Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

Trump is winning overall. One reason, the lessor reason, is Illery is seen as an extension of the current administration. The main reason is her.

--Brant

74 mins in

[KorbenDallas]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Illery's dismissive smiling is bad for her. It means she's not engaging.

--Brant

68 mins in

She's starting to look tired

[Brant Gaede]

Illery is floundering on Middle Eastern foreign policy. Now she's segued to domestic security. Not believable.

--Brant

77 mins in

[Brant Gaede]

Trump slaughters her on ISIS. And NATO.

--Brant

81 mins in

[Brant Gaede]

Trump gets strong on his history reference respecting against the Iraq war. Trump gets really stronger.

--Brant

83 mins in

[Brant Gaede]

Her smiling is killing her.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Nuclear weapons: 88 mins in

Illery sounds phony and contrived. Trump sounds real. Trump made some good points strongly.

91 mins in

Illery is not projecting any health issues.

Should a man or a woman be CIC?

97 mins in

[Brant Gaede]

Final question: Trump has a slight advantage on this one.

--Brant

99 mins in THE END

[Roger Bissell]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Socialism has been creeping in since 1932.  That is 84 years by my reckoning.  

I'd date it back to at least 1913. Think Federal Income Tax and Anti-Trust. 93 years and counting.

But FDR's New Deal was just a ramping up of all the statist stuff done half-heartedly by Herbert Hoover, who walked to the abyss of outright statism and then recoiled in horror. FDR campaigned - believe it or not - as the laissez-faire candidate, then did a total 180 once in office. He was basically the American Bismark, who gave the socialists half a loaf (way less than they were demanding) with the world's first social security program.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

20 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Her smiling is killing her.

She must have been on some sort of happy drugs. Totally fake smile pasted on.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

And Trump sounded like he either had a cold/allergy or some aftereffects of a cocaine hit...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anybody wants to vote in online polls about who won the debate, here is a very good list of them from the Conservative Tree House:

Polls, Polls, Polls – OK, Who Won the Debate?…

I voted in all of them.

 

Trump is generally cleaning up. The Drudge poll is screwed for some reason. It's been stuck at a few thousand votes since the debate ended (as of this posting). I am pretty sure this is due to a hacking or DDOS attack. (Note, as I finished this post, it seems to have been fixed. At least it accepted my vote and there are over 32,000 votes, which is about right if it just got fixed. btw - Trump is over 80% and Clinton under 20% so far.)

It's odd that the Time poll started out with Hillary killing it--she was in the 60's and Trump was in the 30's. Then Drudge posted the Time link on his site and the poll now stands at 59% Trump and 41% Clinton with over 470,000 people voting.

The CNBC poll (see here) also had Clinton winning by a mile--I think it was 69% Clinton 31% Trump. This poll isn't listed in the link above (as of this posting), which is why I linked it here. Right now, there are over 190,000 votes and it is at 51% Clinton 49% Trump. It will probably end up going to Trump in the end.

These online polls have certain safeguards against the same person (at least the same computer) voting more than once. And I'm pretty sure they have controls against proxy IPs (not all, but at least the sudden surge bombs). 

It would not surprise me to later discover that Clinton had a team of poll spikers, hackers, etc. hired to disrupt some of these polls, but there are simply too many polls to game. 

Expect to see results from many of these polls in Trump ads soon.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The CNBC poll (see here) also had Clinton winning by a mile--I think it was 69% Clinton 31% Trump. This poll isn't listed in the link above (as of this posting), which is why I linked it here. Right now, there are over 190,000 votes and it is at 51% Clinton 49% Trump. It will probably end up going to Trump in the end.

I just looked. There are over 220,000 votes and Trump is now winning 51% Trump and 49% Clinton.

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

I'd date it back to at least 1913. Think Federal Income Tax and Anti-Trust. 93 years and counting.

But FDR's New Deal was just a ramping up of all the statist stuff done half-heartedly by Herbert Hoover, who walked to the abyss of outright statism and then recoiled in horror. FDR campaigned - believe it or not - as the laissez-faire candidate, then did a total 180 once in office. He was basically the American Bismark, who gave the socialists half a loaf (way less than they were demanding) with the world's first social security program.

REB

Even before.  You can back into Teddy Roosevelt's administration.   Also Woodrow Wilson was a Statist from Hell. 

[KorbenDallas]

Pretty good post-debate summary on Hannity:

To add to the video, Trump could have pivoted to Benghazi, hit harder on e-mails--and where was the mention of his middle class tax cuts?  There are three debates, and I think this is part strategy, part missed opportunities.

[anthony]

Not very new I am sure, but all this has seemed to me about the pragmatist-(cum realist) individualist-Constitutionalists versus the social metaphysician-Progressivists (not fully accurate, as those in the first bloc who traditionally wish for g-ment involvment in others' private lives, should also be rated "social metaphysicians"). The 'order' of the day, is how people all over have absconded their individual power to governments. Expecting to be led away from Statism at this stage of the game by a free market politician, puts the cart before the horse and I think, is over idealistic. All in good time. Statism we have to accept for now - and what remains is: what kind of statism? I am strongly for the slide into Progressivist-statism in the US, and on a world-wide scale, having its brakes put on, after which the pendulum may/will swing back. America can show it is possible (and beneficial). May the best man win, I say.
 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even Michael Moore seems to think Trump won the debate:

Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line. U MUST get it in your head TRUMP IS GONNA WIN and act accordingly!

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) September 27, 2016

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even Michael Moore seems to think Trump won the debate:

 

 

 

Michael

Do you trust Moore's judgment?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Daily Mail put out a series of screenshots from polls all over the Internet about the debate.

Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
CNN's snap poll gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump's 27
But most of the others reported Trump was the winner by a landslide

I'm not going to embed 19 images, so if you want to see for yourself, they are at the link.

When people say CNN means Clinton News Network, there's a reason.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Do you trust Moore's judgment?

Bob,

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the topic. (Mostly not.)

But I wasn't presenting his rational judgment.

I was presenting his panic.

Michael

[Peter]

I agreed more with Trump, but Clinton won the debate by a 10 to 6 margin, in my opinion. He over-explained business decisions and sounded defensive. I could hear his heavy breathing as if he had taken a decongestant for a stopped-up nose, as Roger mentioned. His heavy breathy and wheezing was more pronounced and obvious on the Fox feed, and less so on the NBC feed.

Clinton was nearly constantly looking down to her right and infrequently down to her left at two different computerized note tablets. She was reading nearly verbatim whatever her “handlers” or her prepared notes told her to say, but she did it extremely well. Still, for me it brought up questions about her mental status and spontaneity. Others who saw the same thing saw nothing wrong and just thought of her as reading some prepared notes.       

Trump missed several key opportunities to pin her down about her dishonesty and flippancy.

Peter

The analysis of Gonzaga University anthropologist David B. Givens, director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Washington, who watched Monday’s debate without regard for the candidates’ words: Mr. Trump’s ordinarily confident body language looked oddly defensive this evening, rather than offensive, as per his previously bumptious appearances on the media stage. His usually confident, expansive hand gestures, head nods, chin juts, and pugnacious pouts were fewer, replaced by reactively more timid head shakes, diffident lip pouts, and lowered eyebrows. Ordinarily offensive, he was overall defensive this time around. Meanwhile, Sec. Clinton calmly smiled and assuredly made her political points verbally clear. Her body showed no reactivity to Mr. Trump’s comments; she was totally (presidentially?) in control.

Nonverbally, at least, Mr. Trump managed to control his anger (red face, slashing hand gestures, and overloud voice), but failed to show offense as he defensively shrugged his shoulders, grimaced, and repeatedly shook his head in the second half of his meeting with Sec. Hillary Clinton. While the latter looked confident overall, with her smiles and calm demeanor, the former definitely appeared stressed, uncomfortable, and nonplussed with his vocal interruptions, lip compressions, pursed-mouth expressions, and aversive tongue shows.

You may have noticed Mr. Trump’s hyperactive body movements as Sec. Clinton ticked off her debate points. These were uncontrollable on his part, purely visceral reactions, to words he could neither defend nor respond to with thoughtful remarks of his own. So instead, he responded with facial expressions and shoulder elevations—uncertainty shrugs—rather than politically thoughtful dialogue. As for her own verbal monologue, Sec. Clinton enunciated well, and her body-confident body language seemingly backed her up.

From Rasmussen. Tuesday, September 27, 2016. Hyper-competent bureaucrat vs. changemaker – that’s the choice Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump laid out for Americans at their first debate.

Clinton, looking rested and, as she said, “prepared to be president,” showed her facility with details as she cited new plans to tax the wealthy, invest in the middle class and create a special prosecutor to deal with violations by our partners in international trade deals. She noted her travels and negotiating success as secretary of State to demonstrate her seriousness of purpose. At the same time, she made it clear that she would continue the Obama Administration . . .

Byron York. HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — As he prepared for the crucial first presidential debate, Donald Trump knew moderator Lester Holt would bring up the birther issue. He knew Holt would raise Trump's tax returns. And his old position on the Iraq war. None are among the voters' top concerns, but it was eminently predictable that they would be part of the debate — not least because if Holt had not brought them up, Hillary Clinton would have.

But Trump might not have predicted that Holt would leave some equally, if not more, important topics untouched. There was Obamacare, currently veering towards crisis. Immigration, including a proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Clinton Foundation. Benghazi. Certainly a moderator can't cover everything, but those were some pretty big omissions.

Holt deserves blame for not bringing them up. But on the other hand, that is where a candidate's preparation comes in. If the moderator doesn't raise a key issue, the candidate does. And Trump didn't.

"The wall is a very important issue, and I am surprised that it wasn't brought up, frankly," one of Trump's key supporters and advisers, Sen. Jeff Sessions, said after the debate. "Also, they didn't bring up the Clinton Foundation. I mean, goodness gracious. So I thought there were a number of issues that could have been brought up that would have been troubling for Secretary Clinton that were not brought up."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

... but Clinton won the debate by a 10 to 6 margin, in my opinion.

Peter,

Granted, that's your opinion, but millions of voters disagree. And they're going to be the ones electing Trump, seeing how each one has a vote.

Such a great honor. Final debate polls are in - and the MOVEMENT wins!#AmericaFirst #MAGA #ImWithYouhttps://t.co/3KWOl2ibaW pic.twitter.com/sfCEE3I5pF

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2016

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Newt thinks Trump had an historic win last night.

But it was not because of any specific issue or argument. It was because of Clinton's strategy goals.

The linchpin of her campaign is that Trump is not fit to be president. Trump showed clearly that, agree or disagree, he does have a posture fit for high office. It was easy for viewers to see Trump as president, even if they were ones who hated the idea.

On a subconscious level, Clinton has been making people imagine that Trump as president would be a cross between David Duke, Alex Jones and The Rent is Too Damn High dude.

 

People did not see that, but instead saw a leader debating. Newt thinks the effects of this will not be seen for a few days, but it will be strong.

I agree with him.

Let's see if the numbers reflect it, but I think Trump had a massive image win with undecided voters last night. Some of the undecideds probably think Trump's speaking skill could be improved, but they could definitely see him as president. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And this speaks for itself:

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who like these things, the following analysis by Rush Limbaugh is spot on. (I say this because his comments reflect my own inner reality as a Trump supporter.)

Trump Changes It All! You Can't See This Debate Through the Traditional Prism

Here we have a debate. We have the elite media and pundits saying and analyzing how Trump got trounced (so they claim). We have Trump winning all the online snap polls with millions of people voting in them. And we have Rush saying you can't look at this like you normally do.

Does anybody have deja vu yet? 

   

Michael