Hillary wins due to the fact that she played the debate like you would want Deryk Engelland to play hockey. She didn't do anything noticeable in a negative way.
Trump though hung himself with his statements. You can just look at the ads that will come from this.
He needed a home run to deflect from this weekend. He did not even come close. In fact his performance probably will cost the Republicans the Senate and House.
Locker room talk.
Didn't he say America was stupid?
He also contradicted his VP.
He said Hillary was strong at the end.
My biggest question was did he do enough to stop the GOP from abandoning him financially? Or will they truly push all the money and resources down ballot leaving Trump with zero ground game, analytics, etc.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I think image/temperament wise Trump didn't look as bad overall out of this debate because the moderators and format held his interruption and overbearing and rambling somewhat in check.
Content wise it was a dumpster fire for the first half, the stuff about Bill, throwing Clinton in jail, answering Islamophobia with fear mongering... crazy.
The real question is what does this change for Trump? He needed a complete victory to stop the tide, and I don't think he came even close.
He didn't throw a punch so I think that may stem the tide of GOP lining up against him for a while until the video fallout hits the polls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drak
I'm hearing draw? Some give the edge to Trump...
I watched on PBS and after the debate Mark Shields and David Brooks both had him winning on the grounds that he did enough to stop the slide and exodus (giving him particular praise for his attacks regarding her emails, which the right love) and she failed to do enough to drive the dagger in.
And if you're in the mood for some more politics, PBS is re-airing The Choice 2016 (which should be available though the Frontline website soon).
I watched on PBS and after the debate Mark Shields and David Brooks both had him winning on the grounds that he did enough to stop the slide and exodus (giving him particular praise for his attacks regarding her emails, which the right love) and she failed to do enough to drive the dagger in.
And if you're in the mood for some more politics, PBS is re-airing The Choice 2016 (which should be available though the Frontline website soon).
That's a technical win on lowered expectations. If the question was asked did Clinton lose any votes tonight I think the answer is no. So that's a huge victory on technical grounds of doing what they needed to do to win the election. Essentially anything but a knock out blow by Trump or a failure by Clinton is a Clinton win. Trump stopping a slide gets him back to losing by a lot.
IMark Shields and David Brooks both had him winning on the grounds that he did enough to stop the slide and exodus (giving him particular praise for his attacks regarding her emails, which the right love) and she failed to do enough to drive the dagger in.
I'd agree with both assessments, but calling that "winning" is the very definition of grading on a curve.
His emails attacks weren't cogent or accurate, he even gets it wrong on destroying them, there was no acid or bleach involved, and the software was free not a very expensive process.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
