. Anticipate that she's going on the attack, she needs to in order to negate his trustworthiness advantage...be prepared with reasonable responses that provide context.
3. Make no major gaffes. Don't lose your cool. Be as presidential as possible.
He was/is never going to win on debate tactics as they unfold play-by-play, as he mentioned, she's a 30 year veteran at this stuff.
Don't try to overpower her by going tit-for-tat arguing over who is worse. Just let her (and Lester) do their thing. Fight round 1 to a draw knowing they largely spent their good stuff by now inoculating you to similar attacks down the road. And you've got your good stuff to lob in round 2 or 3.
Hillary Clinton needed to achieve two major objectives in last night's debate, and she didn't even get close to achieving even one of them.
First, she needed to offer a bold new vision to contrast with the tour de force that is Donald Trump and his plethora of issues that have taken the country by storm and that have garnered the support of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, young people and old people alike.
She failed miserably if she even tried at all.
Secondly, she needed to totally discredit Donald Trump, to make him so ridiculous that it couldn't have been even a possibility for right-minded people to vote for him as president.
Once again, she failed miserably at this.
Hillary and her supporters should be panicked right now.
First, she needed to offer a bold new vision to contrast with the tour de force that is Donald Trump and his plethora of issues that have taken the country by storm and that have garnered the support of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, young people and old people alike.
She failed miserably if she even tried at all.
Secondly, she needed to totally discredit Donald Trump, to make him so ridiculous that it couldn't have been even a possibility for right-minded people to vote for him as president.
Once again, she failed miserably at this.
Hillary and her supporters should be panicked right now.
Really thinking there was some sort of "rope-a-dope" strategy being played by Trump and his team last night. For as hard as he rails on Hillary at his campaigns, both scripted and unscripted, he sure seemed reluctant to bring up anything concerning emails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, etc. when he had every opportunity to do so. Having said that, he did look unprepared. But who wouldn't going against a ruthless career politician like HRC who has prepared her whole life for that moment? Given that it's his 1st time to debate 1-on-1 at a setting like that, I'll give him a pass. However, he needs to check his ego at the door when it comes to his Net Worth as it's glaringly obvious that is the chink in his armor in a debate setting. Can he accomplish this or is he too thin skinned? We shall see in debate #2.
In summary, Hillary won but no knockout blows were exchanged last night which plays in Trump's favor in the next 2 debates IMO.
In summary, Hillary won but no knockout blows were exchanged last night which plays in Trump's favor in the next 2 debates IMO.
Unfair but I would argue it gave him more opportunities to pivot and go after her than he took advantage of.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Is It Fair To Use Donald Trump’s Words (And Attitude) Against Him?- Latest: soonerinlOUisiana