So much...

[tommyjo]

....for the idea that Mr. Trump would crush the debate and take a commanding lead.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

Gee...imagine how an actually credible Republican candidate for President would have faired in the debate. Ms. Clinton is such an incredibly weak candidate that a politically experienced candidate with the disposition of an adult (as opposed to Mr. Trump's spoiled rich kid demeanor) would have shredded her on stage. A credible candidate would've skewered Ms. Clinton in the debate. Not ole tough guy Donald Trump...the best he could do is sniffle and shout "WRONG!" (Even a credible New Yorker would have had a better comeback than that!)

 

[Gilligan]

....The data is certainly noisy,

I'll say. The author should apply for a job at IHOP. He's an expert at waffling.

Of course, there’s not necessarily any guarantee ..

... Clinton could get a bounce..

It’s certainly possible that by the time you’re reading this ..

There’s also an argument...

...then perhaps....

As a warning, you should give the debate five to seven days..

 

[SamSpade]

....for the idea that Mr. Trump would crush the debate and take a commanding lead.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

Gee...imagine how an actually credible Republican candidate for President would have faired in the debate. Ms. Clinton is such an incredibly weak candidate that a politically experienced candidate with the disposition of an adult (as opposed to Mr. Trump's spoiled rich kid demeanor) would have shredded her on stage. A credible candidate would've skewered Ms. Clinton in the debate. Not ole tough guy Donald Trump...the best he could do is sniffle and shout "WRONG!" (Even a credible New Yorker would have had a better comeback than that!)

Oh please - Romney DID crush Obama in debate, and still lost.

Trump did ok. See, the thing is not what YOU think happened, but what people who are deciding who to vote for think.
Because generally, debates don't CHANGE votes - they decide votes for those who haven't decided.

Debates are still more pageant than academic. You want to know what some people came away with? Hillary gave scripted answers and spoke to her base.
She only impressed those who were going to vote for her anyway. Trump may not have been a masterful debater, but he wasn't replying with practiced answers
and he SHOULD have nailed her especially on national security. People who only knew the caricature appearing in the news and media saw someone different.
Hillary looked like the consummate elite insider; Trump didn't.

Bear in mind - the media said - at the time - that Reagan LOST to Carter. They say OTHERWISE now, and some have taken to re-writing history by saying
they thought he won. But they said he lost. Their ONLY debate happened about a week before the election, and Reagan gained 11 points from the polls to the election.

Did he lose? You call it. The VOTERS said otherwise.

 

[stgislander]

a politically experienced candidate

I think that's a code word for something... something not good.

 

[Larry Gude]

Where does this illusion come from, that a credible candidate would be whipping up on her? Mitt was more than credible and obama had a disastrous first term unless you should guns, oil or were a gop'er running for Congress.

McCain, while dull as a bowling bowl, was credible.

Kasich was credible and make how much impact?


Jeb was credible. He did the unthinkable and got some folks to actually start to come to grips with their dubbya hero worship.

Marco was credible and I can't see him, or the others, being anything more that speed bumps on her path to the wh. They offered NOTHING but more bush/Obama, same as hillary, so why not have her and check the vaginal box?

Trump is credible on trade agreements, the idea that a nation ought control it's borders and, if there's to be war, the worse it is, the sooner it will end. He's also not as wedded to Wallstreet as she and does exude leadership qualities.

Do you honestly believe Kasich would be beating her?

 

[SamSpade]

I'll say. The author should apply for a job at IHOP. He's an expert at waffling.

Yeah, but Nate Silver wrote that article himself. He's about as non-partisan as I've seen. The thing about non-partisan means, your ox is just as likely to get gored as the other guy's.

Similar to what I said yesterday, it's propaganda when you don't agree with it. It's "truth" when you do.

What I like about Silver's site is, they don't JUST refine their sample - they run scenarios and test them - and yield a likelihood of win or lose.
They don't give a "point spread". Because no one cares if you come in second.

AND - they don't just do politics. They do it all. Especially sports. There's no right or left in sports. It's just win or lose.
Well - AND point spreads.

 

[Gilligan]

Yeah, but Nate Silver wrote that article himself. He's about as non-partisan as I've seen. The thing about non-partisan means, your ox is just as likely to get gored as the other guy's.

Similar to what I said yesterday, it's propaganda when you don't agree with it. It's "truth" when you do.

What I like about Silver's site is, they don't JUST refine their sample - they run scenarios and test them - and yield a likelihood of win or lose.
They don't give a "point spread". Because no one cares if you come in second.

AND - they don't just do politics. They do it all. Especially sports. There's no right or left in sports. It's just win or lose.
Well - AND point spreads.

He's still obviously an expert waffler.

 

[GURPS]

Debates are still more pageant than academic. You want to know what some people came away with? Hillary gave scripted answers and spoke to her base.
She only impressed those who were going to vote for her anyway.

Clinton said a lot of crap like this last night -- she said that to improve race relations, we needed to build more trust in the community in police, and more trust in police in the community.

Um, that is not an answer. That is simply a way of re-stating the problem. Her husband used to do this a lot. How do we improve education? Why I have a five-point plan. (Ticking off points on each finger.) One, improve the curriculum. Two, improve the administration. Three, improve teacher-school relations. Four, encourage children to learn. Five (now put up the thumb in a big thumb's up like Fonzie) improve education.

Um, you didn't say how we were going to improve education. You simply broke the problem into several sub-problems and said we have to solve each of the sub-problems.

We know that. And we also knew all of the sub-problems associated with the main problem of improving education.

You said exactly nothing, but took three minutes to say it.

Yet people were always impressed by this -- at least among the chattering classes -- and praised Clinton for being soooo detailed.

Hillary tried this last night with her various bubble-headed Unsweet Nothings responses.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/366042.php

 

[SamSpade]

He's still obviously an expert waffler.

:shrug; He deals in data that fluctuates drastically. When you give odds for a baseball game, unless there's unexpected injuries or a change in the starting pitcher, odds won't change much. In politics, the odds can change in HOURS.

His site also said - I can't remember if it was this article or not - that the outcome of the debate will take about five days to appear in the polls (overnight polls are terrible barometers of opinion, and online polls are close to useless). By the weekend we'll have a better idea of what people think.

For what it's worth, I think Trump WILL get a bounce, but it will be a small one. But it may make the difference in some states.

 

[Merlin99]

....for the idea that Mr. Trump would crush the debate and take a commanding lead.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

Gee...imagine how an actually credible Republican candidate for President would have faired in the debate. Ms. Clinton is such an incredibly weak candidate that a politically experienced candidate with the disposition of an adult (as opposed to Mr. Trump's spoiled rich kid demeanor) would have shredded her on stage. A credible candidate would've skewered Ms. Clinton in the debate. Not ole tough guy Donald Trump...the best he could do is sniffle and shout "WRONG!" (Even a credible New Yorker would have had a better comeback than that!)

See there's a major flaw in your logic, nobody wanted a "credible" (establishment) candidate. They were tired of same old, same old and decided to go out on a limb and see what happens. It may win, it may lose, but it's definitely sent a message.

 

[Hijinx]

See there's a major flaw in your logic, nobody wanted a "credible" (establishment) candidate. They were tired of same old, same old and decided to go out on a limb and see what happens. It may win, it may lose, but it's definitely sent a message.

The message has been sent before. Republican leadership ignored it.
Now we are sending a man who is not in the leadership and hoping he will finally get the message through to the Republican turds who ignored us before.
THAT is why so many of them are frightened to death of Trump.

TJ calls Clinton incredibly weak, but she is fighting like hell for her. I suppose that makes sense to some people.

 

[seekeroftruth]

Well, like I said.... Trump has a need to be better than everyone....

I have a feeling that Trump figured he would leave Hillary in the dust. Since that didn't happen.... it'll be interesting to see how he handles the second debate.

 

[Lurk]

The bitch lies better than Dan Rather

[video=youtube;ByMMiV-oUZ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMMiV-oUZ8[/video]