Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

LOLOl, Trump. Just like I thought the debates would go. You talk about incoherent rambling. He didn't answer one fucking question. What a child.

[SeattleLionsFan]

The Donald made it almost 60 seconds before he lied. That's better than I thought he'd do.

[froot loops]

SNL has its work cut out for them to spoof that debate.

[Dr. Strangelove]

"You know, I was going to bring up that blowjob Bill Clinton got in the Oval Office, but decided not to out of my deep respect for Chelsea. So I will not mention that blowjob"

[iam416]

It'll be interesting to see the polls in four or five days. I mean, if the PAH doesn't get a bump from this debate, well, then, it's going to be uncomfortably close and maybe even unthinkably a loss.

I inexplicably watched. PAH was obviously better. It wasn't close. Not so much b/c of her, but, well...The Donald.

But, that said, Trump hammered is message. PAH was too wonkish for that, IMO. When you're generally ill-informed it's easy to hammer the few things you know. When you're answering questions as one might expect, it's harder.

As the NRO put it, Trump was "broadcasting" to his base; HRC was "narrowcasting" to the undecideds. She threw a few bones, IMO, to some of her base, but on a lot of answers she was targeting suburban white folks who aren't all that comfortable with progressive shit. Kudos to her on that.

Trump could have targeted that demographic by simply remaining in control. He was oddly low-key in the first 30 minutes and had some real wheel-house topics to talk about -- I mean -- trade! HRC on TPP is really bad (and shamefully political--as a free trader watching her disown Obama on that is awful). But then he went full on Trump. His base will love it. Undecideds, I think, will not.

Finally, he has stuff to keep firing at her with -- the career politician -- the 30 years -- all that stuff dovetails w/ the Clinton Foundation, Wall Street, Special Access -- all the stuff Bernie drilled her on. None of that really came up, which I thought was surprising -- it's one thing to be completely unprepared about policy -- lol -- it's another to not have a set of clear attacks on your opponent.

But if this year has taught me anything, it's that the media's perception and my perception doesn't matter. I thought Trump looked exactly how he looked in the R primary. I thought him a buffoon then. I was shocked when he won so easily. This election cycle has a definite and obvious outsider vs. politician feel to it. Trump hammered that all night. He can win on that issue alone, IMO, *if* he convinces enough folks he's not a goddamn loon. I think he failed in that task last night.

But what the fuck do I know. If the polls come out in 3-4 days and show it still a close race, then....you know...he might really win. He's weathered more horrific news cycles then I ever thought imaginable. He's fucking Rasputin.

[AlabamAlum]

100% success rate.

There's a chain bar around here called the Tilted Kilt. They have Irish Nachos. Same effect.

[The Oracle]

Pretty much spot on. No, not pretty much. Spot on.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Pretty much spot on. No, not pretty much. Spot on.

If your talking about talent's post and not AA's, agree.

I didn't watch. Purposefully. So talent's take is appreciated. It also comports with most of the stuff I've read this morning.

I source The Guardian, a UK rag, a lot. If I want a take on something that is free from the political buffoonery of most US pubs, this is where I look. I feel it is pretty balanced and represents a truly outsider looking in view as well informed it usually can be.

Trump DID hammer home his message albeit just about everything he said can be shown to be factually inaccurate. HRC didn't really stop to show how his statements were based on inaccurate or blatant falsehoods but, instead, frequently referred to Fact Checker. This, the Guardian felt, was to her detriment. I'd disagree ..... Trump's base does not care that what he is saying is wrong or inaccurate.

That last statement above is what makes predicting a win by HRC so tenuous. American voters are freaking stupid..... actually, I think most voters worldwide are probably just as uninformed and stupid as American voters. The Guardian did link to a long list of things Trump said in the debate that were flat out inaccurate and corrected those inaccuracies but, how many voters in Trump's camp are going to look at the Guardian or any number of Fact Checking web sites available to them? My bet is zero.

There was a lot of emphasis in the mainstream morning news that HRC, as talent points out, did seem to be working the undecideds. However, according to polls in this matter, the debate didn't make up anyone's mind among those undecideds. That's troubling.

Trump is such a mind-boggling buffoon that it occurs to me that even those on the fence about him won't switch to Hillary. What this amounts to is a classic example of an unwillingness to admit they even considered Trump as a reasonable Presidential candidate so, what the hell, doesn't fit my narrative to date, I'll just vote for him.

[The Oracle]

Yes talents. Didn't see aa snuck one in.

[hack]

The Guardian is a pretty good choice. It's center-left, but it's also funded for decades to come and editors can make decisions based on coverage quality rather than on short-term profit considerations.

[hack]

I tried not to watch the debate but my wife was and, I guess as is true with trainwrecks, you just can't resist looking. I don't think that Hillary was too wonkish but I agree that there were times when she could have hammered home one point. His taxes were a good example. All she had to do was say that he's the least transparent candidate in 40 years. Can back that point in easy sound bites -- everyone else releases taxes. Everyone else releases that form he mentioned. Accurate or not, there was an easy non-wonkish way there that she didn't take. I forget at precisely which point, but in the discussion about war overseas/nuclear codes there was a brilliant chance for her to reference JFK's restraint/prudence during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and she could have contrasted that with Trump's unpredictability.

I don't think Trump was as awful as many people are saying. He bullied her and got away with it. That said, it seems like the polls are responsive, and I would guess that because she took it like a pro and got in her zingers and whatnot that she gets back most of the lead she had before her collapse at the 9/11 thing. She had a good answer on stamina and she looked controlled up there. Trump's numbers rise when he doesn't say crazy stuff, and fall when he does. We'll see how it hurts him to have seemingly admitted he's a tax dodger, or maybe even the profit-in-crisis comment. That's true of course, but there are things one would think aren't wise to say clearly. So, we'll see. It genuinely seems that there are some undecideds, and I can see why given the unconventional choice of candidates. So maybe the polling reflects them.

[Wild Hoss]

IDK that much poll movement was ever really in the cards, save Trump going over the cliff by kicking a puppy or something.

He?s a bombastic dispshit who turns off a person for every one he attracts, and she?s a stiff with 30 years of dirt on her shoes. Even if people somehow were not aware of this already, neither was ever going to change the landscape with charisma.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......I can see why given the unconventional choice of candidates. So maybe the polling reflects them.

For sure.

Neither candidate is at all appealing to me. Like many here. I'll vote holding my nose. I actually think the polling reflects how poorly voters are informed on important issues - immigration reform, health care reform, tax and banking reform, trade, international relations.

If they were, if the press was attuned to those issues and properly influencing the discussion, they'd be talking less about personality politics and more about those issues.

I'd back step a bit and say that on occasion, pertinent questions are being asked by members of the press. Iv'e seen it from some of the big faces in the news rooms like Lester Holt. I've seen it from NPR. I'm sure there are others that Hack could name.

But, by in large, I don't hear people that I am acquainted with talking about these things or if they are having a discussion about them, those discussions tend to revolve around a candidates sound bites on them.

They are complex, multidimensional and it takes a lot of reading to grasp the details. I don't particularly like HRC. I don't like her penchant for not being completely open; I don't like her capacity to say things that are untrue to both mask the truth or attempt to create a different reality for her audience. But that's politics, unfortunately. If there is one thing I DO trust the Clintons to do is to surround themselves with people who are going to be informed about them, listen to them and take into account what they have to say. Policy will issue forth having been reasonably informed, albeit, formed through the Clinton prism, that prism being a little more liberal on economic and fiscal matters that I am completely comfortable with.

Trump? No. That should be the American's number one reason to not vote for him.

[froot loops]

I'm not.sure about the narrow casting argument, it's easier to.talk to the base when they base is pretty much one group. The Democratic coalition is more varied. Her remarks touched the Hispanic population, the African American population and women. That is the main base she is looking to turn out.

If Trump's get out the vote method is as badly prepared as he was last night, she will out perform the polls by 3 percent.

[hack]

Agreed, Jeff. On occasion. Not regularly. One thing frustrating to me, and evidence of a problem, is the number of friends I do have in government who can make a very powerful argument for Clinton. People who are attuned to the process understand her ability to work it. To some extent government people mistake the completion of government processes for actual real tangible progress or benefits to the lives of real people, so they are going to overvalue some BS we shouldn't care about, but we'd all be fools to completely ignore the view of principled public-sector soldiers. To me, if its so obvious to those insiders how great she is, and it's so hard for outsiders to see that, then this speaks to how little we know about what goes on in DC, and our inability to find out even though there are thousands of reporters running around town. Many government agencies aren't above taking advantage of media tumult to be more secretive. The FDA story this week is a good example of that kind of leverage.