The New American Politics thread

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Drak

Van Jones? He's usually on there.

Haven't watched too much to be honest. Very impressive.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why stop him? He only digs himself deeper the more he talks.

She should just come to the next debate with a sign that says "Seriously?" that she holds up to the camera every time he finishes talking.

I think those were her best moments. Like after the birther question where she started with did you listen to what he just said

[photon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why stop him? He only digs himself deeper the more he talks.

Yup, I think they prepped her really well for that, she was pretty unflappable.

[justafan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

She should start picking White House drape colours.

No, Bill Clinton will be picking drapery colours. Also be picking the china etc.

[AltaGuy]

At many points there I genuinely felt Hillary's pain: when having an argument with someone who has no logical thought pattern it's hard to keep up. And when there is no knowledge and no thought pattern, you really do wonder if it's you who is losing it sometimes...

Whoever told her to smile and laugh it off gave the right advice.

[Looch City]

This is amazing. I've never been this entertained watching TV since last hockey season.

[Minnie]

Dan Rather's take:

Dan Rather
48 mins ·

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever civility once existed in our politics is tonight officially dead. Never in the history of televised debates have we witnessed such a show. And that’s what the Donald wanted. A show. He got it, but will he be seen as the hero or the villain?

If you are a fan of Hillary Clinton, I suspect you are thrilled with her poised and confident performance. Perhaps her crowning line was “I prepared for this debate and I'm prepared to be President”. If you are a fan of Donald Trump, his quarrelsome, no-holds-barred approach, often facts be damned, will likely in turn have thrilled you. The question is what does everybody else watching think and how many impressionable voters remain?

Taking a snapshot of the debate stage this evening, two candidates behind podiums, each representing one of the major political parties, it would seem to be the latest chapter in our quadrennial dance with democracy. But experiencing the event, in sound and motion, it was of course anything but.

From the very beginning, the body language tonight was striking. HIllary Clinton, the first woman ever to be on this stage was calm and substantive. Donald Trump interrupted often and slouched and sneered as he turned to address her. This is what Trump’s fans like about him, playing the alpha male at all costs. Clinton seemed completely unflustered, which is what her fans love about her. How this all plays to the majority of viewers and voters at home will be in the eyes of the beholder.

But I was surprised by how much this man who has made so much of the means of television spent not looking into the camera, but preoccupied with his adversary. Trump came across as amped, a pacing tiger ready to pounce on every answer. His Interruptions suggests little regard to the rules. He’s itching for a fight...Wants to swing wildly.

At one point early in the debate Clinton, after multiple factually questionable assertions by Trump said, "I have a feeling by the end of this debate I'll be blamed for everything," Clinton said. Trump replied, “Why not?” That about summed it up.

Clinton clearly wanted to get under Trump’s skin. She attacked him for getting a hefty amount of money from his dad, challenging the narrative that he was a self-made man. And then attacking his business practices. The headline she was aiming for is Donald the Deadbeat. And then on the issue of Trump’s unreleased tax returns, when Clinton says that was because he may not have paid any taxes, Trump responded, “that makes me smart.” Expect to hear more about this.

Clinton was clearly the policy expert, nimbly jumping from topic to topic, policy to policy. But she was also much more able to paint a big picture than I have seen in times past. I thought she was particularly effective on the issue of race and especially the birther lie against President Obama. She had the facts on her side, but also it was an effective appeal to fire up her base.

In the end, more than all of the specifics, I was struck by how unprecedented was the overall tenor - matching that of the campaign. We once held certain truths to be "self-evident" - that "all men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These were the lofty ideals that served as a rallying cry for the founders of these United States to choose liberty over tyranny. The man who wrote these words, Thomas Jefferson, and his compatriots were imperfect and in some cases deeply flawed men. Yet their idealism fixed a North Star in our democratic firmament that has guided our ship of state ever since, with some very noted moral detours. Now I fear that the tide of progress is rapidly receding with the fierce undertow of a looming tsunami.

Our Founders believed in reason and the power of intellect. Donald Trump made clear tonight by his wilful ignorance of important issues that he does not. Our founders feared the accumulation of power, they loathed vanity, and tried to build in protections against the demagogues who would appeal to mankind's basest instincts. Donald Trump relishes in all of these impulses. For him they are instinctual and a prescription for success.

To call Trump a con man, as many have, is a disservice to the art of the con. By its definition a con requires deceit. But Trump has not tried to hide his lies or the sheer unrealistic audacity of his cartoonish policy positions. He has asked the American people to bet on him. The fact checkers will certainly weigh in. The pundits will have their say. But the voters have all the information they need. The judgement is in their - or more accurately our - hands.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I dunno. I just don't see how Trump doing terribly will hurt him at all.

It hasn't so far, what makes this any different?

Most people didn't start paying attention until tonight.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If we do get another debate, the town hall should be even more favorable to Hillary. Trump will have to be way more subdued and be much better with policy. I'm sure he'll actually prep a little this time, but to even have a chance he'll have to put in several hours a day until the next one. Will he? I kinda doubt it.

[Minnie]

I never thought anyone would be able to make Palin look like a Mensa candidate but Trump managed it tonight.

[Dogbert]

CNN's poll had Clinton winning the debate, 62-27.

The poll skewed Democratic by a 41-26 margin, but still, a resounding win.

[Drak]

Where is Buster at?

[jammies]

Next debate she should ask Trump if the real reason he didn't pay income tax is that his businesses lose spectacular amounts of money and if it is true that only a continual influx of naive investors keeps him out of yet another bankruptcy.

[photon]

Part of me hopes he refuses to do the next two debates just because then I won't feel compelled to watch them.

[GirlySports]

gotta say Fox News is pretty fair. Heck they had Mark Cuban on!

[octothorp]

I'm a big believer in narrative, and Clinton did a great job of linking everything back to the narrative of Trump as a self-interested businessman who'd screw over anyone to make a buck and hold no personal accountability for it. And Trump, amazingly, helped her out with all these little "it's called good business" retorts.

On the other hand, Trump needed to link everything back to the existing narratives about Clinton's untrustworthiness. He didn't mention Benghazi once, even though she gave him an opening by talking about Libya. He did bring up the emails once when challenged on his tax returns, and yet while the conversation could have stayed on the emails, he felt the need to direct the conversation back to talking about and defending his own business.
His calling her on the flip-flop on TPP was probably his best moment of the night, but he failed to link to any sort of narrative of dishonesty. Instead, he tried to claim that she had a lack of preparedness regarding trade, and I don't think preparedness is really a narrative that's going to work against her.
(Edit: actually he did work some of that dishonesty theme in, as he said that she'd go back on it as soon as she was in office. But without really highlighting her track-record of lying elsewhere, it lacked weight). He even criticized her for being too honest about publishing her plan to defeat ISIS.

It's plausible that the dishonestly narrative was never something that the Trump campaign planned to hit her on in this debate, but if so he should probably fire those responsible in his campaign. Far more likely, he was unable to think about such simple debate strategy on his feet.

[GirlySports]

The US going around asking other countries for protection money gets me every time. It's like 1930s Al Capone.

[bob-loblaw]

Is it my imagination, or did Trump insinuate that his 10 year-old son hacked the DNC and not the Russians? He's so good on the computer.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Is it my imagination, or did Trump insinuate that his 10 year-old son hacked the DNC and not the Russians? He's so good on the computer.

I didn't even know Trump had a 10 year old son. I thought he just meant grandson, cousin or something.

[#22]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Is it my imagination, or did Trump insinuate that his 10 year-old son hacked the DNC and not the Russians? He's so good on the computer.

The Best