Posted on 09/29/2016 4:26:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the first presidential debate Donald Trump achieved Job One: convincing independents that he is being mischaracterized and caricatured, that he really is a “normal” guy, just exuberant but essentially normal, under control, disciplined. To the point that he is a plausible choice. I believe that at the suggestion of his handlers he drank water whenever he felt the urge to interrupt or insult or felt himself “losing it.” (The irony, of course, is that he mocked Marco Rubio for drinking lots of water during debates. But, as with “All Things Trump,” the alternative is Hillary. So drink away!)
It seemed kind-of a draw. I wanted him to hit her harder on the emails, the Clinton Foundation, the speaking fees, her 25 years of public scandals, even how she lied about her name. But his most important job was to seem Presidential, no matter what, to seem plausible. In that, he succeeded, much as he benefited when he shared a stage and podium with the Mexican President, with marble walls behind them as two world leaders. He was sharing the stage, split-screen with the Secretary of State, the Democrats’ candidate for President, and he managed to emerge plausible. Despite the hundreds of millions spent on calling him a monster, the mere sight of him in a one-on-one with Hillary Clinton legitimized him for Independents as a real candidate. In that sense, he won a split decision narrowly.
I was enormously put off, disgusted, by her constant false laughing and broad toothy smiling, as though she perceived Trump to be the funniest buffoon, just so comical that you honestly could not help laughing. Well, he was fine, was serious, and there was nothing to laugh at — reflecting that her laugh and toothy smile is phony, now and always.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good point—the Trump brain trust needs to work on it..:-)
Hillary is well prepared to be President.
The problem is that her Presidency will be toxic for the rest of us.
(That is like saying Stalin was well prepared to rule the Soviet Union—he was very skilled at murdering millions—what a guy!)
“He gambled that he could just play not to lose while he sized her up which is exactly what happened. She did the best she possibly could and lost ground. He can’t help but be better in the next two debates.”
She has nothing left to throw at Trump. She used it all up in the first debate. All Hillary has now is sexist, homophobe, racist. Trump meanwhile fired one shot and hit her square in the jaw. And he is just warming up.
“I would also like to see Trump demand answers on Hillary’s $250K speaking fees”
That would be a discussion of her business experience. She’s brought up Trump’s. Now let’s hear her talk about hers.
Winner, winner, White House dinners, for Donald Trump & family for at least 4 years!!!
H->! is one of the best politicians money can buy.
“has gone up or maintained his lead in national polls since Monday”
He’s down 6 points on the just released Rasmussen tracking poll.
“She has nothing left to throw at Trump. She used it all up in the first debate.”
I think you are right. I was surprised at how many times she hit him with low blows as well. Camp Clinton was surely in panic mode and had to throw everything out there, true or just made up lies.
Id I were an undecided voter, I would take it as desperation, especially the bit about Trump’s taxes. Way over the top Harry Reid stuff!!
See the video linked in post #17? Shows a guy grabbing Hillery’s notes off her podium and handing it to Lester when they finished. That starts at the 3:35 mark.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3474709/posts
The next one is a town hall format. How are the people in the audience chosen? It seems that the Clinton people can arrange for a lot of “planted” gotcha questions from “ordinary citizens.”
Fantastic!! Get this idea to the Trump campaign!
Actually, I think when she LIES she smiles more. She is trying to make us believe her lies while smiling at us. And since she knows she’s lying, that is probably what’s making her nervous.
Because red has now become associated with conservative. And people are trying to encourage conservatives to wear red on election day, especially when they go to vote. I am betting she is trying to counter the red/conservative connection.
The liberal media tried to take away our traditional blue color and saddled us with “commie red”. We have made it our own and it now has a primarily positive connotation. So it’s time for liberals to do the swap again. Because they have to keep running away from the associations they have created for themselves.
Great idea.
I was a little disappointed with how he came across in the first debate. He seemed ill-prepared. Then I saw him the next day at a rally and he was speaking freely and confidently and doing a great job of it. I’d like to see that Trump in the next debate. Perhaps being under attack by both Hitlery and the media during the debate is a factor.
Hillary; WHY are 50% of my supports deplorable?
. . . which is one more thing, IMHO, that is wrong with the format of the “debates.”
- There should be no moderator.
- Air time should be equalized between the two candidate by the simple expedient of letting the candidates control their microphones via a chess timer.
- Not only should the candidates be allowed to have notes, they should have each have a laptop, both wired into a common web site - and each capable of putting Power Point graphics on the TV screen (provided that the chess timer is set to allow it).
- The web site - perhaps two web sites, one constructed by each candidate - would be negotiated in advance, so that each had a fair chance to put up rebuttal graphics for the web site of the other.
- Each candidate could, perhaps, have a second who could control the computer for him/her.
- I am ambivalent about earpieces; exactly why would you not want the candidate to have access to such? The objective ought to be to have the clearest articulation of the platform on which the candidate is running. Most of the specified limitations of debates as we know them are designed to promote the possibility of a "gaffe.” Not to put a fine point on it, they are designed to promote the possibility of a gaffe by the Republican.
I used to have a choir director (may he rest in peace) who said that listeners tended to remember the beginning and end of a piece, the middle not so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.