Comments

Okay, okay—just one more post about the debate — 41 Comments

1. I believe that most voters are looking for someone who “looks presidential” and who makes them feel good, possibly checking off some tribal identity boxes. There is almost no thought about policy and consequences, just popularity and emotion.

   It’s why we are where we are today, and why we have as many problems as we do.

2. I am most struck by what no-one seems to be discussing. Only Trump mentioned our calamitous twenty trillion dollars of debt, as well as the disastrous low-interest policies of the Fed, and only HRC pandered egregiously to the false narrative of BLM and introduced into a supposedly serious debate a Venezuelan beauty queen whose past is certainly not pristine.

3. I guess I was among those who started to have hope. After all, just the act of using a teleprompter and sticking more or less to what it said, seemed like a step forward.

   I just don’t know if he was incapable of thinking on his feet to recall information from his prep sessions; or whether he was simply to arrogant or lazy to prepare for the biggest event of his short political career. Neither alternative projects a Presidential image.

   The whole evening started going down hill from the very beginning, when he let Lester the Jester precede every question with a gotcha straw man. Could Trump possibly have not anticipated this situation?

   One Trumpster commented on another forum that
   Trump was pitching to the least intelligent 4% of the electorate Can’t argue with that.

4. I don’t mind checking out a debate to see what’s happening, but I am always frustrated that no one ever gets to the bottom of the questions. For instance, on the Iraq theme, I’d love to know how much Trump had studied what was going on there be talking to Howard Stern. My guess is that he read something in National Enquirer that made him think he could lose money. And why didn’t anyone ask Hillary if she worried that reverting to a 1970s-style protester might feed then enemy’s idea that they only had to outlast our resolve? If nobody asks these kinds of questions, all we will get is spin doctors and Howard Dean comments. That’s hardly a good ground for choosing a president.

5. I nominate expat for moderator!

6. I’ve got to mention what is still my favorite political show of all time, Evans and Novak. Rowland Evans and Bob Novak were two long-time political reporters who shared a show for, I don’t know, decades. They were each capable reporters on their own, but together they were the best interviewers I’ve ever seen. If someone tried to sidestep a question, they’d ask a follow-up. If they still tried to evade it, they’d say they hadn’t gotten a complete answer and ask it again. As many times as necessary. I saw them go for a half-hour trying to crack an interviewee. You’d be surprised how effective they were. Politicians know that they’ve only got a few minutes on air, and they hate to look bad, so they’d usually break on the first re-ask. The hilarious thing about it is that they’d often go in two different directions. The first one would ask a question about A, then the second one a question about B, then the first one re-ask the question about A, then the second one demand clarification to the answer about B….

7. “One of the things that so frustrated me at that time was the number of conservatives who profoundly distrusted Mitt Romney. Now granted, he’s a politician. But as politicians go, the guy comes from the island of the truth-tellers. But he wasn’t good enough for a lot of people, and Obama was re-elected; perhaps in part because of that.” neo

   I never distrusted Romney, he’s a loyal member of the GOPe and has always acted in accordance with those values. He is IMO, an honorable man within the context of those values. So I voted for him, fully understanding that he is not in favor of Constitutional small government. And, did so because that was a far better choice than Obama.

   But under Romney, America would still be headed for the cliff’s edge, just at a much slower rate.

   As proof I offer the GOP congressional performance since 2010. Yes, the GOP had some sincere efforts on Obamacare but on illegal immigration and Muslim migration and H1b- visas, all far greater threats… it is on the side of the dems. That their motivation is different, makes little difference in the larger scheme of things. Obamacare won’t take America past the tipping point but just illegal immigration alone will do the job.

8. “–as well as the hugeness of the field–”

   I think you meant “bigliness.”

9. j e Says:

   Only Trump mentioned our calamitous twenty trillion dollars of debt, as well as the disastrous low-interest policies of the Fed

   Both good points, and both completely undermined by Trump’s bizarre rants in the last 2/3rds of the debate. By that point, people were just gawking at the train wreck. They didn’t hear the words, even if they hadn’t muted the TV.

10. In the immortal words of Sen. Ted Cruz: “Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?”.

    Unquantifiable beliefs I hold:

    * The average LIV doesn’t watch these. They wait for outtakes on TMZ or something.

    * The average high-information voter spends far more time looking at past history, and knows that a post-primary debate is a partially-scripted sideshow. There’s little to be gained from one, other than incidental value.

    * Those in the middle are often just looking for validations of opinions they already held, and for material for tribal water-cooler discussions, and maybe soundbites they can virtue-signal with. Not a lot more.

    (Is my cynicism dripping through yet?)

    Example of post-primary debate uselessness: The other day, I made mention of Mitt’s 59-point economic plan. I won’t fault Mitt, in his world, this is what you do; prove to the public that you’ve Thought This Through and Have a Plan and Know That Plan. But the reality is, Congress, all the 3-letter cabinet agencies with their untouchable administrators, and K street all have their own agenda. We’re still electing an executive, not a dictator (not expressly), or a monarch. So, on some level, watchers know any substance will go right out the window on inauguration day anyway. Great theory, but never a likely reality. Thus, reactions and gestures end up as the only meaningful takeaway, such as Nixon perspiring, or Al Gore sighing. How useful can those really be?

    I only watched a short burst of this one (partner was watching herself, I just happened by for a 10 minute burst). I walked away with a sense I was actually watching a game show. Later, I realized why; one of the two knew exactly what the questions would be, and had a ready script and hand on the answer button. They actually prepared, you know…

    (yes, the cynicism is unusually strong today…)

    In this particular cycle, a debate seems of atypically little use. One candidate is the establishment in all her glory, coldly using all power and manipulation available to guarantee a presence. The other is an angry, frustrated rebuke to a different side of the same establishment. Thus, today, any debate ends up more about entertainment than it is convincement.

    (I could argue that politics as entertainment has a long tradition anyway, but that’s an especially tragic reality this time around.)

    As I read somewhere, “we’re waiting for one to moon the audience, the other to pass out”. Neither occurred.

    Finally, I also wish that Mr. Johnson and Dr. Stein were participants. They are on actual ballots (not that I’d vote Green, but I’d like to know more about their thought process, and would have “made time” for viewing.). But that would dilute entertainment value, and a consequent loss of advertising revenue. Bad business, you know.

    OK, I’ll stop…

11. “What are a majority of voters looking for?”

    I think it’s about feelings. Feeling better about where the nation is headed, both socially and personally.

    Sander’s supporters and many of Hillary’s want America to… “finally be great”.

    On the right, most want America to re-embrace what made her great.

    It can’t be both.

    “There are two types of Americans: those who see the totality of our history and conclude, warts and all, that we are the greatest nation on earth. Then there are those who look at the same data and conclude our nation is fatally flawed and must be “fundamentally transformed.” Both sides are entitled to their worldview, but we are now learning the tragic consequences of putting that latter group in charge of the nation.” ata777

    Obama currently has a 50% approval rating…

12. No, she meant “yugeness.”

13. steve.c, 3:16 pm — “[O]ne of the two knew exactly what the questions would be, and had a ready script and hand on the answer button. They actually prepared, you know.”

    This touches on what I’ve been steaming about.

    No, not the part about knowing “exactly what the questions would be,” although I’m seeing things on the internet to the effect that the Clinton camp was tipped off in advance what questions Holt would be asking. I haven’t bothered to look into it; maybe yes and maybe no.

    Certainly, nothing the establishment does surprises me. It might help if Hillary! knew what questions Holt was *not* going to ask — Benghazi, anyone? reckless mishandling of sensitive information, anyone**? — as it would free up time for her to concentrate on only the questions she might know were going to be lobbed at her.

    ** [This latter is different from the e-mail issue when cast in isolation from the classified content aspect, and I’ve seen otherwise intelligent people focus only on the personal server, conveniently forgetting the classified content aspect of the situation. It’s very similar to purportedly intelligent people discussing immigration without bothering to distinguish between the legal kind and the illegal kind.]

    But my point here is, Hillary! was *preparing* for the debate-so-called. She was going to be well-prepared in any event, with or without tip-off.

    As for Trump, as a citizen of this once-great nation, I am extremely insulted that this horse’s ass of a candidate could not be bothered to prepare, evidently preferring the emotional high of bloviating before adoring crowds to doing his damn homework. I am insulted by the *contempt* he has shown me as a citizen.

    (Hillary!’s comeback zinger, that she is preparing for the presidency itself, would be 100 percent on target were it not for her manifold and damning shortcomings, which needn’t be delved into here.)

    Had Trump troubled himself to take the event seriously, he’d have been in a pretty good position to have hit a home run, rather than flailing at two-balls two-strikes with many foul balls to his (dis)credit.

    Our landlord neo is right in that since Trump began delivering prepared, telepromptered speeches, some of his shortcomings have receded from view, until this debate-so-called returned them to front-and-center.

    (I will reiterate for my own moral hygiene, and for anyone still reading this, that I’m *no* Trumpkin, that I have *major* issues with Trump, his aversion to *learning* about the job he wants, including the challenges that would be awaiting him, being only one of them. I need not delve into his manifold and damning shortcomings here, either. Since my vote for president(ial elector) doesn’t matter in California anyway, which will go Democrat in any event, I will be content to observe and whine to my heart’s content.)

14. I am interested in the political pundits reaction to the debate. Almost all say that Hillary won, but are cautioning that this is not a normal election. (Do tell?) None of them expected Trump to win the nomination. None of them quite understand the huge, enthusiastic crowds that attend his rallies. Most are now cautioning that one debate win doesn’t really mean anything because Obama lost (and quite badly) the first debate with Romney. None of them can quite explain Trump’s appeal because they are used to scripted, polished debaters who use focus-group tested words and ideas. They wonder how Trump maintains his appeal when he doesn’t fit the mold?

    During the primaries I wondered the same thing. I happen to know at least 14 people who are enthusiastic Trump supporters. Knowing them and reading about Trumps supporters gives me a better feel. Some are college educated, but most aren’t. Most are either self employed or people who have worked at jobs that don’t require a college education – welders, loggers, electricians, truck drivers, fishermen, farmers, etc. The Obama years have not been good for the self employed, the small businesses, the trades, the producers of raw materials, the service industry employees, etc., etc. They are the people that make the economy go, but because of anemic growth due to overregulation and tax policies they are hurting badly economically. A lot of them used to vote Democratic or didn’t vote. They are aroused to vote for Trump and; where we see a narcissistic, incoherent, poorly equipped amateur politician; they see a plain-spoken man who is unlike the slick politicians who have gotten us into this mess.

    We know a couple of young women who are self employed. They have just learned that they now have the choice of only two health insurance companies (neither of which has their doctors in network) because all the others have dropped out due to Obamacre. They are furious. They believed the mantra – “If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor. Period!” They can’t wait to vote for Trump, no matter how he did in the debate.

    The question is, “Are there enough of those voters out there to put Trump into the White House?” I don’t think anyone really knows.

15. steve c,

    Cynacism is perfectly called for in our current circumstances. Vote for the AAA rated buffoon or the corrupr criminal is a choice steeped in cynacism.

    GB@302,

    Yes, I am of a similar opinion. Often we must vote based on our assessment of the candidates innate character. Mitt won that debate hands down. Same goes for both Bushes. This time the characters of the two candidates are both equally repulsive.

    j e,

    Trump is on record as wanting to take on more national debt because (are you ready for it ?), interest rates are yugely low and djt understands how to leverage debt. As if the country is just another casino, golf course, or skyscraper and we can write off half of it through bankrupcy.

16. Neo:
    “…conservatives who profoundly distrusted Mitt Romney.”
    I’m as conservative as anybody, but Romney not being a doctrinaire conservative was not a big problem for me. It seemed to me that the bloated bureaucracy was due for the pragmatic approach of a business turnaround specialist who was definitely not a progressive.

    What bothered me about him was the surrendering of what should have been the central issue of the 2012 campaign – ObamaCare.

    Scott Walker won his recall election at least in part for a similar reason. The controversial (and successful) Act 10 curtailing public union bargaining was the cause of the recall, but the Marxists couldn’t make effective use of it, because Act 10 also abbrogated all the state’s union contract clauses forcing the government(s) to buy only the union mandated, wildly overpriced health plan. Once they could take bids on health care, they were able to save close to $100 million per year on that single expense.

    Walker’s opponent, the mayor of Milwaukee, was able to close a $20 million budget deficit by taking advantage of the health care provision of Act 10, so he couldn’t really exploit Act 10 in his campaign, and went with “re-uniting us” or some such lame slogan.

    (That’s a $100 million/year union ripoff in just one smallish state, so project that nationwide and you can begin to understand how unions can afford to be the largest player in every election.)

17. JJ:
    I agree with you. I know people like you describe.
    My wife and I are to a degree in that group. Trump was our last choice on the GOP side, but now he is our only hope to stop the slide of America. We believe that while Trump is not a policy wonk, he has and will surround himself with experience knowledgeable people who would publicly resign if he went all stupid. And under the 25th Amendment he would be removed from office by the cabinet if he became irrational as was discussed about Reagan over his possible dementia. Clinton will fill positions, as has Obama, with yes people with little integrity.
    And if we think Obama’s Executive Orders were unconstitutional and many are being challenged in court, I fear Clinton will go even further since the courts are so slow and she can do much harm to citizens rights in the meantime.

18. j e — I did notice and was so glad and impressed that Trump mentioned the Fed policies and the debt etc. HOWEVER, then he went on and made no sense a lot of the time or said crazy things like the thing at the end about Rosie O’Donnell. I mean no one but him and other Rosie haters really care about Rosie O’Donnell. I find her irritating but I don’t want her interjected into a presidential debate. LOL — It is true that Clinton introduced the beauty queen in, which is also petty but he followed it up with Rosie O’Donnell… not sure how that even connected. He could have put the latina beauty queen matter to rest if he had been on top of it. It is funny since later, after the debate, he said that this beauty queen was fat and they had issues with her because she kept getting fat. Now, that may be true but it seems like the worst thing to say if he is trying to attract women voters! “Oh yeah, her she was fat!” Haha — He can’t parse his words even for that. I know people like him for that, that he is direct and not PC or even close — and sometimes even i like him for that, but — it was one more weird thing to take away from the debate and sounds not very presidential. It makes him sound trivial. And, yes women may dislike that overall… the tone and all…

    I keep thinking that Trump and Kim Jong-un will get into it about their hair or something… and a war will begin. LOL –

19. Neo-neocon: I still cannot believe that Romney lost! Hardest election results for me! Broke both my emotional heart and my rational brain.

    My husband works in a hospital here in Massachusetts, the state is a bastion of liberalism, yes? He tells me that just about all the nurses he works with are in support of Trump! The women’s vote is not going for Clinton in his department.

20. parker,

    I am not particularly knowledgeable about economics beyond the basics. But I suspect a viable argument can be made that the stratospheric level of our indebtedness combined with an entitlement mentality makes conventional economic bromides inviable.

    It’s a given that even a successful recovery is going to be ugly.

    That the situation is such that only a leveraged buyout of our debt @ lower rates… combined with a growing economy (Reaganomics) can avoid an unrecoverable fiscal collapse.

    Sometimes, the counter intuitive move is the right move.

    Trump may, I say MAY… ironically be the one man with the pecular combination of qualities that could pull it off; i.e. con man, economically ‘flexible’, pragmatic and with a laissez faire attitude of “let the chips fall where they may”…

21. GB,

    There will be a real reset button event. Look at Japan as an example. Debt is 250% of gdp. An economy stalled since 1989. There is a lot of ruin in a nation, but a nation does not escape an eventual collapse at those levels. Imagine the collapse of Deutsche Bank. Bye bye euro. Imagine the collapse of the global economy. Too big to fail is an opium dream. Nothing is too big to fail given enough time, wishful thinking, and stupidity.

    Then, the answer will be global war, or if we are lucky a series of regional wars. Maps will be redrawn or perhaps there will be no maps for a few centuries. There is nothing new under the sun.

22. I am gratified that Trump can, with a shotgun on either side of his head, bite his tongue and swallow all the nasty things he really, really wants to say and stick with reading the Trump-lite words scripted on the teleprompter.

    That’s nice. Baby steps and all.

    However, this isn’t enough for 90-minute debates, unless a majority of voters really hate Hillary so much they will vote for Trump as long as he doesn’t fall to the floor and chew the carpet in public.

23. John Podhoretz, not a Trump fan to begin with, really slammed Trump’s debate performance:

    [Trump did] pretty well for the first 20 minutes.

    Then due to the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life, he lost the thread of his argument, he lost control of his temper and he lost the perspective necessary to correct these mistakes as he went.

    Methodically and carefully, Hillary Clinton took over. Her purpose was to show she was rational and policy-driven, the kind of person who could be trusted to handle a careful and delicate job with prudence and sobriety — and that he was none of these things.

    And she succeeded. By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.

24. MJR says Had Trump troubled himself to take the event seriously, he’d have been in a pretty good position to have hit a home run, rather than flailing at two-balls two-strikes with many foul balls to his (dis)credit.

    What perhaps is terrible is Trump has this strong populist appeal, which is probably strong enough that if he had a little more discipline and little less disdain for minor course corrections, he could probably put himself over on the unpopular Clinton.

    He just won’t make the effort, it seems. Not preparing for the debate is just another nail in the coffin he refuses to stop making.

    He never had to be perfect, he just had to be more disciplined.

    I don’t know, maybe I’m just really frustrated.

25. Jonah Goldberg, also not a Trump fan, has an interesting theory that Trump is deep-down an underachiever, which is to say he won’t put forth his full 100% best because it would be too devastating if he failed after giving it his all.

    By not doing so, Trump can always tell himself if he fails, “I did pretty well considering I barely tried.”

    Goldberg offers this theory based on his own experience as an underachiever in high school. I confess I fell into that syndrome some myself.

    Whether Goldberg has nailed Trump’s psychology or not, it is a fact that by conventional standards Trump has gone about his campaign in a shockingly slap-dash way — not preparing for debates, not learning basic facts about the US government and current affairs, not raising money til the last minute, not doing political ads consistently, etc.

    Maybe he is the genius exception to the rules. Clearly he likes to think so. But maybe he’s never been for-real serious about winning the presidency because he never thought he could win.

    That’s been my impression from the beginning.

26. groundhog, 1:47 am — “MJR says . . . .”

    Hey, thanks for the honorable mention!

    groundhog continues,

    “He [Trump] just won’t make the effort, it seems. Not preparing for the debate is just another nail in the coffin he refuses to stop making.

    “He never had to be perfect, he just had to be more disciplined.

    “I don’t know, maybe I’m just really frustrated.”

    Yeah, well, I *do* know, and *I*’m frustrated as *H#LL*.

    Yeeesh.

    See ya.

    [ plaintive smile ]

27. Sometimes the transcript can provide clarity without all the baggage of tone, facial expressions, etc.

    Read the transcript on trump’s response to nuclear first strike.

    Does this sound like somebody who knows enough to handle the nuclear keys, and deal with our enemies coherently?

    Notice how he lands on both sides of the question – he can claim he is against first strike while he is for it, simultaneously.

    Beyond the first strike question, ponder the implications of the rest of what he is saying.

    Seriously! Think about what that all means.
    .

    “I would certainly not do first strike.

    I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.

    And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I’ve ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.

    And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.” – trump at the Sep 26 debate
    http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential-debate-transcript/

28. Big Maq:

    You know how little I care for Trump. And I also consider him the most inarticulate person to ever run for president in my lifetime (on policy issues, that is; not on insulting other human beings).

    However, having studied him rather intensely this year, and having read quite a few of his utterances on nuclear weapons during my research, I can say that I think I well understand what he was saying and that there is no contradiction. This is in part based on many other statements of his which are actually unusually consistent on the topic (for Trump, that is; not for your run-of-the-mill candidate).

    Translating, here it is (my addition in bold):

    I would certainly not be inclined to do first strike.

    I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table.

29. Sometimes it is worth stepping back and wondering if we are really the ones contributing to all that we claim we hate about politics…

    “Bryan Caplan gives a number of apolitical reasons to hate politics. I agree with them all, but want to add one more. Here are his:

    “- I hate the hyperbole of politics. People should speak literal, measured truth or be silent.
    – I hate the Social Desirability Bias of politics. People should describe reality as it is, not pander to wishful thinking.
    – I hate the innumeracy of politics. People should focus on what’s quantitatively important, not what thrills the masses.
    – I hate the overconfidence of politics. People shouldn’t make claims they won’t bet on, and shouldn’t assert certainty unless they’re willing to bet everything they own against a penny.
    – I hate the myside bias of politics. People should strive to be fair to out-groups, and scrupulously monitor in-groups, to counteract our natural human inclination to do the opposite.
    – I hate the “winning proves I’m right” mentality of politics. Winning only proves your views are popular, and popular views are often wrong.
    – I hate the excuses people make for each of the preceding evils.”

    To these I would add: I hate how people treat politicians as personal saviors. I can’t even understand how people can permanently glue a politician’s name to the bumper of their car.
    “ – Coyote Blog discussing Bryan Caplan’s list
    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/09/reasons-to-hate-politics.html

    Have we not seen plenty comments here to validate several of these points?

    Relates to Ymarsakar’s recent point I commented on here…
    http://neoneocon.com/2016/09/27/a-few-more-thoughts-on-last-nights-debate/#comment-1714886

30. Big Maq:

    Please see my comment at 11:28 right above yours.

31. “Translating, here it is (my addition in bold):

    I would certainly not be inclined to do first strike.” – Neo

    You hit upon an aspect that has been a constant in trump’s campaign. You’ve used the word “mutable”.

    Part of what feeds that is trump says too many things in ways that leave it up to folks to interpret one way or the other.

    I’d be inclined to agree with your interpretation. However, given the series of such instances by trump, I cannot say he had that interpretation in mind whatsoever.

    You are giving him the “benefit of the doubt”, but he needs to re-earn that “benefit”, in part, by being consistent, clear, and articulating a believable level of detail behind the stances he is staking out.

32. “His supporters should be furious with him, and so should the public in general. By performing this incompetently, by refusing to prepare properly for this exchange, by not learning enough to put meat on the bones of his populist case against Clinton, he displayed nothing but contempt for the people who have brought him this far – and for the American people who are going to make this momentous decision on Nov. 8.”

    http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

33. Big Maq:

    Trump is very mutable.

    But actually, he hasn’t been so mutable on this score. I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt, I don’t think; I’m basing my interpretation on the many times he has said something similar, and a bit more clearly.

    I give him no pass on his inarticulateness, although I think some of it is purposeful, to be all things to all people. But some of it is real.

34. “I’m basing my interpretation on the many times he has said something similar, and a bit more clearly.

    I give him no pass on his inarticulateness, although I think some of it is purposeful, to be all things to all people. But some of it is real.” – Neo

    Then, going forward, let us observe how consistent he will be on this point, or if it continues to be a muddle that can be taken either way.

    No doubt there will be many more opportunities for him to expound on it.

35. Trump just dropped six points on the Nate Silver forecast. It’s now 63-37% against Trump.

    That would seem to answer the question of how well Trump did in the debate as far as poll respondents are concerned.

    There are more debates and more weeks before the election, but this is bad for Trump. He had a good run rising from the ashes of 10% to 43% in a matter of weeks and he might have caught up with Hillary, beset as she is by continuing scandal revelations. Now Trump has lost the mighty mo’ — momentum.

    Hillary is a stiff unlikeable candidate and arguably a criminal, but she looks and sounds professional. OTOH Trump without his teleprompter comes across as a nasty blowhard a couple bar stools down beating his gums on how he would run the country.

    Strangely enough more Americans will chose the candidate who sounds prepared and professional to be President.

    I guess this is what Richard Saunders called “glib.”

36. The problem is Trump is really Trump. He can hide behind prepared scripts and speeches only so long.

37. Don’t worry DJT has 49 days for his miraculous metamorphosis, AKA the pivot, into the non-Trump Trump.

38. Trump has dropped another 4 points at Nate Silver: 67-33%. That settles it. Trump lost the debate.

    From what I read much of Trump’s failure was due to poor debate preparation and much of that comes down to the difficulty of getting Trump to focus on anything which goes against the grain of his enormous ego.

    That’s the guy I want for President!

39. Here’s the Nate Silver graph on Clinton vs Trump for the past summer.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#odds

    Here’s the RCP graph averaging polls of Clinton vs Trumpo

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    Trump has touched Hillary’s numbers a few times, but basically he has been losing the whole way, often yugely.

    Those who claim Trump could win base that on hunches. I get that. We all have hunches and sometimes hunches turn out right. But going by the cold hard numbers, Trump was never a good choice to beat Hillary, if that was the plan.

    The whole “You-gotta-vote-for-Trump-or-it’s-the-end-of-America” argument depended on Trump being able to win and that was always a bad bet other than saying, “Who knows? It could happen.”

    If the fate of America truly hangs in the balance, then the only shot I see is agitating for Trump to stand down and let Mike Pence carry the ball.

    But the “You-gotta-vote-for-Trump” people won’t touch that idea, which reminds me of the the climate change folks who say climate change is the most important issue ever except … we can’t use nuclear energy to prevent it.

40. Trum would need lears of reeducation to be capable of reading a speech, someone else wrote or edited, on a teleprompter well. Trum has the “be everything to everyone” cloak that Hussein has, but not Hussein’s other political skills at rhetoric.

    Of course, with the American people so debased and empty of virtue, it’s not that hard to rule over them, even lacking rhetorical mastery. People who want a King, will get one, doesn’t matter from what party or what skin color.

41. They believed the mantra — “If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor. Period!”

    If they get fooled once, they can blame other people. That doesn’t work as well when they get fooled twice or thrice.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>