Trump/Clinton Debate #3 Thread

[Skjellyfetti]

The debates in order, went to: Clinton decisively, Trump decisively, Trump by a small margin.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c[/youtube]



The polling doesn't support you.



You can disagree with it if you want and that's ok. But, "winning" the debate isn't about convincing you. It's about convincing a majority.

Every single poll taken after ever single debate had Clinton winning.

But, JSO and I are the deluded ones.





Look, Trump did a great job of energizing his base during all three debates (and, especially the last two when he "took the handcuffs off"). But, that's all it did.

It went from a very close race and a coin flip... to a possible landslide.



93 and BDK:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/youtube]

[Wedgebuster]

As a long time Republican in the most Republican State on the map, I have to say..



This is it... one dollar a bottle. It works wonders on wounds.

[Baldy]

The polling doesn't support you.



You can disagree with it if you want and that's ok. But, "winning" the debate isn't about convincing you. It's about convincing a majority.

Every single poll taken after ever single debate had Clinton winning.

But, JSO and I are the deluded ones.

Well, you and JSO are The Hildabeast's biggest cheerleaders.

These media driven "scientific polls" are no different than the fraud of media driven "fact checking".

[DSUrocks07]

The debates in order, went to: Clinton decisively, Trump decisively, Trump by a small margin.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c[/youtube]



The polling doesn't support you.



You can disagree with it if you want and that's ok. But, "winning" the debate isn't about convincing you. It's about convincing a majority.

Every single poll taken after ever single debate had Clinton winning.

But, JSO and I are the deluded ones.





Look, Trump did a great job of energizing his base during all three debates (and, especially the last two when he "took the handcuffs off"). But, that's all it did.

It went from a very close race and a coin flip... to a possible landslide.



93 and BDK:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/youtube]

That big margin sure helped President Kerry in 2004 cruise to victory...oh wait...

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

[DSUrocks07]

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

[89Hen]

The polling doesn't support you.

It actually does. People are predisposed so they're going to vote for their candidate in these polls. The fact that the number has a sharp downward trend shows that Trump won over some people over the course of the debates. I do NOT like Trump, but he (and Wallace) crushed Hillary in the first 30 minutes of the last debate before she starting chipping away to make last half pretty even.

[Skjellyfetti]

It actually does. People are predisposed so they're going to vote for their candidate in these polls. The fact that the number has a sharp downward trend shows that Trump won over some people over the course of the debates.

That's not how it works, Hen.

In 2012, Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate and it was reflected in the polling. It wasn't a reflection of people's "predisposed" views. People weren't predisposed to support Romney - it was a pretty big upset.

You could argue that this year is different and the polls just reflect people's predisposed sides. But, you'd also expect the polls to back you up. Trump certainly did better in the second debate than he did in the first debate.

However, poll numbers started to fall off a cliff (both nationally and in battleground states).

When they had the first debate, the race was essentially a coinflip. Clinton and Trump were polling even nationally and many battleground states looked like they could go to Trump.

Now Clinton has a 6 or 7 point lead nationally. She has an advantage in the battleground states. She's putting states like Georgia and Alaska in play.

Trump is at his lowest right now - if Trump was winning people over in the first two debates - it would have shown up in the polls. It didn't. The opposite happened.

[89Hen]

You could argue that this year is different and the polls just reflect people's predisposed sides. But, you'd also expect the polls to back you up. Trump certainly did better in the second debate than he did in the first debate.

[89Hen]

When they had the first debate, the race was essentially a coinflip. Clinton and Trump were polling even nationally and many battleground states looked like they could go to Trump.

Now Clinton has a 6 or 7 point lead nationally. She has an advantage in the battleground states. She's putting states like Georgia and Alaska in play.

Trump is at his lowest right now - if Trump was winning people over in the first two debates - it would have shown up in the polls. It didn't. The opposite happened.

We're talking about who won the debates Jelly, not who is winning the race. Trump is losing ground because of many other factors, the debates not being one of them. Kerry won the debates and lost the election. Romney won the debates and lost the election. You're smarter than this.

[Skjellyfetti]

But, I thought the debate polls just reflected people's "predisposed" side?

Make up your mind.




I'm saying that by every objective measure she won the debates.

And, Romney won 1 of 3 debates.

[89Hen]

But, I thought the debate polls just reflected people's "predisposed" side?

Make up your mind.

They do, there is really no denying that.


BTW, I think it's funny that these same people say...

But after Bush won either time wouldn't accept it.

[Wedgebuster]

Interesting about the independents answering that they will not accept the result..


Who is their candidate?

[89Hen]

Interesting about the independents answering that they will not accept the result..


Who is their candidate?

Good catch.

[89Hen]

BTW Jelly, these are the kind of people they poll...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxXty6vEBA[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqm5hmBHzl8[/youtube]

[OL FU]

But, I thought the debate polls just reflected people's "predisposed" side?

Make up your mind.

They do, there is really no denying that.


BTW, I think it's funny that these same people say...

But after Bush won either time wouldn't accept it.

I guess my question to the pollster would be what does "accept the election" mean? Does it mean acknowledge who won? Then yes. Does it mean accept this persons positions as what should be enacted? Then no.

[Ivytalk]

They do, there is really no denying that.


BTW, I think it's funny that these same people say...

But after Bush won either time wouldn't accept it.

I guess my question to the pollster would be what does "accept the election" mean? Does it mean acknowledge who won? Then yes. Does it mean accept this persons positions as what should be enacted? Then no.

89's graphs are much better than Jelly's. We have a new CS Graphmeister!

[GannonFan]

They do, there is really no denying that.


BTW, I think it's funny that these same people say...

But after Bush won either time wouldn't accept it.

I guess my question to the pollster would be what does "accept the election" mean? Does it mean acknowledge who won? Then yes. Does it mean accept this persons positions as what should be enacted? Then no.

I agree, caught up in all the hoopla about whether Trump would accept the election or not was the question of what that even means and what happens if he doesn't accept it. Frankly, nothing happens if he doesn't accept it. It doesn't matter and everything will still proceed as it would if he did accept it. There's no process or Constitutional mandate that requires the loser to do anything. There's not even anything that requires them to be there when the new President takes the oath of office - even the outgoing President doesn't need to be there. Sure, it looks better and it's more mature to be a good loser, but it's not mandatory.

[93henfan]

GF's post reminded me of the hub bub this week about the letter that GHW Bush left in the Oval Office for Bill Clinton wishing him well. The press lavished all kinds of headlines about lost civility in a backhanded slam against Trump.

I hope I wasn't the only one who was wondering why not a letter showing Bill Clinton welcoming GW Bush? That would be more telling on how Clintons handle themselves. This might be Snopesable, but I seem to recall horror stories of how the Clintons failed to "peacefully" transition. But that's how corrupt, unethical, nasty people act. Yet our wonderful media completely framed the story the way they wanted it to read to their target liberal audience.

Then there was the charity dinner in NYC yesterday. Both candidates were hurling low blows galore, and I happened to watch CBS morning news and the morning shows and they said that Trump (only Trump) was below the belt.

Trump is correct about the rigging.

[BDKJMU]

The polling doesn't support you.

Notice how KY didn't give a link. I suspect this is a series of purported "scientific" polls from one of the lefty sites like CNN. Not much more scientific than the online polls most of whom showed Trump winning all 3 debates..

[89Hen]

I hope I wasn't the only one who was wondering why not a letter showing Bill Clinton welcoming GW Bush? That would be more telling on how Clintons handle themselves. This might be Snopesable, but I seem to recall horror stories of how the Clintons failed to "peacefully" transition. But that's how corrupt, unethical, nasty people act. Yet our wonderful media completely framed the story the way they wanted it to read to their target liberal audience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/wh ... .html?_r=0

The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said today that ''damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex'' in the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The agency put the cost at $13,000 to $14,000, including $4,850 to replace computer keyboards, many with damaged or missing W keys.

Some of the damage, it said, was clearly intentional. Glue was smeared on desk drawers. Messages disparaging President Bush were left on signs and in telephone voice mail. A few of the messages used profane or obscene language.

[93henfan]

I consider the people here reasonable people for the most part, and the people who were here commenting on the debates were in decent concensus during the debates.

Clinton dominated #1.
Trump dominated #2.
Trump started dominating #3 and then tripped on his dick toward the end making it a virtual draw.

I don't care what the polls say. The American general public is frighteningly dumb and easily swayed by immediate media reaction.

The objective folks here are a better gauge in my opinion. I definitely hate Hillary, but I am not so blind not to tip my hat objectively to the victor. She won the first debate and will win the election.

[BDKJMU]

When they had the first debate, the race was essentially a coinflip. Clinton and Trump were polling even nationally and many battleground states looked like they could go to Trump.

Now Clinton has a 6 or 7 point lead nationally. She has an advantage in the battleground states. She's putting states like Georgia and Alaska in play.

Trump is at his lowest right now - if Trump was winning people over in the first two debates - it would have shown up in the polls. It didn't. The opposite happened.

We're talking about who won the debates Jelly, not who is winning the race. Trump is losing ground because of many other factors, the debates not being one of them. Kerry won the debates and lost the election. Romney won the debates and lost the election. You're smarter than this.

Yep. Between the Khan spat, Miis Universe spat, the sex tape and the 9 women all of a sudden with the years/decades old allegations, I think the debates have probably kept Trump from losing more ground than he otherwise would have. Put it this way, take away the debates as if they'd never happened. I think Trump would be down more than he is now.

[93henfan]

I hope I wasn't the only one who was wondering why not a letter showing Bill Clinton welcoming GW Bush? That would be more telling on how Clintons handle themselves. This might be Snopesable, but I seem to recall horror stories of how the Clintons failed to "peacefully" transition. But that's how corrupt, unethical, nasty people act. Yet our wonderful media completely framed the story the way they wanted it to read to their target liberal audience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/wh ... .html?_r=0

The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said today that ''damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex'' in the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The agency put the cost at $13,000 to $14,000, including $4,850 to replace computer keyboards, many with damaged or missing W keys.

Some of the damage, it said, was clearly intentional. Glue was smeared on desk drawers. Messages disparaging President Bush were left on signs and in telephone voice mail. A few of the messages used profane or obscene language.

So yeah, there you have it. They are nasty people. I hope Congress can get the impeachment done this time.

[CAA Flagship]

We're talking about who won the debates Jelly, not who is winning the race. Trump is losing ground because of many other factors, the debates not being one of them. Kerry won the debates and lost the election. Romney won the debates and lost the election. You're smarter than this.

Yep. Between the Khan spat, Miis Universe spat, the sex tape and the 9 women all of a sudden with the years/decades old allegations, I think the debates have probably kept Trump from losing more ground than he otherwise would have. Put it this way, take away the debates as if they'd never happened. I think Trump would be down more than he is now.

Meh. You would also have to factor in the WikiLeaks stuff that shows Clinton and her team to be the criminals that we thought they were.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK7q8icg8Nc[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

To me that graphic provides even stronger evidence that Clinton won. Yes, you can see that people are pre-disposed based on partisanship. But Clinton was +77 among Democrats as compared to those who thought either Trump won or it was a draw while Trump was up +44 among Republicans in those terms. She clearly won. And people who think Trump did are in denial.

It also gets worse if you start looking at questions about who came off as looking more like they knew what the hell they were talking about.